and PS for anyone who would assert the 77W hasn't been a significant downgrade; check out the below links:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-New- ... 3/%2BHxztp

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-New- ... 3/%2BIRjtq

getluv wrote:

People need to calm down. Everyone is acting like this has been announced.

Eh, everyone? I just said that they were considering it.

The survey is significant, and for many QF FFs, concerning.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2018/05/new-study-finds-which-airline-is-the-cheapest-to-fly.html

So

- most expensive
- a well below par J hard product
- 10 abreast on 777

......not to mention Hi-Fly, schedule disruptions, no VLA in fleet, an inconsistent product on the Tasman and crowded noisy lounges. You can get away with all these things - but not if you're the most expensive. Blind loyalty - which I myself once suffered from - is finite. I'm asking myself, where is this airline excelling right now? The domestic operation I think is fantastic. But as for international arm...all I can come up with is the Y+ product on the 789. Safety record also perhaps; but then the New Zealand passenger would tolerate nothing less. The airline needs to lift its game or it's going to be 2001 all over again.

I am not going into the long list of "botch-ups" from you and planman (as many of them are not in my opinion, and we have discussed these to death).

However, I just want to add something regarding the "most expensive" airline: I am a bit sceptical about that "study", but that aside, it is absolutely common that the "home airline" (in the old days the "flag carrier") in many countries is actually the most expensive. The USA may be a bit different due to them having three major international carriers, but when I lived in Germany (and worked in the industry), I heard the same talk about LH. KL and BA, among others, were significantly cheaper. When I lived in Canada - guess what - everybody complained about AC and it being the most expensive. It's to do with the home advantage. And back to the "botch-ups", equally, I experienced that Canadians didn't like AC, Germans didn't like LH, etc. Why are local people then still flying them? Because they have a huge advantage in terms of network, non-stop options, key accounts, and brand recognition. Of ourse, that shouldn't excuse shoddy service and exorbitant fares, but it is the reason why they (mostly) get away with it.

planemanofnz wrote:

QF is considering following NZ's lead and introducing a 'Seats to Suit' type pricing offering on the Tasman.

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-is-look ... ource=hero.

IMO, this would be terrible for QF - they already have JQ for this, and would erode product differentiation.

The comments on the Aust BT article are overwhelmingly on average against the move - huge backlash!

Cheeers,

C.

JQNZ really can't grow beyond we're it current is at, they have an limited New Zealand bass of passengers that will be loyal too them then there is the large amount of the New Zealand market that has been burnt by JQ that will not touch them. Even with the Q300s services, these got scaled back from the original offering, and last two years later has not grown.

QLink as recent got 2x A320s (exJQ) for Western Australia, QF could be looking at doing the same for the Tasman/New Zealand domestic routes.

Current on some routes QF/JQ have an flight at the same time on the Tasman, makes more sense to bring the operation back under one brand.

planemanofnz wrote:

getluv wrote:

People need to calm down. Everyone is acting like this has been announced.

Eh, everyone? I just said that they were considering it.

The survey is significant, and for many QF FFs, concerning.

Cheers,

C.

Companies consider a lot of things that may or may never happen. What QF is doing at the moment is called market research. This is standard business practice.

zkncj wrote:

JQNZ really can't grow beyond we're it current is at ...

I dispute this, on two grounds:

1. If they can't grow, then they can certainly lose ground, and IMO, this would be one sure way of doing that

2. There are plenty of growth opportunities - they just started using wide-bodies, and could add new routes

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

JQNZ really can't grow beyond we're it current is at ...

I dispute this, on two grounds:

1. If they can't grow, then they can certainly lose ground, and IMO, this would be one sure way of doing that

2. There are plenty of growth opportunities - they just started using wide-bodies, and could add new routes

Cheers,

C.

Qantas is using wide-bodies (A332s) on select Tasman Flights now, Jetstar is still only using the A320 on the Tasman at current.

The Jetstar brand is at its current growth limit within New Zealand e.g. even with other low fares there is an large market that wont fly them...

We're as if you used the Qantas brand, you can open your self up to the whole market by 1. providing an full service, 2. offering an LCC service all on an single aircarft.

zkncj wrote:

Qantas is using wide-bodies (A332s) on select Tasman Flights now, Jetstar is still only using the A320 on the Tasman at current.

... and, your point is? Both can look to operate more wide-bodies in the future (even JQ), and new routes too.

zkncj wrote:

The Jetstar brand is at its current growth limit within New Zealand e.g. even with other low fares there is an large market that wont fly them ...

That's your opinion - not fact. JQ has said customer satisfaction had improved, and that we could see the NEOs.

Cheers,

C.

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

QF is considering following NZ's lead and introducing a 'Seats to Suit' type pricing offering on the Tasman.

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-is-look ... ource=hero.

IMO, this would be terrible for QF - they already have JQ for this, and would erode product differentiation.

The comments on the Aust BT article are overwhelmingly on average against the move - huge backlash!

Cheeers,

C.

JQNZ really can't grow beyond we're it current is at, they have an limited New Zealand bass of passengers that will be loyal too them then there is the large amount of the New Zealand market that has been burnt by JQ that will not touch them. Even with the Q300s services, these got scaled back from the original offering, and last two years later has not grown.

QLink as recent got 2x A320s (exJQ) for Western Australia, QF could be looking at doing the same for the Tasman/New Zealand domestic routes.

Current on some routes QF/JQ have an flight at the same time on the Tasman, makes more sense to bring the operation back under one brand.

You're a NZ apologist so of course you would say that. Everything at QF at the moment boils down to Return on Investment. I think they would love to expand JQ in NZ but they'd be chasing a very small profit pool.

