Feeling ripped off by Virgin advertising - we now serve food and beverage

[kyanar]

Well, there's always Air Asia?

I'm actually kind of disappointed to see that VA are adopting Air NZ's idiotic trans-tasman prdoduct (which also somehow applies to Honolulu)!

 

[AviationNZ]

I'm actually kind of disappointed to see that VA are adopting Air NZ's idiotic trans-tasman prdoduct (which also somehow applies to Honolulu)!

Haven't VA had it on the Tasman all along, they're just renaming it all?

Also, whilst I agree that the NZ product is strange one for HNL, when you look around the cabin on a Tasman flight, it's amazing how many people aren't getting meals etc, meaning they've actively bought a Seat or Seat+Bag product. Doesn't that show the decision to have it is popular in many customers' eyes? Just playing devils advocate here.

 

[anat0l]

Also, whilst I agree that the NZ product is strange one for HNL, when you look around the cabin on a Tasman flight, it's amazing how many people aren't getting meals etc, meaning they've actively bought a Seat or Seat+Bag product. Doesn't that show the decision to have it is popular in many customers' eyes? Just playing devils advocate here.

This is a thing. NZ said that, before introducing the fare structure, it had polled many of its customers on the route, saying that heaps would be willing to give up some extras in order to save some money.

Now all said and done, I am not too sure if the average price dropped compared to before the fare structure was introduced. My gut tells me yes, even if the difference was, say, less than $20. That could have changed now for any various number of factors (but the idea is that even under the old scheme, the fares would have increased anyway).

If the fare didn't really drop, but the Seat+Bag (or even Seat) fare inherited the old lowest Economy fare, then people may just be purchasing the two lowest fare classes for the pure sake that the extras do not make it worth the cost (at least to them, for others they have a different value proposition). They were used to the old price (or price level) for fares, and have simply conceded now that such a fare gives them principally less than it did before.

One thing too that with the four different fare types, NZ jettisoned Business Class on many aircraft crossing the Tasman. This is not quite the case for VA. The direct competition JQ never had Business Class on that market, and QF has it all the time (even if one can call it insufficient).

 

[Warks]

The fares for me weren't that cheap although I picked the cheapest I could get on the day. Being January it was never going to be a bargain but I remain surprised that most people on board did pay extra ($100 or so) to get a $15 meal. The party pies from the Koru Club with a can of L&P was much better!

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

You need Works or Works Deluxe for food on Air NZ.
If booked via VA then VA rules apply.

 

[AviationNZ]

The fares for me weren't that cheap although I picked the cheapest I could get on the day. Being January it was never going to be a bargain but I remain surprised that most people on board did pay extra ($100 or so) to get a $15 meal. The party pies from the Koru Club with a can of L&P was much better!

And that's precisely what many people (myself included) that have lounge access can do...fill up with a massive selection of food/drinks and there is no need to eat on board and pay for things you don't use. With all that being said, I think it's only $25 each way to get meals and drinks on board.

I honestly don't see the downside to the fare structure.

 

[anat0l]

I honestly don't see the downside to the fare structure.

I guess it becomes a downside for those who do not have any lounge access. I suppose the argument is then that such people likely don't travel enough that paying for a meal on board, one in advance at the airport or paying a higher fare to get a meal included, is of little consequence to them overall (i.e. "no big deal", you pay it once or twice a year, that's it).

If you "travelled often" but had no access to lounge and had to pay for meals every time because it wasn't supplied on board, that could be something else. The only people I can think that fall into this are those who maybe travel at least once a month across the Tasman in the cheapest fare available. Some of them might just write off a meal expense (or even a higher fare) on an expense account - no big deal. Some might just call it the cost of doing business (or travelling).

Some people, irrespective of status held, have argued that they do not arrive at the airport for such flights early enough to enjoy a proper meal at the lounge or even from a food facility at the airport. They "rely" on food (decent food?) being available on board to tide them over in their very busy schedule. Thus, they could be key opponents of the fare structure.

It could just also be a whole perception thing. Airlines are sometimes in a bind on this one. They are "responding" to consumer surveys which, including people like you, indicate features they are happy to forgo in order to pay less on fares / keep fares lower as long as possible / maintain schedules. But from an outside view, when features are taken away like that, it looks like a cheaper low cost structure. People who don't take the time to do the sums in detail may make a sweeping negative conclusion. That may not mean much overall, but it could tip someone to the competition, too.

 

[kyanar]

Haven't VA had it on the Tasman all along, they're just renaming it all?

Also, whilst I agree that the NZ product is strange one for HNL, when you look around the cabin on a Tasman flight, it's amazing how many people aren't getting meals etc, meaning they've actively bought a Seat or Seat+Bag product. Doesn't that show the decision to have it is popular in many customers' eyes? Just playing devils advocate here.

VA never to my knowledge had an offering that did not include a single checked bag at minimum. But the idiotic part I mean is that when not on special, Air NZ prices are generally comparable to Qantas, who pack far more bells and whistles into the fare (full selection of beverages rather than just tea, coffee and water; a meal; snacks). I just don't understand why Air NZ seems to think that it'll break the bank to throw a can of coke and a couple of biscuits in. If they want to offer the cheaper service, I would expect it to remain around around their special price at all times, not just when it's on special.

Disclaimer: I'm torn on this one though, since as a shareholder I benefit more from not including bells and whistles while maintaining premium price.

 

[AviationNZ]

I guess it becomes a downside for those who do not have any lounge access. I suppose the argument is then that such people likely don't travel enough that paying for a meal on board, one in advance at the airport or paying a higher fare to get a meal included, is of little consequence to them overall (i.e. "no big deal", you pay it once or twice a year, that's it).

If you "travelled often" but had no access to lounge and had to pay for meals every time because it wasn't supplied on board, that could be something else. The only people I can think that fall into this are those who maybe travel at least once a month across the Tasman in the cheapest fare available. Some of them might just write off a meal expense (or even a higher fare) on an expense account - no big deal. Some might just call it the cost of doing business (or travelling).

Some people, irrespective of status held, have argued that they do not arrive at the airport for such flights early enough to enjoy a proper meal at the lounge or even from a food facility at the airport. They "rely" on food (decent food?) being available on board to tide them over in their very busy schedule. Thus, they could be key opponents of the fare structure.

It could just also be a whole perception thing. Airlines are sometimes in a bind on this one. They are "responding" to consumer surveys which, including people like you, indicate features they are happy to forgo in order to pay less on fares / keep fares lower as long as possible / maintain schedules. But from an outside view, when features are taken away like that, it looks like a cheaper low cost structure. People who don't take the time to do the sums in detail may make a sweeping negative conclusion. That may not mean much overall, but it could tip someone to the competition, too.

I totally appreciate what you're saying and agree with it. I guess my main point is that people have the option to have the meals included, it's not like the only choice is Seat (plus buying a packet of chips on board).

VA never to my knowledge had an offering that did not include a single checked bag at minimum. But the idiotic part I mean is that when not on special, Air NZ prices are generally comparable to Qantas, who pack far more bells and whistles into the fare (full selection of beverages rather than just tea, coffee and water; a meal; snacks). I just don't understand why Air NZ seems to think that it'll break the bank to throw a can of coke and a couple of biscuits in. If they want to offer the cheaper service, I would expect it to remain around around their special price at all times, not just when it's on special.

Disclaimer: I'm torn on this one though, since as a shareholder I benefit more from not including bells and whistles while maintaining premium price.

For a long time, VA's domestic structure (and Tasman/Pacific Islands) had a fare which didn't include luggage. Domestic and Pacific Islands only changed recently (maybe 6-12 months ago), but Tasman was kept to stay aligned with Air NZ.

I don't have specific data to back this up, but I think you'll find NZ price their "Works" fare the same as QF, i.e. like for like. Naturally there are going to be times when NZ is more expensive, and times when QF is more expensive, but that is just common place.

The other thing with all of this, is that customers who say "you have to pay extra for meals and/or bags" don't realise that with any airline, you're still paying for these things. It's not as though the airlines aren't costing them into their fares somewhere.

 

[kyanar]

I totally appreciate what you're saying and agree with it. I guess my main point is that people have the option to have the meals included, it's not like the only choice is Seat (plus buying a packet of chips on board).

I can also agree. Though like anat0l said about perception, it is difficult to stomach fres which don't even include snacks on a carrier who pitch themselves as premium. The only time recntly that I've flown Seat Only or Seat and Bag (it was a last minute flight for a family illness) I felt I was not flying on a "Airline Ratings 2015 Airline of the Year" carrier. I felt I was flying on a somewhat nicer version of a Jetstar plane. It's a fine line to walk.


I will note that I say this as a lowly Jade Airpoints member (though with a J booking next month which will, combined with a domestic F on UA (shudder) put me within 20SP of Gold).

 

[Deleted member 29185]

...fill up with a massive selection of food/drinks

WOW......where did you find this little gem of a lounge? I'm now really excited to hear the VA alliance has such a place hidden away for trans Tasman pax! Is there a secret map to find it? :mrgreen:

I guess it becomes a downside for those who do not have any lounge access.

No F&B (water excluded) on a 3 hour flight is not the end of the world. Many people don't eat for 8 hours during a normal work day and would be happy to do same on a flight as well, however I think not providing F&B is short-sighted by these airlines for one very important reason......F&B distract people for a little while. Cooping people up inside a metal tube and then strapping them in one place for 3 hours has drawbacks.....entertain them with a bit of F&B does help make the journey pass a little quicker and help to make them less rowdy/fidgety etc.

Having said that, JQ has that included $5 voucher in their bundles and people do complain about why they "must" buy $5 worth of food.....so who knows, there are obviously people who want the "no food" fare and others that want food, in which case they can buy it as an extra. It's more about knowing the product inclusions (or lack thereof) that one has purchased.

 

[kyanar]

No F&B (water excluded) on a 3 hour flight is not the end of the world. Many people don't eat for 8 hours during a normal work day and would be happy to do same on a flight as well, however I think not providing F&B is short-sighted by these airlines for one very important reason......F&B distract people for a little while. Cooping people up inside a metal tube and then strapping them in one place for 3 hours has drawbacks.....entertain them with a bit of F&B does help make the journey pass a little quicker and help to make them less rowdy/fidgety etc.

Funny you mention entertainment - unless you pay an extra $10 on any fare lower than Works, NZ locks you out of movies in the IFE as well. So not only do you not get a snack and drinks to distract you, you can't even watch movies. Now that's penny pinching, because I don't think they pay royalties per view now, do they?

 

[AviationNZ]

WOW......where did you find this little gem of a lounge? I'm now really excited to hear the VA alliance has such a place hidden away for trans Tasman pax! Is there a secret map to find it? :mrgreen:

Hahaha, a very secret place!! The new SYD and AKL lounge selection is massive relative to on board

 

[farstar]

Hahaha, a very secret place!! The new SYD and AKL lounge selection is massive relative to on board

Compared to on board maybe but compared to QF First lounge or Emirates Business in Sydney not great, so it really depends on your perspective. I am QF and VFF platinum and have been to all three and I known which has the better lounges out of Sydney. In AKL the Emirates beats QF first lounge no contest with the ANZ lounge close to QF but niether great.

[h=2][/h]

 

[AviationNZ]

Compared to on board maybe but compared to QF First lounge or Emirates Business in Sydney not great, so it really depends on your perspective. I am QF and VFF platinum and have been to all three and I known which has the better lounges out of Sydney. In AKL the Emirates beats QF first lounge no contest with the ANZ lounge close to QF but niether great.

What you might "know" is your opinion which you're entitled to. For me, I'd put the NZ lounge in Sydney ahead of the EK lounge and QF business lounge, but QF first lounge at the top. In AKL, I'd put the new NZ AKL lounge ahead of the QF and EK ones too. I'm just not into the EK "bling".

 

[farstar]

What you might "know" is your opinion which you're entitled to. For me, I'd put the NZ lounge in Sydney ahead of the EK lounge and QF business lounge, but QF first lounge at the top. In AKL, I'd put the new NZ AKL lounge ahead of the QF and EK ones too. I'm just not into the EK "bling".

Last time I was in the ANZ lounge I had little to eat, nothing was great, it was very sad. EK would always beat ANZ.

 

[AviationNZ]

Last time I was in the ANZ lounge I had little to eat, nothing was great, it was very sad. EK would always beat ANZ.

In your opinion.....

 

[anat0l]

Compared to on board maybe but compared to QF First lounge or Emirates Business in Sydney not great, so it really depends on your perspective. I am QF and VFF platinum and have been to all three and I known which has the better lounges out of Sydney. In AKL the Emirates beats QF first lounge no contest with the ANZ lounge close to QF but niether great.

[h=2][/h]

What you might "know" is your opinion which you're entitled to. For me, I'd put the NZ lounge in Sydney ahead of the EK lounge and QF business lounge, but QF first lounge at the top. In AKL, I'd put the new NZ AKL lounge ahead of the QF and EK ones too. I'm just not into the EK "bling".

One thing I tend not to take too much into account is the lounge comparison is a bit unfair on both sides, for these reasons:

• The lounges of the "home airline" should (or, read, "should") always be better (or the best) in that home port. Hence QF should be doing very well in SYD, and NZ in AKL.
• Even in QFF Platinums have access to the QF First Lounge, irrespective of being on QF, EK or JQ, it is a bit unfair to compare this to the NZ lounge in SYD, since NZ is considered a Business Class lounge. I think nearly everyone would agree that the NZ lounge in SYD T1 beats the QF Business Lounge on the other side of the terminal.
  One might argue that there is simply a comparison of what the best of each airline's elites have access to, i.e. what the experience is for a QF Platinum versus a NZ Elite (or even VA Platinum). One could also, however, make the case of what is the best that can be obtained without status; viz. for Qantas that would be buying a Qantas Business Class ticket (arguing buying a EK First Class ticket and putting that under a Qantas entry is a bit far fetched) versus Air New Zealand in buying a NZ Business Class (if available) or Works Deluxe ticket. I'd say this captures quite a few people who would travel for business purposes across the Tasman, particularly if the only international travel for such people is just across the Tasman (you'd have to travel a lot across the Tasman to get top tier status, or even a useful one).

It's funny how people can be very turned off by the EK "bling" factor to the point that they don't see the rest of the features of the lounge (whether they are good or not). I'd hope for something worthwhile to come out of QF's planned redevelopment of the AKL lounge. The new NZ lounge at AKL looks pretty good in the press pictures. The last time I was in this lounge was 2013, so before it was redeveloped. I remember that the offerings on the buffet were very pedestrian at best - the best I could do was soup, bread rolls, cheese, some cold cuts and salad.

Overall, let's look at it from a wider perspective. The objective of the lounge, it would seem, in the current argument / subthread is to ensure one is fed well for the journey across the Tasman, either because of no food, not enough food or undesired food. I think any lounge currently on both sides of the Tasman fulfills that objective to at least a satisfactory degree. (How well they do this beyond merely satisfactory is arguable).

 

[Deleted member 29185]

the lounge comparison is a bit unfair on both sides,

I agree, especially as the post that started this particular sub-discussion was about the lack of food offering on board. I take that to mean there were no J or F fares involved, which leaves status only. Without status, one may as well disregard the lounge offering at the airport (yes such entry can be bought or had with AMEX etc, but...........) and come back to on-board only. I also recall it was about VA and not even NZ so where does that leave us? Oh yes, VA are tightwads, short sighted and inconsistant with the included F&B (trans Tasman are not the only short haul int sectors to suffer this problem).

 

[Fiches Mouser]

...so where does that leave us? Oh yes, VA are tightwads, short sighted and inconsistant with the included F&B (trans Tasman are not the only short haul int sectors to suffer this problem).

Yep, that sums it up pretty well!