View Full Version : Origin Pacific Christmas Pay

Plas Teek
29th Dec 2003, 07:09
Anyone able to confirm the rumour heard from a friend of a co-worker (reliable source:cool: ) that RI had to top up the last staff pay outa his own wee bank balance/fortune??:confused:

BCF Breath
29th Dec 2003, 08:19
Isn't that getting pretty close to "Trading Whilst Insolvent"? :confused:

29th Dec 2003, 08:53
Another one to add to the others.

ANZ and WIAL allowing them to drip feed their debt.

How many more?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

29th Dec 2003, 12:00
Oh, and I bet Air NZ will get the blame, again.

Captain Condom
29th Dec 2003, 15:32
Is that why we didn't get a chrissie present this year then?

Last years wasn't exactly huge but it was something.

Would have been nice to have got something since we are what make Organ Pathetic special (or however the ad goes).

Is that why RI is looking for an investment partner?

29th Dec 2003, 16:45
I'd update the CV and start knocking on doors in 2004.

2nd Jan 2004, 02:57
If the ORIGINal post is correct what is going to happen first pay of the new year?

:sad: :sad:

3rd Jan 2004, 01:39

Interesting post guys. Glad everyone got paid before Christmas.
Yes - this airline has issues but lets look at the commercial realities of what's happening and why its finding it tough.

CT7 ( Air Nelson/Air NZ ) I presume. You say that they will be blaming Air NZ again. Air NZ is a state owned airline, propped up by the taxpayer after its bailout. It's not always easy having to compete with this factor - there have been no handouts for Origin Pacific since it started. It has stood up on its own two feet. Air NZ has since its been in existance - anti-competitive. Look how they squeeled when Qantas wasn't allowed a slice ! Its gutless management didn't think they could hack it - and they told the staff that. What a bunch of great guys they are - not.

I wonder if Air NZ management will be blaming the Commerce Commission, Qantas, Virgin Blue and Emirates in a few years time. Probably ! Air NZ is a very LUCKY airline. Look at Sabena and Swiss Air for example, they did not get a second chance with a handout.

With Qantas turning up the heat domestically and internationally, Pacific Blue about to enter the market and Emirates providing a much better service to business class passengers the outcome for Air NZ is inevitable. Not to mention both Emirates and Virgin Atlantic looking at the Pacific routes. The Air NZ monopoly on these routes will soon be over.

Air NZ has a history of anti-competitive behaviour. That is why our airline industry in New Zealand now stands years behind the rest of the world. We don't even have RJs here yet. Wonder why ? Competitors have not been allowed to grow. The consumer loses out. How many other 3rd level operators has it stunted ?

For the second time in its history ( when Ansett NZ came along ) it will have to actually compete. In 2 years time it will be in a similar situation as Origin is now. Finally it will have to operate in a Global market like the rest. The changes it will have to make to be able to do this are dramatic !

Watch what happens when Virgin plants its jets here !

2004 will be a very interesting year for NZ airlines.

Thump & Go
3rd Jan 2004, 06:25
Andromeda(Origin,QANTAS or other I presume) are you off the planet or what?!!

Are you sure you're comparing apples with apples here? OPAL with what, 14 turboprops vs Air NZ the national carrier.Had that statistic been reversed do you still think they would have saved AirNZ or Origin?Of course they saved the country's main airline. It would be untenable from a political POV for a country as reliant as ours on tourism(for one) with only 1 National(read international) flag carrier, to lose that carrier. The ensuing economic collapse would be swift and devastating. Imagine how our exporters would react if their product couldn't get off shore,even for a week. Freight,mail,perishable goods,business people,politicians,you,me and the cat cant get from A to B when required. No overseas flag-carrier, a free flying billboard all gone- I don't think so Tim. Political suicide me thinks.
Hark, I hear you say "someone would have stepped in to fill the void." Whom would that have been? Were OPAL going to fly ATR's to Oz, VB main trunk and trans-Tazman - how long would that take to set up and be approved? Long enough to see the entire economy collapse.
Isnt it funny how the people who complained at the time of the "bailout" are the same people who are reaping the rewards of still having a domestic and international airline.

You want the bad news fella? after investing 1 billion dollars and for the reasons above if AirNZ teeters again the government will do it again - the country has too much to lose.

Definition of Irony: funny how the agency that protects us from monopoly and anti-competitive practises is a MONOPOLY!! haha:p

Just remind me why AirNZ is anti-competitive and what the hell that has to do with not having RJ's in country? More bad news- they aint coming- unless they replace A/C on the main trunk- in which case they wont be really be RJ's will they?

