Air NZ may fly jets in regions

[flyby_kiwi]

Air NZ may fly jets in regions
By ROELAND VAN DEN BERGH - The Dominion Post | Monday, 03 December 2007

Jets could soon start flying into regional towns as part of a planned US$300 million (NZ$390 million) domestic fleet upgrade and opening of new routes by Air New Zealand.


Bruce Parton, Air New Zealand group general manager of short haul airlines, told BusinessDay that an order for about 15 aircraft would gradually replace the fleet of 11 ATR72-500 regional turboprops.

Among the three options being considered was the 104-seater Embraer E-190 jet which can land at almost any airport in the country.

The airline wanted to significantly increase regional services that offer substantial tourism growth, Mr Parton said.

Though they were faster and more comfortable, jets were more expensive and would come with higher fares than the two turboprop options being considered.

French manufacturer ATR is touting the 68-seat ATR72-600, which is the next generation of the current 500 model, as the most fuel efficient and the more environmentally friendly.

Canada's Bombardier has the 90-seat Q400X, a larger version of the Q300, which Air New Zealand introduced two years ago.

Mr Parton said most passengers preferred to fly on a jet rather than a noisier propeller aircraft. The question was whether passengers were prepared to pay a 10 per cent premium for a jet service, or if they preferred a similar fare reduction possible with the Q400X or ATR.

"This will come down to what the customer choice is," Mr Parton said.

House of Travel retail director Brent Thomas said price-conscious leisure passengers, who made up the bulk of regional markets, would opt for lower fares.

The bigger planes, however, would be welcomed by business travellers who were finding it difficult to get a seat to smaller centres at short notice, Mr Thomas said.

A more expensive jet service could also leave Air New Zealand vulnerable to a competitor who could come in with a cheaper turboprop option, he said.

Mr Parton said Air New Zealand was keeping a close eye on customer reaction in regional Australia where Virgin Blue has introduced the smaller Embraer E-170 jet to compete against Qantas, which uses Q300s.

If, despite higher fares, there was a clear preference for the jet, that could swing the decision in favour of the E-190.

But the Q400X appears most likely to get the nod when a final decision is made around March.

It meets Air New Zealand's requirement for a fast, cheap-to-run, 90-seat-plus aircraft that will significantly increase capacity.

The airline also has purchase options on the earlier Q400 model which can be converted for the Q400X, negotiated at the time of buying the Q300s.

The E-190 would also be subject to the more time-consuming pre-boarding security checks required for jets, which went against a drive to reduce the time people spent at the airport.

Mr Parton said both the E-190 and the Q400X would allow new non-stop long-distance services, such as Auckland to Invercargill, which could not sustain a 136-seat Boeing 737 service.

Air New Zealand has had a monopoly on the 26-destination regional network since the demise of Origin Pacific last year.

Pacific Blue, which began flying on the main trunk route last month, has indicated it could add some provincial destinations in two years, using its E-170 or E-190s.

[tartare]

No they won't... this story's bollocks.
They know full well that jungle jets don't stack up on the short sectors... the numbers have been done.
Mt Cook have been campaigning to get Embraers for years... and the mothership won't let them.
The Q400 or possibly the 400X will be their choice, and to eventually replace the 733's as well.
It'll be a step change for punters used to a pure jet, but the economics are pretty compelling.

[pakeha-boy]

Tartare...yeah mate,this issue has been discussed many times on this sight and the know-alls will swear that this is the a/c that will solve all......ask how many of these know-alls who have flown them and know of the "'real" costs of operating them...and they are far and few.....reading a book and computer flying them has never given anyone the real picture of how they operate.....flew the 45 for a couple of years and know many who fly the 700/900s.... they are not cheap and I would certainly agree with you on your assesment.......apart from that...bottom line....they are faaaarkin uncomfortable to fly in as a passenger......if in fact you are built like twiggy....shes a good ride....but todays pax....(for the sake of being nice) are not your average twiggy..
...
my choice.....dash 400,s....or even the D0-328(prop or jet)...far more comfortable....and just as expensive...pb

[komac2]

It'll be a step change for punters used to a pure jet


Yeah its called they will fly with the opposition that has jets-especially business travellers.

[Skystar320]

Story is true.

SAW and ExpressJET of the USA today held meetings with ANZ about the long term lease of 10 x EMB-145 aircraft

Look's like your going to get pencil pushers........

Ta

SS320

[tartare]

With the greatest of respect... the fact they've been meeting don't mean jack.
Even if they've talked numbers of a/c needed.
Anyone who prepares a business case knows you get the quotes from everyone and objectiovely weight them up; and then make the choice.
Don't get me wrong... I'd love to see pure jets out to the regions.
But flying an Embraer here just does not add up $$$$
End of story.
It'd be about as smart as cramming up the seats in a 737 to a 28" pitch really, wouldn't it...
...and we know that NZ would never try anything like that would they?!
Oooo... on second thoughts, maybe they're not as smart as I thought...;)

[Lo-Bank]

tartare

The Q400 or possibly the 400X will be their choice, and to eventually replace the 733's as well.

That doesn't make sense to me, a 78 seater turboprop to replace a 136 seat jet when your competition also flies jets.

[Skystar320]

tartare


Quote:
The Q400 or possibly the 400X will be their choice, and to eventually replace the 733's as well.

That doesn't make sense to me, a 78 seater turboprop to replace a 136 seat jet when your competition also flies jets.

Well it is ANZ we are talking about

[tartare]

It all comes down cost per seat mile... on a 90 seat turboprop that has nearly the same time on a sector averaged out as a pure jet. Just increase your frequency to pick up the slack.
if you do the maths... on the sectors we have... they're more economical than a pure jet.
Jets are pricey.
It's got nothing to do with customers preferring jets.
Its got nothing to do with what the competition fly.
Its got nothing to do with the type of kit we as pilots like to fly.
It's allllll about $$$$
And in the airline game, he who flies cheapest without pi&^ing off the customer... wins.

[ZKSUJ]

Realsitically it will be the Q400 IMO, but I'd love to see the ATr 72-600 get a go.

RJs, pretty much no hope in hell IMO. Sectors are too short and costs too much to warrant it in New Zealand

[tartare]

Same.
Hell, I'd love to see VLJ air taxis operating here!!
But they won't.
:)

[2yng2baJnr]

i can see airnz moving into jets at..the biggest change i have heard rumored is A319 replace the 733 fleet...also it seem well timed the mt cook renew a 2 year lease on the current atr's which happens to run out when the 1st options become avalible on Q400..the biggest concern faceing airnz link fleet is a suitble aircraft to help the fast ageing beech fleet:uhoh:..the only people sitting fat dumb and happy are air nsn..new planes, new routes and more money...i think in terms of pac blue in the airnz market you will see more of the 737 operating here rather than the embraer..expanding into pmr and hlz on routes up to the islands

[Dixons Cider]

as an aside, the Q400 (its still a bloody dash8 I reckon!!!) has copped a load of bad press lately, the Europeans have had a recent bad run with them - don't know if that would factor in to the pax appeal or not.

Propably by the time a decision is announced, all that will be forgotten about.

Hope ATR puts an APU into the 72-600, prop brake is a poor substitute.

[Hanz Blix]

Thought I'd throw my two cents in:}

"but I'd love to see the ATr 72-600 get a go."...........

Do you know the stats on this pig??????? the current machine has enough problems climbing, this thing has an extra 200kg and only the same CLB and CRZ power. Not ideal at all.

"That doesn't make sense to me, a 78 seater turboprop to replace a 136 seat jet when your competition also flies jets."

Ummmm big picture! We are not replacing the jets we are replacing the ATR's. Current AIR NZ make....Beech (19), Dash(50), ATR(68) and 733(136). The middle section is far to close hence the need for a 90 seater to get a better market spread.

Calling it (ATR 600) a PIG may be a bit harsh it is a nice bit of kit but not ideal for NZ conditions.:ok:

[tartare]

A319 don't add up either, boys...
Maybe the A321 when domestic traffic's grown a bit more...:E

[Hanz Blix]

Baby bus is not even in the picture. Not worth talking bout:}

[FullySickBro]

The ROT-CHC sector appears to be shared between the 737 and ATR during the busy and quiet tourist months respectively. I submit (humbly of course) this spread in capacity (substantial jet and a decent capacity, good value turbo prop) is better suited to changes in demand on any particular sector than an inbetween RJ...

And since we're all armchair know-it-alls, I assumed we all applied for 'Business in the Sky' then? :}

[Hanz Blix]

:) 'Business in the Sky'

I like your style however I like going on holiday with my leave therefore not Business in the Sky.:}

Well thats my two cents for another year! Have fun all

Hanz:ok:

[windytown]

In one of the NZ papers today, I read an article quoting a Snr AirNZ manager stating that the competition for customers will be on the ground and not in the air. This was in relation to saving passenger checkin time using web checkin, RFID tags on bags etc.

So this "on the ground" strategy, along with lounge access and frequency could be used to counter DJ in the bus market even with turbo props up against 737NG/E jet, while the lower CASM of a turbo prop would help target the VFF market. At least there is no middle seat on a turbo prop.

Another article mentioned expansion at nelson incl hanger space for Air Nelson growth.

[Sqwark2000]

competition for customers will be on the ground and not in the air. This was in relation to saving passenger checkin time using web checkin, RFID tags on bags etc.

There's going to have to big improve in that area. Staff travelled it the other day and used the self checkin kiosk which had the label printer attached. All checked in, boarding passes in hand, luggage labels attached and then proceeded to wait 30mins in queue to drop off checked in bags. 1 Bag drop operator with 40-odd people in the queue, had to attract attention of another staff member as our flight was called twice for boarding and then finally name paged and queue had barely moved. Apparantly lots of people in wrong queues because it's not the well laid out. We ran to get on flight but were last to board and approx. 6 commercial's pax got bumped due to not enough time to process bags.

this thing has an extra 200kg and only the same CLB and CRZ power. Not ideal at all.

The new engines are the PW127 M as opposed to the F, haven't seen the stats but I would assume there's extra grunt in there to cover the increase MAUW. The 68Y config will be the killer there. As stated earlier there needs to be a move towards 90 seats the spread the fleets from 50 -to 136.

Hope ATR puts an APU into the 72-600, prop brake is a poor substitute.

Why? the prop brake seems to work well. It's only real limitation is not operating it when refuelling and loading the rear hold. As most refuels take place pretty quick on turn arounds you can have the No. 2 fired up before boarding the next load. Why have a 3rd turbine engine to maintain?

Realsitically it will be the Q400 IMO, but I'd love to see the ATr 72-600 get a go.

Depends on what/who you want to believe, but quite a few in the company are saying the Q400 is a done deal, all signed up etc


Did anyone notice the full page ads in the NZ main newspapers from Bombardier congratulating QantasLink for their 12 x Q400 order to compete with VB Embraer's. Think it all adds up to Air NZ taking the same tack, competing the gas guzzelling jets with similar performance, fuel efficient turboprops.

My pick - Q400 to initially introduce type with the 400X to be the final model


S2K

[pakeha-boy]

Quote tartare....A319 don't add up either, boys...
Maybe the A321 when domestic traffic's grown a bit more...

mate...on the money...sometimes with this lot you do a lot of this...:ugh::ugh:
Currently flying the A321.....your right ..way to expensive as with the 320/19......the 318(flown by frontier)seems to have better #,s but not much as seat cost per mile can be manipulated up and down like a lady of the nights panties.

What I dont get is this pre-occupation on this subject with jets.....New zealand supports a mainline 73 ops,but at this time certainly not a jet regional,the margins are too fine.....eveybody bitches about labout costs,and why your flight crews take it in the tailpipe...well boys,that where they get their cost savings.

The 400,would be a better choice and if you ever want to know how successful this type of equipment has been....just ask Horizon Airlines out of KSEA/KPDX....they have run this type of euipment for years and are very good at it(flew the 100/200 for them)....their routes cover about the same area as kiwi....and guess what .......THEYRE MAKING MONEY AND KEEPING THEIR CUSTOMER BASE VERY HAPPY.........why,because they are able to be very competitive,and very efficent..........

get off the jets boys......reality/fantasy.......reality/fantasy......reality/fantasy

[ZKSUJ]

Just to clear things up. My statement about how it would be nice to see the ATR 600 in NZ is based on my liking for the 'pig' not for the technicalities. As I said, realistically, I would bet on the Q400 series getting the nod :p

[alangirvan]

The 400,would be a better choice and if you ever want to know how successful this type of equipment has been....just ask Horizon Airlines out of KSEA/KPDX....they have run this type of euipment for years and are very good at it(flew the 100/200 for them)....their routes cover about the same area as kiwi....and guess what .......THEYRE MAKING MONEY AND KEEPING THEIR CUSTOMER BASE VERY HAPPY.........why,because they are able to be very competitive,and very efficent..........


Horizon also operates a large fleet of CRJ-700s and CRJ-900s (70 seats and 86 seats). These are Regional Jets, in the same fleet as the Q400s.

Regional Jets and TPs do not do the same job. If you are flying Auckland to Napier, then an E-190 with jet speeds and 102 seats is a bad idea for the distance. If you are flying Auckland to Dunedin, and the Q400 adds 30 minutes to the flight time (that is my guess, if anyone know more about the time performance of a Q400 on a 600 mile sector, please advise.) Comparison - DUD-AKL 660 miles, Brisbane to Canberra 593 miles. Qantas schedules shows that the Q400 does this sector in 2 hours 10 minutes, the jet does it in 1 hour 40 minutes.

What data do people use when they say the E-190 is expensive to operate? Are US Airways, Northwest and Air Canada complaining about them? The E-190 (102 seats) is still a fairly new type in worldwide service. The E-195 (118 seats) has similar seating capacity to a 737-200. A written down 732 may be cheaper to operate than a new plane with ownership payments, but the experience over in South Africa suggests that older 737s would be a substantial risk.

[Cypher]

I don't think the E Jets make economic sense...
Most of Mt Cook's route structure is too short to make a E Jet worthwhile.
The longest route I think they would fly would be Queenstown - Rotorua... which is 536 NM by the great circle..
The majority of their other routes which are flown are only in the 300-400 nm range.
The longest domestic route Air NZ may cover would be AKL-IVC which works out to 634 NM.
According to Embraer's website, the E190 breaks even at 61% capacity. Thats 60 odd seats to fill and the aircraft breaks even.. and thats on a 600 SM route..
There are only two routes that come remotely close to that distance, AKL-IVC and ROT-ZQN.
Why would you fly a fleet of E-Jets that are not suited to the route structure you are flying... or were only suitable to 2 routes out of the entire lot that you fly?
Sure I see ZQN-ROT furfilling this, but getting a new type to fill one route is a pretty poor business plan.
The Q400 on the other hand breaks even at 57%. Thats selling your seats on a 78 seater at $75 USD a pop... works out to be about $90 ish NZD..
Thats 45 seats at $90 NZD for a 300 NM sector..
Oh wait.. a 300 NM sector... sounds like a Mt Cook route doesnt it?
From my understanding, the ATR breaks even at about 33 seats. Most ATR flights that I end up paxing on are pretty full.. not bad for a 66 seat plane. A marginal increase in the break even level for an additional 10-15 seats of profit doesn't sound too bad when you compare it to the 60 odd seats needed to just get a E Jet off the ground and break even, with no profit.
This is without even mentioning that the Q400 burns about 30% less fuel than the jet to achieve a similar result.
A pretty compelling arguement against the E Jet and for the Q400...

I don't think the ATR will get the nod.. it's now too small for Mt Cook. You want excess capacity to grow into. The Q400 offers that... not to mention better speed. Give the ATR to someone who needs them.. like Air Freight... ;)

Now.. Mt Cook to get E Jets and operate them trans-tasman... now theres a rumour!

[alangirvan]

The Qantas seat map planner shows that Qantaslink operates Q400s with 72 seats. If AirNZ uses 78 seats in a Q400 that will be not very comfortable compared with the Qantas planes. If AirNZ uses 72 seats, would they replace ATRs to get 6 extra seats? If jets are used on Rotorua-Christchurch-Queenstown, one reason might be that Inbound Tourism Operators think that their clients prefer to fly in jets. If tourists were rational and understood airline economics there would be no jets between Los Angeles and Las Vegas which is a very short distance. How many Q400s are there on that route?

ATRs are now used on routes that were not part of Mt Cook's network. They are used on CHC-DUD, CHC-WLG and flights from CHC to several North Island destinations. 737-200s were used between CHC and DUD/WLG - the 737-300 and 737-NGs are not good aircraft for the short stage lengths.

E-190s could give better frequencies on some trunk routes. Dunedin could get a third daily flight to Auckland. Perhaps a fourth daily flight from Dunedin to Wellington. The Q400 might be a possibility for some DUD-WLG flights, but an extra 30 minutes between DUD and AKL or Queenstown and AKL is a difference that people notice.

If you are talking about a Q400 with 78 seats, then you compare it with a 737-300 with 149 seats. People are used to seats like that in Europe. Not here.

[Cypher]

You bring up some good points AlanGirvan,

I do remember being on a B737 flight, Penang to Langkawi for all of 17 minutes a few years ago.

Could it be though on the Los Angeles-Las Vegas route, just the sheer volume of traffic on that route makes a B767 or B737 work. The catchment of those regions are huge. Los Angeles alone sporting 9.5 million people, Las Vegas with 1.7 million vs our 4 million local and at best maybe 1 million tourists per year.

I don't think we simply have that volume of traffic. Pax may not understand airline economics, but if your making a loss on each flight, your not going to be around to have pax!

The inbound tourists don't have a choice. Most of them arrive on tours that cover the country in 1 week. And they want to see Rotorua and Queenstown as part of their trip. There is no alterative to flying. To drive that route would take at least 2-3 days. I'm sure they would prefer a jet, however Air NZ is the only game in town. Even if Pac Blue decided to go after that route with a E-jet, the question is whether you have enough volume to meet your 61% breakeven point. (60 seats in a E-190) While competing against an Air NZ ATR or Q400.

E Jets could give better frequency on the trunk routes. You could use them to supplement the mainline, esp CHC-WLG, not replace the B737. The volume of traffic is there and it works for a B737. However do you do this at the cost of your regional route structure? The aim I believe is still to cover the regions with increased capacity.

Off the Air NZ website, their seat map of the Boeing 737-300 has a seat pitch of 30", with 136 seats.

http://www.airnz.co.nz/travelinfo/ontheplane/seat_maps/boeing_737300_popup.htm

The Q400 was quoted on the Bombardier website with a seat pitch of 30" with 78 seats.

http://www.q400.com/q400/en/turbo.jsp

So pax shouldn't see much of a difference...

[Going Boeing]

I'd suggest that the reason QF Link Q400's have 72 seats is because of the Oz F/A to Seats ratio (1:37). If 78 seats were fitted then 3 F/A's would be required which would make it uneconomical. The NZ rule, I believe, is 1 F/A to 50 pax (not seats) which means that 2 F/A's can crew the 78 seat configuration.

[Daqqy152]

If and its a big if (but arn't alll rumors?) ANZ gets the Q400-Q400X, Whos going to operate them Mt Cook or Air Nelson......Thinking about it.....
Why does ANZ run 3 Different airlines with 3 different types wouldnt it make more sense to run a common type in a common company structure?
B1900 replaced with Q200 (yes I know it has double the number of seats)
S340 well they are all gone now
ATR70 replaced with Q400-Q400X
Engineering overheads reduced
Training, its damn near a common type rating isnt it? (at least the same systems?? and the sim can changed to be set up for each type??)
and the company structure gets a chain saw taken to it (Mt Cook and Eagle cease to exist)
Or is ANZ to full of company politics to let that happen?:confused:

[flyby_kiwi]

Why does ANZ run 3 Different airlines with 3 different types

Answer: Because they would otherwise be faced with one big union strenth.

