Air NZ's 16 Hour Flight to No Where

[levelnine]

This is quite the story. Imagine sitting in Y for 16 hours only to land back at your point of departure!

During Air NZ's flight from AKL to JFK, JFK closed mid-flight due to a fire and the pilots were directed by Air NZ management to fly back to AKL. The pilots tried to suggest diverting to IAH, but to no avail.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626365368657739776

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626370701417500672

 

[Lynda2475]

Other news reports said Air NZ wanted the plane back as if diverted would be days to get it back.

But from a customer experience POV would have been better to divert to IAH (or perhap see if could negotiate something at EWR).

Then again youd think for the handful of impacted ULH flights JFK could have let be processed at a different terminal.

 

[burmans]

Yeah, I thought going so far back was a bad idea but what do I know.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I had a worse experience in 2015.
Flying BNE- to VLI we couldn't land in Port Vila.
Had multiple tries - last minute go-arounds at very low altitude each time - then flew to Fiji to refuel.
Were not allowed off the plane.
Also crew would not serve more food or drinks as they may have needed them for PAX waiting to fly VLI-BNE on the same aircraft.
(VA do not use catering services in VLI.)
Then flew back to Vanuatu to reattempt landing.
Multiple attempts failed again.
Finally returned to BNE late that night.
At least we finally had more food and drink on the way home.
Flew back to VLI the next morning without incident.

 

[levelnine]

I had a worse experience in 2015.

Stuff of nightmares. Imagine doing something like that with a young child in tow!

 

[jb747]

It seems like a very strange decision. I can’t see any reasonable justification for it, given the choices tossed up by the crew. Bringing it back means they’ve got a bunch of people in NY to move out, and a double load in Auckland. Unless the loads are minimal, that’s going to take a while to sort out anyway.

It would be interesting to know the exact rules that would have been applied by the US regarding letting the people leave the terminal and then return, given that the aircraft would have had at least a 12 hour stop. I suspect there would have been no choice but to buy seats to move the passengers on domestics, with the aircraft then being flown up to NY empty. In general the US are great believers in “open skies”, but what they mean is your open skies, not theirs.

 

[Virgin Bart]

Stuff of nightmares. Imagine doing something like that with a young child in tow!

Having an 8 month old I now realise the horror of this situation (9 months ago I wouldn't have)

 

[docjames]

Hard to know the inputs into the decision, and surprising they didn’t follow the crew’s lead, but I’m surprised Houston or Newark weren’t options, or even LAX for that matter.

Whether US authorities were “difficult” in negotiating options, that may have played into it (but NZ might be “politic” in not outing that piece of info). @jb747 perhaps alluding to that in his comment Re: “open skies”.

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

By returning to AKL just two flights disrupted. If they had diverted somewhere else it would have impacted multiple more flights over several days due to a/c and crew out of place.

I expect pax would have been reaccommodated on subsequent direct flights as well as indirect via LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD, HNL.

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

During cyclone Gabrielle disruptions at AKL there were lengthy return to origin flights by EK, SQ & LA.

 

[BAM1748]

Surely LA would have been the logical place, they already fly here and have agreements in place.

 

[serfty]

Surely LA would have been the logical place, they already fly here and have agreements in place.

The also fly to Houston.

 

[Quickstatus]

Looking at the from ANZ POV, the cancellation of NZ2 has only resulted in delayed passengers (who cares about passengers). The aircraft and crew are back to base with multiple options/permutations available to the airline rather than any one of the outstation airports.

Ignore the pesky passengers and it becomes an easier decision.

 

[dajop]

The also fly to Houston.

And Chicago.

 

[Mwenenzi]

Little surprised they did not divert to an airport served by NZ. IAH on route, but flights do not all follow the great circle route.
A map from the Great Circle Mapper - Great Circle Mapper

 

[Quickstatus]

And Chicago.

Interesting to find out how far they were to the point of no return.

Due to prevailing winds, back of envelope suggests, every hour towards the US is maybe 1.05 to 1.1 hours back to NZ. Can someone provide more granular info

 

[jb747]

By returning to AKL just two flights disrupted. If they had diverted somewhere else it would have impacted multiple more flights over several days due to a/c and crew out of place.

I expect pax would have been reaccommodated on subsequent direct flights as well as indirect via LAX, SFO, YVR, IAH, ORD, HNL.

Yes, but the aircraft could have continued to any one of many ports within only a short distance of JFK. The passengers on board would have been (more or less) happy, and would not have been subjected to the torture of another 24 hours in a 787 (trip back, plus the next flight). The passengers in JFK would have been delayed, but probably by a lot less than the actual outcome. And if seats are tight, they might still be there. Then the fix could have been applied to the next lot of pax out of Auckland. This is simply the airline theory that once you’ve screwed a bunch of passengers, you may as well keep on screwing them, and not another group. They won’t hate you any more, and the other’s won’t know. It’s a variation on the Chinese famine theory.

The theory probably has a number of names…but the gist of it is that you have two villages, but in a famine they’ve only produced enough food for half of their people. So, the government takes all of the food from both of them, and gives it back to just one. End result is that village survives and they love the government. But, over in the other, they all starve, but who cares, they’re dead.

 

[Melburnian1]

In most private sector jobs if you disagree with management and are said to have not followed the latter's instructions, you'd be either sacked, given a formal warning or find that your position had somehow suddenly disappeared.

Was it an option for the pilots to say 'hey, we know more about this than you controllers in the operations centre and hence we're continuing to IAH' or alternatively say nothing back to the ops people and simply continue to IAH and land there after liaising with ATC?

There must be annoyance from long serving flight deck crew who can pretty much think of all the various arrangements that have to be put in place (contractors on duty at IAH being one) and yet have this perception that staff on the ground who have no flying qualifications are deciding what to do, at greater discomfort to crew and passengers.

I doubt many airline on-board staff want to end up from where a service originated if it can sensibly be avoided.

 

[Saab34]

Was it an option for the pilots to say 'hey, we know more about this than you controllers in the operations centre and hence we're continuing to IAH' or alternatively say nothing back to the ops people and simply continue to IAH and land there after liaising with ATC?

I doubt flight crew care that much. They divert, they still end up in some random hotel room like they would have anyway. They return to base, well they simply just head back home. They are not really inconvenienced either way, no point getting operations offside trying to prove a point, and potentially getting pilot management offside by not following company SOP.

Passengers get screwed no matter what you do.