Originally Posted by
kiwifrequentflyer
So yes it is very much the definition of a corner case. It is a very small percentage of the traffic. I am surprised this is up for debate. You can argue it's a surprisingly large number, sure. But the percentage remains very few. The question was simple: is the Air NZ FFP a good program for them if they have a choice of who to fly with. The answer is very clearly no for most Australians, bar the corner case of the few that travel to IAH multiple times a year. That was the question. The question wasn't do Australians ever need to travel to IAH.
You're also missing another important point - that for those connecting domestically in the US, NZ offers exceptional routing opportunities with flights landing at a west coast (LAX), east coast (ORD), and central (IAH) location, with frequent domestic connection on UA, meaning you can get where you're going with a minimum of connections (and due to competition with QF and UA's negotiation of destination subsidies, are generally well priced).
QF can drop you on the west (LAX) or central (DFW), or east coast (JFK) with a stopover - no direct east coast flights available. Not to mention the times of day that NZ flights leave and arrive ex-AU. I see a lot of Australians boarding NZ flights to get to the Americas (I can't speak for Europe, as I've not travelled on an NZ plane to LHR past LAX) so I don't agree with the base point that NZ should disregard Australia as a key source of revenue. Indeed, Qantas has just released their HY results and International revenue is up (profit only dropping as a result of a $200m increase in their fuel bill). I'm keen to see next week what Air NZ says about their results.