Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Alliance switch to NZ AOC

Old 4th Mar 2016, 11:45
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 1,913
Received 294 Likes on 123 Posts
Pacific Blue ZK 737s never flew domestic sectors around Oz (unless urgent) only across Tasman/Pacific, there was a bunch of VH registered Pacific Blue machines that went to Bali etc...but flown by Virgin Blue crew. Those old ZK birds are now going to Tiger Australia.

I know Jetstar outsources it's SYD-Fiji flights to Jetstar NZ...save on costs etc..

Last edited by PoppaJo; 4th Mar 2016 at 11:55.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2016, 05:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
Firstly, this is nothing to do with a CASR Part 129 Foreign Airline AOC, FAAOC. Part 129 is about operating into and out of Australia, not within Australia.

It is all about using the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty and Agreement between Australia and NZ, the TTMRA has existed for many years, from late 1980s??

In general, CASA and Australian unions hate it, and exploiting "air safety", back in the day Keating was persuaded to suspend the operation of the TTMRA in the aviation industry for many years.

Frankly, given the Vincent example many years ago, I am surprised this has not happened before, anybody who voluntarily operates on an Australian AOC, when the NZ AOC and the TTMRA is a commercial option, want their heads read. In the days of their Beech 1900, Vincents were forced to get an Australia AOC by dint of union pressure on various Commonwealth politicians/bodies to require an Australian AOC to tender for Commonwealth funded contracts.

The NZ CAA policy on the matter is more or less covered by the popular T-Shirt, that says "I support the All Blacks and anybody else playing Australia", in this case for "Australia", read CASA.

If you look at the Australian CAAct 1988, you will see how CASA has tried to legislate away the intent of the TTMRA ( surprise, surprise) but there is a limit, and what is there that is contrary to the TTMRA Treaty is probably unconstitutional, ie: beyond Commonwealth power.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2016, 02:48
  #23 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
think Vincents problem was they did FIFO contracts below cost to get the business.
XPT is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2016, 04:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I believe under ANZA the centre of gravity of any operation must be where the AOC is situated .... ie , management and the majority of their fleet etc.
I don't think Alliance's single F50 in NZ would meet the ANZA requirements for an NZ AOC.
SID-STAR,
Much simpler than that, NZ takes a very pragmatic view, and an original intent of TTMRA AOC operations is that an NZ AOC operator was to be free to treat Australia and NZ as a single market, with no need for any particular proportion of the operation, other than the HO and NZ Companies Legislation, to be complied with.

Likewise, NZ takes a very sensible attitude to how NZ aircraft can be operated anywhere around the world with the minimum of restriction, it is all about encouraging NZ enterprise, not finding bureaucratic ways to hobble enterprise and initiative, all in the name of "air safety".

Unlike anything kissed by Can'tberra, and where anything AU aviation is concerned, Can'tberra/CASA's bureaucratic handbrake is firmly on, and intervention is redoubled.

The CEO of Alliance has made it very clear, in words of one syllable, Alliance can no longer afford the cost of CASA interference, the cost of CASA "managing" Alliance.

The whole basis of the TTMRA and Treaty is to make AU/NZ one single market, with mutual recognition of virtually all matters from trade qualification through to business licensing, food standards and so on recognised, even if not the same on both sides of the Tasman. Virtually all AS Standards are already AS/NZ standards, including the Risk Management standards (now aligned with ISO) that CASA steadfastly ignores, despite Cth. Government "policy".

CASA has done a good job of undermining the intent with pilot and engineer license recognition (unions again, but "all about air safety", not trade protection, you understand) because the original intent was the unrestricted use of an Australia license on NZ registered aircraft, and vice versa.

If I was an Alliance shareholder, I would be asking why this proposal had not been instituted long ago ---- and I know the answer why, it's just that now the cost of doing business with CASA is no longer sustainable ---- if the company is to survive.

Before it was reduced profits to comply with CASA, now it is commercial destruction to comply with CASA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: An added thought:

Ditch the idea that using a NZ AOC to operate in Australia is some kind of back door, tricky and not quite kosher way of getting around CASA depredations, it is an up-front, in your face and entirely legal action, and an intended outcome of the TTMRA.

Just think about it, indirectly adopt the NZ Civil Aviation Act and Regulations by shifting all the AOCs to NZ, and register all GA (or all, for that matter) aircraft in NZ, that gets around the apparently insurmountable problem of NZ Regulations "not conforming to the Australian drafting standard".

It would leave CASA with a few remnants to administer and the CASA budget and fuel levies could be commensurately reduced.

