Air NZ new planes announced

[DeltaT]

8 x 777-200ER with Trent 800
2 x 7E7
Options on 42

[bombshell]

What a great choice!
Much better than the QF 330s!

[BCF Breath]

Air New Zealand announces new long haul aircraft choice

Today the company reached agreement on behalf of Air New Zealand, to acquire eight new Boeing 777-200 ER and two Boeing 7E7 aircraft as well as rights to purchase a further 42 long-haul aircraft.

These aircraft will allow us to develop new routes and increase frequency on existing routes as well as provide an overall increase in both passenger and cargo capacity. Another benefit is that the new fleet will provide Air New Zealand with lower operating costs and improved financial performance over and above that which could be achieved by expanding the existing fleet of 10 Boeing 767s.

Four of the new 300-plus seat Boeing 777-200 ER aircraft will be purchased and the other four leased from International Lease Finance Corporation. The cost of the four aircraft and the necessary infrastructure to maintain the fleet of eight is in excess of NZ$1-billion.

The interiors for these new aircraft will mirror the soon-to-be unveiled upgrade for our Boeing 747-400s.

The eight Boeing 777-200 ER aircraft will begin entering service in September 2005, with the first five expected to be delivered by April 2006. The final three aircraft will be introduced in the last half of 2006, and all will be powered by Rolls Royce Trent 800 series engines.

Air New Zealand's existing fleet of Boeing 767s will be reduced from 10 to 5, when aircraft are returned as their leases expire over the next two years.

The decision to purchase the Boeing 777-200 ER and 7E7 represents the next phase in our commitment to transforming Air New Zealand's business. The first phase was the introduction of Domestic Express, Tasman Express and Pacific Express and the corresponding introduction of our new Airbus A320 fleet.

The delivery date for the two 7E7 aircraft, which will be capable of carrying approximately 230 customers, is still to be determined, but it will coincide with the retirement from service of the remaining 767s. The cost of these two aircraft and necessary infrastructure to support them is in excess of NZ$350 million.

Air New Zealand's 7E7s will be powered by the revolutionary new Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engine and we are the first airline in the world to place an order for engines to power the new Boeing 7E7.

Our decision to commit to the 7E7 and the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 is a clear signal of where we at Air New Zealand are positioning ourselves - innovative, efficient and delivering the best products to customers.

The Boeing 7E7 will use 20 percent less fuel than any other aircraft of its size. It will travel at speeds similar to today's fastest wide bodies and feature innovative technology that will give passengers great comfort.

The Boeing 7E7 will also carry up to 50% more cargo than today's similar size aircraft.

Our decision to acquire purchase rights to a further 42 aircraft reflects our belief in the potential to expand our passenger and cargo business into new long haul destinations and increase traffic from existing core routes.

The purchase rights will give us the ability to choose from a range of aircraft types that best suit our long haul business as it develops in the future. The aircraft options will include the Boeing 777-200 ER, 777-200 LR, 7E7 and the 777-300 ER, which could replace our Boeing 747s in about a decade.

To put this into a passenger and cargo context, Air New Zealand's long haul fleet currently consists of 5408 available seats and 268 tonnes available capacity across18 aircraft.

By early 2007, the fleet will consist of 6466 available seats and 291 tonnes available capacity across 20 aircraft. This represents a 20% increase in seats for long haul aircraft.

This growth is consistent with the airline's capacity growth goal of 5 percent, given the network base year of 2003.

I would like today to pay tribute to the fine team lead by Rob Fyfe, Mike Flanagan and Mike Hawkins who have spent the past 18 months conducting an exhaustive evaluation of the aircraft options available from both Boeing and Airbus.

The intensive and robust evaluation process highlighted that both the manufacturers' products were capable of meeting Air New Zealand's requirements. But on balance, the Boeing aircraft best fits our long haul and business needs.

This same exhaustive process two years ago found that the Airbus A320 was the best fit for our short haul needs and as expected the aircraft is performing to expectations and has proven to be the right choice for the airline.

[blueloo]

I looovvve 777's

Gimme Gimme Gimme! :E

[DeltaT]

300 series on the 777 might have been nicer!!

