Share this article
Air New Zealand chief executive Greg Foran explains why fares are going up. Video / Supplied
When your ticket is cancelled but you booked through another airline, who is responsible for getting you home?
One passenger says he was asking this question when Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines left him in a Filipino airport for a week, without compensation.
Martin Smith, a scrap metal dealer from Auckland, says he was scheduled to fly to Auckland on 28 August, after a holiday in the Philippines. Having bought his tickets through the Air New Zealand website he had gone to check in to his connecting flight from Cebu airport, operated by Singapore Airlines.
However, the check in desk was thrown into confusion by his return ticket.
“They said I had a ticket but no seat, which was a new one to me.”
Even though Smith had turned up in plenty of time, he says neither he nor the check in agent were able to get hold of Air New Zealand, who had ticketed the fare.
“Eventually they said I’d missed my flight.”
After spending two and a half hours trying to ring Air New Zealand he was eventually issued with a new ticket for an onward flight to Singapore on 11 September, two weeks later.
“I said ‘That’s not good enough.’ Eventually, they emailed through a ticket for 4 September, but that was still a week later.”
But neither airline offered to cover his expenses after he was bumped from the flight.
Overbooking errors are not uncommon. Normally, they are resolved by the operating airline, which reimburses the passenger for expenses incurred. Yet, this was not the issuse as the passengers’ ticket did not exist, the flight was full, and neither airline was owning the error.
Smith had to call his work in Auckland to explain his situation and borrow money from his son to cover accommodation.
He had travel insurance to cover these costs but is still waiting for a payout.
After filing a claim through his policy, Smith was incensed to read Air New Zealand’s explanation for not covering his costs.
“Unfortunately, Air New Zealand did not provide any compensation or cover for any additional passenger expenses because of this controllable disrupt,” read the statement, seen by the Herald.
Having been denied board due to what they claim was an overbooking error, his expenses should have been covered.
But, which airline should have paid for the error?
Instead Smith found himself without support from either and having to cover his expenses from an unexpected extra week in the Philippines.
Code-share and airline partnerships are supposed to be a convenient way of getting passengers to places beyond the normal network.
It allows you to buy tickets to Europe through one carrier, instead of two or three, even if your booking airline doesn’t have any planes on those routes.
It is a great way to save passengers time and money, apart from when the dots don’t join up.
Often it is harder to make changes to flight details, such as seat selection or extra luggage to tickets booked on a partner airline. It can also mean that you are unable to check in online – depending on the airline partnership.
With the Singapore – Air New Zealand partnership, online check-in is often not available -telling passengers to “check in at the airport” instead.
Any changes must be made at the terminal, which normally is not an issue.
A spokesperson for Air New Zealand said they had a record of Smith’s booking but could not comment on the specifics at the airport as they were not operating the flight.
“The ticket was issued correctly, and Mr Smith shouldn’t have had any issues,” they said at the time.
As a general rule, the operating carrier should look after the customer when they are disrupting travel.
A spokesperson for Singapore Airlines said they could not comment and had to refer the issue to Air New Zealand as the airline issuing the ticket.
Singapore Airlines’ conditions of carriage entitle passengers to compensation in the event of an oversold flight, or if they were “denied boarding involuntarily”. However, as they had no booking for the passenger, they could not compensate him for the delay.
In spite of being able to fly to the Philippines the return ticket was “unassociated” with the booking through a technical error and could not be honoured by the airline.
Both airlines say they are investigating the matter.
“No one wants to take responsibility for the stuff up,” says Smith.
“Airlines seem to think they are untouchable these days.”
The Aucklander lost a week’s wages due to his unintended layover in Cebu.
Earlier this year Consumer NZ launched a petition demanding airlines to be more transparent in what aid is available, should services be disrupted.
“It’s time the airlines lifted their game,” Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy said.
Currently under the Civil Aviation Act travellers are entitled for compensation for delays and cancellations for reasons within the airlines control.
This includes delays affected by issues including staffing, operational and mechanical faults.
“We are calling for airlines to communicate honestly with passengers about the reason for flight delays and cancellations, and to be upfront about passenger rights.”
Air New Zealand later found a ticketing error on their part, and therefore the passenger’s expenses were not the responsibility with the operating airline.
Air New Zealand’s investigation found that the return ticket was accidentally removed from the itinerary by a consultant when the passenger called through to amend flights.
This was not reflected in the final itinerary which led to Smith being denied board on the full Singapore Airlines flight, which had no record of his booking.
A spokesperson for the airline said that it would issue an apology to the customer, with a refund for his Singapore to Cebu flight, “along with reimbursement for the extended stay in the Philippines.”
“Sometimes we make mistakes, but we do try and fix them as quickly as we can. We owe Martin an apology, both for the ticketing issue and the resulting confusion and we’ll be conveying this to him directly.”
This story was originally published under the headline “Codeshare woes: which airline looks after passengers when things go wrong?” and was republished 22 September to reflect the ticketing airline’s findings
Share this article