Air New Zealand Air Points - Air NZ Express launches - flying never cheaper

Check out the all new Air NZ website at http://www.airnz.co.nz http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Wow!

Looks like I will have to go to NZ to see what the fuss is all about ;-)

$59 for AKL CHC is certainly good.

But how long will this price last and how many tickets at this price ?
AIRNZBOY:- what class of travel is this?

In Oz the authority have made the airline's show the complete full price with all the add inn's included so not to deceive the public

An insurance surcharge is part of the AIZNZ internal cost’s so should have it included in the $59

The $59 is not $59 but $59 + $5 + $2 + $2.80 =$68.80 (16% more than the advertised price)



------------------
*******
to travel, to fly, to get the miles --> and so it goes on

In NZ, we abide by the NZ rules of disclosure.

59 plus levies is better than 309 plus levies. How about we concentrate on that aspect for this thread?

These prices are the new fare structure - in other words, indefinite. As for how many seats per flight are allocated to the rock bottom price, that as always remains a commercial secret - the only thing that's been made public is that a much higher percentage than ever before will be available at the entry level prices.




------------------
*Any information given in the email is my personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4811468%255E1702,00.html

AIR New Zealand has cut ticket prices for flights within New Zealand by an average of 20 per cent with its new no-frills domestic fares.

Its single-class domestic Express service, which starts flying in November, will replace full meals and drink selections with a snack, tea, coffee and water.

Express will replace the present business and economy class flights in an effort to boost Air New Zealand's sales and return to profit.

It competes domestically against Australian carrier Qantas.

Air New Zealand managing director Ralph Norris said fares on the main trunk route will drop by about 28 per cent, and by an average of 20 per cent over the whole domestic network.

"Today's announcement on fares represents the most significant fare reduction program yet undertaken by Air New Zealand across its domestic services," he said.

The airline said its budget flyer Freedom Air will leave the domestic market, concentrating on trans-Tasman flights.

Agence France-Presse




------------------
~ Glen ~

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
In NZ, we abide by the NZ rules of disclosure. </font>

When talking/selling/advertising to Australians (even if it's for domestic NZ flights), you might consider abiding by the AU rules of disclosure. Your company is http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR AIR NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMERS

ACCC Ruling

For Australian regional customers, please note that due to the new ACCC ruling on all inclusive pricing, price changes are currently being amended on our website. Updated pricing will include Australian taxes, charges and levies. Fares may also change due to changes in the itinerary or fluctuations in the exchange rate. In addition, other taxes may also apply in other countries.




[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 07-31-2002).]

New website? Feh! A new front page does not a new site make http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

According to the site, newly qualified Gold Elites still get two domestic upgrades (which are valid for 12 months). What am I supposed to do with those when I receive them, hmmmmm? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

justakiwi

Quokka - Thanks for the input, but these fares are only for sale to NZ residents (or SITI) at the moment.



------------------
*Any information given in the email is my personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer.

I find it rather amazing that noone has actually commented on how you feel about the actual fares. Sometimes I feel I exist only on this site to get jumped on by Quokka at every opportunity.

Do any of you have any comment about the fares themselves?



------------------
*Any information given in the email is my personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer.

AirNZBoy,

I think the new fares are great - especially as I will have to do a few trips from AKL to Wellington when I make it home next year to show the new baby off to its grandparents.

I've never understood the fuss about service on NZ domestic flights - at the risk of being rude, I always thought Ansett was better. The new fare base means that all will be foregiven, as you can't (and I won't) expect full service at the no-frills price. I just hope it works and is profitable for Air NZ, so that no changes are made to the excellent international service.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:

Do any of you have any comment about the fares themselves?

</font>

Well, I have 2 questions.

1. Does one earn Air NZ miles and/or Star Alliance miles, as one does not on Freedom Air AFAIK. If these fares REPLACE Freedom Air flights as per article above, that is a key question for anyone here I imagine?

2. If they are web buyable how on earth is it possible to restrict them to NZ residents?


------------------
~ Glen ~

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:

Do any of you have any comment about the fares themselves?

</font>

The fares look very good, even when compared to Go and EasyJet's on routes of similar length here in Europe - and those airlines don't offer points or any kind of complementary snack service. Even the cut-priced BA fares are much more than these, AirNZ's done well to get to the point where it can offer fares this low. I just hope that there are no plans along the line to cut the excellent service on the international routes - there are already plenty of cheap tickets to NZ/Oz from Europe (Thai, MAS, Korean, Chinese something etc.) but AirNZ's service is always worth paying more for.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:

1. Does one earn Air NZ miles and/or Star Alliance miles, as one does not on Freedom Air AFAIK. If these fares REPLACE Freedom Air flights as per article above, that is a key question for anyone here I imagine?

</font>

AFAIK, these flights do earn miles (and I think AirNZ is marketing this as one of the benefits of Express), but exactly how many is yet to be announced (along with "great changes to the Airpoints program" which I'm feeling a little uneasy about)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:

According to the site, newly qualified Gold Elites still get two domestic upgrades (which are valid for 12 months). What am I supposed to do with those when I receive them, hmmmmm?

