Air New Zealand Air Points - Kiwis pay top dollar on Air NZ

Air New Zealand has been left scrambling to explain why Kiwis are charged hundreds - even thousands - of dollars more than British passengers for the same flights.

A customer based in Britain who books online a return economy-class flight from London to Auckland will pay much less than a New Zealand-based traveller who books the same journey in reverse on Air New Zealand's website at the same time.

The price disparity can vary wildly, but a standard round-trip between Auckland and Heathrow via Los Angeles will set a New Zealand-based passenger back $500 more for an economy seat, $1500 more for a SkyCouch upgrade, $2100 more for a premium economy seat and $3000 in business class.

In a written statement, Air New Zealand public affairs manager Tracy Smeaton explained it was currently the low season for people from the Northern Hemisphere travelling here, and New Zealanders would enjoy a comparative price difference during the Northern Hemisphere winter. But a survey of prices on Air New Zealand's website showed the price gaps were consistent all year round.

Smeaton later said: "We are a commercial operation and supply and demand are the basic factors which determine the price of any product."

She said the eurozone crisis also impacted the UK market and Air New Zealand had to price its flights to attract British customers who might be considering closer destinations.

She added that Air New Zealand spent $100 million on promoting the country to foreign tourists - an investment that benefited New Zealanders downstream.

New Zealand-based frequent flyer Andrew Flanagan, who discovered the anomaly when researching fares for his family of four, described the situation as "an absolute farce".

"I thought, 'Holy moly, what are they doing here?' It's ridiculous. Are New Zealanders subsidising the cost of British people coming here?

"New Zealanders go to Air New Zealand because they think the company looks after them. But they are not treating us well."

Flanagan said he would not fly with Air New Zealand again, out of principle. "You often hear about how New Zealand is a small country in the middle of the Pacific and there's extra costs, but we're talking about the same flights."

NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818060)

Easily rewritten as:
"Aussies pay top dollar on Qantas"
"Canucks pay top dollar on Air Canada"

Must be a slow news day, and Mr Flanagan might consider doing a bit more research before changing his booking habits.

Easily rewritten as:
"Aussies pay top dollar on Qantas"
"Canucks pay top dollar on Air Canada"

Must be a slow news day, and Mr Flanagan might consider doing a bit more research before changing his booking habits.

What? It's true, even the PR/spin doctor women from NZ admitted it. Oh to be to person who doesn't like being ripped off by a national airline.

I consider myself to be like Mr Flanagan and will never fly NZ to Europe again, after I actually did do some research and discovered their extreme price gauging compared to other airlines ex AKL

Gone are the days where there is a obligation by Kiwi's to stay Dave Dobbyn "Loyal" to NZ

yeah lets carry on bashing our airline...

seriosuly all carriers are more expensive from australasia - europe return vs europe australaisia return.

Simple commercial reality - europeans have many choices of destination NZ aussie must compete.

As for the NZ is a rip off - cry cry - well the international business is still not earning cost of capital. Perhaps people would be happy if nz cut HKG-LHR and the lowest NZ-LHR fares to focus on other markets.

Worst. article. ever.

I actually did do some research and discovered their extreme price gauging compared to other airlines ex AKL

Comparison shopping similar flights on different airlines ex-AKL? Sensible.
Comparing ex-AKL and ex-LHR fares? Complete nonsense.

yeah lets carry on bashing our airline...

seriosuly all carriers are more expensive from australasia - europe return vs europe australaisia return.

Simple commercial reality - europeans have many choices of destination NZ aussie must compete.

As for the NZ is a rip off - cry cry - well the international business is still not earning cost of capital. Perhaps people would be happy if nz cut HKG-LHR and the lowest NZ-LHR fares to focus on other markets.

Worst. article. ever.
Mmmmm.

You're the poster who advocates Seats To Suit as a marvellous invention because it (allegedly) lowered fares and allowed the airline to increase volumes of sales.

Now you are arguing that long-haul fares should be inflated because the long-haul division isn't making money. (Without any discussion about which parts of the long-haul division aren't making money, which would be Japan, Hong Kong and China, not North America or the UK.)

So what are you really in favour of? Yields or volumes? Because your own prior arguments can be used to argue that inflated fares to the UK and North America are reducing demand. Now you could argue that North American demand is inelastic, because NZ has a monopoly. But it certainly doesn't for the UK and Europe, so high prices may well be driving passengers to Emirates and Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, and the (dis)loyalty program certainly isn't providing any protection.

And finally, yes if I still cared I would be quite in favour of HKG-LHR being closed. It was always a line-ball decision between HKG-LHR or SFO-LHR, and the last few years have shown that the wrong extension sector was chosen.

Easily rewritten as:
"Aussies pay top dollar on Qantas"
"Canucks pay top dollar on Air Canada"

Must be a slow news day, and Mr Flanagan might consider doing a bit more research before changing his booking habits.

This was exactly my first reaction when I read this article earlier today.

Slow news day.

So what are you really in favour of? Yields or volumes? Because your own prior arguments can be used to argue that inflated fares to the UK and North America are reducing demand. Now you could argue that North American demand is inelastic, because NZ has a monopoly. But it certainly doesn't for the UK and Europe, so high prices may well be driving passengers to Emirates and Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, and the (dis)loyalty program certainly isn't providing any protection.

And finally, yes if I still cared I would be quite in favour of HKG-LHR being closed. It was always a line-ball decision between HKG-LHR or SFO-LHR, and the last few years have shown that the wrong extension sector was chosen.

