Air New Zealand Air Points - My Airpoints Dilemma

I fly long-haul flights a lot. And honestly I prefer other *A carriers at the moment when travel from Auckland to Asia and beyond. My choices have SQ, TG, OZ. But I find that the revamped program really earns me little air bucks. I wanted to change to another *A program but the problem is I have a GlobalPlus credit card linked to NZ and I spend NZ$20,000 per year on the card. Being the only *A credit card in New Zealand, to give it up is quite hard.

I don't know if I am correct but the way NZ is doing does not make sense for low fare payers. I see NZ distinguish short haul from long haul. In short hual (domestic, trans-Tasman & Pacific Islands) you will earn nothing if paying the lowest fare (Smart Saver). And in long-haul, you really earn a little even if you fly with other *A carrier who's got the superior products (like SQ, LH) and the fare you pay is not cheap, you still earn a little. Last time I flew from Auckland to Shanghai on OZ via ICN the 2 sectors earned my 75 Airbucks (60+15), and I continued from Shanghai to Frankfurt on LH only earned me 45 bucks. And the fact was I paid a whole lot more for the LH flight than OZ. I really think that the current NZ earning table should be further broken down.

I almost certainly will shift programs to maybe UA knowing that those fares above will all earn me 100% mileage, if I didn't have the credit card. Is there anyone here who can back me up because all I hear was all the good things about the new program.

I think it'll make more sense to still base long-haul on distance flown like the way LH is doing it.

Welcome to FT Xiaotung :)

My analysis of the changes to Airpoints last year for long haul discount economy travellers like yourself was that earning for awards was reduced, but offset by slightly easier earning of status.

LH Miles & More also significantly reduced earning for discounted economy last year, so not sure what your point is there.

$20,000 of credit card spend isnt going to earn much more than a round trip trans-tasman in economy every 18 months or so, regardless of where credited to. If fly significant amounts then the difference in earning miles by flight activity, and any difference in status earnt, may be more than enough to offset inconvenience on credit card earn. The inconvenience arising due to being in a different program from the flight activity.

Otherwise there are credit cards that earn QF points. But these are just about to be significantly devalued.

ANZ credit card can credit to Kris Flyer (SQ). While Kris Flyer isnt as generous as many other programs it may suit your circumstances?

The other option for a NZ credit card is Amex.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think New Zealand-issued ANZ credit card can earn SQ miles. And AMEX is not as widely accepted as Visa especially in Asian countries. I think I am going to stay with GlobalPlus and try to fly as many segments as I can. For example, instead of flying non-stop AKL-HKG on NZ (60 airbucks), I could fly SQ or TG via SIN or BKK (85 airbucks), is it a waste of time? lol.

If one fly’s longhaul coach alot one could join a * program which suits and keep NZ Airpoints for the odd award earned through GlobalPlus [Upgrades whilst on NZ or similar].

The current NZ program has been carefully designed to benefit the airline as much as possible whilst attempting to keep the consumer happy. Of course I am in disagreement with the [unchanged] status benefits and firmly believe [as discussed in other threads] that the benefits or lack thereof will only harm NZ in the long run.

And in long-haul, you really earn a little even if you fly with other *A carrier who's got the superior products (like SQ, LH) and the fare you pay is not cheap, you still earn a little. Please do correct me if I am wrong but did you just say that LH have superior products to NZ ?

You certainly can fly longer but is it worth it? What difference does it make in ticket price over direct?

As for waste of time that depends on when you need to leave/arrive, and whether schedule allows for example an overnight connecting flight.

You certainly can fly longer but is it worth it? What difference does it make in ticket price over direct?


You are right it's not worth it but sometimes direct flight fare is not necessarliy cheaper than making a transfer somewhere. Why not pay less and get more airbucks.

Please do correct me if I am wrong but did you just say that LH have superior products to NZ ?

Sorry if I jumped to conclusion too easily. It really depands on what aircraft you are flying. NZ's 767's and 747's are pretty old compared to LH's long haul but NZ's A320's are second to none of its kind.

You are right it's not worth it but sometimes direct flight fare is not necessarliy cheaper than making a transfer somewhere.

You've got that right ;)

Of course I am in disagreement with the [unchanged] status benefits and firmly believe [as discussed in other threads] that the benefits or lack thereof will only harm NZ in the long run.

I agree with you.

1) No other airline charges account fees. FFP is supposed to be "if you fly you get rewards" and not "if you don't fly you get punishment".

2) Airpoints hurt low fare payers. *No Airpoints on Smart Saver (domestic/Tasman/Pacific). *No airpoints awarded for discounted TG fares across the Tasman. *Airpoints on full economy SQ flights awarded on discounted level. Why are there so mane exceptions? I mean if you are paying your fares yourself you always look for the cheapest.

