Slimpickens
I'm sure my experience would be valued, but only if I was prepared to go from training captain on a jet, to F/O on a Metro or something. In other words, it isn't valued very much. Attitude isn't a problem, I'm a firm believer in mucking in and getting the job done - including making the coffee for the cabin crew on the turnarounds - all I ask in return is a position commensurate with my qualifications and experience. In Europe, that is considered reasonable. In NZ, it is considered presumptious.
From what I have been able to find out, it appears that this "send the kiwi expat b*stards to the back of the queue" mentality is driven more by the union than the airlines.
The airline industry is like no other, where a lack of experience, skill or judgement in the critical places (flight operations, engineering) means people could die. Non-airline people struggle with this concept.
As do a lot of airline people. Answer me this: if you need a captain, do you a) give a First Officer his or her first command or b) hire an experienced, proven captain? In the current NZ climate, you promote the F/O, and recruit the experienced person for the RHS - a position for which he or she is neither current, or suited.
Don't get me wrong - I am a firm believer in promoting guys and girls who are ready for command, over new entrants. I am just pointing out the fallacy in the argument. The safety argument says employ the experienced, proven captain. The prevailing airline thought says the opposite.
It was not a cash handout or gift - the goverment re-capitalised the company through the aquisition of shares (about 82%).
Call it what you want, it amounts to the same thing. A company on the brink of bankruptcy was bailed out by the government. Ask Origin how they feel about that.
But the failure of the airline would have meant a failure of the NZ tourism industry, and in turn the economy.
Complete nonsense. The tourism industry doesn't care what colour the aircraft is, that delivers the tourists. Other airlines would have stepped in immediately. Air NZ is not part of the tourism industry, it just delivers the tourists. it would make little difference to the economy if Air Zimbabwe delivered them.
For a country the size of NZ, think of Air NZ as an arm of the tourism industry owned like a co-op with the stakeholders being the NZ public.
So what you are saying, is that any NZ company in which I have shares is automatically protected by the government? That the government will bail out any public company that fails?
Nnnnno. Don't think so.