everywhere

Welcome to Flyertalk and thank you for taking the time to understand the impact of your decisions on the future profitability of Air New Zealand Limited.

Could you clarify a few things for me:

1. Why did you think it was acceptable to launch these changes without issuing the seatmaps that are in John Walton's article to your customers, the travel industry or indeed the airline's own staff, and with a barely functional IT system behind it (which still is not even close to working properly)?

2. Why does Air New Zealand Limited feel that it serves its fiduciary duty to its shareholders to squash its Airpoints Gold Elite members specifically into the worst seats on the plane if they do not part with a bit of ancillary revenue? In particular, have you analysed changes in average revenue from these customers over the last 12 months (for example, large decreases in longhaul travel spend because simply, they have other options)?

This group of customers have swallowed checked luggage fees (although I cannot name another airline in the world that charges its top tier elites to check baggage, although I am sure if you look hard enough you can probably find an example) because it looks like a value added service. They have also noticed and kept flying through extreme cost cutting and service reductions in practically every area. But everyone has a limit of what they will put up with. It only takes 3 hours in a crappy seat because of what someone else booked for you to fly to form the view that it is wise to move your longhaul Business business to an airline which values it.

It is also difficult to understand that Air New Zealand Limited spends large amounts of money sending us products and hosting us at events, and providing additional care in-flight yet does not provide decent seating regardless of fare because of a obscene average spent (which would not cost a cent and be the easiest thing of all the airline could do to keep this group of customers from defecting to other airlines).

3. Why does Air New Zealand Limited provide the same seating options to Airpoints Gold Elite members as it does to Koru Club members?4. Do you acknowledge that this is misleading and deceptive given that all 'HVC' have a lesser selection of seats for free than previously? To give you an example, I was selecting seats for a domestic fare which was in excess of NZD 1000 return this week as Gold Elite and it wanted to charge NZD 5 to select seat 03F on an Eagle Air flight.

Additionally, this figure is distorted by longhaul. What % of shorthaul customers currently get free ASR and will keep it?

Thank you for your time in answering these straightforward questions.

trooper

I'll add 2 very simple questions Alastair....

1. If one reads the Seat Select FAQ's under "Why have you introduced paid Seat Select" one finds the (unqualified) statement that:

"No existing seating entitlements are being taken away"

That is simply untrue.

We Golds/GE's used to be able to select exit rows at time of booking without payment.. in fact I booked a long-haul flight the night before these changes took effect..and selected exit row seating without charge.

Please tell us just HOW this is NOT an entitlement being taken away... given that - words fail me - it is an entitlement that has been taken away!


2. Charges for firearms.

The case containing my main competition handgun is about half the size of a 19" rollaboard type carry on bag.. and when the handgun is inside and the locks are in place it weighs about 4kg.

So a small locked box weighing less than you allow for a carry on is going to cost me $200 to check in SYD-LAX?

I am very interested in hearing the justification for such a charge.. especially given that coming home (LAX-SYD) no such charge applies.

Given the relatively generous treatment of other sporting equipment when checking in, it is difficult not to feel one is being discriminated against for choosing the "wrong" sport.. at least in the eyes of NZ.

So.. why institute such a charge?

baldingeagle

Actually, can anyone clarify that the policy of carrying the first piece of sports equipment at half the first bag rate is even still in effect? I can't find any mention of it anymore on the web site and am worried that it's been silently cut as part of this whole process.

DCF

Alastair,
You are a brave man, and welcome.

I can't believe you have the guts to appear here after the Australian BT article which exposed this process, but good on you.

You seem not to be aware that while all airlines' HVCs are usually a bit disgruntled at any given time, Air NZ's have been spectacularly pissed off for the last year or two. My family spend (from Australia) has fallen from $100K to around $20K and I'm well aware that this is a common pattern.

I have a number of ideas about how you could increase ancillary revenue from HVCs while actually pleasing us, but I won't put them in the public domain - if you want to know just PM me
.................................................. ............................
I will tell you my own personal bugbear though.

I live in Australia and buy a mix of long-haul Business and Premium Economy fares to the USA and UK.

I still get pissed off that my Premium Economy ticket entitles me to an inferior product (Works) on the Tasman than Economy ticket holders who have purchased Works Deluxe. (Please don't reply that there is no such thing as Tasman Premium Economy. You sell me a BNE-LAX Premium Economy fare in competition with Qantas and Virgin Australia's non-stop fares, at similar fare levels. If you choose to make an operational decision to refuse to let me sit in Premium Economy seating on the Tasman leg then you are simply driving me into their arms).

My family used to be probably Gold Coast (OOL)'s most HVCs,and probably accounted for around 2-3% of annual OOL Business Class seats. But now that the A320 has gone all-Economy when we buy a Premium Economy fare we actually drive past OOL to Brisbane to avoid sitting in A320 Works.

So why can't you just come up with a way of allowing Economy or Premium Economy long-haul ticket holders with A320 sectors to buy an Upsell into Works Deluxe at, say, $100 per sector?

If you did, OOL would instantly get back my family (for example) and at $800 per return trip that would be around $3200 of additional ancillary revenue created by commodotising unsold Works Deluxe inventory which long-haul Premium Economy passengers currently cannot buy.

serfty

Now on a ECONOMY fare I have to pay $10 to select 10A or 10B on a 763 - last week I culd simply select.

