NTLDaz
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 am

NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:

The other side of that argument is back to AKL ASAP before any penalties kick in and offload the passengers as quickly as we can. Doesn't always drive the right solutions and customer outcomes

Is the only thing wrong here, the lack of communication, or this individuals perception on lack of communication? I mean.. the wait on the ground in CHC was too long and something should have been said via the PA and the wait in AKL for vouchers sounds like its usual mess. I can't understand why or how she quotes an hour... didn't she go home?

Typical emotive crap though....
- 'compensated' by who and for what? who is compensating the airline? Used to take the ferry to work many years ago, I never got compensated by fullers when the swell was too big.
- "Sorensen said it was quite a "cavalier and arrogant attitude" for Air NZ to say it "appreciated the passengers' patience"... come on, what else can they say. They need to acknowledge it.
- "This meant for me a $120 taxi ride home and a 5.30am start back to the airport the following morning. - Did she ask to be transferred onto an alternative service the next day?
- I lost a day's work and was exhausted... how so? didn't she spend the entire time sitting?
- Passengers accused the airline of poor communication and treating them "like cattle" - I'm sure they wanted to use cattle prods on some of these passengers but like usual there's nothing to highlight why they felt like cattle, communication wouldn't change this surely?


Not at all arguing about this current situation. However, there is little protection for consumers in AU NZ like in Europe.

If what has been reported about the PVG flight returning to AKL is correct there should be mandated compensatory rights to the passengers. At the moment there is reliance upon the goodwill of the airlines.

For example, in Oz Tiger cancels a flight and puts passengers on a flight 2 days later. They should be penalised for this.


MASSIVE difference is... here airline royally F'd up with PVG flight and yes there should be set guidelines here, but geez that's miles from this ZQN flight.


The ZQN flight I get. Maybe communication could have been better but airline can't be held accountable for weather conditions. But, consumers shouldn't have to rely on goodwill- laws should protect them.

I was flying from NTL - CNS via BNE. on QF. My flight to BNE was cancelled and I was put on JQ which meant I missed my flight to CNS and had a 7 hours layover in BNE until the next flight. Now I got to hang out in the lounge due to status. Notwithstanding that there should be laws to compensate the consumer . Without regulations airlines can do what they want.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:18 am

NTLDaz wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:

Not at all arguing about this current situation. However, there is little protection for consumers in AU NZ like in Europe.

If what has been reported about the PVG flight returning to AKL is correct there should be mandated compensatory rights to the passengers. At the moment there is reliance upon the goodwill of the airlines.

For example, in Oz Tiger cancels a flight and puts passengers on a flight 2 days later. They should be penalised for this.


MASSIVE difference is... here airline royally F'd up with PVG flight and yes there should be set guidelines here, but geez that's miles from this ZQN flight.


The ZQN flight I get. Maybe communication could have been better but airline can't be held accountable for weather conditions. But, consumers shouldn't have to rely on goodwill- laws should protect them.

I was flying from NTL - CNS via BNE. on QF. My flight to BNE was cancelled and I was put on JQ which meant I missed my flight to CNS and had a 7 hours layover in BNE until the next flight. Now I got to hang out in the lounge due to status. Notwithstanding that there should be laws to compensate the consumer . Without regulations airlines can do what they want.


Being a domestic flight, they are covered under NZ consumer law.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4194
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:34 am

NTLDaz wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

States or Canada you get dumped at the nearest airport, or return to original airport and are usually left to your own devices. It is a weather diversion, different from a mechanical etc.


Do you think there is adequate consumer protection ? Not talking about this particular case but overall.

Could always be better but yes in general I think so. Customers are always prompted to purchase travel insurance when booking for things like weather etc.
One thing that catches a lot of people out though is that a lot of annual insurance policies don’t cover domestic travel except as part of an international journey. Ditto for credit card insurance. I’d like to see that changed.
59 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:06 pm

NTLDaz wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:

Above and beyond ? Probably. However, events like this highlight the lack of consumer protection in AU and NZ.

States or Canada you get dumped at the nearest airport, or return to original airport and are usually left to your own devices. It is a weather diversion, different from a mechanical etc.


Do you think there is adequate consumer protection ? Not talking about this particular case but overall.


There are two well known 'laws', well these are the ones I freqently hear quoted anyway. Firstly the EU delay/cancellation compensation rights and the US tarmac law... (links below)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... SUM:l24173
https://www.transportation.gov/individu ... mac-delays

With regard to the US piece, I don't think we actually see that issue here or in Australia so worthless to anyone. The congested and horrifically dated airports in the US who often get those snow storms in winter can justify the rule. But it's a non event here.

The delay and cancellation rules. It would be nice to see so QF/NZ/VA/3C etc all having to play by the same guidelines. My only concern is how do we ensure safety remains paramount and airfares remain at a affordable level for all New Zealanders?

