[sparkyflier]

In the past months I have started two separate discussions to examine and evaluate route opportunities for both BA and Virgin Atlantic. In both discussions many posters thought that Air New Zealand quitting the LHR route was a bad move and indeed with tourist, business and VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic would make this route extremely viable – even with stiff competition.

Indeed with the previous routings for London to Auckland NZ was able to capture more than just UK/NZ traffic as can be seen below:-

Auckland – Los Angeles – LHR and VV, so capturing both UK-California traffic and UK – NZ/Oceania traffic and vice versa. This route ran for many decades and stopped when Covid arrived. NZ used 744 and then 77W in recent years – their largest aircraft.

Auckland – Hong Kong – LHR and vv, so capturing UK/HK markets and of course UK/NZ and NZ/HK traffic. Before this was stopped (in those days BA/CX/QF and VS all operated at least daily using 744/77W or 346) with NZ using 744 I think 5 x weekly.[/ul]

So following a recent phone chat with a fellow and very authoritative poster got me thinking if resuming a LHR/NZ route was commercially worthwhile and what would be the best routings for it, and thought to ask forum members what they thought could work.

What options do you think would attract either lucrative traffic, good numbers or are perhaps untapped markets..?

To kick the discussion off – here are some options..

Resuming Auckland – LAX-LHR. Am not sure what changes there have been at LAX regarding how through UK/NZ traffic is handled and welcome insight on this. But given UA, DL and AA have raised their game and frequencies to Oceania is this an option?

AKL – Jakarta – LHR and VV. This could capture UK/Indonesia traffic which is untapped and the previous attempt by Garuda was total fiasco for a number of reasons but I am not convinced there is no market for a direct routing of some sort – but in this case complemented by traffic from UK and NZ and through traffic.

AKL – Denpasar and Vv. Similar justifications as above but with premium leisure being the driver for that stop.

I would suggest AKL-GRU (Sao Paulo) is market NZ should be aiming for, perhaps AKL-GRU-LHR, but another option could be..

AKL-Panama City-LHR and Vv – codesharing with COPA and tapping into their vast Americas (North, Central, South and Caribbean) network and very efficient hub at PTY. I have long held that BA would do very well with a Panama route but they are too cautious and too eager to let IB capture that traffic.

But another advantage of working with COPA is that they are a fellow Star Alliance members so would liaise closely. NZ could capture traffic from throughout the Americas to NZ, Pacific islands, Australia and on to Asia. And I am certain there is lucrative traffic from Panama and from its neighbours to justify a nonstop routing and from UK to there.

Are there other options out there? I look forward to your thoughts, analysis and any suggestions.

2 users thanked author for this post.

onajetplane, Bullfrog

[cwoodward]

ANZ still have I understand numerus ‘fifth freedom’ rights
ANZ did operate to UK via Hong Kong not so long ago and I never understood exactly why they stopped other than ‘small thinking’.
As I recall from the numbers the loading was good. Political perhaps ?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog

[sparkyflier]

NZ did operate to LHR via HKG for a number of years as I detailed above. But that was when they had UK based crew. They then closed down or much reduced the LHR based staff and focused purely on LAX for the LHR route. Another factor might have been the retirement of the 744 and not having enough planes after that.
A friend of mine was crew with NZ and lost his job when HKG was cancelled.

[TimFitzgeraldTC]

I think the problem with HKG and LAX routings to LON was that it cannibalised some of the traffic – though as I have mentioned to Sparky in person – you’re better of selling the flight as 2 different sectors (AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR than an AKL-LHR – for yields).

I think LHR-GRU-AKL (especially the GRU-AKL) leg could be a winner. Good chance to pick up Asia – South America traffic slows. At the moment a right pain for most people as requires transits in the US and if getting an ESTA is a challenge then a lot of opportunity.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog, sparkyflier

[AMcWhirter]

Thanks for starting this interesting thread sparkyflier.

I have reported several times about Air NZ cancelling the London route.

Every single report received a huge number of reader comments. Almost all reader comments were negative.

I had hoped that Air NZ might return to Europe at some stage by extending its non-stop AKL-JFK service. But payload restrictions, especially for JFK-AKL non-stop, could make that a non-starter.

So I would support the first suggestion above of a return to London via LAX.

Air NZ would, hopefully, be able to regain its LAX-LON-LAX fifth freedom rights and given the high level of fares nowadays one would think it could now be profitable.

Downside is the need for a US visa.

By the way, Air NZ started its Auckland-LAX-London service in the 1970s using a DC-10 (longer range 30 series).

Initially Air NZ operated into LGW before gaining approval to operate at LHR.

4 users thanked author for this post.

MarcusGB, Bullfrog, cwoodward, sparkyflier

[Mark]

Was there not some sort if codeshare with NZ/BA early on with the DC-10?

NZ flew AKL-LAX and then LAX-LGW was with BA crew on the same aircraft.
Or something like that.

I was really fond of NZ out of LHR, going via LAX was ruddy Awful.

2 users thanked author for this post.

sparkyflier, Bullfrog

[Bath_VIP]

I’d like to see AKL-HNL-LHR. There are no direct flights to Hawaii from UK at the moment and it could open up a new leisure market.

2 users thanked author for this post.

jwhi56, tomwjsimpson

[AndrewinHK]

ANZ must have done the sums, and if the previous routes were so viable/profitable they would not have been stopped. CX took over the HKG-LHR slot enabling them to increase to 5 daily, and I believe codeshares with ANZ, and one assumes ANZ utilizes its partnership with United for connections through LAX. Fleet utilization for a small airline, having aircraft so far from home, on multiple long haul sectors, plus the challenge and cost of crewing such routings, it likely just doesn’t make sense for ANZ to resume, and of course, they no longer have slots at LHR. Incidentally, I very much enjoyed my experiences flying ANZ from HKG to LHR and from LAX to LHR on the 747/777, I fear a resumption is unlikely.

[TGRW]

Jakarta is not viable at the moment for long haul operations, the runways are in need of repair. The Garuda flight linking Jakarta and Amsterdam is payload restricted on departure, this is due to the PCN value of the runways and the MTOW of Boeing 777-300 aircraft.

[cwoodward]

Its my belief that ANZ was not a well run airline at the time that it cancelled totally flying to Europe.
Already it had seeded much of its huge natural tourist and business traffic to Asian airlines by also having the wrong aircraft, seating and a mindset on the US market.
The Asian airlines just did it better and probably still would although the sandpit airlines are also now a major player on the route with Cathay a Singapore.
To be frank I don’t believe that ANZ has at the moment the management grunt or will to resume LHR-Auckland but if they did via Bangkok would I believe be the most lucrative route. Brits in general like ANZ better than BA and they would pick up good intermediate traffic at both ends via Bangkok – if they have the rights.

In theory the route could be flown by the latest A350-900 XWB (variant with the extra fuel tank already it seems designed but not yet offered) with a full load which would have a range of about 11,800 nautical miles according to some industry sources.
Its not going to happen of course as the flight time would be by my reckoning some 21 hours.

There is I believe a market for the route that would have in the past been a natural Virgin route via Hong Kong

[AndrewinHK]

cwoodward, BKK is a known lower-yielding route, with Star Alliance partners already operating to LHR, with Thai (2 daily) and EVA (daily) both with 777, it would be a stretch to think it would make sense for ANZ.

[cwoodward]

Not a stretch I believe. The route would not be a low yielding one. The Bangkok leg from LHR arguably competitive – but popular. The yield ex NZ would strong with most probably preferring ANZ to Thai. The route would be a strong route for bums on seats year round – but unlikely to happen.

[MarkivJ]

Whatever transit stop they choose, best be a high yield destination in itself to maximise profit. SIN is a good option as their fellow *A partner SQ could benefit from more capacity to London.

In NA: I’d vote any of Houston, San Francisco or Vancouver. BA used to fly A380 to YVR pre pandemic, and AC flew twice daily 77W. That’s not the case now so the YVR-LHR is crying for more capacity (there’s a seasonal BA to LGW but it doesn’t count!).

[MarkivJ]

Here’s an unusual thought – Panama City? Huge huge potential to grow but very little European conns except
klm

1 user thanked author for this post.

CheerUp

[AndrewinHK]

Cwoodward if that were the case, one would assume ANZ would be operating Auckland to Bangkok and Thai would be rushing to do the same, currently there are no direct flights, it’s a route with a higher % of leisure travel, which makes it rather seasonal, and for a small carrier they will always focus on the money centres HK/SIN markets which despite strong competitors have the yield and the business traffic.

[Author]

Posts