788 flying BKK-AKL 7 Apr instead of 789
May 22, 2018, 6:41 am
#31
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 35
My BKK to AKL flight on May 24th has gone from 789 to 788. But the return leg on June 9 has gone 772/773. I've successfully avoid the TG angled lie flat for a few years now. Sigh, if only TG refurbished plans half as often as they replaced CEOs...
May 22, 2018, 12:36 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,214
Are you referring to BKK-AKL specifically in your (bold) comment above? THAI has only been flying with a full flat seat (the 789) to AKL since late 2017.
May 22, 2018, 8:56 pm
#33
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 35
No, i meant TG in general. I'm BKK based, and do 6-8 long hauls a year. I'll avoid TG like the plague if its not one of their newer aircraft.
Jun 1, 2018, 3:58 am
#34
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Programs: *A NZ Gold Elite for over 20 years previously SQ PPS and UA 1K
Posts: 282
Remedies for equipment downgrade to 777-200
A previous poster stated there are no remedies available if the equipment changes. This is not correct. New Zealand has strong consumer protection laws through both the Consumer Guarantee Act and the Fair Trade Act, (for summaries Google will bring up two excellent Consumer articles). In fact the Commerce Commission is currently pursuing Apple at the moment (see item below). Many suppliers bluster to avoid their obligations but their legal position is weak. For example the act requires reasonable durability, so if an item that fails after a one year warranty period that you would reasonably expect to have a longer life the CGA applies even if the manufactures warranty has expired.
To summarise:
The Consumer Guarantee Act requires service providers guarantee their services will be performed with reasonable care and skill and be fit for the particular purpose they were supplied. If something goes wrong, you have the right to insist the seller fixes things. Generally speaking, this means the retailer that sold you the goods or services must sort out the problem. You may reject the product and choose a replacement of the same type and similar value or a full refund of your purchase price; or claim compensation.
The Fair Trading Act 1986 protects you against being misled or treated unfairly by traders. The Act prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, unsubstantiated claims, false representations and certain unfair practices. It also sets out when information about certain products must be disclosed to consumers. If you’re told things that give you a false impression about goods you’re buying, then you have been misled or deceived. When information given to you about goods and services is not true, then a false claim has been made. The word “representations” covers any situation where a trader claims something about their product or services, either verbally or in writing. It can even cover cases where a trader doesn’t say something. Unfair practices are selling methods that mislead you. Unfair practices which are illegal under the Fair Trading Act include demanding or accepting payment without intending to supply the goods or services, or without believing they’ll be ready at a specified time, or intending to supply different goods or services.
If you seek a remedy and are not satisfied with the outcome an easy and low cost way to proceed is to use the Disputes Tribunal (https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz).
You pay a small fee from about $45, the claim can be up to $15,000 and a hearing at the local court is held and a binding and legally enforceable decision is made on the spot. There are no lawyers just you and a representative of the other party, you can also bring a support person if you wish. Most disputes are settled before the hearing as companies do not generally like to see their trade practices exposed to public view or to have decisions made against them.
So if you purchase a ticket advertised as being a 787-9 with lower cabin altitude etc. and a 787-8 is substituted your position is probably weak as they are broadly similar. But if you buy a 787 and an elderly 777-200 is supplied you have a much stronger claim.
Whether you take advantage of the protections available is a matter of personal choice, but if you do decide to you have all the legal tools you require available to you.
The Commission has warned Apple Sales New Zealand (Apple) after it likely misled consumers about their Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) rights and about its replacement products being new.
The CGA provides consumers with a range of guarantees about the goods that they buy for personal use. These include guarantees that goods are of an acceptable quality and that spare parts and repair facilities will be available for a reasonable time, unless the manufacturer tells them otherwise.
In the Commission’s view, Apple is likely to have breached the Fair Trading Act in a number of ways including by:
To summarise:
The Consumer Guarantee Act requires service providers guarantee their services will be performed with reasonable care and skill and be fit for the particular purpose they were supplied. If something goes wrong, you have the right to insist the seller fixes things. Generally speaking, this means the retailer that sold you the goods or services must sort out the problem. You may reject the product and choose a replacement of the same type and similar value or a full refund of your purchase price; or claim compensation.
