Talk:Air New Zealand/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Out of date statements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)

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)

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)

Hong Kong hub?

Article lede currently mentions additional hub to AKL at LAX; does HKG need now to be added (or LAX deleted since no more of a hub than LAX?)...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall criticisms of the article

I find the whole article a bit lengthy and without sensible weight being given to each aspect of the airline. I think it might be better to split off the excellent history section into its own article, and trim back the Airpoints and Services sections. Most of the Airpoints section is not specific to Air New Zealand and could be merged into Star Alliance or just dropped as not being of encyclopaedic value. The explanation of the different classes in Services looks like an advertisement. The blow-by-blow account of new and discontinued routes is not necessary.-gadfium 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just split the history section off to History of Air New Zealand and will work on it there. I have written a two-sentence overview of the history in this article with a link to the history page; feel free to update this as necessary. Blair - Speak to me 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The summary needs to be expanded into a few solid paragraphs.-gadfium 07:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll work on that once I've finished working on the history article (that way I'll have a better view for what the summary should contain). Blair - Speak to me 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I have split out the Airpoints article. My apologies, I didn't notice that there were discussion about this -- but I see there was discussion in favour of splitting it out anyway. Hopefully the split out of the Airpoints information helps reduce the overall clutter -- although I think there is a lot of work to do. Perhaps for the fleet information etc, we could just remove the historical data (except for siginficant stuff) and just keep the most recent data and divert any interesting historical fleet-related stuff into the History article. James Pole 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My airpoints article has been tagged for deletion. I'm happy to merge the article back into here if it is required. Please do discuss whether this should be done or just leave the Airpoints article as a separate article as it is at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.pole (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sex Discrimination Controversy

This new section is about a relatively minor episode in the airline's history, and the policies for which Air New Zealand has been criticised are also the policies of Qantas, and perhaps of many other airlines. Is this undue weight? The incident could be folded into the history section. The section is also incomplete. What did the Human Rights Commissioner have to say about the matter? Did Air New Zealand change its policy as a result?-gadfium 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel this section warrants deletion- perhaps 50% of all airlines have this policy- it's just not publicised. 70.173.122.123 (talk)alex —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

I fully agree with the above comments- I used to work for an Asian airline that had this same policy- it's just not openly discussed. As said above, at least 50% of airlines have this policy whether one likes it or not and therefore the paragraph should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.119.193 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 70.173.119.193 (talk)ETA —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Split to Airline sex discrimination policy‎.-gadfium 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

