mrkerr7474 wrote:

A380 VH-OQJ operating QF143 SYD-AKL as I type this

qf2220 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

A380 VH-OQJ operating QF143 SYD-AKL as I type this

Send pics back across the ditch pls.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

A380 VH-OQJ operating QF143 SYD-AKL as I type this

Send pics back across the ditch pls.

I'm hoping someone up in AKL will be able to grab some as sadly I am in WLG

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

This route is coming back once NZ gets its new electric aircraft.

I hope so. As good as the new motorway is, it was quite handy in the day to be dropped off at HLZ 20mins from home and be able to connect pretty much anywhere from there.

The convenience factor will make it attractive to many in HLZ. Especially with someone who has travelled long haul 20+ hours to AKL they will want a quick 25 min hop home instead of a long drive. Back in the 1983 timetable there must have been 150+ seats a day on the 9 flights between AKL- HLZ so demand must have been there. Even though both AKL and HLZ were much smaller than they are both today.

Agreed. That said, the road back then was a cart track compared to the expressway today. We managed Hillcrest Hamilton to AKL Domestic terminal in 1hr 10 the other weekend. That was with light traffic though to be fair. Agreed though the convenience factor would make me choose a short hop over the drive any day.

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

The convenience factor will make it attractive to many in HLZ. Especially with someone who has travelled long haul 20+ hours to AKL they will want a quick 25 min hop home instead of a long drive. Back in the 1983 timetable there must have been 150+ seats a day on the 9 flights between AKL- HLZ so demand must have been there. Even though both AKL and HLZ were much smaller than they are both today.

Agreed. That said, the road back then was a cart track compared to the expressway today. We managed Hillcrest Hamilton to AKL Domestic terminal in 1hr 10 the other weekend. That was with light traffic though to be fair. Agreed though the convenience factor would make me choose a short hop over the drive any day.

Don't forget that HLZ is on the south side of the city - for people in the likes of Cambridge where driving to AKL will be even longer than 1 hour 10 minutes, a commuter flight will be even more attractive.

EK413 wrote:

Just heard CHC hit by a earthquake 6.0 magnitude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

aerohottie wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Just heard CHC hit by a earthquake 6.0 magnitude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

70km Northwest of WLG. Magnitude 6.1

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

77west wrote:

Agreed. That said, the road back then was a cart track compared to the expressway today. We managed Hillcrest Hamilton to AKL Domestic terminal in 1hr 10 the other weekend. That was with light traffic though to be fair. Agreed though the convenience factor would make me choose a short hop over the drive any day.

Don't forget that HLZ is on the south side of the city - for people in the likes of Cambridge where driving to AKL will be even longer than 1 hour 10 minutes, a commuter flight will be even more attractive.

I live in Te Awamutu so understand this - Bear in mind Cambridge is the end of the expressway and I managed Cambridge to Hamilton CBD in about 20mins recently. If going to AKL airport, it might add 15mins to the trip in good weather/traffic. 110km/h from Cambridge to the Bombays... But dont get me wrong I would still fly every time if I could

EK413 wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Just heard CHC hit by a earthquake 6.0 magnitude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

70km Northwest of WLG. Magnitude 6.1

It’s as though New Zealand don’t have enough on their plate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Don't forget that HLZ is on the south side of the city - for people in the likes of Cambridge where driving to AKL will be even longer than 1 hour 10 minutes, a commuter flight will be even more attractive.

I live in Te Awamutu so understand this - Bear in mind Cambridge is the end of the expressway and I managed Cambridge to Hamilton CBD in about 20mins recently. If going to AKL airport, it might add 15mins to the trip in good weather/traffic. 110km/h from Cambridge to the Bombays... But dont get me wrong I would still fly every time if I could

Perhaps car parking costs would be cheaper as well in HLZ over AKL airport especially for the long getaways. The deciding factor might be not much for some but could well be significant for others.

nz2 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

77west wrote:

I live in Te Awamutu so understand this - Bear in mind Cambridge is the end of the expressway and I managed Cambridge to Hamilton CBD in about 20mins recently. If going to AKL airport, it might add 15mins to the trip in good weather/traffic. 110km/h from Cambridge to the Bombays... But dont get me wrong I would still fly every time if I could

Perhaps car parking costs would be cheaper as well in HLZ over AKL airport especially for the long getaways. The deciding factor might be not much for some but could well be significant for others.

I am away for 2 weeks in Oz mid March, the 14 days parking at AKL was only $85 in the Intl long stay (park M IIRC) so that is less than uber both ways which is about $55 ew. I must say I was very surprised!

77west wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Send pics back across the ditch pls.

I'm hoping someone up in AKL will be able to grab some as sadly I am in WLG

About to depart; wonder if anyone is at the viewing area with a camera!

Avtur wrote:

77west wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

I'm hoping someone up in AKL will be able to grab some as sadly I am in WLG

About to depart; wonder if anyone is at the viewing area with a camera!

I wish I had read this earlier, I could got some very close up pics from the aircraft.

77west wrote:

Avtur wrote:

77west wrote:

About to depart; wonder if anyone is at the viewing area with a camera!

I wish I had read this earlier, I could got some very close up pics from the aircraft.

She took off using like a 3rd of the runway according to FR24 and at only around 130kt. I guess the fuel load over to Aus would have been minimal; I reckon between 55,000kg and 65,000kg (Based off MZFW) Unless they had some funky alternate (I used Canberra)

Avtur wrote:

77west wrote:

Avtur wrote:

I wish I had read this earlier, I could got some very close up pics from the aircraft.

She took off using like a 3rd of the runway according to FR24 and at only around 130kt. I guess the fuel load over to Aus would have been minimal; I reckon between 55,000kg and 65,000kg (Based off MZFW) Unless they had some funky alternate (I used Canberra)

Fuel load was around 48,000, and it arrived with about 35,000 on board.

NYKiwi wrote:

Saw T1 @ JFK is closed due to a fire and NZ 2 turned back to AKL....nearly 16 hour flight to nowhere. Surprised they didn't go to LAX

Avtur wrote:

77west wrote:

Avtur wrote:

I wish I had read this earlier, I could got some very close up pics from the aircraft.

She took off using like a 3rd of the runway according to FR24 and at only around 130kt. I guess the fuel load over to Aus would have been minimal; I reckon between 55,000kg and 65,000kg (Based off MZFW) Unless they had some funky alternate (I used Canberra)

Fuel load was around 48,000, and it arrived with about 35,000 on board.

wenders825 wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

Saw T1 @ JFK is closed due to a fire and NZ 2 turned back to AKL....nearly 16 hour flight to nowhere. Surprised they didn't go to LAX

makes zero sense why they didn't divert to LAX, IAH, or ORD. every other carrier aside from KE was able to make it to the US, whether diverting to another airport or just parking at a different terminal

mrkerr7474 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

Saw T1 @ JFK is closed due to a fire and NZ 2 turned back to AKL....nearly 16 hour flight to nowhere. Surprised they didn't go to LAX

makes zero sense why they didn't divert to LAX, IAH, or ORD. every other carrier aside from KE was able to make it to the US, whether diverting to another airport or just parking at a different terminal

Quite the waste of fuel as well. No wonder there's more talk in the world about flights to nowhere in situations like these. I agree a divert to LAX would have made more sense than all the way back to NZ..

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Avtur wrote:

77west wrote:

She took off using like a 3rd of the runway according to FR24 and at only around 130kt. I guess the fuel load over to Aus would have been minimal; I reckon between 55,000kg and 65,000kg (Based off MZFW) Unless they had some funky alternate (I used Canberra)

Fuel load was around 48,000, and it arrived with about 35,000 on board.

Out of curiosity, how much extra flying distance allows for the remaining 35,000 fuel on board? Seems a bit overkill for Trans Tasman

NZ801 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

makes zero sense why they didn't divert to LAX, IAH, or ORD. every other carrier aside from KE was able to make it to the US, whether diverting to another airport or just parking at a different terminal

Quite the waste of fuel as well. No wonder there's more talk in the world about flights to nowhere in situations like these. I agree a divert to LAX would have made more sense than all the way back to NZ..

It might not make sense to you but NZ felt it was the right call. Let’s cut them some slack eh? There’s been a lot going on and perhaps they felt that having the aircraft back in NZ was the best thing. None of us here are across the facts that led to that decision being made.

NZ801 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

makes zero sense why they didn't divert to LAX, IAH, or ORD. every other carrier aside from KE was able to make it to the US, whether diverting to another airport or just parking at a different terminal

Quite the waste of fuel as well. No wonder there's more talk in the world about flights to nowhere in situations like these. I agree a divert to LAX would have made more sense than all the way back to NZ..

It might not make sense to you but NZ felt it was the right call. Let’s cut them some slack eh? There’s been a lot going on and perhaps they felt that having the aircraft back in NZ was the best thing. None of us here are across the facts that led to that decision being made.

Avtur wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Avtur wrote:

Fuel load was around 48,000, and it arrived with about 35,000 on board.

Out of curiosity, how much extra flying distance allows for the remaining 35,000 fuel on board? Seems a bit overkill for Trans Tasman

Not sure how much extra flying distance could be covered, I guess many factors would have to be considered (altitude, fuel burn, headwinds etc). Also not sure why it had so much arrival fuel, that’s a question for whoever fuelled it in Sydney. I also can’t seem to remember what the pax count was, but I know it was quite high, I think above 290 something…. The inbound pax could have higher, but I was fairly busy that day, and I didn’t have much time scrutinise solari. Things are getting back to normal now, but it’s been an interesting couple of days….!

Jshank83 wrote:

I am heading to NZ in May. Will be using AKL and WLG. Anything I should know that I wouldn't normally think of? Best way to get downtown from each?

Also will be driving between the two at one point. So any tips on things to see/not see would be appreciated.
Flying to AKL for a couple days then flying to WLG for a couple days then driving back to AKL

Anything I need to know about flying to Air NZ between the two? Short flight so I am not all the concerned but thought I should ask.

NYKiwi wrote:

Saw T1 @ JFK is closed due to a fire and NZ 2 turned back to AKL....nearly 16 hour flight to nowhere. Surprised they didn't go to LAX

zkncj wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

Saw T1 @ JFK is closed due to a fire and NZ 2 turned back to AKL....nearly 16 hour flight to nowhere. Surprised they didn't go to LAX

In the past 14 days AKL, has been closed for around 80-90hrs due bad weather.

Basically they can’t afford to have a 787 sitting in the USA for a couple of days.


Not sure if the 77W that was damaged during the first storm on landing in AKL, is back in service yet?

ZKNZR wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I am heading to NZ in May. Will be using AKL and WLG. Anything I should know that I wouldn't normally think of? Best way to get downtown from each?

Also will be driving between the two at one point. So any tips on things to see/not see would be appreciated.
Flying to AKL for a couple days then flying to WLG for a couple days then driving back to AKL

Anything I need to know about flying to Air NZ between the two? Short flight so I am not all the concerned but thought I should ask.

The AirPort Express bus service in Wellington is excellent and cheap, also all brand new electric buses so emissions free too!

zkncj wrote:

Also currently 50% off public transport in New Zealand, currently till the end of March but it keeps getting extended. With it being a election year it likely will kept getting extended too.

Jshank83 wrote:

I am heading to NZ in May. Will be using AKL and WLG. Anything I should know that I wouldn't normally think of? Best way to get downtown from each?

Also will be driving between the two at one point. So any tips on things to see/not see would be appreciated.
Flying to AKL for a couple days then flying to WLG for a couple days then driving back to AKL

Anything I need to know about flying to Air NZ between the two? Short flight so I am not all the concerned but thought I should ask.

DeltaB717 wrote:

NZ801 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Quite the waste of fuel as well. No wonder there's more talk in the world about flights to nowhere in situations like these. I agree a divert to LAX would have made more sense than all the way back to NZ..

It might not make sense to you but NZ felt it was the right call. Let’s cut them some slack eh? There’s been a lot going on and perhaps they felt that having the aircraft back in NZ was the best thing. None of us here are across the facts that led to that decision being made.

I so wish a.net had a like button, and I would've smashed it for this post!

The difference between NZ and the likes of KE is that NZ has had a series of operational disruptions over the last week. Without knowing the intricate details of all those disruptions, my first thought is that perhaps with all the cancellations NZ doesn't have (enough) rested crew in LAX or SFO to be able to bring the aircraft home after a diversion.

There could also have been an issue with the aircraft that NZ felt would be easier to manage at home, in the circumstances.

Irrespective of the reasons, I think it's (very) fair to say that NZ, like all major airlines, has very highly trained and skilled ops management teams who make these decisions taking into account ALL the factors, and is not in the business of wasting fuel and annoying customers just for the heck of it!

Air New Zealand has also added extra services to Nadi, Tahiti, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Apia to its international network as well as additional domestic services between Christchurch and Auckland to recover passengers that were diverted south.

NZ801 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

makes zero sense why they didn't divert to LAX, IAH, or ORD. every other carrier aside from KE was able to make it to the US, whether diverting to another airport or just parking at a different terminal

Quite the waste of fuel as well. No wonder there's more talk in the world about flights to nowhere in situations like these. I agree a divert to LAX would have made more sense than all the way back to NZ..

It might not make sense to you but NZ felt it was the right call. Let’s cut them some slack eh? There’s been a lot going on and perhaps they felt that having the aircraft back in NZ was the best thing. None of us here are across the facts that led to that decision being made.

Zkpilot wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I am heading to NZ in May. Will be using AKL and WLG. Anything I should know that I wouldn't normally think of? Best way to get downtown from each?

Also will be driving between the two at one point. So any tips on things to see/not see would be appreciated.
Flying to AKL for a couple days then flying to WLG for a couple days then driving back to AKL

Anything I need to know about flying to Air NZ between the two? Short flight so I am not all the concerned but thought I should ask.

New Zealand is a very car oriented country. That said there are public transport options in both Auckland and Wellington between the airports and the city (and they’re pretty safe too). If you are going to use transport a bit then in Auckland you should buy a HOP card to get cheaper and linked fares. Wellington has a Snapper card.
It’s quite a long draining drive between the 2 cities despite it only being around 700km (feels more like 1000+). You might want to stop along the way (depending on your interests). Taupo is naturally a popular choice as it is roughly half way.

NZ516 wrote:

Another big day today for the Air NZ domestic jet operation. With 21 Airbus in use! It's the first time I have ever seen that many. Starting out by airport are:
AKL 10
WLG 4
CHC 4
ZQN 2
DUD 1

ZK-NBT wrote:

I would imagine we will find out some more on the fleet at the half year results next week. Latest was 2 A320s remaining in the domestic fleet. ZK-OYC to be delivered very soon bringing the fleet to

17 A320CEO
3 A321NEO

OYD is due sometime this year to I believe while OYE is now 2024?

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Another big day today for the Air NZ domestic jet operation. With 21 Airbus in use! It's the first time I have ever seen that many. Starting out by airport are:
AKL 10
WLG 4
CHC 4
ZQN 2
DUD 1

21 that’s a lot, 10 in AKL, not surprising being the biggest hub but that’s also a lot.

I would imagine we will find out some more on the fleet at the half year results next week. Latest was 2 A320s remaining in the domestic fleet. ZK-OYC to be delivered very soon bringing the fleet to

17 A320CEO
3 A321NEO


OYD is due sometime this year to I believe while OYE is now 2024?

GW54 wrote:

Thanks to another site I understand that in addition to OYC and OYD this year the leases on two A320ceo's have been extended. OAB and OJQ will now remain in the fleet until 2027. OJR and OJS are planned to exit the fleet towards the end of this year. Clearly this additional capacity signals growth in the A320/A321 schedules?

zkncj wrote:

GW54 wrote:

Thanks to another site I understand that in addition to OYC and OYD this year the leases on two A320ceo's have been extended. OAB and OJQ will now remain in the fleet until 2027. OJR and OJS are planned to exit the fleet towards the end of this year. Clearly this additional capacity signals growth in the A320/A321 schedules?

Would mean they would be able to reduce the need to use International A321N's on Domestic, freeing up the International fleet to focus on adding more Tasman/Pacific capacity.

I'm half expecting to see a A321N top-up order this year, maybe so leased frames that have 2024 delivery slots.

GW54 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

GW54 wrote:

Thanks to another site I understand that in addition to OYC and OYD this year the leases on two A320ceo's have been extended. OAB and OJQ will now remain in the fleet until 2027. OJR and OJS are planned to exit the fleet towards the end of this year. Clearly this additional capacity signals growth in the A320/A321 schedules?

Would mean they would be able to reduce the need to use International A321N's on Domestic, freeing up the International fleet to focus on adding more Tasman/Pacific capacity.

I'm half expecting to see a A321N top-up order this year, maybe so leased frames that have 2024 delivery slots.

Could be a combination of Trans Tasman and Domestic. For example AKL-WLG-AKL is still not back to full Pre Covid levels. I am assuming it would be the same for AKL-CHC-AKL?

zkncj wrote:

GW54 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Would mean they would be able to reduce the need to use International A321N's on Domestic, freeing up the International fleet to focus on adding more Tasman/Pacific capacity.

I'm half expecting to see a A321N top-up order this year, maybe so leased frames that have 2024 delivery slots.

Could be a combination of Trans Tasman and Domestic. For example AKL-WLG-AKL is still not back to full Pre Covid levels. I am assuming it would be the same for AKL-CHC-AKL?

I supposed they will use the a321N capacity over the a320CEO to build up capacity over frequency.

The Domestic a321N has 217 seats, that’s 46 more seats over a a320CEO.

If a 321N does AKL-WLG 6x in a day, that’s extra 276 seats or around 1.5 flights.

Hard to gauge what the schedules will look like going forward. With OYC going on line I am hearing there will be more A321 peak time services between AKL and WLG and return. Middle of the day CHC will see more A321's. Queenstown will revert to primarily A320's.

Even if you get 2x a321N on AKL-WLG both doing 6x trips a day that’s 552 additional seats.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Another big day today for the Air NZ domestic jet operation. With 21 Airbus in use! It's the first time I have ever seen that many. Starting out by airport are:
AKL 10
WLG 4
CHC 4
ZQN 2
DUD 1

21 that’s a lot, 10 in AKL, not surprising being the biggest hub but that’s also a lot.

I would imagine we will find out some more on the fleet at the half year results next week. Latest was 2 A320s remaining in the domestic fleet. ZK-OYC to be delivered very soon bringing the fleet to

17 A320CEO
3 A321NEO

OYD is due sometime this year to I believe while OYE is now 2024?