The ZQN flight would not be covered under either law but let's assume it was, 1,025km according to gcmap, so compensation is €250, let's make that $400 with a full flight of 171 passengers, that's $68,400. We know the airlines will look to recover those costs, I just hope no one tries avoiding them.
 
torin
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:46 pm

NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
States or Canada you get dumped at the nearest airport, or return to original airport and are usually left to your own devices. It is a weather diversion, different from a mechanical etc.


Do you think there is adequate consumer protection ? Not talking about this particular case but overall.


There are two well known 'laws', well these are the ones I freqently hear quoted anyway. Firstly the EU delay/cancellation compensation rights and the US tarmac law... (links below)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... SUM:l24173
https://www.transportation.gov/individu ... mac-delays

With regard to the US piece, I don't think we actually see that issue here or in Australia so worthless to anyone. The congested and horrifically dated airports in the US who often get those snow storms in winter can justify the rule. But it's a non event here.

The delay and cancellation rules. It would be nice to see so QF/NZ/VA/3C etc all having to play by the same guidelines. My only concern is how do we ensure safety remains paramount and airfares remain at a affordable level for all New Zealanders?

The ZQN flight would not be covered under either law but let's assume it was, 1,025km according to gcmap, so compensation is €250, let's make that $400 with a full flight of 171 passengers, that's $68,400. We know the airlines will look to recover those costs, I just hope no one tries avoiding them.


I had a delay with QF SYD-AKL once and they compensated under the EU regulations, quite strange but I wasn't going to turn it down. Ended up using the voucher to get to Fiji
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:14 pm

torin wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
NTLDaz wrote:

Do you think there is adequate consumer protection ? Not talking about this particular case but overall.


There are two well known 'laws', well these are the ones I freqently hear quoted anyway. Firstly the EU delay/cancellation compensation rights and the US tarmac law... (links below)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... SUM:l24173
https://www.transportation.gov/individu ... mac-delays

With regard to the US piece, I don't think we actually see that issue here or in Australia so worthless to anyone. The congested and horrifically dated airports in the US who often get those snow storms in winter can justify the rule. But it's a non event here.

The delay and cancellation rules. It would be nice to see so QF/NZ/VA/3C etc all having to play by the same guidelines. My only concern is how do we ensure safety remains paramount and airfares remain at a affordable level for all New Zealanders?

The ZQN flight would not be covered under either law but let's assume it was, 1,025km according to gcmap, so compensation is €250, let's make that $400 with a full flight of 171 passengers, that's $68,400. We know the airlines will look to recover those costs, I just hope no one tries avoiding them.


I had a delay with QF SYD-AKL once and they compensated under the EU regulations, quite strange but I wasn't going to turn it down. Ended up using the voucher to get to Fiji


If someone wants to give you money, it'd be rude to say no.
 
torin
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:02 pm

Well, this SHA turn-around has taken a turn in the news...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110525974/air-nz-plane-forced-to-turn-around-after-airline-forgot-to-remove-reference-to-taiwan

Multiple sources say paperwork for the Air NZ flight 289, which returned to Auckland after several hours in the air included reference to Taiwan which China took to be an acknowledgement that the island was independent.


There was lots of talk about US carriers removing Taiwan as a country from all documentation, so perhaps this has some truth behind it? the reporting in the article doesnt go on to specifically clear up what was the cause, to me anyway.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:08 am

Given NZ's recent act of compensating passengers for an excessively turbulent flight from CHC to IVC, have they set a precedent that passengers now expect weather-related compensation?

Also, wouldn't it have just been easier to put the pax on a bus to Queenstown? NZ did this for me a few years ago when a "weatherbomb" hit the North Island. I was on WLG-ROT - cancelled. So they flew us to Auckland plopped us on a bus for 4 hours. It wasn't great, but it was the best solution.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:49 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Given NZ's recent act of compensating passengers for an excessively turbulent flight from CHC to IVC, have they set a precedent that passengers now expect weather-related compensation?

Also, wouldn't it have just been easier to put the pax on a bus to Queenstown? NZ did this for me a few years ago when a "weatherbomb" hit the North Island. I was on WLG-ROT - cancelled. So they flew us to Auckland plopped us on a bus for 4 hours. It wasn't great, but it was the best solution.


This will sound rude but it's not directed towards you. If people want to associate the compensation from the turbulent flight to other weather events then I would suggest they've missed the point of that compensation. The compensation was for being flown in conditions which would have caused unnecessary stress and anxiety and it also an acknowledgement from the airline that they should not have flown in these conditions. It wasn't for the inconvenience caused by the weather.

ZQN is an example of how it should have ended up. Cancelled or diverted.

Re the Bus thing, it's 6-7 hour drive, maybe longer in a bus with mandatory rest breaks. Also, let's assume there are 155 passengers, what if all you can source is 30-50 seaters... that's 4 bus loads. What's the ETA on the buses to the terminal given they'll also need drivers with hours remaining on their logbook for the day or even overnight the drivers in ZQN.

Would you want to put on a bus AKL-NPL?

