Who would have thought that he used to run an airline?

26 comments on “Who would have thought that he used to run an airline? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   18 June 2024 at 2:25 pm

   It was claimed that the delegation was off loaded first at N Guinea so that Luxon could be then filmed making an enthusiastic boyish entry off the plane. (As shown on TV1 News.)

   Didn't Key do something like that?
2. Res Publica 2

   18 June 2024 at 2:44 pm

   To be fair, a lot of the case for using some kind of VIP transport is about the logistics of state visits.

   And it may well be that as useless and vacuous as Luxon is, he may well have been sincere in his promise only to run smack into the cold hard reality of being the (arguably nominal) Prime Minister.

   For example, there would be some pretty severe restrictions on the ability of the PM or any ministers, or their staff, to handle highly sensitive information on a commercial flight. Or their ability to communicate securely with officials in the event of an emergency.

   On top of that these visits tend to be highly choreographed and very tightly scheduled. There's not always a convenient commercial flight available.

   Yes – National were idiots for trying to make political capital out of the issue while in opposition. But I think there's a pretty strong (and non-political) case to be made that some kind of VIP transport for the PM, ministers, and Governor General is a necessary tool of the job.

   [Not sure what happened, but your comment appeared five times and all at the exact same time!? – Incognito]
   • Incognito 2.1

     18 June 2024 at 3:26 pm

     Mod note
     • lprent 2.1.1

       18 June 2024 at 9:26 pm

       but your comment appeared five times and all at the exact same time!?

       Pretty damn hard to do, as it means that it bypassed the anti-bounce code that compares recent comments for duplicates and aborts them. I hit it all of the time. But we seldom see more than two occassionally.

       Which means that the comments probably all got processed from a transitory network disruption that screwed up the arrival times. It the comment gets posted multiple times it can leave it stacked at the client and floods in later.

       It appears to be the only route for duplication. I tracked one instance of it from a cell phone. Sketched a client/server side fix and dropped it way down in the fix list.
       • Incognito 2.1.1.1

         18 June 2024 at 9:34 pm

         In Simple History all five comments have the exact same date & time stamp, which is odd to me and which is why I mentioned it.
3. Ad 3

   18 June 2024 at 2:55 pm

   Hipkins should put a Question seeking the $$ cost v $$ benefit of the trip.

   Number of deals done. Total billable hours spent of all those CE's.

   That's the logic he expects of every Department.

   Then publish the results.
4. SPC 4

   18 June 2024 at 4:15 pm

   Oz are replacing their 2 737's in July.

   https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/737-boeing-business-jet

   Thus these 2 become available. They perform a more limited passenger transport role (with greater range and about 20 not 30 years old).
   • Graeme 4.1

     18 June 2024 at 8:01 pm

     The757's problem ia a combination of small fleet vs age. If you've got a fleet of 2 aircraft they need to be pretty new, which could have a bearing on why Australia is offloading the 737-700s. There's lots of airlines operating 757 for passenger and freight, Delta runs 126 of them and Fedx 75, they work because they have lots of them and are able to carry the parts to keep on top of the maintenance, much harder when you've only got two. If RNZAF were to put the 757's on the market they would get snapped up quickly and probably for a good price.

     It's then what they are replaced with. Probably best bet would be new A321 to have commonality with Air New Zealand, or similar types to Australia, again for comminality.
     • SPC 4.1.1

       18 June 2024 at 10:17 pm

       We've run 2 757's that are 30 years old. Is there any difference to having 2 737's that are 20 years old for up to 10 years?
       • Graeme 4.1.1.1

         18 June 2024 at 10:27 pm

         Just that we're in the same place in 10 years. Probably better off to stick with the 757s and have a more capable aeroplane. There's reasons why some operators stick with them and have lots of them.
5. Tiger Mountain 5

   18 June 2024 at 4:25 pm

   Another commenter mentioned that nation state Military planes have wider likely access to various locations than commercials, so that could be a factor.

   Just buy a couple of new aircraft for Defence surely?–and a private jet for Luxury Luxon with fireplace and big screen.
   • SPC 5.1

     18 June 2024 at 5:09 pm

     Andrew Little reckons there are spare 757's about.

     We modified ours so they got more use. The 757 can use shorter runways.

     https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/air-force/our-equipment/aircraft/boeing-757-2k2

     Whether we need them replaced depends on

     1. what they could do that a Hercules could not (all 5 being replaced).

     2. whether we can get the 737's ($1 and promise to put the money saved into the defence budget).
6. James Simpson 6

   18 June 2024 at 5:02 pm

   The jets are a metaphor for the current state of New Zealand under this government….just a bit shit
7. barry 7

   18 June 2024 at 5:12 pm

   Of course it would be cheaper to charter an AirNZ plane when needed, the same as it is cheaper for most people to use taxis than own their own cars. It is the convenience that you/we/they are paying for.

   The Air Force pilots need to fly, and if they are not flying the PM around they will do something else in the air. The best solution might be to lend the air force pilots to AirNZ and in return borrow a plane when they need it. AirNZ might not like their planes flying into war zones, but they should be patriotic and make sacrifices when required.
   • lprent 7.1

     18 June 2024 at 9:36 pm

     AirNZ might not like their planes flying into war zones, but they should be patriotic and make sacrifices when required.

     Offhand I can't think of an instance. Here are their sponsorship which mostly seem to focus on providing PR content. I don't follow sport or feel-good pieces, So I have no idea about how they use these.

     Mostly I remember articles about their pacific island aid like this "Millions in NZ aid to Pacific spent on Air NZ flights". The same seems to happen when we have people caught in conflict zones – New Caledonia being a recent example. The state pays AirNZ and they only go in if it is safe.

     I suspect that you have confused Air NZ with the RNZAF.
8. observer 8

   18 June 2024 at 6:27 pm

   Well done to Amelia Wade on Newshub for skewering Luxon on his latest petulant whine (sub-text: "I'm an awesome CEO, why don't you all love me?").

   The link should be up shortly. (Sadly, there soon won't be any Newshub reporting at all, our loss).
9. SPC 9

   19 June 2024 at 8:12 am

   How much of the current heavy use of the 757's is down to waiting for replacements of the Hercules (1965 era and the first replacement of the 5 is due soon) is not known.

   It is a politically fraught issue, because no one wants to spend up large on what has been called the "PM's plane", but the new Chief of Defence, Air Marshal Tony Davies, wanted to remind New Zealanders that it did not just carry the prime minister.

   "Just to highlight just how busy it is, in the last three months it's done 96 flights and during those 96 it had some minor technical issues, but it only had one that involved altering its mission."

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/519924/change-of-tune-from-the-pm-on-need-for-new-757s

   The extent of use without problem is not a case for immediate replacement.

   And it needs to be noted the existing planes were modified to be fit for wider military use than moving people.

   Question

   Once we have 5 new Hercules, do we have a military purpose for converted 757's?

   The Australians have 2 20 year old 737's that specialise in moving people (and have greater range) and are being replaced in July.

   Is there an option of new planes (using second hand ones) for people movement and continuing use of the 757’s until supplanted by new Hercules?
10. Mike the Lefty 10

    19 June 2024 at 12:16 pm

    In my view he runs the country like he used to run the airline.

    If there are any problems, just fire the staff and tell the remaining staff to work harder.
11. Scud 11

    19 June 2024 at 6:16 pm

    Hi everyone,

    I'll try and answer everyone questions IRT B Flt 40 SQN (B757) instead of individually.

    Background,

    The B757 purchase was to replace the old Vomit Comet's (B727's) that the RNZAF literally flew into the ground plus it didn't meet stage 2 noise control regulations as well.

    The B Flt provides the NZDF & the Whole of Government its Strategic Airlift Capability. Back in the day when NZ still had a decent Defence & this scribe was a Trooper later L/CPL in the RNZAC. 40SQN was very busy SQN supporting NZDF units in Oz

    No2 SQN Basecin Nowra once a fortnight,

    Us Pongo's, incl RF & yes TF units for Exercise's Swift Eagle & Tasman Reserve which btw is back after a 10yr hiatus because of the NZ cuts to the Reserve Forces

    NZ Navy detachments to various establishments

    And 5 & 75 SQN deployments to Oz,

    This further extended to SEA during the Dry Season,

    When the Navy would have a Task Group (1-2 Frigates & the Fleet Tanker) doing Diplomatic & Defence Relations for 3-6mths

    The RNZAF with 5 & 75 SQN's for 3-6mths

    Pongo's again mainly RF units & finally whole Government Dept's NZ Aid, MFAT etc

    Again pretty much in the Sth Pacific and further afield especially again the Sandpit & Europe mainly doing whole of government agencies with very little NZDF input.

    Plus the odd Flt to the US as well btw namely to the Boneyard to pick spares for P3's A4's & B727's etc.

    In between that lot of taskings there was the milk run between NZDF Bases Akl Ohk Wel & CHC & VIP flights for the Pollies & GG etc.

    Not bad for 2nd hand Aircraft & 5 C130's 😂

    Since the 2000's the NZDF has reduced in size quite dramatically, but has been twice busy given the 40SQN fly Stats ie doing more with less equipment. As the RNZAF has also lost a 1/3 of its fixed wing capabilities ie the Andover wasn't replaced & the Rotary Wing reduced by 50%.

    B757 purchase was only a short term fix that was only meant to last 10-15yrs after the necessary modifications were made to the already 2nd hand Aircraft.

    The introduction of the B757 hasn't exactly been troubled free from the start, but once the Airforce/ NZDF understood it's capabilities they knew they had run the B757 hard like the old Vomit Comet's! But there was a catch!

    The NZDF is a lot smaller now & while whole government budgets keep getting cuts vs increases in other areas when there is change of Government and it becomes a very tricky to or almost impossible balance to keep elderly Aircraft serviceable & crew currency on aircraft.

    In the final term of the Key Bling Government, the NZDF & MoD took their FAMC (Future Air Mobility Capability) Business case to Cabinet.

    Parts of FAMC had already been delayed against service advice in favour of giving the 5 C130's Service Life Extension Upgrade instead of exercising the option to buy 8 J's on the of the RAAF order in 99-2000.

    FAMC, covered the replacement of the C130's and B757 which now nearing their replacement date.

    The RNZAF were asking for 8 J's to do its Tactical Airlift Capability, were asking for a mixed Strategic Airlift Capability based

    3 Multi Role Transport Tanker Aircraft to replace the B757 & delivery a number of capabilities to the NZDF, whole of Government & support like minded Allies, &

    4-5 Heavy Strategic Airlifters to move the NH90's & safety move heavy Army Equipment like the LAV's without completely stripping it down as it's about to into workshops for a service.

    Had the RNZAF had chance to its case forward in the early 2000's for Blackhawks? Then there would no need for this capability as the Blackhawk can fit into a C130J providing the Government of Day brought more J's! But we can thank the Politics of the Labour Alliance Coalition for it's anti US Military Industrial Complex.

    Back to Key, Bling, Treasury & Cabinet, the FAMC was presented & the costs were presented everyone shat their collective pants at the cost! Needless to say they all tried to kick the can down the road again! Until they were told, "if we do not order new planes by these dates we will have ground them etc etc! Unless you are all prepared to sign a blood chit accepting responsibility when they crash because we the RNZAF & MoD are not!"

    Quote

    My uncle was there as the avionics advisor

    The look on everyone face's was priceless, even Keys arrogance was drained & Bling/ Treasury didn't where to look LoL.

    So 5 J's Model's were approved in in principal to start negotiations which Ronnie later signed.

    But Cabinet decided to go with Treasury advice and split the FAMC Business case into 2 and the RNZAF/ MoD to come back in 24/25 for the Strategic Airlift Capability!

    Will the RNZAF get what they want? Probably not even though the new hangers at Ohakea are designed to take the A330 MRTT's & A400 when they built the new facilities for the P8's thence why they so expensive vs actual cost of a P8 because the RNZAF were looking towards the future IRT to other Airforce Capabilities

    Now trying to tell this to the RWJ's out there is like getting blood out of a stone or herding my chooks into the Chook shed while being dive bomb by Magpies.

    They all think it's Labour fault, but unfortunately Defence Procurement works in different ways to the real world, especially when one has to obey the Government orders of the cabinet & Treasury's manuals.

    I hope I have answered everyone's questions? More than happy to answer more, so pardon the pun fire at will but shoot straight you bastards LoL

    For my part, if decisions had been made decades ago IRT to this we probably won't be discussing this atm? But given the way NZ treats the NZDF be Politicians, Treasury & the public, everyone wants short term fix instead of a long term fix thence why everyone is leaving the NZDF atm because we are fed up with the Bullshit!

    I left in 97 for exactly same reasons fed up because we had to supply 90%of our time & money to buy the gear to our job and only things the Taxpayer supply was the V8 Landrover, Wpns & the Vietnam era radios everything else either brought by us like Cam Nets etc or built in a shed like our gun mounts for the V8 Scout Cars.
    • SPC 11.1

      19 June 2024 at 7:26 pm

      I opined we should a day or so ago we should offer Oz $1 for their 20 year old 737's (longer range than the 757's but just passenger) when they replace them in July and promise to put the money saved to military use.

      I suppose you would go with an

      A330MRRT to refuel the Poseidons.

      A400 for the larger lift and range than the 'J's.

      We would still have the 757’s for whatever ever purpose there was for them, till there was 1 and then …
      • SPC 11.1.1

        19 June 2024 at 7:55 pm

        Post the 737's and 747's to a second A330 MMRT (maybe 2nd hand off Oz) and a second A400.
      • Scud 11.1.2

        19 June 2024 at 11:34 pm

        The RAAF 34SQN BBJ's are unfortunately knackered which would require a full overhaul of the entire aircraft incl a new interior design (from memory weren't flash and the 1st fitout was butt ugly btw) which for a 2nd hand aircraft with already high cycles & airframe hrs may get you another 10-15yrs use?

        Therefore kicking the can down the road again, where you may not be saving any money at all but wasting futher long term with more expensive maintenance cost vs buying a new aircraft.

        The other issue I have, which is I think have mentioned a few here? Is if you say get these BBJ's, is the that RNZAF & NZDF on the whole have one trick capability & not a capability that has the "Utility of Force" that comes with the current B757's or say something like the Airbus A330 MRTT (multirole tanker transport).

        So we down the path of dedicated VIP aircraft? Then we will need more J Models and at least 5-6 A400's with all the whistles and bells at a minimum. To cover all the Specific & Implied Mandated NZG Task's the RNZAF & NZDF required to do, now throw in CC related events then things start to get interesting.

        So the other solution would be is to arm to have the RNZAF Strategic Airlift Capability to have a Utility of Force?

        Which could look like 3 A330 MRTT's with a RORO VIP module, but can do

        Air to Air Tanking,

        Trooping Flights/ incl service assisted evacuation flights

        Aero Medical Evacuation &

        Air Cargo on both decks.

        The new capability would be the Air to Air Tanking, but would the P8's to stay on station longer,

        Because NZG only brought 4 P8's it's highly inevitable that RNZAF is going to be operating Long Range UAV's at some stage and they also have a capability to do Air to Air Refuelling.

        Plus we can work with our Allies like Australia or Poms & god forbid either the Frogs or Yanks.

        Which means we still need a Heavy Over Size Strategic Airlifter unfortunately there really only on the Market the A400 & the Japanese C2.

        The only advantages the C2 has over the A400,

        It's has a longer Point of No Return for the runs down Sth (Antarctic) but not by much &

        Speed

        Disadvantage,

        One user,

        Limited production run atm which normally means a high purchase price.

        A400 advantages,

        It basically does everything that a MRTT can do without the creature comforts of the A330 but with Short Take & Landing of a C130.

        Used by a number of countries within Natio & its sole user in the Asia Pacific Region atm is the Royal Malaysian Airforce. But thanks to Our Glorious Supreme Leader who apparently ran an airline sold Safe Air to Airbus which btw manages the RNZAF's No1 Aircraft Repair Depot which does the RNZAF's Deep Level Maintenance Checks R5 Checks etc.

        Disadvantages

        It's a tad slow as it's propeller driven,

        Shorter Point of No Return for runs Sth,

        It's not very good in the Tactical Airlift role like the C130 and atm the A400 is still not cleared too drop the dirt darts (Paratroopers)!

        If it was me?

        I would go for solution 2, why?

