Ozjet is an airline!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orztrayliah
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waav8r
Not, lets not follow the tree huggers, I just thought that the B737-229's were banned from night flights within Europe due to noise.
VH-OZQ is still an aircraft manufactured in 1974, and according to the UK CAA's website, had flown over 61000 hours by the end of last year!!
I assume that these aircraft are Chapter 3 compliant?
Either way, these -200's are old, and bloody noisy if you compare them with later versions of the B737.
Business travellers demand punctuality and serviceability. Surely this will be harder to provide with a 31 year old airframe, when the competition are using newer aircraft.
Not, lets not follow the tree huggers, I just thought that the B737-229's were banned from night flights within Europe due to noise.
VH-OZQ is still an aircraft manufactured in 1974, and according to the UK CAA's website, had flown over 61000 hours by the end of last year!!
I assume that these aircraft are Chapter 3 compliant?
Either way, these -200's are old, and bloody noisy if you compare them with later versions of the B737.
Business travellers demand punctuality and serviceability. Surely this will be harder to provide with a 31 year old airframe, when the competition are using newer aircraft.
Last edited by Bentleigh; 9th Nov 2005 at 05:06.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain why, when I point out some significant environmental trade offs in the pursuit of low prices and doubts about the basic premise of the business plan use of what are "superannuated aircraft" by any measure, I and others are automatically pilloried as anti-competition and anti-job creation.
Far from it.
elektra says;
so lets start the same race to the bottom in the airline industry that cruelled the GA industry. More jobs in the short term less in the future and while we are at it, we can tell the airframe and engine manufacturers to quit this all this expensive modernisation and fartarsing around, sack the hundreds of thousands of aerospace workers so we can employ a dozen or so extra pilots, go back to the desert and refurbish the thousands of airframes we once thought had passed their use by date and lets get on with it shall we. I always did have a bit of a hankering for the CV990.
Far from it.
elektra says;
Deregulation creates jobs. Three words...a world of truth. Get over the hatred and bias...newcomers change things and we're all better for it.
so lets start the same race to the bottom in the airline industry that cruelled the GA industry. More jobs in the short term less in the future and while we are at it, we can tell the airframe and engine manufacturers to quit this all this expensive modernisation and fartarsing around, sack the hundreds of thousands of aerospace workers so we can employ a dozen or so extra pilots, go back to the desert and refurbish the thousands of airframes we once thought had passed their use by date and lets get on with it shall we. I always did have a bit of a hankering for the CV990.
Gaunty, the capital cost of the aircraft is a factor in the total cost per hour. If the reduced (or zero) capital cost offsets the fuel and operational cost penalties then you can have a go.
I don't think the Comvairs are coming out or retirement just yet, unless the price of Jet A1 drops to 10 cents a litre.
I don't think the Comvairs are coming out or retirement just yet, unless the price of Jet A1 drops to 10 cents a litre.
gaunty wrote:
If you're so fair dinkum about this, then why aren't you holding banners at Sydney Airport protesting against:
Why is this SUDDENLY relevant now???
Just wondering
google "aircraft noise"
The world is interested in noise, here's but one of thousands of studies.
And this little bewdy and so on.
It's from the US so it must be true/good for us/work here.
The world is interested in noise, here's but one of thousands of studies.
And this little bewdy and so on.
It's from the US so it must be true/good for us/work here.
- The AAE/NJS 727's ?
- The DHL 727 ?
- The Airwork 737 ?
- Any KC-135 etc, that may visit?
- Even JT's 707?
Why is this SUDDENLY relevant now???
Just wondering
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny mate, tell me something I don't know.
I'm trying to lift the debate beyond the here's a few jobs for the boys.
Yes but at what cost?
My point is, that this form of business case is in itself predatory in exactly the same way the GA operators have worked themselves out of business, as well in this case an irresponsible use of non renewable resources and an unnecessary impost on the environment.
Try and put the old 70's diesel buses back on the road and see how far you get.
No wonder we didn't sign up to Kyoto we would have to trade a heap of credits won by efficient users to offset the extra carbon load.
Which is exactly what it going to happen before too long. An operator using high emission products is going to have to pay an additional carbon tax. That'll take the fun out of it.
The CV990 BTW was still in commercial ?? service until the mid eighties.
It was very quick but not realy competitive in airline service.
