Trent woes
#181
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ*S plus various hotel programs
Posts: 945
#182
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ , QF , MK
Posts: 1,372
So, before everyone gets too alarmed, I think the quoted article has not expressed the situation clearly. DISCLAIMER : I am not an aviation expert, but I have actually read the AD, rather than the article about the AD.
I have checked the FAA website and the most recent AD I can find is from 26 April.
While it is a technical document and I don't profess to be an expert, it seems to me that EDTO 60 only applies if the aircraft is operating above a specific weight. Bear in mind that the AD seems to have been issued around the time NZ introduced refuelling stops on certain 787 services, my amateur opinion is that the article is referring to an existing situation rather than a new one. I can see nothing in the AD (I concede I may have missed something) which suggests EDTO 60 limits apply to affected 787 at all operating weights, only above a certain weight.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/search/?q=787&makeModel=&type=Current&filter=&sort=docume ntNumber&direction=asc&startRow=26
I have checked the FAA website and the most recent AD I can find is from 26 April.
While it is a technical document and I don't profess to be an expert, it seems to me that EDTO 60 only applies if the aircraft is operating above a specific weight. Bear in mind that the AD seems to have been issued around the time NZ introduced refuelling stops on certain 787 services, my amateur opinion is that the article is referring to an existing situation rather than a new one. I can see nothing in the AD (I concede I may have missed something) which suggests EDTO 60 limits apply to affected 787 at all operating weights, only above a certain weight.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/search/?q=787&makeModel=&type=Current&filter=&sort=docume ntNumber&direction=asc&startRow=26
Last edited by kiwiandrew; May 10, 2018 at 3:00 pm Reason: Added disclaimer
#183
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 644
#186
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 366
i guess they may have a smaller fleet and thus less flexibility so higher cost in terms of Boeing/Rolls Royce liability.
If they’re smart they may be able to use this situation to their advantage in terms of trying to guarantee revenue growth by potentially taking legal action based upon previous growth in passenger numbers/routes/occupancy etc and arguing that this situation has caused them to lose customers and bookings - there are already plenty of presumably independent accounts on this forum and likely elsewhere of people choosing not to book them due to downgrades/retiming and other uncertainties.
Carriers with more planes/flexibility may not be able to use the same arguments.
If they’re smart they may be able to use this situation to their advantage in terms of trying to guarantee revenue growth by potentially taking legal action based upon previous growth in passenger numbers/routes/occupancy etc and arguing that this situation has caused them to lose customers and bookings - there are already plenty of presumably independent accounts on this forum and likely elsewhere of people choosing not to book them due to downgrades/retiming and other uncertainties.
Carriers with more planes/flexibility may not be able to use the same arguments.
#187
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ Elite, QF Platinum (LTS), VA Platinum
Posts: 1,672
In addition to what drajknox said Air NZ fly over a tonne of water. There aren't a lot of airports to divert to compared to say if your routes take you over land like Asia, Europe etc so some other airlines may have more options up their sleeves for rescheduling and rerouting planes.
Air NZ can place the 777s on the America routes but what about the Asian destinations? They've required fuel stops here and there, rerouting closer to airports. If they had to go down to 60mins I'm not sure that's even doable. I haven't looked but imagine wiping out all of those other routes. NZ do have JV's? with SQ and CX to Asia and can stop the seasonal flights like Bali and let other carriers take over but can you imagine the routes they wouldn't be able to fly and how that would really sting the company?
I can't say I've looked at the routes for the other companies but lets face it, NZ is really remote.
Air NZ can place the 777s on the America routes but what about the Asian destinations? They've required fuel stops here and there, rerouting closer to airports. If they had to go down to 60mins I'm not sure that's even doable. I haven't looked but imagine wiping out all of those other routes. NZ do have JV's? with SQ and CX to Asia and can stop the seasonal flights like Bali and let other carriers take over but can you imagine the routes they wouldn't be able to fly and how that would really sting the company?
I can't say I've looked at the routes for the other companies but lets face it, NZ is really remote.
#188
Join Date: Feb 2007
Programs: NZ Koru
Posts: 6,411
Looks like 9V-SVL has been registered ZK-OKI
Aircraft Hist | Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Aircraft Hist | Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
#189
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: NZ*E
Posts: 808
Yet, this aircraft is 16 years old... making this the newest addition but the oldest 772 to NZ?
#190
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Very much doubt it'll be re-fitted, I'd suggest it's purely been bought in to temporarily assist whilst RR engines are fixed.
#193
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand (most of the time)
Programs: Air NZ Elite *G, Honors Gold, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 6,100
#194
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ Elite, QF Platinum (LTS), VA Platinum
Posts: 1,672
#195
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 15
Seatmap of Singapore's 772: https://seatguru.com/airlines/Singap...200_ER_new.php