Ive always thought they should be run more closely even if they keep thier own identities and T&C. Ive seen and heard of so many examples of $$$ going down the drain by not working more closely.

Seems that beacuse the vote is going on...... Ill go with the Q4. Of course there are others far more up with the play than your truely.

[ramyon]

I think that in terms of operating economics the q400x is the obvious choice and I think that's the choice Air NZ would like to go with.

However,the threat of Pacific blue introducing RJ's on regional routes
may cause them to preempt this by launching jets themselves. After all how much market share would Air NZ stand to loose to pacific blue if they were offering jet flights for much the same price that air NZ is offering prop flights? Customer perceptions are that Jets are faster more comfortable and safer...... If I was average Joe flying from PMN -Akl for example I'd rather fly on a jet. Of course if the prop flight was 20% cheaper then this might affect my decision. The reality is though Pacific blue will match Air NZ for price every step of the way...


Another question I would raise is why aren't they considering a mix of 190s and the smaller 170-175s? 104 seats seems a little over kill to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Pacific Blue launches 170's on regional routes. This size of aircraft could offer similar frequency to the current ATR's, but operating purely the larger 190's may mean a real reduction in frequencies offered to some regional centres like Dunedin and Invercargill for example. In my opinion they already suffer from a lack of flight frequency.

One thing that also caught my attention was the announcement that 15 larger aircraft would be purchased to replace 11 smaller ones..
This is a huge increase in capacity, Air NZ seems very optimistic that 40-50% growth in regional passenger numbers is achieveable. Or does Air NZ mean to augment these aircraft with a future new trunk fleet? In five years could we see a large fleet of 190's flying regional routes and supplementing additional airbus equipment on the trunks and maybe even some thinner international routes?


Seems to me that Air NZ is watching the Qantas-link (q400) and Virgin (170-190) situation very closely to see which aircraft passengers choose to fly on. This will help them base their decision...I think that the E-jets would have to impress them alot so I'm picking Q400's. This is due to superior field flexibility , operating costs and a certain level of fleet comonality with the Q300s. but I hope that I'm wrong it would be cool to see Jets in the regions.......like my hometown of Nelson for example ( busy regional airport with a short runway 1347m:{) Would a 190 be able to land there? Looking forward to the March decision:D

[Cypher]

I did wonder if Pac Blue was/is considering bring their E-Jets over to compete...
you could pick and chose what routes you decided to hit Air NZ on with the E-Jet.. take the pick of the lot instead of having to service everywhere..
My pick would be maybe AKL-PMR, CHC-PMR, and most definenly ZQN-ROT or ROT-CHC... I wasn't sure how successful Origin's TRG-CHC service was... but I heard HLZ-CHC wasn't doing too badly either with a ATR...
I suppose the question would be, if I was Pac Blue would be; how deep are my pockets, and can I fill those E170s... to 62% to break even
(for the E170)
With fuel prices these days, just constantly going up.. it would be hard to beat a Q400 in terms of fuel costs...and with us being in NZ, there is something else to consider... being a tree hugging government, emissions trading for airlines in NZ is on the horizon. (2011ish or beyond) With the Q400 burning 30% less gas and producing maybe 30% less CO2 that could be the final nail in the E Jet coffin...

P.S.. Looks like you could bring a E170 into NSN... abeit at reduced weight..

Max landing weight takes 1274 metres to land...
With fuel for 500 nm, takeoff distance is 1147 metres. That would be more than enough for NSN-AKL-Alternate... just depends how much 'profit' you want to sacrafice... ;) but it would look cool...

[flyby_kiwi]

Im sure the public will say how great a jet would be and the perceptions that it will be safer etc etc etc..... but when it comes to buying a ticket, two things will be the priority...

1: It is the CHEAPEST ticket on offer.

2: If he/she is not paying for it or the cost is not a consideration then SCHEDULE REGULARITY will be the next deciding factor.

Can a jet deliver to the regions on the above?

[tartare]

...and at the end of the day... the accountants rule, and that's not a bad thing.
I know that'll p*&s a lot of you off... but that's the business.
The guy with the Scottish name is a good bastard, and won't let them make any dumb decisions... I hope...

[pakeha-boy]

alangifvan.....yeah mate...I know they fly RJS.....I flew for them for 10 yrs....and I flew their metros,dorniers and their F28,s......I dont argue your points.....(get with the picture here)...////they now run their Dash 400, all the way to KLAX from portland(go figure the mileage).....by the way their fleet(RJS) is not considerable at all......and if youd done your homework you would know that Horizon had to dump quite a few of those RJS into frontiers lap(another story)....because of the costs associated with running them as compared to their fleet of 400s.....

We can debate until the cows come home...my point was merely that a company like Horizon runs a fleet of 400,s and does it very well...they run RJ,s to compliment the fleet and are very careful how they intergrate these A/C and their use...... the truth is that if Horizon could have pulled out of the RJ leases ...they would have...Frontier came to the rescue.....their "considerable fleet" as you call it is made up of Dash200/400,s.....that is their bread and butter......that is their $$$$$$$$$$


A regional fleet of 400,s in kiwi,would and is the wisest and most economical choice.....ask Continental airlines what the think of their fleet of RJS......THEY HAVE A USE,BUT ITS VERY LIMITED.....the costs of running RJS and 400,s is no comparison

Is USAirways complaining about them...YES WE ARE!!!!!!!..Ifly the A321 for them.....and the cost of operating the fleet of RJ,S of all our feeder fleets is through the roof.....our mgt has constantly complained of their costs compared tp our 737/319 fleet.....they have less seats and cost about the same to operate...why the hell do you thing weve ordered the E-190,s......and not more RJS.....(your a little out of your depth here)....I,d add a few other comments...but its xmas,and I wish you and all yours the best for the new year.....if you are a pilot???(airline)fly safe!

[alangirvan]

Horizon Air's fleet includes the following aircraft (as of November 2007) [4] :

* 18 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 Q200
* 33 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 Q400
* 20 Bombardier CRJ-700ER

That looks like a reasonable number of CRJs to me. The contract with Frontier was terminated earlier this year,and Frontier are now working with an operator who flies... ERJ-170s. This is all publicly available information on the web for people who take the time to look it up. The latest article says that Horizon will dispose of 16 Q200s. Go figure that one.


I asked are airlines complaining about E-190s, not RJs. You said USAirways are adding E-190s. I think Continental has 50 seat RJs operating for it because its pilots agreements require jets over 50 seats to be operated by company pilots. Q400s will do a very good job for them because TPs do not have this restriction.

If AirNZ chooses the Q400 it will be a very good aircraft in this country. I think when passengers try it, they will like it.


A quick look at schedules for LAX to PDX shows Horizon operating CR7s as codeshares for AS (Alaskan) and AA (American). Sorry, I don't feel like looking up the satellite airports in Southern California, so maybe they operate Q400s into Burbank or Long Beach or Ontario. They are competing against United, US Airways and Southwest who all operate jets. Compliments of the season to you.

[alangirvan]

(The inbound tourists don't have a choice. Most of them arrive on tours that cover the country in 1 week. And they want to see Rotorua and Queenstown as part of their trip. There is no alterative to flying. To drive that route would take at least 2-3 days. I'm sure they would prefer a jet, however Air NZ is the only game in town. Even if Pac Blue decided to go after that route with a E-jet, the question is whether you have enough volume to meet your 61% breakeven point. (60 seats in a E-190) While competing against an Air NZ ATR or Q400.)

Qantas does fly Queenstown-Christchurch-Rotorua with 737s, so AirNZ is not the only game in town. ATRs or Q400s might give better frequency. OriginPacific had ATRs to fly this route for Qantas.

Break even fares are a bit hidden, because if you are talking about a tour group, Qantas or AirNZ will have sold a bulk fare to the wholesaler. Do many NZers fly between Rotorua and CHC and ZQN anyway?

I think the Q400 has a lot to offer NZ on some routes. If AirNZ does go for the 90 seater Q400X, and decides to use it on long sectors like AKL to the far south of the South Island, this country will be down to AKL-WLG and AKL-CHC and the tourist route Rotorua-CHC-ZQN as the only routes that use jets at all. Even AKL-WLG, a Q400X could give half-hourly departures, and no difference in block time, but would people accept this on the biggest domestic route?

[Lo-Bank]

How is the scope clause going to affect Mt Cook getting jets? I thought it would be a no go for the E190's. ANZ itself must think there's a way around it.

[Cypher]

I'm pretty sure the B737s still fly a lot of domestic in NZ

AKL-WLG-AKL
AKL-CHC-AKL
AKL-DUD-AKL
AKL-ZQN-AKL

ROT-CHC
CHC-WLG-CHC
CHC-ZQN-CHC
CHC-ZQN-ROT-CHC

Looks like a pretty substanial route structure for the B737 to me.

The Q400X I think would supplement the B737, not replace it.
I don't think Air NZ would cut much B737 flying out, on most of these routes they need the capacity of the B737, pax and freight. Sure at low traffic times, throw a Q400 on it, but during peak, they probably need a B737.

And I think the 73 would be safe for some time yet as they use the fleet to go AKL-NIUE-AKL and to other Pacific destinations time to time.
And I hear that two more are coming from Air Malta on dry lease... as well as using the Blue Bus (Thompsonfly) which we see around the skies at the moment.

You could easily put the Q400 on the ZQN-CHC-ROT route, and occasionally throw a B737 on at peak times like they do now, and still tell everyone that you fly a jet on that route.

JetConnect (Qantas) only fly ZQN-ROT once a day, all you do as Air NZ is make sure at the times they fly, you put a B737 on at the same time.

Sorry to harp on, this topic is something I love debating about.. :)

[Skystar320]

Sent via morse code in deep dark offices of Air New Zealand, contracts signed for 10 x EMB-145 aircraft optioned 5 more

[tartare]

Well if that's the case... good luck Brucie boy... cos its going to bite ya in the bum...

[Cypher]

I reckon!!! :eek:
If that really is the case... I'll go get a few Q400s myself and start up an airline and eat ERJs for breakfast....
:)

You sure it wasn't Iwi Jet or what ever that went for those?
They said they couldn't find a favorable lease agreement nor get the ERJ quick enough, hence their shift to the BAE 146

[Lo-Bank]

A 50 seater jet to replace a 68 seat TP, I find that hard to believe. They want more capacity not less.

[tartare]

Yeah... cmon Cypher...lets do it.
Mortgage the house... load up the credit card and take on Fyfewit and the rest of them..

[alangirvan]

New E-145s are hardly built at all by Embraer now. New build 145s are now built in Hainan, China. If this one did turn out to be true, this plane would push up the cost of flying to regional centres to the point where people will drive instead. Bring back passenger trains.

[Skystar320]

I am glad to see people see my scarcasm in this post.

Why would they go ERJ, or Regional Jets. Turboprops will be the way to go i.e more frequency

[alangirvan]

(I'm pretty sure the B737s still fly a lot of domestic in NZ

AKL-WLG-AKL
AKL-CHC-AKL
AKL-DUD-AKL
AKL-ZQN-AKL

ROT-CHC
CHC-WLG-CHC
CHC-ZQN-CHC
CHC-ZQN-ROT-CHC

Looks like a pretty substanial route structure for the B737 to me.)

You are right about those, but CHC-WLG is mainly an ATR route. Qantas will be restarting 737 service and Pacific Blue have thrown 737-800s at the route, which is a bit of a waste of a big plane on a route that is 189 miles. No question, on routes as short as that the ATR is the best plane. There must be some routes that are so short that they would be too short for a high performance TP like a Q400. AirNZ could already use Q300s if they did not mind losing a few seats compared with ATR. Or if Qantas feel like doing NZ services with more frequencies they could bring some Q300s here as they are displaced from Australian service by their Q400s.


Yesterday we were talking about how far is too far in a Q400. Some airlines do use Q400s on routes of 600 miles Canberra-Brisbane. There must be a spot somewhere that the 100 seater jets start to win over fast TPs. I don't think the manufacturers or the airlines are going to share that data in a forum. Size does matter for the jet. If 50 seater jets and 70 seater jets cost as much as big jets to operate, that shows that Qantas and AirNZ have been right to reject them.

If the 100 seater E-190 is starting to prove itself in North America and Europe - reliability, operating costs and passenger appeal - local operators will have to ask what can this plane do that Q400s and 737-300s cannot.

[goodsar]

No easy answer to what AirNZ will do on regional domestic. It can't make the choice based entirely on its cost structures because there is a dynamic market out there, and it has to be sure how its potential pax will react. Some are happy with cheap and cheerful, others want a different offering.
There is a very interesting article in October Pacific Wings, talking about some of the issues likely to play out in the NZ aviation market.
AirNZ will have to be careful, as the wrong choice will cost it market share, and with some of the big players emerging, it can't afford to drop share.

[Cloud Cutter]

Interesting times.

Sounds like 6 of VBs E-Jets are NZ bound before too long. Not sure how 'regional' they'll be flying though. I paxed on one of these things the other day, and from a passenger comfort point of view, I think they beat an ATR or Dash hands down.

As has been stated, it will all come down to the public's willingness to pay a 'jet' premium. Many of use look straight to the bottom line when booking a flight, but I'm not convinced this is the case in the world of the frequent business traveler.

Having said that, I haven't traveled on the newer turboprop options being considered by Air NZ, and numbers-wise I think the new Q400 would be hard to go passed (provided they've ironed out the quality problems of the original design).

[ramyon]

There is a very interesting article in October Pacific Wings, talking about some of the issues likely to play out in the NZ aviation market.
AirNZ will have to be careful, as the wrong choice will cost it market share, and with some of the big players emerging, it can't afford to drop share.

:ok: exactly

The choice is not just an accounting decision it is also a strategic marketing decision, meaning that Air NZ will choose a type that will best help protect it's large and very lucrative regional market share.

[alangirvan]

More thoughts about VirginBlue and jets - when VB started in Australia, they said any town with a population of more than 60 000 was a candidate for their service, and that was a long time before RJs were thought about. Then VB started flying from Sydney to Coffs Harbor, which is about half way between Sydney and Brisbane. They provided one daily service at an off peak time, with a nice cheap fare, and they happily said they were doing it, to use the plane outside peak times. The plane a 737-700 was far bigger than the Saabs and Dash 8s on the market at the time. Not only did the jet take people off those services, it took people off regional services to other nearby towns. The operators of regional aircraft cannot really compete against a big plane that happens to be dumped in their market.

If you looked at the market, the regional airlines provided good frequencies, which allowed people from a regional town to go to Sydney for a days business and avoid an overnight stay, but people liked the fares on the Virgin service.

[muttly's pigeon]

alangirvan,

Cheaper fares are all well and good but trying to survive forever by selling super cheap tickets is another thing..... Virgin has done well and Im sure they will continue to do so but remember they were handed nearly half the market overnight with the collapse of Ansett and have yet to see a decent recession.
Costs can only be cut so far and eventually it will be the big spenders who keep the airlines going...... Ive always personally believed that the full service players will survive longer than the (not all) LCC's.

The NZ regional game: As cloud and flybe said..... It will be a factor of who is prepared to pay a 'jet' premium, and those who can will place the shedule ahead of the jet factor anyway. The rest (like me) will go with whoever is $10 cheaper :ok:

[terronnd]

If its got jet motors, and more than 70 seats, the Mt Cook guys could be out of work.............................

[tartare]

Of course the other issue is... any more than 50 pieces of self loading freight, and I think you need an extra flight attendant?
What does that do to your business case?
Makes TP economics even more imperative.
I know for a fact that on one route in the past that shall remain nameless, flown by an airline that shall remain nameless, the profit per sector with a full load of pax was, well, lets say less than NZ$100.:sad:
The margins are really, really scarily thin.

[Cypher]

The other consideration also with jets to the regions, is, having flown a jet on some short New Zealand sectors, is that your limited to 250 KIAS below 10000' anyway. Some of the sectors we're crusing for about 5 minutes before we start descent. Then we hit 10,000' and we slow down to turboprop speeds. Same in the climb, unless out of AKL, WLG or CHC, 250 KIAS climb when we could climb at 270-300 KIAS.

Another side issue, I assume, yeah, assume that these E-jets are Cat C aircraft, that really ups the mins at some of these regional airports. Everyone starts flying jets, and on crappy days when you would have gotten in on a good ole TP, you can't anymore... wonder if the disrupt rate would increase?

[alangirvan]

If you fly in a jet between Canberra and Sydney, the time in the air is 20 minutes. If you were flying in Ansett First Class, you had to eat your breakfast omelette very quickly.


Smaller jets of all sorts are flying all around Europe and North America, where they have to use airports on days that are almost as crappy as NZ. If any airline wants to fly into Queenstown, they might even use RNP, which is expensive, but does get the plane into the airport on days when other planes are diverting to Dunedin and Invercargill.

[romansandal]

"The rocketing price of jet fuel has prompted the industry to rethink its jets- first strategy on short-haul routes (less than 500 miles, or about 800 km). Seattle-based regional carrier Horizon Air, owned by Alaska Air, was a hard sell on the Q400 until it couldn't get deliveries of the CRJ-700, a 70-seater regional jet, from the Canadian company. So Horizon grudgingly ordered 12 turboprops, and the airline hasn't looked back. "We found out very quickly that the Q400 was a completely different animal," says Pat Zachweija, until recently a top executive at Alaska Air Group. Horizon, with 33, has the most Q400s of any fleet in North America and expects to have 48--70% of its fleet--by 2009. "The economics were there," he says. "And as fuel goes up, we just look smarter and smarter." The Q400 might allow the regional to go up against low-cost, short-haul king Southwest and its fleet of Boeing 737s"

[pakeha-boy]

Quote.......Horizon, with 33, has the most Q400s of any fleet in North America and expects to have 48--70% of its fleet--by 2009. "The economics were there," he says. "And as fuel goes up, we just look smarter and smarter." The Q400 might allow the regional to go up against low-cost, short-haul king Southwest and its fleet of Boeing 737s"


I....REST....MY.....CASE

[alangirvan]

Some airlines still seem to like CRJs.



TORONTO - Bombardier Aerospace (TSX:BBD.B) has won a US$773-million order from SkyWest Inc. of St. George, Utah, to supply 22 more regional jets.

The deal for 18 CRJ700 NextGen jets and four CRJ900 NextGen jets includes 22 options that SkyWest can apply to either aircraft, Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. said Friday.

It's the first order for CRJ NextGen aircraft by SkyWest, which through its SkyWest Airlines and Atlantic Southeast Airlines subsidiaries, already operates the world's largest CRJ fleet, with 363 aircraft.

Its fleet includes 244 CRJ200, 102 CRJ700 and 17 CRJ900 regional jets.

The CRJ700 NextGen aircraft, with 66 seats in a three-class configuration, will be operated under SkyWest's United Express banner, while the four CRJ900 NextGen jets, with 76 seats in a two-class arrangement, will be operated under SkyWest's Delta Connection banner.

"We are very excited to have SkyWest become the 12th customer to select the CRJ NextGen aircraft since the program was launched in May," said Steven Ridolfi, president of Bombardier Regional Aircraft, with operations based in Toronto.

The order "builds on operational efficiencies and aircraft reliability that SkyWest has enjoyed for 15 years as a CRJ U.S. launch customer," said Jerry Atkin, chairman and CEO of SkyWest Inc.

Including this transaction, Bombardier has recorded firm orders for 1,623 CRJ Series aircraft. As of Oct. 31, 1,452 of them had been delivered to operators around the world.

Bombardier is a global manufacturer of transportation products, from regional aircraft and business jets to rail transportation equipment, systems and services, Its revenues for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31 were US$14.8 billion.

