New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 178

ZKSUJ · Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:53 pm

I still personally don't see direct service to Asia from WLG anytime soon (At least daily frequency) but I must say Kudos to WIAL for future proofing their infrastructure, a far cry from the chaos that can be found up north

zkncj · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:31 pm

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 150):
I still personally don't see direct service to Asia from WLG anytime soon (At least daily frequency) but I must say Kudos to WIAL for future proofing their infrastructure, a far cry from the chaos that can be found up north

Problem being AIAL has the money to do upgrades etc, but choses not to. WIAL on the other hand doesn't have the money for the upgrades and crys poor that they need the money for the upgrades.

WIAL really needs to get the support of airlines that would use the runway extension, otherwise its could just become an massive waste of money if no one uses.

ZKSUJ · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:38 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 151):

Agreed.

Sylus · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:43 pm

With all of the recent discussion surrounding EK, does anyone have an idea on if/when SYD-CHC will be upgraded to an A380? I'm guessing it's down to the BKK-SYD leg being upgraded?

PA515 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:01 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 134):
Prefect the additional 5x additional leases frames that they could take, would probably replace any loss in capcity from dropping VA.

Air NZ will be leasing the 5 A321NEO / A320NEO from ALC regardless.

It's just a question of how many of the order for 13 they take. My understanding of the arrangement with ALC is that Air NZ got some earlier delivery slots of ALC aircraft and ALC would take up to 5 of Air NZ's later delivery slots, if Air NZ didn't need them.

As of 31 Dec 2015 Air NZ is taking at least 9 of the order for 13 making a total of 14 (5 leased plus 9 owned), leaving 4 for later decision.

PA515

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:09 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 151):
WIAL really needs to get the support of airlines that would use the runway extension, otherwise its could just become an massive waste of money if no one uses.

Of course all airlines will use the runway extension if it is constructed. Can you really imagine that their managements will issue an instruction that says

1 You may not touch down inside the first 300m (or whatever) of runway but only use the pre-existing runway length when landing
2 When taking off, you may not load the aircraft to a weight that requires the use of the runway extension, even if it means leaving pax or freight behind or means that you require a fuel stop en route

That would be just laughable. The airlines' attitude is posturing; if the runway extension is built, they'll use it - not least for the safety margin it provides in one of IALPA's "black spot" airports.

And let's face it, another factor is the interest shown by EK to serve WLG, but its unwillingness to do so with the current runway length.

I find it amusing that so many posters on the NZ thread have bought into NZ's PR campaign against the extension without a critical analysis of the impact that possible future long-haul services by EK, CZ and who knows who else might have.

[Edited 2016-06-05 18:15:37]

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:20 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 155):
1 You may not touch down inside the first 300m (or whatever) of runway but only use the pre-existing runway length when landing
2 When taking off, you may not load the aircraft to a weight that requires the use of the runway extension, even if it means leaving pax or freight behind or means that you require a fuel stop en route

NZ/QF have already stated that they will not being use the additional 300m of runway, and will stick to use the current runway length. They are both request that this in return that they will pay zero dollars towards the runway extension that they don't support.

All airlines have there own operating guides for each airport they operate into, and what they can/can't do with each time, each airlines polices will differ. For example NZ de-rated the MTOW of there A320D by around 7 tones, compaired to the the Intertional A320. Then on the other hand Jetstar will have another MTOW.

Both NZ/QF have said there current operations ex-AKL don't need the addtional runway, and both run the current WLG cost base around it.

Both will have limits of how many seats they can sell on each flight, which keeps them within there planned MTOW and there cost base it worked around this. If it was an big problem people would be constantly being off-loaded, and bags traveling later.

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:35 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 156):
NZ/QF have already stated that they will not being use the additional 300m of runway, and will stick to use the current runway length. They are both request that this in return that they will pay zero dollars towards the runway extension that they don't support.

And if they're serious about that, then they'll publicly issue their pilots with the two instructions I suggested in my post. But if they were to do so, they would become a laughing stock amongst pax, or worse, would be accused of compromising safety.

Will they have a policy of starting a fully-loaded aircraft's take-off roll 300m from the start of the runway?
Will they have a policy of touching down 300m past the start of the runway?
If they're serious about not wanting the extension, then they would do just that.

What they will do is to allow themselves the full length of the extended runway in both cases, as a safety measure. Should they get that for free?

This is all about protecting their markets from Asian competitors, and we just accept their position uncritically. I don't understand why!

Motorhussy · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:49 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 150):
I still personally don't see direct service to Asia from WLG anytime soon

What, has SQ cancelled its plans and I haven't heard about it? Or do you mean non-stop services to/from Asia?

I think there is a good chance another will start non-stops... HX, CZ, MU, CX, VN, CI, AK must all be candidates plus the ME3 as one-stops.

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:57 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 157):
And if they're serious about that, then they'll publicly issue their pilots with the two instructions I suggested in my post. But if they were to do so, they would become a laughing stock amongst pax, or worse, would be accused of compromising safety.

So you could say the same about ZQN then? or even LCY.

Wellington current runway is 2081m, ZQN is only 1891m. Which an A320CEO can take of perfectly safely on without any major restrictions on an 3hour journey.

A320CEO at MTOW (78tones) needs 2090m, which is only 19meters more than the current WLG runway.

NZ's Insertional A320s are rated at 77tones, so 1tone below Airbus published MTOW and the Domestic A320s at 71.5tones .

Both fleets can take off from WLG at there MTOW safely with the current runway.

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:24 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 159):
So you could say the same about ZQN then? or even LCY.

You're missing my point. Of course there are many airports with limitations, but what NZ and QF are suggesting is that they won't ever make use of runway length even though it may be available. That's quite a different thing.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 159):
Both fleets can take off from WLG at there MTOW safely with the current runway.

So the airlines should have no difficulty making public now their intention NOT to take advantage of the additional safety margin provided by the extra 300m, and issue the appropriate instructions to their pilots. And this, as I say, at an IFALPA "black spot" airport. Can't see that playing well with the public or the pilots!

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 158):
I think there is a good chance another will start non-stops... HX, CZ, MU, CX, VN, CI, AK must all be candidates plus the ME3 as one-stops.

Agreed: as I said, this is about NZ and QF trying to keep potential competitors at bay. Why are A-netters buying into it?

ZKSUJ · Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:38 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 158):
What, has SQ cancelled its plans and I haven't heard about it? Or do you mean non-stop services to/from Asia

I meant non stop. And was also implying daily services. I'm sure it will happen but not in the near future IMHO

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:59 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 160):
So the airlines should have no difficulty making public now their intention NOT to take advantage of the additional safety margin provided by the extra 300m, and issue the appropriate instructions to their pilots. And this, as I say, at an IFALPA "black spot" airport. Can't see that playing well with the public or the pilots!

Both are currently operating there aircraft to MTOW within the safety margins for the current runway length, which at current time works fine for both of there operations.

The extra 300m runway means nothing, if they don't increase there MTOW. They both already accounting for the shorter runaway length in there flight planning, and have to leave an minimum margin as it is. You have to leave an mimuim safety margin within your planning, which both airlines are doing.

The chances both airlines filling there 738/320 to the aircraft MTOW at WLG is very minimal, you'd probably find there current flights are already leaving more than an 300m safety margins ex WLG.

ZK-NBT · Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:03 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):

Is that t the case? I thought there were restrictions on some flights ex WLG atleast?

nascarnut · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:25 am

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 116):
With all this extra traffic taking AKL to a bursting at the seams point. Do we expect some of the airlines with fewer flights to AKL start looking at going to CHC instead? Sure it's a bit longer to get there but the connections are still fairly reasonable.

Below is year over year increase from Summer 2015/2016 to Summer 2016/2017. Includes those airlines that started after the Summer season ended.
This is just what has been announced. Does not include any additional QF/VA/NZ Trans tasman traffic
AKL-LAX AA Daily 788
AKL-SFO UA Daily 789
AKL-DXB EK Daily A380
AKL-HKG HX Daily 332
AKL-KUL D7 Daily 332
AKL-TPE CI Increase from 8 to 9 per week
AKL-EZE NZ increase from 3 772 to 4 789 per week
AKL-IAH NZ increase from 5 772 to Daily 772
AKL-PVG NZ increase from daily 789 to 10 789 per week
AKL-KIX NZ New 3 763 per week
AKL-MNL NZ New 3 763 per week
AKL-HNL NZ increase from 3 763 to 4 789 per week
AKL-DOH QR delayed start to Feb with Daily 77L

Missed CX aircraft change from Daily 77W and 343 to Daily 77W and Daily 350

That is well over 15000 additional seats out of AKL each week this coming Summer.
Apologies if I have missed some

The Chinese carriers have not announced any additional flying yet for Chinese New Year but Hainan Airlines were hinting at starting service into AKL with 3 weekly 332 out of Shenzhen

[Edited 2016-06-05 22:02:39]

CHCalfonzo · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:27 am

Quoting Sylus (Reply 153):
With all of the recent discussion surrounding EK, does anyone have an idea on if/when SYD-CHC will be upgraded to an A380? I'm guessing it's down to the BKK-SYD leg being upgraded?

