ATR Replacement Decision

[Daniel]

QUOTE (A185F @ Jul 5 2008, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha with what ?? the Q300 ?? That was one of the ideas behind the Q400 and becides, they already have order options for em so that would be my guess...

I think he means that Mount cook will already be familiar with the new varient.
Like the cockpit will be quite similar layout meaning not as much training for the new varient will be required.
The maintanance crews will be familier with the design etc.
This is a benifit for the new ATR, not as much training will need to be done.

[FlyingKiwi]

Can I put $20 on it not being the Embraer?

[benwynn]

Yeah, What daniel said. They wont have to retrain crews to fly the ATR, same cockpit (probably) etc. And all else that daniel has said

The Q300/Q400 combination doesnt mean anything when the airlines are seperate. Not common in that regard.

[A185F]

QUOTE (benwynn @ Jul 5 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They wont have to retrain crews to fly the ATR, same cockpit (probably) etc.

Thats true, conversion training wont be as bigger deal as it would be if it were a completly different aeroplane however I dont think that would be much of a deciding factor. A new sim with the aircraft would make it easy insted of the current way of flogin em off to bangkok to get rated.

They are a long way from being the "same cockpit"


vs

QUOTE (benwynn @ Jul 5 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Q300/Q400 combination doesnt mean anything when the airlines are seperate. Not common in that regard.

They are still the same airline. Air New Zealand. Just operated by two different companies. The idea of fleet commonality between the 3/400 is big with airlines all around the world and would be too with Air new Zealand. A bigger support relationship with Bombardier, shared or single maintaince base and all sorts of pros go with having the same family of aircraft. It is AIR NEW ZEALAND we are talking, not two seperate compeating companies. They are writing the cheques remember.

At the end of the day i think it qill be a VERY close finish to the race. However With the fleet commonality, the fact that Air nz already has a deal with bombardier for 13 Q400 options (which could be easily upgraded to 400X) and with air nz wanting to increase capacity (400 having 22 more seats that the 72 and is faster = more $$ which is what it is all about) I would have to put my 20 bucks on the Q400.

In saying that though I would not be supprised on little bit if the ATR won the race and would be quite neat to keep the kind in our skys

[Anthony]

I didn't know that the ATRs cockpits were that different. I knew they were modernising it, but that's quite different.
As for commonality between companies (Mt Cook and Air Nelson) I would say that it would be a nice benefit.
The companies are separate partly because that's how they were when Air NZ acquired them and for cost benefits with regards to employees and contracts and stuff.

Of course the new ATR has to be somewhat compatible and common with the current ATR because that's one of ATRs goals and it's something that would help them keep current ATR customers in the fold. It's probably similar to the commonality between the Q400 and Q300 - it's there, but they're not identical twins or anything.

[greaneyr]

Call it irrational thinking or whatever, I just have a feeling it's gonna be the ATR72-600. Given I don't work for any airline, let alone ANZ, NZM or RLK, I think that's about the only way for me to obtain a verdict! I'm not an armchair CEO and won't even try over this one!

[benwynn]

QUOTE

They are a long way from being the "same cockpit"[/quote]

They look quite different there but mainly the old instruments and dials have been replaced with a glass cockpit setup.
The sam story can be said about the new cessna's and the old cessna's, one with digital and one with actual instruments.
The overhead panel looks pretty similar to me and the throttle quadrent looks the same as well. Everything is basically still in its same place.
I think the new ATRs also have the RNP equipment that would allow better approaches into Queenstown. The ATRs have served us well.
Mount Cook have had good experiences with them. The pilots love flying them. The only thing that I hope can be changed is when you go above 20,000 feet the aircraft really lacks power.
You might be doing something like positive 300 feet per minute about 22,000 feet. I'm hoping the new one would be able to give it that boost it needs to get up there.

This may sound a bit weird but this is what I would like to have happen.
Mount Cook go ahead and purchase the new ATRs to replace the current fleet.
Then they also purchase 2 Embraer 190s that would allow transtasman flights from regional areas not quite cabable of running 737s or giving routes more flexibility.
Maintanance would be carried out elsewhere, possibly in Australia so Mount Cook wouldn't need to take care of that.
The Embraers could then be used on routes like Palmeston North, Rotorua, Nelson to the eastern cities of Australia and they could open up old routes and new ones out of the main centres in NZ that cannot be possible with a 737. Routes in this category could be Auckland to Hobart. Just an idea though.

[Anthony]

QUOTE (Daniel @ Jul 6 2008, 07:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...Then they also purchase 2 Embraer 190s that would allow transtasman flights from regional areas not quite cabable of running 737s or giving routes more flexibility...

