Air New Zealand's decision to buy 15 new ATR72-600 aircraft will result in lower airfares for the regions. Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon said the new 68-seat planes would replace the airline's 11 older ATR72-500s. The purchase would increase Air New Zealand's total ATR fleet by four to 29, adding an additional 600,000 seats into regional New Zealand each year. Luxon said to fill those seats Air New Zealand would need to stimulate demand in the regions by lowering prices and driving tourism through events. "The bottom line is it's going to be a very good deal for customers," Luxon said. At list prices the new aircraft are collectively valued at US$375 million (NZ$569m). In 2012 the airline announced it would buy 14 ATR72-600 aircraft - seven have been delivered with the remaining seven due to join the fleet by mid-2016. The additional 15 aircraft would begin arriving from late 2016. Air New Zealand also operates 10 19-seat Beech 1900D and 23 50-seat Bombardier Q300 aircraft. It has been flying ATR aircraft since 1995 and the ATR72-600 is the third model it had flown, Luxon said. "They're just perfectly designed for New Zealand." The company would sell its ATR72-500 fleet, Luxon said.
Ahh yes, another "cackle" of the witch that is air new zealand.
ReplyDeleteWell we know what's going to happen to the
ReplyDeleteATR 72-500s now
They will be sold to the international market.
DeleteChats will pick up a few?
DeleteNo way. ATR completely impractical for Air Chats.
DeleteATR is the perfect fit for the Chathams. In fact the owner has been keen for a number of years, but the capital out lay is to big.
DeleteYeah because I can see a palitised freight system suiting the ATR. Doubt a ATR would manage the range and payload the Connie can.
DeleteATR easily has the legs for that sector. Payload a little less, but not much and the fuel burn about a third less. It is a very good fit, Craig has crunched the numbers many times and likes the result
DeleteBut then once it turns up over the chathams - it needs to land. And that will be fun, New Plymouth is usually far more than she can handle.
DeleteIf not it will need to divert back to the mainland.
Again. The ATR can take a greater x wind then the 580. And the dash for that mater. So no issue out there. Length is not generally a problem either. The comment about NP is simply unfounded... what aspect of NP can the ATR generally not handle?
DeleteDo some light research. The informed locals arw avoiding them like the plague at NPL. It was even in the paper.
DeleteBack up your statement with the facts. As I'm not in Taranaki I don't read the local paper there. Why are the locals not happy??
DeleteThey will be sold to the international market.
ReplyDeleteAir NZ has a good reputation for having well maintained aircraft.
There has been some speculation that Air NZ is going to buy the ATR42-600 as replacement to the Q300 to standardise on fleet, so to mix and match aircraft and crew depending on loadings during the week.
Having a fleet of ATR 42/72-600 will reduce maintenance, crewing and operational costs, to enable further reduction of fares for regional routes. That is why Air Nelson has been doing maintenance for both ATR72's and Q300's at Nelson. I suspect the current Eagle Airways maintenance facility in HLZ will be retained under Air Nelson ownership for aircraft servicing, as ATR's and Q300's overnight in HLZ as well as a crew base. Also HLZ is 20 minute flight time to AKL
Some Air Nelson flight attendants have mentioned, they are being cross trained for both ATR and Q300 operations.
Having a ATR42/72-600 fleet is similar to policy of the A320/A321 standard fleet for domestic and international short haul operations.
I wonder if Mt Cook Airlines is going to be merged with Air Nelson?
I wouldn't be surprise that Air NZ will have a standardised B787-9/B787-10 fleet from 2019/2020 onwards, with the B787-10 replacing the B777-200ER which are now have an average of 9 years.
A standardise B787-9/B787-10 international long fleet, backed up with current B777-300, would reducing crewing and operational costs, as Air NZ moves to long haul 'Point 2 Point' operations, especially with the announcement yesterday, that Air NZ is planning 2 new international 'point to point' routes.
I would be keen to see this happen.
DeleteAbsolutely no benefit in operating a 42 except one less flight attendant. Operating costs near identical so you may as well have the extra seats available.
DeleteAgreed. The operating costs on the ATR website echo that statement above. I would be putting money on them replacing the Q300 with more ATR72s.
DeleteThe 72 isn't really suitable for replacing the Q300 at PPQ or WRE in particular.
DeleteThe 72 would be severely restricted.
Whilst operating costs are close to the 42 they are not identicle.
Markets such as WAG, TUO, TIU, HKK, KKE would struggle to regularly fill the required higher break even numbers.
Average load factors in the domestic network are the lowest in the group overall, compared to short haul and long haul. It's the smallest of these centres that keep these numbers down.
Of course load factor is one thing - yield is another
No such plan currently exists for multi type regional cabin crew. That is simply a rumour.
DeleteWhilst operating procedures are being aligned, this is in line with the group and is best practice.
The two regionals will stay seperate for several reasons. Cost is one.
Air Nelson looked at the ATR42-500 as a replacement for the SARB 340 but choose the Q300 due a good discount from Bombardier, as they were in the process of closing the Q300 production line.
DeleteIf Air Nelson was looking at the ATR42 in 2003/2004, they must have done their number crunching in regards to the financial viability of ATR42, so this comes back to my speculation, that the ATR42-600 is being looked at as possible replacement to the Q300 to standardised on spares, maintenance, pilot and cabin training by having a ATR72-600/ATR42-600 fleet.
