Luggage left behind by Air NZ's first non-stop flight from NY

[Didosdadsdogsdead]

Sorry can't post link URL.

The 17-hour flight from the John F Kennedy International airport touched down about 8.30am but many passengers were without their luggage.



One said only business class and Koru members had their bags.



Another told RNZ that more than half the plane's luggage was still in New York.



Air New Zealand chief operating officer Alex Marren apologised for the luggage being left behind.



"Unfortunately given additional fuel requirements due to adverse weather, some customer bags were unable to be loaded in New York and we are getting them to New Zealand as soon as possible. We are in touch with customers to update them and reunite them with their bags. We're sorry for any inconvenience this has caused."
Not exactly what one would expect given all the hype.

[sandringham1]

So they were concerned enough about weight/range that they they left bags behind and yet the weight of the passengers/crew/baggage/catering that they did go with is based on an an estimate, or have I got this wrong?

[Octane]

If they can't reliably upload passengers, baggage and freight, seems to me the route is marginal. Should have offloaded cargo..

[Ollie Onion]

Maybe they should have offloaded passengers and bags since it seems so stressful for the two to be separated.

[nike]

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/300691561/sad-they-didnt-have-systems-in-place-luggage-fails-to-arrive-on-air-nz-first-flight-from-new-york (https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/300691561/sad-they-didnt-have-systems-in-place-luggage-fails-to-arrive-on-air-nz-first-flight-from-new-york#comments)

They had 17 hours to acars the crew to inform the individual pax that their baggage was left behind.....instead they did nothing and let them stand at the baggage carousel until it stopped and then they had to line up at the baggage services desk for an hour or more....after a 17hour flight.

Could have told the pax at top of descent so as to not have them fret for 17 hours but also not waste more time on arrival.....sorry no bags for you, head straight out through customs, expect compensation and your bags delivered to your house on Tuesday.

[ElZilcho]

Probably sold too many seats for the return leg.
I believe the intent was to have a purpose fit ULR Cabin for these flights, but for a variety of reasons, have had to launch the route with the standard config.... wonder if someone forgot to block out the seats.

Not a good look on day 1.

[James 1077]

Could have told the pax at top of descent so as to not have them fret for 17 hours but also not waste more time on arrival.....sorry no bags for you, head straight out through customs, expect compensation and your bags delivered to your house on Tuesday.

100% this - they know as soon as a bag has been offloaded, so why not provide the various forms to affected passengers during the flight and let them, at the very least, get a pleasant arrivals experience out of it!

[Capt Fathom]

why not provide the various forms to affected passengers during the flight

What airline carries 'loss of luggage' forms onboard? It's a rare event to find out inflight!

[James 1077]

What airline carries 'loss of luggage' forms onboard? It's a rare event to find out inflight!

None, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. For me, the worst part of losing a bag is queuing up at the end of the flight at an understaffed kiosk when you are tired and just want to get home / to your hotel. If this could be avoided then that would lessen the problem no end. Walk out, get bags delivered later. Even without the lost bag, I would probably pay extra for this as an option when flying home!

[megan]

Off load the pax with his/her bag, fewer disgruntled pax, especially if the pax are volunteers.

[umop apisdn]

These ULH flights are too ambitious. Delta can't even run A350s from lax to syd without weight restrictions, yet Qantas reckon they can push them to JFK and LHR.

ANZ should stick with AKL to ORD. Better city. Pax can connect with the millions of flights from there to New York.

[Ken Borough]

These ULH flights are too ambitious. Delta can't even run A350s from lax to syd without weight restrictions, yet Qantas reckon they can push them to JFK and LHR.

ANZ should stick with AKL to ORD. Better city. Pax can connect with the millions of flights from there to New York.

Qantas were the virtual pioneers of long range flying. They know what to do and how to do it!

[megan]

These ULH flights are too ambitiousI recall riding the trans Pacific non stop in the very early days, LAX to SY non stop was the schedule on the early 747SP, used to stop at Nandi for a quick splash if fuel was on the short side due unfavourable winds, turn around was quick. Great circle track JFK to AUK passes 160nm abeam Tahiti, not an option? When I used to take these long flights the landing point was not my destination, it was off to connect to two subsequent flights usually, my bags not making it would have caused the out break of WWIII. :p

[Gunner747400]

These ULH flights are too ambitious. Delta can't even run A350s from lax to syd without weight restrictions, yet Qantas reckon they can push them to JFK and LHR.

They are different model A350's for a start...

[Less Hair]

Singapore Airlines seems to sometimes use regular A350-900s on the New York flight not only the ultra long range configured.
This time it sounds more like the wrong priorities were set: Cargo instead of luggage and hiding the bad news instead of being proactive and open early on. Might fire back with premiere guests, bloggers, media and the like.

[Capt Fathom]

Cargo instead of luggage.

I can guarantee passenger bags go before cargo. I doubt any cargo is booked on that flight!

[ppytal]

And today they had to stop in Nadi for fuel... Maybe they decided that is a better option than leaving bags behind? As I understand they have ordered some 'special' planes for this route, does anyone have any info? I thought it was just 787-10s, which would be worse than the -9s?

[PoppaJo]

And today they had to stop in Nadi for fuel... Maybe they decided that is a better option than leaving bags behind? As I understand they have ordered some 'special' planes for this route, does anyone have any info? I thought it was just 787-10s, which would be worse than the -9s?
2 more 789s due which carry 80 less seats and skew premium heavy.

787-10 replaces the 777, however I don’t think Boeing has signed off on the HGW -10 yet, otherwise they will likely run into problems trans pacific throughout the year, if they plan to carry full pax and cargo.

777X is probably the ideal contender for the pacific crossing if you want to go heavy pax and cargo, what century that launches in remains to be seen.

[ppytal]

2 more 789s due which carry 80 less seats and skew premium heavy.

787-10 replaces the 777, however I don’t think Boeing has signed off on the HGW -10 yet, otherwise they will likely run into problems trans pacific throughout the year, if they plan to carry full pax and cargo.

777X is probably the ideal contender for the pacific crossing if you want to go heavy pax and cargo, what century that launches in remains to be seen.
Surely the best option is the A350 ULR? And you can buy one now :)

[Rataxes]

If they can't reliably upload passengers, baggage and freight, seems to me the route is marginal.
Spot on. That doesn't stop them selling it as an achievable product though. Most likely someone fouled up with seat blocking during sales or they intentionally oversold it. Amateur hour.

Should have offloaded cargo..
If there was any cargo (doubtful) it would've been offloaded first.

Telling pax their bags were left behind before the landing is not a good plan. Much better to lie to them with the impression they're getting what they paid for. Passengers are so inconvenient.

[ElZilcho]

2 more 789s due which carry 80 less seats and skew premium heavy.

787-10 replaces the 777, however I don’t think Boeing has signed off on the HGW -10 yet, otherwise they will likely run into problems trans pacific throughout the year, if they plan to carry full pax and cargo.

777X is probably the ideal contender for the pacific crossing if you want to go heavy pax and cargo, what century that launches in remains to be seen.

777X is to big apparently... for us anyway.
ULR Configured 787-9's will also have the GEnx engines which are more efficient than the Rollers.
Been told the HGW 787-10's has been finalized as in we've been given the figures.

COVID's thrown a real spanner in the works however. Rumors have it we're looking for more 777's to Lease as Boeing have had real QC issues with 787 deliveries and there's no way the -200's can come back so we're short on frames.
Probably should have chosen the A350 as it's a better ULR Aircraft, but that would of introduced yet another fleet for select routes.
Suppose Long term the A350 could a 777 replacement, but I believe the goal is still to be 100% 787's in a variety of configurations.

[C441]

Apparently 20 pax were offered $1500US each to voluntarily remain behind in the last day or two. Two pax, the current PM and a former PM weren’t offered the opportunity. :)

[AerialPerspective]

So they were concerned enough about weight/range that they they left bags behind and yet the weight of the passengers/crew/baggage/catering that they did go with is based on an an estimate, or have I got this wrong?

Baggage is not an esitmate. In Phase 4/5 or ALP systems, the actual weight of baggage is known, the exact distribution is not as the individual bags are not recorded in the system by location - however, the newer Amadeus ALTEA FM system (which NZ use in conjunction with their old checkin system and which QF use, both the FM (Flight Management/Load Control) and CM (Customer Management) modules record the actual weight of bags by passenger and the actual weight of the bag where it is loaded. So, if they offloaded the bags and took note of the location/passenger name(s) which they would have had to do in order to satisfy AAA requirements then they knew precisely the weight of the bags offloaded and those that remained on board. Yes, catering is known to be an estimate but it's a pretty close estimate/standard weight based on sector, passenger load and what sort of food (i.e. weight) is carried. The passenger weights are by necessity, standard weights. Don't know about Air NZ but I know Qantas surveys these every few years and has fairly accurate standard weights based on leg and segment. It would be impractical to weigh passengers on every flight.

Cargo may be offloaded first but certain non passenger load, mail for instance, may be the last to be offloaded.

[AerialPerspective]

777X is to big apparently... for us anyway.
ULR Configured 787-9's will also have the GEnx engines which are more efficient than the Rollers.
Been told the HGW 787-10's has been finalized as in we've been given the figures.

COVID's thrown a real spanner in the works however. Rumors have it we're looking for more 777's to Lease as Boeing have had real QC issues with 787 deliveries and there's no way the -200's can come back so we're short on frames.
Probably should have chosen the A350 as it's a better ULR Aircraft, but that would of introduced yet another fleet for select routes.
Suppose Long term the A350 could a 777 replacement, but I believe the goal is still to be 100% 787's in a variety of configurations.

Yep, would agree the A350-1000 is a better aeroplane, newer and apparently more efficient as long as you don't mind the paint peeling off, but I'm sure that will be fixed. BTW, it's "....but that would have introduced..." Just sayin'.

[AerialPerspective]

They are different model A350's for a start...

Yep. DL have the A350-900, QF are getting the A350-1000 ULR with extra fuel capacity just for QF.

[Less Hair]

ANZ might need that 6 ton weight increase rumours claim Boeing is working on for the 787.

