Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Over the last few months, we've seen effectively a doubling in price and I've referred to the fact that getting to Los Angeles, it used to cost us just over US$40,000 to fill up a Dreamliner and now it's about US$96,000.
zkncj wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:zkncj wrote:
Will be D7's round 3 I think from memory.
They did an short-lived KUL-CHC service with an A343 from memory? it was around the time of the CHC Earthquake.
OOL has just developed there International Facilities, which might make transiting an bit more friendly. Would be good to see AKL-OOL-KUL return on D7 it really shaked up the New Zealand to Queensland fare market at the time.
Will be interesting to see Scoot comes to New Zealand, if D7 makes a return.
I would have thought D7 might look at one of SYD/MEL although they probably have less issue filling an A333 than OOL ex KUL.
I’m not sure where Scoot fit in NZ even now tbh. NZ/SQ want the premium marketed AKL and fares are high, CHC seems to do well as is. WLG isn’t coming back anytime soon and it’s not really a Scoot market I don’t think. Would need to be via Australia I think for any NZ service.
Probably on the biggest downsides on the NZ/SQ joint venture. There is no need for either of them offer anything else.
I’m sure if there was an QF/SQ had an joint venture, we wouldn’t see Scoot in Australia either.
lowesrus wrote:NZ6 wrote:lowesrus wrote:The 787 crew pay is terrible, its below minimum wage currently. Base starting rate 42k. The contract hasn't been ratified since 2018, however they're working on this.
Crew allowances (pilots are on much higher allowances) are around $7 an hour every duty hour (this varies for certain destinations where the NZ dollar is stronger than the local currency).
For example, AKL-SIN (NZ282) 24 hour layover SIN-AKL (NZ281) has an elapsed duty time of 48 hours.
48 x $7 = $336NZD, however this is converted to local currency, which is provided cash in hand at the hotel on arrival.
Although this seems like a a large amount, deduct food and crew usually do a lot of grocery shopping in foreign ports as its cheaper.
Allowances are tax free, and can't be used as proven income for mortgage applications etc, hence why crew are so unsatisfied with the pay. Bear in mind, if they're not flying, they aren't getting their allowances. Thus whilst on annual leave, and a months worth of standby its challenging to survive, especially with the rise of living costs.
Overtime is over 12 hours and its peanuts compared to the old 777 crew contract. NZ are also trying to remove overtime and provide ULR rates (ORD +JFK) which are one off payments rather than an accrued amount during the duty, resulting in being paid less. Overtime is taxed and goes into the bank account, which messes with tax refunds at the end of the financial year. Crew usually owe tax.
Ultimately it's livable, however not fair for the role itself, given the constant exhaustion, limited leave options etc.
I find it really interesting. Please correct me if I'm miles off the mark here. Regional crew base pay is similar but they don't get those meal allowances. Yet the job isn't all that much different? Yes you prepare and serve meals, but after all you are being paid to "work" so arguably you should be doing something. Yes you're away from home longer but a large potion of crew work towards long-haul for that international experience? So it's selective and by many is a perk they want.
The $336NZD value for SIN equates to around $290SGD. Given you'll arrive in SIN at 0640 you'll be feed and tired so you'd likely do one of two things. Have a short sleep then early night, or stay up and go to bed early. Either way you're looking at lunch and dinner, maybe a bite to eat for breakfast. It's not $300 worth of meals is it.
But to the same argument crew have always taken dry non perishable goods with them and have pocketed as much as they can so one can argue that using that money for your expenses up there is elective and if you use it all you must be dining in restaurants. With this in mind has the airline factored this into their base salary?
As for using allowances as income; this is a issue which effects many people, those on commission for example but yes I admit this is a major issue. I wonder, if allowances were dropped and built into a salary would this be beneficial or would you be worse off after paying income tax etc.?
As for being on standby - this isn't new is it? hasn't this always been an issue. I thought there was a small allowance for this and higher allowances if called in. I guess it goes back to my comment above. In this scenario you're not actually doing anything. You just need to be able to come in on a set notice. If this was build into a salary would you see less personal downtime and crew rotations tightened to avoid having X number of people on standby, or would you be used on services with shrinkage built into a sectors crewing. I'm thinking about an impact on work / life balance.
