Roger how much of their aviation gas requirements do they hedge the price on and how far forward ?
Printable View
Air New Zealand holders may be interested in this.
https://www.anzsecurities.co.nz/Dire...spx?id=3763420
Cheers, RTM
Excuse me for barging in on Roger.
Cullen Airlines fuel hedging is disclosed on their web site;
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/fuel-...-announcements
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Air NZ crew's boozy AB flight investigated
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/63683197/Air-NZ-crews-boozy-AB-flight-investigated
Lucky this time is not "drink and drive", but who knows next time will not be.
They say that alcohol is the root of all evil don't they master
Ban it on planes I say ...at least it would stop all this drinking and rooting by their staff, and some high flying celebs.
What happened to the Dreamliner that got hit by lightning ....out of action is it?
Seems like it arrived back in NZ and is being checked out by Air NZ engineering staff.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11366816
It's unclear from the article when it will be back flying again.
It's already back flying:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11367043
Oil rout continues at pace
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102225843
Qantas up another 5% last time I checked a few minutes ago. Those old kangaroo planes must be pretty thirsty or AIR SP reaction a bit under-done or some combination thereof.
Welcome to the forum unhuman and thanks for the status update on the affected plane. Good first post :)
Interesting and informative article about the 787 and how they are performing in actual airline service, three years after delivery. Generally airlines seem to be happy with them, apart from the early glitches. Depending what measures you use and what planes are being replaced airlines are getting up to 27% savings on fuel, however up to 20% cost saving seems to be about the average on a per passenger basis.
The article is about the 787-8 and from what I hear the results from the 787-9 are slightly better. The reliability issues seem to be mostly fixed so Air New Zealand should be happy with the 787-9.
AirNZ have 10 787s on order and 10 options. I'm picking that they will take up all those options to replace the 777-200 aircraft by 2020 - there was some AirNZ advice a while back that the 777-200 were still good until about 2020.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...orming-405814/
They wouldn't replace 777-200's with 787s. The 777 fleet is used more in the North America market where their business and premium economy products are able to attract a higher margin when compared to Asia. Sources say they are either looking at 777X or airbus 350.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zeal...vs-airbus-a350
Just a small question. Does anyone know when the interim results are due? Must be soon?
2014 Financial Year 27 February 2014 2014 Interim Results Announcement 27 August 2014 2014 Annual Results Announcement 30 September 2014 Annual Shareholders' Meeting
2015 ones will be in Feb
Thanks, made for a good read. I inferred the longer the sector the more the fuel saving relative to comparable type. Boeing has already gone on record saying AIR made a great customer for the 787-9 as they really push the operational limits of the aircraft and C.L. is on record saying fuel savings have slightly exceeded expectations.
Seems the third Dreamliner is already here or very close.
http://australianaviation.com.au/201...t-paine-field/
Anyone flown on one of these new birds and like to give some feedback ?
Well yes I would; on the issue of runaway events in 787 batteries.
The American National Transportation Safety Board has recently released its report on the battery fire in a 787 at Boston Airport.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/AIR1401.pdf
They were unable to establish the cause of this event. While there have been no recent occurances there is no assurance that it will not happen again. Boeing have made changes to mitigate the effects of such an event should it reoccur, but I wouln't want to be in one of these planes over the South Australian Bight if it did.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
The only North American destination for the 777-200 is Vancouver, all other routes are operated by the 777-300. the -200 is mostly used on Asian routes, which is what the 787-9 will be steadily taking over. The Vancouver market is growing and it would not surprise me to see the -300 eventualy used (the 747 was used until recently and that has a greater pax capacity than either the -200 or-300. It's hard to see the Airbus A350 being used, from a fleet commonality perspective the 777-XXX would make more sense.
I'm concerned about the 17.2 inch width of the new Dreamliner seats. Boeing designed the aircraft as a 280 pax machine and more or less stipulated a minimum seat width of 18 inches. Air squeezed just over 300 seats in there by compromising seat width and by using a very slim density designed seat. these are some of the very narrowest seats in the industry. I am sure your average 68 kilo Chineese tourist won't mind but I have it on good authority that a certain large build accountant (built like a front row All Black) got his ruler out the other day and after converting 17.2 inches to cm's measured this out on his office chair, placed some sticky notes to signify the dimensions and wasn't impressed at all. Said accountant is now looking at a vigorous walking programme to reduce butt size or looking at flying with the pretty Singapore girl who has some of the widest seats in economy at 19 inches in their new A380's.
I predict there's going to be some very disgruntled customers who are anything more than 2 standard deviations bigger than average size pax. Nobody likes being cooped-up far tighter than even a battery hen :eek2: lots of info here. www.seatguru.com
PPPHHHHOOOAAAARRR Qantas SP on fire today up around 12% at A$2.36, nearly over-taken AIR's SP which is plainly ridiculous when you consider AIR's earnings record, more modern fleet and quite obviously better management. VAH starting to catch a bid too. American carriers on fire too on Friday last week. AIR SP's reaction to the massive oil price decline looking really under-done on a relative basis. Trading on a forward PE of about 8 even at $2.39. opportunity knocks for a big gain in 2015 ? Definitely one to hold for real as well as in the ST competition for 2015
Considering that Qantas announced today that they expect their "underlying profit" for H1 to be about $300 million, which would (very, very roughly) translate to a PE of about 8.6 for that half, is the price jump in Qantas really unwarranted? It's a bit of a recovery story (although maybe the share price is getting ahead of the real-world recovery).
