Airline News

Ash cloud disrupts NZ flights
NEIL REID AND MICHAEL FIELD Last updated 12:21 12/06/2011

Ash from Chile’s dramatic volcano has entered New Zealand air space, forcing Qantas and Jetstar to cancel flights today.

Qantas confirmed it has cancelled 22 flights to and from New Zealand and Tasmania.

A Qantas spokeswoman said all 14 flights in and out of Tasmania on Sunday had been cancelled.

Eight flights between Australia and Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown had also been grounded, she said.

The cancellations affect about 1500 passengers and Qantas is attempting to contact everyone ahead of their scheduled flight.

"We are doing our best to do a call out to everyone that we can," the spokeswoman said.

Jetstar has cancelled a number domestic flights between Christchurch and Auckland, Christchurch and Queenstown, and Auckland and Queenstown today.

It has also cancelled some trans-Tasman flights, between Christchurch and Sydney, Christchurch and Melbourne, and Queenstown and Melbourne.

Air New Zealand has not cancelled or delayed any of its flights. Spokeswoman Tracy Mills said the national carrier did not expect any cancellations to its domestic or international services.

But the company would adjust flight routes and altitudes to ensure aircraft remained clear of any ash, she said.

The ash is from the CordonCaulle volcano in southern Chile which erupted on June 4 with initial ash plumes reaching 15,240 metres.

more

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/06/2107.jpg
red skies in NZ from Chilean ash

Quote:

---

A man aged 76 and two members of his family were arrested after a ‘vicious’ punch-up on a plane that took cabin crew 30 minutes to break up.

---

Why do they let these working class people aboard posh holiday jets?

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

A man aged 76 and two members of his family were arrested after a ‘vicious’ punch-up on a plane that took cabin crew 30 minutes to break up.

---

Why do they let these working class people aboard posh holiday jets?

:rofl:

---

We heard that infamous announcement on our last flight.
If there is a doctor on board please make yourself known to a member of the cabin crew.
Well someone happened to be a doctor,a middle aged lady collapsed in the galley,diagnoses she will be alright in 30 minutes.This was about 20 minutes into a 9 hour flight.Prescribed cure by the flight attendants,upgrade to business class for hubby and her.
I did notice within 10 minutes of the upgrade they both had nice big smiles on their faces.

A few minutes ago I saw a close encounter of two big passenger planes. They were both at fairly big height heading almost directly at each other, with only a very small angle. The height looked to me the same too but was not exactly the same as they passed directly. Their vapor trails almost mingled so I am sure the difference in height was very small. I am quite certain they passed over the same spot at the same time with no more than 100m difference in height. They did not make any visible evasive action.

I do wonder how big or better how small the minimum height difference in flight paths would legally be. At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/06/2383.jpg

Australian dies in fiery airship crash
June 14, 2011 - 8:40AM
An Australian pilot died after taking three passengers to safety when a Goodyear Blimp caught fire and crashed in Germany.
The pilot has been named in news reports as Michael Nerandzic, from Wollongong, NSW, one of the world's most experienced airship pilots.
He has been hailed for his bravery in steering three passengers to safety moments before the airship burst into flames and crashed.
The accident happened at the Reichelsheim aerodrome, near Friedberg in central Germany on Sunday, local time, as the Goodyear Blimp zeppelin was coming in to land.
It struck trouble and, as the pilot brought the craft to two metres from the ground he told his three passengers, all journalists, to jump, reports Bild magazine's website, which had a photographer on board.
Once the three journalists jumped clear, the airship rose quickly to 40 metres then caught fire for reasons not yet clear, said police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

A few minutes ago I saw a close encounter of two big passenger planes. They were both at fairly big height heading almost directly at each other, with only a very small angle. The height looked to me the same too but was not exactly the same as they passed directly. Their vapor trails almost mingled so I am sure the difference in height was very small. I am quite certain they passed over the same spot at the same time with no more than 100m difference in height. They did not make any visible evasive action.

I do wonder how big or better how small the minimum height difference in flight paths would legally be. At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

---

As vapor trails only occur at heights above some 8,000 meters, I find it very hard to believe that you could discern a difference in height of only 100 meters from the ground. They were likely several thousand meters apart and never in any danger of collision.
TH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

A man aged 76 and two members of his family were arrested after a ‘vicious’ punch-up on a plane that took cabin crew 30 minutes to break up.

---

Why do they let these working class people aboard posh holiday jets?

---

I was waiting to board an Easyjet flight many years ago when we were all delayed by an argument between the check-in staff and a guy who had brought his dog along.