ZigZag quite so and it is not suddenly relevant it remains so. You know very well the circumstances and history of those types and they, JT and the military are hardly running hourly schedules between city hubs.
I'm trying to lift the debate beyond the here's a few jobs for the boys.
Yes but at what cost?
My point is, that this form of business case is in itself predatory in exactly the same way the GA operators have worked themselves out of business, as well in this case an irresponsible use of non renewable resources and an unnecessary impost on the environment.
Try and put the old 70's diesel buses back on the road and see how far you get.
No wonder we didn't sign up to Kyoto we would have to trade a heap of credits won by efficient users to offset the extra carbon load.
Which is exactly what it going to happen before too long. An operator using high emission products is going to have to pay an additional carbon tax. That'll take the fun out of it.
The CV990 BTW was still in commercial ?? service until the mid eighties.
It was very quick but not realy competitive in airline service.ZigZag quite so and it is not suddenly relevant it remains so. You know very well the circumstances and history of those types and they, JT and the military are hardly running hourly schedules between city hubs.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to zigzags post; because none of them are operating high capacity RPT operations.
Fact - the AAE (NJS) 727's are responsible for 90% of the noise complaints at MEL and BNE. They would have been phased out by now but for the lack of an immediate alternative.
Just as with the OZJet 737-200's they are chapter 3 compliant by aggragate only - that is, across the 3 phases of measurement they comply, but fail individually. Chapter 3 compliance in Australia is at each point; these current aircraft operate, and OZJet will be allowed to operate, because the legislation to boot them all out was delayed following Ansett's collapse and the industry upheaval following 9/11. All these current dinosaurs will be required to leave the country once Chapter 4 is adopted.
And Bentleigh is right - these 737's have been banned from nightflights in Europe - hence their introduction down here.
They may have an AOC, but they aren't an airline. You who have worked hard for your qualifications, and who suffer so unmercifully in this harsh competitive environment must understand that this is going to further destabilise the local aviation market and put more pressure on your salaries and standards of employment. And all for what? So this Stoddart (who already has a poor reputation in Europe) can take advantage of a cheap and cheerful opportunity that we all know in our heart of hearts is not sustainable on the Australian domestic trunk routes. It will hurt QF, it will hurt VB, and eventually it will destroy the aspirations of its own employees as it implodes because the model is basically bankrupt. Remember (and you engineers should know) old jets can be made safe, but only heaps and heaps of money and time can make them reliable. Any claims Stoddart makes about being low-cost because he is not paying aircraft rentals is absolutely drowned out in the exponential costs he will have to contribute to maintain reliability. And if there is one thing that he is known for in Europe it is that he does the bear minimum of maintenance requirements. You can get away with it as a charter airline - you cant get away with it on the 3rd busiest domestic air route in the world!
Saying OZJet is an airline is like saying Mindardi is a Formula 1 team!
Fact - the AAE (NJS) 727's are responsible for 90% of the noise complaints at MEL and BNE. They would have been phased out by now but for the lack of an immediate alternative.
Just as with the OZJet 737-200's they are chapter 3 compliant by aggragate only - that is, across the 3 phases of measurement they comply, but fail individually. Chapter 3 compliance in Australia is at each point; these current aircraft operate, and OZJet will be allowed to operate, because the legislation to boot them all out was delayed following Ansett's collapse and the industry upheaval following 9/11. All these current dinosaurs will be required to leave the country once Chapter 4 is adopted.
And Bentleigh is right - these 737's have been banned from nightflights in Europe - hence their introduction down here.
They may have an AOC, but they aren't an airline. You who have worked hard for your qualifications, and who suffer so unmercifully in this harsh competitive environment must understand that this is going to further destabilise the local aviation market and put more pressure on your salaries and standards of employment. And all for what? So this Stoddart (who already has a poor reputation in Europe) can take advantage of a cheap and cheerful opportunity that we all know in our heart of hearts is not sustainable on the Australian domestic trunk routes. It will hurt QF, it will hurt VB, and eventually it will destroy the aspirations of its own employees as it implodes because the model is basically bankrupt. Remember (and you engineers should know) old jets can be made safe, but only heaps and heaps of money and time can make them reliable. Any claims Stoddart makes about being low-cost because he is not paying aircraft rentals is absolutely drowned out in the exponential costs he will have to contribute to maintain reliability. And if there is one thing that he is known for in Europe it is that he does the bear minimum of maintenance requirements. You can get away with it as a charter airline - you cant get away with it on the 3rd busiest domestic air route in the world!
Saying OZJet is an airline is like saying Mindardi is a Formula 1 team!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty - I'm somewhat puzzled as to why yourself joining the greenies in a crusade against aviation is "lifting the debate beyond the here's a few jobs for the boys". First of all - do you seriously believe that OzJet is started in order to provide "jobs for the boys"??
Secondly if this is an "irresponsible use of non-renewable resources" - where exactly do you draw the line between what constitutes responisible vs. irresponsible use of our natural wealth. You seem to share the "cock-suredness" approach of Greenpeace and others that YOUR definition is the one and only quantification of where to draw the line. (think burning massive amounts of petrol in your rubber dingie while protesting in an attempt to prevent resupplies to an oil exploration platform). You alluded in an earlier post that it was morally wrong to fly an aircraft the size of a 737 with only 60 people in it, but somehow fail to realise that the logical progression of your moral definition, is that it is indeed "immoral" to have a business class (with ample legroom) at all! Indeed - following on, it is positively wrong to even contemplate taking off with an empty seat in an all-economy lay-out, so lets just keep 'er at the gate until every last cattle-class seat is filled - bugger them if they're in a hurry, they should have driven their ox-cart along the Hume highway between SYD and MLB anyways. Oh, and once the A380 is operational with capacity for 880 economy seat passengers, it would be "immoral" to fly anything else wouldn't it, as any other aircraft than this is less efficient with fuel burned per seat/kilometre??
I suppose it may not surprise you by now that I happen to believe that NOT signing the Kyoto agreement is of the few "gutsy" decisions our esteemed government has made in recent years.
With respect and regards
Secondly if this is an "irresponsible use of non-renewable resources" - where exactly do you draw the line between what constitutes responisible vs. irresponsible use of our natural wealth. You seem to share the "cock-suredness" approach of Greenpeace and others that YOUR definition is the one and only quantification of where to draw the line. (think burning massive amounts of petrol in your rubber dingie while protesting in an attempt to prevent resupplies to an oil exploration platform). You alluded in an earlier post that it was morally wrong to fly an aircraft the size of a 737 with only 60 people in it, but somehow fail to realise that the logical progression of your moral definition, is that it is indeed "immoral" to have a business class (with ample legroom) at all! Indeed - following on, it is positively wrong to even contemplate taking off with an empty seat in an all-economy lay-out, so lets just keep 'er at the gate until every last cattle-class seat is filled - bugger them if they're in a hurry, they should have driven their ox-cart along the Hume highway between SYD and MLB anyways. Oh, and once the A380 is operational with capacity for 880 economy seat passengers, it would be "immoral" to fly anything else wouldn't it, as any other aircraft than this is less efficient with fuel burned per seat/kilometre??
I suppose it may not surprise you by now that I happen to believe that NOT signing the Kyoto agreement is of the few "gutsy" decisions our esteemed government has made in recent years.
With respect and regards
Not that it effects the arguement elektra but the Aloha 737 wasn't a 100, it was indeed a 737-297 N73711. It and 2 others were the fleet leaders for cycles in the world. The accident aircraft was the 2nd highest cycled in the world.
After the accident the other 2 were found to have the same problems and both of them were soon scrapped as well. They all had somewhere around 40,000 hours but about 90,000 cycles. I believe N73711 was 19 years old when the accident occured
After the accident the other 2 were found to have the same problems and both of them were soon scrapped as well. They all had somewhere around 40,000 hours but about 90,000 cycles. I believe N73711 was 19 years old when the accident occured
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tropical Bliss
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barb with all due respect "SO WHAT".
To take you up on some of your points:-
Noise is relative .Cities are noisy .You dont like noise you dont live in the city.The world will not stop rotating because of a couple of 737s flogging about. Chainsaws /mowers/ hot cars boats and motorbikes are all accepted but a 737 flying overhead for 30 seconds God forbid.
A dog barking next door in the middle of the night is noisy.
What do we all know in our heart of hearts ? Tell us because Business model airlines are doing really well . This should be no different.Because he is running over the 3rd(your quote) busiest route in the world he should have reasonable traffic .
This will hurt Qantas and Virgin . Oh in that case Stoddard better not open an airline.... because it might hurt the big two. AND your point about Stoddart being of poor reputation ? Do you see GEOFF and RICHARD as nice guys.................... please.
This Airline has only done one thing differently to catch my attention.They have broken the chain of pilots paying for jobs. A lot of very fine pilots simply through cost of living cannot afford $35,000 to buy the qualifications.
For that I stand ,clap and say "well done and good luck OZJET ."
To take you up on some of your points:-
Noise is relative .Cities are noisy .You dont like noise you dont live in the city.The world will not stop rotating because of a couple of 737s flogging about. Chainsaws /mowers/ hot cars boats and motorbikes are all accepted but a 737 flying overhead for 30 seconds God forbid.
A dog barking next door in the middle of the night is noisy.
What do we all know in our heart of hearts ? Tell us because Business model airlines are doing really well . This should be no different.Because he is running over the 3rd(your quote) busiest route in the world he should have reasonable traffic .
This will hurt Qantas and Virgin . Oh in that case Stoddard better not open an airline.... because it might hurt the big two. AND your point about Stoddart being of poor reputation ? Do you see GEOFF and RICHARD as nice guys.................... please.
This Airline has only done one thing differently to catch my attention.They have broken the chain of pilots paying for jobs. A lot of very fine pilots simply through cost of living cannot afford $35,000 to buy the qualifications.
For that I stand ,clap and say "well done and good luck OZJET ."
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orztrayliah
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tickle me Pink
A little bit of digging on the Ozjet website http://www.ozjet.com.au/employment/PilotTC.pdf reveals:
You have to provide a $30,000 bank guarantee to cover the cost of training if you stay (or they survive) for first 3 years.
Captains $100,000 per annum plus super, until check-to-line when it goes to $120,000 per annum plus super.
F/O's $60,000 per anum plus super, until check-to-line when it goes to $75,000 per annum plus super.
$75 if you have a lay-over greater than 8 hours away from your base.
Cheap aircraft, cheap crews
A little bit of digging on the Ozjet website http://www.ozjet.com.au/employment/PilotTC.pdf reveals:
You have to provide a $30,000 bank guarantee to cover the cost of training if you stay (or they survive) for first 3 years.
Captains $100,000 per annum plus super, until check-to-line when it goes to $120,000 per annum plus super.
F/O's $60,000 per anum plus super, until check-to-line when it goes to $75,000 per annum plus super.
$75 if you have a lay-over greater than 8 hours away from your base.
Cheap aircraft, cheap crews
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that pay I hope the fuelburn kills them quickly!
I hope the crews get into QF with the endorsement without having to pay!
Anyone know if that is a set salary or if more pay for higher hours? For eg QF base pay is on 55 hours per month but crews do 65-90 and icrease takehome way above the "salary" in the CA!
A pommy mate of mine is delivering #3 shortly!
I hope the crews get into QF with the endorsement without having to pay!
Anyone know if that is a set salary or if more pay for higher hours? For eg QF base pay is on 55 hours per month but crews do 65-90 and icrease takehome way above the "salary" in the CA!
A pommy mate of mine is delivering #3 shortly!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waav8r me a tree hugger, nah! doesn't mean I am not sensitive to the environment nor a champion of progress. And I have an uneasy relationship with Greenpeace, but you cant deny they certainly get out the message.
Ozjet certainly wasn't started to provide jobs for the boys but listening to what's going on here you would think so.
It was started to find work for aircraft that are no longer welcome in the more sophisticated parts of the world.
And to capitalise on the "Aussie battler syndrome", sorry but we have grown past that and are way more sophisticated than they imagine.
Oz has a nonpareil reputation for technology take up and leadership in all manner of world issues including Kyoto.
I agree with you on Kyoto and so does my environmental scientist and policy advisor elder daughter.
I also believe that the carbon tax concept is a good start to focussing the world on who is profligate or not and a means of fixing it.
But that doesn't mean we should tolerate a giant leap backwards in the use of aircraft that we have spent several decades growing away from in the hell bent pursuit of "business".
All Australian businesses who consume resources and produce emissions are now required to comply with all manner of codes and regulation, why not this one.
As I write this I am looking out my home office window over the valley, at a sparkling, gin clear day and I can smell the jasmine and rose bushes flowering outside. and I live inner city.
Notwithstanding enormous growth it is "cleaner" than it was decades ago....hang on there goes one of the new H2 fuel cell powered buses.....
OK so how many of those do we need to "pay back" the extra over emissions of a B737-200 against a B737-NG, or why should we not bank the difference.
Where do you draw the line? easy peasy, where it is NOW and keep the pressure on to raise it as fast as is practicable . We should not tolerate any degradation of it.
That sorta handles you point about business class and not leaving the gate unless you are as full as a goog.
Business class is market driven and an additional source of revenue to mitigate the high cost of the modern technology.
Overall it is the benchmark fuel burn per pax using modern technology that is the point. Significantly higher fuel burn with an artificially reduced load is what is unfriendly.
Cheers in heated agreement
Ozjet certainly wasn't started to provide jobs for the boys but listening to what's going on here you would think so.
It was started to find work for aircraft that are no longer welcome in the more sophisticated parts of the world.
And to capitalise on the "Aussie battler syndrome", sorry but we have grown past that and are way more sophisticated than they imagine.
Oz has a nonpareil reputation for technology take up and leadership in all manner of world issues including Kyoto.
I agree with you on Kyoto and so does my environmental scientist and policy advisor elder daughter.
I also believe that the carbon tax concept is a good start to focussing the world on who is profligate or not and a means of fixing it.
But that doesn't mean we should tolerate a giant leap backwards in the use of aircraft that we have spent several decades growing away from in the hell bent pursuit of "business".
All Australian businesses who consume resources and produce emissions are now required to comply with all manner of codes and regulation, why not this one.
As I write this I am looking out my home office window over the valley, at a sparkling, gin clear day and I can smell the jasmine and rose bushes flowering outside.
and I live inner city. Notwithstanding enormous growth it is "cleaner" than it was decades ago....hang on there goes one of the new H2 fuel cell powered buses.....OK so how many of those do we need to "pay back" the extra over emissions of a B737-200 against a B737-NG, or why should we not bank the difference.
Where do you draw the line? easy peasy, where it is NOW and keep the pressure on to raise it as fast as is practicable . We should not tolerate any degradation of it.
That sorta handles you point about business class and not leaving the gate unless you are as full as a goog.
Business class is market driven and an additional source of revenue to mitigate the high cost of the modern technology.
Overall it is the benchmark fuel burn per pax using modern technology that is the point. Significantly higher fuel burn with an artificially reduced load is what is unfriendly.
Cheers in heated agreement
Boy those smokin' JT8D's have sure sparked some smoke on this thread!
Might it have occurred to anyone that the 732's are an interim aircraft to get the show up and running? Just curious, because Ryanair and Easyjet also kicked off with 732's, but once they gained momentum quickly moved to a more modern fleet.
Tankengine, I seriously doubt that Geoff Dixon is just waiting for the demise of Ozjet so he can get his hands on some current 732 drivers.
Anyway I suspect that an alternative for the business traveller is a positive thing, and I applaud the good-old-fashioned bond approach as an alternative to the buy-a-rating trend. I wish them well.
Might it have occurred to anyone that the 732's are an interim aircraft to get the show up and running? Just curious, because Ryanair and Easyjet also kicked off with 732's, but once they gained momentum quickly moved to a more modern fleet.
Tankengine, I seriously doubt that Geoff Dixon is just waiting for the demise of Ozjet so he can get his hands on some current 732 drivers.
Anyway I suspect that an alternative for the business traveller is a positive thing, and I applaud the good-old-fashioned bond approach as an alternative to the buy-a-rating trend. I wish them well.
Gaunty,
Apart from a bit of smoke from maybe 4 x 200s, probably the same?
Both probably pump out less noxious gases than your D!@#$%&h Rickshaw!
the extra over emissions of a B737-200 against a B737-NG
Both probably pump out less noxious gases than your D!@#$%&h Rickshaw!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might it have occurred to anyone that the 732's are an interim aircraft to get the show up and running? Just curious, because Ryanair and Easyjet also kicked off with 732's, but once they gained momentum quickly moved to a more modern fleet.
If they want cheap airframes then the -300 would have been the way to go, cheap to buy, better fuel effeciency and nearly as quiet as an NG.... but that would have meant the backer of this 'airline' having to put his hand in his pocket, something he is adverse to... he has a few old clunkers knocking about and FR is looking for a scrap yard to park their -200's...