</font>

I gave mine to an Inflight Service Director who I know, based here in the UK, I think he sent them to some friends in Auckland. I would think that you'd have no trouble getting rid of them in NZ at the moment, as they're transferable and lots of people would like to try AirNZ's domestic biz for the last time. Hopefully they'll soon start sending the packs with an extra international cert or two instead http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Cheers, Zac

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Zaco:
The fares look very good, even when compared to Go and EasyJet's on routes of similar length here in Europe - and those airlines don't offer points [...]
</font>

And neither does NZ on these fares:

fare conditions

Air Points FARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AIR POINTS ACCRUAL, UPGRADES OR COMPANION TICKETS
Cancellation NO REFUND
Baggage Restrictions 20KGS PER PERSON
Changes CHANGES/UPGRADES NOT PERMITTED
Endorsement 1 VALID NZ ONLY
Endorsement 2 NONEND/NONREF/NO CHANGES

Hey well I think its great http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I fly to AKL/WLG return about once a month for the weekend and up till now I've paid $205 (at best) for a return ticket with NZ.

I always book online but from November, with taxes, I can do that trip for around $138 return, saving me around $68.

Yes I wont get the airpoints, or a nice breakfast, but I can live without that. The fact that the fares dont have the same level of restrictions is also a big plus. I think they have done the right thing, and I hope they will be rewarded for doing so.

I'm also glad they are taking on the travel agents, as Ralph Norris said last night, the travel agents make good returns, so do the airports, now its about time the airlines brought that balance back a little bit.

AirNZ boy, please tell your friends at work that the people in my work place this morning all think its a great move. We may all have to fly QF for work here, but we are all agreed that NZ are better for service by a long shot.

Jetkid http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
Do any of you have any comment about the fares themselves?</font>

They're cheaper. Cheaper is GOOD http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I don't have a problem with meals & C-class going away either, nor with not earning any points for these short hops.

I do hope the kms flown still count towards status renewal, though. "It's been a long road, getting from there to here.." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

justakiwi

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Quokka:
When talking/selling/advertising to Australians (even if it's for domestic NZ flights), you might consider abiding by the AU rules of disclosure. Your company is http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR AIR NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMERS

ACCC Ruling

For Australian regional customers, please note that due to the new ACCC ruling on all inclusive pricing, price changes are currently being amended on our website. Updated pricing will include Australian taxes, charges and levies. Fares may also change due to changes in the itinerary or fluctuations in the exchange rate. In addition, other taxes may also apply in other countries.

</font>

Quokka, AirNZ do comply with that ruling on their Australian website, however this discussion is about their NZ website - in NZ the custom (for better or worse) is to quote fares exclusive of tax etc (see www.qantas.co.nz (http://www.qantas.co.nz) for another example).

OK, my two cents worth re the new fares/website/Express service: Those Smart Saver fares sure are cheap - well done, AirNZ http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif On the whole I like the new look website, though it is a bit text-heavy. Great that arrivals/departures info is now shown for all airports http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif Pleased to hear there's still a beverage service - and what does 'snack' mean? Does this mean we still get a muffin or something with our cuppa? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif (I think!) Low cost style one-way fares / no Saturday stay restrictions for return fares is great http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif OK, the good news had to end sometime. No AirPoints accrual on Smart Saver fares - this gets a big http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif I didn't expect full mileage accrual, but given the promise in their original Express Class press release (http://www.airnz.co.nz/mediacentre/pressreleases/index.jsp?articleId=21965&pid=12001) that "The Air Points programme will be modified to provide more points earning opportunities for frequent domestic flyers using the new Express service" I do think we had the right to expect something. Given the generosity of the QF programme's 1,000 point minimum, something along the lines of 50% mileage/300point minimum for Smart Savers, with 100%/600 points for Flexi Savers and 125%/1000 points for Fully Flexis would make sense to me. I do see AirNZ's reasoning though - most of the market will fly based on price, which makes the choice a no-brainer. Those paying the extra for a Flexi Saver still have to pay a minimum $60 change fee, which seems a little steep.

Overall, though, I'm impressed. Let's hope NZ can make money domestically with those sort of fare levels!

airnzboy, thanks for alerting us to the announcement. In a way it is not surprising that there's some negative reaction on this board - although the new fare structure should certainly appeal to the business market (buying flexible fares) and the budget market (buying Smart Savers), those for whom it has the least to offer are cheapskate frequent-flyer addicts like myself and many others here! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Edited for my usual UBB problems http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by mad_atta (edited 07-31-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mwenenzi:
$59 for AKL CHC is certainly good.
</font>

AirNZBoy: See my first comment above

The quantity of seats is important
A bit like a shop advertising goods for sale but only having 10 items in stock at 1 shop but 1000 customers

Full disclosure to customers is important. Just because in Kiwiland its not done in some business does not make it right or fair to the travelling public

How long a supermarket would last in business if the actual price paid was 16% more than the sticker price on the shelves



------------------
*******
to travel, to fly, to get the miles --&gt; and so it goes on

PS: airnzboy, YGM. Or at least you would have, except your mailbox is full! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1284947a10,FF.html

Air deals - are we being duped?
01 August 2002

By MARY ANNE GILL
Air New Zealand has announced it has slashed its domestic fares. But you need to read the fine print.

Air travellers, wooed by Air New Zealand's new cut-price fares, are being urged to check the opposition and the final price before buying.

The national airline yesterday announced it was slashing domestic fares from November 1 by up to 28 percent in return for a no-frills, no meals service.

Air NZ, now mostly state-owned, is advertising prices such as a $69 one-way fare from Hamilton to Wellington if passengers book online.

But the actual price is higher, because a $5 insurance surcharge and a $2 domestic passenger levy up the cost to $76.

