NZ to cease flying to London and is axing the LAX-LHR route

[jase05]

Having never flown NZ long haul, is their J product any good?
What are people’s experiences with them like?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Having never flown NZ long haul, is their J product any good?
What are people’s experiences with them like?

Hard product:
It's a 1-2-1 layout so not bad.
But the window seats all face away from the window, so you're facing into the aisle.
I felt like a cow in a cattle pen, lined up to be fed.
I also found it very uncomfortable to twist my head to look out the window.
Soft product:
Very variable.
When I flew PER-CHC it was very good even though this was an overnight flight.
The crew were attentive and did not disappear after the meal service and didn't hide in the galley using the excuse of "letting us sleep".
When I returned AKL-PER on a daytime flight the crew threw meals at us and then disappeared.

 

[Inlander]

It's a not so good product your spread eagled for all to see. They have had a bit of history with poor choice ( eg that horrible prem economy seat that you used to slip off)

 

[justinbrett]

Slightly sad, my very first international flight was SYD-LAX-LHR on NZ (747) over 20 years ago (back when NZ flew SYD-LAX).

I wonder who they're selling their LHR slots to?

I'm not a fan of AKL as a transit airport so I'd rather change in SYD. Or better yet LAX (when I flew the NZ flight above LAX had an international transit lounge where you didn't go through customs/immigration - Pre 9/11 obviously).

 

[AIRwin]

I wonder who they're selling their LHR slots to?

VS?

 

[Beano]

I remember flying from NZ to LHR via LA. We were packed into a small transfer lounge like sardines in a tin. Even now the American authorities treat you like a criminal when transiting through LA. A transit is like you are entering, then leaving the country, with security and immigration checks at each stage. (please correct me if i'm wrong) I now always fly via SIN, HKG or DBX to Europe.

 

[Berlin]

I'm not sure who wrote that press release, but "disestablishment" isn't a word I would personally use to describe job losses.

That term is actually quite en vogue in corporate world at the moment. I work for one of the biggest companies in ANZ and that's precisely the term my HR department uses when it's time to once again axe some people. The call it "the role of person XYZ got disestablished" which everyone knows is total utter bs.

And what AirNZ is concerned, very similar to Qantas in my experience (speaking of Business class): Cabin crew ranges from lovely professional but easy going to slack dragons with an attitude. Backwards seating is totally idiotic and unnecessarily so- you break your neck (literally, I always exit their planes with neck pain, even on trans-Tasman flights so I can only imagine how bad it would feel all the way from NYC) trying to look out of the window while you have the dirty feet/socks/shoes of your fellow travelers in your sight the entire time. But nice food and drinks, good entertainment screens and modern planes.

 

[Zanzara]

IMHO NZ execs must be living in virtual reality or tripping if they think that they would win a significant market share of Europe bound passengers by swapping a nasty transit in LAX to an equally nasty option at EWR that feeds onto a UA operated service (and vice versa in the other direction). Premium class passengers will be baulking on their sparkling wine (or L&P) at the mere idea of it.

NZ's market research would presumably indicate that the majority of passengers prefer the streamlined and easy transit offered via SIN and the like. NZ offered this sometime ago, all be it, via HKG. Now it'll be a code share to LHR, where on the non-NZ operated sector, the airline's identity is lost or nigh on invisible.

Clearly, the small population size and emotional link of flying with a NZ carrier doesn't relate to enough when Kiwis (including the significant number ex-patriots) to get their wallets out when they're travelling. Mind you, I'm not surprised if it the option is a 9 abreast sardine can, parsimonious NZ Y class service option all the way though. The majority clearly prefer to choose EK, SQ, QR, CX and the like (which is often significantly cheaper and more comfortable and more generous service offerings too).

You have to hand it to the new NZ execs, though, they are making their mark, attempting to make the airline even more profitable and treading where others weren't prepared to. (Despite previous cost analysis no doubt).

It's probably best for NZ to continue to spin this as another new US destination offering (which it is) and exploiting the US market rather than the ending of the highly competitive and expensive to operate destinations. It clearly is the end of an era for NZ (who have been known to fly the Queen to NZ as it was the cheapest option for taxpayers).

EWR must be easier to get into and out of, cheaper and more cohesive to operate with UA from than the far better known and greatly congested JFK.

I agree that using the mealy mouthed expression 'disestablishment' to describe sacking their staff sucks and speaks volumes of NZs management style. I wonder how many versions and corporate comms experts the press release went through before they decided on that word.

 

[levelnine]

I agree that using the mealy mouthed expression 'disestablishment' to describe sacking their staff sucks and speaks volumes of NZs management style. I wonder how many versions and corporate comms experts the press release went through before they decided on that word.

Makes you wonder what Qantas' word of choice would be?

'Dear Employees

You'll be delighted to know that today Qantas is enhancing your position. Please hand in your security pass as you leave today.

Sincerely
AJ'

 

[TomVexille]

Slightly sad, my very first international flight was SYD-LAX-LHR on NZ (747) over 20 years ago (back when NZ flew SYD-LAX).

I wonder who they're selling their LHR slots to?

