Air NZ bans customer for flying for 1 year
Feb 25, 2020, 11:35 am
#91
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Programs: NZ*GE / EK*GOLD
Posts: 2,510
As of today, the Air NZ online information about the regional lounge at Nelson states as its complete description of entitlement to access (nothing at all about ticket stock):
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
”Access
Airpoints Elite, Gold, Elite Partner and Koru members departing on an Air New Zealand flight (no more than four hours prior to flight departure).”
From the judgment, it appears that Ms Sharma was a Koru member. She had “an accumulation” of Airpoints but her status is not given.
The banning action was solely about her personally. It does not appear that any of the other family members has been banned.
But she is accused of wrongfully claiming a right to enter. Who would not become angry at being alleged to have entered without being entitled.
The racist and hate-filled attitudes of some commentators on this site are offensive. I hope never to fly with them on board or in the lounge.
Feb 25, 2020, 2:10 pm
#92
Join Date: Oct 2018
Programs: NZ GE, Marriot Platinum
Posts: 40
I was also surprised to see the racist comment. I'd read the entire thread and found nothing even closely resembling racism in any post. Normally, this claim only gets pulled out by someone who is unable to use reason and logic to get their point across.
Feb 25, 2020, 3:35 pm
#93
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 78
Agreed. I reread the entire thread and did not see a comment that could be construed as racist, or even a comment making an assumption of race.
Feb 25, 2020, 6:46 pm
#95
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: NZ*G ELT, VA-G
Posts: 3,598
This whole incident is quite an eye opener. As someone who has flown all 26 Star Alliance carriers, I have to say the NZ lounge staff are among world's best people. A few years ago, I was taking both of my parents to South Island who had no eligibility to enter the Koru Lounge on a domestic flight. I could only guest one of them as a Gold member. I asked the lounge receptionist if I could bring both of my parents in as they were visiting this beautiful country from abroad. Without hesitation, she let us all in happily with a huge smile. Till this day, I am still quite appreciative and it's not something you could expect be it in another country honestly. I also need to point out that very few airlines offer accompanying children free access in addition to a member's guest entitlement.
Back to the incident, I am surprised being a lawyer, Ms Sharma couldn't read. Star Alliance website clearly states that Business Class pax only are entitled to use the lounge before their Business Class flight with no guest so their entitlement is only at AKL not NSN, not to mention some of their travel was in SQ's Premium Economy which had no access to lounge at all. Even if they were travelling on NZ ticket stock, she and her husband's Koru membership would only get 1 of their children each to the lounge and they had 6 children travelling who are by the way not children but all adults.
If I were this lawyer's clients, I would be very worried as apparently if she can't deal with the airline rules, I can't expect her to do much better in laws.
Back to the incident, I am surprised being a lawyer, Ms Sharma couldn't read. Star Alliance website clearly states that Business Class pax only are entitled to use the lounge before their Business Class flight with no guest so their entitlement is only at AKL not NSN, not to mention some of their travel was in SQ's Premium Economy which had no access to lounge at all. Even if they were travelling on NZ ticket stock, she and her husband's Koru membership would only get 1 of their children each to the lounge and they had 6 children travelling who are by the way not children but all adults.
If I were this lawyer's clients, I would be very worried as apparently if she can't deal with the airline rules, I can't expect her to do much better in laws.
Feb 25, 2020, 9:02 pm
#96
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Programs: UA
Posts: 444
From reading the decision it appears that this is one more example of passengers who are not aware that on codeshare flights, lounge entry rights sometimes (see below) can depend on the ticket stock. I have encountered several unhappy conflicts at lounge entry when others (not me), have expectations that are dashed - and not just with Air NZ.
I continue to believe that issues about lounge access and behaviour are irrelevant to contractual entitlements to board and fly (unless they fall within the Civil Aviation Act powers for the operator to refuse boarding, which the events stated in the judgment do not). Or should be - Air NZ clearly takes a different view.
The Star Alliance policy is:
"International Business Class Customers
As an International Business Class Customer you have access to any Star Alliance member carrier’s owned Business Class lounge at the airport where your flight departs, if the following conditions are met:
Garykung is right - it appears that the Court decision was based on the documents filed in an injunction case. What these and other witnesses might say in person, and especially when cross-examined, is for another day.
I continue to believe that issues about lounge access and behaviour are irrelevant to contractual entitlements to board and fly (unless they fall within the Civil Aviation Act powers for the operator to refuse boarding, which the events stated in the judgment do not). Or should be - Air NZ clearly takes a different view.
