Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Auckland And New Intl. Airport...hmmm...  
User currently offlineAirNewZealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2542 posts, RR: 6
Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Hey guys,
as most of us know in New Zealand it has been proposed that a new Intl. airport be set up out west, where i live.. Smile...Anyways moving on,
Do you guys think this is a good idea? and if so why? What whould this bring to our Country that say NZAA/AKL already cant?
There is plenty of room to expand out in Manakau, and what about all the plans that are still going on...Extra runways, terminals etc...What will happen to them??
Member...this is your opinion, and i shall be very interested in knowing what you guys think, and what you guys believe the future holds for New Zealands Aviation industry as a whole...
Will more carriers come here with the increasing tourist numbers?
Asiana has requested slots already, and with the increase of all major carriers over the summer season, and even over winter, the clear indication that we are bustling is showing!

Cheers
Mike

PPS...Will another Intl. airport be set up in another part of the country?...The South Island is becoming very popular with tourists trying to re route themselves via the South and make their way up...will CHC play a more vital role in the years to come?

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

I don't think it is a very wise idea at all. Sydney is a city 4 times the size of Auckland, and it gets by very well on a single airport. I think that if traffic split between AKL and a new airport, it would most likely result in both running at a loss. Running one airport for international and one for domestic could be another alternative, but what is the point? Manukau has plenty of room for expansion. And it would be very inconvenient to have to traipse right across the city to get from an international to a domestic flight.

What is your source on this Mike? Who is proposing this new airport, and where do they intend on placing it?

There was some talk last year of using Whenuapai as a secondary airport, targeted at low cost carriers. I guess this could work, but I have a feeling Virgin would rather operate out of the main airport to secure transiting passengers.

I do think that growth of Auckland International is inevitable - the sooner they get on and build this second runway the better. I was a bit disappointed that it won't be able to handle anything bigger than a 737/A32x type aircraft, but then again, I suppose they don't really need two big runways, at the moment anyway. I think it is only a matter of time before the terminal development continues, possibly building a second pier adjacent to the current one. That was what the strategic plan originally proposed (anyone else remember that Vision 2010 thing? I remember at the time thinking how long ago that seemed - we must be two thirds of the way there now in terms of time! I imagine it could well be renamed Vision 2020 given the current rate of the way they are doing things.)

As for the South Island, the recent attitude of airlines has been rather disappointing, but I predict that over the next few years flights will be ramped up. Christchurch is a great airport, with plenty of room to expand. It reminds me a lot of Melbourne in its general configuration. Hopefully they will be able to price themselves competitively and gain some more international traffic.

It would be nice to see more traffic at Queenstown as well, but unfortunately the airport isn't in a particularly great location, and the runway can't be expanded any further. It can't even take 767s without serious restrictions due to the lack of run off areas at the end of the runway. I personally think the great expanse of flat land next to the Remarkables, on the other side of the Kawarau river from the airport would make a good site for a long runway, and a satellite terminal. Control facilities and customs etc could be kept at the Frankton site, with an airside rail connection to this location. I don't know how feasible my idea is though - given the terrain and everything, and also how much traffic would use it.

Another place to keep an eye on is Wellington. The airport there is in quite possible the worst place possible: it is unable to expand any further, and there are serious doubts over its safety with the roadways and water at either end of the runway, as well as the rocks at the Lyall Bay end that would pretty much break apart an overrunning aircraft. There has been talk for a number of years about building an airport in Paraparaumu or somewhere close (beyond the hills that surround Wellington city itself). Such an airport would be able to handle larger aircraft such as 777s or 747s, which Wellington can't under normal circumstances. It would be linked by rail to the city centre. I don't know what the latest is on this proposal - the last I heard was that an American businessman was promoting the idea, but this was well over a year ago.

