Talk:Air New Zealand

Zeal320 merged

Zeal320 article merged: See old talk-page here

I've removed the link on Zeal320. Apparently this subsidiary's own article has been "merged" (see above), but the link simply redirects to AirNZ. This isn't too helpful... As of the time of writing, the old talk page for Zeal320 contains only a brief discussion on the use of that logo - no info on the airline itself.

"Needs attention." Best regards, Pufferfyshe (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Today I moved several things into a new heading "Onwards into the future". The changes that I've put under this heading, show what's happening now in the evolutionary process of the airline.

Perhaps the section on Airpoints should be split off into it's own page ?

Best Regards

--Ntddevsys --Ntddevsys 08:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)11:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

//

I should now add more detail to the pre-Ansett and post-Ansett sections, so as to balance the entry up. TEAL/Air New Zealand has a long history after all, and did a great deal more than just try to buy an airline bigger than itself and run out of money. Unfortunately, while I have good sources here on the Ansett disaster, and also on the Mount Erebus disaster, I don't have much on the early years.

-- You might want to check out the book Flightpath South Pacific by Ian H Driscoll, published 1972 by Whitcombe and Tombs. --

The current write-up of the Mt Erebus crash, by the way, is good so far as it goes, but misses a crucial point: the Royal Commission was careful and exhaustive, but failed to properly understand that the primary rule of safety in aviation is the same primary rule that applies to ships at sea: the captain is at all times responsible for the safety of his vessel, no matter what other factors may intrude. This is why, for example, if a ship runs aground in a harbour entrance, it is regarded as the captain's fault, even though a marine pilot was in control at the time. It is a very harsh rule, but a very good rule. Essentially, it means that the aircraft captain is not just entitled to, but required to excercise his judgement, and take whatever action is needed to preserve his command - such as choosing not to fly into cloud at 2000 feet when not certain of the aircraft's exact position and knowing that there is a 12,000 foot mountain somewhere in the vicinity.

• I disagree. The Airline's Navigation planning staff changed the programming for the guidance computer waypoints to take the aircraft directly over Mt. Erebus the immediately before the flight and after Captain Collins had plotted hs route on a map. The Captain was not alerted to the change in the computer flight plan by staff on the ground before takeoff. Also, the Captain had not previously been given an opportunity to travel on an orientation flight as an observer as was required by Civil Aviation regulations. Royal Commissioner Justice Peter Mahon, at the end of his book Verdict on Erebus, makes it clear that the Captain Collins' decision to continue to fly at 2000 feet under visual flying rules - apparently in clear air below the overcast and not in cloud - towards a mountain - was probably because the mountain was in white out conditions and could not be seen. The Captain can not be held responsible for things he is not advised of or trained for - such as changed flight plans and poor training. The coverup by the company afterwards made understanding what went wrong all the more difficult. Captain Collins, an apparently careful pilot, exercised his judgement to the best of his abilities. The plane crashed because the Captain based his judgement on navigation information that was changed without his knowledge and a polar whiteout condition that he was unfamiliar with and had not been trained to recognise, caused a 12,000 foot mountain to appear to be flat land that could be safely flown over. Yes the Captain flew the plane towards the mountain, he did so because he could not see it, was not expecting it there and was not trained to recognise conditions that would make mountains disappear from view. I think the Royal Commission understood the Captain's responsibility very well and identified that under these circumstances he was not responsible for the crash, as the crash was not due to decisions the Captain made.

None of this invalidates the other findings of the inquiry, of course. Nevertheless, there was considerable concern expressed in aviation safety circles that the Erebus Royal Commission finding placed at risk the longstanding doctrine of command responsibility.

Wikipedia should not present misleading information and omit pertinent fact. The current entry is misleading where it says the Privy Council "overturned his findings". It most certainly did not overturn his findings, only some of them. Justice Mahon's finding that the crew was blameless was not overturned, a fact which is important in the context of the enquiry, I am amending the page accordingly to give an accurate, NPOV, account. Moriori 23:52, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Why doesnt all this argument go into the talk page in the article about the crash itself? Antonio Hard as a Pole Martin 3:02, Jun 10, 2004 (MST)

I agree with Antonio's question! Robin Patterson 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now after some addition of headings etc to the "early" history I hope some of you younsters can

• move the koru paragraph out of the history
• similarly tidy up the later history; possibly blending it with the last part of the pre-koru section

Robin Patterson 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current Fleet?

Should the current fleet include types on order, and not yet operated? Shouldn't that be in a separate, 'on order' section? Bombardier Q300, Boeing 777, Boeing 7E7 are the ones affected by this...

Advertising and safety videos

The list of videos in the advertising and promotion section seem arbitrarily chosen. Why not include the "Safety in Paradise" video, or "Fantastical Journey" or the current Antarctica one? What about Pete or Drake? If the criterion for inclusion is that it was widely reported outside NZ or generated controversy, the Safety in Paradise video would certainly count. Is there a point to such a section anyway? With videos being changed every few months, the list would soon grow unmanageably long.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Best is just to delete the "Advertising and promotion" section, none of them appear to be particularly noteworthy or unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

number of international destination countries

Australia, Samoa, Argentina, USA, Hong Kong, UK, Fiji, Niue, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Tonga, Tahiti, Cook Islands, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Canada, Indonesia, Korea (not yet started)

equals 20 - Not including New Zealand Itself. The definition of country does get in the way here so the figure is not undebatable - New Caledonia and Tahiti are both technically France, Hong Kong and China! and China Taiwan? are both problematic and Norfolk and Australia has some questions as does Cook Is and NZ for that matter. But if you define a country as seperate government structures and /or border controls this is a good list. It is not however the current figure in the article. I would be content just leaving the figure out as not being particularly useful and clear. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your clarification Andrew. I not realized about Norfolk as a separate territory served. Will update the destination page also.CHCBOY (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

TEAL merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the merge has emerged. The idea of some copy editing and a hatnote in the history section was raised as was the idea of looking at the "History of Air New Zealand page" which seem worthy of consideration. Gusfriend (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

There is a degree of content forking between the Tasman Empire Airways Limited and Air New Zealand articles, both covering the same airline from 1940 to 1965. Air New Zealand is a rebranding of Tasman Empire Airways Limited, rather than a new airline, its website stating it was incorporated in 1940. This is backed up by its Companies Office record. Therefore propose the articles be merged under Air New Zealand. By way of precedents, Ansett New Zealand that was rebranded Qantas New Zealand and Pacific Blue Airlines that was rebranded Virgin Australia Airlines (NZ), both have one merged article. Blueeluc (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

mildly oppose. Precedents quoted were less significant endeavours. Sufficient content exists for the two separate articles, plus NAC one (not mentioned). Duplicate content should be reviewed, but does not appear excessive. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the merger should be History of Air New Zealand into Air New Zealand, which were inexplicably separated in 2007. A good précis should reduce the combined word count by at least 40%. On further reflection, the references to TEAL, NAC, Ansett Aus fiasco, and the combined minor subsidiaries, should be no more than a few lines each, to minimize duplication. DMBanks1 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There's plenty enough content for TEAL to be its own article. Any overlap with AirNZ should be addressed by summarising what’s at AirNZ and referring to TEAL as the main article via the standard link. Schwede66 20:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Likewise DMBanks1's suggestion re merging History of Air New Zealand.Zoltyge (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The difference between this case and that of Ansett becoming Qantas is that Ansett became a franchise of Qantas while TEAL and NAC joined to make one company so even if they used TEAL's company registration they are thought of as a new entity. Plus there is enough content for two separate articles. As per Schwede just a summary on TEAL is enough in this article. Paulpat99 (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose These easily have enough distinction that they're worthy of their own articles - I don't think any overlap is enough to merit merging, since there's always going to be some in cases like this. At worst, it can be resolved with some copy editing and pointing more to the respective articles where needed. Turnagra (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.