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

1709 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2970992 21-Sep-2022 15:19

noroad:

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.

Most of the smart money is betting that the B777-8 will never show up as a passenger aircraft: there are only a few dozen on order and the earliest they could be delivered is probably 2026, maybe even 2027. The B777-9 is sliding into 2024, and Boeing intend to build and certificate the B777-8F before they start work on the B777-8 passenger aircraft.
The B777-8F is not just a freighter version of the passenger -8, it's actually a bit longer - maybe a "B777-8½F" 😂. I guess Boeing could re-announce the -8 based on the -8F fuselage, but that would make it heavier and shorter-ranged than the originally announced -8 and even harder to market.

Air NZ's problem is that it is planning to have only a single aircraft type in each of its jet fleets - A32x short haul and B787-x long haul, and it would be there in only a couple of years once the last of the B787-10s arrive and the B777-300ERs are retired.
Going back to having two rather different types (B787 & A350) on the long haul fleet would be a step backward for their labour cost & flight crew flexibility.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2970995 21-Sep-2022 15:26

This is one of the many reasons I almost never check luggage.

Mike

noroad

936 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2971002 21-Sep-2022 15:43

PolicyGuy:

Most of the smart money is betting that the B777-8 will never show up as a passenger aircraft: there are only a few dozen on order and the earliest they could be delivered is probably 2026, maybe even 2027. The B777-9 is sliding into 2024, and Boeing intend to build and certificate the B777-8F before they start work on the B777-8 passenger aircraft.
The B777-8F is not just a freighter version of the passenger -8, it's actually a bit longer - maybe a "B777-8½F" 😂. I guess Boeing could re-announce the -8 based on the -8F fuselage, but that would make it heavier and shorter-ranged than the originally announced -8 and even harder to market.

Air NZ's problem is that it is planning to have only a single aircraft type in each of its jet fleets - A32x short haul and B787-x long haul, and it would be there in only a couple of years once the last of the B787-10s arrive and the B777-300ERs are retired.
Going back to having two rather different types (B787 & A350) on the long haul fleet would be a step backward for their labour cost & flight crew flexibility.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. The 777-8 would be the no brainier choice for AirNZ as it will have type commonality with the 787, but its not a real thing at this stage. The A350ULR is the current only working choice. But - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC51puqH8q8

RogerMellie

312 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2971020 21-Sep-2022 16:00

tripper1000:

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.

Has no one yet mentioned the obvious (to me) reason that a mid-air fueling mistake could potentially lead to loss of 300+ people, whereas fighter jets are 1-2 people at most, and they have the option to eject with parachutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsmZVAhHdHQ

RogerMellie

312 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2971034 21-Sep-2022 16:11

Bung:
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/

The left luggage was on NZ1 leaving JFK, coming back to AKL. More headwind, more weight etc. = luggage loses.

My Mum was on the NZ2 flight to London and all her baggage arrived with her, even after switching to VS46 for the JFK-LHR sector.

Tinkerisk

4159 posts

Uber Geek

#2971047 21-Sep-2022 16:50

RogerMellie:

Has no one yet mentioned the obvious (to me) reason that a mid-air fueling mistake could potentially lead to loss of 300+ people, whereas fighter jets are 1-2 people at most, and they have the option to eject with parachutes.

We haven't been there yet. In the spirit of progress, that doesn't happen until it does.

The discussion is also more entertaining than problem-solving. ;-)

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971343 21-Sep-2022 22:16

I yearn for someone to restart passenger liners.

The idea of a leisurely pootle through the Pacific then the Panama Canal and then Southampton appeals to me far more than 17 hours in a plane.

johno1234

2696 posts

Uber Geek

#2972179 23-Sep-2022 15:34

Scott3:

One stuff comment claims to have a fairly reliable source that the return flight will be stopping in Tahiti for fuel.

An option, but would mean carrying fuel to get to an alternate airport over 1000km away (Raro is 1157km, but runway is much shorter at 2328m.)

I think that making a (unscheduled) stop on the return leg (only when passenger loads are high) is probably one of the better outcomes for this route, if weight is an ongoing issue. Really it's that, sell less tickets or buy/lease a longer range plane (777-200LR / 777-8 / A340-500 / A350-900ULR).

On the other hand QANTAS has also announced the same route on the 787 Dream-liner, so perhaps this will be a very rare event.

Happened today - but it was Nadi: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/air-new-zealands-direct-new-york-to-auckland-flight-diverted-to-fiji/XEFF5GL6745OYN5VZG6ZYSKCQ4/

wellygary

8218 posts

Uber Geek

#2972202 23-Sep-2022 16:42

johno1234:

Happened today - but it was Nadi: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/air-new-zealands-direct-new-york-to-auckland-flight-diverted-to-fiji/XEFF5GL6745OYN5VZG6ZYSKCQ4/

There appear to be pretty horrid delays getting out of JFK this evening,

Probably UN leaders related,

I'm guessing ANZ got stuck on a taxiway for an hour burning fuel, and thus chewed through any reserve they had.... thus the fuel stop

"JFK Flight Delays
@FlyFAA_JFK

Due to OTHER:VIP Movement Gate Hold and Taxi delays between 1 hour and 1 minute and 1 hour and 15 minutes and increasing."

tdgeek

29590 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2972266 23-Sep-2022 18:14

Geektastic:

I yearn for someone to restart passenger liners.

The idea of a leisurely pootle through the Pacific then the Panama Canal and then Southampton appeals to me far more than 17 hours in a plane.

It does, but the annual leave allocation is a barrier

heavenlywild

5043 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2972270 23-Sep-2022 18:17

Just seems like the 787 doesn't have enough mileage to me.

Get the A350-1000 that can do Sydney to London non-stop as shown by Qantas' sunrise project.

Buying a Tesla? Use my Tesla referral link and we both get discounts and credits.

tdgeek

29590 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2972271 23-Sep-2022 18:18

wellygary:

There appear to be pretty horrid delays getting out of JFK this evening,

Probably UN leaders related,

I'm guessing ANZ got stuck on a taxiway for an hour burning fuel, and thus chewed through any reserve they had.... thus the fuel stop

"JFK Flight Delays
@FlyFAA_JFK

Due to OTHER:VIP Movement Gate Hold and Taxi delays between 1 hour and 1 minute and 1 hour and 15 minutes and increasing."

Im not a pilot, although I have piloted (thanks Brent)

I doubt that idling for 60 minutes will burn the circa 10% that is carried in reserve. Plus, if the delay was that long, cut the fuse?

@Technofreak and others can comment more accurately.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2833 posts

Uber Geek

#2972280 23-Sep-2022 18:40

heavenlywild: Get the A350-1000 that can do Sydney to London non-stop as shown by Qantas' sunrise project.

Getting one might be difficult, and they would require additional crew training. I think the long-term plan is newer 787s with greater range.

The obvious solution, IMO, is the 777-200LR, assuming they can find a couple to lease, since not many were built.

Handle9

11169 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2972282 23-Sep-2022 18:44

SirHumphreyAppleby:
heavenlywild: Get the A350-1000 that can do Sydney to London non-stop as shown by Qantas' sunrise project.

Getting one might be difficult, and they would require additional crew training. I think the long-term plan is newer 787s with greater range.

The obvious solution, IMO, is the 777-200LR, assuming they can find a couple to lease, since not many were built.

The 777 is a different beast with different economics behind it. A big part of the attractiveness of the 787 and A350 is the extreme efficiency makes these sort of routes economic.

empacher48

366 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2972294 23-Sep-2022 19:11

tdgeek:

Im not a pilot, although I have piloted (thanks Brent)

I doubt that idling for 60 minutes will burn the circa 10% that is carried in reserve. Plus, if the delay was that long, cut the fuse?

@Technofreak and others can comment more accurately.

I don’t fly the 787, but the A320 burns about 800kg an hour on the ground. Our legal minimum reserve fuel, we are not allowed to use that for a normal flight, is 30 minutes at holding fuel burns. So 800kg is about 75% of our final reserve. If you’re already tight on gas, then unexpected holding on the ground can have an impact at your destination, especially if you can’t fly at your optimum altitudes or winds are stronger than forecast.

One of the issues AirNZ have was that NY was supposed to be operated by their “code 3” 787 configuration, with a lower number of seats and a more premium cabin layout. However covid prevented these aircraft arriving, so the route was flown with their “code 2” layout. The first 787s they got were “code 1” with the highest density layout and are too heavy to fly the route.

QANTAS are getting a special A350-1000 from Airbus with a higher gross weight to carry the extra fuel to go SYD-LHR. This variant at the moment is only going to be produced for QANTAS, however if they do prove to be successful, other airlines may order it.

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