While the three issues discussed in the section named Controversial Topics may have been newsworthy at the time, I'm not sure they're important enough in the larger scheme of things to warrant a whole section in this article, are they? The Qantas alliance proposal seems more appropriate for the History of Air New Zealand article, since it's not a current issue, and the same might be said for the outsourcing of maintenance issue (although we don't seem to cover other employment issues, such as the jobs going to Fiji and the current dispute with the SFWU). As for the sex discrimination controversy — it made the headlines, sure, but then faded from view almost immediately, and doesn't seem to have had any lasting effect on anything. Overall, I feel that giving these three controversies a full section in the main Air NZ article rather overstates their overall importance to the topic. (That might just be my opinion, though). -- Vardion (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move the first two to the history article, and perhaps condense them. Just delete the sex discrimination controversy - it looks as though this is/was a policy of many airlines, and is not specific to Air New Zealand. If someone thinks it's worth keeping, they can create an article which deals with the issue across airlines.-gadfium 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete the sex discrimination controversy please - this is hugely significant for a number of reasons. Firstly - Air New Zealand and Qantas effectively broke the story and are the main companies under investigation here. Some airlines have similar policies, but Air NZ, Qantas and BA seem to have by far the strictest and most offensive policies. Virgin Atlantic for example have no ban whatsoever, staff are just told to use common sense (and therefore presumably are concerned with both male and female abusers) http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:U_ONJ32Tfr8J:www.vaeter-aktuell.de/english/British_Airways_-_Men_cannot_sit_with_lone_children_2001.pdf+%22British+Airways%22+men+sitting+next+to+children&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It still seems that this would best be made a separate article, rather than having very similar content in this article, at Qantas and at British Airways. It would be appropriate for each airline article to link to the new article.-gadfium 08:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any such article would merely add much more detail to the issue and allow for more quotes, and updated information etc. The issue would still need to be covered here too as it is of such significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've split it out to Airline sex discrimination policy‎, since there were several people who considered it better split or outright deleted, and one person who wanted it kept in each article. The new article could do with updated material.-gadfium 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are completely wrong to suggest I'm the only person who thinks such matter need to stay in the main article for each airline - this topic has been discussed in the British Airways talk page too - if you'd have read that you would have come to a different conclusion. On top of that each time someone has attempted to remove the controversy from the BA article it has generally been a different user who reverted the unwarrented changes. As I stated before we do need one article for discussing the issue in detail so many thanks for putting the work in to create that - but it still needs to remain on the airlines own pages as well. --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see on Talk:British Airways, there was a discussion between five people, three for and two against. There was also one who wanted better sourcing. That's hardly enough to make me draw a different conclusion. The consensus here was clearly for removal. However, I suggest we keep a trimmed down version here, with a {{main}} link to the split off article. Please consider improving and bringing the split article up to date. At the moment, it looks as though there was a minor fuss at the time, and then everyone forgot about it. Actually, I think that's probably accurate. If there are no updates to the article, we should move the link to it to the History of Air New Zealand.-gadfium 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There were 7 people discussing the article - 3 for deletion of the controversy, 3 against and one who thought it just need to be better sourced. I.e. there was no consensus whatsoever for deletion. In terms of wanting a more reliable source for information, this was provided in the form of a link to a Times newspaper article from 2001 thus that matter is completely settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AirNZ logo2006.svg, found on Air New Zealand, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the image meets the fair use criteria anyway. The statement the logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution is a blatant lie - it is an SVG image and thus can be resized as desired without loss of quality. Blair^{Speak to Me}/_Breathe 19:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format, it states fair-use SVGs shouldn't include more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at their current resolution. I exported the image to a 10,000 by 2981 pixel (1419 dpi) PNG file and it looked perfect which seems to be more than neccessary. By the existence of the category, there seems to be some consensus to transfer non-free images to SVG if possible; however I am still not convinced that this image satisfies the general fair use criteria.

Blair^{Speak to Me}/_Breathe 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements

The lead has been expanded, sections ordered and expanded, photos added, and a history summary included. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IATA Code

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

About 1990.--AlexCherr72 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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) It WAS the uncertainty of the NZ public's overall perception of the DC-10, the type's development delayed successor - MD-11, and not the disaster that drove the airline to the B747. Also the airline had outgrown the type for long haul flights, the improved 747-200 model allowed for this. I'm still surprised they (DC-10s) were sold off three years before the 767 arrival as the DC-8s were retired around the same time. A couple could've hung around as an interim type instead of Air NZ having to share seats on Qantas' new 767's.--AlexCherr72 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Zeal320

Zeal should probably have its own article, if teeny tiny companies like Eagle Air do. Nankai (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and create the article if you like. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note though that a previous Zeal320 stub article was merged into ANZ. SynergyStar (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zeal320 is little more than a 'Paper' company used to create a lower paid work force for what would've been an LCC. Sadly now not looking likely, but with the arrival of Jetstar, who knows?--AlexCherr72 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Zeal320 should not have its own article for the reasons outlined above. The reason why the smaller prop airlines have their own articles is because their operations is significally different enough to the mainline operations to warrant its own articles. The A320 operations are basically operated alongside the B737/747/767/777 operations -- so why should the A320 company be treated differently to the mainline company? When Air NZ creates its own LCC (which will most likely have a different name) we can create a separate article for that. James Pole (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeal320 paragraph should now be removed or updated as information on it is reading in present time.

