This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Can somebody confirm whether the airline has ceased operations?
Recent edits to this article suggest that the airline has collapsed and is no longer operating. A quick google search reveals that as of 9 hours ago (at time of writing this message) the airline was still operating. (see
here and
here. While the tone in the second article in particular is not positive, niether article has written the airline off yet? Have there been more recent developments to justify the recent edits declaring it a defunct airline? --
Adz|
talk10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
ignore my request above, I've just checked their website. - I should have looked there first. oops.
suggested edits before made defunct - History
Before this article is relegated to the scrap heap of the defunct airlines category, (where few articles experience quality edits) would somebody be able to add some more information about the history? The Qantas code share would seem a valuable addition. When did the codeshare arrangement begin? Was it at the time the airline was established or was it after? --
Adz|
talk10:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Fair use rationale for Image:Origin pacific.jpg
Image:Origin pacific.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The following material was added by
TePuke Cowboy. I've removed it from the article as it is unsourced, and it looks likely from the text that no source will be coming. Such material fails Wikipedia's requirements of
WP:V.-
gadfium00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)reply
According to an inside source unable to be named, the airline traded for almost a decade with no accurate grasp of it's hourly
fixed operating costs. This was not uncovered until a new team of consultants were called in during the airline's twilight. One of those consultants negotiated 23
code shares with International airlines to
New Zealand in an attempt to gain more passenger feed.
Another source advises that upon analysis it was revealed had the airline simply charged an average $3 more per ticket the company would have made a healthy net profit each year. Instead the airline could not shake off an accumulated debt of NZ$29 million.
One key to the airline's early success was a
domestic code share with the
Qantas subsidiary in New Zealand called
Jetconnect Ltd. Origin Pacific provided the Qantas group with a regional feeder network, whilst Jetconnect only served major routes with
Boeing 737-300 aircraft.
From 2004
Air New Zealand courted Qantas with a merger offer, which offered an advantage to Qantas as it would come to dominate Air New Zealand under the proposal.
A stipulation was that Qantas had to sever it's
code share with Origin Pacific. This became a significant blow to Origin Pacific, but need not have been fatal consultants discovered had there been proper
financial discipline in place.
Predictably, the
New Zealand Commerce Commission held hearings where there was fierce opposition to the monopolistic implications of such a merger for New Zealand's tourism industry. Air New Zealand's largest
shareholder at this point (86%) was the New Zealand taxpayer. The Commerce Commission eventually prevented any merger, but in the time it was under consideration great harm was done to the
marketing position of both Origin Pacific and Qantas subsidiary Jetconnect.
In this context, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Air New Zealand may have offered merger talks with the sole aim of destroying Origin Pacific and that but for this Origin Pacific might still be in business today.
To this day Jetconnect lacks any equivalent
regional feeder network. It is surprising that the code share was not revived after the Commerce Commission's decision. This may have been due to lingering mistrust. This lack of a regional feeder service remained a monopoly market for Air New Zealand in 2007.
With the entry of
Pacific Blue, an airline subsidiary of the
Virgin Blue brand in Australia, the weakness of both
Qantas and Virgin in the New Zealand market is their lack of such a feeder network.