https://nypost.com/2019/01/25/flight-so ... -back/amp/

Famous. To their credit, they didn't say the flight was operated by Hobbits.

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

As for the turbulence flight, nothing unsafe about it per se. Aircraft are built to handle it provided it’s not bad close to the ground. Unusual to do the refunds but is a nice gesture and good PR certainly.

Don't take this the wrong way but are you qualified to confirm this? i.e are you a qualified Pilot or similar or is this just a general perception based on the common knowledge that aircraft, in general, can structurally handle being thrown around in high winds?

I've heard a rumour that the extreme winds (to this extent) were unexpected and the flight would not have gone ahead if it was known, hence the refund and positive PR

Also are looking at "safety" from an aircraft limits perspective or customer safety from airline standards, for example, we all know airlines operate their aircraft well below their operational limits with regards to such things like climb rate, bank angles etc for customer comfort and safety. Just highlighting there are two different ways to look at this 'issue'

I don’t know the specifics on this flight, but yes am a pilot.
As for customer comfort, what you have heard is entirely possible to be accurate as if the forecast was that bad then yes for pax comfort it might not have gone ahead.

If you say you don't know the specifics, why can you then say.. ' nothing unsafe about it per se'?

I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm not qualified in the slightest, I've just been handed second or third-hand information saying the 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled.. or along those lines. There were a few questions then being asked as to if it was avoidable and how it happened etc.

The question is, when does it being 'unsafe' or where is that line? manufacturer limits, airline policy etc...

You're more than likely very accurate with your comment if weighed up against the risk of a major aircraft incident, but is it 'safe' for the mother holding her infant type thing?

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Don't take this the wrong way but are you qualified to confirm this? i.e are you a qualified Pilot or similar or is this just a general perception based on the common knowledge that aircraft, in general, can structurally handle being thrown around in high winds?

I've heard a rumour that the extreme winds (to this extent) were unexpected and the flight would not have gone ahead if it was known, hence the refund and positive PR

Also are looking at "safety" from an aircraft limits perspective or customer safety from airline standards, for example, we all know airlines operate their aircraft well below their operational limits with regards to such things like climb rate, bank angles etc for customer comfort and safety. Just highlighting there are two different ways to look at this 'issue'

I don’t know the specifics on this flight, but yes am a pilot.
As for customer comfort, what you have heard is entirely possible to be accurate as if the forecast was that bad then yes for pax comfort it might not have gone ahead.

If you say you don't know the specifics, why can you then say.. ' nothing unsafe about it per se'?

I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm not qualified in the slightest, I've just been handed second or third-hand information saying the 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled.. or along those lines. There were a few questions then being asked as to if it was avoidable and how it happened etc.

The question is, when does it being 'unsafe' or where is that line? manufacturer limits, airline policy etc...

You're more than likely very accurate with your comment if weighed up against the risk of a major aircraft incident, but is it 'safe' for the mother holding her infant type thing?

Precisely. There are platitudes everywhere - often promulgated by pilots- about turbulence not affecting the safety of a flight but of course it's bollocks. Even by nature of the fact it might distract the pilots from something else, it's added risk.

What is meant of course, is that added risk is still "acceptable" risk, and is many orders of magnitude less than what the average passenger perceives the risk of the violently shaking aircraft to be.

In this case, as the event was sufficient to warrant NZ going into damage control it will warrant investigation by the CAA. I'd guess it's unlikely that they'll find the flight should not have departed in the first place. Whether they'll decree it ought to have returned to CHC remains to be seen.

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

As for the turbulence flight, nothing unsafe about it per se. Aircraft are built to handle it provided it’s not bad close to the ground. Unusual to do the refunds but is a nice gesture and good PR certainly.

Don't take this the wrong way but are you qualified to confirm this? i.e are you a qualified Pilot or similar or is this just a general perception based on the common knowledge that aircraft, in general, can structurally handle being thrown around in high winds?

I've heard a rumour that the extreme winds (to this extent) were unexpected and the flight would not have gone ahead if it was known, hence the refund and positive PR

Also are looking at "safety" from an aircraft limits perspective or customer safety from airline standards, for example, we all know airlines operate their aircraft well below their operational limits with regards to such things like climb rate, bank angles etc for customer comfort and safety. Just highlighting there are two different ways to look at this 'issue'

The aircraft was ZK-MVA and most of the journey the speed fluctuates quite a bit. They even changed altitude, no doubt looking for smoother air. The return IVC-CHC NZ5716 was cancelled, but the aircraft positioned back to CHC as NZ5972 45 mins later. Passenger comfort would appear to be the reason for the cancellation, although the aircraft may have been a bit smelly and needing a good clean.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-mva

PA515

QF 28 SCL-SYD has just diverted into CHC. Probably a fuel top up due to strong head winds

PA515 wrote:

The aircraft was ZK-MVA and most of the journey the speed fluctuates quite a bit. They even changed altitude, no doubt looking for smoother air. The return IVC-CHC NZ5716 was cancelled, but the aircraft positioned back to CHC as NZ5972 45 mins later. Passenger comfort would appear to be the reason for the cancellation, although the aircraft may have been a bit smelly and needing a good clean.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-mva

PA515

I think there are few points here which need highlighting, almost in a summary

1. Structurally the aircraft can withstand those winds
2. That in itself doesn't define the flight as safe
3. As none of us has the finer details it's hard to define if it was 'unsafe' from an airframe integrity point of view
4. There is also a passenger safety issue, medical passengers, elderly, infants
5. Flights can operate in adverse weather, however, the 'risks' of an incident are significantly increased So is this flight beyond a safe operating environment for the airline.
6. Why was this weather so unexpected

Thanks to everyone who helped me with the ANZ 747-200 routes!

TaniTaniwha wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Birdiey wrote:

Hi, quick unrelated question, but is anyone aware of all the routes Air New Zealand's Boeing 747-200 fleet operated over the years?

We could add what we no, heaps of 2-3 stops to LAX.

