Originally Posted by
mad_atta
I wouldn't call 30" seat pitch 'unaffected', even if they are getting the Works so supposedly the service level is unchanged.
Today's A320 is already at 30-31" pitch outside Space+. If reports of new seats are true, with thinner seat backs, potentially many Economy customers down the back will have greater leg/knee space than previously.
On a second point, 30" is no different to what one would get on a QF737, in terms of premium carrier competition.
Originally Posted by
mad_atta
And I wouldn't entirely agree with the comment about premium traffic - look at the ever-increasing size of the premium economy cabin, plus the business cabin on the 77W (and, arguably, the 744). Surely a key part of NZ's success in the past 5 years or so has been in massively improving the quality of its premium cabins?
Depends on whether you class Premium Economy as premium or economy
NZ's A class fares aren't expensive. In terms of premium corporate traffic, arguably Business Class still dominates for 12 hour odd sectors, relative to Premium Economy, which is typically more targeted towards people who pay for their own travel.
With respect to seat mix, comparing NZ's premium cabin proportion to its competitors across the Pacific.
NZ772 - 8.6%
VA77W - 9.1%
NZ744 - 12.1%
NZ77W - 13.0%
QF332 - 15.3%
AC77L - 15.6%
DL77L - 16.2%
UA744 - 17.1%
QF380 - 19.1%
QF744 - 26.1%
NZ itself has said its smaller premium cabins helped during the financial crisis. It's the nature of New Zealand's economy/market - it's not a huge corporate travel market in the overall scheme of things.
Originally Posted by
mad_atta
I understand that NZ is trying to ensure it can compete with the no-frills/low-frills carriers on price. However it is also trying to retain its higher yielding customers, in the same plane and with the same branded product, in a way that creates a very complicated product offering, dilutes the brand for many would-be higher yielding customers (unlike Qantas's clear QF vs JQ differentiation), and MOST importantly, in such a way that makes it extremely difficult for loyal customers to buy the in between fares that they want (ie Airpoints earning but without paying a massive premium for full flexibility). They need to fix this, and fast.
To be fair, under the previous system, Airpoints earning fares were a lot more than the cheapest fares. I do agree that it is very expensive to have APD earning fares.
I am curious to see how the product works onboard, it must certainly increase staff workload.
Originally Posted by
mad_atta
To those who have commented that loyalty is a two way street, I couldn't agree more. I hope NZ's analysis of the cost of each Tasman business class seat has included the value that they contribute both to the longhaul business, and also to the loyalty of NZ's elite customers who can use airpoints or comp upgrades to get a really very nice product across the Tasman that feels a bit special. Whenever I've been in biz on the Tasman the cabin usually seems close to full, so clearly it's getting filled one way or another (e.g. awards and upgrades in addition to those who pay for it) so it's overly simplistic to look at the changes solely in the context of those paying for business. I'm sure there are many regular shorthaul flyers who rarely if ever fly longhaul on NZ, who will now have yet another benefit (upgrading) vanish on many of their flights.
I wonder what proportion of seats were given as reward inventory to other Star Alliance carriers, as Business awards are damn expensive on NZ, but a bargain in most other Star programs as a South West Pacific award!
Originally Posted by
mad_atta
NZ seems hellbent on running its shorthaul business as a super basic stripped down carrier while positioning the longhaul business as uber premium - the problem is that they are not entirely separate businesses. Customers see them as one and the same. Didn't SK try to do something similar to this a few years ago, with the result that the massive drop in quality of their shorthaul product has steadily dragged down the quality of the longhaul product?
To be fair, NZ's new shorthaul is superior to what SK offers in Europe, with Seat having IFE and included basic beverages and cabins not plastered with advertising stickers. I don't think SK's shorthaul changes have negatively affected their longhaul product in any material way.
No doubt there will be some brand confusion for NZ, especially in the South West Pacific, where most of their customer base flies on shorthaul and may never even experience longhaul.
Perhaps NZ is trying to create a mindset divide between shorthaul and longhaul, like many carriers differentiate between domestic and international service.