Welcome to thread number 162!

Link to thread 161 New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 161 (by American 767 Jun 22 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Here's some more about the Safe Air/Airbus deal. It's a bit of a puff piece, but it does confirm that there will be no job layoffs:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...-the-limit-for-safe-air-and-airbus

"Sky the limit for Safe Air and Airbus

The acquisition of Safe Air by the Airbus Group will bring more employment opportunities for staff, and to Marlborough, company representatives say.

A group of 10 Airbus staff, including company vice-president (fixed wing) Ken Millar, visited the Safe Air headquarters at Woodbourne this week, looking over facilities and meeting key avionics representatives.

"The staff can see for the first time for a number of years an employment future, and long-term sustainability within the company," Deacon said.

There will be no job layoffs, she said."

It gives Airbus a good foothold in NZ and it will be interesting to see where it might lead.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 1): It gives Airbus a good foothold in NZ and it will be interesting to see where it might lead.

So will this be a service base for the A32X family? Can BHE take planes of that size?

Or will it be for the RNZAF's Eurocopters?

Or both? What's Airbus' plan? Any ideas? They must surely have some agreement in place with those who fly their aircraft.

And further, do the RNZAF have a succession plan for their 757's? Is the A321neoLR a contender? Presumably.

[Edited 2015-07-09 16:00:43]

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2): So will this be a service base for the A32X family? Can BHE take planes of that size? Or will it be for the RNZAF's Eurocopters?

Found my answers after reading the full article...

Quote: The Defence Force would remain a core customer, and Safe Air would continue to maintain NZDF military aircraft, including Sea Sprite helicopters, and P3 Orion and C130 Hercules.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2): And further, do the RNZAF have a succession plan for their 757's? Is the A321neoLR a contender?

I'm fairly sure it won't be on cost alone. Bare in mind they got the 757s ex Transavia. My feeling is that the first couple of NZ 320s relinquished from the A320R fleet as the NEOs arrive may well be recycled into RNZAF

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2): Or both? What's Airbus' plan? Any ideas?

Sorry, no, other than what is in the article.

mariner

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2): And further, do the RNZAF have a succession plan for their 757's? Is the A321neoLR a contender? Presumably.

My understanding is that it's likely to be part of a larger project that will also involve the replacement of the Hercs.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 4): I'm fairly sure it won't be on cost alone. Bare in mind they got the 757s ex Transavia. My feeling is that the first couple of NZ 320s relinquished from the A320R fleet as the NEOs arrive may well be recycled into RNZAF

Unlikely. Air NZ are going to want to get the best price they can for those birds. This is perhaps the downside of operating the national airline as a private enterprise, they're under no obligation to transfer aircraft for cheap. Plus I except the big thing the government will want for the 757 replacement is range. I totally see a requirement being to make a round trip CHCAntarctica with no point of no return. An A320 is not going to provide that if the 757s can't.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 6): Unlikely. Air NZ are going to want to get the best price they can for those birds. This is perhaps the downside of operating the national airline as a private enterprise, they're under no obligation to transfer aircraft for cheap. Plus I except the big thing the government will want for the 757 replacement is range. I totally see a requirement being to make a round trip CHCAntarctica with no point of no return. An A320 is not going to provide that if the 757s can't.

Aren't some of the early Regional A320s leased? Surely there isn't to much value out there for releasing 12 year old A320s, that have been used heavily.

Could an A320 not be refitted with an belly fuel tank in the cargo hold? after all these would be military aircraft so less paper work etc.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 6): Unlikely. Air NZ are going to want to get the best price they can for those birds. This is perhaps the downside of operating the national airline as a private enterprise, they're under no obligation to transfer aircraft for cheap. Plus I except the big thing the government will want for the 757 replacement is range. I totally see a requirement being to make a round trip CHCAntarctica with no point of no return. An A320 is not going to provide that if the 757s can't.

Maybe a couple of the last remaining 763s?

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 6): An A320 is not going to provide that if the 757s can't.