IATA code?

I believe even for quite a long time after the merger Air New Zealand still used the TE IATA code for all international flights and NZ (inherited from NAC) for the domestic flights. For my first trip to NZ in July and August 1989 with many Air NZ flights the domestic flights were with NZ code and international ones TE, and I obtained timetables for proof. This arrangement was still the case in June 1990. But the March 1991 editions of foreign airlines timetables Air New Zealand changed to using NZ for all flights. If anyone knows why the separate IATA code was kept for more than a decade after the merger and for its eventual phasing out, and put the information in this article, it will be much appreciated. --JNZ (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure why two IATA codes were used. They didn't use TE for all international flights - the flight number for Air New Zealand Flight 901 was TE901, and that was technically not an international flight (even though it used the longhaul DC-10's and left from Auckland's international terminal), but that could be a relic from the days before the merger (which hapened in 1978, they ear before TE901) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason why TE was used was because it used an airline from the international fleet. I'm not sure of the corporate structure in those days, but perhaps they had a system where one airline owned another airline (like how Air NZ today owns Zeal320, Mt Cook, et al) so the code depended on which airline operated it. So I wonder if the company that operated DC-10 had the rights to the TE code and thus had to use the TE code for the TE901 flight. This is just a theory though, so more info would be nice! James Pole (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Air New Zealand slogan maybe wrong

With Air NZ new campaign add currently on TV, they say at the end "Air New Zealand, We have nothing to hide" and "Being there is everything" is not said in the add. Does this mean that "We have nothing to hide" is replacing "Being there is everything" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.41.30 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right that Air NZ has changed its slogan, but I can't be sure that it isn't just a domestic advertising slogan and not the main one. The website also uses the "Nothing to hide" phrase, but the website they display is different for people within New Zealand to that displayed to others. The previous slogan was Amazing journeys. Every day. and appears in both the infobox and at the end of the lede. If anyone from Air New Zealand is watching this page, feel free to update it.-gadfium 03:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the ad campaign needs to be mentioned in the "controversal topics" section, especially since there is no mention of complaints. The Bare Essentials subtopic probably should be moved to "brand and livery" section of the article. Whatmarc (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumnavigate?

The article makes the claim that ANZ is only airline to circumnavigate the world, but surely Singapore Airlines's SIN-FRA-JFK, SIN-EWR flights also qualify? (Unless you're going to be pedantic and insist that Newark and New York aren't close enough...) Jpatokal (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that neither flights connects at the same airport, unlike Air NZ at London-Heathrow, I disagree that Singapore Airlines also circumnavigates the world. Yes I'm being pedantic. :) James Pole (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

November 2008 accident

Here's the official report. Regards, 41.184.145.241 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Effort Needed

I have been monitoring this article for a very long time now and I think it is time that we actually fix it all up. What we need to do is firstly get more references. We have something like 6 at the moment. Very slack. Other pages have around 25. That will take the major problem off our hands as that has been the major problem for the last year or so.

Secondly we need to look at HOW we are writing this article. We have been told it is turning out like an advertisment. Can we please make an effort to write this as an article about the airline, not trying to gain customers for the airline.

Finally can we please try and cut down on the external pages e.g. See (link). Can we try and almost just have those pages there as extra reading. We need to extract the crucial information from those pages and put them into the main Air New Zealand Page. Then at the bottom of the page at the 'See Also' section, we can put the links for the pages there.

Overall we just need to give this page a good tidy up and keep it up to date WITH RESOURCES. Little things like the total of ANZ's fleet. Little things like that aswell as the big things.

