mariner wrote:

Gasman wrote:

But there are those of us whose interests are purely as the fare paying passenger. We see things differently, and when we perceive we aren't heard, valued, or are exploited will tolerate it for a while but ultimately walk.

And there are those of us who have never worked for any airline, who can best be described as "a passenger with catholic tastes," who arrive at different conclusions from you.

mariner

Don't you have NZ shares though?

Gasman wrote:

Don't you have NZ shares though?

Nope. I sold those some time ago. All 100 of them! LOL.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Gasman wrote:

But there are those of us whose interests are purely as the fare paying passenger. We see things differently, and when we perceive we aren't heard, valued, or are exploited will tolerate it for a while but ultimately walk.

And there are those of us who have never worked for any airline, who can best be described as "a passenger with catholic tastes," who arrive at different conclusions from you.

mariner

Thanks, Mariner, well said. That pretty much sums up my position too.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

More the failure of people here to appreciate you can either be a champion of the airline and its shareholders, OR the passenger. You simply cannot be both at the same time. I come down firmly on the side of the passenger.

In my last few years as a NZ frequent flier, I felt like I was simply there to provide dividends to the shareholder and as an begrudged acknowledgement of that, I ended up being flown places. I don't feel the same way flying QF - it feels far more like a mutually beneficial business relationship than it did with NZ.

So NZ is run like any other service providing business, they offer services in lieu of money. In NZ's case the service is transport, right!.

Aviation has slowly moved away from the luxurious glamour it once was but many still demand a higher level of comfort and service vs alternative ground transport for example. I can go on about operating economics of an airline but ultimately they're trying to bring in as much operating revenue as possible as there is so much external operating expense which is outside your control, let alone global dynamics which impact on humans wanting to fly.

It's no different to your internet provider charging as much as they can for the service they offer you, of how much Mitre 10 will charge for your decking timber this weekend.

If you don't like the service, shop elsewhere, if you find it cheaper elsewhere and it suits use that service.

Personally, I have Vodafone as I find them more reliable and I shop at Mitre 10 because its Kiwi owned. I can save money elsewhere but choose not to, I also don't go on about it because as a consumer I have a choice.

I agree with your post entirely, even the bit about Vodafone to whom I switched after discovering how unbelievably bad Spark's roaming pricing structure is.

There are many here who are NZ staff, or who are unashamed apologists for the company. And that's fine - to them, the company making profits is the ultimate end goal. Which is why this group brainwashes themselves into believing there *really* is nothing bad about 10 abreast, and NZ's J product isn't *really* spartan and cramped etc. etc. As long as the pax keep paying, and the profits keep coming, that's all that matters.

But there are those of us whose interests are purely as the fare paying passenger. We see things differently, and when we perceive we aren't heard, valued, or are exploited will tolerate it for a while but ultimately walk.

Oh trust me there are things I don't agree, I'm just not going to fuel your fire by bringing them up. So I wouldn't call myself an unashamed apologists for the company.

I wouldn't say I'm brainwashed into believing there is nothing bad about 10 abreast either, other carriers also use it and the fact is, it's not within the top 10 in-flight issues which says a lot. Perhaps, and don't take this personally and hopefully this post doesn't get removed you are simply disgruntled with NZ. Maybe let it go. Fly someone else and move on if you don't like it. Just like you did spark.

There are many happy customers much more happy than unhappy. Yeah 9 is always better than 10, 8 is better than 9 too but if customers overall are happy then that might explain the growth and continued success in making high levels of revenue.

Wow - cockraoches were allegedy found on an NZ flight from PER to AKL.

He says the roaches went on to climb onto passengers ... and interestingly, The man says at no point did the air crew offer or ask to do anything while he was seated. "The only time I got any feedback about them is getting off the plane they pulled me aside so one of the New Zealand bio-security person could ask where and how many as they were going to spray the plane," he told Newshub ...

See: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/20 ... light.html.

Should NZ have handled this situation differently, or was the response fine?

Cheers,

C.

Meanwhile, Auckland airport has been labelled “a national disgrace” by Graeme Samuel, Chief Executive of A4ANZ, a lobbying firm which represents airlines within Australasia.

See: https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/298 ... l-disgrace.

I love this comment by Luxon - "airports are earning excessive profits... as a consequence the airport doesn’t have to listen to that because they can set prices as they see fit."

Eh, just like NZ also sets prices as it sees fit to certain destinations that it has a monopoly on, because it can. Monopolies are just wonderful economic phenomena, aren't they?



Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

... There are many here who are NZ staff ... this group brainwashes themselves into believing there *really* is nothing bad about 10 abreast, and NZ's J product isn't *really* spartan and cramped etc.

Or, more hilariously, believe that NZ's successes are almost solely attributable to management and strategy - forget the rock-star economy or the tourism boom (which NZ is not responsible for, but disproportionately benefits from).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Or, more hilariously, believe that NZ's successes are almost solely attributable to management and strategy - forget the rock-star economy or the tourism boom (which NZ is not responsible for, but disproportionately benefits from).

Where are these "pro-NZ" posters that I hear so much about, especially from you?

I tend not to post in anything to do with long haul these days but I read, and for the most part, from other posters and especially when you and Gasman get together, NZ is a dump of an airline.

The profits started way back when but CEO Fyfe was called everything under the sun - here - and things haven't changed much since, so who are all those pro-posters?

mariner

Gasman wrote:

There are many here who are NZ staff, or who are unashamed apologists for the company.

And then there are those of us with our own minds, and a wealth of their own travel experiences to fall back on, who realise and understand life as a passenger is not always as great as the marketing spin says and who have raised the very issues you mentioned (and more besides, including solutions) on the forum many times since it happened. I'm under no illusion there are many things about the in-flight product that could be improved, but I am pragmatic and realistic as well. I know the reality is that all Boeing 777-X generation for any carrier will be 10 across, and all 787s will be 9 across and that NZ cannot remain an outlier when they are competing with other carriers with the same types, that is why I have been a strong proponent for the A350 in the NZ fleet. I would run the airline slightly differently, however, they have done many things right too.

As others have stated, NZ is still seen as the flag carrier by many, so they hold NZ up in isolation and say "monopoly, monopoly! you're the reason there is no competition" In reality, it is more nuanced than that. In some cases, if NZ didn't fly there nobody else would. NZ is a single airline in a market that even now nobody else is hugely interested in year-round - including JQ/QF/VA. Even SQ/CX/CA/UA/VA signed up for JVs more because they either didn't want to shoulder the risk restarting flying to AKL alone or wanted to maximise the minimal margins they were already making by themselves with any advantage they can get.
One thing I can say is that without NZ, the aviation scene we have would not be as functional or wide-reaching as it is. You may well have a company like Spirit or Easyjet fill the space, without any real interline agreements, no lounges, no Alliance membership (which brings in the rival alliance members too)

Be careful what you wish for, even if a "full service' carrier filled the gap, it would be years before we returned to having what we have now.

aerorobnz wrote:

... a market that even now nobody else is hugely interested in year-round ...

Tell that to the likes of CA (PEK), D7 (KUL), GS (CKG), HU (SZX), PR (MNL), QR (DOH) or 3U (CTU), who have launched AKL lately, or the various airlines who have converted from seasonal to year-round AKL services in the past few years (like MU (PVG)). Let's get real - the tourism boom we're currently experiencing has produced numbers like no other period of history. Other airlines are also trying to cash in on this, and will continue to do so, but for now, the market continues to benefit NZ disproportionately. IMHO, it will not last - NZ will need to get more competitive (see below).

aerorobnz wrote:

In some cases, if NZ didn't fly there nobody else would.

Sure, for a small (and decreasing by the year) amount of international destinations. Though, that is rapidly changing, with the likes of HA launching HNL (which was recently expanded) (2013), MU launching PVG (2014) (which has been expanded from seasonal to year-round), AA launching LAX (2016) (which will go year-round upon US DOT's approval of the AA-QF JV), and EK launching DPS (2018), as well as rumours around VN launching SGN (via PHE), and AR explicitly saying they intend to return to their former Oceanic routes (i.e. EZE - AKL). NZ's pressure is increasing.

aerorobnz wrote:

... they hold NZ up in isolation and say "... you're the reason there is no competition" ...

Well we're still being hampered by NZ's use, and the NZCC's excessive approval, of JV's; routes that previously weren't monopolies (like AKL - SIN) now have become so (as NZ's launch almost coincided with JQ's departure), while airlines that have tried to take on the JV's (like HX) have had to downgrade capacity, IMHO, due to the domineering effects of the NZ JV's. So, yes, in part, it is reasonable to accuse NZ (but more so the NZCC) of blame for a lacking in competition on certain routes. That's not even getting to NZ's pricing practices domestically, upon a competitor's arrival.

Cheers,

C.

Could we draw a line in the sand, regarding Air New Zealand's worthiness. With all carriers to/from here, there
will be things that most of us like,..don't like.
(As a youngster, I was warned there were two social subjects best avoided in a friendly environment....religion and politics!
For all the right reasons, humans take a position... from which they will not move. It makes it pretty boring then for
everyone else around, esp. when they will not let it go.)
Let's go back to routes, carriers, airplanes, airports, safety and stuff. With this of course we will criticise/applaud
each carrier for various products/policies. But can we avoid a crusade?

M.

Mobile phones on board;
It is pretty well obvious to most of us that the threat to the a/c must be
pretty small, being that there there are so many transgressions. 300 pax
on one flight, who thinks all those phones are off? I hate phones being
used in a confined public space (rather like smoking) and I suspect
airline managers agree, and for now can hide behind International and
local regulations. Soon, the regulators are bound to unleash those phones.
Watch this space (No problem in NZ of course, Ministers have shown both
security and phone use restrictions to be unnecessary!)
p.s. I was on a domestic flight in Thailand, and having just picked up a
local (pre smartphone) device, I realised I couldn't turn it off. I asked the flight
attendant, young, who knew all that stuff, but she couldn't either, so she
went to the F/D, and the message from the Captain was, forget it!...

