IFAM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this has been pointed out quite clearly previously, but I’ll say it again. NZ can’t stand down its crew without pay like Australia can.
That makes the operating cost of an idle B787 vs a flying B787 completely different between the two airlines.
If you are paying your crew to sit at home anyway, your aircraft becomes a lot cheaper to fly. So of course you’ll win the tender!
That argument doesn’t put any food on the table of the stood-down Aussie crews, but it has helped save redundancies, and has so far saved QF from financial meltdown.
Maybe down the track we’ll work out whether stand-down provisions were to the greater detriment or benefit of Aussie pilots.
Having said that, it’s an appalling look that our Govt is comfortable with the fact that every international flight in and out of Australia is conducted by someone else.
No matter how you look at it, from a pilot perspective, just a couple of sims and a couple of flights every 3 months could keep your eye in the game and maybe just enough for skill retention and mental health relief.
Beyond that, 6-12 months out of the game is very difficult. I’ve never done it before, but friends with medical problems have. For 1500 pilots to be out of the game for 12-24 months or more is going to become a monumental problem. AIPA has been trying to communicate that to the Govt, but sadly it seems to be on deaf ears so far.
That makes the operating cost of an idle B787 vs a flying B787 completely different between the two airlines.
If you are paying your crew to sit at home anyway, your aircraft becomes a lot cheaper to fly. So of course you’ll win the tender!
That argument doesn’t put any food on the table of the stood-down Aussie crews, but it has helped save redundancies, and has so far saved QF from financial meltdown.
Maybe down the track we’ll work out whether stand-down provisions were to the greater detriment or benefit of Aussie pilots.
Having said that, it’s an appalling look that our Govt is comfortable with the fact that every international flight in and out of Australia is conducted by someone else.
No matter how you look at it, from a pilot perspective, just a couple of sims and a couple of flights every 3 months could keep your eye in the game and maybe just enough for skill retention and mental health relief.
Beyond that, 6-12 months out of the game is very difficult. I’ve never done it before, but friends with medical problems have. For 1500 pilots to be out of the game for 12-24 months or more is going to become a monumental problem. AIPA has been trying to communicate that to the Govt, but sadly it seems to be on deaf ears so far.
Last edited by Derfred; 3rd Oct 2020 at 17:01.
Just remember that just supporting some Aussie Airlines is not some individual entities but thousands of men and women that have lost their jobs, their ability to earn an income and in some cases their families too.
What have you given up? What have you lost?
Some of the airlines mentioned are using passenger aircraft for IFAM not just dedicated freighters. The federal government could kill two birds with one stone by supporting Aussie’s without a job and future whilst assisting with moving freight. Charity begins at home does it not?
What have you given up? What have you lost?
Some of the airlines mentioned are using passenger aircraft for IFAM not just dedicated freighters. The federal government could kill two birds with one stone by supporting Aussie’s without a job and future whilst assisting with moving freight. Charity begins at home does it not?
- QF/VA didn’t have extensive freight networks pre-Covid.
- just because the government “could” use Australian airlines, doesn’t mean the airlines can do it. For example using Qatar or EK to Europe means access to 20-30 destinations. That’s something a subsidised QF 787 could never do. Even to Asia, yes QF could probably run a 787 to HKG with belly freight, but that’s not the final destination for the entire load. So then what?
- Yes passenger aircraft are being used. A large percentage of cargo was previously carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. Simply put, there are not enough dedicated freighter aircraft to carry the volumes required on a normal day. The 787/777 are probably the best options going around for this given the extra length allows a decent quantity of belly cargo. (EK recently broke their own record and fit 63T of belly cargo on a -300ER) But again refer to my earlier point about a viable network to carry the freight on to its final destination.
- The Aust Govt is providing support to Airline staff. It’s called JobKeeper. The relative “small change” of the IFAM wont stop thousands of staff loosing their jobs. That’s the result of the pandemic.
- of course charity brings at home. It’s the Government’s role to support our country. But that’s not going to stop a harsh reality from coming to all of us in the next 12 months. JobKeeper etc just “kicks the can down the road” and allows Aussie airlines to hold off on making a hard decision to fire staff. Thinking that IFAM is going to save thousands of jobs by only using QF/VA/etc is a dream. I’m sorry but that’s the harsh truth.
- Again IFAM is designed to get high value exports to their destinations. The unfortunate truth means that doesn’t involve using Aussie airlines and staff, because they can’t do the job efficiently (for the reasons stated above).
Thread Starter
That’s just crap mate. You’ve obviously got skin in the game in the export business. Definitely not a pilot. Explain how an AirNZ 787 or United 777 currently flying across the Pacific under IFAM is able to do it efficiently and cover costs in the current climate? Congress is about to announce a further 25 billion package for US airlines. Do you honestly believe that United would fly a 777 between the West Coast and Oz without government money keeping it afloat? AirNZ 787 flys BNE LAX BNE
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s just crap mate. You’ve obviously got skin in the game in the export business. Definitely not a pilot. Explain how an AirNZ 787 or United 777 currently flying across the Pacific under IFAM is able to do it efficiently and cover costs in the current climate? Congress is about to announce a further 25 billion package for US airlines. Do you honestly believe that United would fly a 777 between the West Coast and Oz without government money keeping it afloat? AirNZ 787 flys BNE LAX BNE
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.
So if Air NZ can fly BNE-LAX then why isn’t Qantas doing it? You keep banging on about how we should be “using national airlines”, but you fail to recognise that QF had the same opportunity to apply for the subsidy as everyone else. QF chose NOT to do those flights....
Thats' how AJ pty Ltd wanted it. The longer the current scenario can be maintained, the longer he can screw down terms and conditions for various groups. It has nothing to do with being as a described national airline, nor what's good for the greater population of the country in the near term.
Qantas chose to pitch at a price that effectively was ripping the government off!
A couple of 787s went to LAX and back in the last 10 days (one each way). I wonder if they carried anything under the floor.
Or maybe Qantas simply applied at a cost that would not see them losing more than they would by not doing it. There would be little point in doing it at a competitive price if it meant adding to the loses they currently make each week.
A couple of 787s went to LAX and back in the last 10 days (one each way). I wonder if they carried anything under the floor.
A couple of 787s went to LAX and back in the last 10 days (one each way). I wonder if they carried anything under the floor.
Meanwhile here’s another case of Air NZ doing flying that could have been done by QF:
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-repatriation/
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-repatriation/
Thread Starter
Meanwhile here’s another case of Air NZ doing flying that could have been done by QF:
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-repatriation/
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-repatriation/
A subsidy may not be a direct capital infusion or payment but it by the very nature of the government loan guarantee confers a benefit. The same for most of the airlines involved in IFAM.
JAL is the only other airline NOT government owned or backed. United has the benefit at the moment of massive US government loan facilities. All the others are at least majority owned or completely owned by governments. Draw your own conclusions. It’s not hard. Our government has sold us out to the lowest bidder and any flying at the moment would be welcome. COVID-19 has only highlighted the market distortions that have prevailed for years.
The WTO protects primary producers against market distortions and subsidies yet is silent on transportation. Happy to be corrected.
Some interesting reading. Now watch the those with a vested interest refute the facts.
https://fairskies.org
Are QF doing any international flying right now? Freight or otherwise? Genuine question as I don't know... over at Air NZ, ignoring the Aussie Freight flights, we're still doing AKL - LAX, SFO, HKG, PVG, NRT, SIN, ICN along with Tasman and Pac Islands, virtually all freight.
Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.
Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.
As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.
Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.
Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.
Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.
As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.
Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.
Are QF doing any international flying right now? Freight or otherwise? Genuine question as I don't know... over at Air NZ, ignoring the Aussie Freight flights, we're still doing AKL - LAX, SFO, HKG, PVG, NRT, SIN, ICN along with Tasman and Pac Islands, virtually all freight.
Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.
Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.
As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.
Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.
Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.
Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.
As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.
Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.
And in terms of the QF Group, it doesn’t explain why the Jetconnect crews in NZ are stood down sitting around doing no flying. What are they being paid?
And yes, the A330 is operating semi-regular freight services to SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG (I think?)
Clearly this is an emotional topic for you. You can attack other Airlines all you want, but they'll each individually do what they can to survive. IF QF (or whichever Airline you fly/flew for) were 51% Government owned and thus given a loan facility I doubt you'd be here on your soapbox complaining about it.
Perhaps the contract should of gone to an Aussie carrier, but were any of them interested? Or was it not worth the cost of gearing back up and recalling crew from stand downs? From the (limited) media I've seen on this side of the ditch, AJ seems quite content to park everything (and everyone) until this is over.
Fair enough. So if I’m correct, the backing of the NZ taxpayer combined with the backing of the AUS taxpayer, is keeping Air NZ pilots in the sky?
And in terms of the QF Group, it doesn’t explain why the Jetconnect crews in NZ are stood down sitting around doing no flying. What are they being paid?
And yes, the A330 is operating semi-regular freight services to SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG (I think?)
And in terms of the QF Group, it doesn’t explain why the Jetconnect crews in NZ are stood down sitting around doing no flying. What are they being paid?
And yes, the A330 is operating semi-regular freight services to SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG (I think?)
All I know is, we downsized to 70% for "post COVID" so at the moment we have a lot of Crew and Aircraft available. Can't stand us down, and too many redundancies would gut the Airline. (Reverse Seniority, would lose all/most A320 FO's). May as well fly freight to help offset costs... some of it's the Aussie Contract, some of it's the NZ Governments contract and the rest is just standard commercial freight. Some of those Freight Flights also have PAX, but it's controlled by Quarantine facility levels.
JetConnect aren't getting paid last I heard. They all "agreed" to be stood down. Currency for them is also going to be an issue I believe as they need to go to AUS for the Sims but then need to Quarantine on return, so it's possible the initial Tasman flying will be done by mainline Pilots as JC slowly stand crew up. But that's just me guessing.
The accountants running the circus have until very recently, failed to apportion the true future training costs of keeping the 787 fleet grounded beyond 180 days. The penny has finally dropped for some of the geniuses. The expectation may well be that getting some flying and continue with a skeleton network of airframes and operational crew would be far smarter than then IR panacea that most have been licking their lips at prior to this point.
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?
The accountants running the circus have until very recently, failed to apportion the true future training costs of keeping the 787 fleet grounded beyond 180 days. The penny has finally dropped for some of the geniuses. The expectation may well be that getting some flying and continue with a skeleton network of airframes and operational crew would be far smarter than then IR panacea that most have been licking their lips at prior to this point.
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?
