I'd be cranky enough if I spent 16 hours on a plane and arrived where I was supposed to, never mind 16 hours to go nowhere.

Several years ago I flew YHZ-YYT-YHZ because the weather at YYT was too poor to land so they returned to YHZ.  Three and a half hours on a Q400 to go nowhere was mildly annoying...but this, yikes. 

It should be considered that not all pax fly for tourism and if there have been protests from pax on the behavior of ANZ it is evident who had a business or other need to travel to New York and what I find strange is the fact that ANZ has its own base at LAX where if I am not mistaken it flies daily from Auckland and, Imho, if this flight instead of back landing at KLAX could give paxes the option of finding a domestic flight that would take them, for example to Newark, as UA, Spirit and Alaska have flights from LAX to KEWR or go to Philadelphia which is only 150 km from NYC.

If ANZ flies daily to LAX, the 787 I don't think would be sitting at LAX for days waiting for a new crew considering ANZ had two choices of sending pilots on the first flight to LAX or moving those from KJFK on a flight from Newark to KLAX and could do the same thing for return flight pax to Auckland which by the way nobody knows what ANZ did for them and especially for those who do not live in New York or came from other countries.

 

9 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

The most famous refueling stops in history would be Anchorage and Gander,

I remember the first time I passed through Anchorage from New York to Seoul, in 1975, the duty free gift shop had what looked like locally produced souvenirs but, the second time, in 1980,  it was all Chivas Regal, Remy Martin and Omega watches, thanks to Koreans being able to travel abroad more freely, I suppose.

Edited February 20, 20233 yr by dmwalker

Sorry, but I don't buy the excuse that they didn't have any choice but to go all the way back to New Zealand.  They could have landed in Los Angeles as they have regular operations there.  Yes, it would have been a disruption and inconvenience for the passengers, but the airline could have made do and passengers would have at least gotten to their destination albeit late.

I've no doubt that the decision came down to cost.  The airline would have had to arrange travel on other airlines and perhaps hotels for the passengers, which would have increased costs and the airline might have actually lost money on that flight.  A decent business would eat those costs to maintain its reputation and do what's right for its customers, but airlines aren't like that any more.

Not picking on Air New Zealand as most airlines would have done the same thing nowadays.

Dave

 

6 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

most airlines would have done the same thing nowadays.

And they did in this case, didn't they? It's just that ANZ was the most prominent one.

Does anyone know what the planned alternates might have been for this flight? I have asked the same question in PPRuNe but I don't hold out much hope for a reply.

Edited February 20, 20233 yr by dmwalker

At least the Oakland - Auckland mix up is unlikely to happen again.

Of course I also wonder a bit about Star Alliance in general. Should be able to handle these types of things more efficiently for the passengers. But making a definitive decision to turn around, a safe decision at that point is still way better than some vague indecisiveness. "Screw what dispatch says, let's go to Kansas City, I don't mind getting stuck there, I hear they have good bbq." " Nah, Montreal, we could probably make it there on our fuel, better food, trust me." "No, come on, you guys are crazy, Chicago, pizza! Better than NY......etc etc.

If the plane had already been a bit further along they would have had to go to an alternate, or maybe by then they would have just made their destination anyway.

9 hours ago, RobPol471 said:

If ANZ flies daily to LAX, the 787 I don't think would be sitting at LAX for days waiting for a new crew considering ANZ had two choices of sending pilots on the first flight to LAX or moving those from KJFK on a flight from Newark to KLAX and could do the same thing for return flight pax to Auckland which by the way nobody knows what ANZ did for them and especially for those who do not live in New York or came from other countries.

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Sorry, but I don't buy the excuse that they didn't have any choice but to go all the way back to New Zealand.  They could have landed in Los Angeles as they have regular operations there.  Yes, it would have been a disruption and inconvenience for the passengers, but the airline could have made do and passengers would have at least gotten to their destination albeit late.

LAX was one time a base operating the Flag Ship Flight ANZ1, that flight was on a 747-400 operating from Auckland to LAX to Heathrow and return, they no longer operate that flight therefore operations in LAX has been scaled down to probably just contractors at this point. No longer a base of operations just a simple destination. The Auckland to New York flight now has the flight number ANZ1 but JFK is also just a destination too.

The aircraft type used on the JFK route is the 787-9, the aircraft used on the LAX route is the 777 therefore not compatible

If ANZ1 landed in LAX instead of JFK you bet the contractors in LAX wouldn't care, it has happened to me before and I've stood in a lobby of a hotel at 4 am with the hotel staff saying they will not honor the airlines vouchers, the airline must pay them directly before I get a key to a room. Therefore I would much prefer turning back instead of dealing with what I've been through before

Just you guys be aware if you are traveling long haul and smaller airlines like Air New Zealand this is standard practice, you can complain on here but to be honest if you flew on United to New Zealand they would turn back too. 

Edited February 20, 20233 yr by Matthew Kane