Deepinsider wrote:

Mobile phones on board ... I was on a domestic flight in Thailand, and having just picked up a local (pre smartphone) device, I realised I couldn't turn it off. I asked the flight attendant, young, who knew all that stuff, but she couldn't either, so she went to the F/D, and the message from the Captain was, forget it!

Interesting - in contrast, I've been on domestic flights in China where you're pounced upon if they see you holding your phone in-flight, even if it's off - AFAIK, China has some of the strictest rules on this subject globally. IMO, it's better to be safe than sorry. We know that aircraft electronics are designed and shielded with interference in mind. This should mitigate any ill effects, and to date there are few, if any proven cases of a phone adversely affecting the outcome of a flight. However, it's worth noting that a 2003 crash in Christchurch is often used as an example where a mobile phone is believed to have interfered with the plane's navigational equipment - "A final report into the incident by the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission found that "the pilot's own mobile phone may have caused erroneous indications" on the navigational aid."

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10701029.

Cheers,

C.

On the subject of Twyford's in-flight call issue, it's now been alleged that he breached another rule - standing up, while the seatbelt light was on.

... following Phil's phone call, he got up and took his jacket off and put it up in the luggage compartment when the plane was taxiing ...

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12058820.

I'll be interested to see what penalty (if any) Twyford receives, as well as how Genter will interact with the CAA - she obviously has more time.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

Mobile phones on board ... I was on a domestic flight in Thailand, and having just picked up a local (pre smartphone) device, I realised I couldn't turn it off. I asked the flight attendant, young, who knew all that stuff, but she couldn't either, so she went to the F/D, and the message from the Captain was, forget it!

Interesting - in contrast, I've been on domestic flights in China where you're pounced upon if they see you holding your phone in-flight, even if it's off - AFAIK, China has some of the strictest rules on this subject globally. IMO, it's better to be safe than sorry. We know that aircraft electronics are designed and shielded with interference in mind. This should mitigate any ill effects, and to date there are few, if any proven cases of a phone adversely affecting the outcome of a flight. However, it's worth noting that a 2003 crash in Christchurch is often used as an example where a mobile phone is believed to have interfered with the plane's navigational equipment - "A final report into the incident by the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission found that "the pilot's own mobile phone may have caused erroneous indications" on the navigational aid."

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10701029.

Cheers,

C.

re Better safe than sorry. Best example of this policy would be when you are on approach
to ZQN, minutes from touch down, still in the clouds, and know just how close the rocks out
there are. trouble is, our fellow pax don't think the same as us, and this is my point.....

Another interesting topic which has emerged this week is that of flight paths at AKL - residents in some wealthier AKL suburbs like Cockle Bay and Mellons Bay seem to have been successful in securing changes to flight paths, to prevent more aircraft from flying over their suburbs.

... It was now almost 1.5km off the coast of Eastern Beach, Mellons Bay, Cockle Bay and Waikiteroa Reserve, on average, and about half a kilometre south-east of Whitford ...

See:
- https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12057150.
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/104155 ... -the-coast.

On this topic - I also found a video on YouTube this week of a CI 359 landing into AKL, which seems to have used one of the new flight paths (as in, I haven't seen a landing on YouTube using such a flight path over Devenport etc - though, correct me if I'm wrong) - it's awesome to watch.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah_Orr0cqV4.

Cheers,

C.

What is with NZ not offering Online Check-in ex-SIN? they seem to offer it just about everywhere apart from SIN,IUE,NLK?

planemanofnz wrote:

On this topic - I also found a video on YouTube this week of a CI 359 landing into AKL, which seems to have used one of the new flight paths (as in, I haven't seen a landing on YouTube using such a flight path over Devenport etc - though, correct me if I'm wrong) - it's awesome to watch.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah_Orr0cqV4.

Cheers,

C.

That's a traditional flight-path hooking onto the ILS.

As an aside, the back and forth concerning Air New Zealand I find rather dull BUT I haven't read anything overly combative, terse or inflammatory towards other members. I too have noticed the editing/deletions going on (having read posts before they disappear) and frankly I'm in disbelief. I joined this site 16 years ago when you had to email Johan directly. I can but only wonder what he'd have to say about the current state of affairs.

All users are reminded to respect other users opinions and that we will not tolerate personal attacks on other users. Furthermore those who have a concern regarding a post deletion must be discussed with the moderators at [email protected] and not in open forum. I would also like to remind everyone as moderators we are required to remove any reference posts that quote another post that has been deleted.

zkncj wrote:

What is with NZ not offering Online Check-in ex-SIN? they seem to offer it just about everywhere apart from SIN,IUE,NLK?

I did not realise this was the case. As per their website
"You are departing from an airport where home printed or mobile boarding passes are not accepted, such as Norfolk Island, Niue Island, Singapore Changi International and Ngurah Rai (Bali) International"

In fact, SYD also does not allow home printed boarding cards through customs as I discovered a few years ago and had to wait until check-in opened to use a kiosk. IUE is a manual check-in process so that explains that one.

aerorobnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

What is with NZ not offering Online Check-in ex-SIN? they seem to offer it just about everywhere apart from SIN,IUE,NLK?

