Many Heathrow travellers enjoying relief

well not those at Terminal 5. That's a disaster. It's not even a wholesale shift of all BA flights. All that happened is that most Terminal 1 BA flights were shifted to Terminal 5, none of the Terminal 4 flights have moved. They are scheduled to move in a month, but that's unlikely to happen on time. So expect a second major failure when that shift occurs.

.

However, by contrast Terminal 1 by some accounts is an absolute breeze.

.

You see, with almost all BA flights having moved out of Terminal 1 to Terminal 5, those remaining ones are flying through with a capacious, though aging terminal.

.

Biggest airline at Terminal 1 is BMI, enjoying its highest ever reliability levels at Heathrow, as well as a boon from those avoiding BA with all of the troubles. You can also enjoy Heathrow's easiest to use terminal if you fly:

- Aer Lingus;

- Asiana;

- Cyprus Airways;

- El Al;

- Finnair;

- Icelandair;

- LOT Polish Airlines;

- South African Airways;

- Transaero; and

- US Airways.

.

BA also has kept flights to Spain, Portugal and Finland at Terminal 1, for now (partly as BA wants routes operated jointly with codeshare partners not to operate from Terminal 5).

.

So, for now, avoid Terminal 5 - which continues to have flights cancelled, baggage delayed and more disturbingly luggage lost for transit. That means don't use Heathrow as a transit hub flying BA.

.

On the other hand, if you are flying any of the above airlines, Terminal 1 is apparently a breeze, with a 60% reduction in passengers - there are plenty of places to sit, baggage is getting through fast, no queues for gates on arrival. Meanwhile it's getting refurbished, and both Air New Zealand and United Airlines are moving there from Terminal 3 on 10 June.

.

So there is a new experience at Heathrow - it's at Terminal 1. Give the other one at least a month to shakedown.

Domestic airline service - quality again

Is it a sign of change that both Air NZ and Qantas have now reintroduced food service on board the main trunk domestic flights, with promises of more improvements to come?

.

Back before Ansett NZ arrived in the 1980s, when Richard Prebble lifted the limit on foreign investment in domestic airlines to 50%, Air NZ offered just a simple tea/coffee/orange juice service with legendary unopenable packs of cheese and crackers. The arrival of Ansett saw hot meals arrive and first class on domestic flights (with a choice of hot meals), airbridges and business lounges. Air NZ quickly followed suit creating Koru Club, introducing cold meals (then hot meals) and business class, as well as spending several million upgrading the then clapped out mostly central government owned Wellington domestic terminal (oh yes the wonders of government ownership).

.

We had around 15 years of competition on service, as Ansett NZ went from strength to strength, was hurt badly by a long running industrial dispute, and eventually was flogged off to become Qantas NZ, which folded and was replaced by Qantas proper operating domestically in NZ. Meanwhile, Air NZ was privatised and came to dominate domestic routes, before investing in Ansett Australia - due to Australian government rules on foreign investment - and nearly collapsing as Dr Cullen refused to let Singapore Airlines bail it out.

.

Then Air NZ introduced Express Class, gutting Business Class on domestic flights and all food and drink, except tea/coffee and a cookie - which itself was about to be cut last year.

.

Now it's halfway back, with snacks, free bar, and other enhancements. More is to come, with Qantas reintroducing flights to Christchurch, upgrading its domestic lounges, and Air NZ to create a new premium section at the front of its 737s with 3-4 inches more legroom than at present, for full fare and top tier frequent flyers.

.

Just another cycle - but it is only a coincidence that service was poor under Muldoon's socialism, got better under Douglas's free market reforms - stayed that way until two years after Labour got into power -then went cheap and is now emerging again to be higher quality just as Labour is about to lose.

What foreigners can do to an airport

Many people flying to and from London's Heathrow Airport are about to find out. In July 2006, Grupo Ferrovial - a Spanish company - bought BAA plc. BAA plc owns Heathrow. Yes I know, foreigners. Think of the risks!

Now the approval and plans for Terminal 5 were made in 2001, but now Terminal 5 is about to open, on time and under budget. The first passengers will use it on 27 March 2008. British Airways is transferring almost all of its flights there from Terminals 1 and 4, which will provide much capacity at both those terminals to reduce overcrowding across the airport (Terminal 1 is destined to become the Star Alliance terminal, Terminal 4 for the Skyteam alliance and most airlines not belonging to any alliance).

