www.kiwiregionalairlines.co.nz
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
granted not all are business routes, but suggest the non-business routes might be middle of the day or weekends, whereas the business routes would be around peak hour am & pm Mon-Fri.
Have to remember, that many Kiwi business types in smaller cities now, or soon will have no commercial air service anywhere.
They don't want to drive an hour or 2 just to get to an airport where they can get a flight to Auckland or WLG.
They've stated they are not going to fly in direct competition to NZ. In fact, you'd think NZ would want a low cost operator to feed their international services rather than feed QF or EK or ?
NZ rubbed him out last time via Freedom & govt allowed that to happen. Now govt owns NZ.
Have to remember, that many Kiwi business types in smaller cities now, or soon will have no commercial air service anywhere.
They don't want to drive an hour or 2 just to get to an airport where they can get a flight to Auckland or WLG.
They've stated they are not going to fly in direct competition to NZ. In fact, you'd think NZ would want a low cost operator to feed their international services rather than feed QF or EK or ?
NZ rubbed him out last time via Freedom & govt allowed that to happen. Now govt owns NZ.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The 245 bulkhead
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i have to say this, enough of the NZWP rubbish. Sure its a good idea, one that will no doubt have the great unwashed babbling on if it doesn't happen. Question is who is going to pay for the 139 Certification for NZWP? RNZAF? Why would they bother, as per previous its an Air Force Base. NZOH stacked up for 139 as it is a money maker on the alternate for intl airlines into NZAA. The Govt? Why, its a previously failed airline exec setting himself up for same. KRA? More costs, not going to happen. The man behind all this has been convicted of fraud, how will he even pass the FPP?
Nobody is going to make any money on these thin regional routes, blimey if EAL couldn't make it work and they weren't exactly flash on the remuneration front. I just cannot see this working for any of these new entrant operators. Unless, there are substantial local govt grants to ensure an air service is provided for a fixed period and they pay their staff less than EAL did.
The whole process of obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals to even get off the ground will require a very large capital investment.I am sure that Air NZ analysed all the options and crunched the numbers thoroughly, but simply could not make the numbers work, even with their over inflated prices.
Also, with Airways NZ ( CAA) moving rapidly towards RNAV 1 and 2 procedures it won't be too long before a substantial investment will be needed to comply with these new requirements.
The whole process of obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals to even get off the ground will require a very large capital investment.I am sure that Air NZ analysed all the options and crunched the numbers thoroughly, but simply could not make the numbers work, even with their over inflated prices.
Also, with Airways NZ ( CAA) moving rapidly towards RNAV 1 and 2 procedures it won't be too long before a substantial investment will be needed to comply with these new requirements.
"Well I have to say this, enough of the NZWP rubbish ..."
Spot on.
Quite apart from LPS500's entirely reasonable points, the real impediment is politics.
The people that would be most upset by additional air movement noise would be those that live in the elctorates of Helensville and North Shore. These are both ultra-safe National seats and are currently held by The Rt. Hon John Key (Prime Minister, Minister of National Security and Intelligence, and Minister of Tourism) and The Hon. Maggie Barry (Minister for Arts, Culture & Heritage, Minister of Conservation, and Minister for Senior Citizens). There is no way in the world that civilian RPT use of Whenuapai is going to occur under a National Party lead government.
Anyone who wants dual use of NZWP better get busy working for a change in government, preferably while leaving Helensville and North Shore as nice safe opposition-held seats.
Quite apart from LPS500's entirely reasonable points, the real impediment is politics.
The people that would be most upset by additional air movement noise would be those that live in the elctorates of Helensville and North Shore. These are both ultra-safe National seats and are currently held by The Rt. Hon John Key (Prime Minister, Minister of National Security and Intelligence, and Minister of Tourism) and The Hon. Maggie Barry (Minister for Arts, Culture & Heritage, Minister of Conservation, and Minister for Senior Citizens). There is no way in the world that civilian RPT use of Whenuapai is going to occur under a National Party lead government.
Anyone who wants dual use of NZWP better get busy working for a change in government, preferably while leaving Helensville and North Shore as nice safe opposition-held seats.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..well those electorates would also be the biggest users of an airport at Whenuapai..the only reason the proposal failed last time was the opposition (AIAL) funded the Greenhithe and Herald Island Nimby group to produce a massive RMA/noise footprint case to fight the idea. The dual use concept never failed, the government just let it fade away because it was too much trouble
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of military airfields for civilians.
I don't agree a military airfield should be used for civilian operations, no matter how small and insignificant NZ is in the big picture.
