PDA

View Full Version : Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s


InZed
26th May 2019, 22:14
Announced this morning to replace the B777-200ERs.

Options for another 12 (20 total).

No surprises here.

ElZilcho
26th May 2019, 22:23
Announced this morning to replace the B777-200ERs.

Options for another 12 (20 total).

No surprises here.


Yep, as you said, no surprises there. They likely knew for quite some time but were deciding on engines. When the -TEN’s developed problems that would of sealed the deal for GE.

The A350 would of needed an incredibly sweet deal to cover the costs of a Simulator, re-training and re-tooling.

As for the 777-X, I suspect we’ll look at them in the future but the -9 was just too big and too expensive as a -200 replacement while -8 is years away.

Stationair8
26th May 2019, 22:34
Good news for our Kiwi cousins.

InZed
26th May 2019, 22:41
Yep, as you said, no surprises there. They likely knew for quite some time but were deciding on engines. When the -TEN’s developer problems that would of sealed he deal for GE.

The A350 would of needed an incredibly sweet deal to cover the costs of a Simulator re-training and re-tooling.

As for the 777-X, I suspect we’ll look at them in the future but the -9 was just too big and too expensive as a -200 replacement while -8 is years away.


Exactly right. Considering the contenders:

A330 wasn’t an option.
A350 was going to cost too much as it would be ANOTHER fleet (A320, B789, B773, A350).
779X is only a couple of years away but is too big.
778X isn’t even on the horizon yet as they’re focusing on the 9X first.
788 is too small.
789 is slightly too small to replace B772.
787-10 is the right size and has a better range than the current B772 while delivering a 25% reduction in fuel burn.


It was pretty clear along time ago that it would most likely be 787-10s or additional -9s.

I would say say that this seals the deal for the 777X as the replacement for the 773. Otherwise if they thought they would go for the A350-1000 in the future, then they would have ordered the A359 as the B772 replacement.

One thing missing from the announcement was a code three B789 capable of NYC-EWR.

B772
26th May 2019, 23:35
I hate to admit it but the A350 from all accounts is a better aircraft than the B787.

Dee Vee
26th May 2019, 23:38
The A350 would of needed an incredibly sweet deal to cover the costs of a Simulator, re-training and re-tooling.

Shame, Air NZ used to put the customer first, not the beancounters.

Rated De
27th May 2019, 00:11
See Leigh and Little Napoleon, it isn't that hard after all!

In building and maintaining their narrative Fort Fumble ignore Air New Zealand, for despite Qantas' scale advantage they are deficient in leadership.

BGQ
27th May 2019, 01:32
Shame, Air NZ used to put the customer first, not the beancounters.
Really ..... when was that?

kiwi grey
27th May 2019, 03:09
One thing missing from the announcement was a code three B789 capable of NYC-EWR.

The announcement included "conversion rights" for different versions of the 787.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the orders / options got converted to the same type as QANTAS "Project Sunrise", provided that goes to Boeing. Even if that's a 777 derivative rather than a 787.

Just my $NZ0.02 ;)

RubberDogPoop
27th May 2019, 03:43
787-10 is the right size and has a better range than the current B772 while delivering a 25% reduction in fuel burn.




Good choice to free up -9s to replace the T7, but in no way does a -10 have a better range. This in fact was one of the drawbacks in the selection process, the -10 is essentially unable to reach the US...

The Green Goblin
27th May 2019, 04:28
The -9 could do Auckland - JFK though couldn’t it?

Perhaps the -10 on the oceana routes for growth over the -9 and the -9s further afield? Albeit with a capacity reduction from the trippler.

Maggie Island
27th May 2019, 04:41
It would appear that Boeing have secured an MTOW upgrade on the 10 (perhaps the 9 too?) to give similar range performance to QFs 789s... well, at least after 2022.

dragon man
27th May 2019, 05:16
See Leigh and Little Napoleon, it isn't that hard after all!

In building and maintaining their narrative Fort Fumble ignore Air New Zealand, for despite Qantas' scale advantage they are deficient in leadership.

Not only are they head and shoulders better than Australia at Rugby but there national carrier is head and shoulders better than Qantas.

RubberDogPoop
27th May 2019, 06:19
The -9 could do Auckland - JFK though couldn’t it?

Perhaps the -10 on the oceana routes for growth over the -9 and the -9s further afield? Albeit with a capacity reduction from the trippler.

Totally. The -10 looks well suited to the Asian market, and will free up the -9s. (not forgetting of course that any of the -10s are swappable to -9s in this order.)
Not to mention the mythical "code 3" aircraft with reduced seating and IGW/fuel...

SandyPalms
27th May 2019, 06:23
Not only are they head and shoulders better than Australia at Rugby but there national carrier is head and shoulders better than Qantas.

why?

I’m as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesn’t prove anything. Keep it real. And don’t involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️

dragon man
27th May 2019, 06:47
why?

I’m as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesn’t prove anything. Keep it real. And don’t involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️

Lighten up for goodness sake, it’s called taking the piss.

SandyPalms
27th May 2019, 06:52
Oh, ok. Is that what it is. Embarrassed��

So is everything that Rated de says a piss take? Now it actually makes sense��

Great decision by ANZ. I hope QF does the same.

T-Vasis
27th May 2019, 09:20
The Air New Zealand investor pack can be viewed @ https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190527/pdf/445d73s33c1w4b.pdf ([url=[url=[url=[url) for those of you who are interested. What an effort. One very well run airline. ~$350m PBT (I assume). Would be interesting to see what contribution RR made to the numbers if this isn't underlying.

swh
27th May 2019, 09:50
Good choice to free up -9s to replace the T7, but in no way does a -10 have a better range. This in fact was one of the drawbacks in the selection process, the -10 is essentially unable to reach the US...

Another plus for the 787 is the pilot contract is cheaper. They will eventually get rid of all of the 777s so everybody is on the cheaper contract.

waren9
27th May 2019, 11:38
yep, another f. up by alpa about to happen.

a321's (near 767 size) flown now on a320 money. 787-9's near 772 size flown considerably cheaper. lets see how much claw back they get with the 787-10's.

InZed
27th May 2019, 19:21
yep, another f. up by alpa about to happen.

a321's (near 767 size) flown now on a320 money. 787-9's near 772 size flown considerably cheaper. lets see how much claw back they get with the 787-10's.

:ugh: Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the current 777 pay scales based on the 744 pay scales?

Either way. They’re going to need to do a sizeable increase to the 787 pay scales by then before everyone throws their toys out of the cot.

ElZilcho
27th May 2019, 20:18
The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago. To ward of any possible reduction should the company purchase A319’s, a family rate was agreed upon as they never envisaged we’d get A321’s. Of course, here we are 15 odd years later, with NEO’s instead of a new type and stuck with the Family rate.

As for the 777 rates, it’s a blend between the -200 and -300 rates. With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9. Time for ALPA (and by that I mean the collective) to grow a spine and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay.

donkey123
27th May 2019, 23:58
The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago. To ward of any possible reduction should the company purchase A319’s, a family rate was agreed upon as they never envisaged we’d get A321’s. Of course, here we are 15 odd years later, with NEO’s instead of a new type and stuck with the Family rate.

As for the 777 rates, it’s a blend between the -200 and -300 rates. With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9. Time for ALPA (and by that I mean the collective) to grow a spine and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay.


At least the ‘A320 Family’ have now been ring fenced, avoiding an introduction of A321LR’s or similar flying to medium haul destinations (eg Perth, HNL)

Agree re pay scale calculation. The same problem will manifest itself when the 777 3’s are replaced (777-900 similar gross weight etc).

RubberDogPoop
28th May 2019, 01:33
Ouch! Tough audience...
The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago.
You've even answered your own issue. Everything's pretty easy in hindsight. The reasoning was sound, the "family" rate at the time was reasonable (better than, regionally), and arguably the NEO is a new type altogether...
With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9.
and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay
Good thing the pay-rates are based on a payload/range equation and not just weight I guess. 40 more seats, 15% more cargo volume...
The same problem will manifest itself when the 777 3’s are replaced (777-900 similar gross weight etc).
It's unlikely a 330 seat aeroplane will be replaced with a 440 seat one in any case (that, and a 777-900 doesn't exist), so more likely a 777-8 is the machine. Again, payload to the rescue...

Looks like there'll be plenty of volunteers for ALPA negotiations, and that can only be a good thing.

ElZilcho
28th May 2019, 02:16
Ouch! Tough audience...

You've even answered your own issue. Everything's pretty easy in hindsight. The reasoning was sound, the "family" rate at the time was reasonable (better than, regionally), and arguably the NEO is a new type altogether...

That's kinda my point. At the time it was the right decision, in hindsight, it backfired spectacularly.

Good thing the pay-rates are based on a payload/range equation and not just weight I guess. 40 more seats, 15% more cargo volume...

Understand this, so curious how it'll work out. The -10 has more "Volume" available but less weight available being heavier than the -9 with the same MTOW, and less range (book figures). Wait and see I suppose, we haven't agreed to a 787 Family rate so the -10 will be negotiated separately.

Rated De
28th May 2019, 03:16
why?

I’m as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesn’t prove anything. Keep it real. And don’t involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️

Since you enquired, there are a number of points of difference for a supposed 'end of line' carrier. Firstly, was Rob Fyfe. Every now and again, along comes an airline executive who is a consistent force to ensure the biggest team in the world tends to all head in the same direction.
Mr Fyfe ensured that he and other senior executives regularly went and worked on the front line. From baggage and check in, the feedback from non-KPI preserving managers paints a very different picture to those actually engaged in the job. That goes a long way to gain trust.
Little Napoleon could not, without a security detail, venture very far from his safely entrenched office. Frank Lorenzo had similar structures at Continental Airlines and Gordon Bethune removed them all. The pilots at Southwest bought Mr Kelleher a motorcycle.
That may not resolve issues of 'labour unit cost' but it sure helps that the CEO is approachable and takes the time to communicate.

However, alas for Little Napoleon;

You cannot fake sincerity-Anon.

Air New Zealand also retired the last Boeing 747 in 2014, stating;

Given the opportunity customers always wanted to be seated in the 747s' top deck, he said, let's not kid ourselves. The magic of walking up a circular staircase into the bubble at the top was definitely seen as something that made it even more special." Some customers would be sad to see the 747s go but feedback on modern, fuel-efficient aircraft was extremely positive, he said. "The 747 as it now stands has had its day. It's not competitive."

CEO Luxon stated (paraphrasing) that the disposal of that aircraft was responsible for a very large improvement in their operating expense, margin improvement, ultimately reducing the fuel included CASK substantially.

That Air New Zealand is ignored when Little Napoleon exclaims how well Qantas does is testament to what good airline managers quietly do: Run an efficient, strategically disciplined and focused airline.
Qantas prefers developing social discourse and column inches in the daily rags.

mattyj
28th May 2019, 19:31
There’s the beginnings of talk of taking the 789s back to Seattle for new engines and pylons too for ‘fleet commonality’..the RR problems are starting to look insurmountable and the dash 10s are starting to crack around the place too which did nothing for the 350s cause

tdracer
28th May 2019, 20:43
There’s the beginnings of talk of taking the 789s back to Seattle for new engines and pylons too for ‘fleet commonality’..the RR problems are starting to look insurmountable and the dash 10s are starting to crack around the place too which did nothing for the 350s cause

During the development of the 787, there was a specific requirement to make the engines 'plug and play' - that the engines and pylons could be switched between GE and Rolls with no aircraft changes needed (aside from perhaps updating some software). This was completely new - previously Boeing aircraft were so tailored to specific engine type that changing engine types was not economically viable - too many aircraft changes were needed. However it was seen that being able to readily swap engine types might help the resale value so the desire to make it available for the 787. To the best of my knowledge it's never actually been done through.
If this is true, it will be a massive blow to Rolls Royce - and by connection to Airbus since they're Rolls only for both the A350 and A330 NEO.

mattyj
28th May 2019, 21:25
I agree with everything you said except that the 772 is also engine swappable