Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air New Zealand | Air Points
Reload this Page >

NZ to USA: NZ coach versus UAL business class impressions

NZ to USA: NZ coach versus UAL business class impressions

Old Mar 30, 08, 6:57 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,077
NZ to USA: NZ coach versus UAL business class impressions

NZ to USA: NZ coach versus UAL business class

Recently UAL canceled my CHC-SYD-SFO business class flight...I ended up flying with my family CHC-AKL-SFO coach on NZ.

Some impressions: food and entertainment NZ coach was better. I had carried several gallons of water with me, so bar service was not an issue. The only thing I missed was the extra space.

The other item that bothered my wife was that having to hide and constantly worry about the cabin baggage weigher's--which seem to be more aggressive on NZ. With gallons of water, and lots of school books (we did a few lessons during the flight), 7 kilos is a crazily low amount. My empty bag weighs that much.
AAaLot is offline  
Old Mar 30, 08, 8:36 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,315
You carried water from check-in right through security and on to the plane?

As to carrying books, if you're not already carrying a computer you could carry some in a computer bag - which would be a 'personal item' not included in the cabin bag weight limit?
kiwibigdave is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 10:36 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by kiwibigdave View Post
You carried water from check-in right through security and on to the plane?

As to carrying books, if you're not already carrying a computer you could carry some in a computer bag - which would be a 'personal item' not included in the cabin bag weight limit?
Actually I bought the water after security.

The baggage weigher's are everywhere Actually on this trip the FA from CHC to AKL stopped my wife, picked up her bag, and told here that on the next flight the bag would probably not be allowed (we did successfully navigate around all the weigher's however )

Nevertheless I stand that there should be limits, but that 7 kilos is not realistic when you see the airplane ratings and other airlines (USA based).
AAaLot is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 11:45 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SYD
Programs: OZ*G, VA gold, NZ*G (Elite), QF bronze, Hyatt Explorist, HH Gold, Bonvoyed ("Gold")
Posts: 5,102
Originally Posted by AAaLot View Post
Nevertheless I stand that there should be limits, but that 7 kilos is not realistic when you see the airplane ratings and other airlines (USA based).
I agree, especially when you can buy pretty much unlimited duty free after security and nobody cares
mad_atta is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 1:08 pm
  #5  
Moderator, Hilton Honors
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hopefully travelling
Programs: up in the air
Posts: 70,898
Perhaps that is the point? Imagine if the airlines allowed 20kgs and pax then bought another 10kgs worth of duty free?
Kiwi Flyer is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 3:58 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ , QF , MK
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by AAaLot View Post
Nevertheless I stand that there should be limits, but that 7 kilos is not realistic when you see the airplane ratings and other airlines (USA based).
hope you are ready to deal with the lawsuit if 10 kg of baggage improperly stuffed into an overhead locker falls out on someone during the heavy turbulence that is frequent on the Pacific . It has happened before ( a musician from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was seriously injured many years ago on a UA transpacific flight because someone thought that the carry on restrictions should not apply to them - his career was over in a matter of a few seconds - but I believe the lawsuits went on for years afterwards ) these restrictions are not there to make peoples lives difficult , they are perfectly sensible restrictions for safety reasons and while I realise that many carriers bend the rules on safety in this matter I applaud those who do not screw around with pax well being
kiwiandrew is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 4:47 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by kiwiandrew View Post
hope you are ready to deal with the lawsuit if 10 kg of baggage improperly stuffed into an overhead locker falls out on someone during the heavy turbulence that is frequent on the Pacific . It has happened before ( a musician from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was seriously injured many years ago on a UA transpacific flight because someone thought that the carry on restrictions should not apply to them - his career was over in a matter of a few seconds - but I believe the lawsuits went on for years afterwards ) these restrictions are not there to make peoples lives difficult , they are perfectly sensible restrictions for safety reasons and while I realise that many carriers bend the rules on safety in this matter I applaud those who do not screw around with pax well being
Generally I have seen Kiwi's be more aggressive, yet sensible, about risk taking. I have seen an applaud many activities in NZ that would be outlawed in the USA.

There is risk in everything and I am sure that very strange cases can be pulled to support a zero weight tolerance. My point is that in a country way people take way too much on board and where many many more flights take off each day (i.e. the USA), carry-on injuries are a strange occurance, not something that happens every day. For that specific reason airplane manufacturer's have rated the airplane so no one else needs to.

On the subject of safety, I applaud NZ sensible security or lack there of in domestic flights. Even though I know there was a problem this last year, I still think that using common sense and statistics is better than trying to prevent all risk without a balance to cost.

Even though I think that I was trying to imply through my post that service, even in coach, was better than UAL, there is a 'cost' associated with low carry on weight...and I am sure that more than one potential passenger has decided not to fly NZ because of it.
AAaLot is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 4:58 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: CLT
Programs: FT Member #8119 F & J Free Agent
Posts: 6,550
Originally Posted by AAaLot View Post
The only thing I missed was the extra space.

The space is what matters to me on a long flight.
planeluvr is offline  
Old Mar 31, 08, 6:22 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SJC
Programs: NZ*G, QF NB, UA 1K, AA ExecPlat, IHG PlatAmb, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold, ZE1 PC
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by AAaLot View Post
Even though I think that I was trying to imply through my post that service, even in coach, was better than UAL, there is a 'cost' associated with low carry on weight...and I am sure that more than one potential passenger has decided not to fly NZ because of it.
There aren't a lot of alternatives for getting to NZ (or AU) that do not have a 7KG restriction on carryon as well.

(Also, if there's two of you and you both have status that's 28KG of carryon...plus a personal item and any duty free)
ajnz is offline  
Old Apr 7, 08, 6:57 pm
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA Plat & 1MM, Marriott LT Gold, HHonors Gold, Hyatt Explorist & IHG Plat Amb
Posts: 12,218
Originally Posted by planeluvr View Post
The space is what matters to me on a long flight.
Me too

Originally Posted by ajnz View Post
There aren't a lot of alternatives for getting to NZ (or AU) that do not have a 7KG restriction on carryon as well.

(Also, if there's two of you and you both have status that's 28KG of carryon...plus a personal item and any duty free)
We flew Emirates, Qantas and NZ between NZ and AU, nobody ever hassled us even though we had 6 carry-on bags (and we're thankful )

Originally Posted by kiwiandrew View Post
hope you are ready to deal with the lawsuit if 10 kg of baggage improperly stuffed into an overhead locker falls out on someone during the heavy turbulence that is frequent on the Pacific.
I've been on hundreds of flights over 4 continents and never seen a problem. If liability were an issue I'm sure overhead luggage would be prohibited here in the US which is the undisputed lawsuit leader We could also reduce the speed limits to 50k on freeways, which would reduce fatalities by 10-20,000 per year. There is a cost/benefit analysis for everything. The benefits of NZ rule do not outweigh the costs, at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
Boraxo is offline  
Old Apr 7, 08, 9:44 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: This is a personal account and my views and opinions DON'T represent those of my employer.
Posts: 450
I'm not sure I agree with you there..

I read in all the American airline forums of First Class and Elite passengers forced to board early to ensure there's space for their carryons, and getting into nasty confrontations over same. Here in New Zealand, they can rest and unwind in the lounges until the last minute, knowing there'll still be space for their baggage and
personal item.

In my eyes, that's a pretty big benefit!
nz_crew is offline  
Old Apr 8, 08, 2:17 pm
  #12  
Moderator, Hilton Honors
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hopefully travelling
Programs: up in the air
Posts: 70,898
Yup. Flying AA I have to leave the lounge early to be at the gate at the start of boarding just to ensure I can put my bag near my seat. When the flight is delayed that results in a lot of standing around - time that could have been spent more productively in the lounge and boarding at the last minute (ala NZ, QF, SQ, etc).
Kiwi Flyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 08, 4:11 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
Programs: AC Aeroplan, ANZ Airpoints
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Boraxo View Post
Me too


I've been on hundreds of flights over 4 continents and never seen a problem. If liability were an issue I'm sure overhead luggage would be prohibited here in the US which is the undisputed lawsuit leader We could also reduce the speed limits to 50k on freeways, which would reduce fatalities by 10-20,000 per year. There is a cost/benefit analysis for everything. The benefits of NZ rule do not outweigh the costs, at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
I was hit on the head by a framed print that fell out of an overhead bin, I saw stars and nearly blacked out. I didnt think about suing anyone. but these were the days when people brought all sorts of weird stuff on the plane as carryon. Personally I wish people would follow the carry on rules closely, I am always amazed by what people think they can bring on to the plane on many american carriers.
Kanada goose is offline  
Old Apr 10, 08, 7:55 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MSP, WLG, or the forward most A seat in Y I can get
Programs: UA Gold (and all the derivatives on cars and hotels that implies)
Posts: 470
To say nothing of the fact that passengers loading their own luggage into the overhead bins significantly slows down the boarding process.

Everyone in the United States who carries on their whole set of luggage thinks they are saving themselves some time by not having to wait at baggage claim. But the social cost of everyone doing that is a delayed boarding process because there's not enough space on most planes for all that people will carry on. Then they have to gate check and the process slows down some more.

Kiwiflyer, why don't you fly UA or US and then board with *G to get your luggage on?
evanroberts is offline  
Old Apr 10, 08, 9:00 pm
  #15  
Moderator, Hilton Honors
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hopefully travelling
Programs: up in the air
Posts: 70,898
Originally Posted by evanroberts View Post
Kiwiflyer, why don't you fly UA or US and then board with *G to get your luggage on?
I have top status in OW also - so unless I fly DL/NW/CO/non-alliance I get to board first no matter which US airline I fly
Kiwi Flyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: