Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s

Old 26th May 2019, 22:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: NOYB
Posts: 4
Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s

Announced this morning to replace the B777-200ERs.

Options for another 12 (20 total).

No surprises here.
InZed is offline  
Old 26th May 2019, 22:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At Home
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by InZed View Post
Announced this morning to replace the B777-200ERs.

Options for another 12 (20 total).

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

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

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

Last edited by ElZilcho; 26th May 2019 at 22:41.
ElZilcho is offline  
Old 26th May 2019, 22:34
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 1,918
Good news for our Kiwi cousins.
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 26th May 2019, 22:41
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: NOYB
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by ElZilcho View Post


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

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

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

Exactly right. Considering the contenders:
  • A330 wasnít an option.
  • A350 was going to cost too much as it would be ANOTHER fleet (A320, B789, B773, A350).
  • 779X is only a couple of years away but is too big.
  • 778X isnít even on the horizon yet as theyíre focusing on the 9X first.
  • 788 is too small.
  • 789 is slightly too small to replace B772.
  • 787-10 is the right size and has a better range than the current B772 while delivering a 25% reduction in fuel burn.

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

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

One thing missing from the announcement was a code three B789 capable of NYC-EWR.
InZed is offline  
Old 26th May 2019, 23:35
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 72
Posts: 1,172
I hate to admit it but the A350 from all accounts is a better aircraft than the B787.
B772 is offline  
Old 26th May 2019, 23:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by ElZilcho View Post
The A350 would of needed an incredibly sweet deal to cover the costs of a Simulator, re-training and re-tooling.
Shame, Air NZ used to put the customer first, not the beancounters.
Dee Vee is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 00:11
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,406
See Leigh and Little Napoleon, it isn't that hard after all!

In building and maintaining their narrative Fort Fumble ignore Air New Zealand, for despite Qantas' scale advantage they are deficient in leadership.
Rated De is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 01:32
  #8 (permalink)  
BGQ
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Devil

Originally Posted by Dee Vee View Post
Shame, Air NZ used to put the customer first, not the beancounters.
Really ..... when was that?
BGQ is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 03:09
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Whanganui, NZ
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by InZed View Post
One thing missing from the announcement was a code three B789 capable of NYC-EWR.
The announcement included "conversion rights" for different versions of the 787.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the orders / options got converted to the same type as QANTAS "Project Sunrise", provided that goes to Boeing. Even if that's a 777 derivative rather than a 787.

Just my $NZ0.02
kiwi grey is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 03:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by InZed View Post

  • 787-10 is the right size and has a better range than the current B772 while delivering a 25% reduction in fuel burn.

Good choice to free up -9s to replace the T7, but in no way does a -10 have a better range. This in fact was one of the drawbacks in the selection process, the -10 is essentially unable to reach the US...
RubberDogPoop is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 04:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,904
The -9 could do Auckland - JFK though couldnít it?

Perhaps the -10 on the oceana routes for growth over the -9 and the -9s further afield? Albeit with a capacity reduction from the trippler.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 04:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Gafa
Posts: 86
It would appear that Boeing have secured an MTOW upgrade on the 10 (perhaps the 9 too?) to give similar range performance to QFs 789s... well, at least after 2022.
Maggie Island is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 05:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by Rated De View Post
See Leigh and Little Napoleon, it isn't that hard after all!

In building and maintaining their narrative Fort Fumble ignore Air New Zealand, for despite Qantas' scale advantage they are deficient in leadership.
Not only are they head and shoulders better than Australia at Rugby but there national carrier is head and shoulders better than Qantas.
dragon man is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 06:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin View Post
The -9 could do Auckland - JFK though couldn’t it?

Perhaps the -10 on the oceana routes for growth over the -9 and the -9s further afield? Albeit with a capacity reduction from the trippler.
Totally. The -10 looks well suited to the Asian market, and will free up the -9s. (not forgetting of course that any of the -10s are swappable to -9s in this order.)
Not to mention the mythical "code 3" aircraft with reduced seating and IGW/fuel...
RubberDogPoop is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 06:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 195

Originally Posted by dragon man View Post


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

Iím as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesnít prove anything. Keep it real. And donít involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️

Last edited by SandyPalms; 27th May 2019 at 06:33.
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 06:47
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by SandyPalms View Post



why?

Iím as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesnít prove anything. Keep it real. And donít involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️
Lighten up for goodness sake, itís called taking the piss.
dragon man is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 06:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 195
Oh, ok. Is that what it is. Embarrassed��

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

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

Last edited by SandyPalms; 27th May 2019 at 07:08.
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 09:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 352
The Air New Zealand investor pack can be viewed @ https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190527/pdf/445d73s33c1w4b.pdf for those of you who are interested. What an effort. One very well run airline. ~$350m PBT (I assume). Would be interesting to see what contribution RR made to the numbers if this isn't underlying.
T-Vasis is online now  
Old 27th May 2019, 09:50
  #19 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,922
Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop View Post
Good choice to free up -9s to replace the T7, but in no way does a -10 have a better range. This in fact was one of the drawbacks in the selection process, the -10 is essentially unable to reach the US...
Another plus for the 787 is the pilot contract is cheaper. They will eventually get rid of all of the 777s so everybody is on the cheaper contract.
swh is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 11:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,309
yep, another f. up by alpa about to happen.

a321's (near 767 size) flown now on a320 money. 787-9's near 772 size flown considerably cheaper. lets see how much claw back they get with the 787-10's.
waren9 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.