The Fair Trading Act 1986 protects you against being misled or treated unfairly by traders. The Act prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, unsubstantiated claims, false representations and certain unfair practices. It also sets out when information about certain products must be disclosed to consumers. If you’re told things that give you a false impression about goods you’re buying, then you have been misled or deceived. When information given to you about goods and services is not true, then a false claim has been made. The word “representations” covers any situation where a trader claims something about their product or services, either verbally or in writing. It can even cover cases where a trader doesn’t say something. Unfair practices are selling methods that mislead you. Unfair practices which are illegal under the Fair Trading Act include demanding or accepting payment without intending to supply the goods or services, or without believing they’ll be ready at a specified time, or intending to supply different goods or services.
If you seek a remedy and are not satisfied with the outcome an easy and low cost way to proceed is to use the Disputes Tribunal (https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz).
You pay a small fee from about $45, the claim can be up to $15,000 and a hearing at the local court is held and a binding and legally enforceable decision is made on the spot. There are no lawyers just you and a representative of the other party, you can also bring a support person if you wish. Most disputes are settled before the hearing as companies do not generally like to see their trade practices exposed to public view or to have decisions made against them.
So if you purchase a ticket advertised as being a 787-9 with lower cabin altitude etc. and a 787-8 is substituted your position is probably weak as they are broadly similar. But if you buy a 787 and an elderly 777-200 is supplied you have a much stronger claim.
Whether you take advantage of the protections available is a matter of personal choice, but if you do decide to you have all the legal tools you require available to you.
Apple warned for misleading consumers about their rights
30 May 2018The Commission has warned Apple Sales New Zealand (Apple) after it likely misled consumers about their Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) rights and about its replacement products being new.
The CGA provides consumers with a range of guarantees about the goods that they buy for personal use. These include guarantees that goods are of an acceptable quality and that spare parts and repair facilities will be available for a reasonable time, unless the manufacturer tells them otherwise.
In the Commission’s view, Apple is likely to have breached the Fair Trading Act in a number of ways including by:
- telling consumers that products are only covered by a guarantee for 2 years
- referring consumers exclusively to the manufacturer of non-Apple branded products and excluding Apple’s liability for those products.
Jun 1, 2018, 4:28 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,214
With apologies to an English playwright - "Thou doth protest too much" ! At least IMHO.
You are quite right that consumers are offered some protections under the NZ CGA. However, good luck with bring a substantive case under the NZ CGA for an equipment change. Sure it is annoying, but I think that THAI's Conditions of Carriage specify that carriage in a certain class is provided, but not the style of the seat, or colour of the floor covering. Heck, Jetstar and other LCCs' CoC specifically exclude agreeing that they will carry you on the day/time on the ticket.
Remember the 346/772 were used BKK-AKL for many years with a similar hard product. Kudos to THAI for bringing a newer type to the route, but "one swallow a summer does not make" ....
THAI have a banner running on the NZ website that notes that equipment may vary, and a passenger could always seek a refund if they decided that an equipment change posed some kind of unacceptable circumstance.
An extract to what is agreed by a passenger who buying a ticket, and sure - it'd be better if this was all more visible and in plain language, nevertheless...:
https://www.thaiairways.com/plan-you...f-contract.htm
You are quite right that consumers are offered some protections under the NZ CGA. However, good luck with bring a substantive case under the NZ CGA for an equipment change. Sure it is annoying, but I think that THAI's Conditions of Carriage specify that carriage in a certain class is provided, but not the style of the seat, or colour of the floor covering. Heck, Jetstar and other LCCs' CoC specifically exclude agreeing that they will carry you on the day/time on the ticket.
Remember the 346/772 were used BKK-AKL for many years with a similar hard product. Kudos to THAI for bringing a newer type to the route, but "one swallow a summer does not make" ....
THAI have a banner running on the NZ website that notes that equipment may vary, and a passenger could always seek a refund if they decided that an equipment change posed some kind of unacceptable circumstance.
An extract to what is agreed by a passenger who buying a ticket, and sure - it'd be better if this was all more visible and in plain language, nevertheless...:
9 Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change without notice. Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections.
Jun 1, 2018, 2:00 pm
#36
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Programs: *A NZ Gold Elite for over 20 years previously SQ PPS and UA 1K
Posts: 282
Well I'd agree with you about interior decor but as an example if you are travelling in business class, specifically requested a lie flat bed and are paying for a lie flat bed and they supply one of those dreadful old 777-200's with the old angled ones where you slide to the floor constantly my view is that would clearly be covered by the acts 
Similarly if you are a diver and specifically chose the 787 because of the lower cabin altitude you would also have a basis to claim. T's and C's do not exempt them form the law fortunately, although they may choose to bluster and try and hide behind them thats not effective in my experience.
Similarly if you are a diver and specifically chose the 787 because of the lower cabin altitude you would also have a basis to claim. T's and C's do not exempt them form the law fortunately, although they may choose to bluster and try and hide behind them thats not effective in my experience.
Jun 1, 2018, 5:29 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,214
Well I'd agree with you about interior decor but as an example if you are travelling in business class, specifically requested a lie flat bed and are paying for a lie flat bed and they supply one of those dreadful old 777-200's with the old angled ones where you slide to the floor constantly my view is that would clearly be covered by the acts Similarly if you are a diver and specifically chose the 787 because of the lower cabin altitude you would also have a basis to claim. T's and C's do not exempt them form the law fortunately, although they may choose to bluster and try and hide behind them thats not effective in my experience.
Similarly if you are a diver and specifically chose the 787 because of the lower cabin altitude you would also have a basis to claim. T's and C's do not exempt them form the law fortunately, although they may choose to bluster and try and hide behind them thats not effective in my experience.Just curious - are there any examples you can provid a link where a passenger has had a circumstance similar to what you note above and taken a complaint to a disputes body sucessfully ? (in part or completely)
Thanks too for the PM - I have replied. TK
Jun 1, 2018, 7:50 pm
#38
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Zealand
Programs: *A NZ Gold Elite for over 20 years previously SQ PPS and UA 1K
Posts: 282
No links but I have made a disputes tribunal complaint personally three times with three different airlines (all Asian funny old thing) and all three settled before the hearing giving me what was sought and should have been agreed to in the first plane. Similar issues with NZ and LH were immediately settled without needing to even threaten to take action, in fact with the LH one I didn't even complain, the agent told them what had happened and they were proactive in offering a remedy. Although I must say NZ have lifted their game in the past decade, there was time before when they were not so good.
The point of the post really was to say that if an airline or any provider really (don't get me going on rental car companies!) fails to perform you have strong remedies available to you if you want to use them.
The point of the post really was to say that if an airline or any provider really (don't get me going on rental car companies!) fails to perform you have strong remedies available to you if you want to use them.
Jun 17, 2018, 2:16 am
#39
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 44
My booking in July has been changed to a 773 according to the latest update, which is a perfectly fine substitute (i.e. lie-flat and aisle access) for me. But I haven't flown Thai for years and am wondering what the chances are that this aircraft will be changed again to a 772? I checked a couple of times last week and it seems that the 772 has been used on this route the last few weeks. Any insiders or frequent Thai flyers with information?
Jun 17, 2018, 2:53 am
#40
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 427
Vardomannen..With THAI there is no knowing what aircraft you will get, until it comes to boarding. At least on this occasion the change from 787 to 777 isn't their doing, it is the fallout from the Rolls Royce engine issues. My upcoming LHR to BKK itinerary was booked on an A350, but that has been changed to a 777-300ER and my BKK-AKL-BKK has been changed from a 787-9 to what is currently showing as a 777-200
. I'm hoping it might turn out to be at least a 777-300, but realise that is probably just wishful thinking.
. I'm hoping it might turn out to be at least a 777-300, but realise that is probably just wishful thinking.
Jun 17, 2018, 5:49 am
#42
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Programs: Star Alliance Gold Elite, Singapore PPS, Qantas One World, Avis Presidents Club,
Posts: 50
Travelled Business Class and just adequate. Service also was just adequate although we did get the meals we ordered.
The contrast was emphasised when we boarded an A380 for the London leg. Business Class was vastly different as was the level of service.
Returning to Auckland on 18th Jul apparently on a 777-300 which is configured much like 380. Just hope that will be the case.
Last edited by WoodieNZ; Jun 17, 2018 at 8:51 am
Jun 17, 2018, 6:08 am
#43
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 427
Yes, WoodieNZ, the A380 is a great aircraft. Sadly the London flights that were A380 and A350 are now both 777-300, so now there is no first class on the route at all. I *believe* the A380 is returning to the route later in the year. It's not an infrequent occurence to book a good aircraft months in advance, only to find it's moved to a different route and replaced with a less satisfactory aircraft.
Jun 17, 2018, 8:57 am
#44
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Programs: Star Alliance Gold Elite, Singapore PPS, Qantas One World, Avis Presidents Club,
Posts: 50
Yes, WoodieNZ, the A380 is a great aircraft. Sadly the London flights that were A380 and A350 are now both 777-300, so now there is no first class on the route at all. I *believe* the A380 is returning to the route later in the year. It's not an infrequent occurence to book a good aircraft months in advance, only to find it's moved to a different route and replaced with a less satisfactory aircraft.