Finally, Hamilton has some potential, perhaps as a secondary airport for Auckland, but as with the case of a second airport in Auckland itself, I don't think there is enough of a market there is to split between 2 major airports. However, I wouldn't be too surprised to see some transtasman flights from Qantas or Air NZ to Hamilton sometime in the next 10 years.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

Mike

I don't think a second airport at Auckland is at all viable. It does not need one. Here in Sydney the government argued for years and years about a second airport but eventually conceded, no ,due to a whole range of reasons.

What AKL will need is a significant increase in the size of the INTL terminal and to replace that poxy ANZ domestic terminal which is a disgrace.

Christchurch definently has room for expansion though it is disappointing the number of carriers that have pulled out of CHC is the last few years.

As for Wellington, there is no room for expansion without a major capital outlay. As it is, neither QF or NZ fly anything larger internationally than 733 so why bother expanding. Both airlines flew 767s for a number of years with disappointing loads (hence the 737). WLG would be unable to justify 777s & 744s.

Brent




Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Apparently the plan is to convert one of the air force bases (Whenuapai?) into a second intl' airport. One News reported that this would be a good base for Freedom Air to base operations.

Given some thought, it could work because Freedom Air isn't really an airline that relies on domestic connections (because it flies out from Hamilton, P. North etc). But I don't really think that it's necessary.

What IS necessary is for Auckland Airport to get its act together and start expanding the international terminal airside and improving the arrivals facilities. Putting in another X-ray machine and enlarging a baggage claim belt isn't going to cut it. Damn private enterprise. :P


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

I was waiting for the inevitible remarks about how pathetic Auckland airport is. Really, Ms Steele, if you were to travel around a fair bit, you would find AKL certainly does cut it. The wait at customs and baggage carousels is comparable to that in Sydney, which is not that bad. It is certainly better laid out than some airports (CDG comes to mind)

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Whenuapai is in the middle of nowhere and the chances of them converting to domestic just for Freedom seem fairly remote IMHO.

VirginFlyer: I agree with your sentiments re AKL. It is much more user friendly than airports such as LAX, LHR, BKK, JFK and FRA. The International Airport may not be that big but bigger does not always equate to bigger is better ???????

Brent



Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2482 times:

Virgin Flyer: Bang on, I know exactly what you mean about CDG. Especially Terminal One - quite possibly the crapiest and dingiest terminal in the developed world!

When I worked for AIAL we had an itroduction day with management back in '99. We were allowed to ask all sorts of questions. Somebody did ask about Whenuapai being another commercial airport, but as John Goulter rightly pointed out - WHY? NZ already has more international airports per capita than most other countries (if not all), with the prospect of Tauranga upgrading.

So no, Whenuapai aint a great idea. The connection times between the two would also rule out having international ops at AKL and domestic at Whenuapai.

Air NZ's domestic terminal is a disgrace, but they have to plan their upgrades with that of the Airport company's. So don't expect a new domestic terminal until 2006-7 at the earliest (if memory serves me right).

And for the love of god I hope they don't develop Queenstown any further to take 767s! The place will lose all its charm with even greater hords of travellers pouring in, defeating the purpose of the area. There's a lot to be said for sustainable development and "eco-tourism". No more tarseal down there!!

Nuff said.



User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Uh-uh, the issue isn't whether AKL is good compared with other airports, it's whether it's capable full stop. Passengers, especially tourists, aren't going to have a good first impression, especially when the waiting area isn't sufficient.

I disagree... having travelled a fair bit, LHR T3 isn't that bad - at least they offer FastTrack immigration clearance, although T1 and T2 are pretty much of a shambles with poor signage and inconvenient layout.

However, I do point out that it is within AKL's capability to expand, something which really isn't possible at other airports which you mentioned - either due to space constraints or lack of ready cash (a problem which AKL certainly doesn't have).

Compare AKL to other airports like KUL, SIN and HKG would certainly cast our local airport in a poorer light. I'm not saying that we need as large a terminal as say Sydney's, but with more airlines scheduling for AKL (CX and OZ immediately spring to mind), I don't think an expansion of the arrivals hall would go amiss.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

B-HXB, I still am going to disagree. Auckland is perfectly capable. It may not be as flashy as some of its Asian neighbours, but then again there isn't the money passing through there to warrant it. I have been to two out of the three you mention. I found KUL to be very nice, but it really was a huge waste of space - the place was deserted both times i was there (once I was in the terminal for an entire day, and I think it may have taken on a semi-populated appearance once). SIN is also quite nice, and definitely had more people in it than KUL. However, I didn't find the waiting seating to be that vastly different to that at AKL, save for the fact each gate had an enclosed room, which is more a security matter than anything else, and pretty much what it is like if you go down to gates 9 and 10 at AKL (the ones at the end). Auckland will need to expand sooner or later, sure, but it is hardly bursting at the seams now.

On the matter of fast track imigration and emigration, that is available at AKL (they call it the Express Lane; I know, I have used it several times). Air NZ premium passengers have Express out AKL and Express in AKL on their boarding passes. Thai don't, and I am unsure of other airlines. Not that I have ever had that much of a problem with the normal emigration and imigration queues - a few minutes at most, on par with elsewhere in the world.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5351 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2434 times:

I heard about Whenuapai perhaps becoming a second international airport. I personally doubt this will happen because AKL really has so much room to expand now.

What should happen is the domestic terminal should be rebuilt when the second runway is under construtction to the west or Norwest of where it is now so that all domestic traffic can use the second runway. Current domestic terminal should be expanded a lot and made into an international terminal expansion or bulldozed and made into cargo sheds or something.

Never been to LAX or LHR so I won't compare anywhere else but yes AKL needs to expand the arrivals and immigration departments! As for airside I thought this was going to happen a while ago at least started. I heard that the first part will be making the existing Pier longer in order to have the current 10 gates in a straight line with more space so you could park any aircraft at any gate like a 747 on 3, 4 or 9. What side are they going to build another pier on anyway? Anyone no? Airlines like EK and CA I have heard will fly here in future aswell as NZ and QF expanding more and more Asian airlines increasing flights.

Asfor CHC I was there a few weeks ago! It seems a nice airport with plenty of room for expansion, but with the lack of international flights for now there seems no need to expand yet, in future though I guess we may see more international flights.

My Opinion.  Smile


User currently offlineKiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

AKL could always have a second terminal built say a common user terminal for all the private charters and Freedom Air.
With Whenuapai they could fly the aircraft that sit around all day doing nothing to Whenuapai.
At the moment CHC dosen't need to be expanded but if CHC was to get a whole heap of new airlines then it could be a problem dueing the sumer with all the ice missons but in the winter it wouldn't be such a huge problem.
The person who said about Queenstown airport expanding to the other side of the Remarkables may not have been to Queenstown as of late as all the wine makers are setting up shop there, there is a huge piece of land just of to the side of the airport there a new terminal could be built there.


User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

V/F.... during the school holidays period (especially at the ends) AKL is ill-equipped to deal with immigration.... their waiting area is too small and as a result staff are instructed to hold passengers on the skybridge above... this happened to me twice (also after having to hold for a gate). Auckland is the only airport I have ever seen where its own country's passport holders have had to queue for something like 20+ minutes. I wasn't pleased - and I doubt you would be either if you had just flown 11 hours and your body's telling you its 6 in the morning.

MAF is also a disaster area - once queues form they flood out into the baggage hall seriously impeding flow. Not to mention queues for MAF being disorganised and airport staff doing nothing to put some efficiency into the system e.g. erecting portable cloth-barrier thingibobbys.

Besides, it's not like AKL can't afford it. How many people do you think come to AKL just to visit their jukebox museum? With the (antiquated) system of a $22 departure tax sticker, you'd think they could spend some of it on making life easier for passengers.