1stly I am in favour of profit maximisation not yields or volume. Throughout the world LCC's are proving that the lower service lower cost model is more profitable on shorter predominantly leisure orientated flights.

I am a huge fan of NZ's move to become a hybrid carrier (NOT A LCC!!!) and commend them for the profitability turn around on TT routes vs heavy competion.

I don't believe NZ should cut prices to unprofitable levels to pursue the budget traveller to London. The reality is NZ is at a competitive disadvantage on this route against carriers with a380s and lower costs.

Re SFO-LHR you may well be right but there is far more business travel between AKL-HKG and HKG-LHR than SFO which is a seasonal leisure market. I would like to see further co-operation with VS and have VS operate LHR-HKG taking over NZ's schedule so that connections are good. As I have also said I favour AKL-IAH and believe NZ has a significant comeptitive advantage over Jetstar and Qantas, or any US airline in operating to the US. Instead of being at the limits of range as for QF NZ can comfortably deploy 777s with good cargo too.

I don't believe NZ should cut prices to unprofitable levels to pursue the budget traveller to London. The reality is NZ is at a competitive disadvantage on this route against carriers with a380s and lower costs.
Which would be one competitor - which makes it a two-stop journey.
Re SFO-LHR you may well be right but there is far more business travel between AKL-HKG and HKG-LHR than SFO which is a seasonal leisure market.
The NZ, Australian, and US tech industries might be surprised to hear that about SFO. Suspect there's actually more business-oriented traffic in AKL-SFO than there is in AKL-LAX; especially since QF don't fly to SFO any longer.

1stly I am in favour of profit maximisation not yields or volume. Throughout the world LCC's are proving that the lower service lower cost model is more profitable on shorter predominantly leisure orientated flights.

I am a huge fan of NZ's move to become a hybrid carrier (NOT A LCC!!!) and commend them for the profitability turn around on TT routes vs heavy competion.

I don't believe NZ should cut prices to unprofitable levels to pursue the budget traveller to London. The reality is NZ is at a competitive disadvantage on this route against carriers with a380s and lower costs.

Re SFO-LHR you may well be right but there is far more business travel between AKL-HKG and HKG-LHR than SFO which is a seasonal leisure market. I would like to see further co-operation with VS and have VS operate LHR-HKG taking over NZ's schedule so that connections are good. As I have also said I favour AKL-IAH and believe NZ has a significant comeptitive advantage over Jetstar and Qantas, or any US airline in operating to the US. Instead of being at the limits of range as for QF NZ can comfortably deploy 777s with good cargo too.

So 3-stop to London on Emirates is more efficient than 1-stop on Air New Zealand?
I see!

And SFO is a seasonal leisure market?
I must go for a holiday in that Silicon Valley resort place. I'd avoid all those serious business types who spoil Disneyland and Universal Studios.

And codeshared VS-operated NZ-coded NZ-ticketed flights SFO-LHR and HKG-LHR?
Great. I love paying $12,000 for a Business Class ticket which earns Zero Status Points. It always makes me feel that the airline really treasures my loyalty.

Stop feeding the troll.:td:
If you do not like what they say you can always use the "Ignore Poster" function, which only really works if someone does not "Quote" them.:(

Easily rewritten as:
"Aussies pay top dollar on Qantas"
"Canucks pay top dollar on Air Canada"

Must be a slow news day, and Mr Flanagan might consider doing a bit more research before changing his booking habits.

In that case, why don't Yankees pay top dollar for AA/UA/DL?

You've answered it yourself: three huge companies in one market.

This was exactly my first reaction when I read this article earlier today.

Slow news day.

It might be well known to you and I, but not to the average NZ Herald reader.

This is is an issue that we'd all be a lot better off if people understood it better. The average NZer doesn't *know* that they're getting ripped off.

$2472 to GVA return (including the hop across the ditch) for May next year. Thanks EY........just saying.

Now you could argue that North American demand is inelastic, because NZ has a monopoly.

It's true that I'm just off a long journey, so my comprehension is not at its peak, but how does NZ having a monopoly (supply side of the market) tell us about the slope of the demand curve?

Also, I suspect that the SFO route is somewhat about the connecting traffic at either end as much as "business" or "leisure" in the origin/destination cities.

It might be well known to you and I, but not to the average NZ Herald reader.

This is is an issue that we'd all be a lot better off if people understood it better. The average NZer doesn't *know* that they're getting ripped off.

Not quite.
Every year there are many people that drive to BLI/SEA to avoid being ripped off at the Canadian prices for flights.
I've even agreed with one SEA local to get free parking in SEA (the city) (and I give the same to him in YVR if he needs it)

Not quite.
Every year there are many people that drive to BLI/SEA to avoid being ripped off at the Canadian prices for flights.
I've even agreed with one SEA local to get free parking in SEA (the city) (and I give the same to him in YVR if he needs it)

Sorry, I'm confused as to how this conversation got from New Zealand to Canada.

:mad:

Last week I was looking at a one way ticket to UK, and was buying my return ticket via UK website as it is/was cheaper, other FT do the same thing, seems like Air NZ have been reading this forum as NOW if you do a dummy booking the oneway fare has increased by approx $600 nz for PE, if you can get a seat, through HK there are no oneway seats, yet if you book a return ticket, seats suddenly are available for the same date/day???

Come on Air NZ, do you want to lose another customer :td:

Serfty have you had this lately?