I myself am a proud Kiwi and would like to see this article clear of messages so I will do my best to clean it up as long as others try aswell. 210.7.19.21 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. I've been working on the History of Air New Zealand article which I recently split off from the main article due to its length. Its progressing reasonably when I get the time (its getting near final exams at uni and so I can be a bit busy). I'll also see what I can do with the main article. Blair - Speak to me 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy that the history is a separate page. Surely the historically important stuff is what belongs in the main article and the trivially unimportant crap like Koru Clubs, Airpoints, and etc. could be spun off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.248.86 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the history is long enough that a separate history article is warranted, but I think there should also be a good but concise summary of the history in the main article. People should be able to get a rough idea of the airline's history from the main article, and then go to the separate article if they want all the details. Just my opinion, of course. -- Vardion 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your efforts. This page is looking fantastic now and the number of sources are starting to rise. Keep up the good work! 125.238.106.19 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

History should always be a separate section.

The grammar and English needs to be tightened up, and the tone less colloquial. Perhaps someone other than a New Zealander should do this.124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

'retrofitted' and 'hull-loss'. whats wrong with 're-fitted' and 'major accident'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.179.218 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to hide - Controversial?

We currently have a fairly long section about the nothing to hide campaign under the controversy section. However, there no indication at all that the ad campaign was controversial apart from one unsourced sentence. The rest of the section doesn't even mention about it being controversial. Either the section has to be moved away from the controversy section or controversy must be sourced and the section trimmed to be about the controversy. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No responses means action. I'm doing something about the section now. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Whoever put that image of that "All Black" A320, that's a great pic. Keep the camera snapping.Yeejiny (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC) yeejiny Yeejiny (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 18:27, January 2, 2012

Preferential treatment towards John Key

gadfium deleted my entry about Air New Zealand's alleged preferential treatment towards John Key by diverting a Nelson-Auckland flight to make a stop at New Plymouth in order to pick him up with his entourage. Whilst admittedly this hasn't exactly turned into an ongoing 'scandal' as such, it nonetheless merits inclusion in this article in the 'Controversial topics' section. The Wiktionary entry for 'controversy' defines it as 'a debate, discussion of opposing opinions'. The mere fact that the allegations relating to this incident made by Sue Bradford were reported in the national media (such as TVNZ [1]), leading to opposing statements being expressed by Air New Zealand and John Key, shows that this topic satisfies the threshold for 'controversy'. Bonus bon (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, this incident appeared on the main 'Politics News' page on TVNZ [2], the NZ Herald [3], 3 News [4] to name just a few media sources. It definitely seems to have generated controversy, even if it hasn't erupted into a scandal as such! Bonus bon (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The plane was diverted to pick up an entire plane-load of passengers who had been stranded, which happened to include John Key. It happens relatively often. The fact that the PM happened to be part of the plane-load that was stranded is hardly notable, and neither is the fact that another politician decided to try to make a scandal out of it! I'm all for a bit of hearty criticism of Mr. Key but I don't think this incident belongs on WP. --116.90.143.89 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake airlift section

This section is poorly written (uses weird lingo like "in which Air New Zealand was to the fore" and "The airline also laid on the special evacuation fare" rather than simple language). It should read more like an encyclopaedia article than a news article or press release. I haven't time right now to do a good job of fixing it but will return later and fix it if no-one's beaten me to it.

There's also a factual inaccuracy in that section: "The airline drafted in all its available wide-body aircraft" — the aircraft used for evacuations were almost exclusively narrow-body B737-300 and some A320-200 aircraft. The wide-body 747, 767 and 777 aircraft operated by Air New Zealand are unable to land on most of NZ's provincial airports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.143.89 (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Tidied up some of the grammar and factual information on this section. AlexCherr72 (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hubs

I have changed Wellington and Christchurch from focus cities as they are really secondary hubs and fit the definition with a smaller hub and spoke system with connecting traffic from domestic flights to international and v.v. while focus cities are mainly Origin and Destination traffic so for Air NZ operations LAX and SYD airports comply with this rule.CHCBOY (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fleet Size

I see that the fleet size has been determined through the method of extracting aircraft from the CAA register that are owned and operated by Air New Zealand ltd.

