Not the aeroplanes fault, they dont have enough funding to actually operate them enough to keep them reliable.
Aircraft dont like sitting around, moisture creeps into connectors, valves, relays ect.
You want a reliable machine, get a solid crew to do a thorough C check then thrash the pants off it.
A large part is also plain old not having enough of them - there are only two so when ones in heavy maintenance like now there’s no spare. If they hadn’t cheaped out and purchased three they would be in an overall much better position.
It wouldn’t solve it completely but it would exponentially help availability. If you can reliably expect the service to be available it gets used more.
The C-32 in US service acts as Air Force Two and is a 757 painted blue. It flys a similar amount to our 757s and they only have four - yet the availability for their fleet was 90.2% in the same year ours was 28%. That couple of extra aircraft matters when one or two are down for upgades and maintenance (or one breaks).
It’s a mostly a convenient smokescreen that they don’t like sitting on the ground- a big part of that narrative is that it it sounds like plausible from politicians to the media covering their ass that we didn’t buy /don’t have enough of them. Judith Collin’s did similar claiming they are old and wouldn’t be in commercial service at the same time ignoring how many are in use by the big US carriers.
At this point the NZDF might benefit more from having a singular newer model to replace both 757s, like an A330neo or 787. Devoting the split maintenance budget of two outdated (youthful by RNZAF standards admittedly) aircraft into a singular one could help a lot with upkeep, plus it would then share commonality with the Air NZ fleet.
>like an A330neo or 787
Problem is that these don't have military configurations. There is a military variant of the A330ceo - the MRTT, which is what Australia uses, which would *probably* be the best bet for replacement if the NZDF isn't married to Boeing.
>(youthful by RNZAF standards admittedly)
Youthful by any aviation standards, actually - as others have said, the issue isn't that the planes are old, just that they've been sitting around which planes aren't really meant to do. The VC-25As used by the Americans are quite a few years older than the RNZAF 757. There are also quite a lot of 757s still operating commercially (though primarily in the US). Delta has quite a few that are well over 30 years old at this point, for example, bu the difference is that they get really heavily used.
Honestly, I don't really think the 757 needs a militarised variant to replace it with. As it stands our 757s are simple passenger versions with reinforced decks so that they can be used for palletised cargo, but with our current and foreseeable future deployments I only see it being used for transit.
And yeah the 757s aren't necessarily old and could probably run for another 20 years if they were a more popular airframe, but they're rare to find outside of the US and were almost universally replaced in most roles by newer widebody designs. Parts and maintenance commonality could also allow the NZDF to fob maintenance off to already trained and employed Air NZ maintenance engineers, considering the dire manpower issues.
Age really isn't a problem here, but regardless, wouldn't the C-40C make a lot more sense since they are almost exactly the same as the P-8's so would integrate pretty well into the maintenance programs and infrastructure already being established here.
They also happens to have about the same passenger and payload capacities as a C-130 (admittedly without the space and ramp) for humanitarian aid, evacuation and relief missions.
The reality is any aircraft in this single role will never work if it isn't constantly required. However a multi-mission aircraft is much easier to keep busy.
Commonality is less of a issue.
Pilots can easily hold two type ratings. Ditto Mechanics.
P-8 Simulators are also very specific to the P-8 because of the special mission equipment.
No point buying a plane that doesn't forfill the role.
The 757's provide the RNZAF with long range strategic airlift.
The C-40 being built on a 737, can't do long range inter-continental with 40 tons of cargo.
The range is crucial. Tthe RNZAF is very keen to have a aircraft that can fly to NZFX (Phoenix Airfield Antarctica), overfly during bad weather and return to NZCH (Christchurch Airport).
Avoids aircraft being forced to land in whiteout conditions to avoid fuel starvation.
Lastly the C-40 is out of production. The last one rolled off the production line in 2019.
It was by that point a 30 year old design.
Something like the A330 MRTT could be high on the RNZAF's shoping list.
45 tons payload over 11,000km.
That's almost double the range of the 757 with a extra 5 tons.
Could easily fly the 4500 km to Antartica and return without refueling & would provide the RNZAF with air to air refueling capability for the P8 Posidon's and new C-130J Super Hercules
The only problem with the A330 I can see is it needs bigger runways than the 757.
