Kiwiblog

The Herald editorial:

Air New Zealand’s soaring fortunes were confirmed last week when it flagged that its annual earnings would more than double this year. Normalised pre-tax earnings would be between $235 million and $260 million if current market conditions and the trading environment persisted, it said. Air New Zealand’s share price immediately shot up 8c to $1.52, signifying a 10 per cent rise this year. …

As it is, Air New Zealand may well hold more appeal, especially for the mum-and-dad investors the Government aims to attract. The airline industry has always had an allure despite the vast sums of money that have been lost in it, and the national flag carrier has a special place in the hearts of New Zealanders.

It has faced a multitude of problems in the past few years, including high fuel prices, landing fee increases, earthquakes in Christchurch and Japan, and discount competition. Yet it has managed to not only survive but to achieve a profitability more commonly associated with budget operators while maintaining a high standard of customer service.

A strong management team, headed by new chief executive Christopher Luxton, provides reason for confidence in the future, including a strong response to the challenge that will arise from the transtasman alliance between Qantas and Emirates, which awaits only the Transport Minister’s go-ahead. Jetstar is also talking of expanding its domestic network to regional centres, flying routes that it says are a “big profit play” by Air New Zealand. Balancing these threats to some extent is the benefit that the national carrier will undoubtedly gain from the Government’s $158 million boost for promoting tourism.

There are also practical reasons to encourage the Government to promote Air New Zealand. It is already listed on the stock exchange, so a prospectus will not be required. The selldown of the Government’s 73.4 per cent stake to 51 per cent will be more straightforward than those of the power companies. There will be no repeat of the late rewriting of Mighty River’s documentation.

If ever there is a time to sell shares in Air New Zealand, this appears to be it. Investors wary of the unpredictability of the airline industry may not touch it, but there is considerable appeal for mum-and-dad investors. It could offer succour as the Government licks its wounds.

I agree. The Government doesn’t even have to do it in one go. They can just release parcels of shares when the price is high.

I look forward to hearing intelligent arguments from opponents as to why the Government should own exactly 73.4% of Air New Zealand – not a share less or a share more. Tell us why it should not be 51% or why it shouldn’t be 95%?

Grant Bradley at NZ Herald reports:

The Government says its fast-track visa scheme will be considered for other airlines besides China Southern, which already uses it, and Air New Zealand, which is in discussions to use it.

It isn’t actually a fast track. There is no priority given for processing. There are no different requirements. The only change is the sort of document you have to attach to prove you are not a penniless who has less than $4,000 cash is a frequent flyer status showing you have flown 40,000 kms in the last year rather than a bank statement.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Nathan Guy yesterday said the discussions between Air New Zealand and Immigration New Zealand were in their early stages.

“Similar arrangements with other airlines will be considered to increase tourism and trade with China.”

Excellent. South China took the initiative and proposed the arrangement, as they saw it as a good way to get more wealthy tourists flying here on their airline. Of course you’d allow any other airline that sees benefit to do the same.

China Southern Airlines gold and silver frequent flyer card holders no longer have to produce evidence of sufficient funds to support themselves, as long as they can show their flight records over the previous two years.

They would still need to get a visa, and still need to meet health and good character checks.

A minor and trivial change.

It is worth recalling that this is about getting more tourists to NZ, not immigrants. Tourists are great for our economy. They incur almost no expenses in terms of health, education or welfare and spend considerable amounts of money boosting the tourism sector economy, and tax from both corporate profits and GST. The more (especially) high spending tourists we get, the better for the economy and jobs.

Matthew Backhouse at NZ Herald reports:

Air NZ customers will also be able to book preferred seats, for a cost, allowing them to choose seats with good locations, extra leg room or more personal space.

Ms Hosking said 70 per cent of customers could already select their seats for free, and the new service would allow the rest to pay to select a seat in advance.

The Air NZ website has details.

If you are flying domestically then it costs $5 to select a seat, or $10 to get a superior seat. Not clear what a superior seat is.

International flights to Australia or the Pacific see the preferred seats increase to $20.

Long haul international flights will cost you nothing to select a standard seat, $30 for a preferred seat and $75 for an exit row seat.

From a market point of view, this makes sense. The exit row seats are highly valued, so people will pay more for them.

What I would like is to be able to pay to guarantee no one sits next to me on a long haul flight, so long as the flight is not full.

Stuff reports:

Air New Zealand is axing flights between Hong Kong and London in a bid to recover profits.

The service will be cut from March next year after a review found it was not likely to become profitable in the foreseeable future, the airline says.

Aaargh, this means if you want to fly to London on Air NZ, you need to fly via the US. A pity, as I much prefer flying via HK.

I wonder if at some stage Air NZ will scrap LA or SF to London also, and concentrate on Asia and Pacific only?

The Herald reports:

Travellers will soon be able to fly between Auckland and Wellington on late-night flights for $29.

Air New Zealand’s new “Night Rider” service will start on November 5, undercutting its budget competitor Jetstar and offering regular low prices in contrast to the airline’s current Grabaseat fares.

Jetstar said its own low fares were behind the cheap prices, and a commentator says the move is part of a strategy by Air New Zealand to keep planes full.

The airline is facing increased competition from Jetstar, which will next month start flying the main trunk with an extra aircraft.

Air NZ chief executive Rob Fyfe made the fare-cut announcement yesterday, saying it was the first time an airline had offered fares for $29 for an entire plane, and he expected the new flights to be a hit with travellers.

This will be popular for many who are budget travellers, and found the cheap fares always sold out so quickly. So long as people have a place to stay, it means they can fly down late at night for less than the taxi fare to the airport.

It is interesting that the marginal cost of fuel and staff for a domestic flight is small enough to allow for $29 seats. In one sense no surprise that the larger costs are non-marginal such as depreciation and maintenance.

This is a benefit of having domestic competition. Will be interesting to see what Jetstar does,

I’m disappointed though that frequent flyers who use the late night service will not be allowed to access the Koru Club. This sets a potentially disturbing precedent for another rollback of value for frequent flyers.

Dave Armstrong writes:

It was meant to be a family reunion commemorating the death of a beloved relative. Air tickets were booked and the two sisters, both working their guts out in part-time jobs to put themselves through university, arrived at Wellington Airport on Sunday morning in plenty of time for their flight to Auckland.

But then they were Jetstarred. All Jetstar flights to Auckland that day had been cancelled. Fog? A crack in the tail of the plane? A terrorist alert at Auckland airport? After much obfuscation the reason was given – “engineering problems”. Sometimes an indicator light fails and passengers patiently wait a few minutes before take- off for the fault to be fixed. But every Jetstar flight that day cancelled due to a single engineering problem? What happened – did a wing fall off? …

Realising the reunion could be missed, tears flowed, friends were called, credit card numbers were yelled over the phone and eventually the girls got to Auckland. Everyone said: “Thank God for Air New Zealand even if it does cost an arm and a leg to fly at short notice”.

If this was a one-off incident I would simply dismiss it as one of the perils of air travel, but the same family got Jetstarred the same way three months earlier. Around the same time my niece tried to return from Australia for a long weekend. By the time her delayed Jetstar flight actually left Melbourne it was so late she would have had to turn around again on arrival in Auckland so she spent what little was left of her weekend telling her Facebook friends she would never fly Jetstar again.

My policy is to never fly Jetstar (inside NZ, they seem fine in Australia) unless there is no other flight available. I also have a standing policy that if an organisation wants me to travel to speak at their conference, that they must not book me on Jetstar.

But there is one reason I am grateful to Jetstar. Every time a Tory argues that the private sector does things more efficiently than the public, I say “What about Jetstar and Air New Zealand?” and the conversation turns to the weather.

Air NZ is of course a great example of the Mixed Ownership Model

I would point out that Air NZ have consistently had good service – both as 100% privately owned, and as a MOM.

Have you ever tried flying to Gisborne at short notice? It’ll cost you slightly more than going to Samoa and slightly less than Perth. Because Air New Zealand has a monopoly on most regional routes, they charge like wounded bulls. Is this an example of a state enterprise using its monopoly to rip off people in the regions? Possibly, but it could also be what happens when private investors buy part of a state asset. The state may want to provide an affordable service but private investors will be looking to maximise profit – even if it means gouging Gizzy.

I think it is simply just because no one else wants to fly to Gisborne. The problem is not what percentage of an airline is owned by the state (SOEs act just as commercially as the private sector), but the lack of competition. And I say you are more likely to get fairer competition when the Government that sets the competition rules does not own one of the companies involved.

What would be wonderful is a state airline with the level of service that Air New Zealand provides, but that is also affordable to those on low incomes and in the regions. You may be right to think that I’m dreaming, and that it will only happen when pigs can fly Jetstar.

Having checked the Air NZ website, there are some pretty decent fares from Wellington to Gisborne. You can fly up there for $89 and back for $109 if you book well enough in advance.

When I fly to Auckland, I often find the four taxi trips costs me more than the return airfare!

Hayden Donnell reports at NZ Herald:

Air New Zealand is being accused of driving away its most loyal customers with a recent overhaul of its air points rewards system.

In changes set to kick in on May 30, frequent flyers using their Airpoints to book flights on the national carrier will have to bid against each other to get seat upgrades.

Bids can only be placed a week or more out from a flight, with the airline telling people whether their offer has been accepted between three and seven days before departure.

Under the airline’s previous system, Airpoints users could a get an upgrade if they paid a fixed price before a flight and a seat was available.

The changes have sparked outrage among frequent flyers, with many threatening to shift their support to rival airlines.

And I am one of them. This is the last straw. I spend a huge amount flying with Air New Zealand – both domestically and internationally. Due to their loyalty programme, I always try to book Air NZ – even if not the cheapest option. Hence I have been Gold Elite or Gold for the last decade or so.

Over that time Air NZ has continually downgraded the value of their airpoints and loyalty programme. Time after time after time they have degraded it. However there was one aspect left that made it worth staying on for – long haul upgrades.

I can not afford to pay more higher than economy class to travel overseas. However I regularly use airpoints to purchase upgrades so that I can escape cattle class.  Now Air NZ is destroying the benefits of having gold status with them.

I’m a member of Qantas also, but at the lowest tier level. I’m now going to make Qantas my priority airline for bookings, unless Air NZ gives frequent flyers an incentive to use them. Business class travel is quite simply unaffordable for people who pay for their own travel (unless very well off), and frequent flyer points have been the only way that it becomes affordable.

Despite that, entrepreneur Ben Kepes said Australian airline Qantas could capitalise on the discontent created by the changes to spark an exodus of Air New Zealand frequent flyers.

The self-described “Air New Zealand evangelist” said the way the OneUp system had been implemented diminished his view of the carrier.

“It’s definitely left a bad taste in my mouth.

“It’s a bad look when people are starting to say ‘what are my options with other airlines?’…I would be surprised if there wasn’t a mass exodus from Air New Zealand.”

Mr Kepes said the bidding system would add unnecessary stress to frequent flyers’ seat upgrade applications.

He claimed the changes compromised Air New Zealand’s reputation for great service to high value customers.

It is a pity. The staff are great, and are excellent ambassadors for the airline. It is the company letting them down.

The Herald reports:

Air New Zealand is accusing Labour of trashing its “beloved” koru symbol in advertising opposing Government plans to sell shares in state assets, including the airline.

Chief executive Rob Fyfe has written to Labour leader Phil Goff complaining that the election advertisement, which is screening on television and the back of buses, “denigrates and debases a symbol that we cherish and one I believe all New Zealanders cherish.”

Labour has a very casual approach to using other people’s intellectual property.

There is also an irony in Labour trying to trumpet Air NZ as the poster boy for their strategy against asset sales, because it is the Air NZ model of mixed ownership which National is seeking to extend.

Is Labour campaigning on buying out the 25% of Air NZ the state does not own? Of course not. So are they saying that 75% is the perfect size of the state’s shareholding and that 72% is evil and wrong? How ridiculous.

Photo from The Press.

I wonder how much Air New Zealand paid for the advertising!

The Dom Post reports:

At a share price of $1.13 the Government has lost about $125m on its $1 billion investment.

But this was more than compensated for by $450m in dividends the airline has paid it over the past 10 years, which means taxpayers are still $325m ahead.

No we’re not. The cost of capital has been over-looked.

The Government borrows at around 6%. So if it had not sunk $1 billion into Air NZ, it would have $60 million less interest a year. And then if you compound the interest, the actual cost of the investment in Air NZ is $1.79 billion.

The current value is $875m plus $450m in divideds, which is 1.33b. So the Government is down around $460 million.

One may have a viewpoint that a loss was acceptable to keep Air NZ solvent (mind you if Cullen and Anderton had not blocked sale to Singapore Air a bailout would not have been needed), but you shouldn’t declare that the Government is $325m ahead, by ignoring cost of capital.

The NZ Herald reports:

Midway through the last decade, Fyfe was drawing admiration for classy, innovative approaches to traditional branding campaigns, working closely alongside its branding agency Colenso BBDO.

The “Nothing to Hide” commercials – featuring staff in body paint and G-strings and even featuring Fyfe in a cameo – marked a shift to a retail-focused campaign using Colenso’s retail division, .99.

Some content in spots featuring All Blacks has touched base with the old brand values.

Yet the focus hasn’t been on those traditional values but on a crude puppet specialising in double-entendres.

Last month, Rico appeared with rapper Snoop Dogg in an online clip that has been picked up by American breakfast TV, which Fyfe points out gave coverage you could not buy.

This week, 80s aerobics star Richard Simmons featured in the airline’s in-flight safety video – in a duet with polarising TV star Paul Henry.

Fyfe agrees there are risks in the marketing strategy and says that the adventurous approach could become “too successful”.

The danger is that offbeat ads aimed at niche online audiences are being picked up and, as Fyfe says, “leaching” into editorial coverage in mainstream media with a different market.

I do like the latest safety video – it carries on their quirky history, and I’ve observed on flight around 90% watch the video now, when it used to be around 20%.

The Rico creature though is stupid, and should be shot. I like smutty humour as much as anyone, but it doesn’t work with an airline brand.

The Herald reports:

Passengers on Air New Zealand’s new black A320 will be able to make phone calls, send texts and check emails – if they are Vodafone customers.

The plane is one of two A320s which the airline is making “mobile phone capable” in the next month.

Being able to text and e-mail will be useful. Not so sure about the wisdom of voice calls, but to be fair in theory one can already make these on their international flights through the in seat phones.

Passengers will pay roaming costs of $3.50 a minute and 80c for every outbound text. They will also pay $20 per megabyte of data.

Well fuck that. $20,000 per GB of data is insanely high.

Will they also charge for incoming calls and texts?

Tim Donoghue at the Dom Post reports:

Air New Zealand is removing a scene from its in-flight safety video after complaints from members of the gay community.

The offending scene depicts a coy All Black Richard Kahui turning down an opportunity to peck the cheek of gay Air New Zealand flight attendant Will Coxhead.

Operations and safety manager David Morgan said among the complaints was a suggestion from a professor that the video could lead to gay male suicides.

It could also lead to a plane crashing as enraged militants blow up the plane in protest.

Captain Morgan said the video Crazy About Rugby, involving members of the All Black squad and with coach Graham Henry and captain Richie McCaw filmed in the cockpit, had been a phenomenal success.

“When we created this video and discussed the scene featuring a gay male flight attendant and a rugby player with key stakeholders, including a number of the gay community, we received none of the feedback we have in the past week,” Mr Morgan said.

“The scene was not something that we, the people we tested the scene with, or indeed the participants in the scene, viewed as distasteful or likely to cause concern.”

You’d have to be bloody precious to take offence.

The adverse reaction to the scene had shocked the Air New Zealand flight attendant in the safety briefing, Mr Coxhead.

“I’m absolutely gutted that a couple of people in the gay community have ruined this for everyone else.

“I’m proud to be gay, proud to be an Air New Zealander and extremely proud of my role in the safety video. Obviously there are some people in the gay community that can be a little precious and need to lighten up.”

Hear hear.

There are few bigger fans of Air New Zealand than me – both of their actual travel, and of their marketing.

However Lance Wiggs blogs that AirNZ are now introducing a credit card charge, if you pay online with one. As 99% of individuals do exactly that, it will be felt. It ranges from $4 to $20 for return fares.

I think this is a very ill considered move from Air New Zealand.

They have spent millions of dollars on a brand of having nothing to hide – of how when they quote a price, there are no hidden extras. And it is one of the things people do like about them.

And then they go and do something which is directly contrary to their brand – a fee that you won’t know about until you get to the pay now section.

Now when I see their ad about nothing to hide, I’ll think “yeah except for your credit card fee”.

The Herald reports:

Singapore Airlines, the world’s second-largest carrier by market capitalisation, said it will equip long-range wide-body planes with internet and phone-message access to meet growing demand from business travellers.

The carrier said yesterday it had signed a contract with OnAir NV, an on board-communications provider part-owned by aircraft maker Airbus, to install Wi-Fi internet and mobile phone links on the planes in 2011.

I don’t care about the mobile phone links, but I do want Internet access. Lufthansa used to have it, and it was superb. Rather than face a huge amount of work to catch up on when you land, you just use the plane as a mobile office.

For me, offering on board Internet will be a major factor in deciding which airline to fly with, if the flights are more than eight hours.

The Press reports:

Two daughters of a woman who died in the Mt Erebus disaster have rejected claims that Air New Zealand’s use of “whoop whoop” in advertising is insensitive.

There was a “whoop whoop” warning from a ground-proximity system just before an Air New Zealand DC-10 crashed into Antarctica’s Mt Erebus in 1979, killing 257 people.

A new Air New Zealand domestic-fare campaign uses “whoop whoop!” at the bottom of an advertisement, below the words “Let’s party like it’s $19.99″.

The advertisement has prompted a woman who lost her father in the crash to label the airline’s use of the phrase as insensitive.

“It definitely tugs at the heartstrings,” Jayne Holtham said. “The second you say that, you remember the last few seconds of the flight.”

Holtham’s father, Bryan, died in the air disaster.

“It is pretty s… marketing, obviously they’re not even thinking about that,” she said.

However, Susan O’Rourke, whose mother Marlene Hansen was a passenger on the flight, said the phrase did not upset her.

“It’s commonly used. I have even used it on my Facebook page, so I’ve got no issues with it,” she said.

“It’s used all over the world by many different people, especially younger ones.”

O’Rourke’s sister, Melanie Fishburn, said she was not worried by the phrase.

However, the sisters said they understood why some relatives might be upset.

I think 31 years after Erebus, it is fair enough to use the expression “whoop whoop” and not have it seen as associated with that crash.

AAP reports:

Sir Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin Blue, has come out strongly against the decision not to allow the airline to enter an alliance with Air New Zealand on trans-Tasman routes.

Sir Richard said he wanted to compete on a level playing field but the competition regulator wasn’t making business easy.

No you didn’t want to compete. You wanted to stop competing with Air NZ – the exact opposite to competing.

For those who have not seen it.

There have been 32 entries in the Air New Zealand* Best Blog Awards.

Through the awards, I’ve discovered some great new blogs, and have also enjoyed reading the submitted entries. My RSS feed has just got larger.

I think the Judges will have a damn tough job of deciding a winner, as there are many great quality entries. Hopefully they may award some runner up prizes, and/or finalists.

While the Air New Zealand Blog Awards started as a humourous reaction against the Qantas Media Awards selection, the quality of the entries has shown that the many in the blogosphere have got in behind having blog awards.

Perhaps in future years, the Judges could create a number of category awards, as well as the overall Best Blog Award. Some possible categories are:

• Best Business Blog
• Best Economic Blog
• Best Legal Blog
• Best Political Blog (could also have right/left/centre)
• Best Photo Blog
• Best Tech Blog
• Best Personal Blog
• Best Humour Blog

Anyway well done to those who submitted entries, and well done to the NZ Bloggers Union for organising the awards. Good luck to all those who submitted.

* Air New Zealand is not the official sponsor of the awards. But they have been good enough not to sue for use of their name, as it is a wind up against Qantas.

In response to the Listener’s editorial on the proposed alliance between Air New Zealand and Virgin Blue, Rob Fyfe has done this video response above, which is at Dear Listener.

I’m not convinced by the alliance proposal, but I do love the response by Air NZ. It really is first class.

The Herald calls on NZ to back Obama in Afghanistan:

No compliment was more apt than the one that came from the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal: “The forces that New Zealand provides are extraordinarily professional, as you know, and they are key members of the coalition.”

He had special praise for the work done in Bamiyan, which he said needed to be reproduced around the country.

“That’s really where we are building the foundation of Afghanistan.”

No doubt such compliments are sincere, but they come with a significant fish hook.

General McChrystal made no bones about the fact that he would like the New Zealanders to stay on and not just because they are doing good work. …

Before he left Afghanistan, Mr Key was giving some pretty broad hints himself. The PRT was likely to stay for another year, he said.

He was less forthcoming about the SAS but said that its role would also be looked at, with the possibility of a smaller contingent staying for longer. Indeed, he said this was the preference of the SAS itself.

It would be no bad thing if its wish was granted. Of course no one would want to see us bogged down. But the Obama strategy needs to be given a chance to work and New Zealand should stay with it for the long haul.

It must be noted that the Labour Government supported the Bush strategy in Afghanistan three times, sending the SAS in. However they oppose the Obama strategy.

The Press looks at airline alliances:

The last time Air New Zealand sought to forge a trans-Tasman strategic alliance it was with the biggest Australian carrier, Qantas.

That proposal was knocked back by the regulators, which was not surprising as the alliance between the two would have cornered about 80 per cent of the trans-Tasman aviation market. …

Ultimately the key question must be whether the benefits for consumers, as claimed by the proposal’s backers in terms of cost and convenience, outweigh the reality that the alliance would lead to a reduction in competition. It is this issue which should determine whether this alliance will fly.

I know I’d be pissed off to book Air New Zealand and end up on Pacific Blue.

The Dom Post calls for reality from teachers:

There has long been a suspicion that reality stops at the door to the teachers’ staffroom.

The Post Primary Teachers Association’s ludicrous claim for a 4 per cent pay rise for secondary school teachers lends credence to the theory.

The world is just emerging from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Government is effectively borrowing $200 million a week to maintain existing levels of services, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have lost their jobs, and hundreds of thousands have received little, if any, pay rise for the past two years.

I think one could do a science experiment on whether there is a connection between the PPTA and reality.

The majority reluctantly accept that is the price they must pay for job security. At a time of crisis, everybody – employers and employees – has to tighten their belts.

For the PPTA to demand a big pay increase at such a time is to show gross insensitivity to those who pay teacher salaries through their taxes. For it to demand the increase after its members received 4 per cent pay increases in each of the past three years is to show secondary teachers, or their union at least, are completely out of touch with the real world.

As the editorial noted, we are borrowing over $200 million a week.

Yet the present pay structure does not allow schools to differentiate between the performance of good, indifferent and bad teachers. They are all paid on the basis of their years of service and the responsibilities they hold.

If teacher unions are as serious as they say they are about wanting to keep good teachers in schools, they should work with the Education Ministry to devise a formula that allows schools to pay great teachers what they are worth and send a message to poor teachers that they should review their career options.

I agree there should be performance pay of course. But not even to a formula. Principals should have the ability to pay teachers as much as they think they are worth, within an overall budget. The top teachers should be on over $100,000 in my opinion. However the lousy teachers should be on $35,000 so they have the incentive to change professions or improve their teaching skills.

The ODT talks about John Key’s visit to Afghanistan:

There really was no choice: Prime Minister John Key’s trip to Afghanistan had to have been a “secret”.

Indeed it is standard operating procedure for all high-profile politicians and personalities who visit the volatile and dangerous region. …

To the many popular faces of Mr Key has been added that of a leader not prepared to send New Zealand troops “to a destination I am not prepared to come [to] myself”.

And further confirmation of a prime minister who likes to “see for himself” – to gather information or insight first-hand to enable better quality decision-making.

He told accompanying reporters that he wanted to make his own assessment of the work of the 70-plus SAS team on active duty in the country, and of the 140 troops in Bamiyan involved in reconstruction activities.

He would also have been wanting to get a feel for how the Nato mission of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is faring. …

But whether the occupation and the work of the ISAF is headed anywhere but towards a stalemate – and thus whether New Zealand should recommit troops towards its mission – is the burning question.

Mr Key is right, at this point, to remain non-committal.

Personally I don’t think the PM’s visit to Afghanistan was anything remarkable. It is inevitable a NZ PM will visit troops serving overseas, as conditions allow.

What has been amusing is the howls of anguish from those media organisations who were not invited along. The reality is of course one can’t travel with a full press corps into war zones.

It could be worth considering some sort of formal roster or random selection system for future trips, so that it doesn’t look like hand picked media. One could have a policy of one rep each from print, radio and television. The trouble is these trips are so infrequent, it might not be worth the bother.

Stuff reports:

Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe has warned that Jetstar and Qantas could soon dominate the trans-Tasman market if Air New Zealand’s new alliance with Virgin Blue is rejected by competition authorities.

I love Air New Zealand and think they are a great airline, but I do wish they would spend less time trying to reduce competition on the trans-Tasman routes.

This must be the third or fourth time I’ve heard they cry that Air New Zealand is doomed unless it does a deal on the trans-Tasman route, and regulators turn them down, and what do you know they continue to be very profitable.

Average airfares across the Tasman could fall between 10 per cent and 20 per cent as a result of the planned alliance Mr Fyfe said.

Yes, reducing competition of course leads to cheaper airfares. Not.

Mr Fyfe said unlike Air NZ’s attempted tie-up with Qantas, which would leave one player with three-quarters of the market, a deal with Virgin would create a player with around 56 per cent share.

And this is not so bad, as the proposed Qantas deal. However I prefer three way competition, rather than a duopoly.

The Herald reports:

Air New Zealand last night apologised for a crew manual which profiled passengers by nationality and suggested flight attendants watch Tongans who wanted to “drink the bar dry”.

The airline said the document, made public yesterday, was written in 2008 for flight crews. It had since been updated and did not now touch on alcohol or “cultural components”.

This is not surprising. Even if Air NZ has observed such drinking with some Tongan passengers, they could have made clear it was only a minority, and/or made it a general warning about all passengers.

Labour Party list MP Carmel Sepuloni, who is of Tongan descent, said the remarks were offensive, and she was considering lodging a complaint.

“I don’t know what Air New Zealand was thinking in putting something like that together,” she said. “They shouldn’t be making any generalisations of any ethnic group.”

I wonder whether that statement is going too far. I agree the Tongan alcohol reference causes offence, but taking another statement:

Staff were told not to be surprised “if you ask a Japanese female a question and a male customer answers on her behalf”.

I would argue that providing staff with this information can be helpful. If a staff member has not been warned, they might react with surprise and say something inappropriate the first time a male answers on behalf of his wife.

How weird. The Herald reports:

A leading unionist has attacked Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe over the company’s “grubby deal” with police that has led to staff caught drink-driving being penalised twice.

Andrew Little, secretary of the Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union and also president of the Labour Party, said the police had circumvented privacy and information laws and the airline had co-operated. …

Mr Little said that “Mr Fyfe’s response was less one of management heroism and more one of anger that the grubby deal had blown up in the airline’s face”.

He said that under that deal, airline staff processed for drink-driving faced criminal prosecution, appropriately, but also had the facts disclosed to Air NZ, so it could “exact a second punishment, usually dismissal, for the same offence”.

So the Labour Party President EPMU National Secretary thinks that it is a despicable thing that the Police tell Air New Zealand if a pilot gets charged with drink driving. Presumably Andrew thinks that it is nothing for Air New Zealand to worry about, as the drink driving took place in a car instead of a plane. This means that it is only *after* a pilot has also flown a plane while drunk, that Air New Zealand should be able to take action.

Sideswipe reports:

How does Air New Zealand communicate what is, and more importantly what is not, appropriate behaviour on its new Skycouch, aka Cuddle Class? Well, the national carrier is suggesting this ad might do the trick … Get it?

Heh that is very funny.