Jetconnect on Aus domestic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetconnect on Aus domestic
When Jetconnect was originally set up in NZ it was to do the QF NZ domestic flying, it didn't take long before they were on the trans tasmans. Now we have them operating J* trans tasmans with a transit time of 5-6 hrs in Bne and Mel, does anyone think they're going to be sitting at the airport cafeterias for this period? I think not, how convenient would it be to slot in a ool or avv shuttle, here we go guys, more of our flying to the lowest bidder. (Now we know how m/line feel)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I think that NZ aircraft should keep out of Australian domestic services (and vice versa), the article in the Australian is just another example of the sort of backward thinking that pervades parts of the Oz (and NZ) aviation scene.
You can understand the FAs being concerned about their jobs, but the idea that reducing the number of FAs will have a major safety impact is a bit of a joke.
The article states:
Why not a comparative assessment with the rest of the world? They all seem to think that 1:50 is OK.
The NZ standard is an international standard. The Oz standard isn't, and is another example of the insular shortsightedness you often get from Antipodean countries.
I remember the story that used to go around Heathrow... apparently CASA (or whatever it was then) refused to certify Qantas 747 ops into Heathrow until they had measured and surveyed the airport themselves. They couldn't trust those dodgy Brits to measure it properly, oh no. Never mind that the rest of the world had been flying 747s into LHR for years before QF came along...
It is shortsighted and foolish. Just for once, why not recognise that the rest of the world does, in fact, know what it is talking about.
You can understand the FAs being concerned about their jobs, but the idea that reducing the number of FAs will have a major safety impact is a bit of a joke.
The article states:
It also recommended that a comparative assessment by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of the safety records of Australia and New Zealand be completed prior to any changes being made to Australia's safety regulatory regime relating to large aircraft.
The NZ standard is an international standard. The Oz standard isn't, and is another example of the insular shortsightedness you often get from Antipodean countries.
I remember the story that used to go around Heathrow... apparently CASA (or whatever it was then) refused to certify Qantas 747 ops into Heathrow until they had measured and surveyed the airport themselves. They couldn't trust those dodgy Brits to measure it properly, oh no. Never mind that the rest of the world had been flying 747s into LHR for years before QF came along...
It is shortsighted and foolish. Just for once, why not recognise that the rest of the world does, in fact, know what it is talking about.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ricci,
Jetconnect will not be operating Jetstar trans-Tasman services. Jetstar Australia will be with Australian registered A320s and Australian tech-crew (based in Christchurch), as of December the 1st. Cabin-crew will be existing Jetconnect staff.
All flights will be out-and-back with no domestic "shuttles".
Some Jetconnect pilots will be employed by JQ as a result but ultimately, Jetconnect will be losing flying, not gaining it.
Jetstar crew will be paid more than Jetconnect crew.
Jetconnect will not be operating Jetstar trans-Tasman services. Jetstar Australia will be with Australian registered A320s and Australian tech-crew (based in Christchurch), as of December the 1st. Cabin-crew will be existing Jetconnect staff.
All flights will be out-and-back with no domestic "shuttles".
Some Jetconnect pilots will be employed by JQ as a result but ultimately, Jetconnect will be losing flying, not gaining it.
Jetstar crew will be paid more than Jetconnect crew.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetconnect crews don't spend that amount of time on the ground in Aussie.
I do recall though that when Poly/AirPac did the Tasmans for QF, there was a triangle flown with the hypotenuse being Sydney/Melbourne. Perhaps it might be AKL/SYD/PER next?
The timing is interesting...FAAA negotiating EBA??
I do recall though that when Poly/AirPac did the Tasmans for QF, there was a triangle flown with the hypotenuse being Sydney/Melbourne. Perhaps it might be AKL/SYD/PER next?
The timing is interesting...FAAA negotiating EBA??
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work with jetconnect crews out of WLG and they all do return flights from here whether to OZ or domestic. They work long days and I doubt they'd be very happy at a long layover in BNE.
Infact the aircraft quite literally just hop the pond, disgorge and fly back. None of the F/As I know stay overnight in OZ.
Infact the aircraft quite literally just hop the pond, disgorge and fly back. None of the F/As I know stay overnight in OZ.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1:36 means that there is a trained Flight attendant to open, or perhaps even more critically, NOT open a door on a 737 in the event of an emergency.
1:50 does not. Which is the safer option?
1:50 does not. Which is the safer option?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whilst there is no doubting that in 1:36 will always be safer than 1:50, that does not make 1:50 unsafe!! Otherwise it would not be an accpeted "worldwide standard".
