Air New Zealand vs. Qantas

"MK" wrote in message
. au...

"Bruce Simpson" wrote in message
...
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?




On any flight of more than a few hours it's outrageous that people
should be stuck in a plane without a personal LCD entertanment center
and it was clear that AirNZ were being *really* cheap in every area.


I flew Thai Business class to AKL the other day - 747 - no personal screens
even in Business Class!

I am flying AMS-LAX next week on a KLM 747 which has only music via headphones
and overhead TV screens by way of IFE. I paid very little money for the flights,
and my own, personal, IFE will be a book.

JohnT

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.

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.

Given that different people have different thought processes and different
priorities/agendas when making these sort of choices, consider the
following.

-Both carriers have superb reputations and a long history in flying the
ultra long hauls. Over the years, they have tailored their service around
such long hauls and are more used to the problems associated with
that sort of flight than perhaps many other carriers.
-Both operate fairly modern equipment of the same make/model.
-Both have crews where the more senior bid for the long nonstop across
the Pacific, due to perks and time off, so the service on board can
range from clinically efficient but blase to warm and friendly with a
personal touch on both carriers. (Tends to be more of the former!)
At the end of the day, it is always the crew that can make or break
a trip.

So you're down to service differences - and these are minimal.
Both will wine you and dine you in an adequate manner, as far as
Airline Y cuisine goes. The trays for Y look similar on both.
Both provide bathrooms, pillows, blankets, magazines, amenity kits
etc.

IMHO it comes down to two things only - if you are one that needs space
for either sleeping, or if you don't sleep, then NZ's 34" Y space is
generally considered better than QF's 31", even though QF's slimline
seats "give" more than the official measurement.
If you're one that can't sleep and need diversions on the long flight,
then you may find QF's PTV & Games system to be the clincher.

I don't think you can go wrong with either carrier in Y to be honest.
$ and Frequent Flyer considerations also come into play, given that
both carriers are in seperate alliances and marketing agreements.

Cheers/Regards.
Al.

"Al Bennett" wrote in message
...

I don't think you can go wrong with either carrier in Y to be honest.
$ and Frequent Flyer considerations also come into play, given that
both carriers are in seperate alliances and marketing agreements.


Al,

Thanks for cutting put all of useless cross posts and well spoken.

People should remember that it is Economy Class and, despite the advertising
agencies, you shouldn't expect too much.

These days I have no choice but to travel in Business (such has been the
decline in both me and Economy in 30 years) and even there Qantas has
delivered one of my worse and nearly one of my best journeys ever , both
Trans Tasman. My best journeys have been SQ between SIN and SYD - mainly
sitting on the main deck in J on 7474s, with the great bulk of the other J
passengers in the bubble and me being left with about 4 cabin crew to look
after me - including a good long chat with a real delightful SQ cutie!

BUT, one of the main reasons for poor service delivery does seem to be the
senior person on the cabin crew. The good QF flight I mentioned above had a
really good purser who, apart from doing his own duties, keep a very close
eye on service delivery and keep asking the passengers how things were. The
bad trip had a purser who hid most of time to do her duties and let the rest
of the crew run their own race.

BTW - one of my clients (a pretty demanding US medical specialist/teacher
who now resides in Australia) said that on long haul on the Kangaroo route
in J during the night on QF, she wanted some fruit juice, got no response to
the call button and wandered down to the galley - which was unattended.
While looking around she spotted the juice and a glass and proceeded to help
herself - at this stage one of the hosties arrived and abused her! I
understand that the scene that followed was not nice!

--
Tony Bailey
Mercury Travel Books

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

Can you elaborate ? I thought it was fairly well accepted that Air NZ had
mismanaged Ansett at a time when Ansett couldn't afford to make any mistakes ?

"mtravelkay" wrote in message
om...
Laurie Fleming wrote:
In article ,
"james_anatidae" wrote:

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

Air New Zealand. I've got my air miles with them (yeah I know - flying
would/could be cheaper if they didn't exist, but nevertheless it's worth
the odd upgrade), and I've never had any problems with them.

Qantas - well, some of the worst flights I've had anywhere have been
with them. Being put in non-smoking, but one row ahead of the smokers,
despite our ensuring beforehand twice that our seats would be nearer the
front

In those days, if the plane was nearly full some people had to sit just
in front of the smoking section. This wasn't something limited to one
airline. Did ANZ not exist then?

ANZ's been around since 1939, originally called T.E.A.L. (Tasman Empire
Airways Limited) until 1965.

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?

"JD" wrote in message
...
LDL wrote:

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

In plain view of the media, Air New Zealand was taking parts from a 767 of
Ansett airlines just when the company decide liquidate in September 2001.

It took the unions to shove Air New Zealand crew away from that 767 but like
scavengers, they came back later.

What about New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark had to go out of view from
union protesters after landing in Melbourne Airport (timeline was September
/ October 2001). Helen Clark had to be taken on a helicopter (I think it
was a police helicopter) to sale air base for an arriving jet.

Can you please refute them?

Blue Lagoon wrote:
In plain view of the media, Air New Zealand was taking parts from a 767 of
Ansett airlines just when the company decide liquidate in September 2001.

Sorry, but anything that happened on or after liquidation of Ansett cannot be
used to accuse Air NZ to have mismanaged Ansett prior to ist collapse.

I am not saying Air NZ acted like a saint. But I would be interested in
knowing about specific actions/decisions that Air NZ took which hurt Ansett.

Had Anett remained stand-alone (and became a member of Star), would it have
realistically faired any better ? Could it have widthstood the onslaught of
Virgin Blue/Pacific Blue ?