The runway at CHC is now 60m wide and the taxiways are suitable, they just have to add a second jet bridge to gate 34 and they'll be all set to go.

Gasman · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:36 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 157):
This is all about protecting their markets from Asian competitors, and we just accept their position uncritically. I don't understand why!

The New Zealand media, large chunks of the public and most people on this thread accept NZ's view on the world uncritically and unsuspiciously. It drives me nuts.

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:49 am

Quoting nascarnut (Reply 164):
The Chinese carriers have not announced any additional flying yet for Chinese New Year but Hainan Airlines were hinting at starting service into AKL with 3 weekly 332 out of Shenzhen

Add to that NZ talked about additional route to China, while it hasn't been announced yet surely if it was to start this year it would be in time for the summer peak?

Who else would be left to come to AKL? really the majority to the of the airlines in the region are here now.

Possible new comers?
VN : AKL-SGN
EH : ABU-AKL
TZ : SIN-AKL? Unlikely with current SQ presence?
OZ : ICN-AKL (Didn't they try a couple years back?)
JL ?

ZK-NBT · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:16 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 167):

You mean EY.
ANA are quite likely IMO more than JAL
OZ I doubt but more likely than NZ taking on KE, OZ flew here in 2003/05
VN possible
TZ unlikely

We are running out of carriers who could realistically fly here. More Chinese secondary carriers.
DL?
A European carrier is probably unlikely.

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 167):
Add to that NZ talked about additional route to China, while it hasn't been announced yet surely if it was to start this year it would be in time for the summer peak?

The announcement came a couple of weeks ago, and was to increase PVG flights rather than open a new route.

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:47 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 168):
A European carrier is probably unlikely.

LX or LH would be great, although unlikely with NZ being in *A.

Its amazing when flying to/from Europe on LX or LH how many people you see getting on the flights with New Zealand Passports. That being LX/LH offer some pretty good fares ex AKL to Europe, probably hence the amount of people choosing to fly with them.

777ER · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:01 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 158):
I think there is a good chance another will start non-stops... HX, CZ, MU, CX, VN, CI, AK must all be candidates plus the ME3 as one-stops.

VN have already stated possible WLG services from 2020

Quoting zkncj (Reply 162):
Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 160):
So the airlines should have no difficulty making public now their intention NOT to take advantage of the additional safety margin provided by the extra 300m, and issue the appropriate instructions to their pilots. And this, as I say, at an IFALPA "black spot" airport. Can't see that playing well with the public or the pilots!

Both are currently operating there aircraft to MTOW within the safety margins for the current runway length, which at current time works fine for both of there operations.

Current NZ A320 Tasman services are weight restricted. Once the NEO enters service on WLG services then MTOW applies on perfect flying days. The extra runway length will come in handy for NZ on days when its not perfect and David is stating, will NZ happily be weight restricted on those days when flying isn't perfect from WLG?

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:18 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 171):
Current NZ A320 Tasman services are weight restricted. Once the NEO enters service on WLG services then MTOW applies on perfect flying days. The extra runway length will come in handy for NZ on days when its not perfect and David is stating, will NZ happily be weight restricted on those days when flying isn't perfect from WLG?

It will also come down to what MTOW rating NZ choses for its A320NEO, currently they have chosen to derate the Insertional and Domestic fleet to an lighter MTOW.

Currently the A320NEO has an published MTOW of 79tones, we're A320CEO is 78tones. NZ's Intl A320CEO are limited to 77tones for MTOW.

With the fuel savings on the A320NEO, NZ might choose to lower the MTOW to around the 72-74tone mark to match the Domestic A320CEO. Which would most likely free them up from being weight restricted weather effected days, and save on airport costs.

An 79t MTOW A320NEO has an approximately an 6,5000km range, something that very limited routes will need. We're as the A321NEO has an 7,400km range so that sub-fleet could probably handle the longer routes e.g AKL-RAR

ZKSUJ · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:35 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 167):
Who else would be left to come to AKL? really the majority to the of the airlines in the region are here now.

Possible new comers?
VN : AKL-SGN
EH : ABU-AKL
TZ : SIN-AKL? Unlikely with current SQ presence?
OZ : ICN-AKL (Didn't they try a couple years back?)
JL ?

GA would be a good bet I'd imagine? Would BR think about it knowing CI is here already? DL as mentioned, AC would be a longer shot.

LH 74H via HND or BA 388 via LAX/SIN would be a great sight

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:53 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 173):
LH 74H via HND or BA 388 via LAX/SIN would be a great sight

Do wonder if the LH Group could fill an daily flight from AKL into one of there Europe hubs?

777ER · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:05 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 172):

I would be very surprised if NZ has a reduced MTOW for the 320NEO. The International fleet carry more freight then domestic and reducing their freight load will hurt NZ

ZK-NBT · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:33 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 173):

BR non stop TPE-AKL maybe. GA forgot about them, they were meant to return in 2013 and didn't. NZ cover DPS seasonally, seems to work for them.

LH forget it. BA would seem the only chance for a European carrier via somewhere with a 777, but unlikely IMO.
AI?

Quoting 777ER (Reply 175):

Agreed.

Zkpilot · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am

AI is another possibility.
Also TK are looking at Oz so might do an EK trick and add a tag to AKL

Mr AirNZ · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:47 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 172):
It will also come down to what MTOW rating NZ choses for its A320NEO, currently they have chosen to derate the Insertional and Domestic fleet to an lighter MTOW.

The 78 tonne takeoff weight was/is an option introduced well after the current A320 international fleet was acquired.

sunrisevalley · Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:26 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 157):
Should they get that for free?

The WLG landing charges schedule lowest rate is 100t MCTOW so it is unlikely the schedule would charge them more for a A320 type aircraft. If they loaded more passengers then the passenger unit rate ( currently $15.96) would apply to the additional passengers.

77west · Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:03 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 172):
79tones,

Please tell me, what on earth is a "tone" ???

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:59 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 179):
The WLG landing charges schedule lowest rate is 100t MCTOW so it is unlikely the schedule would charge them more for a A320 type aircraft. If they loaded more passengers then the passenger unit rate ( currently $15.96) would apply to the additional passengers.

NZ might have an deal with WLG? after all they do operate around 40-50 A320 movements a day at WLG.

While it appears that WLG has an flat rate for up to 100t MTOW, AKL chages $14.20/tonne for aircraft with an MTOW of 40t or higher.

file:///C:/Users/cameronc/Downloads/...ve%201%20July%202012%208107532.PDF

So paper de-rating the A320 fleet we're full MTOW isn't needed well save them allot in an 12 month period. For example for every Domestic A320 leaving AKL they have saving $92.3 by not rating the aircraft at its full MCTOW. If they for example had 50 takes on an single day thats an saving of $4615 or weekly $32305.

ZKSUJ · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 176):
LH forget it. BA would seem the only chance for a European carrier via somewhere with a 777

I know, it was more a 'would be cool' thing than anuything to take seriously.

SA eventually as a tag on From Ozzie?

Zkpilot · Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:13 am

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 182):
SA eventually as a tag on From Ozzie?

Think we'll see NZ fly to SA first

Motorhussy · Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:37 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 183):
Think we'll see NZ fly to SA first

And logic, coupled with NZ's past performance of flying where there's no competition, would suggest AKL-MEL-JNB. Could the 789 make this viable? Although VA couldn't make a go of it with their 77W, CASA have relaxed their rules on twin engine flying over the southern ocean. Perhaps a smaller more efficient craft originating in New Zealand would allow for better frequency and CASA's new rules a more economic flight path.

Zkpilot · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:50 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 184):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 183):
Think we'll see NZ fly to SA first

And logic, coupled with NZ's past performance of flying where there's no competition, would suggest AKL-MEL-JNB. Could the 789 make this viable? Although VA couldn't make a go of it with their 77W, CASA have relaxed their rules on twin engine flying over the southern ocean. Perhaps a smaller more efficient craft originating in New Zealand would allow for better frequency and CASA's new rules a more economic flight path.

Yes times have changed since VA operated the route... better suited aircraft, lower fuel prices, better routing due to better ETOPS, NZ has lower crew costs and has better feed (both international and for the time-being VA domestic).

kiwiandrew · Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:45 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 184):
CASA have relaxed their rules on twin engine flying over the southern ocean. Perhaps a smaller more efficient craft originating in New Zealand would allow for better frequency and CASA's new rules a more economic flight path.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe CASA's new rules would matter as they would not apply to a ZK registered aircraft. CAA's rules would apply. In other words, NZ could operate such a service tomorrow, subject to traffic rights (However, I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen) .

Gemuser · Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:04 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 186):
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe CASA's new rules would matter as they would not apply to a ZK registered aircraft. CAA's rules would apply. In other words, NZ could operate such a service tomorrow, subject to traffic rights (However, I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen) .

IF CASA does not permit EDTO for Australian airlines it CAN opt out of the relevant ICAO annex and no airline could do such operations to/from Australian territory HOWEVER CASA has said they will approve EDTO operations in accordance with that annex, if so, there can be no problem with any airline approved by its regulator doing so from Australian territory.

As I've said before I'll believe CASA has given such approval one month after the start of commercial operations using such approval.

Gemuser

Motorhussy · Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:05 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 186):

I'm pretty certain CASA's LROPS rules apply to every long-haul twin aircraft departing and arriving non-stop to/from Australia. It was since the Australian authority relaxed its rules that LA were allowed to fly SCL-SYD non-stop rather than just direct via AKL.

777ER · Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:47 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 183):
Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 182):
SA eventually as a tag on From Ozzie?

Think we'll see NZ fly to SA first

And if SA did fly to AKL/CHC from Australia then expect NZ to have its usual anti Star competition response of blocking earning on SA flights like they have done in the past with other Star carriers

zkncj · Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:14 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 189):
And if SA did fly to AKL/CHC from Australia then expect NZ to have its usual anti Star competition response of blocking earning on SA flights like they have done in the past with other Star carriers

Don't even know why NZ is still in *A, although have noticed in all the new lounges the *A Gold logo is an removable magnet.

ZK-NBT · Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:26 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 188):

LA could have flown SYD-SCL non stop with the A343 when they had them, just they never really had enough of them, however they still serve the route via AKL bit I'm picking they will give non stop SYD a go sometime.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 183):

SA is a basket case, they codeshare with NZ via PER, not really any point of either extending IMO but SA doing it for no reason would be more likely than NZ serving JNB.

777ER · Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:23 pm

ZK-ZQB (Qantas) was struck by a truck this afternoon at WLG cancelling the SYD service

sunrisevalley · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:26 pm

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 184):
Could the 789 make this viable? Although VA couldn't make a go of it with their 77W, CASA have relaxed their rules on twin engine flying over the southern ocean. Perhaps a smaller more efficient craft originating in New Zealand would allow for better frequency and CASA's new rules a more economic flight path.

The 789 is viable. Probably less EDTO onerous than AKL-EZE. I believe VA were attempting to use the 77W within 180-min EDTO since CASA at the time did not allow for anything greater.

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 188):
It was since the Australian authority relaxed its rules that LA were allowed to fly SCL-SYD non-stop rather than just direct via AKL.

CASA has no jurisdiction over carriers with AOC's from other countries. If you read CASA 82.0 closely their references are to airlines with Australian AOC's.

afterburner33 · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:36 pm

Maybe this belongs in the Space section, but I see the NASA flying telescope SOFIA is in Christchurch for a few weeks. I wonder when the last time a Boeing 747SP visited NZ was. Relatively rare I would have thought.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ticle.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11652321

777ER · Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting afterburner33 (Reply 194):

The same aircraft was based in CHC either last winter or the previous years winter for research

zkncj · Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:37 am

http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zeal...-preps-to-launch-inflight-internet

NZ finally talks about adding Wifi

Motorhussy · Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:16 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 193):

Thanks.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 191):
bit I'm picking they will give non stop SYD a go sometime.

May be mistaken but am pretty sure they're already doing SYD-SCL non-stop, along with SYD-AKL-SCL.

NZ107 · Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:25 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 197):
May be mistaken but am pretty sure they're already doing SYD-SCL non-stop, along with SYD-AKL-SCL.

No, QF operates the SYD-SCL nonstop flight with a 744.

77west · Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:34 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 195):

Quoting afterburner33 (Reply 194):
The same aircraft was based in CHC either last winter or the previous years winter for research

Think it was here last year actually.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/sofia-he...ew-zealand-to-study-southern-skies

That's this year but I recall it coming last year or the year before as well.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net