When my daughter flew with Air New Zealand recently, what should have been a straightforward journey turned into a fifteen-hour delay and a frustrating fight to get straight answers. She was stopped at the gate while other passengers were still boarding. The gate agent told her she could not get on the flight because her checked baggage had not been loaded onto the aircraft. There was no mention of her being late.
Later, when my daughter contacted Air New Zealand’s customer service team to find out what had happened, she was told something entirely different — that she had arrived too late to board. Two explanations for the same incident, and no attempt from the airline to explain the contradiction.
After being denied boarding, she was put on a later service and eventually reached her destination more than fifteen hours after her scheduled arrival. Under EC261 rules, that delay should qualify for compensation, but Air New Zealand has refused the claim. She has also asked several times for a written explanation and for the airline to say why a member of their staff gave her incorrect information at the gate. Those questions remain unanswered.
The experience has left me concerned about more than just poor customer service. It suggests a breakdown in communication between different parts of Air New Zealand’s operation. If gate staff and customer service are working from conflicting information, it is reasonable to ask how effectively the airline’s departments share information on matters that could affect passenger safety.
While looking into the issue, I found a Facebook group called Air New Zealand Complaints, which has more than twelve thousand members. Reading through the posts, I saw the same themes repeated over and over: conflicting information from staff, difficulties getting refunds or compensation, delays with little or no communication, and a general feeling that service has declined. The same concerns are reflected in many Air New Zealand reviews on sites like Trustpilot and Google, where passengers frequently mention inconsistent communication, long waits for responses, and unresolved claims. My daughter’s experience fits squarely into this pattern.
It’s not only online reviews that paint this picture. Passengers are openly saying it. One New Zealander recently commented: “Air NZ has really gone downhill over the last decade. As a NZer, I try and avoid flying with them overseas and they rip off the domestic regions with outrageous prices. You can often fly cheaper to OZ than most regional routes.” Another said: “As a Kiwi I always fly Qantas. Air NZ is a budget airline masquerading as a premium one.” These remarks echo the same frustrations I’ve experienced first-hand — that the airline’s performance and pricing don’t match the image it tries to project.
Air New Zealand will have a new chief executive, Nikhil Ravishankar, from October 20, 2025. That change in leadership is a chance to address these problems. Many customers will be hoping he makes it a priority to improve communication between departments so passengers get consistent, accurate information and the airline can start rebuilding trust.
All my daughter is asking for now is a written explanation for why she was denied boarding, an answer as to why she was told one thing by the gate agent and another by customer service, and fair compensation under EC261 for a delay of more than fifteen hours. So far, Air New Zealand has not given her any of these. Mistakes can happen in travel, but when they do, passengers are entitled to clear answers and fair treatment. Right now, that is not what she has received.