Now Heathrow is far too often a nightmare - largely because of gross underinvestment over many years and a lack of capacity. Terminal 5 promises to transform the experience for British Airways customers, as well as allowing for the terminals it vacates to have ample spare capacity which will be used by reshuffling the airlines broadly into a terminal for each airline alliance.

See The Times for a photo series of the opening of Terminal 5 by the Queen.

Want to make Air NZ uncompetitive?

So Air NZ pays its Shanghai based crew less than the NZ ones. I am sure the UK based ones get paid more. It's called a market, and presumably there was no shortage of good quality applicants in Shanghai. I guess those on the left will want pay parity - always to the highest level, which would mean paying them all like UK crew - which would kill off the routes to China for starters, and then probably kill off much of Air NZ's business.

You see the routes to China are not particularly profitable - largely because the planes are used mostly by Chinese tourists paying for the cheap seats - there is little business class demand between NZ and China. So to take advantage of this market Air NZ needs to keep costs low.

The alternative is to tell Air NZ to pay the same rate - make the routes uneconomic - and then a Chinese airline will fly back in to take advantage of the growing business, undoubtedly paying even less than Air NZ.

Meanwhile those in China who don't want these jobs could refuse of course, and China isn't exactly suffering from economic malaise. The idea that those living in Shanghai are being exploited when they are paid generous wages by local standards is a nonsense - though I doubt the Greens will catch trains all the time in protest!

Yes that's how those on the left would let it happen. Winners right?

How bad is it to get infrastructure built in Britain?

One post on an aviation message board says this about how quickly this writer thinks Heathrow Terminal 2 will be replaced (this isn't serious, but has a few elements of truth):

This is Britain we are talking about.

My predicted timeframe:

Oct 2008 - stop using T2.

June 2009 - Submit public tenders for various designs for its replacement.

July 2009 - All designs rejected by local residents.

August 2009 - A rare and previously thought to be extinct breed of dust mite is discovered in T2.

Late-August 2009 - A charity single entitled "Save the Mites = Save our future (and our Children's future)" is released by two ex-Pop Idol nobodies. It goes straight in at number one.

September 2009 - Local residents set up an action group called T.W.A.T.S - (Team Worried and Against Terminal Success) which pickets Parliament to demand that the area is left for animals to graze on, as anything other than this course of action represents what basically amounts to Planetary Homicide. They lodge their formal complaints to the planning commission, which rules that in light of the new complaints against the massive expansion of Heathrow airport and the obvious and irrefutable damage replacing the terminal building will do to London’s green belt, that all previous planning permissions and tenders are null and void. A new planning process is started.

October 2009 – T.W.A.T.S chain themselves to a chainlink fence on the airport perimeter and are forcibly removed by police.

November 2009 – T.W.A.T.S climb in the roof of T5 and splash red paint all over the place to illustrate the murder of the green belt. One tries to break a window and falls to his death. “Stinky” as he is known, of no fixed address, is immediately Martyred. The local Government releases a statement expressing their sincere sorrow at his death. His wife/partner “Crusty” also of no fixed address, sues BAA for having lax enough security to let them in in the first place, and is awarded three million quid in damages. She cuts her hair, has a bath, moves to Kensington, sets up an advertising firm and buys a Range Rover.

December 2009 – Local residents not affiliated to T.W.A.T.S pre-emptively sue the Government for millions because of the emotional hardship so brutally inflicted on their lives by the grim edifice of the new terminal, in whatever form it may take. A Government investigation board is appointed to appoint a committee to do a study of the plans.

June 2010 – Committee appointed.

October 2010 – Committee convened for half an hour.

April 2011 - Committee convened for an hour and ten mins.

November 2011 - Committee convened for a seventeen minutes.

December 2011 – Preliminary findings are released. They say – “It is the opinion of this Committee that a public enquiry should be convened to assess the lawsuit brought by local residents. Once this is complete planning process may begin on the new terminal”

June 2012 – New committee convened which meets for three mins in a bar in Whitehall before taking a treasury credit card to Spearmint Rhino. Signs are put up all round the now derelict and crumbling T2 site that say that BAA is ‘Caring for your future’

November 2012 – T2 blows down in a moderately strong wind. A national day of mourning is held for the dust mites which it is presumed all perished. A charity single rework of Elton John’s ‘Candle in the Wind’ is released, sung by Jason Donovan and a class of primary school kids from Bromsgrove, entitled “You weren’t just a dust mite to me (Give peace a chance)” – its rockets straight to number one.