My opinion.  Smile


User currently offlineFreedomair737 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2001, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2385 times:

Queenstown has a new terminal as of last year, the old one on the same site was too small so it was extended and refurbished as well as a couple of extra gates added. The runway however has no room for expansion due to a drop from rwy23 to the shotover river and a road and buildings at the southern end. rwy could be widened however......
How about Dunedin(NZDN) or Tauranga(NZTG) as candidates for development?? Dunedin is to get a new terminal as of next year, plenty of room to expand and already is very popular with Freedomair, could be a gateway to the South. Tauranga on the other hand,has a big tourist market not to mention the weather!


User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2340 times:

Interesting discussion...
So far, I havent had the impression Auckland needed a second airport. I didnt even know they had slots! Seems like you never have to fly holding patterns, unlike at say SIN or SYD. I mean seriously, theres hardly enough traffic to warrant a second runway!
And immigration and MAF is only a problem in peak hours, in the early hours of the morning when NZ1 and the others from LAX arrive and then when the Asia flights arrive, as I have experienced. Otherwise, queueing is only 5-10 minutes, which is very agreeable.
Auckland should ever only have one airport, and that should be at it's current base. I just wish it was easier to get there from the North Shore (I usually have to calculate at least an hour to even get there because you have to go down Spaghetti Junction and Gillies Ave... well, Aucklands traffic problems are another problem that should not be discussed here...)!

Regards,
Falko



Yours truly - StarFlyer
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

StarFlyer - I think the easiest way to get to the airport from the North Shore would be to get on the motorway, take it south as far as the Manukau exit. When you get off at this exit, turn right, and follow the signposts. Should take between half and three quarters of an hour, depending on traffic.

B-HXB - I don't think I have ever seen people having to wait on the mezzanine level above immigraton (and I do most of my travelling around the school holiday period). I have also never had to queue for 20 minutes, that sounds like an exageration to me. No problems with MAF either - it is pretty much the same here in Sydney. I have generally found the MAF screening to be rather efficient. I still think that your complaints about Auckland are unfounded. The airport isn't perfect, thats for sure, but it is not as bad as you make it out to be.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

I think you will find that AKL (Auckland International Airport) is perfectly fine in everyway only durring 11am and 3pm the airport is busy with TG,MH,SQ,QF,NZ,GA,BR Flights and that fills about 9-10 gates daily , Otherwise the gates are never ALL full . I think even if they increase flights to AKL with new carries such as Asiana they wont be any busyer ....then they are now .

User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5351 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

All the gates are full often in the morning at like 0700 and then in the evening at around 1800 not always but often! Another Pier is needed really I mean more airlines will come in future and current ones will increase! Half the flights operated by 737's often away at the layover gates. I even saw a UA744 park at gate 80 in the morning then it departed to MEL from the same place, bit weird really.

I agree the airport can't be that bad I mean seriously if it was i'm sure something would have been done long ago!


User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

V/F: Well, just because it's never happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Smile

AKL aside, I doubt another airport's really needed. Freedom Air isn't big enough to justify it having to operate from another airfield (not like say Easyjet and Luton).


User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5351 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2229 times:

AKL certainly doesn't need another airport, they are planning for the future though I hope they are going to start the airside expansion soon though, they added 3 more layover gates on the western side of the airport and also added some between International and Domestic I think, haven't been in the terminal in daylight for ages though!

User currently offlineJesseycy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2001, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

VirginFlyer, how on earth can you compare Auckland to some airport like CDG? How many hundreds of flights go, and pass through that airport a day? You just can't compare...... It's almost like comparing Auckland's traffic jam to that of New York, and claiming that our jams are not that bad........ (No offence to you, by the way)

By the way, try flying out right about noon. Just before the SQ and CX flights. You'll be lucky if you get through immigration in less than 15mins... Coming back? An hour from gate to arrival hall is the norm.......

Auckland just needs to upgrade itself. Building another airport is not that great an idea, but adding about 5 gates, maybe between the international and domestic terminals, and linking them together as a big complex would probably be the best idea....... And maybe building a multistorey carpark, although that's not as crucial as expanding the main complex.........