I agree with the fact the A320 is not the right aircraft, but this is the NZ Government - they always order the wrong tool for the wrong job for the sake of being cheap rater than matching a specification for what would actually be useful. The 757s could be replaced by 757ERs that are newer than the 22 years the current ones are too.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 2): Quoting mariner (Reply 1): It gives Airbus a good foothold in NZ and it will be interesting to see where it might lead. So will this be a service base for the A32X family? Can BHE take planes of that size? Or will it be for the RNZAF's Eurocopters? Or both? What's Airbus' plan? Any ideas? They must surely have some agreement in place with those who fly their aircraft. And further, do the RNZAF have a succession plan for their 757's? Is the A321neoLR a contender? Presumably. [Edited 2015-07-09 16:00:43]

A321NEOLR should be able to fly virtually any missions that the 757 could. Only downside would be speed which is M0.78 for the A321 vs M0.8 for the 757. The 757 can fly quite a bit faster than this too.

Not forgetting of course that the only realistic capable aircraft to replace the C130H is the A400 (provided it's issues are resolved). The C130J just doesn't provide that strategic lift.

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 8): Maybe a couple of the last remaining 763s?

Maybe. The other thing that will play a role is a likely requirement to be able to airlift at least one LAV without having to remove the turret. To my knowledge that basically restricts you to the A400M. A 767 would obviously have trouble with such a requirement.

Anyways, we'll have to see what the requirements are. At the moment it's pure speculation.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 7): Could an A320 not be refitted with an belly fuel tank in the cargo hold? after all these would be military aircraft so less paper work etc.

I'm sure they could do that with the 757s if they wished to when they retrofitted them with the cargo door and retractable airstairs. Clearly they felt it was not required at the time. A late model B767 would seem more likely than fitting belly tanks to me.


And for the record I'm putting my money on at least 3 A400Ms being bought with maybe some smaller aircraft for lighter stuff. For what the RNZAF will likely be required to do it just fits the best. Though the KC-390 is a good contender.

Ended up on NZ between SIN-AKL the other day. Economy. Full flight. Loads seems good to AKL from everywhere and on all carriers, but its probably because its school holidays. Anyway I had to fly economy since it was a private trip. Economy is what it is in todays minimum seat era. (please bring in some legislation before the seats and pitches gets even smaller and more people die from DLT)...

It was an interesting experience. 777 and ten abreast is never fun but I knew that so I could handle it.
But running out of water with 5 hours to go, How is that even possible?
It was a bit surreal, the crew put the bottles used for serving water in the bathrooms, the rounds of liquid disappeared and we were stuck with alcohol/juice for the meal. Passengers handled it surprisingly well. I always bring my own water on board, SIN has taps in every secure room, so it didnt bother me much, but its the first time ever I have been on a flight without water ( that means no tea, coffee, water or water in the bathrooms).

Other interesting things, NZ to SIN arrived late, the crew who worked AKL-SIN walks off and does a round of ugly faces to the new crew through the separating glass window. Not sure doing faces in front of 250 passengers is what id like my staff to do but well it didn't hurt anyone.

Actually I had a great, professional Asian NZ steward, classy and smooth. Despite meal options running out on both servings, he handled it superbly, joked with the westerners who had to take vegetarian food. I am not concerned that two alternatives run out, but it surely isn't SQ levels when you offer two choices and non are left at the end, just vegetarian food...

Pretty senior crew I have a feeling there has been demand to go SIN for sometime from NZ crew. but seriously clean up, they need to sort that, the younger western ladies where given the task and walked round twice with a large rubbish bag asking all passengers to clean up.
Im a paying passenger and she is crew and she asks me to clean my neighbours tray (who is asleep and Ive never met)??? Bizarre,
I ignored her and let the rubbish sit, she didn't get the hint and asked again. A polite no thank you, made her walk off. Some staff and the nerve.
I'm no cleaner, she might have that in her job-description, but not me, I pay for the pleasure of being transported from A to B, I'm happy to assist with my rubbish but I don't bend over other passengers to clean theirs, thats her job...

