FWIW, I quite like the A320. There is plenty of room, large windows. The coffee could be better though.

I too love the A320 configuration both domestic and short haul. You have up to 34" pitch up the front which is an incredible amount of space for an economy seat regardless of duration. One of my biggest gripes about the Virgin TT alliance was the incredibly cramped seats, and Qantas are just as bad on their 737-800.

A320s for domestic are ok but for International they can become very cramped very fast.

As a regular flyer I can get the better legroom seats near the front for most domestic and OZ flights which does help take the edge off.

From a long haul perspective I'd much rather use Air NZ over Virgin or Qantas, but Emirates and Qatar offer excellent long haul pricing for Europe etc. For Asia / US trips I'll try to fly Air NZ where possible and lover their refreshed 777-200 and new 787 experience.

alasta:

 

Out of interest, what do people dislike about the A320s?

 

I experienced a lot of technical delays when they first went into domestic service a few years ago, but more recently my A320 flights have been on time and trouble free. I don't fly much, though, so maybe I've just been lucky on my last few flights.

 

Delays in recent months have been a lot worse, but Air NZ don't yet have the stats online for the last 3 months (should appear in August). NZ and JQ have both been badly affected as many of these have been weather related as we have had a lot of incredibly bad days so far this winter, and once you start getting delays early on during a day it's pretty hard to recover from it.

Just read the article and surprised to see Singapore at the top. I've flown Thai, Qatar and Singapore recently and I'd place Qata and Thai well above Singapore.

Economy flight back from Singapore -> AKL on an old A380 in a seat with no working Audio, very limited recline, and a leg rest jammed into my long legs because it is fixed into the seat in-front. The flight was 100% full so they couldn't move me elsewhere. Issues with the food service as well.

Thai to/from Bangkok was pretty good for service and quality of their 787.

Qatar on a 777-200 ER/LR - Family trip in the middle of the middle which actually has the best seat width and leg room. Comfortable flight both ways. Really good service.

It really does surprise me to see Singapore win the top awards when they have such a mix of on-board experiences. They have a lot of their 777 regional fleet (such as the planes that fly to Wellington) that has never had an upgrade in the 15 years they have been flying so have old school seats with no true lie flat in business and dated slow barely usable non touch screen IFE. At the other end of the spectrum they have an amazing hard product on their A350.

Even the ex Singapore 777 that Air New Zealand is now leasing while refurbished is still incredibly dated, and you've essentially got Air NZ apologising for the hard product on offer.

Skytrax awards are scoffed at by some in the industry, as are many of the other awards issued by sites such as airlineratings

hairy1:

 

FWIW, I quite like the A320. There is plenty of room, large windows. The coffee could be better though.

 

What is the tray table like compared to Boeing?

sbiddle:

 

hairy1:

 

FWIW, I quite like the A320. There is plenty of room, large windows. The coffee could be better though.

 

 

What is the tray table like compared to Boeing?

 

You have no idea. It is amazing. It is so much better that the Boeing one almost disappears in comparison.....

Doesn't worry me, I hardly ever fly.

for me, the a320s dont handle turbulence very well. Give me a twin prop anyday and i speak from experience flying back from NP a few weeks ago!

They are an old aircaft which AirNZ is prolonging their use. 

AirNZ are aware of it as well, the price diff is notable for a AKL to BNE flight, served on either A320 or 777 metal.

Shindig:

 

for me, the a320s dont handle turbulence very well. Give me a twin prop anyday and i speak from experience flying back from NP a few weeks ago!

 

They are an old aircaft which AirNZ is prolonging their use. 

 

AirNZ are aware of it as well, the price diff is notable for a AKL to BNE flight, served on either A320 or 777 metal.

 

I also have some experience in both turbo-prop and Jet aircraft and would choose a jet over a turboprop for travelling on.

An A320 will out-perform a Turbo-prop in all phases of flight including turbulence. There are significant systems installed on the A320 that are not available to turbo-props which offer flight protection over a turbo-prop.

Air New Zealand's average fleet age for the A320 is 8.6 years.

The average fleet age for the Q300's is 10.9 and the ATR-500's are 16.9 years (they are being supplemented with ATR-600's which have an average age of 2.5 years)

Shindig:

 

AirNZ are aware of it as well, the price diff is notable for a AKL to BNE flight, served on either A320 or 777 metal.

 

The price of Trans Tasman and Short Haul International fares are identical regardless of the aircraft type so I'm not quite sure why you think it varies based on aircraft type. The only difference between an A320 and a 777/789 flight is the addition of PE and BP fares.

You will of course have more cheaper seats available on a 777/789 vs an A320 simply because it's a bigger plane so while the ratio of different fare buckets will remain pretty similar, you'll obviously just have more of each fare bucket available.

I find the Jetstar A320 seat backs with the magazine and flight safety card 'bin' at the top of the seat quite good.  It seems to give a bit more room for the knees.