Air NZ's ad swap coincidence

By DANIEL RIORDAN aviation writer

Air New Zealand says it has changed the way it advertises its airfares but denies the changes have anything to do with the Commerce Commission.

On Thursday the consumer watchdog said it was prosecuting Air New Zealand's discount arm, Freedom Air, for misleading advertising of its airfares last year. The commission was also looking to see whether the practice had been used by other airlines.

At issue was the way Freedom advertised a $2.15 a flight Civil Aviation Authority levy and an insurance charge of $9 a flight, reflecting higher premiums after September 11.

Air NZ stopped including the CAA levy in its ticket price last November, saying it could no longer afford to absorb the cost.

It had also been charging an insurance levy of $8 a flight.

Air NZ spokesman Mark Champion said the national carrier, 82 per cent Government-owned, had been approached by the Commerce Commission this year and had also changed the way it presented its extra charges this year.

But he said the changes were not made as a result of the commission's approach.

The airline now gave more prominence to its fine print, and more clearly linked the offer price with the additional charge, said Champion.

However, several travellers rang the Business Herald yesterday after news of the Freedom investigation broke to say Air New Zealand staff were still describing the insurance charge as a "security charge" and a "Government tax."

Travellers booking Qantas flights through its website were told additional taxes, levies and charges applied to its initially stated fares.

Although these extra costs were included in the flight's final price, they were not detailed. Print advertisements were similarly worded.

Qantas spokeswoman Melissa Thompson said Qantas had not been contacted by the commission in relation to its airfare advertisements.

"Qantas is aware of the requirements and will adhere to them."

The commission has said all airlines that advertised fares in New Zealand could come under its scrutiny.

It could prosecute retrospectively for up to three years.

nzherald.co.nz/aviation