Rather funny with us being delayed, the staff kept rushing passengers to sit down. Problem is the 777 has to little room in the bins. Passengers being used to SQ waits calmly for the crew to come and help them when there isn't ample space in the bins above them, NZ crew instead keeps asking people to hurry up. No surprise people don't hurry up when you don't help, instead standing there looking bewildered to why crew arent assisting. We ended up leaving the gate with a handful passengers still standing in the aisles dealing with luggage despite the crew constantly in a non-polite very direct way telling passengers to sort their luggage out so we could get moving. I would suggest that crew does the sorting of luggage like happens on Asian airlines and act proactively instead of watching from the aisles, later being very direct over the speaker system.

Well, it was a long time since my last longhaul experience on NZ and with any luck it'll be some time till my next. I do like the daytime flight from SIN, I really hope SQ returns to it, its just not fair that I have to pay the same and end up on NZ metal and with NZ service. The gap between the two carriers are just to wide, even in economy.

I like the colourscheme NZ have inside these days. looks good. Nice improvement.
Anyone knows why NZ centrebins arent as deep as other airlines 777 bins?
My handcarrier didn't fit and had to be put horizontally instead of vertically? (they same handcarrier has been in at least 10 airlines 777 bins vertically, weird) The bins are also very difficult to open, and that confused about 50 passengers.

A photo of ZK-OXJ:
Air New Zealand A320-232 msn 6694 by dn280tls, on Flickr

Is ZK-NZD still expected to be delivered on the 17th?

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): Rather funny with us being delayed, the staff kept rushing passengers to sit down. Problem is the 777 has to little room in the bins. Passengers being used to SQ waits calmly for the crew to come and help them when there isn't ample space in the bins above them, NZ crew instead keeps asking people to hurry up. No surprise people don't hurry up when you don't help, instead standing there looking bewildered to why crew arent assisting. We ended up leaving the gate with a handful passengers still standing in the aisles dealing with luggage despite the crew constantly in a non-polite very direct way telling passengers to sort their luggage out so we could get moving. I would suggest that crew does the sorting of luggage like happens on Asian airlines and act proactively instead of watching from the aisles, later being very direct over the speaker system.

Air New Zealand Flight Attendants are NOT to handle passenger baggage. This is a company directive due to too many crew becoming injured by passengers bringing on baggage that is far too heavy. Air New Zealand crew were very good at assisting passengers with their baggage. Sad how people believe this is a crew 'job' pack their bags with too many things and people get injured...

In regards to the rubbish collection - the crew member was just following OSH procedures in New Zealand which is never to bend/twist/over stretch. She was using her initiative by asking the customer if they could pass it to her...which you declined and you are entitled to. I guess this is quite a kiwi thing to do...

Unfortunately, culture/H&S have been taken as a negative to the customer experience - yet the crew were following standard operating procedures.. Sad really...

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12):

I guess I'll put in a hefty One-up request and hope for the best for my SIN-AKL flight later on.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): Pretty senior crew I have a feeling there has been demand to go SIN for sometime from NZ crew

Luck of the draw, Because it is a 777 currently the more senior crew generally are there - the 789 on the other hand are at the younger end of the scale. The 777 crew are usually better and offer more globally acceptable ' rather than kiwi' customer service

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): Im a paying passenger and she is crew and she asks me to clean my neighbours tray (who is asleep and Ive never met)??? Bizarre,

I would also feel uncomfortable with that. I agree with you on this point and also the lack of guidance in cabins, even if they can't lift due OSH issues they can assist in the cabin better and direct boarding more proactively.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): But running out of water with 5 hours to go, How is that even possible?

It's possible if the ground service didn't get completed correctly on the turnaround or the engineer/crew didn't check the tank levels prior to the departure or indeed if the aircraft had a water indication fault. All of which are not good. Traditionally daytime flights also use more water, and also anecdotally I would suggest asian destinations (esp PVG) generally use more water than others.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): Im a paying passenger and she is crew and she asks me to clean my neighbours tray (who is asleep and Ive never met)??? Bizarre, I ignored her and let the rubbish sit, she didn't get the hint and asked again. A polite no thank you, made her walk off. Some staff and the nerve. I'm no cleaner, she might have that in her job-description, but not me, I pay for the pleasure of being transported from A to B, I'm happy to assist with my rubbish but I don't bend over other passengers to clean theirs, thats her job...

