mad_atta

So has anyone obtained definitive confirmation that NZ is removing a row of PE from the 773? At this stage I'm not sure if it's fact or just speculation...

serfty

Did they line up in the first place? It may not be easy:

Oxon Flyer

Another mini-review/trip report posted here :

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-...s-premier.html

djsflynn

AirNZ will neither confirm or deny: "We've heard those rumours too" the spokesperson admitted, but refused to be drawn on the airline's plans: "There are always rumours doing the rounds regarding what airlines are and aren’t planning to do and I’m afraid we don’t comment on rumours."

From Air New Zealand coy on plans to increase Premium Economy legroom on new Boeing 777-300ER

[Disclosure: while the link provided is directly relevant to the question asked, and the answer is included in this message, in consideration of FT's community and terms of membership it's perhaps appropriate to disclose that I am the editor of the commercial site linked above]

Kiwi Flyer

Seem to still having work flow issues with meal service. Took 90 minutes after departure to get a drink. 60 minutes between starter plate removed and delivery of mains. The length of meal service made me wonder if NZ been taking tips from LH F. Not good for a late night departure. Ideally dinner/supper completed within 2 hours of takeoff so can get a decent sleep.

mad_atta

Thanks for the response... and NZ's non response. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

kiwigirl2

Interestingly enough last week when we flew Akld to Melb in the new 773, both economy and prem economy were packed to the rafters. Not one spare seat according to the FA.

While in Business there were only 5 other passengers, apart from my family of 4 travelling. Very empty. Made for great service, but still very empty up front.

I guess looking at it from AirNZ's point of view, why change something when people are still using that product?

I asked the FA if he had heard they were changing the PE seats soon to allow for more leg room? Unfortunately he hadn't but said the more people that supply feedback the better.

Well, we certainly learnt our lesson back in Jan when we did LA to Akld. Never again. Those PE seats look great, but the reality is they are awful.

bce1

I have a run of long haul flights coming up and trying to decide which cabin to select the big or small one.

My limited impression seems to be smaller cabin nicer but later meal service and risk crying baby from BP and PE

Any experiences?

Bce

ajnz

PE isn't sold on the Tasman, so people aren't using the product by choice - they're using it because it becomes "Space+" when the 773 operates those routes.

The metric is really customers on the long haul sectors, and whether they'd pay for it [again] - I wouldn't.

milan luka

I think I could only stomach flying on the 773 if I was in BP. As soon as I had heard about the 3-4-3 config in Y I knew I wouldnt touch this place with a 10 foot bargepole. This, regardless of whatever cool new things they want to add.

Am just about to book a trip to the US and Sweden. While NZ could have gotten me the bulk of the way there other carriers will end up with my money. (They wont take as much either) I dont think NZ would mind, apparently they are always full anyway!

Sad really, my first long haul in a while non NZ- and the 773 was the deciding factor.

Dogs_Ears_Up

I know that this is something of a cliché, but actually... we do mind: No airline that wishes to survive can afford to discard an excessive number of potential (or existing) customers. It's also worth remembering that airline profitability is as much about Yield as about Volume.

I just wonder a little about this decision. Clearly, it would be unwise to suggest that it is "wrong" in some way - Your perceptions are your own, and are therefore by definition, correct. But you should also beware. Internet Bulletin Boards are to a degree, like H24 TV News - they thrive on bad news and dissenting views rather than on the opposite. I am not, for a moment, suggesting that ANZ is perfect or that the product provided could not be "better" is a variety of ways. However, I believe that, as a package that includes the cabin, crew, aircraft, customer support, fare and overall culture, the product is generally superior (which is why I am proud to work for them). I can quite accept that others may disagree, but those who have flown on the aircraft are possibly in a better position to explain?

milan luka

Hey dogs_ears_up. Thanks for engaging me here.

Mate, I gotta be honest. I used to love NZ with a passion. Would always support it- only not using when you guys couldn't get me to my final destination.
In fact for me the peak of my love affair with the company was 2005-2007-introduction of PE, IFE in Y, the AKL-HKG-LHR route. Lots of great new ideas while still maintaining a professional classy air.

My travel each year was a few TT's (CHC-SYD only), and a long haul in PE. In fact after my last PE trip two friends decided to try it because I wouldnt shut up about it.

Things went south for me very very quickly. Its S2S that changed my perception of the airline initially. You must agree the introduction of that was a dogs breakfast. It was confusing, continually tinkered with, the meals I bought werent a patch on the free one I got on the previous flights BUT worst of all was the reconfigured planes. Horrifyingly cramped new A320s. Immediately I decided all my future TT travel would go back to QF. Even though im in CHC and have limited schedule (one flight daily on a dinky 737-800) I am more than happy to forego IFE for more leg room, a decent meal- and the possibility to book business. After the flight from hell on a fully loaded A320 to Sydney- sorry wasnt fully loaded, but they had to bump about 10 pax off (why exactly I dont understand-where told too heavy????) I decided then and there that was it for all international travel on Air NZ for me. Decided I would never make a similar mistake flying Y long haul in a 10 seat row.
A 7.5 hour round trip was tough enough. No way in hell would I test the new plane with a 48 hour round trip to LHR when there's still a Stockholm and CHC leg on the end of each legs.

Bring back the 744 and you've got me back. I still do NZ domestic but really getting sick of Richard Simmons screaming at me first thing every Monday morning. Oh yeah scrap your marketing department too. Seems like the company is only interested in the twitface crowd. But thats another matter. Cheers man for putting up with my rant.

Keep doing what you are doing. Imo Air NZ has excellent staff, I do miss the crew, but you have idiots for managers. (Sorry I know you are all oblidged to worship you rock star ceo).

birder

I really appreciate your responses and your engagement here. My perspective is, I don't need to fly 10 across in a 777 to know that it will suck, badly. I can look at the seat width and know that it is not going to work for me. Since I fly only economy because of my company's policy (unless I can get an upgrade), I won't fly the 773 because I can't be assured of getting one of the few decent Y seats. (If I could see the seat map before booking, I would be willing to take the 773 if I could get one of the seats with decent width.)

So I will fly Air NZ if I can manage an itinerary that doesn't involve a 773. Otherwise, I won't.

Dogs_Ears_Up

Thanks both for your courtesy (one of the benefits of this board!).

Random thoughts...

Would be nice, although in some areas the 74's were showing their age. In the end it's about money, nothing else - the cost savings of the 773 vs 744 are significant: Fuel is currently at a peak price and airlines are being badly damaged. To survive, we have to be efficient. Don't for a moment underestimate the combined effect of the CHC Earthquake, Japanese Market Meltdown and Middle-East driven Fuel Crisis - Times are hard and may get worse!

Personally, I am deeply embarrassed and uncomfortable with it and what's worse, I have to stand up in front of a lot of people and try not to let that show. I believe that I'm in a minority, so I see no point in complaining - what matters is not what I think, but how the customer thinks.

The thinking is that we can't compete with the massive Ad budgets of the International Major Carriers, so we have to be nimble and make the best use of what we have. Twitter/Facebook/YouTube are highly cost-effective media tools and if your video goes viral web-wide it's Christmas every day. Viral is great when it is because the content is witty or clever or even distinctive, but less impressive when controversy is the only apparent virtue.

One thing that I would raise in his defence is that I have worked for other airlines and under half a dozen CEO's, most of whom were uncharismatic, almost to invisibility and all of whom were unable to provide any coherent strategy and vision for their staff (and some couldn't even sustain profitability). I have seen bad and whatever reservations there may be about the 'Cult' stuff, I absolutely know which CEO I would rather work for.

In general, I assume that some of this will shake out over time. An airline that operated in a way that met the requirements of all customers all of the time would not last long - Neither would an airline that ignored the need of the customer completely and operated for its' own benefit. Life gets interesting somewhere around the middle of these two extremes where all parties involved seek to find the balancing point on the tightrope. My guesses for the future?

• 10 Abreast - will stay, and in fact become more common as other airlines also move that way barring some unforeseen tumble in fuel prices or a significant rise in the ability to extract meaningful yield from economy seats.
• Premium Economy Legroom - will be resolved somehow (but I don't know how or when)
• SkyCouch - will become more popular and more will be fitted over time (timescale unknown) making us effectively a four class airline.
• Rico/Simmonds - It will become appreciated that this kind of marketing is most popular with those that have the least money to spend (and least brand loyalty) and least popular with those that spend the most money with the airline. New Zealanders themselves will become concerned about how the perception of their country by foreigners is affected. Note: On this last one, I am the least confident and expect to be proven wrong!

NB: The views expressed above are personal and are not endorsed by or reflective of, those of Air New Zealand

everywhere

These ridiculous safety videos are an excellent stunt, until such a time that they are actually played on the plane. If they have to use them on the plane:

• a week or two is long enough play time.
• these things need to be short - 2 minutes or so. These videos were under 3 minutes, whereas Fit to Fly and Crazy about Rugby are both 3 and a half minutes long. The Bare Essentials of Safety is about ten seconds shorter than that, but still longer than necessary.
• the background music needs to be quiet and monotonous so that it is easy enough to ignore if you are an expert in aircraft evacuation. The test is that it does not interfere with intensive reading of the Australian Financial Review.