[BCF Breath]

Maybe, the options on another 42 long range aircraft might include the 777-300.....;)

[belowMDA]

You will probably find that when the -400's start going in 2008 they will be replaced by 300ER's. Just can't wait until they arrive.

[TIMMEEEE]

Good on Air NZ for some great choices.

Airlines like QF should take note.
7E7 and B777 sound a ****e load better than A330, (A340?) and A380's.

Hopefully Boeing may be in some sort of mood in the future to do a deal by undercutting the opposition, such as Airbus.

At last count the figure quoted by a mate in HK was 1x B777 = 1.75 A330's in terms of cost.

Sad that the bean counters dont look at the long term picture.

[phat boy]

yep...................... plastic's cheap.

[Balding Eagle]

I think you will find that the decision to go with the -200 is based on a required daily frequency to the destinations that it will service. The markets/destinations then determine the size of a/c required. The 7E7 might be used to explore new routes out beyond the range of the 777. Its extra range being useful because of NZ's isolated position in the world and will thus provide a single sector journey.

I suspect that the -300ER will come onto the scene when the 74 has seen its time out. A little time off yet.

Great to see a management with a long term strategic view on the business at last, and some growth.


:ok: :ok: :ok:

[kavu]

Go Boeing

Gives me hope for Air NZ now. Now they should start gearing up for more interviews.

Excellent

[E.P.]

Just heard they intend to "place" the 7e7s and some 777s in Australia...........lovely. :cool:

Just remember, I brought you the PORNSTAR news some 6 months early. The usual suspects dissed me then.....sooooo shoot again. :suspect:

Just amazing how "she-man Helen" can find the money for all this after sucking AN dry when promised a QF tie up by Howard and Anderson. Just beautiful. :yuk:

[Australia2]

Balding Eagle,

Long term strategic view; Air New Zealand ?

You have got to be kidding !!!

[stillalbatross]

yep...................... plastic's cheap

Hey ignoramus, the 7E7 is going to have a lot more plastic and composites in it's structure than anything Airbus make.

At last count the figure quoted by a mate in HK was 1x B777 = 1.75 A330's in terms of cost.
Sad that the bean counters dont look at the long term picture

Sad long term in the case of the 747 that the aircraft break up inflight on climb out of Taipei or the centre tank blows up on climb out of JFK on the older Boeings. Maybe the bean counters do look long term and decide paying a sh*tload more for an aircraft that the public doesn't want to fly on when it gets old isn't such a good idea.

[Balding Eagle]

Australia2

This is a totally different attitude from the previous share holders who treated the airline as a cash cow and had no long term strategy in place. They were the same ones who made the decision to buy AN. The present management are quite different. Long term strategy ..... YES.

[TIMMEEEE]

Stillalbatross.

I suppose you refuse to fly on B747's do we???????
Come on pal, tell the truth here!!

You fail to mention the problems inherent on Airbuses, such as A340's under tow melting in half after a wheel well fire broke out in one of the dodgy hydraulic pumps or a littany of other hassles that any Airbus rated LAME will spill out.

[stillalbatross]

Indeed Timmee but I am yet to see an airline advertise as "Our Boeings are amongst the oldest in the world but we look after them with competent engineering so come fly with us"

My point is, as the management of Boeing Commercial slowly take the company down the toilet, there is no point in charging a premium for an aircraft that lasts longer when no-one wants to fly on it.

[phat boy]

"hey ignoranus"... looks like some limp-wrist joystick-lover :yuk: can't take a joke.
What a sissy.. are you French? :{ :{

You'd break a nail flying a Boeing..... :eek:

Premium.... No one's charging a premium, the pansies in the 'consortium' :hmm: charge from behind a subsidy. And so they get orders. :mad:

[stillalbatross]

The only thing I'd be breaking is into a cold sweat in a 737. Waiting foir the uncommanded rudder input to roll the fvcker onto its back.

As for subsidies, it's taken Boeing over twenty years to wake up to the threat of Airbus. Even when USAir was plying American skies in A330s. If it's that stupid and arrogant to it's competition it doesn't deserve to be around any more. Ask any analyst on Wall Street.

Boeing have been building the same stuff for 30 years and charging handsomely for it. I'm not an Airbus fan per se, I'd rather it was Lockheed Martin building airliners and screwing Boeing over instead. TriStar VS antiquated 747 30-odd years ago, don't make me laugh. The Lockheed product was light years ahead back then and would wipe the floor with them now.

[dudduddud]

Come on!
What's the incidence per 10x99 737 hours of uncommanded rudder deflection in 737?
Infinitisimal.
(ie: next to nothing)
You are more likely to crash in a 737 due: other.
The 'rudder makes the 737 less safe than the airbus' argument is :yuk:

[halas]

Light years ahead Alby??? Ploooise

Don't get upset ol' son, as it will be "light years" from now that Lockheed will build another civilian aircraft.

l think they they may have had their little pinkies burned by something called graft and corruption in Japan all those years ago.

Good planes, bad management!?!?!

Hang on there is a probably a copyright on something like that by Air New Zealand from Fat boy?

This a nothing more than a phase, so please all, don't get too upset by it.

Airbus are banking on '4 being more' whilst Boeing are saying 'less is best'.

l think the the latter is the winner.

Ten years from now we will see what swings around........

halas

[Crack]

Sh-t hot, man am I happy to be wrong.
I was dreading A/B.

just imagine becoming a limp wristed, limp dick?.



:ok:

Don't take my rudder away?.

[phat boy]

you're lucky crack it was a close thing. the frogs woulda been sharpening their pencils and offering truck-loads of complimentary garlic snails to get that sale.

That under-powered plastic pile of crap, if squeezed into a tall glass of ice, would produce a most refreshing citric beverage.

[CI300]

halas, you should know better-inshalla.

[Going Boeing]

Those who are speculating about B777-300ER's being purchased in the future to replace the B744's as they retire - have you thought about the fact that GE stitched up an exclusive deal to power the B777-300ER and B777-200LR. If the 300ER was on the cards, I would have thought that they would have specified the GE90 engine to power the 200ER's that they have ordered so that they would have some comonality (especially as Air NZ have been a fan of GE high bypass engines for many years- eg DC10's). I believe that they ordered the RR donk because the 2 Trent 800's are 4.3 tonnes lighter than 2 GE90's and that equates to a lot more payload on every long sector.

Then again, who knows what Air NZ management will do in the future. GB

[stillalbatross]

Crack mate, keep smoking it. You wouldn't have 777s if it wasn't for Airbus competition. You'd still be plying round in the 100 series of Boeing everything while Boeing fed you the "EFIS is bad - you loose your scan" bullsh*t. Or the "two engines in a wide body is too inherently unsafe for the public to want to fly on it" (Boeings preA300 drivel)

Best one was "Airbus will be gone by '75, they'll be lucky to get 5% of the market"

And as for the limp wrist, have you seen the cockpit mockups of the 7E7 with the side stick.

Didn't think so.

halas if you seriously think in technology terms the classic 747 was even remotely near the L 1011 you have been borrowing something from crack. It had an autoland system and a level of redundancy that is still as good as better than anything out there.

Lockheed in Japan was decades ago. Have a look at Boeing NOW with the tanker scandal. It'll be broken up, military from commercial, by the end of next year. Then we'll see who's been surviving on subsidies and creative accounting.

I agree that Boeing will probably put pressure on the FAA to go well over 200 min with ETOPS (they don't have a 4 eng aircraft to compete) but with 3 ETOPS Eng failures on the 777 with US carriers within a month I think it could get ugly.

The next two years will be interesting. What about the new 172 now with inertia reel seatbelts and Fuel injection as the big upgrades from '65. State of the art or what. Those Americans and their technology.

[Thump & Go]

Geez stillalbacore have a herbal tea or something will ya?!
The gentle mocking of Airbus/Boeing products has been going on for ages - lighten up. :p Anyway, I'd suggest you're in possession of the same facts & quantity of as most others on this forum ie those available from (somebody else's) opinion pieces in Oz Aviation, Flight International & the like.

Since you do seem to be an authority though, how will the mooted 7e7/777 cross qualification (read common cockpit)work if one has a sidestick the other a traditional (read man' s;)) yoke. Would they consider this a significant difference? I would.
Re ETOPS, isn't it due to be replaced by LROPS soon? 2 engines or 6 it aint going to matter soon.

