Do you like Air NZs decision to buy A320s

[cowpatz]

Should have been 737-800's. The decision was made by bean counters and not the best aircraft. The vendors quotes can change up to 30% in the last 48 hrs prior to a decision being made.
The current A320's have corrosion issues and the a/c type is not damage tolerant....not good for short turn arounds...nor is the container type arrangement of baggage handling.
There are going to be a lot of twitchy A320 pilots operating into wellington on a shitty day. The aircraft just doesn't like it with the automatics slow to respond with pilot inputs over the top causing serious PIO problems. Slow engine spool up is legendary and just what you need in a good northerly blow.
Still they get greater capacity although the pilot bill will be bigger too.

[larral1123]

They may have probably chose the A320 because they had options for them

[d3fai13r]

was reading that... only one good point made Adamski about full dependence on one manufacturer is not always good. If you are so smart guys, why you are not working in ANZ? You are talking about bean counters(i guess its office workers), but guys ANZ is BUSINESS to earn money, not to satisfy people preferation in aircraft manufacturer, and sorry again, if techops found problem with maintenance, and no one else in the world haven't-so maybe you are looking bad not on that side.
Nothing personal guys, but thats same like discussing about country budget of dozens billions dollars holding one hundred backs note in hands

[Adamski]

QUOTE (d3fai13r @ Nov 5 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

was reading that... only one good point made Adamski about full dependence on one manufacturer is not always good.

I wish I *had* said that ... t'was someone else I think!

The problem is that the press (or most of us) just aren't given the full facts. There may have been many other considerations - such as a good service/maintenance/parts deal - which could have swung it.

[AlisterC]

Also just possibly (I am just a guesser when it comes to all this)... I know the waiting list on a B737 delivery from Boeing must be huge still.. perhaps that's a factor. Maybe Air NZ would have to wait too long to get an NG fleet?
Also maybe Air NZ aren't happy they are being delayed again with their 787 order, so perhaps this is the penalty for Boeing A deal with Airbus instead!

And for Adamski, I'm married to an American, so I'm probably biased

[deaneb]

QUOTE (Naki @ Nov 5 2009, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but the 737 origins go back nearly 50 years to the mid 60s.

Which just goes to show just how good the design is. Granted the wings and engines on the newer models are totally different, but the 737 has pedigree.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

Perhaps if you guys are unhappy about the decision you could start your own airline and fly 737s? I am 110% sure that ANZ made the RIGHT decision. I'll believe people who are educated in this area before I believe a teenager on an internet forum.

[benwynn]

Yeah, I prefer Boeing over Airbus, but at the end of the day, they probably made the right decision. Hopefully this also means better pay/conditions for the current A320 pilots who I assume are still on awful Zeal contracts.

The A320 does have quite a few nifty features the 737 doesn't have, particularly the secured cargo carrying feature. I guess NZ have realised the big bucks is in the cargo.

[cowpatz]

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Nov 10 2009, 06:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps if you guys are unhappy about the decision you could start your own airline and fly 737s? I am 110% sure that ANZ made the RIGHT decision. I'll believe people who are educated in this area before I believe a teenager on an internet forum.

Awesome I'm a teenager again. This is not about what is the best aircraft it is about what is the best deal and yes it did include an engine service contract. As an ex aircraft engineer and current airline pilot I am interested in what I fly and what my airline flies. Ever since pilots were removed from airline boards what is the best aircraft has always taken a back seat to what is the best deal. Remember a board makes the decision and they are not aviation experts by any means.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Nov 5 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Remember a board makes the decision and they are not aviation experts by any means.

Why are they board members of an AIRLINE then? Price would be a factor in which aircraft is best.

[cowpatz]

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Nov 10 2009, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are they board members of an AIRLINE then? Price would be a factor in which aircraft is best.

They are just businessmen representing various shareholders. Their aviation knowledge is not that great. They make decisions based on cases put before them that is all.
This might be the right decision...time will tell. But generally decisions based entirely on the cheapest deal come unravelled. Air NZ could have taken the cheaper option when faced with buying BAC1-11's or B737-200's. Fortunately there was pilot representation on the board then and the right decision was made. Imagine if they had opted for BAC1-11's?
Just because an aircraft looks good on paper does not make it the best aircraft, especially from a pilots perspective .

[greaneyr]

I voted 'no'. I would have preferred Q400s.

What?? We're talking about Boeing vs Airbus aren't we? No! I'm sick of the major centres getting jets while the provinces get turboprops and are told their routes are more costly to operate. They give us turboprops because they are cheaper to run than jets.... So go get turboprops across the full domestic network then and watch your operating costs drop!

[Anthony]

Boeing vs Airbus isn't really too much of an issue for me.
I have a special spot for 737s, so for that reason alone I would have liked to have seen an order for 737NGs. But the A320 order doesn't bother me too much.

[deaneb]

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Nov 5 2009, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are they board members of an AIRLINE then? Price would be a factor in which aircraft is best.

Sure price is a major factor if you are including the cost of maintaining the aircraft for its full lifespan. Purchase price is one thing, but ongoing costs make can add up to a lot more. I'm not going to speculate or comment any more as to which is the best option as I don't have the facts. But I'm far from a teenager after a 22 year career in aviation !!

[larral1123]

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Nov 6 2009, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I voted 'no'. I would have preferred Q400s.

What?? We're talking about Boeing vs Airbus aren't we? No! I'm sick of the major centres getting jets while the provinces get turboprops and are told their routes are more costly to operate. They give us turboprops because they are cheaper to run than jets.... So go get turboprops across the full domestic network then and watch your operating costs drop!

Airbus and boeing
We should have a totally different company Aye
Turboprops do the job well mabye Air NZ could of considered getting turboprops

[benwynn]

I doubt NZ could ever go back to Turboprops on the main trunk routes- AKL, WLG, CHC. The majority of travellers would refuse to fly.

[AlisterC]

Everytime I am on a main trunk Auckland/Christchurch flight, it's nearly always full. Air NZ can move more passengers in the jets, in a day, than they could on smaller planes travelling slower (turboprops). It would be a disaster for the business to employ turbos on that main city routes
Especially now given the competition from Jetstar and Pac Blue. All bigger planes, and all faster planes than the 733 already, let alone downgrading to turboprop. If it weren't for the competition they would probably fly their 733s a while longer yet Passengers will always pick a faster flight, compared to another if it is significantly slower. Especially the business flyer.

[WasFlightOps]

It sounds like they got a hell of a discount (some people talking around 50%) on the A320's. Money talks! Nothing wrong with the A320 family as far as I'm concerned.

[greaneyr]

I'm not disagreeing that to put turboprops on the main trunk routes would be a disaster, but NZ's entire domestic network probably could, in theory, be run by them. I just find it funny how people in the big cities snap at the prospect of losing jet services on domestic routes in favour of turboprops, when they're considered acceptable for business travellers in the provinces. The justification for putting them on provincial routes is that it keeps the cost down, but when you start threatening to introduce them to main trunk sectors, people start citing speed as the reason for why they need jets. Everyone needs fast services - provincial and main trunk travellers. It's just that main trunk travellers have become accustomed to speed because they don't have to settle for anything less.

Sure, there is the big issue of seating capacity, and it would cost more to send two turboprop flights than to send one jet. But the other factors are just as relevant for provincial travellers.

[benwynn]

When you fly AKL-WLG or CHC-WLG or whatever twice a day, every day, you prefer the comfort of a jet, particularly for a 1-2 hour flight.