Air New Zealand Air Points - Air New Zealand is considering new routes to North America

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_17_2012_p0-468685.xml

"Fyfe says Air NZ previously intended to launch new North American routes, but deferred these plans in 2010 when United announced plans to begin Auckland flights when its own 787s start arriving. “It made no sense” to start new service if United was going to enter the market, says Fyfe.

Air NZ is once again “very interested in expanding our services,” Fyfe says. “There is definitely room” in this market for additional flights, he says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From my read it seems clear NZ is interested in AKL-IAH. Of course ORD and NYC are often discussed but it seems these are too far and IAH really looks the pick of the bunch. QF has reportedly done very well with DFW.

Hmmmm ... they should do AKL - IAD. Lots of *A flights into IAD, plus its my home airport.

;)

... not that NZ would make available such a flight for award redemption.

Hmmmm ... they should do AKL - IAD. Lots of *A flights into IAD, plus its my home airport.

;)

... not that NZ would make available such a flight for award redemption.
Can this be done nonstop with aircraft they have? I know the QF SYD-DTW pushes the limit.

Can this be done nonstop with aircraft they have? I know the QF SYD-DTW pushes the limit.

Yea ... you're right. Looks like the 787-900(not sure which NZ is getting) is a little under range:
Brief Description:The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner is a slightly bigger version of the 787-8. Both are super-efficient airplanes with new passenger-pleasing features. They will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplanes of their size.

Seating:
250 to 290 passengers

Range:
8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)
...
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html

There is an article on Stuff with detail about this - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7119248/Air-NZ-eyes-US-options-as-United-quits.

It seems that this is not dependent on the arrival of the 787s.

There is an article on Stuff with detail about this - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7119248/Air-NZ-eyes-US-options-as-United-quits.

It seems that this is not dependent on the arrival of the 787s.

Interesting the comments about not going to South America because 'they won't have a local partner' What about AV/TA who are supposed to be joining shortly and have a hub at LIM which was recently voted the best airport in South America ?

There is an article on Stuff with detail about this - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7119248/Air-NZ-eyes-US-options-as-United-quits.

It seems that this is not dependent on the arrival of the 787s.

Thanks for this link. The article I was reading was different but your artivle has more detail.

This clearly says - AIA we want to do a deal, lets get going to IAH 5 weekly 772.

South America - to hard to risky - leave it for awhile and see what the market looks like in 2015.

Can this be done nonstop with aircraft they have? I know the QF SYD-DTW pushes the limit.

DFW :)

From what I just read, thank goodness Auckland Airport is talking to another airline. What's wrong with Auckland needing a second airline on the NZ-US routes? What Fyfe claims of Auckland Airport is selfish and unrealistic.

Yea ... you're right. Looks like the 787-900(not sure which NZ is getting) is a little under range:

Range:
8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html

Both AKL-DEN and AKL-ORD could be in range for the 787-900 if it wasn't for ETOPS180. AKL-DEN would still be in range after adjusting the route to comply with ETOPS180, but AKL-ORD would require too much of a detour.
With ETOPS207, AKL-ORD could be possible (http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=akl-ord,+akl-den&E=207&MS=wls&MR=900&MX=540x540&PM=*&EV=410&EU=kts) (8200 nm), but too close to the maximum range unless the plane flies with less than a full load.

AKL-DEN is probably not feasible business-wise. How about AKL-PHX to use US Air's network (63 destinations, including Mexico and Central America)?

AKL-DEN is probably not feasible business-wise. How about AKL-PHX to use US Air's network?

US might leave *A if they merge with AA which has been increasingly likely.

Considering Air NZ's plummeting reputation in Australia for long-haul travellers, they might just want to consolidate as a single LAX flight.

A couple we are friends with took their son on a Premium Economy BNE-HNL ticket last weekend. They were deeply unimpressed upon boarding their BNE-AKL 77E to be seated in the Economy section, when their Travel Agent had advised them that they would be seated in PE but with Economy service.

On their way off the aircraft, while passing through Premium Economy, they asked the flight attendant why they were seated in Economy. The reply was "those passengers had bought those seats". "What do you mean, we are on Premium Economy tickets ourselves?" they replied.

"No, no, these passengers have Economy tickets, plus a Works Deluxe package" explained the flight attendant.

So our friends learned that if you buy a long-haul Premium Economy ticket on Air NZ, mysterious and mystifying rules will see you placed in Economy seating over the Tasman while people with Economy tickets will be sitting in the Premium Economy seats. That's all right then.

So concentrate on LAX, Air NZ, because your reputation in Australia was arguably higher during the Ansett debacle, and I wouldn't be counting on any Australian feed for the duration of S2S and diluted Business Class.

US might leave *A if they merge with AA which has been increasingly likely.

True. But they're still in *A :)

Considering Air NZ's plummeting reputation in Australia for long-haul travellers, they might just want to consolidate as a single LAX flight.

A couple we are friends with took their son on a Premium Economy BNE-HNL ticket last weekend. They were deeply unimpressed upon boarding their BNE-AKL 77E to be seated in the Economy section, when their Travel Agent had advised them that they would be seated in PE but with Economy service.

On their way off the aircraft, while passing through Premium Economy, they asked the flight attendant why they were seated in Economy. The reply was "those passengers had bought those seats". "What do you mean, we are on Premium Economy tickets ourselves?" they replied.

"No, no, these passengers have Economy tickets, plus a Works Deluxe package" explained the flight attendant.

So our friends learned that if you buy a long-haul Premium Economy ticket on Air NZ, mysterious and mystifying rules will see you placed in Economy seating over the Tasman while people with Economy tickets will be sitting in the Premium Economy seats. That's all right then.

So concentrate on LAX, Air NZ, because your reputation in Australia was arguably higher during the Ansett debacle, and I wouldn't be counting on any Australian feed for the duration of S2S and diluted Business Class.

Slightly OT for _this_ thread, but goes well with your example. After "quitting" from NZ, I'll fly WLG-SYD-LAX on QF this week. Booked a premium economy ticket and was more than pleased that QF places one in Trans-Tasman business class if there's availability at the time of booking.

Slightly OT for _this_ thread, but goes well with your example. After "quitting" from NZ, I'll fly WLG-SYD-LAX on QF this week. Booked a premium economy ticket and was more than pleased that QF places one in Trans-Tasman business class if there's availability at the time of booking.
If there is only J fare class (highest Business Class fare bucket) available you will be booked into Economy, but I agree it is much better than NZ.:)
I hope QF maintains or increases its load factors across the Tasman hopefully enticing more services....but I doubt it will be with the roo not the orange star.:(

Interesting the comments about not going to South America because 'they won't have a local partner' What about AV/TA who are supposed to be joining shortly and have a hub at LIM which was recently voted the best airport in South America ?

Not to mention Copa flies all over Latin America! I hope to see an AKL-PTY route one day, but I might be kidding myself. :p

Not to mention Copa flies all over Latin America! I hope to see an AKL-PTY route one day, but I might be kidding myself. :p

Why fly direct when you can have 5 connections?

Jeff

I'd love to see increased routes to North America, as long as it's coupled not only with alliance connections within the region, but through to Europe as well.

The current inflexibility of NZ fares through to Europe (no allowing stopovers on the US east coast in one direction, for instance) has led me to book with alternate carriers on multiple occasions. Offering fares with more flexible routing through partner airlines could do a lot to boost traffic on existing and new routes between NZ and NA.

As an example, I'm trying to book Oslo -> Auckland -> New York -> Oslo for December, and would like to fly NZ on as many long-haul sectors as possible. But short of a pricey *A RTW fare, there are simply no options. A fare with AKL->IAH->EWR->OSL routing in one direction (NZ + UA) would be a very welcome introduction.

