NZ First MP Shane Jones’ calculated pot shots at Air New Zealand were clearly an attempt to garner voter support in the regions, Jason Walls says

Jones is probably the closest thing we have to a Trump, no filter.

Of course Jones is learning at the foot of the master, Winston.

Both Bridges and Ardern in their comments have seen Jones has hit on a vote winner with many and stated their own "long held concern about Air NZs service to the regional airports" or some such. Politically Jones has the other two party leaders supporting him! Genius. Bridges only said something about "the delivery" not the substance of Jones position.

I think it's good for democracy to have someone like Jones embolden regional Mayors! Local government politics importance at National level is on the rise. They have been ignored, fact. Jones sees this.

And I think NZF are actually quite genuine about too. Not just about votes.

Good piece.

There was an anti National element in the last election arising from a perception that they courted the corporate world as a priority and had not much concern for the everyday, ordinary people on the street. They set about creating “Corporate New Zealand” with as little regard as any big corporate has for minority shareholders, except in this case we are called taxpayers. This episode here in its own way, illustrates all of that. Here is a company in which the majority shareholder is the NZ tax payer. The company is driven by commercial reality and prioritises profits, that is its mission. That means some shareholders are disadvantaged. There it is. That’s how National had it too.

Maybe the media should actually pick up the real story of the near monopoly airline to see whether it is withdrawing flights from provincial areas, and removing engineers from provincial airports, and charging near monopoly/duopoly prices?
A reporter could list all the airports, number of flights per day for each, with areas that have been closed or reduced in the last few years, and how many engineers have been moved from areas or gone. Then a daily scan on Arrivals/Departures re how many delays and cancellations due to technical issues.
Sure, there’s politics being played - but why not investigate the corporate practice issue that has been raised? Or are the PR spindoctors deflecting to the political story to protect their financial interest?

Time for the Government as the majority owner to draw up MoU with AirNZ on important aspects of business development that could benefit the wider NZ ? Good on Jones to bring the spot light on AirNZ's duty/responsibility to NZ.

How quickly history is forgotten

New Zealand once had a stand-alone domestic airline until 1978 when it was forced into a Muldoon government led amalgamation with Air NZ – the logic at the time made sense – rationalisation of the fleet and aircraft maintenance and servicing and head offices etc etc – who has benefitted the most? – left alone as a separate organisation NAC would be concentrating on the domestic market – it doesn’t appear the expected benefits are being achieved in the domestic arena

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Airways_Corporation

2018
Flying distance Auckland Invercargill 1186 kms – Air NZ airfare $600 NZD
Flying distance Auckland Sydney 2155 kms – Air NZ airfare $200 NZD

Te Ara – Aviation – Government Intervention
https://teara.govt.nz/en/aviation/page-7

Despite difficulties, NAC managed a spectacular expansion of air services. By December 1951 it was carrying passengers on a network from Kaitāia to Invercargill. Provincial businesses, politicians and citizens were quick to appreciate the service, and increasingly reluctant to risk disruption or loss by any dismantling of NAC. The airline had regained profitability by 1952, and National’s threat to sell it receded. Politically secure again, NAC remained the dominant airline until its enforced merger with Air New Zealand in 1978.

Up until International air travel took off, say after the Jumbos arrived, governments thought they were quite handy at running airlines. In Australia it became farcical. TAA & Ansett were forced to fly almost exactly the same timetables on same routes every day. NAC here never had competitive except for a brief attempt by an outfit called SPANZ who were quickly shut out. Those domestic operations were absorbed into Qantas & Air NZ inevitably because international travel was perceived as the priority commercially and nationally, carrying our flag and connecting us to the world. The problem is that NZ is so small and remote that there is no platform for let’s say, a secondary market of air lines doing short hops such as have sprung up in the dense population areas of many parts of the world. Our population is long and thin like our country.

'Jones’ grandstanding was clearly a calculated move designed to win the support of voters in the regions'

Which 'regions'? - NZF might pick up a few more votes in a limited number of NI regions but none in the SI where most sizeable urban populations have air service within a couple of hours driving.

I've flown the provincial air routes on business for years. Service is unreliable, costly and generally a pain. But it's just another challenge that you plan for and overcome. The idea of the government running an airline, with social service obligations as a taxpayer funded responsibility, sends shivers down the spine.

The issue is a 5 minute wonder. Jones will come a greaser on some other issue and will be consigned to history.

Every government underwrites and bails out their national airline whenever necessary, as it is the necessary link for tourism, immigration, business externally, and is the nations flag-carrier. So the competition is not really on a level playing field or market. Helping to link the regions better would actually serve a wide economic purpose for the government, and help business. Just like all governments underwrite schools, roads, electricity, courts, etc so that business can function smoothly.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=120…

Asia's airline wars: The great profit squeeze in the sky
https://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20180111/On-the-Cover/Asia-s-airline-w…

I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for Shane Jones stance, however, my understanding is that the planes the AirNZ flew in and out of these smaller destinations are no longer being built, so there is nothing to replace the aging small fleet with. Apparently, they would have to go to a larger plane, and after a certain number of seats (might be 19) they have to have a steward on.
I think the likes of Chathams fly even smaller planes, don't they, which I doubt AirNZ would be prepared to get into.
Having lived in an area where if you wanted to fly anywhere, you had about 3 to 3.5 hours driving to get you to an airport, depending on which direction you went in and which airport you wanted to leave from, I know what a mission it can be.

Qantas 17 hour non-stop flight Perth to London using Boeing-797 Dreamliner flight cost $1100

200 passengers

Distance 14,470 kms

So many short memories about how Air New Zealand suffocated any competition over the years by undercutting them or bought them out - Freedom Air, Eagle Airways - wound down and ended 2016. Fascinating (not) to see how ANZ has operated over the years. Seems some commentators are delighting in the outcome for the peasants in the regions (not the main ones) being left with OZ
Jetstar and their appalling service, cancellations,short staff cancellations etc. Thanks guys. Guess they are not Kiwis with a 52% stake in Air New Zealand.