Air Nelsons Future
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got told that some (not sure how many) of the guys that have been waiting for starts since earlier in the year have been given start dates...
Well done guys... I'm sure it would have been well worth the wait!! Good news for those that have just had interviews too I'm guessing... Maybe things are about to take off again in Nelson?? If posts on origin are anything to go by...
Well done guys... I'm sure it would have been well worth the wait!! Good news for those that have just had interviews too I'm guessing... Maybe things are about to take off again in Nelson?? If posts on origin are anything to go by...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where the beer is cold and the weather is colder.
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a quick look at the Q400 demostrator when it came around last year and got all the promotional stuff. Modern and fast but as everybody else points out its too big. They had been very keen for Qo to use them in place of the ATR's that they leased but the papers had already been signed. Saab2000's? dorniers? I'd be very surprised if anything other than ATR-42's showed up. Dont think a great deal of ATR's (never worked around 42's though) myself but im not signing the cheuque so i'll just say my peice and shut up.
Had heard there was a bit of a stand off going on between pilots and management? any updates?
Had heard there was a bit of a stand off going on between pilots and management? any updates?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are dreaming if they believe anything other than than 340B turned up. ANZ have bigger fish to fry rather than spend their cash on 42s, when the operating cost for the Cook 72s is bugger all more.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why is the Q400 too big, exactly?
It has similar (or lower, depending on lease arrangements) operating costs than the smaller Dashes, and the ATR72.
It will operate, easily, from a 1200m runway.
So what is the objection?
Surely you can't be saying that because it has more than 40 seats, it is "too big"...
It has similar (or lower, depending on lease arrangements) operating costs than the smaller Dashes, and the ATR72.
It will operate, easily, from a 1200m runway.
So what is the objection?
Surely you can't be saying that because it has more than 40 seats, it is "too big"...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South of zero
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its easy, this is how it works.
Eagle = 19 seat market
Nelson = 30-40 seat market
Cook = 60-70 seat market.
Simple.
Air NSN will not get an aircraft bigger than 40 seats.
If they did it would mean the beginning of a merger between the airlines and the lower managers would not like that.
splat
Eagle = 19 seat market
Nelson = 30-40 seat market
Cook = 60-70 seat market.
Simple.
Air NSN will not get an aircraft bigger than 40 seats.
If they did it would mean the beginning of a merger between the airlines and the lower managers would not like that.
splat
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this new fleet announcement getting any closer?? Seems to be taking ages... Heard managment and pilots recently came to some sort of agreement... so are things still moving along??
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: nEW zEALAND
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
got told late August for the fleet replacement and next week for the new contract.
Are they going to be interviewing again soon?
up to 49 seats for the replacement. anymore and they need two hosties. (bad luck boys)
Are they going to be interviewing again soon?
up to 49 seats for the replacement. anymore and they need two hosties. (bad luck boys)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its easy, this is how it works.
It works like this.
To succeed, an airline needs two things: high load factors and good yields. What the rest of the world has learned (but NZ airlines will probably never learn), is that the key to a successful operation is to stimulate the market by offering more capacity at lower prices. In other words, the low-cost model. It really works.
Of course what Air Nelson will do is go for a smaller aircraft (one that they can be sure of filling), and sadly that is the sort of unimaginative thinking that will mire them forever in 36-seat land.
You can make a hell of a lot more money by using a more economical, larger aircraft, and adjusting the yield on the fly. It is extremely difficult to make much using such a limited seat capacity - it is an inefficent way of working.
The argument regarding cabin crew is spurious, as the extra pax will more than pay for the extra hostie.
Similarly, the argument about mergers is irrelevant; they are all essentially the same company in any case, there isn't that much devolved power in any of the Air NZ-linked companies. The whisper I hear is that Air NZ is about to start consolidating their recruitment across the entire group - one of their problems is the disparate way the companies are managed.
But I'm sure you are right. Air Nelson will take a conservative approach, essentially denying themselves the ability to generate much new business, and keeping the NZ regional airline market stuck firmly in the 1980's. Air NZ will drive that decision.
My point was not what WILL happen, but what SHOULD happen...
I must say, though, that is a depressing thought, knowing the best you may manage in your career is an ATR, 340 or baby Dash.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, I think it's you who is taking the simplistic view.