:ok:

thump

ps: all opinions expressed are the result of extensive magazine subscriptions! ;)

[Lindstrim]

Hasnt Boeing Signed a deal with a company to supply wheels and COLUMS for the 7E7 cockpit? I think its on the boeing news site somewhere around the 1st of June.

[Romeo Delta]

I gotta add a few things here, just 'cause some people seem to be taking this WAAAAAY too personally.

Alb, this goes mostly toward what you said (although the Boeing/Airbus debate will rage until one buys out the other):

To hold up US Airways's opting for Airbus products is a mistake. US is almost out of business, mainly through mismanagement and poor decisions. Every mainline US Airways flight I've been on has had something mechanical going wrong (both Boeing and Airbus). Same with NW. Their A330s are as bad as their A320s comfort-wise. I'd much rather fly Delta's Boeings than NW's Airbuses (And I hate Delta).

The other thing goes toward the 7E7 sidestick mockup. Have you seen the "t-tail" version of the 767? 'Cause that's the way it was originally drawn up (grew up just outside Seattle, with friends from Boeing). How about the mockups of the Sonic Cruiser? Just because you see the mockup doesn't make it a reality. Besides, Boeing already announced the 7E7 would have the usual Boeing column (or as someone would say, "a real man has something between his legs,").

One thing we do agree about, though, is that the L1011 was/is one of the greatest aircraft in the world. I only had the chance to fly on a few of them before they disappeared from the domestic skies of the USA, but every flight was a joy. And the SOUND of those turbofans was incredible...

RD

[longreach]

GoingBoeing,

of the 42 options announced by AirNZ, it is believed 17 are for 773ERs. Their 744s are dual powered(GE,RR), so they may be happy appeasing as many engine manufacturers as possible. RR may also have offered a very good deal for their 7E7/772ER powerplants.

[Cloud Cutter]

stillalbatross, yip - Lockheed built a good widebody. However the fact remains that Airbus suck. Thank god the chaps at Air NZ saw past the french discount and went for the real deal. The bean counters will of course be happy in the long run when the properly built aircraft save them sh#tloads on maintanance. It's unfortunate the fleet has already been tarnished with 320s, perhaps a lesson will be learned.

[404 Titan]

It amazes me the ignorance that some display on this forum with this Airbus v Boeing (my p***s is longer than yours) debate crap. The outfit I fly for operates both. We bought Airbus 330/340 and B777 at around the same time. Both have excellence dispatch reliability with the oldest now ten years old. A few engineers of Australian/ New Zealand and South African origin live near me and look after these aircraft. I have been told by a number of them that the bus is no worse or better that the Boeing product and that their overall durability appears the same. This must all be true, as my airline has just made another purchase of more aircraft from both camps. Knowing how my airline works and thinks they would most certainly not purchase any more of a particular aircraft if it were crap.

“Ditto” on the L-1011. By far the best aircraft ever built. Would leave anything that was ever built by Boeing or Airbus for dead. It’s only down fall was its empty weight and the fact it only came with one engine selection.

[stillalbatross]

404, i don't think it's anything more than a bit of a debate. I don't mind either aircraft but there seems to bee a feeling amongst those that don't have any experience with Airbus that it is a cr*p aircraft and all the world should buy Boeing always. So if I can occasionally show that Airbus aren't as bad as some who have absolutely no experience with the aircraft make out then I'll be happy to do so.

Cloudcutter, unfortunately airbus makes a product that makes it's operators money. If everyone wanted to fly on old 767s because they last so long then my taxpayer money wouldn't be propping up a little airline from downunder. And KPMG wouldn't be releasing reports saying AirNZ is dead if it doesn't get a fleet replacement underway.

And Phat Boy, if you can read then take a look at the performance figures (climb gradients etc) for 777 vs 330, any variants of each. Performance wise the 330 is ahead. Early 340 wasn't as good but they went with the max thrust available on the CFMs at the time. Now if Boeing had been making a longer 737 at the time as plenty of operators had been asking instead of saying "we're Boeing - you buy what we give you" then there would have been a CFM with more thrust and a history of reliability to strap on to the early 340s. That all changed when Airbus offered the A321.