I would say this was a pretty childish attitude on your behalf. I've got no problem picking up someone's tray if they are asleep, it's either that or have the hostess lean over you to get it, or was that what your were after a bit of boob brushing your face?

Quoting airnewzealand (Reply 14): OSH procedures in New Zealand which is never to bend/twist/over stretch

Seriously? There is a *policy* stating those things?? I've only been out of bed half an hour, and I must have violated all of those twenty times already. Or could it be that cabin crew are taking the policy to an extreme never originally intended?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 17): it's either that or have the hostess lean over you to get it, or was that what your were after a bit of boob brushing your face?

Who amongst us doesn't manipulate the situation to that end on a regular basis? It's even better if the FA in question is female.

I see NZ87 was late getting away to HKG this morning (greater than 6hrs)!
I wonder what the problem was?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ87

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): the younger western ladies where given the task and walked round twice with a large rubbish bag asking all passengers to clean up.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): Actually I had a great, professional Asian NZ steward, classy and smooth. Despite meal options running out on both servings, he handled it superbly, joked with the westerners

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 12): I would suggest that crew does the sorting of luggage like happens on Asian airlines

You specify 'western' (small 'w') and 'Asian' (capital 'A'). Could there be some cultural bias in your post?

PA515

Quoting PA515 (Reply 20): You specify 'western' (small 'w') and 'Asian' (capital 'A'). Could there be some cultural bias in your post?

Or alternatively it could be good grammar? "Asian" is a proper noun and should be capitalised (it is the name of a continent) where as "western" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised.

gemuser

An update on MH to AKL which I hadn't seen:

Malaysia Airlines on Monday morning (13JUL15) further revised Auckland service, A330-300 operates daily from 01SEP15, instead of 3 weekly

Via @airlineroute

Quoting gasman (Reply 18): Seriously? There is a *policy* stating those things?? I've only been out of bed half an hour, and I must have violated all of those twenty times already. Or could it be that cabin crew are taking the policy to an extreme never originally intended?

When I was an FA with NZ I would always offer to assist customers with their bags. It just seemed to be the right thing to do. Sure, it can be an issue with space and customers boarding but just standing there while customers boarded/struggled with their bags just seemed wrong to me.

Actually I don't like this to turn into a pro or against Air New Zealand longhaul thread.
I just observed what happened on my first NZ flight in ages. Some stuff were good, some were questionable and some hmm shouldn't happen. I was actually positively surprised by staff a great improvement since my last voyage on NZ. I also felt the cabin interior looked really smart, great new colours, good IFE, and the purple colours/tones were a really good choice.

Someone said the senior were more appropriate for international sectors and passengers, after this flight I must concur. The young ladies were not close to the professionalism, smoothness and class that the more senior staff worked with. the young ones has alot to learn before they reach the level of the more senior staff at NZ.
(Senior staff also seemed less in agreement about OH/S rules and had no issues bending picking up trays, while young crew couldn't bend and pick up light rubbish.)

I was full of praise of the senior crew member who mostly handled my aisle, he was a consummate professional. Worked the aisle like a true gentleman, with speed and great customer interaction under rather difficult circumstances.
I was pretty impressed by him.
I mean having to tell a bunch of white kiwis that there is only the vegetarian option left (twice) and making them happy to accept it, not a small feat that. Exceptionally good people skills / experience. Was a pleasure to see him in action and for that sake the lady who assisted him in our aisle. They both worked with a smile, delivering professional service at good speed. NZ should be proud of such staff.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 16): It's possible if the ground service didn't get completed correctly on the turnaround or the engineer/crew didn't check the tank levels prior to the departure or indeed if the aircraft had a water indication fault. All of which are not good. Traditionally daytime flights also use more water, and also anecdotally I would suggest Asian destinations (esp PVG) generally use more water than others.

Interesting, it wasn't a major issue and passengers handled the inconvenience well.
Would be interesting to learn how often this happens. Our steward said it hadn't happened to him in 20 years of flying but he was smooth so even if it was a daily occurrence I'm sure he would have said that...
I also saw a thread on here where a U2 flight landed in Paris due to no water, its was flying Newcastle to Costa del sol.

Quoting airnewzealand (Reply 14): In regards to the rubbish collection - the crew member was just following OSH procedures in New Zealand which is never to bend/twist/over stretch. She was using her initiative by asking the customer if they could pass it to her...which you declined and you are entitled to. I guess this is quite a kiwi thing to do...

Ah well we all have different policies, lets just say that in my industry thats not the way we approach OH/S issues. We protect clients first than ourselves. Different priorities.

Quoting airnewzealand (Reply 14): Air New Zealand Flight Attendants are NOT to handle passenger baggage. This is a company directive due to too many crew becoming injured by passengers bringing on baggage that is far too heavy. Air New Zealand crew were very good at assisting passengers with their baggage. Sad how people believe this is a crew 'job' pack their bags with too many things and people get injured...

If staff cant help their customers perhaps an addition to that rule might be that staff should approach the customer, direct him/her to the appropriate location where there is ample space in the bin. Seems to me like thats more proactive than standing at the end of the aisle. Might speed up boarding too and be within the rules of not assisting passengers with their carry on luggage.
(I intentionally didn't comment on your pre-assumption that all luggage was to heavy, I put such thoughts about paying customers down to a bad day since it comes across as a very entitled view of the people that pays the airlines bills)

I noticed NZ still only allows 7kg as hand carry on weight. Most international passengers being used to the almost standard 10kg hand carry weight probably packs just that. And airports such as Changi don't think checking passengers hand carriage is in the airports best interest, like AKL do.
At Changi some airlines ask that check-in staff weigh the luggage and tag it as approved for carry on.
NZ didn't do this though so one can assume that they don't see this as a problem.

A good way to improve things (unless it also violates a Air New Zealand specific OH/S directive) why not open all the bins before passengers board?

Quoting gasman (Reply 18): Quoting airnewzealand (Reply 14): OSH procedures in New Zealand which is never to bend/twist/over stretch Seriously? There is a *policy* stating those things??

Those same OSH standards are in effect where I work, I work in Health and patient care. Were taught how many kgs we can carry at waist height, how much at chest height and how much with arms fully stretched. If your injured then ACC/OSH requirments demand to know the weight involved. If your found to be breaking those rules then you could find your the subject of a work place inquiry. Its amazing but scary that a 7kg carry on bag will put some ages, especially females in the 'at risk' zone. OSH/ACC rules mean over weight bags need to be marked and airlines try and put off customers checking in bags that heavy.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 24): A good way to improve things (unless it also violates a Air New Zealand specific OH/S directive) why not open all the bins before passengers board?

I've always found overhead bins open on NZ flights when boarding.

Quoting gasman (Reply 18): Seriously? There is a *policy* stating those things?? I've only been out of bed half an hour, and I must have violated all of those twenty times already. Or could it be that cabin crew are taking the policy to an extreme never originally intended?

Not policy...procedure. This relates to the contract/pledge Air New Zealand has entered in to which states they will take all measures to keep employees safe and return them home as they arrived at work...specifically relating to OCcupational Safety and Health

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 23): When I was an FA with NZ I would always offer to assist customers with their bags. It just seemed to be the right thing to do. Sure, it can be an issue with space and customers boarding but just standing there while customers boarded/struggled with their bags just seemed wrong to me.

