Is Air NZ worth it?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Lets be honest..the ATR is just Fugly..with a capital "F" 
..plus its french...
Back to the subject in hand....given the opportunity, I'd have jumped at Air NZ, but when I started flying, opportunities were a little thin on the ground, particularly when you consider that I needed to make a living out of flying in NZ and not just live off the bank of mum and dad.
Putting that into some sort of perspective, my personal view is that if you are in the right place at the right time, and are young enough, then its worth it.
I have no actual first hand experience of the company, but I know some very senior and junior guys on all the jet fleets and to a man they have no real gripes, other than the usual...pay..rostering..upgrade times..etc etc.
I've also spoken to a couple of Ex Air NZ guys here (EK) who have either taken LWOP, or have left outright, and again they have positive feedback about their previous employer..but for various reasons they no longer felt any loyalty or reason to stick around for another 20 years to get into the left seat.
I guess its horses for courses, had I not lived outside and experienced the rest of the world away from NZ for the past 13 years, I would probably be more enthusiastic...but to be honest I'm quite happy earning a tax free salary and putting enough aside so I can retire at 55 and live comfortably in a place of my (wifes) choosing
..plus its french...Back to the subject in hand....given the opportunity, I'd have jumped at Air NZ, but when I started flying, opportunities were a little thin on the ground, particularly when you consider that I needed to make a living out of flying in NZ and not just live off the bank of mum and dad.
Putting that into some sort of perspective, my personal view is that if you are in the right place at the right time, and are young enough, then its worth it.
I have no actual first hand experience of the company, but I know some very senior and junior guys on all the jet fleets and to a man they have no real gripes, other than the usual...pay..rostering..upgrade times..etc etc.
I've also spoken to a couple of Ex Air NZ guys here (EK) who have either taken LWOP, or have left outright, and again they have positive feedback about their previous employer..but for various reasons they no longer felt any loyalty or reason to stick around for another 20 years to get into the left seat.
I guess its horses for courses, had I not lived outside and experienced the rest of the world away from NZ for the past 13 years, I would probably be more enthusiastic...but to be honest I'm quite happy earning a tax free salary and putting enough aside so I can retire at 55 and live comfortably in a place of my (wifes) choosing
One thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding suitable aircraft types, is the ability of the "One type suits all" aircraft to fit into some of the airports that are serviced by Air NZ. I have heard that the likes of NZWR would be a challenge for some types and also the CAA requirements for Part 121 as opposed to Part 125 also comes into play when choosing aircraft to service the regional centres, i.e. ATC and other requirements.
While a one size fits all makes sense in some ways there are other fatcors that come into play that complicate matters some what.
Remoak, will the Q400 actually work in all the regional centres? I think not. So what are the alternatives to what is already being used? Will one size actually fit all on the New Zealand regional network? I'll think you'll agree, it's not easy to answer.
While a one size fits all makes sense in some ways there are other fatcors that come into play that complicate matters some what.
Remoak, will the Q400 actually work in all the regional centres? I think not. So what are the alternatives to what is already being used? Will one size actually fit all on the New Zealand regional network? I'll think you'll agree, it's not easy to answer.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well the problem here is that none of you seem to know jack sh*t about the Q400.
I spent several years at flybe, saw the aircraft introduced, witnessed it's growing pains, saw the problems, saw the solutions, sat on numerous committees trying to sort it out.
It will easily operate out any significant NZ regional airport. We operated it out of Guernsey all the time (1450m). Flybe operate it on short, multiple sectors and have found out how to make it reliable. The undercarriage thing is a bit of an urban myth, having more to do with poor engineering than an actual design defect. It has pretty good performance figures, especially with light fuel loads. The book figure for required takeoff runway length is 1134m, with enough fuel for a 500nm sector. Drop the range down to say, 300nm and NZWR is easily do-able. That's pretty good for a 70 seat aircraft (the 146 would be better of course
)
As far as Part 121 vs Part 125 is concerned, ATC in this country is woefully lacking and really needs looking at. I did two years in the Republic of Ireland (a country with roughly the same population as NZ), and all the little regional airports like Wateford, Galway, Cork etc all have full-time ATC and at least one ILS, sometimes one on each of the runways. New Zealand is well behind the rest of the world when it comes to ATC and approach aids, another dubious result of Swedavia in the '80s.
Anyway, the point is that the Q400 could easily work as a single solution, but I'd be the first to agree that it never will.
BTW don't take my defence of the Q400 as being an endorsement, I still think it's a lightly-built, fragile POS. Much like the slower, lower and yes - French - ATR.
I spent several years at flybe, saw the aircraft introduced, witnessed it's growing pains, saw the problems, saw the solutions, sat on numerous committees trying to sort it out.
It will easily operate out any significant NZ regional airport. We operated it out of Guernsey all the time (1450m). Flybe operate it on short, multiple sectors and have found out how to make it reliable. The undercarriage thing is a bit of an urban myth, having more to do with poor engineering than an actual design defect. It has pretty good performance figures, especially with light fuel loads. The book figure for required takeoff runway length is 1134m, with enough fuel for a 500nm sector. Drop the range down to say, 300nm and NZWR is easily do-able. That's pretty good for a 70 seat aircraft (the 146 would be better of course
)As far as Part 121 vs Part 125 is concerned, ATC in this country is woefully lacking and really needs looking at. I did two years in the Republic of Ireland (a country with roughly the same population as NZ), and all the little regional airports like Wateford, Galway, Cork etc all have full-time ATC and at least one ILS, sometimes one on each of the runways. New Zealand is well behind the rest of the world when it comes to ATC and approach aids, another dubious result of Swedavia in the '80s.
Anyway, the point is that the Q400 could easily work as a single solution, but I'd be the first to agree that it never will.
BTW don't take my defence of the Q400 as being an endorsement, I still think it's a lightly-built, fragile POS. Much like the slower, lower and yes - French - ATR.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know much about airliners, but I have seen them try various types in my area. A 1 size fits all plane to all regional centres in NZ seems to me like you will end up with a lot of empty seats. For example, about 10 years ago, when Air Nelson stopped operating the Metro into Timaru, they replaced it with the Saab 340. It was proclaimed to be the future of air travel to the area, going to increase passenger numbers phenomenonly. It didnt last long. The passenger numbers remained the same, and all they ended up doing was just running half empty planes instead of full ones. There just isnt the population base for a bigger plane. The Metro got put back on the Timaru run until Eagle took over the run with the 1900. So to put a 70 odd seat Q400 on the same run (not to mention Timaru is only about 1000 metres runway) would be not just overkill, it would be ridiculous. To say, "oh no thats ok, we just run 1 flight a day" just doesnt cut it. Link got the pax numbers up by reducing the price of regional flights and putting more numerous flights on in smaller aircraft. To run the bigger machines into Invercargill, Queenstown, Nelson, Rotorua, where there is the population base to support is, sure, but Timaru, Wanaka, Greymouth etc, forget it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak: You mention "all the little regional airports like Wateford, Galway, Cork etc all have full-time ATC and at least one ILS, sometimes one on each of the runways".
Who pays for these services and aids ? is it a government subsidy, or is the cost covered by the airways/airport charges to the airlines involved ?
Who pays for these services and aids ? is it a government subsidy, or is the cost covered by the airways/airport charges to the airlines involved ?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a mixture of both really. The Irish are past masters at extracting money from the EU for "development", trying to drag themselves out of the stone age and become a modern Euro state. So some money, in the past, came from EU Development Grants - Carrickfinn/Donegal being a good example of a country strip that became a nice shiny modern airport on the back of EU money.
However these days, it's strictly user-pays, just like here. And guess what, low-cost carriers still prosper over there, even Aer Arann looks set to survive and they have been pretty much kings of the EUR29.00 ticket.
Most of the airports operate as independent companies, and set their own charges accordingly. It's highly competitive in some areas, for example Galway and Knock are pretty close together and compete for business. Knock was built to serve the catholic shrine there, has a 747-sized runway. Galway is much smaller at around 1400m and 30m wide.
When I came back, I couldn't believe there were still NDB approaches in NZ. Hadn't done one in Europe in over 20 years... no, we are way behind the rest of the (developed) world.
aileron69
You are missing the point (and you aren't alone). The lesson of the European low-cost operators, and to an extent the American ones, is that you have to generate new business and then get them to keep flying. The way to do this is no longer a secret, just think yields and pax-per-seat-mile. In Europe, the thin routes are balanced by the fat ones until the thinner routes pick up. Not all of them work, naturally, but most do. We saw some routes start out with 2 flights a day and 10% load factors, and with innovative marketing grew to 6 flights a day and 90% load factors - in less than a year.
It requires an acceptance of an element of risk, and an ability to think outside the box and be innovative. That last one is where NZ operators normally fall down, I can't think of any innovative pax operations here and the country is crying out for someone to step up. Have a look at the smaller, niche Euro operators if you want some inspiration.
However these days, it's strictly user-pays, just like here. And guess what, low-cost carriers still prosper over there, even Aer Arann looks set to survive and they have been pretty much kings of the EUR29.00 ticket.
Most of the airports operate as independent companies, and set their own charges accordingly. It's highly competitive in some areas, for example Galway and Knock are pretty close together and compete for business. Knock was built to serve the catholic shrine there, has a 747-sized runway. Galway is much smaller at around 1400m and 30m wide.
When I came back, I couldn't believe there were still NDB approaches in NZ. Hadn't done one in Europe in over 20 years... no, we are way behind the rest of the (developed) world.
aileron69
To run the bigger machines into Invercargill, Queenstown, Nelson, Rotorua, where there is the population base to support is, sure, but Timaru, Wanaka, Greymouth etc, forget it.
It requires an acceptance of an element of risk, and an ability to think outside the box and be innovative. That last one is where NZ operators normally fall down, I can't think of any innovative pax operations here and the country is crying out for someone to step up. Have a look at the smaller, niche Euro operators if you want some inspiration.
In Europe, the thin routes are balanced by the fat ones until the thinner routes pick up. Not all of them work, naturally, but most do. We saw some routes start out with 2 flights a day and 10% load factors, and with innovative marketing grew to 6 flights a day and 90% load factors - in less than a year.
If we assume a Q400 with 70 seats and use the figures you quote we are talking about 370 pax a day out of a regional airport by using "innovative marketing" to increase load factors. How many regoinal centres can produce that sort of traffic?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think I am missing the Point Remoak. You cant compare places like Wanaka (population 4500), Westport (population 4000) and Timaru, (Population 27000), with Europe. Where are you going to find all these people from that you are going to put on your Q400, regardless of how cheap your plane tickets are. Noone will have time to go to work, they'll all be flying everywhere all the time!! What is wrong with operating a smaller aircraft like the 1900 on these routes? Smaller planes more regularly has been the forte of not just the Trans Tasman routes but Europe and America for many years now. Bigger planes less regularly isnt going to attract people to fly your small regional routes, its a backwards step, and bigger planes more regularly is just going burn more fuel with empty planes.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
Population of Ireland 4 million (depending on how many Polish immigrants are there at any one time). Sector times 20 mins to 2 hours.
Interestingly the local domestic carrier, Aer Arann, was trying to get rid of it's ATR42s and go all 72.
aileron 69
Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself - Ireland West Airport Knock
Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.
But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...
What sort of population base are we talking about here and what were the sector times? Do they really compare to New Zealand? Is it a valid comparison? There are too many thin routes in New Zealand.
Interestingly the local domestic carrier, Aer Arann, was trying to get rid of it's ATR42s and go all 72.
aileron 69
You cant compare places like Wanaka (population 4500), Westport (population 4000) and Timaru, (Population 27000), with Europe.
Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.
But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...
Originally Posted by remoak
Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? The population of Knock in Ireland (which has an international airport which accepts everything up to 747s) is 745 (2006 census). No, I didn't miss any zeros off that - look it up. Go and check out the airport for yourself - Ireland West Airport Knock
Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.
But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...
Of course they have an attraction - just like Wanaka does. They only difference is that they have worked out how to capitalise on it. And their airport website puts us to shame as well.
But no, stick to 1900s if you want, looking backwards tends to be a kiwi forte at times...
The other question, what is the population of the area within 3 hours flying from this airport? As I'm sure that number will be exponentially greater than what you find within 3 hours flying time of Wanaka!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was saying before, they tried bigger planes into the likes of Timaru and they werent getting the numbers.
Why do you want to only operate 1 type of plane?
ONE set of spares, not three
ONE training department, not three
ONE set of licensed engineers, not three
ONE set of performance data and simplified flight planning
ONE set of ground equipment, not three
ONE set of manuals
etc etc etc
Do they only operate the 1 type of plane into every regional airport in Ireland?
It's well-proven formula, well everywhere except here, anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 38
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd imagine Air NZ have thought about operating fewer types domestically. The 1900s aren't going to last forever, so unless they want to buy some J32s (even older but going cheap!) I can't think of any new 19 seaters.
What are the possible combinations? Q300s on the thinner routes and a bucketful of new ATRs?
What are the possible combinations? Q300s on the thinner routes and a bucketful of new ATRs?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well hell lets just run 777s then. Dont worry about tailering getting the right aircaft for the job, make the job fit the aircraft, and since they already operate the 777 on the longhaul international runs, Air NZ would save heaps of money having everyone trained and ready to fly or maintain the whole fleet. All you need is 3 or 4 of them and you could get the whole of westport on board!!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind a CB near you
Age: 44
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other question, what is the population of the area within 3 hours flying from this airport? As I'm sure that number will be exponentially greater than what you find within 3 hours flying time of Wanaka!
Or anywhere else in New Zealand for that matter.
Sydney: 4.6 million
Melbourne: 4 million
Brisbane: 2 million
Adelaide: 1.2 million
(Maybe a little more than 3 hours to a couple of those I know)
Trans-Tasman in the Q400 eh. 
I'm pretty sure Air Nz would have given everything Remoak is suggesting a very thorough looking into. Horses for courses though, seems to be quite profitable as is!
I'm pretty sure Air Nz would have given everything Remoak is suggesting a very thorough looking into. Horses for courses though, seems to be quite profitable as is!
