Air New Zealand - roster safety issues

[tail.low.wheeler]

"Consecutive late 777 rosters, max hours, min days off, min rest overnights…"

Curious to see a seemingly legitimate thread disappear.......?

[framer]

Maybe the mods moved it to a ‘safety’ or ‘terms and conditions’ part of the site?
I thought it was a valuable thread which highlighted the challenge to pilots of remaining safe and meeting their obligations to passengers in the modern era of software driven rostering systems.

[crosscutter]

Is this a real safety issue or a lifestyle gripe? I’d love to compare such a roster with say an emirates roster. I don’t disregard the point of the thread, rather I’m more critical of how we as pilots in this part of the world manage it. The only solution under modern fatigue management rules is to report, report unfit, and create a databank of concern. Time spent posting here is not valuable. It is pointless, so perhaps that’s a reason for its removal.

[hoss58]

And yet, here you are.

[First_Principal]

Usually if the thread has been moved it will say so in the forum list, I haven't seen it for the previous iteration of this subject.

However, as I understand it, the OP may delete the thread they started, should they choose. Maybe that's what has happened; if you feel strongly about it I expect you could ask a moderator if they'd be prepared to reinstate...

FP.

[Asturias56]

""Consecutive late 777 rosters, max hours, min days off, min rest overnights…"

but that's still within the rules - no? It may be uncomfortable when the airline requests it's pound of flesh but that's what people signed up to.

[Ollie Onion]

If only they could easily hire a few more external pilots.

[KiwiAvi8er]

If only they could easily hire a few more external pilots.

I don’t think that’s the issue….yet.

[ElZilcho]

""Consecutive late 777 rosters, max hours, min days off, min rest overnights…"

but that's still within the rules - no? It may be uncomfortable when the airline requests it's pound of flesh but that's what people signed up to.

As of last week the Company had, again, published a late bid-pack for the wide-body fleets. In addition to this the average days off in a number of ranks is not in compliance with the CSRs.

No one "signed up" for this. First off all, bid package release and roster publication dates are stipulated in the contract.
Regardless, Limits are not targets, and single Roster limits are not sustainable long term. Partly due to QOL issues and fatigue but also other Flight & Duty limitations. When you consistently fly 90+ hr rosters (as we did on the 777 during the 787 engine issues) you start bouncing off other rolling limits like 35/7 and 100/28, along with the day off averages fall below those required in the CSR's. as per ALPA's recent Comms I quoted.

So the "Big Boss" ignores the problems and lets Rostering/Crewing deal with it. They can't publish a Bid Package or Legal roster within the contractual time-frames because of a Crew shortage and everyone bouncing off their limits... this in turn results in AHR denials which is the last resort (contractually) as a short term solution to get a roster out. One or 2 rosters could be considered the company getting their "pound of flesh", but we're well into contractual breaches now.

[go123]

Was the thread deleted because someone’s initials were used perhaps?

[dejapoo]

You complain, more Wamos! That'll teach ya

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Was the thread deleted because someone’s initials were used perhaps?

Several posts deleted, god knows why.

[Asturias56]

" Limits are not targets,"

that may be the intention but I think you'd find a court would disagree

" we're well into contractual breaches now."

then no doubt someone will take them to court?

[ElZilcho]

" Limits are not targets,"

that may be the intention but I think you'd find a court would disagree

Not sure your background, perhaps you just want to play Devils advocate, but notice you neatly snipped my post in your quote to leave out "and single Roster limits are not sustainable long term"
CAA regs prohibit us from flying more than 35 hrs in 7 days, along with 100/28 250/84 & 1000/365. If we consistently flew 35/7 or 100/28 we'd bust the other limits.

Contractually, our Days off aren't dissimilar. In the short term, the company can dip below the minimum days off in a roster, provided they maintain above a set average. They have failed to do so.


" we're well into contractual breaches now."

then no doubt someone will take them to court?


NZALPA has now advised that if Air NZ does not re-publish the bid-package (or final broadcast message) with the days off in compliance with the CSRs that compliance action, in the form of mediation services, will take place. NZALPA has put this to the Company and in the meantime begins preparation for mediation, specifically around the topic of manpower. To be clear this is the first step in a legal process that was envisioned under the MoU that allows for resolving conflicts, one that we don't take lightly but the situation has become such that we believe is the right course of action.


You don't just "Go to Court". There's a process, it's being followed.

[tail wheel]

No, the Moderators DID NOT move or delete the thread regarding Air New Zealand - roster safety issues.

The thread was 'soft deleted' by the original user who started the thread - his prerogative. No doubt he has his reasons.

Tail Wheel
Moderator