Air Nelsons Future

[purplemonkydishwashr]

Anyone Know what the future holds for Air Nelson? I heard their pilots received letters informing them they would have to re-apply for their positions and that the planned fleet change is now not so certain. Is Mt Chook gonna swallow them up?

[max rate]

What a load of drivel. Air Nelson is very safe. If you keep listening to crap like that and believe it, the ****head management guy that started it has won.:mad:

[Cloud Cutter]

He he:D, love the handle - particularly relevant in this case (chinese whispers). We'll show them, especialy for that purple monkey dishwasher remark!

[splatgothebugs]

Nice rumour, haven't heard a beauty like that for a long time :ok:

However what is the latest word on the fleet replacement, there is a lot of other projects on hold (ie AA airport domestic upgrade) untill the decission is made.

Or not made as the case may be

splat ;)

[belowMDA]

The latest sounds like S340 B+ in the very near future. As for new type that may be some time away!

[Swamp Donkey]

Thanks MDA for adding some sense to the rumour mill - purple monkey I think you should stick to washing the dishes at AFS or whatever Warren has you doing.....

[Cloud Cutter]

belowMDA, that sounds reasonable. I think the 340 is still a good aircraft for the role, does the B+ perform much beter than the A? It would certainly save them a lot in crew conversion training. Perhaps they will be ready for RJs in 5-10 years?

[belowMDA]

The B+ does not leap off the page as being hugely better on paper but I think in practice it will shine compared to the A model. The A is a workhorse but is hamstrung by the ITT limits agreed upon by GE and NSN to reduce the cost of engine maintenance. The B+ should give much better icing performance if nothing else however the engines are even more prone to stalling than the 5 A2. on paper the differences are as follows:

340A: GE CT7 5A2 1735 SHP
MTOW 28,000 lbs
Max cruise 271 Kts

340 B+ GE CT7 9B 1870 SHP
MTOW 29,000 lbs
Max cruise 283 kts

the B+ also has electronic noise cancelling for the cabin dwellers.

figures courtesy of www.saabaircraftleasing.com

[splatgothebugs]

Its a shame about those ITT limits, they would prob go like a cut cat otherwise.

splat:ok:

Mite even keep up with a Beech ;)

[The Stooge]

What are the ITT limits going to be 850 below FL150 and 875 above ? Doesnt make much difference really as MCP is 940

[peetee6]

it is still a Saab at the end of the day! And still won't be able to keep up with the 1900.

[Don Won]

Well when you for work air nsn you can't have anything to speedy cos then your'd never get through your morning coffie(provided by trolly dolly....dam that's hot ... oh coffie ) and sport's section while "george" takes care of things, when you fly 121 cat a knot here or there don't realy matter you boyz mite understand these things one day :D
If were talken speed your either the fastest ie J41 style or your just cruzen infact I think the slickest turbo prop in NZ is the chyane

[BCF Breath]

It's just JH threatning again. If NSN went away, so would he!

What ever happened to the term "Fair" bargaining...?

Of course, Air NZ is supposed to be ramping up recruiting (apparently) so there could be some jobs going there...?

As for those smokey-Beech drivers, still the same speed in descent (actually aren't you restricted to less than 250 Kias..??) and one day, when you leave that light (although well equipped) twin, you'll realise just how important a role the autopilot plays...!
Oh and did I mention the cockpit door so you can read the paper and drink coffee and munch on the meal you managed to get from the cafe on a min turnaround.....Ha Ha Ha

Apparently the Link carriers made over $70m for the last F/Year so you work it out. Who's looking for a fat bonus eh? Mr JH!

Keep supporting the bargaining process, and stop starting non-helpful gossip.

[belowMDA]

Speed, that's all a 1900 has really.

[LateNightOps]

If you want to talk about speed...how about an EMB120 Brasilia!

[belowMDA]

BTW another saab ground course to be run very shortly. maybe interviewing in about a month (interview time frame pure speculation).

[incidentreport]

I thought I read somewhere that there was still a full completed ground course waiting to start?? (or close to full) Why would they run another course if that was the case??

[Plas Teek]

'Cause, maybe they realise that Big Bro is starting to recruit again, and, using history as a learning tool (because they have JUST got up to strength with pilot numbers for the first time since the late 90's thanks to the new LOM) they don't want to be caught short AGAIN!

Or having to explain to those on high why a newly aquired SAAB is on the ground and not flying.......because there weren't enuf pilots!!

[always inverted]

I heard the same thing from an eagle captain the other day, said that I should put a cv in-if not aleady with Air Nelson and Eagle because ANZ will be extracting crew from each and if they don't want to be left short the start recruiting.
Like everything in aviation- believe what you want.

Checked out the post on ANZ recruitment for 04, would appear to tie in with what has been said on this post.
Me has fingers and toes well crossed for this one...

[Woodend1]

I with you always inverted, everything well crossed..

[Cloud Cutter]

The ground coursed pilots have been told they will be advised of start dates in a couple of weeks (RLK), I think the reason they haven't been hiring at a greater rate is that they are already training at full capacity. It makes sense to nab eligable employees early and make them wait a bit for start dates so they don't go off and work for someone else - I think the hiring pool (ie pilots with 1500 TT, 500 Multi) is wearing a bit thin or will be once the Origin blip has passed.

Pure speculation? Lets see - I know I'm sending them a piece of paper. Good luck to those with up coming interviews;)

[Plas Teek]

Now that the contract just has to be ratified by the ladds (and laddessess) it should be all plain sailing....

Did I hear right that JH was "taken-out" of the process and some chap from Big Bro Koru did the job instead, and that's why it's where it is today..??

Actually, it's more likely the result of the hard working ALPA members and the neg. team that got it to where it is today!

Well done guys!

[Cheeky Whitey]

I know more than one guy from Origin that has sent a CV off to Air Nelson in the last few months... Maybe gonna have higher requirements this time round??

[Sqwark2004]

If all these Origin guys & gals are successful in jumping ship, will it mean IP will be making more calls for some of us younger folk to go join him in the sunny climate of Nelson? Or will it be, as the rumours have it, still waiting to see what happens?

[Plas Teek]

SWK 2004
I guess you mean OP.

No, Rob will close up shop, blameing Air NZ for poaching his pilots etc, etc.

But, possibly, yes. Put your hat in wherever you can. Air Nelson may even lower it's requirements once the OP pilots pool dry up.

Unless the pilots neg a decent contract and RI actually starts looking after his pilots (Yeah, Right!) well, then that may slow down any movement outa OP.

[belowMDA]

word 'round the campfire is that calls went out today about the next round of interviews, so that must make them next week or the one after!

[centurian]

Yeah calls have been made for interviews next Monday and Tuesday. Havent seen much info on the format of Air NSN interviews though. Are they similar to Eagle interviews?

Any help from those in the know?

[Blue Line]

I've heard of one person who got the call yesterday. As for the OP guys jumping ship I wouldn't expect to be many if any now seeing OPs future for at least the medium term is fairly secure, I don't think the OP boys & gals would want to go to the back of the seniority list , but there prob a few conair guys & gals on the Air Nelson call up list

[belowMDA]

Centurian, from what I have heard about the eagle interview process they almost couldn't be more different. They sit you down on the couch for about 40 minutes and have a friendly talk with you about yourself and quiz you on your knowledge. They seem to prescreen their candidates a bit more than eagle do I think.

[incidentreport]

My phone didn't ring... :{
always inverted / Woodend 1... did either of you get a call??

[Woodend1]

unfortunately no. be nice if the 500 multi req. was around 250...air transport and all

[always inverted]

sorry to say it did not. One of the guys from Mountain Air has had a call up so I heard.
I have only just under 1100 tt and 500 multi so was not really expecting one.
Heard that eagle may be interviewing again soon too...

Best of luck to those that had the call.

[centurian]

Thanks guys. Im glad they havent adopted the "Who do you like most in your family and why?" approach as Eagle have.

I hope Nelson puts on the weather for us :D

[incidentreport]

centurian...
Well done, and good luck.
What sort of time do you have?? Do you have a GA or an airline (Origin) background??

[aiming high]

Just out of interest, who is the person to speak to for jobs at Origin, seems a few might be jumping ship to Air Nelson, so why not? Cheers.

[splatgothebugs]

Interesting, centurian I have never heard of EAG asking a stupid question like that.:confused:

Anyway EAG are always hiring because they are well sort of pilots.

If you didn't get calls don't worry the industry looks like its going to keep up this hiring spree for a while.

Your time will come young skywalkers :ok:

splat

[Borneo Wild Man]

Centurion: your shout!!!
When ya coming to the J for a few beers and a bit a Malay Karaoke?

[incidentreport]

aiming high

I believe the person to talk to at Origin at the moment is Ian Pirie.

[belowMDA]

For those of you wondering about jobs at origin here is a snipit that may be encouraging.
The last J41 ground course had 8 pilots on it, 4 were already Origin pilots on the 31/32 and 4 were external GA pilots. Of the 4 external pilots one has passed the eagle interview and been offered a ground course, another was interviewed by Air Nelson and has was on the last Saab ground course and another has an interview with them on this round of selection.
So should Origin be needing to source pilots for the 41 and cannot release crew from the 31/32 then they may well have to look outside the company.

[incidentreport]

How did those with interviews do today??... guess you're all at the pub after a week of study...
Good luck to everyone with interviews tomorrow.

[aiming high]

Incident Report

Thanks for the info.

[purplemonkydishwashr]

Anyone know how the current lot of Air Nelson interviewees got on? How many interviewed/got in? From where? etc.

[always inverted]

Unconfirmed, but heard that they interviewed 12 for 7 positions...

[Blue Line]

I've heard that all or jsut about all have got on, with 2 gorund courses being run, one in the near fuuture - I think a month or so & then one nearer the end of the year

[incidentreport]

Does anyone know if the fleet replacement has been confirmed yet?? (if indeed there is to be one that is??) What is the likely type?? Have read no info on this lately...

[Thump & Go]

Air NSN pilot group/management have reached pay agreement (finally)so the replacement is going ahead but nothing announced yet as to type.
DHC-8Q300 perhaps?

[incidentreport]

I understand that it is between the DHC-8Q300, ATR 42, and Saab 340 B's?? Is this the case, any others being considered??
What about the Air Nelson boys... what are you all hoping for and why?? I mean sure you're still probably hoping for Saab 2000's but realistically if it is out of these types... what would be the 'pilot's' one??

[MOR]

Pretty grim, having to choose from that bunch... all as bad as each other. Good luck, folks...

[Cloud Cutter]

Oh really, and perhaps you could enlighten us with your choice of 30-50 seat regional T/P?

I think most pilots would prefer the Dash? My money's changed from ATR to Saab 340B+ (after the long haul fleet anouncement).

[Thump & Go]

Devil's advocate for a moment - do you think it could be more than 1 type?

[CT7]

Just to change the topic bit....

Had a chat with a guy who knows a mate who had a chat with a senior person in AirNZ recently, who mentioned about 100 pilots to be hired in the next 18 months. :cool:

So who cares what they (Air Nelson) get. But it won't be a jet..

But whatever it is, it will stand you in good stead.

Get those CV's in....:ok:

[Swamp Donkey]

Who really cares ! As long as there is some fox hound in the back to close the door and feed the maggots...........(and warm your bed when the swampas are few and far between!)

If you are really fussed about the type perhaps you should be flying for an organisation who's aircraft don't have autopilots.....

[MOR]

OK then.

Dornier 328
SAAB 2000
Q400

... all of which are fast, efficient and cost-effective. Decent flight deck too, with VNAV, EGPWS, and so on.

No real reason to restrict the choice to turboprops - airlines around the world are ditching them in favour of jets - so:

Embraer 145
CRJ
Dornier 328Jet

... and so on.

The DHC-8Q300, ATR 42, and Saab 340 B's are all old technology, and not as efficient as the ones mentioned above.

I haven't flown a turboprop for years, but my pick of the bunch would be the Q400 from an efficiency standpoint, and the Do328 from a fun viewpoint.

[CT7]

The small regional airports and short sector lengths that Air Nelson does, doesn't lend itself to jet ops.

145 was looked at when it was just starting, too sticky on the ground.
CRJ, yeah, right!
D 328. Yup, good kit and short field perf., but again not economical with the short hops done, OK on the longer sectors of which there are about 3 or 4.

