Wirraway
29th May 2004, 06:41
Sat "New Zealand Herald"
Air NZ slams ad counts
29.05.2004
By CHRIS DANIELS aviation writer
Air New Zealand, facing 361 charges of misleading the public by not saying the true price of its cheap airfares, is trying to get the number of charges cut to 10.
It says the Commerce Commission is wasting taxpayers' money and it should select just a sample of charges.
In a landmark case that could be followed by charges against Qantas, Air New Zealand is accused of running misleading advertisements in daily newspapers, including the Herald, that did not include levies, charges and other fees in headline prices.
The use of such methods to advertise fares by airlines and travel agents has been contentious for some time. The Commerce Commission first launching its legal action last year.
Air New Zealand argued yesterday in the Auckland District Court that it was unfair for the commission, which monitors unfair and misleading advertising, to charge it with so many offences, when a smaller number of "representative" charges would do the same thing.
But commission lawyer Todd Simmonds said there were many charges simply because the alleged offending had been extensive.
Air NZ had "thumbed its nose" at the commission by continuing to run the advertisements after charges were first laid.
Mr Simmonds said this was "the equivalent of offending on bail".
"A key aspect is to bring home the nature and the extent of the offending."
It was "not every day we have a defendant who keeps on offending."
Any sentence on Air NZ should reflect how often it had offended, which might not happen if the number of charges was reduced, said Mr Simmonds.
He said Air NZ was trying to manipulate the way the commission was pursuing its case.
This claim was rejected by Air NZ lawyer Nathan Gedye, who said the airline had changed the way it advertised its domestic fares. What was at issue was a distinction between the way international fares and domestic fares were advertised.
A decision on the application for fewer charges is expected next week. The trial, which could take place this year, is expected to take at least one month, possibly two.
This could depend on similar charges that the commission is about to bring against Qantas. These may be heard alongside, or immediately after, any case against Air NZ.
If convicted, Air NZ is liable for a fine of up to $100,000 for most of the charges, and $200,000 for 126 charges relating to advertisements that ran after last July 8, when the maximum fines were raised.
NOT SO CHEAP
* Air New Zealand is accused of running misleading advertisements that exclude security levies, fuel surcharges and other fees in the prices.
* In one charge, the Commerce Commission says an advertised $89 fare between Auckland and Wellington actually cost $100.15 - a 12.5 per cent difference.
==========================================
Air NZ slams ad counts
29.05.2004
By CHRIS DANIELS aviation writer
Air New Zealand, facing 361 charges of misleading the public by not saying the true price of its cheap airfares, is trying to get the number of charges cut to 10.
It says the Commerce Commission is wasting taxpayers' money and it should select just a sample of charges.
In a landmark case that could be followed by charges against Qantas, Air New Zealand is accused of running misleading advertisements in daily newspapers, including the Herald, that did not include levies, charges and other fees in headline prices.
The use of such methods to advertise fares by airlines and travel agents has been contentious for some time. The Commerce Commission first launching its legal action last year.
Air New Zealand argued yesterday in the Auckland District Court that it was unfair for the commission, which monitors unfair and misleading advertising, to charge it with so many offences, when a smaller number of "representative" charges would do the same thing.
But commission lawyer Todd Simmonds said there were many charges simply because the alleged offending had been extensive.
Air NZ had "thumbed its nose" at the commission by continuing to run the advertisements after charges were first laid.
Mr Simmonds said this was "the equivalent of offending on bail".
"A key aspect is to bring home the nature and the extent of the offending."
It was "not every day we have a defendant who keeps on offending."
Any sentence on Air NZ should reflect how often it had offended, which might not happen if the number of charges was reduced, said Mr Simmonds.
He said Air NZ was trying to manipulate the way the commission was pursuing its case.
This claim was rejected by Air NZ lawyer Nathan Gedye, who said the airline had changed the way it advertised its domestic fares. What was at issue was a distinction between the way international fares and domestic fares were advertised.
A decision on the application for fewer charges is expected next week. The trial, which could take place this year, is expected to take at least one month, possibly two.
This could depend on similar charges that the commission is about to bring against Qantas. These may be heard alongside, or immediately after, any case against Air NZ.
If convicted, Air NZ is liable for a fine of up to $100,000 for most of the charges, and $200,000 for 126 charges relating to advertisements that ran after last July 8, when the maximum fines were raised.
NOT SO CHEAP
* Air New Zealand is accused of running misleading advertisements that exclude security levies, fuel surcharges and other fees in the prices.
* In one charge, the Commerce Commission says an advertised $89 fare between Auckland and Wellington actually cost $100.15 - a 12.5 per cent difference.
==========================================