Covid Air NZ [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

View Full Version : Covid Air NZ

DeltaT

10th Aug 2020, 11:47

The initial Covid hardships of Air NZ were announced to be "through no fault of our own", despite them being one of the two ways for Covid to enter into New Zealand at the time (airline or ship), cough, however now with the airline transporting new international arrivals to their quarantine alternative city outside Auckland it seems Air NZ cannot of course be found at fault again at all. Rose coloured tinted glasses anyone?
The flights have sparked concern from an Air NZ crew member, who fears it will “only be a matter of time” before a flight attendant catches Covid-19 from one of the passengers and becomes a source of community transmission.
Crew raise fears over Auckland-to-Wellington managed isolation flights (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122396089/crew-raise-fears-over-aucklandtowellington-managed-isolation-flights)
Air NZ now rostering separate crews for A320 international and domestic flights (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122015183/air-nz-now-rostering-separate-crews-for-a320-international-and-domestic-flights?rm=a)

compressor stall

10th Aug 2020, 12:00

I'm surprised they have taken that long to do this. And is it enough - it is even more preferable to not mix crew within a fleet. ie. Create a crew and keep them as one crew so as far as practical for a few weeks. That will stop one positive crew member taking out multiple crews.

ElZilcho

10th Aug 2020, 20:51

The "Concerned Crew member" could of opted out of the flight if they were so concerned, but running to Media gets more likes on Social media I guess.

Air NZ are doing what the MOH tell them. That's why crew are getting jabbed up the nose multiple times per roster and locking themselves in Hotel rooms... on both ends of a TOD.
But hey, if the local PPRune Virologists think they know better then by all means, ask Ashley Bloomfield if he wants a break and step up.

RubberDogPoop

10th Aug 2020, 22:15

What a bizarre post all round??? “Rose-tinted glasses anyone” - more like the most tin foil-hatted, tenuous attempt to link one airline to a virus sweeping the globe that you ever will see. The word facile comes to mind....
The link to an article dated July 3 really tops it off (take note CS) - as you say Zilch, I guess less “likes” with an actually supported argument.

So far; one confirmed case of pax to cabin crew transmission ON an aircraft. In the world. Ever.
Last AirNZ crew positive - April. Before the current measures were in place, and before the airline world truely came to a halt.

Rational risk analysis glasses anyone?

empacher48

11th Aug 2020, 00:02

But, but, but it’s a scary headline, which means the news website gets more hits, which gets them more advertising too.

Who really cares about the facts that can be hidden when you can get more advertising dollars?

NZ is now a country that is jumping at shadows.

compressor stall

11th Aug 2020, 05:44

If the local PPRune Virologists think they know better then by all means, ask Ashley Bloomfield if he wants a break and step up.

I'm not sure if that was a jab at me, but if so, I make no claims to be a PPRunNe Virologist, I was just repeating what various Government health departments, airline manufacturers and dedicated Aviation medical services have said at different times.

Rubberdog - point taken about the date being 5 weeks ago (I didn't note that) but that's not relevant as that recommendation was about well before that. In fact before April in fact when apparently the last ANZ positive CC was.

As I said, it's not just the pax to CC danger - it's mitigating the risk of one crew member being positive (possibly acquired outside of work) taking out multiple crews during interactions in the galley / crew bus / briefing room etc. Some other airlines had done the risk analysis and had implemented this procedure in March / April.

DeltaT

11th Aug 2020, 07:13

But hey, if the local PPRune Virologists think they know better then by all means, ask Ashley Bloomfield if he wants a break and step up.

It would be fantastic if people didn't need Ashley Bloomfield to tell them the minimum requirement, and could instead think for themselves and exceed that minimum standard, perhaps even before they were told what it is.
I trust you are not waiting on Mr Bloomfield to tell you to use wipes in the cockpit?

Interesting that change one crew member for another is seen as a solution.

mattyj

11th Aug 2020, 12:02

Well the science says lockdowns don’t prevent spread of covid19 and indications are that lockdowns actually exacerbate the spread...and I just listened to Ashley send us back into level 3. So obviously science doesn’t inform his decisions

Slezy9

11th Aug 2020, 14:06

DeltaT

12th Aug 2020, 05:09

Mattyj, I would love to see your reference for that. Perhaps that latest cultivation was a bit strong.

Well Elzilcho, it would seem someone in Air NZ did wake up and decide to exceed the minimum beyond Mr Bloomfield. Well done. Lets hope they can think of more.

Masks mandatory on Air NZ as Auckland locks down (https://australianaviation.com.au/2020/08/masks-mandatory-on-air-new-zealand-as-auckland-locks-down/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12082020)

Air New Zealand will for the first time force all passengers departing Auckland to wear masks, following news the city will re-enter lockdown for three days.

The airline also announced seats will now be kept free between travelling groups, food and drink will not be served on board, and lounges and valet parking will close.

On Tuesday, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the Auckland region would re-enter an ‘alert level 3’ lockdown from Wednesday at midday due to four new COVID-19 cases being identified, with people back to working from home and gatherings of more than 10 people banned.

The rest of the country will face lighter ‘alert level 2’ restrictions, which will limit mass gatherings to 100 people and see the return of social distancing.

Air New Zealand chief executive Greg Foran said, “Customers are welcome to bring their own masks, otherwise these will be provided by the airline once on board. We’re also encouraging customers travelling from other ports to consider wearing a mask, however this is not compulsory.”

Previously, during the height of the pandemic in April, the airline’s staff wore masks but passengers were not required to.

Recently, the business has said customers are simply “welcome to bring” (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/121854013/air-nz-maintains-optional-face-mask-stance-while-major-airlines-make-them-compulsory) their own. In contrast, Auckland Airport itself has said the wearing of masks isn’t mandatory in the terminal but simply “strongly recommended”.

Local publication Stuff previously reported that the national advice around face masks for air travel was that they were neither required nor discouraged.

Air New Zealand’s other changes include:

Asking all of its front of house employees to wear gloves and masks;
Closing every second check-in kiosk at larger airports;
Reinstating social distancing at check-in desks via floor stickers;
Keeping middle seats free between groups;
Slowing down boarding and disembarking;
Removing in-flight magazine Kia Ora;
Shutting lounges and valet parking;
Stopping food and beverage services; and
Stopping the distribution of in-flight lollies.

billyt

12th Aug 2020, 05:38

mattyj

12th Aug 2020, 10:15

https://www.aier.org/article/experience-from-other-countries-show-lockdowns-dont-work/

lockdowns don’t work..

Pearly White

12th Aug 2020, 14:28

lockdowns don’t work..
But where's the evidence/indication that lockdowns may actually exacerbate the spread?

ElZilcho

12th Aug 2020, 23:10

It would be fantastic if people didn't need Ashley Bloomfield to tell them the minimum requirement, and could instead think for themselves and exceed that minimum standard, perhaps even before they were told what it is.
I trust you are not waiting on Mr Bloomfield to tell you to use wipes in the cockpit?

Interesting that change one crew member for another is seen as a solution.

Air NZ management have been in frequent meetings with MOH for several months now and in several occasions had actually implemented procedures over and above what the MOH were advocating. In some instances, those procedures were than adopted by MOH into their official guidelines for all Air Crew.

You of course, won't find that in a stuff.co.nz article.

I have no idea who you fly for or what your beef is with Air NZ, but it would seem there are some members of the populace who won't be happy until all Airlines are grounded and their staff unemployed. It doesn't matter what the Airlines do, someone like yourself will come along, no doubt with a degree from the University of youtube, and say they should of done more.

Replacing a Crew member is not a mitigation for COVID 19, don't attempt to mince my words. Any Crew member who is not comfortable operating has been given the ability to opt-out under the circumstances.
So long as Aircraft are operating, Citizens allowed to return home and Global freight still being shipped, there is a Risk of COVID. That risk cannot be eliminated entirely. Either accept it, or take the day off work. Running to the media accomplishes nothing except to feed the panic and fear the Media so enjoy spreading.

propaganda

13th Aug 2020, 07:20

The sooner we all realise Covid -19 is here to stay the better - it ain't going anywhere. We cannot eradicate it, and until a safe vaccine is readily available - we'll need to live with Covid -19 and do all we can to protect ourselves and others. The economic impact of a further lockdown is going to be apocalyptic for many NZ businesses - the Govt have some hard calls to make.

Chris2303

13th Aug 2020, 08:01

DeltaT

13th Aug 2020, 08:24

ElZilcho

13th Aug 2020, 22:10

Elzilho, one minute its the minimums from MOH that AirNZ adhere to and god forbid anything more, and it has to be a virologist to know better, to now ANZ does know bettter than Bloomfield to go beyond, and have virologists apparently working for you, which is it?
Clearly going to the media did cause the company to make changes and seperate crew from international and domestic duties.
Yes there is a risk, and people at the coal-face make suggestions on how to reduce that risk. Just because management did not think of it doesn't make it inherently wrong in the first instance.
So quick to make it personal as you have done before on here, is that your only way to debate? I am not sure why you seek to be so controlling and use such a bully tactic. This is a internet forum not your place of work and you have no authority over me. Air NZ operates in the public arena and as such are open to scrutiny just as are politicians and the like, and there will not be a barrier to that scrutiny on pprune just because you don't like it.

It's neither and it's both. Take your pick.
The Airline and MOH have been in collaboration for months to keep the supply chains open (Air Freight, Returning Citizens) while managing the risks associated with COVID. The point is, information is being freely exchanged between the two, many of which you wont read in the Newspaper. I've honestly lost count how many times the procedures have been modified over the last few months.
During this period, some CC (including Union reps) have taken it upon themselves to leak information to the Media, often distorting the details and/or lacking proper context in a misguided attempt to save Jobs. So much so in fact, that the Pilot unions (and possibly the engineers) have distanced themselves from the CC. I feel for them, I really do, but they've done themselves more harm than good.

