Air NZ flight to Shanghai forced to turn back to Auckland mid-flight
Feb 9, 2019, 5:07 pm
#1
Ambassador: Air New Zealand
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wellington NZ
Programs: NZ Elite, EK Gold, Qatar Gold, Amex Plat, Accor Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,426
Air NZ flight to Shanghai forced to turn back to Auckland mid-flight
An Air NZ spokeswoman tells the Herald:
"NZ289 Auckland to Shanghai returned to Auckland around four and a half to five hours into its journey after it was discovered a technicality meant the particular aircraft operating this service did not have Chinese regulatory authority to land in China."
NZ Herald Article
"NZ289 Auckland to Shanghai returned to Auckland around four and a half to five hours into its journey after it was discovered a technicality meant the particular aircraft operating this service did not have Chinese regulatory authority to land in China."
NZ Herald Article
Feb 9, 2019, 6:34 pm
#3
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
E.g. the approval may have been for ZK-NZQ but the flight plan had ZKNZQ. ZKNZQ in their system doesn't exisit so therefore a no go.
Though looking back through FR24 this may have been the first AIrNZ plane with Trent1000 TENS to PVG? May be a late swap and over looked?
Feb 9, 2019, 9:39 pm
#4
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,498
I doubt this is an issue of formatting. The airline has to file a list of aircraft with the aviation authority and they would all be in the same format, and the flight plan would be too. I suspect nzkarit’s second explanation is the likely one, or that NZQ is sufficiently new that approval hadn’t yet been given by the Chinese, and someone in Air NZ ops stuffed up when NZQ was assigned to do the PVG service without this being flagged,
It’s not an issue unique to Air NZ; I know of one Middle Eastern airline that ended up with a 777 stuck in Africa for three days because the aircraft wasn’t on the local approved list, and it wasn’t picked up until after the plane landed and was about to fly back to base.
It’s not an issue unique to Air NZ; I know of one Middle Eastern airline that ended up with a 777 stuck in Africa for three days because the aircraft wasn’t on the local approved list, and it wasn’t picked up until after the plane landed and was about to fly back to base.
Feb 9, 2019, 9:53 pm
#5
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 367
Any other country that would work. But this China. Border process are weird, know a lot of exporters who have issues, because suddenly the paperwork which was fine is no longer fine, need to reapply or have a local on the ground grease the wheel. The shipment that arrives the next week will arrive fine as a different person is in the office that day for the office. Or a space instead of a - is used in the paperwork. Chinese border officials prefer accuracy and don't look for what was actually meant.
E.g. the approval may have been for ZK-NZQ but the flight plan had ZKNZQ. ZKNZQ in their system doesn't exisit so therefore a no go.
Though looking back through FR24 this may have been the first AIrNZ plane with Trent1000 TENS to PVG? May be a late swap and over looked?
E.g. the approval may have been for ZK-NZQ but the flight plan had ZKNZQ. ZKNZQ in their system doesn't exisit so therefore a no go.
Though looking back through FR24 this may have been the first AIrNZ plane with Trent1000 TENS to PVG? May be a late swap and over looked?
Last edited by drajknox; Feb 10, 2019 at 1:58 am
Feb 9, 2019, 10:39 pm
#7
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
And it's also Chinese New Year so everyone is on holiday. So processing paperwork may be taking longer and someone on holiday didn't click a button.
So may have followed normal procedure and timeline & got bitten.
Some of these rules can have things like don't submit more than X days out from arrival.
So may have followed normal procedure and timeline & got bitten.
Some of these rules can have things like don't submit more than X days out from arrival.
Feb 10, 2019, 12:11 am
#8
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 909
Still seems a bit odd... Air Lease Corporation is the apparent owner of that specific 787. They (despite being an American company) also lease to about 5 mainland Chinese airlines, so if that's true then it could mean trouble for those airlines.
Feb 10, 2019, 1:05 am
#9
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 93
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12202496
Given AIr New Zealand and compensation are not two words you typically hear in the same sentence I am VERY intrigued to see what comes of this.
"Under the Civil Aviation Act, under compensation, the passengers can apply for up to 10 times the amount of compensation because this is not an act of God or an engineering problem or technical problem.
"This is clearly an administrative - well, I call it a cock-up and the passengers should file and are entitled to compensation. It should not have happened.''
"This is clearly an administrative - well, I call it a cock-up and the passengers should file and are entitled to compensation. It should not have happened.''
Feb 10, 2019, 1:27 am
#10
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12202496
Given AIr New Zealand and compensation are not two words you typically hear in the same sentence I am VERY intrigued to see what comes of this.
Given AIr New Zealand and compensation are not two words you typically hear in the same sentence I am VERY intrigued to see what comes of this.
Feb 10, 2019, 1:54 am
#11
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 367
Suppose really depends where the issue is, China's Aviation Authority, NZ CAA, Air NZ, Leasor, who Air NZ uses for premits etc (not sure if they do this themselves or if out source this (for somewhere like China need people on the ground who have relationships with authorities, airport, etc)) and there may be other players like MFAT as they do the treaties who may also do paperwork.
If I purchase an IPhone and the Modem chip fails I’m not expected to seek compensation from Foxconn or Intel.
Feb 10, 2019, 2:31 am
#12
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
Does NZ law apply China's Aviation Authority? AirNZ could claim out side of their control.
Looking at
Civil Aviation Act 1990 No 98 (as at 01 October 2018), Public Act ? New Zealand Legislation
Can only find in the Domestic carriage by air
91ZC Limitation of liability
(1) The liability of the carrier in respect of damage caused by delay is limited to the lesser of—
(2) Despite subsection (1), the carrier may, by special contract, increase the amount of the carrier’s liability under that subsection.(3) This Part does not affect any rule of law relating to remoteness of damage.
(a)the amount of damage proved to have been sustained as a result of the delay; or
(b) an amount representing 10 times the sum paid for the carriage.
(b) an amount representing 10 times the sum paid for the carriage.
(2) Despite subsection (1), the carrier may, by special contract, increase the amount of the carrier’s liability under that subsection.(3) This Part does not affect any rule of law relating to remoteness of damage.
So that is application to domestic flights can't find anything in regards to international. As that most probably falls into Montreal Convention?
Air NZ's out may 2aiii or 2b if this part did cover international flights
91z Liability of carrier in respect of delay
(1) A carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of passengers.
(1) A carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of passengers.
(2) Despite subsection (1), a carrier is not liable for damage caused by delay if the carrier proves that the delay—
(a)arose by reason of—
(b) was made necessary by force majeure; or
(c) was necessary for the purpose of saving or attempting to save life.
(i)meteorological conditions; or
(ii) compliance with instructions, advice, or information given by an air traffic control service; or
(iii) obedience to orders or directions given by a lawful authority; or
(ii) compliance with instructions, advice, or information given by an air traffic control service; or
(iii) obedience to orders or directions given by a lawful authority; or
(b) was made necessary by force majeure; or
(c) was necessary for the purpose of saving or attempting to save life.
Feb 10, 2019, 3:20 am
#13
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 367
Does NZ law apply China's Aviation Authority? AirNZ could claim out side of their control.
Looking at
Civil Aviation Act 1990 No 98 (as at 01 October 2018), Public Act ? New Zealand Legislation
Can only find in the Domestic carriage by air
So that is application to domestic flights can't find anything in regards to international. As that most probably falls into Montreal Convention?
Air NZ's out may 2aiii or 2b if this part did cover international flights
Looking at
Civil Aviation Act 1990 No 98 (as at 01 October 2018), Public Act ? New Zealand Legislation
Can only find in the Domestic carriage by air
So that is application to domestic flights can't find anything in regards to international. As that most probably falls into Montreal Convention?
Air NZ's out may 2aiii or 2b if this part did cover international flights
Having said that they probably realise that they may well be exposed to claims and or actions from insurers. We may never know if out of court settlements are made but generally insurers like to determine liability.
Last edited by drajknox; Feb 10, 2019 at 4:18 am
Feb 10, 2019, 11:42 am
#15
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
However if fare purchased in New Zealand and not for Business purposes surely there would be a case under CGA. If purchased for Business it would be likely that the Disputes Tribunal would be somewhat sympathetic to the customer for a claim up to $15k. I don’t imagine that Air NZ would want a test case or the negative publicity. IMHO from a reputational point of view they should have frontfooted the situation with a more transparent press release//explanation and considered a refund of fares paid for that flight.
Having said that they probably realise that they may well be exposed to claims and or actions from insurers. We may never know if out of court settlements are made but generally insurers like to determine liability.
Last edited by nzkarit; Feb 10, 2019 at 12:58 pm