Air fare battle

Press, 3 February 1979, Page 12

Air fare battle

Arranging an overseas journey by air was once a relatively uncomplicated exercise. In the beginning, airlines offered all seats at one price and the calculation of a return fare was accomplished simply by doubling the one-way rates. Passengers in those days were spared the airline jargon that governs the multitude of cheap-fare options available now Skytrain, Epic, Apex, standby, budget, cabotage, night-coach, super-coach, and excursion are only a few of the terms used to describe special fares now offered to the international traveller

New Zealanders will soon face further complications when Air New Zealand introduces new North Pacific fares that will fluctuate according to the most busy and less busy seasons — a complication made more complicated because the north-bound and southbound seasons are at entirely different times of the year. As many travellers will probably complete one leg of their journey in one season and return in another, a third fare structure had to be created. Even the hitherto sacrosanct first-class and standard economy fares have been split into two divisions with different rates for on-line and inter-line passengers.

The new fare plan, and the promise of others still to be announced, will not make life any easier for travel agents, who now find themselves confronted by 46 possible fare combinations from only one airline flying from New Zealand to Honolulu and Los Angeles. If the Pan American and Continental lines are granted approval to implement their individual fare plans, the total number of possibilities for individual and group tour passengers between here and the United States could increase to more than a

hundred. By comparison, all scheduled services — from Skytrain to Concorde — now running between London and New York have produced only 39 different fares.

Air New Zealand would have helped to ease the growing confusion within the travel industry if it had steered clear of the seasonal fares. Its existing system, whereby passengers wanting cheap travel could choose either the advance purchase budget or Epic fares al] the year round, must have been appreciated for its simplicity by agent.- ,;p>iir- alike

No-one can fairly deny that Air New Zealand is fighting a tough battle to compete with bigger airlines, and any attempt to hold its position is understandable Air New Zealand could have partly satisfied the clamour for lower fares by introducing a new, cheap, standby rate while, at the same time, allowing modest reductions for budget and Epic travel throughout the year. Instead, the airline has adopted a policy of seasonal travel, the full benefits of which will be beyond the reach of the average traveller. The modest savings offered at some times of the year will be more than offset by quite substantial increases on present rates for the five peak months. In sum, the airline may be expected to take more money from its passengers rather than less.

Executives of the airline have given repeated assurances over the last few months that New Zealanders would not be denied the benefits of fares set by other airlines overseas. If Air New Zealand is to match the offers made by its competitors it will have to produce a more attractive proposal for its new fares across the Tasman and to the United Kingdom.