[alangirvan]

"In the past, Horizon Air had an extensive contract flying arrangement with Frontier Airlines, serving smaller markets from Frontier's Denver hub under the name Frontier JetExpress. Both Horizon and Frontier decided to part ways after three years of service. The nine CRJ-700 that have been in use for Frontier JetExpress have been re-introduced into the Horizon route structure starting as of November 30, 2007. Horizon has also announced that CommutAir will sub-lease 16 of their Dash 8 Q-200 aircraft also beginning next year."

This Wikipedia article is a bit more recent than Time in August.

[puma pants]

Jets for the regionals.... In your dreams boys (and girls)!
Mt Cook will get Q400's whenever the time comes.

[pakeha-boy]

alangirvan....mate...nobody argues your point,yours are valid.....the problem with your argument is that Skywest has the abiliity to expand with a customer base far larger than kiwi......they, if they choose could expand markets into Canada,Mexico....like other have done....Horizon did,Mesa did etc....these customer bases are huge........New Zealand,is not


.....I dont disagree with the premis that these jets do a great job.....I argue their viabilty in a limited market......compared with other A/C (TURBOPROPS) that would suit the market ........


you know what mate....for xmas ,I,m going to buy you your own bloody RJ!!!! HOWZAT......PB

NB.....that would be skywest in the US.....not OZ..(just to clarify)

[alangirvan]

Pakeha-Boy - I am not arguing your points - either. If you want to buy me an RJ for Christmas, it will probably sit in the carpark of my Gourment Pizza Restaurant (that one is also dream territory.) I do know the difference between SkyWest in Utah and Skywest in WA.

"Southwest is a major winner if oil prices go up, due to it being almost the only airline with fuel hedging in place. Southwest has 70% of its fuel purchases hedged in 2008, 55% in 2009, and even 25% already hedged for far out 2010. The more that oil prices go up, the greater Southwest's competitive advantage over its competitors becomes. Southwest should be (and almost certainly secretly is) hoping for massive increases in fuel costs." Quote from a US Travel newsletter, sent to me tonight.

Anyway, discussing how Horizon and Southwest might compete against each other in the US is getting a bit off topic discussing what AirNZ might start using in the next year or so. For what is worth I have had good contact with Bombardier/DeHavillandCanada over the years, and I think the Q400/Q400X has a lot to offer NZ. Some of the current Q300 routes will grow into Q400 routes, and some of the Mount Cook flights - Christchurch to Hamilton, Christchurch to Tauranga are sectors where the Q400 will cover the distance a bit more quickly than the ATRs. Once the Q400s are here, AirNZ will probably try them to test reaction. They will supplement not replace all jet services. Since I live in Dunedin, I pay attention to what happens to this city. If two daily jets between DUD and AKL became three Q400X daily flights, despite the extra frequency, Dunedin local politicians would describe it as a kick in the guts (just as the Deputy Mayor did today regarding Transit funding of a motorway in Dunedin.) If AirNZ keeps the two jets, and tries a midday flight between DUD and AKL with a Q400, and perhaps nicer food than we get on a jet, (Food to the quality of food served on a Qantaslink service in Australia.) people might enjoy that. If Dunedin continues to have jets at peak time on DUD -WLG and perhaps two Q400s during the day the city would not feel as though it is getting second class service.

My prediction is that Q400s will be here sooner rather than later. But AirNZ will have to watch how things go in Australia. I do not know if AirNZ and Virgin Blue exchange performance data on aircraft types, but if E-190s go well in Australian conditions, how can AirNZ ignore that?

[pakeha-boy]

mate...would agree with that assessment...a combo of sorts would certainly work and to cater it to "travelling times" is nothing but good mgt.....having the 190,s is on the cards....****e we ran the 146,s for years.....a huge mistake in the end(mainly because of expense)remoak will argue that one.......but I flew on them many times and even in the jumpseat....they were a comfortable piece of euipment...most people I talked too enjoyed them

.....bottom line......regional service in kiwi must fall in line with "what is expected"....we are capable of running these operations to high standards,...we have the customer base,the infrastructure etc.....but we also need to "pick-the-right" A/C...and hopefully a mgt team that wont faark its employees....

I commute on the 400s a couple of times a month...they are comfortable and fast on the short haul....talk to the pilots/F/A,s....bugger all complaints.....

Dunedin ay...arrested several times at the drinking tourneys........doctors,medical students cant chug piss worht a ****e when it comes to the lincoln wallys.....all the best mate..PB

[NZScion]

doctors,medical students cant chug piss worht a ****e when it comes to the lincoln wallys

And this matters for what reason? You are obviously a champion with your drinking abilities. Congratulations on getting sloshed. :rolleyes:

[goodsar]

You are travelling on business, so you are not as cost sensitive as discretionary leisure travellers. You are out of IVC at 6.40am, destined for a day long meeting in WLG. One operator has a jet out of IVC, one has a turbo-prop. The turbo prop is $20 less, perhaps. Pac Blue could easily discount to buy market share. Does it matter to Mr Businessman? I think not.
On the other hand, a leisure traveller away for a few days, will not have any jet v. propellor sensitivity, would prefer a lower fare, and would probably take the turbo-prop.
Two markets are represented - maybe the Air NZ approach should be to mix the fleet - regional jets at critical business travel times, turbo-props at othertimes. The best of both worlds, and a block to the Pac Blue regional E-jet threat.

[NoseGear]

First, NZScion, get a sense of humour mate, it never killed anyone. If you read PB's posts, hes a bloke with a blokes, pig hunting sense of humour, which you obviously dont share. Dont clog up the airwaves with your high and mighty ok?:ugh:
As for the RJs, PB is right again, I used to fly the CRJ200/700 and while they are nice and comfortable, the economics on short sectors dont add up. We had a bunch of them, and our boss was gagging to get 737s and/or A320s as they had much better seat mile costs than the RJ. We operated the RJs on longer sectors, around 1 to 1.5 hours, than you would get in NZ, and those costs dont get better with shorter sectors. As an example, when I flew the Saab340 we used to burn around 600KGs say, to Napier, 45mins or so. An RJ would be maybe 5mins faster, but would burn around 1000kgs. These figures are from a fading memory, but pretty close. If you look at purely fuel costs, then its around another 600NZD to operate that flight. Its a captive market to a degree, in that they fly ANZ, or no one, so the type doesn't figure in the customers purchasing. Added to the pure fuel costs would be aircraft aquisiton, crew training and recurrency, maintenance and training, and whatever else I cant think of.
I personally think the Q400 is a very good option for the ATR. Add in commonality in parts and maintanance, training etc with the Q300, its hard to go past. I could forsee a time when Eagle operated the 30seat version Q200, it would be capable of WR and other short runways, Air Nelson the current 50seater and Chook the Q400. Imagine the savings as I would think, (stand to be corrected) they would be a common type, in at least you could use the same sim, perhaps apart from the Q400. The incidences in SAS aside, which from reading the accident reports are not a fault of the Q400 itself, more maintanance issues and part issues, I think the Q400 is almost ideally suited for the NZ market. I remember a chart that had the SAAB2000 range/time circles against a jet for NZ on the trunk routes, and they were almost identical at those distances around NZ. Of course, I dont make the financial decisions either, or we'd all be rich!:E:}:ok:
Nosey

[Cypher]

Theres always one in every thread isn't there...
http://www.sportsgamer.com/forums/images/smilies/mn/loser.gif
Do us a favour NZScion.. go back to Ardmore...

[NZScion]

First of all, I have nothing against people having a good time. I take issue with people who need to get trolleyed to have a good time. PB's comments tend to imply that he belongs in the latter group.

Secondy, I have nothing to do with Ardmore, and probably would never go there, even if you paid me...

[alangirvan]

It is not just RJs. People used to say that F-28s were just as expensive to run as 737-200s, with a lot less seats. F-28 80-85 seats, 737-200 112-121 seats in AirNZ single class configuration. Some people think that 100 seats is the minimum number of seats for a jet, so surely the CRJ-1000 which has not flown yet, will have to be a big improvement over 50 seater and 70 seater jets. The E-190 would be the minimum size you could justify operating from Embraer. I know Virgin have just got four E-170s for Australia, but that is a very small part of their order for E-jets, most will be E-190s.

We are talking about Regional, where an airline buys one plane to provide service to a smaller city. But, as I discussed, Virgin dump a 737 in Coffs Harbor, NSW in the middle of the day. It uses a plane during a quiet time on the main routes. If Pacific Blue decided to provide one daily flight between Napier and Auckland at 2pm and they offered lead in prices of $39, how would you go providing four daily Q400 flights with a lead in price of $79? PB may be more conservative in 2008 than they were in 2001/2002 in Australia, but an airline cannot expect that other airlines will work in a conventional way.

[Cloud Cutter]

NZScion

Get a life.

PB, what are ya having mate, this round's on me :}

[pakeha-boy]

alangirvan...mate,you make a valid point...my only answer to that would be...airlines and personal are all structered very differently...when it comes to marketing,you will see on occasion, off the wall ideas and attempts to gain ground or a monopoly in certain areas.......many airlines have done well others,dust in the wind

dont know what to tell you....pandora,s box,crystal ball...your choice...one thing is for sure...for those of us that fly this equipment and take the time to analyze the way in which they are operated.......our suggestions here and to mgt should and will never be ignored...that is the nature of the beast.......the stuff Ifly......and the way I fly it, is common knowledge,it is all recorded and known......we have to know our faults to correct them.....

The F-28,s(1000 and 4000,s )are a very expensive piece of equipment to operate,Iflew them for several years(Horizon)....they served a purpose and are now piss cans......the question of 400,s v,s Rj,s I believe (and this is obvious)will ultimatley come down to their $$$$..seat cost per mile....I see no other way around it...there is enough data/info around on each of these A/C.....that a couple of nights down at the northcoate(the trough)would resolve all issues......mate my choice...400,s

cloud mate...a tui if you please...

....no offence taken,the young fella has the right to speak his mind,I dont begrudge him....when your 21 you will....(bugger it,ILL bite my tounge)....

[Cypher]

Alan, as said before.. you bring some good valid points to the table..

That would be an interesting arguement, one flight in the day vs several smaller ones throughout the day..
I think in that case.. it maybe a convenience factor, can I connect from Napier to my flight to Los Angeles with minimum time in Auckland, hopefully avoiding a overnight.
This is where the Q400 I think may cut the jet off. I could pay $39 to get to Napier, in the middle of the day, however if I'm a business man, I want to get there in the morning, do my business and get out of Napier in the late afternoon, avoiding a overnight.

So with that example..

Q400 flight
0900 AKL-NPE / $79

1730 NPE-AKL / $79
Total $158

B737 or What ever it turns out to be
1230 AKL-NPE / $39

Hotel - $130-$160
Per Diem / Meal allowance $100

1230 next day NPE-AKL /$39

Total $321

I know which one my friendly bean counter is going to make me take!
So the jet, once a day doesn't work for the business man/woman. And how much depth is there in the leisure holiday market for that route? Kiwis like to drive with the family on holiday.... most of the time...

I think VB chose Coffs Harbour because it is a leisure destination, people on holiday don't really care what time they get to their destination. The middle of the day works really well, late breakfast, sleep in, get to my destination in Coffs, check in, few beers, etc... and as you said, they had a free aircraft. The numbers worked, as there is 9 million in Sydney, offer good depth into that market.

That idea maywell work on the AKL-ZQN-AKL route, make ZQN a attractive domestic destination.

[kiwipilot02]

Air NZ are increasing the 733 nz649 -nz650 late evening Dunedin-Auckland direct services to 6 days a week adding Monday and Tuesday from February.I think a direct Auckland -Dunedin 733 service is planned for early Sunday afternoon in 2008 making 3 direct Auckland -Dunedin services on a Sunday.

[iceblock]

A couple of facts on a rumour network....

It is standard practice to make a shortlist of aircraft for fleet replacement and then send out requests for information to manufacturers.

Talking to a manufacturer is also standard practice not a signal they are ready to sign.

They may have a favourite in mind, but when the price is nailed down, this may change the outcome.

This happened with the Q300 which trumped the ATR on price.

The same process was followed with the 747 replacement. The options were A380, 747-800, 787,(more of them) 777.

Obviously some of these options were not going to ever get off the ground.

Once a decision is made it goes to the board for approval. Nothing gets signed spur of the moment while meeting with a manufacturer. That was the Ansett way.....

When the decision is made the replacement will be utilised as best as it can on routes suitable for it operated by Mt Cook.

This has nothing to do with the 737 replacement. That will likely be the next generation 737 / 320 somewhere around 2015.

Try putting a Q400 on the main trunk and you need another 50% flights just to provide the same capacity.

You get longer sector times, problems with lack of gates and no airbridges.

Not likely

[alangirvan]

http://www.flightglobal.com/staticpages/schedules.html

The link above is the one I use when I wonder how many airlines operate on any particular route in the world. I think Flightglobal has it for people who have nothing better to do than wonder about these things.

A quick look at the Sydney to Coffs harbor example shows that now 2007 there are several Qantas flights using Q300s, and Virgin now has twice daily with 737-700s. I would guess this will become an E-190 city for Virgin when they build up their fleet.

So, it was not Qantas who suffered, it was Rex, the airline who operated Saab340s. In NZ, a small regional operator could not compete against the size of AirNZ in the market, or Virgin, just seeing how they go. If Origin Pacific was still around and flying Auckland Nelson against the AirNZ frequency, and PB seeing how they go, they would have the difficulties, whatever their existing problems were, just as Rex needed a lot of sorting out.

If you are a business traveller, then the AirNZ service will make sense. People who take the middle of the day flight, will forget about the cost of a hotel in the big smoke city. If you are travelling for a medical appointment you have to go at the time that makes best use of your time.

If there is a jet selling $39 fares, it may take people off the roads or make them think about a trip that they would not have planned.

Qantas has done a very good job of surviving against the cheap airlines who undercut it. Even leisure travellers choose Qantas for domestic trips, just because it is Qantas. (One of the ads for Holden in Australia, was "we bought it because it was a Holden.") People will still use AirNZ for that reason.

On the other hand, if Tiger enters the NZ market, and some consumer affairs issues are sorted out, if they offer people in Dunedin $10 lead in fares to Auckland you can expect the phone network in Dunedin to melt down in 15 minutes.

[alangirvan]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3741644/

This is a link to a thread that shows why Continental have chosen the Q400 to replace the E-145 out of Newark.

[Lo-Bank]

iceblock
This has nothing to do with the 737 replacement. That will likely be the next generation 737 / 320 somewhere around 2015.
Back before the Q300 was decided on, as I understand it, a domestic fleet evaluation took place which included the 737 and down. What then transpired was that they replaced a 32 seater with a 50 seater. So what they now require is a 90 to 100 seater to replace the ATR.

Now at the moment the Q400X is only a paper aeroplane and the only option for a 90 seater is a jet, but to make that work efficiently it may need to do some 737 routes and this would maybe affect 737 fleet. Whether this will affect the fleet replacement of the 737 who knows, but I think certainly that pac blue entering the regional market (I think it's going to happen) has changed the way of thinking with the domestic fleet mix.

Then they have covered their butt with pac blue and can still use the Q300 for possible cheap turbo-prop operator.:)

[apacau]

An E-jet order (especially a E190) has the added advantage of opening up additional trans-tasman opportunities. Canberra-AKL/WLG and Hobart-CHC/WLG spring to mind. CHC-ADL too, if it has the legs.

[pilotdude09]

Even the 717 would have been a good jet for NZ and able to service the regions but assume it would have been a bit too big! This would be better if QF was to expand to Dunners etc

Anyone know which is cheaper to operate?

Q400
717
CRJ
E-Jet

:confused:

[Going Boeing]

(Newtown, Conn., December 10, 2007) -- In its latest study on "The Market for Regional Transport Aircraft," Forecast International projects that 3,800 regional aircraft will be produced from 2007 through 2016, including 2,539 regional jets and 1,261 regional turboprops. The new study estimates the overall value of this production at $99.7 billion, as measured in constant 2007 U.S. dollars.

While regional jets remain the dominant products in the market, regional turboprop airliners are continuing to experience a remarkable resurgence in demand. Accounting for the revival of market interest in turboprops is a combination of factors, including continuing growth in air traffic, rising fuel prices, and a need on the part of regional airlines to cut costs and reduce fares in the face of low-fare carrier competition.

ATR and Bombardier are the two leading manufacturers of regional turboprops, and have been busily ramping up production rates to meet the robust demand for their products. According to Forecast International senior aerospace analyst Raymond Jaworowski, "ATR and Bombardier stayed in the regional turboprop business while many of their competitors were dropping out, and they are now reaping the rewards of their perseverance."

Looking to further take advantage of the robust market demand, ATR recently launched enhanced -600 versions of its 50-seat ATR 42 and 70-seat ATR 72 turboprops and has begun considering development of a 90-seat model. Bombardier, meanwhile, has been mulling the possible launch of a 90-seat version of its 70-seat Q400 turboprop.

As for jet-powered aircraft, regional jet demand has been shifting ever upward to larger-capacity aircraft. The market for 50-seat regional jets is but a slim shadow of what it was in the late 1990s, and demand is currently concentrated on 70-seat and especially 90-seat aircraft. However, scope clauses in airline pilot contracts remain an artificial constraint on sales of 90-125 seat regional jets, and an easing of this situation is needed before the market can reach its full potential.

Bombardier and Embraer currently dominate the regional jet market. With a product line stretching to 122 seats, Embraer is the better-positioned of the two to take advantage of the trend toward larger aircraft. Bombardier's current regional jet line tops out at 100 seats, though the firm is contemplating launch of a 110-130 seat aircraft family called the CSeries. Meanwhile, new regional jet models such as the AVIC I ARJ21, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, and the Mitsubishi Regional Jet models are in development, and will challenge the Embraer and Bombardier products for sales.

The Forecast International study projects that, during the 2007-2016 time period, Embraer will produce 1,268 regional jets, a market share of 33.4 percent. Bombardier is projected to build 1,067 regional aircraft (jets and turboprops combined), a share of 28.1 percent. ATR is forecast to build 395 regional turboprops for a 10.4 percent market share. No other company is predicted to have a unit production share exceeding 10 percent. The value of Embraer production during the forecast period is $40.7 billion, for a 40.8 percent market share. Bombardier is projected to build $33.1 billion worth of regional aircraft, for a 33.2 percent share. The value of forecast ATR production is estimated at $7.0 billion, a seven percent share.

Source : Forecast International Inc.

[alangirvan]

Just wondering... if an admired NZ Government minister scored a brilliant success in selling a NZ product to Russia, and Russia offered to pay this country by swapping 10 Russian Sukhoi SuperJets (95 seats.) would people reading this look forward to flying around this country in a Sukhoi SuperJet?

[1279shp]

FlyBe is a model I'd suggest ANZ will be looking closely at.

They're getting out of 146-300's and into ERJ-195's, on top of a big, and growing quickly, fleet of Q400's. They have reported plans of introducing QX once available. :cool:

Checking scheds they operate 195/Q400's on identical routes. Jets at peak times, Q400 off-peak.

With airfares of $0.19 and a hoard of competitors, they're claiming they have the fleet type to succeed. Seems they do! Though when your competitors drive J41's and Saab2000's ...

As for ANZ, the unfactored is of course what will become of the 733 fleet. With 120 odd high density in the 195, one might suggest that it will be a suitable type. It has certainly got the legs, if needed, trans-tasman.

My thought is MCA will operate the Q400/QX fleet - 11? - the ERJ's get operated by the 733 team?:ooh:

Over/out

PS: No-ones suggested 737-600 with optional winglets. Stick to what ya know?? :ok: Na, thought not.