I did not realise this was the case. As per their website
"You are departing from an airport where home printed or mobile boarding passes are not accepted, such as Norfolk Island, Niue Island, Singapore Changi International and Ngurah Rai (Bali) International"

https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/nz/travel-info/check-in/online-mobile-checkin/

It's an odd one - with NZ saying its the airport not allowing home printed/mobile boarding passes. Yet SQ is allows you to use home printed/mobile at SIN, so hardly think its an airport thing? unless its an extra fee to the airline that NZ isn't wanting to pay?

I think NZ should now be displaying it as an warning when booking flights that involve SIN, its pretty lacking that they don't provide the service on this route.

aerorobnz wrote:

In fact, SYD also does not allow home printed boarding cards through customs as I discovered a few years ago and had to wait until check-in opened to use a kiosk. IUE is a manual check-in process so that explains that one.

We're you using SmartGate, to exit Australia? I'm sure i've only have my boarding pass on my phone an couple of times now ex BNE,SYD,MEL and just had the lounge staff do the customary airline passport check.

Unless SYD has been an recent change with the new increased security?

If I were you, I'd send an email to Singapore Changi airport and ask the question from their perspective. Then, if they reply that there is no issue with home printed/mobile boarding passes you should submit that to Air New Zealand for their rebuttal.

As for SYD, I had a home printed boarding pass and they sent me back out. At the time I think the departure smart gate was being installed or updated

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting - in contrast, I've been on domestic flights in China where you're pounced upon if they see you holding your phone in-flight, even if it's off - AFAIK, China has some of the strictest rules on this subject globally. IMO, it's better to be safe than sorry. We know that aircraft electronics are designed and shielded with interference in mind. This should mitigate any ill effects, and to date there are few, if any proven cases of a phone adversely affecting the outcome of a flight.

There's the flip side of that equation, the devices - being from China originally I think the prevalence of "cheap knockoff" devices made by small workshops (some even home-made) is part of the reason for the strict ruling (according to Wiki all Chinese airlines ban the use of cellphones at any point in flight, even in airplane mode.) Large reputable brands like Apple and Samsung do extensive design and testing whereas a "cheap knockoff" phone's airplane mode might not disable all the transmitting modes, or the electronics might be faulty and transmit interference signals without any transmitting function being used or activated. For all the scandals in China about poor quality goods made in small workshops, it's not surprising that they've taken the strictest stance on it.

Related side note: they're also super-strict about power banks, because of the risks associated with lithium batteries. At Beijing airport security I got my power bank confiscated due to smudged markings - even though I'd previously flown multiple times domestically in NZ and trans-Tasman with it without issue. Because of the risks associated with lithium batteries, and the prevalence of "home-made" (or rather, "dodgy workshop made") devices including power banks, (and supposedly multiple incidents of spontaneous combustion of power banks even during security inspection,) they've gotten incredibly strict, and if the security officer decides your power bank's markings are smudged and illegible, you won't be travelling with it.

Hey when is AKL going to finish the revisions to the departure area? Any updates? Also Does anybody know when MH are changing their schedule to AKL to overnight in both directions?

DavidJ08 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting - in contrast, I've been on domestic flights in China where you're pounced upon if they see you holding your phone in-flight, even if it's off - AFAIK, China has some of the strictest rules on this subject globally. IMO, it's better to be safe than sorry. We know that aircraft electronics are designed and shielded with interference in mind. This should mitigate any ill effects, and to date there are few, if any proven cases of a phone adversely affecting the outcome of a flight.

There's the flip side of that equation, the devices - being from China originally I think the prevalence of "cheap knockoff" devices made by small workshops (some even home-made) is part of the reason for the strict ruling (according to Wiki all Chinese airlines ban the use of cellphones at any point in flight, even in airplane mode.) Large reputable brands like Apple and Samsung do extensive design and testing whereas a "cheap knockoff" phone's airplane mode might not disable all the transmitting modes, or the electronics might be faulty and transmit interference signals without any transmitting function being used or activated. For all the scandals in China about poor quality goods made in small workshops, it's not surprising that they've taken the strictest stance on it.

Related side note: they're also super-strict about power banks, because of the risks associated with lithium batteries. At Beijing airport security I got my power bank confiscated due to smudged markings - even though I'd previously flown multiple times domestically in NZ and trans-Tasman with it without issue. Because of the risks associated with lithium batteries, and the prevalence of "home-made" (or rather, "dodgy workshop made") devices including power banks, (and supposedly multiple incidents of spontaneous combustion of power banks even during security inspection,) they've gotten incredibly strict, and if the security officer decides your power bank's markings are smudged and illegible, you won't be travelling with it.

China also isn’t a fan of people taking pictures from planes as they fly near military installations.

Actually the safety notices on a number of airlines are ambiguous. Some tell you to turn your phone off but then a number of these airlines imply later they meant you can have it in flight mode and they were referring to transmitting functions. Others say flight mode is okay. It's really unclear as to why a phone has to be powered off when it is already in flight mode. Surely there is no justifiable reason for the phone having to be "powered off". Thoughts?