        I will 7-8 brand new Aircraft with the Utility of Force that would give me theoretically between 20-30yrs with a possible extra 10yrs added on.

        I'm not mucking around with 2nd hand Aircraft like Buffalo Airways/ RNZAF trying to make everything work/fit at the last min when an aircraft goes crump on the ramp because it old & should be in the museum.

        Plus I'll have rule of 3's, which also associated with Rise Train & Sustained.

        One flying

        One Training

        One in Maintenance etc etc

        I have modern adaptable & contemporary Airforce that can do NZDF & whole of government specific & implied tasks and be able to respond to CC related events be it weather to more Security/ Conflict related scenarios.
        • roblogic 11.1.2.1

          20 June 2024 at 12:52 am

          I hear the USAF is looking to retire the A10 Warthog. a few of those scary mofos would be a cool addition to our fleet
          • Scud 11.1.2.1.1

            20 June 2024 at 6:41 pm

            USAF have been trying to kill of the A10 for yrs even during the War on terror & I think Congress or the Senate have told them to piss off!

            Never got the chance to see it up close or see it in action.

            The A10 is a one trick pony and really suitable for NZ needs, but this modern day reincarnation of the A4 Scooter would suit NZ needs and bring back the RNZAF's Ab Initio Pilot training back to the world class standard that was the envy of the world before pretty politics of the Labour Alliance Coalition killed it because they didn't like jets including jet trainers.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
        • SPC 11.1.2.2

          20 June 2024 at 7:52 am

          If the Oz 737's are not OK to continue as are … and the utility of the 757's is too important to lose

          then plan to replace the 757's with 2 330's (long range VIP and military passenger, cargo and and Poseidon refueling) and 2 400's (short runway and extra lift).

          And 10-15 years hence, CC etc (demand), a 3rd of each and maybe some extra J's.
          • Scud 11.1.2.2.1

            20 June 2024 at 5:44 pm

            Something I forgot to add last night while typing my reply out,

            That under the motto of,

            Rise, Train & Sustain there is another crucial element to this and it is Critical Mass ie plain english numbers.

            Which can be split down further

            A, Bare Minimum to do the job + Training & Maintenance but no reserve, battlefield replacement or for other contingencies like HADR or mount 2 concurrent operations etc

            B, Minimum Numbers which covers all bases

            C, the optimum numbers where you have room to move without causing friction elsewhere.

            There are some very good cases atm within the NZDF.

            One is the NH90's the bare minimum to Raise Train & Sustain NH90's is 10.

            Before Gabrielle, 3SQN was a world leader in managing it NH90 fleet, since Gabrielle it's gone to shit big time.

            They had 6 of the flying instead of the planned 3-4, one was in for a R3 check and other awaiting for new gearbox for nearly +18mths. Because of NZDF & Whole of Govt Tasks and throw in Rise Train Sustain incl the lack of personal they now struggling to get 4 NH90's up.

            So if we look your solution for NZDF & Whole of Government Strategic Airlift Capability. Then yours on paper short term looks good, but as we get in the medium to long term operations those numbers look shit and start running into Clausewitz's Friction as Airframes stay longer on the ground as they go in for their R4, R5 & R6 Checks not including the usual upgrade/ Life extension programs.

            So the bare minimum would be 3 A330 MRTT. Just a note Oz has brought a couple of 2nd hand A330's off Qantas which will be upgraded to a MRTT light, but without the strengthened passenger deck but will incl a RORO VIP module to increase its minimum numbers which is still far from the optimal numbers they need.

            For A400's and given the evidence of 40 SQN's C130's Air Tasking's especially if we use between Aug99- May00 as example they didn't have enough Aircraft to keep up. I think the then CAF said even if the NZG had ordered those 8 J's we would've been struggling.

            Now we if throw in CC related events and the evidence that NZ is likely to face at 3 major within the next 3-4 decades.

            The minimum number of A400's does suggest between 5-6 and a bare minimum of 3-4.

            That's before we looking at other Airlift Capability shortfalls within the RNZAF btw.

            Like additional J Models,

            The woeful NH90's numbers &

            The useless A109 LUH's which have no utility at all but only good for training the young sprogs & crewies.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS