Air NZ to replace 737s

[Snowman]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Mar 28 2009, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arrrrrbuuuust ! ( French for broken aeroplane )

Heh heh,......... your very talented Ian,.......... Multilingual to add to all your other abilities.......

Boeingggggggggtokeepongoingggggggg (American for Reliable).....

Lawrie.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE

Boeingggggggggtokeepongoingggggggg [/quote]
you can see that in the original design , Boeing 000000000000 ........ British - O O O O O ........ French - now what symbol can i find ... V ... varrrrruute Caravelle wreck tongle windows oopsid doon

[Snowman]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Mar 28 2009, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you can see that in the original design , Boeing 000000000000 ........ British - O O O O O ........ French - now what symbol can i find ... V ... varrrrruute Caravelle wreck tongle windows oopsid doon

"Wreck" being the operative word here Ian........

Only one tube that the Frogs had a hand in that was a Superlative machine, ( of course, they had to have help from the Poms and others),.......
CONCORDE !!
And i still think its the most elegant and graceful Jet powered tube ever !!

Lawrie.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE

CONCORDE !!
And i still think its the most elegant and graceful Jet powered tube ever !! [/quote]
Connnncuuuuurdeee (French again) yip she regularly ripped overhead heading west then a .. well fighter like turn .. it looked from a distance .. agree .. one sweet apple ( British) pommy language

[Anthony]

Bit of a bump: I think that the A320s are slightly more likely than more Boeing aircraft (but I wouldn't say there was a lot in it).
I would rather see 737s though, I like them more and they have some benefits.
They are able to get into smaller ports, don't require much special equipment, etc. Plus they're way cooler! Agree with Deane about the 737s.
I have also heard that some of the A320s have had some issues like corrosion and such.

[Rebound]

737-800 without a doubt, i love the A320 Aircraft but the 737NG is more practical and efficient.

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (Anthony @ Mar 30 2009, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bit of a bump: I think that the A320s are slightly more likely than more Boeing aircraft (but I wouldn't say there was a lot in it).
I would rather see 737s though, I like them more and they have some benefits.
They are able to get into smaller ports, don't require much special equipment, etc. Plus they're way cooler! Agree with Deane about the 737s.
I have also heard that some of the A320s have had some issues like corrosion and such.

^^^^^^^^^^ Word for word what he said ^^^^^^^^^^^

This is not based on any rational facts whatsoever, so please don't take this word to mean anything other than a 'gut feeling'. The way I've always felt, the A320 decision was a slip up - a decision made by someone who had a point to prove. Someone had a bit of power and thought "I'm sick and tired of Air NZ's rich history with Boeing. I'm going to show the world that nobody or nothing is invincible, and pick something other than status quo". Bar the McDonnell Douglas era, ANZ's jets had been pure Boeing up until they got the A320s, and it's been pure Boeing ever since. They've even ordered Boeing vapourware in the 787!

The only facts I have to go on that I think could sway this decision are 1) The costs of type conversion, either retraining the Boeing crews to operate on the Airbus' and leaving the existing airbus trained staff alone, versus semi-retraining to go with the NGs but the added complications of a whole new type and 2) Delays on the 787. That could really #### off Air NZ and help sway them toward Airbus.

[Naki]

The other thing to consider is whether Air NZ would benefit from either Boeing or Airbus in regards to possible third party engineering work - if they choose 737NGs this will add another aircraft that Air NZ has expertise in to the engineering portflio (or do they already do 737NG engineering work?)...extra A320s/319s won't add anything.

Not sure whether it has been mentioned but Air NZ do have about 20 options on A320/321/319 - these expire in 2012.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

A320s can also carry freight pallets in their holds while the 737's can't. Like most others, I'd much prefer to see 737s but A320s are probably more likely.

[greaneyr]

Just a thought... What about Boeing 737-300s as an option? Seriously, that's what Mount Cook did after the whole "ATR 72-600 vs Q400" debate - they kept what they had. ANZ might determine neither option to be worth the hassle of changing to. There would have to be a compelling reason to change, and at the rate of progress in the navigation space at the moment, 733's are going to be adequate for some time yet I'd suggest. Granted, there's more to operating an aircraft than instruments, but hopefully you get the point.

[Alex]

Just touching on the 787 comment there - I've had an informal chat to an Air NZ employee recently, and by the sounds of things it's slightly helpful that the 787's are delayed; in that if they were flying now there would be difficulty getting bums on their seats.

Alex

[chickenman]

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 31 2009, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way I've always felt, the A320 decision was a slip up - a decision made by someone who had a point to prove. Someone had a bit of power and thought "I'm sick and tired of Air NZ's rich history with Boeing. I'm going to show the world that nobody or nothing is invincible, and pick something other than status quo".

Interesting point. I don't even think that Ian Warren is old enough to remember what happened with the original Boeing decision but he can probably fill in the blanks from his expansive knowledge banks. In the early 1970's NAC was looking for a replacement for the Viscount and the choices were really between the Boeing 737, BAC 1-11 and the DC9.

Now in those days Boeing was a nothing company in regional civil aviation and NZ was still very dependent on British industry, especially cars, rail and aviation. There was a huge public outcry and very strong pressure from the government to buy the best of British i.e. BAC 1-11. The thought of buying an unproven american airliner really seemed to have upset a lot of people but at the end of the day one man with a bit of power, Doug Patterson (the boss at NAC) had his mind set on the Boeing.

So to rephrase Richards above quote "Someone had a bit of pwer and thought "I'm sick and tired of NAC's rich history with Britain. I'm going to show the world that nobody or nothing is invincible, and pick something other than the status quo".

It was this single decision 30 years ago the started "Air NZ's rich history with Boeing."

This could be the beginning of Air NZ's rich history with Airbus."

On a personal note I couldn't care less what they go for

Jamie Marshall

[towerguy]

from my point of view

boeing = reliable, manoeuvrable, taxi's well, flys well = good aeroplane

airbus = none of the above = a sad waste of bloody good aluminium

are you really going to trust an aircraft made in a place called TOOloose!

like they say - if it ain't boeing I ain't going


ps - bugger - just found out that my trip to Rarotonga in may is A320 both ways!!!! - guess I'm shark s**t!

[Snowman]

QUOTE (chickenman @ Mar 31 2009, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point. I don't even think that Ian Warren is old enough to remember what happened with the original Boeing decision but he can probably fill in the blanks from his expansive knowledge banks. In the early 1970's NAC was looking for a replacement for the Viscount and the choices were really between the Boeing 737, BAC 1-11 and the DC9.

Now in those days Boeing was a nothing company in regional civil aviation and NZ was still very dependent on British industry, especially cars, rail and aviation. There was a huge public outcry and very strong pressure from the government to buy the best of British i.e. BAC 1-11. The thought of buying an unproven american airliner really seemed to have upset a lot of people but at the end of the day one man with a bit of power, Doug Patterson (the boss at NAC) had his mind set on the Boeing.

So to rephrase Richards above quote "Someone had a bit of pwer and thought "I'm sick and tired of NAC's rich history with Britain. I'm going to show the world that nobody or nothing is invincible, and pick something other than the status quo".

It was this single decision 30 years ago the started "Air NZ's rich history with Boeing."

This could be the beginning of Air NZ's rich history with Airbus."

On a personal note I couldn't care less what they go for

Jamie Marshall

Hi Jamie,.......

Ian is old enough to remember the NAC purchase of the Boeings,....... and so am i.
I also have many books on the subject, and several videos.

You forgot to mention one other aircraft that NAC also looked at and flew,........ French too,.......... the Caravelle.

One of the most important factors of the Boeing decision, is that it all came down to which of them handled the Wellington Waterfront Circuit, in Welly's notorious winds and bad weather,............ Boeing won hands-down.........
It was described as the most ideal all round jet aircraft for New Zealands unique conditions after they took delivery of the first of them.. Extremely stable and flyable in the worst Welly could throw at it.
All this, based on testing around Welly in a B727 which used the same wing as the, yet unbuilt, B737. The BAC1-11 and the DC-9 were tested around Welly's circuit, and did about as well as the old Viscounts did,........ not terribly well at all.

So all in all, it was a pretty brave decision,......... going for an aircraft that was still on the drawing boards.......
The decision proved correct in every possible way,.......... as history proves..........

Lawrie.

[Snowman]

QUOTE (towerguy @ Mar 31 2009, 11:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

from my point of view

ps - bugger - just found out that my trip to Rarotonga in may is A320 both ways!!!! - guess I'm shark s**t!

Packed your swimsuit and your inflatable dinghy and outboard motor in your carry on luggage have you ??.......

Lawrie.

[towerguy]

nope but airbus might want to look at installing evinrudes instead of APU's - easier to get to shore afterwards - if you know what I mean!

[waka172rg]

QUOTE (Snowman @ Apr 1 2009, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ian is old enough to remember the NAC purchase of the Boeings.

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (Snowman @ Apr 1 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jamie,.......

Ian is old enough to remember the NAC purchase of the Boeings,....... and so am i.
I also have many books on the subject, and several videos.

You forgot to mention one other aircraft that NAC also looked at and flew,........ French too,.......... the Caravelle.

One of the most important factors of the Boeing decision, is that it all came down to which of them handled the Wellington Waterfront Circuit, in Welly's notorious winds and bad weather,............ Boeing won hands-down.........
It was described as the most ideal all round jet aircraft for New Zealands unique conditions after they took delivery of the first of them.. Extremely stable and flyable in the worst Welly could throw at it.
All this, based on testing around Welly in a B727 which used the same wing as the, yet unbuilt, B737. The BAC1-11 and the DC-9 were tested around Welly's circuit, and did about as well as the old Viscounts did,........ not terribly well at all.

So all in all, it was a pretty brave decision,......... going for an aircraft that was still on the drawing boards.......
The decision proved correct in every possible way,.......... as history proves..........

Lawrie.

Wow, really interesting story Lawrie.

I've also heard numerous comments that the 732 was, in many ways, the perfect machine to drop into Queenstown. I don't think NAC started out flying in there, though.

Now I'm intrigued about the handling of the 732 versus any other jet. Maybe the flight models I've flown haven't been too accurate, but any 732 I've flown has handled pretty much like any other jet - big, heavy, slow to turn, and way too powerful to ever do a circuit in fullstop. I've also read in many places that the 727 handled like an oversized fighter jet. Again, big, heavy, slow to turn and way too powerful to ever do a circuit in fullstop in my experience.

What am I missing?

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (chickenman @ Mar 31 2009, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point. I don't even think that Ian Warren is old enough to remember what happened with the original Boeing decision but he can probably fill in the blanks from his expansive knowledge banks. In the early 1970's NAC was looking for a replacement for the Viscount and the choices were really between the Boeing 737, BAC 1-11 and the DC9.

Hark Dung , He .. me paper reading skills were a lacking but was the late 69s when they were test flying the 73's into Christchurch on 29/11 , they just went round and round , i thought NAC brought a hundred of them .

and from Craig

QUOTE (towerguy @ Mar 31 2009, 11:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

airbus = none of the above = a sad waste of bloody good aluminium

are you really going to trust an aircraft made in a place called TOOloose!

ArrrrrrBuuuuuuust ... French for broken aeroplane .

[Snowman]

QUOTE (towerguy @ Apr 1 2009, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope but airbus might want to look at installing evinrudes instead of APU's - easier to get to shore afterwards - if you know what I mean!

Heh heh,......... i know exactly what you mean.......................

Lawrie.