The Star Alliance policy is:
"International Business Class Customers
As an International Business Class Customer you have access to any Star Alliance member carrier’s owned Business Class lounge at the airport where your flight departs, if the following conditions are met:
- You present a boarding pass in International Business Class on a Star Alliance member airline operated flight
- Your flight departs on the same day of your visit or latest by 05:00 AM the next morning
- The lounge shows the Star Alliance Gold logo at the entrance
- You are not entitled to bring any guests.
Garykung is right - it appears that the Court decision was based on the documents filed in an injunction case. What these and other witnesses might say in person, and especially when cross-examined, is for another day.
Nelson is a regional lounge
From the website
Access to Regional and Domestic lounges:
Air New Zealand customers with a same day regional connection to or from an international Air New Zealand Business Premier flight, are entitled to lounge access prior to departure. Must be travelling on a through-ticketed journey, departing on an Air New Zealand ticket (starting with '086') and 'NZ' marketed and operated flight.
https://www.airnewzealand.com/lounges
And even more
Koru benefits
Departing Singapore:Koru members may use the SATS lounge in Terminal 3 at Changi Airport when travelling from Singapore to New Zealand on an Air New Zealand operated flight.
Departing New Zealand:
In New Zealand, Elite Partners will be able to access the Air New Zealand International Lounges in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch when travelling on Singapore Airlines operated flights (with an Air New Zealand ticket and flight number).
No other Koru benefits apply on Singapore Airlines operated flights.
The passenger did not have Air New Zealand ticket stock.
McRabbit your commitment to this one and only thread has been noted --
Feb 25, 2020, 11:13 pm
#97
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: New Zealand
Programs: Koru (Life), Airpoints G*E, Qantas FF(LG)
Posts: 8
I am not related to Ms Sharma. I do not know her, have never met her, and had never heard of this forum until a colleague, knowing of my interest in what can be done to customers in monopoly or near-monopoly situations pointed it out to me. It is a matter which I have researched over a number of years.
Most commentators here do not understand what is involved in an interim injunction hearing. If damages are a sufficient remedy, you don't get an interim injunction. The Judge records what each side says but does not try to work out what the truth of the matter is. That comes later. Especially here there is a Fair Trading claim - as the conduct of a company is more relevant than what the fine print says.
The Judge states Ms Sharma filed sworn evidence that all passengers were in business class. She will have had to file copies of their tickets. An internal Air NZ report quoted by him says some were not; but the Air NZ letter telling her not to use the Koru lounge in Auckland does not claim that. If the Judge did not have business class tickets in front of him I would expect him to say so.
I thought this would be a place where I could learn more about what frequent flyers think of the "judge and jury" powers of airlines to ban people who dispute matters with them. That is not how it has turned out. What a disappointment.
I am clearly not welcome in this toxic environment. I congratulate Garykung for his well informed efforts to try to bring facts and understanding to this forum. I hope he keeps at it.
For my part, I do not intend to do so. This is my last posting.
Most commentators here do not understand what is involved in an interim injunction hearing. If damages are a sufficient remedy, you don't get an interim injunction. The Judge records what each side says but does not try to work out what the truth of the matter is. That comes later. Especially here there is a Fair Trading claim - as the conduct of a company is more relevant than what the fine print says.
The Judge states Ms Sharma filed sworn evidence that all passengers were in business class. She will have had to file copies of their tickets. An internal Air NZ report quoted by him says some were not; but the Air NZ letter telling her not to use the Koru lounge in Auckland does not claim that. If the Judge did not have business class tickets in front of him I would expect him to say so.
I thought this would be a place where I could learn more about what frequent flyers think of the "judge and jury" powers of airlines to ban people who dispute matters with them. That is not how it has turned out. What a disappointment.
I am clearly not welcome in this toxic environment. I congratulate Garykung for his well informed efforts to try to bring facts and understanding to this forum. I hope he keeps at it.
For my part, I do not intend to do so. This is my last posting.
Feb 25, 2020, 11:53 pm
#98
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: NZ*G ELT, VA-G
Posts: 3,598
The Judge states Ms Sharma filed sworn evidence that all passengers were in business class. She will have had to file copies of their tickets. An internal Air NZ report quoted by him says some were not; but the Air NZ letter telling her not to use the Koru lounge in Auckland does not claim that. If the Judge did not have business class tickets in front of him I would expect him to say so.
Ms Sharma was in the wrong and will not get any sympathy here. This is a frequent flyer forum and to discuss the intricacy of the consumer law, you will need a different forum. Frankly, I doubt many would be interested.