Interestingly enough, in my last refresher course (done during COVID), one of the topics was Decompression and the effects of Hypoxia... time of useful consciousness all that jazz. One of the Videos we got to watch was in an Altitude Chamber with an explosive decompression at altitude. Even though he knew it was coming, and his mask was right in front of him, he failed to get it on in time. Obviously a Domestic COVID flight will be at a lower altitude, especially the T-Props, but what effect does "Full PPE" have on a Crew's ability to perform their duties in the event of an emergency? Has it been tested? Beware law of unintended consequences... nothing exists in a Vacuum, unless it's Media windup.

Separating International and Domestic CC sounds great for the papers to appease the Court of Public opinion. In practice however, what exactly has it accomplished? Those international CC cannot operate a Domestic duty following an international one, but they can go shopping at the local mall because, reasons? This of course leads into the old "Crew should be stood down for 14 days" argument. But we know, that would simply lead to the operation not being viable and further jobs lost. Some say that doesn't matter "Lives before Profit". But we also know you cannot legally prevent a Citizen from returning home... so if Air NZ don't bring em in, the Chinese carriers will. Then what? Can't keep them all in Auckland, so we'll go from COVID flights to COVID busses.... do we then stand the Bus Drivers down for 14 days?
Border Staff and Quarantine Facility staff, who are arguably at a higher risk of COVID than Crew haven't been getting tested and have avoided scrutiny by the media because...they're not Air NZ so no one cares? Only now that COVID is back in the Community have lapses in procedures and testing at these facilities comes to light. Do these workers have to isolate for 14 days after a shift? Or do they go back home to their families and the local community in the same manner Crew do because precautions are being taken?

Honestly, I have no time for people who start threads and bash an Airline (any Airline) on the basis of click baity media articles full of half truths and no context. These are the same "journalists" who love to talk about Aircraft "plummeting" and Pax "fearing for the lives" everytime we take-off. As Pilots, we can usually through this nonsense so why should COVID be any different?

donkey123

13th Aug 2020, 23:13

Spot on ElZilcho.

Is anyone who has operated Internationally recently honestly surprised by these latest revelations re Border staff etc? Whilst we have been contending with the constant change in MoH guidelines (rightly so) only this week have they mandated asymptomatic testing of front line staff at the airport.

Elephant in the corner of room etc.....

InZed

14th Aug 2020, 23:31

It's neither and it's both. Take your pick.
The Airline and MOH have been in collaboration for months to keep the supply chains open (Air Freight, Returning Citizens) while managing the risks associated with COVID. The point is, information is being freely exchanged between the two, many of which you wont read in the Newspaper. I've honestly lost count how many times the procedures have been modified over the last few months.
During this period, some CC (including Union reps) have taken it upon themselves to leak information to the Media, often distorting the details and/or lacking proper context in a misguided attempt to save Jobs. So much so in fact, that the Pilot unions (and possibly the engineers) have distanced themselves from the CC. I feel for them, I really do, but they've done themselves more harm than good.

Interestingly enough, in my last refresher course (done during COVID), one of the topics was Decompression and the effects of Hypoxia... time of useful consciousness all that jazz. One of the Videos we got to watch was in an Altitude Chamber with an explosive decompression at altitude. Even though he knew it was coming, and his mask was right in front of him, he failed to get it on in time. Obviously a Domestic COVID flight will be at a lower altitude, especially the T-Props, but what effect does "Full PPE" have on a Crew's ability to perform their duties in the event of an emergency? Has it been tested? Beware law of unintended consequences... nothing exists in a Vacuum, unless it's Media windup.

Separating International and Domestic CC sounds great for the papers to appease the Court of Public opinion. In practice however, what exactly has it accomplished? Those international CC cannot operate a Domestic duty following an international one, but they can go shopping at the local mall because, reasons? This of course leads into the old "Crew should be stood down for 14 days" argument. But we know, that would simply lead to the operation not being viable and further jobs lost. Some say that doesn't matter "Lives before Profit". But we also know you cannot legally prevent a Citizen from returning home... so if Air NZ don't bring em in, the Chinese carriers will. Then what? Can't keep them all in Auckland, so we'll go from COVID flights to COVID busses.... do we then stand the Bus Drivers down for 14 days?
Border Staff and Quarantine Facility staff, who are arguably at a higher risk of COVID than Crew haven't been getting tested and have avoided scrutiny by the media because...they're not Air NZ so no one cares? Only now that COVID is back in the Community have lapses in procedures and testing at these facilities comes to light. Do these workers have to isolate for 14 days after a shift? Or do they go back home to their families and the local community in the same manner Crew do because precautions are being taken?

Honestly, I have no time for people who start threads and bash an Airline (any Airline) on the basis of click baity media articles full of half truths and no context. These are the same "journalists" who love to talk about Aircraft "plummeting" and Pax "fearing for the lives" everytime we take-off. As Pilots, we can usually through this nonsense so why should COVID be any different?

Eloquent and well put EZ. DeltaT is potentially a disgruntled pilot from an Australian airline stood down or redundant, sitting at home and trying their hardest to read whatever airline news they can get their hands on, which is limited to clickbait articles.

I have personally received screenshots from a VANZ Captain who has been sitting at home for six months... and some of the conspiracies he is now sharing on social media is bewildering. Completely lost touch with reality. Reading all the clickbait as truth. Career spent studying FCOMs and desperate to keep the sane amount of ‘study‘ up.

Perspective is key. And getting accurate information from multiple sources. Keep up god’s work of quashing the bullshot on this forum.

mattyj

15th Aug 2020, 10:32

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1

one of dozens of studies showing that the greatest transmission of the virus happens in the home. Also staying indoors and reduced exercise and vitamin D is detrimental to your health..medicine 101

LOCKDOWNS DON’T WORK

mattyj

15th Aug 2020, 10:37

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3181

“transmission in the home is thought to account for roughly 70% of ALL cases”

RubberDogPoop

16th Aug 2020, 01:09

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1

one of dozens of studies showing that the greatest transmission of the virus happens in the home.
It’s important to put a space...
Also staying indoors and reduced exercise and vitamin D is detrimental to your health..medicine 101
...in between...
LOCKDOWNS DON’T WORK
...all these statements....
...transmission in the home is thought to account for roughly 70% of ALL cases.
because while they may stand alone, some of them aren’t proven, and nor is the link....

here_we_go_again

16th Aug 2020, 01:54

“transmission in the home is thought to account for roughly 70% of ALL cases”
Grabbing more information:

"Current test and trace policies have mainly focused on preventing spread in care homes, hospitals, and in the community. However, contact within households is thought to be responsible for roughly 70% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission when widespread community control measures are in place. In Wuhan, the reproduction number (R) dropped from 3.54 to 1.18 after lockdown and cordon sanitaire. But the epidemic was only brought under complete control when Fangcang (field) hospitals were introduced to isolate cases outside the home, with R dropping to 0.51 after two weeks."

What the reporting actually says is lock downs more than halved the spread however further (and significant) reduction in cases could be achieved by reducing transmission within households. Most in New Zealand will be aware new cases are now being moved to managed isolation where these necessary controls can be enacted.

Don't get me wrong, I personally lean towards the side of the fence that we are jumping at shadows but lets not start misrepresenting what authors have said. Also, your first link isn't (as yet) peer reviewed which is important to note.

DeltaT

18th Aug 2020, 06:38

InZed

18th Aug 2020, 08:09

On the 6pm News just now, experts, including epidemiologists are confused by aircrew exemptions.
Well I guess with the MOH knowing better, they are guilty of conspiracy claims according to the people on here.

The Company (DM) sent out a long email with attachments full of exactly how we meet MOH guidelines.

waren9

18th Aug 2020, 11:56

Election time. There's going to be emails and attachments up the waazoo until beyond.

Ollie Onion

18th Aug 2020, 19:51

Air NZ’s life is about to get very hard with new rules likely around isolation of international crew with testing. The Government has been embarrassed about airline crew testing and will react.

billyt

18th Aug 2020, 20:00

So assume those international airlines operating into NZ would have to comply as well. I can see some problems there.

ElZilcho

18th Aug 2020, 21:17

Air NZ’s life is about to get very hard with new rules likely around isolation of international crew with testing. The Government has been embarrassed about airline crew testing and will react.

International Aircrew are getting tested up to 4 times a month (if not more) depending on how much they're working.... compare this to Border and Isolation facility staff, some of who haven't been tested at all.

The media is on a witch hunt and crew are the scapegoat. Partly, no doubt, due to the Bluff wedding cluster which caught everyone off guard at the start of the pandemic, but also because it's Air NZ and we're no stranger to certain media outlets and their constant wind ups. Even the experts (academics) can't agree with each other, not specifically here, but globally. Every media major outlet in the world has been able to find themselves an expert willing to push their particular narrative... be it Herd Immunity, Lockdowns work/don't work, use of hydroxychloroquine etc etc
The previous experts (so I'm told) decided on a 48hr isolation for NZ based Crew on the basis that our movements were so heavily controlled while on a TOD, along with the required use of PPE and private transport, unlike arriving citizens whose movements are less known prior to arrival.
The new experts seem to disagree with this, and as the Media's decided to run with it, no doubt we'll get another change which will be complied with. If it's a 14 day isolation, this will heavily impact the viability of international operations and the Government may need to re-evaluate their freight options.

Honestly, at the moment, I have more chance of catching COVID at my local supermarket than I do in HKG, LA or anywhere else because everything is so tightly controlled. When's the last time anyone here actually operated internationally? Particularly to China/HKG?

