Eagle's Q200s
 

There is no way that Eagle Air will be getting Q200's. Agree.
IF Air NZ did decide to go Q200's they will be operated by Air Nelson, no question. The Eagle troops suggesting they'll be op-ing them, are dreaming!:8 Eagle is brilliant at what they do, furiosly operating 19 seaters.

The Q200 comes with a slightly less powerful version of the Q300's engine, so yeah the economical differences aren't really there. Still one hostie no matter 35 or 50 seats.

Air NZ did buy the Q311 with the smaller engines though, but yup they'll prob stick with Q300's. Oh and maybe some Q400's! :}

I think Mt Cook quite like the ATR at least a whole lot more than the Q400. I don't think they want anything to do with the Q400. From what I've heard the Q400 has its issues.

As for 5 Q200's. Got to ask the question, other than aquisitions costs, what is the advantage over just getting Q300's and be done with it. Unless of course......

Would Air NZ not have been better to wait for the 787-10? Perhaps the replacement plan req. new a/c for 2011. Think the 787-10 is due 2013 or so?

On Guard. That's what Qantas plans. Keep the B744's in service until the B787-10 is available (ie to get the latest tecnology). The 30 B744's (& 4 B743's) will be replaced by a mixture of A380's (20) and B787-10's which gives great flexibility for different routes.
1279shp, would the Q200 have better performance out of limiting airports in comparison with the Q300? Which airports in NZ are limiting for this size turboprop?

1279shp: Your a top man!!! Agree with every word you say.

Going Boeing: Your on the money. The dash 8-200 (or Q200) came about with the demand to operatethe the dash 8-100 out of hot and heigh airfields. The 200 is the same size as the 100, but with the 300 series engines, and an increase in the ZFW. The Q400 is a different kettle of fish all together and has more in common with an ATR72, even though it is a dash.

Now back to the topic at hand. It will be a sad day when the last 744 goes, should have ANZ brought the 747-800???

I personally would have like the 748, but yea... We'll see maybe a possibility in the future.

IMO the 748 had better fuel economy and would be able to sustain a growth in the premium cabins without sacrificing economy seats when compared to the 77W which they have just ordered. And not to mention that by 2012 when all of them arrive, the 77W will be nearing a decade old. (Just a personal opinion)

Just one thing about the Q series aircraft. Does anyone know the rules since they have been updated. From what I understood, Eagle will have to quit serving some of their routes if they do go Q200 in future as many of their aerodromes don't have crash and fire services. PLaces like Whakatane, Wanganui, Wanaka etc etc...

I think it was if an aircraft has more than 20 PAX seats or something that it needed rescue services. Something which Eagle has to it's advantage at the moment.

As for the ATR's, they don't need replacing for a while yet right?

I think ATR's are up for replacement soon. Poss more ATR's to replace but with Air Nelson's capacity pretty close they may go something different. ATR similar running costs as Q300 but seats 16 more. AirNZ will not allow them to get jets - don't quote me on that :), heresay.

747-800 - Reading into it I don't think this is suitable for Air NZ's future strategy. 550 seats maybe only useful on the AA-LAX-LHR route. My feeling is they are going for more point to point markets, into North America, India/Asia etc. One stops ultra long haul Auckland to XX.

Shame the 748 will be a great aircraft but I can see the sense in the strategy.

That is true, but my personal logic was that if NZ have less than 400 seats on their 744s, they are only looking at 450 ish in the 748s.

I do see you point and it is very valid. But while I agree with point to point to a certain length, New Zealand is a small country at the end of the world with a small poopulation base. There is only so much point to point you can do from here. IMO All LHR routes could sustain that size which would bring 6 frames into the mix.

But its just an opinion and managment knows what they are doing, and new a/c is good news anyway and congrats to NZ. If there is a need in future, I'm sure we will see 748/Y3 aircraft.

Good Bye the pig!
 

The B747-8 does not have the legs for AKL-LAX plus alt, as the aircraft is not an extended performance B744. This aircraft was designed from the outset as a freighter, and the pax versions was configured and optimised for the only Airline to order the pass version todate, Lufthanza.

https://myairnz.airnz.co.nz/images/a...b777-300ER.jpg

OK......heres a prediction on the Air NZ widebody fleet circa 2012

16- B789 (or variant)
7- B773
8- B722

31 total

c100driver, the B748 is designed to carry a full payload 8000NM which is why it originally was proposed with a shorter fuselage than the B748F. When Boeing's wind tunnel testing and computer modeling revealed that the new technology would perform better than predicted they then revised their offer for the pax version to have the same fuselage as the freighter and still retain the 8000NM range. It would do SYD - DFW with a full payload - a very attractive aeroplane. The four engine config would mean no problems AKL - Sth America and HKG - LHR (high terrain). The main reason why Air NZ probably won't buy it is because of the high cost of having an extra fleet in relatively small numbers. Generally, a fleet of less than 12 means that the operating costs are significantly higher - mainly due to to the spares inventory and other maintenance issues.

Slammer - Just remember that 4 of the 772s are due back to the leasors in that time frame. So unless their contracts are renewed, we are looking at about 27 a/c frames