Auckland Airport Fuel Shortage - Resulting in diversions and cancellations

hnl808 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:03 am

The sole fuel supply line to AKL was accidentally severed this weekend. As of now 23 flights have been cancelled in the last 24 hours. Here are the key points as of now.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11923227&ref=NZH_fb

- All supplies of aviation fuel to Auckland Airport have been cut after a digger trying to extract kauri logs cut the oil pipeline from Marsden Point near Ruakaka on Thursday.

- All flights coming into Auckland have been advised to carry enough extra fuel to get out again.

-Long-haul flights are being redirected to refuelling stops at other NZ or international airports.

-Engineers are being flown in from Canada to help bring oil flows through the pipeline up to full capacity gradually.

-Oil companies say it will take 10 to 14 days to restore normal supplies.

-Road transport fuel is not affected at this stage and can be supplied by tanker, but the pipeline was the only source of aviation fuel for the airport.

raylee67 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:41 am

CX now has a refueling stop for its HKG-AKL flight at Cairns, on both direction

https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/ ... l-hkg.html

ZK-NBT · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:00 am

That doesn't say both directions it just says all flights between AKL-HKG, it may well be both directions however.

NZ 6/8 to LAX/SFO are scheduled to stop on NAN so far while the inbound NZ5 from LAX is also listed as via NAN.

TG stopped in BNE today on the AKL-BKK sector.

downdata · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:03 am

Always wondered who foot the bill for the extra fuel expenses in cases like this

samzkvh · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:03 am

EK449 AKL-DXB operating via CHC tonight, and via MEL from 18th onwards

skyhawkmatthew · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:35 am

This should mean the first A350 visit to CNS, I expect!

qf789 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:47 am

NZ travel alert

https://www.airnewzealand.com.au/travel-alerts

Flights cancelled over the next 24 hours include

NZ729 Auckland to Melbourne Sunday 17 September
NZ722 Melbourne to Auckland Monday 18 September
NZ543 Auckland to Christchurch Monday 18 September
NZ550 Christchurch to Auckland Monday 18 September
NZ413 Auckland to Wellington Monday 18 September
NZ420 Wellington to Auckland Monday 18 September
NZ437 Auckland to Wellington Monday 18 September
NZ444 Wellington to Auckland Monday 18 September
NZ718 Sydney to Auckland Tuesday 19 September
NZ719 Auckland to Sydney Tuesday 19 September

skyhawkmatthew · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:10 am

It appears that despite the announcement above, CX’s flights are currently planned to fly direct HKG-AKL, and tech stop in BNE on the return trip, rather than CNS.

log0008 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:35 am

downdata wrote:
Always wondered who foot the bill for the extra fuel expenses in cases like this

Most likely if impact is big enough the fuel suppliers will. The airlines will have contacts with them to supply fuel and they likely include clauses for cases like this. Of course, they may have clauses with the pipeline owner to pass this on to them.

wstakl · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:48 am

Welcome to New Zealand....where back up plans and non existent

qf002 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:49 am

wstakl wrote:
Welcome to New Zealand....where back up plans and non existent

Welcome to New Zealand, where the back up plan is Australia

raylee67 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:58 am

skyhawkmatthew wrote:
It appears that despite the announcement above, CX’s flights are currently planned to fly direct HKG-AKL, and tech stop in BNE on the return trip, rather than CNS.

The announcement says the CNS arrangement starts on Sep 18.

readytotaxi · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:11 am

So this person and their digger crack the pipeline and don't tell anyone, the company have to send a helicopter to spot the leak. I guess these pipes are not marked in anyway. Hope he has liability insurance.

LamboAston · Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:24 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
That doesn't say both directions it just says all flights between AKL-HKG, it may well be both directions however.

NZ 6/8 to LAX/SFO are scheduled to stop on NAN so far while the inbound NZ5 from LAX is also listed as via NAN.

TG stopped in BNE today on the AKL-BKK sector.

LATAM looks like direct flight. What about IAH?

ZK-NBT · Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:40 am

LamboAston wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
That doesn't say both directions it just says all flights between AKL-HKG, it may well be both directions however.

NZ 6/8 to LAX/SFO are scheduled to stop on NAN so far while the inbound NZ5 from LAX is also listed as via NAN.

TG stopped in BNE today on the AKL-BKK sector.

LATAM looks like direct flight. What about IAH?