The point is, as Cliche' as it is to say, there is no manual for COVID. The NZ Government, along with Airlines, are constantly evaluating and modifying procedures based on new advise/evidence... as they should. As Crew, we'll continue to comply or remove ourselves from duty if required. (In the beginning, PVG was basically a squaller detention centre so many crew refused to operate while some foreign carriers staged their PVG freight through HKG).

There are some who will condemn Air NZ everytime an expert says we could be doing better. Again, that's usual round here... plenty with chips on their shoulders, usually stemming from a failed interview 20 years ago and they can't let it go. QF seems to get the same vitriol from time to time. People just need to let it go. Specifically COVID, Air NZ are trying to keep the doors open and have been working with the MOH and Government (our majority shareholder) to do just that. That seems to be a source of angst for some. Perhaps they've lost their jobs and wont be happy until the rest of us have as well.

So assume those international airlines operating into NZ would have to comply as well. I can see some problems there.

The MOH procedures for Aircrew are separated into 2 categories. NZ based Crew returning from overseas and foreign crew laying over in NZ.
It's all here:

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-information-specific-audiences/covid-19-resources-border-sector/covid-19-aviation-sector#requirements

kiwi grey

19th Aug 2020, 01:16

Ollie Onion

19th Aug 2020, 01:52

I am not saying Air NZ is not doing a good job, just that the media seems to have turned on aircrew and if there is one thing this Government does is react to public opinion. There will be new orders issued at some point in the next 48 hours with visible 'steps' to allow the government to show just how seriously they are taking this. I am not concerned about air nz crew at all, but I do have my doubts over the non NZ based crew who are staying in hotels with no infection protocols mixing with the public at check in and check out who are operating to a 'trust' model that they won't go out of their room. That is the gaping hole in the air crew procedure.

ElZilcho

19th Aug 2020, 02:45

The government may need to provide some air-side accommodation for isolation of aircrew. Non-AirNZ crew would go there for their layovers, AirNZ crew would stay there during a rostered period, then transition to land-side MIQ for 14 days at the end of their rostered period.
It would be grossly inconvenient and inefficient, but would significantly increase the perceived safety

The facility might actually be land-side but deemed to be air-side for this purpose, and managed separately as if it were land-side.

A 14 day Isolation for Crew would certainly appease the mob. It would also result in a large number of crew refusing to work... and legally, could Air NZ force them too? Are border staff isolated for 14 days after a shift?

I can't recall if Air NZ have explicitly said as much, but the message has certainly been clear that a 14 day isolation would result in International flying being non-viable. Cost of the Isolation facility is one factor, but the sheer number of Crew required to operate (and who agree to operate) would be absurd. It would require a lot of 787 type ratings purely to get through COVID. A standard 4 day TOD would turn into 18.

This is where the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They actually want Air NZ to keep flying to keep the freight channels open... people can talk about NZ being "self sufficient" all they want, but it doesn't happen overnight. If the MOH make the operation non-viable, will the Government dig deeper into the coffers to cover the additional costs?

Already, we're seeing Media articles (they love to stir the pot) questioning if an employer (not specifically Air NZ) could force employees to be tested... so the same applies, can we be forced to isolate in a Government run facility for 14 days everytime we go to work?

What ever happened to flatting the curve? Things are going to get incredibly messier the longer we keep pursuing elimination.... unless we close the borders entirely (which isn't lega) COVID will always find a way back. For example:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/423825/covid-19-infected-rydges-hotel-worker-had-no-obvious-contact-with-traveller

I am not saying Air NZ is not doing a good job, just that the media seems to have turned on aircrew and if there is one thing this Government does is react to public opinion. There will be new orders issued at some point in the next 48 hours with visible 'steps' to allow the government to show just how seriously they are taking this. I am not concerned about air nz crew at all, but I do have my doubts over the non NZ based crew who are staying in hotels with no infection protocols mixing with the public at check in and check out who are operating to a 'trust' model that they won't go out of their room. That is the gaping hole in the air crew procedure.

Sorry Ollie I wasn't implying that you were having a go. I quoted you to discuss your comment about the Government but drifted in order to respond to those with an axe to grind.

We're all waiting for the updated procedures which we know are coming. Every single time there's an article in the paper about Crew something changes so we're all too used to it.
Hope to see some changes for International Crew. It's ironic that MOH are so strict on NZ crew while we're away, yet so lax on other crews laying over... the same way they've dropped the ball with border staff and isolation facility staff.

Truth is though, as I've said above, it's unlikely we'll ever eliminate it "permanently". Maybe 100 days here and there with rolling lockdowns, but given how contagious it is, combined with how mild the symptoms can be for so many people, it's incredibly likely it'll find it's way back eventually. I'd say we'll see a shift towards suppression after the election.... regardless of who's in power, and then we might stop seeing the Media wind ups every time a case crops up here and there. Just my personal opinion of course, I'm not expert on the subject, but I feel we should of stayed in Level 2 after the first wave, and Auckland should be level 2 not 3 now. Even if a Vaccine were available tomorrow, COVID wont be going away overnight.

DeltaT

3rd Sep 2020, 13:36

billyt

3rd Sep 2020, 21:56

!6 days Delta without posting on this thread. See if you can increase the the time before the next posting.

Everyone in NZ now have to wear masks when on public transport.
Now that the requirement for masks is mandatory there is really no necessity for airlines to require distancing. No other public transport have this requirement.
The fight attendant transmission happened right at the beginning of the awareness of of covid when almost no procedures worldwide were in place.

DeltaT

4th Sep 2020, 01:41

Historically some of the rules for everyone else didn't always apply to Air NZ.

viatheairporthold

4th Sep 2020, 05:07

Now that the requirement for masks is mandatory there is really no necessity for airlines to require distancing. No other public transport have this requirement.

You obviously havent taken a bus lately

RubberDogPoop

18th Sep 2020, 00:40

All domestic crew and pax now to wear masks
Pax seated with distancing
Flight Attendant transmission from LA found to be the cause of the Bluff wedding cluster. (airline not stated)

What was the mockery of rational risk analysis glasses anyone, and conspiracy theories along with how could anyone else outside the company possibly rationalize something needed to be done.
IN YOUR FACE.

Oops! This didn't age well did it Delta?
All on board to wear masks. Amazing what a reversal of WHO advice will do huh?
Pax seated with distancing - GONE already. As if the empty middle seat circa 80cm complied with with the "two metre rule", or even the "one metre rule". Window dressing for the public, like 9/11 security. Someone made a rational, fact-based analysis obviously....
FA transmission the cause of Bluff cluster. NO SH!T! You did know that already right? That's old news. Late March was it? (BEFORE any measures were in place). It was AirNZ, as stated at the time. Hardly a cover-up. Relevance to now? NONE.

Historically some of the rules for everyone else didn't always apply to Air NZ.
An example would be.....

It'd be better if you just were a little more honest with yourself about some glaring biases that you're carrying - I said be rational and I meant it....

#thedaysofcogentargurmentsaregone

Anti Skid On

18th Sep 2020, 01:18

Oops! This didn't age well did it Delta?
All on board to wear masks. Amazing what a reversal of WHO advice will do huh?
Pax seated with distancing - GONE already. As if the empty middle seat circa 80cm complied with with the "two metre rule", or even the "one metre rule". Window dressing for the public, like 9/11 security. Someone made a rational, fact-based analysis obviously....
FA transmission the cause of Bluff cluster. NO SH!T! You did know that already right? That's old news. Late March was it? (BEFORE any measures were in place). It was AirNZ, as stated at the time. Hardly a cover-up. Relevance to now? NONE.

An example would be.....

It'd be better if you just were a little more honest with yourself about some glaring biases that you're carrying - I said be rational and I meant it....

#thedaysofcogentargurmentsaregone

Re. the 1 metre/ 2 metre / keep the middle seat empty stuff. The positive pressure within the aircraft was always seen as something that reduced risk of transmission (harder on short haul where the ratio of ground time, air con off to flight time, air con on will be greater). The distances in public are always going to be notional, as nobody in their right mind is going to do a randomised control trial to get an exact distance, plus the uncontrollable variables of wind, etc.

Let's just celebrate NZ's lack of deaths, a health service that hasn't been wrecked (in some countries over 10% of health staff have succumbed), and we have flights that can now be fully booked, at least providing more work and more revenue

InZed

18th Sep 2020, 07:53

Let's just celebrate NZ's lack of deaths, a health service that hasn't been wrecked (in some countries over 10% of health staff have succumbed), and we have flights that can now be fully booked, at least providing more work and more revenue

Amen. I think the NZ response (aka Jacinda’s response) in a quickly changing environment with new information and recommendations constantly coming out has been world class.

Other countries want to be us. And I think Air NZ have played their cards correctly and fluctuated to meet the requirements and demands of the government, IATA, WHO, MOH, customers, shareholders and media...

DeltaT

18th Sep 2020, 11:56

Elzilcho = RubberDogPoop = InZed

InZed

18th Sep 2020, 20:14

Elzilcho = RubberDogPoop = InZed

If everyone is saying the same thing in the room.
The media is saying the same thing.
The government is saying the same thing.
The company is saying the same thing.
But you think they’re all wrong.

Who is the crazy one in the room here?

waren9

18th Sep 2020, 22:48

Historically some of the rules for everyone else didn't always apply to Air NZ.

Love to hear the examples that form your views

ElZilcho

19th Sep 2020, 05:42

Love to hear the examples that form your views

Suspect the answer will be along the lines of Elzilcho = RubberDogPoop = InZed = waren9 :}

Re. the 1 metre/ 2 metre / keep the middle seat empty stuff. The positive pressure within the aircraft was always seen as something that reduced risk of transmission (harder on short haul where the ratio of ground time, air con off to flight time, air con on will be greater). The distances in public are always going to be notional, as nobody in their right mind is going to do a randomised control trial to get an exact distance, plus the uncontrollable variables of wind, etc.

Let's just celebrate NZ's lack of deaths, a health service that hasn't been wrecked (in some countries over 10% of health staff have succumbed), and we have flights that can now be fully booked, at least providing more work and more revenue

This is a real sore point for me.
There are many people, in various jobs, who are at a far greater risk of contracting COVID than Aircrew. But because overseas is deemed as "scary", we become the scapegoats. Imagine if your local GP had to isolate from their family after every shift and get a COVID test... yet as we're seeing overseas, not even medical grade PPE is protecting them because they're around sick people all day.

As an example, First Responders in NZ can work on a Patient, showing symptoms of COVID, only to go about their day/shift as normal after dropping them at the Hospital... if that Patient then tests positive for COVID, the First Responders will be contact traced sometime in the next 2 weeks. Why? Because if every Ambo had to go into isolation because they worked on a Patient with a runny nose, we'd have none left.

Plain and simple, this a COVID election. Anything the media decides to go after and scare the public with, the Government jumps at.

DeltaT

21st Sep 2020, 05:55

Anti Skid On

21st Sep 2020, 10:08

Imagine if your local GP had to isolate from their family after every shift and get a COVID test... yet as we're seeing overseas, not even medical grade PPE is protecting them because they're around sick people all day.

Your local GP isn't likely to come into contact with a Covid case; face to face consultations are no longer the norm, and if it does happen it will be on the basis of a structured assessment that determines risk. If you are symptomatic you are seen by people wearing the gear.

Plain and simple, this a COVID election. Anything the media decides to go after and scare the public with, the Government jumps at.

I don't think that is the media creating the scares, it is the idiots with their conspiracy theories that is causing the upset; that and people ranting about alleged failures in systems. We've had nearly 50000 people cross the border and had a handful of dickheads disobey the systems. This was pounced on by the opposition to win brownie points. We are fortunate that we already had well developed track and trace systems for all communicable diseases. Yes, it is a Covid election, because the government are being judged on how they handled a very exceptional scenario. We don't have massive deaths, our systems are pretty much in tact. Inbound tourism is screwed for the time being (till who knows when), but as Kiwi's we are making the most of our own backyard and the return to nearer normal domestic schedules will create more domestic leisure opportunities for all of us.

InZed

21st Sep 2020, 18:11

I see Foran went out on the media and expressed his view that a vaccine will only be 50% effective and take years to distribute.
How dare he go out against the status quo and think for himself based on the survey of 10000 Americans.
My god thats a conspiracy in the making right there with him thinking he knows better than anyone else.
Quick he must be subjigated by his pilot workforce, and have a psychological assessment too.
The world is going to end because of this one person, oh no!

I read the articles, including the Sydney Morning Herald, and didn’t see him say “50% effective” - without looking it up again to reference, I believe he referred to its effectiveness that ‘not everyone will take it and it won’t be 100% effective’.

I personally think there’s room for SOME relaxation. It will have to happen eventually. He’s got money in the game so of course he is going to have certain opinions. But relaxing borders to low risk countries (Taiwan, South Korea etc) and reduce their quarantine to one week on arrival (or arrival back into NZ if you’re going on holiday) is manageable. Compulsory mask coverings etc. will remain, but we all seem pretty used to wearing those nowadays. At least in Auckland.

It COULD work to specific countries with specific rules.

Ollie Onion

21st Sep 2020, 21:53

As you say that Jacinda has come out and said that masks are no longer compulsory on flights that don't arrive or depart in Auckland. I would have thought the sensible move would have been to retain masks on aircraft and public transport for the extra level of protection.

DeltaT

22nd Sep 2020, 09:14

I read the articles, including the Sydney Morning Herald, and didn’t see him say “50% effective” - without looking it up again to reference, I believe he referred to its effectiveness that ‘not everyone will take it and it won’t be 100% effective’.
Correct.
Article (https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/122831624/coronavirus-air-new-zealand-ceo-questions-nzs-covid19-strategy-is-he-right) : "Foran told the Sydney Morning Herald that after a successful vaccine is found, it will only, perhaps, be 50 per cent effective and take years to distribute around the world.".
Foran quote: ""In America... they've recently done a survey over there and only half the people said they'll take the vaccine," he says. "And then, of course, we have reinfection rates."

Ollie, are you trying to tell people something sensible? You are on thin ice, watch out for the backlash, the insults, gas lighting, and that you are inciting a conspiracy accusations.

Meanwhile, UK airlines Easyjet and Ryanair for the sake of everyone ARE making masks compulsory and no longer providing food service. However Air NZ are now introducing back drinks and snacks while face masks are mandatory...(errr doesn't that mean they all take their masks off when eating and drinking at the same time of food service?!)
Masks then stop being mandatory under level 1 outside to/from Auckland.
...IATA press release 66 / 24 Aug 20: "Wearing face coverings is a key recommendation of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) guidance for safe operations during the pandemic, as developed jointly with the World Health Organization and governments." I guess nz govt wasn't part of that.

Anti Skid On

23rd Sep 2020, 07:03

InZed

23rd Sep 2020, 09:45

6080ft

24th Sep 2020, 00:58

Minor subject change - what’s happened to the Q300 SFM? AM standing in at the moment... and now Q300 DFM advertised?

I appreciate that the future outlook for fleet management will be:
- SFM Wide Body
- SFM Narrow Body
- SFM Turboprop

They still appear to be dropping like flies.

Rumour has it....... on leave while his wife takes an employment case to court over her dismissal.

Id say you are bang on regarding fleet management going forward.

DeltaT

24th Sep 2020, 03:35

Trying for thread drift too now? Why would you post that in a Covid related thread? bahaha nice try.

A work colleague did WLG - ROT this morning and Air NZ insisted on them from boarding until arrival.
Looks like they are keeping masks as required on all domestic flights while AKL on level 2, though food and beverage services start from 24th.

Chris2303

25th Sep 2020, 05:33

Air NZ is now using Government loan

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/122895302/air-nz-draws-on-900m-government-loan-expects-to-complete-capital-raising-by-june

mattyj

25th Sep 2020, 20:08

You can wear any old rubbish on your face and that satisfies the anxious. The reusable floral masks my family have on examination are useless. The blue paper ones I wear at my new job post airline are uncomfortable, get all fluffy after a few hours interaction with my stubble, and the fibers send me into coughing spasms by the end of the shift. (They’re gonna be super uncomfortable when it gets hot and humid in summer)

IMHO its just being seen to do something which makes some people feel better than doing nothing at all. (Like taking a pic of the tracing poster on the shop window even though you don’t have the tracing app because you don’t want the politburo knowing where you go and what you did any more than they already do)

DeltaT

26th Sep 2020, 09:48

I thought about posting a more scientific video demonstration of a mask in use, but seeing as we could all do with a uplift in life I thought this demonstration was more suitable...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cTDGqcUpA&ab_channel=UncleRob

InZed

26th Sep 2020, 22:00

IMHO its just being seen to do something which makes some people feel better than doing nothing at all. (Like taking a pic of the tracing poster on the shop window even though you don’t have the tracing app because you don’t want the politburo knowing where you go and what you did any more than they already do)

It’s amazing that the public perception of pilots is that they’re smart, intelligent and adaptive to change...

You manage to prove all of those stereotypes wrong.

mattyj

26th Sep 2020, 23:02

We’ll see..the science is constantly moving to favour the skeptics..the sheeple are looking more and more foolish every day.

#followthescience

Anti Skid On

27th Sep 2020, 02:48

(Like taking a pic of the tracing poster on the shop window even though you don’t have the tracing app because you don’t want the politburo knowing where you go and what you did any more than they already do)

The information is retained on your phone and is not shared with anyone. If there is an outbreak somewhere the app can identify who was in the locality and then it can send a request for the user to share the information. All scans on your phone are deleted after a month.

The politburo you should really be afraid of is called Five Eyes and the previous lot now allow all your internet and telecommunications to be routinely scanned by Uncle Sam at the NSA in Maryland

RubberDogPoop

27th Sep 2020, 04:07

I see Foran went out on the media and expressed his view that a vaccine will only be 50% effective and take years to distribute.
How dare he go out against the status quo and think for himself based on the survey of 10000 Americans.
My god thats a conspiracy in the making right there with him thinking he knows better than anyone else.
Quick he must be subjigated by his pilot workforce, and have a psychological assessment too.
The world is going to end because of this one person, oh no!

What exactly is your point Delta? Every post is so muddled and unrelated to the next no-one can keep up.
Do you like masks, or not?
Is Foran the devil incarnate, or not?
Do AirNZ make government policy, or not?

And I love this one:Trying for thread drift too now? Why would you post that in a Covid related thread? bahaha nice try.

oh, I see, you thought the entire thread was about you? Bahahahahahahaha!!!! Why on earth would you think that had anything to do with you? Did you think that you were the most important person in the room? (to the psychology students in the room thats called "fundamental attribution error").

As I say to my kids, there comes a point when the smart play is to just shut up and not make the hole any worse....

DeltaT

27th Sep 2020, 11:03

Re Foran, it would seem the sarcasm of that post was lost on you, which would explain why you don't understand. People with Austism Specturm Disorder take things literally btw and you do question the point of a lot of posts and show aggressiveness towards all. Much like some of the other profiles that post on the same threads as you consistantly.

About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread. Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking people and trying to cause thread drift by the aforementioned tactics or goading people. This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.

I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.

Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots to see the toxic culture of the company put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out. You too can become like them.

RubberDogPoop

28th Sep 2020, 06:22

Re Foran, it would seem the sarcasm of that post was lost on you, which would explain why you don't understand. People with Austism Spectrum Disorder take things literally btw and you do question the point of a lot of posts and show aggressiveness towards all. Much like some of the other profiles that post on the same threads as you consistantly.

