This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Why? Mount Cook Airline's route network is 100% integrated with that of Air New Zealand, and the decision as to which cities are served by it (or by other nominal subsidiaries) is made entirely based on which aircraft type Air NZ wants for that particular route. Functionally, Mount Cook Airline is an operating division of Air NZ, not a separate airline in its own right. -- Vardion (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comair, as far as I can tell, is more independent of Delta in its operations than Mount Cook Airline is of Air New Zealand. A better comparison, I think, would be trying to show Delta's 737 flights and 757 flights as if they were separate from each other. Mount Cook Airline's independence is a technicality maintained for operational reasons, not something that actually matters for determining what airports are part of the Air NZ network — showing the subsidiary services separately doesn't add anything (and in my view, actually adds confusion — a town's status as connected to Air NZ's network isn't dependent on which particular aircraft the company choses to fly there, and that's the only distinction that exists between mainline Air NZ and the subsidiaries). -- Vardion (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again (and perhaps I'm wrong), all of those examples seem to be more distinct from their parent airlines than Mount Cook Airline. But for me, the fundamental point is: does showing Mount Cook Airline separately give a more accurate and/or useful portrayal of how the airline functions in practice? I believe that the answer is quite definitely in the negative — separating mainline Air NZ from its subsidiaries presents a misleading picture which pays more attention to behind-the-scenes technicalities of corporate structure than to how things actually work. Mount Cook Airline's status isn't actually in any way important to determining which cities are served by Air NZ — in this case, there is no practical difference between the airline and its subsidiaries (Silk Air, say, is certainly not an equivalent situation). -- Vardion (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since ANZ link carriers have their own articles, their destinations should not included in ANZ destinations page in any layout form.116.71.8.148 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Air New Zealand destinations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Air New Zealand destinations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The fact that a service to a destination is suspended does not make it any less encyclopedic, especially in a context where the suspensions are notable. I agree these lists should not fall afoul of Wikipedia is not a guideornot news sections of policy, but the suspensions comply with the policy. Also, we must be mindful that these list include destinations which are not served yet too, or are "temporarily" yet to begin - and it would be better to ensure that the list is neutral. Reverting edits hastily does not lend itself to collaboration, so I've inserted the current scheduled resumption dates so that there is no ambiguity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia restricts or revokes editing privileges for users who do not work together to build consensus. Your personal view is actually not consistent with Wikipedia's operations or its policies and appears to have crossed other aviation articles. You must discuss your changes properly if you would like to establish a consensus for that type of thing.
For this list, it is misleading to suggest that a route has a "present" end when it does not. It also does not make sense to refer to temporary start dates without reflecting actual notable events concerning ANZ's list of destinations, more so when other "temporary" information is already included in the list. Minor or routine suspensions for a day or two, for example due to a particular aircraft having a technical issue, would not warrant inclusion. By contrast, seasonal suspensions do affect the list of which destinations are currently served. This is obviously not a mere historical list. Therefore, the unprecedented suspensions caused by COVID-19, which are particularly notable and comply with all of our policies, are noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ncmvocalist: Firstly it is polite when a topic is being discussed on a talk page not to revert the edit this is about. WP:BRD is a sensible tool here It would be good if you followed it. Also your reply is verging on not assuming good faith. All you are doing by the argument you have given is question the validity of the list (and some other details common on aviation articles) as a whole as all your arguments could be used to delete the list in its entirity as not fitting Wikipedia's scope as an encycyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias do not need to include everything, they certainly do not contain rapidly changing or temporary information. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LAX is hardly a focus city, especially now that LHR flights are discontinued. Is there a definitive source showing Air New Zealand considers it a focus city? Mirza Ahmed (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the preferred layout here when a previously terminated destination re-appears? Add a second line for the same city? -- Chuq(talk)08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I've seen some of any destination pages of an airline and I thought maybe we should update this List of Air New Zealand destinations tables like removing start and ended date, remove some highlight by replacing this Airline hub, Airline seasonal, Terminated and Airline focus templates, remove the IATA and ICAO (not necessarily btw) and add the rowspan for a lot of cities serving on that country. I hope you'll understand what I said and yeah.. I hope you'll agreeing with me. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi cornerstone, I am perplexed as to why you want to remove the start date column what for?
It is a useful source of information of when a new destination was started. CHCBOY (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CHCBOY: I mean, some of all airline destinations pages didn't put the start date column. But if you disagree, maybe we can remove the highlights by replacing "Airline hub, Airline seasonal, Terminated and Airline focus templates, remove the IATA and ICAO column and add the rowspan for a lot of cities serving on that country." I hope you understand what I'm saying. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IATA code column is useful info and not really see the need to remove it. However the focus city of LAX is out of date now that it only has one route to it from AKL with both the RAR and LHR routes dropped. Plus the Charter could be removed from the color table as no more charter flights exist.
I removed the excess Japan to just one entry however the color is on the country row should just be for the city so not look so good. CHCBOY (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Air NZ did fly to the former Hong Kong airport at Kai Tak as what is showing in the 1968 timetable images used in the ref. So it was not only the new airport served since 1998. CHCBOY (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, Just a heads up It is possible that this article will get deleted as I have noticed others getting deleted recently that also belong to major airlines. Unfortunately they are not allowed on Wikipedia anymore CHCBOY (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi cornerstone, I am perplexed as to why you want to remove the start date column what for?
It is a useful source of information of when a new destination was started. CHCBOY (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
