Air NZ may fly jets in regions
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by RadioSaigon; 20th Jan 2008 at 06:15. Reason: sp
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.
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by belowMDA
...around 2026 I seem to recall.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 49
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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 .
Last edited by ramyon; 24th Jan 2008 at 07:09.
Originally Posted by raymon
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
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.)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400/EMB190 Sim
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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
DUD international
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 hangar 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.
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 hangar 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.