Like I said yesterday, everyone was also onbaord. So if you go down this path it also meant waiting for 1.5hours for a gate for an option not everyone wanted. Others should have been back in AKL by then.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:14 am

NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Given NZ's recent act of compensating passengers for an excessively turbulent flight from CHC to IVC, have they set a precedent that passengers now expect weather-related compensation?

Also, wouldn't it have just been easier to put the pax on a bus to Queenstown? NZ did this for me a few years ago when a "weatherbomb" hit the North Island. I was on WLG-ROT - cancelled. So they flew us to Auckland plopped us on a bus for 4 hours. It wasn't great, but it was the best solution.


This will sound rude but it's not directed towards you. If people want to associate the compensation from the turbulent flight to other weather events then I would suggest they've missed the point of that compensation. The compensation was for being flown in conditions which would have caused unnecessary stress and anxiety and it also an acknowledgement from the airline that they should not have flown in these conditions. It wasn't for the inconvenience caused by the weather.

ZQN is an example of how it should have ended up. Cancelled or diverted.

Re the Bus thing, it's 6-7 hour drive, maybe longer in a bus with mandatory rest breaks. Also, let's assume there are 155 passengers, what if all you can source is 30-50 seaters... that's 4 bus loads. What's the ETA on the buses to the terminal given they'll also need drivers with hours remaining on their logbook for the day or even overnight the drivers in ZQN.

Would you want to put on a bus AKL-NPL?

Like I said yesterday, everyone was also onbaord. So if you go down this path it also meant waiting for 1.5hours for a gate for an option not everyone wanted. Others should have been back in AKL by then.


I'm only supposing people MAY have heard about it and they MAY have thought it's a thing that NZ does now. Even if so, you really expect Joe Public to understand the nuances of weather related compensation? The CHC-IVC one was weird anyway, as it suggests the airline is liable for inclement weather.

And actually it was mentioned earlier that ZQN is often weather affected. I'm surprised then that there isn't a pretty well rehearsed contingency in place. Personally, yeah, I'd rather the bus option. One flight delay usually leads to more and more, with a lot of uncertainty. At least on a bus I'd be making progress and have a sense that I was gonna make it.

What's weird is why didn't they divert to Dunedin instead? 2.5 hours drive and all pax were destined for ZQN anyway. Perhaps that's the better contingency.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5081
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:37 am

Not sure what is going on, but there are repeated announcements in the Auckland domestic terminal about a security problem and screening being on hold.

Edit: security screening has started again, so can’t have been a major.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
torin
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:08 am

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282843/hong-kong-airlines-closes-auckland-reservations-may-oct-2019-/

Hong Kong Airlines in recent inventory update adjusted Hong Kong – Auckland route, as the airline converted this route from year-round to seasonal service. Reservation for travel is closed from 22MAY19 to 26OCT19 (HKG departure).

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0001 – 0805HKG 332 257


Someone mentioned before the bookings being closed off, not sure if anything further was mentioned - so sorry if its a repost
 
torin
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:53 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:19 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
Not sure what is going on, but there are repeated announcements in the Auckland domestic terminal about a security problem and screening being on hold.

Edit: security screening has started again, so can’t have been a major.

V/F


https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/110545074/auckland-international-airport-security-breach-holds-up-passenger-processing-at-domestic-terminal

Looks like an outage with some of the equipment
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:46 am

aerokiwi wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Given NZ's recent act of compensating passengers for an excessively turbulent flight from CHC to IVC, have they set a precedent that passengers now expect weather-related compensation?

Also, wouldn't it have just been easier to put the pax on a bus to Queenstown? NZ did this for me a few years ago when a "weatherbomb" hit the North Island. I was on WLG-ROT - cancelled. So they flew us to Auckland plopped us on a bus for 4 hours. It wasn't great, but it was the best solution.


This will sound rude but it's not directed towards you. If people want to associate the compensation from the turbulent flight to other weather events then I would suggest they've missed the point of that compensation. The compensation was for being flown in conditions which would have caused unnecessary stress and anxiety and it also an acknowledgement from the airline that they should not have flown in these conditions. It wasn't for the inconvenience caused by the weather.

ZQN is an example of how it should have ended up. Cancelled or diverted.

Re the Bus thing, it's 6-7 hour drive, maybe longer in a bus with mandatory rest breaks. Also, let's assume there are 155 passengers, what if all you can source is 30-50 seaters... that's 4 bus loads. What's the ETA on the buses to the terminal given they'll also need drivers with hours remaining on their logbook for the day or even overnight the drivers in ZQN.

Would you want to put on a bus AKL-NPL?

Like I said yesterday, everyone was also onbaord. So if you go down this path it also meant waiting for 1.5hours for a gate for an option not everyone wanted. Others should have been back in AKL by then.


I'm only supposing people MAY have heard about it and they MAY have thought it's a thing that NZ does now. Even if so, you really expect Joe Public to understand the nuances of weather related compensation? The CHC-IVC one was weird anyway, as it suggests the airline is liable for inclement weather.

