dylan12

I expect the new 787 refits to be placed on a new US destination or/and HKG or SIN.

Kiwiwings

I hope that the next US destination would be New York. On paper it looks like a tight squeeze. Obviously a 777-200LR could make it, so maybe that is where the talk of a lease could be coming from.

Would a direct flight to NYC make the Houston flight uneconomical considering the amount of connecting traffic?

Apart from NYC what are the other likely US destinations for Air NZ?

dylan12

Yes NYC does look tight with the existing fleet. Having a direct NYC service would probably affect the profitability of the IAH flight, as it would be assumed that NYC would be the number one connecting city. Maybe something like this in a few years?

LAX twice Daily 77W
SFO daily 77W
IAH daily 787 - new refit
ORD or DEN or LAS 5 times weekly 787 new refit

The decrease in capacity from a 77E to 787 on the IAH route could be used to open up some more breadth in the states. AIR NZ are really starting to push AKL as a hub for aussie travellers so opening up more breadth in the US is only going to help with this ambition.

With United and American now in the market, I wonder if NZ is worried about over capacity.

sbiddle

United isn't extra capacity - it's just a cosy relationship (disguised as a JV) to stop AA launching AKL/SFO as well as had originally been speculated. I'm pretty sure SFO is only a daily all year round now on Air NZ rather than the twice daily on some days that it had moved to after the 744 was dumped.

I can't see American doing anything else right now (there only logical hub for additional flights would be DFW) while there is so much uncertainly in the market. It's anybody's guess what EK will do over the next few years, and establishing AKL as another global hub would create huge implications for NZ.

I still think ORD will happen based on comments I heard last year, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Any US routes are still going to be a year away still.

nzkarit

I don't think LAS will be on the list being a tourist destination and not a hub for United.

I would pick ORD as it is a United Hub. Denver would be closer and a United hub but not sure if the altitude performance hit would payloadwise pay off compared to ORD when flying back to NZ? Also ORD is a bigger international gateway than DEN, so not sure how the facilities factor in.

hayzel7773

Wouldn't be surprised if they do start PER-LHR. NZ has been complaining about the immigration at LAX for their flights to LHR and how they always have to hold the flights because people are stuck at immigration/rescreening. LAX-LHR also has a lot of competition, soon to be 2x UA, 2x AA, 2x BA, and 1x VS.

Kiwiwings

The thing about PER-LHR is that for it to be efficient you need most of the passengers to be traveling to/from Australia rather than New Zealand, because AKL-PER-LHR is 8% further than AKL-LHR. You also have the issue of extra fuel burn due to it being one ultra long haul flight and one medium haul flight from Auckland rather than two long haul flights.

TLDR: PER-LHR is great if you are planning on carrying lots of traffic to from AU, however it is less than ideal for traffic to/from New Zealand.

I think that if NZ1 stopping in LAX is becoming an issue, it should be switched to Japan. A stop in CTS (New Chitose Airport) is almost as direct as you can get for AKL-LHR.

If Air NZ wants to take on EK and QF in the very popular AU-LHR market, I think PER-LHR would be a great way to achieve that.

Rebound

LAX-LHR provides strong premium yields, they aren't going to give that up.

dylan12

Can the new 787 refit make it to LHR from Perth or AKL to ORD?