Air NZ may fly jets in regions [Archive] - Page 2

TwoTango

21st Apr 2008, 23:25

Does occasional mean some diverts from Queenstown?

I'm none too familiar with Otago's weather, but for the number of times Queenstown is closed due weather, how many of those would also close Te Anau?

Certainly if the answer is not many, and it is a viable alternate, it would be a much better proposal for the punters down the back than a divert to Invercargil and a 5 hour bus trip to Queenstown (I was almost on the receiving end of that years ago - was too young at the time to know much detail, but I think we did one missed approach and got in on the second one).

TT

alangirvan

21st Apr 2008, 23:33

Occasional could mean some Champagne charters for the rich people from Auckland or Sydney to fly into Te Anau on Property Inspections. Would there be enough room in the Airport Car park for all the limousines to take the rich people on their tour of the district?

Capitaine72

22nd Apr 2008, 08:00

TT

Manapouri/Te Anau is closed more frequently than QN due weather, mainly fog. Most cases when QN is closed MO is no better. NV is the logical alternate. I am sure that 5 hours by bus is a bit of an exageration.
For MO to improve it will require at least a VOR. Airways would like to dispense with the NDB which would leave a GNSS approach as a possible alternative but with NZ's present rules sole means GNSS is not permitted within the NZFIR. :ugh::{

Lindstrim

22nd Apr 2008, 09:29

Nope it's 5 hrs.

Did it aprox Sep last year

ramyon

23rd Apr 2008, 06:59

"Strip width" of course refers to an obstacle-free area about a runway which for certification to handle P121 operations, is 150m. The runway, as opposed to "strip width" still requires a minimum of 45m (or 30m if you're giving one to the Director's Mrs :E)

Even taking into account strip width, how long is Manapouri's runway, so that it could handle jet aircraft? I read in the media somewhere that it had been extended from 1622 meters ( which sounded too long) - 2000 meters in length (that's longer than Dunedin at 1900 meters..). I also read somewhere that it had been extended by 600 meters, from what length I wasn't quite sure.. Anyone know the correct specs of the new runway?

Capitaine72

24th Apr 2008, 02:14

Latest Notam:

MANAPOURI (NZMO):

A0684/08 FROM: 15 APR 2008 03:25 TO: 04 JUN 2008 12:00
AD CLSD TO ALL OPS EXC THOSE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORISED BY
AIR FIORDLAND DUE TO EXTENSIVE RWY WORKS.
FOR OPR AUTHORISATION TEL AIR FIORDLAND 0-3-249 7505
RWY 08/26 NEW OPERATIONAL DATA AS FLW:
RWY SFC STRENGTH GP SLOPE ASDA
08 B PCN20 8 0.09D 1594
26 F/A/X/T 0.09U 1594
RWY TAKE OFF DISTANCE LANDING
1:20 1:40 1:50 1:62.5 DIST
08 1654 1654 1654 1594
26 1654 1654 1654 1425 1594
NOTE:
RWY 08 TKOF: TURN LEFT 10 DEGREES AFTER CROSSING AIRPORT BOUNDARY
RWY 26 TKOF: TURN LEFT 12 DEGREES AFTER CROSSING AIRPORT BOUNDARY
REF AIP NEW ZEALAND NZMO AD 2-51.1 AND 2-51.2 MANAPOURI OPR DATA

:ok::ok:

Terbine

24th Apr 2008, 03:26

IVC-ZQN equals 182km by road. (what speed were you doing to make it last 5 hrs.....36km/hr? :confused:) BTW ...TEU-ZQN equals 180kms by road..... so no real time advantage for the odd bus trip from either airfield, eh (unless you do a trip up the Von and across on the Earnslaw ?).

ramyon

24th Apr 2008, 06:05

ramyon

24th Apr 2008, 21:18

Horizon to transition to all turboprop fleet

http://www.jetphotos.net/spacer-white.gif Horizon Air (Seattle) is planning to scrap its fleet of Bombardier CRJ aircraft and replace them with the Dash 8-Q400 turboprop within the next two years. The move is aimed at reducing fuel and maintenance costs at the airline by allowing it to operate a single aircraft fleet of the fuel-efficient planes. Horizon already has thirty-three (33) Q400s in its fleet and would be looking to the replace its existing twenty (20) CRJ-700s, in addition to the twelve (12) Dash 8-200s it has already said it is planning to retire by June 2009. When the transition is complete, Horizon’s fleet will consist of forty-eight (48) Q400s or more depending on how many of its twenty (20) purchase options with Bombardier the airline chooses to exercise.

nike

24th Apr 2008, 23:19

Hey Cap...(and all those in the know....)

.....which would leave a GNSS approach as a possible alternative but with NZ's present rules sole means GNSS is not permitted within the NZFIR

I've probably confused myself here, but doesn't Wanaka only have a GPS app?

SkySurfin

25th Apr 2008, 00:39

Yup sure, Wananka has a sole GPS approach. This means you cannot use Wanaka as an alternate. However you do not require two different approach types (ie GPS and VOR) to fly to a destination, as the case with Wanaka.

After seeing whats happened with oil prices in the last month I think regional jets are pretty much out of the equation, for the short term anyhow. It also may have gone a long way to denting the fuel thirsty Q400 chances.

alangirvan

25th Apr 2008, 07:45

Quote:
Alaska is also considering contracting with another airline with somewhat larger regional jets to fly some of its jet routes.

Interesting follow on to the news that Horizon will be taking the CRJ-700s out of the fleet, to replace them with Q400s. There are some very long sectors in Horizon's network, and the quote shows that Horizon may be moving to a single type fleet, but Horizon's parent, Alaska Airlines will have its Regional Jet flying done by another airline.

You may have seen that Frontier Airlines, which has gone into Chapter 11 has cancelled its agreement with Republic Airlines to operate E-170s.

This shows that in these times of high fuel prices, the 70 seater Regional Jets are suffering. The small fleet of E-170s being introduced by Virgin Blue may suffer, though, the bigger E-190s with 30 extra seats may be safe for now.

If AirNZ is still looking at these planes, maybe the CRJ-900 and E-190 will be the minimum size that will work.

But who can predict fuel? The lead time to buy new types is so long. If Fuel is being priced by speculators and traders, it can just as well go down in price very quickly. When that happened in the early 80s, it led to slow down in sales for the 757, because airlines decided they did not need such a fuel efficient aircraft straight away.

Lindstrim

27th Apr 2008, 10:23

Terbine,

I dont know what way we went fell alseep outside INV and woke up just passing the outskirts of Queenstown 5 hrs later. :confused:

alangirvan

5th May 2008, 07:23

Two things to revive this column. I asked people, where does Wanaka go from here a few months ago. News that a super duper Golf Course is on the way might raise the question, how will the players get to Wanaka? Drive from Dunedin or Christchurch. Fly into Queenstown? If they fly into Wanaka, can a Beech 1900D hold 19 sets of golf clubs? Or fly into Wanaka in the 1900D, and have golf clubs driven down over night in a van? Will golfers arrive in Private Jets? Even if big planes only fly into Wanaka at week-ends the airport might have some non stops from Auckland.

Looking at Queenstown, report is that 4000 beds will be ADDED in the next five years. I think a lot of those beds will be filled by people who like to fly into Queenstown in winter, though in summer there will be people touring the South Island by ground, so perhaps demand will not be so great during summer. But how would ZQN cope with 4000 arrivals on top of existing traffic? If Queenstown has one "Change over" day the airport will be plane spotter heaven. 4000 would be the equivalent of twenty 737-900s or A321s, on top of existing traffic. Perhaps three or four flights from SYD on a Saturday. Or are the hoteliers having a dream, when they think all those extra tourists are going to arrive?

ramyon

5th May 2008, 07:34

When I was down in Wanaka recently, for the airshow, I got talking to a few Queenstown business folk involved in the tourism industry. They were of the opinion that there was already an over investment in accommodation. They said that things had really slowed down and that some developers were finding it difficult to sell their apartments due to over capacity....Having said that Air NZ has recently announced that they are increasing flights from Sydney to five or so a week during the ski season....as well as two to three per week from Melbourne and Brisbane respectively. The future growth of places like Queenstown will be a strong influencing factor in the aircraft type air NZ ultimately select.

Apparently, the qualities of the Embraer had been heavily endorsed at a recent conference for local tourist operators and business people. The debate was over who would first operate them there. Air NZ or Pacific Blue? The guys I talked to were excited at the prospect of 100 seat jets like the EM190 becoming available. They thought it would be a good aircraft to boost frequency to the town both in domestic and international flights.

topend3

6th May 2008, 07:28

how far away is this decision???

ramyon

7th May 2008, 05:38

how far away is this decision???