I completely understand the logic but can I suggest that in the info box there is a provision made for something such as "Fleet of wholly owned subsidiaries" or something similar?

By looking at the data at www.airnz.co.nz or in the companies annual reports a different figure will be reached in terms of fleet size.

I think it would be prudent to include both of these in the info box and then total.

Thoughts??!!

Cheers Homesick kiwi (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Concensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers is that subsidiaries are not listed in fleet totals, they are listed in their own articles. Perhaps if you post there and see what the project as a whole thinks, coz this is affecting too many articles, where airline PR sources are being used to bolster figures and the like. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the Qantas page and the discussion page and it appears as though they include all aircraft including subsidaries as the fleet size is approximately 220+. I agree with you in what you are saying and I believe that the best option would to have in the infobox the fleet size for AirNZ ltd. as well as the wholly owned subsidaries. The logic being that these aircraft would be included in AirNZ's annual reports filed with companies house as either assets or lease obligations. As an annual report is as much a legal document as an aircraft register I don't think it is fair to use one and not the other and therefore a simple clarification is needed rather than a total exclusion.

Cheers Homesick kiwi (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the question of whether to include the fleets of subsidiaries should be based on the extent to which those subsidiaries exist (and are presented) as genuinely separate airlines. In the case of Air New Zealand, subsidiaries like Zeal320 exist only for behind-the-scenes operational reasons, not because they are genuinely external to Air New Zealand's operations — Zeal320's separation from the rest of Air New Zealand is just a technicality. Even the three domestic subsidiaries, which are more "real", are still fully integrated into Air New Zealand's operations and image, unlike (for example) Jetstar or Silkair. Air Nelson, Eagle Air, and Mount Cook Airline do not (and as currently constituted, could not) work as separate airlines — they're business operating units of Air New Zealand, not miniature airlines in their own right. To me, including Air New Zealand's subsidiaries gives a more accurate representation of the airline as it really stands than omitting them — I would prefer to define "one airline" by how the airline actually works in practice rather than how it chooses to arrange legal ownership of aircraft between its different components. Just my thoughts. -- Vardion (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole fleet with subsidiaries should be included. However user Jetblast does not saying its not what the infobox is for and has edited it with jet fleet total only. Thought's? CHCBOY (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The subsidiaries are operated by separate airline, a separate company. They are not operated by Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand cabin crew, pilots, mechanics etc do not service them. Air New Zealand Link is not the same as Air New Zealand. They are separate for a reason, why would you merge them together? They are listed on the individual subsidiary page. Most airlines on Wikipedia are like this. The same applies for the fleet table, we only list aircraft operated by Air NZ. Also on Template:Infobox_Airline it doesn't say to include subsidiary airlines. --JetBlast (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of destinations

The article has in the past been wrong in its destination count as flights change. I thought a proper count should be made

Domestic. The current count is 25 by my reckoning,

Kaitaia, Kerikeri, Whangarei, Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Whatatane, Rotorua, Gisborne, Taupo, New Plymouth, Wanganui,, Napier/Hastings, Palmerston North, Paraparaumu, Wellington, Blenheim, Nelson, Westport, Hokitika, Christchurch, Timaru, Dunedin, Queenstown, Invercargill

international overseas destinations. Includes seasonal but not charter destinations.

I make it 25 in 15 countries

Cairns, Sunshine, Brisbane, Gold, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Norfolk. (Using a definition this is not Australia) Denpasar Hong Kong, Shanghai (Using a definition that HK is China) Tokyo Noumea Port Vila Nuku Alofa Nuie Apia Rarotonga Papeete Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Francisco Vancouver London

And soon to be Singapore. 26 in 16

What if anything have I missed?Andrewgprout (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Yes Andrew that is them all covered, someone had it as 34 International before plus there is the summer Japan charter cities served around 8 will have to check.CHCBOY (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indidents and Accidents

I dont think the A320 accident of November 28th 2008 need be included in this article. It was an Air NZ Owned aircraft, not an Air NZ crash or incident. Why should air new zealand be defamed as a result of one of their OWNED but not operated aircraft having an accident.

