Extension of airport departure lounge

Press, 9 August 1985, Page 5

Extension of airport departure lounge

The new 767 Air New Zealand service has prompted the Christchurch City Council to extend the present international departure lounge area. Present overcrowding and the expected numbers of passengers in transit made a larger area necessary, said the airport director, Mr Hugh McCarroll.

The alterations would enlarge the lounge by moving security equipment. Extra seats would be added to the lounge. The alterations were expected to cost $22,500 for building and $36,000 for seating.

Mr McCarroll told the council’s airport and electricity committee that the 767 service and the 8747 international service from Christchurch to Los Angeles,which would be coordinated with the 767 service, would bring about 100 transit passengers to the airport with each flight. These people had to remain in a customs control area. The only practical location was the departure lounge.

Cr Ron Wright queried such extensions in view of the Airport Master Plan being prepared.

These were alterations necessary to improve an inadequate area, Mr McCarroll said. He acknowledged that this was a makeshift solution, but said that the extended lounge could be included in the master plan. At present, there were 109

seats in the lounge. The alterations would provide 198 seats.

Cr Wright said the alterations, putting departing passengers in the international check-in area, would not help congestion there. Cr Rex Lester queried the need for a larger lounge. He was told there could be as many as 200 people in the lounge if a full 767 flight travelled on to Los Angeles.

Mr McCarroll said there were no other areas to which the passengers could be taken. The only alternative was to keep people in the aircraft for three hours. Air New Zealand was considering taking V.I.P. passengers to its own lounge. That was a matter for the airline and customs. Customs wanted the passengers kept in a controlled area.

The new direct service to Los Angeles from Christchurch will be the subject of a $40,000 advertising campaign in Wellington and North America if the council follows the committee’s recommendation.

The committee approved yesterday a campaign to attract Wellington people to leave New Zealand through Christchurch rather than Auckland.

The campaign, involving radio and television time in Wellington and in newspaper space, could use a Christchurch identity such as the Mayor. Mr McCarroll estimated

the campaign would cost between $25,000 and $30,000. He had discussed it with the company handling Air New Zealand’s advertising of the service. The company had planned a combined package.

He had also discussed a North American campaign to tell travel agencies of the service. An estimated $lO,OOO would allow a presentation of a report in colour, and a colour book on the South Island to these agencies.

A high-quality presentation would place the service before the agents who could build their own package deals round it, he said. Cr John Burn objected to spending $40,000 of a $60,000 budget for advertising on one service for one airline. Air New Zealand could well afford to pay for advertising the service, he said.

The airline was making “scandalous” profits on domestic services. This money could be used, Cr Burn said.

Cr Morgan Fahey said the council would do the same for any airline. It was advertising a service and a destination, not an airline. Cr Alex Clark said he believed the Canterbury Promotion Council, to which the council had passed promotion responsibilities, should contribute material for the report to American agencies. He said the council should perhaps contribute financially also.