Brian Rudman: Watch out, Air NZ's dreaded asterisks are back

Yet again, a judge has come to the same conclusion as every air traveller in the land, that the national airline has for years been hiding the true cost of its flights in the "microscopic" print at the bottom of its advertising.

So what does Air New Zealand do? True to form, it resorts to the small print. In Friday's Herald, group general manager of marketing Norm Thompson's reaction to the caning by Judge Stan Thorburn was to declare "we have to clearly understand the subtleties of his ruling and ensure future advertising is within the precedent he has now set".

If Air New Zealand's past behaviour is anything to go on, that comment sounds suspiciously like "excuse me while I dial up the QCs to find the loopholes".

In October 2000, Air New Zealand's budget off-shoot Freedom Air was fined $4000 for making false or misleading claims about prices. Two years later, Freedom was fined $10,000 on similar charges. Soon after, Commerce Commission director of fair trading Deborah Battell said she would prosecute Air New Zealand and Qantas for misleading advertising of fares.

The reaction of Air New Zealand's then chairman Ralph Norris was that the company was looking to advertise an "all-inclusive" fare price. Three years on it still seems to be just looking.

Judge Thorburn dealt with a representative sample of 20 of the commission's 355 complaints, finding one falsely represented a fare and 13 were misleading. Six complaints were dismissed.

Far from the airline getting the message back in 2002, Judge Thorburn was left with the impression it has spent the time since trying to work out how close to the wind it could sail.

He notes: "The court was told that Air New Zealand now includes additional charges in its headline price. Indeed, there was evidence that it had advertised in this way in Australian dailies before it began doing so in New Zealand."

This development left him "with a feeling" that between October 2001 and June last year "Air New Zealand had resorted to various formats, styles and terminology in its New Zealand advertisements to draw a reader's attention to the existence of additional costs, rather experimenting, it might seem, in an effort to find an acceptable approach to promotion".

Judge Thorburn ruled that prominently advertising a "headline" fare, but hiding away in the small print add-on costs, was, in the case of passenger insurance, misleading representation, and in the case of the fuel surcharge, "a false" representation. The hidden fuel surcharge "is the one which smarts most unpalatably of sharp and unacceptable practice".

But as we await the next court session where appropriate punishment will be debated, the game of cat-and-mouse over what is or isn't misleading or false advertising continues.

Click on to the internet and there's Air New Zealand offering "year-round lowest fares" to London and back for $2299*. Follow the asterisks into obscurity and you are asked to "please add round-trip taxes and surcharges [unspecified] from $412".

And in yesterday's Herald on Sunday, readers were urged to "book today" so you "don't miss out" in the airline's "huge domestic sale".

It sounded good. Auckland to Christchurch, for example, one way for just $89. But wait, there's a dreaded asterisk, pointing to the small print. There you discover it's going to cost you an additional $15 service fee "per one-way journey" to actually buy the ticket via the advertised 0800 number.

So what of the $89 come-on price? I'm guessing it might have something to do with the separate piece of small print beneath saying "internet fares".

Of course Air New Zealand is not the only offender. The whole travel industry seems out to seduce the unwary. Harvey World Travel headlines a trip to Europe "from $1898", slipping in underneath that taxes and surcharges will be from $412. And just to keep you on your toes, Flight Centre, in a raft of flight offers, tempts with two nights in Queenstown from $121. But what's this? Oh dear, the price is "based on accommodation only [airfares are additional]".

But back to the national airline. The most irritating thing is that, whatever the fine, it's the muggins customers who will end up paying. And you can guarantee that's one surcharge the airline will not be separating out in the big or the small print. Unless, that is, the judge made it. Now isn't that an idea.