If you were on SIN twice a week for 40 weeks of the year, that's an extra $26,880 which is tax free. So working the other way, so your $42K + $38,500 (tax inclusive) = $80,500
That $80K is dam good, with all respect, I think if we aligned the tasks and skills to a ground position the pay would be much higher for crew wouldn't it? I mean, teachers, nurses, fire and emergency are recent careers who've been in the media around pay conditions. That figure is well above those industries.
Regional crew are still divided per fleet. ATR and Q300. Unfortunately the Q300 contact is not very strong and definitely needs a salary increase. They work the hardest out of any fleet.
I can only speak for the ATR as I previously was employed under this contact. They have only just ratified their salary to minimum wage, and allowances have been raised. They work through a different structure, being meal bands i.e Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and then a subsequent overnight allowance if that is in the duty. Their allowance structure was modelled off the old Mount Cook contract of the early 2000s. You only get the allowances if you work through the meal bands, e.g sign on in your base before 0700 you'd receive a breakfast allowance. Operating/signing on between 1100-1300 entitles you to Lunch allowance. Operating/Signing on from 1800 entitles you to Dinner. If you're overnighting, you do not receive a breakfast allowance as breakfast is provided at the hotel.
Depending on your roster, you could earn a healthy amount on allowances prior to 2018. During 2018/2019 they opened several new ATR bases including WLG, NPE, TRG and NSN to reduce the overnight costs for crew. Operations also rescheduled a lot of flights to sign-on just after Breakfast or lunch to avoid receiving the allowances. Same goes for rescheduling flights so sign off was just before Lunch or Dinner. Rosters for AKL based crew, involve a lot of day flying and no overnights however this does change depending on crew levels at each base.
As I said, the allowances aren't bad. You can definitely live off it, as majority of crew did and stayed with the company.
You're right, in respect to your comment about crew taking their own food in ports as majority of places let crew do this. However it all stems back to the salary being so low, that crew wanting to save money for a house etc, this would be the only way to do so. Ultimately locking them selves in their room for the layover.
No, standby isn't new, and yes some airlines offer a standby hourly rate, however 787/777 crew did not receive this. Hence why in negotiations, the main objective is a substantial salary increase and no change in allowance amounts.
After any NRT/SIN/HKG/TPE/ICN/PVG, you were rostered 72 hours clear. Any North American duty (excl. ORD), you had 3 full days clear. This could be reduced down to double the flight time back to AKL, if you wanted to pick up another duty. ORD had 5 days clear after. So ultimately, you could pick up back to back duties, however fatigue would be very apparent and more often than not, the swap system would deny the change. There were also maximum duty hours you could do in 48 hours, 72 hours and 28 days (The roster length).
Yes, as your figures suggest you could receive that amount, however pre 2020, crew were receiving 2 months of standby (sometimes 3 for on board managers) a year as there was a surplus of crew vs flights due to 787 issues and seasonable schedules. Factor in AUS and pacific island returns (incl. PPT which you had to receive 2 days clear after). Recurrency training, Security training, First Aid training + 6 weeks annual leave which you had to take and couldn't accrue, the amount would drop.
Like I said it's livable, and the appeal is definitely there for young adults. It's not bad, it's just not good either
aerokiwi wrote:The more I read about aviation worker pay and conditions, the more sympathy I have for them. And in the New Zealand context of abysmally low wages, extremely high and accelerating costs of living and a weak super/tax incrntive system.. just atrocious for anyone over 27.
Do the allowances accrue to Kiwisaver as well or is that calculated on base? What happens during annual, sick, bereavement leave? Sick leave being pertinent because flight crew are on the front line of infection. Presumably all based on their base salary rather than all inclusive?
If I'm paying $800 return for Tasman flights that used to be $400, I'd hope the crew were seeing some of that.
NZ6 wrote:lowesrus wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I find it really interesting. Please correct me if I'm miles off the mark here. Regional crew base pay is similar but they don't get those meal allowances. Yet the job isn't all that much different? Yes you prepare and serve meals, but after all you are being paid to "work" so arguably you should be doing something. Yes you're away from home longer but a large potion of crew work towards long-haul for that international experience? So it's selective and by many is a perk they want.