[pakeha-boy]

shp........PS: No-ones suggested 737-600 with optional winglets. Stick to what ya know?? Na, thought not.


hehehehehehe ......mate,posts like that make me all warm and fuzzy inside:ok:

[NoseGear]

"....if an admired NZ Government minister...."
Well alan, theres your first problem!:E:ok:

[1279shp]

The 737-600 winglets pack isn't offered just yet, but will be real soon.
However - and this is where I got a tad carried away - the published break even distance/pax point is high, so Air NZ prob wouldn't bother with added cost/weight of winglets. :hmm:

Fact is, it is the NG version of the current 733 - easy(ish) type rating upgrade - and can be flown with as few as 100 seats and still be a winner! Though it would be a heavy 100 seater, can see the expressions on the beanie counters now factoring pay rates!:eek:

Makes some sense. Doesn't it Pakeha Boy?? :confused:

Which prob means it'll never be considered! :sad:

[NZScion]

I also heard a completely unsubstantiated rumour that ANZ were going to look at purchasing A319s to replace the B733s. This would have the advantage of parts and training commonality with the A320s (which would then be the entire narrowbody jet fleet), which would result in cost savings, so would make sense. This is however, just a rumour :suspect:

[pakeha-boy]

quote shp...."Makes some sense. Doesn't it Pakeha Boy?? ""..

mate,I,m with you....any and all ideas should be considered....combinations,etc.....

bottom line,is that discussions like this ultimatley open the eyes of many....

..me,I just want the see these regional airlines survive,and make it.....keep their employees employed and happy....this revolving door,of bad choices somehow needs to stop....there will and has to be a "good choice of A/C" that will keep the kiwi regional operations in good health......maybe a little far-fetched.....but shes possible...PB

[ZK-NSJ]

if air nz were to operate services for example

auckland-nelson-christchurch rtn

auckland-nelson-queenstown rtn
etc etc

with 737's it would bring the bigger aircraft to the regions whilst not
relying on filling the plane up at one port

[Cypher]

That sounds like a throw back to the Friendship days...

Dunno if I'd pay for a stop to get to CHC when my competitor has a direct flight....

[flyby_kiwi]

Problem is thats what Origin did. (ie Auckland to Nelson via New Plymouth etc), and going back further its also what the Friendships used to do....... Lots of full aeroplanes, just not the volume of ticket sales to match.

[Kiwiguy]

I'm kinda interested to hear more from 1279shp about the Flybe model and how in particular it beats the Saab 2000s and J.41s ?

Is that a byproduct of the aircraft types, their modus operandi or of the mismanagement of Saab and J.41 operators ?

Any enlargement offered and since on the topic, does the turn around of fortunes at REX tell us anything in this debate ?

[NZScion]

if air nz were to operate services for example

auckland-nelson-christchurch rtn

auckland-nelson-queenstown rtn
etc etc

with 737's it would bring the bigger aircraft to the regions whilst not
relying on filling the plane up at one port

Would a 737 be able to operate out of Nelson at all? The runway is only 1347m long...

[Kiwiguy]

NZNS has a PCN 19 ...F/B/X/T runway. Not much good for a loaded 733 with an ACN = 20 odd to 36 (or similar)


Now Westport, that's another story with PCN around 30!


Blenheim makes more sense in operational terms, but not marketing terms.

[alangirvan]

I'm kinda interested to hear more from 1279shp about the Flybe model and how in particular it beats the Saab 2000s and J.41s ?

Is that a byproduct of the aircraft types, their modus operandi or of the mismanagement of Saab and J.41 operators ?

Any enlargement offered and since on the topic, does the turn around of fortunes at REX tell us anything in this debate ?

I think you mean Saab 340s, the Saab 2000 is a very rare aircraft, never operated in this part of the world. A very nice plane to ride in, and great hospitality from the Saab sales people at Air Shows.

Flybe is a UK based airline. It has had several names, including Jersey European, British European,which became flybe. Some people may have turned up for British European flights expecting to fly in Tridentst, Viscounts and Vanguards, but British European was not BEA.

As a big regional operator in the UK, flybe used DHC-8-300s and BAe 146s are their main aircraft. They have now updated with Q400s and recently introduced the E-195. Flybe has made interesting use of their Q400s. They do operate some long stages, often when they are the only operator on the sector, but sometimes they do use turboprops against jets operated by BA.


The types operated by flybe now are much bigger than the Saabs and J41s, and it difficult to say that flybe's experience would mean anything for a New Zealand operator. Flybe have had years when they struggled - they compete against the big airlines, and against the LCCs who enter their markets. According to their website they have turned around this year.

For an operator is this country to learn from flybe, they would have to be planning to compete against a well established major operator, and they have to make money out of predominantly regional routes. It might be said that the 146 was the wrong type for an airline that was trying to re invent itself as a low cost carrier. Flybe does some things that LCCs do - it makes you pay a fee to check in your bags - imagine the howls here when somebody tries to introduce that.

Rex has turned around, with the fleet it already had - probably just a matter of getting its route structure right.

[ZK-NSJ]

air nz used to operate the old -200's out of queenstown at 1250m,
sure the runway would need a bit of work but the place is due for an upgrade soon

[alangirvan]

It was at Queenstown that one of the 737-200 spat parts of the engine out of the rear end of the JT8D

Boeing are doing special short field versions of the 737-600, if this aircraft would work with PCNs at smaller NZ airports

[Kiwiguy]

Short field is one thing Alan but low PCN is another. The 736 allowable gross weight for PCN 30 runways is 77,000lb versus a maximum 156,100lb for PCN 60.

Far too many of NZ's long enough runways have very low PCNs.

For the 733, it's max allowable gross weight on PCN 30 runways is 73,000lb.

You're not thinking of the 732 which had an engine failure and fire at WLG around 1998/1999 ?

I was watching that and the puffs of grey smoke. All looked very tame from my vantage but must have been worrisome to those aboard. Good thing it happened as the take off roll started and not once airborne.

[Skystar320]

I think you mean Saab 340 andthe Saab 2000 which are a very rare aircraft, never operated in this part of the world. A very nice plane to ride in, and great hospitality from the Saab sales people at Air Shows.


Someone needs to go read books and get the facts right!!!!!!!

Saab 340 [Yes]
Saab 2000 [Yes!]


:ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch:

[alangirvan]

"You're not thinking of the 732 which had an engine failure and fire at WLG around 1998/1999 ?

I was watching that and the puffs of grey smoke. All looked very tame from my vantage but must have been worrisome to those aboard. Good thing it happened as the take off roll started and not once airborne."

There were several incidents around the same time. I think it was a fault with reconditioned fan blades. Queenstown was one of them. I thought the Queenstown plane was in the air.

By the way, SkyStar 320 quoted me, and changed what I said. If SkyStar remembers Saab2000s in service in Australia/NZ please remind me. I had a lot of contact with the Saab Office in Sydney, and I had a ride in a Saab2000 at Singapore Air Show 1996. An excellent aircraft to ride.

[1279shp]

quote-alangirvan: Is that a by-product of the aircraft types, their modus operandi or of the mismanagement of Saab and J.41 operators ?

>>> According to my records, there were 63 Saab 2000 and 100 J41's built. The Saab could have been brilliant but they tried to re-invent too many things. The J41 likewise was great but - among other things - suffered from '1970's Jaguar XJS' syndrome with electricals. Plus it's a noisy beggar - even five blades aint going to quieten down a big Garrett!

quote-alangirvan: Flybe has made interesting use of their Q400s. They do operate some long stages, often when they are the only operator on the sector, but sometimes they do use turboprops against jets operated by BA.

>>> Air NZ is the only operator on a number of routes.
Would a pax take an Air NZ Q400 over a Qantas jet on say WN-CH? Of course, if it meant a hassle-free onward connection or a really cheap airfare (though this is perhaps open for debate and doubt!!).

There are examples currently of operators worldwide looking at, or actually backing out of, using jets on routes and replacing them with props, even when up against competitors still using jets.

Its all about $'s

quote-alangirvan: The types operated by flybe now are much bigger than the Saabs and J41s, and it difficult to say that flybe's experience would mean anything for a New Zealand operator.

>>> Like Flybe, Mount Cook Airline was once a 44 seat prop operator that grew into a 70 seat prop operator. Difference is MCA may or may not add jets. Though MCA did 'technically' operate 146's, and 737's for a time! :)

quote-al angirvan: Flybe have had years when they struggled - they compete against the big airlines, and against the LCCs who enter their markets. According to their website they have turned around this year.

>> Yes they did for years. They competed their butts off against the oppo, but now are doing very well! They are more LCC than full service, but Air NZ has proven they too can go LCC(ish) with deals on airfares. This is probably the part of the model that is the interesting 'could do' for Air NZ.

quote-alangirvan: For an operator is this country to learn from flybe, they would have to be planning to compete against a well established major operator, and they have to make money out of predominantly regional routes.

>>> Air NZ - the established operator - does/will be competing with itself. There are routes that Eagle once did, that now have Q300's serving them. If the ERJ doesn't work, then there's always a prop! Or, vice-versa. Air NZ has realised the best way to keep them on the ball is to have the separate companies on the edge.

Though Air NZ HQ could easily meld things together again, a-la Zeal, should the need arise!!

quote-alangirvan: It might be said that the 146 was the wrong type for an airline that was trying to re invent itself as a low cost carrier.

>>> 146 is the wrong type full stop!

quote-alangirvan: Flybe does some things that LCCs do - it makes you pay a fee to check in your bags - imagine the howls here when somebody tries to introduce that.

>>> NZ travellers would happily pay a fee to check bags, if it meant that airfares were reduced by a hefty amount. It wasn't that long ago that Air NZ Link pax were carrying there own bags to the plane!
We're a society that is used to paying for things - though the hefty discounts don't often apply! :(

@@@@@@

A319 will never happen. The extra cost of ground crewing/baggage handling will see to that. Southwest has proven that the 737 can be turned in 15-20 minutes due ease of access to toilets/baggage. Plus it’s a junky damn thing! And don't even mention the A318!

Boeing was/is part owners/tied up with Bombardier - well deHavilland Canada. They owned Shorts too if memory serves well. They will not allow anymore Airbus in ANZ livery.

The Boing/Bomba tie up is the reason why we have Q300's in the sky instead of ATR42's. Boing came in with a wheely-deal on the re-fit of 747, 777 introduction and 787 options, and basically got production cranked up for us.

Its spurned orders too, since a number of airlines are using the Air NS Q300 layout.

Though we got the base model -Q311, not the Q315!

Over/Out:ok:

PS: A factor that could play against Q400 is its ridiculously large motors compared with ATR72. 5000 v 2475shp to haul the same number of pax. Plus the Q400's TBO aint flash. If run all "girly like" - as will happen in service, remember the Saabs when introduced!!! - they'll fair okay(ish).

[Skystar320]

By the way, SkyStar 320 quoted me, and changed what I said. If SkyStar remembers Saab2000s in service in Australia/NZ please remind me. I had a lot of contact with the Saab Office in Sydney, and I had a ride in a Saab2000 at Singapore Air Show 1996. An excellent aircraft to ride.

Well seeing Australia / NZ is under "oceanic" Air Marshall operated a single Saab2000

And I was pulling your leg in respect to changing the words, bad sense of humour I know

[alangirvan]

The Saab2000 had its chance when the 748s were being replaced in NZ service. The decision could have been DHC-8-300 then, but the ATR won. When it was TP vs TP, the question would have been, do we get anything from using a faster TP. Between CHC and WLG, the S20 would not have saved so much time that the airline would be able to operate an extra daily sector. Some of the long sectors being operated now Christchurch to Hamilton/Tauranga might be nice S20 routes. The S20's problem in the mid 90s was that the big US carriers decided that 50 seater Regional Jets were the way to go. At that time the big airlines were prepared to subsidise the cost of using RJs.

The J41 was a fair plane in NZ service. I missed my chance to ride, when I booked OP from DUD to CHC in 2004, and they used a J31 for my flight.

Will people use the high frequency AirNZ TP service on CHC-WLG vs Jets by Qantas and PB? When QF and PB are providing token service on this route, of course the TP service will have all the advantages. The QF service has been newly re introduced and the PB service is so new, we have to see if they are serious about serving this market. 190 miles is very short for E-190s - if Qantas bring some Q300s over to NZ as they are displaced by Q400s in Australian service, that would be one way of doing it, but is Qantas really interested in NZ regional services. If Qantaslink goes into NZ provincial cities it could mean that neither they nor AirNZ would make money out of those routes.

Pay to check bags? This is now happening in UK. Ryanair started by working out how much it costs them to accept one bag from you. Then they minus that from your airfare. If you tick a box at time of booking, you will pay an amount per checked bag. If you wait to the airport, you will pay double that amount in cash to check the same bag. Now, if you do not use On line check in, you pay to check your self in. You cannot use online check in if you have a bag to check in. Ryanair wants you to travel for your holiday with all you need in one cabin bag. AirNZ may try that here. I am sure Jetstar and Tiger will be looking very seriously at this for Australian domestic flights. Flybe has introduced some similar policies.

[ZK-NSJ]

air nelson looked at the saab 2000 as well (i remember seeing one in nelson)
one of the main problems was that the baggage compartment in the larger aircraft wasnt that much bigger if not the same size as the saab 340

[ramyon]

Actually I vaguely remember an article in the local Nelson paper that the council were doing a feasibility study into extending the runway there by a couple of hundred meters. This was in anticipation that regional jets could possibly be flying in there within the next ten years. Have no idea what the outcome of that study was. However, if Mt cook do get jets they will have to fast track their plans. Napier airport looks to be extending it's airport runway next year for jet ops.....too

[Cypher]

FlyBe have done really well against an operator that had jets. They had a slightly different strategy.
They offer UK domestic services and flights to Western Europe from airports that are an alternative to Heathrow and Gatwick.
Flybe have two types as said before, the E-190 and the Q400.
Paraphrased:
"The Q400 is economical on sectors of up to 55 minutes and there would be no benefit to passenger demand or yields by offering RJs instead of a turboprop.
Not only does the Q400 have a lower trip cost than a similar sized RJ, but the Q400's trip cost is about the same as a 50-seat RJ with an advantage of 28 more seats.
The Q400's fuel burn for example is about half that of a 75 seat jet.
On a cost basis, the Q400 can also operate 8 sectors per day for the same trip costs as four daily sectors with a smaller version of the B737. While the total number of seats would be similar, the Q400 allows an airline to offer twice the frequency of service .
The Q400's cruise speed of 360 knots and high rate of climb, means that it is an economic alternative to jets up to a flight time of 90 to 110 minutes. The E-190 is the preferred aircraft for flights of two or more hours, or where traffic densities are high enough to justify their capacity."
-Andrew Strong, Chief Operating Officer, Flybe

Take this example of the following fuel burns;

400 nm flight

ERJ-145 - 415 US gallons, 50 pax (1570 litres)
At $2.4 USD/Gallon = $990 US
=$19.8 per pax

CRJ-200 - 440 US gallons, 50 pax (1665 litres)
=$1040 USD
=$20.8 per pax

CRJ-700 - 550 US gallons, 65 pax (2081 litres)
=$1440 USD
=$22.8 per pax


ATR-72 - 380 US gallons, 66-68 pax (1438 litres, any Mt Cook pilots care to comment?) :)
=$900 USD
=$13.2 per pax

Q400 - 490 Us gallons 78 pax. (1854 litres)
=$1170 USD,
=$15 per pax

The higher the price of gas, the more amplified your advantage over a RJ gets.

[ZK-NSJ]

nelson could easily go out another 3-400m to the north, only an old golf course there, would be handy if they could build a new air nelson hanger up the north end and extend the terminal round where the current hanger is (indoor baggage collection would be nice)

[alangirvan]

Interesting study about different types. You might turn around the question, and ask what does the Q400 do that the improved ATR72-600 will not do. Yes, 12 extra seats, and slightly improved block time.

For routes that are less than 350 miles long, the block time will not be much lower on the Q400. The Q400 might be better for some of the flights between CHC and Rotorua, Hamilton and Tauranga, but I do not think those sectors are the main reason that the aircraft will be chosen.

Also, noting that DUD to AKL is 660 miles, we have one route, which I think is still a trunk route, where a Regional Jet of the right size will win. If we hope to get a third daily frequency - a midday flight, a 100 seater plane three times daily would be a good option.


From discussions on airliners.net regarding
Continental use of Q400s, the American contributors describe 50 seater RJs as financial disasters, the 70 seater and 90 seater jets - not yet financial disasters. That is in American conditions, with their costs involved.

[Cypher]

Actually.. A Q400 on a 400 nautical mile trip will be 20 minutes faster than a ATR72..
Not to mention as said before... Boeing was/is part owners/tied up with Bombardier - well deHavilland Canada. They owned Shorts too if memory serves well. They will not allow anymore Airbus in ANZ livery.
The Boing/Bomba tie up is the reason why we have Q300's in the sky instead of ATR42's. Boing came in with a wheely-deal on the re-fit of 747, 777 introduction and 787 options, and basically got production cranked up for us.

If anything.. it will be Q400s for DUD with B737 at peak times...

[Going Boeing]

An Australian operator recently acquired an ATR despite that fact that there are no other ATR's on the Oz register and no simulator or other support. After doing a bit of research, I found that the decision was forced on them by the fact that a lot of airfields that they fly into on Resource contracts have very narrow runways. The ATR has a much narrower MLG track than the Dash8 and became the over-riding requirement. The down side is the high cost of operating the only aircraft of its type in Oz

[alangirvan]

Quote:
Boeing was/is part owners/tied up with Bombardier - well deHavilland Canada. They owned Shorts too if memory serves well. They will not allow anymore Airbus in ANZ livery.
The Boing/Bomba tie up is the reason why we have Q300's in the sky instead of ATR42's. Boing came in with a wheely-deal on the re-fit of 747, 777 introduction and 787 options, and basically got production cranked up for us.


Boeing was the owner of DHC. Some of the first Australian Airlines DHC-8-100s actually said Boeing Canada on the fueslage. Boeing sold DHC to Bombardier when they felt that the planes that DHC built did not really fit in with Boeing.

DHC bought Shorts well before that. I think Bombardier are quite capable of doing their own deals without help from Boeing.

[pakeha-boy]

...so men!!!.....when do we start voting for the best A/C ,that will solve this sagarso we find ourselves in??...its apparent there are many opinions and thoughts.....and more facts than a bull can ****e.....if we a truly going to drag this thing through the mud....lets get on with it....

my vote....Q400

[alangirvan]

A fleet of ARJ-21s, exchanged for NZ's entire export of beef and lamb.



Happy new year everyone.

[horserun]

I'll vote for the Q400 too.:ok:

[ramyon]

Nobody voting for the ATR 72-600 ?

[1279shp]

Feb 08 is date for options closing on Q400 fleet. The same time that the decision must be made re the ATR replacement!

Indications are (ie: "subtle" hints from those that like us to think they're in control of things!) that the big Dash 8’s is the chosen type. The ATR is a lot of dosh in comparison, plus suffers performance wise. Its heavier than 500 with similar clb/crz power. Plus there’s the waiting list for the 600!

Air NZ will be going 'stop-gap' until the 90 seaters of Q400/ATR are fully decided upon anyway. Talk is of 2013 before a stretched Q400X will be available. Goodness knows when the ATR900 (What ATR called it when they made a quiet "Give us your thoughts" message ages ago, and that’s been it. At least Bomba are talking of the stretched version).

The big thing is bucks. The Q400 can be bought/leased for about ½ what an ATR can, with virtually no waiting.

On my previous comment re engine power/fuel burn diff between Q400/ATR600, the Q400 when operated lightly – and you need to a bit because they can be a bit grizzly – there isn’t so big a difference. With the lower purchase/lease price you’re winning from the start anyway!

There's a bunch of blue tailed ones sitting in Scandinavia right now too!:ok:

[alangirvan]

The Scandinavian Q400s should be listed on eBay.

One thought. Perhaps the Q400s will replace the Q300s, and the Q300s will be hand-me-downs to replace the ATRs

[Kiwiguy]

Just wondering... if an admired NZ Government minister scored a brilliant success in selling a NZ product to Russia, and Russia offered to pay this country by swapping 10 Russian Sukhoi SuperJets (95 seats.) would people reading this look forward to flying around this country in a Sukhoi SuperJet?


I didn't know the Russians liked Skampi ?
I thought they preferred caviar ?


The deciding factor for NZ's provincial runways are not all of the above arguments, but rather what airports can these aircraft service given their weights ?


The ATR-72 is about ACN 15 at maximum weights. (low strength flexible runway surface)

The Q400 has an ACN of 20 at max weight. (low strength flexible runway surface).

The E-190 has an ACN of 35 at max weight. (low strength flexible runway surface).

What is the Embraer's advantage on a short runway if in effect it weighs the same as a Boeing 733 ?

Here's a list of airports which the E-190 probably can't service:
Napier
Nelson
Paraparaumu
Whangarei

...Well heck so what is the point ?

[ramyon]

Here's a list of airports which the E-190 probably can't service:
Napier
Nelson
Paraparaumu
Whangarei

...Well heck so what is the point ?

Napier -being extended to 1900 m next year and joing the $5 departure tax club to fund it too......:=

Nelson- Mt cook flights don't operate there regularly. Air Nelson's home turf and Q300 hub. Although, Nelson handles more passengers than both Palmy and Napier ( the two other busy trubo prop centres). Nelson (I estimate at about 650,000 passengers per year) probably has enough traffic to sustain regular jet services and is definately due a runway upgrade...and a decent baggage claim area too..just thought I'd throw that one in.

Paraparaumu -Does Air NZ currently have scheduled flights to this airport? Small airport and not a significant traffic airport.

Whangarei- Small airport primarily served by Beechcraft 1900 Ds, jet capacity not required..

Here is list of regional airports with runways currently capable of regular jet services .

Over the past ten years many regional towns have seen the light and extended their runways from their orignal Fokker friendship lengths (1200m-1300m) to next generation 737 and A320 capable length runways (1800 m+)

Rotorua 1770 m ( to be further extended soon)
Hamilton 2195m
Palmerston North 1900m
Dundedin 1900m
Queenstown 1830m
Invercargill 2200m
Tauranga 1825m

Apart from Napier and Nelson, most of NZ's larger regional centres can easily handle the EMB190 that's probably the point and why Air NZ is now considering it as an option....Having said that the business case for Q400s seems a much better option for regional routes. Emb190's would be a good supplementary aircraft on the main trunk routes perhaps.

[Kiwiguy]

Rotorua 1770 m ( to be further extended soon)
Hamilton 2195m
Palmerston North 1900m
Dunedin 1900m
Queenstown 1830m
Invercargill 2200m
Tauranga 1825m


Okay fair comment, so now we've identified the point can we agree that the point of bringing in the E-190 would be offering jet services for these centres ?

If so let's talk about that vs turboprop because that's the really interesting aspect ?

Incidentally Tauranga from your list is still only served by a mix of B1900 and Q300 flights so it is hard to see how a jet service there will get the patronage.

Re Nelson, Napier, Whangarei and Paraparaumu wherever the E-190 can't fly is a marketing niche for the next Origin Pacific.

The Northland is very keen to get direct scheduled routes to points further south than Auckland and Whangarei is gateway to NZ's third biggest tourism area.

In that regard international tourists are most keen to visit:
(1) Queenstown/Fiordland
(2) Rotorua
(3) Bay of Islands

Seems to me the E-190 can only serve tourism demand ZQN-ROT and even then the E-190 is unable to use the 30 PCN F/C/X/T runway there at 46,990kg MTOW because the E-190 at Rotorua is ACN 33.

Re Paraparaumu, Air NZ has announced interest to commence Q300 flights out of there to AKL and CHC so the lack of demand is an issue of previous neglect of an opportunity rather than a real objection.

Of locally domiciled domestic travellers through Wellington airport 10% live in the Kapiti area; 8.4% in Upper Hutt (just 30 minutes by road); 11.2% in the Porirua/Paremata basin (just 30 minutes by road). Nearly 30% of locally domiciled domestic travellers is no market to sneeze at.

Nelson is big enough to justify 7 direct Q300 flights daily to Auckland. Another market not worth sneezing at ?

[mattyj]

Whenuapai? :sad:

[Kiwiguy]

Gezundheit Matty ...

Ahem yeah because Whenuapai and Paraparaumu are both being investigated by Air NZ as low cost alternatives to AKL and WLG.

Now that could be the point ?

Maybe the E-190 is not intended for regional services at all but rather for a service between NZPP and NZWP ?

Bless you again Matty

I just love this place... If you sleuth enough you can figure out just exactly what Air NZ is planning.

Perhaps Air NZ wants a large TP for regional centres and the E-190 for it's main trunk battle with Pacific Blue ?

[topend3]

Seems to me the E-190 can only serve tourism demand ZQN-ROT and even then the E-190 is unable to use the 30 PCN F/C/X/T runway there at 46,990kg MTOW because the E-190 at Rotorua is ACN 33.



it's worth noting that airlines can request and often do receive, pavement concessions to operate aircraft at higher ACN's than the airports particular PCN, usually without catastrophic results. Therefore, in the case of the 190, operating at a small amount ACN higher than the PCN would not be a problem at some airports.

[alangirvan]

why are we talking about MTOW for the E-190 for flights around NZ? The E-190 has a 2000 mile range. You would be nowhere near MTOW for flights like Nelson to Auckland. Do you want to fly Nelson-Sydney and Napier-Gold Coast?

[Kiwiguy]

I think Virgin Blue was interested about a couple of years ago in ROT to BNE or other parts of Queensland, but I take your point.

The E-190 however does 2,300nm with around a paltry 60 pax (7,200kg payload).

[ZK-NSJ]

nelson was and still might be the 4th busiest airport in the country,
unlike other centres its pretty isolated, no trains etc etc, so flying is the main option, unless you want to spend several hours on a bus

[alangirvan]

Air Canada has a flight from Toronto to Seattle using an Embraer 190 with 9 Business Seats and 84 Economy Seats - a distance of some 2000 miles. I do not know if AC is worried about carrying freight on this flight, but that seems like an impressive payload range performance to me.

[Kiwiguy]

The E-190LR will fly 93 pax at 86kg +32kg over 2000nm.


nelson was and still might be the 4th busiest airport in the country,
unlike other centres its pretty isolated, no trains etc etc, so flying is the main option, unless you want to spend several hours on a bus


Isn't the point of this thread whether Air NZ will operate the long legged E-190 over short regional routes ?

Nelson has got to be the biggest neglected regional centre in NZ (notwithstanding HLZ and PMR suffer too)

[conflict alert]

nelson was and still might be the 4th busiest airport in the country,


crap...........outside of Auckland Wellington Christchurch comes Hamilton, Tauranga, Palmerston North, Queenstown. In fact PM is doing over 10000 movements / month which probably beats the lot. As long as I have been in this industry (30 odd years) Nelson has NEVER been 4th busiest.

[ramyon]

crap...........outside of Auckland Wellington Christchurch comes Hamilton, Tauranga, Palmerston North, Queenstown. In fact PM is doing over 10000 movements / month which probably beats the lot. As long as I have been in this industry (30 odd years) Nelson has NEVER been 4th busiest.

:ugh:
In terms of domestic scheduled aircraft movements Nelson is number 4!!! There are about 30 -35 Q300 and 1900D scheduled return air nz flights per day to and from Nelson. Of the airports you suggested as being busier, Queenstown has just 12 or so 733 and ATR flights Hamilton has about 15 flights, Palmerston North is closest to Nelson with 20 or more return flights per day. Tauranga, is a busy recreational field but minimal in terms of scheduled aircraft traffic. To a certian extent the number of scheduled flights is a mute detail as it depends on the size of the equipment being operated. For example, Queenstown has similar passenger numbers to Nelson but only a third of the number of flights as the majority of flights operated there are 733s where as Nelson's are Q300s.

What we are talking about here is passenger numbers. More passengers = bigger planes IE more likelihood of sustaining an EMB 190 service. The number of recreational, training, freight flights etc is irrelevant.
In terms of passenger numbers here are the stats ( Domestic only):

Queenstown: 600,000
Hamilton: 330,000
Tauranga: 150,000
Pamerston North: 460,000
Dunedin: 620,000
Napier: 400,000
New Pymouth: 275,000
Nelson: 550,000
Regular Nelson Stats are not published but I estimate based on current flight schedules at 70% loading that current passenger numbers must be in the vicinity of 600,000 - 700,000. The Latest council stats in 2004 state 550,000 but there has been condsiderable growth since then.

As you can see from the info above and from the perspective of pure passenger numbers Queenstown, Dunedin and Nelson are the strongest markets to sustain regional jet services. Queenstown and Dunedin both have good infrastructure for regular jet operatins but poor old Nelson does not.:(

[conflict alert]

I assumed the broad statement "Nelson is 4th busiest" to mean total aircraft movements as no reference was made to imply that the statement referred to Domestic Scheduled flights or pax numbers. Based on those 2 then you are absolutely right.

[Kiwiguy]

Great figures Raymon. Where did you get them ?

My view is that Nelson did not spawn Air Nelson and then Origin Pacific merely by chance.

[ZK-NSJ]

http://www.nelsonairport.co.nz
unlike hamilton, tauranga etc where most of the people who want to get to auckland for example will just drive, nelson is in a unique position, unless you are really keen and have hours to spare, flying is the best option, nelson to wellington by plane can take as little as 20mins by car and ferry that turns into 6hours, nelson-christchurch by plane 40mins, by car upto 6 hours, nelson-auckland by plane 1.2hours, by car, all day+, im wondering why air nz dosnt offer nelson-blenheim, and nelson-westport/hokitika flights,

just out of interest i looked at the air nz website to see departures out of nelson for tomorrow, there are 11 flights to auckland (all dash-8),
6 to christchurch (dash-8) and 11 to wellington (all dash-8) and one to palmerston north (b1900d)

11 dash-8 flights at 50 seats each, could easily turn into 5-6 jet flights and still offer reasonable connections

[ramyon]

Kiwi Guy said:
Great figures Raymon. Where did you get them ?

Hamilton, Queenstown, Dunedin, Napier and Palmerston North have good websites so I could find the stats on there. All the others are from Wikipedia or from news articles I'd read. Sorry, being a good student I should have referenced them. All the stats apply to the 2006/2007 year except for New plymouth which are projected numbrs for 2007 ending December.


ps anyone know how to use the quote function on these threads?

[alangirvan]

Flights from South Island ports - Nelson and CHC are where the Q400 would show a real time advantage. AKL-NSN, I think would cut about 20 minutes off the block time, and sectors from CHC to Hamilton and Tauranga, Napier, New Plymouth would benefit. Though, as a passenger, what would you do with the 20 minutes saved? A re fill of your coffee?

From Nelson to Wellington, the best way to travel would be as in the Ford adverts with your car being carried by balloons. A big knitting needle to let the air out when you are over Wellington. There was a Flight International article a couple of years ago about Personal Air Vehicles - NASA is working on this. It might happen.

[pakeha-boy]

Quote alangirvan....." There was a Flight International article a couple of years ago about Personal Air Vehicles - NASA is working on this. It might happen."

so what type of "smoking materials" from the coromandel did you get for xmas this year alan????...sounds like it was the "good-stuff" indeed

may the new year get you a PAV...PB

[alangirvan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_air_vehicle

A few seconds on Google came up with lots of articles about PAVs - I was not making it up. The Jetsons will become reality. You will be able to drop the kids off at school in your own PAV.

Some of us do have time to read Flight International and AWST, and we can remain clear headed enough to remember articles we read a couple of years ago.

[Kiwiguy]

Bang on ZK-NSJ what you've observed about Nelson.

Raymon, to help you, first you must highlight and copy the previous text to be quoted.

When you click on the "Reply" button the grey bordered text window pops up.

Above the text space is a toolbar. On one line it starts B I U

On the same tool bar line to the far right is a little emblem for a speech balloon in yellow. If you press that "Quote - Quote will appear bellow in the text window.

Put the cursor between the two bracketed "Quote" words and paste.

If you get it wrong the first time then muck around with editing until you get it right.

The emblem with a little globe and two chain links is the button for creating a hyperlink to another website. In that case you get a window where you have to paste the internet address, however first you may have to remove the http prompt or the link may not work.

[ramyon]

Raymon, to help you, first you must highlight and copy the previous text to be quoted.

cheers......Kiwiguy...think I've got it sorted...

[Kiwiguy]

Atta boy.... Now back to the main course.

I think Pat Weil of Kiwijet fame had an ulterior motive to fly ERJ-145LR trans Tasman from provincial NZ and have some residual role on domestic routes.

Putting the E-190 on NZ domestic routes seems like an overkill except perhaps in some specific routes.

Whenuapai to Paraparaumu to take on Infratil's high landing charges might be a strategy which Air NZ is employing.

[ZK-NSJ]

well i did live there for 17yrs kiwiguy :ok:

[Kiwiguy]

Lemme guess, you're former Origin Pacific crew and you're mates with Skystar320 ?

[ZK-NSJ]

nope, left nelson as a 17yr old

[Skystar320]

crew and you're mates with Skystar320 ?


......... Hey! I keep my source's confidential :cool::cool:

[alangirvan]

This topic has gone a bit quiet recently - perhaps we have been repeating ourselves too much.

One airport that has not been discussed here is Wanaka. This is an airport that is still looking to its future. Current services are Beech 1900Ds - some Convair 580 services have operated as charters to/from Auckland. Does this airport build lots of facilities that may not be used if the market does not develop, or does it risk having a terminal that will be crowded if ATRs or Q300s are used?

This is one airport where the Q400 with a flight time of about 2 hours from AKL would be a real benefit. If one of the airlines (could be AirNZ or any other player) does get 70 seater or 100 seater E-Jets, Wanaka might need to accept small jets to make it competitive on time with Queenstown from AKL. And if you develop the airport so that it can handle two hour flights to AKL, then SYD is only 90 minutes further away from Wanaka than AKL.

All this has to be considered against the fact that many people in Wanaka do not want to be another Queenstown. So, the question might be - what is the right size for Wanaka Airport?

[pakeha-boy]

alan...your bloody killing me mate!!!!.....I,m going to have some off the boys jump you in the middle of the night....and we are going to tattoo a Q400 right on your forehead(gear down).....

[alangirvan]

This was an attempt to see if any one still lives in NZ would be half interested in discussing Wanaka Airport. If people have been out of the country, flying for America's Worst, they may not be aware of growth at this airport, and the planning that is going into it at the moment.

The airport can already accept some larger TPs. If Q400s do become part of the air fleet in NZ, will all those holiday makers from the Northern Hemisphere put up with a two hour flight in a TP, where they will not be able to get an Eggs Benedict?

[c100driver]

Wanaka airfield does not meet the specifications required for Part121 Sched Airline operations.

Charter operations run under different requirements.

So it will need a large financial investment from the Queenstown Lake council to upgrade.

[ramyon]

Wanaka?
At the moment Wanaka is a small marginal airfield all be it with alot of potential, but I doubt that there would be the need for regular jet or even large turbo prop operations there for many many years to come. Queenstown hasn't cracked 1 million passengers a year yet and doesn't even have a daily international jet service and it's a tourist mecca ( In NZ terms).

However, unlike Wanaka Queenstown would perhaps greatly benefit from regular e-jet services as this may significantly boost the frequency of jet flights available to the resort town. I also think other centres which currently have just a few jet services like Dunedin would benefit greatly from increased number of e-jet flights. For example with current passenger numbers Dunedin could have 3 direct e-jet flights per day to Auckland over the current 2 733 flights. Increased frequency helps to increase market growth...I think that the e-jets have potential to really grow some regional markets.

[Cypher]

Pakeha-boy, I'll grab the ink.... :E

Wanaka is bloody marginal for a jet as it is... specially in a south-easterly wind, lots of sink off that ridge to the south...

You'd need a wider and longer runway for a start... A bigger apron and terminal and single point refuelling for a start... not to mention bigger fuel tanks for Jet A1 there..

I could see a lot more business jets going to Wanaka, as ZQN charge like a wounded bull with it's boll0cks in a knot... but as it stands, 1200 metres is bloody short for a jet and most of the bigger business jets..

Thats as about as regional a jet your gonna get into Wanaka..

[pakeha-boy]

alan ....was in Wanaka 6 weeks ago,and lived in Hawea flat for a while with your cousin(just joking about your cousin)....so are familiar with Wanaka as it was also stomping grounds during my uni days:rolleyes:....not much has changed and some of us do get out of the marae and look around....if thats what your comment was inferring????? ........

I dont really think it takes much to figure out wanaka,s capabilities in relation to A/C that could/,would/have flown into the place...the Airshow is the most obvious example....the numbers are for eveyone to see.....this horse (you keep thrashing) is nearly dead......the hairs have been split......

I have this cone -shaped hat I,m going to send to you...all you have to do is find a corner and a stool....(the tattoo comment still stands)......

[Cyclone Bob]

Before you could consider using PP for regular scheduled services, someone is going to have to spend millions to get it up to scratch. All the airport's previous owners have done is close parts of the runways as they decay beyond usability. The main vector is a bumpy rutted strip of rotting tar seal with piles of loose stones everywhere and covered in moss and grass growing through on the southern end. As far as extending Nelson, I wonder if the golf club is just going to roll over and say "here, have our golf course, enjoy it won't you?" Nelson's airport neighbours are also notorious noise complainers... As for Napier, I hear engineers assessments of the soundness of the swamp the runway currently sits on are not encouraging. I recall a time recently after heavy rain when the they couldn't taxi the Q300 on the northern taxiway/cross vector because the tarmac was floating off the substrate and the a/c was starting to leave wheel tracks on the runway! Not that any of this can't be overcome but its going to be very expensive...

[amp04]

Long time reader, first time poster
Just released "Air NZ to expand jet fleet into regional NZ" using 737's


Group General Manager Short Haul Airlines Bruce Parton says
“Jet services will be trialled for six months, giving us a reasonable amount of time to gauge our customers’ appetite for them, and assess their ongoing sustainability. It is critical that all parties work together to make the trial a success including the local communities seeking to attract an influx of business customers.”

They are securing two additional 737 to take fleet up to 18.