NZ staff were more than courteous by letting all of them enter the lounge and wait while they checked her eligibility. In another country, the discussion would have ended at the door.
Feb 26, 2020, 12:17 am
#99
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: QF, NZ, MH, Hilton
Posts: 79
Feb 26, 2020, 12:20 am
#100
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: NZ GE, QF
Posts: 390
From what we have been able to ascertain they were not entitled to enter the Nelson lounge, but despite that lounge staff let them enter, but to me that is not the point here.
Regardless of their entitlement to enter it seems very clear that she was extremely rude to the lounge staff, and that is what is totally unacceptable. I think you will find that is why most of us have little sympathy for her.
Regardless of their entitlement to enter it seems very clear that she was extremely rude to the lounge staff, and that is what is totally unacceptable. I think you will find that is why most of us have little sympathy for her.
Feb 26, 2020, 1:45 am
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,344
Feb 26, 2020, 2:10 am
#102
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
I am not related to Ms Sharma. I do not know her, have never met her, and had never heard of this forum until a colleague, knowing of my interest in what can be done to customers in monopoly or near-monopoly situations pointed it out to me. It is a matter which I have researched over a number of years.
Most commentators here do not understand what is involved in an interim injunction hearing. If damages are a sufficient remedy, you don't get an interim injunction. The Judge records what each side says but does not try to work out what the truth of the matter is. That comes later. Especially here there is a Fair Trading claim - as the conduct of a company is more relevant than what the fine print says.
The Judge states Ms Sharma filed sworn evidence that all passengers were in business class. She will have had to file copies of their tickets. An internal Air NZ report quoted by him says some were not; but the Air NZ letter telling her not to use the Koru lounge in Auckland does not claim that. If the Judge did not have business class tickets in front of him I would expect him to say so.
I thought this would be a place where I could learn more about what frequent flyers think of the "judge and jury" powers of airlines to ban people who dispute matters with them. That is not how it has turned out. What a disappointment.
I am clearly not welcome in this toxic environment. I congratulate Garykung for his well informed efforts to try to bring facts and understanding to this forum. I hope he keeps at it.
For my part, I do not intend to do so. This is my last posting.
Most commentators here do not understand what is involved in an interim injunction hearing. If damages are a sufficient remedy, you don't get an interim injunction. The Judge records what each side says but does not try to work out what the truth of the matter is. That comes later. Especially here there is a Fair Trading claim - as the conduct of a company is more relevant than what the fine print says.
The Judge states Ms Sharma filed sworn evidence that all passengers were in business class. She will have had to file copies of their tickets. An internal Air NZ report quoted by him says some were not; but the Air NZ letter telling her not to use the Koru lounge in Auckland does not claim that. If the Judge did not have business class tickets in front of him I would expect him to say so.
I thought this would be a place where I could learn more about what frequent flyers think of the "judge and jury" powers of airlines to ban people who dispute matters with them. That is not how it has turned out. What a disappointment.
I am clearly not welcome in this toxic environment. I congratulate Garykung for his well informed efforts to try to bring facts and understanding to this forum. I hope he keeps at it.
For my part, I do not intend to do so. This is my last posting.
Even if you were eligible to use the lounge but you had history of being abusive to the staff you are going to get banned. As stated in the judge's report AirNZ under the law has to provide its staff a safe working environment. Ms Sharma was making the workplace unsafe for the staff. She had to be banned or AirNZ could be on thee hook for Health and Safety violations. What options does AirNZ have to provide a safe work place without being able to ban abusive clients?
Being a monopoly does not protect it from it obligations to the law.
Feb 26, 2020, 2:15 am
#103
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,645
Missed this.
Unlikely. Interim relief order is generally not appealable.
This is a civil action against NZ. The judgment only represented the interim relief so far.
In term of a civic action, I am not sure what you mean. But as a SOE, I do believe the NZ Parliament may have some says.
Unlikely. Interim relief order is generally not appealable.
This is a civil action against NZ. The judgment only represented the interim relief so far.
In term of a civic action, I am not sure what you mean. But as a SOE, I do believe the NZ Parliament may have some says.
Feb 26, 2020, 10:54 am
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,207
Additional opinion piece from Stuff regarding the AirNZ ban not being the only such instance.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...e-the-good-guy
Stoke Veterinary Hospital near Nelson, where Sharma was a customer, also took the extraordinary step of banning her over events in late 2017.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...e-the-good-guy
Last edited by Thai-Kiwi; Feb 26, 2020 at 4:11 pm