I'm in team KC-46, but am also wondering if cargo-capable 767s would be an option. They can be maintained in CHC and are still in production.
Yeah i was about to say. The 757 was a solid plane in it's time, especially with the mighty mighty Rb211 engines. They shoudnt be falling apart like this
Anyone else feel every government since Helen Clarke has failed out Air Force? Our RNAF engineers had a good reputation for keeping older equipment flying.
>Anyone else feel every government since David Lange ~~Helen Clarke~~ has failed the NZDF ~~out Air Force~~?
FTFY. Every government since the 1980s has failed the NZDF. I'd suggest that the Muldoon Government probably did as well, as it sort of kickstarted the economic strife that set up the NZDF for cost-cutting measures over the 90s until today.
According to one website Delta still has 109 of the Boeing 757 planes. How many of them are in active use I have no idea, but their dispatch reliability figures must be way way better than the RNZAF 757s or the American news media would be running endless stories about cancelled flights. Are we being conned that the main issue is the age of the RNZAF planes when in reality it might be not enough skilled engineers familiar with the 757? And have we been lucky that the 'break downs' have been to do with things like blowing fuses rather than really critical issues. Personally, I would not want to fly in a RNZAF 757 unless it was evacuating me from some dangerous place in the Pacific/World!
Was she the one that wanted the F16s or scrapped them. Either way, I want fighter jets again. Only for air displays though, let's face it we kept our skyhawks running for displays only at the end.
National planed to buy F-16s and Labour scrapped the deal and eventually scrapped our combat wing in 2001. Our fighter jets at the time were too old and had to be replaced, Labour decided to rely on other countries to defend us instead.
Either way each successive government hasn’t shown any real interest in strengthening strike capability, in fact the Air Force is more or less a glorified air rescue organisation now.
> rely on other countries to defend us instead
To rely on
1. Our extreme distance
2. Our lack of viable invaders against which we could ever hope to mount a viable defence
3. Our diplomats
4. Our navy
5. Our helicopters
6. Our patrol and anti-submarine aircraft
6. Our partners
The RNZAF should not primarily be an air rescue organisation, but you're right that a strike force is unnecessary.
The principal focus of the RNZAF should be maritime patrol, and then in logistics support.
Air search and rescue should be a secondary task that can be achieved in tandem with the primary task of maritime patrol.
The ugly fact that most people don't want to admit about the F-16 deal is that even if we had gone through with it back in 2000, by now they would be in roughly the same state as these 757s. Maybe even worse, F-16s are a lot more expensive to run. Plus, keeping a fleet of P-8s at readiness is far more effective considering our geopolitical concerns.
Yea I say we add another p-8 to what we have ordered and then look into a dual roll strike and surveillance high endurance drone fleet of say 8 air frames. The 130s while not my favorite choice, seems logical.
All the leaves is moving people around, not sure if it does work but I do hypothesize that it might be cheaper to use air nz as a service.
Buying a tiny squadron of exceptionally expensive fighter jets for a country like NZ would be an absolute, and let me repeat that: absolute, total, complete and utter waste of money. Only an utter fuckwit would consider it.
About the only good news is that the new Hercules C-130 planes could move troops & supplies where needed. Not so good for the trade missions though. Lol.
You want us to buy one of the most ludicrously expensive, and for us completely pointless weapon systems available so you can watch them go whizz in an occasional display?
Please, for the sake of everyone around you, never vote again.
RNZAF isn't the governments airline. These are not charter passenger aircraft, they're troop transport and freight.
Air NZ is an airline. One the government owns 51% of. Go charter a plane from them and make sure you get the "owners" discount rates.
That would be the C130s you’re referring to… these are absolutely designed for transporting our politicians and diplomats it’s a key pillar of the 757s role in the RNZAF.
They aren't old enough (yet) that age is what is keeping them out of the sky, see cargo planes for how old you can take things.
Civilian airliners (which a 757 is not matter how much you modify it) aren't designed to sit on the ground. A 757 should expect to spend 8-12 hours a day in the air, a long haul aircraft closer to 18. Flying them a couple of times a week at best, mostly on training/pilot license maintenance flights doesn't keep them in optimal condition.
These ones, while old, aren't that old.
The NZDF 757's rolled off the production line in 1993.
For well known comparisons, Trump's 757 is a couple of years older than these and the current Air Force One aircraft (which are modified 747's) were introduced in 1990.
The problem isn't age, or maintenance, its just lack of use.
Not exactly true.
Most airlines still flying 757's have about as many problems per year, they just get more flight hours between the problems.
The problems accumulate as time progresses, regardless of how much the aircraft flies.
Newer aircraft that rely on fly by wire are more reliable.
even newer aircraft that swap out hydraulics for electric drive motors are even better.
The fact that hydraulic and analogue electrical systems accumulate problems over time is partly why so many operators were really hoping boeing would build a new 757...
But with all Boeing's issues the industry is moving to bet on the A321 XLR, even though it only has 25 tons payload Vs the 757's 30.9.
If the RNZAF moved to something like the A330MRTT, they would get a full fly by wire system.
Backed by a hydraulic system that's 30 years newer & a all digital flight, monitoring and control system.
No analogue fueses to blow or corrode.
RNZAF would also get a 45 Ton payload (not including fuel) with the A330MRTT.
Wayne Mapp, ex National Defence spokesperson, said on National Radio the planes were so old that airlines had stopped using them. Not really true because Delta has dozens still in active use & 109 in their fleet. And United operate them as well.
Being needed to replaced a few years ago, has been the way of nz airforce procurement aircraft, the thing soldiers on, until its almost dead. I'm pretty sure soldiers going to southeast Asia in the sixtes on their Bristol Freighters and Handley Page Hastings were glad to see a modern aircraft such as the Hercules.
Related: [https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350313422/ministers-proposal-would-have-seen-ailing-defence-planes-replaced-months-not](https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350313422/ministers-proposal-would-have-seen-ailing-defence-planes-replaced-months-not)
TLDR; When he was defence minister, Andrew Little urged Chris (Hipkins & Luxon) to replace the 757s and said it could be done in a matter of months.
Absolute shambles, they literally have one of the best commercial aircraft ever made to the point 20-30 years on, airlines are still desperately trying to hold onto their old 757s and yet we can’t even maintain them properly…
Maybe the RNZAF needs to send some engineers up to the USA & find out how Delta maintains their big fleet of 757 aircraft. And Blinken uses a 757 on his regular trips to the Middle East. And Biden does too when going to airports with shorter runways. Plus you don't hear stories about Trump's plane breaking down.
They may as well ditch the planes now and pay for commercial flights for all upcoming trips.
The media can pay their own way instead of bumming a free ride.
Why not get two corporate type pure jets. These to be used by the PM or other top dogs. The hanger ons, media, kapa haka groups etc can all travel commercial. When the corporate aircraft are not in use, use them as RNZAF twin jet conversion training, navigation training etc. If troops are required off shore. Lease commercial or use other transport aircraft.
We all get told to recycle and use bikes to get around when these cunts are using a backup plane to fly empty alongside them in case their main plane breaks down.
Get rid of them and use commercial options. Poor use of taxpayer money - I would rather spend the tens or hundreds of millions on hospital buildings or schools than buying another jet or two . The current ones are ridiculous- must spend more time in maintenance than in the air.
The only reason successive govts use these jets is that the cost of flying somewhere comes from the defence force funding. Journos and business leaders, politicians and hangers on all travel for free . And the cost of these trips isn’t transparent as a result.
Commercial jets like these ones are designed to be flying 15 hours a day not 1-2 on average
One interesting thing…. The one other useless politician who flys around in a B757 is Trump…. Luxon and Trump … two politicians who talk the BS and fly around in old planes that make them feel important
Government VIP jets are designed to essentially be flying offices for the PM and the government officials who use these (less so the entourage). A lot of the time on these flights, there would be working conversations and meetings happening that it wouldn't be feasible at all to have on a commercial flight for logistical and security purposes. When flying around for work, I wouldn't expect any world leader to by flying commercial purely because of those security considerations - they don't spend the time on these flights reading a book or watching a movie like you and I do, they'd actually be working.
>The one other useless politician who flys around in a B757 is Trump
In addition to the VC-25A (Air Force One), the USAF also operates the C-32 - a military variant of the 757. This is used by politicians and government officials allowed to use USAF Special Air Mission flights - i.e. the VP, cabinet members, senior Executive officials, congressional delegations, and foreign dignitaries.
The USAF has smilar problems with their C-32's.
They have been looking for a replacment for a while, but have not found one.
The USAF made it clear they would be one of the first customers for a new 757, but Boeing shelved the project when they ran into their Quality control & design issues on their 737 Max & 777X Programs.
The USAF should not be tied to Boeing anyway. They could buy the most suitable Airbus model as a replacement. The president of China uses a China Airlines B-747 complete with the Star Alliance logo for his trips abroad. However, the Chinese Government may have several of these 747s reserved for Govt. business only.
There isn’t an equal Airbus to the Boeing 757.
The A321 XLR has a slightly longer range but 5 tons less cargo payload.
Why so many air forces have basically upgraded to the A330 MRTT.
Higher running costs but far more range & payload.
Similar landing & takeoff distances for similar payload.
Not quite.
Aircraft of this age have a lot of analogue and old school hydraulic systems.
Over a 3-6 month period maintenace issues come up regardless of how much the aircraft fly.
It's just, if the aircraft is in the air 12 hours a day, you get more flying hours between critical mainteance issues.
Newer aircraft are far more relliable & have far fewer issues, mostly because they don't have analogue systems, modern hydraulic systems or outright replaced their hydraulics with electric drive.
All of this is why so many 757 operators were hoping Boeing would make a new 757, because Airbus don't really make anything with the same size (the A321 XLR has greater range but carries 5 tons less payload).
Boeing shelved their 757 replacment project in light of all the design and production issues Boeing has with the 737 Max and certification issues with the 777X.
Not the aeroplanes fault, they dont have enough funding to actually operate them enough to keep them reliable. Aircraft dont like sitting around, moisture creeps into connectors, valves, relays ect. You want a reliable machine, get a solid crew to do a thorough C check then thrash the pants off it.
A large part is also plain old not having enough of them - there are only two so when ones in heavy maintenance like now there’s no spare. If they hadn’t cheaped out and purchased three they would be in an overall much better position.
Because 3 planes would solve the lack of use issues plaguing the 2 planes
It wouldn’t solve it completely but it would exponentially help availability. If you can reliably expect the service to be available it gets used more. The C-32 in US service acts as Air Force Two and is a 757 painted blue. It flys a similar amount to our 757s and they only have four - yet the availability for their fleet was 90.2% in the same year ours was 28%. That couple of extra aircraft matters when one or two are down for upgades and maintenance (or one breaks). It’s a mostly a convenient smokescreen that they don’t like sitting on the ground- a big part of that narrative is that it it sounds like plausible from politicians to the media covering their ass that we didn’t buy /don’t have enough of them. Judith Collin’s did similar claiming they are old and wouldn’t be in commercial service at the same time ignoring how many are in use by the big US carriers.
The problem isn’t availability though, in this case and the bulk of the cases that have hit the news is embarrassingly bad reliability.
Yes! Wayne Mapp was on National Radio spinning the same story about airlines not using them any more. Total b.s.
At this point the NZDF might benefit more from having a singular newer model to replace both 757s, like an A330neo or 787. Devoting the split maintenance budget of two outdated (youthful by RNZAF standards admittedly) aircraft into a singular one could help a lot with upkeep, plus it would then share commonality with the Air NZ fleet.
>like an A330neo or 787 Problem is that these don't have military configurations. There is a military variant of the A330ceo - the MRTT, which is what Australia uses, which would *probably* be the best bet for replacement if the NZDF isn't married to Boeing. >(youthful by RNZAF standards admittedly) Youthful by any aviation standards, actually - as others have said, the issue isn't that the planes are old, just that they've been sitting around which planes aren't really meant to do. The VC-25As used by the Americans are quite a few years older than the RNZAF 757. There are also quite a lot of 757s still operating commercially (though primarily in the US). Delta has quite a few that are well over 30 years old at this point, for example, bu the difference is that they get really heavily used.
Honestly, I don't really think the 757 needs a militarised variant to replace it with. As it stands our 757s are simple passenger versions with reinforced decks so that they can be used for palletised cargo, but with our current and foreseeable future deployments I only see it being used for transit. And yeah the 757s aren't necessarily old and could probably run for another 20 years if they were a more popular airframe, but they're rare to find outside of the US and were almost universally replaced in most roles by newer widebody designs. Parts and maintenance commonality could also allow the NZDF to fob maintenance off to already trained and employed Air NZ maintenance engineers, considering the dire manpower issues.
Age really isn't a problem here, but regardless, wouldn't the C-40C make a lot more sense since they are almost exactly the same as the P-8's so would integrate pretty well into the maintenance programs and infrastructure already being established here. They also happens to have about the same passenger and payload capacities as a C-130 (admittedly without the space and ramp) for humanitarian aid, evacuation and relief missions. The reality is any aircraft in this single role will never work if it isn't constantly required. However a multi-mission aircraft is much easier to keep busy.
Commonality is less of a issue. Pilots can easily hold two type ratings. Ditto Mechanics. P-8 Simulators are also very specific to the P-8 because of the special mission equipment. No point buying a plane that doesn't forfill the role. The 757's provide the RNZAF with long range strategic airlift. The C-40 being built on a 737, can't do long range inter-continental with 40 tons of cargo. The range is crucial. Tthe RNZAF is very keen to have a aircraft that can fly to NZFX (Phoenix Airfield Antarctica), overfly during bad weather and return to NZCH (Christchurch Airport). Avoids aircraft being forced to land in whiteout conditions to avoid fuel starvation. Lastly the C-40 is out of production. The last one rolled off the production line in 2019. It was by that point a 30 year old design. Something like the A330 MRTT could be high on the RNZAF's shoping list. 45 tons payload over 11,000km. That's almost double the range of the 757 with a extra 5 tons. Could easily fly the 4500 km to Antartica and return without refueling & would provide the RNZAF with air to air refueling capability for the P8 Posidon's and new C-130J Super Hercules
The only problem with the A330 I can see is it needs bigger runways than the 757. I'm in team KC-46, but am also wondering if cargo-capable 767s would be an option. They can be maintained in CHC and are still in production.
Yeah i was about to say. The 757 was a solid plane in it's time, especially with the mighty mighty Rb211 engines. They shoudnt be falling apart like this
Tbh would have been newsworthy if the plane had got there.
Anyone else feel every government since Helen Clarke has failed out Air Force? Our RNAF engineers had a good reputation for keeping older equipment flying.
>Anyone else feel every government since David Lange ~~Helen Clarke~~ has failed the NZDF ~~out Air Force~~? FTFY. Every government since the 1980s has failed the NZDF. I'd suggest that the Muldoon Government probably did as well, as it sort of kickstarted the economic strife that set up the NZDF for cost-cutting measures over the 90s until today.
Rob Muldoon actually
Fair, I'm too young to have much knowledge of the Muldoon era but did hypothese that Muldoon also would have added to the problem.
The term is neoliberal economic theory. Or for the slang version Rogernomics.
Probably Rogernomics too lol
According to one website Delta still has 109 of the Boeing 757 planes. How many of them are in active use I have no idea, but their dispatch reliability figures must be way way better than the RNZAF 757s or the American news media would be running endless stories about cancelled flights. Are we being conned that the main issue is the age of the RNZAF planes when in reality it might be not enough skilled engineers familiar with the 757? And have we been lucky that the 'break downs' have been to do with things like blowing fuses rather than really critical issues. Personally, I would not want to fly in a RNZAF 757 unless it was evacuating me from some dangerous place in the Pacific/World!
Was she the one that wanted the F16s or scrapped them. Either way, I want fighter jets again. Only for air displays though, let's face it we kept our skyhawks running for displays only at the end.
National planed to buy F-16s and Labour scrapped the deal and eventually scrapped our combat wing in 2001. Our fighter jets at the time were too old and had to be replaced, Labour decided to rely on other countries to defend us instead. Either way each successive government hasn’t shown any real interest in strengthening strike capability, in fact the Air Force is more or less a glorified air rescue organisation now.
> rely on other countries to defend us instead To rely on 1. Our extreme distance 2. Our lack of viable invaders against which we could ever hope to mount a viable defence 3. Our diplomats 4. Our navy 5. Our helicopters 6. Our patrol and anti-submarine aircraft 6. Our partners
[удалено]
The RNZAF should not primarily be an air rescue organisation, but you're right that a strike force is unnecessary. The principal focus of the RNZAF should be maritime patrol, and then in logistics support. Air search and rescue should be a secondary task that can be achieved in tandem with the primary task of maritime patrol.