It's very easy to say that a larger/newer aircraft is more efficient (and quite true). You are still missing the obviouse point that they will always cost more to aquire and insure.
I'm quite sure that Air NZ and Mount Cook would achieve better operating revenues with 737-800s, but it just aint gonna happen (not yet anyway).
Air NZ was I think the first conventional major airline to adopt a low cost model, and I think they employ some inovative management techniques. It is of course Air NZ management who really decideds what aircraft Air Nelson operate, and I'm sure that if they choose from 340s or ATRs it will be because these are the only viable options. I too would prefer to fly a CRJ or Q400, but be realistic. If the 'best I can manage' is a Saab or ATR, I will be quite content because at the end of the day, it's just a job.
If you really have some magic formula that puts the Q400 way out in front, I'm sure Air NZ would love to hear from you
It's very easy to say that a larger/newer aircraft is more efficient (and quite true). You are still missing the obviouse point that they will always cost more to aquire and insure.
I'm quite sure that Air NZ and Mount Cook would achieve better operating revenues with 737-800s, but it just aint gonna happen (not yet anyway).
Air NZ was I think the first conventional major airline to adopt a low cost model, and I think they employ some inovative management techniques. It is of course Air NZ management who really decideds what aircraft Air Nelson operate, and I'm sure that if they choose from 340s or ATRs it will be because these are the only viable options. I too would prefer to fly a CRJ or Q400, but be realistic. If the 'best I can manage' is a Saab or ATR, I will be quite content because at the end of the day, it's just a job.
If you really have some magic formula that puts the Q400 way out in front, I'm sure Air NZ would love to hear from you
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Anywhere they want !
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Mate! Where is your head??
What do you think Air NZ HAS been doing for the last 18 months??
It is the only airline with both low cost and full service.
Air Nsn are stretched with the 340. 33 seats is not enuf!
So expect something up to a 50 seater.
What the rest of the world has learned (but NZ airlines will probably never learn), is that the key to a successful operation is to stimulate the market by offering more capacity at lower prices. In other words, the low-cost model. It really works.
What do you think Air NZ HAS been doing for the last 18 months??
It is the only airline with both low cost and full service.
Air Nsn are stretched with the 340. 33 seats is not enuf!
So expect something up to a 50 seater.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Cutter
Wrong. In the first place, nobody buys aeroplanes any more, they LEASE them. The lease deals on the Q400 are very, very good at the moment. And even if you did buy it, it would still cost you less than many smaller aircraft.
Insurance difference is negligible, particularly as the Q400 has better systems than its predecessors and is thus safer (read cheaper to insure).
BCF Breath
Well, in New Zealand, maybe, and only if you ignore Virgin and Qantas, who have done exactly what Air NZ is doing (yes I know Jetstar isn't here - yet...).
More to the point, trying to do both usually ends in tears, as others have found (KLM/Buzz, BA/Go... remember them...???)
The only really successful Low-Cost carriers, anywhere in the world, specifically refuse to do what Air NZ has done.
With Air Nelson they have a golden opportunity to go completely with the Low-Cost model. Will they take it? Nah...
Some of you need to get out into the world and see what happens elsewhere. The way aviation is done in NZ is outdated and out of step with the rest of the world. I only realised how badly Air NZ had slipped when I returned to NZ recently. Doggy old aircraft, pathetic IFE systems, badly-supervised handling agents in other countries. Change is needed.
You are still missing the obviouse point that they will always cost more to aquire and insure.
Insurance difference is negligible, particularly as the Q400 has better systems than its predecessors and is thus safer (read cheaper to insure).
BCF Breath
What do you think Air NZ HAS been doing for the last 18 months?? It is the only airline with both low cost and full service.
More to the point, trying to do both usually ends in tears, as others have found (KLM/Buzz, BA/Go... remember them...???)
The only really successful Low-Cost carriers, anywhere in the world, specifically refuse to do what Air NZ has done.
With Air Nelson they have a golden opportunity to go completely with the Low-Cost model. Will they take it? Nah...
Some of you need to get out into the world and see what happens elsewhere. The way aviation is done in NZ is outdated and out of step with the rest of the world. I only realised how badly Air NZ had slipped when I returned to NZ recently. Doggy old aircraft, pathetic IFE systems, badly-supervised handling agents in other countries. Change is needed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Air Nsn IS a low cost operation. All the flash stuff went with the various rounds of cost cutting and recently Express Class.
