Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s

[InZed]

Originally Posted by waren9

yep, another f. up by alpa about to happen.

a321's (near 767 size) flown now on a320 money. 787-9's near 772 size flown considerably cheaper. lets see how much claw back they get with the 787-10's.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the current 777 pay scales based on the 744 pay scales?

Either way. They’re going to need to do a sizeable increase to the 787 pay scales by then before everyone throws their toys out of the cot.

[ElZilcho]

The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago. To ward of any possible reduction should the company purchase A319’s, a family rate was agreed upon as they never envisaged we’d get A321’s. Of course, here we are 15 odd years later, with NEO’s instead of a new type and stuck with the Family rate.

As for the 777 rates, it’s a blend between the -200 and -300 rates. With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9. Time for ALPA (and by that I mean the collective) to grow a spine and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay.

[donkey123]

Originally Posted by ElZilcho

The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago. To ward of any possible reduction should the company purchase A319’s, a family rate was agreed upon as they never envisaged we’d get A321’s. Of course, here we are 15 odd years later, with NEO’s instead of a new type and stuck with the Family rate.

As for the 777 rates, it’s a blend between the -200 and -300 rates. With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9. Time for ALPA (and by that I mean the collective) to grow a spine and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay.

At least the ‘A320 Family’ have now been ring fenced, avoiding an introduction of A321LR’s or similar flying to medium haul destinations (eg Perth, HNL)

Agree re pay scale calculation. The same problem will manifest itself when the 777 3’s are replaced (777-900 similar gross weight etc).

[RubberDogPoop]

Ouch! Tough audience...

The A321 rate was a shortsighted mistake made years ago.

You've even answered your own issue. Everything's pretty easy in hindsight. The reasoning was sound, the "family" rate at the time was reasonable (better than, regionally), and arguably the NEO is a new type altogether...

With the 787 however, the -10 (currently) has the same MTOW as the -9.

and negotiate a new method to calculate fleet pay

Good thing the pay-rates are based on a payload/range equation and not just weight I guess. 40 more seats, 15% more cargo volume...

The same problem will manifest itself when the 777 3’s are replaced (777-900 similar gross weight etc).

It's unlikely a 330 seat aeroplane will be replaced with a 440 seat one in any case (that, and a 777-900 doesn't exist), so more likely a 777-8 is the machine. Again, payload to the rescue...

Looks like there'll be plenty of volunteers for ALPA negotiations, and that can only be a good thing.

[ElZilcho]

Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop

Ouch! Tough audience...

You've even answered your own issue. Everything's pretty easy in hindsight. The reasoning was sound, the "family" rate at the time was reasonable (better than, regionally), and arguably the NEO is a new type altogether...

That's kinda my point. At the time it was the right decision, in hindsight, it backfired spectacularly.

Good thing the pay-rates are based on a payload/range equation and not just weight I guess. 40 more seats, 15% more cargo volume...

Understand this, so curious how it'll work out. The -10 has more "Volume" available but less weight available being heavier than the -9 with the same MTOW, and less range (book figures). Wait and see I suppose, we haven't agreed to a 787 Family rate so the -10 will be negotiated separately.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by SandyPalms

why?

I’m as sceptical as anyone on QF, but we need some kind of rational argument to advance our cause. Just suggesting QF sucks because someone else bought aircraft before QF, doesn’t prove anything. Keep it real. And don’t involve rugby, just a stupid argument. ✌️

Since you enquired, there are a number of points of difference for a supposed 'end of line' carrier. Firstly, was Rob Fyfe. Every now and again, along comes an airline executive who is a consistent force to ensure the biggest team in the world tends to all head in the same direction.
Mr Fyfe ensured that he and other senior executives regularly went and worked on the front line. From baggage and check in, the feedback from non-KPI preserving managers paints a very different picture to those actually engaged in the job. That goes a long way to gain trust.
Little Napoleon could not, without a security detail, venture very far from his safely entrenched office. Frank Lorenzo had similar structures at Continental Airlines and Gordon Bethune removed them all. The pilots at Southwest bought Mr Kelleher a motorcycle.
That may not resolve issues of 'labour unit cost' but it sure helps that the CEO is approachable and takes the time to communicate.

However, alas for Little Napoleon;

You cannot fake sincerity-Anon.

Air New Zealand also retired the last Boeing 747 in 2014, stating;

Given the opportunity customers always wanted to be seated in the 747s' top deck, he said, let's not kid ourselves. The magic of walking up a circular staircase into the bubble at the top was definitely seen as something that made it even more special." Some customers would be sad to see the 747s go but feedback on modern, fuel-efficient aircraft was extremely positive, he said. "The 747 as it now stands has had its day. It's not competitive."

CEO Luxon stated (paraphrasing) that the disposal of that aircraft was responsible for a very large improvement in their operating expense, margin improvement, ultimately reducing the fuel included CASK substantially.

That Air New Zealand is ignored when Little Napoleon exclaims how well Qantas does is testament to what good airline managers quietly do: Run an efficient, strategically disciplined and focused airline.
Qantas prefers developing social discourse and column inches in the daily rags.

[mattyj]

There’s the beginnings of talk of taking the 789s back to Seattle for new engines and pylons too for ‘fleet commonality’..the RR problems are starting to look insurmountable and the dash 10s are starting to crack around the place too which did nothing for the 350s cause

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by mattyj

There’s the beginnings of talk of taking the 789s back to Seattle for new engines and pylons too for ‘fleet commonality’..the RR problems are starting to look insurmountable and the dash 10s are starting to crack around the place too which did nothing for the 350s cause

During the development of the 787, there was a specific requirement to make the engines 'plug and play' - that the engines and pylons could be switched between GE and Rolls with no aircraft changes needed (aside from perhaps updating some software). This was completely new - previously Boeing aircraft were so tailored to specific engine type that changing engine types was not economically viable - too many aircraft changes were needed. However it was seen that being able to readily swap engine types might help the resale value so the desire to make it available for the 787. To the best of my knowledge it's never actually been done through.
If this is true, it will be a massive blow to Rolls Royce - and by connection to Airbus since they're Rolls only for both the A350 and A330 NEO.

[mattyj]

I agree with everything you said except that the 772 is also engine swappable