December 2012 – Work begins on clearing the site. Local residents complain about the noise of the drills and diggers (over the noise of the planes) which are causing emotional problems and successfully get an injunction to prevent the contractors from using any mechanical tools at all. The rubble is moved by hand. Local residents win more millions in compensation, because BAA should never have allowed the building to collapse in the first place.

December 2013 – the site is cleared. The fourth appeal of the planning permission is in the process of being dealt with in the High Courts.

April 2014 – The local residents take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in The Hague.

June 2014 – Final design, an award winning masterpiece of modern design and technical genius from Sir Norman Foster is dismissed on costs grounds. A rival bid from Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is accepted. The commission expresses ‘concerns’ that the design does not have any gates, and that the water feature and timber decking in and around the hard stands are unnecessary.

November 2015 – Work begins.

December 2016 – Work finishes. BAA make a massive glitzy launch and much is made of the fact that it came in with no work overruns and actually early. Rather less is made of the fact that the work is 395% over budget.

March 2017 – Structural engineers state that the building is unsafe. It transpires that the contractors had just poured tar over the ground and stuck beams into the tar. The site foreman, a Paddy O’Murphy, went on record as stating that “It was fine mate, its fine for people’s drives, and its fine for de terminal tingy dat we’re doing for ya’s. Do ya like Dags?”

April 2017 – Botchitt & Scarper Ltd is found to be a fake company. Nobody at the planning commission bothered to do any due diligence because they all had their drives done as a bonus. The new T2 falls down in a light breeze. An Al-Qaida carbomb is blamed.


May 2017 – Local residents sue again for emotional distress caused by the length of the planning process.

July 2021 – A new terminal design is approved.

May 2027 – The new T2 is opened. It was fifteen years late and cost more than nine-billion pounds all told, or 30% more than an entire brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.

(btw, the truth is that Heathrow Terminal 2 is to close within the next year or so, to make way for the new Heathrow East terminal. All the airlines using Terminal 2 are being relocated to Terminals 1, 3 and 4 after BA is relocated out of Terminals 1 and 4 and into Terminal 5 next month)

Canadian Pension Plan boxes on

It appears it isn't prepared to give ground, no doubt encouraged by the plummet in the sharemarket price of Auckland airport shares. Given that Canadian Pension Plan only is seeking a minority shareholding anyway, you'd have to wonder how it would meet any of the xenophobic tests of "control". If the purchase does go through, then Dr Cullen will have only succeeded in one thing - decimating the price that Auckland airport shareholders could OTHERWISE get for their property. Canadian Pension Plan could always just offer less, given how Dr Cullen has just destroyed wealth.

Something governments are awfully good at.

Winston Cullen's populist xenophobia

So according to Stuff Michael Cullen is as hysterical as Sue Kedgley. Who would have thought! Like some squawking bird he has thrown up his hands in leftwing xenophobic horror at the "gateway to the world" falling into foreign hands. You can see the talons of foreigners, eagerly trying to pillage what is "ours". Of course it seems to be ok for the Christchurch gateway to be held by a loony leftwing council and the Wellington one by a New Zealand investment firm.

What absolute nonsense.

The hurried legislation is Labour making a marriage with "don't trust the wogs" NZ First, pandering to the xenophobic fears of some on the conservative right as well as the anti-globalisation left - with no objective basis for it whatsoever.

The government will now have the right to interfere in ANY private land transaction, as "ministers will be able to block the sale overseas of any land or assets if it runs counter to the need to maintain New Zealand control of strategically important infrastructure on sensitive land."

What is this "strategically important infrastructure" or "sensitive land"? Better hope it's not yours, or those of a company you own shares in - because Ministers can now pillage part of the asset value -purely due to xenophobic hysteria.

The arguments Sue Kedgley rattled off in her press release are all too ludicrous, and I pulled them apart a few days ago. I said the Greens are Canadaphobic only partly in jest, because they are xenophobic when it comes to ANYONE from another country making an investment in New Zealand.

The impression is that somehow Canada Pension Plan would blow up the airport, or treble landing charges, in other words do anything OTHER than run it to maximise a rate of return.