Was originally meant to be end of March now end of May I think, but will see...Judging by air NZ last months domestic passenger numbers growth has slowed considerably...perhaps a decision could be further off yet....

RadioSaigon

7th May 2008, 05:53

Nope it's 5 hrs.

Did it aprox Sep last year

What absolute twaddle. In my 'young & silly' days, I used to regularly knock that trip out in 90 minutes. Not a helluva lot slower now. Anyone could make a leisurely drive NV-QN in 2.25 hours. A bus, 2.5 hours would pull it up with ease, 3.0 if a 'cuppa & pottie-stop was made at, for example, Lumsden.

5 hours is just bloody nonsense.

ramyon

3rd Jun 2008, 05:29

Into June now and still no decision must be due any day now?....
I have a feelng that the ATR might just squeeze in as it is by far the most efficient option...High oil prices seem to be at the forefront of airline decision making these days....I think this makes the E-190 an unlikely choice...Or maybe they will just hang on to the older ATRs for a bit longer...still a relatively young aircraft.....

SkySurfin

3rd Jun 2008, 07:54

I was at a business day recently..... It wont be the E-190 or a jet for that matter (I think that was fairly obvious in the current market though). Q400 is the most likely option, as they have got a great deal on the options. ATR600 the other option. Last option they are looking at is buying the current ATRs when their lease expires in 09.
They are keen to keep a new fleet and also common types through the group so the Q is looking good. Decision is very close....... expect to hear something this month

Kiwiguy

22nd Jun 2008, 13:03

Alan, Wanaka isn't going far until it sorts out it's instrument approach issues and besides the runway is a little weak.

Good to see the runway at TEU is going from PCN10 to PCN20.

My question would be who is paying and why ?

David Skeggs recently put up many millions of dollars for Red Boat Cruises in Milford Sound. I tried to query Skeggs whether he was interested in marketing air services to Manapouri and was struck with a wall of silence. Tells me there is something interesting going on there.

DJ is flying to Dunedin and a small Dunedin regional has carved out routes from Dunedin to Queenstwon with mention that TEU is contemplated too.

My Guess is that uncle Skeggs and Pacific Blue have struck up a deal to feed the Fiordland market.

Kiwiguy

22nd Jun 2008, 13:20

This was the eastern end of TEU in 2007

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/TEUeasternextension.jpg

Kiwiguy

23rd Jun 2008, 06:34

The value of TEU, I suggest is not flying TEU-ZQN but rather to fly TEU-CHC or TEU-AKL if you really think about it.

If Air NZ is behind runway upgrades then you can bet that Air NZ is buying E-190s

empacher48

23rd Jun 2008, 07:01

You'll find it'll be Pionair in behind the upgrades down there.

There are also a few other aerodromes around the place they might want to think about upgrading in the not too distant future.

Kiwiguy

23rd Jun 2008, 07:16

Lemme guess Mount Cook or Pukaki ?

I have long wondered if someone from that bunch of Brierly's pirates wanted to get Mount Cook Airlines out of there so they could asset strip the ski plane operation.

Simple solution. Burn down the terminal building. Was that 1992 or 2002 ?
I forget now.

Some Auckland property developer bought a 15 year lease for Alexandra Airport believing he would get international flights in there.

Kerikeri is another on the logical list.

Strikes me that you could almost retrace the old Mount Cook HS.748 routes and any regional airport on that route is where the growth potential is.

astinapilot

24th Jun 2008, 03:25

Pukaki is very likely to be extended.

Kiwiguy

24th Jun 2008, 08:35

Hi Astina, that's interesting. Where did that come from ?

I was talking to their regional development people back in 2004 and they were dead keen to get scheduled services into Pukaki.

Department of Conservation is hell bent on reducing flights within the park. Funny irony is that DOC is fairly powerless to prevent overflights not originating within the park.

Desperately need UK-AK or UK-CH services.

empacher48

24th Jun 2008, 09:33

Department of Conservation is hell bent on reducing flights within the park. Funny irony is that DOC is fairly powerless to prevent overflights not originating within the park.

I don't know where you got that information from, but it surely can't get anymore wrong.

