Air New Zealand vs. Qantas

steve wrote:
Brian Harmer wrote:


I haven't travelled internationally since the great financial
setbacks, but all my prior experience was of superb and friendly
service from Air New Zealand, in comparison with terse offhand
treatment from the jaded staff in Qantas cabins.


Up to 9/11 and the Brierley's mess, I'd agree with you.

But after the airline nearly went bust, I did notice a change in the
service. On two trips to Asia - Business Class - the service was fairly
ho-hum compared to what I had gotten used to.

I haven't been on a trip for a while now as I have been dodging them. With
all the post 9/11 carry-on, the whole things has just become too much
hassle to bother with....and more expensive with it.

I'm looking at a trip to the UK and Canada for 3 people....and the airport
security charges are over NZ$1,000 altogether.



Yeah no kidding! We want to book flights to Boston from Halifax, and
they want to charge us another 150$ each for the 9/11 crap:/

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:11:09 -0300, Luthien
wrote:

steve wrote:
Brian Harmer wrote:


I haven't travelled internationally since the great financial
setbacks, but all my prior experience was of superb and friendly
service from Air New Zealand, in comparison with terse offhand
treatment from the jaded staff in Qantas cabins.


Up to 9/11 and the Brierley's mess, I'd agree with you.

But after the airline nearly went bust, I did notice a change in the
service. On two trips to Asia - Business Class - the service was fairly
ho-hum compared to what I had gotten used to.

I haven't been on a trip for a while now as I have been dodging them. With
all the post 9/11 carry-on, the whole things has just become too much
hassle to bother with....and more expensive with it.

I'm looking at a trip to the UK and Canada for 3 people....and the airport
security charges are over NZ$1,000 altogether.



Yeah no kidding! We want to book flights to Boston from Halifax, and
they want to charge us another 150$ each for the 9/11 crap:/

That does not sound right.

I just did a quickie using orbitz.com and came up with:

September 11th Security Fee: A September 11th Security Fee of $2.50
USD applies per flight segment (maximum charge per trip--$5.00 USD
one-way, $10.00 USD round-trip). A flight segment is defined as one
takeoff and one landing.

Passenger Facility Charges: Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) of up to
$18.00 USD may apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Federal Excise Tax: A federal excise tax of $3.10 USD applies per
flight segment. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one
landing.

U.S. or International Departure and Arrival Charges: U.S. or
international departure and arrival charges of up to $200.00 USD may
apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Paper Ticket Processing Fee: There is a processing fee of up to $30.00
USD per transaction for paper tickets, whether you choose paper
tickets or paper tickets are your only option.




Cath

Check out this link:

http://www.made4u.no/hei.html

Siggy

texan@texas.; .removethisbit.usa.com wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:11:09 -0300, Luthien
wrote:

steve wrote:
Brian Harmer wrote:


I haven't travelled internationally since the great financial
setbacks, but all my prior experience was of superb and friendly
service from Air New Zealand, in comparison with terse offhand
treatment from the jaded staff in Qantas cabins.


Up to 9/11 and the Brierley's mess, I'd agree with you.

But after the airline nearly went bust, I did notice a change in the
service. On two trips to Asia - Business Class - the service was fairly
ho-hum compared to what I had gotten used to.

I haven't been on a trip for a while now as I have been dodging them.
With
all the post 9/11 carry-on, the whole things has just become too much
hassle to bother with....and more expensive with it.

I'm looking at a trip to the UK and Canada for 3 people....and the
airport
security charges are over NZ$1,000 altogether.



Yeah no kidding! We want to book flights to Boston from Halifax, and
they want to charge us another 150$ each for the 9/11 crap:/

That does not sound right.

I just did a quickie using orbitz.com and came up with:

September 11th Security Fee: A September 11th Security Fee of $2.50
USD applies per flight segment (maximum charge per trip--$5.00 USD
one-way, $10.00 USD round-trip). A flight segment is defined as one
takeoff and one landing.

Passenger Facility Charges: Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) of up to
$18.00 USD may apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Federal Excise Tax: A federal excise tax of $3.10 USD applies per
flight segment. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one
landing.

U.S. or International Departure and Arrival Charges: U.S. or
international departure and arrival charges of up to $200.00 USD may
apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Paper Ticket Processing Fee: There is a processing fee of up to $30.00
USD per transaction for paper tickets, whether you choose paper
tickets or paper tickets are your only option.

In Sept we go Osaka, Frankfurt Vienna London HK, Akld; landing/departure &
other fees, unheard of 20 years ago are now a whopping $600 NZ

Sorta militates against going too often, but I guess the Europeans and
others could care less about encouraging tourism these days. Bit like
paying entrance fees to the local mall really.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:02:37 +1200, "geezer"
wrote:


texan@texas.; .removethisbit.usa.com wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:11:09 -0300, Luthien
wrote:

steve wrote:
Brian Harmer wrote:


I haven't travelled internationally since the great financial
setbacks, but all my prior experience was of superb and friendly
service from Air New Zealand, in comparison with terse offhand
treatment from the jaded staff in Qantas cabins.


Up to 9/11 and the Brierley's mess, I'd agree with you.

But after the airline nearly went bust, I did notice a change in the
service. On two trips to Asia - Business Class - the service was fairly
ho-hum compared to what I had gotten used to.

I haven't been on a trip for a while now as I have been dodging them.
With
all the post 9/11 carry-on, the whole things has just become too much
hassle to bother with....and more expensive with it.

I'm looking at a trip to the UK and Canada for 3 people....and the
airport
security charges are over NZ$1,000 altogether.



Yeah no kidding! We want to book flights to Boston from Halifax, and
they want to charge us another 150$ each for the 9/11 crap:/

That does not sound right.

I just did a quickie using orbitz.com and came up with:

September 11th Security Fee: A September 11th Security Fee of $2.50
USD applies per flight segment (maximum charge per trip--$5.00 USD
one-way, $10.00 USD round-trip). A flight segment is defined as one
takeoff and one landing.

Passenger Facility Charges: Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) of up to
$18.00 USD may apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Federal Excise Tax: A federal excise tax of $3.10 USD applies per
flight segment. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one
landing.

U.S. or International Departure and Arrival Charges: U.S. or
international departure and arrival charges of up to $200.00 USD may
apply depending upon the itinerary chosen.

Paper Ticket Processing Fee: There is a processing fee of up to $30.00
USD per transaction for paper tickets, whether you choose paper
tickets or paper tickets are your only option.

In Sept we go Osaka, Frankfurt Vienna London HK, Akld; landing/departure &
other fees, unheard of 20 years ago are now a whopping $600 NZ

Do you have a breakdown on these fees?

Sorta militates against going too often, but I guess the Europeans and
others could care less about encouraging tourism these days. Bit like
paying entrance fees to the local mall really.

Actually various fees have been there for quite some time.
Many times, the fees were incorporated into the ticket price without
the consumer most likely being aware.

The fuel surcharge seems to be increasing nearly every week lately.

There used to be [?if there still is], an 'over the water' tax for
flights into/out of Hawaii.

Cath

"Alan S" wrote in message
...

Well, let me put that another way.

Pick another major which has operated continuously since
1952 and hasn't killed any passengers, in any form of
aircraft, since 1952. You can include Airlines which
remained effectively the same after mergers and name-changes
(BOAC etc) if you wish. Take your time. I'm patient.

Hawaiian, BWIA & Tunisair are the only ones I know of.
(In fact HA have never had a fatal since they started in 1929, as
far as I am aware.)

However, you have to compare apples with apples. Don't
forget that from 1952 until QF took over TN in 1992, QF were
running a relatively mere handful of flights per week and
they were all nearly long haul with a good part of their operations
being in the uncongested airspace of the Australasia/Oceania
region. QF fleet size (pre-TN) was also meagre compared to
a lot of the world's carriers, so it's hard to compare QF statistics
up tp 1992 as just plain black and white compared against other
carriers that had 4, 5, 6, 7 times the fleet size and were operating
hundreds if not thousands of flights per day more than what QF
were, & in some heavily congested air space regions of the world.
Southwest has as enviable a record as QF when you compare
and ratio IMHO, even though they've only been flying since 1971.
(WN has 400 craft fleet flying 2,800+ flights per day in congested
airspace).
Consider WN does those 2,800 takeoffs & landings (the riskiest
part of flight) with most of their 400 craft fleet in the same time
frame that QF has 1 744 doing a SYD-SIN-LHR. Until 1992, that's
the sort of ratio one should compare QF's operations/record against. Apples with
apples.
Or to use another comparison, UA's record shows roughly about
one accident every 4 years, or, one accident every four and a half
million departures.
QF at it's size & operations back then would have one fatal accident
every thirty-two years to match that amount of departures, and would
need to fly something like 128 years to equal UA's flying exposure
from their creation up till now.

Make no mistake - I am not bashing QF, in fact far from it.
Their maintenance and operating ethos is of the highest standard
and has helped their record over the years as has the top quality
and utter professionalism of it's crews.
It has a magnificent record that does grow in stature each year
due to all the added domestic movements since 1992 keep
increasing the QF average over all of it's operating years.

Incidentally, including wartime incidents is a little
questionable there. What is your source for those dates and
incidents?

I don't know about the poster you were referring those remarks
to, but here's my database of QF's fatals over the years.

1927 - Mar24 near Tambo in Queensland, a DH-9C with 3 lost
1934 - Nov15 near Longreach, Queensland where 4 were lost
1942 - Feb20 off Brisbane (Belmont??) with a DH-86 where 9 were lost after control
was lost in low cloud
1943 - Apr22 at Port Moresby in a Shorts flying boat, lost control in an emergency
landing - 13 lost
1943 - Nov26 again Port Morseby in a Lodestar, 15 lost
1944 - Oct11 at Rose Bay (SYD) another Shorts. 1 lost, 29 survived.
1951 - Jul16 at Lae, a Drover lost the centre prop and 7 lost.

Both NZ/QF have sterling reputations in many areas, as do many
of the world's carriers, fatalities or not.

Cheers/Regards.
Al.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:58:16 +1000, "Al Bennett"
wrote:
snip an excellent well-researched post on Qantas safety
record.

Thanks Al. I certainly couldn't improve on that. I'll let it
rest there.


Cheers, Alan, Australia

Big Tony wrote:
By look of the photos in the link below they used a couple of large cranes
and some bulldozers and excavators to "extend the runway"

http://www.avweb.com/news/news/184281-1.html

Thanks for the link. Notice how the underside of the nose was pitted
with the imprints of some rather large golf balls ? Proof that golfers
tried to get the plane to move back away from the gold course by
throwing golf balls at it :-)

Another article puts the repair bill at USD$50 million, which I would think
it quite a bit less than it would cost to buy a new one.

You forget about insurance. From what I heard, once the plane was fixed
and put into service, it was quickly sold to some other airline.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:45:10 GMT, wrote:


'Landing a 747 on a golf course in Bangkok' is slightly misleading.
The golf course in question (Kantarat - owned by the Royal Thai
Airforce) sits between the east and west runways at Don Muang airport.
It's actually inside the airport grounds.

Which would seem to open up possibilities for the longest golf
shot ever. I mean if some one sliced over the runway just as
something was taking off ......

__________________________________________________ ____________
Keith Sayers, Canberra, Australia
Mail : 6 Clambe Place,
CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 http://www.pcug.org.au/~kmsayers
--------------------------------------------------------------

"nobody" wrote in message
news:1114388349.193561bd79f7bc85a3376bdc67c1c654@t eranews...
Big Tony wrote:
By look of the photos in the link below they used a couple of large
cranes
and some bulldozers and excavators to "extend the runway"

http://www.avweb.com/news/news/184281-1.html

Thanks for the link. Notice how the underside of the nose was pitted
with the imprints of some rather large golf balls ? Proof that golfers
tried to get the plane to move back away from the gold course by
throwing golf balls at it :-)

Another article puts the repair bill at USD$50 million, which I would
think
it quite a bit less than it would cost to buy a new one.

You forget about insurance. From what I heard, once the plane was fixed
and put into service, it was quickly sold to some other airline.

Maybe I'm missing something here but what has insurance got to do with the
claim that Qantas spent more repairing their aircraft than they ought to
have? The plane is worth a sum of money as salvage versus a higher value
once repaired. If the difference between the two is more than the repair
cost then it's worth repairing. Whether the repair cost is met by Qantas and
/or their insurers isn't relevant here.

I have no idea how much a newish repaired 747-400 is worth but I'd guess at
$125m, I can't imagine the salvage value would be more than a couple of
million. So it looks like it may be worth a repair. Although the $50m repair
figure seems suspiciously round.


--
Big Tony