Bookings must be made online and the cheap tickets can't be changed, are non-refundable and don't contribute to air points.

Consumer watchdog David Russell today said it was time airline companies were "straight up" with their advertising.

"While there's a lot of hype about the very low prices, there are conditions and the extras are added on."

Travellers opting to book through an Air NZ Travelcentre or on 0800 737 000 will be charged a $10 service fee. That would increase the airline's promoted Hamilton to Wellington $69 fare to $86 each way.
Online demand for the tickets was so high this morning that the Air NZ's website froze. By lunchtime the problem was fixed.
After the deal was announced yesterday, the site had more than 30,000 hits, and Air NZ's 0800 number more than 10,000 calls.

Air NZ's only domestic opposition out of Hamilton, Nelson-based Origin Pacific, is advertising its one-way flights to Wellington for $95. That includes all the add-ons.

The Travel Agents Association of New Zealand moved to take some of the gloss off Air NZ's announcement by launching a campaign against it. It warned consumers that the advertised fares were misleading and could be undercut.
The travel agents are protesting Air NZ's decision to axe their 4 percent commission in favour of online booking. The association placed an open letter in the Waikato Times today urging the travelling public to use travel agents and warning them against online booking.

Air NZ managing director Ralph Norris said the fares were not a one-off special and represented a new brand of budget flights designed to fend off competition.
Mr Russell said despite the extras, the fares still represented good value.
"It's the beginning of a new era for air travel in New Zealand. Air travel has been pretty exclusive. It's now going to be reduced. We used to catch trains and buses, now we'll catch planes. It could open up a whole new market."

Travel agents' futures rested on the service they would offer, he said.

"Qantas and some of the smaller airlines are not going to take that sitting down. They're going to be matching them, they'll be bettering them."

I think the changes are great, although I am sceptical about the new changes to AirPoints that are mooted and what if anything will compensate Gold Elites from loosing their domestic upgrade coupons. I know whinge whinge whinge, but I do think NZ have to get something out ASAP that reassures people about what is happening with Air Points. Remember it was only back in 1998 that you received no points or credit for domestic travel.

Of interest though. I note that all fares have the condition "Connections to international services are not permitted on this fare type", so I wonder;
(1) how are people to travel on an international connexion or RTW and;
(2) honesty how would NZ stop people from buying the international fare ex AKL and then a cheap add-on and collect their bags and walk back to checkin.

Of course we still have qantas that offers cheap fares, full service, free upgrades, and 1000 airpoints. Of course you miss out of the friendly service, smiles, support of a local carrier. Time will tell http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

A great move to reduce the cost of travel and I personally saw the food, free drinks (even in economy!) and the like on the 45 min CHC/WLG flight as slightly over the top.

Mark

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mad_atta:
Quokka, AirNZ do comply with that ruling on their Australian website, however this discussion is about their NZ website - in NZ the custom (for better or worse) is to quote fares exclusive of tax etc </font>

Actually AirNZ don't comply (yet) on their Australian website with the ACC ruling. They however said they will start to do so and are in the process of changing.

b.t.w. the AirNZ text quoted about the ACC ruling came off the airnz.co.nz site.

While AirNZ's custom in NZ is currently to quote fares exclusive of tax and insurance surcharges, I'm fairly certain the Australian ACC ruling along with competitive and public pressure will help lead NZ (both country and airline) towards doing the right thing and follow the Aussies w.r.t. all inclusive airfare pricing.

It's pretty much inevitable -- just a matter of when. So Air NZ have an opportunity to lead and just get on with inclusive pricing in NZ as well or they can continue to claim "custom" while starring as the AU/NZ newspapers' posterchild for misleading airfare advertising.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:

Well, I have 2 questions.

1. Does one earn Air NZ miles and/or Star Alliance miles, as one does not on Freedom Air AFAIK. If these fares REPLACE Freedom Air flights as per article above, that is a key question for anyone here I imagine?

2. If they are web buyable how on earth is it possible to restrict them to NZ residents?


</font>

AIRNZBOY .. you DID ask for questions. Hello?? Silence. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif



------------------
~ Glen ~

Personally, I prefer a full-service airline. It doesn't cost that much more to provide decent service and FF points and I'm usually prepared to pay the difference.

Similar to questions already asked:

a) What prices do those of us outside NZ get?
b) What happens to those who book RTW or other international connecting flights in business or first class? (Clearly, the answer is they're deprived of the level of service they are paying for over the NZ domestic part of their trip.)
c) What happens about upgrade certificates that are now useless?

Sorry for the delay in answering the questions - I do have to work occasionally http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Air Points will be earned on the 'Flexi Saver' and 'Fully Flexi' fare levels. The lowest level ('Smart Savers' - K/G/S/L class) won't earn airpoints, as this was one of the 'frills' that was removed to drive prices as low as possible for the non-frequent flyer market.

2. If they are web buyable how on earth is it possible to restrict them to NZ residents?

Because you're all 100% honest and would never purchase a fare that was only intended for your neighbours http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Of course, it's impossible to restrict them if you choose to be creative with the truth when ticketing - however, NZ will hardly be sympathetic if you then run into problems and call them to plead your case!

b) What happens to those who book RTW or other international connecting flights in business or first class? (Clearly, the answer is they're deprived of the level of service they are paying for over the NZ domestic part of their trip.)