AKL-SYD/MEL/BNE/CNS/PER
AKL-APW/NAN/RAR/PPT
AKL-NAN-HNL-LAX
AKL-RAR-HNL-LAX
AKL-RAR-PPT-LAX
AKL-HNL-LAX
AKL-HNL
AKL-NAN-LAX
AKL-LAX
AKL-LAX-LGW
AKL-LAX-LHR
AKL-LAX-FRA
AKL-HNL-LAX-LGW
AKL-HNL-LAX-FRA
AKL-HNL-DFW-LGW-FRA-LAX-HNL-AKL
AKL-PPT-DFW-LGW-FRA-LAX-HNL-AKL
AKL-NAN-NRT
AKL-NRT
AKL-NRT-CHC-AKL
AKL-KIX
AKL-KIX-CHC-AKL
AKL-HKG (Kaitak)
AKL-SIN
CHC-SYD/MEL/BNE
CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX
CHC-HNL-LAX

Probably a few others or I may have missed added some stops that didn’t happen.

I was on a Flight back from LAX in 1988 that did LAX-HNL-NAN-AKL

The 747-200 operated to TPE once weekly as well. IIRC it was only for a season or two.

I could be wrong on this but I don't recall the 747-200 ever operating to PER. PER started after the 767-200 arrived and I can only ever remember it being 767 until well after the 742 was gone. Do you recall when it was used on this route?

I agree, CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX was operated with the 742, didn't last long though.

The aircraft operating the CHC-LAX milk run originated in SYD... It was locally known as a staff bus, but don't know how many subloads actually tried to get to LAX with all the stops.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Is Your last comment a personal opinion that your not sure how long the black will last or is it a hint that it probably won’t last?

Nice livery that on the 767 there, how about something similar to the current logo but a silver fern that is green or silver with a teal tail?

It is a bit quiet here atm but I guess that’s to be expected in January, exciting year coming up.

I have noticed NZ seem to have had quite a few delays lately, particularly international, several short hauls waited for the Delayed ORD arrival the other day which then caused further delays with the evening departures to the US. One of those things I guess when the fleet is so busy.

planemanofnz wrote:

There are still quite a few planes in the fleet which NZ hasn't even re-painted from the old teal to the new black livery yet, despite the livery already being ~6 years old (IIRC, launched in 2013). The livery is still relatively new as far as liveries go in a global context, so I can't imagine they would be thinking about a new concept in the near future. Perhaps ~2030?

For myself personally, the livery has grown on me. I like the style and size of the font, I like the koru, and I particularly like how the fern doesn't make it too much of a eurowhite livery. That being said, I think the black is a bit dull, and New Zealand is so much more than black (e.g. natural environments are blue and green, Maori culture has elements of red, etc).

Cheers,

C.

100% personal opinion, I think the design is nice. It's just the use of black is fading on me. I've listed the last 4 livery's in order using the 767 and then 787 for the black theme as the 767 never got it.

I still really admire the first one, it would be horribly dated if this was still around though. Maybe it brings up sentimental memories from when I was younger. Who knows.

I can't see a change anytime soon, it's still new, modern and stylish. Black is the disputed national colour of NZ (We can thank the All Backs for that but it's adopted by almost all groups representing NZ now sporting or not). This scares me into thinking black may be around for a while.... although QF's red isn't really a colour of Australia.

Whatever happens, when it does, the Koru must remain. That is the icon of NZ. Like planemanofnz said, bring in the colours of our natural beauty, imagine a canvas incorporating the Koru and Name and then each aircraft had different colourings bringing in our natural landscapes, blue ocean, green of Waikato or central Otago, southern Alpes, various lakes, Hobbiton etc even if this was done subtly

I *love* discussing NZ's liveries.

Don't like the current one. I hate it less than I did when it was first introduced; but the Koru/Fern juxtaposition is cluttered, confusing and just doesn't work. Ricco bin for me.

The Pacific Wave I thought was sublime; but yes it left a bit much white real estate on the 77W. Still. I would've thought they could've tweaked it somehow & kept the basic theme.

Which brings me on to the 1970's livery. It looked a bit daft on the DC-8, but gorgeous on the DC-10 and 762 ....and totally adequate on everything else. Surely this, more than any other, is NZ's "legacy" livery?

And there is value in a legacy livery. QF recognise this. Their basic livery - which I actually don't like - hasn't changed for 30 years and saw less evolution prior to that than we've seen with NZ in the last 10. It has a timelessness about it which transcends mere aesthetics.

It's too late now for that 70's livery. But I really hope NZ's next design is a bit less "faddish" and has the staying power of decades.

For some reason the 767-200 really suited the 70's/80's livery. The 767-200 didn't fear so well with the Pacific wave livery, it looked a little stubby or squat IMO.

My favourite of all time was the post merger hybrid livery that someone else mentioned. Both the 737-200 and the F27 looked great in the red and orange with the Koru.

NZ6 wrote:

6. Why was this weather so unexpected

Although they have improved over the years, weather forecasts are still inaccurate on a regular basis (especially with regard to timings and severity). And even in an aviation context, the information is largely high level stuff that simply enables you to build a metal model of whats going on and what you may find. Forecasts for severe turbulence and winds of a 100 knots are a very regular occurrence in New Zealand. Now I'm not criticising the met service here, it's simple the reality of the situation. And generally, that's fine. On occasion though, stuff happens. I also know nothing about the Mt Cook flight other than what has been reported in the general press.

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Don't take this the wrong way but are you qualified to confirm this? i.e are you a qualified Pilot or similar or is this just a general perception based on the common knowledge that aircraft, in general, can structurally handle being thrown around in high winds?

I've heard a rumour that the extreme winds (to this extent) were unexpected and the flight would not have gone ahead if it was known, hence the refund and positive PR

Also are looking at "safety" from an aircraft limits perspective or customer safety from airline standards, for example, we all know airlines operate their aircraft well below their operational limits with regards to such things like climb rate, bank angles etc for customer comfort and safety. Just highlighting there are two different ways to look at this 'issue'

I don’t know the specifics on this flight, but yes am a pilot.
As for customer comfort, what you have heard is entirely possible to be accurate as if the forecast was that bad then yes for pax comfort it might not have gone ahead.

