Air NZ may fly jets in regions
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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
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...
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/on...7300_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...
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/on...7300_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...
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So.....
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?
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?
Last edited by Daqqy152; 4th Dec 2007 at 05:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does ANZ run 3 Different airlines with 3 different types
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 49
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by ramyon; 4th Dec 2007 at 08:26.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Accountants
...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...
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...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $$$$$$$$$$
A regional fleet of 400,s in kiwi,would and is the wisest and most economical choice.....ask Continental airlines what the think of their fleet of RJS......THEY HAVE A USE,BUT ITS VERY LIMITED.....the costs of running RJS and 400,s is no comparison
Is USAirways complaining about them...YES WE ARE!!!!!!!..Ifly the A321 for them.....and the cost of operating the fleet of RJ,S of all our feeder fleets is through the roof.....our mgt has constantly complained of their costs compared tp our 737/319 fleet.....they have less seats and cost about the same to operate...why the hell do you thing weve ordered the E-190,s......and not more RJS.....(your a little out of your depth here)....I,d add a few other comments...but its xmas,and I wish you and all yours the best for the new year.....if you are a pilot???(airline)fly safe!
We can debate until the cows come home...my point was merely that a company like Horizon runs a fleet of 400,s and does it very well...they run RJ,s to compliment the fleet and are very careful how they intergrate these A/C and their use...... the truth is that if Horizon could have pulled out of the RJ leases ...they would have...Frontier came to the rescue.....their "considerable fleet" as you call it is made up of Dash200/400,s.....that is their bread and butter......that is their $$$$$$$$$$
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!
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 4th Dec 2007 at 20:59.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
* 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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..