New Air NZ commuting policy
 

This policy that has just been released today seriously affects anybody intending to join Air NZ in the future who do not wish to live in AKL.

When the B737 departs there will not be CHC and WLG domiciled F/O jobs anymore, all joining positions with be AKL domiciled long-haul S/O jobs.

If you do not wish to live in AKL, you may have to reconsider your career choices.

A sad day for those of us that do not wish to (or cannot) live in AKL. For more check out the NZALPA forum, it's running red hot!

SGP

It's going to be interesting to see the response from those affected. :ugh:

Can ANZ legally enforce where an employee lives? It does seem to be pushing boundaries....is there something in the contract or letter of employment that says the employee is willing to re-locate to a base at ANZ discretion? And what's the reason for this policy?

Nosey

How will they know for what purpose someone might be using staff travel?

Believe me, they know what you are up to! On recent tech refreshers pilots were told that a "data-matching" survey was being undertaken on commuters. Apparently this was to form the basis of this new policy. They know where everyone lives, when they normally arrive at work and whether they travel standby or firm. The new policy states that if you abuse the "privilege" of staff travel it will be withdrawn. Trying to "sneak" through on standby on the day of departure will not be worth the risk.

It's a damn shame as this affects the approx 50% of Air NZ pilots who live outside of AKL and has the potential to seriously damage all of the goodwill and morale that our CEO has built up with pilots and management.

:ugh:

Punishing everyone for the sake of a small few who abuse it?

Smart stuff.

Sounds to me like they are handing over pilots to Jetstar on a platter.

Warren9 is correct I think. I'm a commuter with another airline and have done so for many years. I always arrive the day before and on that day leave 2 flights up my sleave just incase. It does cost me time with my family, although it allows them to live where they want to and are happiest.
I often see guys who commute in on the day and take a huge risk and they are always stressed and tired.
Can I ask an ANZ pilot..........have pilots not been getting to work due full or missed flights? If thats not the case, then sounds like the management just want to have another chip away at pilots lifestyle.

Who wants to be a JAFA anyway!!! (kidding guys)

I suspect this is a result of the few ruining it for the majority. I know there is a correlation between commuters and increased sickness levels especially for short haul duties. I really doubt the company is going out of its way to piss people off for no reason, what have they to gain?
I thought there was a clause in the contract stating that you are Auckland based.

Fender

I think the comment made ANZ would be losing pilots to Jetstar is laughable!!
Why would someone leave at top notch airline to join a 3rd world airline :):eek::eek:


Also I don't think that ANZ would really care there are thousands of people lining the door to get in.

I don't think this new policy is about abuse of staff travel privileges, it's more about fatigue management and possibly driven by the Coglen Air DH8 crash in Buffalo. The FAA is considering including all commuting time as part of your duty hours, meaning you won't be able to commute (long distances, the Coglen Co-pilot commuted trans-Continent )on the same day as a duty if that combine time excedes your duty limits.

That FAA policy, if implemented, would affect AirNZ international long haul crews.

Of course, as a Link minion, I could be way off the mark....

Colgan Air was the company involved.

Why not re-write the commuter policy? Seems harsh to say no commuting, end of story.

Any progress with this?

Has anyone asked why existing commuters aren't risking fatigue whilst its such a serious concern that prior approval is now required?

Furthermore, what difference does stby or firm make to fatigue levels? After all, firm only puts you at the front of the stby queue.

If Air NZ was serious about managing fatigue they wouldn't have just started rostering 3 Pilot Auckland London with 1 night stop in LA (actually it is really only a 2 Pilot crew as the SO isn't technically current on type). Stunning!

With this sort of rostering NZ Management need to wake up and realize their growing pool of 70 year old pilots will be in an even deeper sleep. It is fatigue inducing!

Everybody can see through the new staff travel policy. It's a revenue gathering exercise aimed at pissing off crew prior to negotiations.

I'm sorry Pamelah but a couple of the things you've said don't add up for me. Firstly the London TOD is 1-2-3 is it not? I personally prefer this arangement and I know others do too. What I take issue with though is your assertion that the second officer plays no important role in reducing fatigue. Are you imlying that (assuming you are actually a widebody f/o or capt) you would not/do not go on rest when an s/o is in the seat? What are you trying to get at here?

Secondly why would the company want to deliberately piss people off just prior to negotiations? Surely a placated and happy pilot group would have less appetite for industrial action?

Why are the pilots assuming that this policy is directed at them?? There are a lot more commuters in other departments. Think about the cabin crew, how many of them commute within NZ, and most of the UK/PVG based crew.

Agreed Pamelah. 23 hours flying in a three-pilot crew, mostly at night, across 12 time zones with just the one night's rest in LAX is definately fatiguing. 2/2/2 was more comfortable but more importantly far more sensible from a fatigue management perspective. Most (though not all, granted) I've talked to agree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand Air NZ is perhaps the only operator flying HKG-LHR three pilot also? The point being of course, that if the company was truely serious about reducing pilot fatigue, then there are numerous other measures that they would take to improve safety in this area before attempting to dictate where their staff were allowed to live (if this is even legally enforceable, which I strongly doubt).

We're all professionals, and are all responsible for turning up to work fit to fly.

Under this new policy, a non-commuter can spend his days off away from home, return to Auckland on the day of departure if he chooses and fly standby (if he dares). The commuter can take the same flight, after a restful day at home, but must pay the extra for a firm ticket. Is the staff travel element of this policy related to fatigue management? - no, of course not!

Is an Auckland post office box a satisfactory primary address?

Could think of, and have lived in, much worse places than AKL. It was around No.8 on the world's most liveable cities list for last year...

Bump

It may well be in 8th place topend3, but compared to the rest of NZ, it is a sh1thole. Also, its not much of a glittering reflection on the rest of the world if AKL is top 10. The commuters put up with earning the NZ peso so they can live where they want. This could be a deal breaker for some. Certainly takes the shine off a mainline job if you cant/wont live in AKL. There will be some considering thier future over this.

Whats ALPA/FARSA got to say?

Why the big deal about being based in AKL? There are lots of decent places within a 2 hr drive, even more so now with the northern motorway.
Personally, if I was employed by the Koru, I'd probably live down in the house in Whanga, drive up early doors, and be bright and bushy for LAX-HKG sector:}
Of course there are those in NZ who dont even know that life exisits north of the Manawatu gorge. :8

Don't you mean the Waitaki River??? :} And of course we know there's life there -it's just not life as we know it :ok:

A few people on here are missing the point. The policy is dressed up as a fatigue mitigation measure but it literally does nothing to address fatigue. All it does for current commuters is force them to buy more expensive flights. There is also a couple of fish-hooks in there that go well beyond the company's rights over it's employees. For example, if an employee wishes to move house they have to ask their managers permission, which he may deny. Also, if they apply for any internal position, and remain living outside of Auckland, they will only be granted this position under "exceptional circumstances". These two policies are completely in breach of the pilots contract and so far beyond their rights that I can only assume they are trying it on in order to antagonise the pilots before the upcoming contract negotiations. The next step will be an effort to get around the scope clause and blackmail the pilots over the 787 fleet introduction. (Watch out Mt Cook, it's coming your way too with the new ATR's).

And as for it not being aimed at pilots alone..... Well, I accept that a number of flight attendants commute, but otherwise, pilots are the only significant group of commuters. In fact, of 860 odd pilots on the jet fleet, 450 live outside the Auckland area.

I've just read the new policy and have to say I'm very surprised by this. Have I got it right in that if you want to use subload you have to sign a declaration about commuting (read you do what we say) but if you buy a firm ticket like joe public there's no problem? Crazyness.

Yousef

There is provision for a "firm" staff ticket but afaik you can still be trumped for the last seat by a last minute regular full fare passenger.

According to the policy, fatigue is only a risk for new commuters, not the existing ones. Go figure.

Can I ask how the commuters respond to the idea that the International job has been quite clearly an Auckland based job?

I can perhaps understand some displeasure from those on 73 or Bus jobs in WLG or CHC who thought they would be able to stay there long term and commute. That said I can understand Air NZs point of view and don't have an issue with it myself.

No problem with that myself either. Its the moving of the goal posts and inconsistency in the application of the rules, i.e. OK for some and not others especially when fatigue is given as the reason for policy change.

Lets face it. The gaps between duties are generally big enough you can live where you like. If people are turning up to work eye balls hanging out with tiredness or missing sign on due to the vagaries of standby travel then howabout they punish the repeat offenders. Not upset the majority of professionals who, left to themselves, get it right year in year out.