On the other hand, with Air NZ being well run for a number of years, I would say they are unlikely to significantly increase their profit any time soon. Passenger numbers aren't even really going up in any meaningful way and there is only so much efficiency you can wring out of the same number of passengers.
Also, the airline industry is risky and low margin. The quality of Air NZ's management doesn't change that but it does help mitigate it.
I think Air NZ is pretty fairly priced right now and Qantas is coming out of distressed-pricing. I might've actually bought into QAN at $1.37 if I had thought the SP was going to recover this quickly.
Qantas, old fleet, high labour costs with ongoing union issues, facing massive capex to update their fleet, Australian economy overly dependent on minerals and a deteriorating manufacturing sector.
Qantas track record and AIR's...no comparison.
Not sure what hymm sheet your reading off regarding AIR being unlikely to increase profits anytime soon. Suggest you have a look at their most recent update.
Two more dreamliners on order. 9 version
https://nzx.com/companies/AIR/announcements/258634
Two different markets KW. Air aiming for full service, modern aircraft, Jetstar simply isn't in the same league. I believe AIR will eventually exercise all its remaining options on the Dreamliner and they'll have a fleet of 18 of these beautiful new fuel efficient aircraft. Once pax have experienced all the advantages of aircraft like these or the new A380's I believe a fairly significant percentage of customers will seek these type out in their future travel plans.
Like anything in life you get what you pay for and while its fair to say there will always be a certain number of pax who choose the cheapest, there's a good percentage who want a quality experience with their national airline and are prepared to pay a bit more for it.
Good to see all three new 787-9's scheduled for delivery this year are here and now earning their keep on the Japan and China routes.
The substantial extra cargo capacity will come in real handy for fresh commodity exports and they can carry a full payload of circa 15 tons of freight and full pax over 8,000 nm's my pilot friend tells me, (previously they had to juggle freight and cargo on some 767 routes depending on loading). There are grounds to believe VAH will now make a positive contribution to AIR's 2015 result.
I didn't say they weren't going to increase profit, I said they weren't going to significantly increase their profit. With falling fuel prices and more efficient aircraft, the profit is almost certainly going up.
However they're not growing their market. I looked at their latest market update and it told me "Revenue passenger kilometres (RPKs) were 0.8% higher" in October over the previous year. If I look back at 2009 vs 2014, revenue is up 1.2%. In 5 years. RPKs are also only up 3.5%. These are not significant increases.
EBIT/Revenue has gone from 1.7% in 2009 to 8.6% in 2014. There is only so much profit even AIR can get out of static revenue.
So, I'm pretty happy with my analysis there.
On the other hand, AIR also says "there had been an encouraging start to the year with solid forward bookings into the high season." So, maybe that indicates there will be some revenue growth. And the company is in a much better long-term position now then it was five years ago.
Craigs have them on a 2015 Net profit before tax of $474m up 33% on 2014 and that was before Opec couldn't agree on output reductions and oil prices moved significantly lower.
That's pretty "significant" in my book for a company trading on such a modest multiple and is now probably quite conservative especially with VAH now in the black.
If a company is not growing but is generating huge profits then the dividends will flow to its shareholders. Isn't that what AIR does?
I don't think I would base my case on no revenue growth. The idea of any business is to generate profits and manage its assets well.
I'd suggest you mix mainly with younger people so its easy to form a slightly biased view of what "most people" want.
I am curious if you have flown Jetstar domestically ? When Forest and I, ("gulp", dare I admit this...flew Jetstar to the AIR ASM) mainly because scheduling suited better and gave more time for the dinner afterwards we were both distinctly unimpressed, I was shocked. Here's a typical review from seat guru from a lady that's only 5 ft 3 inches
My mum recently flew to Dunedin on Jetstar and she is about 5 ft 6, (I take after my Dad) and she found it really cramped too. Old planes crappy service and sardines in a can. Honestly I had some difficulty breathing on the flight back from Chch, whether that was the sardine tin super duper tight seat, the excess alcohol drunk before hand or my blood pressure getting up from both I'm not sure but my knees were crammed in so hard against the seat in front it was physically painful, (I'm 6 ft tall so God knows how anyone taller copes). Honestly....never again at any price. the service was almost non-existent and you had to pay for anything and I just decided to grin and bear it...I've had more comfortable and less painful experiences in a dentists chair. 29 inch pitch seats is an absolutely disgusting travesty on the concept of air travel.Quote:
AKL to Wellington - Worst flight ever like being squashed into a tiny coffin, i was almost hysterical with claustrophobia by the time we landed. I am only 5 foot 3 and my knees were jammed gainst the seat in front, with the back of it almost in my face, could not put my tray down at all. Had to sit sideways and stare out the window with loud music on headphones to try and keep calm. Total nightmare, go with Air NZ instead as their A320 planes have a pitch of 30-33 as opposed to the pathetic 29 on this awful plane.
I havn't flown Jetstar internationally and wouldn't. My good mate Peter is just back from a trip to Aussie and was flown Jetstar by the company he was hired by so perhaps you're suggestion that some Australian companies have a policy of cheapest is more pervasive in Australia ?
I'd be more than happy to fly Singapore Airlines or Emirates to London on their new A380's. Both top quality airlines with great planes and great service from what I hear.
Tell any kiwi you fly Jetstar and be prepared for the backlash.:eek2:
See, that's it in a nutshell. I simply won't put up with unbelievably awful anymore no matter what the price advantage. I can however see your perspective and acknowledge for a lot of people its simply about the cheapest flight and nothing else matters but that's not the market AIR is in. Whatever happened to the concept that international air travel was special, an experience to be savoured and enjoyed, a special luxury and reward for one's hard work...even the illusion of this is nice to hang onto IMO. Jetstar's creaky old cramped sardine - flying bus torment is grossly oppressive and repugnant and so diametrically opposed to at least the illusion that international air travel is special that it wounds the soul and destroys the first and last part of one's holiday IMHO. Why travel third class when you don't have too !!Quote:
Originally Posted by KW;
I used to fly often between Auckland and Wellington (student) and would always pay upto 30% extra if needed to fly AIR NZ partially due to the budget nature of Jetstar but also in my 30+ flights over a few years I had 0 delayed AIR NZ flights and 5 or so delayed Jetstar ones. Twice my Jetstar flight was delayed extensively due to 'weather conditions' (didnt seem at all bad) when I watched the AIR NZ flight around that time depart and regreted choosing Jetstar. I also noticed (3 or 4 instances) Jetstar would close its baggage off bang on 30 minutes before departure whereas AIR NZ seemed to squeeze that late baggage check in traveller in and still leave on time.
I would find that if I booked far enough in advance the two airlines would be similar in price but as time got closer the AIR NZ one got much more expensive and sold out faster.
I recently booked some flights to Rarotonga and to the Gold coast and found AIR NZ to be miles cheaper than the competition.
Jetstar pi$$ed me off once big time with delays for no particular reason, and no compensation. Their attitude was, we're cheap so you shouldn't expect anything and should be grateful for what you get. When travelling these days, I don't even check their prices - so my choice is Air NZ on this day and time, or Air NZ on that day and time. I don't think I'm unusual in that attitude, if you can't get the basics right it doesn't really matter (to me at least) how cheap you are.
Also. I've got to say that I haven't travelled on the 787 but have done quite a few trips on the A380, and my observation is that the new gen aircraft are great from an airline point of view and from a shareholder point of view, but as a passenger, well meh! same old same old and the A380, having a circular fuselage, doesn't offer as good a view out of the windows, at least not from the top floor, as the old 747 or 777.
Maybe the cabin pressurisation and larger windows will offer better experience on the 787, but as I say, I haven't done that, so can't comment
I think we have consensus here--Jetstar is awful--But AIR is trying hard to catch up with those 17''seats on its new already huge planes (even more seats than the maker recommends)--What were they thinking?
My 2 cents(on Jetstar)--who cares on the short flights--but avoid like the plague on the long haul
Oil down 4% overnight. Brent $66 and change, WTI $63 for the front month January 2015 contract. Yesterday I checked the futures price for December 2015 Brent and it was trading at $73, so probably around $70 today so airlines can lock in tremendous fuel savings for the 2016 FY year already, if they choose to do so.
Even I would have to concede that I think the accountants had too much say in that decision :) 302 seats in a 787-9 when the manufacturer designed the plane for 280 means that effectively AIR has traded off much of the benefit of the Dreamliner from a customers perspective for seat mile cost savings. This looks like a strategy to match some of the lower cost airlines especially when viewed in the context of seat choice, i.e. seat only, seat plus bag, the works e.t.c. Most people won't mind as the pitch is okay but large people looking for comfortable long haul economy travel are probably better off on Singapore Airlines with their 19 inch width seats on A380's. www.seatguru.com is definitely a good place to visit for anyone contemplating long haul travel.Quote:
But AIR is trying hard to catch up with those 17''seats on its new already huge planes (even more seats than the maker recommends)--What were they thinking?
Is Air's premium economy with 19 inch width seats with 42 inch pitch effectively the new business class ?
What's the consensus updated view of analysts ? Consensus view is Outperform
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stock...?symbol=AIR.NZ
Scroll down towards the bottom of the page and you'll see that in the last month the consensus view of analysts for 2015 earnings has increased significantly from 22.63 cps to 26.44 cps. Highest analysts view is 31 cps translates on 1.117b shares to a whopping $346m profit after tax:t_up:
Oil price to remain weak for three years
http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-f...tes-and-inflat
I got 29.70 - hedges so I'm happy with that.:)
New Air NZ route to North America to be announced on Friday?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/6...n-new-US-route