Wondering why SQ Flights ex WLG are not included as NZ Codeshare?
Oct 31, 2018, 3:50 pm
#16
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BNE
Programs: NZ*G, QF Bronze, VA Red
Posts: 563
When the subsidy was put in place, the route was WLG-CBR. There are no airlines flying that route. It was basically a convenience for politicians.
Oct 31, 2018, 4:13 pm
#17
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand (most of the time)
Programs: Air NZ Elite *G, Honors Gold, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 6,118
Thanks for that info and end date. Still a wee way off finishing if it's 2026. Interesting the arrangement. I'm not complaining! I can see why it was done by WCC, to try and open Welly up to new markets since the runway extension may or may not happen and give Wellingtonians options other than Air NZ and having to fly via AKL which is a PITA sometimes. Has worked for us. I always check SQ site now as there have been some very good deals long haul deals out of Wellington especially during the quiet months, on SQ.
I don't have an issue with subsidies but they need to follow proper process. Secret deals where money is handed over with no paper trail and no measurable ROI are not how business should be done.
I also don't think you can argue the subsidy "has worked for us". SQ begged both WLG and CBR for subsidies (both are paying them) for the route, and SQ have basically done the dirty on both cities by changing the original schedule and flights at both CBR and WLG and have continued to deliver an inferior hard product despite insisting that aircraft upgrades would occur.
I'd quite happily give anybody else my money over SQ.
Oct 31, 2018, 7:27 pm
#18
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Air New Zealand Elite
Posts: 446
I can't disagree more with the subsidy - mostly because of the way it was hidden from taxpayers.
I don't have an issue with subsidies but they need to follow proper process. Secret deals where money is handed over with no paper trail and no measurable ROI are not how business should be done.
I also don't think you can argue the subsidy "has worked for us". SQ begged both WLG and CBR for subsidies (both are paying them) for the route, and SQ have basically done the dirty on both cities by changing the original schedule and flights at both CBR and WLG and have continued to deliver an inferior hard product despite insisting that aircraft upgrades would occur.
I'd quite happily give anybody else my money over SQ.
I don't have an issue with subsidies but they need to follow proper process. Secret deals where money is handed over with no paper trail and no measurable ROI are not how business should be done.
I also don't think you can argue the subsidy "has worked for us". SQ begged both WLG and CBR for subsidies (both are paying them) for the route, and SQ have basically done the dirty on both cities by changing the original schedule and flights at both CBR and WLG and have continued to deliver an inferior hard product despite insisting that aircraft upgrades would occur.
I'd quite happily give anybody else my money over SQ.
I’m not sure what the processes were. I guess there are commercial sensitivities around deals being disclosed. I hardly think WCC would be offering subsidies to QF and NZ who were already operating out of Wellington. As for ROI on the subsidy I guess you could look at it in terms of ROI for ‘Wellington INC’ and what indirect economic benefits there are from more cheap flights to Wellington and a second option for Asian travellers to get there.
Anyone who didnt like the process could actively give there business to Air NZ out of Wellington. Also if the Wellington ratepayers didn’t like it they could vote with their feet at the next local body elections.
Oct 31, 2018, 7:59 pm
#19
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
I’m all for any extra competition as consumer. (this is Flyertalk. Isn’t It??).
I’m not sure what the processes were. I guess there are commercial sensitivities around deals being disclosed. I hardly think WCC would be offering subsidies to QF and NZ who were already operating out of Wellington. As for ROI on the subsidy I guess you could look at it in terms of ROI for ‘Wellington INC’ and what indirect economic benefits there are from more cheap flights to Wellington and a second option for Asian travellers to get there.
Anyone who didnt like the process could actively give there business to Air NZ out of Wellington. Also if the Wellington ratepayers didn’t like it they could vote with their feet at the next local body elections.
But when say Aussie does Norfolk, Xmas and the outback they are very transparent with the process. Think the actual numbers are commercially sensitive. But the rest is open and clear and is an open bid process. AFIAK SQ was the only airline involved and NZ, VA and QF were not allowed to bid for the opportunity.
There is no public business case and there is no public evaluation criteria
Nov 4, 2018, 4:53 am
#20
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 909
Given both of those flights are once weekly services
The Cook Islands is spending ~$74,000 per LAX flight and ~$42,500 per SYD flight.
The Sydney flights had on average 270 people per flight (during August 2018) thats almost a $150 per person subsidy and much much more than the reported $9 per person subsidy that SQ gets for their WLG flights.
The QLD ones are rumoured to be around 9-10 million per year spread across 5 routes (with some routes getting more than others).