Alliance switch to NZ AOC
 

Alliance are threatening to move to an NZ AOC over the costs of compliance and other CASA restrictions .

Brave move but good to see someone showing initiative .

Bravo Scott👏

Could set a precedence for some of the smaller airline operators if it's successful. Although I'm sure CASA would find a way of making it difficult to operate in Aus under a foreign AOC if too many try.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...nz-aoc-422678/

They'll still need GNSS in New Zealand if they're to operate without any ATC/tracking impact.

Smart idea as there is an agreement between CASA and the CAA with receiprocal rights. Make a big noise politically about it and you can quite legally fly around Australia on a ZK rego. Vincent did it for years including RPT.

QQ Fleet
 

For the record, Alliance Aircraft are ADSB compliant and all are fitted with integrated GNSS.
They also have an F50 based in NZ already.

Vincent did it on a ZK rego but only with the 146 I believe, which only did charters for mining co. I believe.

That said a NZ AOC must be worth much more than an Australian AOC.

Imagine not having to deal with CASA at all & only having to meet NZCAA rules, which are apparently much much simpler.

Think a few smaller NZL airlines are looking to branch out in to Australia, as it's apparently very easy to ZK regos to fly here.

Think there is some rule that states, NZL operations must be greater than OZ ops, but am sure that could be interpreted a number of ways, ie. charter vs RPT.

not foreign AOC but rather a NZL AOC. New Zealand might be foreign country but NZL AOC, is superior in some ways to OZ AOC.

Skyforce were apparently looking to put their 146's on NZL register, before they closed up shop, as apparently they were getting so much agro from CASA.

NZ are currently doing on there SYD-NLK & BNE-NLK services, which are funded by the Australian government!


It isn't really much different to Eastern Australian Airlines flying there Q300s around New Zealand with an VH on the back of the plane.

Could it even tempt Qantas to move all the Q300s over to ZK?

I think Qantas would move the whole operation to NZ given half the chance. Pay everyone NZ wages under NZ terms. They could cut the work force in half, get the same work done and make billions more in profit!

I was wondering about the IR implications? Surely if you're operating under a NZ AOC but based in Australia, Australian IR laws would apply to you?

That's easy, they already have an operation set up here in NZ with pilots and cabin crew all employed on NZ conditions. It would be a stroke of a pen to shift everyone else over, Qantas Australia shuts down, everyone is out of a job. If you want your job sign on the dotted line to work being based out of NZ. :ok:

But we're talking about Alliance, not Qantas. Considering most of their operation is in Aus, the cost of accommodation and per diem's putting them up whilst spending most of their time in Aus would quickly chew up any savings in reduced pay.

So my question is, if you are based in Aus, but working for a company that's AOC is in New Zealand, I would assume you would still need to be paid IAW Aus IR.

That is how it works for Airwork.

Kiwi regs are better than ours, current and proposed if they ever get implemented.

If a few other operators got on the band wagon with a some good aviation lawyers, this could be interesting....

Anyone considered CASR Part 129 which goes live on the 20th of April? Might be worth will doing a gap analysis.

Any operator complying with NZ part 121 will easily satisfy these requirements.

AOC's and EBA's are two entirely separate animals.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the AOC is the regulatory operating certificate and doesn't care where the pilots come from.

The EBA on the otherhand cares where the people come from (I.e. Are they a party to the agreement) and doesn't care what rego is painted on the tail.

Jetstar has pilots in NZ flying VH tailed aeroplanes under a NZ agreement, same as Virgin, Qantas has cabin crew from various parts of the world flying on an Australian registered and operated aeroplane under agreements applicable to their domicile country.

WishIwasupthere has nailed it with regards the costs of shifting everyone to NZ to live just to get access to "cheaper" terms and conditions.

Jetstar already tried to offshore their pilots to NZ in the form of cadets. It didn't work, and those cadets who signed up for it ended up on the full Aus deal courtesy of the AFAP. They stopped the cadet program after that, why buy a cadet when you can get a more experienced pilot for the same price?

Wasn't there something similar with Pacific Blue ?

I remember seeing their Dash 8 running around Oz on a ZK rego. Doing a tourist charter IIRC.

Pacific Blue ZK 737s never flew domestic sectors around Oz (unless urgent) only across Tasman/Pacific, there was a bunch of VH registered Pacific Blue machines that went to Bali etc...but flown by Virgin Blue crew. Those old ZK birds are now going to Tiger Australia.

I know Jetstar outsources it's SYD-Fiji flights to Jetstar NZ...save on costs etc..

Folks,
Firstly, this is nothing to do with a CASR Part 129 Foreign Airline AOC, FAAOC. Part 129 is about operating into and out of Australia, not within Australia.