Bring on the 2000.:ok:

[MOR]

Many Euro airlines are now using the 145 for short hops (40 mins or thereabouts), and find it economical. It isn't a ground gripper if you don't fill it up with gas - in any case, hard to see many airports that it would be likely to serve, where runway length is a problem.

Not sure why you think the 328 is les economical than the SAAB 2000 - it most definitely is not. Ask Crossair/Islandflug.

I see you completely failed to mention the Q400, which in terms of operating specifics, beats the old-school Q300/ATR/340 hands down. It has lower pax-per-seat-mile specifics than the 737.

[Cloud Cutter]

MOR

The Saab 2000 has been all but ruled out due to it's lack of efficiency - how the 328 compares to that is niether here nor there.

The reason CT7 probibly didn't mention the Q400 is the 70 seats inside - perhaps a good option for MC when they want to replace the ATR 72s, but not in the ball park for RLK.

As for jets - not really a concideration, any operational benifits are far outweighed by capital outlay/leasing cost.

I see not one of your sugestions for a 30-50 seat aircraft actually fits in that size range.

[CT7]

The reason I didn't mention the Dash series is that I know next to nothing about them. Other than SAS had major (electronic) troubles with the -400 when they introduced them after the 2000 left.

Some of the airfields are 1300m in length.

My thoughts, the 340B or B+ due to $$$. Then re-look in 3-4 years.

The -42 would allow seamless training for two fleets (if MC could accept that!) and the various benefits that fleet (almost) commonality would allow.

Or heck, the combination (light touch paper and stand well clear!!) of the two companies.:uhoh:

Who knows. Just as long as they keep passing into Air NZ!!

[MOR]

Ok well let me enlighten you then.

The Q400 is actually cheaper to operate than the Q300 is - if you don't believe me, ask Bombardier! That is of course based on their lease rates and a comparable load factor. It is also quieter, much faster, and more fuel-efficient.

Why would you want to operate a 40 seater, when you can operate a 70 seater for similar dollars? How about freight, or the ability to stimulate growth on the route by using those extra seats for low-fare tickets? In other words, how about being a bit creative.

I was working for an airline with the Q400 in the UK, and after the initial problems SAS had (all long since sorted out), they were great. When I left, despatch reliability was 99.8%, and had been for some months. The Dash -200 and -300 fleet was being returned to Bombardier as rapidly as possible, because we found the Q400 was a far more economical proposition.

They regularly operate, full, out of London City (Docklands), and that is 1200 m long with a 5.5 degree glideslope, and a very testing departure profile.

The Do328 is at least as efficient as any of the aircraft being discussed as replacements, and is a hell of a lot faster, too. That is why it is so popular in Europe. It has, as the Q400 does, an active noise cancellation system in the cabin.

Both those aircraft will give you near-jet perfromance at a very low cost. The Q400, if I recall correctly, cruises at about M0.70. A 737 in economy cruise is doing about M0.72 (as is a 146 going flat out).

I'd rather fly any of the aircraft I mentioned, than doggy, noisy old 340s or ATR's.

[CT7]

Ta.

I'm sure the boys would like the -400, but they're not the ones with the $$$.

Plus with a 70 odd seater company already (MC with -72's) I can't see air Nsn getting them when they try to promote themselves at the 50 seat chaps.

Knowing the D8-100 and it's forerunners, I'm sure a postage stamp has ample room for them to operate..

Thanks for the heads-up.

Oh, Jet connect cruise at about m.77 and Air NZ at m.75 depending on allowances and things to do at home!

[MOR]

Yes, well the LoCos in Europe are (or were) generally cruising slower to save fuel, and because it doesn't make a lot of difference on a typical 1-1.5 hour sector. Of course, if they were late... well... ;)

[incidentreport]

Just got told that some (not sure how many) of the guys that have been waiting for starts since earlier in the year have been given start dates...
Well done guys... I'm sure it would have been well worth the wait!! Good news for those that have just had interviews too I'm guessing... Maybe things are about to take off again in Nelson?? If posts on origin are anything to go by...

[ZK-NSN]

Had a quick look at the Q400 demostrator when it came around last year and got all the promotional stuff. Modern and fast but as everybody else points out its too big. They had been very keen for Qo to use them in place of the ATR's that they leased but the papers had already been signed. Saab2000's? dorniers? I'd be very surprised if anything other than ATR-42's showed up. Dont think a great deal of ATR's (never worked around 42's though) myself but im not signing the cheuque so i'll just say my peice and shut up.

Had heard there was a bit of a stand off going on between pilots and management? any updates?

[max rate]

People are dreaming if they believe anything other than than 340B turned up. ANZ have bigger fish to fry rather than spend their cash on 42s, when the operating cost for the Cook 72s is bugger all more.

[MOR]

So why is the Q400 too big, exactly?

It has similar (or lower, depending on lease arrangements) operating costs than the smaller Dashes, and the ATR72.

It will operate, easily, from a 1200m runway.

So what is the objection?

Surely you can't be saying that because it has more than 40 seats, it is "too big"... :rolleyes:

[splatgothebugs]

its easy, this is how it works.

Eagle = 19 seat market
Nelson = 30-40 seat market
Cook = 60-70 seat market.

Simple.

Air NSN will not get an aircraft bigger than 40 seats.

If they did it would mean the beginning of a merger between the airlines and the lower managers would not like that.

splat :ok:

[incidentreport]

Is this new fleet announcement getting any closer?? Seems to be taking ages... Heard managment and pilots recently came to some sort of agreement... so are things still moving along??

[BattleSTARGalatica]

got told late August for the fleet replacement and next week for the new contract.
Are they going to be interviewing again soon?
up to 49 seats for the replacement. anymore and they need two hosties. (bad luck boys) :}

[MOR]

its easy, this is how it works.

... except that isn't how it works (out there in the big wide world, at any rate).

It works like this.

To succeed, an airline needs two things: high load factors and good yields. What the rest of the world has learned (but NZ airlines will probably never learn), is that the key to a successful operation is to stimulate the market by offering more capacity at lower prices. In other words, the low-cost model. It really works.

