TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 11 Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 977 times:
Compo offer by Air NZ infuriates
12 March 2002
Freelance cameraman Peter Kaye is furious Air New Zealand will cough up only a fraction of the cost of a $10,000 camera that went missing on a recent flight.
Mr Kaye's broadcast-quality video camera went missing on a Wellington-Christchurch flight in late January. He is incensed that despite the camera going missing from Air New Zealand's baggage area it is refusing to pay more than $1500 compensation. "I'm gutted, it's the only asset of any value I've owned freehold and now it's gone."
He said the $10,000 camera had earned him $50,000 in the past two years, much of it for TV3, and he'd lost $5000 of work since it went missing.
Mr Kaye said he'd refused the airline's cheque and wanted to bring the issue to public attention.
"Apparently there is some condition in your ticket, but in reality who reads that fine print?"
His insurance company, New Zealand Insurance, had also refused to pay out because the camera wasn't taken from a locked area.
Mr Kaye is from Invercargill but is in Wellington for two months working at the New Zealand Festival. He went to Christchurch to visit his sick father.
He said Christchurch staff reviewed video footage of the baggage handlers' area and told him the camera case had never arrived. Wellington staff told him there were no cameras at the airport.
But Aviation Security Service central region manager Chris Tosswill said there were security cameras in the baggage handling area and if Air New Zealand had asked to see the tapes it could have.
Air New Zealand failed to respond to questions by the time The Evening Post went to press.
gotta love the quote though..
"Apparently there is some condition in your ticket, but in reality who reads that fine print?"
hmm..perhaps someone who was carrying the most important piece of equipment he owns should be doing that?
Aviatsiya.ru From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Whatever happened to the responsibility of the airline and airport authorities?
If the camera was stolen from a secure area; i.e. an area out of bounds to the public, then either Air New Zealand or the airport authorities are responsible...after all, one of their staffers would be responsible, as the public does not have access to those areas.
What's the bet that Air NZ will write this guy a cheque for the full amount of the replacement cost of the camera.
Now if only they could now write a cheque to all the AN employees they owe money to. As if screwing those guys over wasn't enough, now they have started to screw Kiwi's over as well.
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Unfortunately for him, the "Carriage of Goods Act" applies here.
Maximum Compo = $1500.
If he wants more, he'll have to pursue a civil action.
But then again, with the publicity, Air NZ might just pay him out the full amount!
BTW, the thread is about compo for lost equipment Kiddies!!
BBADXB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 878 times:
This reminds of some recent happenings...
One word of caution: if you're travelling through MLA (Malta) or even FCO (Rome), make sure you have a good insurance policy: my luggage got destroyed twice through MLA this year. A friend's very expensive luggage-piece also suffered from the same fate at MLA last year.
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 852 times:
Well there ya go!
But it depends on whose "staff" made those comments to him.
Airline staff? Or airport staff?
Or security staff? ( remembering that the last comment came from a senior manager, not the guy on the floor).
It's contradictions like these that usually start off a good case.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 817 times:
In this instance if it was in Australia there would be liability insurance that NZ would carry for just this sort of thing.
People are covered for such things under state and federal warranty laws pertaining to the purchase of transport.
Interestingly, my interpretation of consumer law is this, unless Air New Zealand specifically and clearly advises consumers of it's travel that they will not be liable for goods beyond a certain amount then they are in breach of various trade practices acts.
I personally would not have left such equipment in the hands of baggage handlers unless it absolutely has to be checked baggage. In which case common sense would dictate this gentleman would or should have sourced outside travel insurance for this item.
Now having said that, it's a difficult call as ANZ have accepted the checked item and it has gone missing. Security records show that it did not reach the luggage belt which means someone somewhere within NZ has pilferred the item.
I would suggest that NZ immediately compensate the individual and settle it. The airlines seriously need to make it pointedly clear that checked baggage has a value of only $1,500.00 unless separate insurance is organised.
It is also the resposibility of the travelling public to clearly look at their insurance policies and make sure they are covered for any theft.
Mate don't get so upset with people about the AN thing, emotions still run high and the damage done to NZ's brand in Oz is really sad. You've got bigger things to worry about such as QF moving on in big time and will squeeze NZ until the government allows it to buy 50%. Wait and see.
Vh-daq From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2001, 182 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 814 times:
I should've known this thread would degenerate. "
Everyone does have a point about AN screwing everyone over. i have 2 relatives that had just been married and moved to another state for ansett and then they both get the sack, so don’t just start blowing off the fact that AN screws everyone including Kiwi's
Why do you want to delete it? are you embarrassed at how a New Zealand icon has blemished its name and country????
TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 811 times:
Obviously, I don't believe NZ has 'blemished its name and country'. I'm just sad that I cannot start a thread about NZ without it degenerating into the usual emotional outbursts from some of our Australian members.
mx5 - yes, QF are squeezing hard, and I have little doubt their NZ domestic prices are under cost. However, your predictions about the future of NZ, AN, and DJ have been well off the mark so I'll have to hope the streak continues!
F27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 813 times:
No truer words spoken MX5_Boy and VH-DAQ my sentiments exactly. And yes all ANZ staff should be worried about Qantas coming in. I know how this guy must feel crrying around expensive camera gear. Mine does not leave my side
TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 793 times:
I'm interested in DJ's maneuvering.
Admittedly, their hands are full right now with taking on the rat, but they would be very effective coupled up with Freedom Air.. the only problem is that they can't feed/get fed by NZ in their current form, because Star requires all members to be full service.
If anyone would take on the rat, it would be Branson!
Jetkid From New Zealand, joined Jun 2001, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 776 times:
What I don’t understand is what’s in it for QF buying 50% of NZ? They would have to get commerce commission approval to do so, and there are some people in that organization that do not like even the thought of a QF/NZ tie up.
To get approval QF would need to prove there was competition on the Tasman and NZ domestic sectors, that’s a given I would of thought, who’s going to provide that – DJ? Why would they want to help QF get even bigger?
Does Virgin really need to operate Trans-Tasman or New Zealand domestic services? Freedom could be a very good partner in that situation, perhaps with 50/50 ownership between NZ and DJ? Neatly blocks a QF deal, as NZ still have a 50% stake in the only other domestic competition.
So for Air NZ the benefits are -
Cash generation from a 50% sale of Freedom. ($? value)
Feeder from the Australian domestic market, all-be-it the value based end, but better than nothing, and a growth area I would of thought.
Stops a blood bath with DJ entering the New Zealand domestic market in its own right.
For DJ the benefits are -
Allows them to concentrate on the Australian domestic market.
Gives them access to the Tasman and New Zealand domestic markets, without the costs involved in setting up that infrastructure.
Stops, or at the very least makes it very difficult for QF to gain a shareholding in Air NZ.
Still doesn’t answer the question of who would then be a buyer for a shareholding in Air NZ, but it could be a ‘win-win’ situation for NZ and DJ?!
Anyway, what’s the two letter code for Freedom, SJ, DJ&SJ, how convenient!
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Hey mate, your right about the bearded one but his pockets are not exactly deep at the moment if you think about it.
QF are moving quickly and unless someone big comes along with enough capital, NZ will have no choice but to go to QF on their terms. They also have the AN headache out of the way and can concentrate on the NZ market big time. DJ might be blossoming here but I feel they will expand a little slower than envisaged given QF's dominance everywhere.
Also try and remember that QF are getting most of the high yielding pax in Oz now which is bringing in a huge revenue stream. I've done a lot of checks on fares between the two carriers and QF are constantly undercutting them in NZ on most fare levels. For example I looked for availability late March for a return from AKL-CHC on both and the cheapest (non internet special fare) was $382.00 NZD with QF and $504.00 NZD with NZ. The e-deals appear similar $220.00 NZD QF and $228.00 NZD NZ.
E-deals (internet fare only) are a marketing tool really and represent little value to full service carriers. But clearly QF are pricing themselves significantly below NZ. But can this be called price gouging? You have to remember too that many former *star* business travellers in both NZ & most in Oz are heading towards the white rat in great numbers because of OneWorld too.
How long can NZ keep this up? The only wildcard in this is the rumours that SQ will put a premium domestic back in Oz reconnecting star feeds but will they do anything for NZ? (I highly doubt it.)
TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 11 Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 754 times:
mx5 - I think you may find this article of interest. It seems to nail the facts pretty well.
I must admit I shudder at the thought of the final vestiges of glamour and class of air travel being replaced by nuts and cola airlines everywhere (as I'm sure you do), but I guess that the majority have spoken, and, as usual, will forgo quality for price
Cutting Ansett Adrift Costs Air NZ
14/03/2002 07:49 AM - David Stone - The Independent
However, January may have marked a turning point. Overseas visitor statistics revealed more arrivals in January than in January 2001. This was the first month since 11 September that visitors increased compared with the same month of the previous year.
Preliminary statistics from Air NZ revealed a parallel trend. Although the airline reduced capacity (seats available per kilometre) by 3.9% compared with January 2001, revenue passengers per kilometre increased by 2.8%, with passenger loadings up five points from 77% to 82%.
The major problem was the decline in yield, due principally to competitive pressures from Qantas. Air NZ has always had competitors on most routes, but Qantas is pressing persistently in both international and domestic markets.
On our domestic trunk routes, Qantas is continuing to offer deep discounts without the normal advance conditions, apparently content to subsidise losses from the burgeoning revenue gained from its dominance in the Australian domestic market.
Although Qantas has denied this, the Australian consumer information service, Infochoice, has produced figures to support its claim that discount fares on some major domestic routes in Australia have already started to dry up following Ansett's demise.
Air NZ's losses on the Tasman can also be attributed mainly to pressure from Qantas. Qantas's ability to offer low fares between New Zealand and Australia is facilitated by the high proportion of trans-Tasman passengers - estimated at up to 60% - carried on longer routes to or from countries beyond Australia.
Contention between the two airlines was briefly compounded last week by speculation that Qantas was to acquire a 41% shareholding in Air NZ - half the government's equity. Although "emphatically" denied by Michael Cullen's office last Tuesday, it was given some currency by Wellington's Dominion newspaper.
In Melbourne, where he was to meet the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, Cullen was quoted by The Age as saying that the government "would consider any proposal in light of New Zealand's national interests."
He admitted receiving a call from Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon earlier this year, but said he had told Dixon that, if he wished to pursue the equity issue, he should approach Air NZ itself with any business propositions he had.
Dixon is unlikely to find much empathy in Air NZ, and competition issues probably pose an even greater barrier to linkage between the two airlines than was perceived last year when Ansett was still operating.
In Air NZ's interim report for the 2002 financial year, CEO Ralph Norris hinted at a possible future strategy development when he referred to "old airline business models ... being overtaken by those of the value-based airlines." He added: "We are rethinking the way we do business."
Norris noted that Air NZ was well advanced in a review of its short-haul network - routes of around four hours' flight time or less. This could indicate that an expanding role will be found for Air NZ's no-frills subsidiary, Freedom, adding Pacific island destinations to its new Australian routes.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 739 times:
The article is quite to point and has probably hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately the last vestiges of excellent customer service and quality died with the last struggles of AN. The only Oceanic carrier left with that is NZ and you can rest assure if they are going to resist the white rat they are going to have to match it.
Welcome to the bus of the skies. One of the very scary things predicted by some in the industry (and I agree) is the "pay peanuts and you'll get monkeys" philosophy. Australian aviators have been shafted big time with the advent of DJ - lower wages and lower costs. Whilst this formula does not necessary turn to bad maintenance et al, it will over time. The next generations of professional aviators will be in office towers making decisions where the money is.
It has been said some of the DJ drivers earn less than Cityrail drivers. Where has the prestige and glamour gone? Who's happy if they go to work grumbling about how badly they are paid? Particularly when they watch execs / shareholders getting mega rewards and the ground staff get nothing but pay cuts or freezes?
I had lamented for many years that I was unable to get into aviation and get my pilots licence because of all the trouble with the pilots strike in this country in 89. However now I am pleased - who would have guessed the things in store for us?
Who of the next generation is going to want to be a commercial pilot with all the turmoil and goings on?
I hope NZ survives and maybe the new management can prove that it's a viable business but I think the ones who will count (SQ) will still hold a grudge - perhaps not at NZ itself but certainly against the dragging of feet various governments have had in these issues.
It will come down to who has the money and I will be placing my bets on QF who commands a big chunk of business at the moment. Unfortunately they are getting the yeilds to prove it and that is what counts.
Bad service, bad attitudes and uncaring staff will rule the day in our skies soon, and the public will bitch about it but ultimately will become as complacent as Cityrail passengers are to rude staff and unending delays.
USA style - we seem to always follow them slavishly from street people to urban squallor to bus of the skies.
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 725 times:
Back to the subject,
"Interestingly, my interpretation of consumer law is this, unless Air New Zealand specifically and clearly advises consumers of it's travel that they will not be liable for goods beyond a certain amount then they are in breach of various trade practices acts."
The basic terms of the "Carriage of Goods Act" is written on the ticket in fine print usually outlining the maximum comp offered and a copy of which may be inspected at the airline desk; or something to that effect. Not sure of the exact wording; long time since I've seen an airline ticket.
We had the same thing written on our bus tickets when I was in the long distance coach industry; it's amazing how just about every bag that went missing contained the latest Nikes and expensive camera equipment!
Now sure! Who reads the fine print?
And who's going to go to all the trouble of requesting a copy of the Act and reading through it?
But by having this printed, an airline has pretty much covered it's backside.
"I personally would not have left such equipment in the hands of baggage handlers unless it absolutely has to be checked baggage. In which case common sense would dictate this gentleman would or should have sourced outside travel insurance for this item."
I totally agree.
If I had a piece of equipment that could earn me $50000 a year (I probably have, but this is a clean thread ) then that gear would be sitting beside me and it would be covered by its own insurance.
The poor guy probably thought, "Oh! Forty minute trip; what can go wrong?".
He still has the option though of taking a civil case under "duty of care".