Air NZ may fly jets in regions
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya need to look to Mother England!
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.
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?
Over/out
PS: No-ones suggested 737-600 with optional winglets. Stick to what ya know??
Na, thought not.
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.
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?
Over/out
PS: No-ones suggested 737-600 with optional winglets. Stick to what ya know??
Na, thought not.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
hehehehehehe ......mate,posts like that make me all warm and fuzzy inside
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-600
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.
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!
Makes some sense. Doesn't it Pakeha Boy??
Which prob means it'll never be considered!
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.
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!
Makes some sense. Doesn't it Pakeha Boy??
Which prob means it'll never be considered!
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 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Originally Posted by 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
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
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Now Westport, that's another story with PCN around 30!
Blenheim makes more sense in operational terms, but not marketing terms.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
sure the runway would need a bit of work but the place is due for an upgrade soon
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Boeing are doing special short field versions of the 737-600, if this aircraft would work with PCNs at smaller NZ airports
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Saab 340 [Yes]
Saab 2000 [Yes!]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe - Air NZ comparo
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
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).
>>> 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
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).
Last edited by 1279shp; 16th Dec 2007 at 07:30.