About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread (according to you, the moderator). Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads (as defined by your own attribution error) on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking (your interpretation) people (you) and trying to cause thread drift (according to you) by the aforementioned tactics or goading people (you). This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many (you) except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.

I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.

Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots (that's an oxymoron ;))to see the toxic culture of the company (which company? You know what they say about assumptions...) put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out (you haven't). You too can become like them.

And still its about you huh?
The question put to you was: What is your point Delta? Like, actually. When you make one, how do you support that position?
I might be able to take it personally if it were coherent - It's not, and I didn't.
If the idea of "a thread" is to stay on topic, why don't you?

There's not been an ounce of ad hominem from me...
Austism Spectrum Disorder

So far; one confirmed case of pax to cabin crew transmission ON an aircraft. In the world. Ever.
Last AirNZ crew positive - April. Before the current measures were in place, and before the airline world truely came to a halt.[/QUOTE]
How do you reconcile this?

Clearly going to the media did cause the company to make changes and seperate crew from international and domestic duties.
And yet....still no crew to crew transmission via this modality. Make no mistake, the government forced that change, and they did so purely to be seen to be doing something - so much for the health outcome being priority #1. Evidential rigour anyone?

On the 6pm News just now, experts, including epidemiologists are confused by aircrew exemptions.
Well I guess with the MOH knowing better, they are guilty of conspiracy claims according to the people on here.
Aren't the two groups one and the same? Funny that same epidemiologist decided no social distancing was required on board a short while later....
Incongruous that there's an epidemiologist in charge, in Sweden, and we choose to poo-poo his advice...

All domestic crew and pax now to wear masks - As a result of Auckland's lockdown, and the differential alert levels.

Pax seated with distancing And then not - as recommended by "an epidemiologist"

Flight Attendant transmission from LA found to be the cause of the Bluff wedding cluster.
Late March, quite how this could be construed as a supportive statement I'm still working on.

My favourite:
IN YOUR FACE
Veeery "professional", and very premature. Did you want to be taken seriously?

Historically some of the rules for everyone else didn't always apply to Air NZ.
As previously asked, an example would be?

Elzilcho = RubberDogPoop = InZed

You can possibly see why I think your overall "point" is muddled...
(and with all due respect to ElZilcho, who seems to be a rationalist like me, you won't ever catch me writing "could of", or "should of" - it'll be "could HAVE", and "should HAVE" - so rest you worried little conspiratorial mind that he and I are one and the same.) No offence Zilch! ;)

I see Foran went out on the media and expressed his view that a vaccine will only be 50% effective and take years to distribute.
How dare he go out against the status quo and think for himself based on the survey of 10000 Americans.
My god thats a conspiracy in the making right there with him thinking he knows better than anyone else.
Quick he must be subjigated by his pilot workforce, and have a psychological assessment too.
The world is going to end because of this one person, oh no!
This is making your point do ya think? Supporting statement ya reckon?

Meanwhile, UK airlines Easyjet and Ryanair for the sake of everyone ARE making masks compulsory and no longer providing food service. However Air NZ are now introducing back drinks and snacks while face masks are mandatory...(errr doesn't that mean they all take their masks off when eating and drinking at the same time of food service?!)
Masks then stop being mandatory under level 1 outside to/from Auckland.
I imagine the resurgence in Europe and the dearth of cases in NZ have something to do with the disparity...
Why have draconian measures when there is no community transmission? (thats a relative statement - sadly i imagine that needs to be pointed out).
Agree however, that masks should be worn as per my union's long-held belief, and that of IATA - in order to get the industry going again.

[QUOTE]Trying for thread drift too now? Why would you post that in a Covid related thread? bahaha nice try.
Why would you point that out? Do you wish to imply that you had "slam-dunked" the debate with overwhelming supporting evidence, and that someone was trying to take away your glory? Or do you think maybe he wasn't interested in you at all, and saw an opportunity to ask a question in a thread clearly "inhabited" by company players, perhaps with the inside word?

show aggressiveness towards all
To all? Or did you mean just you? Or did you mean towards your position? After all, I haven't lightheartedly used the Autism spectrum as a crutch for my argument - if I was a ME-llennial, I'd take offence on behalf of some minority group....

I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing
You needn't worry about my kids, they're well briefed that googling the top two hits on a page doesn't constitute "research", that their self-worth is not defined by "likes", or "retweets", and that you probably aren't that super-woke, edgy, deep thinker that you think you are. Dunning-Krueger isn't some random "couple" in my house, its a way of life.
The "holes" are/were clearly at MIQ - interacting on 12 hour shifts with the very population that is bring the virus to our shores - returning New Zealanders. No testing (at the time), and still no isolation post shift - ergo, they have been the vector, and demonstrably crew have not. The crew "hole" has been seen to be "looked at" for political gain, when shall we look at the real "hole"?

Read through that jumble and tell me that whatever point you're trying to make is clear. Then ask yourself whether you're the subject of self-harm inducing, personal attacks, or whether your argument/position is being challenged.
I think you're saying we all should wear masks on board (I agree), quite how the "evil, deep-state, legislation controlling, AirNZ has any part in this FNose?! Don't go all Andrew Wakefield on us....

ps: I can't be ar$ed fixing the quote thing up

ElZilcho

29th Sep 2020, 08:40

You can possibly see why I think your overall "point" is muddled...
(and with all due respect to ElZilcho, who seems to be a rationalist like me, you won't ever catch me writing "could of", or "should of" - it'll be "could HAVE", and "should HAVE" - so rest you worried little conspiratorial mind that he and I are one and the same.) No offence Zilch! ;)

Given we're the same person, (apparently), how could I possibly take offence? :}

InZed

30th Sep 2020, 05:35

Given we're the same person, (apparently), how could I possibly take offence? :}

I also agree with EZ. Although we are the same person apparently so I guess this means nothing haha.

ElZilcho are you tall? I’ve always wanted to be taller. So if you are, as we are the same person, I will be taller now also! #excited

DeltaT

1st Oct 2020, 09:55

Ahh the infamous pprune trio no less, one after the other..
Anyone would think Dave Morgan had made pprune a project. He hates pprune so much.

Whats even the point of your post RubberDogPoop? I mean seriously
Are you trying to make a conspiracy?
Are you the pprune police? Is it all about you?

RubberDogPoop

2nd Oct 2020, 00:34

The question put to you was: What is your point Delta? Like, actually. When you make one, how do you support that position?

Now we're a trio again are we?????

InZed

5th Oct 2020, 02:23

What's up with GF's email about the MUCA flighties?

ElZilcho

5th Oct 2020, 03:49

What's up with GF's email about the MUCA flighties?

I'm not really up to speed with the details, but I understand it revolves around Legacy 777 Crews displacing 787 FA's... no idea what the verdict was.

zuluzu

5th Oct 2020, 05:56

A good win for schedule 100 crew and DOJ !
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND

I TE RATONGA AHUMANA TAIMAHI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

Member of Authority: Representatives:

Investigation Meeting: Submissions received:

Further information received:

Determination:

[2020] NZERA 398 3107553

BETWEEN E TŪ INCORPORATED Applicant

AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Respondent

Marija Urlich

Peter Cranney, counsel for the applicant Kevin Thompson, counsel for the respondent

30 July 2020

30 July 2020 from the applicant 30 July 2020 from the respondent

6 and 11 August 2020

2 October 2020

page1image1699536 page1image3767152 page1image3766944DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY Employment Relationship Problem

[1] This employment relationship problem concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the operation and application of collective employment agreements. The issue at the heart of the dispute concerns whether a category of cabin crew - pre- MUCA Flight Attendants - who transferred from long-haul to mid-haul in an earlier restructuring retain the first right to retain their positions in the event of future restructuring.1

page1image3766320 page1image1779200 page1image37661121 MUCA is an acronym for multi union collective agreement.

[2] Given the ongoing impact on Air New Zealand of the COVID-19 pandemic this issue needs to be resolved prior to any future restructuring of cabin crew services.

The Authority’s investigation

[3] On 18 June 2020 the Authority held a case management conference with the representatives. A date for an investigation meeting was agreed as was a timetable for filing evidence and submissions. The Authority directed the parties circulate among all cabin crew the minute issued subsequent to the case management conference which recorded the issues for investigation and determination and timetabling directions.

[4] At the investigation meeting the Authority heard evidence from Phillip Scott, a senior flight attendant and E tū delegate and Leeanne Langridge, Air New Zealand general manager of cabin crew and received submissions from the representatives. Subsequent to the investigation meeting the parties filed further information.

[5] As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and submissions received. In determining this matter the Authority has carefully considered all the material before it, including all evidence of the parties and the submissions of their representatives.

Issues

[6]

The issues identified for investigation and determination are:

Whether, as is E tū’s position, pre-MUCA flight attendants are those listed in the letter referred to at clause 1.1 of schedule 100 of the long-haul collective agreement and whether such persons retain that status on transfer to the mid-haul collective agreement?

Or, whether, as is Air New Zealand’s position, pre-MUCA flight attendants are those listed in the letter referred to at clause 1.1 of schedule 100 of the long-haul collective agreement but only for so

page2image1791072long as those employees remain employed by the respondent under the long-haul collective agreement?

Relevant law

[7] In Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs Judge Corkill set out the legal principals relating to the interpretation of employment agreements:2

[24] In The Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd, the Court of Appeal provided a convenient summary of the correct approach to contractual interpretation, as stated by the Supreme Court in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, and Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd . The Court stated:

“[19] Briefly, these authorities confirm that New Zealand courts

take an objective approach to contractual interpretation which does not limit the background material available to interpret the contract. That material must however be reasonably relevant, and it must be objective; evidence of a party's individual subjective intentions is inadmissible to interpret the contract.