Of course this isn't the first time. Dr Cullen deliberately delayed allowing Singapore Airlines to raise its shareholding in Air New Zealand to 49% because of a preference to consider the Qantas offer, which had already been rejected by the Air New Zealand board. It is speculation to claim that this dithering was because of a preference for an ANZAC Air NZ over a more "foreign" one. This dithering saw Air New Zealand collapse, until Dr Cullen forced taxpayers to bail out and nationalise the airline.

So I want three questions to be answered by those on the left who will cheerlead this on flying the red flag as they do...

1. What evidence is there and what incentives are there for a foreign owner of a New Zealand company to treat the assets and the business in a manner differently from a New Zealand one? Give verifiable examples, not simply tired rhetoric.

2. What is the financial value of land being "strategic"? Will you compensate the owners for this over and above the previous market value now reduced because of this legislation?

3. If the land is so "strategic" to you, why don't YOU and those who agree with you come together and buy it? Clearly the value is so high that you are willing to use force to ride roughshod over private property rights and contracts. Can you explain why you are unwilling to use your OWN money to demonstrate how strategic this land is?

Finally, I expect the shrieking Greens and xenophobic NZ First to support this, along with xenophobic Anderton. That will be enough, but will Peter Dunne, National and ACT stand on some principle? (The Maori Party is inherently racist so I expect nothing from it).

By the way, this isn't about privatisation - this is about already privately owned shares not being allowed to be sold to a willing buyer. Just think about it, and think about your own xenophobia.

It is racism, just a kind the left champions.

UPDATE: Not PC rightfully points out that "Too many New Zealanders don't like foreigners, however (or investment, for that matter). We think we might catch nasty diseases from them -- things like hard work and being enterprising".

Sue Kedgley is taking the credit for this nonsense, repeating her absolute doggerell that "New Zealand could not afford the economic, environmental, biosecurity or security risks of allowing control of our main aviation gateway to pass into foreign hands".

Go on Sue, explain yourself will you? Why do foreigners pose risks that locals don't?

Meanwhile Winston is cheering it on, like the Muldoonist he is.

UPDATE 2: No Right Turn makes the ultra nationalist/socialist assertion that privately owned shares comprise “our” strategic assets. If HE finds it strategic, why does he not buy them from those who don’t see it as being strategic? At the very least he argues this is about the balance of payments deficit - without explaining that this deficit is privately funded. The owners of Auckland airport shares are not responsible if some New Zealanders spend more overseas than they receive from overseas. It is not THEIR responsibility to make money to pay someone else’s deficit. Sadly he panders to the xenophobic populist nationalism of Winston Peters that is more about prejudice than it is about economics.

Herald nearly a month late on this one

First A380 services to New Zealand

yes I reported that on 8 February Grant Bradley.

By the way, Singapore Airlines is ending its Boeing 747 service to Auckland on 11 May 2008. They get replaced with smaller Boeing 777-300ERs. That isn't a bad thing. The new 777-300ERs have the same new business and economy class of the A380s, and still have first class.

Greens Canadaphobic

Sue Kedgley is at it again, hysterically trying to ban something. This time the sale of private shares in Auckland airport to a (wait for it, it is horrifying and disgusting) FOREIGN company. Those wogs (well they are Canadian, but they are foreign, so they must be inferior) can't be allowed to have "our" airport (well actually it is owned by the shareholders, but Sue doesn't understand property rights), I mean after all, think what they could do. They might want it to run efficiently, at a profit, encouraging people to use it and that would NEVER do.

Sue's press release on this says "The Green Party sees no reason why a Canadian pension fund should be allowed to gain control of the gateway to New Zealand"

Well I see no reason why it shouldn't? Why is a Canadian pension fund less of a good owner than a New Zealand pension fund, or local government, or central government (remember Wellington airport when it was majority government owned?)? Sue doesn't say, just apparently as long as the Green Party doesn't see a reason to allow something, it should be banned.

Then she goes on a little to suggest that "New Zealand cannot afford the economic, environmental, biosecurity and security risks of letting control of our main aviation gateway pass into foreign hands"

What are these Sue? Economic risks. Hmmm that it will be efficiently run, will seek to encourage passengers and airlines to operate there. Are you concerned about monopoly pricing? Well apparently not since the Green Party opposes outright Whenuapai being developed as a second airport.

Environmental risks? What are the Canadians going to do Sue? Use the airport as a toxic waste dump? Encourage less fuel efficient planes to fly in? I mean those Canadians are such environmental vandals.

Biosecurity risks? Oh yes, apparently they will take over the MAF role too will they Sue? Or the Canadians will just let it rip on foreign plagues of insects and plants to ravish our countryside.

Security risks? Yes they'll let those Canadian terrorists in to hijack planes, or Canadian thieves to steal luggage.

Not a single rational reason to stop the sale, other than xenophobic hysteria.

Blame Canada, with their evil little eyes and their heads that flap with lies.

Bloody hell Sue, take some pills and get some therapy, it's not nice to discriminate against those from other countries.

Wellington International Airport's rock?

OK, so what the hell is THIS all about? It's creative yes but attractive? It's the design for the expansion of Wellington airport's international terminal wing (note the ambitiously hopeful thought that Singapore Airlines might decide to service Wellington, hmmm).

~

On the outside it looks out of place, bizarre even, on the inside it looks like you're sitting in a cave. Yes I know there is a desire to make an impact, and most airport terminals are "the same", but hold on a second. The main impact I get is "it's not like an airport, but I could get lost inside this".

~

At one point the worst thing about Wellington airport was the old Air NZ domestic terminal, which is now long gone with the new terminal which is reasonably functional and quite pleasant to use. There is a need to expand some capacity at the international wing, mainly because typically 3 or 4 flights arrive and depart within three slots of an early AM peak, mid afternoon and late evening. However, I don't know if this design is quite right. Nevertheless it will make the airport environment less clinical and if it provide enough space for three times the expected passengers it WILL be comfortable. You see the best airports are the ones that don't seem packed, but can take you, with room for your bags, and a friend to spread out, and let you know when you need to know, when to board. It's nice to have that without lounge access! I'm unsure if this design makes it easy to use, imagine running to a flight through this, you don't have a clear sight to a gate and where to go, and what to avoid. Interesting to see what views others have, especially Not PC.

~

Eye of the Fish has more comments and TV3 has a fly through video of the terminal.

No more short haul business class on Air NZ?

Yes I know most of you don't care, but there is evidence growing that Air NZ is looking to drop business class on its Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s in favour of premium economy. This presumably means a drop in food service and possible drop in food quality as well.

~

Why does it matter? Well some of us pay for business class occasionally for crossing the Tasman, it is more important between Auckland and Perth. Sometimes there is value in using airpoints upgrades as well (useful when flying in the evenings after a long day to get a decent meal and relaxing seat without sitting like cattle). Qantas business class is usually far more expensive (and not any better), and Emirates flights are not at convenient times.

~

I hope it is not true. It would go against the increase in legroom for some rows in the front of 737s on domestic flights, and the reintroduction of a (modest) complimentary food service on domestic 737 and A320 flights.

Mad woman costs us all

This has me absolutely furious. The silly bitch who stabbed a pilot because of her deranged desire to be flown on a small plane to Australia (which wouldn't have made it) is now going to be an excuse to grow the state - yet again.

~

One of the few reliefs of flying provincially in New Zealand is not going through the bloody silly nonsense of security checks before boarding turboprop aircraft. You know, much like we don't do it for passengers on buses, or people driving cars or trucks, even though all of those kill more people every year than aircraft do.

~

However no, the Dear Leader Helen Clark, responding to the kneejerk reaction no doubt of the safety fascists, has said that "tighter security was inevitable".

~

Why Helen? Because a mentally disturbed woman has undertaken a one off attack?

~

The great logic is from Helen:

~

"It was my understanding that we operated the same general rules as in Australia [but] it's now clear to me that there is a size of plane we're flying in this country which, in Australia, would be a jet plane. We apply the same jet plane rules but we have rather a lot of turbo-propelled planes in this country of some size. So that raises some issues."

~

Except Helen a turboprop is not a jet plane, and besides which, why the hell does it matter?

~

This will mean more money for the Aviation Security services then and "Tighter screening is likely to impose extra costs, however, and Miss Clark indicated that those were likely to be borne by passengers on a user-pay basis."

~

Hold on, user pays? Shouldn't this be on an "abuser pays" basis? Shouldn't the woman concerned be required to pay the full costs of health care, damage and delay she has caused? Why should the 99.999% (rounded down) of airline passengers pay more to be screened for an extraordinarily rare event when they are far more likely to be killed or injured being driven to their flight?

~

I know why, because one reason this incident happened is because the state failed... as "She acknowledged, meanwhile, that the woman at the centre of last week's incident, Asha ali Abdille, had "presented a range of agencies with serious issues for quite some time"."

~

Marvellous. So Air National could sue them for this? Hmmm.

Emirates first to fly whalejet into NZ

Those looking forward to flying on the "superjumbo" new Airbus A380 from a New Zealand airport look like they'll have to wait a year. Emirates is the first airline to announce flights with the A380 to/from Auckland. According to Business Traveller, Emirates daily flight EK 412 from Dubai to Sydney (and EK 413 in reverse) will be flown by an A380 from February 2009, and the flights will be extended onto Auckland (the flights currently continue to Christchurch). Emirates will be the third airline to fly the A380 starting September 2008.

~

Presumably there will be some rejigging of flights between Auckland and Christchurch, unless Emirates is dropping Christchurch, but anyway Emirates does promise its A380s will introduce new first, business and economy class products on board. That will be interesting given the world beating Singapore Airlines products on its A380s, although the number of seats Emirates is installing on its A380s will range from 489 to 600, whereas Singapore Airlines only has 471. I suspect Emirates will be flying the low density long haul version on this route though, as it seeks to compete with Singapore Airlines, Qantas, BA and Virgin Atlantic for the lucrative Sydney-Europe routes.

~

Anyway it will be good to see the whalejet flying regularly to and from NZ. This will undoubtedly put pressure on airfares in all classes. Frankly, the odds are that no other airlines will be flying A380s to NZ in the near future. The other airlines that have ordered A380s that currently fly to NZ are Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Korean and Malaysian. Out of them only Qantas and Singapore Airlines currently fly their biggest aircraft (747s) into NZ, and in both cases the majority of their flights are on smaller aircraft. I doubt it is worthwhile either Qantas or Singapore Airlines flying such large planes on any of their services to NZ.

Ken Livingstone talking nonsense again

So Ken has swanned over using his increased council tax take for a trip to India - and he has the gall to go on about climate change.

His latest "great idea", reported on BBC London TV news is to ban airlines flying between London and Paris, and London and Brussels because "you'd be mad" to fly now that the high speed rail link has been opened. Like any budding petty dictator, Livingstone wants to ban the flights.

Of course for starters he hasn't the power to do this, so he's talking out of his arse about "wanting to do it".

However, secondly he is wrong. You're not necessarily mad to fly instead of catching the train. For starters, some people live or work closer to the airports than the railway stations. Heathrow may be a lot more convenient for some west of London than finding your way by rail to St. Pancras. London City Airport is more convenient for some as well. More importantly, one very good reason both BA and Air France fly London-Paris is that the airlines pick up passengers to feed onto long haul flights. You can fly quite cheaply from London-Paris-Africa or Asia for example. However, like many politicians (it isn't just the left) Ken automatically knows what best about something he really knows little about.

Thirdly, what would be the effect of "banning flights"? The price of rail travel would increase, dramatically. It would be a monopoly, then the drones and complaints about the privately run railway ripping people off would also come from Ken. Airlines add competitive pressure, something that Ken has shown no interest in with his London transport policy.

Finally, his own idea fails to reflect that the market itself is already delivering part of what he says. BMI stopped flying London-Paris two years ago because of the competition from Eurostar rail services, Easyjet and Ryanair have also abandoned such routes after having a go at them. Air France has reduced its schedule because it gets higher value from selling those precious Heathrow landing rights to its airline partners like Delta and Continental, than keeping them for this route.

Flights between London and Paris/Brussels have been in decline for a few years, this is likely to accelerate - for good economically rational reasons. People are responding to their best interests, and airlines are responding to this - none need Ken to push them around.

Pacific Blue's domestic launch sees others raise the bar

Good on them, more competition on domestic air routes. It reminds me again of the debates in the 1980s when old Labour (yes before 1984) fought AGAINST deregulating the domestic airline market - and then in power opened it up to 100% foreign owned competition.

^

Something Jim Anderton and Winston Peters opposed vehemently, because they loved old fashioned state owned Air NZ. Of course Air NZ is new fashioned mostly state owned now (albeit a publicly listed one).

