Just over a week ago, Air New Zealand launched its much-anticipated service to New York. In the first week of operations, the route has been plagued with issues — is the airline just really unlucky, or is this route too ambitious?
Continue reading: Air New Zealand’s Fragile New York Flight
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Hmmm...perhaps a marketing opportunity: reconfigure ships on this route to 8-across economy (or go full Singapore with premium economy and business only).
A lot of this has to do with being overly cautious in the first few weeks/months in managing the payload on routes like this, especially with ETOPS.
The same exact thing happened with AA on the DEL-JFK segment with the planned fuel stop which was often not needed and now today there are far fewer fuel stops.
Agree with previous post, ANZ should copy Singapore's layout of their A350-900 ULR: biz and premium econ only. Or market a 'seat next to you empty fare' in economy with an equivalent premium econ fare.
So dumb .. I you KNOW you have to block that many seats...just make a special configuration with more spacious seats. Airline never think like humans. MBA's at a desk punching numbers...
Is it really so important not to have fuel stops? I would guess that most people object to stops because it typically entails having to change planes with all the risk that entails.
Certainly the additional hour plus to land, regular and takeoff again is important but it would also make the flight significantly cheaper as the total fuel burn is far lower.
Maybe it’s a marketing issue as selling non-stop at a premium is easier than trying to sell a direct flight? If direct is even the right word for a flight that has a stop but where you can stay on the plane.
How big is the Auckland- New York point to point market? I am assuming that a vast majority of the traffic would be transit and this in itself throws up the viability of this route in question? I think Fiji Airlines is better placed to operate this service from its hub in Nadi.
Rather than block 50 economy seats, they should be able to reasonably reconfigure these into 16 additional “Sky Couches” which are 3 economy seats in a row, with no armrests and swinging foot rests which convert to a wider-than twin (but slightly shorter) bed and a thin mattress, pillows and blankets for 30% higher cost than 1 economy seat and 35% less than premium economy. We booked one (only one available) and 1 premium economy on this flight in December and will trade off for better sleep.
@ John -- That's a great question, and something I wonder in general about these very long flights. If you ask me, the biggest consideration here is the timing of the fuel stop. The flight is scheduled to get into Auckland at around 7AM, so if the plane were to refuel in Nadi, that would be around 2-3AM, and would completely disrupt sleep. A major selling point of this flight is being able to arrive in Auckland well rested, and I think almost without question, a refueling stop at that hour of the night would get in the way of that.
In terms of arriving well rested, a fuel stop on the west coast of the US would make a lot more sense. Bu then again, that would put this flight into "why bother" territory, since Air New Zealand already operates those routes.
This makes a lot of sense and allows them to reconfigure in a way that isn't so dramatic. I also like the premium economy/business (ala Singapore) set up, particularly for such a long flight, but I think creating sky couches could probably be done more cheaply?
I’ve just about given up on NZ; they seem to be forever the copycat and less successful sibling to QF.
The rot started with them dumping LHR.
NZ obviously wanted to jump in before QF started their nonstop NYC route.
The enormous range of the A350 and B787 are truly mind-boggling but there are limits of what airframes can do. The option is to have a reduced capacity version or know in advance that there will be payload restrictions and simply not sell the last X seats until it is clear that weather will cooperate.
Both the A350 and B787 are being enhanced to add even more range and NZ might benefit from the latest 787 version when it becomes available.
Until then, they risk damaging their brand if they don't operate the flight within the limits of the airframe. I'm betting there will be regular payload restrictions; if they can't make money at the load factor they can actually fly, the route won't last.
Prime for a Cabo 5th freedom stop. I cant imagine there is ANY cargo on this if its that restricted blocking 55 seats.... of course cargo can go via LAX but just alot of cubic space wasted.
In terms of why bother, if I fly AA to LA, I’m going to have to leave several hours for the layover in case of delays. That’s especially an issue with today’s very high load factors, staffing issues, etc.
With a West Coast fuel stop, I don’t need to worry about delays or spending several hours in the airport to leave a buffet in case they occur.
I’m a retired United Airlines 787 pilot. United has been routinely flying 17 1/2 flights from SFO to SIN for many years now. My personal record is 18.4 hours on that route in the winter. We had no fuel issues at all. We would routinely arrive in SIN with at least 2.5 hours of fuel remaining. This appears to me to be a weather/wind anomaly, as the aircraft is fully capable of this range.
This is incorrect. The 787’s range is superior to the 350’s, which have not achieved their range projections.
Seems like first week teething ussues. With time air New Zealand should figure out how to make it work. Also- the arrival time is 8:30am not 7. Last nights departure from nyc actually arrived 20 minutes early.
As far as tech stops, those are common. I had a tech stop flying to Sydney in Nadi from Los Angeles and qantas routinely had tech stops there when they started flying to Dallas. I have tech stops all the the time flying from dca to the west coast. This summer I was on Alaska and we had to stop in Omaha to refuel on our way to Seattle. It happens and it’s not a huge deal.
Where are you getting that from "Ram"? Totally the opposite case in the real world.
Since airlines asked for and were granted exemptions to the curfew to add DCA-west coast service, it is anti-consumer to consistently being doing fuel stops rather than use a plane that can operate the flight nonstop with a high degree of certainty.
The same is also true of NE to west coast flights in the winter.
The 757 can still easily do east coast including from DCA and LGA to west coast flights. UA flies DCA to SFO but uses a 737-800 even though it has MAXs. Delta uses a 757 DCA to LAX as well as BOS to LAX; it used the 757 until it got its 321NEOs because those two types are the only flights that can consistenly operate year round regardless of the weather.
Fuel stops might be common but they should never be acceptable just because they airline chooses to do something that they know full well the airplane cannot do with confidence under known year round conditions.
correction... exemptions to the perimeter rule.