Of course what Air Nelson will do is go for a smaller aircraft (one that they can be sure of filling), and sadly that is the sort of unimaginative thinking that will mire them forever in 36-seat land.

You can make a hell of a lot more money by using a more economical, larger aircraft, and adjusting the yield on the fly. It is extremely difficult to make much using such a limited seat capacity - it is an inefficent way of working.

The argument regarding cabin crew is spurious, as the extra pax will more than pay for the extra hostie.

Similarly, the argument about mergers is irrelevant; they are all essentially the same company in any case, there isn't that much devolved power in any of the Air NZ-linked companies. The whisper I hear is that Air NZ is about to start consolidating their recruitment across the entire group - one of their problems is the disparate way the companies are managed.

But I'm sure you are right. Air Nelson will take a conservative approach, essentially denying themselves the ability to generate much new business, and keeping the NZ regional airline market stuck firmly in the 1980's. Air NZ will drive that decision.

My point was not what WILL happen, but what SHOULD happen...

I must say, though, that is a depressing thought, knowing the best you may manage in your career is an ATR, 340 or baby Dash.

[Cloud Cutter]

MOR, I think it's you who is taking the simplistic view.

It's very easy to say that a larger/newer aircraft is more efficient (and quite true). You are still missing the obviouse point that they will always cost more to aquire and insure.

I'm quite sure that Air NZ and Mount Cook would achieve better operating revenues with 737-800s, but it just aint gonna happen (not yet anyway).

Air NZ was I think the first conventional major airline to adopt a low cost model, and I think they employ some inovative management techniques. It is of course Air NZ management who really decideds what aircraft Air Nelson operate, and I'm sure that if they choose from 340s or ATRs it will be because these are the only viable options. I too would prefer to fly a CRJ or Q400, but be realistic. If the 'best I can manage' is a Saab or ATR, I will be quite content because at the end of the day, it's just a job.

If you really have some magic formula that puts the Q400 way out in front, I'm sure Air NZ would love to hear from you:ok:

[BCF Breath]

MOR
What the rest of the world has learned (but NZ airlines will probably never learn), is that the key to a successful operation is to stimulate the market by offering more capacity at lower prices. In other words, the low-cost model. It really works.
Mate! Where is your head??

What do you think Air NZ HAS been doing for the last 18 months??
It is the only airline with both low cost and full service.

Air Nsn are stretched with the 340. 33 seats is not enuf!
So expect something up to a 50 seater.

[Lindstrim]

Im sure this has been covered but what about the CRJ-100? It might be a little out of the seat range but what's wrong with it being chosen?

Lindstrim

[CT7]

How economical is it over sectors rangeing from 25 min to an hour?

[MOR]

Cloud Cutter

You are still missing the obviouse point that they will always cost more to aquire and insure.

Wrong. In the first place, nobody buys aeroplanes any more, they LEASE them. The lease deals on the Q400 are very, very good at the moment. And even if you did buy it, it would still cost you less than many smaller aircraft.

Insurance difference is negligible, particularly as the Q400 has better systems than its predecessors and is thus safer (read cheaper to insure).

BCF Breath

What do you think Air NZ HAS been doing for the last 18 months?? It is the only airline with both low cost and full service.


Well, in New Zealand, maybe, and only if you ignore Virgin and Qantas, who have done exactly what Air NZ is doing (yes I know Jetstar isn't here - yet...).

More to the point, trying to do both usually ends in tears, as others have found (KLM/Buzz, BA/Go... remember them...???)

The only really successful Low-Cost carriers, anywhere in the world, specifically refuse to do what Air NZ has done.

With Air Nelson they have a golden opportunity to go completely with the Low-Cost model. Will they take it? Nah...

Some of you need to get out into the world and see what happens elsewhere. The way aviation is done in NZ is outdated and out of step with the rest of the world. I only realised how badly Air NZ had slipped when I returned to NZ recently. Doggy old aircraft, pathetic IFE systems, badly-supervised handling agents in other countries. Change is needed.

[CT7]

MOR
Air Nsn IS a low cost operation. All the flash stuff went with the various rounds of cost cutting and recently Express Class.

I think you'll find Air NZ is actually buying some (not all) of its new fleet.

Two years ago the Star Alliance blasted Air NZ for the Ansett fiasco, last year Air NZ was THE ONLY SA member to make money....

By Air NZ doing both, I'm not talking about the Freedom operation.
Koru has, under the one banner both full and low-cost. Qantas has Jetstar, BA Go etc.
Doggy old aircraft, pathetic IFE systems, badly-supervised handling agents in other countries.
Well you haven't been reading anything lately have you then. Still 8 (at least) A320's to come, and I won't mention the new IFE and other fit-out on the 747s as well as the 777's arriving in 12 months.
Overseas handlers, well LAX is a prime example of what you're talking about. Cant argue there.
Although I've had no problems with Aussie, Asian or UK Staff.

Oh, and some of us have been working O/Seas and not everything they do is better.
Also they aren't thousands of miles from major destinations or only have 4 mill people to draw from.
You just can't compare Europe / North America with little ole' NZ. It's apples & Kiwifruit (or if you remember - Chinese Gooseberries)

Just remember where this outfit was 3 years ago, and where it's going now. Two totally different directions.

Rome wasn't built in a day. (The Unions just wouldn't allow it:ok:!!)

Change is happening...

Oh, why did you come home...?

[MOR]

No, Air Nelson is not low cost, it is low fares. It's cost base hasn't changed a whole lot in the last few years.

Air NZ may have been the only SA partner to make money, but that makes a whole lot of sense if you look at the other partners. It didn't make nearly as much as the more successful airlines in the world, who, curiously, didn't get an $800-odd million handout from their governments... Air NZ should be bankrupt. In most other countries, it would be.

Air NZ may have the two types of operation under one banner, but it isn't doing either particularly well. That is because the two types of operation require quite different management structures and styles, and very different cost models.


Qantas has Jetstar, BA Go etc.

BA lost go, what, five years ago? Go no longer exists. It's part of Easyjet now.

I did say that the aircraft I returned to NZ on were doggy. That would be a 747 and a 767 then. Both were appalling - grubby, badly maintained cabins, etc.