I'm not a fan of AKL as a transit airport so I'd rather change in SYD. Or better yet LAX (when I flew the NZ flight above LAX had an international transit lounge where you didn't go through customs/immigration - Pre 9/11 obviously).

You would rather get a bus between terminals at the terrible SYD transit than just go through a simple transit security and stay in the same terminal? Doesn't make sense to me.

@frequent passport user IIRC LHR hasn't been profitable for NZ for a long time. it wouldn't surprise me if they increased their cooperation to LHR with their partners SQ and CX

 

[bPeteb]

Having never flown NZ long haul, is their J product any good?
What are people’s experiences with them like?

We enjoyed it. Facing the aisle was odd but it made sleeping comfy as your feet weren't confined in a cubby. Crew were terrific, as we've always found all NZ crew to be. No issue with the window thing for either of us. It was also odd, but it hardly hurt our necks. You just swivelled around if you wanted to look out the window at the sky, or the ocean... Ottoman meant we could get up and sit and talk to each other. Food very good and great NZ wines.

The unpopular seats will soon become irrelevant when they roll out their new J class seats in the next few weeks. I'm not a fan of the walls and doors. I think of Dilbert every time I see them. Surely I'm not alone thinking this?

If these longer hauls are really about time saving, how long would it take to fly to Singapore and then on to NY compare to east coast Oz to AKL then on to NY? Or some of the other suggestion going to the middle east and then to the east coast of the US? Total travel time, not just flight times.

We're leisure only, so a few hours here and there is never going to be a showstopper for us but for the business travellers amongst us does three hours/five hours make a huge difference?

 

[justinbrett]

You would rather get a bus between terminals at the terrible SYD transit than just go through a simple transit security and stay in the same terminal? Doesn't make sense to me.

@frequent passport user IIRC LHR hasn't been profitable for NZ for a long time. it wouldn't surprise me if they increased their cooperation to LHR with their partners SQ and CX

Yes. Flounge. I hate AKL.

 

[amaroo]

Yes. Flounge.

And an actual First Class cabin....

 

[Libertyscott]

The NYC route has nothing to do with dropping LAX-LHR at all.

NZ already sells tickets on SQ via SIN, CX via HKG to go to LHR and the rest of Europe, and even via NRT, YVR and SFO with NH, AC, VS and BA, so I suspect it will continue to focus on feeding the range of hubs available. Bear in mind that AKL-LHR is not much longer via Asia than via the US.

The LHR-LAX sector has tended to have a lot of high yielding point to point traffic over the years (but significant periods of low demand especially in economy), with the LHR-AKL traffic being less important. Of course, NZ did try to operate AKL-HKG-LHR for a few years, but the GFC killed the viability of the route, as NZ couldn't attract enough point to point traffic on LHR-HKG to make up for the crew costs, overflight costs of Russia and additional HKG airport fees. With that gone, having a LHR base of 130 staff made the single flight difficult to sustain, and with little prospect of being able to grow the route without more LHR slots, and without feeder traffic at either end (and vigorous competition from BA/AA, VS/DL, UA and DY), it was a case of focusing entirely on the Pacific.

With Air NZ deciding to go for 787-10s to replace 777-200ERs, the LHR route remained a key reason to have 777-300ERs. I wonder if they may be phased out in time for 787-10s as well, to maintain one major fleet type.

 

[Quickstatus]

Any possibility that EK and ANZ will do a tie up to facilitate LHR and EU?

Or ANZ-QF tie up for AKL-PER-LHR?

 

[justinbrett]

Any possibility that EK and ANZ will do a tie up to facilitate LHR and EU?

Not a chance - the QF/EK deal covers Australia and New Zealand. There’s no way adding NZ would be approved by any of the regulators

Or ANZ-QF tie up for AKL-PER-LHR?

QF wouldn’t be able to codeshare on AKL-PER. I guess NZ could market QF PER-LHR but why would they give away their long haul business to QF? They won’t get much out of the AKL-PER leg.

 

[moa999]

EK and ANZ will do a tie up to facilitate LHR and EU?

Or EY.. or even QR.
They do however already have a partnership with CX who flies to 13 Euro/UK destinations

 

[justinbrett]

Or EY.. or even QR.
They do however already have a partnership with CX who flies to 13 Euro/UK destinations

I wonder how the HKG troubles are affecting forward bookings (using CX to get to Europe from AU/NZ)

 

[Quickstatus]

Not a chance - the QF/EK deal covers Australia and New Zealand. There’s no way adding NZ would be approved by any of the regulators

Why would it necessarily involve QF when EK499 operates nonstop AKL-DXB

QF wouldn’t be able to codeshare on AKL-PER. I guess NZ could market QF PER-LHR but why would they give away their long haul business to QF? They won’t get much out of the AKL-PER leg.

Why cant they codeshare on AKL-PER apart from regulatory issues? ANZ does not have long haul business to LHR, so they are no giving anything away. (Though a 6 hour layover between NZ175 and QF9 would be too long. NNZ would need to shorten the layover by making the 175 departure at 2pm instead)

 

[jase05]

Do

Or EY.. or even QR.
They do however already have a partnership with CX who flies to 13 Euro/UK destinations

Do they still have the VS and BA partnerships via HKG and PVG?
They still obviously have SQ also