There is no pressure from DOC on reducing any flights around the Mt Cook or Westland Areas, but an effort on both sides of operators and DOC to reduce the effect of aircaft noise, by varying flight routes and VOLUNTARY no fly areas within the National Park (ie 2Nm from the summits of Mt Cook and Mt Tasman at all times, the Upper Hooker Glacier, Anywhere around the Hermitage and Mt Cook Village below 8000' AMSL - miniumum heights around popular climbs and Huts). DOC are happy with the Users in the area, and we work together to minimise the impact of aviation within the national park.

As far as conessions go to land within the National park, anybody can use Mt Cook Airport with appropriate permission, but we are not allowed to perform scenic flights that originate and then terminate at Mt Cook, there is only one company allowed to do that.

As far as scheduled flights into UK from Auckland or Christchurch? It has been investigated by operators, both local and out of town, and it is uneconomically feasible, otherwise wouldn't a local operator down here be already flying out to Christchurch on a scheduled basis?

Kiwiguy

24th Jun 2008, 11:36

I've been mountaineering in that park since before you were born sonny. Each time I've climbed to huts in the park, I have found surveys placed there by park authorities asking climbers not for comments on park facilities...

Oh no, never dare ask for criticism of park authorities. The surveys have always asked climbers the same question. have you been annoyed by aircraft activity in the park ?

Well hell sonny, if you didn't tell them they had an itch they wouldn't scratch it would they ?

empacher48 wrote

I don't know where you got that information from, but it surely can't get anymore wrong.

Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan, paragraph 4.3.3(c) "No approval should be given that would increase aircraft activity or aircraft noise within the Park." or try 4.3.3(h) "No further aircraft facility areas should be approved in the Park."

I appreciate the Park's own management plan is unlikely to be an authoritative enough source for you, but we're not all anal retentive around here.

Try this
P.4.3.3(c) & (d) - Although aircraft do provide a practical and useful means of
access for Park management and visitors, with minimal physical impact on the Park compared with other mechanical methods, they do have other effects.
Such effects include impacts at particular sites and on cultural values, the disruption of natural quiet and values of solitude, space, scenic and other intrinsic values; and

effects on the enjoyment, inspiration, recreation and other benefits that visitors gain from the Park, including knowing one is in a place into which aircraft are not allowed to fly or land. Many of these values are part of the visitor management setting of an area (see 1.3.5.1 Visitor Management Setting). The principal effect of aircraft activity is its impact on natural quiet. The Visitor Strategy (1996) refers to natural quiet as ‘...the natural ambient conditions or the sound of nature’. It is an important component of visitors’ appreciation of a national park. In protecting natural quiet, visitors and the tourism industry need to be aware of their responsibilities to other visitors.

In particular, aircraft noise should not detract unduly from visitor experiences. In response to noise concerns, the Department, in liaison with the industry, has developed a methodology to record visitor awareness of and annoyance with, aircraft noise (see Booth, Jones and Devlin, 1997, and the monitoring reports Ladd 1998, Toxward 1999, Ladd 2000 and Horn 2001, McManaway & Bellringer 2002). Working from the methodology the

Well I don't know what bucket you've got your head stuck in empacher, but you must love the echo of your own voice ?

Dixons Cider

24th Jun 2008, 16:33

Well I don't know what bucket you've got your head stuck in empacher, but you must love the echo of your own voice ?

Hello Kettle, this is Pot...you are black!

take a chill pill dude. :hmm:

empacher48

24th Jun 2008, 21:57

Now... going back to the original question posed on here..

When is the likely decision going to be made to replace the ATRs? It has been delayed a few times, and its pretty obvious now that Jet A1 is more expensive than Avgas, an E-jet could be a little bit of an overkill..

kiwilad

24th Jun 2008, 23:49

It is on the AirNZ board agenda for the month of June.
But it has been there before and could get moved to another month again.
With the current fuel situation it would be a impressive decision to move away from the ATR.

cjam

25th Jun 2008, 06:56

Empacher48..."It has been delayed a few times, and its pretty obvious now that Jet A1 is more expensive than Avgas, an E-jet could be a little bit of an overkill.."
...Do you think it would be a good idea for Mt Cook to operate a/c that run on Avgas?

empacher48

25th Jun 2008, 08:08

Do you think it would be a good idea for Mt Cook to operate a/c that run on Avgas?

No, I don't think I stated that did I?

But the massive increase in the price of Jet A1 MAY have a tiny impact on the decision whether to remain with the current type, or if they are going to change types to either a Jet or Turboprop fleet.

But hey, lets not let airline economics get in the way of a good discussion!

cjam

25th Jun 2008, 08:53

no you're right, you didn't state that, I read an inference that wasn't there.

"But hey, lets not let airline economics get in the way of a good discussion!"

Remind me what Avgas has to do with airline economics?

empacher48

25th Jun 2008, 09:27

In my airline - quite a bit, with a mixed fleet of pistons and turbine machines.

purplemonkydishwashr

25th Jun 2008, 10:21

Ummmmmm...... The ATR is a turboprop....

toolowtoofast

26th Jun 2008, 06:04

how many piston a/c are operated by Air NZ?

purplemonkydishwashr

26th Jun 2008, 07:09

none. Beech 1900's, Dash 8 Q300's, ATR 72's, B737,767,777,747,A320

cjam

26th Jun 2008, 12:06

How the hell did we get onto avgas....back to the topic...why do air nz still operate pistons on domestic ops in this day and age?

toolowtoofast

27th Jun 2008, 03:05

What are you talking about?

alangirvan

27th Jun 2008, 03:33

Which aircraft in the AirNZ fleet do you think are pistons?

flying_drumman

1st Jul 2008, 03:11

Talking of jets into the regions, anyone know when NZ started flying jets between CHC/DUD?

Just looking in the timetables and it shows NZ 611 CHC/DUD and NZ 612 DUD/CHC on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays; all 733.

I thought jet services were ridded of after the Bae's went outta service...or would this be more of a shot at PB?

ramyon

4th Jul 2008, 06:30

I thought jet services were ridded of after the Bae's went outta service...or would this be more of a shot at PB?

Air Nz were planning several months back to extend their 733 services into the regions. This was to also include boosting existing jet services to Dud and the selection of two other jet capable regional towns ( Palmerston north, Invercargill or Hamilton). Their intention was to run trial jet services to test demand........Announcements were meant to have been made at the end of March as to which towns they would serve and flight schedules etc. I think that some towns actually lobbied the airline for new jet services. Thus far it Hasn't happened. The intention was to increase their 733 fleet from 14 to 18... To date they have increased the size of their fleet to 16 aircraft.....I don't think any more are coming now.

Apart from increasing services to Dunedin ( Which PB started flying to this month), It looks as though Air NZ has back-tracked on this jet strategy( since oil prices have escalated dramatically since then).and have decided not to start Jet services to the small towns.

On a side note Air NZ has also added capacity to the Dunedin - Wellington route going from just three 733 services per day to five mixed turbo prop (ATR72 and Q300)and jet services per day.........

ramyon

7th Jul 2008, 06:46

A segment Taken from an article in today's press 07/07/08

"Air New Zealand has been offered earlier production slots for 777-300ERs it has on order by airlines wanting to cancel or delay their own deliveries.
It is understood there has also been an offer to sell Boeing 737-800 slots which could allow Air New Zealand to fast-track the replacement of its smaller 737-300 domestic jet fleet.

Fyfe would say only that "the easing of the aircraft market may present us with the opportunity to acquire efficient capacity more economically than has been possible in recent years".
However, he said the airline was not looking to bring forward fleet purchase decisions."

full story here...
Stock Market News and Financial News in New Zealand - NZX.com (http://nzx.com/news/4610312)

alangirvan

7th Jul 2008, 07:36

Does this mean Boeing is losing patience offering the 777-300ERs to Qantas, and AirNZ is the next one on the list?

ZK-NSJ

7th Jul 2008, 09:22

i would have though 737-700's and -900's would have been better,
-700's for domestic, and -900's to replace the a320's

kiwilad

7th Jul 2008, 09:32

This is an article from FlightGlobal.com

ANZ board to consider regional aircraft order on 23 July (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/04/225089/anz-board-to-consider-regional-aircraft-order-on-23.html)

Still waiting as long as they can before making a decision.

Mount Cook will have to wait a little bit longer. Would just about bet the house on 72-500s leading into the 600 and 900. But never say never to Q400, regional jet is highly unlikely unless the market is about to drastically change.

ramyon

7th Jul 2008, 19:43

Does this mean Boeing is losing patience offering the 777-300ERs to Qantas, and AirNZ is the next one on the list?