My personal wishlist: a second daily SFO-AKL.

This might also enable them to make more efficient use of planes, since right now NZ8 sits idle at SFO for about nine hours before turning around and flying back as NZ7.

well it will be fun to see what they do,:confused: the current fleet is already working hard, even to the point putting 763's on the PVG route, ! and with the 787-9's replacing the 763's in 2014 on wards

The only way forward is either keep the 763's longer or order more 77W's (the latter I don't think will happen)

If they order more 787's it don't seem right as it will only have around 280 PAX's on, the range is also an issue with where they want to fly them too.

who's looking forward to seeing a 787 in DPS in 2 years time??!!:D:-:

I'd put money on NZ trialling AKL-IAH in December and January, but wouldn't be surprised if NZ 3/4 (the daytime LAX flight) or the seasonal LAX-CHC services were resurrected.

With QF gone, NZ must be making much of their improved financial performance on AKL-LAX. Although fares weren't increased much ex-NZ, lead-In fares ex-US are easily 10-20% higher than they were this time last year, and loads on the flights I've been considering seem much greater than last year.

As for the other speculative routes:

AKL-DEN is unlikely unless UA follows through on its threat to concentrate on DEN as a substitute for IAH (because the Houston city council voted to allow WN to fly internationally from the other Houston airport). But that won't happen very quickly.

As for Central/South America, i just can't see the demand for flights ex-NZ to SAL, SJO, BOG, LIM, or PTY, even with Taca/Avianca and Copa joining *A. IAH has much better connections to Central America (and the Carribean) than LAX, so the trail route could shed some light on the demand there.

The Ansett Debacle was over a decade ago now.These days and it mainly applies out of Melbourne and Adelaide it's easier to FLY to Auckland on NZ and transfer onto the USA there then it is to go to Sydney put up with that Domestic to International Bus Transfer and continue on the Journey.It's an international flight the whole way using either a 767 or 777 or A320 on the Tasman and then another 777 the rest of the way.If I was going to LAX I know which one I would pick.

I'd put money on NZ trialling AKL-IAH in December and January, but wouldn't be surprised if NZ 3/4 (the daytime LAX flight) or the seasonal LAX-CHC services were resurrected.

NZ 3/4 is already showing on EF, so looks like this is occurring. I noticed this when I was pricing flights in November to burn up my last APD for u/g's before the new OneUp system kicks in.

NZ3 will be LAX-AKL, dep 2000, arr 0600 +2 - Sat only starting 1 November
NZ4 is AKL-LAX, dep 1700, arr 1015 - Sat only starting 1 Nov

NZ 3/4 is already showing on EF, so looks like this is occurring. I noticed this when I was pricing flights in November to burn up my last APD for u/g's before the new OneUp system kicks in.

NZ3 will be LAX-AKL, dep 2000, arr 0600 +2 - Sat only starting 1 November
NZ4 is AKL-LAX, dep 1700, arr 1015 - Sat only starting 1 Nov

It is starting a bit earlier than that. I am flying NZ4 1 Sept to LAX.

It is starting a bit earlier than that. I am flying NZ4 1 Sept to LAX.

Oops, you're correct - I was not paying close attention and made a typo. :D

Is 1 September for both.

There's an NZ3/4 showing on 7 July. It seems like it may be a one off though.

There's an NZ3/4 showing on 7 July. It seems like it may be a one off though.

School Holidays

Avianca (Columbia) and Copa (Panama) have just joined Star Alliance.
I can dream :)

Considering Air NZ's plummeting reputation in Australia for long-haul travellers, they might just want to consolidate as a single LAX flight.

A couple we are friends with took their son on a Premium Economy BNE-HNL ticket last weekend. They were deeply unimpressed upon boarding their BNE-AKL 77E to be seated in the Economy section, when their Travel Agent had advised them that they would be seated in PE but with Economy service.

On their way off the aircraft, while passing through Premium Economy, they asked the flight attendant why they were seated in Economy. The reply was "those passengers had bought those seats". "What do you mean, we are on Premium Economy tickets ourselves?" they replied.

"No, no, these passengers have Economy tickets, plus a Works Deluxe package" explained the flight attendant.

So our friends learned that if you buy a long-haul Premium Economy ticket on Air NZ, mysterious and mystifying rules will see you placed in Economy seating over the Tasman while people with Economy tickets will be sitting in the Premium Economy seats. That's all right then..

I suspect the TA screwed up here not Air NZ. Highly unlikely if they had really paid for PE ticket they would not have been seated there. So either the TA promised some upgrade not delivered or your friends just misunderstood.

It's pretty clear your friends were clueless if they did not have their confirmed reservation proving they paid for PE and not march back up to the counter and get it sorted. So odds NZ screwed that up nope i doubt it.

I suspect the TA screwed up here not Air NZ. Highly unlikely if they had really paid for PE ticket they would not have been seated there. So either the TA promised some upgrade not delivered or your friends just misunderstood.

It's pretty clear your friends were clueless if they did not have their confirmed reservation proving they paid for PE and not march back up to the counter and get it sorted. So odds NZ screwed that up nope i doubt it.

What you say proves that not only travel agents but many frequent travellers from other parts of the world easily get confused with the way NZ is selling tickets.

Innovations are good but a reality check is equally as important. NZ fares are not determined by aircraft or seat type but are determined by routes. On the Tasman they don't sell Premium Economy but when an aircraft has premium economy seats they are allocated to pax who purchase the most expensive type of economy fares called Works Deluxe or elites under some conditions.

When you buy a long haul fare which has a Tasman sector, unfortunately if you don't have Gold status you will just get a normal economy seat for that flight.

I suspect the TA screwed up here not Air NZ. Highly unlikely if they had really paid for PE ticket they would not have been seated there. So either the TA promised some upgrade not delivered or your friends just misunderstood.

It's pretty clear your friends were clueless if they did not have their confirmed reservation proving they paid for PE and not march back up to the counter and get it sorted. So odds NZ screwed that up nope i doubt it.

Actually not quite right. The issue is that there is no PE sold across the Tasman - only on long haul flights. A320s and 767s which most Tasman flights use have no PE section. Economy is available in four different flavours, the top being "Works Deluxe", which includes lounge access, seats up front and an empty seat next to you. Next is "Works", the standard version of economy, followed by 2x lite versions.

But, and here's the rub, when 777s are used trans-Tasman - as in this case - PE seats are used for Works Deluxe. So because a long haul PE ticket will seat along with standard economy (Works) pax on any aircraft, and AFAIK it is not possible to upgrade this leg to Works Deluxe, a PE passenger flying on the Tasman on a 777 flight is not eligible for a PE seat.
So, believe it or not, no one screwed up here.

Confused yet? ;)

Actually not quite right. The issue is that there is no PE sold across the Tasman - only on long haul flights. A320s and 767s which most Tasman flights use have no PE section. Economy is available in four different flavours, the top being "Works Deluxe", which includes lounge access, seats up front and an empty seat next to you. Next is "Works", the standard version of economy, followed by 2x lite versions.

But, and here's the rub, when 777s are used trans-Tasman - as in this case - PE seats are used for Works Deluxe. So because a long haul PE ticket will seat along with standard economy (Works) pax on any aircraft, and AFAIK it is not possible to upgrade this leg to Works Deluxe, a PE passenger flying on the Tasman on a 777 flight is not eligible for a PE seat.
So, believe it or not, no one screwed up here.

Confused yet? ;)


But again this largely the TA's fault and setting unrealistic expectations if this is the case. A good TA knows the difference in services and advises accordingly. Why use one otherwise?