Keep the military separate if at all possible. Mixing the two, the civilian becomes a valid military target.
Having said that, we might as well throw the Geneva convention rules out the window, in view of the scum IS we are going to confront soon.
Keep the military separate if at all possible. Mixing the two, the civilian becomes a valid military target.
Having said that, we might as well throw the Geneva convention rules out the window, in view of the scum IS we are going to confront soon.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZWB may be a civil/military airfield, but the only thing they share is the runway and some of the apron.
NZWP would require significant infrastructure works to separate the civil world from the military world and the government is not going to fund that for a regional airline start-up with a chequered history in the management ranks, and I doubt KRA will have anywhere enough capital to build it themselves.
Where do you think you'll put a terminal, decent sized carpark "close" to said terminal and new roading to aforementioned terminal/carpark??
Too many $$$, not enough ROI.
NZWP would require significant infrastructure works to separate the civil world from the military world and the government is not going to fund that for a regional airline start-up with a chequered history in the management ranks, and I doubt KRA will have anywhere enough capital to build it themselves.
Where do you think you'll put a terminal, decent sized carpark "close" to said terminal and new roading to aforementioned terminal/carpark??
Too many $$$, not enough ROI.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put the terminal and apron on one of the holes at the airbase golf course..handy to the Greenhithe ring route..off duty wing commanders don't need 18 holes anyway..they're all drunk by the time they get to 9
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
talking a few 34 seaters a day. Don't need a terminal of any size or carparks.
People DO NOT want to spend 1 minute more at BUA's(big ugly airports) like AKL or SYD than they have to, esp business types, who want to turn up, get on aircraft & fly.
Interestingly, in this months Airways magazine, there's a story on Rise based in Texas (seemingless a clone of www.surfair.com based in California who are a subscription based airline, (fly as much as u want in a month) & yet another one, Texas Air Shuttle.
This is the growth area. People abandoning BUA's.
People DO NOT want to spend 1 minute more at BUA's(big ugly airports) like AKL or SYD than they have to, esp business types, who want to turn up, get on aircraft & fly.
Interestingly, in this months Airways magazine, there's a story on Rise based in Texas (seemingless a clone of www.surfair.com based in California who are a subscription based airline, (fly as much as u want in a month) & yet another one, Texas Air Shuttle.
This is the growth area. People abandoning BUA's.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 150 Relative
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BNEA320, While you may be correct in that business types want to move away from larger airports. They also don't want to stand in the cold and wet and park their cars on the street miles away, as would be the case if they did away with terminals and carparks per your suggestion
Secondly, Texas has a population of 27+ million, California 38+ million. SurfAir operates PC-12's and Kiwi Regional Airlines is not a subscription airline so i'm not entirely sure that last example is relevant?
Secondly, Texas has a population of 27+ million, California 38+ million. SurfAir operates PC-12's and Kiwi Regional Airlines is not a subscription airline so i'm not entirely sure that last example is relevant?
Last time I took off from Whenuapai on a jolly in a 5 sqn P3 that runway was a bumpy old mess.
Would sure give a Saab a hammering.
And I've said it before, and I'll say it again - NZ is a one and a half airline market, and Air New Zealand want to be one and a half airlines!
Would sure give a Saab a hammering.
And I've said it before, and I'll say it again - NZ is a one and a half airline market, and Air New Zealand want to be one and a half airlines!
NZWP would require significant infrastructure works to separate the civil world from the military world
Don't need a terminal of any size or carparks
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: nz
Age: 38
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting interview from this mornings TV
Kiwi Regional Airlines plans to be airborne before 2016 | TVShows | 3 News
Kiwi Regional Airlines plans to be airborne before 2016 | TVShows | 3 News
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People DO NOT want to spend 1 minute more at BUA's(big ugly airports) like AKL or SYD than they have to, esp business types, who want to turn up, get on aircraft & fly.
Flying out of AKL Domestic is pretty quick and straight-forward, about years ago NZ removed the check-in counters. Which in-turn removed these ques that you talked about, I flew SYD-BNK recently as was shocked by how long it the que took to drop by bag.
In AKL it takes less than 60 seconds to get an bag tag, and drop your bag on the belt.
If you're flying regionally you can drop your car off outside the gate, head straight into the Regional Koru Club an onto the plane directly for there. In fact you have to travel less distance than most regional airports in NZ.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the AKLs & SYDs of this world are the toilets of world aviation.
The bigger the airport, the worse the experience for the traveller.
The bigger the airport, the worse the experience for the traveller.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts