Airways NZ

[Marshal007]

I just randomly remembered when Airways New Zealand used the COVID traffic drop to justify closing seven towers for good, they laid off a bunch of staff, too. The line that stuck with me was, "It's simply not viable… where there are no passenger flights." It didn't feel temporar, it felt like a permanent cut they'd been waiting to make.

 

[SushiGang]

I just randomly remembered when Airways New Zealand used the COVID traffic drop to justify closing seven towers for good, they laid off a bunch of staff, too. The line that stuck with me was, "It's simply not viable… where there are no passenger flights." It didn't feel temporar, it felt like a permanent cut they'd been waiting to make.

agree 100%! 'No passenger flights' was the perfect cover for a permanent restructuring. Felt like a cold, calculated move they just needed an excuse for

 

[Marshal007]

Exactly, it really felt like they seized the moment to make cuts they wanted all along. COVID just gave them the perfect cover to downsize permanently

 

[Traffic.warden]

Felt like they used the drop in traffic as the perfect excuse to make long term cuts they'd already been eyeing, saying not viable was such a cold, calculated line, especially for services that communities had relied on for decades

 

[80-Lister]

I just randomly remembered when Airways New Zealand used the COVID traffic drop to justify closing seven towers for good, they laid off a bunch of staff, too. The line that stuck with me was, "It's simply not viable… where there are no passenger flights." It didn't feel temporar, it felt like a permanent cut they'd been waiting to make.

This period raised tough questions for many regional airports about access and long term sustainability. Some of the towers supported passenger traffic, medevac, and firefighting flights. Did any affected locations ever push back or appeal to keep their tower services?

 

[Marshal007]

Felt like they used the drop in traffic as the perfect excuse to make long term cuts they'd already been eyeing, saying not viable was such a cold, calculated line, especially for services that communities had relied on for decades

Yup that line felt like a mask for a decision already made. It wasn't just about viability, it was about opportunity. COVID gave them the cover to pull the trigger on deep, lasting cuts

This period raised tough questions for many regional airports about access and long term sustainability. Some of the towers supported passenger traffic, medevac, and firefighting flights. Did any affected locations ever push back or appeal to keep their tower services?

Yes, some communities did push back, local councils, aviation groups, and emergency services raised concerns. But without strong passenger numbers, most appeals didn't gain traction, economic arguments outweighed operational nuance in almost every case

 

[80-Lister]

Yes, some communities did push back, local councils, aviation groups, and emergency services raised concerns. But without strong passenger numbers, most appeals didn't gain traction, economic arguments outweighed operational nuance in almost every case

The confirmation that economic arguments officially won over operational needs is the key detail in the whole situation. It paints a clear picture of how infrastructure decisions are weighted, even when services like medevac and firefighting are part of the equation. Now that global air traffic has largely recovered, has there been any new push to re-evaluate these closures? What kind of uncontrolled airspace procedures or remote services were implemented as a replacement for the towers?