Sure, the Airbus is nice, but it isn't on the plum international routes, is it?

You can compare NZ with other countries, because the operating imperatives of an airline don't change from one country to the next. They all use fuel, require maintenance, and so on. All of the current airline models could work in NZ, but it requires creative thinking and a bit of risk-taking. When Easyjet started up, they had no market or customer base. They proceeded to create both.

Why did I come back to NZ? Well, after 15 years of belting around Europe in various tasty aircraft, I wanted to come home. I knew that with a few jet ratings, several turboprop ratings, and ten thousand hours, the best I could expect from the likes of Air Nelson was F/O on a Metro, so I basically gave up flying to come home. I am now embarking on a new business venture.

I can't think of anything done in aviation here that is better than in Europe. I would genuinely like to know what you think we do better.

One thing I will say, is that I really hate the parochial nonsense in NZ that says a pilot who has a huge amount of experience must start right back at the bottom again. The rest of the world stopped doing that years ago. Air Nelson even want 50 hours recent NZ instrument flying experience. Why? I have been flying in and out of Heathrow, Paris, Amsterdam, to name but a few, for 16 years. But all this experience is worth nothing, you see, because NZ is mysteriously "harder" than the busiest airspace and the busiest airports in the world.

Yeah, right.

[Cloud Cutter]

MOR

the best I could expect from the likes of Air Nelson was F/O on a Metro

And rightly so. You chose to head for greener pastures, why should other Air Nelson pilots have their progression delayed so you can jump the que.

Having said that, I'm sure there are those who would value your experience (Jetconnect, Pac Blue, Air Freight - although from what you say I'm sure a dirty old CV580 is below you).

I think what CT7 was saying about BA and KLM is that they started seperate low cost airlines. Air NZ has completely redeveloped it's core business, and yes I'm sure they are greatfull to aunty Helen for the $800m. There's no denying that Air NZ is operating in the black, so they must be doing something right.

[Plas Teek]

MOR
I hope in your business venture, you are a bit more careful about reading than on here.

CT7 mentioned that Air NZ is replacing its Blue Water Fleet with 777s and re-equipped 747s. This covers the point you keep hammering home about the 767s, which the older ones start to go soon.

The 737s will also not be here for ever.

The bit about wanting to skip a few rungs on the NZ aviation ladder, must be the same feeling we get if we want a UK licence. Start at the bottom.

Why not Pac Blue?? Or not as much as European pay??

[MOR]

You make my point for me beautifully. The NZ attitude is "well you b*ggered off while the rest of us had to instruct for years, so go to the back of the queue". Everywhere else, pilot selection is done on the basis of aptitude, skill, and EXPERIENCE.

It has nothing to do with delaying progression, and the only people that trot out that tired line are First Officers who feel aggrieved because they are not yet able to get a LHS job (or those who are yet to get an airline job).

It has nothing to do with "skipping rungs". I did my time instructing, just like everybody else. I chose a different path when it came to airlines, so according to you, Plas Teek, I should now be disadvantaged by being made to start again.

In the rest of the world, you select the best person for the job. A career doesn't start and stop whenever you leave these shores. It is ongoing throughout your life, and most employers recognise that. You don't find Brit surgeons being made to start as interns, or managers brought in by the likes of Airways Corp or the CAA made to start off their NZ career by making the tea.

Any Kiwi has as much right as any other Kiwi to be working in NZ airlines, and selection should be done on the basis mentioned above. Nobody has a "right" to a place in a queue. If you can't recognise the value to an airline of having very experienced captains - from diverse backgrounds - then you don't know jack about aviation.

Anyway, I knew it would be like this I so chose to do something else. Please explain, if you can, the value of the Air Nelson 50 hours recent NZ IF time. That one still makes me laugh.

By the way, a Convair would be great fun. The old ones are always a lot more fun to fly than the new ones. From a pilot perspective, I enjoyed the F27 more than the 737.

In case you hadn't noticed, Air NZ also created a low-cost airline. So now they have a standard airline model, a low-cost model, and a low-low-cost model. Or is that a full-fat, mid-cost and a low-cost model? Very confusing. Please explain their strategy to me...

The only reason that they are in the black is that they were tossed the $800-odd mill by the government. Without that, they'd be long gone. They have a similar advantage to BA, when they were handed all the aircraft, property and staff, and told to go make some money. Easy, when you get it all handed to you, and don't have to service a debt. Hardly fair to compare them to airlines that actually have to trade themselves out of problems.

When they are making as much as Easyjet or Ryanair, I'll believe they have a successful business model. Not holding my breath though.

[Cloud Cutter]

MOR

Your point's are well made. With respect to Air New Zealand operating with several cost models, I think this is indicative of the consolidation period needed to change from full service, to low cost (slightly different for the long haul operation where there will always be options). Eg the airpoints scheme is shortly to be brought into line. Could you please explain the difference between Express (domestic/Tasman) and the likes of Easyjet, Ryanair. The only difference I can see is in terms of fare conditions (although I'm not that familiar with the british airlines).

a Convair would be great fun

Why not go and fly one, I know that particular company would value your experience.

[MOR]

Well, if you buy a ticket on Ryanair or Easyjet, you get just the flight - no water, no TOD sweet, nothing. You can, however buy (expensive) drinks and food on board, including alcoholic beverages.

Everything extra costs money, including hand or cabin bags that weigh more than the limit, reservation changes, wheelchair assistance, you name it. The rules are rigidly enforced. I have had to part with money because my laptop was half a kilo over the cabin bag limit.

Once you have checked in, you just get a blank boarding card - take whatever seat you like. This leads to some serious scrums. Take a kid if you want a good seat, as kids get on first.

On both Easyjet and Ryanair, there is no contracted cleaning on turnarounds, and passengers are asked towards the end of the flight to put their rubbish in a gash bag that the hostie brings down the aisle, and asked again to take rubbish with them when disembarking. The cabin is then cleaned (very superficially) by the cabin crew, so as you can probably imagine, it gets pretty grubby. As turnarounds are limited to 30 mins (ideally 20 mins), there is a lot of pressure to move quickly. There are no check-in machines (staff are cheaper), no lounges, no expensive decoration. They use the handling agent's check-in staff, as it is cheaper than employing their own.

