Talk:Air New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Airlines WikiProject

Today I moved several things into a new heading "Onwards into the future". The changes that I've put under this heading, show what's happening now in the evolutionary process of the airline.

Perhaps the section on Airpoints should be split off into it's own page ?

Best Regards

--Ntddevsys --Ntddevsys 08:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)11:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 // 2 Current Fleet? 3 Out of date statements 4 Subsidary Carriers/etc 5 IATA Code 6 Grounding of DC-10s 7 Disproporionate coverage of Ansett debacle

[edit] //

I should now add more detail to the pre-Ansett and post-Ansett sections, so as to balance the entry up. TEAL/Air New Zealand has a long history after all, and did a great deal more than just try to buy an airline bigger than itself and run out of money. Unfortunately, while I have good sources here on the Ansett disaster, and also on the Mount Erebus disaster, I don't have much on the early years.

The current write-up of the Mt Erebus crash, by the way, is good so far as it goes, but misses a crucial point: the Royal Commission was careful and exhaustive, but failed to properly understand that the primary rule of safety in aviation is the same primary rule that applies to ships at sea: the captain is at all times responsible for the safety of his vessel, no matter what other factors may intrude. This is why, for example, if a ship runs aground in a harbour entrance, it is regarded as the captain's fault, even though a marine pilot was in control at the time. It is a very harsh rule, but a very good rule. Essentially, it means that the aircraft captain is not just entitled to, but required to excercise his judgement, and take whatever action is needed to preserve his command - such as choosing not to fly into cloud at 2000 feet when not certain of the aircraft's exact position and knowing that there is a 12,000 foot mountain somewhere in the vicinity.

• I disagree. The Airline's Navigation planning staff changed the programming for the guidance computer waypoints to take the aircraft directly over Mt. Erebus the immediately before the flight and after Captain Collins had plotted hs route on a map. The Captain was not alerted to the change in the computer flight plan by staff on the ground before takeoff. Also, the Captain had not previously been given an opportunity to travel on an orientation flight as an observer as was required by Civil Aviation regulations. Royal Commissioner Justice Peter Mahon, at the end of his book Verdict on Erebus, makes it clear that the Captain Collins' decision to continue to fly at 2000 feet under visual flying rules - apparently in clear air below the overcast and not in cloud - towards a mountain - was probably because the mountain was in white out conditions and could not be seen. The Captain can not be held responsible for things he is not advised of or trained for - such as changed flight plans and poor training. The coverup by the company afterwards made understanding what went wrong all the more difficult. Captain Collins, an apparently careful pilot, exercised his judgement to the best of his abilities. The plane crashed because the Captain based his judgement on navigation information that was changed without his knowledge and a polar whiteout condition that he was unfamiliar with and had not been trained to recognise, caused a 12,000 foot mountain to appear to be flat land that could be safely flown over. Yes the Captain flew the plane towards the mountain, he did so because he could not see it, was not expecting it there and was not trained to recognise conditions that would make mountains disappear from view. I think the Royal Commission understood the Captain's responsibility very well and identified that under these circumstances he was not responsible for the crash, as the crash was not due to decisions the Captain made.

None of this invalidates the other findings of the inquiry, of course. Nevertheless, there was considerable concern expressed in aviation safety circles that the Erebus Royal Commission finding placed at risk the longstanding doctrine of command responsibility.

Wikipedia should not present misleading information and omit pertinent fact. The current entry is misleading where it says the Privy Council "overturned his findings". It most certainly did not overturn his findings, only some of them. Justice Mahon's finding that the crew was blameless was not overturned, a fact which is important in the context of the enquiry, I am amending the page accordingly to give an accurate, NPOV, account. Moriori 23:52, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Why doesnt all this argument go into the talk page in the article about the crash itself? Antonio Hard as a Pole Martin 3:02, Jun 10, 2004 (MST)

I agree with Antonio's question! Robin Patterson 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now after some addition of headings etc to the "early" history I hope some of you younsters can

• move the koru paragraph out of the history
• similarly tidy up the later history; possibly blending it with the last part of the pre-koru section

Robin Patterson 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current Fleet?

Should the current fleet include types on order, and not yet operated? Shouldn't that be in a separate, 'on order' section? Bombardier Q300, Boeing 777, Boeing 7E7 are the ones affected by this...

[edit] Out of date statements

In the section "New Longhaul Product", in the second para from the end, there are a couple of things that will happen (dates subject to change) in Aug and Sept 2005. Please reword the paragraph to reflect that those dates are long past, and these events presumably happened or plans changed.-gadfium 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidary Carriers/etc

I dont beleive that Freedom Air's aircraft should come under NZ's fleet details. NZ's link airlines (Eagle, Nelson & Mt Cook) operate their aircraft under NZ's AOC, where SJ have their own... any thoughts? --Pepith 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IATA Code

The TE IATA code lasted many years after the airline was renamed from TEAL. Does anyone know when this was changed?

[edit] Grounding of DC-10s

The Air New Zealand Flight 901 suggests that Air New Zealand may have replaced its DC-10s with Boing 747s due to that disaster. I thought the decision had more to do with the grounding of all DC-10s for five weeks in 1979. That was a huge event for Air New Zealand as all their major international flights were grounded. I don't see any coverage of the grounding on Wikipedia except for a very brief mention at McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Safety_record. I think this was rather a significant event in the history of Air New Zealand, so perhaps someone with more knowledge than me could add it to the article.-gadfium 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disproporionate coverage of Ansett debacle

I wonder whether this should have it's own page? (under my breath, I add with links to pages about the Australian Apple exporters "fire blight" fiction, Australian Banks tax arrangements in New Zealand, the ANZAC frigate purchase, the Chappell brothers and other fine instances of trans-Tasman understanding :-)) Winstonwolfe 06:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I aggree. I read the page from top to bottom and almost lost interest during the ansett debacle. sure it was an anz owned subsidary but there is a lot of infomation there that simply doesn't pertain to anz. i am going to come back on this in 1 week.

I agree. Put in a summary of the Ansett debacle, and create a separate page for it. Randomkiwi 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholly agree with the disproportionate coverage in this article in relation to the demise of Ansett in relation to AirNZ. Any action regarding a new article to cover this needs to be undertaken in concert with updates to the Ansett Australia article as they both talk about the same information. I'd be happy to assist with this process. Until then, I have noted the need for significant citations within the AirNZ article regarding this and the relevant template block at the top of the article. thewinchester 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all - I'll leave this a while longer to see if anyone disagrees, and then create a new page, cutting and pasting the present material into it, and creating a paragraph summary int eh present article, (this is likely to be contentious too - thoughts on it welcome). Anyone else willing to do the job also welcome :-) Winstonwolfe 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)