Why do you say that? Hasn't Air NZ already signed up for 4 777-300ERs to replace their 747's ??:confused:

It's not a matter of if they are getting them, it's more a matter of when....It appears they've been offered the option of earlier slots, due to other airlines deferring deliveries (due to high oil prices), this means Air nz's 777's have the option to be built earlier. Although you can bet your boots that Boeing is still keen for Air Nz to exercise some of it's options and increase it's order too....

SkySurfin

7th Jul 2008, 21:41

From what ive heard..... if AirNZ can move a few of their 747s then they will take delivery of the extra 777s earlier than expected. The problem up until now was trying to get their hands on available 777s, they have infact been out hunting for them this year. Now that this has come to news I think we may see something happen..... and most likely in the very near future.

1279shp

9th Jul 2008, 05:39

... the status quo!

The ATR-500 will continue in service until being replaced by the -600 verson around 2010/2011.:{ As for the -900, it remains to be seen if ATR even go ahead with it.

Reasons are; Fuel Economy is just too good for the ATR compared with Q400 - no matter which way you look at it! Plus any merger of the MC and NS pilot groups - for the group common type qual on Q300/Q400 - has apparently ended up in the 'too hard' bin.:ooh:

As for replacements for the 733? There has been documentation sighted about winglet mods - a-la Southwest 733's. Cheap at approx $2.5m(?) per aircraft for the fuel savings/performance.

Hanz Blix

9th Jul 2008, 09:42

The ATR-500 will continue in service until being replaced by the -600 verson around 2010/2011. As for the -900, it remains to be seen if ATR even go ahead with it.

:{:{:{ If that is the case then there will be plenty of that. 900!!!!!!! its never going to happen. :ugh:<- the little icon shows what the French are doing rite now as they realise they underpowered the 600 and let a great opportunity pass them by.

Apparently the 23rd is the board meeting and decision but I doubt in the current climate we will find out then. Air NZ has bigger problems to deal with at the moment (Air NSN, EAG and mainline):suspect:

belowMDA

9th Jul 2008, 22:47

Just to get rid of that annoying reminder about my lack of posts recently....

I have been reliably informed by those that know these things, that while Air NZ could indeed get earlier production slots for their 773s they will be paying full retail price rather than their contracted option price. For this reason it is still palatable to run the 744.

As for the 733 replacement, all plans are on hold. They know they won't last until 2020 when the NG replacement will be available, however nothing will do the job as well as the 733. So status quo for the time being.

trommel

9th Jul 2008, 23:46

I think ATR have got it right with the 72-600 going for fuel efficiency and a good load carrying ability - it will carry the about the same as a Dash8-400.

The Dash8-400 is obviously faster but burns more fuel and is draging an apu around as opposed to a 40kg prop brake. I might be wrong but i believe the 400's operating with QF are operating at a reduced engine power to conserve engine life because the engines were burning out at high power settings.

Skystar320

9th Jul 2008, 23:48

belowMDA

the airline in question who wants to defer the aircraft or even cancel have put very favourable terms to Air New Zealand

Going Boeing

10th Jul 2008, 01:00

Posted by 1279shp
As for replacements for the 733? There has been documentation sighted about winglet mods - a-la Southwest 733's. Cheap at approx $2.5m(?) per aircraft for the fuel savings/performance.

The fuel savings from winglets is greatest over longer sectors eg SYD-PER. Over very short sectors the savings are offset by having to carry the weight of the winglets. I would think that the short average sector length of Air NZ's domestic operation would make retro-fitting of winglets to the B733 uneconomic. Retro-fitted winglets involve fitting weights in the outer wing to compensate for the extra wing bending - factory delivered NG's with winglets have a thicker upper wing skin so no extra weights are required.

Posted by trommel
I might be wrong but i believe the 400's operating with QF are operating at a reduced engine power to conserve engine life because the engines were burning out at high power settings.

I understand that is correct resulting in a 30 knot reduction in TAS.

Hanz Blix

23rd Jul 2008, 20:54

Board meeting yesterday, did anybody here?...........................Ahhhhhhh NO just waiting for the "we have delayed decision again email":ugh:

Sqwark2000

24th Jul 2008, 05:28

And the winner is ...... the status quo!

The ATR-500 will continue in service until being replaced by the -600 verson around 2010/2011.

Don't know where you heard this champ, but nothings been announced by MC to the employees, so seriously doubt your claim.