Deepinsider wrote:

Mobile phones on board;
It is pretty well obvious to most of us that the threat to the a/c must be
pretty small, being that there there are so many transgressions. 300 pax
on one flight, who thinks all those phones are off? I hate phones being
used in a confined public space (rather like smoking) and I suspect
airline managers agree, and for now can hide behind International and
local regulations. Soon, the regulators are bound to unleash those phones.
Watch this space (No problem in NZ of course, Ministers have shown both
security and phone use restrictions to be unnecessary!)
p.s. I was on a domestic flight in Thailand, and having just picked up a
local (pre smartphone) device, I realised I couldn't turn it off. I asked the flight
attendant, young, who knew all that stuff, but she couldn't either, so she
went to the F/D, and the message from the Captain was, forget it!...

I'm sorry some readers thought that I disrespect the rules. My point was that
numerous OTHER PAX do disrespect the rules and that the rest of us are
therefore vulnerable to their transgressions.

So when a passenger is using their phone inappropriately in flight and crew haven't noticed are we within our rights to stand up and redirect the passenger to turn off their phone? Have you ever done that? Because I have been in that position on a couple of occasions and it puts one in a real quandary.

NZ321 wrote:

Hey when is AKL going to finish the revisions to the departure area? Any updates? Also Does anybody know when MH are changing their schedule to AKL to overnight in both directions?

Renovations I believe are to be finished around Q3/4 this year, the luxury precinct part should be starting to open in the next month with the food and beverage bits beginning to open soon afterwards. The mezzanine food area sounds particularly interesting.

MH is now operating overnight both ways.

NZ321 wrote:

Actually the safety notices on a number of airlines are ambiguous. Some tell you to turn your phone off but then a number of these airlines imply later they meant you can have it in flight mode and they were referring to transmitting functions. Others say flight mode is okay. It's really unclear as to why a phone has to be powered off when it is already in flight mode. Surely there is no justifiable reason for the phone having to be "powered off". Thoughts?

It all depends on the airline's policy and procedures - and the laws they operate under (which aren't exactly the same between countries). The current trend (being embraced at different paces around the world) is that personal electronic devices can be used throughout the flight as long as transmitting functions are turned off, but this is dependent on airline and aircraft type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ph ... ent_status

I remember for a while Air NZ's policy was to power off for takeoff and landing, and flight mode is okay during other phases of flight. This has since been updated (probably due to a law change - not sure if it was the FAA one in late 2013 as per wiki article) to flight mode is okay at all times.

So mandatory power off was required by the FAA until 2013, and as for justifications - as I mentioned before China can probably justify it because who knows if "flight mode" on that $5 no-brand cellphone you just bought at a stall down the street will actually turn off all the transmitting functions? And I don't know if people are just extra naughty in China, but when I flew QF SYD-PEK and back, on both flights people's phones started going off from about 30 seconds before touchdown, and you land amid a symphony of cellphone notification sounds which didn't inspire confidence in people's ability to follow rules (which were announced in English and Mandarin.) That and the FAs had to yell at people multiple times to sit back down because they started getting up and getting their luggage practically right after we exited the runway.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12059947

I've said this before.... does anyone disagree?

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12059947

I've said this before.... does anyone disagree?

1) After seeing this tagged as breaking news on the NZH website, I finally came to the realisation that Hosking and HDPA are the actual owners of NZME and are the only ones with the power to activate the breaking news tag.

2) He's just sad because he now has to walk through more shops in order to get to his beloved Auckland Airport safe space (aka the NZ lounge). With the amount he is away, you'd be forgiven for thinking NZME has him employed on a part-time basis.


AKL is a bit of a shambles right now, and only stands to get worse over time due to the piecemeal additions made to the international terminal (just look at the roof of the terminal and you get an idea of how well planned out the terminal was /s) and the domestic terminal being almost 50 years past its use by date. They need to create a realistic masterplan and stick to it, the last one appeared to be realistic and is still quoted by news reports and management, but the timeframes for that went out the window within 6 months of its release.

Bruce Parton (NZ COO) will soon be leaving NZ after a long time.

Interestingly, this will lead to the organisational structure of the operations function being split into two pillars – one focused on ground operations and another focused on air operations.

Hopefully it all works out, and that the transition will be smooth.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12060171.

Cheers,

C.

After allegations of cockroaches on an NZ PER flight, new allegations have surfaced about cockroaches on an NZ SYD flight.

Again, NZ seems not to have handled the situation well - The passenger said he showed the video footage to a flight attendant, but they showed little interest in the issue.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12059934.

What's going on? Is it that it always happens, but just never gets coverage? Or, are cleaning cutbacks at NZ being made?

Cheers,

C.

zkanz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12059947

I've said this before.... does anyone disagree?

1) After seeing this tagged as breaking news on the NZH website, I finally came to the realisation that Hosking and HDPA are the actual owners of NZME and are the only ones with the power to activate the breaking news tag.

2) He's just sad because he now has to walk through more shops in order to get to his beloved Auckland Airport safe space (aka the NZ lounge). With the amount he is away, you'd be forgiven for thinking NZME has him employed on a part-time basis.