He was adamant the dog would be no bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

I do wonder how big or better how small the minimum height difference in flight paths would legally be. At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

---

I believe the minimum distance is usually 1,000 ft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

A few minutes ago I saw a close encounter of two big passenger planes. They were both at fairly big height heading almost directly at each other, with only a very small angle. The height looked to me the same too but was not exactly the same as they passed directly. Their vapor trails almost mingled so I am sure the difference in height was very small. I am quite certain they passed over the same spot at the same time with no more than 100m difference in height. They did not make any visible evasive action.

I do wonder how big or better how small the minimum height difference in flight paths would legally be. At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

---

You've obviously never been in one of the evening rush hour stacks over Heathrow then. If you ever are, I'd recommend you don't look out of the window.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

---

Normal Vertical Separation is 1000Ft, as has been said very hard to judge separation when stood on the ground.

I assume you live in Europe so since the late 90's you have been protected by a system in the aircraft that aims to prevent Mid-Airs (Talking commerical jets here) . It is called TCAS and provides pilots with situational awareness of what other aircraft are doing around them. Systems on the big jets actually advise the pilots on both aircraft what they should do to avoid each other. I should add that is only advice (aural and visual) and does not take over the control of the aircraft.

Cheers, TP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaihome

They were likely several thousand meters apart and never in any danger of collision.

---

I am quite certain that the difference was less than 10% of the total height so that would make it less than 800m. I still believe it was considerably less than that. But I cannot be absolutely sure about that, I readily admit.
Are you sure about the 8000m for vapor trail? The planes could be seen quite clearly and I would have guessed less. But I am less certain about that than about their distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You've obviously never been in one of the evening rush hour stacks over Heathrow then.

---

Only as a passenger on board of one of these planes.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thai Pom

Systems on the big jets actually advise the pilots on both aircraft what they should do to avoid each other. I should add that is only advice (aural and visual) and does not take over the control of the aircraft.

---

I do remember the discussion after that midair collision near the border Germany Swizerland a number of years ago. And I really hope it was not as close as it looked from my perspective.

Bangkok Post : Not-so-smooth sailing for slogan

Business > Aviation

• Published: 14/06/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: Business

Thai Airways International's new catchphrase - "I Fly THAI" - has raised quite a few eyebrows, with some people questioning whether it is good replacement for the "Smooth as Silk" slogan known worldwide.

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif The new slogan is displayed on a huge billboard at the airline’s head office on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road.

The new tagline, which has begun appearing on billboards and other advertising materials, is viewed by critics, even by some THAI staff, as being almost meaningless and a poor substitute for the old slogan, which has been an effective and popular reference to the flag carrier.

"Why ditch 'Smooth as Silk'? I'm not sure whether this is a good branding strategy," said a senior THAI executive who requested anonymity.

Thai silk is well known the world over, and the philosophy of the operation is to make sure all flights are performed as smoothly as silk, said Jothin Pamon-Montri, a former THAI executive vice-president, who is following the developments at the flag carrier.

Airlines suffering a bad reputation will change their logo or slogan, said the pilot, who has nearly 40 years of flying experience.

"Look at Singapore Airlines. It is still using the Singapore Girl as its visual trademark and brand together with the slogan 'A Great Way to Fly' in all of its advertisements. Why? Because they are well known and live up to that image," Capt Jothin told the Bangkok Post.

According to THAI executives in charge of advertising, the "I Fly THAI" slogan was among a few produced by its Bangkok advertising agency, Creative Juice, which was commissioned last year to create a "consumer-centric" theme for the airline.

"It was meant to be a tactical message, short and simple, to create a sense of belonging," an executive explained.

Like the short-lived "Khun Kha", which has been abandoned, "I Fly THAI" is not meant as a permanent replacement for "Smooth as Silk", although it will remain on the airline's advertising materials over the next year or two.

"It is good that people pay attention to our new slogan. That means they care about us," said the official, adding that the airline may "revisit" its advertising strategy to put back the iconic tagline as its main advertising tool.

The "Smooth as Silk" slogan, which was introduced when Chatrachai Bunya-Ananta was executive vice-president 30 years ago, has been recognised more than any other in the evolution of the carrier's global marketing campaigns.

It was used to replace the catchphrase "Get into It", which was dumped as too suggestive.

In a related development, THAI president Piyasvasti Amranand is scheduled today to announce plans for establishing the new budget carrier Thai Wings, along with the acquisition of 37 new jets.

The Transport Ministry said the new airline would be able to get off the ground if it does not have a different logo or require new capital outlays.

"We do not object to the launch of Thai Wings, but THAI needs to be transparent about the plan," said Supoj Saplom, the ministry's permanent secretary.

There would be several legal implications and issues concerning traffic rights if the flag carrier were to establish a new airline with a different brand other than THAI, he said.


Writer: Boonsong Kositchotethana
Position: Deputy Editor Business

Quote:

---

A prank aimed at colleagues went horribly wrong for Virgin Atlantic cabin crew when a foul-mouthed message appeared on passengers' screens.
Travellers on board a flight from Orlando, Florida to Glasgow were shocked to see the abusive message flash up during the journey, The Scottish Sun reports.
The words "Get up, you c***s" are believed to have been meant for two flight attendants having a nap in empty seats.
Instead, the comment was broadcast to everyone travelling in premium economy.
An "insider" allegedly told The Sun affected passengers complained for the rest of the flight and some are seeking refunds.
The crew members are believed to have been resting in the empty seats because the staff area wasn't properly equipped.
Staff who tried to wake them thought they were sending a private message to their screens.
The Sun's source says: "Something went wrong and the message was sent to the whole cabin. It looks like the two crew members will be sacked, as well as the flight manager."
A Virgin Atlantic spokesman told the publication they were investigating the incident.

---

I wonder if anyone actually got up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plan B

Quote:

---

A prank aimed at colleagues went horribly wrong for Virgin Atlantic cabin crew when a foul-mouthed message appeared on passengers' screens.
Travellers on board a flight from Orlando, Florida to Glasgow were shocked to see the abusive message flash up during the journey, The Scottish Sun reports.
The words "Get up, you c***s" are believed to have been meant for two flight attendants having a nap in empty seats.
Instead, the comment was broadcast to everyone travelling in premium economy.
An "insider" allegedly told The Sun affected passengers complained for the rest of the flight and some are seeking refunds.
The crew members are believed to have been resting in the empty seats because the staff area wasn't properly equipped.
Staff who tried to wake them thought they were sending a private message to their screens.
The Sun's source says: "Something went wrong and the message was sent to the whole cabin. It looks like the two crew members will be sacked, as well as the flight manager."
A Virgin Atlantic spokesman told the publication they were investigating the incident.

---

I wonder if anyone actually got up?

---

Probably the c***s who are asking for a refund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

A few minutes ago I saw a close encounter of two big passenger planes. They were both at fairly big height heading almost directly at each other, with only a very small angle. The height looked to me the same too but was not exactly the same as they passed directly. Their vapor trails almost mingled so I am sure the difference in height was very small. I am quite certain they passed over the same spot at the same time with no more than 100m difference in height. They did not make any visible evasive action.

I do wonder how big or better how small the minimum height difference in flight paths would legally be. At which closest approach would it be seen as a near miss? Anyone with knowledge care to comment?

---

Go to Flightradar24.com - Live Flight Tracker!


next time you have a worry! This will show you the two planes over you in real time,where they are going ,and at what height. Site is fairly simple to work,in my humble opinion. A lot of planes up there at the same time though! :mid:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crippen

Go to Flightradar24.com - Live Flight Tracker!

---

Thanks.

I have bookmarked it. I observed them passing by each other and could have checked their height a few minuts later.

They looked very close but it may have been a trick of perspective.

So let's see what BA got out of it:

(1) A crew member down on most LH flights.
(2) Introduction of a new fleet, with new employees on an industry standard wage.
(3) Removal of several militant cabin crew union shit stirrers.

And let's see what the union got out of it:

(1) Er.......

Fucking idiots. Well done BA for putting a well earned boot up their fat lazy arses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I believe the minimum distance is usually 1,000 ft.

---

I though flight separation was 5 miles? Perhaps you're refering to what's considered a near miss?

Planes cruise at 500 mph and approach their landings at around 300 (then slowing on final approach), so even at the slower approach speeds they'd still cover 1,000 ft in around 12 seconds. At cruising altitude it would take only 8 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I believe the minimum distance is usually 1,000 ft.

---

I though flight separation was 5 miles? Perhaps you're refering to what's considered a near miss?

Planes cruise at 500 mph and approach their landings at around 300 (then slowing on final approach), so even at the slower approach speeds they'd still cover 1,000 ft in around 12 seconds. At cruising altitude it would take only 8 seconds.

---

That's horizontal separation during cruising (surely you've seen planes closer than that coming into land!).

The minimum vertical separation is 500, 1000 or 2000 feet, depending on the airspace you are in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

surely you've seen planes closer than that coming into land!

The minimum vertical separation is 500, 1000 or 2000 feet, depending on the airspace you are in.

---

At 200 mph (a rough landing approach speed) you're covering 3.3 miles per minute - or 5 miles in just over a minute. I'd say that's about as frequent as you ever see them land - even at busy airports - though I believe they stretch it to every 40 seconds in periods of congestion at Heathrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I though flight separation was 5 miles? Perhaps you're refering to what's considered a near miss?