They would be accomodated in the only class of service available - economy. However, it's important to remember that this is consistent with other Star Carriers - when All Nippon or UA, for example, don't have Biz available, the rules of the CRWSTAR1 state:
"On sectors where first/business class is not offered/available at the time of booking, passengers will be accommodated in the next lower class. No refund will apply."

c) What happens about upgrade certificates that are now useless?

More announcements regarding Air Points are due later this month. I guess it's 'watch this space' for now.




------------------
*Any information given in the email is my personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer.

AKL - CHC is now listed as $69 plus $5 + $2+ $2.80

A few days ago was this listed as $59 plus plus etc, or I am mistaken ?

The stupid thing for Air NZ management is that they could have advertised the TRUE price, gotten a lot of kudos and not all this negative publicity. Even with the "plus plus plus" the fares are still good value for most people.

[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-02-2002).]

You're mistaken.

The difficulty with the taxes is that they vary - ie, you can fly AKL-DUD direct or via CHC, in which case the tax/levy total will be different. You can fly to Invercargill with one, two, or three stops. NZ could advertise the fare with the taxes for the most direct route, but people would still complain when they have to travel a different routing and the fares are different!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:

The difficulty with the taxes is that they vary - ie, you can fly AKL-DUD direct or via CHC, in which case the tax/levy total will be different. You can fly to Invercargill with one, two, or three stops. NZ could advertise the fare with the taxes for the most direct route, but people would still complain when they have to travel a different routing and the fares are different!</font>

Uh, so AirNZ might as well misinform/mislead all customers instead of a few? That's AirNZ's idea of best practices??

In NZ Origin Pacific quote "all-up" fares.

QF and DJ have committed to advertising fares in AU on an all inclusive basis.

Here's QF's undertaking to the ACCC:

http://www.accc.gov.au/pubreg/87b_2002/d02_33404.pdf

Even AirNZ will be using all inclusive pricing in Australia ... but not in NZ. One would hope AirNZ would strive to be an industry leader, not laggard, in its home market.

AirNZ treating Aussie's to better advertising and info than their NZ home market gets doesn't seem like leading ... or a terribly bright business decision.

As pointed out by Mwenenzi:

The stupid thing for Air NZ management is that they could have advertised the TRUE price, gotten a lot of kudos and not all this negative publicity. Even with the "plus plus plus" the fares are still good value for most people

Yep -- Air NZ could have easily kept the kudos and avoided some cudgels by leading instead of lagging on all-inclusive pricing.


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-02-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quokka:
[B] Uh, so AirNZ might as well misinform/mislead all customers instead of a few? That's AirNZ's idea of best practices??

I don't claim to speak for Air NZ on this forum - and attempt to clearly display that. If my words are going to be taken as Air NZ's official stance on anything, I will cease posting immediately.
You obviously feel strongly about this issue, so I suggest you contact those in NZ who can make a difference - unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
I don't claim to speak for Air NZ on this forum - and attempt to clearly display that.</font>

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that you do speak for Air NZ.

However if you, or anyone, gives a personal opinion or speculation on "difficulties" or factors that may (or may not) relate to Air NZ's policy or actions, they shouldn't be surprised or offended if others might comment or even disagree.

The understood position that you "don't speak for Air NZ" doesn't give you some strange immunity from having your comments commented upon.

That said, Air NZ's press releases and actions certainly do speak for Air NZ. And their actions (or rather inaction) on all-inclusive airfare pricing in NZ have spoken fairly loudly to some members of the public and press.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
You obviously feel strongly about this issue, so I suggest you contact those in NZ who can make a difference
</font>

I have http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
- unfortunately, I'm not one of them.
</font>

Old saying: Those who believe they can't make a difference are most certainly right.

Quokka, I never claimed *or* wanted immunity from comment on my postings. I was, however, genuinely concerned that after my posting giving my opinion of one of the reasons NZ didn't include taxes (the logistical nightmare of an ad saying 'AKL-IVC $135 including taxes except where you have to change aircraft in wellington in which case it's $145 but if you're on a jet not an ATR it's $150!') you replied saying 'Uh, so AirNZ might as well misinform/mislead all customers instead of a few? That's AirNZ's idea of best practices??' - leading me (perhaps foolishly) to believe that you were replying to my opinion assuming it was NZ's official position on the issue. I apologise if I assumed incorrectly.

Moving on, I guess you all read the reports about a ten-fold increase in online business and quadrupling of the normal daily turnover for NZ domestic reservations - better than anyone even dreamed of! This is despite the central reservations system being down for nearly 5 hours due to overload. Wow! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I think the answer to the above, lies not with NZ but with the add-hoc nature of security and taxes in NZ.

For example, while people will pay the $22 or $25 departure taxes for international flights, what about the $2 charge for use of PMR which has to be purchased at the bookshop! So there is another variable that NZ would have to include. While I agree with all inclusive pricing the muddle that NZ adverts at the moment would be with so many exclusions and conditions would be a mess!

Not to mention, the add-hoc nature that passenger carryon screening takes. For example, WLG where each gate has a screener thus delaying flights where a single central station would of been perfect. Or the regional airports such as ROT that when a jet lands have to clear people away from their lunch, tables etc etc to all go through a screening procedure. Whether they are catching that flight or not. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I think the whole NZ aviation market has to be streamlined and decisions made about is screening here to stay, are these levies permanent and some guidance as to how airlines should charge these to people.