Off to have my camomile tea now, Happy New Year;)

3rd Jan 2004, 06:57
Andromeda, I initially thought you were an idiot, but then decided not to be unkind to idiots. What aload of ill informed, paranoid, claptrap.

Tape It Shut
3rd Jan 2004, 07:25
Air NZ is a tiny, insignificant airline. To think the country would have had anything more than a hiccup if it stopped flying is ridiculous. Long term it would have been far better as the history of the company is rife with patch protection and this has been at the detriment of tourism (especially the South Island). How would all the people have got around the country, same way they did when all the domestic B737-200 aircraft were grounded due to Air NZ buying el cheapo turbine blades. Foreign aircraft on contract.

As for needing Air NZ to promote NZ, we can just use Peter Jackson instead.

As for RI's airline, it only exists through Air NZ money (easy come easy go).

Now that the Air NZ / Qantas monopoly has been stopped it is going to be very interesting. Qantas has the muscle and political support and with its new low cost operator will most likely screw over VB. I think the future for PB is questionable as well. I imagine it will be back to the old days soon. I suggest people take that cheap holiday while they can.

3rd Jan 2004, 09:21

You don't know what you are talking about. Sabena and Swissair were flying within days of going broke. Slightly different name, mostly the same people behind them, same logos on the aircraft, all more or less illegal under EU law (several court cases pending, but by the time they see a court room it will be way too late).

How Origin survived this long is beyond me. Wrong aircraft- no routes- wrong base.

3rd Jan 2004, 09:36

You have stirred up the proverbial hornets nest here.

Maybe you should have answered the ORIGINal question instead.

:} :}

BCF Breath
3rd Jan 2004, 11:55
Just heard from someone that Airways are looking at OP..... late payments or similar...??

Who next, Mobil, AIAL....??

Who in there right mind would start an airline in NZ....?
It's too small for two, almost too big for one....

Thump & Go
3rd Jan 2004, 12:16
Tape it shut ....hmmm what a good idea.

I trust when AirNZ/Link come knocking you'll be turning them down:confused:

I don't think anyone doubts on the world scale AirNZ is a tiny and insignificant airline , however anyone who thinks the effect of it's collapse is insignificant is not in touch with economic reality.
Have a think about it chum......p, no Eagle/Nelson/Mt Cook/National or International,yep we'll bring in "some" foreign aircraft on contract. How many A/c were you going to bring in?Crew?I'm sure an overseas 737 will get into NZWR no problem!:ok: There'd be big money in the 19 seat market for a new entrant too. I can smell the rotting kiwifruit and fetid beef from here as it basks in the warm atmosphere of a packhouse going nowhere.

Put loyalties or dislikes aside and look at the big picture(and maybe an economics paper or 2?)

mmm.......Green tea;)

Tape It Shut
3rd Jan 2004, 16:25
Thump & Go

Your comments regarding the 19 seat aircraft are interesting. No one would be interested!

Air National
Air Chathams

At that time the world was full of surplus aircraft and crew. It would have been easy to get the required cover. Do not presume all companies have the same slow processes as Air NZ. The expansion would have been rapid for some with the ex-Air NZ aircraft and crew sitting their waiting.

The economy is suffering long term due to Air NZ. Just ask the South Island exporters. What we need in this county is a budget airline like Southwest that allows rapid growth in air travel. Think of all the provincial economies in this country that are at the mercy of Air NZ.

The only hope is that people back PB with a passion and the smaller provincial towns create their own new aviation markets. To hell with Air NZ!

4th Jan 2004, 08:32
Tape It Shut

It sounds like you have a bit of a grudge or are you well balanced-with a chip on both shoulders?

You have a serious lack of knowledge to think that a start up operation could cover the hole left if Air NZ had gone under. What about- CAA approvals/ Foreign govt approvals/Operations manuals/ Approvals for crew checking/ Crew training.. just the tip of the ice berg.

"The economy is suffering long term due to Air NZ. Just ask the South Island exporters."

What exactly are you basing this on? how about some facts instead of ravings!

Barbers Pole
4th Jan 2004, 10:18
So guess who got turned down by AirNZ?? :{

TIS what a load of misguided rubish. The country has more flights all over the place now than it ever had and at cheaper prices.
PB are no more going to fly into places like Palmerston north, Napier, Invercargill, etc than they will fly to the Moon!!

What international services do we have a monopoly on???

AirNZ spends a fortune on promoting NZ as a tourist destination which a lot of NZers benefit from!! So to say that if it had gone under it wouldn't have had any effect......Get a grip

Back to the thread, lets hope orgin do ok.