[20] Vector established that there need not be any ambiguity in the meaning of a contract before regard can be had to extrinsic evidence to shed light on its meaning. That conclusion put to bed the need for counsel to prove that contracts had such ambiguities, and instead emphasised the need for courts to take a contextual approach that inquired into the meaning of contracts against the background information known to the parties.

[21] As the Supreme Court later clarified in Firm PI , the text of the contract remains ‘centrally important’. The Court there noted that:

‘If the language at issue, construed in the context of the contract as a whole, has an ordinary and natural meaning, that will be a powerful, albeit not conclusive, indicator of what the parties meant.

[22] The provisional meaning derived from the language of the contract is cross-checked against the contractual context. As Tipping J explained in Vector:

[24] In some recent cases it has been suggested that contractual context should be referred to as a ‘cross-check’. In practical terms that is likely to be what happens in most cases. Anyone reading a contractual document will naturally

form at least a provisional view of what its words mean, simply by reading them. That view is, in a sense, then checked against the contractual context. This description of the process is valid, provided the initial view is provisional only and the reader is prepared to accept that the provisional meaning may be altered once context has been brought to account. The concept of cross-check is helpful in affirming the point made earlier that a meaning which appears plain and unambiguous on its face is always susceptible to being

page3image1802496 page3image37611202 Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs [2020] NZEmpC 139 at [24]

altered by context, albeit that outcome will usually be difficult of achievement ...

[23] It follows that, though there is in principle no limit to the amount of ‘red ink’ a court can use in interpreting a contract (as Lord Hoffman famously said in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd ), there is a practical need for the party seeking to rely on the red pen to point to clear evidence justifying its use. As Tipping J explained in Vector, the exercise ‘is and remains one of interpretation’. There are limits to what the courts can do under the guise of interpretation, and words can only be construed with meanings that they can reasonably bear (subject, as Tipping J recognised, to considerations of rectification, private dictionary use by the parties, and similar). ”

(Footnotes omitted.)

[8] Mr Thompson’s submission that the starting point in interpretation is to reach a provisional meaning of the words used in the relevant employment agreements and then to assess, supplement and/or cross check that provisional view against the context of wider setting and objective intended meaning at the time the agreement was entered is accepted as the correct approach.

Background

Project Wa Mua settlement

[9] In August 2013 Air New Zealand and E tū’s predecessor unions entered the Project Wa Mua Full and Final Settlement Agreement (the Wa Mua settlement).3 The Wa Mua settlement resolved a number of ongoing disputes concerning then existing or recently expired collective agreements and laid the basis for three new collective agreements to cover cabin crew employed in short, mid and long haul flights.

[10] Clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement provides certain priority rights to voluntary redundancy and certain protections from compulsory redundancy under the proposed collective agreements. Clause 6 names the category of worker as “Pre-MUCA Employees” to whom those priority rights accrue and requires their names to be listed in an appendix to the Wa Mua settlement document.

[11] Since the Ma Wua settlement the parties have entered a number of collective employment agreements (CEAs) – two succeeding long-haul CEAs (LHCA) with

3 Flight Attendants and Related Services (NZ) Association Inc (FARSA) and New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc (EPMU).

page4image1804960 page4image1668128terms running 2013 – 2015 and 2019 – 2022 and a mid-haul CEA 2019 – 2022 (MHCA). The CEAs all contain mirror provisions preserving priority rights for Pre- MUCA flight attendants in a redundancy setting as broadly described in the Wa Mua settlement document.

[12] This year, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Air New Zealand has significantly reduced its long haul flights. Redundancies of workers employed in those services followed and, consequent to the priority set of rights for Pre-MUCA flight attendants, workers in that category transferred to mid-haul flight services with concomitant collective agreement coverage moving from the LHCA to MHCA. These transferred workers displaced mid-haul flight attendants resulting in a significant number of redundancies. Mr Cranney has correctly described the displacement of workers caused by the transfer of Pre-MUCA flight attendants as a tragedy albeit one compliant with the parties’ rights and obligations under the relevant collective agreements.

[13] The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Air New Zealand is ongoing and future redundancies of workers may be necessary. The question before the Authority concerns whether the transferred flight attendants retain their priority rights.

The parties’ positions

E tū

[14] E tū’s primary argument is the Wa Mua agreement preserves pre-MUCA employee status for workers who transfer between the MUCAs under the redundancy provisos. The argument is developed as follows:

 The redundancy provisos confer two sets of substantive rights on pre-

MUCA flight attendants;

 The first set of rights gives pre-MUCA flight attendants priority when

volunteers for redundancy are called for;

 The second set of rights excludes pre-MUCA flight attendants from

compulsory redundancy because they are excluded from application of the selection criteria in the relevant agreement or further application and transfer as “survivors”;

 The pre-MUCA flight attendant status is preserved on transfer;

page5image1804512

 Clause 20.2.1 defines a redundancy condition as “a condition in which an employer has Flight Attendants surplus to requirements”;

 A pre-MUCA flight attendant can never meet the redundancy condition because a pre-MUCA flight attendant can never become surplus to requirements.

Air New Zealand

[15] Air New Zealand’s primary argument is the pre-MUCA status is suspended upon transfer. The argument is developed as follows:

 the consensus position expressed in the Project Wa Mua agreement

which created a career pathway for a grand-parented group of employees (pre-MUCA Flight Attendants) who could transfer to the other work group in the event of a redundancy situation;

 E tū’s argument can only succeed if the Authority is prepared to apply “red ink” to clause 2.1.1 of the redundancy proviso and delete the requirement that the effected worker “remain[s] employed by the Company under this Agreement” which introduces a temporal limitation;

 The interpretation advanced by E tū is not only contrary to accepted principles of contractual interpretation but would produce an absurd outcome because, amongst other things, such adverse consequences to other employees cannot have been intended.

Discussion

[16] This is a dispute about the meaning and application of the relevant collective agreements to Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants in a future redundancy setting. A useful starting point is to step through the relevant provisions as if the parties were undertaking a redundancy process under the MHCA, the collective agreement to which Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants were most recently transferred:

Step 1 - the first question is whether the situation meets the definition of redundancy the parties have agreed as set out in clause 20.1.2:

page6image183318420.2 Definition

page6image367168020.2.1 Redundancy is a condition in which an employer has Flight Attendant(s) surplus to requirements because of the closing down of the whole or any part of the Employer’s operations due to a change

in plant, methods, material or products, or reorganisation or like cause requiring a permanent reduction in the number of permanent Flight Attendants who have not achieved the Airline’s retirement policy.

...

Step 2 – If the conditions defining redundancy in clause 20.2.1 are met, then the process the parties have agreed for redundancy selection must be applied as required by clause 20.3.3:

20.3 Selection Criteria of Redundant Employees

...

20.3.3 The parties have agreed to a Redundancy Selection proviso set out in Appendix V of this Agreement.

Step 3 – The redundancy proviso in Appendix V applies if a redundancy event as defined in clause 20.2 exists (Appendix V clause 1.1). Appendix V terms resolve any inconsistency with any term in the MHCA (Appendix V clause 1.1).

Step 4 – If the conditions of a redundancy event are met then voluntary redundancies must first be called for (Appendix V clause 2). Pre-MUCA flight attendants are the first group to be given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancy. Clause 2.1.1 purports to incorporate a definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants:

that Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants (as defined in Schedule 100 of the Long Haul Collective Agreement) employed in that rank on either this Agreement or the Long Haul Collective Agreement are given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancies arising in either or both Collective Agreements; ...

Step 5 – Consideration is then to be given to which flight attendants are Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants.

Step 6 – Following the call for volunteers, if compulsory redundancies are

required then the second set of priority rights for Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants is invoked.

Step 7 – The process then needs to be tested against the “avoidance of doubt” provisions set out at clause 4 which include:

4.1.4 In the event that any Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs transfer into the Mid Haul Fleet and become covered by this Agreement:

page7image18051844.1.5 The transferring Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs shall be entitled to retain his/her existing salary, overtime, allowances, sick leave any retirement leave entitlements as provided for under the Long Haul Collective Agreement; and

4.1.6 In building rosters under this Agreement the Company will not take into account whether an employee is a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant or not.

[17] The provisions themselves are straightforward. The difficulty arises as to the definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant.

[18] Clause 2.1.1 refers to a “definition” of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in

Schedule 100. In strict terms there is no definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in Schedule 100. What is contained is an application clause (clause 1) which describes Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants followed by a definition clause (clause 2):

SCHEDULE 100 – TERMS APPLICABLE TO PRE-MUCA FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

1. APPLICATION OF THIS SCHEDULE

1.1 The terms and conditions set out in this Schedule shall apply only to Flight Attendants who are listed in the letter from the Company to the Flight Attendants and Related Services Association and the New Zealand Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc called Pre- MUCA Employee List” (MUCA stands for Multi Union Collective Agreement) for so long as those employees remain employed by the Company under this Agreement (“Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”).

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 A Flight Attendant is a part time or full time crew member...

[19] The Authority is satisfied clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 is a definition of Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants because this is what the parties have agreed it to be – clause 2.1.1. of Appendix V has been drafted, bargained and ratified in contemplation of the

nomenclature and wording of Schedule 100, clause 1.1.

[20] How then does clause 1.1 define “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”? The starting point is the wording of the clause itself.

[21] The ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the clause is that Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants are those flight attendants listed on the “Pre-MUCA

page8image1804064Employee List” attached to the Wa Mua settlement document as long as they remain employed by Air New Zealand under the MHCA that is, “this Agreement”.

[22] It does not follow that transfer to the MHCA from the LHCA under the redundancy proviso discharges or suspends “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” status. The transferred workers maintain their priority status under the mirror clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 because at transfer they attain coverage under that Agreement and from then satisfy the requirement to “remain employed by the Company under this Agreement” the transfer having moved them seamlessly to the MHCA from the LHCA.4

[23] The interpretation that the priority obligation is not discharged or suspended on transfer from LHCA to MHCA (or the reverse) is supported as follows:

 The definitional requirements of “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” in schedule 100, cl 1.1 (mirror provisions in MHCA or LHCA) are met if a worker is (i) named on the “Pre-MUCA Employee List”, (ii) employed by Air New Zealand and (iii) remain employed under the qualifying “this Agreement”;

 Employment is continuous on transfer from LHCA to MHCA. A Pre- MUCA Flight Attendant is never not able to hold that status because they always remain employed under a qualifying Agreement5;

 There is no explicit mechanism in the LHCA or MHCA to remove “Pre- MUCA Flight Attendant” status; and

 The retention of “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” status on transfer is consistent with the post transfer rights at clause 4.1.5 and 4.1.6.

[24] Careful consideration has been given to the contextual argument including that

mid haul flight attendants have not agreed to permanently inferior redundancy rights to transferees. This argument does not succeed because it is not apparent on the face of the MHCA that a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant would not have that status on transfer because they are someone who “remains employed by the Company under this Agreement”. When cross checked against the framework of collective

page9image1776288 page9image16968324 LHCA 2019 – 2022 schedule 100, clause 1.1.
5 If employment is not continuous a worker’s name is removed from the Pre-MUCA employee list appendix D by operation of clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement document.

agreements and the Wa Mua settlement agreement the Authority is satisfied the parties’ intention was not to suspend or discharge pre-MUCA flight attendant status on transfer.

Outcome

[25] The question is answered in favour of E tū. The declaration is granted as sought.

Costs

[26] Given the nature of this dispute the Authority is minded to allow costs to lie where they fall. Notwithstanding, if E tū seeks an award of costs, memorandum to be filed and served within fourteen days of the date of determination and Air New Zealand to file and serve any reply memorandum within seven days of receipt.

Marija Urlich
Member of the Employment Relations Authority

page10image1800032 page10image1797120

zuluzu

5th Oct 2020, 05:59

Win for schedule 100 crew pre MUCA 777 crew. Have posted ERA decision in following post

mattyj

11th Oct 2020, 19:48

Chris2303

12th Oct 2020, 00:19

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-world-health-organisation-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/DQMBCUNNRCHCBLCITIMKOYXLRU/

the wheels are really falling off the “we did the right thing” bus

Nothing the WHO has said during this pandemic has been credible.

They have changed their stance more often than a stripper changes her G-string

NZ has zero community cases, can Australia as a country say the same thing?

Climb150

12th Oct 2020, 00:46

Nothing the WHO has said during this pandemic has been credible.

They have changed their stance more often than a stripper changes her G-string

NZ has zero community cases, can Australia as a country say the same thing?
Are you really trying to compare a country of 5 million people and 100k square miles area to a country of 25 million people and a 3 million square mile area? Australia also has 6 states and two territories which implement their own strategy. Maybe come back with a proper comparison and we will talk.

Anti Skid On

12th Oct 2020, 03:19

Nothing the WHO has said during this pandemic has been credible.

They have changed their stance more often than a stripper changes her G-string

NZ has zero community cases, can Australia as a country say the same thing?

Well, the Herald had CORRECTED their story from "The WHO not recommending lockdown" to "A WHO doctor", yes, one persons opinion.The jury will be out until 20 years time, because only then will we be able to evaluate the extent lockdown has created 'poverty' versus not. In the NZ context, international tourism has been obliterated and isn't coming back soon, and whilst domestic tourism is making up for some of that, it won't last forever. The biggest economic difference is in NZ daily life is continuing pretty much as normal, unlike say the UK, US, etc, where they didn't do real lockdown, and arguably their consequences will be far worse. The long-term effects of COVID on humans are yet to be realised, and I suspect that consequence will be very costly.

mattyj

12th Oct 2020, 03:30

Well, the Herald had CORRECTED their story from "The WHO not recommending lockdown" to "A WHO doctor", yes, one persons opinion

Dr David Nabarro came a close second in the previous race to be WHO Director General and currently one of 6 WHO Covid19 special envoys..

Sorry, I guess the vested interests put pressure on the herald to tone the article down because it was being unhelpfully honest

DeltaT

12th Oct 2020, 10:52

Further to the end was the counter balance in the article:
But Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton, said the declaration was "based upon a false premise".

"That governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available," Head said.

Interesting article on masks here (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8).
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?

Anti Skid On

13th Oct 2020, 06:20

Further to the end was the counter balance in the article:

Interesting article on masks here (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8).
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?

A few don't, anaesthetists especially, or, they wear them inappropriately. Lockdown is the only way to go. Tonight's news, the UK were advised to do a full lockdown for 2 weeks to stop the spread. The government there decided not to implement the advice, book, 50 deaths a day. 3000 in ICU, heading for a much longer lockdown.

mattyj

13th Oct 2020, 09:21

If you follow the epidemiological curve of the virus in almost every country that there was both an outbreak and a lockdown, you can see that the lockdown was implemented after the peak, so thus too late to prevent the spread. NZs entry into level 4 was particularly so.

Climb150

13th Oct 2020, 20:18

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x1520/screenshot_20201013_161806_be8719f83d70d08d59ad60e69bad74918 159d370.png

NzAkL20

14th Oct 2020, 10:56

ElZilcho

14th Oct 2020, 20:18

A great win for legacy crew and yet the forun cleansing contract regime are now making over half of the most junior legacy crew ( only 204 crew left with over 25 years service will remain) take redundancy payment or take nothing and get recalled, effectively buying your job back but on sub par contract. Crew have offered LWOP plus a plethora of alternatives only to be told no . Buy your way back. This is the new way of Carrie and forum regime . Watch out we pilots are next. It's despicable .

If/When they’re recalled is it on a different contract?

Pilots negotiated furlough where you could retain your service benefits in lieu of a redundancy payment... effectively LWOP with a few key differences. For junior Pilots, Redundancy payout may have been the better option, but after a few years of service, retention of the service benefits and pay step on recall was likely more valuable if you were not reliant on the redundancy payment.

I assume, the key difference between Pilots and CC here in that Pilots are recalled based on Seniority regardless of their decision to take furlough or redundancy. Are CC only being offered recall if they decline a redundancy payment?

As we lose more and more exec’s, I wonder if we’re heading toward state ownership... if we’re not, as Carries portfolio grows, she’s going to destroy this Airline more than COVID has. Her vindictive and confrontational attitude toward staff is the absolute last thing anyone will want to deal with at a time like this.

oldm8ey

15th Oct 2020, 09:31

I'd say we are certainly heading toward state ownership. Let's see what happens on the other side of the election.

waren9

15th Oct 2020, 10:52

Whats this I hear about Foran leaving?

He made it clear in the zoom vids state control would be the very worst outcome from his point of view.

ElZilcho

15th Oct 2020, 20:41

Whats this I hear about Foran leaving?

He made it clear in the zoom vids state control would be the very worst outcome from his point of view.

Haven’t heard that rumour yet. A lot of talk that he’s “done what he was brought in to do”, and that the 70% Airline was always the goal... COVID just gave the cover to do it.

State ownership, be it 100% or a larger stake similar to 2001 wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing given the current climate. Shareholders will take a hit of course (myself included) but they’ll recover in time.
State run however would see a lot of changes. With popular politics, we could see a return of loss making regional routes and very little appetite for future international expansion post COVID.

In saying that however, while I suspect we might not see a return of the 777’s, I doubt they’ll (Intentionally) shrink the International fleet anymore.

Anti Skid On

17th Oct 2020, 01:25

Haven’t heard that rumour yet. A lot of talk that he’s “done what he was brought in to do”, and that the 70% Airline was always the goal... COVID just gave the cover to do it.

State ownership, be it 100% or a larger stake similar to 2001 wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing given the current climate. Shareholders will take a hit of course (myself included) but they’ll recover in time.
State run however would see a lot of changes. With popular politics, we could see a return of loss making regional routes and very little appetite for future international expansion post COVID.

In saying that however, while I suspect we might not see a return of the 777’s, I doubt they’ll (Intentionally) shrink the International fleet anymore.
The government, via multiple agencies, already contribute a sizable proportion of domestic business; I would estimate 50% of all Wellington inbound morning flights are government-related business (DHB staff to the Ministry of Health, Oranga Tamariki Staff to HQ, etc, etc.), plus staff from HQ's going the opposite way.

27/09

17th Oct 2020, 10:17

.... as Carries portfolio grows, she’s going to destroy this Airline more than COVID has. Her vindictive and confrontational attitude toward staff is the absolute last thing anyone will want to deal with at a time like this.

She has form in these areas. Good luck guys and girls. Also just because it's in the contract it doesn't mean she will honour (or in her case honor) it.

InZed

17th Oct 2020, 10:31

She has form in these areas. Good luck guys and girls. Also just because it's in the contract it doesn't mean she will honour (or in her case honor) it.

Correct. And as the rumour continues to grow. Goodbye to those on furlough/redundancy re-hire clauses as she is working to severe all financial liability. I understand from a reasonably reliable sauce that there is potential legal challenge about to front the unions about this.

ElZilcho

17th Oct 2020, 19:18

Correct. And as the rumour continues to grow. Goodbye to those on furlough/redundancy re-hire clauses as she is working to severe all financial liability. I understand from a reasonably reliable sauce that there is potential legal challenge about to front the unions about this.

If true, that would be a massive own goal for the company when they’re desperately trying to preserve cash.
Most Pilots took furlough. If the company attempts to sever them, they’ll all be owed redundancy payments... not to mention the costs associated with the legal battle.

waren9

18th Oct 2020, 01:13

Correct. And as the rumour continues to grow. Goodbye to those on furlough/redundancy re-hire clauses as she is working to severe all financial liability. I understand from a reasonably reliable sauce that there is potential legal challenge about to front the unions about this.