Did you relaise that it is currently and for the future $2.80 cheaper to fly CHC/WLG on an ATR-500 than a 737, as the 737 is a "jet". Note if you change planes to the 737 no-one will tap you on the shoulder for $2.80. How does NZ show that in a advertisement without running an airplane identifcation programme! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

It is fairly evident that people who care about pricing such as Quoka totally understand the system. And the others who have bought an amazing amount of fares online over the past 3-4 days clearly do not care, but love the idea of not paying $800 to fly AKl/CHC/AKL in economy.

Personally my work and private budgets will much prefer the prices offered by NZ.

My only gripe and this is a major one, is that I feel that NZ should have rolled out the new FF programme at the same time as Express. Although given the massive problems they had with the relauch 3 years ago caution is probably the best answer.

Mark

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Koru Flyer:

Did you relaise that it is currently and for the future $2.80 cheaper to fly CHC/WLG on an ATR-500 than a 737, as the 737 is a "jet". Note if you change planes to the 737 no-one will tap you on the shoulder for $2.80. How does NZ show that in a advertisement without running an airplane identifcation programme! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
</font>

Several of these issues also occur in AU, yet they still got on with it. Check out item 3.2(b) of the Qantas undertaking in the link a few messages back and consider whether NZ could do as much on the issue.

Also a little background on the ACCC ruling -- Virgin Blue was one of the instigators prompting the ACCC to investigate and act. Think about what's likely to happen when Virgin Blue starts serving NZ, or if Origin Pacific gets motivated.

While the NZ Commerce Commission has in the past been less "activist" than the Australian CCC, the NZ Act in some ways is even more consumer oriented:

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/acts/fairact/ft.cfm

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
It is fairly evident that people who care about pricing such as Quoka totally understand the system. And the others who have bought an amazing amount of fares online over the past 3-4 days clearly do not care, but love the idea of not paying $800 to fly AKl/CHC/AKL in economy.
</font>

Now they really haven't had to pay $800 to fly AKL/CHC/AKL in economy have they? Especially when they're purchasing tickets 3 or more months in advance. Or considering they could possibly buy a QF redi-deal cheaply on as little as 4 hours notice.

While the initial idea prompted a front end rush, the more interesting questions concern what will happen in the longer run ...

Have Air NZ unintentionally persuaded some people to not fly them for 3 months? (I think quite possibly)

Will cutting agent commissions save more in costs than the revenue it loses?

Will NZ be able offset the loss of Business Class revenues via increased sales of lower priced coach tickets?

Will the $10+ extra to book some fares via Air NZ telephone reservations or Travelcentres prompt more people to use the web and allow NZ to save on staffing costs?

Will Air NZ escape claims of unfair predatory pricing lodged by coach/train/car companies?

Remember that several months ago Air NZ made noises complaining about Qantas' supposed predatory pricing. Now Air NZ comes out with pricing in some cases lower than that which they were complaining about. And unlike QF, Air NZ has the dominant market position in the domestic market and the possibility of a state bailout if they lose money if they engaged in predatory pricing.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Personally my work and private budgets will much prefer the prices offered by NZ.
</font>

You prefer the prices offered by NZ over what? The other prices offered by NZ? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The new NZ fares don't help anyone over the next 3 months during which QF's lowest fares and conditions (and points) on many routes still beat NZ lowest prices. And even after Nov 1st, Origin Pacific will still better NZ on some routes. QF has the possibility of responding too.

Executive summary: competition is good http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-03-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
.... one of the reasons NZ didn't include taxes (the logistical nightmare of an ad saying 'AKL-IVC $135 including taxes except where you have to change aircraft in wellington in which case it's $145 but if you're on a jet not an ATR it's $150!')</font>

The simple way one would be to list the TRUE price with a simple note "Flights that requires a change of aircraft or a different aircraft type will incur additional goverment taxes and charges"

People are going to be hit with these charges so why mislead ALL the people. Blaming the governeamnt gets Air NZ off the hook and Air NZ can then say "its not me but those guys in the Beehive"


[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-03-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Koru Flyer:
Did you relaise that it is currently and for the future $2.80 cheaper to fly CHC/WLG on an ATR-500 than a 737, as the 737 is a "jet". Note if you change planes to the 737 no-one will tap you on the shoulder for $2.80.</font>

If Air NZ listed the TRUE fare they could make the price the same irrespective of aircraft. Its a simple matter for yield management with a spreadsheet to estimate the likely tax liability based on aircraft type and likely load. If $2.80 is going to make that much difference to the bottom line of the accounts they should give up being an airline.

The other way is to pressure the major shareholder / government to simplify the system

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mwenenzi:
If Air NZ listed the TRUE fare they could make the price the same irrespective of aircraft. Its a simple matter for yield management with a spreadsheet to estimate the likely tax liability based on aircraft type and likely load. </font>

Yes, indeed. Other costs such as fuel, aircraft leases, staffing, insurance, baggage handling, landing fees, etc, etc all can vary depending on aircraft type and number of stops as well, yet Air NZ somehow keeps many base fares between city pairs the same whether you fly non-stop or not.

To claim they can't do the same with other costs is either laughable or sad.



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-03-2002).]

The simple way one would be to list the TRUE price with a simple note "Flights that requires a change of aircraft or a different aircraft type will incur additional goverment taxes and charges"

The current wording is "An insurance surcharge of $5 for each sector of your one way journey and CAA domestic passenger levy of $2 for each sector is payable in addition to the ticket price. A government security levy of $2.80 for each sector will apply (jet services only)."

