Origin Pacific Christmas Pay
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree a bit. I think, based on my own check and training experience, that most new recruits know the SOPs pretty well, as they have had to demonstrate an intimate knowledge of them in the sim. They are also usually pretty good at the capabilities of the aircraft, which are clearly defined- unless you are thinking about imponderables such as how the aircraft handles when heavily iced up, when I agree that experience is everything.
I think it is also highly dependent on where you fly, and on what. I spent my early flying career pounding about at low level, usually badly iced up, with no autopilot and basic systems. I consider that I learned more in six months than a lot of my friends flying Boeings out to the sun learned in six years.
I am still alive, so I must have learned something!
I think it is also highly dependent on where you fly, and on what. I spent my early flying career pounding about at low level, usually badly iced up, with no autopilot and basic systems. I consider that I learned more in six months than a lot of my friends flying Boeings out to the sun learned in six years.
I am still alive, so I must have learned something!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Sofa
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, Raw Data welcome to the fun and thank you for being so, er......moderate in response.
Absolutely correct, I have no expertise in the low cost sector and fortunately made no claim as such. From the start of this thread my raison d'etre (despite being off-topic) was simply that we are not comparing apples with apples here (Southwest vs ANZ/USA vs NZ), and seperately, no, the government allowing ANZ to collapse was/is not a good idea.
Perhaps my 12 sector comment was a little flippant & taken just a wee bit literally, as clearly that A/C would struggle to get 12hrs utilisation on
sectors without of course making around half of them CHC-AKL sectors!I appreciate that "planes", having flown one, do fly to more than one destination per day. 
Maybe I could be one of them rocket scientists you mentioned?
Low COST - understood, quick turn-arounds,less staff,pilots doing loadsheets yadda yadda ya. Again no point shaping that criticism at ANZ as they can never truly be
as they were not set up as one and have that perrenial(sp?) downunder pimple on the arse to work around - Unions.
A quick summation then:
This is not an ANZ promotion.
I do not have a problem with low cost carriers.
ANZ and Southwest do not compare
The government made the right decision in saving ANZ (1 of very few)
Yes, ANZ could make changes and be more effecient.
I am a member of the union.
I believe you.(about the turn arounds)
I have not read the Southwest book.
Thump
ps: none of this means I work for ANZ either.
Absolutely correct, I have no expertise in the low cost sector and fortunately made no claim as such. From the start of this thread my raison d'etre (despite being off-topic) was simply that we are not comparing apples with apples here (Southwest vs ANZ/USA vs NZ), and seperately, no, the government allowing ANZ to collapse was/is not a good idea.
Perhaps my 12 sector comment was a little flippant & taken just a wee bit literally, as clearly that A/C would struggle to get 12hrs utilisation on
AKL-CHC
Maybe I could be one of them rocket scientists you mentioned?Low COST - understood, quick turn-arounds,less staff,pilots doing loadsheets yadda yadda ya. Again no point shaping that criticism at ANZ as they can never truly be
low COST
A quick summation then:
This is not an ANZ promotion.
I do not have a problem with low cost carriers.
ANZ and Southwest do not compare
The government made the right decision in saving ANZ (1 of very few)
Yes, ANZ could make changes and be more effecient.
I am a member of the union.
I believe you.(about the turn arounds)
I have not read the Southwest book.
Thump
ps: none of this means I work for ANZ either.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The demographics of NZ lend themselves to a large number of jobs on turboprops and very few on anything larger. As a result there are a lot of people who would do a fine job for Air NZ (or the like) but can't get a foot in the door. This seems to create an awfully large number of bitter and twisted people in the upper echelons of the regional ranks that don't want to (or can't) jack the job they have and head overseas. And fair enough too if you have a wife and kids and are settled - why turn their lives upside down?
I would say Europe is the opposite, it has the population for plenty of 100+ seat aircraft so that's where the jobs on larger aircraft are. And you don't necessarily need a vast amount of time to get RHS in a 737, many start there from the 250 odd hours of a basic multi CPL/IR. So all that regional flying that many espouse as crucial to flying a larger jet in NZ is, at the end of the day, a waste of time if a job on a considerably larger aircraft is where you want to be.
My point is be happy doing what you're doing. Don't run down others to justify where you take your career. If you live in regional towns like Nelson and fly a SAAB, enjoy it. If you were flying a 737 out of there the population would need to be 5 times bigger and pollution, traffic and house prices wouldn't make it the nice place it is.
Likewise if you made the trek to Europe, got the licence and a 737 command good for you. If you want to return to NZ then expect some bitterness, you took a path (some would say shortcut) many couldn't be bothered with.