DL used the 757 on BOS-SFO but now uses the A321NEO
"While all passengers had been informed of this fuel stop and those with onward connections had their flights rebooked, the service did end up operating nonstop, in a flight time of 17hr17min."
Whoa! Are there really passengers flying nonstop from NYC to Auckland who then have onward connections to another flight? After a flight that long, it's hard to imagine getting on another plane right away. After that 17+ hour flight landed, I would be glad just to be able to walk off the plane.
Total fuel burn is lower with a stop, but you’re putting an extra cycle on the aircraft which increases maintenance costs. Plus the crew would need to be paid for the extra hour or more likely hour and a half needed for the fuel stop. Not to mention you could get into duty time and labor contract issues if the 17:35 block time increases to 19:05 hours. Or if this becomes a regular, planned thing, you may have to do a crew change at Fiji which would increase costs massively. It’s more complicated than amateurs who don’t work in the industry appreciate.
It sounds like NZ needs to reconfigure a certain number of B789s for these ultra longhaul flights to JFK & ORD. It seems they are able to operate this flight without the restrictions but JFK & ORD are a different story. They need to follow QFs lead and offer a less dense configuration prior to receiving their next B789/781s.
My question about the baggage being offloaded is did they take on cargo for this flight? If so, did they prioritize the cargo over passengers bags? Probably yes to both questions.
Wouldn’t it be more economical for UA to operate DCA-SFO with the B737MAX (7M8) versus the B738 (73H)? AS flies DCA-LAX with the A321NEO (21N). I wonder if AS will use the 7M8 or 7M9 for their DCA transcons. I suspect they will fly the 7M8 since the 7M9 requires a longer runway. I don’t see DL changing their LAX-DCA-LAX to the 21N since they offer DeltaOne Im this market. It will remain a B752 for the foreseeable future.
Thank you for your explanation Mark. It does sound like this is weather related.
The wanted to ask why did NZ choose JFK & not EWR? It would make a lot more sense as it’s UAs very large transatlantic hub and being part of Star Alliance.
Seems like they need to start pushing their sky couch pretty hard on this one!
I had a tech stop on a delta 757 a few years ago on dca-lax. We had to refuel in Las Vegas. It happens to everybody.
Also it’s not “anti-consumer”. It’s not happening all the time. Just certain times. It’s sucks but that’s life. Not sure what you’re proposing with such grand pronouncements. Fact of life that happens some times.
is it possible to get an AKL- LAX/SFO - JFK fifth route? i thought this would be profitable, and sometimes avoided the oil/wind issue.
I would hope a relief crew is pre-positioned in Nadi to take over the flight.
Seems a rather sketchy operation at best.
I had the pleasure (or due to the wind not so much) of being in the first flight from JFK to Auckland. Being the first flight the staff were new from check in and the queues took a long time to check everything in as even checking things like boarding passes took way longer than usual to sort out. This meant we were delayed getting on and sat on the runway for a good 30mins which begs the question whether they were considering what to do with A bags or B the fuelling situation due to wind as they had recently come in from Houston as one of the flight attendants said. It would be disappointing if the new route was for PR purposes as passengers not getting their bags shouldn’t be a sacrifice to get to your destination. They mentioned as well about avoiding a cyclone which is why they added more fuel and thus chucking bags off, whether this was true or not I’m not sure but that might suggest this weather is temporary if this time of year is more prone to that weather in the pacific.
Yes, you have to remember AKL is a gateway not just to NZ but Australia as well. AKL int-int transfer is easy (just one security scan). So there will be plenty of, say MEL- AKL - JFK pax. And I can tell you, as an Australian I’d prefer that routing over MEL-LAX-JFK anyday.
The DOT reports the rate of diversions for domestic flights and for the month of July 2022, the most recent reported, the rate of diversion was 3.2 domestic diversions for every 1000 flights. B6, UA and AA had above average rates of diversion while WN was right at industry average and the rest of the industry was below average. B6' rate of diversion was nearly 5 in 1000 flights.
This is for all reasons but diversions do happen and there are specific flights that have higher rates of diversion if you - or I - want to dig to find them.
That's why we have amateurs trying to build supersonic jets. When the people in the industry folded them decades ago.
SFO or LAX to JFK is not a fifth-freedom route as it's domestic (origin & destination within the same country). Rather, it's subject to cabotage rules.
NZ can't sell tickets just for the domestic sector; it is even questionable as to whether they'd be able to sell stopovers on international tickets: QF didn't, on their JFK-LAX tag flights, but had traffic as they were consolidating onward traffic from 4 arriving Transpac flights (eastbound) or distributing onto 4 departing flights (westbound).
As any frequent flyer knows, Southpac (South Pacific Ocean) has some of the most treacherous weather conditions for aircraft. Gigantic storms at the Equator, hurricanes/cyclones , depending on your hemisphere, makes nonstop planning tricky and not straight forward. With planned (and unplanned) deviations SAFETY is an issue here. So, as we may complain about weight restrictions, looking at the big picture it makes sense to do this. Give AZ credit for attempting something new and the challenges that come with it.
I cannot imagine flying 17+ hrs in cramped 787 economy. I flew 11 hrs ATL to IST...very uncomfortable !
I'm 5'4" and I couldn't straighten my legs on the skycouch without my feet intruding into the aisle.
Coming from DC or other east coast cities, this flight doesn't seem worth it. If I have to do a transfer anyway, I'd rather do LAX, SFO or Houston than fly to JFK first, making no westward progress. Healthwise, it makes more sense to minimize the length of the trans-Pacific segment.
The 787 is no more "plastic" than the a350. The A350 is larger. Both do the same job equally well.