If you say you don't know the specifics, why can you then say.. ' nothing unsafe about it per se'?

I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm not qualified in the slightest, I've just been handed second or third-hand information saying the 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled.. or along those lines. There were a few questions then being asked as to if it was avoidable and how it happened etc.

The question is, when does it being 'unsafe' or where is that line? manufacturer limits, airline policy etc...

You're more than likely very accurate with your comment if weighed up against the risk of a major aircraft incident, but is it 'safe' for the mother holding her infant type thing?

Quote ' 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled"
Just what 'stats' are these?
At what level do the said 'stats' require cancellation?

NZ is in the roaring 40's...Strong winds both aloft and sometimes
near the ground as well, are in our weather DNA. It's pretty well
impracticable to predict the level of turbulence with an accuracy
that would mandate a flight cancellation. Usually that could only
be done with actual pilot reports on the day.
Look at tonight's high level winds forecast, 130 knots/240 km/hr
over Invercargill. But look over Tokyo...160 becoming 180kts/333km/hr
on the way to HNL. At all flight altitudes above 18000 feet! Who
thinks all flights Asia-HNL will be canceled?
This is why we put up with the endless p.a. calls, keep your seatbelt
fastened whenever seated. Bumps are part of the Aviation travel
experience.
https://aviationweather.gov/progchart/high?region=f

ZK-NBT wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

TaniTaniwha wrote:

I was on a Flight back from LAX in 1988 that did LAX-HNL-NAN-AKL

The 747-200 operated to TPE once weekly as well. IIRC it was only for a season or two.

I could be wrong on this but I don't recall the 747-200 ever operating to PER. PER started after the 767-200 arrived and I can only ever remember it being 767 until well after the 742 was gone. Do you recall when it was used on this route?

I agree, CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX was operated with the 742, didn't last long though.

TPE? Are you sure? That started around 1993 with a 763 I thought? I’m certainly not aware of the 742 having operated there.

PER I’m pretty sure started I’m quite sure with a D10 around early 80’s then went to a weekly 742 before the 762 took over when they arrived, I could be wrong.

Agree CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX operated briefly with a 742 weekly started around 1985?

I believe TPE started in either 1991 or 1992, about the same time the first two 767-300ER's (NCE/NCF) were delivered. in the late 90's though, one of the weekly frequencies was a 742 (the other was still a 767), I believe it only lasted for a short period of time (maybe the duration of either a NS or NW schedule). I'm sorry I can't reference it easily, but I am fairly confident of this.

I recall PER starting about the same time as the Americas Cup regatta in Perth (the one with KZ7 in it), this was after the 767 was introduced so have always assumed it was operated with the 767 (and don't recall otherwise although happy to be corrected). Have just checked Neil Rennie's book "Conquering Isolation" and he states that PER was inaugurated on 30 March 1986 with the 767-200 (twice weekly).

I'm not sure about the CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX service although I'd agree with the guess that it circa 1985.

Great list BTW.

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Does anyone know how NZ's EZE service is going? Argentina's economy is a bit of a disaster right now - last year, GDP declined 2% and the currency lost half its value (against the USD), while the IMF forecasts the economy will shrink again this year. Obviously in-bound tourism, and connections from Brazil are still in growth mode though.

Cheers,

C.

You probably won’t find real answers to this here, as we’ve talked about before loads only tell us one price of the puzzle. Until you seen the revenue collected through ticket sales inbound and outbound etc you won’t know. You also need to look at it in isolation i.e not the ‘Americas’ as a whole.

Also how, how it’s going is subjective against where the airline expects and wants it to be, they may, for example being happy to loose X but only be loosing Y so therefore be happy with a loss if you get the drift.

My point being, you’ll struggle to get this info in the public space.

You're right. Ah well, I do hope the route is doing well.

Cheers,

C.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

TaniTaniwha wrote:

I was on a Flight back from LAX in 1988 that did LAX-HNL-NAN-AKL

The 747-200 operated to TPE once weekly as well. IIRC it was only for a season or two.

I could be wrong on this but I don't recall the 747-200 ever operating to PER. PER started after the 767-200 arrived and I can only ever remember it being 767 until well after the 742 was gone. Do you recall when it was used on this route?

I agree, CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX was operated with the 742, didn't last long though.

TPE? Are you sure? That started around 1993 with a 763 I thought? I’m certainly not aware of the 742 having operated there.

PER I’m pretty sure started I’m quite sure with a D10 around early 80’s then went to a weekly 742 before the 762 took over when they arrived, I could be wrong.

Agree CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX operated briefly with a 742 weekly started around 1985?

Can confirm that the 742 did operate both TPE and PER, dates though, I don't know for sure,
but I did go to PER on one around the mid 80's

Deepinsider wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

The 747-200 operated to TPE once weekly as well. IIRC it was only for a season or two.

I could be wrong on this but I don't recall the 747-200 ever operating to PER. PER started after the 767-200 arrived and I can only ever remember it being 767 until well after the 742 was gone. Do you recall when it was used on this route?

I agree, CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX was operated with the 742, didn't last long though.

TPE? Are you sure? That started around 1993 with a 763 I thought? I’m certainly not aware of the 742 having operated there.

PER I’m pretty sure started I’m quite sure with a D10 around early 80’s then went to a weekly 742 before the 762 took over when they arrived, I could be wrong.

Agree CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX operated briefly with a 742 weekly started around 1985?

Can confirm that the 742 did operate both TPE and PER, dates though, I don't know for sure,
but I did go to PER on one in August 1984

Unclekoru wrote:

Although they have improved over the years, weather forecasts are still inaccurate on a regular basis (especially with regard to timings and severity). And even in an aviation context, the information is largely high level stuff that simply enables you to build a metal model of whats going on and what you may find. Forecasts for severe turbulence and winds of a 100 knots are a very regular occurrence in New Zealand. Now I'm not criticising the met service here, it's simple the reality of the situation. And generally, that's fine. On occasion though, stuff happens. I also know nothing about the Mt Cook flight other than what has been reported in the general press.

We're not talking about a passing shower or the weather changing over the course of a 12-hour flight. We had 180km/hr winds with less than 30 minutes after take off.

Deepinsider wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

I don’t know the specifics on this flight, but yes am a pilot.
As for customer comfort, what you have heard is entirely possible to be accurate as if the forecast was that bad then yes for pax comfort it might not have gone ahead.

If you say you don't know the specifics, why can you then say.. ' nothing unsafe about it per se'?

I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm not qualified in the slightest, I've just been handed second or third-hand information saying the 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled.. or along those lines. There were a few questions then being asked as to if it was avoidable and how it happened etc.

The question is, when does it being 'unsafe' or where is that line? manufacturer limits, airline policy etc...

You're more than likely very accurate with your comment if weighed up against the risk of a major aircraft incident, but is it 'safe' for the mother holding her infant type thing?

Quote ' 'stats' for this flight were well beyond what should have been cancelled"
Just what 'stats' are these?
At what level do the said 'stats' require cancellation?

NZ is in the roaring 40's...Strong winds both aloft and sometimes
near the ground as well, are in our weather DNA. It's pretty well
impracticable to predict the level of turbulence with an accuracy
that would mandate a flight cancellation. Usually that could only
be done with actual pilot reports on the day.
Look at tonight's high level winds forecast, 130 knots/240 km/hr
over Invercargill. But look over Tokyo...160 becoming 180kts/333km/hr
on the way to HNL. At all flight altitudes above 18000 feet! Who
thinks all flights Asia-HNL will be canceled?
This is why we put up with the endless p.a. calls, keep your seatbelt
fastened whenever seated. Bumps are part of the Aviation travel
experience.
https://aviationweather.gov/progchart/high?region=f

Stats = weather. Wind direction, wind altitude, wind speed, wind gusts etc etc

Winds like this caused the cancellation of the return flight and made the airline refund tickets so let's not normalise it by saying we're situated in the roaring '40s and weather is in our DNA.

Let's also not compare this weather to high altitude jet streams being flown in by wide-body jets. One is a 350T jet cruising at 36,000feet while the other is 18T prop flying at about 18,000feet well under half that of your example.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Does anyone know how NZ's EZE service is going? Argentina's economy is a bit of a disaster right now - last year, GDP declined 2% and the currency lost half its value (against the USD), while the IMF forecasts the economy will shrink again this year. Obviously in-bound tourism, and connections from Brazil are still in growth mode though.

Cheers,

C.

You probably won’t find real answers to this here, as we’ve talked about before loads only tell us one price of the puzzle. Until you seen the revenue collected through ticket sales inbound and outbound etc you won’t know. You also need to look at it in isolation i.e not the ‘Americas’ as a whole.

Also how, how it’s going is subjective against where the airline expects and wants it to be, they may, for example being happy to loose X but only be loosing Y so therefore be happy with a loss if you get the drift.

My point being, you’ll struggle to get this info in the public space.

You're right. Ah well, I do hope the route is doing well.

Cheers,

C.

What I can say is

1. NZ is in South America for the long term, economies fluctuate, we've seen a few examples of this over the last 20 or so years, the airline won't look at a 1-year issue with the economy and wipe 3-4 years of route development impacting the next 10-20 years in this market.
2. EZE is a gateway to the wider South American market, don't focus solely on Argentina.
3. EZE isn't growing as quickly as IAH did and ORD is showing like it will, however, that's expected.
4. There are no plans to leave however we've seen Luxon move quickly in the past if he changes his mind. That said, my opinion is, that won't happen. It's not doing that badly and the South American <> Australia / China market in addition to S.A <> NZ has enough potential to preserve with it. After all, China grew slowly and now look at it. I recall the old Koruman saying China was a waste of time and it was the wrong move when NZ opened PVG and my personal opinion is NZ should be doing more in China.
5. Don't look for too much over the next 5-10 years, all NZ will want to do it increase capacity and yield on the route and balance the two. Can't build yield too much without a frequent (daily) service but adding too much capacity too quickly will drop the yield. Ideally, at some point, you'll see EZE daily with strong yields and then NZ will explore a second S.A port.

NZ6 wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

Although they have improved over the years, weather forecasts are still inaccurate on a regular basis (especially with regard to timings and severity). And even in an aviation context, the information is largely high level stuff that simply enables you to build a metal model of whats going on and what you may find. Forecasts for severe turbulence and winds of a 100 knots are a very regular occurrence in New Zealand. Now I'm not criticising the met service here, it's simple the reality of the situation. And generally, that's fine. On occasion though, stuff happens. I also know nothing about the Mt Cook flight other than what has been reported in the general press.

We're not talking about a passing shower or the weather changing over the course of a 12-hour flight. We had 180km/hr winds with less than 30 minutes after take off.

And that's fine. Winds of 100 knots (180 kmph) alone would not stop you operating the service. They do not guarantee a rough flight either.

It's the accuracy of the associated conditions (mountain wave, turbulence, ice, cloud cover/type etc) that is the challenging part to forecast (and provides the variability). Given the geography of the country and it's influence on the weather, it's not hard to understand why either. As good as they are, the forecasters still have limitations. This type of event has happened before, and it'll happen again.

Edited for clarity.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

TPE? Are you sure? That started around 1993 with a 763 I thought? I’m certainly not aware of the 742 having operated there.

PER I’m pretty sure started I’m quite sure with a D10 around early 80’s then went to a weekly 742 before the 762 took over when they arrived, I could be wrong.

Agree CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX operated briefly with a 742 weekly started around 1985?

I believe TPE started in either 1991 or 1992, about the same time the first two 767-300ER's (NCE/NCF) were delivered. in the late 90's though, one of the weekly frequencies was a 742 (the other was still a 767), I believe it only lasted for a short period of time (maybe the duration of either a NS or NW schedule). I'm sorry I can't reference it easily, but I am fairly confident of this.

I recall PER starting about the same time as the Americas Cup regatta in Perth (the one with KZ7 in it), this was after the 767 was introduced so have always assumed it was operated with the 767 (and don't recall otherwise although happy to be corrected). Have just checked Neil Rennie's book "Conquering Isolation" and he states that PER was inaugurated on 30 March 1986 with the 767-200 (twice weekly).

I'm not sure about the CHC-NAN-HNL-LAX service although I'd agree with the guess that it circa 1985.

Great list BTW.

Interesting re TPE having 742 service, they went everywhere over the years considering there were only 5 of them.

PER started earlier than that I’m quite certain, as I say I reakon 1981 with a weekly DC10 then a 742, the 762 probably allowed a 2nd frequency, that was probably around 1986? I think there was even a CHC-PER for a while back then.

Yes, they did get around.

The same book has Air NZ inaugurating CHC-PER on April 2 1989 with a 767-200ER. Not sure how long that lasted. I think that was about the same time that QANTAS tried CNS-CHC with the 747-200. That didn't last long either.

Unclekoru wrote:

And that's fine. Winds of 100 knots (180 kmph) alone would not stop you operating the service. They do not guarantee a rough flight either.

It's the accuracy of the associated conditions (mountain wave, turbulence, ice, cloud cover/type etc) that is the challenging part to forecast (and provides the variability). Given the geography of the country and variability of the weather, it's not hard to understand why either. As good as they are, the weather forecasters still have limitations.

Well, that's exactly what happened.

Are we looking at this from an Aviation perspective that aircraft is in no immediate danger or a customer service airline operator perspective.

DavidByrne wrote:

AviatorNZ wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Just booked my AKL-IVC flight for some time in late Oct - at the Grabaseat price of $59 couldn’t afford not to.

Wondering how long this flight will last though. At the moment there are 186 seats out of IVC each morning before 8.15. The addition of an A320 is an increase of about 90%. Hmm . . . challenging.

A lot of the Auckland traffic that was connecting via CHC and WLG will probably now move onto the direct flight.

Yes, I suspect that one of the two IVC-CHC morning services will have to be dropped or downgauged to keep capacity within reasonable limits.

You might find everything stays as it is, but the Invercargill pax travelling out of Queenstown and even Dunedin will drop. It's a fairly common thing for IVC people to travel quite some distance for cheaper/more convenient flights. I know of a company down there that has IVC as a last resort after ZQN and DUD. I also have 3 colleagues down there that travel to AKL regularly, but try and schedule their flights around a working visit to Dunedin and fly out of DUD.

Hi All

Happy Auckland Day

The interesting discussions about the 747-200s reminded me of my only flight on that type with NZ ( have done a few on other airlines, and many 744s with NZ). It was in the times when NZ still flew FRA-LAX-AKL, usually on the same aircraft. But that one time we had a 744 FRA-LAX and then a 742 LAX-AKL. Does anybody have an opportunity to look up old flight data, and can tell me which rego this was? The flights

14 JUN 1997 LAX-AKL NZ 19

I know chances are slim, but somebody at Air Transat once also was able to go waaaay back and found a rego of a L1011 I have been on, so it is worth a try. I'd be eternally grateful

Coincidentally, it was also my last flight on a 742 (the others before were on LH x2, AC x3, MD x4, UA x1).

Cheers
micha

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ also ran CHC-HBT on a 732, did they use a 762 aswell? I believe QF ran a 762 on that route for a while, I can’t say I was aware of a QF CNS-CHC particularly a 742, maybe a 762 would have worked? QF ran CNS-AKL for years with 747 classics and 763’s.

The original Australian used to fly 737's CHC-HBA at one point as well

torin wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ also ran CHC-HBT on a 732, did they use a 762 aswell? I believe QF ran a 762 on that route for a while, I can’t say I was aware of a QF CNS-CHC particularly a 742, maybe a 762 would have worked? QF ran CNS-AKL for years with 747 classics and 763’s.

The original Australian used to fly 737's CHC-HBA at one point as well

The predecessor "TAA" also flew CHC-HBA as well, along with AN. Due to the Australian Government regulation era at the time allowing only "QF" to fly RPT International flights, TN and AN flights to CHC had to be scheduled as "Charter" services (not sure if it carried either a QF code or TN/AN's code - someone else may know).

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

Hi All

Happy Auckland Day

The interesting discussions about the 747-200s reminded me of my only flight on that type with NZ ( have done a few on other airlines, and many 744s with NZ). It was in the times when NZ still flew FRA-LAX-AKL, usually on the same aircraft. But that one time we had a 744 FRA-LAX and then a 742 LAX-AKL. Does anybody have an opportunity to look up old flight data, and can tell me which rego this was? The flights

14 JUN 1997 LAX-AKL NZ 19

I know chances are slim, but somebody at Air Transat once also was able to go waaaay back and found a rego of a L1011 I have been on, so it is worth a try. I'd be eternally grateful

Coincidentally, it was also my last flight on a 742 (the others before were on LH x2, AC x3, MD x4, UA x1).

Cheers
micha

Not sure how common a change of aircraft was, it probably happened from time to time, there would have been 5 744’s then, and 5 742’s although there was often 1 leased out, there may have been a time where FRA was all 744? It ended up being one of the last 742 routes though so chopped and changes 744/742 often on the same week. LHR was a mix until 1998 or so I think maybe when an additional 744 was delivered.

What airline is MD?

Yup, the other FRA-LAX-AKL-LAX-FRA I flew were all 744. The 742 was a one-off for *my* flights, and only on the LAX-AKL (never did FRA-LAX-FRA on 742) sector, but of course that might have happened more often...

MD = Air Madagascar. Did FRA-NBO-TNR-NBO-FRA in 1995 on that

yup, the only one. They had got that brand new (1979) and retired it (2003) to be scrapped (2005). Mostly did the TNR to Paris, Zurich and Frankfurt runs, via NBO. I am not 100% sure if leased or owned, but I believe it was owned.

SCFlyer wrote:

torin wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ also ran CHC-HBT on a 732, did they use a 762 aswell? I believe QF ran a 762 on that route for a while, I can’t say I was aware of a QF CNS-CHC particularly a 742, maybe a 762 would have worked? QF ran CNS-AKL for years with 747 classics and 763’s.

The original Australian used to fly 737's CHC-HBA at one point as well

The predecessor "TAA" also flew CHC-HBA as well, along with AN. Due to the Australian Government regulation era at the time allowing only "QF" to fly RPT International flights, TN and AN flights to CHC had to be scheduled as "Charter" services (not sure if it carried either a QF code or TN/AN's code - someone else may know).

The original airlines on CHC-HBA were Ansett (AN) and Trans-Australian (TN) in the mid-1970s. Reg Ansett had long held ambitions for Ansett to become an international carrier, but at that stage QF had a monopoly on international flights and the government was not backing down. Ansett saw CHC-HBA as a back-door way of establishing a precedent. However, with the two-(domestic)-airline policy that existed in the day (and which used to result in both airlines' flights literally shadowing each other pretty much over the entire network, to the obvious disbenefit of passengers), government allowed or required (not sure which) TAA to also operate on CHC-HBA. The two carriers competed for this meagre traffic with a weekly Boeing 727-200 flight each, one on a Wednesday and one on a Saturday. The CHC-HBA flight number, bizarrely, was QF393 for both carriers - this way it maintained the fiction that Qantas was the only international carrier.

Predictably, the route was not a success, and it was dropped. NZ later resurrected it with a weekly 737-200 Saturday flight (which I took on a number of occasions). Some summers the carrier ran two weekly flights - either on Saturday and Sunday or, bizarrely one year, two return flights on a Saturday (the same aircraft turned around at CHC and did another return flight).

The only other carrier to operate between Hobart and New Zealand was Qantas, which opened with a weekly 762 nonstop on HBA-AKL in around 1986-87. That flight didn't last long at all - I had taken the flight HBA-AKL in March 1987, but on my return flight to HBA a fortnight later found that it had been substituted by an AKL-MEL-HBA service. To save face, QF invested that (inaugural) indirect flight with a lot of hoop-la (free gifts etc) but it didn't really disguise the fact that it was a defeat, not a victory.

I'm off to HBA again from AKL in a few days - I would SO much like NZ to start a nonstop flight which would feed its Americas routes as well as provide for local traffic. Friends in HBA are involved in the tourism sector and have participated in local delegations to visit NZ at its HQ in Auckland. They've been telling me for years that it will "only" be another 12 months or so before NZ is on the route but . . . nothing ever changes. Meanwhile, the life lesson that I carry with me is: NEVER take VA to AKL-MEL-HBA because their bag drop at MEL is such a time consuming and unpleasant experience that it is the most stressful part of the whole trip.

Quick addendum to the above: NZ actually competed with AN/TN at one stage (certainly in 1985) on CHC-HBA. By then I think that AN and TN were down to one weekly flight between them, alternating Saturdays. NZ was operating the route . . . on a Saturday as well.

Unclekoru wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

PER started earlier than that I’m quite certain, as I say I reckon 1981 with a weekly DC10 then a 742, the 762 probably allowed a 2nd frequency, that was probably around 1986? I think there was even a CHC-PER for a while back then.

The same book has Air NZ inaugurating CHC-PER on April 2 1989 with a 767-200ER. Not sure how long that lasted. I think that was about the same time that QANTAS tried CNS-CHC with the 747-200. That didn't last long either.

A few bits of info gleaned from old timetables:

* NZ operated AKL-PER waaay before Rennie's book suggests - they were operating a weekly 747 flight in December 1985. At the time their competition was a twice-weekly AKL-PER one-stop (via East Coast Oz) BA flight continuing to London. So yes, this does confirm that NZ has operated the 742 to PER on a regular basis.

* A year later, in December 1986, NZ had two weekly 767 flights, with QF also operating a 767 flight. By then BA had added a third flight, a triangular route that ran (LHR) . . . PER-CHC-AKL-PER . . . (LHR). So BA was actually the pioneer of PER-CHC flights.

* By 1991 NZ was operating three nonstops AKL-PER with 767s plus one CHC-PER (returning PER-CHC-AKL). The AKL-PER flights were a joint service with QF. At that stage BA had moved to nonstop PER-AKL operation twice weekly with 747s, and was no longer operating via CHC.

zkeoj wrote:

MD = Air Madagascar. Did FRA-NBO-TNR-NBO-FRA in 1995 on that

Yes, there were some interesting routings on Europe-Africa flights in the past. The one I recall travelling on was an AZ flight FCO-LXR-NBO and return by the same route. Probably the only time I'll ever get to fly into LXR!

DavidByrne wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

PER started earlier than that I’m quite certain, as I say I reckon 1981 with a weekly DC10 then a 742, the 762 probably allowed a 2nd frequency, that was probably around 1986? I think there was even a CHC-PER for a while back then.

The same book has Air NZ inaugurating CHC-PER on April 2 1989 with a 767-200ER. Not sure how long that lasted. I think that was about the same time that QANTAS tried CNS-CHC with the 747-200. That didn't last long either.

A few bits of info gleaned from old timetables:

* NZ operated AKL-PER waaay before Rennie's book suggests - they were operating a weekly 747 flight in December 1985. At the time their competition was a twice-weekly AKL-PER one-stop (via East Coast Oz) BA flight continuing to London. So yes, this does confirm that NZ has operated the 742 to PER on a regular basis.

* A year later, in December 1986, NZ had two weekly 767 flights, with QF also operating a 767 flight. By then BA had added a third flight, a triangular route that ran (LHR) . . . PER-CHC-AKL-PER . . . (LHR). So BA was actually the pioneer of PER-CHC flights.

* By 1991 NZ was operating three nonstops AKL-PER with 767s plus one CHC-PER (returning PER-CHC-AKL). The AKL-PER flights were a joint service with QF. At that stage BA had moved to nonstop PER-AKL operation twice weekly with 747s, and was no longer operating via CHC.

I remember the BA flights through PER well. BA had some real milk runs through to the UK. Thanks to you and deepinsider for confirming PER was a NZ 742 route.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ also ran CHC-HBT on a 732, did they use a 762 aswell? I believe QF ran a 762 on that route for a while, I can’t say I was aware of a QF CNS-CHC particularly a 742, maybe a 762 would have worked? QF ran CNS-AKL for years with 747 classics and 763’s.

For NZ the 742’s probably went everywhere bar a few Asian destinations added in the 90’s like BKK/DPS NGO/FUK, did the 747 go to GMP? Via BNE maybe?

The 763’s went everywhere bar LHR and FRA, they did appear at FRA for a week due 747 maintenance at one point. YVR got a 762 in the 1980’s via HNL and I think a 742 via LAX.

The 772’s go everywhere now bar LHR but have been there.

The 744’s compared to the 742’s didn’t go to many places partly probably because they co existed with the 742’s for a decade, the 744’s only went long haul to LHR/FRA/YVR/LAX/SFO/NRT/KIX/HKG, were then any other regular long haul routes?

The 77W due to its size only regularly does long haul to LAX/LHR/SFO/IAH.

The 789’s go everywhere bar LHR/SFO/LAX/YVR and currently EZE/IAH.

The QF CHC to CNS flight was only once weekly and commenced in 1988. Yes, the 762 would have seemed like a better option for the flight. I don't think it was a surprise when it got chopped fairly quickly after it's launch. I don't recall NZ ever flying CHC-CNS themselves. Whats AKL-CNS these days? A seasonal A320 or two?

I was aware of the 767-300ER operating to FRA for a short period. I presume that was AKL-HNL-LAX-FRA?

Unclekoru wrote:

The QF CHC to CNS flight was only once weekly and commenced in 1988. Yes, the 762 would have seemed like a better option for the flight. I don't think it was a surprise when it got chopped fairly quickly after it's launch. I don't recall NZ ever flying CHC-CNS themselves. Whats AKL-CNS these days? A seasonal A320 or two?

I distinctly recall that the QF CHC-CNS flight operated twice weekly with a 742, though I can't prove that with a reference alas. I can remember being astonished at the time - Joe Public at that stage had hardly even heard of Cairns as a destination. I'm almost certain that NZ has never flown CHC-CNS.

As for AKL-CNS, NZ operated WBs (and continued to operate them until quite recently) on it since its inception, though often supported by A320s. Of course, until the A320s arrived, they didn't have a NB aircraft that could make the distance. I guess also that a holiday destination is not so frequency-sensitive, so WBs were not a disadvantage. These days AKL-CNS seems to be exclusively A320s, operating seasonally between April and October, anywhere between 2x and 6x weekly.

DavidByrne wrote:

Unclekoru wrote:

The QF CHC to CNS flight was only once weekly and commenced in 1988. Yes, the 762 would have seemed like a better option for the flight. I don't think it was a surprise when it got chopped fairly quickly after it's launch. I don't recall NZ ever flying CHC-CNS themselves. Whats AKL-CNS these days? A seasonal A320 or two?

I distinctly recall that the QF CHC-CNS flight operated twice weekly with a 742, though I can't prove that with a reference alas. I can remember being astonished at the time - Joe Public at that stage had hardly even heard of Cairns as a destination. I'm almost certain that NZ has never flown CHC-CNS.

As for AKL-CNS, NZ operated WBs (and continued to operate them until quite recently) on it since its inception, though often supported by A320s. Of course, until the A320s arrived, they didn't have a NB aircraft that could make the distance. I guess also that a holiday destination is not so frequency-sensitive, so WBs were not a disadvantage. These days AKL-CNS seems to be exclusively A320s, operating seasonally between April and October, anywhere between 2x and 6x weekly.

Th only reference I can find to the frequency of the CHC-CNS service is a mention in the 1988 March/April copy of the QF inflight magazine "Airways". Not definitive by any means. It states a single weekly frequency with a 747.

AKL-CNS has seen a few come and go over the years, QF and in more recent time VA and JQ. Good to see NZ still has a reasonable presence there, even if it's only in winter. Did Kiwi operate to CNS as well at some point?

DavidByrne wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

torin wrote:

The original Australian used to fly 737's CHC-HBA at one point as well

The predecessor "TAA" also flew CHC-HBA as well, along with AN. Due to the Australian Government regulation era at the time allowing only "QF" to fly RPT International flights, TN and AN flights to CHC had to be scheduled as "Charter" services (not sure if it carried either a QF code or TN/AN's code - someone else may know).

The original airlines on CHC-HBA were Ansett (AN) and Trans-Australian (TN) in the mid-1970s. Reg Ansett had long held ambitions for Ansett to become an international carrier, but at that stage QF had a monopoly on international flights and the government was not backing down. Ansett saw CHC-HBA as a back-door way of establishing a precedent. However, with the two-(domestic)-airline policy that existed in the day (and which used to result in both airlines' flights literally shadowing each other pretty much over the entire network, to the obvious disbenefit of passengers), government allowed or required (not sure which) TAA to also operate on CHC-HBA. The two carriers competed for this meagre traffic with a weekly Boeing 727-200 flight each, one on a Wednesday and one on a Saturday. The CHC-HBA flight number, bizarrely, was QF393 for both carriers - this way it maintained the fiction that Qantas was the only international carrier.

Predictably, the route was not a success, and it was dropped. NZ later resurrected it with a weekly 737-200 Saturday flight (which I took on a number of occasions). Some summers the carrier ran two weekly flights - either on Saturday and Sunday or, bizarrely one year, two return flights on a Saturday (the same aircraft turned around at CHC and did another return flight).

The only other carrier to operate between Hobart and New Zealand was Qantas, which opened with a weekly 762 nonstop on HBA-AKL in around 1986-87. That flight didn't last long at all - I had taken the flight HBA-AKL in March 1987, but on my return flight to HBA a fortnight later found that it had been substituted by an AKL-MEL-HBA service. To save face, QF invested that (inaugural) indirect flight with a lot of hoop-la (free gifts etc) but it didn't really disguise the fact that it was a defeat, not a victory.

I'm off to HBA again from AKL in a few days - I would SO much like NZ to start a nonstop flight which would feed its Americas routes as well as provide for local traffic. Friends in HBA are involved in the tourism sector and have participated in local delegations to visit NZ at its HQ in Auckland. They've been telling me for years that it will "only" be another 12 months or so before NZ is on the route but . . . nothing ever changes. Meanwhile, the life lesson that I carry with me is: NEVER take VA to AKL-MEL-HBA because their bag drop at MEL is such a time consuming and unpleasant experience that it is the most stressful part of the whole trip.

The bag drop at VA domestic in MEL is half manned desk and half automated, a la NZ's systems. So it's improved substantially.

In saying that, nonstop would always be preferable. Quite remarkable that NZ doesn't see a market for Hobart - tourism to Tasmania has boomed in recent years to Tas, for both longer, nature based travel and weekend, city breaks.

ZK-NBT wrote:

I remember hearing QF ran a weekly? 747 AKL-Townsville, continued to SIN?

My sources show that there was a weekly AKL-TSV-DRW-SIN flight by QF 742 in December 1985. A year later, it was just a weekly 767 AKL-TSV. QF still operated TSV-DRW-SIN (by now twice weekly) but it didn't connect or start or end in AKL as it had a year earlier. Back in 1985, QF was operating BNE-CNS-HNL twice weekly with a 747, connecting with their daily SYD-HNL-SFO 747. QF was just at the start of its transition from using SFO as its main US port of entry to using LAX - there were just a couple of 747SP services on SYD-LAX. How times change . . .

ZK-NBT wrote:

PR also had a CNS service recently lasted less than 2 years with an A320. Atleast they still come to AKL though.

QF must have started CNS-AKL sometime after the TSV service stopped and around the time they had a CHC service? They ran a red eye 742/743 in 96/97 I remember 2 weekly and maybe a Saturday afternoon 763.

True.

I'm surprised the TSV flight lasted as long as it did. I guess it was a point of entry for some the Great Barrier reef resorts. Was it about this time that QF also had a SYD-AKL-PPT flight as well?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Pretty sure AKL-PPT started later than that around 1993/94? Lasted till around 2000 then TN took over it and PH ran it 1-2 weekly as well codeshares with QF, I think the QF service went through to LAX from PPT at some point?

Of course this was QF's second go at serving PPT from AKL. Back in the Fiesta Route days, the carrier operated through PPT to Acapulco and Mexico City (a second flight transited NAN instead of AKL and continued all the way to London). I THINK though that on this first occasion, PPT was a tech stop. Probably tied up with the dispute with the French government over PPT landing rights that saw NZ also withdraw from PPT between 1960 and 1967-ish.

After the decision to replace the 772s is made, NZs next fleet decision will likely be to replace the Q300s. Probably the most likely option would be to acquire 20-23 more ATR-72-600s. However, would aquring 10-12 A220-100s be an alternative?

These A220s could operate:
CHC to ZQN, DUD, IVC, PMR, WLG
WLG to ZQN, DUD, IVC
AKL to DUD, IVC, PMR, NPE
And perhaps allow NZ to open AKL to CBR, HBA, NCL, TSV to connect to North American widebodies.

The ATR-72-600s that would be freed up could then operate existing Q300 routes.

The A220 would fill the massive gap between the 68 seater ATRs and the 171 seater A320s, allowing NZ to grow smaller trunk and larger provincial routes easily.

Thoughts?

Andrensn wrote:

After the decision to replace the 772s is made, NZs next fleet decision will likely be to replace the Q300s. Probably the most likely option would be to acquire 20-23 more ATR-72-600s. However, would aquring 10-12 A220-100s be an alternative?

These A220s could operate:
CHC to ZQN, DUD, IVC, PMR, WLG
WLG to ZQN, DUD, IVC
AKL to DUD, IVC, PMR, NPE
And perhaps allow NZ to open AKL to CBR, HBA, NCL, TSV to connect to North American widebodies.

The ATR-72-600s that would be freed up could then operate existing Q300 routes.

The A220 would fill the massive gap between the 68 seater ATRs and the 171 seater A320s, allowing NZ to grow smaller trunk and larger provincial routes easily.

Thoughts?

I'm a fan of this idea for exactly the reasons you outline. I think there are other sectors which could also merit the A220, such as HLZ and TRG-CHC, possibly also AKL-IUE. I'd be keen to know, however, what the trip cost of an A220 would be on a (say) one-hour sector compared with that of an A320.

Notwithstanding, absent any serious external challenge (say, from JQ) on some of these long thin routes, I rate the chance of it happening as being close to zero.

Andrensn wrote:

After the decision to replace the 772s is made, NZs next fleet decision will likely be to replace the Q300s. Probably the most likely option would be to acquire 20-23 more ATR-72-600s. However, would aquring 10-12 A220-100s be an alternative?

These A220s could operate:
CHC to ZQN, DUD, IVC, PMR, WLG
WLG to ZQN, DUD, IVC
AKL to DUD, IVC, PMR, NPE
And perhaps allow NZ to open AKL to CBR, HBA, NCL, TSV to connect to North American widebodies.

The ATR-72-600s that would be freed up could then operate existing Q300 routes.

The A220 would fill the massive gap between the 68 seater ATRs and the 171 seater A320s, allowing NZ to grow smaller trunk and larger provincial routes easily.

Thoughts?

Wouldn't be surprised to see NZ order the ATR42 as a Q300 replacement. Some markets simply wouldn't be able to handle a 68 seater.

An A220 order would be good for some routes like WLG-ZQN, AKL-IVC and capacity increases at ports like TRG, NPE, HLZ and ZQN but generally I'll be surprised to see an A220 order as the ATRs are perfect for many routes currently