Are they "Hounding" you :p
Printable View
I had a similar "experience" with that ad, Air NZ's operation is very poor in Malaysia. I got the ad in a Malaysian state with regular Scoot (owned by Singapore Airlines) services to Singapore but no option to fly from any city in the state to NZ despite huge demand in this state for the route (lots of Malaysians study, live, visit and do business in NZ and vice versa NZers in Malaysia) and the fact that flying via Singapore is faster than flying via KL.
With Air Asia no longer flying to NZ, Malaysia Airlines losing money and the Malaysian government talking about selling it off or closing it down the opportunity clearly exists for Air NZ to fly direct to KL. Must be one of the few profitable routes left for Malaysia Airlines. Wonder if Air NZ's agreement with Singapore Airlines prevents this? Singapore Inc dislikes losing anyway to Malaysia after all!
A friend sent me the link to this article with the comment — Falling profits, falling ratings, will Luxon soon be a falling star? After six years as CEO it may well be time for him to move on.
I said a few times he’s not the AIRleader he once was ...too many distractions and appears to be less enthusiastic about AIR than before. When does his big retention bonus period run out?
Profits this year heading to multi year lows ...some effort
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/...hoice-awardsyy
SP is doing fine though isn't it, canny buyers are on a heap of profit already and it isn't really relevant whether the CEO has Jacinda eyes, or her smile, it's just about enjoying the extraordinary dividends and then getting out when the charade is exposed. Which seems a while away at this stage.
So all good, enjoy the ride while it lasts.
I listened in to the half year call in late February 2019. One of the analysts asked Chris Luxon if he was happy and staying on and he replied in an upbeat way that he feels very fortunate to have the best job in the country. I think he's very happy. Operationally its been a very tough year but I think he enjoys the challenge and I'm pleased he's there.
I bought more at $2.47 cum divvy a little while ago, (effective price $2.36 ex divvy). Although I didn't pick the bottom it only went under $2.30 for one day so I'm not beating myself up in any way and am actually proud of myself to have the courage to back my own analysis and buy more against what at times is some fairly emphatic negativity on here.
Air New Zealand named Pacific's best airline - must be doing quite a few things right https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...cid=spartandhp
Oh dear.. Looks like the Rolls Royce engine issues aren't getting any better...the newer Trent TEN engines with same problems.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...-engine-issues
Also Jetstar has a 787-8 stuck in Japan with GE engine issues..
Both engines suffered surge issues while landing in Osaka... Will post the link to that article if I find it again...
This looks terrible Benny1. Boeing´s engineer´s sure are busy, with the Dreamliners and 737 MAX !!
They certainly don't seem to build them like they used too!
https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/11...roach-to-osaka
Methinks it’s more than just Boeing’s engineers that are busy at the moment
Seems Boeing’s pursuit of excessive profits over the last decade have lead to many dodgy practices even if you only believe a few if the revelations that are coming out since the MAX crashes.
the reduced AIR fares to Christchurch are over. They appear to be recovering the lost margin by charging like a wounded bull. Just had to stump up $730 Akl - Chc return for a flight 2.5 weeks away....
Yes capped prices ended on 31 March 2019 but the usual compassionate fares are still available.
Hmm - last time I checked Singapore was sitting in the Pacific as well. So how come that Singapore Airlines is according to the same survey the world's best airline and Air New Zealand the best airline in the Pacific?
I think whoever wrote the article didn't took the time to scrutinise the results. On a second look one would find out that they got first just in Oceania and parts of the South Pacific.
For the purposes of the Trip Advisors survey, Singapore Airlines falls into the Asia geographical region. Air NZ into the South Pacific and Oceania region (which without being pedantic is the Pacific region)
Worth noting Air NZ won Best Premium economy in the world, a valuable & growing part of AIR's inventory, so if you drill down into these surveys they're not quite as straightforward as they seem.
I think I may have to stop flying as there does not seem to be a trust-worthy pair of wings anywhere :p.
Jetstar GE probable one-off, but even more RR blade problems a worry.
3 of may next 4 flights are scheduled on 767's - we need to be bringing this old tech back :D.
Neither. There is massive competition east coast Australia to US with American, Delta, United, Qantas, Virgin Australia all competing heavily on price to attract leisure travellers. Air NZ simply cannot charge Australians (or Americans) the prices they charge New Zealanders or there would be no passengers at all. They more than make up for it on revenue from the all-important business traveller to their key destinations, charging far and away above what other airlines can get away with (despite the hard product being about equal, NZ routinely charges up to twice what UA charges for their flagship Polaris product).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12218916
I'm thinking this is new bad news but stand to be corrected
Ok, at what point will airlines start holding Rolls Royce responsible for their clear failure in quality control? Airlines and their shareholders cannot continue to be left holding the bag because RR won't take responsibility for their incompetence.
One person on here a while back alluded to the fact that some of these new version engines might be experiencing compressor blade wear.
I think they will be Bora scope checking these engines regularly forever and a day and RR will be on the hook for more costs. Good that AIR say they're unaffected.
Singapore airlines will be making a lot of cycles of shorter trips with the shorter range 787-10's.
Perhaps another challenge to be overcome.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...y+4+April+2019
ATR600's are real fuel misers and given they have 8 more of them on order I'd be very surprised if they were looking to replace them with relatively thirsty jets anytime in the foreseeable future. Merging operations however looks almost a given as they roll out there 2 year program of looking for more operational cost savings on top of the $50m per annum and the recently announced new initiatives of a further $60m per annum. If they work hard they might get to a total of $200m per annum in cost savings in total, that would be pretty cool ands represent about 18 cps in annual cost savings.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12219364
I hope they dump RR and go with GE engines.
Those A350's have a very scary asking price. Might just pay to keep the old 777-200's going for another 5 years or so. Heck when they deferred $750m of capex the SP has gone up 25 cents since then so by simple extrapolation if they deferred 8 x say $250m aircraft ($2B) the share price would go up by another 67 cents per share lol
Most compensation paid out by Rolls Royce will come in the form of discounts on future orders.
That's just the way it works in the aviation industry.
So unless GE offers an extremely good deal themselves the chances of going with them would be extremely slim.
More 787's With R&R engines would be my guess... Hope I'm wrong.. Not a particular fan of 787's but there again I'm not much of a plane nerd ...been around too many in my working life!
That's what concerns me Benny1. RR might discount the price heaps in the circumstances but what does it cost the airline in the long run ? If RR can't get the compressor blades in the new ten version to be highly durable what's the point of the company effectively buying itself more problems down the track ?
Probably nothing stopping them buying more problems down the track..however it always comes down to who is doing the best deal at the time.
Can't see them getting A350's as this will come with significant training requirements for crew e.t.c and the 777-X is yet to enter service so who knows what sort of potential costly issues will come with this aircraft.:eek2:
Truth be known....the 787's provide a fair bit themselves! Way more than they ever forecast..
Wouldn't mind them keeping the 777-200 for longer I think they are a much better suited aircraft for Air NZ.
To really get the range they want out of the 787's they need to further reduce the seat count and cargo payload will be restricted .
They work well I suppose on most Asian flights and short haul international but still lack the MTOW Required for USA flights without payload restrictions.
I think the article is reasonably fair to Air NZ
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107...limate-dilemma
Like this comment - Air NZ employs a panel of sustainability advisors to give a running commentary on how more environmentally unsustainable the airline is becoming. As long as the shareholders are happy its OK
Betcha not many shareholders read the Air asustainability Report
https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/...ity-Report.pdf
Their Advisory Panel has pretty famous people on it
https://www.airnewzealand.com/sustai...advisory-panel
Thanks for the link mate. On a quick 30 second look the 21.4% increase in fuel efficiency in the last decade since 2009 is a notable headline and with an airline that burns ~ 1,000,000,000 liters of jet fuel a year, probably the only headline that really makes any real differecne. The rest of it is probably feel good stuff for the Greenies and possibly a good cure if I find myself suffering from insomnia at some stage again. 1 billion / 0.786 = 1.27 billion
70,000 litres of fuel saved per annum with electric cars is neither here nor there. This is though that if the fuel efficiency of the airline by choosing modern fuel efficient aircraft hadn't of improved by 21.4% they'd be burning something like 1.27 billion liters per annum so although shareholders and at times passengers lament the drama's of these fuel efficient Dreamliners they are a big part of the companies strategy to save about 270,000,000 liters of fuel per annum and no matter how you slice and dice it that's a very BIG number.
Well called Beagle, I'm surprised the SP is still going up even though oil is at five month highs.
