Air New Zealand Flight NZ2, 4th March 2008
Uploader Comments (andysmonte)
All Comments (20)
-
I flew this route in december 09 and it was on a 747, aparantly they have been using them again instead of the 777's since August 09 because the AKL-LAX-LHR route was on higher demand but they will be permanantly replaced with 777's at the end of the year.
-
no need to be agressive people .,
-
ha, all the aircraft I've been on are under 10 years old in age. Most planes are under 10. Perhaps you need to get realistic, and go into the future. Stop living in the 20th Century
-
Well it's time for you to get realistic.
-
Yes it would.
-
Older & less environmentally friendly than an A380, sure. More dangerous than an A380 just because it's older? Almost certainly not, remember that aircraft parts have a shelf life so once they expire they are replaced + the aircraft are regularly examined etc so there is no reason why an older aircraft is more unsafe to fly in than a newer aircraft. Would you feel better if aircraft were scrapped after only 10 years of service? Would that cure your irrational phobia of older aircraft?
thats a cool video im thinkin of flying this route in a few weeks frm akl-lax-lhr can u tell me the duration of the flight altogether
MrAspect5 2 years ago
@MrAspect5 On the 777 which now flies this route, it was 11 hours LHR to LAX with a 2 hour stop at LAX while they re-fuel the plane then 13 hours LAX to AKL. It's a long long flight. Best thing to do is stay awake on the first leg of the trip and sleep on the second. Then you'll get to AKL first thing in the morning (6:30am I think it was) after a nights sleep. 747 was a bit faster but not used now.
andysmonte 2 years ago
That is long, when did they stop using the 747 and why?
MrAspect5 2 years ago
I'd assume it's a commercial decision, we flew this route in 08 on a 747 and in 09 on a 777. I guess it's easier to fill a 777.
andysmonte 2 years ago