Government settles on two options for 757, fast-tracks replacement for 2027

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Government settles on two options for 757, fast-tracks replacement for 2027

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#318152 21-Dec-2024 00:47

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360531094/government-issues-tender-replace-nzdfs-ailing-jets

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-settles-on-two-options-for-757-fast-tracks-replacement-for-2027/I3JLCKI5NRBUBM2V2GERTNW4YM/

The search for a replacement to the RNZAF’s aged Boeing 757 airplanes has been narrowed down to two options, a Boeing 737 Max 8 or Airbus A321 NEO.

[...]

A news release on the Ministry of Defence website said the Government has released a tender to market to replace the 757s by the end of 2027 – much sooner than initially thought.

[...]

Defence Minister Judith Collins previously said replacing the 757s would cost “hundreds of millions” of dollars, which the Government couldn’t afford.

Interesting about-turn from Collins here.

It's blatantly obvious the aircraft need replacing, but the choice of a 737 Max or A321neo seem suboptimal. Both mean no main-deck cargo any more and the Max also cannot take palletised or containerised lower-deck cargo, essentially meaning everything must be split into cartons and carried/placed by hand - not exactly practical for what is supposedly our 'strategic airflifter'.

Both are latest generation narrowbodies in high and very high demand, meaning that we'll need to pay a serious premium to buy them at short notice (or at all).

Their main advantage over previous generations is lower fuel burn reducing operating costs. We wouldn't operate them enough to see the lower operating cost make a difference.

Lower fuel burn also increases payload/range, but I doubt either option is going to be going to Antarctica as range will already be lower than the 757 and that was somewhat touchy (the weather incident a few years back). I would expect the C-130 to take over the role.

If it's only carrying VIPs or troops, then an end-of-line A319/A320/737-700 with aux centre tanks would be a far cheaper, just as capable/incapable, and far more available choice.

While we did buy P-8s for S&R, they have a militarised cockpit with EICAS so crew commonality with commercial 737s probably wouldn't happen.

Unfortunately, the 757 really hasn't had a proper replacement. Boeing was mulling over something but we know what's happened there.

If we want to be moving significant amounts of freight around, then we really need to move to something bigger. There's a few possible options:

The Embraer KC-390 is basically an A321-size wing+engines with a military body for airdrops, ground loading vehicles etc. We have the C-130 for that but the KC-390 carries a bit more, a bit further, a bit faster.
Kawasaki C-2 carries much more and goes much further, but at a higher price. They were trying to sell them to us in 2019 and we could probably get them pretty quickly. High operating costs as it's a dedicated military plane.
C-17s are ludicrously expensive to buy and operate, and no longer in production. Not a good choice.
Might be able to get some end-of-line 767s. Costs a bit more to operate, probably cheaper to buy than an A321neo. Way better payload and range.
A330-200 or -800. These are what the A330 MRTT is based on. Buckets of payload and range, Airbus wants to get rid of them and can barely find buyers. Reasonably expensive to operate because of the size.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3323123 21-Dec-2024 23:48

Why do we even need flying Rolls Royces for our politicians in the first place? Why can't they fly on commercial flights like everyone else, and for the very few times an entire jet is required, wet-lease it? We could even greenwash the commercial seats with carbon credit payments, making us the most environmentally friendly government in the world (TM).

Currently we're kind of a clown show version of the US trying to emulate Air Force One but failing comically.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3323124 22-Dec-2024 01:18

Luxon said he'd do that as a campaign promise then backed down within like two months of taking office.

'Trade delegations' usually involve tens of people, plus they like to drag journalists along for improved PR.

Getting that many tickets on a flight is hard at short notice, especially around holidays. Commercial flights also don't necessarily go where and when they want to, especially with us being located at the far end of the world from everything.

You also can't really do any sensitive work or hold any conversations on a commercial aircraft unless you book out like the whole of business class, which you probably can't do because those tickets have been sold already.

Wet-leases on short notice aren't really available around here; you'd have to first fly the plane in from the US or Europe, and it wouldn't have any of the comms gear an RNZAF plane presumably has.

Not to mention that we do actually use them for strategic airlift pretty regularly.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3323197 22-Dec-2024 14:25

Not necessarily disagreeing with you but it'd be interesting to see an independent assessment of how much that actually holds in practice. For example when that Air NZ-owned Airbus running as a charter crashed off the coast of France they flew a large group of Air NZ management and equipment over on a standard scheduled commercial flight and were having some pretty sensitive conversations, they didn't see the need to grab an entire plane for themselves even though they could quite probably have done so.

Also, commercial flights don't keep breaking down and leaving you stranded in God-knows-where while being roasted by the press.

Handle9

11389 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3323828 23-Dec-2024 20:22

neb:
Why do we even need flying Rolls Royces for our politicians in the first place? Why can't they fly on commercial flights like everyone else, and for the very few times an entire jet is required, wet-lease it? We could even greenwash the commercial seats with carbon credit payments, making us the most environmentally friendly government in the world (TM).

Currently we're kind of a clown show version of the US trying to emulate Air Force One but failing comically.

That’s not the reason that the airforce owns the 757. Their primary use is strategic airlift to get armed forces personal to where they are operating.

They get used for large government groups because the government owns the aircraft, they weren’t primarily bought for that use.

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#3324127 24-Dec-2024 10:51

The problem with how 757 are treated is the news is all about junkets.

However that is 'least' of it duties. As Handle9 points out above.
All sides of Parliament seem to like it that way vs a commercial charter or bulk booking.
So we have the Luxon flip flop.

757 has been to Vanuatu to support earthquake relief, evacuation, but news is mostly junkets.
https://community.scoop.co.nz/2024/12/surveillance-aid-responders-and-evacuees-covered-by-rnzaf-vanuatu-flights/

We have substantial responsibilities across the Pacific as a richer nation that can assist remote communities.

757 has been very active over the years in numerous missions across our areas of responsibility, Christchurch included, so we probably got value for money.

Antarctica is not just the heavy lift Hercules, and American Starlifters, 757s regularly support each season.

Then there are peacekeeping missions where rotating personnel to distant locations more favors something like 757.

The problem in providing a replacement is rooted in this 757 versions flexibly carry more people or more standardized cargo efficiently as mission requires. Compatible with commercial airport infrastructure as well.

So replacement carries a downgrade in range of duties, so guess what, we have tended to hang onto them, not just for cost reasons.

Maintenance, well airlines have large fleets so get to juggle things and have arrangements for emergency service around fixed routes.
If one flight out of 100 misses a schedule its not news and those long suffering passengers suffer in silence.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3324140 24-Dec-2024 11:14

I was slightly surprised to find that the C-130J is actually not that much of a heavy-lift aircraft. Max payload is somewhat lower than the 757 (~19t vs ~25t, probably more with no seats in the 757) and the aircraft MTOW is 70t vs 115t, so you're going to be taking a massive range hit if you try to operate a C130J at max payload.

It's not really a strategic airlifter, but that's what we're using the 757 for, and you just can't use a 737 for that; the A321 is barely any better.

The problem in providing a replacement is rooted in this 757 versions flexibly carry more people or more standardized cargo efficiently as mission requires. Compatible with commercial airport infrastructure as well.

Yeah, you can't buy/certify commercial combi passenger/freighters any more. It's one or the other.

KC-46 is basically a 767 freighter with palletised seating and cargo holds full of fuel for refueling.

I feel like the A330 MRTT design is the best overall in many ways: standard commercial cabin on top, palletised cargo below. We could do this with either a 767 or A330 as we don't need the extra fuel tanks in the 767 belly because we don't need or want refueling.