Thump & Go
4th Jan 2004, 15:09
Pharknose, you forgot to mention QANTAS are (most importantly) very,very,very well connected politically. As you say interesting times ahead, lets just hope the guys at Origin get to keep their jobs in the meantime.:ok:

Tape It Shut
4th Jan 2004, 15:19
Snail & Barbers Pole

You are obviously loyal Koru team members. To put you straight I have been offered jobs by both Eagle and Air Nelson and turned both of them down.

I am not an idiot and realise that there would have been some short-term problems if Air NZ had gone under. My belief was that it was an excellent opportunity for NZ to kick for touch a total institution full of institutionalised employees.

We could have introduced a budget carrier like Southwest and we would have witnessed the Southwest effect. If you are not certain of what that is it is where they enter the market and airfares drop by 74% and traffic goes up by 790%.

I was very impressed when Freedom was flying domestically as it was the closest thing the public of NZ has ever got to a true budget carrier. I thought at the time how can Air NZ continue with this as it will wipe out it's national airline. It was not unexpected that Freedom stopped flying domestically. Please don't argue that the new Express Class offered domestically by Air NZ is any more than a con.

4th Jan 2004, 16:48
Tape it shut.

You turned down both Eagle and Air Nelson, well I think the jury has just come back with a verdict on your state of mind:D

Tape It Shut
4th Jan 2004, 17:22
I simply had a better offer with respect to conditions and lifestyle. As for chips on my shoulders you are correct. I have the same chips for Telecom as well, ripping off the public and patch protection that makes Air NZ look good.

When these con-artists make $800,000,000 profit out of four million people that is $200 per person. If the same thing was occurring in the USA they would have to make 54,000 million dollars profit from the 270 million people. It doesn't happen because they have competition.

Not that I am a fan of Richard Prebble but his book "I've Been Thinking" does raise the point about the need for a country to lower it's internal costs. Institutions like Telecom and Air NZ are simply going to extract the maximum out of the public and fight tooth and nail to keep competition out.

Kiwi was killed by Freedom. I remember Air NZ saying that Freedom took no passengers from the main airline because it was a completely new set of customers that had never travelled before. It was interesting that these new customers were only in Hamilton, Palmerston and Dunedin. It took years for them to fly Freedom out of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and only after a threat from Jet Connect and PB.

Get out and read some books about Southwest, EasyJet and Ryanair like I have and you will see the light. I have first hand experience of travelling on a staff ID90 ticket to the US. The staff travel office quoted me an ID90 fare of $300 NZD return for a particular sector. When I arrived I went on Southwest for $29USD return and it was then that I realised what a major rip-off Air NZ and all the legacy carriers are.

Barbers Pole
5th Jan 2004, 03:07

Pray tell where is this better job you have? than flying a saab and living in beautifull Nelson.

Competition is a good thing generally, telecom has competition from Clear/telstra yet they are still making hunderds of millons, how can this be?

You advocate that AirNZ should have been let go to the wall (survival of the strongest) yet condone Kiwi going to the wall?
You can rest assured that Ralph & co have studied the LCC's very carefully and that is why Airnz has been reinventing itself under his leadership. There has been a lot of welcomed change in the last 18months and it is no longer a institution. You can now get airfares domestically and across the tasman that are as cheap as what any LCC carrier could offer here. :ok:

Tape It Shut
5th Jan 2004, 06:20
I would have been flying a Saab based in New Plymouth or Auckland as well as being on co-pilot pay for a very long time.
You are a dreamer if you think Telecom has competition. If you live in Christchurch or Wellington then that is true and you will benefit from a reduced phone bill, the rest of the country pays for no competition. We are lucky that Vodafone is here or the cost of cell phone calls in this country would be extreme.

I never condoned Kiwi going to the wall and the creation of Freedom to take it out was in my view evil. In reality any company is going to employ dirty tactics and cut price competition to put an end to the opposition. If they don't then they will most likely price fix with their competitor.

Why I am a big supporter of Southwest is because its mission statement is totally price and consumer orientated and it has stuck to it. Any mission statement Air NZ has will be based on maximising profit, share price and killing innovation. If you read up on Southwest you will see they turn a B737 in twenty minutes and fly them twelve plus hours per day.

I flew Air NZ recently with a 1730 departure. The aircraft was late and arrived onto the gate at 1730. I was interested to see how fast they could turn the aircraft. It pushed back at 1830 with no sense of urgency.

Ray Webster was an Air NZ engineering manager sent to Harvard and groomed by Air NZ for big things. He saw the future as being dominated by the budget type airline and left Air NZ to run Easyjet. He was part of the team that looked at reinventing Air NZ after the 1.4 billion loss. His comment was they did not go far enough and are basically a watered down legacy carrier.

Thump & Go
5th Jan 2004, 08:27
It seems as though we'll have to agree to disagree TIS.
We're still not comparing apples with apples here. Southwest/Ryan/Easyjet all operate in markets or countries with populations of hundreds of millions, in the worlds 2 biggest economies. An increase in traffic of 790% for example simply would not be possible in NZ.

Yeah, no sh!t your a Southwest supporter and whilst their mission statement is admirable, anyone who thinks they (or Ryan/Easyjet) aren't in it for profit should stop sniffing the oven cleaner! Of course SW's usage is around 12 bloody hours a day, they're flying multi-hour sectors in a huge country! How exactly are you going to get a 737 to fly 12 hours a day in NZ, do you propose an operator fly 12 AKL-CHC sectors a day?!!! Quick turn-arounds? - easy employ more people costing more money from your increased profits. Hang on,isn't that a dirty word?

TIS, everyone's got a late A/C story when you're a pilot, if tell 'em you're a surgeon you'll get some horror about implements left in their abdomen - try agin please!

So, let me get this straight - Mr Webster left AirNZ on the basis of his high moral standard did he?:yuk: You don't think Easyjet offered more money do you? They were able to do that on the back of their not insubstantial profit, which, make no mistake is their reason for existing.

Remember, "1 Southwest book readith,doth not an economist make."
I read the bible once, it hasn't made me an Islamic specialist yet.


ps "Profit" and "Successful" are not dirty words, repeat after me............:D

Tape It Shut
5th Jan 2004, 09:37
"Profit" and "Successful" are not dirty words, repeat after me............

I never said they were. What I wish to convey to you is the message that once a company is in a dominant position it will not stop at stitching up the market.

I admire the fact that Southwest has been profitable since the early 1970's and so do many others, that is why its capitilisation is more than all the US majors combined.

Good to see your Koru mentality

"Quick turn-arounds? - easy employ more people costing more money from your increased profits'

No, get rid of the dead wood and union interference (demarcation) and put into place procedures that work. Air NZ is mostly full of 20, 30 and 40 year service people with very little motivation to perform.

In the US they have laws that protect any new entrant into the market. In New Zealand we are learning slowly the benefits of taking down these institutions. The pity is that the politics and electioneering sometimes get in the way.

BCF Breath
5th Jan 2004, 14:16

Interesting that you thought you'd be a co-pilot on a SAAB for a long time. Where did you get that bit of info.......

Some guys are coming up for commands after only 3-4 years. You could do a lot worse.

And if you want to see unions in action go west boyo.

6th Jan 2004, 04:56

Southwest's book boasts 20 min turnarounds, in reality they take at least 30 minutes, however they arrive at destination on time.

It looks good to waiting pax when thier airplane arrives on time, once they are on board they don't moan about it being late and they get off on time. The only thing SWA do right is have realistic sector times.

Don't believe everything you read!!

Barbers Pole
6th Jan 2004, 05:19

So doing a apprenticeship for a few years in a saab is beneath you? What's wrong with NPE or AKL?

Ok lets work thru this, I'm assuming you want to get into a two crew multi IFR operation.
So you wont work for any of the Airnz operators, wont live in AKL, that leaves a F/O spot with Post outta CHC, Orgin, Chattams or maybe some irregular contract work with Air National.
I still reckon that saab job with a good contract and some super is a better deal! enlighten us?? ;)

AirNZ sent some people to look at Southwest and one of the areas of interest was turnarounds, for us to go to 20min turnarounds we'd need to double the ground staff plus we carry a lot of same day freight (up to a ton) which I'm sure SW dont.

Now are you suggesting that all the loyal staff (20,30yrs service)at airnz should be fired cos they are old?? :* For an idealist you sure got some funny ideas

Thump, you hit it on the head :ok:

Tape It Shut
6th Jan 2004, 08:59
I mentioned sacking dead wood. What I may have done is implied a link between length of service and performance, which is of course a generalisation. I do have some work experience at Air NZ and believe me I know how the place functions as well as many of the employees who ride the pigs back.

I am not going to answer what is wrong with Auckland or New Plymouth but suggest if Air Nelson closed down its Nelson base and moved you to either of these places you would be most unhappy. Living in Auckland on Saab co-pilot pay would not be easy if one had a family.

Flying a Saab is not beneath me, I was initially going to fly the Metroliner but simply got a better offer. If that offer was not there on the day I would be flying the Saab today. I can only look at the people that were on the course I turned down and they are still all co-pilots.

We need to agree to disagree on the relative performance of the Air NZ group. What I have experienced and what you have may be very different, but for me personally I know exactly why Air NZ does its best to stitch up the market including the Qantas duopoly.