This has now changed due to the high injury rates associated with baggage.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 24): If staff cant help their customers perhaps an addition to that rule might be that staff should approach the customer, direct him/her to the appropriate location where there is ample space in the bin. Seems to me like thats more proactive than standing at the end of the aisle. Might speed up boarding too and be within the rules of not assisting passengers with their carry on luggage. (I intentionally didn't comment on your pre-assumption that all luggage was to heavy, I put such thoughts about paying customers down to a bad day since it comes across as a very entitled view of the people that pays the airlines bills) I noticed NZ still only allows 7kg as hand carry on weight. Most international passengers being used to the almost standard 10kg hand carry weight probably packs just that. And airports such as Changi don't think checking passengers hand carriage is in the airports best interest, like AKL do. At Changi some airlines ask that check-in staff weigh the luggage and tag it as approved for carry on. NZ didn't do this though so one can assume that they don't see this as a problem. A good way to improve things (unless it also violates a Air New Zealand specific OH/S directive) why not open all the bins before passengers board?

millwallsean, I apologise if you have misinterpreted my post. My intention was to show the fact as to why the crew were not assisting with bags as you stated in your original post. I agree100% with you in regards to crew being more proactive in showing space in the lockers....

In regards to PAs...this is normal on all Air New Zealand flights and forms part of the welcome PA. in all internal investigations it was found PAs assisted with customers stowage of bags in a timely/prompt manner.

My intention in regards to the weight of the bags was not to cause offense but point out the fact...it is not an assumption as all investigations conducted were led to pax bags being too heavy......this is why there have been many injuries. I do not mind if you make comment of it in a direct way...facts are always more important than 'pre-assumptions'.

In regards to customers, they absolutely contribute to 'paying the bills' and without them airlines would not be in a job. Customers are everything but as your post demonstrates - procedures in place to assist employees can sometimes be misunderstood and can come across in a completely different way.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Quoting airnewzealand (Reply 26): This has now changed due to the high injury rates associated with baggage.

It was the case when I was flying but sometimes common sense overrides procedures.

Pressure is mounting on JQ from the other side of the Tasman to drop their practice of automatically including insurance in bookings.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...e-on-optout-online-booking-process

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 24): I noticed NZ still only allows 7kg as hand carry on weight. Most international passengers being used to the almost standard 10kg hand carry weight probably packs just that. And airports such as Changi don't think checking passengers hand carriage is in the airports best interest, like AKL do. At Changi some airlines ask that check-in staff weigh the luggage and tag it as approved for carry on. NZ didn't do this though so one can assume that they don't see this as a problem.

7kg's is an pretty reasonable weight for an carry-on, I can do an 3 day weekend on 5kgs (so can allot of people).

Noticed on NZ's A320s today that the weight limit on each bin is noted as being 38kg total/bin. Typically each bin has to service around 6x passengers each. Which is only 6.3kg each, if each 6 passengers brings 7kg and places it in an overhead bin, thats 42kg (4kg above allowance).

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 27): It was the case when I was flying but sometimes common sense overrides procedures.

And its probably just going to get harder for crew to use common sense, once the new 'New Zealand' health and safety workplace rules come into place.

[

Quoting zkncj (Reply 29): 7kg's is an pretty reasonable weight for an carry-on, I can do an 3 day weekend on 5kgs (so can allot of people).

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 27): It was the case when I was flying but sometimes common sense overrides procedures.

I think that it's a reasonable expectation that cabin crew assist with the stowage of 7kg cabin bags. People who are vertically challenged and/or elderly really can struggle.

The issue is that passengers regularly bring cabin baggage on board that is clearly well in excess of 7kg. If someone could invent a system for screening and policing this....... I'm sure the other 80% of us would be that much happier.

Quoting gasman (Reply 30): If someone could invent a system for screening and policing this....... I'm sure the other 80% of us would be that much happier.

The ULCC's have such a scheme. They charge for cabin bags (with the exception of a personal item), and charge less for checked baggage.

Most non-ULCC travellers regard charging for cabin bags as a bridge too far, but it certainly improves the boarding process.

mariner

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 24): Would be interesting to learn how often this happens.

3-4 times in my recollection including one diversion (there may be more I can't remember). That is 1/3rd of all days in the last 10 years, so you are talking of a once or twice a year kind of thing where it gets to that point.

Quoting mariner (Reply 31): Most non-ULCC travellers regard charging for cabin bags as a bridge too far, but it certainly improves the boarding process.

The real issue is not weight at all, but size and quantity. If they reduced the acceptable size they pretty much ensure the weight will also drop. If IATA organised a global size reduction of their members AND got rid of this 1 PC plus a laptop/umbrella/suit carrier/handbag nonsense they would solve a few headaches. I would love to also enforce type. If you roll it behind then it isn't carry-on at all and should be checked.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 32): The real issue is not weight at all, but size and quantity.

Well, it's weight also, as far as staff injuries are concerned.

Quoting flyjetstar (Reply 22): An update on MH to AKL which I hadn't seen: Malaysia Airlines on Monday morning (13JUL15) further revised Auckland service, A330-300 operates daily from 01SEP15, instead of 3 weekly Via @airlineroute

This is great news, good to see MH staying around AKL while they review their whole operation.

They have just clarified that they will operate the A333 instead of the 772 on all of their flights from September.

http://airlineroute.net/2015/07/13/mh-akl-sep15/

Quoting gytr31 (Reply 34): his is great news, good to see MH staying around AKL while they review their whole operation.

It is good news, but there will be far fewer (?if any) onward connections to Europe......... which was a powerful reason for flying MH before. Without onward connections I'd doubt an AKL-KUL service could survive.

Quoting gasman (Reply 35): It is good news, but there will be far fewer (?if any) onward connections to Europe......... which was a powerful reason for flying MH before. Without onward connections I'd doubt an AKL-KUL service could survive.

There will be Indian/Suncontinental connections still. Not that they are a profitable venture but should still ensure bums on seats.

Quoting gasman (Reply 33): Well, it's weight also, as far as staff injuries are concerned.

Here I was thinking that it was also a "safety" requirement that cabin crew had to be a able to lift a minimum weight above their head safely. For example I think the exit row window on a 733 is 12 or 14KG. Far more than the vast majority of bags on NZ flights.
It's funny that Crew don't lift but ground crew are expected to do that by cabin crew when preboarding passengers, not to mention they always carry infants and toddlers onboard to assist with parental loo breaks. Just an observation over hundreds of NZ Intl flights

Quoting gasman (Reply 35):

Sadly you may be correct, AMS, CDG, & LHR are all still served however so if the connections aren't too long then they may still stand a good chance.

It is incredible how extensive their network was, even as recently as 2012. Given their financial situation (even prior to MH17 & 370) some of these destinations must have been operated for reasons other than profit...

How late is too late? I ask this as early this evening I was on flightradar24 and noted NZ648 ZQN-AKL departed ZQN at 5.38pm. At this time of night it must have been close to dark, certainly late twilight. Just how late can aircraft leave ZQN? Does each airline have its own rules in regards to departures from ZQN or is this covered by general regulations? I ask all this assuming flightradar24 is in fact correct.

Quoting taieridrome (Reply 38): How late is too late? I ask this as early this evening I was on flightradar24 and noted NZ648 ZQN-AKL departed ZQN at 5.38pm. At this time of night it must have been close to dark, certainly late twilight. Just how late can aircraft leave ZQN? Does each airline have its own rules in regards to departures from ZQN or is this covered by general regulations? I ask all this assuming flightradar24 is in fact correct.

We're they trying to extend the operating hours at ZQN?

Looking at the AIP (http://aip.net.nz/pdf/NZQN_51.1_51.2.pdf) for ZQN

"Aircraft arrivals and departures between 2200 hours local to 0600 hours local not permitted unless an emergency"

Maybe they have done it?

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 36): Here I was thinking that it was also a "safety" requirement that cabin crew had to be a able to lift a minimum weight above their head safely. For example I think the exit row window on a 733 is 12 or 14KG. Far more than the vast majority of bags on NZ flights. It's funny that Crew don't lift but ground crew are expected to do that by cabin crew when preboarding passengers, not to mention they always carry infants and toddlers onboard to assist with parental loo breaks. Just an observation over hundreds of NZ Intl flights

Yes crew need to be able to remove an exit row hatch. They don't however need to lift it over their head. They actually are trained how to safety remove it onto its side and push it out. This is also not a daily occurrence. Again with ground crew, most hardly ever need to lift a bag.
Another factor that hasn't been mentioned here is that it is a legal requirement that a certain number of crew remain by their doors. This is so that in an emergency evacuation they don't have to climb over 20 passengers and their oversized luggage to reach the door to evacuate the aircraft.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 39): Quoting taieridrome (Reply 38): How late is too late? I ask this as early this evening I was on flightradar24 and noted NZ648 ZQN-AKL departed ZQN at 5.38pm. At this time of night it must have been close to dark, certainly late twilight. Just how late can aircraft leave ZQN? Does each airline have its own rules in regards to departures from ZQN or is this covered by general regulations? I ask all this assuming flightradar24 is in fact correct. We're they trying to extend the operating hours at ZQN? Looking at the AIP (http://aip.net.nz/pdf/NZQN_51.1_51.2.pdf) for ZQN "Aircraft arrivals and departures between 2200 hours local to 0600 hours local not permitted unless an emergency" Maybe they have done it?

I was under the impression that in order to operate the extended hours, they had to widen the runway from 30m to 45m. I don't think that they've done that yet?

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 40): Another factor that hasn't been mentioned here is that it is a legal requirement that a certain number of crew remain by their doors

Yes of course but it is but they have more than that requirement onboard. The real issue is that SQ/TG/KE/TG and the rest are on the plane at -75 whereas NZ is -45 for crew so they don't have enough time to perform checks and then assist passengers.
I rarely see anyone directing proceedings in the cabin anymore. Even if they don't lift they should open all lockers before boarding starts, they should know where the empty locker space is. and they should know how to stack and prioritise space in the locker AND if the scenario where the passengers are incapacitated (by disability or offspring) they should be physically strong enough to lift 10KG without injuring themselves or else they aren't really physically capable enough to push a full meal cart, or pull a door open in an emergency. Even a weakling like me can lift 10KG into a locker.

"Traffic, heavier planes force runway patch-up" - Queenstown Airport spends up to $400,000 fixing wear and tear.

Queenstown Airport has been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on patching its runway after damage by heavy aircraft.

Between $300,000 and $400,000 has been spent on 2800sq m of new asphalt to cover grooves in the runway at one of Australasia's fastest growing airports.

Pilots had complained about ruts that were filling up with water, which coming into winter would have made landing on the runway trickier.

General manager of operations at the airport Mike Clay said rapid growth in the number of aircraft and the increased weight of planes had damaged the runway. Larger planes using the resort town's runway are now up to 20 tonnes heavier than those of five years ago, he said.

"We haven't done patching to this extent before - the fundamental reason is that we've seen huge growth."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11480916

Speaking of heavy traffic. I heard from AKL Airport company they have recvd an enquiry by KE regarding the 748i with the intent of high season upgauge 2016. If so it will put the airport at breaking point...

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 44):

Awesome! Well the fact that they do upgauge the 772 to 744 (plus 77W this past summer) would suggest that the 748 is easily a possibility (A380 is surely out of the picture). Not sure about breaking point as it's not that much bigger than the 744. It also raises the question of why NZ/OZ isn't competing on this route, even if it was seasonal.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 45): Not sure about breaking point as it's not that much bigger than the 744

It can currently fit on only gate 10 and 16, with gate 15 upgradable. Therefore yes it is breaking point....lol

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 45):

747-8i is a code F aircraft (same as the A380), the 747-400 is only a code E. The extra 4m of wingspan makes a significant difference.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 46):

Ah well.. Those 737s/A320s deserve bus gates.. 

AKL really really needs to extend the pier to G17/18.......


Anyone got recent news on the new NZ intl lounge in AKL?

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 48): Ah well.. Those 737s/A320s deserve bus gates.

If KE brings the 748i it's going to be the 789/772/77W fleet and CZ 332s that will get the buses because of their schedule. and AKL only has 4 buses on at a time...lol remember by the time they start we will also have 3 extra 787s and EZE/IAH...haha On a weekend it is already chaos