They were today, there will be a fair few disruptions if this isn't resolved for 10-14 days as they are saying though.

zkncj · Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:50 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
That doesn't say both directions it just says all flights between AKL-HKG, it may well be both directions however.

NZ 6/8 to LAX/SFO are scheduled to stop on NAN so far while the inbound NZ5 from LAX is also listed as via NAN.

TG stopped in BNE today on the AKL-BKK sector.

Most likely NZ5 will collect fuel in NAN to help the aircraft being able to operate an Tasman sector once it has arrived in AKL.

HHScot · Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:36 am

log0008 wrote:
downdata wrote:
Always wondered who foot the bill for the extra fuel expenses in cases like this

Most likely if impact is big enough the fuel suppliers will. The airlines will have contacts with them to supply fuel and they likely include clauses for cases like this. Of course, they may have clauses with the pipeline owner to pass this on to them.

I think that the airlines will end up sitting on these costs (unless they have some sort of insurance that would cover this sort of thing)

It is likely that the fuel supply contracts contain a force majeure clause that protect the fuel suppliers from any claims in this situation as the cut of the pipeline is outside of their control.

Arion640 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:45 am

Strange that some inbounds are stopping unless there really isn't enough fuel to get them back out to their respected stop points.

skyhawkmatthew · Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:53 am

raylee67 wrote:
skyhawkmatthew wrote:
It appears that despite the announcement above, CX’s flights are currently planned to fly direct HKG-AKL, and tech stop in BNE on the return trip, rather than CNS.

The announcement says the CNS arrangement starts on Sep 18.

I know that. The announcement is incorrect. Search the flight status for CX198; it’s BNE (which makes sense really: less fuel to tanker through AKL and engineers trained on the A350).

jgch · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:19 am

Qatar 921 seems to be flying direct.

An767 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:21 am

Looks like QTR 921 has gone striaght through to Doha , yet looks like EK are stopping in OZ on way home
AN767

joffie · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:27 am

NZ6 to LAX has literally just landed at Nadi for their fuel stop. NZ24 to YVR and NZ8 to SFO have not stopped.. so maybe these 2 flights have enough fuel, but not the LAX one, unless they will stop at HNL?

NZ321 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:37 am

Surely the onus is on AKL to provide the fuel

VirginFlyer · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:51 am

An767 wrote:
Looks like QTR 921 has gone striaght through to Doha , yet looks like EK are stopping in OZ on way home
AN767

Mods delete please double post

Just a heads up, the moderators don't necessarily read every thread - to report your post directly to them you can use the button in the top right of it with an exclamation mark inside a triangle.

V/F

NZ321 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:08 am

ZKSUJ wrote:
It's embarassing as a nation not having a back up plan though I'd imagine it would be very expensive.

Where do the likes of SQ, MH, & TG stop for gas?

My question exactly. Have friends on MH to AKL tonight.

ZKSUJ · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:08 am

It's embarassing as a nation not having a back up plan though I'd imagine it would be very expensive.

Where do the likes of SQ, MH, & TG stop for gas?

BoeingVista · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:37 am

wstakl wrote:
Welcome to New Zealand....where back up plans and non existent

Are you trying to tell me that a country that builds its largest city on an active volcanic field are no good at forward planning, I'm shocked!

xiaotung · Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:25 pm

Can somebody tell me why aircraft needs to dump fuel before emergency landing, which I assume is to reduce landing weight for a safe landing, but in this case they are carrying more fuel to the next airport in order to fly back?

skyhawkmatthew · Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:02 pm

xiaotung wrote:
Can somebody tell me why aircraft needs to dump fuel before emergency landing, which I assume is to reduce landing weight for a safe landing, but in this case they are carrying more fuel to the next airport in order to fly back?

In this case, as you have surmised, flights are “tankering” fuel through AKL, e.g. loading fuel in SIN to fly SIN-AKL-SYD or whatever the case may be. Depending on the aircraft, and the amount of fuel needed to get back to SYD/BNE/CNS, this may result in a significant payload penalty in order to arrive in AKL below maximum landing weight.

In the example of a 777-300ER, there is about a 14 tonne margin between maximum zero-fuel weight and maximum landing weight. Thus, if we need more than 14 tonnes on board departing AKL to fly back to Australia (which we would), the maximum payload heading to AKL would need to be limited in order to load extra fuel and still be below maximum landing weight on arrival in AKL.

ikramerica · Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:06 pm

xiaotung wrote:
Can somebody tell me why aircraft needs to dump fuel before emergency landing, which I assume is to reduce landing weight for a safe landing, but in this case they are carrying more fuel to the next airport in order to fly back?

They are carrying enough fuel to make it back to the diversion only, and likely have to carry less cargo as a safety precaution so they remain under max landing weight.

zeke · Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:15 pm

Current NOTAM

A) NZAA B) 1709160807 C) 1709300500
E) JET FUEL RATIONING IN PLACE.
CHECK WITH YOUR FUEL SUPPLIER FOR AVAILABILITY.

qf789 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:16 pm

CZ306 AKL-CAN is diverting to BNE for fuel

https://www.flightradar24.com/CSN306/ee421af

NZ321 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:48 pm

This is not a good sign. An aircraft that left AKL for CAN has to divert? This is not a good look for New Zealand. What ever way you look at it - infrastructure is lacking. How is it that such a fundamental supply line of the country is so vulnerable? The same thing happened to Auckland a few years ago with power supply. Embarrassing to say the least.

Gabrielz · Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:10 pm

Sounds like there is some fuel available just not enough. For a place that is at the end of many ULG flights, it's got to be an extra big headache to tanker and supply, even when everything works as planned.

-G

PA515 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:26 pm

There could be much more to this story, like who employed the digger operator.

Kauri Ruakaka Limited (previously Oravida Limited) is controlled by Kauri Connect Limited which is controlled by Gilligan Sheppard Nominees Limited. The actual owners of this company are concealed via the Nominee entity. The husband of the Energy and Resources Minister Judith Collins is a former director of Oravida.

PA515

seat55a · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:33 pm

PA515 wrote:
There could be much more to this story, like who employed the digger operator.

Nah, he's likely just a cowboy who doesn't care the difference between logs and pipes. This is NZ, everyone is 3 degrees from everyone else (was going to say 2 but that's a tradename...)

Waiting for POAL to say they should re-activate the Wynyard tank farm. And Tauranga to propose a new international airport.

seat55a · Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:51 pm

Latest news is that the digger damage was done months ago and only caused a failure when pipeline pressure was increased. Sorry political conspiracy theorists, it's not Judith trying to throw the election.

zkncj · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:30 pm

Could the whole impact of this been less, if AKL had of invested into an new larger fuel storage farm by now that was onsite?

The current fuel farm at AKL is tinny, its next to an Terminal and hasn't really grown to match increase flights instead they have just put all there hope into an 170km pipeline.

VirginFlyer · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:31 pm

NZ321 wrote:
This is not a good sign. An aircraft that left AKL for CAN has to divert? This is not a good look for New Zealand.

Out of interest, why is the diversion of a flight to CAN a particular indicator of this not being a good look?

V/F

axio · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:44 pm

zkncj wrote:
Could the whole impact of this been less, if AKL had of invested into an new larger fuel storage farm by now that was onsite?
The current fuel farm at AKL is tinny, its next to an Terminal and hasn't really grown to match increase flights instead they have just put all there hope into an 170km pipeline.

I agree. The airport sees an enormous amount more traffic now than when those tanks by the domestic terminal were built. It just seems like a fairly fundamental infrastructure oversight - it's like data-centers not having portable generators. No single failure should compromise the system, yet AKL has been happy not to add infrastructure that would provide some redundancy against the failure of its supply pipeline.

PA515 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:51 pm

seat55a wrote:
Latest news is that the digger damage was done months ago and only caused a failure when pipeline pressure was increased. Sorry political conspiracy theorists, it's not Judith trying to throw the election.

I was well aware the pipeline was damaged about three months ago. And my comments about Kauri Ruakaka Limited / Oravida are not 'political conspiracy'. Their activities have been controversial. Do a google search.

PA515

MIflyer12 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:22 pm

axio wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Could the whole impact of this been less, if AKL had of invested into an new larger fuel storage farm by now that was onsite?
The current fuel farm at AKL is tinny, its next to an Terminal and hasn't really grown to match increase flights instead they have just put all there hope into an 170km pipeline.

I agree. The airport sees an enormous amount more traffic now than when those tanks by the domestic terminal were built. It just seems like a fairly fundamental infrastructure oversight - it's like data-centers not having portable generators. No single failure should compromise the system, yet AKL has been happy not to add infrastructure that would provide some redundancy against the failure of its supply pipeline.