^

The domestic airline market has gone through a full cycle. Before 1987 and Ansett NZ, there was next to no service and fares were expensive. Ansett saw more discount fares, but also saw airline lounges, airbridges, business/first class and hot meals appear on domestic flights. I recall a column by Chris Trotter who saw domestic business class being some sort of class divider between the "haves" and "have nots". I never figured why people who flew were ever "have nots". On top of that, who the hell ever flew domestic business class unless they were:

a. Connecting to a long haul business class flight, so it was part of the ticket;

b. Using a free upgrade voucher which you got as a Gold/Gold Elite airpoints member; or

c. A politician (Rodney Hide used to say he had to fly Business Class to meet his constituents, but Laila Harre also regularly flew business class between Auckland and Wellington).

^

Then Ansett became Qantas NZ, then Qantas before Air NZ dropped business class and hot meals a few years ago, to go no frills. Qantas followed suit. Now Pacific Blue is coming in with no frills, Air NZ is responding by introducing a few rows in the front with around 4-5 inches more legroom for "premium customers " (likely Gold Elite/Gold status frequent flyers, full fare passengers and passengers connecting to business class international flights). Qantas has also announced it is upgrading NZ domestic lounges and installing upgraded interiors, more food service and a free evening bar service on flights.

^

S0 you might get a good deal on Pacific Blue, but frankly I'm looking forward to sitting at the front end of Air NZ with international long haul economy class legroom, or getting fed for free again on domestic flights. No doubt Chris Trotter will bemoan this as representing a new bastion of the class struggle!

Airbus A380 is NOT a revolution, it's the end of an era

The enormous media coverage of the very first commercial passenger carrying flight of the Airbus A380 "whalejet"as some have coined it, has been full of the hype that Singapore Airlines would have hoped for. However, I'm not going to agree with the view of many that the A380 is a revolutionary step forward - it's not. Why?
^
1. It is not the "biggest plane in the world", as the Russian built Antonov An-225 took that title in 1988. However, it is the largest one to be mass produced, as there is only only An-225 to date, and it is the largest airliner.
^
2. It is not a particular quantum leap in capacity, if only because many airlines are using the vastly increased floorspace to upgrade their on board product. In any case, unlike the Boeing 747 it is not a doubling of seating compared to its predecessors.
^
3. It is not technologically a major leap forward compared to the last brand new large jet airliner introduced by the "big two" of Airbus and Boeing - the last was the Boeing 777. It does represent an evolution, but not a revolution.
^
4. The passenger product introduced by Singapore Airlines is only an advance in First Class Suites (the now famous double beds for some), with separate cabins, and beds separate from seats. The Business Class and Economy Class products are identical to their existing Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (which, by the way, don't yet fly to New Zealand), and have been getting rolled out on those 777s for the past year.
^
In short, it's bigger, quieter and the windows are a bit bigger. All very well, but that is it. You see the key difference between the A380 and future new airliners, is that it is probably the last predominantly aluminium jet airliner to be built. The next ones, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350XWB will be predominantly carbon composite - with windows twice the size of existing airliners, a flight interior altitude substantially lower and humidity substantially higher than that of current airliners. In other words, a major change to the current experience of being dehydrated and feeling cooped in a metal tube. The A380 is a fine replacement for airlines that need a 747 or larger sized airliner, but there aren't too many of those - Air New Zealand almost certainly will never buy any.
^
It's also important to dismiss the nonsense debate that the A380 competes with the 787 Dreamliner - as if airlines that need a 450 seat airliner, wouldn't need a 250 seat one or vice versa. Given that Singapore Airlines, Qantas and BA have bought both, this is a debate created by journalists interviewing their laptops. There is clearly a market for the A380, it's just for now it not enough to make it break even - 190 so far. The Boeing 787 has sold 710 so far and hasn't flown. I think we can tell which aircraft manufacturer chose the right market to target!

Winston in a time warp

NZ First press releases can be funny, they read like North Korean ones at times. Statements like "New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters said today that despite misinformation campaigns being undertaken by some in the media, the fact remains that our major strategic assets and land cannot be allowed to fall into foreign control."

^

No Winston, a misinformation campaign is not defined as those who have a different political view of the world compared to you. "The fact remains" does not make anything a fact, it is a political point of view. What sheer utter arrogant nonsense to think that an alternative political view from Winston is not a fact, and is simply a "misinformation campaign". Colin Espiner can write what he likes, but clearly he has annoyed Winston who seeks to win votes from an anti-foreign investment line.

^

What's funnier though is this statement "Auckland Airport is a strategic asset. It was clearly defined as such in the coalition agreement of 1996, and nothing has happened between then and now to change its status in our view".

^

In the what agreement??

^

So the fact that:

1. The coalition agreement terminated in force when the coalition with National broke up in 1998;
2. The remains of that government was voted out in 1999 and remains so;
3. The confidence and supply agreement with Labour does not cross reference the 1996 coalition agreement as a basis for policy;
4. The coalition agreement is not the word of some sage, it's a political document of convenience.

means nothing?

Sorry Winston, reread the calendar it is 2007, not 1997.

Garuda banned from the EU

Given that (according to the BBC) European Commission has banned Garuda Indonesian Airways from flying to any European Union country, and has advised EU citizens to not fly on ANY Indonesian airlines because of safety concerns, it might not be bad advice for New Zealanders either (note that Garuda doesn't fly to Auckland anymore, but does fly to Australia).

Video on demand entertainment on Air NZ Trans Tasman/Pacific flights

Well about time really. Thankfully the government is a passive shareholder in Air NZ, otherwise it might regard the $50 million investment in installing individual on-demand entertainment TV screens for all classes on the Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s as a waste of money.

^

The 767s fly all services to Cairns, Honolulu, Perth, and Tahiti, and some from Auckland to Apia, Nandi, Rarotonga, Nuku'alofa, Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney, and extensions of flights from Apia, Nandi and Rarotonga to/from Los Angeles (the long slow way from Auckland to LA).

^

The A320s fly all services from Wellington and Christchurch to Australia and the Pacific, and from Auckland to Noumea and Port Vila, and some from Auckland to Adelaide, Apia, Brisbane, Melbourne, Nandi, Norfolk Island, Nuku'alofa, Rarotonga and Sydney.

^

Finally NZ can compete a bit better with the likes of Emirates across the Tasman, only the odd international 737 flight (usually to Niue and Norfolk Island, but occasionally elsewhere) will be without any decent entertainment. What the report doesn't note is that this means new seats on the 767s in both classes.

^

On top of that, shortly you'll be allowed to use Air NZ Airpoints to upgrade on flights by other Star Alliance carriers that have joined the Star Alliance upgrade scheme. They are:

- ANA (Japan);

- Asiana (South Korea);

- Austrian Airlines;

- LOT (Poland);

- Lufthansa;

- Singapore Airlines;

- Swiss;

- Thai;

- TAP (Portugal); and

- United.

^

I'll wait and see how many airpoints dollars I need to upgrade to first class on Singapore Airlines!

^

UPDATE: It appears the Boeing 767s will be losing business class in favour of premium economy class - hmmm.

Women are special according to AA

American Airlines thought it was clever targeting women with a special website dedicated to female travellers. According to the New York Times, many women are far from happy about being patronised by the airline, and treated like they have "special needs".

^

It talks about women connected to each other, because after all, an airline that is not sex specific clearly baffles women, and they feel alienated to those big phallic things called planes! No wonder women (ha!) need a special website, which when you look at it, has exactly the same information that I'd expect it to have for men - except it's a women's page (all breath "aaaaaaah") so you can't feel oppressed by the testosterone of aviation (which let's face it, is about planes and jets and speed, damned manly stuff right?).

^

However, it does have slightly different advice for safe travel. Points like "If you need directions, ask other women or couples". Yes, don't trust those men, they are just out to lure you back to his dungeon for a good ol' bondage and discipline session. Couples, after all, are always safe, none of them are twisted and perverted.

^

One comment on this attempt is:

^

"As a female frequent traveler for both business and leisure, I’m quite indignant that AA thinks this kind of silly fluff is going to appeal to me. I want a clean plane, a comfortable seat, and good service at a fair price (not cheap, just reasonable). That’s what my husband wants. That’s what my colleagues of both genders want.”

^

Yes American Airlines is a private company (mollycoddled by US protectionism that reserves the domestic airline industry to US owned airlines, and the subsidies thrown at it), and can do what it likes, but there remains an absolutely yawning gap between the standards of virtually all US airlines and the likes of BA, Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and even Qantas and Air NZ.

^

This is because US consumers don't demand better, and because the US airline industry lobbies for less competition.