Beano

thanks
There must be hundreds of passengers who just accept what Airnz say .
​​​​​​I assume DOT reply will be sufficient to sway the Airnz call centre for me but why should everyone have to complain to DOT when Airnz clearly know the Law ?
(I assume DOT will reply to all complaints)

racekp

Our friends are in the same boat for NZ2. They got a reply from DOT saying they have forwarded the complaint to NZ and asked NZ to respond to customer and include DOT. The email from DOT did not say outright what NZ is obligated to do but I think the email request from DOT to NZ direct has different content around NZ obligations. NZ have 30 days to acknowledge and 60 to respond as per DOTs request.

I think they will now seriously be looking at the NZ2/1 route and seeing what if any outs they have. I'm expecting my friends to be getting a email from NZ anytime soon. I thought NZ may have responded by now TBH. Fingers cross for NZ finally budging.

racekp

This was the email from DOT, and I assume on the basis DOT have bothered to respond and engage NZ there is a case to answer to under their regs.

This responds to your communication regarding the airline issue. The U.S. Department of Transportation seeks to ensure that all airline passengers are treated fairly. Complaints from consumers are helpful to us in determining whether airlines are in compliance with our rules and to track trends or spot areas of concern that warrant further action.

We will forward your complaint to the airline and will ask the company to respond directly to you. Airlines are required to acknowledge receipt of a consumer complaint within 30 days and provide a substantive response to the complainant within 60 days. If you have not received a reply within this time frame please let us know. If you need to contact our analyst assigned to your case, you may leave a telephone message on our Aviation Consumer line, xxxxxxxxxx, or send an email to xxxxxxxx. Please include your name and case number.

We have also entered your complaint in our computerized industry monitoring system, and it will be counted among the number of complaints filed against this airline in our monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. This report allows consumers and air travel companies to compare the complaint records of individual airlines and tour operators. The data in this report also serve as a basis for rule-making, legislation and research. Consumer information for air travelers, including the Air Travel Consumer Report and our pamphlet Fly-Rights, a Consumer's Guide to Air Travel, can be found on our website, https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer. Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Sincerely,

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior Aviation Industry Analyst
Aviation Consumer Protection Division

Beano

Airnz could then have hundreds (if not thousands ) of pending DOT requests .
To spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to avoid returning money to save a bit of interest on the government assured loan is something we expected from crooks not from a company like Airnz.
After all this is over there will many people who will no longer be prepared to pay a premium to fly Airnz.
Airnz.
such short term thinking

Beano

The reply to the travellers could well be "in our opinion NZ2 flight does not apply"
It may take a "test " case to settle this matter.
I for one would be more than happy to contribute towards a test case in the court.

sbiddle

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be mentioned in here but once again Air NZ have *NOT* drawn down their Govt loan.

Often1

Don't over-complicate this.

1. DOT rules dating to 2011, require a refund to the original form of payment to be initiated within 7 days of a consumer's request.
2. DOT send NZ and all other US carriers and non-US carriers with flights to or from the US, a Warning Letter on April 3, making it clear that the rules apply.
3. NZ cares a great deal about DOT action. While it may not currently serve the US, US traffic is critical to its operations once Covid-19 passes. NZ, as a condition of its landing rights, agreed to abide by US law and is violating US law.

The process is quite effective. Indeed the consumer complaint is forwarded to NZ for a response. The key is that the only response is to make a refund as admitting that a refund has not been made would violate US law and subject NZ to substantial fines (up to ISD 24,000 per ticket).

Coupled with a chargeback, the process seems quite effective and there are multiple reports here on FT from people who have had fairly quick resolutions once they have completed both steps. For both, make sure that you submit a copy of the e-ticket receipt, the cancellation notice, your request for a refund and either NZ's denial of that request or a note that you have not been contacted. Make sure that you give NZ the full 7 days.

What is truly shameful is that NZ citizens must use a US regulatory agency in order to get what their own government will not do for them.

nzkarit

What is your obsession with this quote? I am a NZ citizen and I am really not concerned that NZ law doesn't cover refunds for a once in 100 year pandemic.

For 99.9% of time AirNZs T&C's are fine and don't need Govt meddling, so is it really not that much of an issue.

Don't see the need to change the law to cover another pandemic in 100 years time when air travel will be a completely different form.

The day to day problems which DOT and EU261 are targeted to address are not a problem in NZ.

garykung

Good luck with that, as the case will be dismissed before you know it.

The law, regulation, rule etc. does not explicitly authorize a private cause of action. A formal complaint is the only remedy you have.

Often1

Both EC 261/2004 and US DOT rules protect covered passengers every day and have since 2005 and 2001 respectively. It is not just about Covid-19, but about routine issues which affect passenger flights on a regular basis. This is hardly an outlandish pair of rules on this particular point. If the flight is paid for and the carrier cancels it, one deserves one's money back. Not about fault or right/wrong. Simply about refunding what was paid for and not delivered.

nzkarit

And that isn't an issue 99% of the time in NZ. AirNZ when there isn't a 1 in 100+ year pandemic refunds flights when they cancel. As those events are within AirNZ's control so T&C's cover it.

So NZ doesn't need a law to cover a problem which doesn't exist in NZ. The day to day problems which DOT and EU261 are designed to address, is not a day to day problem in NZ.

Before SARS-CoV-2 came on the scene I can't think of a time when AirNZ didn't refund or put on an alternative flight.

So why does NZ this law to solve a 1 in 100+ year problem?

Eltham

Why the narrow-minded focus on Air NZ? The law would apply to any airline operating to/from and in NZ. It’s long overdue.

nzkarit

Well I haven't flown the other NZ airlines in quite some time. Though from what I have heard the the other NZ also refund when they cancel (outside of 1 in 100 year pandemics). But AirNZ is basically a monopoly, so really they drive the NZ public sentiment. Sure there was JQ but the sentiment was "friends don't let friends fly JQ".

The Eu and US have had issues with their domestic carriers (intra Europe) and that placed the pressure/need for law. NZ doesn't have that pressure. So long as AirNZ doesn't change their T&Cs I don't see the pressure going on the Govt. As the Govt isn't going to enact law for a non existent problem. The Air Travel problems which the public see is the perceived high cost of flights to the regions, followed by the Aussie border related taxes and fees.

Look at the US they have to have rules that have to let the people off the plane if on ground for more than X hours, because it is such a regular problem. Sure there are issues when planes divert to OHA but that is border reasons as to why they can't get off the plane and is only once or twice a year. And if dropped OHA may make flying to NZ more difficult as CHC is that bit further and need more fuel and then end up with issues when need two alternates, as Wellington can't handled A380s (and would still have to sit on the ground for the border staff to arrive as they are not generally at the airport at the time of the morning fog diversions)

Outside of the pandemic, what cases would it help with? Every cancellation I have had (and those of friends) have been given the option for another flight or refund. (yes mostly AirNZ because NZ based but that does include other airlines).

Also NZ is small fry and relies on tourism as an export earner. Would this law help or hinder airlines operating to NZ? Would airlines raise prices to cover their increased costs? (may make AirNZ look better as they already cover refunds) or just put NZ in the too hard basket? The US and the EU is of a size that can't just ignore the market.

I just don't see a need for law that wouldn't change things and if done poorly could negatively affect the aviation market in NZ.

Outside of the Pandemic would have a NZ version of DOT or 261, helped you in anyway? I am thinking back and can't think of any for me.

garykung

It is not about the need. The NZ Government simply does not want to restrict the operation of its crown jewel.

JamesBigglesworth

I don't think that is true. There isn't a great need for a rule or law or government-assisted programme as far as refunds for cancelled flights go because it is already substantively covered by existing law, despite what some of you say.

If you bought your ticket in NZ then the CGA and FTA both require a refund if service is not provided. This is also covered by existing case law. Now, a person *could* complain to the Commerce Commission, but as we all know that would be a largely futile effort. But Small Claims exists and works very well.

If you bought the ticket in the US then DOT is the correct and proper channel after a direct request to NZ. Comments about it being shameful that the New Zealand government doesn't help people who bought tickets in other countries are bizarre, at best, and simply potshot jingoism at worst.