The new Ryanair aircraft have been specified without window shades, seat-back pockets, or anything else not vital to the safety of the flight.

There is minimal handling, so no help if you are infirm or need assistance (unless you pay).

Yields are adjusted on a second-by-second basis to maximise load factors, which is the key to success with the Lo-Co model.

Pilots have to buy their own uniforms, pay for their airport car parking, pay for tea and coffee, etc etc.

You mentioned Air NZ and Airpoints. No such thing in any of the Low Cost carriers, as it costs way too much to administer.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. The point is that the Low-Cost model is built on removing everything not essential to the operation (like allocated seats for example), to cut costs. That is why I say that Air NZ is not Low Cost, but Low Fares. There is a difference. You would have to shed half the Air NZ office staff to even get close to the cut-down offices of the Low Cost carriers. No shiny buildings for them, they cut costs still further by housing their staff in the cheapest possible accomodation - at Luton (the main Easyjet base), this is essentially an old maintenance shed. Compare that to Air NZ's Auckland edifices.

Bottom line, Easyjet have admitted that the airline (ie the bit that operates the aircraft) makes no money at all. All the profit comes from extras, and it amounts to about GBP40 mill a year.

Now I assume that the domestic Air NZ flights that I have been on, between Wellington and Auckland, Christchurch and Nelson, are Express flights (they were certainly pretty cheap), and the there is no doubt at all in my mind that Air NZ is miles away from the Ryanair/Easyjet/Southwest model. I actually like that, because flying with Easyjet et al is not a pleasant experience - you do it because it is cheap.

However, one thing Easyjet don't skimp on is training their pilots. The training is pretty good.

I am not particularly down on Air NZ, I am sure they will bounce back from what was a serious drop from the glory days of the '90's, when they seemed to win awards every month. However, it is a resurgence based on a bailout, and is not an indicator of a good management performance - quite the reverse, in fact. It is easy to recover when you get handed all the cash - suppliers will fall over themselves to give you good deals, as they believe that they can't lose.

With regard to working over here, I had thought to myself that it might be nice to give something back to NZ aviation, and do some instructing. Can I get an instructing job? Even a part-time one? Pass on all those years of airline experience, emergencies, very bad weather, close calls, etc., to trainee pilots? Nope. I would be robbing some other instructor of the precious hours he or she needs to apply to Air Nelson or whatever.

I hope you can see how backwards that is. In NZ, it is the most inexperienced pilots teaching the newcomers. They have almost no experience to draw from. In other countries, older, experienced pilots are preferred, for a whole bunch of reasons - bu mostly that they are experienced, and can pass on a wealth of knowledge to their students.

When I was instructing, I hadn't experienced a genuine emergency, or even had a real weather issue. I was essentially teaching from ignorance. And so it continues.

Go figure...

[splatgothebugs]

MOR

Shall we not get into the fact that UNCLE Hellen gave Air NZ $800 Mill. We all know why they had to after stopping a very good deal with another SA member.

Anyway, my simple point was that due to Air NZ having final say over the LINK airlines they are never going to allow NSN to get 70+ seats as that would interfear with COOKS markets and cause certain temper tantrams amoungst the airlines.

You say you can't find a job instructing or in airline management.

Maybe you didn't look hard enough I could name a few now that would have been even still maybe happy to take on somebody with your experience. :ok: PM if you wish.

You have some very good and interesting points however you should not let them be clouded by your thoughts on the NZ industry.:)

splat:ok:

[MOR]

UNCLE Hellen

Well that had me smirking for at least five minutes... ;)

I agree absolutely that what you say is what is going to happen.

I am simply putting forward the idea that the thinking that leads them there is unimaginative, and dooms the NZ regional market to being stuck in the '80s. They could easily use the bigger aircraft across the network, amongst all the feeders, and make money - but they won't. Ask yourself this: wouldn't it be better if Eagle, Nelson and Cook were all flying the same equipment, to the same SOPs, having one spares stockholding, and so forth? You see, that is the other hallmark of a genuine Low Cost carrier: one aircraft type.

And by having larger aircraft, they could stimulate growth on the network. By having more efficient larger aircraft, save money.

I know, it won't happen. But it should.

C'est la vie and all that.

Regarding work, I didn't cast my net very wide. I only looked in my immediate area, and the only avenue I actively pursued was instructing (for fun, not money - who does it for the money? ;) )

I have never sought a job in airline management!

Always interested to hear of opportunities though.

[Cloud Cutter]

wouldn't it be better if Eagle, Nelson and Cook were all flying the same equipment, to the same SOPs

I have no doubt it will go that way (in fact it has already happened withing the regionals). Just as I said previousely, things like this can't happen overnight (that's why Air NZ didn't just do away with airpoints all together - although I'm sure they will).

It looks quite likely that Air Nelson will get ATRs, bringing the regional fleet to 27 (I think) ATR, 16 B1900D. When the Mount Cook Airline Training Centre (TM) is established (when the sim arrives), I can see SOPs being standardised between the two sections.

If you're keen on instructing, there's a large group of Easyjet Cadets that I'm sure you could contribute to (not to mention the many aero clubs and flying schools that are finding it difficult to hold experienced instructors).

[incidentreport]

instructing.. for fun, not money - who does it for the money?
I know there's not much money in instructing.... but who does it for fun??? :O You've blown me away.... I thought all instructors are just trying to build time for the elusive multi job... Sure does seem that way when ya call into that imfamous flight school in Auckland. :p
Back to Air Nelson... guess there has been no further developments?? Bring on the ATR 42 I'd say... I bet the guys there are hoping NOT to get the 340B's...

[spindoctor]

Have heard from a very reliable source (the refueler) that Air Nelsons fleet will be replaced with...........F27s.........in fact the first one is being reconfigured from a freighter at Ardmore as we speak!


Personally I think this is great and shows the great foresight of all those airport companies that have kept the facilities in place for them.

What a great choice, I can just hear the whistle of those darts now.
:ok:

[MOR]

Instructing is much more fun if you have no pressure to gain hours. I have about 10,000 last time I checked, so for me it is all about the joy of helping struggling students get to grips with aviation, and move on into great careers. I specialise in the "problem" students...!

