Well NZ law says it's not - so that can only mean PWC is wrong.

Just because something can meet a technical definition of a SOE does not mean it is. Here in New Zealand state owned entities are covered by the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which has very specific rules and criteria around those companies that are SOEs, and the Crown Entities act also covers other businesses.

Here in NZ we also have mixed ownership companies where the Govt has a stake, and publically listed companies where the Government has a stake (of which Air NZ is one).

And don't forget, that PwC report was not authored by the NZ PwC office nor is it specifically directed at a NZ audience. It doesn't take into account the NZ-specific context of SOEs. When discussing whether or not Air NZ are a SOE, as it's domiciled in NZ, we should only consider the question in context of NZ law.

Actually, they don't agree with you in the manner you imply.

On page 8 they say that an SOE is anything where a government has a major or majority stake and that they're using the OECD definition, but they do so after acknowledging (page 3) that there are many definitions in law, practice, and countries. Their definition is simply one of global convenience for the purposes of their report.

More importantly for NZ, the government takes no role in managing or directing them, per se, unlike New Zealand SOE''s where their role and function is defined in law and regulation, and their goals are actively managed (or interfered with, depending on your political view) by government from time to time.

Just got confirmation of refund received (by my TA) for 3 x PAX, AKL - IAH - ATL then ORD - AKL return, booked discount premium economy - special fares. Was due to depart 23/5 and return 29/5. This after being declined 3 times. Finally been approved post the announcement 29/4 re US DOT regulations.

Air NZ cancelled these flights and offered no alternative.

Great success.

So have had my reply from my NZ2/NZ2 Dot complaint and with out coping the whole ::

"Based on the information you have provided, your complaint appears to fall under the Department's rules. We will forward your complaint to the airline and ask the company to respond directly to you with a copy to us. Airlines are required to acknowledge receipt of a consumer complaint within 30 days and provide a substantive response to the complainant within 60 days. We will review the airline's response. If you need to contact me, please include your name and case number (see above). I will make every effort to reply to your message within one business day."

So guess from here just wait till AIRNZ responds?

Air NZ (well Cam Wallace) said on Wednesday Air NZ were still awaiting clarification on the requirements of refunds to LHR.

Yes, but it appears that US DOT has already determined that your ticket falls under its rules and that it has jurisdiction. That being the case, the sole questions are whether the flight was cancelled and then whether you agreed to a voucher / credit in lieu of a refund. Presuming yes and then no, there really is only one answer NZ can afford to give.

DOT does not act on individual instances. Rather, it pursues those who violate, ignore warnings and then continue to violate. NZ's landing rights in the US are at stake here, it would surprise me if it falls on its sword over your complaint. These are rules which have been in effect since 2011 and are hardly new.

To clarify, yes the flight was cancelled, however no option given in context to credit/refund, just automaically placed in credit by AIRNZ even before any discussion, Rang asked for refund but just absolutely no traction on the matter, not even a rebbok, hence the DOT complaint.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12332601

Didn't take them long to finally concede, its about time -

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ing-through-us

But it should not have taken 8 weeks. #deceptive Air New Zealand.

Yep agree should not have taken this long. The worst part of this is just how the executive team just hung out the frontline staff to deal with it all, Shameful behaviour on their part..

Thanks to everyone in this thread! My wife was booked last Sept to fly SYD-LAX return using flights NZ5 and NZ6 on June 4th. We've received a bunch of flight change emails since we booked but didn't pay attention too much. I started to investigate getting a refund (as opposed to credit which would be hard for us to use) by reading this thread and understanding the DoT justification for refund. When I went back though the flight change emails with AirNZ, I found that on May 8th they moved my wife from NZ5 and NZ6 to NZ1 and NZ2. The original flights were cancelled, but the new flights are still flying.

I called AirNZ just now and said that I wanted a refund as my wife's flights to the states were cancelled. When she asked which flights had been cancelled, I just stated NZ5 and NZ6. She put me on hold for about 10 mins then came back to tell me the refund would happen in the next few days.

If I hadn't read this thread, I would have had no idea how to approach the problem. Thanks again to everyone!

Friends finally managed to achieve the refund outcome for NZ2/1 LHR route right around the 30 days after DOT forwarded the complaint to AirNZ. Comms from AirNZ was pretty substandard in my view, but anyway they got there in the end.

Here in NZ the pressure is mounting on Air NZ. Consumer NZ has been to see the relevant government ministers etc because Air NZ are sitting on tens of millions of dollars of people's money. Many of those people are losing jobs and so on as a result of Covid, so they need the money.

At the moment, Air NZ's argument appears to be "We need the money too so we aren't giving it back"! I do not think that will last very long because eventually someone in Air NZ will have the sense to realise what damage they are doing to their corporate reputation.

I filed a complaint through the US DOT for one of my flight bundles than went through the USA and got a response 3 weeks ago from AIr NZ agreeing that they would refund it. To date, no refund received however.

If Air NZ cannot trade without sitting on free loans from their customers, they should be allowed to go bust or the airline should be sold.