cavemanzk

For example on on AKL-VCE, the new EK flight barely saves you anytime.

example:

AKL-YVR-FRA-VCE NZ/LH 27h35m
AKL-DXB-VCE EK 27h15m

AKL-HKG-FCO NZ/CX 28h0m
AKL-DXB-FCO EK 27h05

AKL-LAX-CDG NZ/AF 26hr35m
AKL-DXB-CDG EK 47hr0m
AKL-BNE-DXB-CDG 30hr20m

So on some routes you save time, but it is really worth being stuck on an plane for 17hours? we you do it in 2x 12hour flights.

It will probably do well with the Europe-New Zealand traffic, but maybe not as good as the other way around. The New Zealand market is very well connected to the idea of an California stop-over, than DXB.

Silverswimmer

BUT
in measuring journey times please remember that Air New Zealand only fly from LHR whilst EK fly from many airports in the UK so for any "up North" you have to add many hours to the total journey, getting to LHR. Many population centers are only an hour from an EK departure airport (and throughout Europe)
and
When QR start the route then they too will have at least four departure airports in the UK
SS

cavemanzk

Air New Zealand, doesn't make you go via LHR to travel to an secondary airport. They will fly you to IAH,LAX,SFO,YVR,EZE or SIN,HKG,PVG,NRT and put you on an airline with the most direct routing from there.

Along with Air New Zealand, there are an bunch of Asian airlines offering the same connections.

Kiwi Flyer

There are advantages of flying a single airline (e.g. less misconnection risk).

Fewer transits are usually better than more (less risk of disruption).

EK serves many more airports in Europe and Africa than the Asian or American airlines.

eternaltransit

Apologies, I did completely miss out MAD being a KE and CA destination. I think the underlying point was more, if even a major European capital like Madrid still has only a few Asian destinations, then secondary coverage is pretty poor.

I think we have to drill down into exactly what "Europe" means - it's obviously trivially true there is a lot of "Europe" coverage for one-stops, but where do they go?:

NZ (via LAX): LHR
LA (via SCL): MAD, FRA (via MAD), MXP (via GRU: no AKL link)
KE (via ICN): VIE, PRG, CDG, FRA, MXP, FCO, AMS, MAD, ZRH, LHR
CA (via PEK): VIE, CDG, DUS, FRA, MUC, ATH, BUD, MXP, FCO, BCN, MAD, ARN, GVA, LHR
MU (via PVG): (PRG this year), CDG, FRA, FCO, LHR
CZ (via CAN): CDG, FRA, FCO, AMS, LHR
CX (via HKG): CDG, DUS, FRA, MXP, FCO, AMS, (MAD this year), LHR, (LGW this year), MAN
SQ (via SIN): CPH, CDG, (DUS this year), FRA, MUC, MXP, FCO, AMS, BCN, ZRH, LHR, MAN
TG (via BKK): BRU, CPH, CDG, FRA, MUC, MXP, FCO, OSL, ARN, ZRH, LHR
MH (via KUL): LHR

You see the same story with UA and AA. To switch it around, basically you have:

LHR - 9
FRA - 8
FCO, CDG - 7
MXP - 5 (6 if generous)
AMS - 4
MUC, DUS, ZRH, MAD - 3
BCN, MAN, VIE, PRG - 2
ATH, BRU, BUD, ARN, GVA, OSL - 1

Big concentration at the top, then pretty poor for the rest of Europe. Compare that with EK Europe network: VIE, LCA, PRG, CPH, CDG, NCE, LYS, DUS, FRA, HAM, MUC, ATH, BUD, BLQ, VCE, MXP, FCO, MLA, AMS, OSL, WAW, LIS, DUB, BCN, MAD, ARN, GVA, ZRH, BHX, GLA, LHR, LGW, MAN, NCL

or even QRs: VIE, SOF, ZAG, LCA, CDG, FRA, MUC, ATH, BUD, FCO, MXP, VCE, AMS, OSL, WAW, OTP, BEG, MAD, BCN, GVA, ZRH, EDI, LHR, MAN

and I think the picture is clear about the additional secondary city coverage that EK provides with 1-stops. The whole argument about whether secondary cities have any demand to go anywhere has been blown out of the water by EK in the past

eternaltransit

Indeed, I don't want to imply at all that NZ doesn't have good connectivity - it certainly does, and not just in AKL, imho - just that EKs major selling point is its depth of network and secondary city connectivity. I don't think EK are that competitive on price and hard product, but they do have excellent scheduling and network. When it comes to similar times on planes but 1-stop instead of 2-stop, then that's the same argument as non-stop premiums over 1-stop. We know that there will be a demand for a 1-stop over a 2-stop even if the time saving is negligible, and that's even before the misconnect risks are factored in.

avcritic

This should tell if capacity dumping/price lowering trumps service quality.

According to free market pundits, NZ being top notch service provider, no one should move away from it.

eternaltransit

NZ doesn't have F though, which for some is a non-starter!

Plus, we all know you can't look at "service" and "price" in isolation - people don't have unlimited budgets. Given AKL is a high demand route from all the carriers there, competition should do its job and decrease fares for consumers whilst offering them more choice (of routes, products and carriers).

Kiwi Flyer

Agree with your comments. AC is the airline code for Air Canada, for Air China it is CA.

tiharoa

I used Air NZ for more than 8 years commuting every 2 months between LHR and CHC but 3 years ago I switched to EK because I was really fed up with the changes made to my reservations, for some trips I had my reservation changed
3 times, sometimes they didn't even bother to tell me. Once I arrived in LHR from VCE with a booking on the 9pm to AKL via HKG only to be told that I had to hurry up because I had been moved to the AKL via LAX!!! What if I didn't have a visa or I didn't go to the check in 4 hours early?
Besides I don't want to fly via LAX, every time I booked via HKG they moved me on the LAX flight.
I like their Business Class and the on board service but they were unable to understand that my flight didn't start in LHR or end in CHC and due to their changes I was constantly cancelling the other non refundable tickets.
Also their regional service in NZ has become terrible with flights cancelled at the last minute, I don't even know how many times I've been left stranded and had to pay a room for the night.
EK has a worst service on board but at least I've never been delayed or moved from a route to another.

Kamadan

Think it might have to do with NZ cancelling their HKG-LHR segment in March 2013, thus having your flights "moved" to their via LAX option.

Which sounds about right from what you said above, as you started commuting 8 years ago (~2007/2008). So did they started changing your flights from 2013 onwards?

They could've routed you through a different carrier but at the time, I don't believe they have an alliance in place for any LHR traffic through Hong Kong. I suppose they could've routed you via SIN with SQ.

eternaltransit

That will teach me to reply without coffee

Edited!

ft101

That must be something you just made up on the spot.

avcritic

No I didn't. There are countless videos of Sir.TC (and H.E.AAB) preaching US3 to compete by improving product and service quality.

I accept we don't have shiny new planes or super hot young FAs and our carriers never scored high in service.

But NZ always in top 3 or 5 in aviation service quality ratings. I don't have experience with them. But based on up-thread remarks by tiharoa, who has firsthand experience with them, NZ seems to be no different than others.

lighthand

To be fair NZ does have great service. In fact I was pleasantly surprised during my last CHC x SIN flight on my way to NRT. The FAs were funny and always seems to be in a good mood, and does not seem to get flustered at all.

BUT that being said, I'm sure there are those who view price as the most important factor. Just need to see how big a base this will be, not forgetting that EKs service's not bad as well.