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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

Surely the best option is the A350 ULR? And you can buy one now :)

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.

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.