New Zealand Aviation Thread - August 2021

ZK-NBT · Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:50 pm

77west wrote:
What do we think about this:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1447161&start=400

New Embraer turboprop. Would give pretty nice growth on trunk ATR routes that cant quite justify an A320 just yet.

First i've seen of it, doesn't look quite right to me with the props in the rear.

I guess the same old questions arise, what or where is the need?

aerorobnz · Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:21 am

Kiwings wrote:
But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or the USA now medium risk?

The devil will be in the detail!

Medium and High risk is highly subjectively interpreted by people and border workers alike, It needs to be on a clear scale that everyone can find and understand without further clarification.

There is only one fair way to grade this to avoid it becoming just another political exercise for politically similar high tax western nations who like lockdowns, to close ranks on those who want to run a country differently from those "ideals", and that is by the percentage of the population vaccinated. Using such volatile and woefully inaccurate measures as current cases are an irrelevant media distraction.

In other words, it would work something like this (both the percentage cut-offs and quarantine guidelines just used as examples to differentiate)
80-100% Grade A No Quarantine required for all
60-80% Grade B No Quarantine required for vaccinated people 3 days self-isolation until cleared by a negative test
40-60% Grade C 3 days isolation for everyone, 7 days for unvaccinated cleared with a negative test
Unknown-40% Grade D 14 days isolation for all. (as currently)

For example, as a percentage of the total population (not just adults as some stats are) UAE sits at around 74.8 fully vaccinated 2 doses, USA 51.3, UK 60.5, Most of Europe between 50-60%, and Israel 60.9. China 56% Cambodia 42.9, Japan 36% Malaysia 32.2 and Brazil/Mexico around 22%.. It is easy to see that if they just stick to that kind of measure that it will actually open up plenty of the world again, with more and more countries added by the day. Each country would be aware of the requirements and know what level they had to reach in order to receive the equivalent to a restaurant health grade.

Toenga · Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:31 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Kiwings wrote:
But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or the USA now medium risk?

The devil will be in the detail!

Medium and High risk is highly subjectively interpreted by people and border workers alike, It needs to be on a clear scale that everyone can find and understand without further clarification.

There is only one fair way to grade this to avoid it becoming just another political exercise for politically similar high tax western nations who like lockdowns, to close ranks on those who want to run a country differently from those "ideals", and that is by the percentage of the population vaccinated. Using such volatile and woefully inaccurate measures as current cases are an irrelevant media distraction.

In other words, it would work something like this (both the percentage cut-offs and quarantine guidelines just used as examples to differentiate)
80-100% Grade A No Quarantine required for all
60-80% Grade B No Quarantine required for vaccinated people 3 days self-isolation until cleared by a negative test
40-60% Grade C 3 days isolation for everyone, 7 days for unvaccinated cleared with a negative test
Unknown-40% Grade D 14 days isolation for all. (as currently)

For example, as a percentage of the total population (not just adults as some stats are) UAE sits at around 74.8 fully vaccinated 2 doses, USA 51.3, UK 60.5, Most of Europe between 50-60%, and Israel 60.9. China 56% Cambodia 42.9, Japan 36% Malaysia 32.2 and Brazil/Mexico around 22%.. It is easy to see that if they just stick to that kind of measure that it will actually open up plenty of the world again, with more and more countries added by the day. Each country would be aware of the requirements and know what level they had to reach in order to receive the equivalent to a restaurant health grade.

Vaccines are only a tool, only one tool of many, that lowers the all important transmission rates in communities.
Vaccination rates are by no means a sensible proxy for determining the threat of onward transmission rate from one community into another.
Even the vaccines used have significantly different effectiveness.
The only measure used to determine the risk from incoming travellers should be the curent actual transmission rates occuring in the country of departure. Seven day rolling average new cases per million population or similar and the rate of infection change. Obviously infection rates increasing is much more of a threat then stable, or decreasing rates. Infection rates reflects the effectiveness of the sum of all control methods employed in the location of departure, and any other locality specific factors.
Inspite of relitively high vaccination rates, infected ex UK arrivals still figure quite prominently in the daily NZ MIQ reports.
We are far far better off in the meantime continuing to position ourselves to keep in control of our covid response, then exposing ourselves, to a situation like NSW, where Covid is now dictating the required harsh responses, and threatening to so in the rest of Australia.
When we do relax country specific requirements for our border entry, it needs to be based on those current transmission rates and trends in the originating countries. And of course requiring travellers to be fully vaccinated.
Whilst it seems like a long time, it will probably be under two years since the initial impacts before we start significant reopening to the rest of the world.
A bit over 2% of our expected lifespans. And let's face it, here most of us here have only had to endure just over 7 weeks of lockdown, and for the vast majority of the rest of the time virtually no covid induced restrictions at all, unless we were impacted by border restrictions.

NZ6 · Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:20 pm

Kiwings wrote:
But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or USA now medium risk ?

The devil will be in the detail !

And what's the deal when one goes from low to medium or high?

Is each countries status consistently under review or static once set?

What's different between this and the Tasman bubble?

The more I've talked this over with people and the more thought I've given it. I don't believe this is anything more than very high level ideas. I suspect a lot will change between now and Jan.

77west · Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:52 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
77west wrote:
What do we think about this:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1447161&start=400

New Embraer turboprop. Would give pretty nice growth on trunk ATR routes that cant quite justify an A320 just yet.

First i've seen of it, doesn't look quite right to me with the props in the rear.

I guess the same old questions arise, what or where is the need?

Upgauging capacity on busy ATR trunk routes, new routes that are to long on an ATR but may be viable due to the higher cruising speed of this new design.

Toenga · Sun Aug 15, 2021 11:05 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Kiwings wrote:
But what is a low or medium risk country......the genie is our of the bottle in Australia and it will only get worse ascrime goes on there.

Is Uk/Europe or USA now medium risk ?

The devil will be in the detail !

And what's the deal when one goes from low to medium or high?

Is each countries status consistently under review or static once set?

What's different between this and the Tasman bubble?