Voted Australia's favourite company once again. LOL https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/inn...d-year-running
So AIR hiring expensive outside consultants
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12224620
Remember somebody posting this last year on another thread - “Hiring outside consultants a while back to tell them how to run their business was a free warning sign for shareholders that management have lost their way”
With fuel going up and now this warning sign maybe time to be cautious
Yes, could be. From the other forum
In the last few weeks since management updated towards the end of March we have seen :-
1.Oil continue to march quite a bit higher, plus this further significant jump over the weekend
2. Rolls Royce engine problems on the Trent 1000 engine being announced on their latter version of that engine which could affect AIR beyond the currently understood period with earlier versions of that engine
3. The share price climb materially from about $2.40 before the last management briefing
I wouldn't have thought 3 goes with 1 and 2. Shares have reached my fair value assumption (exclusive of the first two factors mentioned above)
I have taken the appropriate portfolio action and still have a modest stake for yield.
Trust you are left with fantastic high yielding "free ones."
LOL yeah, can you help ? I'm not sure how to work out the yield on the ones left :)
I always start at 100% and work upwards.?..lol.
Had my first long haul flight with AirNZ to Shanghai the other day. The food was better than average but beside that there was almost nothing differentiating the flight from the next flight 5 hours later with KLM. Both in 777’s, both almost entirely staffed with chinese staff. Both flights had no empty seats, clearly no issues with demand.
in future when going to europe I will be prioritising Singapore airlines with the included 1 night stop over and tourist pass as the price is more or less the same and Changi airport is far better. I will be actively avoiding chinese airports in the future.
Could do mate but I also think the currency is not especially helpful at this level. I think the ongoing problems with RR engines could be materially more ongoing than I previously hoped so I am more cautious. Also their favourable fuel hedge position doesn't run all that far into FY20. I think its just a hold at this level for yield as part of a very well diversified portfolio.
Someone on the internet told me air traffic control in China is handled by the military. The ATC system suffers from a lack of primary focus from the generals and is overwhelmed by the growth in flights. They also play favorites with Chinese carriers over clearances. Thus delays for flights over China and unfovourable routing.
The capitalist running dogs and counter-revolutionaries in Taiwan perform better.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
You guys got go through Changi, Singapore with a good length stopover so you can enjoy the newest bit of the airport: The Jewel.
As another Snow Leopard top tip. Don't buy Rakyat chocolate at Nur-Sultan (Kazakhstan) airport. Buy at a local supermarket before going to the airport: less than half the price.
This could be good for AIR ...the Southern Link ....China tonSouth America
https://nzchinacouncil.org.nz/2019/0...nk-conference/
Revenue growth still slowing by the looks of it
RASK a bit of a problem even allowing for the $5m be nice to Chch people
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...828/298988.pdf
Nothing to concern me in those figures. Happy holder with a modest stake, holding for yield.
FX having a favourable impact on AIRs revenues
Probably helped - Commentary from Air New Zealand via CAPA (Center for Asia Pacific Aviation):
Strong increase in air bookings for April reported by chief marketing and customer officer Mike Tod. AIR.NZ experienced an increase in bookings due to the overlap of school holidays, Easter & Anzac Day. This included a c.+16%/+6% yoy increase in domestic/international bookings for the four days of Easter.
Bit of a laugh. I used to fly balsa wood model planes as a kid but this is definitely next level ! https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/11246...-maiden-flight
WOW ....servicing China has been expensive
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/5...h-to-chinahtml
The company I work for has looked a couple of times at the options of flying Chinese workers between Argentina and China via NZ with AIR. It has never been a real option due to stopover times to some degree but more due to the difficult transit visa requirements for Chinese passport holders in NZ, particularly if you may need to change dates as we often do. Until those requirements are made easier and smoother, Luxton's dream of making Auckland a hub between China and South America will never happen.
So they continue to fly via Europe on longer flights with equally long stopever at times. Crazy really.
If your question relates to NZ being a hub between SE Asia and South America, then I disagree. I think it is potentially a big and profitable business for AIR but the regulatory frameworks with slots and competition in China and visa requirements in NZ make it impossible.
Luxon and his Prime Ministers Business Advisory Council don’t seem to be doing much for SME in New Zealand
However the main game was probably to get the PM to do things for big business like AIR ....that’s good for shareholders if she can make things happen
PS — The big boys like AIR, Fonterra and Bunnings going to double their spend and time on staff training by 2025 ...that’s a good start
The China operation is very much worthwhile for Air NZ and operationally it is profitable.
Cargo revenue generated via the route is, as I am told, not apportioned to the route itself however that aside the key issue is and always has been the time on the ground in PVG. Resolve this and you instantly will have a profitable route.
This was the very same issue that caused the Haneda pull out.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...cid=spartandhp
Gosh its hard to keep everyone happy isn't it.
wait till they start using the Ludovico Technique
Attachment 10525
Maybe they should just get back to basics and show a short straight to the point safety video like they used to !! https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/trave...w-instructions
Thanks for the link mate. Honestly having watched the video last week there's nothing wrong with it, its mildly amusing and quite PC. If that's too tough for "Miss Prissy" to watch then I think the appropriate response considering the cost to the airline and major disruption to other people's travel plans is she gets to travel on JetStar's super cramped domestic planes for the rest of her life. I hope she gets a permanent ban from AIR.
I read that she/they were in the emergency exit row so not wanting to be listening to the emergency preamble they needed to replace them with someone more agreeable to be there.
Yeap the same attitude of "we're above this safety nonsense" got Bob Jones in trouble in the emergency exit row. Bottom line is if you want your eyes to glaze over and are not even remotely interested in even feigning interest in the safety video then don't put other lives at risk, so sit somewhere else. These sort of people would be more interested in grabbing their carry on Gucci luggage than helping deploy safety doors in the event of an emergency and deserve other passengers derision and contempt. Ban them for life so they have to fly JetStar's rubbish experience, sweet justice !
Apparently quite a few got their overhead luggage and went down the evacuation slide when that Russian jet caught on fire ....hope they didn’t hinder any of the 40 odd who didn’t make it.
Reminds me ....keep my shoes on (or at least be able to put them on quickly) when flying
I find it interesting that they decided to have such a fit (passengers and ANZ). If I'm not mistaken there is nothing in the safety video about what people in exit rows need to do, that is a discussion the flight stewards have with you when you are in the seat (and to be honest it's not much chop anyway, they dont exactly tell you much). If you have seen the safety video more than a dozen times already there really is no need to watch it again regardless of which row you are in. If however, the video said in the exit row you need to do this in an emergency then yes I could see why the ANZ staff would expect a high level of attention if you are in the exit row. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though. Having said all that, I generally glance at the video but certainly not absorbed in it.
Yes I have been asked if I mind assisting whenever I have sat in the emergency exit row and I would leave my carry on bag in the overhead locker.
Here's the safety video..
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbPd2gOOYPs.its such a "tough ask" to even fake being interested isn't it. I believe Bob Jones was banned for a period of time, from vague memory 2 years.
Beagle could start a poll, I like the 777X with GE engines, but I know nothing. Whatever the decision, I reckon RR engines are screwed in favour of GE, that's the rub isn't it, whatever airframe is chosen RR is going to hurt while it's engine fiasco's are still ongoing.
[QUOTE=Baa_Baa;758777]Beagle could start a poll, I like the 777X with GE engines, but I know nothing. Whatever the decision, I reckon RR engines are screwed in favour of GE, that's the rub isn't it, whatever airframe is chosen RR is going to hurt while it's engine fiasco's are still ongoing.[/QUOTE
The bulk of any compensation available to AIR from Rolls will come from the discount purchase price on new engine orders.
Therefore GE would have had to sharpen their pencils if the want to match or better any Rolls offer.
Acknowledge what you've said above BUT I think AIR's management must surely take the proactive step to select the more reliable engines so as to reduce the risk to the company going forward. "The bitter taste of poor quality lingers long after the thrill of a bargain"
Fascinating choice. I've always thought it would be about 8, 777-9 and 8 to 10, 787-9. The 777 for capacity and 787 (2 versions - USA/Rest of world). Fairly straight swap and better for crewing. The 787 is really versatile and fits well with ANZs plans and routes.
However, the Airbus has the range to get to New York, New Delhi and Dubai (the 777 doesn't), is cheaper and has slightly greater capacity. Airbus A320 crew could slot into crew positions OK and it's a popular plane with plenty of companies able to provide support.
Hmm - so Airbus A 350 has more capacity, can fly longer distances and is cheaper.
Of course will AIR will pick Boeing in this case ... only the worst can be good enough for the national carrier :p; Wait- aren't there some Ilyushin's we should consider as well?
But its probably just about giving in to the big bully in the white house ...