Is Air NZ worth it?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Mr Hat said.
Gotta weigh up whats important to you
1. Time to command
2. Lifestyle and time off afforded by the conditions compared to others
3. Money compared to others nationally, regionally and globally
4. Job security (a relative term), mind you it is govt owned for now.
If 1 is important then dont wait. If 2 and living in NZ are what matters to you then its probably the best there is.
Each to their own. Out of 10 pilots you'll prolly get 12 different answers.
Gotta weigh up whats important to you
1. Time to command
2. Lifestyle and time off afforded by the conditions compared to others
3. Money compared to others nationally, regionally and globally
4. Job security (a relative term), mind you it is govt owned for now.
If 1 is important then dont wait. If 2 and living in NZ are what matters to you then its probably the best there is.
Each to their own. Out of 10 pilots you'll prolly get 12 different answers.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a great job if you have never been out of New Zealand. If you have travelled a bit and seen the world... well let's just say that there are thousands of better gigs out there, and you don't have to put up with all the "we are the only ones who know anything about aviation" crap.
Uniforms aren't bad, though...
Uniforms aren't bad, though...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Mr Hat. Indeed they did learn a lesson, a sad one at that. But isn't interesting how some of the very attitudes that existed within ANZ heirachy decades ago exist in mass numbers within Australian aviation today ? My deepest desire is for Australia not to have to learn the hard way by experiencing an Erebus but some Australian CEO's treat their people (including Pilots) with the same contempt that ANZ's CEO did.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh sure, they learned from Erebus and in any case it isn't the same company that it was all those years ago... not even close. However there is still an awful lot of arrogance there in the pilot management side of the company.
I have worked for much bigger airlines than Air NZ, and have not found the same levels of nonsense there at all. It's part of the Kiwi mindset I think (and I am a Kiwi so feel qualified to comment!)
It's a pity, because the product and the commercial innovation is world class - I wouldn't travel with anyone else internationally. Domestically, well I reckon the stage is set for a new player with better equipment.
I have worked for much bigger airlines than Air NZ, and have not found the same levels of nonsense there at all. It's part of the Kiwi mindset I think (and I am a Kiwi so feel qualified to comment!)
It's a pity, because the product and the commercial innovation is world class - I wouldn't travel with anyone else internationally. Domestically, well I reckon the stage is set for a new player with better equipment.
Domestically, well I reckon the stage is set for a new player with better equipment.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400's... much as I hate them, they are the way forward for a next-gen domestic carrier. More to the point, an innovative approach to service and a bit more "fun" would be nice... Air NZ's domestic service is pretty tired.
Beech 1900's are too small and yesterday's technology.
Air NZ needs to work out how to grow the domestic market so that the Q400 is a one-size-fits-all solution. Running three types is just stupid.
In other words, go have a chat to Easyjet or Ryanair...
Beech 1900's are too small and yesterday's technology.
Air NZ needs to work out how to grow the domestic market so that the Q400 is a one-size-fits-all solution. Running three types is just stupid.
In other words, go have a chat to Easyjet or Ryanair...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interesting to see if Q400s are introduced into the NZ Dom market over the next few years. Mt Cook would be the most likely candidates you think to replace the ATRs?? With Air Nelson operating 23 Q300s things would get very interesting.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Just visiting
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 will never arrive in this country. It will certainly not replace the ATR which the bean counters love. You will see more ATRs (500 and 600) arrive until the time a bigger more suitable aircraft is developed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Air NZ needs to work out how to grow the domestic market so that the Q400 is a one-size-fits-all solution. Running three types is just stupid.
Dropping services to far flung regions of the country may then make economic sense but with the government still the major shareholder, I just can't see it happening. They might say they are only a passive shareholder but I think we all know that from time to time they make their feelings known. If you can find a solution that appeases the accountants, the communities, the government, the opposition and everyone else this side of Timbuktu I would be impressed. In the meantime we carry on with the Link group maybe not making huge profits but at least it operates in the black.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q400 will never arrive in this country. It will certainly not replace the ATR which the bean counters love.
A one size fits all solution would never work in the NZ market but of course would be a very sensible idea. Just think about the size of many of the towns served.
The bigger aircraft can work on thin routes, as they introduce other economies (common type rating, one set of training staff instead of three, one set of spares, etc etc etc). Those economies can easily add up to several million dollars a year. It is no surprise that the rest of the world has already figured this out, while we lag behind, as usual...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Just visiting
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an't think why, the Q400 is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate than the ATR. Equally crappy quality though.
Like I said the ATR's are here until a bigger (90 seat) bird is available. Q400 was written off a couple years back when Mt Cook was looking at a fleet replacement.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dynamics of the aircraft acquisition market are constantly changing, so what was true a couple of years ago may well not be now. Several high-profile operators have gone with the Q400 over the ATR, what does that tell you? Particularly Flybe in the UK, amongst others. The Q also has a much nicer flight deck IMHO.
Having said that, they are both horrible, very lightly built and quite fragile. I doubt many will be around in 20 years.
The Q400 has been around since 2000 (so 11 years more or less) and has 406 orders, the ATR has been around since 1988 (23 years) and has 436 orders... so the question of which is more popular is pretty easy to answer.
The Q400 is also a lot faster (360kts max cruise for the Q, 276 kts max cruise for the ATR), goes higher (FL270 as opposed to FL250) and has a greater range (715nm for the ATR and 1567nm for the Q). If you believe Wikipedia, anyway...
Having said that, they are both horrible, very lightly built and quite fragile. I doubt many will be around in 20 years.
The Q400 has been around since 2000 (so 11 years more or less) and has 406 orders, the ATR has been around since 1988 (23 years) and has 436 orders... so the question of which is more popular is pretty easy to answer.
The Q400 is also a lot faster (360kts max cruise for the Q, 276 kts max cruise for the ATR), goes higher (FL270 as opposed to FL250) and has a greater range (715nm for the ATR and 1567nm for the Q). If you believe Wikipedia, anyway...
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having flown all the dash8 variants overseas, I am just not sure the Q400 could stand-up to the rigors of flying in New Zealand. I am thinking mainly of Wellington, that machine can be a handful and as we have seen over the years does not have the undercarriage to cope with high frequency 'firm' arrivals. Flybe's Q400's spent alot of time in the hangers, when I asked a engineer why he thought this was he said, 'because it is designed as a commuter aircraft to fly business people around the regions 2 sectors in the morning and the same again in the afternoon, not to do 10 sectors a day'. It is not a 'sturdy aircraft' like the Q300's.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Just visiting
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 is also a lot faster (360kts max cruise for the Q, 276 kts max cruise for the ATR), goes higher (FL270 as opposed to FL250) and has a greater range (715nm for the ATR and 1567nm for the Q). If you believe Wikipedia, anyway...
4th Apr 2011 17:19
4th Apr 2011 17:19
Think you will find an ATR goes alot further than 715nm to sun shine
Sorry to hijack the thread, as you were people
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you will find an ATR goes alot further than 715nm to sun shine