User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Jesseycy - What are you trying to say? The whole issue of whether Auckland airport is working effectively is one of comparison. What I said is that compared to a lot of showpiece airports around the world, Auckland is by no means bad. I flew out at about noon several times this year - while the place wasn't empty, I didn't find it overcrowded. I got through emmigration (immigration is the one coming back, btw) in about 5 minutes, and that was being stuck in the middle of a large tour group from China. Coming back, at around noon, again while there were plenty of people around, I got out very quickly (except the one time when my bag was dead last to come off the plane, but hey, someone has to be last, and even then, 45 minutes from gate to arrivals hall).

I do agree that in the future the terminal will need to be expanded, of course. I believe you may find that expansion will be on the opposite side of the international terminal to the domestic terminals, from drawings I have seen (though those are some years old). But I wouldn't go as far as to say that the airport as it is at the moment, given the current level of traffic, is insufficient.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7260 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

that proposed plan of the airport in the main terminal is dead and buried, they just keep it there to make it look good for the visitors to the airport. The new design is a lot less radical, but does include some of the features of that plan, which might I add if it were on time with the original schedule would have 2 new piers built by now. I think AKL should have updated a while ago, as was first proposed so that now it would be a wonderful airport. IMO if it isn't as bad as it is claimed by some here, it will be within the next 18months-2years. An airport maybe a business, and yes they do need the shopping contracts etc to help the profits, but turning it into a themeparkand not having enough basic infrastructure airside is what I consider to be Aucklan'd biggest problem right now.

User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Guys (and girls!),

seems like everyone from the Kiwi community on airliners.net had their say! Good to see so many members from NZ here! Big thumbs up  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Bye,
Falko



Yours truly - StarFlyer
User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I agree with VirginFlyer. I have arrived at AKL during peak periods at around 1300 amd it has never taken me more than 25 mins from the time of leaving the plane to entering the main arrivals area which is pretty good going.

Yes there are areas for improvement as with any airport. Airports are constantly evolving. Look at Sydney a few years back before the new Pier was buit. What a mess that was!!!!!!!!!

AKL will never be Changi and so it shouldn't be. AKL is not a major transitting hub like Changi but as things go its a nice airport and its great for spotting. As much as i loathe the ANZ domestic terminal. The horrible bar downstairs has some great view of the runway.

As an aside I think the terminal at Welington is just marvellous. Great for spotting too

Brent



Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
User currently offline767er From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

I agree with VirginFlyer. I have arrived at AKL during peak periods at around 1300 amd it has never taken me more than 25 mins from the time of leaving the plane to entering the main arrivals area which is pretty good going.

Yes there are areas for improvement as with any airport. Airports are constantly evolving. Look at Sydney a few years back before the new Pier was buit. What a mess that was!!!!!!!!!

AKL will never be Changi and so it shouldn't be. AKL is not a major transitting hub like Changi but as things go its a nice airport and its great for spotting. As much as i loathe the ANZ domestic terminal. The horrible bar downstairs has some great view of the runway.

As an aside I think the terminal at Welington is just marvellous. Great for spotting too

Brent



Aircraft flown:F27,Viscount. EMB120, SAAB340, ATR70, 737-200.737-300,DC8, DC10,747-100,747-200,747-300,747-400, A320, A3
25 AirNewZealand : Hey guys.. Yes source came from Media, and from the Minister of transportation...I think it was him. Anyways...I have to agree, that AKL is not a bad
26 767er : Mike: The problem with expanding the Intn, is where do you put the additional gates. Any ideas???? I have noticed they tend to use the remote stands f
27 Kiwi dave : Why dosen't Auckland build a couple of remote terminal like the ones at LAX
28 VirginFlyer : A few more points: AirNewZealand - I too think Sydney is very nice, although the arrivals level is somewhat bland, almost depressing. There is no poin
29 Jetkid : I guess as another Kiwi member I should put my 2 cents worth in! I can’t see any need for another airport – crazy idea. I like the Interna
30 AirNewZealand : Oh sorry guys, i should clarify myself... I havent been to the airport sense it went through its renovations...Sorry... Wel goitta go, bell is about t
31 767er : VirginFlyer Yes I have seen the new Air New Zealand gates and i agree, they are very nice and sure contrasts with the rest of that shabby 'shed' they
32 ZK-NBT : BNE is a strange layout I thought. If I remember rightly it was quite efficient I thought, very small International terminal though. So does anyone no
33 Aerokiwi : Jesseycy, I've been through CDG 1 three times in the past 2 years, with my flights arriving very early in the morning 5-6 am. Even if there are no oth
34 Post contains images ZK-NBT : I'm enjoying this thread, NZ enthusiasts only Anyone welcome though. I heard that BNE was literally a tin shed before it was rebuilt. Thats the last I
35 Kiwi dave : this has been an interesting thread. Auckland as the main gateway into New Zealand needs to expand with another international terminal and another run
36 767er : ZK_NBT: Yes the old BNE International Terminal literally was a tin shed. Remember the old WLG terminal....it was exactly like that only they did not h
37 767er : Folks Are ex pat kiwis livinng in Aussie (like me) allowed on this thread????? Ooops I should have come clean earlier...I have just 'outed' myself. Br
38 Jesseycy : OK, I agree that the current airport is handling the traffic suffciently well, for now...... But can we just sit, and wait for airlines to increase th
39 VirginFlyer : Jesseycy - I agree with you that they shouldn't sit on their laurels, and that the terminal will need to be expanded, probably in the gradual manner a
40 Aerorobnz : I still think ANZ is partially to blame for AKLs problems......AIAL were in fact going well with expansions and stuff before NZ announced that AKL wou
41 ZK-NBT : AKL has always been Air NZ's main hub though!! Yes I agree I see Sundays now have about 13 international flights departing in like 3 hours, Saturday i
42 ZK-NBT : Here's some busy times for a Sunday. Arrivals. Departures. NZ5 0715 LAX 744 NZ31 KIX 0900 744 CX117 0735 HKG 343 NZ33 NRT 0900 744 UA841 0810 LAX 772
43 Bigo747 : I don't know why you guys are complaining Auckland Airport Gates at totally fine !!!! Only on Fridays do they ever use the bays (81,82,83,80,79,78etc)
44 Aerorobnz : there is a difference between a hub, and a base.......if it's a hub, all flights feed into it, I think previously NZ had been operating on more of a p
45 TG992 : Auckland Airport Impresses Flyers 10/11/2002 09:04 AM Denise McNabb - The Independent The airport is under Commerce Commission pressure to submit to c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Auckland And Singapore Changi Airport posted Sun Oct 23 2005 19:25:21 by Matt24wigan
New Intl. Airport In Mojave Desert posted Tue Mar 6 2001 07:30:02 by Early Air
Sneak Preview Of New Bangkok Intl Airport posted Fri Oct 7 2005 06:32:23 by CyberUAL
New PAN-AM Airlines And Sanford Orlando Airport. posted Sun Jul 25 2004 23:18:33 by Gilesdavies
New Runway At MXP And New North Italy Airport posted Fri Jun 1 2001 16:13:46 by Airblue
Info On New Incheon Airport, KE And OZ posted Fri Mar 16 2001 09:05:40 by Watewate
The New Design Of Ekch Copenhagens INTL. Airport posted Tue Mar 14 2000 09:40:06 by Windshear
New BKK Airport Thai Lounges posted Fri Nov 3 2006 19:49:04 by Chrisjdurber
New Bangkok Airport ( Suvarnabhumi) Website posted Thu Nov 2 2006 08:42:07 by Maxsa
New TPE Airport Name posted Tue Oct 24 2006 21:59:58 by Foppishbum