I would say Europe is the opposite, it has the population for plenty of 100+ seat aircraft so that's where the jobs on larger aircraft are. And you don't necessarily need a vast amount of time to get RHS in a 737, many start there from the 250 odd hours of a basic multi CPL/IR. So all that regional flying that many espouse as crucial to flying a larger jet in NZ is, at the end of the day, a waste of time if a job on a considerably larger aircraft is where you want to be.
My point is be happy doing what you're doing. Don't run down others to justify where you take your career. If you live in regional towns like Nelson and fly a SAAB, enjoy it. If you were flying a 737 out of there the population would need to be 5 times bigger and pollution, traffic and house prices wouldn't make it the nice place it is.
Likewise if you made the trek to Europe, got the licence and a 737 command good for you. If you want to return to NZ then expect some bitterness, you took a path (some would say shortcut) many couldn't be bothered with.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thump & Go
Pardon me, didn't mean to offend.
The lesson from Europe (or Southwest for that matter) is that you keep the aircraft in the air. Part of that is quick turnarounds, the other part is using low fares to generate passengers on thin routes. So, for example, you could go AKL-CHC-WLG-DND-AKL-Tauranga-WLG-CHC-NPE-New Plymouth-CHC-AKL or something similar. That gives you the opportunity for a crew change in AKL. On the face of it, some of those sectors seem too thin to support a jet, but again, the lesson of Euro low-cost operators is that you can generate pax on the thinnest of routes. After you have established the route, you manage the yield to allow a profit to be made.
You can only do this if you have a low cost base. Also, most low cost operators in Europe only actually make money on selling food and drink- but because of the volumes involved, it is quite possible to make millions that way. The airline side just about covers its costs.
Air NZ COULD reinvent themselves as a low cost carrier, as most UK airlines have done. My company has gone from full-service to low-cost, and it is unionised. When unions see the stark choices facing them, they tend to be compliant. Of course, there has to be the will to change, and that will always be a problem at Air NZ as it will result in job losses, and more work for those that remain.
I haven't read the Southwest book either. I don't really need to as I have seen the changes for myself in Europe, which equates much more closely to NZ.
Air NZ is a dinosaur. If it doesn't change soon, it will either be dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium, or it will likely fail. I doubt the government will bail it out a second time, particularly as they no longer have an Air Force to sell to cover the cost!
Pardon me, didn't mean to offend.
The lesson from Europe (or Southwest for that matter) is that you keep the aircraft in the air. Part of that is quick turnarounds, the other part is using low fares to generate passengers on thin routes. So, for example, you could go AKL-CHC-WLG-DND-AKL-Tauranga-WLG-CHC-NPE-New Plymouth-CHC-AKL or something similar. That gives you the opportunity for a crew change in AKL. On the face of it, some of those sectors seem too thin to support a jet, but again, the lesson of Euro low-cost operators is that you can generate pax on the thinnest of routes. After you have established the route, you manage the yield to allow a profit to be made.
You can only do this if you have a low cost base. Also, most low cost operators in Europe only actually make money on selling food and drink- but because of the volumes involved, it is quite possible to make millions that way. The airline side just about covers its costs.
Air NZ COULD reinvent themselves as a low cost carrier, as most UK airlines have done. My company has gone from full-service to low-cost, and it is unionised. When unions see the stark choices facing them, they tend to be compliant. Of course, there has to be the will to change, and that will always be a problem at Air NZ as it will result in job losses, and more work for those that remain.
I haven't read the Southwest book either. I don't really need to as I have seen the changes for myself in Europe, which equates much more closely to NZ.
Air NZ is a dinosaur. If it doesn't change soon, it will either be dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium, or it will likely fail. I doubt the government will bail it out a second time, particularly as they no longer have an Air Force to sell to cover the cost!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
So we're talking about optimum utilisation of aircraft - in which case short haul provides the least productivity.
Air N.Z. don't need to re-invent themselves on international, as long as they keep the aircraft on the ground for the minimum time, the load factors as high as possible, and costs to a minimum.
Because short haul is harder to gain high aircraft utilisation, the beanies then start looking at cutting costs.
Now it doesn't take too many brains to see where - looking from the outside in - these geniuses start.
Cut out the extras given to pax - food and drinks.
Reduce the number of cabin crew, because there won't BE any inflight service! Oops, the regulators told us we had to keep a minimum number for Safety reasons...Damnit!! @#&*+in' Safety!!
Aha, now, the (minimum) cabin crew aren't doing anything during flight, and all that they do is sit on their fat @sses gossipping, during the 15 minute turnarounds, so let's get them working, and sack the cleaners.
And by the way, don't forget to smile as you help the third wheelchair passenger off the aeroplane...just because you ran 10 minutes behind sched getting in, you'd better get cracking because of the curfew on the return flight!
And "No" the station manager CAN NOT help you, he has a VIP mate of his who wants an introduction to the check-in chickie.
Right..no food...no service.
What about those pilots - there's only 2 of them.......we got rid of F/E's yonks ago, and we were working on having NO pilots, but looks as though we're stuck with 2 for the time being.
What we need to do is show that one pilot is as stupid.....but for commercial reasons, we'll make that "AS SMART"...as the other.
The objective is to get their salaries down to the same (lowest) level, so that the guy in the right seat is paid the same as the on in the left.
You've only got to look at an aeroplane to see where the cost is.
Well all of this work is making me tired, where's the tea lady?
Oh, and that reminds me, my rubbish bin is FULL of old coffee cups and biscuit wrappers (from the company supplied dispenser) - where's that cleaner who's responsible for taking all of this cr@p out?
We pay them bl00dy good money for what they do!
Reading this Professional Pilots Rumour Network stuff has taken up more of my time than it should have, too.
Looks like I'll have to put in ANOTHER 3 hours overtime tonight - that makes it about 15 for this week....that ought to pay for little Johnny's birthday present.
Thank Gawd it's a long week-end - I just don't know if I can take many more of these 10 hour days!!
Air N.Z. don't need to re-invent themselves on international, as long as they keep the aircraft on the ground for the minimum time, the load factors as high as possible, and costs to a minimum.
Because short haul is harder to gain high aircraft utilisation, the beanies then start looking at cutting costs.
Now it doesn't take too many brains to see where - looking from the outside in - these geniuses start.
Cut out the extras given to pax - food and drinks.
Reduce the number of cabin crew, because there won't BE any inflight service! Oops, the regulators told us we had to keep a minimum number for Safety reasons...Damnit!! @#&*+in' Safety!!
Aha, now, the (minimum) cabin crew aren't doing anything during flight, and all that they do is sit on their fat @sses gossipping, during the 15 minute turnarounds, so let's get them working, and sack the cleaners.
And by the way, don't forget to smile as you help the third wheelchair passenger off the aeroplane...just because you ran 10 minutes behind sched getting in, you'd better get cracking because of the curfew on the return flight!
And "No" the station manager CAN NOT help you, he has a VIP mate of his who wants an introduction to the check-in chickie.
Right..no food...no service.
What about those pilots - there's only 2 of them.......we got rid of F/E's yonks ago, and we were working on having NO pilots, but looks as though we're stuck with 2 for the time being.
What we need to do is show that one pilot is as stupid.....but for commercial reasons, we'll make that "AS SMART"...as the other.
The objective is to get their salaries down to the same (lowest) level, so that the guy in the right seat is paid the same as the on in the left.
You've only got to look at an aeroplane to see where the cost is.
Well all of this work is making me tired, where's the tea lady?
Oh, and that reminds me, my rubbish bin is FULL of old coffee cups and biscuit wrappers (from the company supplied dispenser) - where's that cleaner who's responsible for taking all of this cr@p out?
We pay them bl00dy good money for what they do!
Reading this Professional Pilots Rumour Network stuff has taken up more of my time than it should have, too.
Looks like I'll have to put in ANOTHER 3 hours overtime tonight - that makes it about 15 for this week....that ought to pay for little Johnny's birthday present.
Thank Gawd it's a long week-end - I just don't know if I can take many more of these 10 hour days!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr... OK then... I'm sure you are right (or not). 
Anyway, one point: Yes, you can achieve higher utilisation on long haul. What you can't do is adjust your yield to optimum levels every hour, which is what happens in short haul. When I go LHR-LAX later in the week, the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed. With short haul, you can micro-manage the yield. More to the point, you can do it ten times to every one time you can with long haul- in the 12 hours I will be in the air between LHR-LAX, my short-haul colleagues will have achieved up to ten sectors. This is why nobody has tried low-cost long haul.
Anyway, one point: Yes, you can achieve higher utilisation on long haul. What you can't do is adjust your yield to optimum levels every hour, which is what happens in short haul. When I go LHR-LAX later in the week, the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed. With short haul, you can micro-manage the yield. More to the point, you can do it ten times to every one time you can with long haul- in the 12 hours I will be in the air between LHR-LAX, my short-haul colleagues will have achieved up to ten sectors. This is why nobody has tried low-cost long haul.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Anywhere they want !
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw Data I would love to see a jet operate in & out of New Plymouth!! What fun.. not a possibility (737) as for Napier, not sure the 737 currently could do it either.
As for utilisation at least 4 are flying right through the night at the moment.
You have a point about dead wood, but this PC govt made it even harder to get rid of slackers.....
And cost cutting, next we'll be putting loo paper in the ACARS!
As for utilisation at least 4 are flying right through the night at the moment.
You have a point about dead wood, but this PC govt made it even harder to get rid of slackers.....
And cost cutting, next we'll be putting loo paper in the ACARS!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"This is why nobody has tried low-cost long haul."
Virgin Atlantic?
"the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed."
Ticket pricing can be altered (up or down) depending on seat sales.
Aircraft type substitution.
Cargo.
You are correct in saying that yields can be managed more OFTEN with multiple sectors, however the extra cycles of aircraft usage, and extra fuel burns are going to figure far more prominently with the bottom line calculation.
My point is, that while the beanies directly target the most OBVIOUS costs ie. those directly involved in aircraft crewing and handling, they conveniently ignore those in the office who stare at computers (or the Internet) for hours per week.
This needs to be the next stage of trimming, imo. Many desk jobs don`t need fulltime workers - their work could be done on 2 or 3 days in a week, instead of 5.
Virgin Atlantic?
"the yield is fixed months ahead and can't easily be changed."
Ticket pricing can be altered (up or down) depending on seat sales.
Aircraft type substitution.
Cargo.
You are correct in saying that yields can be managed more OFTEN with multiple sectors, however the extra cycles of aircraft usage, and extra fuel burns are going to figure far more prominently with the bottom line calculation.
My point is, that while the beanies directly target the most OBVIOUS costs ie. those directly involved in aircraft crewing and handling, they conveniently ignore those in the office who stare at computers (or the Internet) for hours per week.
This needs to be the next stage of trimming, imo. Many desk jobs don`t need fulltime workers - their work could be done on 2 or 3 days in a week, instead of 5.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing how a thread on Orgins pay has turned into a slagging of AirNZ and merits of LCC's !! 
Raw Data
AirNZ has made at lot of changes in the last 2 yrs, Domestically business class is gone increasing the amount of economy seats, food & booze all gone, only tea, coffee, water. Magizines gone, Hosties reduced to 3, a/c utilisation has increased (all nighter trans tasmans/Islands) internet bookings, self check in kiosks, cheap fares with no air points, increased flights generating increased pax, we are going to carry an extra 1 million pax domestically this year thru these changes So they are driving cost out (more to come) it's a very different airline today.
Those people hiding away in back rooms, etc are being slowly given there marching orders.
Personally I'd love to see the hosties helping with the cleaning and reckon we should be selling snacks/booze on the longer domestic sectors, we will never be a true LCC cos the business punters want the lounges, valet parking, etc
The airline is changing with the times and on track to make $300million profit this year, not bad for an "institutionalised Airline"
Raw Data
AirNZ has made at lot of changes in the last 2 yrs, Domestically business class is gone increasing the amount of economy seats, food & booze all gone, only tea, coffee, water. Magizines gone, Hosties reduced to 3, a/c utilisation has increased (all nighter trans tasmans/Islands) internet bookings, self check in kiosks, cheap fares with no air points, increased flights generating increased pax, we are going to carry an extra 1 million pax domestically this year thru these changes
So they are driving cost out (more to come) it's a very different airline today.Those people hiding away in back rooms, etc are being slowly given there marching orders.
Personally I'd love to see the hosties helping with the cleaning and reckon we should be selling snacks/booze on the longer domestic sectors, we will never be a true LCC cos the business punters want the lounges, valet parking, etc
The airline is changing with the times and on track to make $300million profit this year, not bad for an "institutionalised Airline"
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Anywhere they want !
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the jobs front....
There looks to be a ****e - load with Air NZ this year. Lotsa interviews.....
So plenty of flow down through the other carriers...
Its gotta be good news....
There looks to be a ****e - load with Air NZ this year. Lotsa interviews.....
So plenty of flow down through the other carriers...
Its gotta be good news....
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M
Virgin Atlantic are by no stretch of the imagination low cost, as that term is used in short-haul airlines. Even their interline fares are high. Virgin target the rich end of the market with lounges, manicures, hairdressers et al. They are one of the fullest-service airlines in the world. They are engaged in a major battle with BA for the premium passengers.
Laker had the better idea, he would have been much closer to the low cost model.
Ticket prices can be managed, but you can't effectively manage the yield as so many folk buy their tickets months ahead.
Aircraft types can be changed if you have the luxury of having the spare hulls. Cargo can help, but you can't generate it easily.
Virgin Atlantic are by no stretch of the imagination low cost, as that term is used in short-haul airlines. Even their interline fares are high. Virgin target the rich end of the market with lounges, manicures, hairdressers et al. They are one of the fullest-service airlines in the world. They are engaged in a major battle with BA for the premium passengers.
Laker had the better idea, he would have been much closer to the low cost model.
Ticket prices can be managed, but you can't effectively manage the yield as so many folk buy their tickets months ahead.
Aircraft types can be changed if you have the luxury of having the spare hulls. Cargo can help, but you can't generate it easily.