Isn't this just swapping one lot of fine print for another? Perhaps management thinks educating the public that additional charges will apply no matter what route they take (and advertising it quite clearly as per the notes above) is better than incorporating it into the fare price except when a change of aircraft is involved, where it will be added on. At least the current method is relatively consistent.

BTW, I seem to remember the CAA domestic levy used to be included in the fare price, but a business decision was made to seperate it from the fare for greater transparency.

Regarding whether or not this new fare structure will be successful - IMO it's a huge gamble, but NZ were left with no other choice - couldn't have gone on the way they were, so had to strike out into the unknown.




------------------
*Any information given in the email is my personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
Isn't this just swapping one lot of fine print for another?</font>

Fine print??

Why, the NZ CCC specifically mentions fine print:

Fine print

Many advertisements include fine print sections containing details of conditions and qualifications. However, you must not use fine print to conceal important information which would be critical to people’s decision to buy your goods or services. Fine print cannot be used to modify a claim made in the “big print” or headline.


When a company prominently advertises one price, yet charges a higher price, that's misleading and/or deceptive. Especially when there are preconditions that make it completely impossible for a consumer to ever get the service advertised at the price prominently advertised.

In NZ misleading is legally defined as:

Mislead

This means “to lead astray in action or conduct; to lead into error; to cause to err”. A representation may be true but misleading.

And deceive:


Deceive

This means “to cause to believe what is false as to a matter of fact, to lead into error; to impose upon, delude, take in”.


Furthermore, in NZ:

• in most cases it is not relevant whether a trader intended to deceive or mislead, rather the issue is whether their actions did or could deceive or mislead;

So the "fine print" or "conditions apply" arguments won't wash.

Now all-inclusive pricing for flights means:

in any advertising that includes an airfare, that the fare includes all amounts payable by a consumer in respect of the fare as a necessary precondition to the suppy of the advertised services to the consumer

That's a lot of words for what's really a pretty simple concept. Now weigh the honesty of advertising airfares on an all-inclusive basis vs Air NZ's very prominent advertising of fares at which a consumer will never be able to buy the advertised service.

Some firms like to argue that various surcharges (ie costs) are broken out for "transparency" reasons. OK, but then why do the same firms obscure the most important price in the process -- what the consumer actually pays?

There is absolutely nothing in all-inclusive price advertising that prohibits "transparency". Air NZ can make "transparent" any component of the total fare they wish.

In any advertisement, any component amount or amounts that have been included in the total fare may be included. However the total fare shall be given equal or greater prominence to the component amounts, not obscured in "fine print".

And as for different aircraft and different routes incuring different costs to the airline, the best answer has already been mentioned -- work the variations of the expected costs into the fares. But if that's too forward thinking for a particular airline, they could always try something along the lines of the ACCC/Qantas/Virgin model.


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-03-2002).]

Sure, great, yes, etc.

Moving onto more positive stuff - flying has never been cheaper for the NZ public. We're getting people ringing up saying 'I haven't decided where to go yet.. where do you recommend?'And that seems to be one of the markets the new fares aim for - people who would not normally fly except to get to a specific destination for a specific reason. And that's got to be good for NZ! (gee, I wish the TE code was never dropped - it's confusing now! Was I referring to New Zealand, or Air NZ? arghhh..!!)

What do you all think about the fact Air Points can't be earned on the 'Smart' level fares? (ie the 39, 49, 59, and 69 WLG-CHC levels). I believe this decision was made to drive down the fares as low as they could conceivably get.

Is there a problem for foreigners getting these NZ Express fares if they book with an online agent like travel.co.nz? I know that their Australian version used to/still does sell domestic tickets to overseas buyers. E-ticketing makes it possible.

Stuff's report is so Funny.

Does Air New Zealand REALLY have to tell you that "Sir, our price does not including the insurance surcharge and passenger levy" like a store clerk tells you "Sir, our price does not including the tax" ?

Store clerk don't tells you that "Our price does not including the tax" because they think you know about this. Same for Air New Zealand. Air NZ thinks passengers knows about these extra fees.

Does Air NZ's customer read newspapers, listen to the radio, surf the internet? They do. And since they do, they'll obviously know there's such charges that's not going to be included.

I don't understand why the media have to make such report on "There's a trap in these cheap fares".

Back in June, Canada's Westjet offers CAD$3 one-way ticket. However, with the other additional fees, the price is actually CAD$36. We don't get much news report about this because every passengers knows about that. Passengers know that because they were constantly receiving information about such charges when comes into effect, and weeks before it comes into effect.

IMO, there's still an opportunities for Air NZ to expand domestically, despite the media's report about this.

When you're given a choice of flying either a faster turboprop/jet (ANZ)or slower ones(Origin Pacific)with the price nearly the same, which one will you choose?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jiml1126:
Stuff's report is so Funny.

Store clerk don't tells you that "Our price does not including the tax" because they think you know about this.?</font>

Your post is pretty funny itself!

1) Have you ever been shopping in NZ?

2) Have you ever even been to NZ?

Quokka, it's not only NZ will have this problem.

When you go to other countries in Europe, North America, Australia and others, you will OBVIOUSLY know that they require additional taxes, fees, or whatever they're gonna call.

Same goes for Airplane ticket.

That's it. Just zip it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Quokka:
Your post is pretty funny itself!

1) Have you ever been shopping in NZ?

2) Have you ever even been to NZ?

</font>

By the way, are you considering as a "rip-off" for not telling the passengers that the ticket price don't actually includes other fees? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jiml1126:
Quokka, it's not only NZ will have this problem.