The other factor is, the aircraft manufacturer ATR does have a stores facility for the Australia/South Pacific region based in Auckland, which make me thinks that Air Nelson will take over the the current Eagle Airways HLZ maintenance facility, being close to Auckland.
The ATR42-500 had approximately 30% commonality of parts with the ATR72-500 so there is not really a big savings to having a single fleet, it may actually increase the costs as the holding of extra spare parts to cover both fleets increases the stock holding liability (the 600 series may be closer in commonality not I have not seen the differences).
DeleteThe seating differences between the ATR42 v 72 is about 58%. So to make money the 42 should be around 50% cheaper to operate to have a similar cost per seat mile as the ATR72. In NZ the ATR 72 is operated as a 66 seater because the demography of the New Zealand passenger tend to be not just a working commuter i.e. they are starting a journey and have a different luggage requirement. To achieve this the ATR had to lose a row of seats. In the 72 that is about a 5% reduction bit for the 42 that is almost a 10% reduction. That alone would up the operating cost of the 42 when compared to the 72.
The 42 is nowhere near the cost per seat mile of the 72 but will always be limited to a 42 seat aircraft where as the 72 can operate as a 42 seater but also be used as a 72 seater.
It is the same reason the B777-200LR is not a big seller. If you limit the B777-300ER to the same weight as the LR it will do almost the same distance. However when you don't operate a 200LR at its max distance all you have is a more expensive B777-200.
As such I doubt that the ATR42 will enter Air New Zealand fleet.
Ah, 68 seats..... not 66
DeleteI highly doubt they will merge Mount Cook and Nelson any time soon. HLZ is only a Eagle Airways Crew base. No Mount Cook or Air Nelson pilots are based there
ReplyDeleteI realise that HLZ is currently Eagle Airways pilot and maintenance base, also Eagle Airways provides uniformed check in and ground handling staff for HLZ terminal.
DeleteThats is why, I think that Air Nelson will take over Eagle Airways facilities at HLZ next year and create a cabin crew/pilot base and permanently position a couple of Mt Cook/Air Nelson aircraft for early morning flights out of HLZ and provide back up AKL, as it it would be quicker to get a replace aircraft and crew to Auckland, as oppose getting a replacement aircraft/crew say from NSN or CHC, plus provide HLZ terminal staff.
Currently NSN and CHC based crew, overnight in HLZ for early morning flights from HLZ south to WLG and CHC.
HLZ ground staff are contracted to a ground support company.
DeleteCorrect. Eagle has nothing to do with Hamilton check in or loading...
DeleteHaha I love all the claimed fact. The ground staff are indeed contracted to a ground support company... called Air New Zealand. All gate / check in staff are Air NZ mainline employees. The ramp staff are contracted to Ham Aero.
DeleteAir Nelson will not take over any Eagle facilities. The maintenece base will be run by the newly formed Air NZ Regional Maintenence (search for articles) and will service overnight Q300's & ATR's.
There will be no crew base in HLZ after Eagle. There is only 1 overnighting Q300 and will be up to 3 ATR's, so no need for an Air Nelson base. Mt Cook will not have any bases outside the main centres, period.
The above points are fact. Believe me or not... :)
Check In/Ops Staff are actually currently Eagle Airways ;) We are all Air NZ tho
DeleteYeah nah...
DeleteBusiness Area / Department Description ...
Regional Airports, Mt Cook A/L Hamilton Airport
Airports, Mount Cook Airline Limited
Shortly to all become Air NZ regional airports.
To provide a few facts in contrast to some of what is said above:
ReplyDelete1. The New Plymouth Airport Master Plan (BECA, 2014) plans for a runway extension to 1500 or 1600 metres, or a "safeguarding" version a couple of hundred metres longer. Currently at 1310 metres (with no RESA) it is the shortest provincial city runway in the country (along with Gisborne).
2. The problem is not the ATR, neither is that what was recently said in the local paper. The problem is that the crosswind runway has never been sealed or extended, and with its crosswinds, unreliability is inevitable as a result. The writer in the paper called for this to be implemented. The Master Plan states that Air NZ considers the unreliability is the same for ATR and Dash aircraft.
3. Given the wealth of New Plymouth City, any time it wants to have a modern airport with runways of a proper length it can readily afford it, as the Master Plan shows. They currently prefer to build a bigger better terminal in which to wait for better weather!
4. At 1360 metres the Chathams runway is a little longer than New Plymouth. But the government as part of its Development Plan has committed to extend it to 1600 metres and with other enhancements. In addition its owner/operator Chatham Island Airport Ltd is committed to this when it is needed.
5. Air Chathams has planned ATR operations from at least as far back as 2000 when a chartered Air NZ ATR was its (not needed) back up to its Millennium services. The company knows that this is the preferred replacement aircraft for the Convair when, and only when, it becomes necessary.
Someone that is talking some sense and truth. A ATR in Air Chathams colours would be pretty awesome!
DeleteUmm...
ReplyDeleteKKE - 1190m
WRE - 1097m
TIU - 1280m
HKK - 1152m
PPQ - 1042 (16) & 1187 (34)
NPL is positively long! The ATR is proven into WRE on charters, although it may be a little payload limited. What NPL needs is the cross runway sealed.
Wow. Imagine if all that wasn't anon!
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain what in AirNZ's ATR 72's operating procedures would stop them flying these aircraft into Palmerston North when there is no tower operating, and yet AirNZ and Jetstar will both fly in the Q300s? Does anyone have a copy of the operating procedures for both aircraft?
ReplyDelete