AKL is a bit of a shambles right now, and only stands to get worse over time due to the piecemeal additions made to the international terminal (just look at the roof of the terminal and you get an idea of how well planned out the terminal was /s) and the domestic terminal being almost 50 years past its use by date. They need to create a realistic masterplan and stick to it, the last one appeared to be realistic and is still quoted by news reports and management, but the timeframes for that went out the window within 6 months of its release.

I don't completely disagree with your Hosking comments however I don't mind him as a TV or Radio host.

As for the Herald along with Stuff, they are completely useless at reporting, this is not breaking news. It's not even news. It's just opinion and one that is no more important than yours or mine.

What I find interesting though are his comments, re the contained 'building site' of Auckland Airport and the use of remote gates. Can anyone remember the International Terminal without a crane? working towards the ever changing 'master plan'.

Hosking refers to LAX and it's not why I'm about to use it, but man have they made some amazing changes in the last decade and more to come.

ZK-OKD as NZ6005 inbound to AKL following a period of maintenance in Singapore. Assuming part of that includes fitting of WIFI and a repaint into 'Fern' livery. ZK-OKC about to depart AKL as NZ6006 to Singapore. OKC already in 'Fern' livery so assuming it is going for WIFI installation only?

GW54 wrote:

ZK-OKD as NZ6005 inbound to AKL following a period of maintenance in Singapore. Assuming part of that includes fitting of WIFI and a repaint into 'Fern' livery. ZK-OKC about to depart AKL as NZ6006 to Singapore. OKC already in 'Fern' livery so assuming it is going for WIFI installation only?

Hopefully ZK-OKI will arrive from SIN within the next couple of days, it does seem to be taking an long time ready. Does make me one if they have given it an cabin refit?

Anyone else heard an likelyness on an ZK-OKJ soon too?

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12059947

I've said this before.... does anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree, I've found the media's bashing of AKL and other airports around this country and Australasia of late very tiring. There is no balance to these stories and the airport's conveniently don't seem to get a chance to respond yet the airlines mysteriously do....let's also not forget that people are also more likely to whinge and moan that offer compliments. It would be nice if the reporters found some alternate opinions to provide a more balanced article.

A construction site is never nice to be around whether its at an airport or not, so that in itself makes this really a moot article as well, maybe if everything had opened properly and there were issues then it would be appropriate, but not mid construction. Let's see what passengers think in Q3 of this year.

As for elderly being unable to find where they are going and walking distances, that seems a bit of a cheap shot, signage is tricky and its a difficult equilibrium between too little and too much which can be just as confusing. If in doubt, ask, AKL has bluecoats who I am sure are only too happy to guide people in the right direction, but people need to take responsibility and be proactive about it, staff aren't mind readers. Distance wise, yeah check-in to gate 18 is quite far for some no doubt, but there are always options and assistance for those that need it, again, people just need to be proactive about it. At the end of the day many of the famed terminals around the world that are constantly paraded as being easy to navigate and user friendly still have significant walks required, even if automated people movers are available, SIN, BKK and PEK T3 are some of the recent ones I have traveled through which still required a reasonable walk to the gate.

Another peeve of mine is how the airport always seems to get blamed for everything that goes wrong on the passengers journey. Queues at check-in and at baggage reclaim because of slow baggage is the fault of the ground handlers, whether it be Air NZ, Aerocare, Planebiz, etc. Not enough counters open at security screening, well that's AVSEC, primary and secondary processing - that's Customs and MPI. However, the travelling public can also make their journeys faster by actually having their documentation and property ready for inspection.

I am also sick of the term "Third World" being chucked around, I suspect few people who make that comment have ever experienced one. For me, a third world facility is one that is dirty, has bathrooms which are only cleaned once a day instead of once an hour, doesn't have potable water available, where theft in the terminals is rife, where bribes may be required (a little extreme but not unheard of), where retailers open when their operators feel like it, not when there are flight movements, where there is no in-line luggage check-in. I could go on, last i saw, AKL did not have any of these issues, I am sorry but just because a facility doesn't provide endless amounts of wi-fi or entertain the passenger from the second they arrive until they board does not make it "Third World". It is not the airport's job to entertain the passenger.

Yeah that's a bit of a rant and may rock the boat a bit, not all related to that article, but I think its time there was a bit more balance, especially when unnecessary hyperbole such as "National Disgrace" are being thrown around in the mainstream media.

NPL8800 wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12059947

I've said this before.... does anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree, I've found the media's bashing of AKL and other airports around this country and Australasia of late very tiring. There is no balance to these stories and the airport's conveniently don't seem to get a chance to respond yet the airlines mysteriously do....let's also not forget that people are also more likely to whinge and moan that offer compliments. It would be nice if the reporters found some alternate opinions to provide a more balanced article.

A construction site is never nice to be around whether its at an airport or not, so that in itself makes this really a moot article as well, maybe if everything had opened properly and there were issues then it would be appropriate, but not mid construction. Let's see what passengers think in Q3 of this year.