And a pretty good idea it is too in my opinion, like i said before .
Not only does it open up new opportunities for Air NZ and Mount Cook, its also a potential cost saver. If these could be operated by NZM and replace some of the 737 services then that could potentially save Air NZ some money as they don't pay the Link crews a much as they pay the mainline crews including domestic.
Potential cons are fuel costs, but the larger E-jets like the E190 have CASMs tat aren't ridiculously high anyway and opening up potentially lucrative routes could offset that and the other costs.

The E190 would be suitabl for NZ ops at: Rotorua, Hamilton, Norfolk Island, Dunedin, Queenstown, etc plus removing some 733 over capacity on the trunk routes.
It could also facilitate the removal of the A320, should Air NZ want to do that.

Oh and Bombardier makes regional jets too.
Maybe if Mount Cook went for the Q400, then Bombardier might be able to give them a decent price on the CRJs and/or the upcoming C-series jets.

Of course is Air NZ that likely to follow either jet option?

[benwynn]

That is a very good idea, they would certainly be able to use them in Rotorua!

Though, from memory, it does take up a fair bit of runway, I dont think it could be used in that many regional places- But certainly could replace some of the old 737s they should really start getting rid of.

[Kelburn]

You did not say getting rid of 737's.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

But hey Embraer Regional jets would be cool - but only if the 737's stayed.
Wasn't Pac Blue going to think about bringing some RJ's to NZ for domestic?

[benwynn]

Yeah, VB has some, so possible PB will get some.

Man, the 733 is really un-economical compared to the RJ and other options. If Air New Zealand wants to go clean and green (thus why they are having a 2 engine fleet only) they should get rid of the 733, and replace with a newer 737 series.

[Anthony]

I definitely wouldn't want the 737 gone either .
But the Embraers are just more suitable I think, though the 737 is operated by Air NZ itself rather than one of the Link subsidiaries, so it's not a direct replacement anyway.

The Embraers are way better suited to New Zealand operations than Pac Blue's 738s are.
Pacific Blue should really have started with Embraers than 738s, which are too big for NZ domestic routes in my opinion.
Virgin Blue is phasing out the E170s for E190s I think, so maybe some of them could be transferred to Pac Blue?

I don't see why Air NZ would look at getting rid of the 733. They're not all that old and many of them have only been fairly recently acquired by Air NZ.

[benwynn]

lol, Virgin just got the E170 and the E190 at almost the same time. They wont be retiring them, they are specially for the places the E190 isnt needed, and cant fly into.

Not too many have been "recently acquired" unless you mean from Freedom. I suppose Air NZ does have the last ever 733 ever made, and it doesnt make a huge difference on the Domestic routes it flies...

[Naki]

QUOTE

Though, from memory, it does take up a fair bit of runway,[/quote]

I think I remember hearing this as well. Rotorua would be fine though with our runway upgrades.
Maybe I will have to write this idea to mount cook
Pacific Blue will probably bring them over in the next few years to get into the regional market.
They can't take their 738s into many places because of the lack of demand.
They have them confingured out for something like 180 seats which on some routes isn't easy to fill.

[Naki]

This article probably gives a hint of where Air NZ is heading with the ATR replacement

[A185F]

dam I didn't get the hint. Be so kind and point me in the right direction...

[Naki]

I was probably been a bit obscure - I was just hinting that they will go the turboprop route with new Q400s or ATR-72-600s (not ERJ 190s) and thats the general worldwide trend including bigger turboprops on the horizon with 90 seats or more

[A185F]

QUOTE (Naki @ Jul 9 2008, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was probably been a bit obscure - I was just hinting that they will go the turboprop route with new Q400s or ATR-72-600s (not ERJ 190s) and thats the general worldwide trend including bigger turboprops on the horizon with 90 seats or more

Ah..

[Daniel]

QUOTE

I was probably been a bit obscure - I was just hinting that they will go the turboprop route with new Q400s or ATR-72-600s (not ERJ 190s) and thats the general worldwide trend including bigger turboprops on the horizon with 90 seats or more[/quote]

I agree. Much cheaper to run and not too much slower.
The Embraers might speed things up a bit but is it worth the extra cost.
With fuel prices today they need to be cheap as chips to run.
I hope mount cook get the new ATRs.

[Anthony]

Stage lengths in New Zealand are too short to see much benefits from the speed of a jet I think.
10 minutes time saved at the most, and the majority of pax would rather have $10 lower ticket than 10 minutes lower time.

General worldwide trend for sure, and New Zealand is not the place for an airline to buck the trend in this sort of way.
With regards to fuel prices, I think this is quite telling - this is an example from Airliners.Net:
"a 1 hr trip on an RJ will burn 2,200 lbs of fuel. That same trip will take 1.1 hours on a prop and burn 1,650 lbs of fuel, or 550 lbs less, despite a longer trip time. That is a 25% reduction in fuel cost per trip, which is significant."
I'm not sure how accurate that is, but still.