Actually not quite right. The issue is that there is no PE sold across the Tasman - only on long haul flights. A320s and 767s which most Tasman flights use have no PE section. Economy is available in four different flavours, the top being "Works Deluxe", which includes lounge access, seats up front and an empty seat next to you. Next is "Works", the standard version of economy, followed by 2x lite versions.

But, and here's the rub, when 777s are used trans-Tasman - as in this case - PE seats are used for Works Deluxe. So because a long haul PE ticket will seat along with standard economy (Works) pax on any aircraft, and AFAIK it is not possible to upgrade this leg to Works Deluxe, a PE passenger flying on the Tasman on a 777 flight is not eligible for a PE seat.
So, believe it or not, no one screwed up here.

Confused yet? ;)

I checked BNE-HNL fares for a couple of dates in July, and PE is a few hundred dollars more expensive than Works Deluxe.
During the times when AKL-HNL is operated with a 767, there is no PE seating available on that leg.
This means that an economy class on Works Deluxe can get PE seating on BNE-AKL-BNE if the 777 is used, while a passenger purchasing a PE class ticket will sit in economy on all flights.
Economy class passenger sitting in PE seat, PE passenger sitting in economy seat; doesn't make much sense, does it?

The example I gave highlights the incoherence of the current Burger Menu ("Works Deluxe") product, especially when S2S sectors are part of a long-haul itinerary.

Any passenger who books a long-haul Premium Economy ticket will expect to have a Premium Economy product where available, and if the PE seats on a three hour sector are being operated as Economy should reasonably expect to sit there ahead of an Economy ticket holder, whether they have bought Works Deluxe Economy or Happy Meal Economy or Flame Grilled Whopper Economy.

In similar circumstances, Qantas books long-haul PE passengers into the cheapest Business sub-class, and if that is full puts them in the best Economy seats.

The current situation pi**es off and alienates passengers and confuses Travel Agents. When my friends get back to Oz they will tell their travel agent how aggrieved they were - they actually bought PE to protect a bad back - and the travel agent will doubtless discourage future passengers from buying NZ Premium Economy tickets.

I've been in a similar situation, with an OOL-LAX PE ticket watching Economy passengers in WD seats while I occupied Works. I never flew out of OOL ever again, which is ironic because my family previously accounted for a healthy percentage of pre-S2S Business Class sales ex-OOL.

Was any of this necessary?

But again this largely the TA's fault and setting unrealistic expectations if this is the case. A good TA knows the difference in services and advises accordingly. Why use one otherwise?The point that several posters have been making is that it is ridiculous that passengers traveling on Premium Economy and Business Class longhaul fares on the majority of trans-Tasman flights get allocated to Economy (and a bad seat in Economy too) rather than Works Deluxe (as narrowbody flights do not have a Business Class and trans-Tasman flights to the East Coast of Australia do not sell a Premium Economy product either). That might make a little bit of sense if it was possible for these passengers to upfare that flight to Works Deluxe, but it is not.

If you want to talk about how you see no benefit in using a TA, I am sure it would make a good thread in the TravelBuzz! forum.

From what I just read, thank goodness Auckland Airport is talking to another airline. What's wrong with Auckland needing a second airline on the NZ-US routes? What Fyfe claims of Auckland Airport is selfish and unrealistic.

I flew AKL - LAX a couple of times on QF a few years back, have these been stopped now?

I flew AKL - LAX a couple of times on QF a few years back, have these been stopped now?

Yes. NZ has a monopoly on the LAX/SFO/YVR-AKL routes.

Yes. NZ has a monopoly on the LAX/SFO/YVR-AKL routes.

and HNL (until HA starts flying) and NRT/KIX/PVG.

It is only on domestic main trunk, Australia and South Pacific + HKG that NZ has any competition. For HKG NZ & CX now have an alliance & codeshare on each other.

NZ's profitability in the past few years has been driven off deliberate monopolistic behaviour.