Safety fears over new Kiwi air deal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety fears over new Kiwi air deal
news.com.au
Safety fears over new Kiwi air deal
By Steve Creedy
June 21, 2004
NEW air rights legislation allowing New Zealand carriers to operate in Australia without being subjected to local safety checks has angered the Opposition and aviation unions.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson called on the federal Government to delay mutual recognition amendments to the Civil Aviation Act until a full safety analysis had been performed.
He described the Government's handling of the legislation, which has been introduced into the House of Representatives, as "nothing short of shoddy".
The legislation, which would allow Kiwi aircraft to operate on Australian domestic routes with New Zealand certification, has been attacked by unions worried about safety and jobs moving across the Tasman.
Flight attendants have been particularly strident about potential safety problems posed by differences in the two countries on minimum number of cabin crew on planes. Australia requires a minimum one flight attendant for every 36 passengers, while New Zealand endorses an international standard of one for every 50.
==========================================
Safety fears over new Kiwi air deal
By Steve Creedy
June 21, 2004
NEW air rights legislation allowing New Zealand carriers to operate in Australia without being subjected to local safety checks has angered the Opposition and aviation unions.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson called on the federal Government to delay mutual recognition amendments to the Civil Aviation Act until a full safety analysis had been performed.
He described the Government's handling of the legislation, which has been introduced into the House of Representatives, as "nothing short of shoddy".
The legislation, which would allow Kiwi aircraft to operate on Australian domestic routes with New Zealand certification, has been attacked by unions worried about safety and jobs moving across the Tasman.
Flight attendants have been particularly strident about potential safety problems posed by differences in the two countries on minimum number of cabin crew on planes. Australia requires a minimum one flight attendant for every 36 passengers, while New Zealand endorses an international standard of one for every 50.
==========================================
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: N
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Over New Kiwi air deal
So I suppose we in godzone should have no fears about the Jet Connect QF aircraft being maintained in Melbourne and more concern about a bunch of aussie scaliwags... over here flying them. Now is that safe!!!! These aircraft and NZ crew numbers are already flying into Ozland under the QF banner. !!!!!!!!!! Is that safe!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson called on the federal Government to delay mutual recognition amendments to the Civil Aviation Act until a full safety analysis had been performed.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by the posts that have been posted on this forum over the last few months, there seems to be more incidents in the land of oz than in the godzone. Mind you, that could change because of our ozzie perceived safety standards.
I suppose more cabin crew might prevent cabin doors being ripped off by airbridges. Get a grip. The only safe way to operate aircraft is to leave them in the hangar.
There is always going to be an element of danger in aviation and safer operations is managed by a state of mind (mindsets, human factors, good CRM) not by numbers of employees.
I suppose more cabin crew might prevent cabin doors being ripped off by airbridges. Get a grip. The only safe way to operate aircraft is to leave them in the hangar.
There is always going to be an element of danger in aviation and safer operations is managed by a state of mind (mindsets, human factors, good CRM) not by numbers of employees.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame the governemnt for that wonderful Tasman agreement which promotes the flightless birds to flock to our shores... Isn't Bondi beach reserved for Kiwi's...
Only problem is not many want to take advantage of the agreement in reverse... Then again Queenstown in a wucked plice to ski...
Only problem is not many want to take advantage of the agreement in reverse... Then again Queenstown in a wucked plice to ski...
Yet again Steve Creedy displays his lack of technical knowledge and research.
It should read: Australia requires a minimum one flight attendant for every 36 seats fitted, while New Zealand endorses an international standard of one for every 50 passengers.
Australia requires a minimum one flight attendant for every 36 passengers, while New Zealand endorses an international standard of one for every 50.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: hotels
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More stone-walling by the Oz goverment/Minister for Qantas/unioins scared of competition? Rings familiar tones to the mid-night fax sent by then-Minister for Qantas to the NZ Minister of Transport who cancalled the negotiated open-skies agreement 15-odd years ago, lest Air NZ might operate in Oz at lower costs. Ansett NZ (a wholely-owned subsidery of Ansett Oz) was already up and running by then, as the NZ government had kept it's end of the bargin. QF-Oz subsequently operated QF-Oz aircraft and crews in NZ on the 'recognition' rules NZ had already adopted when QF-NZ collapsed a few years back, with barely a political murmur in NZ and, no doubt, total ignorance in Oz. Now QF-Oz uses Jet Connect to operate to Oz with - ironically - predominantly ocker crew. Who is screwing who?
I am always surprised by the ignorance many people in the west island have regarding the initial Minister for Qantas backdown all those years ago. Most ockers I have come across have no knowledge of that little ozzie gem.
As made sence 15 years ago, an open skies policy incorporating joint recognition of each others standards (between countries which realistically have very similar cultures towards safety/CRM etc) would make sense and remove red tape. 80% of Tran-Tasman traffic is already either ZK or VH registered/crewed/maintained so what does it matter if the flight arrives into MEL from CHC or SYD?
I would imagine this all comes back to union power, control and fear. I remember having an Air NZ airports manager travelling to Oz in the cockpit (when they could!) during the Ansett days to figure out why the cost to the group of turning around an Air NZ 737 was $150 in NZ (ground staff - loader/cleaners etc) and an Ansett 737 was $1400 in Oz. Which was why Air NZ used QF for turn-arounds as they 'only' charged $800. I guess full employment is a worthy aim, but take away the under-employed in Oz and what would the un-employment rate be then (when it is already 1% higher than NZ's)? I wouldn't want to be an airline worker for QF right now given the more efficient airlines from NZ and to the north that are eying up your patch (plus Australian/Jetstar from within), which is obviously were this story started. And this isn't an attack on the pay the workers get individually (I would have loved to be on AN/QF pay), but perhaps the unrealistic work practices the unions are trying to maintain and the tunnel vision and selective hearing some submitters to this forum have.
I am always surprised by the ignorance many people in the west island have regarding the initial Minister for Qantas backdown all those years ago. Most ockers I have come across have no knowledge of that little ozzie gem.
As made sence 15 years ago, an open skies policy incorporating joint recognition of each others standards (between countries which realistically have very similar cultures towards safety/CRM etc) would make sense and remove red tape. 80% of Tran-Tasman traffic is already either ZK or VH registered/crewed/maintained so what does it matter if the flight arrives into MEL from CHC or SYD?
I would imagine this all comes back to union power, control and fear. I remember having an Air NZ airports manager travelling to Oz in the cockpit (when they could!) during the Ansett days to figure out why the cost to the group of turning around an Air NZ 737 was $150 in NZ (ground staff - loader/cleaners etc) and an Ansett 737 was $1400 in Oz. Which was why Air NZ used QF for turn-arounds as they 'only' charged $800. I guess full employment is a worthy aim, but take away the under-employed in Oz and what would the un-employment rate be then (when it is already 1% higher than NZ's)? I wouldn't want to be an airline worker for QF right now given the more efficient airlines from NZ and to the north that are eying up your patch (plus Australian/Jetstar from within), which is obviously were this story started. And this isn't an attack on the pay the workers get individually (I would have loved to be on AN/QF pay), but perhaps the unrealistic work practices the unions are trying to maintain and the tunnel vision and selective hearing some submitters to this forum have.