The more I've talked this over with people and the more thought I've given it. I don't believe this is anything more than very high level ideas. I suspect a lot will change between now and Jan.

As I read it, it will be a further refinement of the existing system, with corresponding border entry requirements.
At the moment we seem to have:
Very high risk classification that includes Brazil, India, and now Fiji plus others.
Entry is denied to all but returning NZ citizens. Full MIQ for all.
Low Risk is the Cook Islands and Nuie, and until recently, Australia. No entry Quarantine requirements.
Everywhere else is currently High Risk, Entry basically restricted to NZ citizens and residents and partners plus not much else. Full MIQ for all.
It seems like what is proposed are refinements with additional intermediate risk categories each with corresponding eligibility border testing and isolation requirements.
These risk categories should be based on infection rates and infection trends countries visited by the traveller within the last x days , and perhaps overall vaccination rates and perhaps other local risk factors in those previously visited countries.
As these factors change such constant revue would be required and updates issued. Hopefully in the relax direction only.
So yes a lot yet to be done, but by far the biggest and most important task is for us to continue our vaccination rollout, and countering the things leading to vaccine hesitancy. NSW is a dramatic example of the massive costs of getting even small things wrong.

ZK-NBT · Sun Aug 15, 2021 11:23 pm

77west wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
77west wrote:
What do we think about this:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1447161&start=400

New Embraer turboprop. Would give pretty nice growth on trunk ATR routes that cant quite justify an A320 just yet.

First i've seen of it, doesn't look quite right to me with the props in the rear.

I guess the same old questions arise, what or where is the need?

Upgauging capacity on busy ATR trunk routes, new routes that are to long on an ATR but may be viable due to the higher cruising speed of this new design.

Does NZ want to fill the gap between the ATR and A320 though? Is there actually a need that is economically viable? How many aircraft would you need to make another fleet type economical?

It’s the same questions as before, maybe an aircraft will come along that NZ see fit to add another type oneday.

Toenga · Sun Aug 15, 2021 11:56 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
77west wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

First i've seen of it, doesn't look quite right to me with the props in the rear.

I guess the same old questions arise, what or where is the need?

Upgauging capacity on busy ATR trunk routes, new routes that are to long on an ATR but may be viable due to the higher cruising speed of this new design.

Does NZ want to fill the gap between the ATR and A320 though? Is there actually a need that is economically viable? How many aircraft would you need to make another fleet type economical?

It’s the same questions as before, maybe an aircraft will come along that NZ see fit to add another type oneday.

NZ would not be unique in being in this predicament. But it appears that this market is still too small or fragmented to support the capital required for an all new aircraft type.
On short routes the time to load and unload larger aircraft often negates airspeed advantage. I suspect on a WLG to CHC flight the time between required to be at the airport, and being free to leave the airport, would be less on on an ATR then on an A320 especially if luggage is involved.
However combating climate change will change imperatives.

DavidByrne · Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:47 am

Just observing that with the huge capacity and range variation between the ATR and the 320, NZ automatically disqualifies itself from much potential network innovation. Others have in the past argued that there's no need for this ability to innovate, which to an extent is true - the status quo seems to "work". But I'm not just thinking about the airline, but also the needs/wants of its customer base. Climate change also favours more point-to-point services, inherently more energy-efficient than indirect services. I believe there will come a time . . . but there's still a dilemma over whether what's most needed will be a energy-efficient shorter range turboprop or a jet that's capable of Tasman services as well as longer, thinner domestic routes.

NZ6 · Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:08 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Just observing that with the huge capacity and range variation between the ATR and the 320, NZ automatically disqualifies itself from much potential network innovation. Others have in the past argued that there's no need for this ability to innovate, which to an extent is true - the status quo seems to "work". But I'm not just thinking about the airline, but also the needs/wants of its customer base. Climate change also favours more point-to-point services, inherently more energy-efficient than indirect services. I believe there will come a time . . . but there's still a dilemma over whether what's most needed will be a energy-efficient shorter range turboprop or a jet that's capable of Tasman services as well as longer, thinner domestic routes.

Are you rereferring to the debate on regional jets? I think it's a very different debate if we're talking about a 70-90 seat turboprop - even more so if they're powered by next generation technologies!

I don't expect NZ to do anything in this space for some considerable time.

After all - if we're talking about a handful of routes which aren't big enough for an A320, but the range and CX doesn't suit an ATR - does a 3/4 full A320NEO cost less than a new fleet?

NZ6 · Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:24 am

Toenga wrote:
As I read it, it will be a further refinement of the existing system, with corresponding border entry requirements.
At the moment we seem to have:
Very high risk classification that includes Brazil, India, and now Fiji plus others.
Entry is denied to all but returning NZ citizens. Full MIQ for all.
Low Risk is the Cook Islands and Nuie, and until recently, Australia. No entry Quarantine requirements.
Everywhere else is currently High Risk, Entry basically restricted to NZ citizens and residents and partners plus not much else. Full MIQ for all.
It seems like what is proposed are refinements with additional intermediate risk categories each with corresponding eligibility border testing and isolation requirements.
These risk categories should be based on infection rates and infection trends countries visited by the traveller within the last x days , and perhaps overall vaccination rates and perhaps other local risk factors in those previously visited countries.
As these factors change such constant revue would be required and updates issued. Hopefully in the relax direction only.
So yes a lot yet to be done, but by far the biggest and most important task is for us to continue our vaccination rollout, and countering the things leading to vaccine hesitancy. NSW is a dramatic example of the massive costs of getting even small things wrong.

I thought India was deemed 'Very High Risk' as they created a new level when Delta emerged. Otherwise all others you listed are High Risk, Cook Islands must be 'no risk' vs Nuie as there's a difference in how they arrive. MIQ vs no MIQ.

Still no detail on what happens when things change, is it 'flier beware' again or are we moving into a more settled approach.

What does a country like the USA look like, medium or high? assume they're high. What about SIN, TPE, HKG?

What about Australia as of today?