Seems odd, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. She will lose the entire pilot group I reckon with any attempt to stiff the furloughed/redundant guys. There has been a lot of bending over backwards lately.

Slezy9

18th Oct 2020, 08:25

Make me wonder if those on furlough should perhaps change over and take the redundancy and lock in the cash....

2bigmellons

18th Oct 2020, 08:30

2bigmellons

18th Oct 2020, 08:45

Make me wonder if those on furlough should perhaps change over and take the redundancy and lock in the cash....

Cash aside, I’d prefer to remain employed without pay then to be made redundant with a yet-to-be proven, recall agreement.

InZed

19th Oct 2020, 03:45

Cash aside, I’d prefer to remain employed without pay then to be made redundant with a yet-to-be proven, recall agreement.

Definitely a month of changes. Removal of IP thresholds, talk of the AFFA removal all together, and removal of furloughed pilots on the list.

I wonder if Carrie has anything to do with all of this...

ElZilcho

19th Oct 2020, 04:56

The AFFA was always due to expire. It was self renewing every 3 rosters to a maximum of 9 and would require another ratification ballot to extend any further... many of us pointed out in the early days that the 60IP trigger being tied to the AFFA was pointless as re-hiring was extremely unlikely occur during it's validity, but that's probably why the company agreed to it. From memory, it expires in January and the cost savings have already been accounted for until that point. So we're not terminating it early, just wont be extending it.

I had previously thought we would vote to extend it, however as Pilots down-trained to a lower paid position (i.e. most of us) are exempted from the Paycut, I believe the savings just aren't there anymore. Even more so now with the removal of all 777 Positions from the Notional List.

If we can't keep the 60 IP trigger post AFFA, then ideally we can get the company to agree on some trigger for re-hiring. As has been pointed out on the ALPA forums, IP is always cheaper per hour than hiring more Pilots, it's only F&D limitations (and fatigue reports) that can cause the company issues when the hours are up. 777 Pilots were constantly bouncing off 100/28 limits last year flying ~90hr rosters.

Honestly, and I might be proven wrong, I strongly believe any talk of Furloughed Pilots being removed from the list is just that... talk. The CC have been getting a rather raw deal from the Company lately (partly due to the failings of their Unions) and it's entirely possibly Chinese whispers have that extending to Pilots.

here_we_go_again

19th Oct 2020, 21:34

Honestly, and I might be proven wrong, I strongly believe any talk of Furloughed Pilots being removed from the list is just that... talk. The CC have been getting a rather raw deal from the Company lately (partly due to the failings of their Unions) and it's entirely possibly Chinese whispers have that extending to Pilots.
It's absolutely nothing more than talk and mixing together what is happening with another part of the business. For pilots, furlough is a part of your collective agreement. To that degree, it's as iron clad as any other part of your contract. The Cabin Crew union and the company couldn't agree on things so their furlough exists OUTSIDE of their collective agreement. Despite the union not being for it, cabin crew still signed up en masse. It is still a signed agreement so they company can't reneg in the absence of exit clauses however, I suspect the confusion on this topic exists from the next (possible) round of cabin crew redundancies and the company not wanting to offer furlough unless certain things are agreed to (the compulsion to offer it of course not existing because, as mentioned, it's not in the contract!).

InZed

21st Oct 2020, 09:28

It's absolutely nothing more than talk and mixing together what is happening with another part of the business. For pilots, furlough is a part of your collective agreement. To that degree, it's as iron clad as any other part of your contract. The Cabin Crew union and the company couldn't agree on things so their furlough exists OUTSIDE of their collective agreement. Despite the union not being for it, cabin crew still signed up en masse. It is still a signed agreement so they company can't reneg in the absence of exit clauses however, I suspect the confusion on this topic exists from the next (possible) round of cabin crew redundancies and the company not wanting to offer furlough unless certain things are agreed to (the compulsion to offer it of course not existing because, as mentioned, it's not in the contract!).

Interesting theory! It will be interesting to revisit these conversations in five years when they haven’t returned a single furloughed pilot back to work, and the rest of us are blowing 90Hr months.

ElZilcho

21st Oct 2020, 20:13

Interesting theory! It will be interesting to revisit these conversations in five years when they haven’t returned a single furloughed pilot back to work, and the rest of us are blowing 90Hr months.

My deepest sympathies to our redundant colleagues, but yes, as per the CEA and agreed Variations that could happen. When the AFFA expires, if ALPA are not able to negotiate a contractual IP trigger to re-hire then the company will be free to flog us on max IP without recalling anyone.

However...

Correct. And as the rumour continues to grow. Goodbye to those on furlough/redundancy re-hire clauses as she is working to severe all financial liability. I understand from a reasonably reliable sauce that there is potential legal challenge about to front the unions about this.

The Redundant and Furloughed Pilots, as per the CEA, all have 10 year rights to re-employment in order of Seniority before the Company can hire Pilots from anywhere else. The loss of the 60 IP trigger will be a blow to them for sure, as it'll delay their return, but they still retain their seniority based re-employment rights for 10 years. Only 60 IP is tied to the AFFA, so a legal challenge to breach the CEA and cut all ties early just doesn't make sense to me.

DeltaT

16th Nov 2020, 03:49

Covid-19: Masks mandatory on planes and Auckland public transport from Thursday, Government announces

DeltaT

5th Feb 2021, 22:32

continue#1

6th Feb 2021, 01:37

Dr Wiles needs to climb back into her hole at the Auckland University and stop reporting sh*t in the media to increase her Twitter and social media following . Michael Baker needs to do the same 😡

KiwiAvi8er

6th Feb 2021, 04:06

Ahh it took a while but sanity finally escaped out, and all the nay sayers thought I was wrong.
Covid-19: Dr Siouxsie Wiles criticises Air NZ for letting people remove masks (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/124170393/covid19-dr-siouxsie-wiles-criticises-air-nz-for-letting-people-remove-masks#comments)
Interesting that the airline and its cronnies are perfectly happy to put us all at risk with a 20-50% increase in frequency in events like that at the Pullman Hotel recently.

Yeah an outburst on Twitter from Dr Wiles, in which she’s already had to apologise and retract her inaccuracies, is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. If MoH aren’t happy with food and beverage being served during level 1 they can demand a change. They haven’t.

DeltaT

6th Feb 2021, 07:41

For anyone following my rant: I'd like to apologise to @FlyAirNZ (https://twitter.com/FlyAirNZ) for saying they funded the Plan B academics. I got it wrong. Someone on their payroll hooked up with the Plan B lot to do work funded by Auckland International Airport. It may be that AirNZ didn't know. #COVID19nz (https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19nz?src=hashtag_click)

If MoH aren’t happy with food and beverage being served during level 1 they can demand a change. They haven’t.
It takes time little one

BewareOfTheSharklets

6th Feb 2021, 19:07

Wow lots of statements made here have aged incredibly badly.

continue#1

6th Feb 2021, 19:24

Wow lots of statements made here have aged incredibly badly.

Agreed. It will be interesting to revisit this thread at the beginning of 2022, and see what has actually eventuated.

KiwiAvi8er

6th Feb 2021, 22:44

It takes time little one

Sure. If you make policy decisions based on a social media outcry.

I'll certainly feel very reassured should food/beverage be banned in flight, as people fly around to concerts such as One Love. 20,000 in close proximity, not a face mask in sight, but the real threat here is removing a face mask momentarily while you have a drink. :D

If MoH announce increased mask restrictions, exclusively to air travel, we'll be left in doubt that we're being governed via Stuff polls and little reasoning.

DeltaT

14th Feb 2021, 07:58

cough, oops can't use that prompt
I see food and beverage are stopped from being served from this evening on Air NZ domestic for a short while to start, though while still because of covid its more due to being careful about contamination. Though the person wasn't involved with the food prep.

DeltaT

15th Feb 2021, 07:44

Ministry of Health had no idea Air NZ's highest-risk crew were staying in Auckland CBD hotel (https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/ministry-of-health-had-no-idea-air-nzs-highest-risk-crew-were-staying-in-auckland-cbd-hotel/ar-BB1dGy0W)
Gawd, one is becoming as bad as the other.
The secret CBD stays come after a debacle where Air New Zealand told high-risk crew that they could leave the airline's new dedicated quarantine hotel - the Grand Windsor in downtown Auckland - to exercise.

"That clearly imposes risk of transmission," University of Otago epidemiologist Dr Michael Baker told Newshub.

The Ministry of Health thought the same. It scrambled to change its guidelines to stop crew leaving.

But the change to the guidelines came after the secret stays at the Ramada. Air New Zealand's assured the Ministry it didn't let crew staying there out to exercise but it wouldn't explain the two sets of rules for the two central city hotels.

DeltaT

11th Mar 2021, 07:56

Air New Zealand plane was not deep cleaned following MIQ charter flight (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300250530/air-new-zealand-plane-was-not-deep-cleaned-following-miq-charter-flight)
Air New Zealand has admitted a plane carrying international returnees then picked up domestic passengers before being deep cleaned.

NGsim

11th Mar 2021, 08:51

“Which promptly led to the deaths of over 9000 people”. Quoted from stuff.co.nz, 11th of March 2021 (probably.....)

Chris2303

11th Mar 2021, 21:40

“Which promptly led to the deaths of over 9000 people”. Quoted from stuff.co.nz, 11th of March 2021 (probably.....)

Can't find that article. Please post the url. :-)

KiwiAvi8er

11th Mar 2021, 23:39

Ninthace

12th Mar 2021, 18:06

Food and beverage service back from tomorrow. Hail the return of the corn chips.
Corn chips - luxury. The only thing I have ever been offered on an AirNZ flight was a boiled sweet and a plastic beaker of water served from a bottle cradled in the CC's armpit. Perhaps I need to take longer trips.