---

I think difference in altitude would be much smaller because planes don't gain or lose altitude so fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

surely you've seen planes closer than that coming into land!

The minimum vertical separation is 500, 1000 or 2000 feet, depending on the airspace you are in.

---

At 200 mph (a rough landing approach speed) you're covering 3.3 miles per minute - or 5 miles in just over a minute. I'd say that's about as frequent as you ever see them land - even at busy airports - though I believe they stretch it to every 40 seconds in periods of congestion at Heathrow.

---

I think 90 seconds is the norm, it might appear more frequent because there's more than one runway.

Interesting while reading this, discover that when taking off or landing behind the A380, the recommended minimum isn't given in distance, but in minutes - three to be precise - because of the wake turbulence.

China blurs A380 order, backs 747 amid EU row | Reuters

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/06/4852.jpg

"(Reuters) - China downgraded the announcement of an Airbus superjumbo order and signed up for the Boeing 747-8 as deals worth $9 billion coincided with a row over European emissions trading rules, industry sources said.
The deals both involved parts of the HNA airlines group and had been planned before the Paris Air Show, they said, but the decision not to announce the names of the buyers triggered one of the mysteries of this week's event.

Industry sources said plans to announce a high-profile $3.8 billion deal between Airbus and Hong Kong Airlines for 10 A380 superjumbos were called off on Thursday because of China's anger over European plans to charge airlines for emissions.

China threatened last month to hold back on purchasing Airbus aircraft because of the EU emissions trading scheme, which airlines body IATA has called illegal.

Additionally, industry sources said a company affiliated to the same carrier, Hainan Airlines, was behind the unexpected announcement of an anonymous deal at Boeing this week.

Boeing said an unidentified airline had provisionally committed to 15 747-8 passenger jets worth $4.8 billion.

Airlines often choose to buy jetliners without identifying themselves to their competition, but such announcements are rarely made at air shows which are designed for publicity. Boeing also rarely announces deals before they are confirmed.

Airbus (EAD.PA) and Boeing (BA.N) declined to comment and representatives of the HNA Group were not available.

Hong Kong Airlines is 46 percent owned by HNA Group, the parent of Hainan Airlines Co Ltd (600221.SS).

TEMPTING TARGET

Airbus and Boeing both brought their largest passenger jets to the show, a biennial event which rotates with the Farnborough Air Show in Britain.

The 747-8 with 467 seats is Boeing's first stretched version of the 747 and is in the midst of flight testing. It will enter service initially as a freighter, then in a passenger version.

The 525-seat A380 is the world's largest airliner and Europe's most high-profile aircraft since Concorde, making it a tempting target in any political tensions affecting aerospace.

The Airbus deal has not itself been blocked and is in the manufacturer's order book, but the decision to cancel a signing ceremony is a clear protest signal, the industry sources said.

Aircraft purchases also need Chinese government approval.

The 747-8 purchase followed competition between Airbus and Boeing for the Hong Kong Airlines order.

While advancing development of its own smaller airplane, China tends to balance orders between the two foreign suppliers.

From Jan 1 next year, the EU will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a system that compels polluters to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.

China's top aviation industry body ramped up pressure on the European Union earlier this month, saying it would give full support to legal action against the forced entry of airlines into the EU's carbon trading scheme. [ID:nL3E7H60D5]

China says the scheme is unfair for developing countries and costly."

Muscle Flexing going on?

Flights delayed after Burmese military plane skids off runway

New Delhi (Mizzima) – On June 17, a Burmese military aircraft skidded off the runway at the Rangoon International Airport and officials did not remove it from the runway until midnight, delaying five international and local flights, according to a state-run newspaper.

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
The Rangoon Internaitonal Airport
Photo: Mizzima

Five outbound flights departing to Malaysia, Thailand or Singapore were delayed. Passengers were sent to hotels and flights resumed on June 18.

The airport authorities had to report the incident to Naypyitaw, the capital, before removing the aircraft.

‘It was a military plane and no one would take responsibility to remove it. They needed to inform Naypyitaw. Superior officials asked many questions, ‘What happened?’ and ‘Who is responsible’ and they took a long time. So, passengers experienced long delays', according to a post on Facebook reporting the incident.

‘Patients, people who had to attend meetings, and people who were trying to make connecting flights in Bangkok encountered problems’, said the post on Facebook.

During the incident, incoming flights from Singapore and Malaysia, which would have landed at Rangoon International Airport, were diverted to Mandalay Airport, according to the Myanmar Times journal.

mizzima.com