I found that the instructors I learned the most from, were the old guys with nothing to prove, and a wealth of experience to pass on. They were generally a little calmer in the cockpit, too.

F27, now there is an aircraft. Cheap as chips and strong as the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Immense fun to fly, but dangerous as hell on one engine at MAUW. Good luck finding one with a serviceable autopilot.

Actually very few airports have the facilities for them now, one of which is an air cart to top up the pneumatics (the F27 has pneumatic brakes, undercarriage and nosewheel steering, for those not in the know).

[Cloud Cutter]

I was taught by one of the grumpiest and most experienced instructors in the country. He's still the most skilled pilot I've flown with, and I certainly gained a lot from his experience. It's a real shame there aren't more of these instructors around.

Bring on those fokking Fokkers:} :ok:

[Tape It Shut]

MOR

The problem with NZ aviation is the lack of it. Look around at some of the people’s journeys:

Aeroclub instructing - 6 to 10 years
Mt Cook FO 10 plus years
B744 SO 10 plus years

Look at these posts where people argue which is better, B1900 or Saab. Most of them dreaming to fly the ATR72.

I can't believe any person would go on about flying a 1900, a swept up GA twin. I believe their pay rates are related to just how fantastic the machine is.

If you are a big F27 fan them you should ring Airwork as they are a company that will hire direct entry pilots. They also operate three B737 aircraft.

[spindoctor]

Ah yes but it wouldn't take long to set up each base, all you need is an oxy bottle and regulator or a compressor, get your min pressures and the engines will do the rest. They were designed to be used in remote third world countries where access to things like hydralic fluid at remote airstrips would be a problem (like Hokitika:O ).

The sad thing is that the very last F27C built is still languishing at Woodbourne because of no paperwork (VT-NED) if it can't be sold to an air force somewhere where paperwork is not as important then it will shortly be parted out :( It is a late 1985 model with a very good set of avionics in it (Flight director, good A/P, GPS etc).

All the flight manuals are available, I am sure BG would run off a copy for Air New Zealand :E after all they are the same! And there is a sim available in Florida for a $1 (a US one) :cool:

[ZFT]

Cloud Cutter,

<<When the Mount Cook Airline Training Centre (TM) is established (when the sim arrives>>

Can you expand upon this please?

Thanks

[SkySurfin]

I think Tape it shut might have nailed it on the head. The NZ Aviation Industry is only a small drop in the pond compared to the Markets overseas. Anyone who has flown into the corporate airfields abroad such as Florida, USA or Lanseria, South Africa. will know what I am on about.....every second aircraft on the ramp is private jet!

If you want to get your hands on some good machinery then maybe you should think of 3-4 years abroad. With the right hours (entry to NZ regional hours), you will at least get yourself straight into a twin-turbine with progression onto a Private Jet or such if the company allows. Plus you will enjoy the amazing experience flying somewhere different and meeting new faces.... Not to metion you will get paid twice as much whilst doing so! Just a thought........

If you compare the position of pilot overseas with the same hours to a guy in NZ it is likely youll find a big difference in the aircraft they fly. A guy on a 1900 or J41 back home would most likely be FO on a brand new biz jet of some sort overseas...... Getting paid twice as much.

But then again, there is no place like home! (NZ) ;)

[Cloud Cutter]

ZFT

No, because it is a joke. Was just reffering to the ATR sim that MC are surposedly getting.;)

[MOR]

It is even better than that. The company I was with over there took quite a few (20+) F/O's on the 146 with just 250 hours and an approved course behind them. The Dash fleet is still doing that. Easyjet and Ryanair will take just about anybody who has the type rating and ability - but then very few UK airlines are interested in raw hours. They really want to see a demonstration of skill in a simulator. If you have the skills, the hours aren't very important.

Tape it Shut is indeed correct - NZ is a backwater in aviation terms, and that is reflected in the attitudes of the airlines, and, consequently, the pilot community.

I am quite certain that many of the parochial attitudes here are the result of bitter folk for whom progression was slow, trying to make it tough for anyone who might be able to rise more quickly on the basis of skill and experience gained elsewhere. There is no logical reason for it.

[Tape It Shut]

MOR

Consider this:

In the past the Air NZ operation was combined. The progression was:

F27 Co-Pilot
B737 Co-Pilot
F27 Pilot
B767 Co-Pilot
B737 Pilot
etc etc.

Each pilot had every rating under the sun. Pilots were going from course to course. Each time a new pilot started the rest jumped up the ladder and generally across the fleet. It was reported that each new pilot cost one million to employ due to the cost of training all the others.

This was one of the main reasons for the Link operators. The same is happening now with Air NZ. It has 700 odd pilots with around 500 changing type. It must be costing a fortune. To take on experienced direct entry people makes commercial sense. The fact that we have Maori TV identifies that commercial sense is not a priority for Government funded / owned ventures.

Consider the plight of the Link turbo-prop guy. If he goes to Air NZ to fly jets his previous service means nothing. He is no different to an Origin, Air National, Air Freight, Airwork pilot etc in terms of seniority.

If Air NZ wants to be low cost it should start with training costs. Split the fleet using different companies to operate them. Stop all the pilots constantly fleet jumping and allow each operator to employ the correct people for the job.

For you it is possible to get employment at Air NZ while the Saab pilot with 10 years service stays were he is. So it is not all that bad. You only have to sit in the right hand seat for 10 to 15 years (all care and no responsibility).

[MOR]

And no money either.

[BCF Breath]

Hmmmm, I can see the initial bunfight over who gets to go to the Bankok sim centre if Nsn get ATRs.

I whole heartedly agree with the one type operation. Just look at the amount of A/C origin were operating a few months ago...

And under one company. One lot of everything. So much simpler. But what a senority catfight.

The common SOPs is a good point, esp with the increasing flow to Air NZ.

I'd guess that quite a few Kiwis would like the opportunity to fly in Europe. It's weather alone is an eye-opener. But are unable to get the required passport, therefore the right to work.

Quite a few of my distant rellies gave the ultimate sacrifice for that Island and bits of the mainland but I can't work there.

But, again, there ain't no place like home. Eh!

