NZFF

by **Kelburn** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:58 pm

Hey if Wellington can fund that ugly terminal they should surely fund a runway extension!

I also agree, bring back the 767's to Wellington (or maybe salvage a 747sp :lol:

)

by **Daniel** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:06 pm

Kelburn wrote:
QUOTE (Kelburn @ Mar 30 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey if Wellington can fund that ugly terminal they should surely fund a runway extension!

I also agree, bring back the 767's to Wellington (or maybe salvage a 747sp )

Was it only Qantas that operated 767s in to WLG?
What other carriers brought big aircraft in?

Cheers
Daniel

by **Anthony** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:13 pm

Daniel wrote:
QUOTE (Daniel @ Mar 30 2008, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What other carriers brought big aircraft in?

Cheers
Daniel

I believe NZ had the odd 767 in and out of WLG doing Trans Tasman, but I don't know if it was scheduled or just a replacement to another A/C that went tech or something.

Kelburn wrote:
QUOTE (Kelburn @ Mar 30 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey if Wellington can fund that ugly terminal they should surely fund a runway extension!

I also agree, bring back the 767's to Wellington (or maybe salvage a 747sp )

on both points.

Cheers
Anthony

by **greaneyr** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:18 pm

brotonee wrote:
QUOTE (brotonee @ Mar 30 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe NZ had the odd 767 in and out of WLG doing Trans Tasman, but I don't know if it was scheduled or just a replacement to another A/C that went tech or something.

I actually thought the 767s were scheduled on both carriers, but I may be wrong. I know I saw plenty of ANZ 767s and even flew on one. They also had those 'joint flights' co-operated by ANZ and QFA which may have created the impression that there were regular ANZ flights using 767 hardware.

by **Anthony** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:24 pm

greaneyr wrote:
QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 30 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I actually thought the 767s were scheduled on both carriers, but I may be wrong. I know I saw plenty of ANZ 767s and even flew on one. They also had those 'joint flights' co-operated by ANZ and QFA which may have created the impression that there were regular ANZ flights using 767 hardware.

I think you are right.
The NZ Av thread at A.Net discussed this a while ago (maybe thread #17).

Speaking of that thread, somebody posted an internal Air NZ email that said there were going to be Shangai routes on Grab a Seat in the first week of April (or something like that).
Also, maybe April 1st = April Fools Day = 1st day of April = $1 Grab a Seat fares. I hope so.

Anthony

by **greaneyr** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:27 pm

I don't have an old international timetable on hand and the domestic one I have is from 1992 but I'm pretty sure at one stage they had a 767 flight between WN and AA which would have been a repositioning flight from an international.

by **Kelburn** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:49 pm

Both carriers used 767's trans tasman with Wellington.

Also NZWN is the diversion airport for 767's when Christchurch and Auckland are fogged out (once we got three or so ANZ 767's along with maybe another two QANTAS ones and a Pacific Air 767

by **benwynn** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:12 pm

QF Currently Fly the 767 to Sydney from CHC I do Beleive. They also fly a Freight Run from AKL-CHC I think...

I dont think they would have just dropped 767s from WLG beacuse of that. I think they just dont see enough passengers to fill a 250 seat jet, compared to you 200odd A320.

Ive pulled up the Takeoff Data from the 767-300 and 747SP- As Follows.

767-300ER Takeoff Run at MTOW= 2,410m
747-SP Takeoff Run at MTOW= 3,190m

Wellington NZWN Runway Length = 2026m

Somthing Confuses me, Regular Services can be carried out with an Aircraft with significantly less power/weight ratio- But people have "saftey" concerns with the 767- Having a very high Power/Weight ratio.

by **greaneyr** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:08 pm

That's if you believe the rumours I heard, but I'm not sure I do.

by **benwynn** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:21 pm

The rumour is in regards to......

by **greaneyr** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:51 pm

... That WN lost it's 767 services because the authorities determined the area had insufficient infrastructure to support an accident by the type. Sorry, i thought that was what you were referring to when you mentioned 'safety' in your last post.

by **benwynn** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:00 pm

I did say that I also dont think thats true, Thus why I posted some "evidence" to back up my theory

by **HardCorePawn** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:40 am

greaneyr wrote:
QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 30 2008, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it's not, it's about becoming the second biggest airport in the north island. The press says so.

Because they are always sooooooooooooooo well informed <_<

greaneyr wrote:
QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 30 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's if you believe the rumours I heard, but I'm not sure I do.

"The Press" == "Rumours"... why believe one and not the other?? :rolleyes:

Seriously, if you believe anything you read/hear in the press, without independent verification, I have this lovely Bridge that I'm selling cheap that you might be interested in...

by **greaneyr** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:22 pm

True, but you've got to believe SOME of what you read otherwise you become a paranoid type who doesn't believe a word anyone tells them and tries to second guess everything. That sucks. IT was actually a slight typo on my part. I meant to say "the press release says so".

The article started with "Hamilton International Airport wants to add Asian and possibly American destinations to its schedule as part of an ambitious long-term goal to become the North Island's second-biggest airport." so if the article is wrong, it's horribly so. I know the press make mistakes in an article's content but in an intro to an article? Still possible, but a lot less likely. I don't think you could say I've misinterpreted the meaning behind this sentence.

Did we believe it when we read about the hijacking of the Air National J32? Did we believe it when we read about the mid-air over Paraparaumu? What about the OzJet news? I think it's splitting hairs to pick on this one.

For the record, I never said a word about hearing the 767 rumours from the press.

by **Anthony** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:38 pm

greaneyr wrote:
QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 31 2008, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
True, but you've got to believe SOME of what you read otherwise you become a paranoid type who doesn't believe a word anyone tells them and tries to second guess everything. That sucks. IT was actually a slight typo on my part. I meant to say "the press release says so".

The article started with "Hamilton International Airport wants to add Asian and possibly American destinations to its schedule as part of an ambitious long-term goal to become the North Island's second-biggest airport." so if the article is wrong, it's horribly so. I know the press make mistakes in an article's content but in an intro to an article? Still possible, but a lot less likely. I don't think you could say I've misinterpreted the meaning behind this sentence.

Did we believe it when we read about the hijacking of the Air National J32? Did we believe it when we read about the mid-air over Paraparaumu? What about the OzJet news? I think it's splitting hairs to pick on this one.

For the record, I never said a word about hearing the 767 rumours from the press.

I am inclined to agree.
The press can be inaccurate, but they don't grossly lie like that (I think and hope).

I'm not sure, maybe the press is just saying it would make HLZ the North Island's 2nd biggest if this was to happen.

Who cares about such a small detail anyway, especially when it's not going to make a difference to a gross waste of money that i doubt will be successful

.

Cheers
Anthony

by **victor_alpha_charlie** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:11 pm

I still don't get this. Why would anyone from Asia or the US (or anyone at all) want to go to Hamilton?

by **Kelburn** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:16 pm

VAC good point.

Remember a 747SP and 767 both are not nearly at MTOW when they leave as WN-SY or MEL is really short compared to some routes they do.

by **Anthony** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:18 pm

victor_alpha_charlie wrote:
QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Mar 31 2008, 04:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I still don't get this. Why would anyone from Asia or the US (or anyone at all) want to go to Hamilton?

If someone can make a case for HLZ then fine, but until then, I still have doubts.
ROT is a tourist trap, especially for Asians, thus it has a case.
PMR is close to skifields, so it maybe has a case.
CHC and ZQN are also close to skifields (plus ZQN is a tourist trap), so are better than HLZ as a choice.
WLG is the nation's capital, while not a reason on it's own, I'm sure it's more likely to want/need/be able to sustain Asian and US flights.

What does HLZ have to offer?

Cheers
Anthony

by **greaneyr** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:26 pm

victor_alpha_charlie wrote:
QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Mar 31 2008, 04:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I still don't get this. Why would anyone from Asia or the US (or anyone at all) want to go to Hamilton?

Some people have an ability to say so much in very few words! This is a really good point.

by **Daniel** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:56 pm

Hi Guys

I have NO Support for Hamilton Airports idea.

QUOTE

I still don't get this. Why would anyone from Asia or the US (or anyone at all) want to go to Hamilton?[/quote]

Exactly, would would they do in Hamilton?
I would like see Wellington get bigger aircraft like the 767 however.

Cheers
Daniel
:plane:

Last edited by Daniel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NZFF

Hamilton International Airport Upgrades

Who is online