oranjemakker

Apart from Nancypants above kind of surprised most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "as long as they don't offload the Business and Status pax so I am OK everyone else can get stuffed".. Seems very callous and selfish and comes across quite DKWIA. At the most basic level I don't see what a status pax has any more expectation to receive their luggage, it seems a basic right of carriage surely?.

Also, most status pax and FT regulars are frequent flyers so probably have good travel insurance, often travel carry on only (or know to keep essentials carry on), are likely these days to have some sort of tracker in their luggage, and in general are probably more likely to be able to handle disrupts with less stress than people who don't travel as frequently and may really have a trip of a lifetime ruined. Its not like the airline warned anyone this could happen while presumably they knew it could be a risk

So actually you guys probably should have bags offloaded first!

kiwifrequentflyer

Just to clarify, I don't think that at all, it's just that user had already asked in a previous thread if Air NZ would unload BP bags. I had answered, and they asked again in this thread, so I answered.

I think you make very valid points. People in BP are also statistically be in more fortunate financial position to make do without their bags compared to others in economy. I feel for everyone whose bags didn't arrive, its very disruptive and stressful.

Thai-Kiwi

Lots of generalisations in his thread!

This is analogous to a situation where an airline can’t carry all pax (down-gauge aircraft, over-booking), and the initial approach is usually to seek volunteers to remain and be offered alternate flights. When there are insufficient volunteers, then they need to apply some system to determine who will be ‘Involuntarily Denied Boarding’ - usually cabin/status/fare class.

In this case, asking pax to volunteer leaving bags behind may have resulted in less attention paid on the method AirNZ used to select the bags that were to remain as, presumably, there would be less dissatisfied customers.

MSPeconomist

Yeah, the standard way airlines handle situations when there's a weight restriction because additional fuel is needed os for the carrier to do VDBs/IDBs to reduce the number of passengers on the flight. I can understand NZ not wanting to IDB people from an inaugural flight, but USA carriers have had great success in offering generous amounts (sometimes as high as $10,000 for certain flights) to incentivize customers to volunteer when needed

I wonder how many bag fees NZ collected for the bags that were offloaded.

nzkarit

5. 65 bags affecting 60 pax. Seeing Y pax with one bag included leaves 5 which would have been paid for 2nd bags.

OpenSky

This is all wholly unnecessary and expensive for everyone .. The ultimate solution would be the service needs to be operated reliably, so that everyones bags can travel with them, and the issues at check in are resolved. NZ needs to figure out the right amount of seats to block so that the plane can carry extra reserves without needing to offload bags and people.

I am booked on BP in about a month or so on this flight. I plan to travel with all my equipment, ( BP can check 3 bags) and make no apologies for that. If my bags don't make it to AKL - well that's a shopping trip courtesy of Air NZ ( allowed within US rules), and which NZ would have to reimburse me for, expenses for items I needed right away. But I would rather have my bags with me.

The ticket was extremely dear - and I had to work hard to pay for it. And no it was not a mileage redemption - in case anyone is wondering. Its basically non existent on this route. I expect to get what I paid for - a comfortable non stop journey to Auckland, with my bags. ( Spoken like a New Yorker, because I am)

If you can't make it here you can't make it anywhere Air NZ.

LyingFlat

NZ's liability with regards to delayed or lost luggage is limited to about $1800USD under the Montreal Convention (of which the US is a signatory). Generally courts have found that for delayed luggage, airlines can pay incidental expenses (such as reasonable clothing, toothbrush/toothpaste etc) rather than buying the claimant brand new equipment (such as cameras/computers etc). This is because with a delay the implication is that you will eventually be reunited with said equipment.

If the bag is lost entirely, then you will likely be able to claim up to the maximum amount set by the Montreal Convention. However, the onus is upon you to prove what was in the bag and it's value.

OpenSky

The bag alone ( empty much less the contents) would exceed the liability limit. I should probably take up extra coverage!

Can we get back to the main point : Which is NZ needs to fix this so its not a problem.

nzkarit

We don't really know if they have a problem yet or if it just seems bad because of the small sample size. The weather this week is apparently outside their long term weather models. So the weather I'm guessing had less than a 1% or 0.1% or something chance of occuring, based on historical data & forward looking models.

QF had to divert Dallas & Saintagio flights if I recall correctly from time to time when the weather meant higher fuel burn.

kiwifrequentflyer

Until they get the new planes, the NAN stop if necessary due to unforeseen bad weather is the best compromise. Everyone takes their bags and it adds an extra 2 hours to the flight, which while frustrating, is still faster than having to transfer to a different Air NZ flight in a different city.

sbiddle

But there isn't a problem so there is nothing to fix.

If there *was* a problem what do you propose Air NZ actually do? Stop flying there? Because that is the only real fix.

OpenSky

The flight planners perhaps ought to block more seats so that everyone can travel with their bags , non stop, which is what air nz is selling , non stop travel between JFK and AKL

nzkarit

And they do that. So far all the flights have been non stop & one has had to not have all their bags. They have indicated the weather is outside their model. They haven't said how many standard deviations they are using to say that. I would guess likely means <1% probability of happening which a few flights a week is only one or two flight a year when average it out.

If you look at QF with their Dallas and Santiago flights a few flights a year having to stop off in NZ seems about right. So they running a similar statistic model.

There has been an contributing factor that Ohaeka was not available as an alternative

poopbunny

Or less seats (more BP/PE/better Y pitch).
Save fuel on the dead weight seats.
Improve spacing.
Better comfort.
Greater valuable cargo capacity.

​​​​

nzkarit

Yep the code 3 789s coming in 2024 will have that. Though not sure about the increased pitch in Y.

Though even then doubt they will have cargo space.