Air NZ: NZ1 - New York to Auckland.

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Air NZ: NZ1 - New York to Auckland.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

6945 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2970363 20-Sep-2022 09:12

Qantas jumping on it is only the beginning

'Project Sunrise' was trialed couple years back with their later 787 deliveries. Since then, they are going A350 with additional tanks even further. They seem to think ULH is in everyones future. ~20hr flights for all.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-expands-potential-project-sunrise-network/

New York isn't a new destination for Qantas. In years gone by, the airline has flown to the destination with a stop in Los Angeles, though it didn't have the rights to sell tickets solely for the domestic leg. Now, Los Angeles is being replaced by Auckland.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

frankv

5582 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2970434 20-Sep-2022 11:17

Yeah, nah. Not for me.

Whilst it would be nice to get to Europe in 20 hours, it would *not* be nice to be sitting in a chair for all that time. Even if you sleep for 8 hours, (which might be possible in ~~First~~Business Class or even Premium Economy or a SkyCouch, but isn't likely in a crowded Economy cabin), you still have 12 hours of tedium. Get to London and spend the next day recovering from the flight, even if you haven't got DVT.

Presumably aircraft that will be flying 20 hours at a time will have twice the toilet capacity and twice the food and drink supplies of 10 hour flights? No? Didn't think so.

Shindig

1363 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2970443 20-Sep-2022 11:48

With the power of the internet, FR24 and LAFlights YouTube channel, doing a stream from JFK! I watched NZ2 land today!!!

ULH isn't for me either, if I could I would take the train to anywhere

The little things make the biggest difference.

Bung

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2970444 20-Sep-2022 11:59

frankv: Get to London and spend the next day recovering from the flight, even if you haven't got DVT.

You could have several days waiting for your bags.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/dozens-of-air-new-zealand-passengers-luggage-left-in-new-york-by-new-direct-service/ESTVEAQ32K5XPBREGC4QTGRYJE/

panther2

314 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2970446 20-Sep-2022 12:01

frankv:
Yeah, nah. Not for me.

Whilst it would be nice to get to Europe in 20 hours, it would *not* be nice to be sitting in a chair for all that time. Even if you sleep for 8 hours, (which might be possible in ~~First~~Business Class or even Premium Economy or a SkyCouch, but isn't likely in a crowded Economy cabin), you still have 12 hours of tedium. Get to London and spend the next day recovering from the flight, even if you haven't got DVT.

Presumably aircraft that will be flying 20 hours at a time will have twice the toilet capacity and twice the food and drink supplies of 10 hour flights? No? Didn't think so.

Surprised how many don't wear dvt stocking on these long flights

Oblivian

6945 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2970451 20-Sep-2022 12:14

Bung: You could have several days waiting for your bags.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/dozens-of-air-new-zealand-passengers-luggage-left-in-new-york-by-new-direct-service/ESTVEAQ32K5XPBREGC4QTGRYJE/

That's why this thread exists.

tripper1000

1539 posts

Uber Geek

#2970557 20-Sep-2022 16:36

SATTV:

I have been wondering for a while, fighter jets can refuel in mid air, why not passenger jets?

A refueling jet could take off and top them up so they could fly further or take off with more weight.

Money, money, money! The same reason for all commercial decisions.

Time is cheaper than the running costs of a big tanker to bring you gas 1/2 way across the Pacific. So it is far cheaper to land and refuel (say on the West coast of North America or an Island in between) than to pay for a KC-767 to bring gas up to you.

Fighter aircraft have very short ranges compared to commercial jets and can't land anywhere they want to pick up gas for political reasons so it is much more important for them to refuel in the air. Also the less fuel they carry, the more weapons the can carry. A fighters mission is not as predictable as a commercial passenger service.

empacher48

347 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2970696 20-Sep-2022 22:04

Let’s have some facts here.

The weather across the Pacific for the flight did have the subtropical jetstream at FL370 running about 30 degrees South, with a forecast core speed of 175 knots. The jet has been running from just North of Perth through to just south of Tahiti with its usual meanders north and south in line with Rosby Waves.

The width of the jet from North to South (using normal Met terms the boundary of a jet starts when the wind speed exceeds 80knots - in this case the width would be from 80 knots to core then back to 80 knots) is about 500 nautical miles across. With the great circle route from JFK to AKL did mean the flight would’ve spent about two hours crossing the jet. 175 knots is getting up there with the strength - the strongest I’ve flown through it this winter it was 215 knots.

The sub tropical jet across Australia and NZ during winter is stronger than the Northern subtropical jet in the Northern hemisphere.

Second was the weather in Auckland required an alternate to be held upon arrival, Wellington did not meet the requirements and the RNZAF have effectively stopped any commercial aircraft using Ohakea - except in an emergency. In the past long haul flights would use Ohakea, they can’t anymore. So the only other airport in NZ that can hold a 787 is Christchurch. So they had to carry the fuel to arrive overhead Auckland, conduct and approach, missed approach then fly to Christchurch and land with 30 minutes fuel reserve.