In fact I've flown with a couple of MC C&T'ers lately and they say it's still too close to call.

Plus any merger of the MC and NS pilot groups - for the group common type qual on Q300/Q400 - has apparently ended up in the 'too hard' bin.

WTF!! Where did that come from?? Maybe a JH pipedream, but def nothing of the sort was ever mentioned to the MC Pilot group about that. Why would we need a group common type qual anyway?

ramyon

24th Jul 2008, 05:30

Looks like we could be waiting a wee bit longer. Perhaps not until the 26 of August when the 2008 financials are released?

I have read a few snippets in various news articles which tend to suggest that Pacific Blue is about to announce a major expansion of services on the domestic front....I did remember hearing that up to 4 737-800s had been moved from the main VB fleet to be used on PB overseas routes...could this include more domestic flights and perhaps new destinations?

1279shp

26th Jul 2008, 07:16

WTF!! Where did that come from?? Maybe a JH pipedream, but def nothing of the sort was ever mentioned to the MC Pilot group about that. Why would we need a group common type qual anyway?

Yeah agree, interesting!! :ooh:

A merger cud kill two birds - literally!

Sort the "dramas" that is currently happening with MC/NS v AirNZ, plus allow some changes of helms-men. Isn't the helms-man of the prop-ABus fleet, a good bud of the helms-man of the company Aston Martin?:hmm:

Sqwark2000

26th Jul 2008, 09:56

Isn't the helms-man of the prop-ABus fleet, a good bud of the helms-man of the company Aston Martin?

After the last prop-ABus negotiations were settled, said current helmsman caught up ex-RNZAF fellow (current senior helmsman) to reminisce the days in blue, and may have mentioned some of the ****e that had been going on that wasn't mentioned in official channels and then someone wasn't offered an extension to their contract.

or so I heard.....

fourholes

26th Jul 2008, 11:39

Sort the "dramas" that is currently happening with MC/NS v AirNZ

1279. What do you mean?:confused:

1279shp

31st Jul 2008, 11:21

Sort the "dramas" that is currently happening with MC/NS v AirNZ

1279. What do you mean?

Sorry left out a word - meant "with Air NZ management"

1279shp

31st Jul 2008, 11:27

After the last prop-ABus negotiations were settled, said current helmsman caught up ex-RNZAF fellow (current senior helmsman) to reminisce the days in blue, and may have mentioned some of the ****e that had been going on that wasn't mentioned in official channels and then someone wasn't offered an extension to their contract.
or so I heard.....

Can't help but wonder if the very numerous "discussions" about "situations" that takes place is where things are going wrong??!!:hmm:

Sqwark2000

22nd Sep 2008, 04:31

Air NZ board meeting on Wed 24th Sept, with expected decision on the Mt Cook fleet plans. GM has mentioned in last newsletter an announcement to staff will be made on wednesday.

Any last bids on the outcome??

S2K

max rate

22nd Sep 2008, 05:52

Yeah.

Status quo

c100driver

22nd Sep 2008, 06:45

The same machines they are flying now, the ATR just keeps the accountants happy and the pilots paid!

in paradise

24th Sep 2008, 02:42

As announced today by Mark Pitt (GM Mount Cook Airline)
No change in Atr Fleet for the next 5 years due to increased Fuel Costs etc.....:bored:

ramyon

24th Sep 2008, 07:52

I'm picking that they're going to hold off a while and they will probably be launch customers for the proposed 90 seater ATR or Q400x in two or three years from now. They'll choose the most economical version of the above.......

fourholes

24th Sep 2008, 07:55

Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

Hanz Blix

24th Sep 2008, 08:25

Once again management have let the troops downs I see. This supposed 90 seat aircraft hasn't even hit the drawing board yet, so I'd imagine it would be 5 years plus.

Very dissapointing:ugh:

Bombay

24th Sep 2008, 12:04

It was inevitable.

The 72-600 is hardly a big improvment on the -500 from a passenger and operator point of view.

The Q400 doesn't have enough extra seats regardless of arguments about performance, fleet commonality with Air NSN etc. Why sell your 68-seaters for 74-seaters, spending a small fortune in the process?

The 90-seaters don't even exist as a drawing yet. No point in wasting too much time on them yet.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 72-500s make a good return on investment. Proven history in NZ, accountants dream. Why change when there's no real reason to do so?

Smart move, I say, disappointing as it may be for the troops.

Bombay