Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air New Zealand | Air Points
Reload this Page >

Air NZ flight to Shanghai forced to turn back to Auckland mid-flight

Air NZ flight to Shanghai forced to turn back to Auckland mid-flight

Reply

Old Feb 9, 19, 6:07 pm
  #1  
Ambassador: Air New Zealand
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wellington NZ
Programs: NZ Gold, EK Gold, Amex Plat, SPG Gold, Accor Gold
Posts: 1,231
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
WLG Base is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 7:14 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 497
Seems like a bit of a joke... Sure I don't run an airline but you'd think that the checklist would include "Plane allowed to land at destination".
Bub001 likes this.
henrus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 7:34 pm
  #3  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by henrus View Post
Seems like a bit of a joke... Sure I don't run an airline but you'd think that the checklist would include "Plane allowed to land at destination".
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?
nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 10:39 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,294
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.
nancypants likes this.
Top of climb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 10:53 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by nzkarit View Post
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?
Whatever the case itís a bad look. Reputation is important in business and either Air New Zealand needs to be more transparent in their explanation by giving more detail or if they feel they cannot they should least compensate passengers appropriately. While one may accept that delays have to be accepted by the customer when there are ďacts of GodĒ, ďevents beyond the Airlines controlĒ etc in this case a reasonable person would assume that there has been negligence - and there has been nothing to contradict this. Itís all very well for people to criticize customers for complaining (seen on Twitter) but if you were caught up in this consider how you might feel - having to change business meetings, hotel bookings, airport transfers, loss of income, missing appointments/events/connecting flights, extra costs, having to make insurance claims etc.
Bub001 and nancypants like this.

Last edited by drajknox; Feb 10, 19 at 2:58 am
drajknox is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 11:01 pm
  #6  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
Hearing now it might be an issue with China and the leasor on NZQ
nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 19, 11:39 pm
  #7  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
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.
nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 1:11 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 497
Originally Posted by nzkarit View Post
Hearing now it might be an issue with China and the leasor on NZQ
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.
henrus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 2:05 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 81
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12202496

"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.''
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.
b1m9t0 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 2:27 am
  #10  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by b1m9t0 View Post
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.
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.
nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 2:54 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by nzkarit View Post
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.
Does it?
If I purchase an IPhone and the Modem chip fails Iím not expected to seek compensation from Foxconn or Intel.
Collierkr likes this.
drajknox is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 3:31 am
  #12  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by drajknox View Post


Does it?
If I purchase an IPhone and the Modem chip fails I’m not expected to seek compensation from Foxconn or Intel.

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—
(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.

(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.


(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—
(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

(b) was made necessary by force majeure; or


(c) was necessary for the purpose of saving or attempting to save life.

nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 4:20 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by nzkarit View Post
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



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 donít 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 drajknox; Feb 10, 19 at 5:18 am
drajknox is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 4:35 am
  #14  
Ambassador: Air New Zealand
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wellington NZ
Programs: NZ Gold, EK Gold, Amex Plat, SPG Gold, Accor Gold
Posts: 1,231
Flying as NZ289D using ZK-NZC tonight. ATD 23:30
WLG Base is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 19, 12:42 pm
  #15  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by drajknox View Post


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.
part of CGA is giving opportunity to fix & they did this by flight next day
kiwifrequentflyer likes this.

Last edited by nzkarit; Feb 10, 19 at 1:58 pm
nzkarit is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: