Air NZ pilot redundancies
Just to be clear here, and please correct me if I’ve misunderstood, but rehiring of redundant pilots if incentive goes over 60 hours only applies during the AFFA. The AFFA can be extended out to Jan 21 as it stands. Once the AFFA ends in Jan 21 then all terms return per the CEA. The CEA has no clause detailing when pilots will be rehired having been made redundant, meaning that per the CEA the Company can operate the fleets to as high an incentive value as they like without rehiring.
Considering that all we are waiting on is a vaccine, I would say that the end of 2021 is about when everyone sees it all picking back up. After all, it took 20 months to create a SARS vaccine. 7 months for an EBOLA vaccine and less than 6 months for ZIKA.
Covid vaccine trials started just after 65 days. I imagine the world will see worldwide vaccine spread by the end of 2020.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the Dog Box
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has never been a Corona virus vaccine (SARS is a corona virus) and there is no vaccine for SARS. I think it’s folly to pin hopes on a vaccine. Unfortunately I don’t see much international flying to and from NZ any time soon.
With COVID-19, the amount of money being pumped into finding a vaccine is substantial, with a few looking promising. However, even if they did create a vaccine tomorrow, it would take a solid 12 months to have any appreciable effect due to production and distribution.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are already a significant number of vaccines, now we just wait and see if they get sick less than the placebo.
Apparently paying millennials to intentionally receive the virus and see if they get sick is unethical so we sit and watch 7k people per day die while we wait.
Apparently paying millennials to intentionally receive the virus and see if they get sick is unethical so we sit and watch 7k people per day die while we wait.
I think that any extension past Jan 21 will not pass with the same majority as last time. Seeing the trouble the Company is in currently with manning due to making so many F20 redundant I think they are bluffing when they hint at more redundancies. Either that, or probably more likely, they simply haven't thought it through properly, much like the other decisions they've made recently.
I know I'm probably on the pessimistic (realist?) side but I cant see any hiring for at least three years, more likely five.
Edit: ps. Having looked back at 2019 rosters I think average incentive only went over 60 twice. Average incentive is always dragged down so low by all the inclusions that clause 5 in the AFFA has no chance of playing a part.
I know I'm probably on the pessimistic (realist?) side but I cant see any hiring for at least three years, more likely five.
Edit: ps. Having looked back at 2019 rosters I think average incentive only went over 60 twice. Average incentive is always dragged down so low by all the inclusions that clause 5 in the AFFA has no chance of playing a part.
Not too different from the 777 rosters this month, with all crew almost hitting 60hrs. And the 787 SOs also almost hitting 60hrs. While the 787 Captains and FOs roster average hitting almost 82hrs...
Furloughed jet cabin crew have already been called back and offered immediate reemployment, while ones that have turned it down have been offered a September course as an alternative.
Regionals pilots are all back full time in a few weeks and those furloughed are rumoured to return in time for Summer.
With Qantas announcing the following largely double-daily services (below), plus Jetstar.... I think you’ll see AirNZ launching a huge amount of flights to combat the threat... Especially with Virgin even set to try punch some services back into NZ despite the recent article claiming the “NZ operation never made any money”. Granted the 14-day quarantine is still in place, but there will be a battle in the near future and if it’s not this school holidays, it’ll be the next one.
Don't get me wrong, Im hoping you're right! But for R6 and R7 all long haul are under 60IP, with plenty of room for 777 pilots to move to 787 and lower the IP there.
And if hours do start to get up by then what will the response be from the pilot group. As I said before, I don't think there will be the same ballot response if the question is maintaining the pay cut for another year vs rehiring pilots.
And if hours do start to get up by then what will the response be from the pilot group. As I said before, I don't think there will be the same ballot response if the question is maintaining the pay cut for another year vs rehiring pilots.
Still yet to hear exactly how the shuffle is going to happen. Company seems adamant they can do the notional process in one sweep. There's been some push-back on this from the Pilot group however, as it should be done by fleet/rank so any notional vacancies can filter down (specifically C20).
As I read section 11 of the CEA, especially 11.5.2.1, I don't think they can keep flogging the 787 crews above 75 hours for more than 3 rosters. Desperate times and all with COVID, but it seems silly to not utilize the 777 a bit more to spread the work around during the re-shuffle.
In terms of the Ballot, they go hand in hand. The 60IP trigger to re-hire Pilots is only valid for the duration of the AFFA. If we vote not to extend it, then the we give the Company the ability to flog us on max hours without hiring anyone back. Even at 100hrs, IP is still cheaper than hiring more Pilots. I believe being consistently above 80-85 causes Flight and Duty limitations and increase in sickness, but if that becomes the re-hiring trigger then it could be a long wait for those to come back.
Personally, as long my colleagues are redundant I'll be voting to extend it.
Yes once the 777 Pilots move across IP will likely go down on the 787, however 787 Pilots are also being moved down the A320.
Still yet to hear exactly how the shuffle is going to happen. Company seems adamant they can do the notional process in one sweep. There's been some push-back on this from the Pilot group however, as it should be done by fleet/rank so any notional vacancies can filter down (specifically C20).
As I read section 11 of the CEA, especially 11.5.2.1, I don't think they can keep flogging the 787 crews above 75 hours for more than 3 rosters. Desperate times and all with COVID, but it seems silly to not utilize the 777 a bit more to spread the work around during the re-shuffle.
In terms of the Ballot, they go hand in hand. The 60IP trigger to re-hire Pilots is only valid for the duration of the AFFA. If we vote not to extend it, then the we give the Company the ability to flog us on max hours without hiring anyone back. Even at 100hrs, IP is still cheaper than hiring more Pilots. I believe being consistently above 80-85 causes Flight and Duty limitations and increase in sickness, but if that becomes the re-hiring trigger then it could be a long wait for those to come back.
Personally, as long my colleagues are redundant I'll be voting to extend it.
Still yet to hear exactly how the shuffle is going to happen. Company seems adamant they can do the notional process in one sweep. There's been some push-back on this from the Pilot group however, as it should be done by fleet/rank so any notional vacancies can filter down (specifically C20).
As I read section 11 of the CEA, especially 11.5.2.1, I don't think they can keep flogging the 787 crews above 75 hours for more than 3 rosters. Desperate times and all with COVID, but it seems silly to not utilize the 777 a bit more to spread the work around during the re-shuffle.
In terms of the Ballot, they go hand in hand. The 60IP trigger to re-hire Pilots is only valid for the duration of the AFFA. If we vote not to extend it, then the we give the Company the ability to flog us on max hours without hiring anyone back. Even at 100hrs, IP is still cheaper than hiring more Pilots. I believe being consistently above 80-85 causes Flight and Duty limitations and increase in sickness, but if that becomes the re-hiring trigger then it could be a long wait for those to come back.
Personally, as long my colleagues are redundant I'll be voting to extend it.
I really feel for the regional guys that are furloughed and in no mans land right now. No time frame and no promises. If regional captains aren’t moving to the jets, then they’re not going to get rehired anytime soon either. They could be there for years... although that’s was the furloughed jet guys are realistically looking at, even if the AFFA goes for a round 2 (18mths) or even round 3 (27mths).
We are all just sitting around anxious at the uncertainty...
Meanwhile, a friend from Menzies said that Emirates is limiting the number of passenger arrivals into AKL due to the MOH running low on available hotel rooms in the north half of the north island... Glad I’m sitting at home tbh.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Sub Antartic Islands
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not utilise CHC? Only 3 hotels in Christchurch currently catering to quarantine returnees into NZ. Plenty of empty hotels in the city. Besides the weekly SQ arrival, all are being flown down domestically, why not reduce the pressure on AKL a little?
I’ve heard through the gossip channels that many of the “kiwis” retuning home are non-English speaking relatives of citizens already here... mostly from India and other Asian countries looking for a COVID-19 shelter and all expenses paid 14 days in a hotel. With more foreign carriers returning to NZ with “citizens” requiring a 14 day Quarantine, the big questions now are how many can we realistically take and who’s going to pay for it?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Sub Antartic Islands
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was more meaning why not allow EK or other airlines for that matter to fly into CHC or even WLG rather than funneling everyone into AKL and then scrabbling to put on domestic flights (payed by us) for the ones that don't live around the north half of the north island.
EK are already flying the occasional service into CHC, but via MEL.
Getting this back on track... I would LOVE to know why we have had no word from CM 
and his ALPA council in THREE WEEKS. There has been a number of announcements and changes over this period, with no word. The Regional ALPA council have sent out numerous updates in this time, and I know the jet council have been in a lot of meetings... But no word.
Over three months into this pandemic and I think the total amount of updates comms from ALPA has yet to hit double digits... Meanwhile, FANZP have sent out weekly updates, if not more frequently as required. CM definitely will not be getting my vote in the next round... 
and his ALPA council in THREE WEEKS. There has been a number of announcements and changes over this period, with no word. The Regional ALPA council have sent out numerous updates in this time, and I know the jet council have been in a lot of meetings... But no word. Over three months into this pandemic and I think the total amount of updates comms from ALPA has yet to hit double digits... Meanwhile, FANZP have sent out weekly updates, if not more frequently as required. CM
definitely will not be getting my vote in the next round...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on that, and since the A320 and the 787 are flying both internal and external operations, I'd imagine any fleet that is projected to operates above 60 hours IP for 3 consecutive roster periods will trigger re-employment. I'm no expert with this, and I am curious to know what others think. How are they tracking internal and external hours? If the 787 is adding "10,000 extra" seats over the school holidays - an internal operation, how do we know what the average internal hours are up to? Additionally, I understand they have used the word 'projected', does that mean any additional flying that is added to the live roster (as has been happening) and could potentially take a fleet average over 60 hrs IP, won't count towards one of the 3 consecutive roster periods?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that the ALPA team are working pretty hard behind closed doors with the company structuring the inevitable next round. Surely the reality is that you cant have a significant part of the workforce sitting at home on 6 figure salaries with no productivity opportunities for the foreseeable future. Something has to give...............
I think you will find that the ALPA team are working pretty hard behind closed doors with the company structuring the inevitable next round. Surely the reality is that you cant have a significant part of the workforce sitting at home on 6 figure salaries with no productivity opportunities for the foreseeable future. Something has to give...............
Last I heard, ALPA was going to question the latest figures. And a lot of rumours that a second round right now would create a second wave of down training and cost the company even more money - delaying complete down training beyond the supposedly projected 4 year 4 month trainjng timeframe.
Other than that, as far as I know, my union fees are paying CM to sit at home doing **** all.
Actually, the AFFA doesn't mention that, rather it refers to (5.1 of the temporary variation) "if the company is projecting the internal or external jet operations will operate at greater than a roster average of 60 hours IP for any 3 consecutive roster periods...
Based on that, and since the A320 and the 787 are flying both internal and external operations, I'd imagine any fleet that is projected to operates above 60 hours IP for 3 consecutive roster periods will trigger re-employment. I'm no expert with this, and I am curious to know what others think. How are they tracking internal and external hours? If the 787 is adding "10,000 extra" seats over the school holidays - an internal operation, how do we know what the average internal hours are up to? Additionally, I understand they have used the word 'projected', does that mean any additional flying that is added to the live roster (as has been happening) and could potentially take a fleet average over 60 hrs IP, won't count towards one of the 3 consecutive roster periods?
Based on that, and since the A320 and the 787 are flying both internal and external operations, I'd imagine any fleet that is projected to operates above 60 hours IP for 3 consecutive roster periods will trigger re-employment. I'm no expert with this, and I am curious to know what others think. How are they tracking internal and external hours? If the 787 is adding "10,000 extra" seats over the school holidays - an internal operation, how do we know what the average internal hours are up to? Additionally, I understand they have used the word 'projected', does that mean any additional flying that is added to the live roster (as has been happening) and could potentially take a fleet average over 60 hrs IP, won't count towards one of the 3 consecutive roster periods?
5. Re employment and recall of pilots made redundant or furloughed
5.1 If the Company is projecting the internal or external jet operations will operate at greater than a roster average of 60 incentive hours for any 3 consecutive roster periods then a pilot made redundant will be offered re-employment and a pilot who chose furlough will be recalled in accordance clause 5.2 of this temporary Variation and s19 of the CA.
5.2 Re-employment or recall will occur at the necessary level to keep the roster average for any 3 consecutive roster periods at 60 incentive hours or less.
5.3 For the avoidance of doubt, for the duration of this temporary Variation, the Company will not operate the internal or external jet operations at greater than a roster average of 60 incentive hours for any 3 consecutive roster periods unless all redundant pilots have been re-employed and all furloughed pilots have been recalled.
Sooooooooo... if the internal jet operation hits 60 hours (even if the external jet operation is less than 60 hours), does this trigger re-hiring?
I think you will find that the ALPA team are working pretty hard behind closed doors with the company structuring the inevitable next round. Surely the reality is that you cant have a significant part of the workforce sitting at home on 6 figure salaries with no productivity opportunities for the foreseeable future. Something has to give...............
Anyway, as for the topic of Pilots on 6 figure salaries doing nothing, more redundancies won't solve that. They could chop another 300 Pilots and it still wouldn't touch the 777 Crews waiting to be moved. A retrenchment takes time. We only have so many Sims, so many line sectors and so many hours in the day to move people. If the Exec have an issues with 777 Crews not working, then perhaps they shouldn't of grounded the fleet... a fleet which just last year was carrying the International Airline thanks to RR engines. I a recent communication, they said the A320 Fleet should be back to 65% shortly. The Tasman bubble might be pushed out to next year, but the Islands are pushing hard for a bubble with NZ and it's about time the Government (our major shareholder) gave it serious consideration.
Air NZ have actually scored a few own goal with their handling of this pandemic, and taking another swipe off the bottom before they've even started to replace the first round of redundancies would be another one. I mean, who thinks grounding the Domestic fleet right now would be a good idea?
Perhaps in time, once they've down-trained enough C20's to F20 they'll take another swipe off the bottom. But that's not without it's problems. The notional list will require re-writing and the entire process will start again. We all know if there's another 100 Redundancies, those 100 places will come from the 787 Ranks, so that has to filter down and they run the risk of double-training... then re-up training again in 2022 (assuming the 800 day plan works out).
It's outside the CEA, but I strongly suspect they're working on a deal with ALPA where Pilots on non-active fleets take larger pay cuts (50% or even LWOP) until their down-training course... or something to that effect. They can't enforce it of course, as our CEA doesn't allow it, but they can make a deal then put it to a vote.
Sadly, if my assumption is correct, history will repeat itself. ALPA will agree on a "deal" with the Company without consulting the membership, They'll simply put it a vote and get defensive when everyone revolts about back door deals and the lack of consultation.
Or perhaps I'm just cynical.
Sooooooooo... if the internal jet operation hits 60 hours (even if the external jet operation is less than 60 hours), does this trigger re-hiring?
11.5.2.1 The Company will not operate any higher equipment category positions above a roster average of 75 incentive hours when any lower equipment category positions are projected to fall below a roster average of 60 incentive hours in three consecutive roster periods.
How the CEA and AFFA interact are a bit unclear.
If after 3 rosters the 787 is still doing 60+ IP, but the A320 and 777 are <60, technically they should be re-hiring. However, we all know it takes more than 3 rosters to move people.
Hypothetically, we could be a situation where the re-hire clause in the AFFA is triggered, because they simply cannot move people fast enough onto the 787, so we re-hire redundant Pilots. Then, 9 months or so later, as more Pilots have been moved, we trigger the redundancy clauses in the CEA again and those re-hired Pilots lose their jobs again. Obviously, this wouldn't happen.
This is where I think the company (from a contractual perspective) has stuffed up. They're flogging the 787 crews in breach of section 11 of the CEA and run the risk of triggering the re-hire clause. Not because we're short on Pilots, but because we're all on the wrong fleets due the 777 grounding.
Last edited by ElZilcho; 27th Jun 2020 at 00:47.
How many on the Air NZ ALPA council? 8 - 10?? Last round of voting for members of the council CM recurved the lowest number of votes to get onto the council. But, seemingly this was not interpreted by the individual in question that perhaps his style wasn’t really liked.