For the sake of the travelling public I hope PB does very well. Air NZ will be hoping the opposite, but I suppose we can still drive our cars instead of flying.

Best of luck for all the Origin employees

Enough said

Thump & Go
6th Jan 2004, 14:08
Cheers TIS, good finish. :)


TAY 611
8th Jan 2004, 02:40
Good luck to Origin P.
Recently flew on an ANZ AKL-WLG service and on disembarking the aircraft spotted 2 flight attendants standing in the front galley (no other in sight) in a very animated dicussion over an open news paper with backs turned toward disembarking passengers. The reaction of the other passengers was clearly one of disappointment. The "Working class can kiss my A$$, Ive got a job with ANZ at last" mentality is clearly still alive and kicking and in the light that some more competetion is arriving on the scene soon, it won't help their cause.

8th Jan 2004, 06:56

Firstly I will assume you are infact employed as a Pilot, although I"m not all that sure!

It seem's all professional Pilots are doomed to deal with or clean-up after your type (Ask the Aussies & other Pilot groups closer to home)....... What type is that!......the weakest link! otherwise known as " A bit different "

You truely believe you have some otherwise unseen insight into this whole ball of string called Aviation. I have always regarded your Type as wanna-be Management (fortunately even Management recognise your short-comings) You forget you are an employee. Your's & every-other professional Pilot's only concern should be the maintanance of conditions industry wide, the higher they are at the top, the better they will be below.

I have an inclination to ramble here.....but wont, instead I have two question's

1- What do you think Virgin/Pacific Blue (who-ever) are in this game for, please dont reply the care about lowering airfares to the Customer

2- Why would you wish to see any Pilot group instatutionalised or not be out of work or have thier conditions reduced in the name of competition

Barbers Pole
9th Jan 2004, 04:30

Firstly, show me any company that doesn't have some deadwood or employees who are "cruisers" even PB will have some cruisers in it when it kicks off, it's human nature!

Second, Nelson will never close as a base unless the company closes down, but if i was shifted out to an out base then I'd make the most of it and be glad I still had a good job, lotta people out there who'd trade in a flash.
Having worked in an out base that was looked down upon by a lot of people I thought it was great, away from the boss's, cheap living, great climate, easy to swap shifts, great bunch of guys & gals, we had a blast!

Third, Plenty of places to live in AKL for a family that aren't expensive if you are prepared too, puke down the road for instance! You don't have to live in Remmers.

You still havn't tolds us where this great job you have is??Does it exist??

Raw Data
9th Jan 2004, 08:14
Thump and Go

You really have no idea about the low-cost sector, do you?

How exactly are you going to get a 737 to fly 12 hours a day in NZ, do you propose an operator fly 12 AKL-CHC sectors a day?!!! Quick turn-arounds? - easy employ more people costing more money from your increased profits. Hang on,isn't that a dirty word?

Planning a high-utilisation route structure isn't rocket science- I fly for a company whose aircraft are in the air from 0600 to 2200. That's about 16 hours, say about 12 hours actual flight time. Average sector times are about an hour, often much less. Of course the aircraft don't just repeat the same sector, they fly all over.

Quick turnarounds are achieved by low-cost operators with less staff than Air NZ uses. That is because the cabin crew clean the aircraft, the pilots prepare the loadsheets, and handling is kept to a minimum. That is why they are called low COST. I regularly park next to Ryanair and Easyjet 737s and believe me, turnarounds are rarely more than 20 mins.

BCF Breath

Some guys are coming up for commands after only 3-4 years. You could do a lot worse.

You just reminded me why I left NZ all those years ago. I had my first command at 2000 hours, about six months after starting on type (J31), and have never been back to the right seat. After 3-4 years I had a jet command. People in Easyjet and Ryanair are achieving commands at the minimum possible hours (probably between 2500 and 3000). 3-4 years for command of a Saab? Thankfully, not in most of the rest of the world.

Barbers Pole

AirNZ sent some people to look at Southwest and one of the areas of interest was turnarounds, for us to go to 20min turnarounds we'd need to double the ground staff plus we carry a lot of same day freight (up to a ton) which I'm sure SW dont.

You make Tape it Shuts case for him. Ryanair/Easyjet do a 20 min turnaround with one despatcher, no cleaners, no caterers, and usually three ramp handlers. Efficiency is the key, and I suspect Air NZ knows next to nothing about efficiency. Why? Because they have an institutionalised approach to their work. I will always remember hearing a conversation between an Air NZ manager and some ground staff, just after Ansett NZ started. One of the ground staff was saying to the manager, "What do you mean, we have to be polite to the passengers? We are Air NZ, they should feel lucky to fly with us." Sad, but true.