I remember having read somewhere that Ralph Noris doesn't believe FFP loyalty. Just too discouraging.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusion too easily. It really depands on what aircraft you are flying. NZ's 767's and 747's are pretty old compared to LH's long haul but NZ's A320's are second to none of its kind.
The age of the aircraft is irrelevant. I would say that the NZ 747 in Coach fire's any LH plane out of the sky. I would also say that the A320 are the worst Jet Aircraft NZ have purchased this century. But that is just one persons opinon.

Err what other jets have been purchased by (and already delivered to) NZ since 2000?

I guess he meant in the last one hundred years.

Err what other jets have been purchased by (and already delivered to) NZ since 2000?The 777 have been ordered [And yes I know they have not been delivered yet] I was merely stating that IMO the A320 was a bad choice in aircraft.

I like the A320s and I think they fit their intended purpose pretty well. Sure, the business class seats aren't as nice as the old ones, but that's not a limitation of the aircraft.

What is it that you dislike so much about them, ntddevsys?

I like the A320s and I think they fit their intended purpose pretty well. Sure, the business class seats aren't as nice as the old ones, but that's not a limitation of the aircraft.

What is it that you dislike so much about them, ntddevsys?Word in the hanger is that the A320-232 aircraft have not been fulfilling Air New Zealand's expectations.

I also have heard [second hand] that in the Y cabin the seats grow uncomfortable after long periods of sitting but cannot confirm because I have not travelled in Y on this aircraft.

The IAE V2527 engine’s don’t sound as good as the CFM56 engines on the 737 but I don’t believe that this is any consideration on how good an aircraft is.

That along with the aircraft being purchased to spite Boeing and to launch the short haul express services with a worse J cabin which is still better than QF’s [not SkyBed/DreamTime] mean I do not like the A320.

I believe that NZ are neatly placed to become the launch customer of the next next generation Boeing 737 whatever that might be called.

That along with the aircraft being purchased to spite Boeing

:rolleyes:

Yes, i'm sure that the reason to buy this aircraft was to 'spite' boeing.

Any other 'rumor' that your cussies sisters brother can share that you don't have direct knowledge of yourself?

The only 'problem' so far expressed with the A320 is Y toilet ratios, AFAIK - again NZ's choice, as are the seats.

The idea that the A320's have not been meeting performance for Air NZ is frankly preposterous. :confused:

I reckon the A320 Y class seats are some of the best around. I've not done anything longer than WLG-SYD on one... but then again, the longest A320 route is only about an hour longer than that, and I'd cheerfully spend another hour in one. The extra width is notable over the 737s - if you want uncomfortable, try QF's 738s in Y - I was miserable on a flight of only half the length! As for the J seats, sure they have been dumbed down but the fares have come down too. Having a long haul quality of J seat on short hauls was a great anomaly while it lasted, but before you object too much take a look at US domestic F seats (the NZ seats are waaay better), let alone what passes for intra-European business class. Even in Asia the use of long haul style J class on short flights is getting rarer.

From what I've heard, NZ is very happy with the A320s. Whether or not that's true, I'm sure they bought the aircraft for sound operational reasons. It may well have been good strategy as well to make Boeing realise that they don't automatically have NZ's business, which could well have made Boeing sharpen their pencil a bit more for the 777/787 order, but the A320 is a very well-regarded aircraft. Many, many airlines are all Airbus for narrowbodies and Boeing for widebodies... as NZ will probably be before too long when the 733s are replaced by A319s.

As for the passenger to toilet ratio, though... bad move, AirNZ! I'm sick of big toilet queues when the movie finishes and I've had too many sav blancs!!!

Zonky you are doing exactly what you hate. You do not have direct knowledge from within Air New Zealand so you cannot say that the A320 not meeting performance criteria for NZ is preposterous.

The purchase of the A320 was a financially strategic move by NZ and in some ways was used to spite Boeing but that was not the sole motive for the purchase.

Thanks mad_atta for putting me right about the Y class seats [Was not sure so that is why I added the disclaimer]

I would be *very* surprised however if the 737 fleet was replaced with A319s

1) No other airline charges account fees. FFP is supposed to be "if you fly you get rewards" and not "if you don't fly you get punishment".

2) Airpoints hurt low fare payers. *No Airpoints on Smart Saver (domestic/Tasman/Pacific). *No airpoints awarded for discounted TG fares across the Tasman. *Airpoints on full economy SQ flights awarded on discounted level. Why are there so mane exceptions? I mean if you are paying your fares yourself you always look for the cheapest.

I remember having read somewhere that Ralph Noris doesn't believe FFP loyalty. Just too discouraging.

1) I think NZ trying to weed out those who dont have loyalty to Air NZ and earn all their points from credit cards.

2) Yes lots of low / non earning fare categories, but that is the general direction of FFPs. Most times I'd rather have the low fare than have a much higher fare than the points are worth.

Where did you read that about Mr Norris? I remember seeing comments on the increasing amount of miles from partners not being an asset - but that's not the same thing as not believing in loyalty.