Wouldn't it be wonderful, ultimately CASA could be left with little to do but administer FAAOCs, and not so wonderful, continue to make life increasingly miserable for Sports and Recreational aviation.

Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Mar 2016 at 07:47.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2016, 23:39
  #25 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely Alliance, now that they have at least 1 F50 based in NZL, could start Alliance NZ & put more F50's onto a NZL AOC. Don't think extra F50's would ever need to even go to NZL, but could fly around in OZ, without restriction or any reference to CASA.


If the NZL side of the business grew, they could also put F70's/F100's on their NZL AOC.


It appears that NZL tourism believes they will be getting millions of chinese flying around NZL spending billions soon, so perhaps Alliance could get a piece of that pie, even if they operated under an NZ flight number.


Alliance are close to VA(recent FIFO announcement) & NZ owns a good chunk of VA & surely Alliance costs are much lower than NZ's, so why could Alliance operate some of NZ's thin routes, especially now as JQ Dash 8-300's are taking some of NZ regional business.


Alliance could fly F50/F70/F100's around NZL in NZ colours, just like they do for VA/QF in OZ sometimes. Must be plenty of routes in NZL that can't justify a B733(are there any left?)/A320.
XPT is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2016, 00:38
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I'm a wanderer
Age: 43
Posts: 421
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by XPT
especially now as JQ Dash 8-300's are taking some of NZ regional business.
No they're not.

Originally Posted by XPT
Alliance could fly F50/F70/F100's around NZL in NZ colours, just like they do for VA/QF in OZ sometimes. Must be plenty of routes in NZL that can't justify a B733(are there any left?)/A320.
Why add complexity when the business is trying to simplify?
empacher48 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2016, 01:00
  #27 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by empacher48
No they're not.



Why add complexity when the business is trying to simplify?

"No they're not."


Of course they are. What do you think it's all new business.



Moving to NZL would sure simply things at lot. Imagine not having to deal with CASA ever again.


Imagine if CASA was then closed down completely as CASA had nothing at all to do (although am sure public servants are quite good at shuffling paper, making themselves look busy)
XPT is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2016, 01:04
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I'm a wanderer
Age: 43
Posts: 421
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by XPT
Of course they are. What do you think it's all new business.
Yep, it sure is. I think Intercity and Mana Bus are trying to find ways to claw back some business.

Originally Posted by XPT
Moving to NZL would sure simply things at lot. Imagine not having to deal with CASA ever again.
I was talking about Air NZ, don't care about CASA.
empacher48 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2016, 05:54
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 76
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
JQ have managed to alienate a lot of passengers on their Q300s because of their appalling ontime performance, something that has spread to the A320 fleet as well.

Mind you, NZ seems to be suffering from the same malaise.
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2016, 06:14
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alliance could fly F50/F70/F100's around NZL in NZ colours, just like they do for VA/QF in OZ sometimes. Must be plenty of routes in NZL that can't justify a B733(are there any left?)/A320.
Highly unlike when NZ has just invested in around $1billion on new A320s and 72-600 to simply the domestic fleet. They have also recently ordered more 72-600s to replace the remaining 72-500s and expand the fleet.

They have already pointed out that there 72-600s are cheaper to run that JQ Q300. Long run you'll probably see the NZ Q300s being ditched for more 72-600. With the half year profit up by 110% this year already, I'd say we can expect another order soon.
cavemanzk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 01:01
  #31 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavemanzk
Highly unlike when NZ has just invested in around $1billion on new A320s and 72-600 to simply the domestic fleet. They have also recently ordered more 72-600s to replace the remaining 72-500s and expand the fleet.

They have already pointed out that there 72-600s are cheaper to run that JQ Q300. Long run you'll probably see the NZ Q300s being ditched for more 72-600. With the half year profit up by 110% this year already, I'd say we can expect another order soon.
could be NZ's low cost response to JQ ? Not to compete with NZ.
XPT is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 01:15
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
could be NZ's low cost response to JQ ? Not to compete with NZ.
You would probably be already aware that NZ runs like domestic option like an LCC and has done since 2002? With fares that already at low cost airline levels, you couldn't get much lower than they already are.

For example in the middle of April on AKL-NPE (1hour prop flight)
NZ $49 Seat Only
JQ $49 Seat Only

Creating an LCC would create an whole new cost that would need to be covered, and if not end up costing more than the mainline flights. Why complicate things when its working pretty well and NZ is making major profits? The only difference between NZ/JQ product short-haul is NZ give you an free cookie and coffee, and JQ will charge you for it.

Last edited by cavemanzk; 19th Mar 2016 at 04:27.
cavemanzk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 04:58
  #33 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavemanzk
You would probably be already aware that NZ runs like domestic option like an LCC and has done since 2002? With fares that already at low cost airline levels, you couldn't get much lower than they already are.

For example in the middle of April on AKL-NPE (1hour prop flight)
NZ $49 Seat Only
JQ $49 Seat Only

Creating an LCC would create an whole new cost that would need to be covered, and if not end up costing more than the mainline flights. Why complicate things when its working pretty well and NZ is making major profits? The only difference between NZ/JQ product short-haul is NZ give you an free cookie and coffee, and JQ will charge you for it.

those are promo fares & probably 1 or 2 only per flight.


They could get Alliance to operate them, not NZ.
XPT is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 06:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
those are promo fares & probably 1 or 2 only per flight.
These aren't promo fares, they are the current lead-in fares in (P) class. New Zealand Domestic fares are cheaper than Australia.

They could get Alliance to operate them, not NZ.
The flights aren't operated by NZ already, they are operated by Mount Cook Airline (72-600/500) and Air Nelson (Q300). Both of these two airlines already have an lower cost base that NZ it self.

Why would they want to get Alliance to operate the flights with there 30 year old ex Ansett F50s? When they have there own fleet of cheaper to run 72-600 which are less than an couple of years old?

Using Alliance would barely achive anything apart from customer confusion and lower customer standards.
cavemanzk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 07:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
With the very greatest of respect (believe it or not) many of you are completely missing the point.
Go back and read the interview with the Alliance CEO.
The point is to continue their Australian (and anywhere else) business under the administration of the NZ CAA, and not Australian CASA, taking advantage of the TTMRA provisions.
That is, operating in Australia on a NZ AOC, and dumping their Australian AOC, because of the quite major cost savings.

Pacific Blue ZK 737s never flew domestic sectors around Oz (unless urgent) only across Tasman/Pacific
In other words, they did any time it was convenient, commercially, and didn't need any additional CASA approval, so to do.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2016, 08:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
In another salute to the desirability of operations under the gentle and tender loving care of CASA, Scott McMillan has announced that all Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance will move to Austria.

See: Flight International 29/03-4/04, page 18, a full page article on Alliance.

This is a done deal, not a proposal, indeed some F-100 have already been to the Austrian Airlines facility involved.

I wonder how CASA will spin this as just taking advantage of the third world's low wage rates??

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2016, 10:47
  #37 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,268
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
Faster turn-arounds, closer to Rekkof, cheaper overall.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2016, 22:12
  #38 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Folks,
In another salute to the desirability of operations under the gentle and tender loving care of CASA, Scott McMillan has announced that all Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance will move to Austria.

See: Flight International 29/03-4/04, page 18, a full page article on Alliance.

This is a done deal, not a proposal, indeed some F-100 have already been to the Austrian Airlines facility involved.

I wonder how CASA will spin this as just taking advantage of the third world's low wage rates??

Tootle pip!!
think it's Bratislava not Austria. Last time I drove from Bratislava to Vienna(Austrian HQ) it took just over 30 mins.


How often do Alliance send aircraft to BTS for maintenance ?


Why doesn't Alliance offer cheap one way charter flights to BTS ?


Yes of course, the flights would stop somewhere for pilot rest & passengers would have to find some accommodation somewhere.


Could call it Backpacker xpress(except not express, but why ruin a good story).


As seemingly everyone in OZ is broke or living on credit cards(worse than broke) some might take up such an offer.




Also, just heard that some New Zealand airline is going to be flying domestically in Australia. Who could that be ? FlyKiwi ? Guess there's plenty of scope for a low cost Saab 340 operation here.

Last edited by XPT; 14th Apr 2016 at 23:07.
XPT is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 08:45
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
Maybe, just maybe, after all these years, some are waking up the the commercial opportunities for aviation under the TTMRA, and the quite dramatic costs difference largely brought about by CASA v. NZ CAA.

Of course, that is not the whole cost equation, but it is a damned big and decisive part of the potential savings.

think it's Bratislava not Austria.
Geographically correct for one of the actual sites, but the deal is with Austrian.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 07:42
  #40 (permalink)  
XPT
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely, if Alliance F50 fleet were on NZ AOC they could fly almost anywhere on a charter basis, as often as they wanted without any interference from CASA.


Plenty of ports with stuff all or no services at present, might be able to get at least low frequency service.


Allegiant in USA< starting flying from one horse towns to Vegas & now look at them. 60 odd jets (MD80, A319's & B757's)
XPT is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.