The Minister for Transport has had his responsibility for the CAA stripped and given to Julie Anne Genter, after he made a call on-board a flight.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12058025.

The CAA is investigating, and it'll be interesting to see what happens to Mr Twyford after the completion of that investigation. What do you think?

Cheers,

C.

zkeoj wrote:

However, I just want to add something regarding the "most expensive" airline: I am a bit sceptical about that "study",

You're right to be highly sceptical about these internet based "studies", but this one - being purely quantitative rather than qualitative might have more validity. Might.

zkeoj wrote:

but that aside, it is absolutely common that the "home airline" (in the old days the "flag carrier") in many countries is actually the most expensive.

I experienced that Canadians didn't like AC, Germans didn't like LH, etc.

Do you think that applies to New Zealanders and NZ though? It's regularly reported as being one of the most trusted, respected companies in the country. I myself was mesmerised by them for 40 years until I woke up one day and realised they were taking my custom for granted and providing a product I didn't want that cost too much.

Gasman wrote:

Do you think that applies to New Zealanders and NZ though? It's regularly reported as being one of the most trusted, respected companies in the country. I myself was mesmerised by them for 40 years until I woke up one day and realised they were taking my custom for granted and providing a product I didn't want that cost too much.

Its just like how New Zealand became independent 111years ago yet we are stuck with the queen has head of state etc

Christopher Luxon attended an event in Canberra, Australia by Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ), which launched a report about issues with airports in Australasia.

The report said the four main airports across the Tasman were collecting 25 per cent more revenue per passenger than they were 10 years ago, and that services had not improved.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12057998.

There's a certain element of irony here, in that IMO, NZ also hasn't really improved its services from 10 years ago - though I can't comment on NZ's RPP position in that period.

Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2018/05/new-study-finds-which-airline-is-the-cheapest-to-fly.html

So

- most expensive
- a well below par J hard product
- 10 abreast on 777

......not to mention Hi-Fly, schedule disruptions, no VLA in fleet, an inconsistent product on the Tasman and crowded noisy lounges. You can get away with all these things - but not if you're the most expensive. Blind loyalty - which I myself once suffered from - is finite. I'm asking myself, where is this airline excelling right now? The domestic operation I think is fantastic. But as for international arm...all I can come up with is the Y+ product on the 789. Safety record also perhaps; but then the New Zealand passenger would tolerate nothing less. The airline needs to lift its game or it's going to be 2001 all over again.

Oh please, expensive but let the consumer decide if it's value for money. At the end of the day who cares if they're most expensive if the customer is happy with what they paid for. They're also comparing LCC's with full service, it's like saying the Hilton is more expensive than Auckland City Backpackers lol.

Well below par J hard product is just being dramatic too, it's still suitable to today's market and NZ has already announced it's being upgraded withing 4-5 years.

10 abreast its a complaint on here and with a small handful of passengers. I'm sick of reading about it. It's been in play for years now and NZ has just gone from strength to strength so proves this is a dead argument and the customers are happy.

Just another reason for some to try put the boot in.

It also amuses me that many have criticized NZ for seats to suit yet it's proven to work and now QF are looking at it.

Don't expect DPS on EK to last when they actually get slots at the port they want to transit in.

NZ6 wrote:

Oh please, expensive but let the consumer decide if it's value for money.

Absolutely. And this consumer decided about 5 years ago, that it isn't value for money. Maybe you have faith in NZ management's ability to predict when a critical mass of frequent fliers are about to walk. I don't.

NZ6 wrote:

They're also comparing LCC's with full service, it's like saying the Hilton is more expensive than Auckland City Backpackers lol.

They're not. QF's cost came in at less than half NZ's. And if anyone is the "LCC" of that particular pairing, it's NZ.

NZ6 wrote:

Well below par J hard product is just being dramatic too, it's still suitable to today's market and NZ has already announced it's being upgraded withing 4-5 years.

Disagree on all counts. It's cramped widthwise, uncomfortable in seat config and completely lacking in privacy and storage space. It's always been this way but the passage of time is not helping.4-5 years is way too far in the future. And it remains to be seen what they come up with as a replacement.

NZ6 wrote:

10 abreast its a complaint on here and with a small handful of passengers. I'm sick of reading about it. It's been in play for years now and NZ has just gone from strength to strength so proves this is a dead argument and the customers are happy.

Disagree again. It remains one major reason why I will not fly NZ long haul, and while NZ persist with it many airlines have opted against it (or provide a superior experience in the form of the A330, A380 or 748i)

NZ6 wrote:

Just another reason for some to try put the boot in.

It isn't sport.

NZ6 wrote:

It also amuses me that many have criticized NZ for seats to suit yet it's proven to work and now QF are looking at it.

"Looking at it" in the form of conducting market research is a long way from adopting it, and if they do, I'll be equally disappointed with QF.

planemanofnz wrote:

The Minister for Transport has had his responsibility for the CAA stripped and given to Julie Anne Genter, after he made a call on-board a flight.

See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12058025.

The CAA is investigating, and it'll be interesting to see what happens to Mr Twyford after the completion of that investigation. What do you think?

Cheers,

C.

Hopefully slapped with a fine at least. As minister he should have known better and it is fair to hold him to a higher standard than most people.

Plus it's important to show the public that even minsters aren't above the law.

From memory Brownlee was charged and fined the maximum allowed when he went through the security screening exit to catch a plane.

Gasman wrote:

... this consumer decided about 5 years ago, that it isn't value for money.

+1 - though, NZ probably doesn't care, because 1) through minimal work of their own, they're riding the tourism boom here with minimal competition in major markets (like Japan), or 2) they're carving up previously competitive markets with JV's (like SIN), such that, consumers don't really have an alternative non-stop choice to them. It's depressing to watch.

Gasman wrote:

Disagree on all counts. It's cramped widthwise, uncomfortable in seat config and completely lacking in privacy and storage space.

+1 - there's a reason why CX had to cull its version of the seat. NZ has gotten away with it for a lot longer than CX did, because 1) it has had minimal relative and significant competition until recently, and 2) it masks the inferiority of the hard product with outrageous safety videos, advertisements and so-called 'Kiwiana' service, in the hope of a distraction.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

+1 - there's a reason why CX had to cull its version of the seat. NZ has gotten away with it for a lot longer than CX did, because 1) it has had minimal relative and significant competition until recently, and 2) it masks the inferiority of the hard product with outrageous safety videos, advertisements and so-called 'Kiwiana' service, in the hope of a distraction.

Cheers,

C.

Whoa! I rode the NZ 789 in Business Class and it was fine - more comfortable than most of the competition and as comfortable as the best of 'em.

mariner

getluv wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

QF is considering following NZ's lead and introducing a 'Seats to Suit' type pricing offering on the Tasman.

See: https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-is-look ... ource=hero.

IMO, this would be terrible for QF - they already have JQ for this, and would erode product differentiation.

The comments on the Aust BT article are overwhelmingly on average against the move - huge backlash!

Cheeers,

C.

JQNZ really can't grow beyond we're it current is at, they have an limited New Zealand bass of passengers that will be loyal too them then there is the large amount of the New Zealand market that has been burnt by JQ that will not touch them. Even with the Q300s services, these got scaled back from the original offering, and last two years later has not grown.

QLink as recent got 2x A320s (exJQ) for Western Australia, QF could be looking at doing the same for the Tasman/New Zealand domestic routes.

Current on some routes QF/JQ have an flight at the same time on the Tasman, makes more sense to bring the operation back under one brand.

You're a NZ apologist so of course you would say that. Everything at QF at the moment boils down to Return on Investment. I think they would love to expand JQ in NZ but they'd be chasing a very small profit pool.

and other companies don't work on return on investment models?

QF gets thrashed by NZ on any route they compete on, QF just knows competing with NZ is a waste of time....

planemanofnz wrote:

Gasman wrote:

... this consumer decided about 5 years ago, that it isn't value for money.

+1 - though, NZ probably doesn't care, because 1) through minimal work of their own, they're riding the tourism boom here with minimal competition in major markets (like Japan), or 2) they're carving up previously competitive markets with JV's (like SIN), such that, consumers don't really have an alternative non-stop choice to them. It's depressing to watch.

Gasman wrote:

Disagree on all counts. It's cramped widthwise, uncomfortable in seat config and completely lacking in privacy and storage space.

+1 - there's a reason why CX had to cull its version of the seat. NZ has gotten away with it for a lot longer than CX did, because 1) it has had minimal relative and significant competition until recently, and 2) it masks the inferiority of the hard product with outrageous safety videos, advertisements and so-called 'Kiwiana' service, in the hope of a distraction.

Cheers,

C.

no it has to do with the market
Kiwi's love paying high prices for terrible services across all industries and are easily fooled...
HK'ers are not easily fooled so CX has to respond quickly...

anyone that thinks NZ is an amazing airline with fantastic service has never flown SQ/CX etc

It is also why Kiwi's tolerate Auckland airport.... Third world countries have more organised and relaxing terminals...

I do love this belief I find everywhere that one's own locals are somehow the most gullible in the world. I've seen it in NZ, Aus, UK, France, Germany, etc. Everyone thinks they're people are the stupidest and are somehow amazingly incompetent when it comes to investment.

Maybe being a population of 4.5 million in the middle of nowhere has something to do with high prices. If Air NZ was milking stuff as much as some here are sure they do then competitors would be having a great time coming in and having their lunch. But as we keep seeing time and time again this just isn't happening.

Kashmon wrote:

anyone that thinks NZ is an amazing airline with fantastic service has never flown SQ/CX etc

I'm not a Kiwi. I don't think NZ is an "amazing" airline with "fantastic" service, but I think it is at least as good as much of the competition, including the two you mentioned and the etc's, whoever they are.

matiner

mariner wrote:

I rode the NZ 789 in Business Class and it was fine - more comfortable than most of the competition and as comfortable as the best of 'em.

Yet you give no specifics? I'm surprised to read your opinion, considering that the 789 product is actually inferior to the 772/77W ones - just look at the different widths around the seat-wall space here, due to the seats on the 789 having to be angled more towards the aisle (789 on the left):



This results in the cocktail table being right behind your left shoulder, rather than within easy reach. On the 789, you also can't sleep on pillowed arms, with elbows sticking out into the shoulder space once the seat becomes flipped down (as in the 777's). It's also harder to keep a bag next to you.

There are all sorts of other issues which are standard across the whole Business Class hard product (both 777's and 789's), like a comparatively smaller IFE screen, no headrest, no adjustable footrest, and the either fully up or fully down seat position (i.e. no proper recliner options). Not great.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I rode the NZ 789 in Business Class and it was fine - more comfortable than most of the competition and as comfortable as the best of 'em.

Yet you give no specifics? I'm surprised to read your opinion, considering that the 789 product is actually inferior to the 772/77W ones

(And the 772/77W ones were shrunk by comparison to the 744)

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

If Air NZ was milking stuff as much as some here are sure they do then ...