Your's & every-other professional Pilot's only concern should be the maintanance of conditions industry wide, the higher they are at the top, the better they will be below.

Leaving aside for a minute the complete misunderstanding of how management works- good conditions at the top rarely translate to good conditions below- you misunderstand how low-cost operators work. They base their working conditions on getting maximum productivity out of their crews, paying them above the average, but accepting a relatively short working life with the company. This helps them keep costs down (no yearly increments, no accruing benefits). Some stay, but most leave as quickly as they can for more stable jobs. This is standard Ray Webster thinking.

Basically, its a whole new ball game, and institutionalised or "legacy" employers are rarely able to adjust their thinking in time to stave off disaster. In the case of Air NZ, its failure would be bad for the current (mostly long-term) employees, but probably very good indeed for the industry in NZ (and thus good for pilots).

Plas Teek
10th Jan 2004, 03:38
Raw Data

There are those that would love to work with ex-pate and the like and only have commands in Europe.

But there are those that don't have the parentage!! So never get the chance.

I like many would love to be in the LH seat of a jet, but the dice fell a different way, I'm happy here and learnt a heck of a lot about people and aviation from my captains, and I'm still learning. Maybe you missed out on all that...

Others would thank you for going to free up jobs here.

Raw Data
10th Jan 2004, 03:52
Plas Teek

Trust me, you wouldn't want the parentage!!

There is nothing wrong with serving all that time in the right seat, my point was more that doing so should not be seen as "normal" per se, and that if people aspire to move on more quickly, good for them.

I learnt a lot for the first year, but only from some of the captains I flew with. The ex-BA guys were the best; nothing to prove, and a lot to give. The ones that were the most difficult to work with were the know-it-all young guys.

I don't think you learn all that much after a year or so in the right seat, mostly you just get frustrated.

You also learn a lot more once you are in command; you have to. Until then, the guy in the other seat has all the responsibility. Being where the buck stops has a way of educating one...

Plas Teek
10th Jan 2004, 16:00
You're probably right about the parentage....

Point being, if you can't go to Europe, and are stuck in NZ, 3-4 for a SAAB command is good, obviously quicker with Eagle and even more so with the likes of OP. Somewhat longer with Mt Chook.

You're one of the lucky ones. But I prefer the Sthn winters...:ok:

Raw Data
10th Jan 2004, 19:16
Me too, I'll be down there next week! :cool:

Kaptin M
11th Jan 2004, 07:27
I agree with probably most of what you've written, Raw D, except for I don't think you learn all that much after a year or so in the right seat,.. Personally I believe it takes closer to 2-3 years before a "new recruit" is sufficiently au fait with company procedures, aircraft capabilities, weather conditions, self limitations, etc, to consider changing from right to left seat.
Although, as Mark Twain noted, "All that you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure" :ok:

Raw Data
11th Jan 2004, 08:05
I agree a bit. I think, based on my own check and training experience, that most new recruits know the SOPs pretty well, as they have had to demonstrate an intimate knowledge of them in the sim. They are also usually pretty good at the capabilities of the aircraft, which are clearly defined- unless you are thinking about imponderables such as how the aircraft handles when heavily iced up, when I agree that experience is everything.

I think it is also highly dependent on where you fly, and on what. I spent my early flying career pounding about at low level, usually badly iced up, with no autopilot and basic systems. I consider that I learned more in six months than a lot of my friends flying Boeings out to the sun learned in six years.

I am still alive, so I must have learned something!

Thump & Go
11th Jan 2004, 12:03
Ahh, Raw Data welcome to the fun and thank you for being so, er......moderate in response.

Absolutely correct, I have no expertise in the low cost sector and fortunately made no claim as such. From the start of this thread my raison d'etre (despite being off-topic) was simply that we are not comparing apples with apples here (Southwest vs ANZ/USA vs NZ), and seperately, no, the government allowing ANZ to collapse was/is not a good idea.
Perhaps my 12 sector comment was a little flippant & taken just a wee bit literally, as clearly that A/C would struggle to get 12hrs utilisation on AKL-CHC sectors without of course making around half of them CHC-AKL sectors!I appreciate that "planes", having flown one, do fly to more than one destination per day. :ok: Maybe I could be one of them rocket scientists you mentioned?
Low COST - understood, quick turn-arounds,less staff,pilots doing loadsheets yadda yadda ya. Again no point shaping that criticism at ANZ as they can never truly be low COST as they were not set up as one and have that perrenial(sp?) downunder pimple on the arse to work around - Unions.

