Pilot Suspensions / Mt Cook Airlines

[distracted cockroach]

Hear hear PB.
I think the "limited action" ie work to rule is a good strategy. I've been through strikes (and a lock-out) and I wish work to rule had been considered more seriously then.
Strength through unity!
DC

[Raw Data]

Hmmm this is interesting!

Just a few points...

In the sleepy Nz backwater, there is a little industrial law that stops any business from making people redundant and then employing others to fill the void. Makes sense ey! Mt Cook will NOT be closed down, Simple.

There is absolutely NO law that prevents a company from closing down and making it's workers redundant, and then another company offering them employment. That is all that MOR is talking about. It has been done before, and it will be done again.

if in this case, MOR is simply playing the devil's advocate, then there are some good points within the lines.

I absolutely agree. Some people here need to wake up and smell the sewerage. He isn't against the Mt Cook pilots and he isn't "dissenting". He is simply pointing out the realities of the situation. If you don't want to listen, fine, but his points are sound. The way in which some of you get all abusive if somebody disagrees with the "accepted wisdom" is a terrible reflection of the entrenched attitudes in NZ aviation. Believe it or not, overseas experience is a real eye-opener... most Kiwi pilots who go overseas never see NZ aviation in the same way ever again. It's a different world when you play with the big boys.

Asymetric Pete says "the dispute is about pay and training" also says "its a philosophical debate in negotiations" Philosphical what....does that mean money and giving the pilots the same as other Air New Zealand pilots?

No, it doesn't. He is talking about what MOR was talking about, namely setting up a situation where, should the pilots lose the fight, the company can set the agenda for the next ten years of negotiations. The Mt Cook pilots have put themselves in a position where they simply cannot back down without it costing them much more than what is under dispute. The company wants to weaken the unions to allow further cuts along the track.

Does this sound familiar? Ansett NZ? 89? How did they work out for the pilots?

It isn't being a "dissenter" or any other negative term when you point out the truth of the situation.

As MOR said... it is all about being smart, and picking your fights.

And before anyone has a go at me, I wholeheartedly support the Mt Cook pilots and would be happy to help them in their fight - I'd happily stand on a picket line with them, just tell me where and when.

[max rate]

[QUOTE=Raw Data]Hmmm this is interesting!
Just a few points...
There is absolutely NO law that prevents a company from closing down and making it's workers redundant, and then another company offering them employment. That is all that MOR is talking about. It has been done before, and it will be done again.

Raw Data.

a bit of light reading may be in order. May I suggest the ERA subpart 1 of part6A (effective Dec 2004). too large to reproduce here.
There is such a law.

Cheers

[Raw Data]

Well I did a bit of light reading...

The object of this subpart is to provide protection to specified categories of employees if their employer proposes to restructure its business so that their work is to be performed for a new employer and, to this end, to give employees a right—


(a)to elect to transfer to the new employer on the same terms and conditions of employment; and


(b)subject to their employment agreements, to bargain for redundancy entitlements from the new employer if made redundant by the new employer for reasons related to the restructuring of the previous employer's business; and


(c)if redundancy entitlements cannot be agreed with the new employer, to have the redundancy entitlements determined by the Authority.

It doesn't apply to what I wrote, which is the case where one company closes down and another takes over it's work. Subpart 6A only applies where, due to a restructure, a company elects to transfer work to another employer. It is not the same thing as one company closing down, and another taking over the work.

What the legislation is essentially talking about, is where a company chooses to sub work out to a contractor.

[max rate]

My point exactly

Air New Zealand is the employer, they own all the subsidiaries 100% what else needs to be explained?

[MOR]

...in which case the legislation you refer to still doesn't apply. RD makes a valid point.

More to the point - and I don't know the answer to this - it really comes down to who the pilots work for. As Mt Cook is a wholly-owned subsidiary - in other words, a separate company which has the majority of its stock owned by a holding company (Air NZ in this case) - it could be argued that the pilots work for Mt Cook, not Air NZ. In addition, Mt Cook could be shut down by Air NZ if they decided it was uneconomic. If another wholly-owned subsidiary then offered the redundant crews jobs (ie Freedom Air/Zeal320), you would have a tough time applying subpart 6A as the relationship between the companies is not the same as that described by subpart 6A.

Anyway... none of that is the point, is it?

[NoseGear]

Situation normal then

This situation seems to revolve thru the link carriers every couple of years. The usual beat of the 'pilots pay' drums, the inevitable threat of closing the company down, re-opening under a new name, or getting one of the other link carriers to cover those routes. When I worked for Air Nelson, the management let it be known that if we didn't come to the table wrt pay talks, then there was a strong likelyhood that Mt Cook (can't you taste the irony) would take over the routes operated by us using ATR's, and we would all be out of a job, or at best, we would have to re-apply to Mt Cook for our jobs back. Even a cursory glance would have shown the fallacy of those "plans", but it certainly had a lot of the senior guys running for cover, more interested in keeping what they had than losing it all...... I believe Eagle had the same threat hung over their head when the horsefloats were coming, being told that they would head over to Airwork of all places. Apart from a dubious legal position, imagine the public outcry if air services were withdrawn, or at best seriously disrupted, while the company cans 150 odd pilots for what?
I struggle to understand why airline, or any management for that matter, cannot seem to grasp the very real value of staff morale, loyalty and most of all goodwill. Its not such a difficult thing to foster, surely.
Hats off to the boys at Mt Cook, good on you guys for sticking up for yourselves, and the others that will follow you into the Chook, good luck to you all.
Nosey

[Raw Data]

I'd have to agree with that, it is a remarkably small thing that is being asked for by the pilots, in the overall scheme of things. It would be interesting to see how many ANZ execs routinely travel business class, and what the travel budget is for them.

I have worked in Europe, and I can echo what MOR said about long travel times to sims. I can remember Air Wisconsin crews travelling in from the US and going straight into the sim, same for some Air Zimbabwe guys, some Thais and even a few from AirBC in Canada. It wasn't unusual to see folk sleeping on the couches in the Woodford lounge. I don't think anybody should be expected to travel long distances and then go into the sim, but it is relatively common - even in the US, if you have to travel across the country to get to the simulator.

I just hope that, in sticking up for themselves, they don't inadvertently screw themselves.

[Hanz Blix]

JUST FISHING HERE!

Air NZ will not shut down MT Cook! It makes them good money and has the best OTP even while all this is going on. Not to mention the fact that MT Cook technically owns 65% of zeal320 (I stand to be corrected if not technically correct).

While all this is going on it seems to have slipped under the radar that Air NZ is parking up 2 744, hardly a company in a position to shut down its most profitable branch!

[flash123]

Yes, but OTP does not included cancelled flights!!, and i querry MC being the most profitable, but yeah still more than our big brother

[stoidiuoy]

As far as ownership goes....The Mount Cook group is owned by NATIONAL AIRLINES COMPANY LIMITED, registered 20Dec1984. This is then owned by TEAL and Air NZ at a 50%share each. Sound confusing.

[pakeha-boy]

reckon you would have to be an idiot to figure it out

[Mack Tuck]

In '99 individuals were selected by the company for redundancy. They ranged from very senior to junior. The one common thread was that those who had made a stand in one way or another featured heavily amongst those laid off, be it work-to-rule or union negotiators. 7 years later those laid off and the remainder of the humans have good jobs including 30+ Captains in the Gulf, skippers in UK and Oz/NZ and highly paid blokes in the Fragrant Harbour. Point is stick to your principles and dont bow to the pressure. Those that did 7 years ago will be regarded with the same contempt for the remainder of their worthless lives as they were then.
Good luck.

[MOR]

Good old '50s kiwi union rhetoric.

Yes, I'm sure those guys really enjoyed the stress of being laid off, the subsequent months of no pay followed by having to uproot their families and move to the other side of the world in order to keep the wolf from the door. I wonder how many are now glad that it happened - I doubt that many are.

To label people "worthless" because they made a choice of conscience is petulant and childish, and reflects the very worst of our historical union culture. It isn't an easy decision if you have a family.

[pakeha-boy]

...and that MOR,is everything in a nutshell.....been there ,done that!!!..I believe some of you young fella,s need to go back through some of the posts on this thread and re-read them.......there is a lot of good info and well directed info.....some of you were still in "dads bags" or just out of them when MOR and I were working for a living.....dont take it personal,take it with a grain of salt,but dont disregard it....I personally think that the info that MOR and Raw data have portrayed to you is nothing more than an effort to educate you,...no cheap shots,no disrespect...but a genuine effort to help you understand the reality of aviation.....and if any of you feel KIWI is any different from the rest of the world,I,m afraid you are very mistaken......this does not detract from your concerns or your pro-active stance for NZ aviation...it is the total opposite...........open your minds boys,open your minds.....PB

[Mack Tuck]

It isn't an easy decision if you have a family.

This was the excuse trotted out by the dissenters then too. Dont forget those that did the right thing and had families. Toughen up.

[Raw Data]

I agree with MOR. Mack Tuck is just acting like the union goon that he probably is. That sort of thuggery is something I had hoped we had seen the last of.

Toughen up...? No, I don't think so. You need to grow up.

I remenber ther Ansett dispute well. I was flying the 146 in the UK at the time, and got a phone call in the middle of the night asking if I would like to come back to NZ on what was a very lucrative contract. At the time, I didn't know about the dispute but it seemed too good to be true, so I contacted NZALPA. They told me what was going on, but their attitude was very, very threatening and combative, threatening both me and my family if I came back. It was just plain nasty, and highly unprofessional.

I didn't come back, but it wasn't for that reason - it was because I don't believe in crossing picket lines, and I wanted to support the Ansett guys. However, the behaviour of some within the union was despicable, and morally, completely corrupt - much worse than anything Ansett did.

Anybody that uses such perjorative language to describe those who made a different choice to them, is morally bankrupt. Even more so those that like to use the "S" word in the same context.

I am actually amazed that the Woomerii allow such comments.

[Mack Tuck]

Well the non-union guys are coming out in force. I guess it wasnt you guys who made their own way home from Queenstown; perhaps you repositioned the a/c. This is not a bad thing as in any dispute it is important to identify who can be relied upon and who cant.

[pakeha-boy]

MT....be careful who you accuse mate!.....was flying in Alaska,got the call,went back to kiwi....Was I aware of the situation ...yes and no....sometimes you have to jump into the fire to see how hot it is......then promptly left...after "seeing" the situation for myself... ...many kiwis overseas got "that call".....me mate...I have never and will never cross a picket line,or work action......but as Raw Data put it...NZAlpa werent the most professional....PB

[Raw Data]

in any dispute it is important to identify who can be relied upon and who cant

...just as it is important to identify who is likely to be a threat to you and your family for daring to disagree with a union line.

Such people are little more than petty thugs dressed up as pilots. Funny how people revert to the baser instincts when the pressure comes on. Interesting how people can turn on friends and colleagues over a industrial dispute. And you though the Taliban were a little over the top...

People who act like that have no place in professional aviation.

As it happens, I am a member of a pilots union, but not one that espouses the threat of intimidation in the way that the individual above does, or the way that NZALPA did (or perhaps more accurately, some of their staff).

If the only way that you can solve your problems is with violence or threats of violence, or intimidation or insults, you really don't have the moral character to be in charge of an aircraft...