NZ has been milking i) a tourism boom partly caused by geopolitical instability and the view that New Zealand is a stable and isolated getaway, and ii) a very strong domestic economy which has outperformed much of the developed world, and is in its second-longest growth streak since WWII. Both of these factors are not attributable to NZ, but have increased the demand for flights to New Zealand, many of which NZ has monopolies on.

Therefore, NZ's good numbers are not actually all down to its so-called amazing strategies, but rather, a natural by-product of the environment it finds itself in. IMO, in all honesty, it will not last. If you look at NZ's numbers from last year, you'll see that they've suffered a major revenue hit in the Americas, and big yield pressures in Asia. These pressures are forcing the airline to gets it act together on the likes of Wi-Fi, which it lags greatly on.

Cheers,

C.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I do love this belief I find everywhere that one's own locals are somehow the most gullible in the world. I've seen it in NZ, Aus, UK, France, Germany, etc. Everyone thinks they're people are the stupidest and are somehow amazingly incompetent when it comes to investment.

Maybe being a population of 4.5 million in the middle of nowhere has something to do with high prices. If Air NZ was milking stuff as much as some here are sure they do then competitors would be having a great time coming in and having their lunch. But as we keep seeing time and time again this just isn't happening.

they can't because most NZ companies are buddy buddy with the Government....

Foodstuffs
Air NZ
Fonterra

Kiwi's are gullible and easily conned....

No other country would accept the price for milk and butter that Kiwi's pay....

middle of no where?- really- last I checked we actually produce most of our dairy yet sell it for quarter the price overseas.....

this attitude extends across to most industries...

mariner wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

anyone that thinks NZ is an amazing airline with fantastic service has never flown SQ/CX etc

I'm not a Kiwi. I don't think NZ is an "amazing" airline with "fantastic" service, but I think it is at least as good as much of the competition, including the two you mentioned and the etc's, whoever they are.

matiner

yes the no PTV's on all flights, the NO food, the NO actual service and the payment for luggage etc is really the same level as the competition
the crammed business class, the Ageing FA's, the pathetic third rate hub airport.....
Kiwi's are easily fooled- example 1

meh good job for air NZ- just invest in fancy safety videos and everyone pays 3 times the price for lesser service!!

Kashmon wrote:

just invest in fancy safety videos and everyone pays 3 times the price for lesser service!

Or if you can't beat the competition, join them with JVs which reduces your pressure.



Cheers,

C.

Gasman wrote:

zkeoj wrote:

However, I just want to add something regarding the "most expensive" airline: I am a bit sceptical about that "study",

You're right to be highly sceptical about these internet based "studies", but this one - being purely quantitative rather than qualitative might have more validity. Might.

zkeoj wrote:

but that aside, it is absolutely common that the "home airline" (in the old days the "flag carrier") in many countries is actually the most expensive.

I experienced that Canadians didn't like AC, Germans didn't like LH, etc.

Do you think that applies to New Zealanders and NZ though? It's regularly reported as being one of the most trusted, respected companies in the country. I myself was mesmerised by them for 40 years until I woke up one day and realised they were taking my custom for granted and providing a product I didn't want that cost too much.

Yes, I do think it applies here as well. It's two different things, moaning about an airline, and flying with them. For a number of reasons (as mentioned in my previous post), lots of people fly with their home airline, while at the same time moaning about them. I considered switching to OW/QF, but I can't bear the thought of adding another 3+ hours to OZ, 1-3 hours transfer time and then another 2+ hours OZ-LAX, for example. If my employer paid J I'd be happy to, but not in Y... And I only considered switching because it is so hard to get status with NZ these days. I fly more than ever, but now just scrape in. In fact, in April I had to do a PE flight to OZ to get gold again, despite so many flights over the previous year. Once you have gold, I think Airpoints is actually quite good. Most airlines don't offer 2 upgrades, for example.
I may have to add that most of my trips are to Europe, so I have another ~12 hour flight after LAX/SFO/YVR/HKG/SIN/etc... We flew to PEK and to SIN with QF last year for holidays, and for those trips the OZ stop was ok, but still added a lot of time, compared to the nonstops. And in Y, I don't think QF is any better than NZ. I love the A330s for the 2-seaters, but the ones we were on were old and worn, and vastly inferior IFE compared to NZ's 777 or 787. Good and not-so-good things for both airlines, I guess.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

It also amuses me that many have criticized NZ for seats to suit yet it's proven to work and now QF are looking at it.

"Looking at it" in the form of conducting market research is a long way from adopting it, and if they do, I'll be equally disappointed with QF.

What on earth is wrong with giving the consumer real choice in terms of the product they purchase? For this passenger the unbundling of air fares gives me real choice and I welcome it. QF has mostly been off the radar for me because there’s no advantage in paying top dollar for a product I will only use part of (ie the seat). Almost all people in my circle feel the same.

Of course, unbundling doesn’t match the somewhat elitist expectations of what a “proper” airline looks like. I’d venture to suggest though that unbundling, along with 10-abreast Y on 777s, is the way of the future and will be instrumental in keeping fares down to reasonable levels. Of course, if one doesn’t have to pay for one’s own travel then one does have the luxury of taking such a lofty position.

A further thought: if QF do in the end unbundle, it will be because they reckon that it will be advantageous to their market position. Surely that’s the ultimate test, not the reaction on A-net by a small group of av-geeks. As has been pointed out by others, the strategy doesn’t seem to have harmed Nz’s bottom line.

The crux of the matter is that if you don't like it you have a choice for your business. You can fly any airline you like if you don't like NZ fly one of the 29 other airlines that have international service. If it is a market that has no direct competition you can still fly via somewhere else if you don't want to pay the surcharge for flying the nonstop option.

You have all the power here if you stop and your friends stop flying NZ then you will force their hand. But you don't, because it's just too convenient, and they fly at the time you want and they through-check your baggage and issue boarding passes from domestic and any other excuse you care to name. Of course, if you don't fly the competition they will pull out of AKL and of course, NZ will benefit anyway. And naturally, when NZ is the one that stays you will blame them for having a monopoly.

International travel is bloody cheap these days, especially given we are so isolated from the rest of the world.
I suggest people who think air travel is expensive quit bellyaching and enjoy it while you still can. Travel is a luxury, it isn't necessary but it sure is a nice privilege. There is rapidly coming a day when international air travel everywhere will be much more expensive and airlines will be treated like tobacco companies with environment surcharges and taxes from centre-left governments who see being green as an easy way of making a lot of tax money from everyone, which pays for all the other stuff that they promise you but can't actually afford. In 20 years you will be remembering the good old days when it only cost you $1300 to fly to Europe when governments at either end of your journey weren't charging you $600 for environment tax, and another $200 on fuel surcharges. Already you have this happening in places like Sweden. You will see it adopted here too I am sure.

Deepinsider wrote:

From aerorobnz,

I love lounges that have a quiet/no cell zone and lots of partitions to keep the sound down. I like the food and drink but I go there to relax in quiet away from the stress of a terminal concourse, as long as everyone that is there tows the line I'm ok. I had a laugh in EWR United Club last week. It was seething busy and a wealthy Jewish jeweller (who sounded a bit like Fran Drescher) came and sat down right next to me and promptly spent the next hour talking about everything from fashion to medical issues and anything else she could think of at the top of her voice. She finally got off the phone and left to catch her flight, at which time the other two guys nearby on the table made comments about our ears ringing still even though she had gone. Lounges should be quiet and dignified and suitable for work, relaxation and even rest.

I so empathise with this. Airlines shouldn't want to have their pax unsatisfied, especially in a 'VIP' lounge context , but look here in NZ,
There is no attempt whatsoever to consider this reduction in their premium customers comfort.
( I admire the patience of the other pax with you there, if I'd been there,I'd might have created a scene. And in the context of USA security, I'd also have been the loser!)

Agree with your sentiments completely. And - actually - I have created a "scene" in a similar scenario on one occasion.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I rode the NZ 789 in Business Class and it was fine - more comfortable than most of the competition and as comfortable as the best of 'em.

Yet you give no specifics? I'm surprised to read your opinion, considering that the 789 product is actually inferior to the 772/77W ones - just look at the different widths around the seat-wall space here, due to the seats on the 789 having to be angled more towards the aisle (789 on the left):

This results in the cocktail table being right behind your left shoulder, rather than within easy reach. On the 789, you also can't sleep on pillowed arms, with elbows sticking out into the shoulder space once the seat becomes flipped down (as in the 777's). It's also harder to keep a bag next to you.

There are all sorts of other issues which are standard across the whole Business Class hard product (both 777's and 789's), like a comparatively smaller IFE screen, no headrest, no adjustable footrest, and the either fully up or fully down seat position (i.e. no proper recliner options). Not great.

Cheers,

C.

Fully agree with you Planeman. The 789 seat is awkward to put it mildly and certainly not up with the best of them I'm afraid

aerorobnz wrote:

The crux of the matter is that if you don't like it you have a choice for your business ...

Well, yes and no:

- Yes, new carriers now fly to New Zealand, and NZ is really feeling the pinch of this (e.g. after the arrival of AA and expansion of HA, NZ's North American numbers suffered); but
- No, NZ still maintains many monopolies - e.g., if I am a time-poor businessman off to a financial hub like SIN, TYO of SFO, I have to fly NZ (or in a JV) even if the product is terribly poor.

Particularly in the premium end of the plane, NZ knows this, and so has been slow to re-jig its Business Class and offer many of the finer points, like inflight Wi-Fi; it simply has not had to.

aerorobnz wrote:

You have all the power here if you stop and your friends stop flying NZ then you will force their hand.

I disagree with your suggestion that people stopping flying NZ will force NZ's hand. IMO, people are stopping flying with NZ, even if on a small scale - it's just being masked by (as I stated above) i) a tourism boom partly caused by geopolitical instability and the view that New Zealand is a stable and isolated getaway, and ii) a very strong domestic economy which has outperformed much of the developed world, and is in its second-longest growth streak since WWII. Both of these factors are not attributable to NZ, but consistently increase the demand for flights to New Zealand, many of which NZ has monopolies on - NZ is therefore less vulnerable to existing customers exercising our so-called "power" to stop flying with them, and "force their hand" - there are plenty of new (and unsuspecting) customers.

Cheers,

C.

aerorobnz wrote:

The crux of the matter is that if you don't like it you have a choice for your business. You can fly any airline you like if you don't like NZ fly one of the 29 other airlines that have international service. If it is a market that has no direct competition you can still fly via somewhere else if you don't want to pay the surcharge for flying the nonstop option.

You have all the power here if you stop and your friends stop flying NZ then you will force their hand. But you don't, because it's just too convenient, and they fly at the time you want and they through-check your baggage and issue boarding passes from domestic and any other excuse you care to name. Of course, if you don't fly the competition they will pull out of AKL and of course, NZ will benefit anyway. And naturally, when NZ is the one that stays you will blame them for having a monopoly.

Yes we do indeed have choice and these days I've given up on retaining Elite and just go for Gold because I predominantly use other airlines - most of my flying is in business class from cities in Asia to the US or Europe and back to NZ 3 - 4 x per year and I've made this choice because I just find NZ overpriced for the quality of the product and find the configuration and seats more spacious and offering more privacy on a number of other airlines. Indeed, I may switch my programme to another carrier, but at this stage not ready to make that decision. I still rate NZ - particularly some of their cabin crew - and think they do an good job but I wouldn't rate their premium product up with the best of them any more, frankly. That's why I've made the choice I have. Now I have parallel status on Oneworld and Star so I have even more flexibility.

DavidByrne wrote:

What on earth is wrong with giving the consumer real choice in terms of the product they purchase?

Eh, in QF's case, the fact that it already has un-bundled its product, albeit in a different manner to NZ - it has JQ which serves that lower end of the market (quite well too), while QF distinguishes itself from the LCC elements of JQ, and maintains a premium brand positioning. This is the same as SQ and TR, and has served them very well.

What on earth is the point of further eroding your branding differentiation with your LCC when you, and your LCC, are both already successful and profitable? You could grow QF's Y demand - sure - but at the cost of i) JQ's Y demand, and ii) QF's higher-yielding demand? Or you could take demand from NZ, but lose your point of differentiation?

DavidByrne wrote:

For this passenger the unbundling of air fares gives me real choice and I welcome it.

Totally agree - so long as the pricing does give a choice to save. But, in my experience only (IMO - no study or anything) I have found that the NZ 'Seat' or 'Seat and Bag' fare often is equivalent to, or more than, the likes of QF to SYD or HA to HNL, who give me my meal and movies included. I accept that people may have different experiences.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

The crux of the matter is that if you don't like it you have a choice for your business ...

Well, yes and no:

- Yes, new carriers now fly to New Zealand, and NZ is really feeling the pinch of this (e.g. after the arrival of AA and expansion of HA, NZ's North American numbers suffered); but
- No, NZ still maintains many monopolies - e.g., if I am a time-poor businessman off to a financial hub like SIN, TYO of SFO, I have to fly NZ (or in a JV) even if the product is terribly poor.

Particularly in the premium end of the plane, NZ knows this, and so has been slow to re-jig its Business Class and offer many of the finer points, like inflight Wi-Fi; it simply has not had to.

aerorobnz wrote:

You have all the power here if you stop and your friends stop flying NZ then you will force their hand.

I disagree with your suggestion that people stopping flying NZ will force NZ's hand. IMO, people are stopping flying with NZ, even if on a small scale - it's just being masked by (as I stated above) i) a tourism boom partly caused by geopolitical instability and the view that New Zealand is a stable and isolated getaway, and ii) a very strong domestic economy which has outperformed much of the developed world, and is in its second-longest growth streak since WWII. Both of these factors are not attributable to NZ, but consistently increase the demand for flights to New Zealand, many of which NZ has monopolies on - NZ is therefore less vulnerable to existing customers exercising our so-called "power" to stop flying with them, and "force their hand" - there are plenty of new (and unsuspecting) customers.

Cheers,

C.

On a recent flight from MUC to SIN on an SQ A350 in business class I went for a walk around the plane. I was particularly interested in what it was like down the back - and what I found was very pleasing and quite spacious. I am left with distinctly negative memories of the economy flight I did on a packed NZ 772 across the ditch from AKL to SYD and back in a 789 and struggled to imagine what this would be like on a flight of 12 hours or more. This was my one and only experience of NZ widebody economy since the days they reconfigured an it put me off entirely. I think that the narrow aisles are an even bigger part of the problem when it comes to long haul flying, getting to the toilets without bumping people (or your knee on a seat). And I don't think this is about "people don't know what plane their flying on" so somehow it doesn't matter. People may not know what plane their flying on when they book. But NZ relies also on repeat business and word of mouth. The traveler experience on NZ flights to / from NZ - most of which are long haul - is part of what visitors take away from NZ and talk to their friends about. it's part of marketing NZ. And I don't know many who say that the present configuration down the back is a particularly pleasant experience. This is in distinct contrast to how things used to be in the days of the 744 and the first configuration of the 772 when in my terms, economy was a quite bearable experience and NZ was openly recognised as one of the best. So now that NZ is looking at its next long haul aircraft type I sincerely hope they will take this into consideration - given the very positive comments airline operators are making about the A350 in terms of operational efficiency and comfort.

planemanofnz wrote:

What on earth is the point of further eroding your branding differentiation with your LCC when you, and your LCC, are both already successful and profitable? You could grow QF's Y demand - sure - but at the cost of i) JQ's Y demand, and ii) QF's higher-yielding demand? Or you could take demand from NZ, but lose your point of differentiation

I don’t disagree at all that these are the issues. I’m sure that QF’s consideration of the question will think through the costs of all these factors and others and will weigh those against the potential gains. There is a market for QF in NZ that currently remains untapped - this regular Transtasman passenger, for example. I don’t see the JQ offering as automatically ruling out QF also unbundling to some extent. I’m sure the QF group as a whole are very keen to increase market share given the current weak position of VA in that market right now.

I don't need the flight attendants of Singapore and Cathay to bolster my sense of male-ness, and the f/a's are okay on Emirates, depending on the nationality, but the onboard food sucks (too much salt), although the terminal food seems catered by a different chef. Qantas is good if you travel in the back half of the plane.

I will certainly tell my US friends about the attitude of posters here to American Airlines, because they have a different =view..

mariner

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

It also amuses me that many have criticized NZ for seats to suit yet it's proven to work and now QF are looking at it.

"Looking at it" in the form of conducting market research is a long way from adopting it, and if they do, I'll be equally disappointed with QF.

What on earth is wrong with giving the consumer real choice in terms of the product they purchase?

For me, two things.

Firstly, it creates a layer of complexity where there doesn't really need to be any. There is already "unbundling" in terms of the different fare classes and classes of travel. Unbundling can be taken to a ridiculous extreme where it's more about perception than genuine choice which leads me onto my second (and far bigger) gripe - which is that it's one big con. The true operational costs of running an airline are all interrelated. If I choose not to have a meal on my flight or watch a movie, it doesn't magically save the airline $50 which they can then pass on to me. If you have IFE, if you have a catering service or a baggage service, to a great extent the costs are fixed.

What this means with unbundling is that yes - the person not eating a meal pays less than the person that does have one. But the reality is - everyone is paying for that meal. It's just that the person not eating one isn't getting the meal they've paid for; and the person eating one pays twice. The nett revenue grab by the airline is therefore higher. We see this regularly evidenced by the fact there's no clear fare benefit in flying NZ without a meal than there is on QF where one is included.

davidbyrne wrote:

Of course, unbundling doesn’t match the somewhat elitist expectations of what a “proper” airline looks like. I’d venture to suggest though that unbundling, along with 10-abreast Y on 777s, is the way of the future and will be instrumental in keeping fares down to reasonable levels.

I'd like to suggest that unbundling, along with 10 abreast on 777s, is a way of making the airlines more money.

davidbyrne wrote:

As has been pointed out by others, the strategy doesn’t seem to have harmed Nz’s bottom line.

I rest my case.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Oh please, expensive but let the consumer decide if it's value for money.

Absolutely. And this consumer decided about 5 years ago, that it isn't value for money. Maybe you have faith in NZ management's ability to predict when a critical mass of frequent fliers are about to walk. I don't.
.

So that's your opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the majority of passengers frequent of not. Great you decided not to use them.

I'm sure you don't speak directly with thousands of elite members frequently, some are unhappy some are more than happy! I've interacted with both previously. I have confidence that NZ's wider management team have their finger on the pulse.

Also worth noting some of the criticisms like 10 abreast have been around a number of years while during this time Elite numbers have grown. Say no more I say....

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

They're also comparing LCC's with full service, it's like saying the Hilton is more expensive than Auckland City Backpackers lol.

They're not. QF's cost came in at less than half NZ's. And if anyone is the "LCC" of that particular pairing, it's NZ.

My point was they're also quoting Tiger in the same article.

Yes, NZ is most expensive, instead of attacking them and attempting to portray them in a negative way how about asking yourself how they can be most expensive yet also have growing passenger numbers and year on year strong revenue which is also record breaking for their own existence?

Perhaps the public appreciate many things Air NZ offer that a few posters here don't and the customer is prepared to pay for it. There are very few routes now where NZ has this so called 'monopoly'

Who cares if they are the most expensive if you the consumer is happy.

Besides, do we have the details of this report / study? How does NZ's high preparation of small regional flying effect this?

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Well below par J hard product is just being dramatic too, it's still suitable to today's market and NZ has already announced it's being upgraded withing 4-5 years.

Disagree on all counts. It's cramped widthwise, uncomfortable in seat config and completely lacking in privacy and storage space. It's always been this way but the passage of time is not helping.4-5 years is way too far in the future. And it remains to be seen what they come up with as a replacement.

Again, this is nothing more than an attack at NZ. Premium Product is still exceeding premium customers expectations. That is fact from market research.

So you may personally not like it however it is not currently 'below par'.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

10 abreast its a complaint on here and with a small handful of passengers. I'm sick of reading about it. It's been in play for years now and NZ has just gone from strength to strength so proves this is a dead argument and the customers are happy.

Disagree again. It remains one major reason why I will not fly NZ long haul, and while NZ persist with it many airlines have opted against it (or provide a superior experience in the form of the A330, A380 or 748i)

As stated, it's a complaint here and with a handful of passengers. Like with the premium product, economy seat offering preforms very well in customer satisfaction. There are many other issues well above this. It honestly feels like a scab on a.net that some posters like to pick yet in reality it's a non event.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

Just another reason for some to try put the boot in.

It isn't sport.

Never said it was, it's just a saying.

Gasman wrote:

NZ6 wrote:

It also amuses me that many have criticized NZ for seats to suit yet it's proven to work and now QF are looking at it.

"Looking at it" in the form of conducting market research is a long way from adopting it, and if they do, I'll be equally disappointed with QF.

But if it was such a terrible, unsustainable, sub-standard, 3rd world concept why would another carrier even start research on it? I mean it's obvious here that's its a bad idea why can't the executive team at QF work that out right?

Gasman wrote:

davidbyrne wrote:

Of course, unbundling doesn’t match the somewhat elitist expectations of what a “proper” airline looks like. I’d venture to suggest though that unbundling, along with 10-abreast Y on 777s, is the way of the future and will be instrumental in keeping fares down to reasonable levels.

I'd like to suggest that unbundling, along with 10 abreast on 777s, is a way of making the airlines more money.

davidbyrne wrote:

As has been pointed out by others, the strategy doesn’t seem to have harmed Nz’s bottom line.

I rest my case.

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

OK, now I understand. Your beef is actually with the capitalist system, not Air NZ.

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

OK, now I understand. Your beef is actually with the capitalist system, not Air NZ.

More the failure of people here to appreciate you can either be a champion of the airline and its shareholders, OR the passenger. You simply cannot be both at the same time. I come down firmly on the side of the passenger.

In my last few years as a NZ frequent flier, I felt like I was simply there to provide dividends to the shareholder and as an begrudged acknowledgement of that, I ended up being flown places. I don't feel the same way flying QF - it feels far more like a mutually beneficial business relationship than it did with NZ.

planemanofnz wrote:

mariner wrote:

I rode the NZ 789 in Business Class and it was fine - more comfortable than most of the competition and as comfortable as the best of 'em.

Yet you give no specifics? I'm surprised to read your opinion, considering that the 789 product is actually inferior to the 772/77W ones - just look at the different widths around the seat-wall space here, due to the seats on the 789 having to be angled more towards the aisle (789 on the left):



This results in the cocktail table being right behind your left shoulder, rather than within easy reach. On the 789, you also can't sleep on pillowed arms, with elbows sticking out into the shoulder space once the seat becomes flipped down (as in the 777's). It's also harder to keep a bag next to you.

There are all sorts of other issues which are standard across the whole Business Class hard product (both 777's and 789's), like a comparatively smaller IFE screen, no headrest, no adjustable footrest, and the either fully up or fully down seat position (i.e. no proper recliner options). Not great.

Cheers,

C.

I'll reword this as I upset someone again.

Have you actually traveled Business Premier in both aircraft recently?

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

OK, now I understand. Your beef is actually with the capitalist system, not Air NZ.

More the failure of people here to appreciate you can either be a champion of the airline and its shareholders, OR the passenger. You simply cannot be both at the same time. I come down firmly on the side of the passenger.

In my last few years as a NZ frequent flier, I felt like I was simply there to provide dividends to the shareholder and as an begrudged acknowledgement of that, I ended up being flown places. I don't feel the same way flying QF - it feels far more like a mutually beneficial business relationship than it did with NZ.

So NZ is run like any other service providing business, they offer services in lieu of money. In NZ's case the service is transport, right!.

Aviation has slowly moved away from the luxurious glamour it once was but many still demand a higher level of comfort and service vs alternative ground transport for example. I can go on about operating economics of an airline but ultimately they're trying to bring in as much operating revenue as possible as there is so much external operating expense which is outside your control, let alone global dynamics which impact on humans wanting to fly.

It's no different to your internet provider charging as much as they can for the service they offer you, of how much Mitre 10 will charge for your decking timber this weekend.

If you don't like the service, shop elsewhere, if you find it cheaper elsewhere and it suits use that service.

Personally, I have Vodafone as I find them more reliable and I shop at Mitre 10 because its Kiwi owned. I can save money elsewhere but choose not to, I also don't go on about it because as a consumer I have a choice.

DavidByrne wrote:

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

I'm clearly missing something here. I thought it was essential that airlines made decent profits. Are you suggesting that Air NZ's fall into the category of "excessive profit"?

Why is it essential airlines make decent profits?? As a non shareholding passenger, I want my airlines annual profit (after they've paid for infrastructure and new aircraft) to be about $1.63. Any more than that is simply lining shareholders' pockets, a practice in which I have zero interest.

OK, now I understand. Your beef is actually with the capitalist system, not Air NZ.

Air NZ is not capitalist....
if the system was truly capitalist Air NZ would not exist right now and consumers would be benefiting immensely...

NZ6 wrote:

Gasman wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

OK, now I understand. Your beef is actually with the capitalist system, not Air NZ.

More the failure of people here to appreciate you can either be a champion of the airline and its shareholders, OR the passenger. You simply cannot be both at the same time. I come down firmly on the side of the passenger.

In my last few years as a NZ frequent flier, I felt like I was simply there to provide dividends to the shareholder and as an begrudged acknowledgement of that, I ended up being flown places. I don't feel the same way flying QF - it feels far more like a mutually beneficial business relationship than it did with NZ.

So NZ is run like any other service providing business, they offer services in lieu of money. In NZ's case the service is transport, right!.

Aviation has slowly moved away from the luxurious glamour it once was but many still demand a higher level of comfort and service vs alternative ground transport for example. I can go on about operating economics of an airline but ultimately they're trying to bring in as much operating revenue as possible as there is so much external operating expense which is outside your control, let alone global dynamics which impact on humans wanting to fly.

It's no different to your internet provider charging as much as they can for the service they offer you, of how much Mitre 10 will charge for your decking timber this weekend.

If you don't like the service, shop elsewhere, if you find it cheaper elsewhere and it suits use that service.

Personally, I have Vodafone as I find them more reliable and I shop at Mitre 10 because its Kiwi owned. I can save money elsewhere but choose not to, I also don't go on about it because as a consumer I have a choice.

I agree with your post entirely, even the bit about Vodafone to whom I switched after discovering how unbelievably bad Spark's roaming pricing structure is.

There are many here who are NZ staff, or who are unashamed apologists for the company. And that's fine - to them, the company making profits is the ultimate end goal. Which is why this group brainwashes themselves into believing there *really* is nothing bad about 10 abreast, and NZ's J product isn't *really* spartan and cramped etc. etc. As long as the pax keep paying, and the profits keep coming, that's all that matters.

But there are those of us whose interests are purely as the fare paying passenger. We see things differently, and when we perceive we aren't heard, valued, or are exploited will tolerate it for a while but ultimately walk.

Gasman wrote:

But there are those of us whose interests are purely as the fare paying passenger. We see things differently, and when we perceive we aren't heard, valued, or are exploited will tolerate it for a while but ultimately walk.

And there are those of us who have never worked for any airline, who can best be described as "a passenger with catholic tastes," who arrive at different conclusions from you.

mariner