I imagine these sorts of technicalities to do with engine non-performance are written into the fine print of the contract.

Funnily enough I wasn't wondering about the legal fine print, just progress!
e.g. when will engines x and y be coming back from Singapore, and so when
will ZK- x and y be under way again.

Was reading a Herald story today about Aucklanders moving to Whanganui and one of the interviewees mentioned jumping on an Air Chathams flight back to AKL if they needed a weekend there.

Anyway I think I read here that the airline had taken delivery of some Saabs. Love those 340s. Are they intended to replace the Metros or the Convairs? I kinda love this little airline.

Isn't it amazing, how Air NZ, a big player in our part of the World,
and RR, a big player in the whole world, can so effectively gang up
and so wholly disrespect us as customers (paying both of them)
with nothing but vague PR spin! I've got two 787 flights pending,
(unlikely to be affected though), but still I know nothing about the
goings on and truly want to be on AirNZ metal. Why not put some
reassuring facts out there? Are they just using our revenue to fund
their lawyers? Sound familiar....NZ business practice?

Deepinsider wrote:

Isn't it amazing, how Air NZ, a big player in our part of the World,
and RR, a big player in the whole world, can so effectively gang up
and so wholly disrespect us as customers (paying both of them)
with nothing but vague PR spin! I've got two 787 flights pending,
(unlikely to be affected though), but still I know nothing about the
goings on and truly want to be on AirNZ metal. Why not put some
reassuring facts out there? Are they just using our revenue to fund
their lawyers? Sound familiar....NZ business practice?

Sorry to break it to you but the vast majority of the travelling public are not aware that there is a problem and even if they did would just expect the carrier to calmly and quietly deal with it. Which they are doing. Yes one or two will be disappointed on boarding but some will not even notice it’s not even an NZ plane.

The New Zealand Herald (through AAP) has again today cited that Barack Obama "is expected to visit to promote a new Air New Zealand route to Chicago."

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11997577.

Cheers,

C.

Construction of a new terminal at Bay of Islands airport near Kerikeri is expected to start in April, and be finished by December.



See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/airlines/news ... d=11995856.

It is great to see more investment in regional aviation infrastructure - this comes as Timaru's terminal is also being re-developed.

Cheers,

C.

In light of Fletcher Building's recent issues, AKL has inferred that for future big projects, it may "consider using overseas firms, including from China."

See: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/busine ... he-bottom/.

I hope that all construction works at AKL are finished to a good quality. To date, issues like the flooding at the new gate 17 have been disappointing.

Cheers,

C.

Some good PR for NZ - in light of Cyclone Gita, NZ will allow customers to defer travel (where possible) in the same class without incurring fees or penalties.

NZ has warned of "significant disruption" to the domestic network, as well as some international services over the coming week, as a result of Cyclone Gita.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11997527.

Cheers,

C.

Some developments at Sounds Air - aside from a new website, according to the carrier's latest e-newsletter (issued last week), the carrier will introduce fare classes.

Further, from today, a new flight will be offered by Sounds Air on the Wellington - Blenheim route. The new flights will operate Monday to Thursday, in early afternoon.

See: https://www.soundsair.com/.

It is great to see this little carrier improving its offering. Does anyone have any insight as to the carrier's fleet development plans - a move to twin-engined turboprops?

Cheers,

C.

What, no DEN?

aerokiwi wrote:

Air Chathams ...I think I read here that the airline had taken delivery of some Saabs. Love those 340s.

Indeed, they have taken delivery of two:

- N135GU (c/n 340A-135) has become ZK-CIY
- N357GU (c/n 340B-357) has become ZK-CIZ

See: http://3rdlevelnz.blogspot.co.nz/2018/0 ... tions.html.

This follows Air Chathams' expansion last year when it put two Convair 580 freighters into service, and purchased Airwork's Metro 23s.

Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

Deepinsider wrote:

Isn't it amazing, how Air NZ, a big player in our part of the World,
and RR, a big player in the whole world, can so effectively gang up
and so wholly disrespect us as customers (paying both of them)
with nothing but vague PR spin! I've got two 787 flights pending,
(unlikely to be affected though), but still I know nothing about the
goings on and truly want to be on AirNZ metal. Why not put some
reassuring facts out there? Are they just using our revenue to fund
their lawyers? Sound familiar....NZ business practice?