Because the flight is so long, you can’t just put fuel on for the Auckland to Christchurch leg (for example 5T of fuel), but because the flight is so long, you’ll be burning more fuel to carry the extra fuel. So it may mean to have an extra 5T in Auckland, means you upload an extra 10T of fuel from the departure point.

Don’t worry about QANTAS flying the route, their 787s carry about 55 less people than the AirNZ ones and QANTAS have been flying them from London to Perth non stop for the last 3 years, that leg is longer than AKL-JFK.

It was also mentioned that jets fly in the stratosphere. Which is wrong, we don’t get that high ever! We may make it into the tropopause occasionally, but it depends where we are on the earth. Around the tropics the tropopause can be as high as FL600, but usually above FL500. Around NZ it varies from FL270 to FL430 depending on the season and where the subtropical jet is. Around the polar regions it can be as low as FL150.

There is still turbulence in the tropopause, around Jetstreams the turbulence can be felt up to 8000’ higher than the jet. We’ll into the tropopause.

Scott3

3340 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2970706 20-Sep-2022 23:54

Air NZ has been refreshingly transparent about this. Pay-walled article:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-review-of-operation-after-bags-unloaded-on-flagship-new-york-route/QC2CWTCC4YTRFCDDIUBQR3ED3Q/

Key bit (emphasis mine):

"Air New Zealand has blamed the problem on a combination of factors, highlighting the challenge of flying aircraft near the peak of their range on non-stop ultra long haul routes.

Airline chief operating officer Alex Marren said the "incredibly disappointing" decision to offload 65 bags was made on Saturday when it had to amend its flight plan to go around a forecast cyclone.

The temporary closure of the usual alternative airport, Ohakea Airbase, also meant additional fuel was required in case of the need to divert from Auckland International"

Also interesting:

"We made some adjustments to the number of seats sold to compensate for the extra fuel required to go such a long distance. We also do not carry cargo on the southbound leg."

Before it launched the service Air New Zealand said it would sell fewer seats on the southbound flight and this was the case on Saturday. There were 202 seats sold out of a possible 275."

Good to hear that passenger bag's aren't going to be bumped for cargo.

But interesting that despite so many empty seats, payload was still an issue. Should note that the Air NZ 787-9's have 302 passenger seats, but I guess a bunch of them get consumed by carrying additional crew (to allow for crew breaks) for such a long flight.

Air NZ will need to charge a lot of $$ per seat on this route if they can only carry cira 200 passengers.

Stuff's article has a bit more of a negitive take.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/300693296/prepare-for-more-bags-to-be-left-behind-on-air-nzs-new-york-route-experts-warn

noroad

751 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2970712 21-Sep-2022 02:30

I'm on NZ1 next week, hopefully the check in will be sorted by then. AirNZ is using the 787-9 that they have available as its the only option after they retired the 777-200LR's. They plan in de-loading the 787-9 by at least 60 seats for every flight and carry no cargo outside passenger luggage. This is not really long term sustainable. AirNZ has 787-10's on order that will be used to replace the 777-300LR's that do the US west coast run and shorter Asia routes. The bottom line is as per Qantas, AirNZ needs to decide long term between the A350ULR and the 777-8/9 as the 787-9 as good as it is is not really the right choice for these ultra long routes. For the next 3-4 years the 787-9 is the only viable choice however unless Boeing makes the rumored LR version of the 787 with extra fuel tanks in the hold.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29043 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2970723 21-Sep-2022 06:49

could explain why economy seats return is twice the price of economy to.

higher classes no difference.

tripper1000

1539 posts

Uber Geek

#2970913 21-Sep-2022 12:04

noroad: ...They plan in de-loading the 787-9 by at least 60 seats for every flight and carry no cargo outside passenger luggage. This is not really long term sustainable. ...

Possibly a misconception at play here. A flight doesn't necessarily have to have every seat on the plane filled to be sustainable, revenue from tickets just has to exceed the costs. ANZ wouldn't run the flight in the first place if it wasn't sustainable/didn't make money with the empty seats

For example the ratio of business class to economy class makes a difference - 1/2 plane full of business class could be more profitable than a full load of economy class.

The intention all along could be to primarily cater for more profitable first/business class and for the overflow of economy passengers to take alternate convoluted routes (the reduced number of economy seats on the southern leg spoken of above illustrates this point and gives clues to ANZ's strategy).

There are many profitable routes in the world where the aircraft on them have to limit cargo/passengers, either to carry enough fuel to achieve the range, or for other reasons such as to take-off/land at shorter runways such as Wellington or Queenstown.

Oblivian

6945 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2970927 21-Sep-2022 12:23

If interested, charter 787 is about $1500pp (min2) And 3k pp to occupy a 1st. To cover.

How does one know? Thats the fee for the aurora flight on one. And they (possibly) only try to populate the 2 outter seats each side and switch you out on a 10hr flight.

Scott3

3340 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2970965 21-Sep-2022 14:20

Seems a pity that Ohaka can't be used as an alternative for these ultra long hall flights. Must result in a heap of cost and environmental harm from extra fuel begin burnt in order to carry extra fuel (and resulting decreased payload) so an alternate in the south island can be reached.

Wonder if the numbers would stack up for a bunch of the airlines running ultra long hall into Auckland to get together, and fund the improvement of an upper north island airport to a standard it could act as an alternative for ultra long flights. Hamilton? (runway currently 2059m, 600 odd meters of farmland to the north of the runway) Tauranga? (runway currently 1825m. Cira 600m of golf course to the east, and an cira 500m of estuary to the right - But runway lines up exactly with a yacht marina at one end, and a major mall at the other)

noroad:

I'm on NZ1 next week, hopefully the check in will be sorted by then. AirNZ is using the 787-9 that they have available as its the only option after they retired the 777-200LR's. They plan in de-loading the 787-9 by at least 60 seats for every flight and carry no cargo outside passenger luggage. This is not really long term sustainable. AirNZ has 787-10's on order that will be used to replace the 777-300LR's that do the US west coast run and shorter Asia routes. The bottom line is as per Qantas, AirNZ needs to decide long term between the A350ULR and the 777-8/9 as the 787-9 as good as it is is not really the right choice for these ultra long routes. For the next 3-4 years the 787-9 is the only viable choice however unless Boeing makes the rumored LR version of the 787 with extra fuel tanks in the hold.

Check in on many airlines in ports where they don't have regular flights leaving from often sucks (various airlines). Standard thing is they only pay for check in to open 3 hours early, but also tell passengers to turn up 3 hours eairly. Means that at say 2:50 before the flight, most of the flight is standing in line, and it takes 1 - 2 hours to clear.

On sustainability.

If you are talking environmental sustainability, then, yeah, flights of this length can't be great. Airline has to carry so much extra weight (fuel & additional crew, food, drinks, hand was water, toilet waste etc), for such a long flight, that they have to burn a lot of extra fuel to carry that weight (vs having a stopover somewhere).

If you are talking about economic sustainability, none of this stuff is a surprise, so I doubt it is a big issue.

Winds are favorable on the northbound trip (and alternate airports are abundant in that area). So the northbound flight is quite a bit quicker, and will need less fuel (and possibly less other resources like food, drinks, toilet flush water etc). So that leg will be able to take higher passenger loading and freight.
This route has been targeted as having a relatively high fraction of higher class & business travelers. Fairly well know that airlines make much fatter margins from passengers at the front of the plane. Also well known that business travelers are often less cost sensitive than recreational travelers, and will often book relatively late at high prices, and insist on taking quicker routes even if they are more expensive.
Alternate routes to go from New York to Auckland frankly suck. When I last (and the only time) I did that trip we transited SFO. Had both a terminal change and a quick turn around. If the flight to Auckland wasn't delayed we would have missed it. (suspect they held it for the many other passengers making the same transit stop). General experience of Transiting LAX sucks. Last time I transited their (going Mexico to Auckland), it took us cira 3 hours from landing to get to the new gate (both in the same terminal). Even economy passengers are likely to be willing to pay a decent premium to go direct.
Difficult to get landing slots at the two bit USA west coast airports. If Air NZ wants to expand in the USA, new destinations might be the only way.
Landing slots at JFK are hard to get (previously Air NZ was going to run this flight to New Jersey) - Once you have one, might be worth holding on to. If Air NZ sees strong patronage on this route, I would leave then well positioned to expand the route via next generation, bigger / longer range aircraft (perhaps the 777-8)
Having an impressive flagship route is good for airline branding.
At time it was announced it was a unique route, meaning no non-stop competitions (again good for margins), Sadly for air NZ Qantas has cut their lunch on that one.

Agree, that bigger, longer range planes see the obvious pick for this route. That said, gathering some patronage data with the marginal range dream liner before commuting to that massive cost seems prudent.

Personally I think that marketing the New York to Auckland leg as a "Direct", instead of "Non - Stop", and planning for a fuel stop in say Tahiti is an option worth considering. Would mean that Air NZ could sell the entire plane, carry fright etc. And on flights with low loading's, the stop could be skipped.

noroad

751 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2970981 21-Sep-2022 14:47

Personally I think that marketing the New York to Auckland leg as a "Direct", instead of "Non - Stop", and planning for a fuel stop in say Tahiti is an option worth considering. Would mean that Air NZ could sell the entire plane, carry fright etc. And on flights with low loading's, the stop could be skipped.

Or, they can just buy the A350ULR (or 777-8 if it ever arrives) like Qantas and job done. As great as the 787 is, its not a perfect fit for the ULR question.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7