A quick summation then:

This is not an ANZ promotion.
I do not have a problem with low cost carriers.
ANZ and Southwest do not compare
The government made the right decision in saving ANZ (1 of very few)
Yes, ANZ could make changes and be more effecient.
I am a member of the union.
I believe you.(about the turn arounds);)
I have not read the Southwest book.:{

Thump :)

ps: none of this means I work for ANZ either.

11th Jan 2004, 12:40
The demographics of NZ lend themselves to a large number of jobs on turboprops and very few on anything larger. As a result there are a lot of people who would do a fine job for Air NZ (or the like) but can't get a foot in the door. This seems to create an awfully large number of bitter and twisted people in the upper echelons of the regional ranks that don't want to (or can't) jack the job they have and head overseas. And fair enough too if you have a wife and kids and are settled - why turn their lives upside down?

I would say Europe is the opposite, it has the population for plenty of 100+ seat aircraft so that's where the jobs on larger aircraft are. And you don't necessarily need a vast amount of time to get RHS in a 737, many start there from the 250 odd hours of a basic multi CPL/IR. So all that regional flying that many espouse as crucial to flying a larger jet in NZ is, at the end of the day, a waste of time if a job on a considerably larger aircraft is where you want to be.

My point is be happy doing what you're doing. Don't run down others to justify where you take your career. If you live in regional towns like Nelson and fly a SAAB, enjoy it. If you were flying a 737 out of there the population would need to be 5 times bigger and pollution, traffic and house prices wouldn't make it the nice place it is.

Likewise if you made the trek to Europe, got the licence and a 737 command good for you. If you want to return to NZ then expect some bitterness, you took a path (some would say shortcut) many couldn't be bothered with.

Raw Data
11th Jan 2004, 19:01
Thump & Go

Pardon me, didn't mean to offend.

The lesson from Europe (or Southwest for that matter) is that you keep the aircraft in the air. Part of that is quick turnarounds, the other part is using low fares to generate passengers on thin routes. So, for example, you could go AKL-CHC-WLG-DND-AKL-Tauranga-WLG-CHC-NPE-New Plymouth-CHC-AKL or something similar. That gives you the opportunity for a crew change in AKL. On the face of it, some of those sectors seem too thin to support a jet, but again, the lesson of Euro low-cost operators is that you can generate pax on the thinnest of routes. After you have established the route, you manage the yield to allow a profit to be made.

You can only do this if you have a low cost base. Also, most low cost operators in Europe only actually make money on selling food and drink- but because of the volumes involved, it is quite possible to make millions that way. The airline side just about covers its costs.

Air NZ COULD reinvent themselves as a low cost carrier, as most UK airlines have done. My company has gone from full-service to low-cost, and it is unionised. When unions see the stark choices facing them, they tend to be compliant. Of course, there has to be the will to change, and that will always be a problem at Air NZ as it will result in job losses, and more work for those that remain.

I haven't read the Southwest book either. I don't really need to as I have seen the changes for myself in Europe, which equates much more closely to NZ.

Air NZ is a dinosaur. If it doesn't change soon, it will either be dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium, or it will likely fail. I doubt the government will bail it out a second time, particularly as they no longer have an Air Force to sell to cover the cost!

Kaptin M
11th Jan 2004, 20:49
So we're talking about optimum utilisation of aircraft - in which case short haul provides the least productivity.

Air N.Z. don't need to re-invent themselves on international, as long as they keep the aircraft on the ground for the minimum time, the load factors as high as possible, and costs to a minimum.

Because short haul is harder to gain high aircraft utilisation, the beanies then start looking at cutting costs.
Now it doesn't take too many brains to see where - looking from the outside in - these geniuses start.
Cut out the extras given to pax - food and drinks.
Reduce the number of cabin crew, because there won't BE any inflight service! Oops, the regulators told us we had to keep a minimum number for Safety reasons...Damnit!! @#&*+in' Safety!!:mad:
Aha, now, the (minimum) cabin crew aren't doing anything during flight, and all that they do is sit on their fat @sses gossipping, during the 15 minute turnarounds, so let's get them working, and sack the cleaners.
And by the way, don't forget to smile as you help the third wheelchair passenger off the aeroplane...just because you ran 10 minutes behind sched getting in, you'd better get cracking because of the curfew on the return flight!
And "No" the station manager CAN NOT help you, he has a VIP mate of his who wants an introduction to the check-in chickie.

Right..no food...no service.
What about those pilots - there's only 2 of them.......we got rid of F/E's yonks ago, and we were working on having NO pilots, but looks as though we're stuck with 2 for the time being.
What we need to do is show that one pilot is as stupid.....but for commercial reasons, we'll make that "AS SMART"...as the other.
The objective is to get their salaries down to the same (lowest) level, so that the guy in the right seat is paid the same as the on in the left.