Sorry to break it to you but the vast majority of the travelling public are not aware that there is a problem and even if they did would just expect the carrier to calmly and quietly deal with it. Which they are doing. Yes one or two will be disappointed on boarding but some will not even notice it’s not even an NZ plane.

In addition, if they are disappointed they don't read properly when booking - NZ's website makes it very clear when you book, and only The Works or higher is available (no seat or seat + bag). This, of course, does not apply to pax who have booked *before* the engine trouble started, and NZ didn't know they will have to substitute then. I for one just booked flights to SYD especially to get on that A340, but I acknowledge that the regular passenger doesn't feel the same pleasure about a substitution

Does anyone know when Sunair will start flying again? Last year, they were grounded by the CAA, but on their Facebook page on 8 January, they said:

"Sunair would like to wish you all the very best for 2018. We are expecting to be operating shortly and will announce this by relisting our website and 0800 number. Until then we appreciate your patience and loyalty to Sunair."

See: https://www.facebook.com/sunairflights/.

Then, earlier this month, the CAA stated that Sunair was still grounded, due to issues with maintenance records and "remedial maintenance activities."

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty ... d=11986401.

Hopefully this little carrier will be able to get on its feet again.

Cheers,

C.

CAPA is suggesting that FJ consider a NAN - WLG - CBR service, in light of the withdrawal of SQ from WLG - CBR.

"Canberra-Nadi is not a large enough market to support a nonstop service, however considering that the Canberra-Wellington market will no longer have a nonstop option once Singapore Airlines exits, it could generate sufficient one-stop traffic to support a Canberra-Wellington-Nadi flight."

See: https://blueswandaily.com/fiji-airways- ... -canberra/.

IMO, this route is unlikely - stopping in WLG would add much more distance to a CBR - NAN journey, as opposed to stopping in SYD (almost 1,000 nm). CBR - WLG - NAN is 2,675 nm, while CBR - SYD - NAN is 1,840 nm. A one-stop NAN flight will also not attract connecting US traffic.



Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

CAPA is suggesting that FJ consider a NAN - WLG - CBR service, in light of the withdrawal of SQ from WLG - CBR.

"Canberra-Nadi is not a large enough market to support a nonstop service, however considering that the Canberra-Wellington market will no longer have a nonstop option once Singapore Airlines exits, it could generate sufficient one-stop traffic to support a Canberra-Wellington-Nadi flight."

See: https://blueswandaily.com/fiji-airways- ... -canberra/.

IMO, this route is unlikely - stopping in WLG would add much more distance to a CBR - NAN journey, as opposed to stopping in SYD (almost 1,000 nm). CBR - WLG - NAN is 2,675 nm, while CBR - SYD - NAN is 1,840 nm. A one-stop NAN flight will also not attract connecting US traffic.

Distance isnt as important as duration - presumably they would only have ground time in WLG of 45-60mins compared with 100mins outbound in SYD and 130mins inbound, so it might end up being comparable plus international all the way.

The more important factor is whether FJ has the rights to fly on the Tasman with local traffic, as I note rights between Australia/New Zealand and Fiji can be a little unusual....

a7ala wrote:

Distance isnt as important as duration - presumably they would only have ground time in WLG of 45-60mins compared with 100mins outbound in SYD and 130mins inbound, so it might end up being comparable plus international all the way.

I did not know that connection times in SYD were that long. That being said, I imagine many would not comprehend that a stop in WLG could be shorter than a stop in SYD (even if it is).

a7ala wrote:

The more important factor is whether FJ has the rights to fly on the Tasman with local traffic, as I note rights between Australia/New Zealand and Fiji can be a little unusual....

The Australia - Fiji bilateral will be reviewed later this year. I cannot imagine any issues on the New Zealand end? AFAIK, the only Pacific Island carrier to fly to Australia ex-WLG was PH.

Cheers,

C.

What is going on with NZ's long-haul operations? The latest numbers do not seem to be too flash.

Long-haul operations, as at January 2018:

- Revenue per available seat kilometre: -3.1% (YTD)
- Passenger load factor: -0.1% (Financial YTD)
- Passengers carried: -0.6% (Jan '18 v Jan '17)

See: https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/inv ... n-2018.pdf.

Less passengers does not necessarily equate to less yield, but NZ has not reduced much capacity?