I think you'll find Air NZ is actually buying some (not all) of its new fleet.
Two years ago the Star Alliance blasted Air NZ for the Ansett fiasco, last year Air NZ was THE ONLY SA member to make money....
By Air NZ doing both, I'm not talking about the Freedom operation.
Koru has, under the one banner both full and low-cost. Qantas has Jetstar, BA Go etc.
Well you haven't been reading anything lately have you then. Still 8 (at least) A320's to come, and I won't mention the new IFE and other fit-out on the 747s as well as the 777's arriving in 12 months.
Overseas handlers, well LAX is a prime example of what you're talking about. Cant argue there.
Although I've had no problems with Aussie, Asian or UK Staff.
Oh, and some of us have been working O/Seas and not everything they do is better.
Also they aren't thousands of miles from major destinations or only have 4 mill people to draw from.
You just can't compare Europe / North America with little ole' NZ. It's apples & Kiwifruit (or if you remember - Chinese Gooseberries)
Just remember where this outfit was 3 years ago, and where it's going now. Two totally different directions.
Rome wasn't built in a day. (The Unions just wouldn't allow it!!)
Change is happening...
Oh, why did you come home...?
Air Nsn IS a low cost operation. All the flash stuff went with the various rounds of cost cutting and recently Express Class.
I think you'll find Air NZ is actually buying some (not all) of its new fleet.
Two years ago the Star Alliance blasted Air NZ for the Ansett fiasco, last year Air NZ was THE ONLY SA member to make money....
By Air NZ doing both, I'm not talking about the Freedom operation.
Koru has, under the one banner both full and low-cost. Qantas has Jetstar, BA Go etc.
Doggy old aircraft, pathetic IFE systems, badly-supervised handling agents in other countries.
Overseas handlers, well LAX is a prime example of what you're talking about. Cant argue there.
Although I've had no problems with Aussie, Asian or UK Staff.
Oh, and some of us have been working O/Seas and not everything they do is better.
Also they aren't thousands of miles from major destinations or only have 4 mill people to draw from.
You just can't compare Europe / North America with little ole' NZ. It's apples & Kiwifruit (or if you remember - Chinese Gooseberries)
Just remember where this outfit was 3 years ago, and where it's going now. Two totally different directions.
Rome wasn't built in a day. (The Unions just wouldn't allow it
!!) Change is happening...
Oh, why did you come home...?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Air Nelson is not low cost, it is low fares. It's cost base hasn't changed a whole lot in the last few years.
Air NZ may have been the only SA partner to make money, but that makes a whole lot of sense if you look at the other partners. It didn't make nearly as much as the more successful airlines in the world, who, curiously, didn't get an $800-odd million handout from their governments... Air NZ should be bankrupt. In most other countries, it would be.
Air NZ may have the two types of operation under one banner, but it isn't doing either particularly well. That is because the two types of operation require quite different management structures and styles, and very different cost models.
BA lost go, what, five years ago? Go no longer exists. It's part of Easyjet now.
I did say that the aircraft I returned to NZ on were doggy. That would be a 747 and a 767 then. Both were appalling - grubby, badly maintained cabins, etc.
Sure, the Airbus is nice, but it isn't on the plum international routes, is it?
You can compare NZ with other countries, because the operating imperatives of an airline don't change from one country to the next. They all use fuel, require maintenance, and so on. All of the current airline models could work in NZ, but it requires creative thinking and a bit of risk-taking. When Easyjet started up, they had no market or customer base. They proceeded to create both.
Why did I come back to NZ? Well, after 15 years of belting around Europe in various tasty aircraft, I wanted to come home. I knew that with a few jet ratings, several turboprop ratings, and ten thousand hours, the best I could expect from the likes of Air Nelson was F/O on a Metro, so I basically gave up flying to come home. I am now embarking on a new business venture.
I can't think of anything done in aviation here that is better than in Europe. I would genuinely like to know what you think we do better.