Think of it this way, if you own a house but rent it out and your tennants crash a car in to it, should you be made look bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.207.239 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The aircraft was in Air New Zealand livery at the time, and had several Air New Zealand staff members on board. It is clearly a significant event in the company's history.-gadfium 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the accident should be removed. The aircraft was not working for Air New Zealand at the time of the accident and the aircraft was D-AXLA which is a Germany aircrafts. But I also agree with Gadfium because it was a bad day for Air New Zealand and New Zealand's avation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.41.30 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant event, so it should be included. To state that it was not a significant event would be overlooking the fact that the airline itself saw it as a significant event in its history -- significant enough to warrant it's own CEO flying out to the location of the incident with families of the people who perished in the incident. I vote for keeping the A320 incident in the article. James Pole (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this incident needs to be included. It was covered by the media as an Air New Zealand incident, and the CEO at the time treated it as such. I came to this page looking for it - it seems bizarre that it isn't here. 110.34.48.14 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little torn by this - however I think the way the incident is currently written clearly states the unorthodox relationship situation. ANZ livery, ANZ staff on board, ceo visit to crash site all contribute to swing this towards inclusion for me. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I removed it before seeing this discussion but I still stand by the fact that this was not operated by Air New Zealand when it was lost and was on a test flight. The fact that it was owned by ANZ is not really relvant most modern aircraft are leased from somebody else. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to note although owned by Air New Zealand it was leased to Freedom Air (New Zealand) and they had leased it to the Germans so should it be on the Freedom Air page as well? MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne Yeah - as I said I'm a bit torn by this. Freedom Air services were merged into AIR NZ (its grand parent) in early 2008, before the crash, which is why the plane when it crashed was in NZ not Freedom colours. And I think the actual owner of the plane was the paper airline Zeal320' anyway. I think it best just to say Air New Zealand as it gets very confused. If this was a normal XL revenue flight I would agree that it certainly should not be mentioned however I can say is that this was a very big thing here, with the Air New Zealand ceo and affected family members travelling to France. The purpose of the flight was part of the process of handing the aircraft back to ANZ this sort of makes the situation reasonably unique. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reinstating this - as said previously, this was very much seen as an Air New Zealand accident in New Zealand itself, the airline treated it as an Air New Zealand incident, and to not include it looks like someone is covering something up. Sample headlines from the time include (these are all taken from the crash page reference section): Air New Zealand A320 near Perpignan on Nov 27th 2008, impacted Mediterranean Sea; No hope of survivors in New Zealand jet crash off France: official; Five New Zealanders feared dead after Air NZ plane crashes; Air NZ crash: Damaged black box will give answers - investigator; Air NZ hopeful black box data will provide clue to crash 110.34.48.14 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Awards list

The article includes a very long list of Awards the airline has won. I am wondering whether this list is really particularly encyclopedic and will only over time get longer and longer. I would like to turn the list into a couple of paragraphs saying something like the airline has won a large number of awards, including some of the highlights and an impression of the breadth of its success. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131212173812/http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/co-operation-partners-asiana-airlines to http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/co-operation-partners-asiana-airlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429170219/http://www.transport.govt.nz/international-air-carriage-competition/ to http://www.transport.govt.nz/international-air-carriage-competition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Special liveries generally and (Freedom Air specifically)

A succession of edits eg. [[5]] by a hopping IP6 user (makes communication very difficult) is insisting that the special Loony toons Freedom Air livery is added to the Air New Zealand article. Now Freedom was a subsidiary of Mt Cook a subsidiary of Air New Zealand so there is a tenuous link. I'm not sure we would put the ANZ link special liveries leads me on to - are any of these really encyclopaedic enough for inclusion? Andrewgprout (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Air New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)