Cheers,

C.

Wow - EK is launching a year-round daily AKL - DPS (- DXB) service from 14 June, on the 777-300ER.

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11997690.

It will be interesting to see how NZ reacts to this - no doubt, this will impact NZ's seasonal service a lot.

I have started a separate thread on this - see: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1386883.

Cheers,

C.

DavidByrne wrote:

Sorry to break it to you but the vast majority of the travelling public are not aware that there is a problem and even if they did would just expect the carrier to calmly and quietly deal with it. Which they are doing. Yes one or two will be disappointed on boarding but some will not even notice it’s not even an NZ plane.

I believe there is a story here which is not being told, and it should be. The 787 is a major asset in a company in which the taxpayer is the major shareholder. These assets have been taken out of the business for what now is obviously an indeterminate amount of time.

What's more, at the time of uncontained engine failure ZK-NZE suffered structural damage to an extent that the aircraft is currently not airworthy. Passengers were exposed to risk.

Also, the interim replacement A340s have not been well received by many passengers. I personally know three quite disgruntled NZ frequent fliers, all from quite different walks of life.

I can't believe the mainstream media is unaware, or disinterested. This is an evolving news story of at least passing interest to the general public and I would have thought major interest to the aviation enthusiast. It seems clear that the media is being gagged - what isn't clear is whether it's NZ or RR (or both) that are keeping a lid on this story getting oxygen.

Gasman wrote:

It seems clear that the media is being gagged - what isn't clear is whether it's NZ or RR (or both) that are keeping a lid on this story getting oxygen.

I’ve no doubt that the airline will keep its shareholders informed in the usual way as required by law. It’s a bit rough to blame NZ and/or RR however if the media are not doing their job properly. Quality media would be asking questions and putting real heat on - and not being fobbed off. Lazy media doesn’t equate to a gagging strategy. This isn’t just an aviation issue - it’s endemic in the media, and has much to do with competition from social media eroding their market and leading to serious job losses amongst those who actually write and investigate.

DavidByrne wrote:

It’s a bit rough to blame NZ and/or RR however if the media are not doing their job properly. Quality media would be asking questions and putting real heat on - and not being fobbed off. Lazy media doesn’t equate to a gagging strategy. This isn’t just an aviation issue - it’s endemic in the media, and has much to do with competition from social media eroding their market and leading to serious job losses amongst those who actually write and investigate.

You're probably right - however there are three near new aircraft sans engines parked out in plain sight, one of which has been significantly damaged and a couple of white A340s flying NZ pax across the Tasman. The story almost writes itself.

Gasman wrote:

The story almost writes itself.

+1.

Grant Bradley of the New Zealand Herald (arguably the country's leading publication) almost never writes critical or negative pieces on NZ-related matters. For example, his recent NZ-related headlines have been:

- 11/02/18: $500m Airbus heading to Auckland to woo Air NZ
- 22/12/17: The Great Xmas Airlift: Air NZ's biggest day
- 19/12/17: New directions for Air NZ - the long range options
- 14/12/17: Air NZ, Virgin Aust boost flights to Brisbane
- 14/12/17: Air NZ Dreamliner groundings: Reinforcements arrive
- 11/12/17: Air NZ leases Portuguese planes after Dreamliner problems
- 08/12/17: Dreamliner grounding: What happened on Flight NZ99
- 07/12/17: Air New Zealand Dreamliner Rolls-Royce engine problems cause cancellations

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/grant-bradley/.

There has been no coverage of this matter by the Herald in more than two months - not even 'light' coverage, such as a review of the product differences with the Hi-Fly aircraft (which does not require interviews with NZ).

Cheers,

C.

To be very clear, ZK-NZE did not suffer structural damage. You are way out of line making statements like that on this forum. TAIC are investigating and when they are good and ready, will release the investigation report.
Two 787s are scheduled to return to Service in March, with the last in Mid to late April.
The airline has a number of engines away for overhaul with Rolls-Royce and will clearly return these aircraft to full operational status when there are sufficient engines to do so.
That is it, so sorry if this is unexciting and an entirely logical outcome. Conspiracy theory has no place in this “storyline”,

aotearoa wrote:

Two 787s are scheduled to return to Service in March, with the last in Mid to late April.

Thanks for this - may I ask, what is your source?

Will the Hi Fly arrangement continue until April?

