Airlines r a great public service, endorsed by Skol.

[Skol]

Air is a dog of a company, state owned and they screwed Origin Pacific, now we, that fly from provinical centres are screwed,
There is no competion, I used to be able to rock up at Nelson airport on the day and fly to Ch Ch for $100, try it now.
The sad thing is if u have a family emergency, u r well and truely screwed. Shame on them.

I wouldn't mind betting that you're a troublesome passenger, one that AIR would rather do without.
Had any written warnings lately?

[macduffy]

AIR is just taking full advantage of its virtually monopoly position as an air carrier on regional routes.

Strange though that the Commerce Commission doesn't take a closer look at times - as it does with its heavy hand on TEL. But I guess you need some other competitor(s) before you can declare an anti-competitive practice!

[Skol]

Air NZ has heaps of competition, Qantas, Air National, Ansett until their incompetent management sent them bust, anyone can set up in competition.

[macduffy]

Qantas on regional routes?

Air National, a charter operator.

If Air New Zealand was treated in the same way as TEL they would have to make their aircraft available to every newcomer who wanted to enter the market!

[Skol]

Qantas on regional routes?

Qantas can fly regional if they want too. Another operator using Air NZ's aircraft is not the way it works in aviation. You can dry lease or wet lease.

[CJ]

If Air New Zealand was treated in the same way as TEL they would have to make their aircraft available to every newcomer who wanted to enter the market!

Fonterra would be another example - dont they have to provide their product to competitors at effectively cost??

[macduffy]

Qantas can fly regional if they want too. Another operator using Air NZ's aircraft is not the way it works in aviation. You can dry lease or wet lease.

Sorry, Skol.

I should have used a "joke" symbol! Just trying to make the point of the iniquity of selling an asset to the NZ public (TEL) and then requiring the owners to make that asset available to competitors.

I should add that I think AIR is a fine airline as far as that goes - I wouldn't fly on any other by choice - but that doesn't make it a good investment IMO.

[Skol]

Sorry, Skol.

I should have used a "joke" symbol! Just trying to make the point of the iniquity of selling an asset to the NZ public (TEL) and then requiring the owners to make that asset available to competitors.

I should add that I think AIR is a fine airline as far as that goes - I wouldn't fly on any other by choice - but that doesn't make it a good investment IMO.

No worries, airlines a hard business to make money in, huge capital required, skilled people, lots of safety regulations, natural disasters to cope with. Mind you they always seem to have money for touchy feely courses which they spend millions on, hand-holding exercises where they play with plasticine and nonsense like that.

[BIRMANBOY]

I agree that "touch feely" seems excessive to a lot of people (me included), but if it keeps the pilots, staff, engineers, groundcrew and all the workers happy and focussed on providing a good, safe experience i for one am happy to let them do it. After travelling on some south american airlines a number of years ago, i needed some extensive handholding myself :-)

No worries, airlines a hard business to make money in, huge capital required, skilled people, lots of safety regulations, natural disasters to cope with. Mind you they always seem to have money for touchy feely courses which they spend millions on, hand-holding exercises where they play with plasticine and nonsense like that.

[modandm]

AIR is just taking full advantage of its virtually monopoly position as an air carrier on regional routes.

Strange though that the Commerce Commission doesn't take a closer look at times - as it does with its heavy hand on TEL. But I guess you need some other competitor(s) before you can declare an anti-competitive practice!

Based on AIR's last profit guidance of $0 for the 6 months to June - it is hardly gauging customers. Any arguments to the contrary are communist crap and unfair against AIR when they are one of few large companies in NZ not earning their cost of capital.

The problem is everyone wants to fly for $50 anywhere in NZ or $150 each way across the tasman - while taking no account of millions of dollars of costs incurred by airlines in providing this essential service... Planes, pilots, cabin crew head office fuel etc etc.

Rational pricing means you will have to pay $100 on average to fly Auckland to Wellington ($300 if late subsidising cheaper pax). And on smaller turbojets where the cost per seat is higher you might pay $150 one way ($400 if late subsidising cheaper pax). Just cos you got a cheap seat once doesn't mean you should expect it.

Someone complained Christchurch to wellington has gone for $49 to $59 for the lead in fares... obviously a plane full of $59 fare payers makes a loss so you are actually being subsidised by higher yielding pax. And if you consider the cook straight ferry is $69 one way pax only - Air Travel is very competitively priced.

Its amazing on a sharetrader website we have people complaining companies are rip-offs and making too much money - if you want to bitch and moan go to the consumer forums