Thanks for posting but, sorry, all you have done is republished the existing obfuscation of the last few days which is a basically poor attempt to hide that your elite airpoints flyers are getting the shaft rammed further.

If I had not already decided to give NZ a complete miss once my 'banked Gold Elite years' tally reaches zero, this would have done it.

Placebogirl

Alistair, I have a couple of points/questions:

1. For this HVC with a new baby, this charge has a significant impact. Before the change I could simply select a bassinet seat at the time of booking and it cost me nothing. Now I have to pay for it--even in J class, which feels like petty nickel-and-diming. I know the advantage is supposed to be some certainty that I will, in fact, be allocated the bassinet seat, but TT ex MEL there are frequently enough changes d/t operational issues that this guarantee does not hold much water for me.

2. The ability to choose a seat ahead of booking is being sold as an advantage of the new system, however the two are not intrinsically linked. I happen to know that this part of the system was trialled at least two years ago and deemed to be "too confusing". It's pretty irritating that something that could have been of great benefit to a few of us years ago was too confusing when there was no money to be made, but somehow acceptable now.

3. You are selling exit rows that used to be reserved for airport use. How are you ensuring that those who purchase these seats are suitable for exit row seating? I suspect that having paid for such a seat makes it more difficult to reseat someone who should not be seated in an exit row--this seems like a conflict of interest to me.

craver

It's great that Alistair has fronted up. Some of us have called for this and now here we have it. Nice move!

My biggest surprises from all of this are 1) charging parents of infants to sit in bassinet rows (and I don't even have kids) and 2) the incredible spin that NZ puts around any change like this which is unraveled and exposed by FFs in about a nanosecond. Clearly NZ is focused more on ancillary rev than on loyalty. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive but it appears from the airline's actions that there are senior people at NZ who do.

johnnyfive

This is a very interesting point, which I had not thought of. Would really like to see how it is handled by the airline when an unsuitable passenger swipes their bp at the gate.

By the way thanks for joining the forum Alastair. I hope you are able to answer our questions and consider our feedback for future decisions.

Cheers

smeags_nz

I bet Alistair is regretting his appearance in here, but good on him for fronting up and let's hope that he hangs around long enough to answer the valid questions that everyone has raised.

brenrox

With the dwindling paid benefits, they have to leave something to entice people to purchase a membership.

Welcome Alistair.........I hope you havnt been scared off and you come back

pbl22

I witnessed exactly this experience on Saturday on an - ahem - JQ flight. An elderly lady, clearly hobbling with a big bandage around her ankle got the red beep at the boarding pass check and the GA asked her if she was able to assist in an emergency because she was sitting in an exit row (row 1). She said she had an injury and the GA said she would have to be moved. The elderly lady said that she couldn't be moved as "she had paid for her row 1 seat as she needed to stretch out her leg". After a bit of toing and froing without resolution the GA simply said it would be sorted out onboard.

Onboard, I was a few rows back, so couldn't hear the discussion, but it appeared that the purser was doing her very best to persuade the lady to move to an empty seat further back, but the lady didn't appear to be budging. Eventually, with a number of FAs around her seat, she moved back and the plane could take off.

stephen2d

Call me a cynic, but I would be surprised if Alistair reappears here, although hats down for the attempt (and egg on my face if he does come back to answer all these additional questions).

Yes, charging parents for bassinet seats when the said infants already pay for the said bassinet (the 10% of the fare, no food, no "adult" seat) - that is the lowest of the...I'll calm down now.

deconz

not that I condone what NZ have done with this latest enhancement, both they and JQ deal very well with this particular issue on their websites ...

Exit row seating requirements

Securing preference for an exit row seat will be subject to Jetstar and industry safety requirements.

Your selected seats are located in one of the Exit Rows of our aircraft. In order to sit in an Exit Row seat, you must satisfy the following general criteria applicable to Exit Rows:

Be at least 15 years or older
Be able to understand and carry out instructions
Not be travelling with someone that requires your assistance in an emergency
Not have any permanent or temporary impairment (e.g. deaf, hearing impaired, blind, vision impaired, any strength or mobility limitation, intellectual impairment or travelling with a service dog)
Be able to check outside conditions and react to crew commands
Be able to reach, open, lift and throw out the 15kg (approx 33lbs) exit door in an emergency*
Acknowledge the exit row briefing given by Cabin Crew once onboard the aircraft
Be willing to assist in the unlikely event of an emergency
Not be seated with an infant
Not require the use of an extension seat belt
Not be elderly
* Note for pregnant passengers: Generally a person in their third trimester of pregnancy (that is, after 28 weeks) is not able to reach, open, lift and throw out the 15kg exit door in an emergency, particularly without risking injury to the foetus and/or passenger.

Passengers who do not meet the additional requirements on the briefing card must be relied upon to ask to be re-seated. The inability to fulfil the criteria may not be readily observable by the cabin crew

poopbunny

NZ assumes we are stupid and are just trying to polish a turd. Unfortunately, a turd is still a turd.

brenrox

Not to mention the claim that 1/3 of seats on a Q300 or ATR are premium and highly sort after than the others.