AIR - Air NZ.

[Bjauck]

I always thought they were our "old" Western mates with which we had a falling out over when we unilaterally tried to avoid the nuclear aspect of modern armaments and propulsion.

I am not sure if it would be in Russia's interests to force a showdown with NATO over helping its Syrian ally. However, it does go to show how prospering airlline stocks do rely on a peaceful world for travellers and cheap fuel. I do not believe (yet!) that (democratic western) governments deliberately invent perpetual threats so that they can push through unpopular measures a la "1984".

[Beagle]

Yes, as planes go an awesome thing (and better than Dreamliners)

But 14 hours plus Singapore / London in one is still not a really enjoyable experience

Both fine aircraft and offer a substantial improvement in many ways over conventional aircraft. Main difference I think you experienced was in the relative fit-out of the two aircraft by two different airlines.
Singapore have an especially generous fit-out with their A380's with only circa 383 seats on this large aircraft and a generous, (by modern standards) pitch and their seat width in economy is very good at 19 inches.
Nothing comes for free with airlines and Singapore are seldom anywhere near the cheapest airline to fly with and often one of the most expensive. AIR's configuration of their Dreamliner's is designed to be relatively comfortable while maximising efficiency and profitability, something shareholders should be pleased about. My money is on the Russia Turkey thing to settle down...many would argue, (should that be debate ?) that the Russian military are well and truly overdue to have their wings clipped a bit. I also think that the European immigration crisis and terrorism threat could well be a neutral thing for AIR as people hanker to still travel and enjoy themselves...to much safer, cleaner and less crowded region's like Australia and N.Z.

[skid]

I always thought they were our "old" Western mates with which we had a falling out over when we unilaterally tried to avoid the nuclear aspect of modern armaments and propulsion.

I am not sure if it would be in Russia's interests to force a showdown with NATO over helping its Syrian ally. However, it does go to show how prospering airlline stocks do rely on a peaceful world for travellers and cheap fuel. I do not believe (yet!) that (democratic western) governments deliberately invent perpetual threats so that they can push through unpopular measures a la "1984".

Whether they invent things is probably more far fetched than taking advantage of,but neither is out of the question--I do believe the NSA has a different viewpoint on what the rules of the game are than most ordinary reasonable people--Tapping the phones of major European leaders seems a bit on the dark side to me but each would have their own viewpoint on how far is acceptable. IMO the ''war on terror'' whether completely justified is certainly profitable for some.
I wouldnt think Russia would intentionally lock horns with Nato to the point of all out conflict--They are making a statement with Syria though and would no doubt like to see the price of oil rise.

I think international conflicts should at least be kept and eye on for shareholders of an airline stock(without panicking)

The international travel warning includes all areas, but NZ would certainly be farther down the list (unless JK keeps blabbing on enough to make it an ''it could even happen here scenario'' )god forbid---He is certainly not helping things for AIR or the country IMO,or neutrality for that matter.---I do believe that general uneasiness about travel rubs off on all,rather than everyone flocking to NZ. (and of course AIR flies to alot of places incl. Europe)
but no reason for panic--just something to be aware of.

(notice THL is down 2.7%) ??

Update--Geez! I didnt see this before---getting a bit tense---as if the ISIS thing was'nt enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...r-live-updates

[brend]

The international travel warning includes all areas, but NZ would certainly be farther down the list (unless JK keeps blabbing on enough to make it an ''it could even happen here scenario'' )god forbid---He is certainly not helping things for AIR or the country IMO,or neutrality for that matter.---I do believe that general uneasiness about travel rubs off on all,rather than everyone flocking to NZ. (and of course AIR flies to alot of places incl. Europe)
but no reason for panic--just something to be aware of.

I never really understood the purpose of the US making an international travel warning. Any 'real people' would realise there is an uncontrollable terrorism risk regardless where they might be in the world. I don't support terrorism but no matter how much we try to monitor and prevent these events from happening they can and will happen.

[skid]

I never really understood the purpose of the US making an international travel warning. Any 'real people' would realise there is an uncontrollable terrorism risk regardless where they might be in the world. I don't support terrorism but no matter how much we try to monitor and prevent these events from happening they can and will happen.

Makes a bit of a mockery of ''we will carry on and not be intimidated''

[Beagle]

Well SP is up a bit so either Couta1 is buying again or others out there think Russia will suck it up and let the ironies of natural justice regarding MH17 play themselves out and thus no effect on AIR.

[dobby41]

I never really understood the purpose of the US making an international travel warning. Any 'real people' would realise there is an uncontrollable terrorism risk regardless where they might be in the world. I don't support terrorism but no matter how much we try to monitor and prevent these events from happening they can and will happen.

But surely there is more risk in some places than others.
The US warning doesn't really differentiate one place for another.
Just as much risk in NZ as Syria as Paris as Nice.

[Onion]

Just as much risk in NZ as Syria as Paris as Nice.

Absolutely wrong. Particularly for Syria. I would agree that the risks of coming to harm in Paris or Nice is still relatively low but it is currently higher than in NZ.

• Crossing borders in the EU is much easier (even with the likely restrictions following Paris) than crossing the border into NZ.
• Obtaining automatic guns in the US is much easier than in NZ.
• Getting hit by a Russian/US/French/Syrian/ISIS/other missile/drone/rocket in Syria is significantly more likely than in NZ.

Risks vary from place to place and time to time around the world. New Zealand will rank as one of the safest places in the world to travel to.

[brend]

But surely there is more risk in some places than others.
The US warning doesn't really differentiate one place for another.
Just as much risk in NZ as Syria as Paris as Nice.

It was kinda a unnecessary warning...Terrorism risk in today environment is implied now? its nothing new like a virus breakout.

Different countries have different risk profiles.

NZ would be considered safer than the US. Most people would agree with that.

I guess for the time we will have external factors driving volatility in the share price. AIR fundamentals remain strong and people will continue to travel.

[dobby41]

Sorry my point was that the US advisory doesn't differentiate between places now (with a WW alert) so according to the advisory the risk is the same everywhere.
Which as you say is wrong.