[c100driver]

Media Release: Air New Zealand to expand jet fleet into regional New Zealand
Air New Zealand said today that Invercargill, Hamilton, Dunedin and Palmerston North are being considered for Boeing
737 domestic jet services, to provide regional customers with more daily capacity.
Group General Manager Short Haul Airlines Bruce Parton says discussions about the potential new services are
commencing with airports and local authorities.
Mr Parton says Air New Zealand last year signalled its ongoing commitment to more services for regional New Zealand
and is currently securing two additional 737 series aircraft to enable it to offer prime-time jet services to at least two of
the provincial centres.
He says the final decision on which of the cities will be offered the six-month jet trials will be based on customer demand
and the level of support that can be gained from the regions.
“A number of provincial centres want prime-time domestic 737 flights to target greater numbers of business travellers into
their region,” he says.
“Jet services will be trialled for six months, giving us a reasonable amount of time to gauge our customers’ appetite for
them, and assess their ongoing sustainability. It is critical that all parties work together to make the trial a success
including the local communities seeking to attract an influx of business customers.”
Under the trial, jet aircraft will operate at least five days a week, with jet and turboprop capacity carefully balanced to
ensure frequency of service isn’t sacrificed, Mr Parton says.
“With this jet capacity coming into the regional market we may look to make adjustments to the turboprop fleet.”
The introduction of jets into provincial New Zealand will help stimulate regional tourism, and provide a boon for business
travellers, he says, as well as benefiting the
broader travelling public.
The new initiative will bring Air New Zealand’s 737 fleet up to 18 dedicated domestic 737 aircraft, compared with the 14
aircraft being operated only a few months ago.
“The addition of two extra aircraft to our jet fleet will also provide Air New Zealand with greater flexibility to respond to,
and recover from any disruption on main trunk sectors,” Mr Parton says.
“Our business customers in particular highly value on-time performance and have noted our improvements in this area
over the past 12 months. We aim to ensure we continue to offer the best on-time performance.”
Air New Zealand will make its decision within the next two months, with the new services expected to commence by the
middle of the year.
(Source: Air New Zealand Public Affairs - 11 January 2008)

[ramyon]

Group General Manager Short Haul Airlines Bruce Parton says
“Jet services will be trialled for six months, giving us a reasonable amount of time to gauge our customers’ appetite for them, and assess their ongoing sustainability. It is critical that all parties work together to make the trial a success including the local communities seeking to attract an influx of business customers.”


Jets it is then!!A bit of test marketing before they commit to significant new regional jet order? :ok:

[billyt]

Quote"Air New Zealand said today that Invercargill, Hamilton, Dunedin and Palmerston North are being considered for Boeing 737 domestic jet services."

Stupid statement. Air NZ already operate some 737 services to Dunedin.

[ramyon]

Stupid statement. Air NZ already operate some 737 services to Dunedin.

According to this source they are considering expanding on the current jet services to Dunedin which explains it's mention..will probably mean replacing a few CHC ATR flights with 733s.

http://news.theage.com.au/air-nz-ponders-four-jet-service-centres/20080111-1lem.html

But yes in itself a "stupid statement" as per usual the media didn't quite get all their facts straight before putting it out there. Perhaps the editor was from Auckland:rolleyes:.

[ZK-NSJ]

in regards to hamilton, they would be better off doubling the daily flights to auckland, the connections are horrible and are always booked out

[SkySurfin]

Im sure this release comes as bad news to the Mount cook boys holding out for a jet. Looks like they are heading down the road to Q400s for sure now. The Mount Cook fleet replacement announcement is in March well before the trial of jets on these new routes mid-year. This eliminates MC from operating jets (if the Air nzd group decide to go that way). In the meantime it will be interesting to see if Air NZ is able to buy any late model 737-300s or just lease. Maybe they will look at leasing 400s........ very similar plane to fly with no extra training required. Im sure they would like that extra 10 or so seating capacity between Auck-Chc.

[alangirvan]

Sorry, which horse? I thought Pakeha-Boy was the one who was telling us that the Q400 is the best invention since the Double Quarter Pounder with Extra Cheese. You were sending all those unproofread posts telling me to forget about Regional Jets in NZ.

So for, a bit of fun, I just wondered - how about Q400s for Wanaka? The last time I talked to Management at Wanaka Airport was a couple of years ago, when they were looking forward to the first Beech 1900D services, and it was a reasonable question to ask just how much growth do they build for? Queenstown and Te Anau had 748 service for years, and Wanaka in the 2000s must be somewhere near Queenstown was in the '70s. The number of expensive units in Wanaka are not being built for people from Dunedin who drive to Wanaka. they are for people who have to squeeze into a 1900D.

Perhaps people from Australia can still fly into Queenstown or Dunedin and drive to Wanaka. Or will Wanaka always be the place that NZers always keep for themselves, so direct flights from Australia will never ever be needed.

When you were beating me about the head on costs of RJs, I was able to ask pilots from Continental about the costs of RJs in their operation. My question: Are 50 seater CRJs and ERJs financial disasters? Yes (We already knew that). Are 70 seater CRJ-700s and and 86 seater CRJ-900s financial disasters? Not yet. I appreciated the answers from the Professional Pilots at CO. I also appreciate the contact I have had with A330 pilots from USAirways. They did not think I was out of my depth.

[ramyon]

Looks like they are heading down the road to Q400s for sure now. The Mount Cook fleet replacement announcement is in March well before the trial of jets on these new routes mid-year.

:=Not necessarily as it may mean that they have decided to hold off on a March, decision until they have evaluated how well the regions respond to jets. If they respond positively then perhaps the will decide to buy e-jets.

As I understand it Air NZ aren't evaluating the Q400 (although I know that they hold options) they are interested in the larger capacity Q400X and this aircraft hasn't even been built yet let alone flown. It could be many years from the time they place an order to actually getting this equipment. So if they place an order this year or next year it probably will make no difference. I don't think that the basic q400 offers enough advantages ( being around the same capacity) over the ATR's to justify changing them in the short-term while they wait for the q400x to become available. Those who want the faster sector times will be able to fly on the 733 anyway.

Or :hmm: Maybe they're going with a completely new strategy of flying larger jets ( lower seat costs than e-jets) and and have decided on keeping the existing ATR and Q300 fleet as is. It maybe the cheaper option and an easy way to quickly supply substantial enough jet capacity to scuttle any Virgin plans of using e-jets on regional routes or larger equip like the 737-800...

[alangirvan]

Before Christmas Pacific Blue said they were going to tell us soon what their third 737-800 in NZ domestic service was going to do.

Perhaps this is AirNZ's way of guessing which ports PB might be thinking of serving, and causing PB to defer those services.

[mattyj]

"improved on time performance"...thats going to hit PB where it hurts most

:}

[SkySurfin]

Have spoken to a few in the know and dont think e-jets are an option at this stage. Sticking with 737 commone fleet works well and as said in the release helps cope in disrupt situations.

alangirvan think your right that they are trying to use a bit of scare tactics. I also hear its because of pressure coming from within these towns esp Palmy and Invers...... Shadbolt has been trying to make invers an international airport for decades! not that Im sure he would sway any decisions

ramyon whats this stuff all about := ????

[ramyon]

Will increased jet capacity mean a reduction in ATR capacity? Will we see the MTCook fleet shrink?


ramyon whats this stuff all about := ????

Just meant maybe not................thought the icon suited don't you?

Sorry Meant no offence.....

[ramyon]

Before Christmas Pacific Blue said they were going to tell us soon what their third 737-800 in NZ domestic service was going to do.

Perhaps this is AirNZ's way of guessing which ports PB might be thinking of serving, and causing PB to defer those services.


Very good point!!!!

[goodsar]

The announcement of B733 a/c "on trial" into some of the larger regional centres is more likely to be designed to counter any Pac Blue E jet introduction while Air NZ decides its final approach to the issue, rather than representing a new long term business proposition.
As for Wanaka, no show of significant development there to accomodate larger a/craft. It is owned and controlled by QLDC, the owners of, and significant investor in, ZQN. No way they will allow that investment to be undermined - a lot of potential Wanaka pax traffic travels through ZQN because of lack of frequency and/or expensive seats ex Wanaka.

[indigo duck]

Me thinks perhaps you are all wrong....

Air NZ announced today that they will be flying B737-300s into more domestic airports from mid-March. Airports to be announced in the coming weeks.

Rumours abound that the fields may be Hamilton, Palmerston North, Napier or Invercargill.....

[ramyon]

Me thinks perhaps you are all wrong....

Air NZ announced today that they will be flying B737-300s into more domestic airports from mid-March. Airports to be announced in the coming weeks.

Rumours abound that the fields may be Hamilton, Palmerston North, Napier or Invercargill.....


Did you read the posts above? Weren't they saying the same thing?

[SkySurfin]

Ramyon- no worries, sweet as
I actually think you could be right about Mount Cook delaying their decision esp with the Q400 projects up in the air. All the same I think Air NZd will be flying any jets with a koru, regardless of what type...... latest negotiations reinforce that with the push to secure section 7 of the contract.

Indigo duck- for sure, any airport on the NZd network that could support a 737 is likely to be trialled.

[indigo duck]

Nah, never learnt to read .....

My flight instructor said it wouldn't be necessary if I wanted to learn to fly :8

I was referring to the discussion between the turboprops and RJs on the domestic operation.

[ramyon]

Nah, never learnt to read .....

My flight instructor said it wouldn't be necessary if I wanted to learn to fly :8


LOL

I was referring to the discussion between the turboprops and RJs on the domestic operation.


Yip maybe air nz has had a rethink on ordering new aircraft for the time being and instead in the short-term has decided to extend it's current jet equipment to the regions.

[alangirvan]

Another topic - can't be bothered starting a new thread. You know this idea of SkyAirWorld operating 6 737-900ERs as Lion Air Australia. (Read some of the Australian threads about this one)

If Australia can do it, NZ can do it as well. Lion Air NZ, joint venture with Lion Air providing 2 737-900ERs to be operated by a mystery company. (Kiwijet?)

This is totally my fabrication, but this plane would be the greatest for Trans Tasman.

[ramyon]

If Australia can do it, NZ can do it as well. Lion Air NZ, joint venture with Lion Air providing 2 737-900ERs to be operated by a mystery company. (Kiwijet?)


Who knows could happen? I wonder why virgin hasn't bought the 900 ER yet? Seems to be a great aircraft to put on higher demand routes. From what I've read though every one seems to say that the 737-800 is the most efficient design in it's class.

I also think that it's suicide for a start up airline to commit to the NZ domestic market without first having a solid international connection. Operators like Lion/Air AsiaX etc. could provide that to the likes of KiwiJet.

Pacific blue/ Virgin have gone around it the right way in my opinion establish yourself on international routes first then hit the domestic market.


Rob Fyfe's also hinting about Air NZ introducing an international training facility in NZ for Pilots/ engineers...possibly a joint venture with other training providers.......


Now that's a good investment. You have to have pilots to fly all those new aeroplanes......and engineers to keep them in the sky:D

[alangirvan]

All the cities in the AirNZ media release are cities that had jet services in 737-200 days. Dunedin is the only one that still has domestic jet services. Prime time? Dunedin already has a prime time flight to WLG. The first flight of the day from AKL brings people to DUD off international flights. I do not think they would overnight the AKL plane and give us an early start to AKL, would they? The international connections are the main reason for having a non stop to AKL.

DUD-CHC is well served by ATRs, perhaps a daily 737 a peak times.

Invercargill used to have its jet services tagged onto DUD. The 737-300 is not a friend of such short sectors, and the DUD-WLG flight has to start in DUD, because we do not want a plane starting in IVC flying over DUD on a foggy July day. IVC does have good service with ATRs and a Q300 non stop to WLG. They might lose that non stop to WLG. Which is better - a non stop TP or a one stop jet through CHC?

I think the start date of PB's next plane in NZ is slipping. On the front page of todays's ODT, a PB spokesperson said DUD might get service some time in 2008, and other cities are still being considered. They talked about Queenstown, but they would want to be sure that ZQN will be reliably open to their planes in most weathers before they commit to that port. PB may or may not be reaching the targets they set for an operation that started over the NZ summer. Will they make good yields out of DUD if their only passengers are families going up to AKL for rock concerts?

[c100driver]

Invercargil had the B732 overnight via DUD. It also had the weekday CHC IVC CHC midday flight as well. The loads were not high as I recall, usually in the 80 to 90 pax range. Both overnight B732 would meet in DUD and one would fly WLG AKL and the other would fly DUD CHC.

HLZ also had an overnight jet every day except Sat, as I recall the departure time ex WLG limited by crew duty break requirements and was not popular.

Napier had a daily AKL NPE CHC jet that replaced the Fokker flights. It required some changes in tyre pressure to meet the PCN requirements.

PMR also had a Jet in the morning and night as a WLG PMR AKL in the morning and a AKL PMR WLG at night. Big loads on the WLG PMR WLG sectors were 10 pax but usually just the 1 or 2.

ROT used to have two flights a day with the B732 CHC ROT AKL and CHC ROT CHC

The B732 has also operated charter flights to Gisbourne, New Plymouth and Woodburne so could also be candidates.

The B733 has also done proving flights to TRG and also had some diversions from ROT as well.

To have an ideal departure/arrival for overnight operations require two crews due to crew rest requirements.

[ramyon]

Yeah it looks like things may have gone full circle since the dropping of 737-200 services in the mid nineties. Glad to say we still very occasionally get these babies flying into Blenheim on charters. :D

However, the NZ domestic market has grown alot since then and these regional markets handle nearly twice as many passengers now as they were handling back in the nineties. According to the AirNZ website domestic numbers have grown from 5.8 mill to nearly 7.8 mill (should crack 8 this year) in the last five years alone. It just might be the right time... especially if jet flights further stimulate these markets. I guess also that these days due to the absurd fuel prices jet flights also need to run at considerably higher load factors, 75%+ compare to perhaps only 60% back then to make it worth while...Who knows maybe Air nz are willing to run a few jet flights at a loss to dump capacity on these routes and keep PB from making a go of it in the regions?

[Kiwiguy]

Then someone with a fleet of cheaper TPs steps in with more frequency et voila... undercuts and detroys the jet services again.

Like watching the magic roundabout this. :}

Incidentally the 733 is a lot heavier than the 732 so it would be payload limited on longer routes anyway. Cool if you don't mind flying half full 733s.

Make the business case Mr Shadbolt and they will come.

[ramyon]

Then someone with a fleet of cheaper TPs steps in with more frequency et voila... undercuts and detroys the jet services again.


Perhaps not if there are just one or two jet services at peak times supplemented by several frequent TP services at off-peak times.

At the moment one 733 flight roughly equals two ATR flights. It shouldn't be a problem to offer one or two 737 flights per day to Invercargill for example and still have at least 3-5 TP flights too. The big question I am inclined to ask is what is Air NZ going to do with all this spare ATR capacity ? Not to mention they are still increasing the size of the Q300 fleet going from the current 19 at present to a whopping 23 by mid 2009. Where are all these extra passengers coming from?

Incidentally the 733 is a lot heavier than the 732 so it would be payload limited on longer routes anyway. Cool if you don't mind flying half full 733s

Both Invercargill and Hamilton have 2.2Km runways which as I understand it are long enough for unrestricted 737 NG and A320 flights. Dunedin and PMN both have runways of similar capability to Wellington ? Why half full?

[burty]

They might lose that non stop to WLG. Which is better - a non stop TP or a one stop jet through CHC?


Apparently loads on the WLG/IVC/WLG flights have been very good. Second daily to start end of March.

[ramyon]

Apparently loads on the WLG/IVC/WLG flights have been very good. Second daily to start end of March.

Great!! So that's where some of that additional Q300 capacity will be going...

[alangirvan]

If you apply the Shadbolt principle to education to air travel, all flights to/from Invercargill will be free for the passenger. Would you have a holiday in Invercargill if you could get there for nix?

[Capitaine72]

One thing you have all forgotten is that security services will be required at all those regional airports that will have jet departures. One of the reasons passengers cannot be uplifted out of IVG is the lack of security.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[alangirvan]

Do you mean ppruners have forgotten that or AirNZ? AirNZ said IVC is one of the cities they are looking at, ppruners did not make it up.

[Capitaine72]

Actually I just thought I'd throw that in and it's for aircraft over 90 pax seats which presumably could include large TPs. :}:}

[pakeha-boy]

yeah there you go....2 737,s .....solve the woes of kiwi,s regional air service...:ugh:

Alan ....the ball is in your court for sure,and Ill eat humble pie if you ,in the end are right......Ill even buy you a few tinnies........

I think its a little too early for the victory lap.....My bet is AirNZ got these 73,s at a bloody good price and couldnt afford to let them go,(apart from the fact they needed them)......it also makes sense to test the market and see how well she goes......the crews are already trained,the seat cost per mile ,and the operating costs known.......not that big of an investment at all.......

[alangirvan]

In this part of the world 737-500s have never been popular. Ansett NZ were going to start with 735s until Ansett made them use 146s. The only 735 here was one at Air Pacific.

If AirNZ is shopping around for planes for regional centres, would the smaller 735 be any use? About 120 seats in same configuration as AirNZ 733s.

Complaint about shrunk aircraft is that they are often as expensive to operate as the full sized plane, minus the seats for revenue. I think Boeing sold more 735s than they expected, and 735s have worked in the fleets of BA, AF, LH and United. If 735s give you a break even for some cities that is lower than for a 733, this would be worth it?

[alangirvan]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=307833


Just in case there are people who do not read other D & G threads, there is the link to the discussion about Lion Air Australia. As you see, at the start of the discussion everyone was asking who is the Australian partner, by the end of the first day it was revealed as SkyAirWorld. A joint venture with SAW holding 51% and Lion Air 49%. The airline will do some Australian domestic flying, and some flying between Australia and Indonesia. The guy from Lion Air said he wants to set up these venture all around Asia - the next one will be Thailand. He has orders for 122 737-900ERs, and he needs to place the planes somewhere.

So, I asked our own NZ thread, if he wants to set up ventures all over the place, why not NZ?

These 739s can seat 215 passengers and fly upto 3200 miles, so you would not use them for NZ domestic, not even AKL-WLG. If Pakeha-Boy would be interested in doing a fly over at Warbirds over Wanaka in a 739, by all means.

These are Trans Tasman out of NZ. Trans Tasman could be done by the Australian operation, but it suits PacificBlue and Jetstar to have Trans Tasman operated out of CHC, so LionNZ would have the same advantage. You might have planes rotating through the Australian base for periodic maintenance, or even better, have the Australian planes come to NZ for their checks.

LionNZ and Lion Australia can offer joint fares so that Kiwis can go to Asia for holidays, and people from Asia can come to the South Island for ski holidays - better value than ski holidays at any Australian ski resorts.

A joint venture like this is really a franchise - you use some of the ideas of an overseas company. This is Lion. Could be Air Asia NZ. Any time Pakeha-Boy would like to come home to be Chief Pilot for Skybus NZ, just say.

[ZK-NSJ]

ansett nz actually started out with a couple of clapped out 737-100's,
as i recall the first few off the production line, i think newmans who they might have been linked with had a dash-7 as well, lets not forget that the
737-500 is around the same size as the -200 that air nz had for many years

[alangirvan]

Yes I forgot about the 737-100s. When I was in Canberra, I was with an Engineer from Ansett Engineering. They had just had a phone call from AirNZES, who were working on one of the 737-100s, and asked the Ansett people in Melbourne to jump on the next plane and come and see the corrosion. The 735s were to replace that start up fleet.

[fergineer]

All this talk about jets going into these regional airports makes more room to put the props into Whakatane and take up the load that would certainly increase if we also flew to anywhere else other than AKL. Cheap to expand a the runway great weather and ripe for expansion.....

[LocoDriver]

Those of us who are a little older, will remember when Air NZ did operate 737's into Napier, Palmerston North, and Invercargill.
That was I think, the mid to late 80's, I remember going to CHC on a 737 via PNTH. The wheel revolves a full circle, possibly a hint of competition has helped a bit.

:ok::ok:

[Kiwiguy]

One thing you have all forgotten is that security services will be required at all those regional airports that will have jet departures. One of the reasons passengers cannot be uplifted out of IVG is the lack of security.


That is where Patrick Weil wasn't all nuts about regional jets. An ERJ-145 could knock off the routes from IVC in exemplary time and low load factors for a 733 would translate to full RJs.

Kiwijet was keen to get the ERJ-145LR because it would allow domestic routes at peak times and trans Tasman flights from regional centres in the quiet off peak periods.

I clambered around in the belly of Air Pacific's 735 and compared to the 732 it has next to no hold capacity. Especially the nose hold.