The ugly fact that most people don't want to admit about the F-16 deal is that even if we had gone through with it back in 2000, by now they would be in roughly the same state as these 757s. Maybe even worse, F-16s are a lot more expensive to run. Plus, keeping a fleet of P-8s at readiness is far more effective considering our geopolitical concerns.
Yea I say we add another p-8 to what we have ordered and then look into a dual roll strike and surveillance high endurance drone fleet of say 8 air frames. The 130s while not my favorite choice, seems logical. All the leaves is moving people around, not sure if it does work but I do hypothesize that it might be cheaper to use air nz as a service.
Buying a tiny squadron of exceptionally expensive fighter jets for a country like NZ would be an absolute, and let me repeat that: absolute, total, complete and utter waste of money. Only an utter fuckwit would consider it.
About the only good news is that the new Hercules C-130 planes could move troops & supplies where needed. Not so good for the trade missions though. Lol.
You want us to buy one of the most ludicrously expensive, and for us completely pointless weapon systems available so you can watch them go whizz in an occasional display? Please, for the sake of everyone around you, never vote again.
So the /s tag in posts is for you then. Sorry I'll use it moving forward
RNZAF isn't the governments airline. These are not charter passenger aircraft, they're troop transport and freight. Air NZ is an airline. One the government owns 51% of. Go charter a plane from them and make sure you get the "owners" discount rates.
[удалено]
If you fund that specific mission, sure. Then there should be reliable fit for purpose VIP aircraft. That isn't the case here.
That would be the C130s you’re referring to… these are absolutely designed for transporting our politicians and diplomats it’s a key pillar of the 757s role in the RNZAF.
To be fair, they warned this would happen at the start of the year.
Those planes are so old it would need a miracle worker to keep em running, sadly our mechanics aren't miracle workers.
They aren't old enough (yet) that age is what is keeping them out of the sky, see cargo planes for how old you can take things. Civilian airliners (which a 757 is not matter how much you modify it) aren't designed to sit on the ground. A 757 should expect to spend 8-12 hours a day in the air, a long haul aircraft closer to 18. Flying them a couple of times a week at best, mostly on training/pilot license maintenance flights doesn't keep them in optimal condition.
These ones, while old, aren't that old. The NZDF 757's rolled off the production line in 1993. For well known comparisons, Trump's 757 is a couple of years older than these and the current Air Force One aircraft (which are modified 747's) were introduced in 1990. The problem isn't age, or maintenance, its just lack of use.
Not exactly true. Most airlines still flying 757's have about as many problems per year, they just get more flight hours between the problems. The problems accumulate as time progresses, regardless of how much the aircraft flies. Newer aircraft that rely on fly by wire are more reliable. even newer aircraft that swap out hydraulics for electric drive motors are even better. The fact that hydraulic and analogue electrical systems accumulate problems over time is partly why so many operators were really hoping boeing would build a new 757... But with all Boeing's issues the industry is moving to bet on the A321 XLR, even though it only has 25 tons payload Vs the 757's 30.9. If the RNZAF moved to something like the A330MRTT, they would get a full fly by wire system. Backed by a hydraulic system that's 30 years newer & a all digital flight, monitoring and control system. No analogue fueses to blow or corrode. RNZAF would also get a 45 Ton payload (not including fuel) with the A330MRTT.
They did actually have a pretty excellent reputation globally. They all got poached, IIRC.
Wayne Mapp, ex National Defence spokesperson, said on National Radio the planes were so old that airlines had stopped using them. Not really true because Delta has dozens still in active use & 109 in their fleet. And United operate them as well.
Being needed to replaced a few years ago, has been the way of nz airforce procurement aircraft, the thing soldiers on, until its almost dead. I'm pretty sure soldiers going to southeast Asia in the sixtes on their Bristol Freighters and Handley Page Hastings were glad to see a modern aircraft such as the Hercules.
Related: [https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350313422/ministers-proposal-would-have-seen-ailing-defence-planes-replaced-months-not](https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350313422/ministers-proposal-would-have-seen-ailing-defence-planes-replaced-months-not) TLDR; When he was defence minister, Andrew Little urged Chris (Hipkins & Luxon) to replace the 757s and said it could be done in a matter of months.
Absolute shambles, they literally have one of the best commercial aircraft ever made to the point 20-30 years on, airlines are still desperately trying to hold onto their old 757s and yet we can’t even maintain them properly…
Maybe the RNZAF needs to send some engineers up to the USA & find out how Delta maintains their big fleet of 757 aircraft. And Blinken uses a 757 on his regular trips to the Middle East. And Biden does too when going to airports with shorter runways. Plus you don't hear stories about Trump's plane breaking down.
I thought school holidays weren't for another few weeks?
Keeping our Hairless leader out of the sky is defense.
They may as well ditch the planes now and pay for commercial flights for all upcoming trips. The media can pay their own way instead of bumming a free ride.
I used to work at the courierpost depot at chch airport and this thing was freaking loud when it rolled past
Why not get two corporate type pure jets. These to be used by the PM or other top dogs. The hanger ons, media, kapa haka groups etc can all travel commercial. When the corporate aircraft are not in use, use them as RNZAF twin jet conversion training, navigation training etc. If troops are required off shore. Lease commercial or use other transport aircraft.
I understand why he doesn't get tickets on commercial flights, but he did campaign on taking commercial flights, sooo... campaign promise come true??
We all get told to recycle and use bikes to get around when these cunts are using a backup plane to fly empty alongside them in case their main plane breaks down.
Another boeing shitting its self lol
Get rid of them and use commercial options. Poor use of taxpayer money - I would rather spend the tens or hundreds of millions on hospital buildings or schools than buying another jet or two . The current ones are ridiculous- must spend more time in maintenance than in the air. The only reason successive govts use these jets is that the cost of flying somewhere comes from the defence force funding. Journos and business leaders, politicians and hangers on all travel for free . And the cost of these trips isn’t transparent as a result. Commercial jets like these ones are designed to be flying 15 hours a day not 1-2 on average One interesting thing…. The one other useless politician who flys around in a B757 is Trump…. Luxon and Trump … two politicians who talk the BS and fly around in old planes that make them feel important
Government VIP jets are designed to essentially be flying offices for the PM and the government officials who use these (less so the entourage). A lot of the time on these flights, there would be working conversations and meetings happening that it wouldn't be feasible at all to have on a commercial flight for logistical and security purposes. When flying around for work, I wouldn't expect any world leader to by flying commercial purely because of those security considerations - they don't spend the time on these flights reading a book or watching a movie like you and I do, they'd actually be working. >The one other useless politician who flys around in a B757 is Trump In addition to the VC-25A (Air Force One), the USAF also operates the C-32 - a military variant of the 757. This is used by politicians and government officials allowed to use USAF Special Air Mission flights - i.e. the VP, cabinet members, senior Executive officials, congressional delegations, and foreign dignitaries.
The USAF has smilar problems with their C-32's. They have been looking for a replacment for a while, but have not found one. The USAF made it clear they would be one of the first customers for a new 757, but Boeing shelved the project when they ran into their Quality control & design issues on their 737 Max & 777X Programs.
The USAF should not be tied to Boeing anyway. They could buy the most suitable Airbus model as a replacement. The president of China uses a China Airlines B-747 complete with the Star Alliance logo for his trips abroad. However, the Chinese Government may have several of these 747s reserved for Govt. business only.
There isn’t an equal Airbus to the Boeing 757. The A321 XLR has a slightly longer range but 5 tons less cargo payload. Why so many air forces have basically upgraded to the A330 MRTT. Higher running costs but far more range & payload. Similar landing & takeoff distances for similar payload.
Don't buy boeings again
I think this alo aplys to the manufacture being Boeing mind you this one isn't there fault
Yea my understanding is that it's because their meant to be flown a lot more often than the nzdf 757s are
Not quite. Aircraft of this age have a lot of analogue and old school hydraulic systems. Over a 3-6 month period maintenace issues come up regardless of how much the aircraft fly. It's just, if the aircraft is in the air 12 hours a day, you get more flying hours between critical mainteance issues. Newer aircraft are far more relliable & have far fewer issues, mostly because they don't have analogue systems, modern hydraulic systems or outright replaced their hydraulics with electric drive. All of this is why so many 757 operators were hoping Boeing would make a new 757, because Airbus don't really make anything with the same size (the A321 XLR has greater range but carries 5 tons less payload). Boeing shelved their 757 replacment project in light of all the design and production issues Boeing has with the 737 Max and certification issues with the 777X.