It is all about using the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty and Agreement between Australia and NZ, the TTMRA has existed for many years, from late 1980s??

In general, CASA and Australian unions hate it, and exploiting "air safety", back in the day Keating was persuaded to suspend the operation of the TTMRA in the aviation industry for many years.

Frankly, given the Vincent example many years ago, I am surprised this has not happened before, anybody who voluntarily operates on an Australian AOC, when the NZ AOC and the TTMRA is a commercial option, want their heads read. In the days of their Beech 1900, Vincents were forced to get an Australia AOC by dint of union pressure on various Commonwealth politicians/bodies to require an Australian AOC to tender for Commonwealth funded contracts.

The NZ CAA policy on the matter is more or less covered by the popular T-Shirt, that says "I support the All Blacks and anybody else playing Australia", in this case for "Australia", read CASA.

If you look at the Australian CAAct 1988, you will see how CASA has tried to legislate away the intent of the TTMRA ( surprise, surprise) but there is a limit, and what is there that is contrary to the TTMRA Treaty is probably unconstitutional, ie: beyond Commonwealth power.

Tootle pip!!

think Vincents problem was they did FIFO contracts below cost to get the business.

SID-STAR,
Much simpler than that, NZ takes a very pragmatic view, and an original intent of TTMRA AOC operations is that an NZ AOC operator was to be free to treat Australia and NZ as a single market, with no need for any particular proportion of the operation, other than the HO and NZ Companies Legislation, to be complied with.

Likewise, NZ takes a very sensible attitude to how NZ aircraft can be operated anywhere around the world with the minimum of restriction, it is all about encouraging NZ enterprise, not finding bureaucratic ways to hobble enterprise and initiative, all in the name of "air safety".

Unlike anything kissed by Can'tberra, and where anything AU aviation is concerned, Can'tberra/CASA's bureaucratic handbrake is firmly on, and intervention is redoubled.

The CEO of Alliance has made it very clear, in words of one syllable, Alliance can no longer afford the cost of CASA interference, the cost of CASA "managing" Alliance.

The whole basis of the TTMRA and Treaty is to make AU/NZ one single market, with mutual recognition of virtually all matters from trade qualification through to business licensing, food standards and so on recognised, even if not the same on both sides of the Tasman. Virtually all AS Standards are already AS/NZ standards, including the Risk Management standards (now aligned with ISO) that CASA steadfastly ignores, despite Cth. Government "policy".

CASA has done a good job of undermining the intent with pilot and engineer license recognition (unions again, but "all about air safety", not trade protection, you understand) because the original intent was the unrestricted use of an Australia license on NZ registered aircraft, and vice versa.

If I was an Alliance shareholder, I would be asking why this proposal had not been instituted long ago ---- and I know the answer why, it's just that now the cost of doing business with CASA is no longer sustainable ---- if the company is to survive.

Before it was reduced profits to comply with CASA, now it is commercial destruction to comply with CASA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: An added thought:

Ditch the idea that using a NZ AOC to operate in Australia is some kind of back door, tricky and not quite kosher way of getting around CASA depredations, it is an up-front, in your face and entirely legal action, and an intended outcome of the TTMRA.

Just think about it, indirectly adopt the NZ Civil Aviation Act and Regulations by shifting all the AOCs to NZ, and register all GA (or all, for that matter) aircraft in NZ, that gets around the apparently insurmountable problem of NZ Regulations "not conforming to the Australian drafting standard".

It would leave CASA with a few remnants to administer and the CASA budget and fuel levies could be commensurately reduced.

Wouldn't it be wonderful, ultimately CASA could be left with little to do but administer FAAOCs, and not so wonderful, continue to make life increasingly miserable for Sports and Recreational aviation.

Surely Alliance, now that they have at least 1 F50 based in NZL, could start Alliance NZ & put more F50's onto a NZL AOC. Don't think extra F50's would ever need to even go to NZL, but could fly around in OZ, without restriction or any reference to CASA.


If the NZL side of the business grew, they could also put F70's/F100's on their NZL AOC.


It appears that NZL tourism believes they will be getting millions of chinese flying around NZL spending billions soon, so perhaps Alliance could get a piece of that pie, even if they operated under an NZ flight number.


Alliance are close to VA(recent FIFO announcement) & NZ owns a good chunk of VA & surely Alliance costs are much lower than NZ's, so why could Alliance operate some of NZ's thin routes, especially now as JQ Dash 8-300's are taking some of NZ regional business.


Alliance could fly F50/F70/F100's around NZL in NZ colours, just like they do for VA/QF in OZ sometimes. Must be plenty of routes in NZL that can't justify a B733(are there any left?)/A320.

No they're not.

Why add complexity when the business is trying to simplify?

"No they're not."


Of course they are. What do you think it's all new business.



Moving to NZL would sure simply things at lot. Imagine not having to deal with CASA ever again.


Imagine if CASA was then closed down completely as CASA had nothing at all to do (although am sure public servants are quite good at shuffling paper, making themselves look busy)

Yep, it sure is. I think Intercity and Mana Bus are trying to find ways to claw back some business.

I was talking about Air NZ, don't care about CASA.

JQ have managed to alienate a lot of passengers on their Q300s because of their appalling ontime performance, something that has spread to the A320 fleet as well.

Mind you, NZ seems to be suffering from the same malaise.

Highly unlike when NZ has just invested in around $1billion on new A320s and 72-600 to simply the domestic fleet. They have also recently ordered more 72-600s to replace the remaining 72-500s and expand the fleet.

They have already pointed out that there 72-600s are cheaper to run that JQ Q300. Long run you'll probably see the NZ Q300s being ditched for more 72-600. With the half year profit up by 110% this year already, I'd say we can expect another order soon.

could be NZ's low cost response to JQ ? Not to compete with NZ.

You would probably be already aware that NZ runs like domestic option like an LCC and has done since 2002? With fares that already at low cost airline levels, you couldn't get much lower than they already are.

For example in the middle of April on AKL-NPE (1hour prop flight)
NZ $49 Seat Only
JQ $49 Seat Only

Creating an LCC would create an whole new cost that would need to be covered, and if not end up costing more than the mainline flights. Why complicate things when its working pretty well and NZ is making major profits? The only difference between NZ/JQ product short-haul is NZ give you an free cookie and coffee, and JQ will charge you for it.

those are promo fares & probably 1 or 2 only per flight.


They could get Alliance to operate them, not NZ.

These aren't promo fares, they are the current lead-in fares in (P) class. New Zealand Domestic fares are cheaper than Australia.

The flights aren't operated by NZ already, they are operated by Mount Cook Airline (72-600/500) and Air Nelson (Q300). Both of these two airlines already have an lower cost base that NZ it self.

Why would they want to get Alliance to operate the flights with there 30 year old ex Ansett F50s? When they have there own fleet of cheaper to run 72-600 which are less than an couple of years old?

Using Alliance would barely achive anything apart from customer confusion and lower customer standards.

Folks,
With the very greatest of respect (believe it or not) many of you are completely missing the point.
Go back and read the interview with the Alliance CEO.
The point is to continue their Australian (and anywhere else) business under the administration of the NZ CAA, and not Australian CASA, taking advantage of the TTMRA provisions.
That is, operating in Australia on a NZ AOC, and dumping their Australian AOC, because of the quite major cost savings.

In other words, they did any time it was convenient, commercially, and didn't need any additional CASA approval, so to do.

Tootle pip!!

Folks,
In another salute to the desirability of operations under the gentle and tender loving care of CASA, Scott McMillan has announced that all Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance will move to Austria.

See: Flight International 29/03-4/04, page 18, a full page article on Alliance.

This is a done deal, not a proposal, indeed some F-100 have already been to the Austrian Airlines facility involved.

I wonder how CASA will spin this as just taking advantage of the third world's low wage rates??

Tootle pip!!

Faster turn-arounds, closer to Rekkof, cheaper overall.

think it's Bratislava not Austria. Last time I drove from Bratislava to Vienna(Austrian HQ) it took just over 30 mins.


How often do Alliance send aircraft to BTS for maintenance ?


Why doesn't Alliance offer cheap one way charter flights to BTS ?


Yes of course, the flights would stop somewhere for pilot rest & passengers would have to find some accommodation somewhere.


Could call it Backpacker xpress(except not express, but why ruin a good story).


As seemingly everyone in OZ is broke or living on credit cards(worse than broke) some might take up such an offer.




Also, just heard that some New Zealand airline is going to be flying domestically in Australia. Who could that be ? FlyKiwi ? Guess there's plenty of scope for a low cost Saab 340 operation here.

Folks,
Maybe, just maybe, after all these years, some are waking up the the commercial opportunities for aviation under the TTMRA, and the quite dramatic costs difference largely brought about by CASA v. NZ CAA.

Of course, that is not the whole cost equation, but it is a damned big and decisive part of the potential savings.

Geographically correct for one of the actual sites, but the deal is with Austrian.

Tootle pip!!

Surely, if Alliance F50 fleet were on NZ AOC they could fly almost anywhere on a charter basis, as often as they wanted without any interference from CASA.


Plenty of ports with stuff all or no services at present, might be able to get at least low frequency service.


Allegiant in USA< starting flying from one horse towns to Vegas & now look at them. 60 odd jets (MD80, A319's & B757's)