Passengers boarded their Air New Zealand flight to New York City on Thursday evening prepared to spend 16-plus hours in the air which they did. But they didn't expect to land right back where they started.

That was the fate of Flight NZ2, which turned back to Auckland over the Pacific Ocean because of a power outage at its destination, John F Kennedy Airport.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/02/16/auckland-new-zealand-flight-16-hours/

 

16 hours of their lives wasted.  One would think they could have diverted to another international airport in the U.S., guess not. 🙁

42 minutes ago, stans said:

One would think they could have diverted to another international airport in the U.S., guess not.

They must have had alternates in case of emergency but I suppose, if it's not an emergency, you're out of luck. Some economic considerations must have prevailed in this case.

1 hour ago, stans said:

16 hours of their lives wasted.  One would think they could have diverted to another international airport in the U.S., guess not. 🙁

Many passengers on the flight protested Air New Zealand's behavior.

In this article, a passenger stated that the pilots were willing to land at another US airport, but the airline decided to return the aircraft to Auckland.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air-new-zealand-passenger-aboard-returned-auckland-new-york-flight-some-people-are-kicking-off/ALJIHAN5ZFAL3L6KW3CV2AXN6I/

From the NZ Herald article"

"Air New Zealand says it made the call to return to Auckland when mid-Pacific because it would be easier to recover its schedule in the long run. Flying crew to an overseas port could add days to the recovery."

They wouldn't have had to fly a new crew overseas. There was already a crew waiting in New York. You would think hey could have had enough advance notice to travel by land to the nearest alternate.

Something wrong with landing at LaGuardia Airport instead!  Pretty close to JFK for any turn around.

45 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

From the NZ Herald article"

"Air New Zealand says it made the call to return to Auckland when mid-Pacific because it would be easier to recover its schedule in the long run. Flying crew to an overseas port could add days to the recovery."

They wouldn't have had to fly a new crew overseas. There was already a crew waiting in New York. You would think hey could have had enough advance notice to travel by land to the nearest alternate.

It is obvious that the Company has made its calculations, but it is clear that both the pax of the returned flight and those waiting in New York for the return flight to Auckland, it's not that they cared much.

I wonder what would have happened, considering the 787's range, if   the plane could not return to Auckland but had to land at   any apt in the   US?

An Air France flight from Paris landed in Newark and passengers on the return flight were only delayed by 3 hours An Ethiopian Airlines flight from Frankfurt landed in Boston, an Egypt Air flight from Cairo landed in Washington perhaps because they prioritized the needs of passengers carried instead of thinking about their costs, as ANZ did?

We obviously still have too much fossil fuel and do not produce enough CO2 … 😬

Shame on Air New Zealand! Shame on those ignorants!

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by Flyfox

57 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

because it would be easier to recover its schedule in the long run. Flying crew to an overseas port could add days to the recovery."

And there's the answer.  It's all about the money.  The company did a cold calculation and determined that it would cost them less to just turn around and go back.  Who cares about the inconvenience to paying customers?

This is why I don't fly any more.

Dave

 

This is common for airlines operating outside there regions on long range flights. If a United Flight was flying from LA to NY it wouldn't turn back it would land in Denver or Chicago and United can put passengers on other United Flights and that aircraft and crew will be rostered into the network, worst case scenario United will have hotel vouchers if needed.

If Air New Zealand flying to New York lands somewhere else, they may not have staff at that airport, they may not have the ability to make arrangements or vouchers for local hotels, they may not have deals with other airlines at that airport, they do not have storage space at that airport for their aircraft, and yes it will disrupt other passengers on other flights that aircraft is scheduled on, and that aircraft and crew need to get back to NZ to get back into the roster.

Also when New Zealand had the resent cyclone all aircraft flying into New Zealand where turned around and went back to their original destinations and that would have included US aircraft, some were over half way to New Zealand when turned back. This is standard practice for long range flights and to be honest best for the passengers. I wouldn't want to be stuck at an alternate airport, no hotels available, no other flights on other airlines available due to no agreements between airlines, if I get back to Auckland I have the most options and also the option of just going home  and getting my money back

Here is an example of an Emirates flight turned around due to the Cyclone in New Zealand, same situation, India was nearby but it is best for passengers to go back:
https://www.thenationalnews.com/travel/2023/01/29/emirates-new-zealand-bound-superjumbo-turns-back-to-dubai-after-13-hour-flight-to-nowhere/

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by Matthew Kane

19 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

If Air New Zealand flying to New York lands somewhere else, they may not have staff at that airport, they may not have the ability to make arrangements or vouchers for local hotels, they may not have deals with other airlines at that airport, they do not have storage space at that airport for their aircraft,

Not even Honolulu?

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Not even Honolulu?

But its not what you think. They do have a flight that goes to Honolulu but that desk is only manned by contractors for checking in that flight, no Air New Zealand employees actually work in Honolulu just contractors, therefore no one for ANZ in Honolulu to handle a diverted flight like an airline like United could handle, or any agreements with local hotels or agreements with storage at the airport etc.

Yes when you are flying in your nation with Air Canada they can land anywhere in Canada and get some support, but even that support is bad, a diverted flight from Halifax lands in Moncton instead and usually Air Canada is so unhelpful in those situations many are left stranded even though Moncton is in Air Canada's Network, it still doesn't work out well for the passengers.

When Air New Zealand is flying into the USA and lands somewhere outside it's network it is near impossible to support the passengers. No one at a US Airport is obligated to help Air New Zealand passengers and the contractors they have to check in passengers on the one flight they service also change coats and do the same for many other airlines flying into that airport.

It is the same reason that the Emirates flight I pointed out, they were turned back from Auckland, even though India was right next to them landing in India would be far worst for the passengers then going back to Dubai, therefore they go back.

People in Europe or USA are not used to this because they have a better logistic support network when landing in an alternative airport that is within your airlines network. long haul flights don't have the same support when diverted to remote places therefore they turn around and go back, as a passenger I prefer this, I was once stranded in Los Angela's due to a mechanical failure and that was the worst experience I've ever had, going back is far better off

I wondered how it was before the non-stop flights. Where was there a refueling stop? I thought it might have been Honolulu.

There's tons of special flights coming through Honolulu.  But those are positioning flights, not revenue with PAX.  Planes coming on/off lease, new builds from Boeing, etc.

 

scott s.

.

 

 

5 hours ago, dmwalker said:

I wondered how it was before the non-stop flights. Where was there a refueling stop? I thought it might have been Honolulu.

Yes back in the 80s flying between Canada and New Zealand I've had fuel stops in Honolulu and Cook Islands on Air New Zealand, things were different back then. The most famous refueling stops in history would be Anchorage and Gander, did you ever read about that time when Fidel Castro went tobogganing with the kids in Gander?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/fidel-castro-toboggan-fun-woman-memory-gander-1.3869323

Edited February 20, 20233 yr by Matthew Kane