We know, but we were talking about NZ
's inflight product
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 104):
The Waitangi Tribunal is a Kangaroo Court who's only purpose is to promote Maori interests. It virtually never makes a ruling against Maori no matter the circumstance. It should be disbanded immediately
Completely agree. The word "tribunal" implies professionalism and impartiality. As far as that outfit is concerned, none exists.
|Quoting mariner (Reply 102):|
I don;t usually take a carry on (except what is called a "personal item"). But a number of the ULCC's are turning to a form of bundling - the basic fare plus certain options, not unlike the Works.
I understand the philosophy behind unbundling - I do. Why should passenger X be forced to pay for a meal when he doesn't want one??
However - it's not that simple. With meals, for example, what is really happening is that the airline is giving a passenger a discount to pay lip-service to the passenger's perceived need for self determination. The "meal infrastructure" still exists, the major costs still have to be met by the airline. Does the airline really save $20 because the passenger in 26D doesn't want a meal? Hardly.
A similar argument goes for checked bags, but that can be taken even further. Why should user pays exist for weight in that format, but I still have to subsidise the passenger who is carrying on 50kg more biomass than I am??
There will never be a completely fair system, and there will come a point where the act of unbundling creates a layer of huge complexity in itself, and actually will do nothing except to satisfy peoples' need to know they are not subsidising some other bastard's meal/baggage/movies.
Which is why I tend towards the other extreme. Create one product, one offering (within the boundaries of Y/Y+/J/F). Accept that not everything I've paid for I want or need, but it'll all come out in the wash in the end. And if I perceive I'm not getting value for money, I'm welcome to try what's on offer from another airline.