NZFF

VH-VBZ (737-700) is entering the paintshop soon, to be painted up in Pacific Blue colours. Sounds like a good sign for more flights in NZ to shorter runway destinations.

Nice find Ben On the unreliable wikipedia page, it says that the 700s have a longer Take Off run
BTW its a wingleted model.

Don't Pac Blue also operate flights from Australia, to places in the Pacific Islands? Might not come to NZ yet, but fingers crossed it does!

I'm not sure they would use such a small aircraft for the Pacific runs.

Plus, from what I know, the Australian Virgin Blue Pilots can fly ZK and VH registered aircraft, but contract Pacific Blue pilots can only fly ZK, subsequently why they are painting it up in pacific blue colours, unless of course it stays VH-VBZ.

Awesome i hope air nz gets 737s as well to keep the nz 737 fleet strong

I have to say though their -300's are pretty awesome planes... It would be cool if they got some -800's or even better some jets that could land at Nelson etc.

ZKTOM wrote:

QUOTE (ZKTOM @ Jul 2 2009, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to say though their -300's are pretty awesome planes... It would be cool if they got some -800's or even better some jets that could land at Nelson etc.

Iv wish that all my years when the first 73 come in i thort this is it na na Bro nothing it will come one day my friend when thy extend into those mud flats there

ZKTOM wrote:

QUOTE (ZKTOM @ Jul 7 2009, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to say though their -300's are pretty awesome planes... It would be cool if they got some -800's or even better some jets that could land at Nelson etc.

i still think the 737-200's had more punch in your seat and used less room to take off (henca napier having jet flights) when i worked in NPE we had the NZSO come in on a 200, talked to the pilot and he just said, watch the take off, he was airborne about half way down the runway and at about 5000 foot before crossing the main road, i stood there jaw on the ground getting a sore neck, more like a fighter!!!!!

having siad that i thought the -300 abit of a dissapointment to fly in, not as much fun as the -200, but then i have never flown in a NG so i can only guess they will be better that the -300 performance wise, also i seem to recall that winglet versions needed more runway to take off, could be wrong on that score though

Perhaps the reason for selecting a -700 over an -800 has to do with its capactiy versus the required runway length? It still bodes well for those in smaller destinations.

I caught a post on airliners.net showing all the sectors Ansett NZ used to operate at one time, and there certainly seemed to be room for two carriers in the domestic market, so I'm crossing my fingers really tightly here that PacBlue will deliver.

For the record, technical data ex Boeing website shows that at the same engine power rating, the -800 does require more runway than the -700, and winglets also add to the takeoff distance, very slightly.

jastheace wrote:

QUOTE (jastheace @ Jul 5 2009, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i still think the 737-200's had more punch in your seat and used less room to take off (henca napier having jet flights) when i worked in NPE we had the NZSO come in on a 200, talked to the pilot and he just said, watch the take off, he was airborne about half way down the runway and at about 5000 foot before crossing the main road, i stood there jaw on the ground getting a sore neck, more like a fighter!!!!!

having siad that i thought the -300 abit of a dissapointment to fly in, not as much fun as the -200, but then i have never flown in a NG so i can only guess they will be better that the -300 performance wise, also i seem to recall that winglet versions needed more runway to take off, could be wrong on that score though

My first 732 flight was WN-CH and I vividly recall the amazing acceleration on take-off. Had a similar experience getting airborne out of NZPM on one too. Like you, I was disappointed by the 733 but was never sure whether that was just my age and flying experience, or whether the 732 was noticeably faster.

I remember when even the 737-300 seemed more powerful on takeoff - but given the focus on fuel saving these days, and environmental concerns you'll probably find the 737s in NZ derated at takeoff, to make more use of the runway, for a more conservative takeoff.
I know that Pac Blue used only 91% N1 on a departure from Christchurch while my boss was in the jump seat.

Albatross wrote:

QUOTE (Albatross @ Jul 5 2009, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember when even the 737-300 seemed more powerful on takeoff - but given the focus on fuel saving these days, and environmental concerns you'll probably find the 737s in NZ derated at takeoff, to make more use of the runway, for a more conservative takeoff.
I know that Pac Blue used only 91% N1 on a departure from Christchurch while my boss was in the jump seat.

On the Air NZ 733s, hhenever they have the runway the engines are derated to 20k as oppose to 22k. They can be using high 80s for the N1 out of Auckland and Christchurch. While the 733s operated into Rotorua they mostly used 22k due to the short runway.

greaneyr wrote:

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Jul 5 2009, 07:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the reason for selecting a -700 over an -800 has to do with its capactiy versus the required runway length? It still bodes well for those in smaller destinations.

I think this is on the money. The difference is only about 40 seats, but I think that's still significant. 140 odd seats is a lot closer to, say, the capacity of Air NZ's 733s than the 180 odd seats the 737 800s have.