[ppytal]

Yep, would agree the A350-1000 is a better aeroplane, newer and apparently more efficient as long as you don't mind the paint peeling off, but I'm sure that will be fixed. BTW, it's "....but that would have introduced..." Just sayin'.
Paint seems to be peeling off the 787s as well.. interesting pics from Jetstar recently!

[an.other]

It's the sort of amateur hour I've come to expect from NZ.

Plan to a mid point destination but fill the tanks full of fuel (e.g. Nadi), depending on the burn either splash and dash or replan the destination as Auckland. Also, until you've flow it a bit and got real world data, be conservative and block out seats.

This should never happen.

[Climb150]

It's the sort of amateur hour I've come to expect from NZ.

Plan to a mid point destination but fill the tanks full of fuel (e.g. Nadi), depending on the burn either splash and dash or replan the destination as Auckland. Also, until you've flow it a bit and got real world data, be conservative and block out seats.

This should never happen.

It's called redispatch. It quite common in the Northern Hemisphere so not really amateur hour.
​​​​

[nomilk]

None, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. For me, the worst part of losing a bag is queuing up at the end of the flight at an understaffed kiosk when you are tired and just want to get home / to your hotel. If this could be avoided then that would lessen the problem no end. Walk out, get bags delivered later. Even without the lost bag, I would probably pay extra for this as an option when flying home!I have not queued in years ... Scan QR code in the baggage hall an do it online once at home. The only problem is that it takes longer at the moment to have bags delivered due to a shortage of drivers. Do you still have to queue in NZ?

BA hands out prepaid credit cards at the carousel if they know that your bag didn't get on the flight. They proactively call out the passengers, at least in the US.

[NicolaJayne]

What airline carries 'loss of luggage' forms onboard? It's a rare event to find out inflight!

and the Purser /CSD/ head of cabin crew doesn't have a laptop or tablet that allows the completion of the form even if it's not 'live' uoploaded to the airline ?

[swap1997]

What range of BOW/DOW do ANZ's existing 787 fleet have? What's the actual payload restriction when departing out of JFK? And what MTOW do they even have, because the values from the NZ Aircraft Register makes no sense for such flights.

[AerialPerspective]

Paint seems to be peeling off the 787s as well.. interesting pics from Jetstar recently!

True, I saw those photos after posting this!!

[AerialPerspective]

None, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. For me, the worst part of losing a bag is queuing up at the end of the flight at an understaffed kiosk when you are tired and just want to get home / to your hotel. If this could be avoided then that would lessen the problem no end. Walk out, get bags delivered later. Even without the lost bag, I would probably pay extra for this as an option when flying home!

If that's what they're being made to do then someone needs to use their bloody brains. Years ago, meaning 35+ years ago, we had the same baggage tracing software as exists today, the entry codes are all still the same. In these circumstances we would either page the passengers and tell them when the aircraft door opened (if 5 or 6, we would do traces first so we could tell them precisely when their bags were coming and that they would be delivered free of charge, passengers were usually pretty happy they could just go through passport control and out and wait until a knock on the door.

When it was more than 5 or 6, such as above, we would announce it then go around and quickly write down the address for each passenger. We didn't need to have their bag tag numbers unless they had something taken at the gate and Limited Release tagged - once the pax were out of the building, someone in the office would pull a passenger list by bag tag(s) on the flight that had just arrived, ex the overseas port, then do tag number traces and create a file for each passenger and put in the address they provided.

Making people queue up while you fill out a full baggage report in these circumstances is stupid and ridiculous because we already KNOW where the bags are!!

[AerialPerspective]

I recall riding the trans Pacific non stop in the very early days, LAX to SY non stop was the schedule on the early 747SP, used to stop at Nandi for a quick splash if fuel was on the short side due unfavourable winds, turn around was quick. Great circle track JFK to AUK passes 160nm abeam Tahiti, not an option? When I used to take these long flights the landing point was not my destination, it was off to connect to two subsequent flights usually, my bags not making it would have caused the out break of WWIII. :p

If Los Angeles is LAX then Sydney is SYD, by the way AKL not AUK. Just sayin'

But you are right, my recollection though was it was pretty rare for the SP to have to divert.

[AerialPerspective]

It's the sort of amateur hour I've come to expect from NZ.

Plan to a mid point destination but fill the tanks full of fuel (e.g. Nadi), depending on the burn either splash and dash or replan the destination as Auckland. Also, until you've flow it a bit and got real world data, be conservative and block out seats.

This should never happen.

And the media, including Australian Aviation are saying that this casts a shadow over QF's JFK-AKL - well, no, because for a start, the QF 789s have about 50 less seats than the NZ ones to begin with. It's something like 220 (QF) vs 275 (NZ).

[Ken Borough]

But you are right, my recollection though was it was pretty rare for the SP to have to divert

Only if you’re thinking about those with RR engines. :}

[DeltaT]

Return the plane to white paint scheme and gain approx 250kgs back. (its a start)
Yes black paint is heavier due to the pigmentation required.

[AerialPerspective]

Only if you’re thinking about those with RR engines. :}

Which both of QF's were.