And actually it was mentioned earlier that ZQN is often weather affected. I'm surprised then that there isn't a pretty well rehearsed contingency in place. Personally, yeah, I'd rather the bus option. One flight delay usually leads to more and more, with a lot of uncertainty. At least on a bus I'd be making progress and have a sense that I was gonna make it.

What's weird is why didn't they divert to Dunedin instead? 2.5 hours drive and all pax were destined for ZQN anyway. Perhaps that's the better contingency.


You may very well be right. People have been using that C word for a while now. Unfortunately, us Kiwi's aren't exempt from the; if you inconvenience me then I expect to be compensated mentality.

There are blueprint procedures for what to do in a disrupt, controllable, uncontrollable etc. There are also customer service standards across the airline which weren't met here but it outlines the type of buses used, when and how long a bus should travel for without stopping. It's pretty detailed.

I'd also annoy you, I would rather get airborne and get me home, I couldn't think of anything worse than 7 hours on a flippin bus. My phone would die, I'd need to pee and couldn't.
Last edited by NZ6 on Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:47 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
Not sure what is going on, but there are repeated announcements in the Auckland domestic terminal about a security problem and screening being on hold.

Edit: security screening has started again, so can’t have been a major.

V/F


It must be close to a dozen times this has happened now... No idea what happened here but I know for one, a passenger was able to walk into the 'secure' area by entering the exit doors. How can this happen?
 
SpoonNZ
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:22 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:53 am

aerokiwi wrote:
What's weird is why didn't they divert to Dunedin instead? 2.5 hours drive and all pax were destined for ZQN anyway. Perhaps that's the better contingency.

Try more like 3.5. 4 in a bus. And again, the time to get hold of 4-5 buses + drivers, and get them to the airport.

IVC might’ve been a better option, but not sure if they have the gear to offload bags from an A320 yet.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:30 am

Having been in the bus game until recently, and been on the receiving end of the "can you get us buses for 170 people to Queenstown please, and how soon can you get them here" phone calls, I would honestly rather fly somewhere else and wait in an airport or get sent to home/hotel.

For a CHC-ZQN transfer it will be an overnight job for the driver as they'll run out of hours before they can get back to CHC, so it's usually a driver on a day off rather than someone already at work, and it takes at bare minimum 1-1.5hrs to get a bus to the airport to start loading (bare minimum is 1hr - even if you get lucky and instantly find a willing victim, they'd still need half an hour or more to get ready and get into work, and even if you get someone else to prep the coach to send it the minute the driver turns up, it's still a 25 min drive to the airport for the company I worked at.) Then CHC-ZQN is about a 7-hr drive including toilet stops and driver's compulsory half-hour break (can't legally drive for more than 5.5hrs in one stint) - longer with a driver that's not well-versed on the CHC-ZQN flight disruption transfer.

So all up you'd be lucky to get to ZQN 10 hours after you're meant to be there, which generally means getting there at night instead of day, tired and hungry with a dead phone. Not for me. Either send me home, send me to a hotel overnight, or at least give me a rental car to drive myself CHC-ZQN - then at least I can do toilet stops and meal stops whenever I feel like it.

PS: I believe it is now Air NZ policy not to send pax on buses if it means they will arrive at the destination after midnight? The CHC-ZQN transfers I've handled were almost inevitably JQ/VA.

PPS: I'll never forget the mass groan I got when I drove my first flight disruption job, CHC-DUD, when I gave the departure spiel and told them the journey time would be approx 6 hrs.
 
axio
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:49 am

We were once threatened with a bus replacement from CHC-DUD due to various wind related delays. It was just before Christmas so I'm guessing not a lot of spare capacity to handle all the cancellations. Thankfully, the bus capacity was less than the ATR it replaced, and handily my wife was seven months pregnant, so NZ decided it would be better to put us (plus another family with four children) in a nearby hotel. We were all on put on the first flight out the next morning and still made it in time to get to the farmers' market, where we met with one of the bus pax who was very weary-eyed and did not enjoy the five hour bus trip (we'd met as fellow delayed/strandee pax at WLG).

While the airline contract might consider their obligation fulfilled, I believe that by paying lots more than Intercity charges that I've purchased a speedier journey (and one with a toilet on-board). I certainly would have been very grumpy had I been on that bus.
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:50 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
Having been in the bus game until recently, and been on the receiving end of the "can you get us buses for 170 people to Queenstown please, and how soon can you get them here" phone calls, I would honestly rather fly somewhere else and wait in an airport or get sent to home/hotel.

For a CHC-ZQN transfer it will be an overnight job for the driver as they'll run out of hours before they can get back to CHC, so it's usually a driver on a day off rather than someone already at work, and it takes at bare minimum 1-1.5hrs to get a bus to the airport to start loading (bare minimum is 1hr - even if you get lucky and instantly find a willing victim, they'd still need half an hour or more to get ready and get into work, and even if you get someone else to prep the coach to send it the minute the driver turns up, it's still a 25 min drive to the airport for the company I worked at.) Then CHC-ZQN is about a 7-hr drive including toilet stops and driver's compulsory half-hour break (can't legally drive for more than 5.5hrs in one stint) - longer with a driver that's not well-versed on the CHC-ZQN flight disruption transfer.

So all up you'd be lucky to get to ZQN 10 hours after you're meant to be there, which generally means getting there at night instead of day, tired and hungry with a dead phone. Not for me. Either send me home, send me to a hotel overnight, or at least give me a rental car to drive myself CHC-ZQN - then at least I can do toilet stops and meal stops whenever I feel like it.

PS: I believe it is now Air NZ policy not to send pax on buses if it means they will arrive at the destination after midnight? The CHC-ZQN transfers I've handled were almost inevitably JQ/VA.

PPS: I'll never forget the mass groan I got when I drove my first flight disruption job, CHC-DUD, when I gave the departure spiel and told them the journey time would be approx 6 hrs.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

You're spot on.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:53 am

axio wrote:
We were once threatened with a bus replacement from CHC-DUD due to various wind related delays. It was just before Christmas so I'm guessing not a lot of spare capacity to handle all the cancellations. Thankfully, the bus capacity was less than the ATR it replaced, and handily my wife was seven months pregnant, so NZ decided it would be better to put us (plus another family with four children) in a nearby hotel. We were all on put on the first flight out the next morning and still made it in time to get to the farmers' market, where we met with one of the bus pax who was very weary-eyed and did not enjoy the five hour bus trip (we'd met as fellow delayed/strandee pax at WLG).

While the airline contract might consider their obligation fulfilled, I believe that by paying lots more than Intercity charges that I've purchased a speedier journey (and one with a toilet on-board). I certainly would have been very grumpy had I been on that bus.


I can't recall the details, someone else will. The NSN-CHC "bus" which got stuck halfway a few years back. Passengers ended up spending the night in what can only be described as a van... something similar to this anyway. I'm sure someone will chip in and clarify.
 
a7ala
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:10 am

Wellington Airport's new hotel opened today.

https://www.wellingtonairport.co.nz/new ... n-airport/
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:51 pm

Yeah buses aren't perfect. Except, you probably never would have heard about this if buses were used, pax wouldn't have been left with further expenses and arriving the next day. The estimated timeframe given above from DUD is still substantially better than what pax ended up with. Again, why isn't DUD the alt airport option for ZQN? Hotel capacity? Proximity to city? Lack of... buses?

NZ got me and about 70 other passengers to our destination in the past - 11 hours late, via bus. They can do it again. Ansett used to do it from IVC to DUD or DUD to CHC. Both were better than being left to scramble for god knows what accom at the last minute just ro get up 4 hours later to be back at the airport.

Hard? Sure. Expensive? Probably. Better than flying back to the other end of the country? Yeah. Clearly the pax mentioned felt aggrieved enough to make a fuss about it.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:00 pm

Give airlines any excuse to play the "weather" card, and customer service automatically reverts to the lowest common denominator. "Queue is a mile long with just one customer service agent? We can't be held responsible for the weather, sir! Be patient."

All the power lies with the airline in these circumstances and they typically act in their own interests first and the passengers' second. It should be different, and NZ is no better or worse than any in my experience.
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:02 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
Both were better than being left to scramble for god knows what accom at the last minute just ro get up 4 hours later to be back at the airport.

Hard? Sure. Expensive? Probably. Better than flying back to the other end of the country? Yeah. Clearly the pax mentioned felt aggrieved enough to make a fuss about it.

If Travelliance (the airline disruption agency) was engaged - the same agency that arranges bus replacements - then pax wouldn't be left scrambling for accommodation. I've done a few late night diversions where we did bus transfers taking pax to hotels.

In fact, I've just read the article for details, and the pax were in fact taken to Holiday Inn - except the Auckland residents were apparently given the short end of the stick. Being a 2.20pm flight that was diverted (arriving in Chch at 5pm), even if they got enough buses, the buses wouldn't have got them into Queenstown until 1-2am at the earliest, and I doubt that same aggrieved passenger would've been any happier to arrive in ZQN at 2am hungry, with a booking at a motel that isn't staffed overnight (so she can't check in and is left out in the cold) - the airline will have fulfilled their obligation to get her to ZQN, ditto the bus company (you'll be surprised how often people expect the bus driver to find accommodation for them), and she would've been worse off.

Also I'm particularly unimpressed with the misleading statement in the article "The plane then returned to Auckland 5 hours later." - FR24 data shows the plane arriving at 5.10pm in Chch and departing by 6pm. Yes it arrived back in Auckland 5 hours after they originally departed, but "returned to Auckland 5 hours later" implies a significant ground delay in CHC - could've at least said "arrived back in Auckland 5 hours later".

Not defending how this particular diversion was handled for Auckland residents, but I do wonder if they would've had the option to go to the hotel with the rest of the pax - because as soon as you opt to go home instead there's no Travelliance for you, and Travelliance are the ones arranging accommodation, bus transfers and issuing taxi vouchers. I can see that there's a gap in the system where Auckland residents diverted to Auckland can fall through and be out of pocket if they didn't have travel insurance, and I think that warrants more discussion, but most of the article seems to be Air NZ bashing with what I can only frankly (and insensitively) describe as "middle-aged white people complaining about things."

Perhaps the bigger discussion should be around having a system in place for passengers that opt to go home instead of staying in a hotel - after all, it can be costly to then get home and back to the airport again depending on the airport parking or transport arrangements people make - and that opens the debate on where the line should be drawn between the airline's responsibility and travel insurance (which is up to the individual passenger to arrange.)
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:42 pm

torin wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282843/hong-kong-airlines-closes-auckland-reservations-may-oct-2019-/

Hong Kong Airlines in recent inventory update adjusted Hong Kong – Auckland route, as the airline converted this route from year-round to seasonal service. Reservation for travel is closed from 22MAY19 to 26OCT19 (HKG departure).

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0001 – 0805HKG 332 257


Someone mentioned before the bookings being closed off, not sure if anything further was mentioned - so sorry if its a repost


Just noted that HX posted a further update and have closed ALL reservations for HKG-AKL vv from Nov 2019. Shame to loose another airline of the route...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -for-nw19/
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6437
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:13 pm

Megatop747-412 wrote:
torin wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282843/hong-kong-airlines-closes-auckland-reservations-may-oct-2019-/

Hong Kong Airlines in recent inventory update adjusted Hong Kong – Auckland route, as the airline converted this route from year-round to seasonal service. Reservation for travel is closed from 22MAY19 to 26OCT19 (HKG departure).

HX027 HKG2110 – 1330+1AKL 332 357
HX028 AKL0001 – 0805HKG 332 257


Someone mentioned before the bookings being closed off, not sure if anything further was mentioned - so sorry if its a repost


Just noted that HX posted a further update and have closed ALL reservations for HKG-AKL vv from Nov 2019. Shame to loose another airline of the route...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -for-nw19/


I wonder what this does for future renewal of NZ/CX JV Should HX not return?

It was approved on the basis that a third carrier on the route seemed unlikely. How would HX have done without NZ/CX JV?
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:21 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Megatop747-412 wrote:
torin wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282843/hong-kong-airlines-closes-auckland-reservations-may-oct-2019-/



Someone mentioned before the bookings being closed off, not sure if anything further was mentioned - so sorry if its a repost


Just noted that HX posted a further update and have closed ALL reservations for HKG-AKL vv from Nov 2019. Shame to loose another airline of the route...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -for-nw19/


I wonder what this does for future renewal of NZ/CX JV Should HX not return?

It was approved on the basis that a third carrier on the route seemed unlikely. How would HX have done without NZ/CX JV?


That’s very true. “Interesting” times indeed I would say...
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:25 am

I’m now at AKL Domestic Terminal waiting to pick up the Mrs who is arriving from WLG . Had a look at FR24, and noticed an unusual flight path for her WLG - AKL flight. Her flight was tracking towards Taupo (middle of North Island), which is unusual. Also noted some other flights heading from the South taking the same track - all seemed to be heading towards Taupo before tracking northwest close to Tauranga before finally coming into AKL. Any one have any ideas who this is so? I’m typing this on my mobile so was not able to share a screen capture of FR24...
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:59 am

I happened to look at FR24 and spotted the same trend... Seems like all northbound are re-routed via Taupo and southbound re-routed out to the west flying over the water. Did a little bit of digging through the playback and it looks like whatever it is kicked into effect between 3pm and 3.30pm. (0200-0230hrs UTC)

EDIT: Looked for NOTAMs on the Airways IFIS system, there's at least a couple describing ATC outages affecting the Raglan sector (that area the flights are avoiding) and also an outage at Napier (which is now running on special procedures prescribed by NOTAM.) My guess would be equipment failure?
 
thegrandvizier
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:01 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:26 am

Not so much equipment issues, more so the personnel to operate said equipment.
 
NZAA
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:15 am

Gross mismanagement of the transition of the Raglan Sector from CHC to AKL by Airways top brass more like it. Still short staffed?
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:52 pm

DavidJ08 wrote:
I happened to look at FR24 and spotted the same trend... Seems like all northbound are re-routed via Taupo and southbound re-routed out to the west flying over the water. Did a little bit of digging through the playback and it looks like whatever it is kicked into effect between 3pm and 3.30pm. (0200-0230hrs UTC)

EDIT: Looked for NOTAMs on the Airways IFIS system, there's at least a couple describing ATC outages affecting the Raglan sector (that area the flights are avoiding) and also an outage at Napier (which is now running on special procedures prescribed by NOTAM.) My guess would be equipment failure?