You've only got to look at an aeroplane to see where the cost is.

Well all of this work is making me tired, where's the tea lady?
Oh, and that reminds me, my rubbish bin is FULL of old coffee cups and biscuit wrappers (from the company supplied dispenser) - where's that cleaner who's responsible for taking all of this [email protected] out?
We pay them bl00dy good money for what they do!

Reading this Professional Pilots Rumour Network stuff has taken up more of my time than it should have, too.
Looks like I'll have to put in ANOTHER 3 hours overtime tonight - that makes it about 15 for this week....that ought to pay for little Johnny's birthday present.
Thank Gawd it's a long week-end - I just don't know if I can take many more of these 10 hour days!!

Raw Data
12th Jan 2004, 06:47
Errr... OK then... I'm sure you are right (or not). :confused:

Anyway, one point: Yes, you can achieve higher utilisation on long haul. What you can't do is adjust your yield to optimum levels every hour, which is what happens in short haul. When I go LHR-LAX later in the week, the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed. With short haul, you can micro-manage the yield. More to the point, you can do it ten times to every one time you can with long haul- in the 12 hours I will be in the air between LHR-LAX, my short-haul colleagues will have achieved up to ten sectors. This is why nobody has tried low-cost long haul.

BCF Breath
12th Jan 2004, 10:35
Raw Data I would love to see a jet operate in & out of New Plymouth!! What fun.. not a possibility (737) as for Napier, not sure the 737 currently could do it either.

As for utilisation at least 4 are flying right through the night at the moment.

You have a point about dead wood, but this PC govt made it even harder to get rid of slackers.....

And cost cutting, next we'll be putting loo paper in the ACARS!

Kaptin M
12th Jan 2004, 11:02
"This is why nobody has tried low-cost long haul."

Virgin Atlantic?

"the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed."
Ticket pricing can be altered (up or down) depending on seat sales.
Aircraft type substitution.

You are correct in saying that yields can be managed more OFTEN with multiple sectors, however the extra cycles of aircraft usage, and extra fuel burns are going to figure far more prominently with the bottom line calculation.

My point is, that while the beanies directly target the most OBVIOUS costs ie. those directly involved in aircraft crewing and handling, they conveniently ignore those in the office who stare at computers (or the Internet) for hours per week.
This needs to be the next stage of trimming, imo. Many desk jobs don`t need fulltime workers - their work could be done on 2 or 3 days in a week, instead of 5.

Barbers Pole
12th Jan 2004, 12:02
Amazing how a thread on Orgins pay has turned into a slagging of AirNZ and merits of LCC's !! :ugh:

Raw Data

AirNZ has made at lot of changes in the last 2 yrs, Domestically business class is gone increasing the amount of economy seats, food & booze all gone, only tea, coffee, water. Magizines gone, Hosties reduced to 3, a/c utilisation has increased (all nighter trans tasmans/Islands) internet bookings, self check in kiosks, cheap fares with no air points, increased flights generating increased pax, we are going to carry an extra 1 million pax domestically this year thru these changes :ok: So they are driving cost out (more to come) it's a very different airline today.
Those people hiding away in back rooms, etc are being slowly given there marching orders.

Personally I'd love to see the hosties helping with the cleaning and reckon we should be selling snacks/booze on the longer domestic sectors, we will never be a true LCC cos the business punters want the lounges, valet parking, etc

The airline is changing with the times and on track to make $300million profit this year, not bad for an "institutionalised Airline" ;)

BCF Breath
12th Jan 2004, 14:04
On the jobs front....

There looks to be a shite - load with Air NZ this year. Lotsa interviews..... :ok: :ok: :ok:

So plenty of flow down through the other carriers...:O :O

Its gotta be good news....

12th Jan 2004, 16:49
But!!!!how long is Origin going to last???Qantas code share??
what about pacific blue??
But then Sir Richard woudnt need them,Or would he??

Raw Data
13th Jan 2004, 00:48
Kaptin M

Virgin Atlantic are by no stretch of the imagination low cost, as that term is used in short-haul airlines. Even their interline fares are high. Virgin target the rich end of the market with lounges, manicures, hairdressers et al. They are one of the fullest-service airlines in the world. They are engaged in a major battle with BA for the premium passengers.

Laker had the better idea, he would have been much closer to the low cost model.

Ticket prices can be managed, but you can't effectively manage the yield as so many folk buy their tickets months ahead.

Aircraft types can be changed if you have the luxury of having the spare hulls. Cargo can help, but you can't generate it easily.

TAY 611
13th Jan 2004, 02:46
Strong rumour has it that Origin has allready lost the QF codeshare. This may be good for them though as it frees them up for others?