Cheers,

C.

aotearoa wrote:

To be very clear, ZK-NZE did not suffer structural damage. You are way out of line making statements like that on this forum.

Ok. Firstly, this is an unedited internet based forum. Short of abusing other users; there is no "line". Stating there is, and appointing yourself as the policeman of it (especially without declaring who you are and what your sources are ) is just plain sad. Secondly, it was mentioned on this very forum that NZE had suffered damage to the tail and "wasn't going anywhere anytime soon". Whether this is true or not; I have no idea. But at the the very least it suffered an uncontained engine failure. Were passengers subject to increased flight risk as a result? Yes.

aotearoa wrote:

TAIC are investigating and when they are good and ready, will release the investigation report.
Two 787s are scheduled to return to Service in March, with the last in Mid to late April.
The airline has a number of engines away for overhaul with Rolls-Royce and will clearly return these aircraft to full operational status when there are sufficient engines to do so.
That is it, so sorry if this is unexciting and an entirely logical outcome. Conspiracy theory has no place in this “storyline”,

You might find it unexciting, but I don't. I'd like to know:

- exactly what happened on NZE
- when the report is likely to be released
- what the cost has been to the airline, and who is liable
- I'd like a meaningful statement from RR
- could NZ really not have found a better replacement than the Hi Fly A340s
- why the revised schedule

No one is stating there is a "conspiracy". Just - so far - a lack of transparency

Gasman wrote:

aotearoa wrote:

To be very clear, ZK-NZE did not suffer structural damage. You are way out of line making statements like that on this forum.

Ok. Firstly, this is an unedited internet based forum. Short of abusing other users; there is no "line". Stating there is, and appointing yourself as the policeman of it (especially without declaring who you are and what your sources are ) is just plain sad. Secondly, it was mentioned on this very forum that NZE had suffered damage to the tail and "wasn't going anywhere anytime soon". Whether this is true or not; I have no idea. But at the the very least it suffered an uncontained engine failure. Were passengers subject to increased flight risk as a result? Yes.

aotearoa wrote:

TAIC are investigating and when they are good and ready, will release the investigation report.
Two 787s are scheduled to return to Service in March, with the last in Mid to late April.
The airline has a number of engines away for overhaul with Rolls-Royce and will clearly return these aircraft to full operational status when there are sufficient engines to do so.
That is it, so sorry if this is unexciting and an entirely logical outcome. Conspiracy theory has no place in this “storyline”,

You might find it unexciting, but I don't. I'd like to know:

- exactly what happened on NZE
- when the report is likely to be released
- what the cost has been to the airline, and who is liable
- I'd like a meaningful statement from RR
- could NZ really not have found a better replacement than the Hi Fly A340s
- why the revised schedule

No one is stating there is a "conspiracy". Just - so far - a lack of transparency

Typical Gasman. 'aotearoa' does not post often, but is always an accurate and valued source. He doesn't need to give his name or position.

The Air NZ Interim Report will be released on Thursday and the analysts and media will ask questions as the usually do. And just because someone made a claim about ZK-NZE on the forum does not mean it is correct.

PA515

Gasman wrote:

aotearoa wrote:

To be very clear, ZK-NZE did not suffer structural damage. You are way out of line making statements like that on this forum.

Ok. Firstly, this is an unedited internet based forum. Short of abusing other users; there is no "line". Stating there is, and appointing yourself as the policeman of it (especially without declaring who you are and what your sources are ) is just plain sad. Secondly, it was mentioned on this very forum that NZE had suffered damage to the tail and "wasn't going anywhere anytime soon". Whether this is true or not; I have no idea. But at the the very least it suffered an uncontained engine failure. Were passengers subject to increased flight risk as a result? Yes.

aotearoa wrote:

TAIC are investigating and when they are good and ready, will release the investigation report.
Two 787s are scheduled to return to Service in March, with the last in Mid to late April.
The airline has a number of engines away for overhaul with Rolls-Royce and will clearly return these aircraft to full operational status when there are sufficient engines to do so.
That is it, so sorry if this is unexciting and an entirely logical outcome. Conspiracy theory has no place in this “storyline”,

You might find it unexciting, but I don't. I'd like to know:

- exactly what happened on NZE
- when the report is likely to be released
- what the cost has been to the airline, and who is liable
- I'd like a meaningful statement from RR
- could NZ really not have found a better replacement than the Hi Fly A340s
- why the revised schedule

No one is stating there is a "conspiracy". Just - so far - a lack of transparency

Maybe you should turn up at their next AGM/ Investor Preso and ask the CEO those questions directly?

