Air New Zealand [Diverted to MEL, Self paid to SYD - reimbursement?]

[anat0l]

It was very tempting to simply say 'rubbish' however in an effort to practice what I preach I shall say I do not agree with your comment at all. There is never a problem with disagreement but it doesn't need to be aggressive or personal.

It is very tempting for me to quote precedent (and unfortunately some of that has been moderated off) of both advocated or tolerated aggressive or personal attacks on AFF, but in order not to fan the flames any more, especially in this thread where it is not relevant, I shall not.

That said, I will mention here to all members that if you believe a message violates the Terms of Service (i.e. legally offensive, is a belligerent or personal attack, etc.), please do not hesitate to use the Report Post button to alert that post to the moderation team. (It's the icon shaped like a triangle with a ! sign in it, next to "Blog this Post")

If you read the OP again, I don't think 'wandered off' and 'expected NZ to foot the bill' are supported statements, but I get the gist if your perspective,

I wonder how long you would give the airline to 'fix the problem'? The plane didn't suddenly materialise at MEL. It was headed to SYD and got diverted. Without knowing the details, you would think that ANZ might have had 30 mins notice before landing, maybe 40 mins before pax at counter, that a bunch of unhappy pax were about to present at MEL counter wanting alternatives.

I've said this before - surely airlines have contingency plans for this, using contractors or not? Diversions, cancellations etc etc are a fact of life in the airline business. Pax should be prepared for it, and airlines more so. To my mind, there is no excuse whatsoever for a shambles at a counter in cases like this. They know that it will be a pax bunfight - that what pax under stress do. Most pax are able to be marshalled and organised by appropriate firm directions. This was not apparent in this case.

J and status pax on a 737 sized aircraft should have arrangements made within 30 mins of event being apparent (ie before landing in this case.) So announcement made on landing, before dis-embarkation. Maybe that's ambitious, but should be a target. Others should present to a counter that is managed, expecting a rabble of pax.

For the bolded and underlined part, I suppose it is obvious that you are civilised. Count yourself lucky to have a good upbringing then; it is not as commonplace as you think.

I'm sure airlines have contingency plans - in fact, it seems there was one here. It was just too slow. That is not a lack of process, that's a failure of appropriateness or execution. Though all said and done, we don't quite completely know why Air NZ (or their contractors) were struggling considerably to help the OP and all other affected pax.

If they were attempting to rebook customers, they must have been trying to get seats on QF and VA. How many seats were feasibly available? Who should they be given to? What process would be involved for NZ to get another airline to take their pax and NZ to pay that airline? If they were calling the other airlines, were the phones absolutely clear or were they all similarly blocked up at the back end?

If it was a case of getting hotels, then I know arranging 150+ hotel rooms is not something that is easily achieved within 30 minutes.

What I am struggling to understand is that Air NZ (or their contractors at MEL) twiddled their thumbs or filed their nails for 45 minutes whilst pax simmered. Or they were running on a "go slow" policy. Let alone the up to 70 minutes notice they may have got "in advance". That said, no one knows how and when the MEL team was alerted to the diversion and was able to start the relevant processes. I'm assuming NZ central in AKL would have notice of the diversion, which then calls MEL office and something happens. Instantaneous? No idea. Probably shouldn't take 70 minutes....

Maybe one thing that needs to be improved here is the process for accommodating a resolution like the OP, e.g. if the OP is - by process - entitled to rebooking on a carrier to their ultimate destination, then they can make this arrangement themselves and be compensated later after sending the airline the relevant e-ticket, e.g. by means of a cheque or directed refund to the original form of payment (if possible). As far as I know, such resolutions globally are not commonplace; even in EU 261 parlance, this is difficult to claim (not necessarily by means of rights, but time to remedy).


You're lucky that you can put forward an idea that 150+ diverted pax should be completely reaccommodated within 100 minutes (within 30 minutes upon contact) and that is a goal. I once said that a goal should be made for baggage to be delivered completely within 20 minutes of arrival of a domestic flight and within 30 minutes of arrival of an international flight. I don't think that's unreasonably achievable with a step change in technology, but I was certainly ridiculed that my idea was pie in the sky.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm not disagreeing with you anat0l , I just have this child-like faith that major airlines, at 'reasonably' major stop-over points (and even, under "contingency plan Zulu", ports they don't have scheduled services into ... ie diversion ports) have plans in case that "cough is happening".

ANZ:
OK, we have a diversion to MEL, xx_ pax, including YY J, status etc. System think for 10 minutes; OK considering crew hours, weather at scheduled destination, issues like curfew (if any etc etc), gunna need 20 rooms for the night without question, probably 40 and possibly 150. C'mon people, we've planned for this!

So, even before the plane lands, someone central calls the 5 hotels at the top of the list where we have contingency arrangements and grab every room available, at the pre-agreed rates. Another person launches pre-determined call around of other airlines, initiating pre-agreed taking-up of 'emergency seats, where available.

Got 20 rooms? OK. Got 20 seats out? Good. Keep trying. Further analysis. Likely that we will need more? The hoards are about to disembark. Confirmed that the plane will be on the ground for at leats 2 hours. Call the next round of hotels. Grab another YY rooms if we can. Better to pay the stand-by fee if we don't use the rooms than having the airline look like a joke.

At the same time, mobilise airport response, - following plan drawn up for this. Know we need to control situation and keep pax informed and try to process.

And so on.

Like I said, that's just my child-like faith in how I imaging major airlines might work and pre-plan for this all-to-common occurrence.

Unfortunately it all too often is:

"Gee ... I just noticed that one of our planes has landed in a funny spot. Wonder what the passengers are going to do <smirks>? Do we have anyone there who can fend them off until we can figure out what's happening?"

 

[TomVexille]

Unfortunately it all too often is:

"Gee ... I just noticed that one of our planes has landed in a funny spot. Wonder what the passengers are going to do <smirks>? Do we have anyone there who can fend them off until we can figure out what's happening?"

I've had that from one of the largest airlines in the world in one of their biggest hubs...

 

[openseat]

I commend the OP for taking action rather than simply waiting or being herded into an unsatisfactory service recovery. I've had plenty of disruptions in travel where I have had to do something similar as buying a last minute ticket (summer travel in the US, and more recently German rail strikes come to mind). Of course this why it's good to have a comprehensive travel insurance policy. First stop with the airline or rail company (DB have been very quick in refunds with the rail strikes). If that fails to cover all costs, the onto the insurance. Much better than being the victim of poor customer service.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For the bolded and underlined part, I suppose it is obvious that you are civilised. Count yourself lucky to have a good upbringing then; it is not as commonplace as you think.

I would not see that as an indication of being civilised or having a good upbringing. I would hope the latter would be able to teach you self reliance - and give you the ability to judge situations and when you need to take action

There are no prizes for being left on the deck of the Titanic in this day and age.

 

[bullerdude]

CANCELLATION AND RE-ROUTING9.2.1 We reserve the right to substitute an aircraft and/or Alternative Carrier. If we cancel a flight,
fail to operate a flight reasonably according to the schedule, fail to stop at your destination
or Stopover, or cause you to miss a connecting flight on which you hold a confirmed
reservation on a Conjunction Ticket, you shall have the option, subject to our agreement,
either:
9.2.1.1 to be carried on another of our scheduled services on which space is available in
the same class, or where space is not available, on the services of an Alternative
Carrier, in either case without additional charge or refund to you; or
9.2.1.2 to be re-routed to the next Stopover or destination shown on your Ticket by our
own services or those of an Alternative Carrier. If the fare and charges for the
revised routing are lower than what you have paid, we shall refund the difference;
9.2.1.3 if neither of the above alternatives is acceptable to you, we will make a refund or
provide a credit in accordance with the provisions of 10.2 and we shall have no
further liability to you.

10.2.2 If a portion of the Ticket has been used, the refund will be the higher of:
10.2.2.1 the one way fare (less applicable discounts and charges but including applicable
taxes, government & airport costs notwithstanding the applicable fare rules) from
point of interruption to destination or point of next Stopover; or
10.2.2.2 the difference between the fare paid and the fare for the carriage used (including
applicable taxes, government & airport costs notwithstanding the applicable fare
rules).

In these cases I find it best to refer to the conditions of carriage that you inherently agree to when purchasing an airfare and boarding a flight.

They clearly state that if AirNZ's options are appropriate then you are entitled to a refund - The bit that isn't clear is to whether you have to discuss this with them before going off and booking your own flights.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Diversions are one of the joys of travel !!!!

 

[JohnK]

Diversions are one of the joys of travel !!!!

Wouldn't it depend on the circustances?

A few hours into a TWA flight ATH-JFK we diverted to LHR. On the ground for 3 hours and not allowed to leave. Not a spare seat on the flight. I was lucky I was in exit row in economy. I don't remember whether we were fed or not or whether they were offering drinks.

Arrived JFK near midnight and obviously missed connection to CVG. Put on first flight next morning. Luggage damaged and had to put in claim but had to find someone at that time of night in empty airport. Spent 3-4 hours in Best Western motel no idea where and back to airport early.

Didn't get much joy with that diversion.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Wouldn't it depend on the circustances?

.

.

Of course it does John as it does with everything!!! Rolling with the punches is an acquired art

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I always thought that if a delay or diversion etc was not the fault of the airline (storm, ash, airport closure etc) then they had no liability and it was automatically an insurance issue. If it is the airlines fault (aircraft going tech, schedule alteration) then it is the airlines obligation to sort out an alternative. Is this false? Seems the airline accommodating all pax would be costly when it was instigated for safety of pax only.

Having said that, I note the OP has stated he/she was in business class, so I find the simple fact they were not dealt with quickly and separately to the pack to be very ordinary on ANZs behalf. I think the OP made a good decision given the work requirement for the next day, but I also think at some point a decision has to made to move on with life. By all means push for some compensation (some points for more for the way they treated a J pax then anything else) but make an insurance claim and get back to normal.

 

[Terry Callaghan]

Just recently (7 December 2014) I have had problems with Air New Zealand

Isn't it time that airlines were called to account - they have sold a ticket from point A to point B, and failed to deliver.
Now, when I do that in my business, I am liable to be sued for anything from fraud to theft to whatever.
For too long we have been conned by airlines - and their "contract of agreement" (or whatever) should not be able to hold up in court. At least in Australia a business is not able to waive a consumers protection under common law - and yet it continues to happen.
Why?

 

[mickjoebill]

The pros and cons as I see them:

Air nz did not have to pay for a hotel
nor for your mel to syd leg.

Did you wait a reasonable time for a resolution, taking into account the number of flights left in the day?

Did you leave enough time in your schedule to overcome typical delays and diversions?

Airline policy may or may not accord with consumer law. An airline has a duty to get you eventually to the destination on the ticket. You did nothing more than find a flight to your destination which they could not! You are not asking them to pay for a private jet.



Mickjoebill

 

[Terry Callaghan]

hmm - "An airline has a duty to get you eventually to the destination on the ticket"
Well, if I get in a taxi and ask to go to "Point B" and the taxi takes me to "Point C", should I pay for the fare?
Likewise, if I order a pizza and get delivered a chicken, should I pay?
Despite the obvious differences, I can't see the logical difference between the taxi, pizza or airline.
What am I missing here?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Isn't it time that airlines were called to account - they have sold a ticket from point A to point B, and failed to deliver.
Now, when I do that in my business, I am liable to be sued for anything from fraud to theft to whatever.
For too long we have been conned by airlines - and their "contract of agreement" (or whatever) should not be able to hold up in court. At least in Australia a business is not able to waive a consumers protection under common law - and yet it continues to happen.
Why?

Sometimes contract are unable to be performed as written because of events outside the control of either one or both parties.

Where you have weather and ATC restrictions, this is often unlikely to be within the control of the airline.

In such circumstances, parties have a duty to mitigate any losses which they will subsequently claim against the other party. If NZ had made reasonable alternative arrangements, the passenger would ordinarily be expected to abide by those, or if they were going to make their own plans, to stick within 'reasonable' costs.

you couldn't, for example, hire a private jet when an ordinary scheduled service would do.

There are plenty of parts of an airline contract of carriage which may deserve closer scrutiny. But an event beyond the airline's control (weather and ATC restrictions flowing from that) is unlikely to be one of them.

(In fact any reasonable passenger would accept, at time of ticket purchase, that something like weather being a known factor in determining whether they could reach their final destination.)

 

[Terry Callaghan]

Sometimes contract are unable to be performed as written because of events outside the control of either one or both parties.

(In fact any reasonable passenger would accept, at time of ticket purchase, that something like weather being a known factor in determining whether they could reach their final destination.)

Well, that's one point of view. and I am sure that the pizza guy could argue that, although you ordered a pizza, we are out of pizza so I am delivering you a chicken. Bad luck to you - now pay up!
Now I may or may not want a chicken as a replacement - that's up to me, not the pizza guy.

Not sure that this scenario will hold up in either a moral or a legal manner.
If I buy a ticket to Point B and don't get there, then I should get a refund, or at least the option of a refund. It's not that hard to work out.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, that's one point of view. and I am sure that the pizza guy could argue that, although you ordered a pizza, we are out of pizza so I am delivering you a chicken. Bad luck to you - now pay up!
Now I may or may not want a chicken as a replacement - that's up to me, not the pizza guy.

Not sure that this scenario will hold up in either a moral or a legal manner.
If I buy a ticket to Point B and don't get there, then I should get a refund, or at least the option of a refund. It's not that hard to work out.

your views are not consistent with either contract law, or australian consumer protection law.

the airline agreed to carry passengers to sydney, and in fact that is what they did, albeit with a delay. no breach of contract where this is outside the airline's control.

now, if the airline took off knowing sydney was closed and wasn't going to open by the time they arrived (or even shortly after they arrived), then the passengers might rightfully expect the choice or a refund, or transportation on another day. but that's not what happened here.

 

[bismarck]

hmm - "An airline has a duty to get you eventually to the destination on the ticket"
Well, if I get in a taxi and ask to go to "Point B" and the taxi takes me to "Point C", should I pay for the fare?
Likewise, if I order a pizza and get delivered a chicken, should I pay?
Despite the obvious differences, I can't see the logical difference between the taxi, pizza or airline.
What am I missing here?

I might just focus on the Taxi example.

If the road you would normally take is closed for roadworks and the taxi has to take a more circuitous route, then yes you will be expected to pay the higher fare.

 

[ginger01]

Re: Air New Zealand

This is the standard airline response and they won't budge! Interesting that in their conditions of carriage is the clause that they won't guarantee you a seat on the flight or the ETD/ETA. So what are you paying for? Claim on your travel insurance if you have any, you will have to pay the excess. Having said that, it is poor customer service and the airline needs to buck up! Chalk it up to experience, consider another airline in future! I had a similar experience last year with Jetstar and LAN Airlines, as well as ANZ in 1987!

 

[Terry Callaghan]

ok - staying with our hypothetical taxi...
Taxi fare was to point B.
Takes customer to point C, stops and says "I'm off, will be back tomorrow to take you to Point B, here's $150 for a hotel and food - see you tomorrow"
Am I not entitled to ask for a refund and get another taxi?
(am I not enraged enough to kick the sh##$% out of the taxi door?)

 

[Corny44]

The diversion is not ANZ fault. What is their fault is not getting people on planes to Sydney quick enough. They would be looking for the cheapest option and taking their time. The passenger who booked his own flight because ANZ was inefficient definitely needs compensation from ANZ.