AlastairR

The website is incorrect, domestic firearms are not charged seperatly. This should now have been corrected online - thanks for picking this up

AlastairR

would be interested in hearing your suggestions

trooper

And I'm sorry to be so negative...

..but $200 in handling charges for a gun case seems not only unlikely and highly excessive..but also terribly convenient. I'll explain THAT comment below.

IF there is a real cost to the airline for such handling I would be fascinated to hear how it adds up to such figure...(as I must say in my experience with checking in firearms there doesn't seem to be much extra effort applied at any point in the process, except where Customs physically take a look at the guns before check-in - and I REALLYdoubt the airline pays for that!)

Sorry.. If there is a discreet cost it just doesn't seem likely to be anywhere NEAR that. Hence the remark about it being a convenient figure...

Why do I say it is a convenient figure? Simple. That is the figure used for overweight/oversized which.. while presumably also attracting some special handling are presumably mainly "extra cost" for the obvious weight/space penalty reasons.. aircraft being limited in capacity in both as they are.

I suspect that - without any reference to actual discreet costs (if they even exist) -you have just thrown firearms into the most accessible (and convenient) "category"...

Prove me wrong... prove how a gun case actually costs you somewhere near $200 remembering it is NOT overweight or oversize. Prove to us that the ground handling actually DOES cost you that much.

I really doubt you can.

AlastairR

Contratually, I cannot disclose the specific details of the pricing in our ground handling contracts, however i can advise we are charged more than 50 pounds for this service (specifically relating to firearms) into the UK

Gasfoodlodging

Alastair, while we have you...for absolute clarity, can you please confirm that as long as a ski/ snowboard bag is under 2m in length, and under 23kg, it will not be subject to any 'excess baggage' fee under the new policy (for both domestic and long haul)? i.e. it is a standard bag...

Thanks, and good on you for fronting.

samnz

Ok thanks - that is good news. But I cannot see that rule on any page of the website.

From the checked in baggage page:
•Any piece of baggage that weighs over 23kg but less than 32kg and/or exceeds the total linear dimensions (length+width+height) of 158cm (62") will be subject to an overweight/oversize charge.

From the oversized and sporting items page:
•Any sporting equipment checked in addition to your free allowance is subject to standard excess and oversized item charges.

Fair enough and I'm not about to argue about whether the price is "fair" or not - I can make my own choices about what I do or do not pay. But I guess that was my point - the charges have risen significantly and whereas previous the extra allowance encouraged me to fly with Air NZ, now the reverse is true. $120 return for two buys a lot of Fergburgers

baldingeagle

Thanks for coming by the forums, and for your prompt response. So far this week we have you from the revenue department, and someone from the tech side answering questions about the mobile app. If we could get someone on here to discuss Airpoints/status earning, we'd have all the bases covered.

So am I correct that a bike which would have cost $57.50 long-haul is now $295 since it's categorized as oversized? That seems excessive to me. Yes, a boxed-up bike is larger than most suitcases, but often weigh much less (20 pounds last time I flew with mine) than most stuffed-to-the-bursting-limit tourist suitcases. What is the justification for charging so much more than a normal bag? I can't believe the airline incurs anywhere near $200 in extra effort to handle a bike. Nor am I saying it should be carried for free, but $295??

Further, since "separately bagged sports equipment counts as one piece", according to the website, does that imply that I should dismantle my bike entirely and bring it in 3-4 separate bags, each of which measures less than the 62" linear restriction per piece? That seems ridiculous, and would make more work for your ground staff, but it's possible, and certainly seems worthwhile to save $200.

I can understand an overweight/oversize charge for something like a tennis ball machine, but skis, golf clubs and bikes aren't really that heavy relative to their size, and since they're carried most often by tourists, who are bringing revenue both to the airline and the nation, one would think that it would make sense to offer some sort of accommodation for these items (as some other airlines do).

Thanks again for your time.

MattNZ

Hey Sam / Balding Eagle, I think the standard is that if it's under two metres, it's a normal (but extra) bag

From;
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/oversized-items

"The following items may be considered as one standard piece of baggage:
Any portable musical instrument not exceeding 100cm in length
One bicycle
One surfboard
One pair of snow skis
One snowboard
One pair of water skis
One golf bag containing golf clubs and one pair of shoes
Please note there is a maximum weight restriction of 32kg (70 lbs) per item and length restrictions also apply."

and length restrictions are:

"The maximum length per piece on jet aircraft is 2 metres however this may be reduced depending on the width and height of the item. Items exceeding 2 metres but less than 2.5 metres in length are subject to oversized item charges."

my emphasis added. It's a bit confusing using a bike as an example of an oversized item, then listing it as something that "may" be a standard bag, I agree. the definition does seem to fall at the 2m mark though, so I would use that if you run into issues at check-in.

so I guess the practical consequence is you either need to book a flexi fare that comes with 2 bags as standard, be a Gold, Gold Elite or Koru on A seat + bag fare or pay for an extra bag.

Or just wear your ski gear onto the plane with some carry on extras! at least you know you'll get there with AirNZ vs Jetstar.

Just my 2 cents

Jorgen

Oh come now, with all due respect and appreciation for this level of customer engagement... this is transparently bs.

You're saying that it doesn't matter that we "HVCs" can no longer get exit rows, because other "premium" seats are still set aside for us? What's a "premium" seat again?

Just because you declare a seat to be "premium" doesn't make it as desirable as an exit row. You can pretend that seat 33B is "premium" all you like, but it doesn't make it as desirable as an exit row.

From a customer relations point of view I think it's better to downgrade our benefits and be honest about it, rather than to downgrade our benefits and try to tell us that they "haven't changed".

Gasfoodlodging

Thanks MattNZ...I wish I had seen that prior to August this year...I was pulled aside as my boardbag was 27kg...so I had to take two spare boards out to leave them in the car. The check in staff obviously were unaware of the 32kg limit (and I had also assumed a limit of 23kg).

Having experienced very inconsistent approaches by AIRNZ check in staff over 15+ years of travelling with boards (surprisingly worse on domestic as opposed to long haul)...I was just happy not to be charged.

However, I was a little peeved as being Koru I was entitled to have another bag free of charge and there was NO way they would enter into discussion about 'it all evens out'. It's all about Health and Safety you see! As tempted as I was to just tape the two boards together to create another peice of baggage, I just couldn't be bothered...and I didn't really need them given the lack of pow

To be sure I'd still like confirmation from Alastair on any changes to this policy, and is it now 23kg or 32kg???

gdbsti

Ok then, how about having the Ancillary Revenue team implement programs that don't P*** off your HVCs?

deconz

If the rules say one surfboard I can not understand why you felt let down when you tried to check in 3 boards in a single bag (regardless of the weight) ???

ajnz

Me too. I gave up years ago and use my initials (AJ) pretty much exclusively, but even that has had amusing outcomes at times.

Gasfoodlodging

Snowboards are surprisingly thin without bindings...And it shouldn't matter how many are in there if you're under weight and within dimensions...

deconz

except for the fact you are only allowed one! I'm sure you could follow that exact same reasoning over two pairs of skiis taped together but that wouldn't be right either. When the rules specifically limit the number then I can't see how you can possibly have a gripe that you have been unfairly treated.