Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air New Zealand | Air Points
Reload this Page >

Air Auckland

Register
Community
Wiki Posts
Today's Posts
Search

Air Auckland

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 30, 2015, 9:09 pm
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
Originally Posted by cavemanzk
Problem being that NZ relies on feed from PER/ADL/MEL/SYD/OOL/BNE/MCY/CNS to help fill its AKL-LAX/SFO/YVR/IAH/EZE services. An CHC-LAX service would lack this Tasman feed, NZ only flies CHC-SYD/MEL/BNE typically once a day, with an A320.

AKL-MEL/SYD/BNE all have at least 1x Daily 787/777 service, plus a couple times a day with A320s.

CHC-LAX would also reduce fleet flexibility, currently 90% of the 777/787 fleet start the morning off in AKL.
Yeah, I honestly can't see them doing it. NZ isn't in the business of losing money anymore (see dumping the Beechcrafts, ticking off the smaller towns by cancelling services, etc.). And how many people would really fly CHC-SYD-USA/CA/S.America with QF instead? That and the current CHC-AKL-USA/CA/S.America are really the only options. Entire South Island is only a million people or so, and only about 35-40% in CHC region itself. Anyone flying to ZQN or DUD (or WLG since it is probably a wash in terms of time) doesn't much benefit from a CHC-LAX nonstop, and you're simply not going to fly a route for less than 400,000 local population.

Originally Posted by Rebound
Maintenance is in Auckland too
Always another consideration.
TheBOSman is offline  
Reply
Old Aug 31, 2015, 12:33 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by jawnbc
Why not QF/AC via SYD, 17h25? Granted it's not QF service, but it's much better than NZ via AKL.
Not sure many people would agree on that. The transit in SYD is a nightmare compared to AKL...you need to change terminals as well as doing the customs processing. Plus, in my opinion, NZ is a long way ahead of AC in terms of soft and hard product.

Originally Posted by WLG Base
I agree EK F on 77W is very good.

EK J, however, is 2-3-2 which is not very good.
Sorry, I should've said earlier that I meant the J product on EK 777's is not up to scratch. Haven't flown their F but understand it is very good on all aircraft.
AviationNZ is offline  
Reply



Advanced Search
Reply Closed Thread Share
Forum Jump

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.