One thing I will say, is that I really hate the parochial nonsense in NZ that says a pilot who has a huge amount of experience must start right back at the bottom again. The rest of the world stopped doing that years ago. Air Nelson even want 50 hours recent NZ instrument flying experience. Why? I have been flying in and out of Heathrow, Paris, Amsterdam, to name but a few, for 16 years. But all this experience is worth nothing, you see, because NZ is mysteriously "harder" than the busiest airspace and the busiest airports in the world.
Yeah, right.
Air NZ may have been the only SA partner to make money, but that makes a whole lot of sense if you look at the other partners. It didn't make nearly as much as the more successful airlines in the world, who, curiously, didn't get an $800-odd million handout from their governments... Air NZ should be bankrupt. In most other countries, it would be.
Air NZ may have the two types of operation under one banner, but it isn't doing either particularly well. That is because the two types of operation require quite different management structures and styles, and very different cost models.
Qantas has Jetstar, BA Go etc.
I did say that the aircraft I returned to NZ on were doggy. That would be a 747 and a 767 then. Both were appalling - grubby, badly maintained cabins, etc.
Sure, the Airbus is nice, but it isn't on the plum international routes, is it?
You can compare NZ with other countries, because the operating imperatives of an airline don't change from one country to the next. They all use fuel, require maintenance, and so on. All of the current airline models could work in NZ, but it requires creative thinking and a bit of risk-taking. When Easyjet started up, they had no market or customer base. They proceeded to create both.
Why did I come back to NZ? Well, after 15 years of belting around Europe in various tasty aircraft, I wanted to come home. I knew that with a few jet ratings, several turboprop ratings, and ten thousand hours, the best I could expect from the likes of Air Nelson was F/O on a Metro, so I basically gave up flying to come home. I am now embarking on a new business venture.
I can't think of anything done in aviation here that is better than in Europe. I would genuinely like to know what you think we do better.
One thing I will say, is that I really hate the parochial nonsense in NZ that says a pilot who has a huge amount of experience must start right back at the bottom again. The rest of the world stopped doing that years ago. Air Nelson even want 50 hours recent NZ instrument flying experience. Why? I have been flying in and out of Heathrow, Paris, Amsterdam, to name but a few, for 16 years. But all this experience is worth nothing, you see, because NZ is mysteriously "harder" than the busiest airspace and the busiest airports in the world.
Yeah, right.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
And rightly so. You chose to head for greener pastures, why should other Air Nelson pilots have their progression delayed so you can jump the que.
Having said that, I'm sure there are those who would value your experience (Jetconnect, Pac Blue, Air Freight - although from what you say I'm sure a dirty old CV580 is below you).
I think what CT7 was saying about BA and KLM is that they started seperate low cost airlines. Air NZ has completely redeveloped it's core business, and yes I'm sure they are greatfull to aunty Helen for the $800m. There's no denying that Air NZ is operating in the black, so they must be doing something right.
the best I could expect from the likes of Air Nelson was F/O on a Metro
Having said that, I'm sure there are those who would value your experience (Jetconnect, Pac Blue, Air Freight - although from what you say I'm sure a dirty old CV580 is below you).
I think what CT7 was saying about BA and KLM is that they started seperate low cost airlines. Air NZ has completely redeveloped it's core business, and yes I'm sure they are greatfull to aunty Helen for the $800m. There's no denying that Air NZ is operating in the black, so they must be doing something right.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat...
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
I hope in your business venture, you are a bit more careful about reading than on here.
CT7 mentioned that Air NZ is replacing its Blue Water Fleet with 777s and re-equipped 747s. This covers the point you keep hammering home about the 767s, which the older ones start to go soon.
The 737s will also not be here for ever.
The bit about wanting to skip a few rungs on the NZ aviation ladder, must be the same feeling we get if we want a UK licence. Start at the bottom.
Why not Pac Blue?? Or not as much as European pay??
I hope in your business venture, you are a bit more careful about reading than on here.
CT7 mentioned that Air NZ is replacing its Blue Water Fleet with 777s and re-equipped 747s. This covers the point you keep hammering home about the 767s, which the older ones start to go soon.
The 737s will also not be here for ever.
The bit about wanting to skip a few rungs on the NZ aviation ladder, must be the same feeling we get if we want a UK licence. Start at the bottom.
Why not Pac Blue?? Or not as much as European pay??
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make my point for me beautifully. The NZ attitude is "well you b*ggered off while the rest of us had to instruct for years, so go to the back of the queue". Everywhere else, pilot selection is done on the basis of aptitude, skill, and EXPERIENCE.
It has nothing to do with delaying progression, and the only people that trot out that tired line are First Officers who feel aggrieved because they are not yet able to get a LHS job (or those who are yet to get an airline job).
It has nothing to do with "skipping rungs". I did my time instructing, just like everybody else. I chose a different path when it came to airlines, so according to you, Plas Teek, I should now be disadvantaged by being made to start again.
In the rest of the world, you select the best person for the job. A career doesn't start and stop whenever you leave these shores. It is ongoing throughout your life, and most employers recognise that. You don't find Brit surgeons being made to start as interns, or managers brought in by the likes of Airways Corp or the CAA made to start off their NZ career by making the tea.
Any Kiwi has as much right as any other Kiwi to be working in NZ airlines, and selection should be done on the basis mentioned above. Nobody has a "right" to a place in a queue. If you can't recognise the value to an airline of having very experienced captains - from diverse backgrounds - then you don't know jack about aviation.
Anyway, I knew it would be like this I so chose to do something else. Please explain, if you can, the value of the Air Nelson 50 hours recent NZ IF time. That one still makes me laugh.
By the way, a Convair would be great fun. The old ones are always a lot more fun to fly than the new ones. From a pilot perspective, I enjoyed the F27 more than the 737.
In case you hadn't noticed, Air NZ also created a low-cost airline. So now they have a standard airline model, a low-cost model, and a low-low-cost model. Or is that a full-fat, mid-cost and a low-cost model? Very confusing. Please explain their strategy to me...
The only reason that they are in the black is that they were tossed the $800-odd mill by the government. Without that, they'd be long gone. They have a similar advantage to BA, when they were handed all the aircraft, property and staff, and told to go make some money. Easy, when you get it all handed to you, and don't have to service a debt. Hardly fair to compare them to airlines that actually have to trade themselves out of problems.
When they are making as much as Easyjet or Ryanair, I'll believe they have a successful business model. Not holding my breath though.
It has nothing to do with delaying progression, and the only people that trot out that tired line are First Officers who feel aggrieved because they are not yet able to get a LHS job (or those who are yet to get an airline job).
It has nothing to do with "skipping rungs". I did my time instructing, just like everybody else. I chose a different path when it came to airlines, so according to you, Plas Teek, I should now be disadvantaged by being made to start again.
In the rest of the world, you select the best person for the job. A career doesn't start and stop whenever you leave these shores. It is ongoing throughout your life, and most employers recognise that. You don't find Brit surgeons being made to start as interns, or managers brought in by the likes of Airways Corp or the CAA made to start off their NZ career by making the tea.
Any Kiwi has as much right as any other Kiwi to be working in NZ airlines, and selection should be done on the basis mentioned above. Nobody has a "right" to a place in a queue. If you can't recognise the value to an airline of having very experienced captains - from diverse backgrounds - then you don't know jack about aviation.
Anyway, I knew it would be like this I so chose to do something else. Please explain, if you can, the value of the Air Nelson 50 hours recent NZ IF time. That one still makes me laugh.
By the way, a Convair would be great fun. The old ones are always a lot more fun to fly than the new ones. From a pilot perspective, I enjoyed the F27 more than the 737.
In case you hadn't noticed, Air NZ also created a low-cost airline. So now they have a standard airline model, a low-cost model, and a low-low-cost model. Or is that a full-fat, mid-cost and a low-cost model? Very confusing. Please explain their strategy to me...
The only reason that they are in the black is that they were tossed the $800-odd mill by the government. Without that, they'd be long gone. They have a similar advantage to BA, when they were handed all the aircraft, property and staff, and told to go make some money. Easy, when you get it all handed to you, and don't have to service a debt. Hardly fair to compare them to airlines that actually have to trade themselves out of problems.
When they are making as much as Easyjet or Ryanair, I'll believe they have a successful business model. Not holding my breath though.
Last edited by MOR; 10th Aug 2004 at 01:27.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Your point's are well made. With respect to Air New Zealand operating with several cost models, I think this is indicative of the consolidation period needed to change from full service, to low cost (slightly different for the long haul operation where there will always be options). Eg the airpoints scheme is shortly to be brought into line. Could you please explain the difference between Express (domestic/Tasman) and the likes of Easyjet, Ryanair. The only difference I can see is in terms of fare conditions (although I'm not that familiar with the british airlines).
Why not go and fly one, I know that particular company would value your experience.
Your point's are well made. With respect to Air New Zealand operating with several cost models, I think this is indicative of the consolidation period needed to change from full service, to low cost (slightly different for the long haul operation where there will always be options). Eg the airpoints scheme is shortly to be brought into line. Could you please explain the difference between Express (domestic/Tasman) and the likes of Easyjet, Ryanair. The only difference I can see is in terms of fare conditions (although I'm not that familiar with the british airlines).
a Convair would be great fun
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you buy a ticket on Ryanair or Easyjet, you get just the flight - no water, no TOD sweet, nothing. You can, however buy (expensive) drinks and food on board, including alcoholic beverages.
Everything extra costs money, including hand or cabin bags that weigh more than the limit, reservation changes, wheelchair assistance, you name it. The rules are rigidly enforced. I have had to part with money because my laptop was half a kilo over the cabin bag limit.
Once you have checked in, you just get a blank boarding card - take whatever seat you like. This leads to some serious scrums. Take a kid if you want a good seat, as kids get on first.
On both Easyjet and Ryanair, there is no contracted cleaning on turnarounds, and passengers are asked towards the end of the flight to put their rubbish in a gash bag that the hostie brings down the aisle, and asked again to take rubbish with them when disembarking. The cabin is then cleaned (very superficially) by the cabin crew, so as you can probably imagine, it gets pretty grubby. As turnarounds are limited to 30 mins (ideally 20 mins), there is a lot of pressure to move quickly. There are no check-in machines (staff are cheaper), no lounges, no expensive decoration. They use the handling agent's check-in staff, as it is cheaper than employing their own.
The new Ryanair aircraft have been specified without window shades, seat-back pockets, or anything else not vital to the safety of the flight.
There is minimal handling, so no help if you are infirm or need assistance (unless you pay).
Yields are adjusted on a second-by-second basis to maximise load factors, which is the key to success with the Lo-Co model.
Pilots have to buy their own uniforms, pay for their airport car parking, pay for tea and coffee, etc etc.
You mentioned Air NZ and Airpoints. No such thing in any of the Low Cost carriers, as it costs way too much to administer.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. The point is that the Low-Cost model is built on removing everything not essential to the operation (like allocated seats for example), to cut costs. That is why I say that Air NZ is not Low Cost, but Low Fares. There is a difference. You would have to shed half the Air NZ office staff to even get close to the cut-down offices of the Low Cost carriers. No shiny buildings for them, they cut costs still further by housing their staff in the cheapest possible accomodation - at Luton (the main Easyjet base), this is essentially an old maintenance shed. Compare that to Air NZ's Auckland edifices.
Bottom line, Easyjet have admitted that the airline (ie the bit that operates the aircraft) makes no money at all. All the profit comes from extras, and it amounts to about GBP40 mill a year.
Now I assume that the domestic Air NZ flights that I have been on, between Wellington and Auckland, Christchurch and Nelson, are Express flights (they were certainly pretty cheap), and the there is no doubt at all in my mind that Air NZ is miles away from the Ryanair/Easyjet/Southwest model. I actually like that, because flying with Easyjet et al is not a pleasant experience - you do it because it is cheap.
However, one thing Easyjet don't skimp on is training their pilots. The training is pretty good.
I am not particularly down on Air NZ, I am sure they will bounce back from what was a serious drop from the glory days of the '90's, when they seemed to win awards every month. However, it is a resurgence based on a bailout, and is not an indicator of a good management performance - quite the reverse, in fact. It is easy to recover when you get handed all the cash - suppliers will fall over themselves to give you good deals, as they believe that they can't lose.
With regard to working over here, I had thought to myself that it might be nice to give something back to NZ aviation, and do some instructing. Can I get an instructing job? Even a part-time one? Pass on all those years of airline experience, emergencies, very bad weather, close calls, etc., to trainee pilots? Nope. I would be robbing some other instructor of the precious hours he or she needs to apply to Air Nelson or whatever.
I hope you can see how backwards that is. In NZ, it is the most inexperienced pilots teaching the newcomers. They have almost no experience to draw from. In other countries, older, experienced pilots are preferred, for a whole bunch of reasons - bu mostly that they are experienced, and can pass on a wealth of knowledge to their students.
When I was instructing, I hadn't experienced a genuine emergency, or even had a real weather issue. I was essentially teaching from ignorance. And so it continues.
Go figure...
Everything extra costs money, including hand or cabin bags that weigh more than the limit, reservation changes, wheelchair assistance, you name it. The rules are rigidly enforced. I have had to part with money because my laptop was half a kilo over the cabin bag limit.
Once you have checked in, you just get a blank boarding card - take whatever seat you like. This leads to some serious scrums. Take a kid if you want a good seat, as kids get on first.
On both Easyjet and Ryanair, there is no contracted cleaning on turnarounds, and passengers are asked towards the end of the flight to put their rubbish in a gash bag that the hostie brings down the aisle, and asked again to take rubbish with them when disembarking. The cabin is then cleaned (very superficially) by the cabin crew, so as you can probably imagine, it gets pretty grubby. As turnarounds are limited to 30 mins (ideally 20 mins), there is a lot of pressure to move quickly. There are no check-in machines (staff are cheaper), no lounges, no expensive decoration. They use the handling agent's check-in staff, as it is cheaper than employing their own.
The new Ryanair aircraft have been specified without window shades, seat-back pockets, or anything else not vital to the safety of the flight.
There is minimal handling, so no help if you are infirm or need assistance (unless you pay).
Yields are adjusted on a second-by-second basis to maximise load factors, which is the key to success with the Lo-Co model.
Pilots have to buy their own uniforms, pay for their airport car parking, pay for tea and coffee, etc etc.
You mentioned Air NZ and Airpoints. No such thing in any of the Low Cost carriers, as it costs way too much to administer.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. The point is that the Low-Cost model is built on removing everything not essential to the operation (like allocated seats for example), to cut costs. That is why I say that Air NZ is not Low Cost, but Low Fares. There is a difference. You would have to shed half the Air NZ office staff to even get close to the cut-down offices of the Low Cost carriers. No shiny buildings for them, they cut costs still further by housing their staff in the cheapest possible accomodation - at Luton (the main Easyjet base), this is essentially an old maintenance shed. Compare that to Air NZ's Auckland edifices.
Bottom line, Easyjet have admitted that the airline (ie the bit that operates the aircraft) makes no money at all. All the profit comes from extras, and it amounts to about GBP40 mill a year.
Now I assume that the domestic Air NZ flights that I have been on, between Wellington and Auckland, Christchurch and Nelson, are Express flights (they were certainly pretty cheap), and the there is no doubt at all in my mind that Air NZ is miles away from the Ryanair/Easyjet/Southwest model. I actually like that, because flying with Easyjet et al is not a pleasant experience - you do it because it is cheap.
However, one thing Easyjet don't skimp on is training their pilots. The training is pretty good.
I am not particularly down on Air NZ, I am sure they will bounce back from what was a serious drop from the glory days of the '90's, when they seemed to win awards every month. However, it is a resurgence based on a bailout, and is not an indicator of a good management performance - quite the reverse, in fact. It is easy to recover when you get handed all the cash - suppliers will fall over themselves to give you good deals, as they believe that they can't lose.
With regard to working over here, I had thought to myself that it might be nice to give something back to NZ aviation, and do some instructing. Can I get an instructing job? Even a part-time one? Pass on all those years of airline experience, emergencies, very bad weather, close calls, etc., to trainee pilots? Nope. I would be robbing some other instructor of the precious hours he or she needs to apply to Air Nelson or whatever.
I hope you can see how backwards that is. In NZ, it is the most inexperienced pilots teaching the newcomers. They have almost no experience to draw from. In other countries, older, experienced pilots are preferred, for a whole bunch of reasons - bu mostly that they are experienced, and can pass on a wealth of knowledge to their students.
When I was instructing, I hadn't experienced a genuine emergency, or even had a real weather issue. I was essentially teaching from ignorance. And so it continues.
Go figure...
Last edited by MOR; 10th Aug 2004 at 08:34.