[Slimpickens]

The 'stove pipe' is expensive during times of growth (now), but one reason it exists is so that junior pilots can progress to higher paid jobs (generally on bigger aircraft and/or command positions) in line with their growing experience . The Air NZ (and Link) pay structure recognises this, unlike some airlines that pay the same ammount regardless of aircraft size (within limits). If Air NZ had to pay 737 f/o's the same as 747 f/o's, their overall crew costs would be huge, and surely diminish any savings they would make from trying to keep people from moving seats. As well, stagnation/boredom is not good for maintaining standards, or staff retention (hence the high turnover of staff at LCCs).
Generally, over the career of an Air NZ pilot, they will move seats once every 5-8 years - hardly what you would call seat hopping. Since joining the company over 7 years ago I have had one seat (on the lowest pay band). The next few years growth are an anomoly of the (good) times.
MOR - your vast overseas experience would be welcome at any airline (if accompanied by the right attitude), including Air NZ, and it is the vast experience of new hires that give Air NZ a very high cockpit experience level compared to the airlines of Europe/Asia etc. It would not be uncommon for a 767 cockpit to have a 20,000 hour captain, 15,000 hour f/o and 10,000 hour s/o!
Recruitment in NZ is generally a case of over-supply and under-demand. NZ punches above it's weight in turning out pilots, thus at any time Air NZ has several hundred pilots on it's books, each with thousands of hours. If you only need 8 guys for an interview, and you have 300 to choose from, experience/hours/command time etc becomes a major point through which to weed them out. The interview process then goes about finding the best fitting person for the job in terms of personality and CRM/crew-suitability.
Splitting the fleets into different operations/companies creates overheads in other areas, so what do you achieve?

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.

BTW, the much-used/abused comments re the $800M handout from the goverment convieniently forgets a few things. It was not a cash handout or gift - the goverment re-capitalised the company through the aquisition of shares (about 82%). It's balance sheet was buggered by the Ansett mess - certainly a bad management decision coupled with goverment (on both sides of the ditch) interference. But the failure of the airline would have meant a failure of the NZ tourism industry, and in turn the economy. 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. Tourism is THAT important to NZ. The company was trading profitably at the time of the Ansett collapse, and has done very well - with new management - since. I understand the debt/equity ratio is now down to about 65% from over 90% at the time of the near collapse.

[splatgothebugs]

I agree one aircraft type for the entire domestic fleet would work and may go that way.

The B190 which is still a baby and is already to small for the routes it is operating on so when it bites the dust in a few years you may see all operators with ATR's. (similar type)


Tape it shut,
The only people who tend to argue on which machine is better are the ones who arent on any of them.:ok:

Sky surfin
As BCF breath pointed out, many of us would love to head off shore but are restricted due to passports or not having the cash to pay out for the conversions.

splat:ok:

[ZFT]

Cloud Cutter,

Thanks for that.

The reason I asked was that I too am hearing rumours of a sim at MC. Trouble is. I don’t know where from.

A new sim will take +2 years to build and if you discount the non 72/42-500 sims in Greece, France and Finland etc..that only leaves the sims in USA, Holland, Bangkok and ATR’s own sims. All these seem fairly busy so can’t see them being relocated..

Any ideas?

[Tape It Shut]

"It would not be uncommon for a 767 cockpit to have a 20,000 hour captain, 15,000 hour f/o and 10,000 hour s/o"


Soon to be a 15,000 hr pilot, 10,000 hr co-pilot and a 20,000 hr worn out old retread stealing the next generation's slot!

[MOR]

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.

[slamer]

"Seniority only counts when you have it"

MOR .....have you heard of the "furlough" system?

I think you wrote earlier you have 15yrs/10000hrs exper etc, every Air NZ Capt and 95% of widebody FO's would match this, many new-hires have Jet cmmd time and also match you.... so whats your point?.
With so much industry experience I would have thought by now you would have figured "it's about having a job, putting food on the table and protecting your conditions" (for most), hard to believe but there are many extremely capable pilots working here who could do your job twice over..... hmmm or maybe you have been on the "open market" a little to long.

You assume your experience and opinions are valuable, correct, transportable, palatable and in common with the current "culture and climate" of Air NZ (or maybe not)
I would suggest by your remarks here, you are completley out of touch with whats going on in NZ, in particular Air NZ, and infact you smack of being "bitter" and having a "tantrum" at not being able to do what you want, when you want within an industry you clearly rate yourself in (I wonder how that would come across at the Interview) .......hmmm sounds like you've had the Cmmd a little to long!!!

[MOR]

Well, no, you have all that completely wrong.

First of all, I have no desire whatsoever to work for Air NZ. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt etc.

If you read back a bit, you will see that my comments were in relation to Air Nelson. Now I have no desire to work for them either, but the point remains a valid one.

I have chosen the path I am now on, and can in fact have my job back in Europe whenever I want it. Believe it or not (and many here will not be unable to understand this), there are other things in life a lot more rewarding than flying airliners (especially when "flying" actually means "monitoring").

It isn't really important, and I mention it only to illustrate the differences between here and Europe, but the difference between me and your 15 yr/10,000 hour Air NZ pilot, is that most (about 8000) of my hours are in command of transport-category aircraft.

But who cares? I don't, really. I accept the system for what it is, I don't think it is a good or sensible system, but nothing I think is going to change it. Posts like yours typify the problem; throw some insults around, and comprehensively fail to answer the basic question. Don't debate the issue, just raise the finger. How adult of you.

The rest of the insults in your rant, well, not worth the bother responding to.

Oh, and by the way, what the hell has the "furlough" system got to do with anything? Common in the US, very uncommon in Europe, never heard of it here.

[Cloud Cutter]

ZFT

I first heard about this sim thing nearly two years ago from MC management (PO), from what he said, the sim is now overdue - perhaps there has been a change of plans but as far as I'm aware getting a sim was the answer to CAA cracking down on 'real aircraft' conversion training on 121 size operations.

Of course the other option is sending pilots to Thailand, but that gets a bit expensive after a while. I would sugest the decision will be based on the NSN fleet replacement. Certainly a sim is the best option for a 28 ATR operation, perhaps not for 10? I have no idea where the sim would come from.

Anyone from MC care to enlighten us?

[Woomera]

Passed the magic 100 posts.

Feel free to start part 2.

W