When you go to other countries in Europe, North America, Australia and others, you will OBVIOUSLY know that they require additional taxes, fees, or whatever they're gonna call.

Same goes for Airplane ticket.
</font>

No problem here in OZ. The price does include taxes. What is advertised is what you pay.

When GST was introduced in NZ a decision was made by Government to make the sticker prices all inclusion, unlike in the US where state sales tax is an extra.

Same should apply for airfares in NZ. What is advertised is what you should pay.

If the petrol price was on the pump at the pre tax price and you were asked to pay MORE at the cash register because of taxes/fees/etc (fine print ) and if had been delivered by a big tanker instead of a little tanker would you be happy? In Kiwiland as in OZ the ex refinery price is a small part of the final cost

AirNZBoy: I think you are losing this debate. You don't always have to push the company line. You can disagree with them. All who read this board appreciate your posts and information, but we don't all agree with you or AirNZ.

[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-03-2002).]

Good point, every country have their on way determining whether they want to include the tax in a sales price or not.

But like any other airlines, Air New Zealand don't include the security charge, domestic levy, airport fee (where it applies) and other nasty, non sense fees when advertise their air fares. Because these money is not going to Airlines' pocket, it's going to Government's pocket.

Also, airlines don't necessary have to post that "the following price does not include any other fees" because they assume you know it already. Especially for those frequent flyer, they get more news/business information than any other people, so it would be awkward if someday a frequent flyer complaining to a certain airline by saying "Oh, I didn't know there's such extra fee".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mwenenzi:


Same should apply for airfares
What is advertised is what you should pay.

If the petrol price was on the pump at the pre tax price and you were asked to pay MORE at the cash register because of taxes/fees/etc (fine print ) and if had been delivered by a big tanker instead of a little tanker would you be happy? In Kiwiland as in OZ the ex refinery price is a small part of the final cost

[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-03-2002).]</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jiml1126:

That's it. Just zip it.
</font>

jiml1126:

You obviously don't have a clue as to what you're talking about when it comes to NZ (the country). Your example about a NZ store clerk isn't a very bright since prices in NZ shops are almost always listed on a tax inclusive basis. The same goes for advertisments in NZ newspapers.

When NZ consumers see advertised prices for goods or services, they are entitled to assume that those prices are final and, therefore, include GST.

If GST or other charges are not included in the price quoted, this must be made clear so as not to mislead buyers. That may not be the custom or law in Canada, but it is in New Zealand.



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-03-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jiml1126:

But like any other airlines, Air New Zealand don't include the security charge, domestic levy, airport fee (where it applies) and other nasty, non sense fees when advertise their air fares. Because these money is not going to Airlines' pocket, it's going to Government's pocket.

Also, airlines don't necessary have to post that "the following price does not include any other fees" because they assume you know it already.

</font>

Airlines in NZ certainly do need to make clear what the price to the consumer entails.

Air New Zealand Group's subsidiary airline, Freedom Air, has already been brought up on charges over the issue:



Commerce Commission takes airline industry complaints seriously: decision to prosecute Freedom Air

Media Release 2002/21

The Commerce Commission is warning the airline industry to ensure its practices for advertising airfares do not breach the Fair Trading Act or face further prosecutions.

The warning to the industry follows a decision by the Commission to bring charges against South Pacific Air Charters Limited, trading as Freedom Air, for alleged breaches of the Fair Trading Act.

The Commission alleges that Freedom Air’s advertised airfares were misleading. In addition to the advertised airfares, passengers were required to pay costs in the form of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and insurance ‘levies’ which were either not disclosed or inadequately disclosed in advertising.

Also, the Commission alleges that the insurance "levy" was in fact an operational cost and that Freedom Air was inaccurately representing the nature of this cost.

This latest action by the Commission follows an earlier prosecution of Freedom Air in October 2000 for making false or misleading claims about the prices of its "Christmas airfare sale".

Whilst the Commission’s allegations relate to Freedom Air, the Commission is concerned that other airlines might be advertising in a similar way.

"Other airlines might also be misrepresenting the costs of flights and the nature of insurance and other costs," said Commission Chair John Belgrave.

"We are now investigating to see if this is a widespread practice or whether Freedom Air is the only airline operating in this way."

"Consumers must be able to rely on the overall impression created by advertising in this industry. All important terms and conditions must be accurately and clearly explained."

The Commission will take further action if it finds other airlines are advertising in a misleading manner.




b.t.w. The release above came out before the Australian CCC made their move to put an end to misleading airfare advertising in AU. Considering the above press release and how the ACCC has acted, it's not hard to guess the way things will eventually turn out in NZ.



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 08-03-2002).]

A business has a lot of taxes/levies/charges that it has no control over such as council rates, road user charges, workers compensation, landing fess, tax in fuel (above GST), etc etc.

To exclude one cost from the advertising and list it as "compulsory extra" is deceptive and misleading.

As said above several times in NZ the custom (and law?) is that the sticker price is the TRUE price


------------------
*******
to travel, to fly, to get the miles --&gt; and so it goes on

Mwenenzi - I would (and have in the past - in fact, to the extent of suggesting a change in procedures which was them implemented) disagreed with my employer over certain issues.

However, I've looked at this objectively. I'm sure you can all guess that, being an airline worker, I don't earn much more than average wage.

If I didn't work for the airline, would I be annoyed/distressed/bad tempered about the additional charges on domestic tickets?

I can confidently answer no. The taxes and levies are clearly explained to me on the website, directly below the bast fare. After I choose the flights I want, the system calculates the precise amount of taxes/levies due, before I've entered any credit card number. I think to myself 'gee.. 39 bucks plus levies. 46 bucks. I can get on a forty million dollar aeroplane and fly a journey that would cost me well over a hundred bucks by car. How do they do it? That's such good value!' and click 'purchase'. I don't spend half an hour throwing a hissy fit about how all of the charges should have been lumped together. I spend 30 seconds marvelling at the fact that it's so cheap to fly. Am I abnormal? No, I don't think so.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by airnzboy:
What do you all think about the fact Air Points can't be earned on the 'Smart' level fares? (ie the 39, 49, 59, and 69 WLG-CHC levels). I believe this decision was made to drive down the fares as low as they could conceivably get.
</font>

Honestly, I think it's understandable, but potentially unwise.

If people fly a lot on the cheap fares, Given the lack of a business or first class to upgrade to on domestic flights, the small number of points they'd be earning won't be useful anyhow, unless they fly a lot, in which case shouldn't they earn status on NZ at least? If not, they have no reason to be loyal and will probably fly any other carrier that's cheaper.

Maybe the market's small enough that NZ doesn't think loyalty matters so long as they fill planes, and they may be right.

Re the pricing -

Each to their own but I dont have a problem reading the note at the bottom of the screen that tells me what the taxes are. When you go to make your booking you get the final figure including taxes so, for me at least, I dont find it a big deal.

I agree it would be nice if the whole situation was a bit less complex but thats the NZ CAA for you.

Jetkid

Wow! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I remember when I started reading and contributing to the NZ forum, months would go by between posts. And look at us now! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Quoka, yes you include GST in the price of something, but how many times have you been told that delivery is extra, metalic paint is extra. Well guess what? Taking a jet is $2.80 extra! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

But seriously, I think you forget that about 10 years ago when international departure taxes came in the travel agents, airlines and the like made a decision that on aifares government additions such as airport taxes and the like should not be inclouded in the price of the ticket so that the travelling public knows how much they are paying the airline and how much they are paying the government and airports in taxes.

As a member of the public, I am very interested to know how much of my ticket is in levies and how much goes to NZ.

I think the point missed is now NZ have very cheap fares, and based on my travelling these past few weeks, I have not seen loadings change that dramatically. I cannot push work travel out by a few weeks to take advantage of the fares.

But surely like the idea that I can travel cheaper over the christmas period! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Although I am not sure how the gamble will pay off with having a full service airline offering cheap prices and low service to some and high service to others (e.g. airpoints, koru lounges).

Mark

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Koru Flyer:

As a member of the public, I am very interested to know how much of my ticket is in levies and how much goes to NZ.
</font>

Good point! Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about - you see the price of the ticket and the price including taxes before you make the purchase. It's not as if you arrive at the airport and someone tells you "oh, by the way, if you actually want to fly then you have to pay extra" (unless of course you're departing internationally http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif). Everyone knows that you have to pay taxes on airline tickets, and it has been clearly stated that the fares don't include them in the ads I've seen.

Cheers, Zac

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Zaco:
Everyone knows that you have to pay taxes on airline tickets....
Cheers, Zac</font>

With such low fares Air NZ will be trying (and succeeding) in getting passengers that have not flown or flown vert little. They want a lot more bums on seats. When these people spend $59 ($68) in The Wharehouse or anywhere else they pay the listed price. These peple willbe xxxx off when they have to pay a consirable % extra

A lot of "new" people flying on cheap tickers . The same happened in Oz when fares dropped dramatically. However that stopped when Air New Zealand - Ansett (as it was advertised in Oz) went belly up (or should that be landed with wheels up). I suspect in NZ the quantity of cheap seats is not that great.

------------------
to travel, to fly, to get the miles --&gt; and so it goes on

[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-05-2002).]

I don't know about that though, have a look at Christmas Day AKL/WLG, every flight has seats at the $59 (plus taxes) fare at the moment. Who knows if it will last but if you can plan ahead you can get a good deal at the moment.

Any suggestion of what QF will do, they could match the fares, but will they also remove the restrictions?

Jetkid

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Jetkid:
I don't know about that though, have a look at Christmas Day AKL/WLG, every flight has seats at the $59 (plus taxes) fare at the moment. Who knows if it will last but if you can plan ahead you can get a good deal at the moment.
Jetkid</font>

On public holdays airlines usally have very low loads. The day before and day after however will likley be 110% full. Same happens at Boxing Day, Easter, ANZAC day. Very few people want to travel on a major pubilc holdiday.

With all these cheap tickets book while you can. I won't last for ever

[This message has been edited by Mwenenzi (edited 08-07-2002).]

Yeah not sure if thats the case either though.

I have traveled on Christmas Day for the last 5 years and every time the flights have been 100% full, be it an 8am or 3pm departure.

That said yes I agree they wont be around for long on those days around Christmas! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Jetkid

Bringing this forward. I am traveling to NZ in November and saw this new 'express' fares on the NZ site. Naturally, only for sale in NZ. How can someone get these fares from the USA ? The flights I am interested are to Gisborne and Napier from either AKL/WLG. Thanks.

I don't know for sure if they will sell to you, but they should. Try travel.co.nz, not the airline direct. If they do, you would have an e-ticket waiting on arrival.

You can always use the address of your friend or hotel. It is an eticket so no probs on wondering if the ticket is there.

Mark