[ZK-NSJ]

i sent off an email to the general manager of nelson airport, asking her weather or not she would be keen for 737's, and weather or not an upgrade was in the pipeline, the jist of her reply was that, most regional centres would rather have frequency over capacity, she say however that lengthening the runway would be costly but if the airlines asked them too then they probably would and they do have plans in place should that arise

[ramyon]

the jist of her reply was that, most regional centres would rather have frequency over capacity, she say however that lengthening the runway would be costly but if the airlines asked them too then they probably would and they do have plans in place should that arise


No surprises that it would be costly it would be several million for sure. I think Invercargills 500 meter extension cost in the region of 4 million and they didn't have to clear a golf course. I wonder what those plans are that she mentioned? In otherwords Nelson wont be pre-emptive and build the facilities they need for the very near future instead they're waiting for the airlines to appraoch them. I can't see Air NZ begging to make jet flights there anytime soon. They're more than happy with the current set up I'm sure. As I understand it air Nelson is doing very well for them and they wouldn't be too keen to cannibalise this little cash cow. They also wouldn't be in a rush to encourage runway extensions which would allow other competitiors to start flying jets their (PB for eaxmple).

I have a feeling that even if the airport had 100% backing from the airlines and they had a rock solid business case for expansion it still wouldn't happen anytime soon. Theres just too many committee meetings and members to get through first...The two major shareholders of the airport namely the TDC and NSN regional councils aren't exactly renowned for their forward thinking in terms of spending money on infrastructure. That's a major reason why Nelson lost the hugely successful Wearable Art Awards( which saw passenger traffic through the airport almost double on the week it was held ) in my opinion. They wouldn't bite the bullet then to build a descent venue so they lost it to Wellington.

Not to mention all the lobbying from the large greeny fringe ( who are largely imports to the region, not local born folk ) there who are anti development and want to Keep Nelson as untouched by the hands of man
as possible. They would be very anti -regular jet flights, too noisy for the " Shire" don't you know? I hate to say it even though Nelson is one of the busiest if not busiest regional airports in nZ it will probably be one of the last to get regular jet schedules.
props to ZK-NSJ for sending the e-mail..:D

[pakeha-boy]

Quote..."If AirNZ is shopping around for planes for regional centres, would the smaller 735 be any use? About 120 seats in same configuration as AirNZ 733s."

mate,weve got the 320,s.......get the 319,s then.......124 pax config would just about work

raymon......your comment about noise in Nelson....valid for sure,but its the same old argument......"we only want to be part of the real world when it suits us "

flew into Nelson 3 weeks ago......left downwind entry (from Wgtn)over the water.....yeah it was a prop and idle.....surprised anyone ever heard them......smooth and quiet.....

[fergineer]

And here we go down here at Whakatane.......just been announced an extra flight daily to and from Wellington.......the time is right that is for sure.....you guys keep arguing about your jets we will continue to grow slowly but surely here....

[pakeha-boy]

fergineer quote..."And here we go down here at Whakatane".......

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus mate ...get it right.......its "up here in ****atane"........and down here in bloody gore.....look at the map ay!!

[fergineer]

Silly old me but according to my mates in the North we here in Whakatane are down here......Will be in Porirua next month will see what it feels like then!!!!!!
But still good news on the extra flights to Wellington and yes it will be downhill to there as well before you ask!!!!!!
Cheers
Fergi

[1279shp]

If this is here already apologies - but Air NZ IS getting a 737-400.

As for the 735, Southwest launched the little Boeing, they still have 25 in service. They fly them with 122 seats, including a 'business' layout with club seating.:cool:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0408836/L/

(Interestingly SWA operate their -700's at the same capacity of their -300's - 137 pax.)

Using a 735 is like going back to the 732 capacity wise as they're basically they same sized aircraft. The reality is that a 'small' 737 is going to cost about the same as a bigger one anyway, so one would suggest the 733's will stay. I'd actually put a beer or three on the acqusition of more 734's! Up to 158 in Air NZ setout and can be flown on same ticket. Plus there are a few good ones around. Or here's a curly one, they may buy 734 Combi's - hello night-freight! :ooh:

As for the A319? They'll go back to using 732's and Friendships before before puttng them in service. Among other things the cost of updating ground handling equipment - and the extra labour required - among many other costs - can't be justified. Plus they'd get killed with the cycles!

We all know the 733 services are a toe in the water to gauge load factors - and to give a clear message to any competitor. Stand in front of the freight train and the obvious will happpen! :eek:

[1279shp]

Oh and the 734 uses the same engine as 733 too.

Interestingly doing some looking, Air NZ uses both the CFM56-3B1 and
-3C1 variants - somtimes on the one aircraft - at 22,000lbs.

Though you can put in the 'chip' to take it back to 20,000.

A mate at Jet Conn tells me their engines have come off 738's and been rechipped for the lower thrust ratings!

Another mate - yes I know! - who flies for American has his 738 fleet rated at 20 + 22k. 738's can go up to 27,300k. :sad:

[belowMDA]

1279, I would be interested to find where you got the info about Air NZ having both the 3B1 and the 3C1. I was pretty sure they were all 3C1 at 22K and all had the optional 20K and 18.5K fixed de-rate option.

I would be Very surprised if jetconnect had NG engines hanging off their -400s. The NG engine has a wider fan diameter (if only just), which I thought would make it somewhat difficult to shoe-horn in there, not to mention stumping up for the certification paperwork which we all know would come at a hefty price!!

I had also heard a rumour about night freight across the ditch in a combi, but thought it was a -300. Any idea where they would get the -400s and combi's from?

Fergineer and PB, you should both know that all places in NZ are referenced to Auckland!!

[RadioSaigon]

wow, boys! You've been having quite a pissing contest with this one :)

I can't say I've followed the thread closely... you lost my interest several weeks ago in fact, but on re-scanning it this evening I noted a couple of posts that intrigued me, among those that gob-smacked me!

Capitaine72: 'scuse me? Lack of security at NZNV? What makes you think that would be any impediment at all??? If they need security, then security they shall have! You may need to be reminded that NZNV has in the past been an international airport. Admittedly it was an attempt all-but stillborn, in large part due a rush of blood to the head, then going off half-cocked to make it happen, but happen it did. Customs, immigration, security, rescue-fire et al were needed, and found to make it happen. Should needs be, any or all can and will be found again when necessary.

alangirvan: I reckon you may be a lot closer the mark than many here give you credit for with most of your comments re NZWF.

I have in the past been operational off both of these airports (albeit not recently) and have some slight understanding of goings-on in those regions.

To add to your argument alangirvan, it is an easily established, acknowledged and obvious fact that NZQN has been operating at a level (some would say significantly) above its capacity. Equally, it is obvious that QAL and the QLDC would dearly love to restrict the airport to high-density traffic (predominantly 73*) and executive/celebrity traffic, were that at all feasible. Further it has been known within the NZQN aviation community for years that the future of GA at NZQN is short. They want GA off that airport. I reckon it'll happen too.

Does anyone reckon all those tourist operators will just fold their tents and disappear???

Didn't think so. The obvious place for them to go immediately is across the hill to NZWF, along with other satellite airfield like NZCS, NZLX, NZGY, NZMO and possibly another couple of undeveloped airfields within the region. The notable exception there is of course NZTZ. It won't exist for much longer -the property developers already have their way there.

When (mark my words) that happens, there will be a strong business case for at least turbo-prop RPT services to NZWF, if not RJ. Others are raining on the lack of existing infrastructure at NZWF. Again, where needs must, the means will be found. Your argument is defunct.

I have my doubts of the viable development of international services into NZWF beyond the occasional for the forseeable future, with existing services into NZQN -they'd need to use the SH arrival anyway!

just a few thoughts ;)

RS

[Capt. On Heat]

they'd need to use the SH arrival anyway

Like Eagle do..............

[belowMDA]

can't be arsed using the search function to find it, but someone posted on pprune a while back (or was it airliners.net maybe), a link to a pdf doc from QLDC outlining the development plan for Wanaka airport. I am pretty sure that plan included jets at some point. So they have already been giving it serious consideration to upgrade/expand the Wanaka facilities.

[Split Flap]

B MDA,

You know too much about those engines dude, youre begining to scare me a little...

[belowMDA]

Well dude you know I have too much time on my hands these days....
I can either spend time on here or red tube, and my isp has choked my speed back to 28k seeing I exceeded my 5G limit so I no longer have the speed for red tube, which leaves the pprune:(

About Wanaka if you Google QLDC Wanaka master plan you can find out what the plan is for that airport. Jets (737 or RJ) in around 2026 I seem to recall.

yes too much time on my hands..... :}

[RadioSaigon]

...around 2026 I seem to recall.

I'd wager good folding money it'll happen well within the next 18 years! :E

[alangirvan]

Why would AirNZ get one 734 - an orphan? The 734 is a great plane to ride in, when it is part of the main Qantas fleet. Qantas have flown me all around Australia in the 734. My rides have been as short as Canberra to Sydney, where Qantas still had time to give me a complimentary beer/wine after 5pm, with a gourment sandwich, and as long as Perth-Sydney, this was before the 738s arrived and all transcon flights became widebody.

But one 734 in NZ service doesn't make sense, with one plane popping up anywhere in the system. Surely AirNZ would want 2 or 3 units in the fleet. Although the 734 does not have the range of the more recent NGs, it is still a very capable plane. It seems a pity to get this plane and use it on one hour trips between AKL/WLG/CHC. I do not think my home city of Dunedin would make very good use of 158-162 seats, though the 734s would release more 733s to fly into DUD, which is good.

My question about 735s perhaps needs more technical discussion than you would normally get in a forum. People take it as a rule of thumb that when you shrink an aircraft, you are often left with the costs of the original with less seats available. So, the 747-SP was hopelessly uneconomic, and the L1011-500 also. I thought that more recent aircraft like the 735, the A319 and the A330-200 have been better - those three types are used by some airlines who do not have the bigger model.

If the 735 was going to work in AirNZ's network, it would have to show that it would break even with less seats filled than a 733 on the same route - otherwise no point using it. Southwest is a special airline, and not every airline in the world matches them. I do not think Southwest would operate into cities as small as Invercargill or Palmerston North. If they did go into a city like PMR, they would try to make the through stop as short as 12 minutes if possible. I think AirNZ throughstops 733s at WLG and CHC in 30 minutes - would this be possible at smaller stations?

[alangirvan]

Story in today's Otago Daily Times (23/1/08) regarding the cost of upgrading security at Invercargill Airport for the trial of jet services into that city. As people have discussed in this forum, these measures are required where an aircraft has more than 90 seats. So, an airport has to guess whether the trial will work, so that the $1 - $2 million investment in upgraded security will be money well spent. The people of Invercargill are left in no doubt, this is a use it of lose it trial.

Apologies for flogging dead horses, but this thread is about AirNZ using Regional Jets, this is exactly the sort of airport, where a Regional Jet could make a difference. As it happens, the Bombardier CRJ-900 has a seating capacity of 86, do that model fits underneath the 90 seat requirement. I am not saying it would be suitable in any other way, because then you would look at the performance on routes that AirNZ might want to operate out of IVC. I think if you choose the right CRJ-700 or -900, some have better field performance than others. A quick look at Great Circle Mapper shows IVC-CHC as 289 miles and IVC-WLG as 477 miles. You might think that IVC-CHC is still a bit short for a CR9 to be better than current TPs, and IVC-WLG would only really justify one jet a day - is this really a better service than several TPs a day to CHC, giving one stop to WLG?

A trial with CRJs would be more expensive than a six month trial with existing jets, even if 733s do look very big for the size of the market. I think this is one market, where faster TPs would give IVC a better frequency into WLG and CHC, even if a jet is what they think they want.

[distracted cockroach]

Excuse me but isn't this all the same as what Air NZ (and Ansett NZ to a certain extent) used to do in the "old days". I know Air NZ flew 737s into Napier and Invercargill. Tauranga is used as an ETOPs alternate for the A320, so there must be a facility to use that. Rotorua obviously, and Queenstown. Hamilton used to have a domestic jet service.
As for Wanaka.....why duplicate facilities that are present in Queenstown...it's just across the hill?
OK, so there will be security requirements, but at the end of the day, there will never be great frequency to the regional ports. Most of them would be better off with smaller (TP) more frequent flights. Besides, whilst the business type traveller may appreciate a jet service, the extra security required would be an unwelcome hassle.
Personally, the only jets I reckon the regions will see (from Air NZ anyway) will be 733s. And they will be few and far between.

[ramyon]

Excuse me but isn't this all the same as what Air NZ (and Ansett NZ to a certain extent) used to do in the "old days

Sure, but back then the total domestic market was about half the size it is today. Not to mention in those days AirNZ had to share the regional market with Ansett. Now, apart from a few minor commuter services AirNZ has the entire market to itself......The passenger numbers might just be right now for air NZ to sustain frequent regional jet services. Passenger numbers are certainly much more on the side of jets than they were in the early nineties anyway.

Personally, the only jets I reckon the regions will see (from Air NZ anyway) will be 733s. And they will be few and far between.

I agree that for NZ regional centres, the best kind of aircraft is still large TP equipment. However, if other airlines I.E. Virgin, start flying into the regions it won't be with turboprops. AirNZ would be at a competitive disadvantage if it did not offer a similar jet product to it's guests. That's why I would not be surprised to see Air NZ order Emb190's. As another poster earlier commented , AirNZ's recent announcement to trial jet services in the regions could be likened to putting a toe in the water to test it, perhaps before they commit to any large orders.

In terms of security , what's the inconvenience for the regular traveller walking through an x-ray machine? takes but a second or two......Unless you get caught with something of course .:O

[Tarq57]

In terms of security , what's the inconvenience for the regular traveller walking through an x-ray machine? takes but a second or two......Unless you get caught with something of course

The inconvenience as I see it is not walking through the Xray nor having the carry-on X-rayed. I'm quite OK with knowing everything on board the aircraft has been checked. (Hmm. Does that apply to cargo, too?)
It is more to do with having to Q for up to 30min to get to the departure lounge,(longer for international), and the prerequisite earlier check in time required. (Other inconveniences include the restrictions on what may be carried, on the off chance I may want to take over the aircraft and do something nasty with it, but that's another issue.)

[alangirvan]

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=11511


Have people been following the spat between Bombardier and SAS as to who is to blame for the problems recently experienced on three Q400s. SAS are saying that they have had problems all through the time these planes have been in service - SAS do seem to have had a worse experience than any other airline - are the problems because they were the first to operate, and newer planes to are built to a higher standard. In one forum, the writer suggests that the corrosion on the landing gear may have been caused by anti icing agents on European runways.

On the other forums, the opinions vary according to whether the author is Canadian or Scandinavian.

I have put this link on an NZ forum, because we have discussed the Q400 a lot. I have not heard of any problems with the Qantaslink Q400s. The Q400 still seems to sell well as a new plane, but the way SAS have bad mouthed their fleet, they have surely made their planes unsellable, unless Bombardier bought them back and gave them 'as new' warranties.

[Sqwark2000]

So... should the Q400 be selected as the ATR replacement, where are the Q400 sims? I'm assuming that Qantas has one somewhere or is it a trip to Toronto for the initial TR?

And in the same vain, if the EMB190 gets the nod, where's the nearest sim? Did VB get one in it's purchase package?

S2K

[Kiwiguy]

Hi Alan, hope you enjoyed your visit to Wellington ?

Can't help wondering if the landing gear issue with SAS isn't related to temperatures and perhaps changes in viscosity and therefore compressibility for the hydraulic fluids ?

The main gear of a Q300 I am told is a totally different unit from the Q400's.

Re jet service to IVC it generally doesn't work unless as someone said about PMR that you run a "through" service. Isn't there a Q300, or an ATR-72 service from ZQN to IVC ?

Perhaps that infers a strategy could include flying pax from ZQN to connect with northbound jets and pick up a load from Auckland at IVC ?

After all Air NZ hubs through Christchurch to AKL with regional TPs.

[alangirvan]

I had a great time in Wellington. Wish there were a few more different types to spot at the airport.

I was asking about landing gears for Q400s, hoping that someone who knows more than me might have heard a bit more about what is going on with SAS's Q400s. I am asking on this forum, because you get a bit sick of reading Scandinavians and Canadians beating each other up on this issue.

[NZ1]

1279

All CFM56 engines in the NZ fleet are the 3C1 variant. And JetConnect do not have the -7 engine fitted to any of their 733/734's, they are also 3C1's Not sure where you got that info.

NZ1

[alzzle]

Re jet service to IVC it generally doesn't work unless as someone said about PMR that you run a "through" service. Isn't there a Q300, or an ATR-72 service from ZQN to IVC ?

Perhaps that infers a strategy could include flying pax from ZQN to connect with northbound jets and pick up a load from Auckland at IVC ?



Id agree a jet service to IVC doesnt really work, and no there is no service between IVC and Central Otago (ZQN) - there is one between DUD and ZQN though. Maybe though id think that it made more sence to keep the jets going to the 2 major airports (DUD and ZQN) and have a link down to Southland from either rather than flying to the airport the majority of passengers didnt want to be at and then linking from there

[Kiwiguy]

When you think it through there's really huge rivalry between ZQN/DUD/IVC for services.

ZQN has the demand but drop offs at either end of it's runway and shear lack of space place a cap on what you can really do at that spot.

Dunedin has shot itself in the foot with it's failure to extend the runway there. I have to wonder aloud if Air NZ doesn't prefer that the runway remains short ?
I can't help but wonder if the retention of trans Taz service after Freedom Air winds up isn't a secret handshake deal with DCC not to extend the runway ?

Regards Invercargill great runway... pity about the location.:D

Regards Manapouri... well nice touch to lengthen the runway, but keep it limited to 10 PCN. Runway's about strong enough to support a microlight ... ha ha :8

[c100driver]

Not quite sure what you are on about with regard to DUD and the runway length.

Freedom Air was operating B733 DUD to Aussie they are still doing the same with the Bus so there is obviously not a problem with length at DUD for Trans Tasman operations.

The original runway was built for B737-200 Basic operations, complete with approach RADAR services. NAC even built a hanger for the overnight B737 to be housed. The runway was lengthened in the late 1980 to allow direct Tasman operations by B767-200 aircraft. I believe QF have operated a 200 there last decade on a charter basis however there is not the population base to support an aircraft the size of a B767.:hmm:

[alzzle]

Not quite sure what you are on about with regard to DUD and the runway length.

Freedom Air was operating B733 DUD to Aussie they are still doing the same with the Bus so there is obviously not a problem with length at DUD for Trans Tasman operations.

The original runway was built for B737-200 Basic operations, complete with approach RADAR services. NAC even built a hanger for the overnight B737 to be housed. The runway was lengthened in the late 1980 to allow direct Tasman operations by B767-200 aircraft. I believe QF have operated a 200 there last decade on a charter basis however there is not the population base to support an aircraft the size of a B767.:hmm:


Yeah have to agree there seem to be no problems with the airbus or B733 and the current runway length (1960 x 46 - PCN 60) The airport company already own all the land at the south and west of the end of the runway and I believe its already designated as runway and the plans are there for another 500 metres but why spend the money until the need arises when until then it can be put to better use.

[Sqwark2000]

Alzzle there is one between DUD and ZQN though.

Err... who operates that service? Not Air NZ that I know of, although Mainland Air run a IFR/VFR via Alexandra but that's more a local shuttle

[Kiwiguy]

Mainline are doing Dunedin to Queenstown (possibly via Alexandra ?) with an 8 seat Chieftan. Rumoured to be seeking a 19 seat aircraft for services.

No I was not hinting at 767 operations.

1700m is a tad tight for anything trans Tasman in terms of take off weight.

[1279shp]

NZ carrier slashes domestic air fares

Air New Zealand is cutting domestic air fares by up to 30 per cent to stimulate demand as the airline struggles to fill an increased number of seats.

The airline, which faces competition on domestic routes from Australian carriers Pacific Blue and Qantas, yesterday slashed prices for almost 40 domestic services, with those in the regions standing to benefit the most.

The change, effective immediately for travel from February 23, means a drop of between 9 and 27 per cent on lead-in Smart Saver fares - the lowest available everyday fares - while the top rate on regional routes popular with business customers falls by between 20 and 30 per cent.

Top-end fares on travel between the main centres also drops by 15 per cent.

Chief executive Rob Fyfe said the new pricing strategy was geared towards stimulating travel and tourism within New Zealand.

Air New Zealand had increased seat capacity on regional routes by 46 per cent in the past 2 1/2 years, but was struggling to fill the extra seats despite growing passenger numbers, he said.


That was in contrast with international flights where load factors - seats filled - were rising.

"There's no value for an airline flying around with empty seats."
Rival Pacific Blue's general manager commercial, Adrian Hamilton-Manns, said Air NZ's move was "an admission that it has been charging too much for too long on domestic flights".

"We said we'd set out to keep the air fair in New Zealand and this is the result. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so we take it as a compliment because, really, would they be doing this if we hadn't started local flights? We kind of doubt it."

Qantas was more taciturn. Regional general manager Grant Lilley said: "We will continue to remain competitive in the pricing that we offer across all of our domestic New Zealand routes."

But Mr Fyfe said the move did not have any "direct connection" to competition from Pacific Blue and Qantas, as they were not flying the vast majority of routes affected by the price cut.

He said drops in international fares were "less likely" with high oil prices, as fuel made up around 55 to 60 per cent of a longhaul flight's operating costs, compared with 20 to 25 per cent of a domestic flight.

Bruce Parton, the group's general manager for short-haul airlines, said it was about encouraging more travel rather than charging higher fares. But fuel prices and airport charges meant the group could not offer across-the-board cuts.


Air NZ's popular Grabaseat promotion, which offers new daily super-low fares on selected routes, would stay.

House of Travel retail director Brent Thomas said the move would encourage even more travel, especially to the smaller town centres.

A Ministry of Tourism-run domestic travel survey showed a $1 billion rise in domestic travel spending to $8 billion in the year to last September, up 10.4 per cent from the year before.

[1279shp]

NZ1, we're both right.

From Boeing:

737-300: 2x CFM International CFM563B1 @89.0kN (20,000lb) or CFM563B2 @97.9kN (22,000lb).
737-400: 2x CFM563B2 @97.9kN (22,000lb) or CFM563C1 @104.5kN (23,500lb).

Air NZ did have 3B1 versions arrive as they added to the fleet, but yes are all 3C1's now - though with the 22k chip.

As for the -7 being used on the 734 QF fleet, that came from one of QF's FO's. Which prob means it's wrong!! All due love to QF crew!

[c100driver]

Kiwiguy the DUD runway is 1900 meters, Takeoff weight on 21 is just on 60 tonne for the B737-300 on a standard day, 03 is slightly less at 58 tonne. Called the airport manager about how freedom got loads off the runway, "a few times a year they had problems with low pressures, hot days and a northerly usually in the summer". The bus does it even better, according to the books.

So the runway is not limiting or stopping anyone from operating at DUD for international operations to Aussie east coast.

Mainland operate DUD to Alexandra on a semi sched basis, no punters no operate according to the Operations Manager in the ODT. They only fly on a charter basis to ZQN.

[alzzle]

Kiwiguy the DUD runway is 1900 meters, Takeoff weight on 21 is just on 60 tonne for the B737-300 on a standard day, 03 is slightly less at 58 tonne. Called the airport manager about how freedom got loads off the runway, "a few times a year they had problems with low pressures, hot days and a northerly usually in the summer". The bus does it even better, according to the books.

Yeah I just got pretty much the same info from an old mate pilot about tt flights. was wondering where the 1700 was coming from, rather than the bit over 1900m

Mainland operate DUD to Alexandra on a semi sched basis, no punters no operate according to the Operations Manager in the ODT. They only fly on a charter basis to ZQN.

Mainland Air operates Monday, Tuesday and Fridays from DUD to ZQN via Alexandra if required to and return, leaves DUD at 0800 and 1515, and ZQN at 0920 and 1630.

[kiwipilot02]

How many international scheduled flights has Invercargill attracted since extending it's runway? Answer a big fat zero. Other than the odd RNZAF Orion going to the southern ocean on patrols the cost of the extension has produced limited rewards.

Dunedins 1950mtr runway seems to work well with the bus on the trans Tasman routes with the very odd flight goining via CHC for gas on rare high temp low pressure days maybe once or twice a year.It occured more when Freedom used the 733.

Trans Tasman flights from Dunedin would only ever need the A320 or the 738 in the immediate future so a runway the size of INV is hardly warranted.

With ANZ taking over SJ routes hopefully MEL all year round instead of summer only and the reintroduction of OOL might happen. Heres hoping

[alangirvan]

MEL year round from DUD, and services to OOL?


Yes, here's hoping. MEL will stop at end of Daylight Savings, and we have to hold our breath to see if we will get it back for Summer 08/09.

OOL? If you read the ODT you will see it is full of offers for flights to OOL - through Christchurch. Apparently someone thinks we want to drive up to CHC to get our holiday (250 mile drive.) rather than fly DUD-BNE and take a bus to Surfers (about 70 miles). Is there someone at AirNZ Holidays who has forgotten that AirNZ will be flying DUDBNE? AirNZ Holidays is the big office in the Octagon that is now closed since mid 2007. There are parts of NZ that are south of Christchurch.

[kiwipilot02]

Thats why we need another operator out of Dunedin domestic and trans Tasman.They only drop the fares when they have to.

SJ fare to BNE and return just before Christmas $980 and only 72 pax on board know wonder there were empty seats.
ANZ CHC-BNE fares and CHC-SYD $50 cheaper than DUD direct fares.
So if 3or 4 people are travelling it makes sense to drive to CHC and go JET* and people are doing this.

[belowMDA]

ANZ CHC-BNE fares and CHC-SYD $50 cheaper than DUD direct fares.

KP02 could you accept that maybe this is an example of economies of scale at work, not just the competition?

And yes that old chessnut; lets get another airline to operate so they can both lose money on the route instead of one making a slim profit. :cool:

[kiwipilot02]

MDA ANZ being $50 cheaper ex CHC comes from having to compete with 4 other operators on the SYD route and 2 others on the BNE route.

Nothing to do with economies of scale.

Fyfe announces across the board cuts in domestic fares to cut off any new entrant at the pass when fuel prices have never been higher- fares are getting lower.
Whos been having who on for years???.

[ramyon]

Nothing to do with economies of scale.

Fyfe announces across the board cuts in domestic fares to cut off any new entrant at the pass when fuel prices have never been higher- fares are getting lower.
Whos been having who on for years???.

Absolutely, but it's nice to see Air NZ being pre-emptive as opposed to reactive, and dropping their prices only when virgin starts flying to the regions. Fyfe and the team are doing a great job in my opinion and considering that they have had a virtual domestic monopoly Air NZ have been very focused on keeping airfares low and driving their overhead costs down. They know that this is the only long-term sustainable strategy and they have been one of the leaders in the industry in this area. Air NZ have gone through a major metamorphosis over the last few short years. Going from being just another high cost inefficient legacy carrier to become not only a very efficient but also a very high quality LCC... It's no accident that domestic passenger numbers have increased by more than 40%-50% in the last five years. This wouldn't have happened if airfares hadn't come down.

Virgins' great at blowing it's own trumpet about it's cheap prices but I would guarantee that if they weren't the little guy ( In the NZ market I'm talking about) and the shoe was on the other foot they would be much slower to drop airfares and add additional air services than AIr NZ has been....It's a tread carefully strategy for them just a couple of airplanes to start with, no rapid expansion .. they don't like to take risks. Hats off to Air NZ for being the risk taker in his game and I'm glad to see it's paying dividends literally.:D

Having said that Dunedin definately could do with some more competition and I wouldn't be surprised to see Dunedin and Queenstown added to the list of destinations when PB gets it's third aircraft in March.

[Kiwiguy]

Yeah I just got pretty much the same info from an old mate pilot about tt flights. was wondering where the 1700 was coming from, rather than the bit over 1900m


OOPS ... I was reading off an old flight guide chart from 1989 when the length was 1770 metres. Sorry folks.:p

umm re DJ's comments, they can be brave about it but I am sure they hurting too.

[stillalbatross]

It's a tread carefully strategy for them just a couple of airplanes to start with, no rapid expansion .. they don't like to take risks. Hats off to Air NZ for being the risk taker in his game and I'm glad to see it's paying dividends literally.

Thought they had an endless supply of Govt money :confused:

[ramyon]

Thought they had an endless supply of Govt money :confused:

Don't need government capital when you're making 200 million plus profits per year. Best investment the govt has ever made. It's Air Nz that supplies the NZ Govt with money and not the other way around.

[ramyon]

Form today's press
Australia's Virgin Blue says it will spend up to $A20 million ($NZ23.3m) expanding its network, including New Zealand domestic flights, this year.

The airline's offshoot, Pacific Blue, began flying on the New Zealand main trunk route in November with two Boeing 737-800 jets. It has been flying on the Tasman since 2004.
In November, the airline said it would add a third Boeing to the domestic fleet in April when more planes were delivered.
"The continued investment in new initiatives including further expansion in the New Zealand domestic market is likely to incur a further $A20m in one-off development costs in this financial year," the airline said yesterday, in releasing its interim result.
Australia's No. 2 airline said its net profit fell 8.8 per cent to $A113.3m, from the 2006 December half. Record fuel costs and aggressive competition hit earnings. It predicted a tough year lay ahead.
"There is not a lot of appetite out there for people to pay any more for tickets at the moment, because of the capacity that is there," chief executive Brett Godfrey said.
A detailed review had been started by the board to consider options to enhance shareholder value, Virgin Blue said. It was also "assessing a number of expressions of interest".
Godfrey would not specify if this involved Virgin Blue selling some assets or airlines, or a potential bid for the group.
Majority owner Toll Holdings was seeking a buyer for its stake and is due to report its results today.
Virgin Blue said it had ordered four more Embraer 190 E-Jets and converted another three purchase rights to options for the same model.
The order takes the total number of Embraer regional jets to 24, including 18 of the 104-seat E-190s and six of the smaller E-170 model, three of which are already in service in Australia.
At the time of the launching the New Zealand domestic service Godfrey suggested the Embraers could also be used on regional routes here.


Could virgin be sending Emb-190s our way? If so I think it highly likely that Air NZ will give the Emb-190 the nod over the Q400.

[ramyon]

Today's Southland times...

Pacific Blue is expected to announce flights to Invercargill and Dunedin soon as it ramps up its domestic network by introducing a new aircraft.

The Christchurch-based Australian budget airline added main trunk domestic services to its trans-Tasman operation in November, forcing rivals Air New Zealand and Qantas to drop their cheapest standard fares by $20.
Pacific Blue will take delivery of a seventh 180-seat Boeing 737-800 at the end of next month.
This will allow the airline to increase its domestic fleet to three, and also increase capacity on the Tasman.
It is understood the Invercargill service would link to Auckland via Christchurch and the Dunedin service would likely be direct from Wellington.
Wellington was also expected to receive more flights to Australia.
Invercargill Airport chief executive Barry Bouton said he had been in negotiations with Pacific Blue over a protracted period.
"We are confident that they will be making some major announcements in our favour," he said.
Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt said it would be fantastic if the airline confirmed flights to Invercargill.
He was unsure if such a move would impact on ticket prices but believed it would beneficial for freight in and out of the city.
There had been problems getting cyclists and their bikes into Invercargill for competitions at the city's velodrome.
Some competitors were having to travel to Queenstown and then on to Invercargill.
Additional flights might solve the problem, he said.
The decision would set up a head-to-head clash with Air New Zealand, which last month said it was considering the two southern centres for trial jet services using its smaller 136-seat Boeing 737-300s.
Air New Zealand said it would offer six-month trial services to at least two regional centres that could drum up enough support to make them profitable.
The others being considered were Hamilton and Palmerston North.
Air New Zealand head of short haul airlines, Bruce Parton, said passenger demand from the four cities was just below that required to be economical for a 737 or, in the case of Dunedin, additional jet services.
A final decision on which of the cities would receive the trials was expected next month.
A Virgin Blue spokeswoman said an announcement on either Invercargill or Dunedin as its next port would be made shortly.
However, industry sources said Pacific Blue would fly to both cities.
Air New Zealand has those routes to itself.
Qantas flies between the main centres and to Queenstown and Rotorua.
Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey said "as there is currently a monopoly provider of air travel to and from these cities we're looking forward to bringing some serious competition to the south".
"We have been reviewing several destinations for regional services but the combination of distance and lack of airline competition in Invercargill and Dunedin made those cities obvious contenders for consideration," Mr Godfrey said.

Thought it might provoke some more discussion to this dead thread. Interesting to note that since Pacific Blue started flying it's mere two jet aircraft and both Air NZ and Qantas hav announced service upgrades and reduced fares, domestic passeger numbers at the big 3 airports have been stimulated between 15-30% for the months of Nov 07 - Jan 08.:eek:..are E- starting to appear as a real possibility....for Air NZ? I'm sure that if Pacific Blus starts flyingto Dunedin numbers there will show similar growth..Gotta be good news to travellers in that part of the world.

[Chocks Away]

Too true.
Where ever they have flown to and for that matter discount operators worldwide... it has grown the markets, not divided what was there.
For example, Polynesian Blue has increased the Samoan traffic 36% since starting.

[ramyon]

Polynesian Blue has increased the Samoan traffic 36% since starting

Now that's impressive growth.

[Swanrider]

Yes:). It's a total over a couple of years though, I think.

[ramyon]

ATR awaits big Air NZ deal

By ROELAND van den BERGH - The Dominion Post | Monday, 31 March 2008







Regional aircraft maker ATR believes record fuel prices and lower domestic profits put it in the box seat to win a US$300 million (NZ$375 million) order from Air New Zealand.

The airline is evaluating a fleet of about 15 new ATR72-600 turboprops along with the Bombardier Q400X and the Embraer E-190 regional jet as a replacement for its existing 11 ATR72-500s.
Air New Zealand has delayed its decision on the purchase by two months till the end of May.
The French-built ATR boasts the most environmentally friendly credentials, burning less fuel, but is slower and smaller than the Q400X, a larger version of the Q300 Air New Zealand already has 23 of.
ATR's regional sales manager Laurent Negre said the environmental impact of a fleet was a key consideration for Air New Zealand.
Aircraft that used more fuel also produced more carbon emissions, which airlines would have to offset by buying carbon credits, potentially increasing the cost of fares.
"Having the most cost-efficient aircraft, and fuel-efficient aircraft in particular, certainly increases the gap versus other solutions," Mr Negre said.
Air New Zealand is positioning itself as a leader in the environmental debate and last it week launched a series of environmental initiatives, including a carbon offset scheme for passengers.
The airline is also considering the potential impact of increased domestic competition.
"It is a very important decision for Air New Zealand because the domestic market is very critical to New Zealand," Mr Negre said.
ATR had never been pushed off a route by a rival model, he said.
"It proves that it is quite a strong aircraft to have in your fleet when fuel prices are going up, when there is pressure on yields and on traffic possible from increased competition."
The E-190 was being considered if passengers were prepared to pay extra for the greater comfort of flying on a jet.
But though there were a few longer-distance domestic routes that would suit a jet, such as Auckland to Invercargill, the average route flown by the existing ATR fleet was only about 400 kilometres.
That was too short for jets to be used economically, Mr Negre said.
He conceded that Air New Zealand was keen to increase capacity, and the 68-seat ATR72-600 had 22 fewer seats than the Q400X and 36 fewer than the E-190.
But the potential arrival of more domestic competition could lead to network changes that favoured that ATR, he said.
ATR is trying to expand its presence in the South Pacific, and last year it opened a regional parts distribution centre in Auckland.

[Cypher]

Pacific Blue starts southern link
10:30AM Wednesday April 02, 2008
By Grant Bradley - NZ Herald


Pacific Blue is in expansion mode. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Domestic airline competition is stepping up with the announcement Pacific Blue is to expand its network to include daily direct flights between Christchurch and Dunedin from July 1.

The airline said it would fly one daily return service between Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin. All fares for the Dunedin service, including the special launch fares, go on sale from 9am today.

Special launch fares to Dunedin can be bought until Monday for the period from July 1 to August 31.

For a one-way trip booked on the internet the special fare from Christchurch is $39, from Wellington via Christchurch it is $69, and from Auckland via Christchurch $79.

The airline is getting a third Boeing 737 aircraft dedicated to the New Zealand domestic network in June.

Since its launch in November it has been flying just two aircraft along the main trunk.

Commercial general manager Adrian Hamilton-Manns said the Dunedin service would provide Air New Zealand with its first major competition to the city.

"When we started we said we would not just fly on the main trunk route but also go into the regions."

The airline was investigating expanding services to Invercargill, Hamilton and Palmerston North.

Pacific Blue said it had carried more than 300,000 passengers on its main trunk network in its first four months of flying.

Air New Zealand has boosted its capacity on domestic flights in February by nearly 10 per cent compared to a year ago, during which time there had been intense competition and fares as low as $1.

[alangirvan]

Good that our thread has woken up again! Though the original reason for starting this thread - AirNZ and RJs, the decision seems to be as far away as ever.

July 1 will be a good day for Dunedin. We trust it will not be a foggy day - sad if the ribbon ceremony is postponed because the plane cannot land that day. Fog should lift by Midday?

And July 1 is the time of icy roads in Dunedin - people will need to take care driving to the airport that day.

But, the start of a beautiful relationship between PB and Dunedin.

Now for Tiger in 2009.

[ramyon]

AirNZ and RJs, the decision seems to be as far away as
ever

Like the many contributors to this thread it looks as though the good folks at Air NZ can't decide on the best option either. I thought that they were also meant to have announced extra regional 737 services by now? Have they put this off too?

Those high oil prices and carbon emission costs have got to be weighing heavily in the minds of the Air NZ execs these days.... Maybe the fuel friendly ATR -600 will get the nod. Although not too sure if the extra benefits over the current 500 model justify $300 million.

Good news that PB is finally launching services to DUD although I would have expected at least two per day. Finally some new flights for the new terminal........

[1279shp]

Q400's??:cool:

Or will MCA keep what they got until Bomba + ATR figure the streeeetchy versions???:hmm:

Or ANZ decides if they really want another jet type in the company ie: ERJ??:ooh:

[1279shp]

Q400's??:cool:

Or will MCA keep what they got until Bomba + ATR figure the streeeetchy versions???:hmm:

Or ANZ decides if they really want another jet type in the company ie: ERJ??:ooh:

[TwoTango]

For what its worth, this was in Monday's Australian Aviation newsletter:

ATR is hoping to close a sale of 15 ATR 72-600s to Air New Zealand. The airline is believed to be also evaluating the Bombardier Q400 and Embraer E-190 as replacements for its fleet of 11 ATR 72-300s in service with Mount Cook Airlines.

TT

[alangirvan]

Report in today,s Otago Daily Times of the opening of the new Te Anau airport. Designed with planes up to 70 seats in mind, but able to accept some visits by planes up to 150 seats, the article said. I knew about the 70 seaters, but the 150 seaters would be once in a blue moon, I would think.

Do people need to fly into Te Anau? A very important tourist destination, but I would have thought one that people visit as part of a driving holiday Would it get its own ATR or Dash 8 service, or would the flights just tag on from Queenstown?













report

[Capitaine72]

Forget it. Aircraft of that size will be unable to operate into Manapouri/Te Anau until the local owner increases the strip width to 150m. Check out 121.71(h)(2)!!!!
:confused: