I can't understand why a disclaimer - boilerplate or otherwise - would irk anyone. Most people don't bother to read them, and, as I said, they do provide a level of first line defence against law suits.
If the complaint is that the map is inaccurate, that's a seperate issue, and not one I have discussed, mostly because I don't care. Since you've raised it in a post to me, I'll say that there is more than "a degree of accuracy" in the published route map, the complaints are extremely minor and some of them may be the result of contractual issues between the airlines.
Mariner, I reiterate that the magazine's disclaimer says that "Routes shown operated by ... key codeshare partners were correct at the time of printing
." This is stronger wording than had the disclaimer been drafted to say something along the lines that that routes shown are "indicative only."
The disclaimer is printed twice - once on page 187, and once on page 189.
The disclaimer is not true - not only are routes incorrect, but a destination called "Pulau" has even been made up (shown as served from SIN). The disclaimer is therefore a misrepresentation of NZ's offering to the market, and would not be a defence for NZ, despite what you say to the contrary.
Why is this important? Liability. New Zealand's Fair Trading Act makes it an offence for companies to make misleading claims about their goods and services. For example, NZ faced a hefty fine in 2006, for misleading customers about the price of its airfares - it used a headline price which was not the total price of the available airfare and the existence and type of additional charges was not prominently disclosed.Singapore Airlines codeshares
- WLG - SIN should be WLG - CBR - SIN (as as it is on the NZ website)
- SIN - MUC - MAN should be SIN - MAN (as it is on the NZ website)
- SIN - BCN should include an MXP - BCN tag (as it does on the NZ website)Note - The map includes other tags, like the JNB - CPT flight
- SIN - KLO and SIN - DVO should include tags from both KLO and DVO to CEB
- There is a route from SIN to "Pulau," which is dotted as just off Peninsular Malaysia - no such destination exists (nor is represented on the NZ website)
- LOP is referred to as "Praya," when it should be "Lombok" - indeed you have to type "Lombok" on SQ and MI's websites (you cannot type "Praya")
- SIN - KCH and SIN - PLM should not be represented, as SQ and MI do not fly these routes - they have been transferred to TZ Note - The map includes other tags, like the DAD - REP flight
.Cathay Pacific codeshares
- HKG - CHC has not yet started and should include a disclaimer as suchVirgin Australia codeshares
- BME - PHE is not operated and should not be represented
- BME - DRW is not operated and should not be represented
- BME - KNX is not operated and should not be represented
- DRW - KNX is not operated and should not be represented
- DRB has no flights from VA whatsoever, and so DRB - KNX should not be represented
- CNS - TSV is not operated and should not be represented
- TSV - ROK is not operated and should not be represented
- SYD - ROK is not operated and should not be represented
- BNE - ISA and BNE - CNJ should include an ISA - CNJ tag
- CFS - MEL is not operated and should not be representedIndonesian codeshares
There is also a separate disclaimer that "Codeshare routes from Singapore to Moscow and Indonesia are subject to government approval
." Flights from SIN to Indonesia (such as SIN - CGK) are represented in the map, whereas SIN - DME is not. If the Indonesian codeshares have not yet received government approval, then they should not be represented in the map, just as SIN - DME is not. It is about consistency. In any event, it seems that the codeshares have not yet been approved, as the route map on NZ's website only includes CGK connections via Australia, and no other destinations in Indonesia.
I have not had time to check the UA or CA maps, but given the errors that I have picked up above, I am not holding my breath for those to be perfect either.
I have already stated what else is sloppy in the magazine, like YUL and IAD being represented as Star Alliance hubs, whereas NYC and YYZ are not - though, this is not covered by the original disclaimer cited above, which clearly just referred to "routes
" being accurate.
Last edited by planemanofnz
on Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am, edited 3 times in total.