Air New Zealand vs. Qantas

"BTMO" wrote in message ...
"Brian Harmer" wrote


I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.

While what you suggest is very human Brian, good customer service should be
independant of the customer...

Cheers,

Brenton

Possibly their service is much better now but I am not prepared to
take that chance. If I book a flight I want to actually get where I
planned to go via the route I planned. (Acts of God/terrorism
excepted)

On 24 Feb 2004 11:03:39 -0800, (Wonderferret)
wrote:

wrote in message . ..
On 23 Feb 2004 14:28:09 -0800, (Wonderferret)
wrote:

devil wrote in message ...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:

All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
fly?

Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.

Who is she?

Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled,

And this makes sense.
Cargo makes more $$ for the airline than passengers.

arriving 6 hours late in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
alienated me.

Must have been a real cheap fare basis ticket if you could not be
moved over to another airline.

A ticket *does not automatically* guarantee you to be moved to another
airline.

A ticket is a contract to get you from point a to point b.
They can put you on a slow boat and as long as it got you there, they
have fulfilled their part of the contract.

Out of curiosity, do you carry travel insurance?

Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.

Cath
Hmm Google appears to have double posted me
It was a full fare ticket organized in a hurry for a meeting in
Amsterdam.

I take it then that it was a thru ticket i.e. all your flights were on
the one ticket and not on two or more?

What was the reason/s NZ said they could not move you to another
airline?

People don't realise that even a code share ticket can cause problems
if your book on say airline a from point a to point b and airline b
from point b back to point a. You should have all your flights
ticketed with airline a.

Full Y usually does not get you anything *unless* you have a high
status ff membership.
The only time it has gotten me anything was on a co-partner's flight
when space a allowed an upgrade to first class.

I did get another flight but had a 12 hour unplanned stay
in Singapore. The offer of a hotel room to get some rest would have
been appreciated but as I said previously Air NZ were extremely
disinterested and unhelpful. The booked flight should have gone Changi
to Amsterdam. The replacement ... Karachi, Delhi and Bombay then
Amsterdam. Thanks Air NZ.

Re-routing - what would have been the delay in waiting for another
SIN-AMS routing as per your ticket?

Did you write to NZ after the trip and complain - if not, why not?

But with the amount of miles you state you travel, you should be very
aware that problems do occur.

Cath

We used Air NZ last April to from the UK to NZ and the service and general
condition of the plain was definitely worse than about 6 years ago. The lack
of an LCD screen on the seat was a bit of a bummer on a long flight as well.
Travelled with Quantas / BA the year before and they were fine.

Colin

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Bruce Simpson wrote:
Qantas also handed out bottled water at regular intervals -- Air NZ
didn't.

Doesn't Air NZ have water fountains near its galley blocks ? Or are those
gone ?

Qantas is not perfect but Air NZ is absolutely attrocious by
comparison.


Interesting that some people have extremely found memories of air NZ while
others have total opposite. Has Air NZ really gone down that much in
recent
years ?

Do u guys knows that Q.A.N.T.A.S. stands for
Q uick
A nd
N asty
T ypical
A ustralian
S ervices

Thats why u shud go for S I A

S exy
I nternational
A ss

Hmmm





"Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote in
message news
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:59:19 +0000, LDL wrote:

Qantas may not be perfect but after what Air New Zealand did to Ansett
Australia, I will never take then by principle.

Huh? Ansett had already been gutted when Air NZ took it over. They found
out the hard way and were unable to keep it alive.

Ansett going under pulled Air NZ with it. The NZ govt had to step in and
buy it to prevent it shutting the doors completely.

"BigBen" wrote in message ...
Do u guys knows that Q.A.N.T.A.S. stands for
Q uick
A nd
N asty
T ypical
A ustralian
S ervices

Thats why u shud go for S I A

S exy
I nternational
A ss

Hmmm

I have always like the expansion of Sabena - Such a bad experience, never
again!


--
"Most politicians are something or other at heart, but no one would be rash
enough to insure a politician against heart failure. Particularly when he
happens to be in office." - Saki The Unbearable Bassington

I like the Russian airline: Aeroflop

U know SAS = same as sabena
Another one

L et
U s
F uck
T he
H osteses
A nd
N ever
S ay
A word

Thats why they hire Elephants on their flights

C rash
A ll
A round
C hina

Thats why they broke up into smaller airlines






"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message
...

"BigBen" wrote in message
...
Do u guys knows that Q.A.N.T.A.S. stands for
Q uick
A nd
N asty
T ypical
A ustralian
S ervices

Thats why u shud go for S I A

S exy
I nternational
A ss

Hmmm

I have always like the expansion of Sabena - Such a bad experience, never
again!


--
"Most politicians are something or other at heart, but no one would be
rash
enough to insure a politician against heart failure. Particularly when he
happens to be in office." - Saki The Unbearable Bassington

"Amanda Klein" wrote in message
m...
I like the Russian airline: Aeroflop


.... have you checked out Aeroflot's crash history at www.airdisaster.com?
Pages and pages of them....

"T A R T" wrote in message
u...


have you checked out Aeroflot's crash history at www.airdisaster.com?
Pages and pages of them....

Which highlights the old expression about statistics and damned lies.
Aeroflot actually has an impressive record, better than a lot of other
carriers.

Context - "Aeroflot" at one stage covered every single piece of non
military aviation equipment in the USSR. From cropdusters in Siberia
to the prestige Interncontinental division using widebody long haul
commercial craft.
With a "fleet" in excess of 3,000 units and with an enormous amount
of movements per day, let alone per year and considering the
harsh conditions of many areas of it's homeland, the record is
actually quite good. You will find that the huge percentage of those
statistics you quoted are for internal flights and more importantly non
RPT flights.
The International/Intercontinental division is barely mentioned, and
that's the Aeroflot we've seen outside of Russia over the years, and
what the current ARIA is.

The entity currently known as ARIA (Aeroflot Russian International
Airlines) has evolved from the old seperately run, prestige International
Division of Aeroflot. This particular division has a remarkably
stellar record and should not be confused with the 3,000+ units of
the internal Aeroflot of old.
The same goes for the current Air China - until the 767 incident of
a couple years ago, they had lost just 1 passenger in something
approaching 50 years of operation, but everyone remembers all the
incidents with CAAC. Like ARIA, Air China evolved from
the prestige International division of the old CAAC, and like Aeroflot
of old, the CAAC covered all of China's aviation equipment.
The CAAC incidents we all remember were seperate divisions
and operations to what the now Air China was operating as back then.

To look at the old Aeroflot statistics and compare them with say a
carrier like Qantas is not only misleading but dangerous !
Aeroflot - 3,000+ aircraft, millions of flight movements per year, harsh
internal operating conditions.
Qantas (back then) - never more than a fleet of 35 aircraft, thousands
of movements per year, minmal rotations per week for most of it's
wide body fleet.
You do the math and work out statistics on that comparison!!
Cheers/Regards.

Al Bennett wrote:

"T A R T" wrote in message
u...


have you checked out Aeroflot's crash history at www.airdisaster.com?
Pages and pages of them....


Which highlights the old expression about statistics and damned lies.
Aeroflot actually has an impressive record, better than a lot of other
carriers.

If you want to save money, fly SU, but don't count on the same comforts
of QnoUANTAS or ANZ.