Umm pretty sure every business and government department works like that. Most govt invoices are 20th after the month. Some big business in NZ during the lock down said they would be helpful by trying to pay as soon as possible rather than dragging their feet.

This problem is bigger than airlines, its a bigger the business the longer they sit on money, for accounting purposes, problem. If you made all business not sit on money they would go bust. The business structures currently are built around it.

Also have to remember people picked the cheaper non refundable ticket opposed to buying the more expensive refundable ticket. Would you prefer cheaper tickets with option of paying more for a refundable ticket or pay for the refundable ticket cost for all flights with no option? People already complain about AirNZ ticket prices, as it is.

I think this misses the point- there is a great difference between a customer choosing to buy a flexible ticket to ensure refund is an option, and the pax with a non refundable ticket where the carrier chooses to amend/cancel the schedule which is unacceptable to the pax.

The latter case Is the point of contention.

I don�t mind if they go bust.

They could be sitting on $10,000 of customers money that would allow that customer to pay their mortgage because they�ve lost their job.

Air NZ already acknowledges their debt to that customer because they�ve given them credit. What use is credit that you can�t use instead of paying your mortgage?

Have to remember that it is only for a change outside of the airlines control. For other cancellations I have had they have refunded no issues, where was under AirNZ control.

Why is it contentious that a company is actually following the law and their T&Cs? Always knew things like pandemics, war, etc not covered for refunds or travel insurance.

It�s contentious because it�s not one person, it�s thousands of people who also have to pay tax to support the company that won�t refund them money they need to pay bills.

It�s terrible optics for ANZ.

AFAIK the only tax supporting AirNZ is the wage subsidy which has to pay wages (if was used to paid refunds would be fraud, additionally most AirNZ staff would be earning more than what the wage subsidy offers) and govt is underwriting charter flights for cargo and repatriation. Remember the loan is sitting in treasury's bank account, the terms of the loan introduce many strings which may/will make it more difficult to recover, so AirNZ hasn't used it.

The wage subsidy is for all businesses, don't think you can add more conditions after signing up thousands of businesses to the scheme

If cargo flights weren't underwritten many other businesses would fail as couldn't export. The amount of money left over after direct operating expenses will be minimal, not really enough to refund customers or support other activities. And chartering a flight is paying for a service not supporting the business.

It�s fine as long as they remember that there are other airlines and customers vote with their wallets.

It also looks very unfair to refund one set of customers but refuse to treat others the same way just because New zealand legislation is not very good.

Personally, they�ve lost my international business forever over this.

I just hope your principals extend to not booking with any of the vast majority of airlines in the world who are playing the same game of hardball. If you are going to be that principled it will make traveling quite difficult.

I had a US - NZ and return flight for late July cancelled by Air New Zealand. No apparent way to request a refund online, and phone queues the day I received the cancellation notice were jammed. Called one week later, no phone queue, refund processed on request and credit appeared on my card two days later.

I am US based and bought the ticket on their US website, paid in USD.

AirNZ refunded flights I requested refunded in 48 hours.
I am at over 10 weeks waiting on Qantas to refund a refundable business class fare. AirNZ is doing better than some others......

Someone filed a formal DoT complaint against Air New Zealand then withdrew it after the airline offered a refund/settlement. What a shame. Personally, I would have refused a settlement and continued the complaint until the end to seek a DOT decision against the airline to set a precedent and to achieve a benefit for everyone, rather than a few hundred dollars for myself.

https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2020-0044

I may be the passenger whose formal complaints (and formal complaint instructions) sparked the recent interest in formal complaints. I share your view, that on the whole it is preferable for a passenger to insist on a resolution that helps others, not just himself/herself. That said, I can't fault others for choosing their own way. It is an individual choice.

Are there other ANZ passengers similarly affected? At one point ANZ seemed to be telling everyone, by phone and in writing, that it would only comply with US law for passengers with US passports or for tickets sold from a US POS. It seems ANZ now concedes that was incorrect. But what of the passengers to whom ANZ made false statements? ANZ should find all thse passengers from its records -- call notes and certainly emails -- and affirmatively advise them of their entitlement to refunds. Meanwhile, if anyone has been told only a credit was available, and not a refund, that person could still file a formal DOT complaint and insist on a public on-the-record response from ANZ's attorneys.

After many calls nd outright refusal to refund NZ2/NZ2 I filed a DOT complaint. I received my DOT reply that in essence required AIRNZ to refund about 2 days before AIRNZ publicly conceded the issue. I rang and was given a refund which landed in my account 2 days latter. The required response from AIRNZ to the DOT arrived about a week after, stating that they were required to refund and on checking had already done so. Guess that had to follow thru so as to comply with the DOT.

Do you know regulation or precedent that asserts DOT rules apply on flights to/from the US even if the point of sale is outside the United States ?

Point of sale is a non issue.