Ahh thanks for that @DavidJ08. The Mrs did mention that the pilot of her flight did announce some kind of “outage” and hence the flight taking a slight detour.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6849
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:44 pm

Had it happen a few times and all Ive been made aware of are staff shortages at airways. It happens regularly enough that an 'oh thats happening again' reaction is recieved
 
Megatop747-412
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2000 1:59 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:21 am

ZKSUJ wrote:
Had it happen a few times and all Ive been made aware of are staff shortages at airways. It happens regularly enough that an 'oh thats happening again' reaction is recieved


Hmm interesting. From memory this is the first time I've observed it happening, but of course I guess I'm not a frequent enough traveller to notice it happening in the first place! :)
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:47 pm

This recent cockpit view of ZK-NEC landing at ROT came up after Moby 'Extreme Ways' live at the Fonda Theatre. Youtube knows me really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWukvyXfvjY

PA515
 
aerohottie
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:49 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Megatop747-412 wrote:
torin wrote:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282843/hong-kong-airlines-closes-auckland-reservations-may-oct-2019-/



Someone mentioned before the bookings being closed off, not sure if anything further was mentioned - so sorry if its a repost


Just noted that HX posted a further update and have closed ALL reservations for HKG-AKL vv from Nov 2019. Shame to loose another airline of the route...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -for-nw19/


I wonder what this does for future renewal of NZ/CX JV Should HX not return?

It was approved on the basis that a third carrier on the route seemed unlikely. How would HX have done without NZ/CX JV?

I know it’s a stretch, but I’d really like to see VA move into AKL with flights to the US in conjunction with DL and into Asia. Not very likely, but wish NZ had more competition
What?
 
JQ321
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:41 am

aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Megatop747-412 wrote:

Just noted that HX posted a further update and have closed ALL reservations for HKG-AKL vv from Nov 2019. Shame to loose another airline of the route...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -for-nw19/


I wonder what this does for future renewal of NZ/CX JV Should HX not return?

It was approved on the basis that a third carrier on the route seemed unlikely. How would HX have done without NZ/CX JV?

I know it’s a stretch, but I’d really like to see VA move into AKL with flights to the US in conjunction with DL and into Asia. Not very likely, but wish NZ had more competition

Qantas is more likely to do that.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6437
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:23 am

JQ321 wrote:
aerohottie wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

I wonder what this does for future renewal of NZ/CX JV Should HX not return?

It was approved on the basis that a third carrier on the route seemed unlikely. How would HX have done without NZ/CX JV?

I know it’s a stretch, but I’d really like to see VA move into AKL with flights to the US in conjunction with DL and into Asia. Not very likely, but wish NZ had more competition

Qantas is more likely to do that.


I don’t think either is likely at all. AA however already operate AKL-LAX seasonally and with an approved JV with QF hopefully this would go year round and DFW could be considered. QF have bigger fish to fry so to speak than AKL-US with their own metal.

Ditto for VA they don’t have the fleet and I wouldn’t think AKL-US would be of much interest, however A DL operated service if anything would be a lot more likely IMO probably to LAX, they are getting plenty of new long haul metal. I’ve no idea how seriously they have ever considered AKL.
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:17 am

Air NZ A321-271NX ZK-NND (msn 8629) on delivery as NZ6093. It was expected to be in service by 13 Feb, so about 12 days late.

http://www.flightradar24.com/ANZ6093/1f81959e

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:05 pm

NZ6093 (ZK-NND) has made a U-turn over eastern Turkey and appears to be returning to XFW.

PA515
 
GW54
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:19 pm

Looks like it's back on the ground in XFW.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10009
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:45 am

Wonder what happened to NND as it didn't squawk anything while returning
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:06 am

Skyliner Aviation now has ZK-NND departing XFW on Tue 19 Feb and arriving AKL on Fri 22 Feb. That's about the same time tropical cyclone 'Oma' is expected.

https://skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=2

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:34 pm

777ER wrote:
Wonder what happened to NND as it didn't squawk anything while returning

It's been said elsewhere that the flight was denied permission to overfly Iran because the overflight fee had not been paid. Don't know if Air NZ makes these payments or if a third party is involved.

PA515
 
PA515
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:07 pm

Air NZ's ex SQ 77E ZK-OKJ has not flown since 28 Jan 2019, and this would not appear to be scheduled maintenance.

Air NZ 789 ZK-NZG had a test flight yesterday and will be back in service today after being out since 17 Jan 2019.

The two 789s still out of action are ZK-NZF since 28 May 2018 and ZK-NZJ since 29 Aug 2018.

PA515
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:32 pm

Talking about the issue of bussing passengers to Queenstown, I was at Dunedin airport last year when JQ diverted an A320 from ZQN due to high temperatures, and they had buses here within 90 minutes, even though its a 25 minute drive to the airport. I believe it was about 60 minutes after when they arrived.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
DavidJ08
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:14 am

Really the airlines just call Travelliance (who provide essentially a turn-key disruption service); Travelliance in turn has a number of bus operators in each city they have deals with, so they ring around trying to see if they can get any transport to the destination city - if they can't or the airline's policy doesn't allow it (like NZ with the no after midnight arrivals by bus policy) then they will see if any providers can provide transport to accommodation and arrange said accommodation.

The actual time it takes to get transport really comes down to luck - bus companies don't really have drivers standing by on the off chance a flight gets diverted (it's not that common - in winter there might be one a week, in summer weeks go by without a single diversion, or if the weather packs up there could be three in a day) and certainly the concept of "paid standby" hasn't really existed for bus drivers for years. So there's at least four variables - how soon the airline calls Travelliance (start of diversion vs just about to land in CHC), how soon Travelliance calls a bus company who has the vehicles and will try getting a driver, how soon said company can find a willing and able driver to do the job (which may involve shuffling the day and the next day's schedule extensively to make a driver available), and how soon said driver can get into the depot (either from home, or from another task).

On a really good day, the bus can get to the airport before the passengers. We've had one where a WLG-TIU flight was cancelled, so the pax were booked on to the next WLG-CHC flight (there were only about 15) and we were called to take them CHC-TIU by bus. We were called a good 2 hours before the pax arrived in CHC, so we had time to shuffle things around and get a driver and a vehicle out to the airport to wait for the pax as they arrived in CHC. We've also done hotel transfer jobs late at night for diversions (I think it was a late night Tasman flight into either Welly or Auckland during a storm where they diverted to CHC and we had 1.5-2hrs to get some drivers together and get out to the airport.)

Conversely, on a particularly bad day, we've had a bus getting out to the airport 2 hours after the pax arrived, then having a mechanical issue in Cromwell of all places and getting to ZQN at 4am.

Buses replacing airplanes? Anything can happen.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6437
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:19 am

PA515 wrote:
Air NZ's ex SQ 77E ZK-OKJ has not flown since 28 Jan 2019, and this would not appear to be scheduled maintenance.

Air NZ 789 ZK-NZG had a test flight yesterday and will be back in service today after being out since 17 Jan 2019.

The two 789s still out of action are ZK-NZF since 28 May 2018 and ZK-NZJ since 29 Aug 2018.

PA515


Parked as a back up? There is a litttle more slack after the end of JAN, I noticed 789 NZE doing AKL/CHC-PER the other day.

I’m not sure when the leases are up but I don’t recall seeing the leased frames in the schedule beyond the end of March. I’d imagine they will keep the frames around if needed.

HKG goes back to a 77E from NS. And several reductions elsewhere for April May particularly.
 
NZ6
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:08 am

DavidJ08 wrote:
Really the airlines just call Travelliance (who provide essentially a turn-key disruption service); Travelliance in turn has a number of bus operators in each city they have deals with, so they ring around trying to see if they can get any transport to the destination city - if they can't or the airline's policy doesn't allow it (like NZ with the no after midnight arrivals by bus policy) then they will see if any providers can provide transport to accommodation and arrange said accommodation.

The actual time it takes to get transport really comes down to luck - bus companies don't really have drivers standing by on the off chance a flight gets diverted (it's not that common - in winter there might be one a week, in summer weeks go by without a single diversion, or if the weather packs up there could be three in a day) and certainly the concept of "paid standby" hasn't really existed for bus drivers for years. So there's at least four variables - how soon the airline calls Travelliance (start of diversion vs just about to land in CHC), how soon Travelliance calls a bus company who has the vehicles and will try getting a driver, how soon said company can find a willing and able driver to do the job (which may involve shuffling the day and the next day's schedule extensively to make a driver available), and how soon said driver can get into the depot (either from home, or from another task).

On a really good day, the bus can get to the airport before the passengers. We've had one where a WLG-TIU flight was cancelled, so the pax were booked on to the next WLG-CHC flight (there were only about 15) and we were called to take them CHC-TIU by bus. We were called a good 2 hours before the pax arrived in CHC, so we had time to shuffle things around and get a driver and a vehicle out to the airport to wait for the pax as they arrived in CHC. We've also done hotel transfer jobs late at night for diversions (I think it was a late night Tasman flight into either Welly or Auckland during a storm where they diverted to CHC and we had 1.5-2hrs to get some drivers together and get out to the airport.)

Conversely, on a particularly bad day, we've had a bus getting out to the airport 2 hours after the pax arrived, then having a mechanical issue in Cromwell of all places and getting to ZQN at 4am.

Buses replacing airplanes? Anything can happen.


You are correct, I'll just add a couple of points... Travelliance who essentially negotiate rates for a variety is disruption services (Bus, Hotels, Taxis etc) use their size as buying power to pass on the savings to airlines while also clipping the ticket of course.

Their customer NZ or JQ for domestic NZ may have 'contractual' standards that need to be provided i.e they can't just send any old available bus. Can you imagine NZ Elite passengers being provided this

Image

This can obviously impact bus availability.

Also there are laws in New Zealand around the number of hours a bus operator can drive in a given day, overlap that with their employment agreement... Ritchies can't just place the driver of urban route 5 onto the new TRG run lol so this also impacts on who can operate and how quickly they can respond. Sometimes their available and ready to go quickly, In DUD the drivers may actually be 5-10 mins from the depot
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 7503
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: New Zealand Aviation Thread - February 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:47 am

Korean Air to operate 787-9 to AKL from 31 March 19

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 25729?s=21
Forum Moderator

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos