billbennett:tdgeek:MikeAqua: I'm in two minds about this. I can see an argument that if a route is unprofitable it should be dropped. However, overall AirNZ's network is highly profitable. I can also see an argument that if you are operating as a national carrier, you should operate a national network.
If Air NZ was a government owned transport system, then yes, their traffic routes are a service, but they are a company, like any other, and like wage and salary earners. We want a profit, and we make efforts to reduce loss of income activities. If another carrier moves in, great. If Air NZ responded, thats a whole other story, and it would hit the fan.
There's a problem with leaving things to the market.
Air NZ is big enough to wipe out a small competitor - say a regional airline - then once the competitor is eliminated, Air NZ may then halt or drastically cut its services in that region. In effect that's a lose-lose.
Something like this may have already happened. Others will know more about that than me.
I agree, but I doubt the ComCom would allow this to occur. For Air NZ to pull out, they must have exhausted options to make the routes viable, they can't just come back and automagically find it worthwhile to operate there.