Isn't everywhere high?

Is any part determined by the vaccination rates, virus control strategy or transmission rate?

It all sort of highlights the criteria needs to be reset. But if we have a plan, surely we know this? Can it be shared?

LamboAston · Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:35 am

DavidByrne wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
zkncj wrote:

WRE-WLG is an route were an partnership could come into play with Sounds Air with one of there Heart AeroSpace ES-19 could come into play.

NZ exited the 19 seater market an while back, but with 19 seater electrics coming into the market that could change things.

The ES-19 only needed a 750m runway, so places like WRE shouldn't be an issue for it.

Only a 400km range though. 650km distance, plus back to Auckland or further for an alternate.

I was told recently by a local that a replacement for Onerahi had been decided and it was only a matter of now getting on and building the new airport. I knew there had been multiple studies of possible sites but had not heard of any decision. Does anyone have up-to-date information on the status of the replacement?

I'd heard the opposite, that the airport would remain.

LamboAston · Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:37 am

NZ516 wrote:
Video of the recent terminal expansion of Dunedin Airport from last year. But still a job very well done and a great asset for the city.

https://youtu.be/ijRHMxcRkGg

The problem with the new security, is that it's about half the speed it used to be. They take up to an hour to screen the load of one A320. Pretty pathetic for a modern airport. They have two lanes, but I've never ever seen both open.

Also, far more bags get put through secondary screening, up to a 5 minute delay extra with that.

Toenga · Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:01 am

NZ6 wrote:
Toenga wrote:
As I read it, it will be a further refinement of the existing system, with corresponding border entry requirements.
At the moment we seem to have:
Very high risk classification that includes Brazil, India, and now Fiji plus others.
Entry is denied to all but returning NZ citizens. Full MIQ for all.
Low Risk is the Cook Islands and Nuie, and until recently, Australia. No entry Quarantine requirements.
Everywhere else is currently High Risk, Entry basically restricted to NZ citizens and residents and partners plus not much else. Full MIQ for all.
It seems like what is proposed are refinements with additional intermediate risk categories each with corresponding eligibility border testing and isolation requirements.
These risk categories should be based on infection rates and infection trends countries visited by the traveller within the last x days , and perhaps overall vaccination rates and perhaps other local risk factors in those previously visited countries.
As these factors change such constant revue would be required and updates issued. Hopefully in the relax direction only.
So yes a lot yet to be done, but by far the biggest and most important task is for us to continue our vaccination rollout, and countering the things leading to vaccine hesitancy. NSW is a dramatic example of the massive costs of getting even small things wrong.

I thought India was deemed 'Very High Risk' as they created a new level when Delta emerged. Otherwise all others you listed are High Risk, Cook Islands must be 'no risk' vs Nuie as there's a difference in how they arrive. MIQ vs no MIQ.

Still no detail on what happens when things change, is it 'flier beware' again or are we moving into a more settled approach.

What does a country like the USA look like, medium or high? assume they're high. What about SIN, TPE, HKG?

What about Australia as of today?

Isn't everywhere high?

Is any part determined by the vaccination rates, virus control strategy or transmission rate?

It all sort of highlights the criteria needs to be reset. But if we have a plan, surely we know this? Can it be shared?

From the Unite Against Covid
Travel to NZ page
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/internat ... w-zealand/
It lists:
The Very High Risk countries.
The Quarantine Freee Travel.countries, currently only two after quarantine free travel with Australia was paused.
Also it describes the current travel limbo with Australia, it being in a paused bubble, with no green flights at all, and only intermittent red flights from NSW.
At this stage our arrangements with Australia do not allow for state by state variation which given the extreme instability of their outbreak at the moment, is extremely prudent.
All other countries in the world currently share the same status of eligibility of entry requirements and compulsory MIQ.

The most important determinate of entry must become the individuals vaccination status.
But current transmission rates and trends should be the next most important determinate of risk, followed by general population vaccination rates and an evaluation of strategies, multiple strategies in fact in some countries with state governments as well.
The position is made much complicated, in that minors who are currently ineligible for vaccination pose very significant risk of onward transmission.
I think we will still have MIQ for the foreseeable future.

ZK-NBT · Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:11 am

Toenga wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
77west wrote:

Upgauging capacity on busy ATR trunk routes, new routes that are to long on an ATR but may be viable due to the higher cruising speed of this new design.

Does NZ want to fill the gap between the ATR and A320 though? Is there actually a need that is economically viable? How many aircraft would you need to make another fleet type economical?

It’s the same questions as before, maybe an aircraft will come along that NZ see fit to add another type oneday.

NZ would not be unique in being in this predicament. But it appears that this market is still too small or fragmented to support the capital required for an all new aircraft type.
On short routes the time to load and unload larger aircraft often negates airspeed advantage. I suspect on a WLG to CHC flight the time between required to be at the airport, and being free to leave the airport, would be less on on an ATR then on an A320 especially if luggage is involved.
However combating climate change will change imperatives.

I agree there must be other airlines with a similar predicament to NZ in this area. In the case of NZ though yes a small market with few routes that need anything different than the status quo for quite a while, 2 ATRs is 136 seats or a 733 load for smaller regional centres, or you can have an ATR and Q300 is 118 seats, but which routes need this that aren’t served anyway?

Maybe a potential 90 seat ATR as a Q300 replacement around 2030? Then what happens on the 50 seat end ATR42 or do NZ move out of that market?

77west · Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:53 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Toenga wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

Does NZ want to fill the gap between the ATR and A320 though? Is there actually a need that is economically viable? How many aircraft would you need to make another fleet type economical?

It’s the same questions as before, maybe an aircraft will come along that NZ see fit to add another type oneday.

NZ would not be unique in being in this predicament. But it appears that this market is still too small or fragmented to support the capital required for an all new aircraft type.
On short routes the time to load and unload larger aircraft often negates airspeed advantage. I suspect on a WLG to CHC flight the time between required to be at the airport, and being free to leave the airport, would be less on on an ATR then on an A320 especially if luggage is involved.
However combating climate change will change imperatives.

I agree there must be other airlines with a similar predicament to NZ in this area. In the case of NZ though yes a small market with few routes that need anything different than the status quo for quite a while, 2 ATRs is 136 seats or a 733 load for smaller regional centres, or you can have an ATR and Q300 is 118 seats, but which routes need this that aren’t served anyway?

Maybe a potential 90 seat ATR as a Q300 replacement around 2030? Then what happens on the 50 seat end ATR42 or do NZ move out of that market?

I would think by 2030 the 50-seat market would be mostly upgauged to the ATR72. Its only 18 more seats, and a fleet of ATR42/72/92 may not be totally out of the question either.

Toenga · Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:07 am

Today's NZ Covid MIQ test update.
6 border system detections.
4 Active
2 Historic
Of the active cases 2 ex Australia, 1 ex UK , 1 ex Hungary.
The historic cases were one ex Japan and 1 ex India
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/449 ... -australia
So this is where today's threats came from.
I am surprised given the current small percentage of transtasman arrivals to total arrivals the high level of infection.
Just as well that trans Tasman bubble is currently popped.
It is analysing this data that must largely determine the yet to be determined risk categories that we will place on pre arrival countries for intending arrivals.

zkncj · Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:52 am

Toenga wrote:
Today's NZ Covid MIQ test update.
6 border system detections.
4 Active
2 Historic
Of the active cases 2 ex Australia, 1 ex UK , 1 ex Hungary.
The historic cases were one ex Japan and 1 ex India
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/449 ... -australia
So this is where today's threats came from.
I am surprised given the current small percentage of transtasman arrivals to total arrivals the high level of infection.
Just as well that trans Tasman bubble is currently popped.
It is analysing this data that must largely determine the yet to be determined risk categories that we will place on pre arrival countries for intending arrivals.

Arent the only current Tasman arrivals now from NSW?

Toenga · Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:11 am

zkncj wrote:
Toenga wrote:
Today's NZ Covid MIQ test update.
6 border system detections.
4 Active
2 Historic
Of the active cases 2 ex Australia, 1 ex UK , 1 ex Hungary.
The historic cases were one ex Japan and 1 ex India
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/449 ... -australia
So this is where today's threats came from.
I am surprised given the current small percentage of transtasman arrivals to total arrivals the high level of infection.
Just as well that trans Tasman bubble is currently popped.
It is analysing this data that must largely determine the yet to be determined risk categories that we will place on pre arrival countries for intending arrivals.

Arent the only current Tasman arrivals now from NSW?

Yes. All green flights suspended. Occasional red flights ex NSW coordinated with MIQ ex Aussi special room allocation.

DavidByrne · Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:37 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Are you rereferring to the debate on regional jets? I think it's a very different debate if we're talking about a 70-90 seat turboprop - even more so if they're powered by next generation technologies!

I don't expect NZ to do anything in this space for some considerable time.

My point is that there's a "gap" for both a 90-seat turboprop and a regional jet. Arguably the more limiting gap is the lack of a regional jet - smaller turboprops can substitute for a larger turboprop but there's nothing in the fleet to substitute for the lack of a regional jet.

But I agree, despite my own hopes, that neither are likely to be added to the NZ fleet any time soon.

On another topic, I'm rather bemused by the apparent desire of many that NZ should do away with the Q300s and upgauge to the AT7. Why would that be an advantage? The likely consequence would be a further contraction of the network, with HKK, TUO, TIU, GIS and possibly even WRE falling away, and lower frequencies potentially on some other routes. The political uproar would be extremely damaging to the carrier's image and reputation. If and when the Q300s are due for retirement, the logical replacement would be the ATR-42.

It's easy to argue that it's all down to profitability and that the carrier would be better off without these routes. But where the government is a majority shareholder and the company is a national icon, the strict logic of economics does not apply - it's a far more nuanced situation.

NZ6 · Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:53 pm

Toenga wrote:
From the Unite Against Covid
Travel to NZ page
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/internat ... w-zealand/
It lists:
The Very High Risk countries.
The Quarantine Freee Travel.countries, currently only two after quarantine free travel with Australia was paused.
Also it describes the current travel limbo with Australia, it being in a paused bubble, with no green flights at all, and only intermittent red flights from NSW.
At this stage our arrangements with Australia do not allow for state by state variation which given the extreme instability of their outbreak at the moment, is extremely prudent.
All other countries in the world currently share the same status of eligibility of entry requirements and compulsory MIQ.

The most important determinate of entry must become the individuals vaccination status.
But current transmission rates and trends should be the next most important determinate of risk, followed by general population vaccination rates and an evaluation of strategies, multiple strategies in fact in some countries with state governments as well.
The position is made much complicated, in that minors who are currently ineligible for vaccination pose very significant risk of onward transmission.
I think we will still have MIQ for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. From a quick look, we have category called 'very high risk' but there's no obvious information on low, medium of high.. I do believe such a ranking does exists but it's more about what MIQ facility you're placed than anything else.

So perhaps the 3 tier system is to be designed from scratch.

Still provides a long list of questions.

I'm also still interested to know: where will Australia sit? - NSW has all but given up on eliminating the virus. The premier is desperately trying to get to 70% then 80% vaccination rate while trying to stop the flow of a high pressure hose with her thumb.

Toenga · Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:17 pm

NZ6 wrote:
Toenga wrote:
From the Unite Against Covid
Travel to NZ page
https://covid19.govt.nz/travel/internat ... w-zealand/
It lists:
The Very High Risk countries.
The Quarantine Freee Travel.countries, currently only two after quarantine free travel with Australia was paused.
Also it describes the current travel limbo with Australia, it being in a paused bubble, with no green flights at all, and only intermittent red flights from NSW.
At this stage our arrangements with Australia do not allow for state by state variation which given the extreme instability of their outbreak at the moment, is extremely prudent.
All other countries in the world currently share the same status of eligibility of entry requirements and compulsory MIQ.

The most important determinate of entry must become the individuals vaccination status.
But current transmission rates and trends should be the next most important determinate of risk, followed by general population vaccination rates and an evaluation of strategies, multiple strategies in fact in some countries with state governments as well.
The position is made much complicated, in that minors who are currently ineligible for vaccination pose very significant risk of onward transmission.
I think we will still have MIQ for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. From a quick look, we have category called 'very high risk' but there's no obvious information on low, medium of high.. I do believe such a ranking does exists but it's more about what MIQ facility you're placed than anything else.

So perhaps the 3 tier system is to be designed from scratch.

Still provides a long list of questions.

I'm also still interested to know: where will Australia sit? - NSW has all but given up on eliminating the virus. The premier is desperately trying to get to 70% then 80% vaccination rate while trying to stop the flow of a high pressure hose with her thumb.

We really have six months before any thing substantive needs to be in place. Considering that it took less then six days to design, publicise and impliment our world leading 4 level alert system this should be plenty of time.
Low risk would entail green flights, so could be problematic for implementing on a state by state basis, which may be resisted by federal governments.
You don't need to be an epidemiologist to determine that NSW, is currently very high risk, with an out of control outbreak in a largely unvaccinated population. Tasmania and WA probably low risk, but this would depend on an evaluation of their robustness of their border measures.
The other states somewhere between.
The UK with still high infection rates, and the effects of return to school yet to come would be high risk.
The actual evaluation of each countries risk would not take long.

NZ6 · Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:20 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
My point is that there's a "gap" for both a 90-seat turboprop and a regional jet. Arguably the more limiting gap is the lack of a regional jet - smaller turboprops can substitute for a larger turboprop but there's nothing in the fleet to substitute for the lack of a regional jet.

But I agree, despite my own hopes, that neither are likely to be added to the NZ fleet any time soon.

On another topic, I'm rather bemused by the apparent desire of many that NZ should do away with the Q300s and upgauge to the AT7. Why would that be an advantage? The likely consequence would be a further contraction of the network, with HKK, TUO, TIU, GIS and possibly even WRE falling away, and lower frequencies potentially on some other routes. The political uproar would be extremely damaging to the carrier's image and reputation. If and when the Q300s are due for retirement, the logical replacement would be the ATR-42.

It's easy to argue that it's all down to profitability and that the carrier would be better off without these routes. But where the government is a majority shareholder and the company is a national icon, the strict logic of economics does not apply - it's a far more nuanced situation.

Sure, there is a gap in physical 'capacity' there's no doubt or that. But from my point of view if we look at NZ's entire network and product. Is there a sizable 'gap' that needs to be filled? Or is the issue just a mathematical difference between the number of seats on two different planes.

We've come up with scenarios before like HLZ-ZQN, but their marginal and there's not many of them so I question how much growth there'll be a will the airline see a ROI?

I'm not sure if that equates to being 'no need to innovate' or if NZ 'disqualifies itself from innovation'. I wonder if it's more around the geography and population of NZ. We're small in size (distances), we only have 1 major city 2 larger cities (by our size) and 2-3 other bigger regional towns.

I guess we need to accept the economics of the 180+/- seats A320 / 738's are better than smaller models of the same type and there's very few regional turbo-props larger than 70 seats.

Even the older ATR-600's are still very young but the earlier Q300's are over 15 years old now.

In my mind, I think some of the comments have been around NZ moving some of the older Q300's out of the fleet in leu of more ATR's

I think we all know the Q300 fleet will remain in place until a next generation aircraft is available which will be towards the very late stages of this decade.

NZ6 · Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:31 pm

Toenga wrote:
We really have six months before any thing substantive needs to be in place. Considering that it took less then six days to design, publicise and impliment our world leading 4 level alert system this should be plenty of time.
Low risk would entail green flights, so could be problematic for implementing on a state by state basis, which may be resisted by federal governments.
You don't need to be an epidemiologist to determine that NSW, is currently very high risk, with an out of control outbreak in a largely unvaccinated population. Tasmania and WA probably low risk, but this would depend on an evaluation of their robustness of their border measures.
The other states somewhere between.
The UK with still high infection rates, and the effects of return to school yet to come would be high risk.
The actual evaluation of each countries risk would not take long.

Why should we wait 6 months before we get the detail? - if there's a plan in place. Share the detail. What are their intentions or if this is still being worked out let the public know and let them know when to expect this. Unfortunately, COVID has become political. If we'd created a COVID-19 Agency we'd probably get more substance. I get there's issues with going down this path too so not suggestioning it's wha we should have done. Just highlighting an issue.

And, yes COVID is bigger than the desire for some to go on holiday, I completely get that. But the continued border closure and uncertainty around the long term intentions is effecting much more than those wanting to holiday overseas. It's having long term affects on business. Not just tourism, but those who rely on specialist workers, students, those needing to head offshore to invest, train or upskill and so on. It's also having a long term effect on those families who've been separated for almost 2 years. While "come home" was the call last year. Modern day life had us living in a very small world 18 months ago. I know of people living in the US. Having houses, families. jobs, kids in schools etc but also having family back here. It wasn't practicable to upticks and come home with a few weeks notice. I'm not criticizing what we've done. I'm just asking for detail going forward.

The alert level system was set up in 6 days but it was far from perfect and it's seen significant change as the situation evolved. Have a look back at this video, under level 1 mass gatherings are cancelled - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShV5iaOOQ3w

As it stands today. We have no idea on what a low or medium risk country looks like.

My friends in the US from above. They could be MIQ at home for 7 days. Which would be doable at a family batch or they could be forced into a hotel MIQ which would chew up two weeks and something they've not been able to even find space in. They just don't know. How does business plan for 2022?

The other argument here is, low risk is just RARO. No other country. Medium is other pacific nations (except Fiji, PNG of course) and the rest of the world is high and nothing's changed.

Toenga · Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:01 am

The current Australian outbreak was seeded by just one case of aircrew infecting a border worker.
Even if that border worker had been fully vaccinated onward transmission could still have occurred. It just would have been less likely.This is demonstrated by the recent case of the fully vaccinated port pilot in Cairns who caught on an overseas ship and then infected a taxi driver that drove him to work. Fortunately no further cases resulted.
Without MIQ we could today have been heading into the NSW/Australia situation twice as fast, just from the minute number of recent arrivals from Australia tested yesterday.
Whatever we do though, we must factor in that tourists often do not display adequate levels of responsibility when in an environment they are just passing through.
We saw this in the early stages of the pandemic here, when so many visiting tourists just continued to tour, against clear requirements to stay in one place.
NZ6 I agree though, I would much prefer our hospital system had gained much more capacity in the last few months. More easily said then done, as much more needs to be done to attract new entrants, and then there is the time to train them up. As well we must continue to address the very considerable deficiencies in the buildings and assets accumulated over many years. And do this in a period of unprecedented shortages of construction capacity and materials
I am heartened though that Iceland though suffering another wave of infections, is suffering low hospitalisation and to date, from this wave no deaths.
But they are 93% vaccinated. So first we have to get our vaccination level right up there.
Another consideration is that NZ is the vital gatekeeper to much of the current covid free South Pacific. An area that is poorly equipped to handle any pandemic so we must continue to factor this into our decision making.
The Cook Islands now with three return 787 services a day into their tourist accomodation is in stark contrast to the very unfortunate position Fiji is now in.
We are in a good podition and should only willingly depart this good position, to a demonstrably better position.

DavidByrne · Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:06 am

NZ6 wrote:
Why should we wait 6 months before we get the detail? - if there's a plan in place. Share the detail. What are their intentions or if this is still being worked out let the public know and let them know when to expect this. Unfortunately, COVID has become political. If we'd created a COVID-19 Agency we'd probably get more substance. I get there's issues with going down this path too so not suggestioning it's wha we should have done. Just highlighting an issue.

If I were in government, I'd be VERY reluctant to lay out too much detail too soon. At this stage the pandemic is a long way from over, and we can't by any means rule out the possibility of a serious outbreak of the delta strain here. I'd say that the fact that we haven't so far is as much due to good luck as good management. It would not take much for us to find ourselves in the same situation as New South Wales.

You correctly point out that Covid has become political. Evidence elsewhere suggests that in those countries where the government has laid out a plan and stuck to it (viz the UK) the issue has become even more highly politicised. As soon as there's a plan, you can be sure the opposition will be challenging every detail, arguing over every criterion and date. I think that can only be unhelpful in maintaining unity over the measures we've adopted. The consequences of widespread disunity can be seen in NSW.

And the chances are high that any plan would be changed or abandoned as a result of the uncertain situation. The consequence of that would surely be even more politicisation.

Even though I'm itching to travel myself, both for business and pleasure (and have had to forgo my planned trip to Tasmania and Victoria) I'm happy to accept that. Despite a significant project having to be put on hold until (probably) early next year. From my own circle of friends and acquaintances, I see almost zero desire for haste. We appear to have achieved a reasonable economic "stable state", though the tourism and travel sector in particular still feel pain. Hard as it is for me to say, as an avgeek, there are more important things in life than restoring mass travel. Like life itself!

NZ6 · Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:42 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
Why should we wait 6 months before we get the detail? - if there's a plan in place. Share the detail. What are their intentions or if this is still being worked out let the public know and let them know when to expect this. Unfortunately, COVID has become political. If we'd created a COVID-19 Agency we'd probably get more substance. I get there's issues with going down this path too so not suggestioning it's wha we should have done. Just highlighting an issue.

If I were in government, I'd be VERY reluctant to lay out too much detail too soon. At this stage the pandemic is a long way from over, and we can't by any means rule out the possibility of a serious outbreak of the delta strain here. I'd say that the fact that we haven't so far is as much due to good luck as good management. It would not take much for us to find ourselves in the same situation as New South Wales.

You correctly point out that Covid has become political. Evidence elsewhere suggests that in those countries where the government has laid out a plan and stuck to it (viz the UK) the issue has become even more highly politicised. As soon as there's a plan, you can be sure the opposition will be challenging every detail, arguing over every criterion and date. I think that can only be unhelpful in maintaining unity over the measures we've adopted. The consequences of widespread disunity can be seen in NSW.

And the chances are high that any plan would be changed or abandoned as a result of the uncertain situation. The consequence of that would surely be even more politicisation.

Even though I'm itching to travel myself, both for business and pleasure (and have had to forgo my planned trip to Tasmania and Victoria) I'm happy to accept that. Despite a significant project having to be put on hold until (probably) early next year. From my own circle of friends and acquaintances, I see almost zero desire for haste. We appear to have achieved a reasonable economic "stable state", though the tourism and travel sector in particular still feel pain. Hard as it is for me to say, as an avgeek, there are more important things in life than restoring mass travel. Like life itself!

I don't disagree with much of what you said.

There's clearly things which can't be confirmed today or are likely going to change but there's still a lot more that could be communicated. What's a low risk country look like, how are we determining this? Is it vaccination rates, response strategy, community cases. Business could put Australia off the cards for most of 2022 based on this.

Also - this plan must rely on a vaccination rate here at home. What is that? - When or at what point do we deem the general vaccination program complete? vs routine vaccinations - people turning 16, people changing their mind etc.

I do understand WHY they don't want to set a line in the sand and they would prefer as many of us vaccinated as possible but this information is withheld for political reasons only.

Toenga · Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:53 am

Countries quite readily open borders to countries with a lower covid risk then their own.
This is why travellers from NZ are just about free to travel anywhere.
Countries are now increasingly ready to open to countries they perceive to have a similar covid risk to their own. Hence most of Europe is opening up to each other and increasingly with the US.
The Australian PM has set that once vaccination rates reach 80% then Australians will be free to travel to "safe" countries and in return travellers from those "safe" countries will be able to travel into Australia.
But no definition of "safe" has yet been offered, and it could even be only be NZ and the covid free Pacific Island Countries.
Unless their definition of "safe " would encompass their own prevailing covid risk position, this can be dismissed as just more marketing spin, rather then a serious international health measure.
It would not though be illogical for them to open up to countries with a similar risk profile to their own, similar to the intra European situation, with whatever specific safeguards they like. We await any hint of detail and likely takers. And in fact their covid situation when this 80% has been achieved.
Already large rifts are appearing in their roadmap out and what happens when 80% is achieved.
Hopefully though at this stage NZ will still be in a much better relative position to all of them, and we must tailor our own border measures to our unique covid status that has served us so spectacularly well.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:30 am

https://twitter.com/covid19nz/status/14 ... 1315676169

Community case in Auckland. Cabinet meeting right now. Presser around 6pm.

NZ6 · Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:39 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
https://twitter.com/covid19nz/status/1427459481315676169

Community case in Auckland. Cabinet meeting right now. Presser around 6pm.

Here we go again.... Just Auckland or the whole country?

DavidByrne · Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:01 am

NZ6 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
https://twitter.com/covid19nz/status/1427459481315676169

Community case in Auckland. Cabinet meeting right now. Presser around 6pm.

Here we go again.... Just Auckland or the whole country?

My grapevine with journalists suggests lockdown in Auckland at least, from midnight. Hope that's not the case, but it appears that the individual concerned has been infectious in the community for five days, so there's a real risk that it won't be the only case.

DavidByrne · Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:05 am

NZ6 wrote:
I do understand WHY they don't want to set a line in the sand and they would prefer as many of us vaccinated as possible but this information is withheld for political reasons only.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that the info is withheld for political reasons. I think it's more a question of not wanting to raise expectations and then dash them. That's sort of political, but with a very very small "p".

zkncj · Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:11 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
https://twitter.com/covid19nz/status/1427459481315676169

Community case in Auckland. Cabinet meeting right now. Presser around 6pm.

Here we go again.... Just Auckland or the whole country?

My grapevine with journalists suggests lockdown in Auckland at least, from midnight. Hope that's not the case, but it appears that the individual concerned has been infectious in the community for five days, so there's a real risk that it won't be the only case.

Seems to be been multiple leaks and hits this time around.

Massive blow to some markets e.g Queenstown who has already lost the Tasman Bubble in the past month.

Hopefully not many more cases pop up, and we can re-open up soon. Although it its linked back to the positive case from Sydney that visited around 8 weeks back then we could be in trouble. With low testing rates, highly likely it has be going around for a while. I know multiple people that been sick in the past weeks, including my self but we are all like its just an winter cold.

Hopefully JQ doesn't freakout this time around an completely pull its services until we are back to level one.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:03 pm

In good news. Sounds Air has locked in an initial order for 3 ES-19 battery electric aircraft.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/regio ... WIRDH5TF4/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/green-tr ... plane-deal

Kickass. Totally going to go down and watch the initial flights.

NZ6 · Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:04 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I do understand WHY they don't want to set a line in the sand and they would prefer as many of us vaccinated as possible but this information is withheld for political reasons only.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that the info is withheld for political reasons. I think it's more a question of not wanting to raise expectations and then dash them. That's sort of political, but with a very very small "p".

Time and time again we're left in the dark around their thinking. The Tasman bubble is a good example, we kept getting told "we're not ready" then when enough pressure got applied it happened very quickly. When I say political, I say this because they don't want to be labelled as failing to achieve what they set out to do. Set no targets and you can't fail them. What's our desired vaccination rate? Most other countries have come out with some line in the sand yet we won't Therefore we haven't fallen short of anything.

DavidByrne · Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:50 pm

NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
I do understand WHY they don't want to set a line in the sand and they would prefer as many of us vaccinated as possible but this information is withheld for political reasons only.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that the info is withheld for political reasons. I think it's more a question of not wanting to raise expectations and then dash them. That's sort of political, but with a very very small "p".

Time and time again we're left in the dark around their thinking. The Tasman bubble is a good example, we kept getting told "we're not ready" then when enough pressure got applied it happened very quickly. When I say political, I say this because they don't want to be labelled as failing to achieve what they set out to do. Set no targets and you can't fail them. What's our desired vaccination rate? Most other countries have come out with some line in the sand yet we won't Therefore we haven't fallen short of anything.

In the case of the Tasman bubble the major part of the problem was clearly the difficulties in getting some kind of agreement with the Australian states, who had different rules, different protocols, different criteria etc. To come out and identify this publicly as the cause of the delay would have been highly undiplomatic and would not have enhanced the chances of agreement. Countries basically don't bad-mouth each other if they want to get along. There's also a difficulty in a sovereign nation dealing directly with individual states in another country - highly unusual and mostly not tolerated. I fully understand why they may have been reluctant to open up about this.

NZ6 · Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:22 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that the info is withheld for political reasons. I think it's more a question of not wanting to raise expectations and then dash them. That's sort of political, but with a very very small "p".

Time and time again we're left in the dark around their thinking. The Tasman bubble is a good example, we kept getting told "we're not ready" then when enough pressure got applied it happened very quickly. When I say political, I say this because they don't want to be labelled as failing to achieve what they set out to do. Set no targets and you can't fail them. What's our desired vaccination rate? Most other countries have come out with some line in the sand yet we won't Therefore we haven't fallen short of anything.

In the case of the Tasman bubble the major part of the problem was clearly the difficulties in getting some kind of agreement with the Australian states, who had different rules, different protocols, different criteria etc. To come out and identify this publicly as the cause of the delay would have been highly undiplomatic and would not have enhanced the chances of agreement. Countries basically don't bad-mouth each other if they want to get along. There's also a difficulty in a sovereign nation dealing directly with individual states in another country - highly unusual and mostly not tolerated. I fully understand why they may have been reluctant to open up about this.

The original point is becoming slightly lost.

Things like details around a bubble were kept under wraps, yes some diplomatic issues existed but ultimately when pushed. We were able to come out with something so clearly wasn't all diplomatic. Arguably we missed several good months of a bubble and now Delta appears to have ended it for good.

There's a lot of similarities here. We've been given a plan. it's more of a back of the envelop plan than a detailed plan. By that I mean there's no detail or we're not being given the detail as they don't want to not achieve something which in politics can be fatal.

tullamarine · Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:52 am

DavidByrne wrote:
NZ6 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that the info is withheld for political reasons. I think it's more a question of not wanting to raise expectations and then dash them. That's sort of political, but with a very very small "p".

Time and time again we're left in the dark around their thinking. The Tasman bubble is a good example, we kept getting told "we're not ready" then when enough pressure got applied it happened very quickly. When I say political, I say this because they don't want to be labelled as failing to achieve what they set out to do. Set no targets and you can't fail them. What's our desired vaccination rate? Most other countries have come out with some line in the sand yet we won't Therefore we haven't fallen short of anything.

In the case of the Tasman bubble the major part of the problem was clearly the difficulties in getting some kind of agreement with the Australian states, who had different rules, different protocols, different criteria etc. To come out and identify this publicly as the cause of the delay would have been highly undiplomatic and would not have enhanced the chances of agreement. Countries basically don't bad-mouth each other if they want to get along. There's also a difficulty in a sovereign nation dealing directly with individual states in another country - highly unusual and mostly not tolerated. I fully understand why they may have been reluctant to open up about this.

You are correct that AU states inconsistent behaviour did make the bubble problematic but the fact was the bubble was largely a failure with very low patronage mainly because pax didn't trust that the bubble would hold and they risked getting stuck or losing money on lost bookings etc. As it turned out, they were right.

Realistically the bubble is unlikely to return in any meaningful way this year. NSW is very unlikely to get anywhere near zero cases and there will continue to be small outbreaks elsewhere. Maybe when both countries reach 80% coverage, it will be revisited but, even then, it appear some politicians refuse to accept that, as both countries reopen, cases will occur and at a number well in excess of what we have considered normal during the suppression phase.

We have 2 options here; we can either move past suppression phase once we hit 80% and accept what that means or we can continue to pursue absolute suppression. Only the former is ultimately sustainable but politicians on both sides of the Tasman appear unable to pivot.

DavidByrne · Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:39 am

NZ6 wrote:
We've been given a plan. it's more of a back of the envelop plan than a detailed plan. By that I mean there's no detail or we're not being given the detail as they don't want to not achieve something which in politics can be fatal.

Not only that, but we genuinely don't know what will be the future of the virus. If, for example, we ended up with a new "super-delta" strain then all bets are off again. Best not to fill out the detail of a plan until much closer to implementation time, I reckon.

Kiwirob · Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:09 am

Just rip the bandage off and let Covid run it's course.

B747_A340 · Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:16 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Just rip the bandage off and let Covid run it's course.

Haven’t posted for years but I couldn’t resist replying to this post. By almost all economic measures, we are performing better than our peers. Lower mortality for Covid-19 per capita, highest GDP growth, lowest unemployment, lowest inflation. We have had many more liberties than our peers that had less restrictive lockdowns for longer.

Unless you’re keen to increase our tax rates to boost ICU building and hiring of extra medical professionals, we are following the best course of action. We don’t have nearly enough ICU beds for Covid to “run it’s course”.

Kiwirob · Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:37 am

B747_A340 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Just rip the bandage off and let Covid run it's course.

Haven’t posted for years but I couldn’t resist replying to this post. By almost all economic measures, we are performing better than our peers. Lower mortality for Covid-19 per capita, highest GDP growth, lowest unemployment, lowest inflation. We have had many more liberties than our peers that had less restrictive lockdowns for longer.

Unless you’re keen to increase our tax rates to boost ICU building and hiring of extra medical professionals, we are following the best course of action. We don’t have nearly enough ICU beds for Covid to “run it’s course”.

It's going to hit hard NZ eventually, I just think we need to get it over and done with.

SpoonNZ · Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:56 am

Kiwirob wrote:
It's going to hit hard NZ eventually, I just think we need to get it over and done with.

We’ve waited 18 months already, it’d be nuts to do that now when we’re probably 4 months from majority vaccine coverage.

Toenga · Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:53 pm

SpoonNZ wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
It's going to hit hard NZ eventually, I just think we need to get it over and done with.

We’ve waited 18 months already, it’d be nuts to do that now when we’re probably 4 months from majority vaccine coverage.

Relinquishing all control to covid when full vaccination is now so close would be stupid and irresponsible.
Foe what gains?

Kiwings · Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:48 pm

This opinion piece in NZ Herald is interesting reading. We do need to wait to get the vaccination rates up - why we are so far behind is a separate arguement maybe for a different forum.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12465909

ZK-NBT · Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:03 pm

Kiwings wrote:
This opinion piece in NZ Herald is interesting reading. We do need to wait to get the vaccination rates up - why we are so far behind is a separate arguement maybe for a different forum.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12465909

I won't pay for hearld premium. So far behind in vaccination rates? Is that what you are asking?

NZ516 · Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:14 pm

So here we are back into lock down. Many are trying to get home all over the country. Here is a local story of a man taking 15 hours to get from Auckland to Timaru via an overnight stop in Wellington not an easy trip. I notice on the picture the second passenger coming down the ramp has no mask on. It is a challenge to get the public to wear them even when it's a requirement to travel.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/new ... g-lockdown

andrewro · Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:47 am

I was under the impression the moment you exit the aircraft, masks are no longer required.
That’s what I’ve been doing since they became compulsory, and no one has mentioned anything.

There is also the possibility that gentleman has an exception to wear one. Sat next to a few of those also.

DavidByrne · Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:23 am

andrewro wrote:
I was under the impression the moment you exit the aircraft, masks are no longer required.
That’s what I’ve been doing since they became compulsory, and no one has mentioned anything.

The rules have changed. Now masks are mandatory in most indoor public places.

SpoonNZ · Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
The rules have changed. Now masks are mandatory in most indoor public places.

Now they have. When that article was posted yesterday this was not the case.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net