As for elderly being unable to find where they are going and walking distances, that seems a bit of a cheap shot, signage is tricky and its a difficult equilibrium between too little and too much which can be just as confusing. If in doubt, ask, AKL has bluecoats who I am sure are only too happy to guide people in the right direction, but people need to take responsibility and be proactive about it, staff aren't mind readers. Distance wise, yeah check-in to gate 18 is quite far for some no doubt, but there are always options and assistance for those that need it, again, people just need to be proactive about it. At the end of the day many of the famed terminals around the world that are constantly paraded as being easy to navigate and user friendly still have significant walks required, even if automated people movers are available, SIN, BKK and PEK T3 are some of the recent ones I have traveled through which still required a reasonable walk to the gate.

Another peeve of mine is how the airport always seems to get blamed for everything that goes wrong on the passengers journey. Queues at check-in and at baggage reclaim because of slow baggage is the fault of the ground handlers, whether it be Air NZ, Aerocare, Planebiz, etc. Not enough counters open at security screening, well that's AVSEC, primary and secondary processing - that's Customs and MPI. However, the travelling public can also make their journeys faster by actually having their documentation and property ready for inspection.

I am also sick of the term "Third World" being chucked around, I suspect few people who make that comment have ever experienced one. For me, a third world facility is one that is dirty, has bathrooms which are only cleaned once a day instead of once an hour, doesn't have potable water available, where theft in the terminals is rife, where bribes may be required (a little extreme but not unheard of), where retailers open when their operators feel like it, not when there are flight movements, where there is no in-line luggage check-in. I could go on, last i saw, AKL did not have any of these issues, I am sorry but just because a facility doesn't provide endless amounts of wi-fi or entertain the passenger from the second they arrive until they board does not make it "Third World". It is not the airport's job to entertain the passenger.

Yeah that's a bit of a rant and may rock the boat a bit, not all related to that article, but I think its time there was a bit more balance, especially when unnecessary hyperbole such as "National Disgrace" are being thrown around in the mainstream media.

Nice post, you raise a number of valid points and balance out the debate nicely.

I’m just personally frustrated but the continued development and then redevelopment often of the same area.

as one who has been through many third world airports, I beg to differ.

Third World airports are SUPERIOR to Auckland airport....

the fact that Kiwi's are comparing with the third world should itself sound huge alarm bells....

AKL airport is in shambles , and all they ever renovate are their STUPID shops, anything related to Efficiency, cleanliness, ordered lines and a pleasant experience is last on AKL's agenda....

but like most Kiwi's who think NZ is the best airline in the world ( cough...!) it does not surprise me that their heads are in the ground and they think AKL is terrific....

Just last week during domestic- international transit- Asian and German tourists were laughing and taking photos of how backward the transit system is in New Zealand....

Can I defend the domestic terminal at AKL? I really like the layout, I like what they have painted with a limited canvas and I find it a pleasant terminal with good window views and quite good food options compared to international. In fact, it is actually far more user-friendly than International and I have travelled through plenty of worse airport terminals. International has space and the scope to be something way better than it is - the flow through the airport is what needs the work, not the amenities which are now adequate. I feel that they actually need a means of transporting people from one part to another now because it has spread so far out to 18. A monorail or something similar to the IAH landside terminal transfer would be great.

As far as being forced through duty-free shops, I have always hated that layout ever since I saw it in SYD/MEL and a few others. I believe an airport should be an airport first and a shopping centre second. However, AKL is easily negotiated compared to others and I have not felt the urge to buy anything in years, partly because the discounts are negligible. (If I had my way it would be arrivals only, and cigarettes and alcohol would not be duty exempt - but I digress..)

I'd like to know the detail of the latest announced refresh to the domestic shed. Personally, I really struggle with it at peak times. But I'm more interested in focusing on improvements than negative about what is currently on offer. I'd love to see an expanded Koru lounge, another A320 gate, and an improved baggage delivery area with speedier service at peak times. I think they need 3 carousels not 2. And a more convenient inter-terminal link. If your flight is late and it's raining and you can't afford to wait for the inter-terminal bus then you're really stuffed and have no option but to walk at high speed and get wet (despite the covered parts of the walkway it's not IMHO possible to get to international without getting wet). This could all be improved.

NZ321 wrote:

I'd like to know the detail of the latest announced refresh to the domestic shed. Personally, I really struggle with it at peak times. But I'm more interested in focusing on improvements than negative about what is currently on offer. I'd love to see an expanded Koru lounge, another A320 gate, and an improved baggage delivery area with speedier service at peak times. I think they need 3 carousels not 2. And a more convenient inter-terminal link. If your flight is late and it's raining and you can't afford to wait for the inter-terminal bus then you're really stuffed and have no option but to walk at high speed and get wet (despite the covered parts of the walkway it's not IMHO possible to get to international without getting wet). This could all be improved.

Add seating to that, please - particularly landside, where I often see many people sitting on the ground (both at the NZ check-in kiosks, and at regional departure gates).

I totally agree about the improved walkway, too - I wonder if it would be possible to cover the walkway the whole way, with a small shelter? That can't be too expensive?

Cheers,

C.

Regarding WiFi pricing; I like Lufthansa's system whereby purchasing access to their WiFi entitles you to 24 hours access network wide. So if you are flying SFO-FRA-DEL, you will have access for both flights.

planemanofnz wrote:

An op-ed today has slammed the Koru Lounge at AKL for being too crowded - I personally haven't used it before, so what do you all think? Is there merit in this?

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/kat ... ded-house/.

It does seem to get quite crowded during the morning rush. Last week I was only able to get a seat there with a good view because I was there very early. The wait for a coffee is always quite a while - the baristas there always seem to be overworked (though they're very good at what they do). I also noticed that the noise level was quite loud - would have been rather frustrating if I was trying to get some work done.

mariner wrote:

the f/a's are okay on Emirates, depending on the nationality

They are universally boring to talk to. Unless of course one enjoys conversations the begin with "have you visited Dubai"?

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

Yes, a classic a.net ism is that an airline's greatness depends entirely on their profit margin. Hence all the people on the main CivAv forum who will tell you that Delta is the greatest airline in history.

aerorobnz wrote:

(If I had my way it would be arrivals only, and cigarettes and alcohol would not be duty exempt - but I digress..)

Agreed. It's silly selling even more 'stuff' to outbound travellers; just more things to clog up overhead lockers.

NZ321 wrote:

And a more convenient inter-terminal link. If your flight is late and it's raining and you can't afford to wait for the inter-terminal bus then you're really stuffed and have no option but to walk at high speed and get wet (despite the covered parts of the walkway it's not IMHO possible to get to international without getting wet). This could all be improved.

This is a really basic way that AIAL is lacking. Yes, I get that there isn't the money to build an inter-terminal train like other, large airports might have, but the current offering is pretty pathetic. A fully covered walkway from International to Domestic with no road crossings really isn't asking a lot. An underground one would be ideal. For International to Domestic connections there really should be a way to connect without having to pass through security again.

Agree about Emirates flight attendants. I can't say that about MH btw. I had a sterling flight with a senior crew a few weeks back. It was very impressive. SQ too, on the way from MUC to SIN on an A350 last week. Very smooth indeed.

zkncj wrote:

GW54 wrote:

ZK-OKD as NZ6005 inbound to AKL following a period of maintenance in Singapore. Assuming part of that includes fitting of WIFI and a repaint into 'Fern' livery. ZK-OKC about to depart AKL as NZ6006 to Singapore. OKC already in 'Fern' livery so assuming it is going for WIFI installation only?

Hopefully ZK-OKI will arrive from SIN within the next couple of days, it does seem to be taking an long time ready. Does make me one if they have given it an cabin refit?

Anyone else heard an likelyness on an ZK-OKJ soon too?

More like a ZK-OKL or ZK-OKT. There's a 77W coming according to the same source that confirmed 9V-SVL (ZK-OKI). But he declined to say which airline it was coming from. There's a 2013 JJ 77W (PT-MUI) owned by BBAM leasing available from Jul 2018 (56C,323Y), but it could be from elsewhere.

Also, Air NZ 77W ZK-OKO returns from QPG tomorrow after maintenance and WiFi.

PA515

zkojq wrote:

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

Yes, a classic a.net ism is that an airline's greatness depends entirely on their profit margin. Hence all the people on the main CivAv forum who will tell you that Delta is the greatest airline in history.

"Greatness" has nothing to do with making massive profits. However, an airline needs to make a sufficient return on investment to ensure that shareholders get a decent return. If they don't then they'll go and invest somewhere else - capital is extremely mobile. My argument is mainly with the silly suggestion that an airline should aim to do no more than just break even. Would you invest in a company that gave you zero dividends year after year? And if not you, then who would? And if no one would, then you don't have an airline, simple as that.

zkojq wrote:

Yes, a classic a.net ism is that an airline's greatness depends entirely on their profit margin. Hence all the people on the main CivAv forum who will tell you that Delta is the greatest airline in history.

I woudn't mistake the majority of a.net for the majority of investors. LOL.

mariner

DavidByrne wrote:

My argument is mainly with the silly suggestion that an airline should aim to do no more than just break even.

No-one here stated that.

DavidByrne wrote:

Would you invest in a company that gave you zero dividends year after year? And if not you, then who would? And if no one would, then you don't have an airline, simple as that.

Yes you would! The share price could drop to zero, and you would still have an airline. You'd also have a bunch of extremely annoyed shareholders, which, as I'm not a shareholder give approximately zero f***s about. As a fare paying passenger, if the shareholders make a profit it's come from my wallet. Period.

SQ is the latest user at AKL to slam the quality of the airport, saying that "on the ground unfortunately they come up short," which is "concerning for us because its not consistent from home to the destination."

''The airport may point to being caught offguard by ... growth, but ... this is the result of underinvestment in facilities ... while the airport has provided 100 per cent of underlying profits back to shareholders.''

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12060578.

To be honest, this is nothing new, and I doubt AKL will be that concerned - SQ can only vote with its feet, which it isn't. This seems to happen all the time - for example, just this week, EK slammed DUB too.

Cheers,

C.