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Sorry to break it to you but the vast majority of the travelling public are not aware that there is a problem and even if they did would just expect the carrier to calmly and quietly deal with it. Which they are doing. Yes one or two will be disappointed on boarding but some will not even notice it’s not even an NZ plane.

.... I personally know three quite disgruntled NZ frequent fliers, all from quite different walks of life.

And they can get over it, their options are to either fly on an aircraft with a known issue OR fly on alternative NZ services or fly on the leased aircraft. I mean QF had a similar issue with their A380's a while back. Some NZ loyal customers are far to precious and need to get over themselves.

If that all fails switch to QF and move on.

I agree I wish there was more said publicly but we're all speculating as why this isn't the case. I'd imagine there will be some talk on Thursday about it.

NZ6 wrote:

Some NZ loyal customers are far to precious and need to get over themselves.

If that all fails switch to QF and move on.

They could, but people switching to QF - for whatever reason - isn't good for the airline or its shareholders; nor the many people on this forum who simply have a strong emotional connection to NZ.

NZ6 wrote:

I agree I wish there was more said publicly but we're all speculating as why this isn't the case. I'd imagine there will be some talk on Thursday about it.

Hopefully, yes.

downdata wrote:

Maybe you should turn up at their next AGM/ Investor Preso and ask the CEO those questions directly?

If I was going to take anyone to task over this, it would be the New Zealand Herald. There *is* a public interest story here and as planemanofnz stated, Grant Bradley almost never truly provides any critique or in depth reporting of NZ - which is a shame. He may as well be on NZ's payroll (in fact he probably is - in terms of J class upgrades).

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Some NZ loyal customers are far to precious and need to get over themselves.

If that all fails switch to QF and move on.

They could, but people switching to QF - for whatever reason - isn't good for the airline or its shareholders; nor the many people on this forum who simply have a strong emotional connection to NZ.

NZ6 wrote:

I agree I wish there was more said publicly but we're all speculating as why this isn't the case. I'd imagine there will be some talk on Thursday about it.

Hopefully, yes.

downdata wrote:

Maybe you should turn up at their next AGM/ Investor Preso and ask the CEO those questions directly?

If I was going to take anyone to task over this, it would be the New Zealand Herald. There *is* a public interest story here and as planemanofnz stated, Grant Bradley almost never truly provides any critique or in depth reporting of NZ - which is a shame. He may as well be on NZ's payroll (in fact he probably is - in terms of J class upgrades).

Re the loyalty point, I understand it's not good for the airline and shareholders etc, if the issue, whatever it may be is bad enough or enough people take their business elsewhere then perhaps that would suggest there a widespread issue and change would be made. Where in fact, the majority are happy hence the number of tier members has increased to the point where the thresholds have been lifted over the years to help keep the exclusivity of each level.

My point is, It does my head in with some of NZ loyal customer who complain constantly about anything and everything. They often try speaking on behalf of all as well.

Airlines are no different to any other service provided industry; there's supply, demand, competition and they all battle it out for market share. NZ's not struggling there so perhaps that highlights the majority are satisfied. Those who are not, are welcome to either accept NZ as a product it is or move. Of course feedback is welcome, opinion is a right etc. It's just a generic comment.

Re the herald: nothing new there, hence I hardly read that or stuff. There was an article yesterday (which I only noticed due to social media), which was about how someone got cigarettes delivered in error via their online grocery order. How is this human error even worthy of national news ...?

Thought it would be good to do a consolidation of the route/airline updates for the 3 main airports for 2018 known so far, to help people keep up:

AKL:
MH consolidated its schedule to all overnight hours ex AKL since January, MH website still showing A350 for the route from later in the year
HA increases HNL to 5/weekly flights from March
CI switches BNE/TPE to A350 from March
CA increases PEK flights to 5/weekly for NS18 from March
SQ/NZ increase SIN flights to 3 daily from October
EK launches daily 77W DPS/DXB from June
QF increasing MEL/BNE from late March onwards, adding additional A330 flights
NZ increasing HNL to between 6/weekly and 9/weekly from March thru NS18
NZ increasing DPS to up to 5/weekly in NS18 between April and October
NZ increasing IAH to between 6/weekly and daily from March for NS18

EK ending BNE/MEL from March
Norfolk Island/Nauru Airlines ended NLK services in January

WLG:
SQ alters service from CBR/SIN to MEL/SIN from May

CHC:
CX to offer HKG flights again from NW18/19, 3/weekly
NZ increasing SYD to 12/weekly from April

Just received an email from Luxon about the 787 issue - nothing new but perhaps shows that the NZ PR people read A-net?

planemanofnz wrote:

not even 'light' coverage, such as a review of the product differences with the Hi-Fly aircraft (which does not require interviews with NZ).

Cheers,

C.

....well here it is, but still zero Dreamliner update.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11998266

NPL8800 wrote:

Thought it would be good to do a consolidation of the route/airline updates for the 3 main airports for 2018 known so far, to help people keep up:

AKL:
MH consolidated its schedule to all overnight hours ex AKL since January, MH website still showing A350 for the route from later in the year
HA increases HNL to 5/weekly flights from March
CI switches BNE/TPE to A350 from March
CA increases PEK flights to 5/weekly for NS18 from March
SQ/NZ increase SIN flights to 3 daily from October
EK launches daily 77W DPS/DXB from June
QF increasing MEL/BNE from late March onwards, adding additional A330 flights
NZ increasing HNL to between 6/weekly and 9/weekly from March thru NS18
NZ increasing DPS to up to 5/weekly in NS18 between April and October
NZ increasing IAH to between 6/weekly and daily from March for NS18

EK ending BNE/MEL from March
Norfolk Island/Nauru Airlines ended NLK services in January

WLG:
SQ alters service from CBR/SIN to MEL/SIN from May

CHC:
CX to offer HKG flights again from NW18/19, 3/weekly
NZ increasing SYD to 12/weekly from April

Domestic, but JQ adding wlg-zqn from late march.

NPL8800 wrote:

AKL

Also add MU upgrading its PVG - AKL service to a 77W (from a 332) for six weeks (mid-Jan through mid-Feb).

DavidByrne wrote:

... perhaps shows that the NZ PR people read A-net?

wstakl wrote:

... well here it is, but still zero Dreamliner update.

Some criticism here on Airliners.net, and wa-la, the next day, the criticism is (partly) addressed with this article. Nevertheless, it is highly disappointing that it took two months for any coverage on this topic to be back on the New Zealand Herald. Indeed, this article could and should have been posted when the Hi-Fly arrangement started.

It is great that Grant has finally been critical, like "a bit rattly," "prepare for disappointment," and "It's from yesteryear." I hope he shows more objectivity and relevance in 2018, instead of posting irrelevant stories for New Zealand travellers, like the delivery of QF's 789s (which he flew overseas for) - that plane will not even fly to AKL.

IMHO, more investigative journalism would be welcomed, like asking carriers about new AKL services (e.g. AI, DL, EY, GA, JL, TR, VN etc.), or the government about investment (e.g. a runway upgrade at CHT), or travel policies (e.g. air rights re-negotiations with the likes of India, or transit visa relaxations, so as to develop AKL as a hub for NZ).

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NPL8800 wrote:

AKL

Also add MU upgrading its PVG - AKL service to a 77W (from a 332) for six weeks (mid-Jan through mid-Feb).

DavidByrne wrote:

... perhaps shows that the NZ PR people read A-net?

wstakl wrote:

... well here it is, but still zero Dreamliner update.

Some criticism here on Airliners.net, and wa-la, the next day, the criticism is (partly) addressed with this article. Nevertheless, it is highly disappointing that it took two months for any coverage on this topic to be back on the New Zealand Herald. Indeed, this article could and should have been posted when the Hi-Fly arrangement started.

It is great that Grant has finally been critical, like "a bit rattly," "prepare for disappointment," and "It's from yesteryear." I hope he shows more objectivity and relevance in 2018, instead of posting irrelevant stories for New Zealand travellers, like the delivery of QF's 789s (which he flew overseas for) - that plane will not even fly to AKL.

IMHO, more investigative journalism would be welcomed, like asking carriers about new AKL services (e.g. AI, DL, EY, GA, JL, TR, VN etc.), or the government about investment (e.g. a runway upgrade at CHT), or travel policies (e.g. air rights re-negotiations with the likes of India, or transit visa relaxations, so as to develop AKL as a hub for NZ).

Cheers,

C.

Not for a second do I believe that email has anything to do with this thread. I mean there's about a dozen or so contributors, here.. not sure how many local readers there are, maybe 50?

Gosh, we've given them a bigger beating before on other topics, the timing is due to the combination of disruptions caused by the 787 combined with the weather impacting 5 domestic airports with almost all flights being cancelled as a result out of these ports.

NZ6 wrote:

Gosh, we've given them a bigger beating before on other topics ...

My beef on the Hi-Fly matter is more with the media - lack of coverage and questions being asked of NZ.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

[

It is great that Grant has finally been critical, like "a bit rattly," "prepare for disappointment," and "It's from yesteryear." I hope he shows more objectivity and relevance in 2018, instead of posting irrelevant stories for New Zealand travellers, like the delivery of QF's 789s (which he flew overseas for) - that plane will not even fly to AKL.

IMHO, more investigative journalism would be welcomed, like asking carriers about new AKL services (e.g. AI, DL, EY, GA, JL, TR, VN etc.), or the government about investment (e.g. a runway upgrade at CHT), or travel policies (e.g. air rights re-negotiations with the likes of India, or transit visa relaxations, so as to develop AKL as a hub for NZ).

Cheers,

C.

Back in the day when I was till something of a dreamy NZ loyalist, I suddenly woke up to Bradley when he completely failed to call NZ to task on going 10 abreast in the 777 - at a time when it was far from the norm amongst 777 operators. Notwithstanding today's article - which is still something of a whitewash - as far as NZ is concerned he is simply a mouthpiece for their spin. The bias of the Herald doesn't stop with Bradley - whenever some entitled loudmouth isn't given a refund by JQ for example, the Herald is all over it - dripping with faux outrage. As they were last week when JQ got Canterbury mixed up with Nelson or whatever (tsk tsk - "our" airline wouldn't do that......).

It's a shame. If Bradley was seen as the objective arbiter for air travel in New Zealand, instead of NZ's rent boy, airlines might sit up and take notice.

Gasman - Your direct quote, “But at the very lest it suffered an uncontained engine failure”. How can you be in a position to say this, and if there is any doubt, why would you? I appreciate that this is an open forum, however surely you have some kind of responsibility to at least check with your sources prior to pushing submit?
Here is a definition of a ‘Contained engine failure’ - A contained engine failure is one in which components might separate inside the engine but either remain within the engine's cases or exit the engine through the tail pipe.
There is a huge difference between the two failures. One is arguably by design, the other not.
I believe you will find thst NZE’s failure was contained. Just saying.....

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Gosh, we've given them a bigger beating before on other topics ...

My beef on the Hi-Fly matter is more with the media - lack of coverage and questions being asked of NZ.

Cheers,

C.

You don't know that though.

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Gosh, we've given them a bigger beating before on other topics ...

My beef on the Hi-Fly matter is more with the media - lack of coverage and questions being asked of NZ.

Cheers,

C.

You don't know that though.

Read my post above, in which I cite Bradley's NZ-related headlines of the past two months - there has been a lack of coverage.

Whether or not questions were asked by the Herald of NZ is uncertain, but I suggest that given the lack of coverage, it is likely.

Cheers,

C.

hahaha
Kiwi's want tax payer accountability now?

guess what you gave away that accountability when u did not punish the government for bailing out Air NZ which is what has led to this virtual monopoly...

Air NZ knows it can do whatever it wants and the govt will come to save it- it has no need to be accountable

Kashmon wrote:

Air NZ knows it can do whatever it wants and the govt will come to save it- it has no need to be accountable

I disagree - there is an incentive for NZ to be run profitably and properly by its staff, as even if the government bails NZ out again, the airline's management would likely be out of the job, and have their images tarnished.

We must also remember that the government does not own all of NZ - NZ is a publicly listed company, subject to NZX disclosure (and other) requirements. To say that NZ can do "whatever it wants", IMHO, is very naive.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

My beef on the Hi-Fly matter is more with the media - lack of coverage and questions being asked of NZ.

Cheers,

C.

You don't know that though.

Read my post above, in which I cite Bradley's NZ-related headlines of the past two months - there has been a lack of coverage.

Whether or not questions were asked by the Herald of NZ is uncertain, but I suggest that given the lack of coverage, it is likely.

Cheers,

C.

Thanks my point, you can't be sure questions haven't been asked. I'm not saying they have or haven't. I have no idea and wish there was more coverage.

planemanofnz wrote:

[
To say that NZ can do "whatever it wants", IMHO, is very naive.

And also complete BS. As you correctly pointed out, as a listed company they are very accountable for their actions as any airline that is on the stock market. There is also nothing stopping the Govt selling their shares when they see the return they want, or they can maintain them and have decent dividends paid to them yearly. As long as their shares payout they will maintain them.

There is no way that NZ is being run like a government department, it is far leaner and better run than that.

aotearoa wrote:

Gasman
Here is a definition of a ‘Contained engine failure’ - A contained engine failure is one in which components might separate inside the engine but either remain within the engine's cases or exit the engine through the tail pipe.
There is a huge difference between the two failures. One is arguably by design, the other not.
I believe you will find thst NZE’s failure was contained. Just saying.....

Darn. It doesn't really change anything in the context of the discussion but you're correct; I should have got that right.

NZ6 wrote:

Not for a second do I believe that email has anything to do with this thread. I mean there's about a dozen or so contributors, here.. not sure how many local readers there are, maybe 50?

Grant Bradl;ey writes for his masters, the NZ Herald, which is a newspaper walking a very fine line between being a decent read and a tabloid rag, as most of them are these days. There may be a small core group of aviation enthusiasts who want a blow-by-blow daily account of the travails of Air NZ, but clearly the Herald thinks it is doing enough. What more news is there to print that is of interest to the general public?

There are always the aviation specialist mags, but they're not a lot of help either. If Blue Swan Daily - which is supposed to be for aviation-savvy people - was your only source of information it might be hard to work out that NZ has a problem of any magnitude.

mariner

mariner wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Not for a second do I believe that email has anything to do with this thread. I mean there's about a dozen or so contributors, here.. not sure how many local readers there are, maybe 50?

Grant Bradl;ey writes for his masters, the NZ Herald, which is a newspaper walking a very fine line between being a decent read and a tabloid rag, as most of them are these days. There may be a small core group of aviation enthusiasts who want a blow-by-blow daily account of the travails of Air NZ, but clearly the Herald thinks it is doing enough. What more news is there to print that is of interest to the general public?

There are always the aviation specialist mags, but they're not a lot of help either. If Blue Swan Daily - which is supposed to be for aviation-savvy people - was your only source of information it might be hard to work out that NZ has a problem of any magnitude.

mariner

Yet I'm old enough to remember the DC-10 grounding of 1979, which received wall to wall coverage throughout its duration. Now granted; this situation was many orders of magnitude more serious for NZ than the current situation with the 789s; but still........... for reasons we've all cited, even in this age of tabloid news obsessed with Ed Sheeran and Married at First Sight there is surely enough of a public interest angle to warrant more coverage than what we've received?

Possibilities:

1. The Herald, and the New Zealand media in general are just hopeless. Likely.
2. Bradley is keeping quiet and only writing something when he absolutely has to, in order to protect his relationship with NZ including J Class upgrades. Highly likely.
3. The media aren't digging for information, and NZ isn't volunteering it. Very likely.
4. NZ have somehow "gagged" the media. Possible, but not likely. I doubt the Herald receives *that* much advertising revenue from NZ
5. There is a commercial and legal quagmire underway involving NZ and RR the complexities of which we won't ever be made aware, and the media are thinking "there but for the grace of God...." Most likely.

aotearoa wrote:

Gasman - Your direct quote, “But at the very lest it suffered an uncontained engine failure”. How can you be in a position to say this, and if there is any doubt, why would you? I appreciate that this is an open forum, however surely you have some kind of responsibility to at least check with your sources prior to pushing submit?
Here is a definition of a ‘Contained engine failure’ - A contained engine failure is one in which components might separate inside the engine but either remain within the engine's cases or exit the engine through the tail pipe.
There is a huge difference between the two failures. One is arguably by design, the other not.
I believe you will find thst NZE’s failure was contained. Just saying.....

Not from what I've heard... not as bad as Nancy Bird had in Singapore but still damage to the fuselage and the tail is what I heard.