You might be surprised by the list of large airports supplied by just one pipeline. Redundancy costs money. How many times in the last twenty years has this pipeline failed?

axio · Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:34 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
You might be surprised by the list of large airports supplied by just one pipeline. Redundancy costs money. How many times in the last twenty years has this pipeline failed?

I wouldn't expect multiple pipelines, I expect alternative options.
I come back to the data-center comparison: I don't expect to have redundant power sources, but I would have a generator in place to handle short/medium term issues, at the very least giving me much more time to figure out a solution (c.f. arranging a fleet of tankers to slow the drain on the stored fuel). Now I understand with an airport we're talking a very different scale of cost, but would it be that different proportionally to the other assets?

If the analysis has been that the risk of failure is so low it's not worth investing in redundancy, does that imply the airport (or fuel providers?) should be partially liable for the costs of disruption?

seat55a · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:17 pm

PA515 wrote:
seat55a wrote:
Latest news is that the digger damage was done months ago and only caused a failure when pipeline pressure was increased. Sorry political conspiracy theorists, it's not Judith trying to throw the election.

I was well aware the pipeline was damaged about three months ago. And my comments about Kauri Ruakaka Limited / Oravida are not 'political conspiracy'. Their activities have been controversial. Do a google search.

PA515

Swamp kauri digging may well be unsavory like many marginal get rich quick schemes. Attempts to get that to stick to the National party are probably futile though. (Which you must be implying as you mention the connection to their minister) Much better question is why hasn't the government of infrastructure done something about this single point of failure. You could well criticize AIAL for the lack of backup to the airport, but this actually affects all fuel to Auckland, not just the airport. Cost can't be the issue, not compared to the other projects National likes. Maybe because the obvious backup system would involve railways?

coolian2 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:57 pm

If it isn't a road, National aren't terribly fussed about critical infrastructure.

LAXLHR · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:24 pm

Gabrielz wrote:
Sounds like there is some fuel available just not enough. For a place that is at the end of many ULG flights, it's got to be an extra big headache to tanker and supply, even when everything works as planned.

-G

I agree!. I'm reading this whole thread in absolute amazement!

Gemuser · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:34 pm

axio wrote:
zkncj wrote:
Could the whole impact of this been less, if AKL had of invested into an new larger fuel storage farm by now that was onsite?
The current fuel farm at AKL is tinny, its next to an Terminal and hasn't really grown to match increase flights instead they have just put all there hope into an 170km pipeline.

I agree. The airport sees an enormous amount more traffic now than when those tanks by the domestic terminal were built. It just seems like a fairly fundamental infrastructure oversight - it's like data-centers not having portable generators. No single failure should compromise the system, yet AKL has been happy not to add infrastructure that would provide some redundancy against the failure of its supply pipeline.

Are you sure the airport is responsible for fuel storage and or delivery. Generally they are not, except maybe as lessor of the ground they stand on. It's the oil companies who have contracts with the airlines to provide fuel, not the airport, so the oil companies are responsible, unless the airport is in some way preventing the oil companies from delivering which does not appear to be the case here.

Gemuser

eamondzhang · Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:07 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
This is not a good sign. An aircraft that left AKL for CAN has to divert? This is not a good look for New Zealand.

Out of interest, why is the diversion of a flight to CAN a particular indicator of this not being a good look?

V/F

Same here. Just don't get it.

And this sounds awfully like what happened to MEL a short while ago, although in MEL's case it's due to contamination. Basically 50-60% of the LH/ULH flights have to divert for fuel while the rest can get a full tank to their destination.

Michael

LamboAston · Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:17 am

joffie wrote:
NZ6 to LAX has literally just landed at Nadi for their fuel stop. NZ24 to YVR and NZ8 to SFO have not stopped.. so maybe these 2 flights have enough fuel, but not the LAX one, unless they will stop at HNL?

NZ8 did stop in Nadi

BREECH · Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:02 am

I have two questions.

One. How damn big is that digger to sever a steel pipe? Or how small is that pipeline to be severed by a digger? And whose brilliant idea was it to not build a backup?

And two. How hard can it be to deliver fuel by trucks? The fuel line starts somewhere, right? Load it onto trucks, drive, unload. They have some pretty big trucks downunder and an enormous trucking industry. One "road train" will be good for a A380, 3-4 A330s and a whole flock of A320s. Not the most economical solution, but better than facing law suits and penalties for contractual breaches, and "reputational losses".

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net