Talk:Christchurch Airport

reduced destinations

I've removed Air New Zealand destinations to Nadi, Rarotonga, Osaka and Tokyo because they dont exist. All flights bound from Christchurch to those destinations are not nonstop, and through Auckland under different flight numbers, etc. I've confirmed through ANZ timetable and www.staralliance.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricedbert (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are actually direct flights to Christchurch from Tokyo Narita that are non-stop;(Flight NZ90) There is also a flight from Rarotonga to Christchurch Non-stop (NZ841) There is also a direct flight from Nadi(NZ851). I will re-enter these details. Also as a side; the reference given for the use of the crosswind runway includes aircraft up to and including B-767 there is no mention of A340's having lived under that approach and done a lot of flying at CAC I have never heard of an A340 using that runway although I do recall seeing a globemaster... I don't think it is appropriate to state B-777 or A-340 when neither aircraft have used this runway and there is no reference for it.

Cheers Homesick kiwi (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Air NZ flights from Nadi and Rarotonga and Japan are not destinations if they only come to drop off passengers. Besides, these flights are destined for Auckland.

203.173.146.19 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Several persons/editors have been re-adding Narita, Nadi , Rarotonga and Osaka back over the last month or so; has their been any change to destinations at the airport or is this false? Kaiserm (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Air NZ do operate the Japan flights in the Summer season and operate to NAN and RAR in the winter months, so can be wrote as Seasonal for each destination.CHCBOY (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

777s on cross-runway

There is no mention in the reference given of B777s currently landing on the cross-runway and no mention of the requirement for them to be towed at the end of the runway if they do so. I have never heard of nor seen a B777 land on this runway. While I wouldn’t be that surprised if the statement was true, there is currently no verifiable reference for the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.96.194 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The document referenced simply referred to the taxiway being unable to accept anything larger than the 767 as anything with a larger wheelbase cannot make the turn completely. In early 2007 a Korean Air 777-200ER was directed to land on runway 29 due to the Westerly wind consistently hanging around 40 knots. I will see if I can find a verifiable written reference. --Hmitt (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not written reference but I was working out there that day and yes it did land on RW29. It had a “follow me” car direct it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.40.105 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Usage of the norwest runway: [1]
• Requirement to be towed off the runway (including photo): [2]

121.74.12.175 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The aerodrome diagram for Christchurch (http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZCH_51.1_51.2.pdf) states that runway 11/29 cannot be used by any (ICAO) code E or F aircraft except in an emergency, due to unsealed shoulders and problems with taxiway access. So, code D aircraft are the maximum that can be used on the northwest runway in normal operation - that's all aircraft with a wingspan under 52 metres AND an outer main gear wheel span less than 14 metres, (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/aircraftdesigngroup.pdf).

The Boeing 777 (along with the 747, 787, and Airbus A330) is a code E aircraft, so they can only land on 11/29 if it's an emergency and they can't make it to an alternative airport (i.e. Auckland). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 16:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A note here is that Emirates have been flying The Boeing 777-300 from Christchurch Airport to Sydney as the daily Emirates NZ to Dubai via Sydney route for some time now. reference can be found by looking at the flight detail information or popping down to the airport in the afternoon so clearly the rules must have changed on the classification of the airport or for the particular model of the Aircraft. refer http://fly.emirates.com/IBE.aspx?j=f for information Kaiserm (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening date

According to this (and other sources) Christchurch International Airport officially came into existence in December 1950 as part of the Canterbury centennial celebrations. Does anyone have access to the source cited for the 1953 date in this article to verify precisely what event occurred in 1953? From what I've read, the 1953 date is either wrong, or at least misleading. — Matthew25187 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I got 1950 as well from my book of the airport 'In great forsight' what happened in 1953 was just the London to Christchurch air race. It has been open as a domestic airport since 1936.CHCBOY (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tashkent as a destination

I removed Tashkent as a destination from the destinations box as I don't think it fits the WP:AIRPORTS-CONTENT definition, failing on all of the "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular or private charter services" points. However there seems to be some desire to continue its inclusion as it is back.

Now I know these flights happen, about two times a year and have happened for a fair number of years past, and is operated by an Uzbekistan Airways 767 that flies from Tashkent via Malaysia to Christchurch. It is my understanding that these flights are purely to transport Uzbek fishing boat crews to and from Christchurch as part of joint venture fishing contracts. This however is not the point and keeping on providing references saying the plane came or here is a photo does not alter the question should it be included in the destinations box.

In my view most if not all charter services are problematic in so much that they are`easy to add but difficult to delete, not usually having a simple timetable for confirmation.

A similar question surrounds the ANZ Port Vila flights that cater for seasonal agricultural workers.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the only references that can be found for the continuing Uzbek flights are Flightaware and its ilk, then it doesn't belong; if thirty business jets were chartered from thirty different companies to move the fishermen, we wouldn't list them. Companies charter other companies' aircraft to move personnel and cargo all the time, there have been several such where I work this week. It's not the same as flying Thomson or whichever from Manchester to Ibiza. YSSYguy (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not correct YSSYGUY there is more than one ref. The other reference from Uzbekistan airways own website you deleted it because it was a year old while many refs used on Wikipedia are much older than that. Its really being very Pedantic using the 30 business jets as a comparison which is nothing like a scheduled airline which uses the same flight number UB8512 each time and runs to the same scheduled time on each visit to Christchurch for the past 9 years. Because it is regular charter on a regular schedule and timetable from the deleted ref it does meet inclusion criteria. CHCBOY (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@CHCBOY I was hoping you would come back with some reasons why these flights are not adhoc, irregular and private, please don't continue to drag up references because it is not really helpful. I spent a lot of time explaining that I don't need convinced that every now and then a Uzbek 767 turns up in Christchurch, there is enough evidence that this is the case. The question is... (I say again slowly) should this be in the destinations box and all the evidence so far is that it should not!. It isn't in the UZ timetable, it is ad hoc - for a specific purpose!, it is irregular Not once a month or every Tuesday or the like, and it is private - chartered by someone for their employees. YSSY's business jet analogy was a good one, the size of the plane is in-material - and these are not scheduled in the airline meaning of the word -, the WP:AIRPORT content guidelines are based on intent and availability not size of plane.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

CHCBOY, you are wrong. As the ref - which wasn't the airline's website - was the summer 2012 flying season schedule, it could only show that there were flights in 2012 - which didn't use the airline's IATA code, according to the ref you are trumpeting; and please don't misrepresent it as being extrapolable to 2014, CHC is not mentioned on that website's equivalent page for the airline's 2014 schedule. Secondly, there is no way that you or I or anyone who isn't a fisherman working on a particular group of fishing vessels can get on those flights. It's exactly analogous to the 30 bizjets scenario - if it wasn't, you could find a ref other than flightaware etc. and there would be a way to book a seat. I tried to find something else, and couldn't. YSSYguy (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Guangzhou as a destination

...and here we are again; we could almost copy-and-paste the above discussion. Three special flights does not constitute a schedule and it would be highly misleading to include Guangzhou as a destination. I tried to book a flight and could not, which suggests that they are not generally available. YSSYguy (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I think there is a little internal competition going on to find the most esoteric information to add to Wikipedia without much thought about its usefulness or ultimately its accuracy. The whole destinations box is encroaching on being counter to WP:NOTGUIDE. I only say this because if they become too troublesome I could see the day such tables are no longer welcome on Wikipedia which I think would be a shame. As has been pointed out many times a few flights every now and then (for the New Year - ad hoc?) is not really regular. I take regular to mean over and over again there is obviously a line here but three (or 5 or even 10) flights does not do it for me. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

To YSSYguy, Did you really try? I also tried to book one from the CZ website: http://www.csair.com/en/ and can do it, from the 14th February CZ8507 non stop Guangzhou to Christchurch, opens in a new window so they are generally available. It all comes down to where you draw the line 3 flights or 10 flights to be included on wiki in the end. What is the definition of charter it fits with this case. There is also lack of consistency as there is countless airport pages in wiki that have charter entries in the destination box with no ref by them. But this one which has a ref but should not be included. They are allowed in others why? It should be the same rule for all unless CHC airport page is a special case and has its own rule. All I am just trying is to be accurate on wiki let the facts speak for themselves.

At the bottom of here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content There is this statement:

Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article.

So it is not set in concrete what can and cannot be included in a particular page. CHCBOY (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, three flights does not equate to a regular schedule and it is misleading to include these flights in an encyclopaedia article about your pet airport, especially with your edit that did not include start and finish dates - which is either sloppiness or an effort to make these flights to appear more than they are and hoping that none else would check (I am assuming bad faith here because I think that in edit-warring you are demonstrating bad faith). I tried to book a flight yesterday and I tried again just before posting here - the window that opened for me was nothing to do with the next step of a flight ticket booking process, it was to do with package holidays in mainland China; and when I tried to find holidays in Christchurch on that page - nothing. I then tried again on a different page and got plenty of flights - all of them one-stop codeshares from/to Australia for the CHC leg and none of them direct.

The so-called "countless airport pages in wiki that have charter entries", might that be European airports? You haven't provided any actual example, just a sweeping generalization. If so, in Europe and Canada there are many charter airlines which exist largely to fly sunseekers to holiday spots, with regular (often daily) departures all summer, every summer. These are charters because it is tour companies which sell flight and accommodation packages to the public and the airlines concerned are contracted by the tour companies to provide aircraft and crews. But you haven't provided an example, so who knows what you're talking about?

Basically, to include these flights is to give them too much weight; sometimes being accurate is actually misleading and/or confusing. YSSYguy (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was a regular schedule, its charter. I have now included start and end dates (other charter entries don't have them) you don't have to make personal attacks to me it was in good faith. I can book from their website with no problems departing 14th February CAN-CHC the first flight (you may have entered another date) when it does not go non stop so will only offer connecting flights. You don't need to educate me about why charter flights happen I already know. Its not just in Europe they are global. An example you can look at Manchester among many other cities with heaps of charter entries with no refs by them. Closer to your home, Adelaide has lots of charter entries with no ref for them. Cairns has both a CZ and a MU entry with a dead link in the ref those flights are on and off again need a new citation to remain accurate. Plenty more in other pages if you have time to look. The entry should be listed until the date the last flight departs. CHCBOY (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the old 'ignore the argument and fixate on something peripheral' trick. The issue isn't that there is a reference, or that the flights do not happen. The issue is that it's three flights and to mention them is to give them a weight they do no merit. The charter flights are now mentioned elsewhere in the article, leave it at that. YSSYguy (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that flights will resume on a permanent basis as the charter ones were to test the market and were oflesly succeessful. All the hatred towards me earlier this year is now moot as these new flights have vindicated my prior argument. I like to see a reason now why the CZ entry should be deleted. As I don't think any one will have a valid reason now!CHCBOY (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Grass runway

I see that some anonymous user has changed the numbers for this runway without adding a citation. Regarding the Christchurch airport grass runway it is still showing on the chart here: http://aip.net.nz/pdf/NZCH_70.30Y_70.31Y.pdf as 02/20 next to the 02/20 main runway so what evidence have you got that it has changed to 01/19. This site also has the grass runway at 02/20 http://www.flyingnz.co.nz/pdfs/industry/CH_grass.pdf. CHCBOY (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• As no evidence has been provided that the runway has been officially re-numbered and no response from the person who changed it. The runway will be put back to its original bearings of 02/20 with a new ref for verification.CHCBOY (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for UZ

Regarding the use of a blog, from the project page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

There are exceptions that allow blogs to be used as a reference on wikipedia. From self published source:

**Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

So I would include MRCAviation [[3]] in this category as Mike Condon has been reporting on Aviation news for over a decade now.CHCBOY (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Korean Air

The reference for this service mentions that it's a charter. There is no word of trial anywhere in the article. After having a look on WP Airport content there is nothing specific why it doesn't meet eligibility for inclusion for this type of service. There is inconsistency happening again here with the Asiana flight to Melbourne allowed in which is also 10 flights but the Christchurch entry is not allowed which I didn't get a reply from. What this boils down to in the end is just Kiwi Bashing which shouldn't happen here on Wikipedia. It should be reinstated or delete the Melbourne entry to make it fair. We can describe it charter to be the same as the Melbourne entry. CHCBOY (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, there is no obligation for details in Wikipedia to be comprehensive. To me if you add something even with references that you know is a temporary situation - ie you know you will be deleting the entry in the future then the detail is probably not encyclopaedic and should not really be added. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@CHCBOY:, have another look at the source please: Korean Air will operate ten return services from December 27 between Incheon Airport and “Our Korean arrival numbers have grown 39 per cent over the past five years and this charter service is seen as a trial, which may lead to more flights the following year,”. This exactly what is says, a trial. As Andrewgprout mentions Wikipedia is not a directory and we have no obligation to list every single route, which why we have WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Ajf773 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I still can't find anything mentioned "no trial flights" to be included on WP:Airport Content. Also having it included from now until 23 February 2020 is more accurate than it being omitted. As people will see it at the airport and will check on here and wonder why it is not listed. Plus it's present on the Korean Air page which makes it inconsistent again on one page but not another. CHCBOY (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Adhoc/irregular charters generally aren't accepted, a trial service would probably fit into this category. Most charters that are accepted are those that operate long term or seasonally. There is no mention of end date in the Scoop source. And we aren't interested about what is in other articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• • The end date is in the Korean source. Who says we are not interested what other articles as they all link up together on Wikipedia so makes it relevant if they say the same information. Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is this quote: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides" which is what I was referring to in my earlier post. Also another point "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged" I will leave it at that.CHCBOY (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• No Korean source has been provided. The policy is to exclude improperly soured entries for future and ending routes. Ajf773 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Korean source is on the entry for Christchurch on the Korean Air destination page but this is not the issue here. CHCBOY (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• So what is the issue then? Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is what we discussed at the beginning which we have a difference of opinion on. CHCBOY (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Having a read on here there does not seem to be a consensus between the editors. From further reading content suggestion the guidelines doesn't rule out charter flights as long as a ref is provided if a dispute arises.162.112.41.65 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that Wikipedia is not a directory and such seriously transitory information does not belong in an encyclopaedia. insisting on the inclusion of such detail will only highlight the overall inappropriateness of the destination tables in their role to fulfil the encylopaedic need to describe the sphere of influence an airport has. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I know it's not a directory, of course nothing like it with no names, address and phone numbers etc. Not really relevent in this discussion here.162.112.41.62 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Perth Airport now has a MU trial service for 5 weeks to Shanghai. I see that no issue has been raised over on that page. Just points out the inconsistent treatment on Wikipedia by some editors same with the Melbourne example above. CHCBOY (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)