The $336NZD value for SIN equates to around $290SGD. Given you'll arrive in SIN at 0640 you'll be feed and tired so you'd likely do one of two things. Have a short sleep then early night, or stay up and go to bed early. Either way you're looking at lunch and dinner, maybe a bite to eat for breakfast. It's not $300 worth of meals is it.
But to the same argument crew have always taken dry non perishable goods with them and have pocketed as much as they can so one can argue that using that money for your expenses up there is elective and if you use it all you must be dining in restaurants. With this in mind has the airline factored this into their base salary?
As for using allowances as income; this is a issue which effects many people, those on commission for example but yes I admit this is a major issue. I wonder, if allowances were dropped and built into a salary would this be beneficial or would you be worse off after paying income tax etc.?
As for being on standby - this isn't new is it? hasn't this always been an issue. I thought there was a small allowance for this and higher allowances if called in. I guess it goes back to my comment above. In this scenario you're not actually doing anything. You just need to be able to come in on a set notice. If this was build into a salary would you see less personal downtime and crew rotations tightened to avoid having X number of people on standby, or would you be used on services with shrinkage built into a sectors crewing. I'm thinking about an impact on work / life balance.
If you were on SIN twice a week for 40 weeks of the year, that's an extra $26,880 which is tax free. So working the other way, so your $42K + $38,500 (tax inclusive) = $80,500
That $80K is dam good, with all respect, I think if we aligned the tasks and skills to a ground position the pay would be much higher for crew wouldn't it? I mean, teachers, nurses, fire and emergency are recent careers who've been in the media around pay conditions. That figure is well above those industries.
Regional crew are still divided per fleet. ATR and Q300. Unfortunately the Q300 contact is not very strong and definitely needs a salary increase. They work the hardest out of any fleet.
I can only speak for the ATR as I previously was employed under this contact. They have only just ratified their salary to minimum wage, and allowances have been raised. They work through a different structure, being meal bands i.e Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and then a subsequent overnight allowance if that is in the duty. Their allowance structure was modelled off the old Mount Cook contract of the early 2000s. You only get the allowances if you work through the meal bands, e.g sign on in your base before 0700 you'd receive a breakfast allowance. Operating/signing on between 1100-1300 entitles you to Lunch allowance. Operating/Signing on from 1800 entitles you to Dinner. If you're overnighting, you do not receive a breakfast allowance as breakfast is provided at the hotel.
Depending on your roster, you could earn a healthy amount on allowances prior to 2018. During 2018/2019 they opened several new ATR bases including WLG, NPE, TRG and NSN to reduce the overnight costs for crew. Operations also rescheduled a lot of flights to sign-on just after Breakfast or lunch to avoid receiving the allowances. Same goes for rescheduling flights so sign off was just before Lunch or Dinner. Rosters for AKL based crew, involve a lot of day flying and no overnights however this does change depending on crew levels at each base.
As I said, the allowances aren't bad. You can definitely live off it, as majority of crew did and stayed with the company.
You're right, in respect to your comment about crew taking their own food in ports as majority of places let crew do this. However it all stems back to the salary being so low, that crew wanting to save money for a house etc, this would be the only way to do so. Ultimately locking them selves in their room for the layover.
No, standby isn't new, and yes some airlines offer a standby hourly rate, however 787/777 crew did not receive this. Hence why in negotiations, the main objective is a substantial salary increase and no change in allowance amounts.
After any NRT/SIN/HKG/TPE/ICN/PVG, you were rostered 72 hours clear. Any North American duty (excl. ORD), you had 3 full days clear. This could be reduced down to double the flight time back to AKL, if you wanted to pick up another duty. ORD had 5 days clear after. So ultimately, you could pick up back to back duties, however fatigue would be very apparent and more often than not, the swap system would deny the change. There were also maximum duty hours you could do in 48 hours, 72 hours and 28 days (The roster length).
Yes, as your figures suggest you could receive that amount, however pre 2020, crew were receiving 2 months of standby (sometimes 3 for on board managers) a year as there was a surplus of crew vs flights due to 787 issues and seasonable schedules. Factor in AUS and pacific island returns (incl. PPT which you had to receive 2 days clear after). Recurrency training, Security training, First Aid training + 6 weeks annual leave which you had to take and couldn't accrue, the amount would drop.
Like I said it's livable, and the appeal is definitely there for young adults. It's not bad, it's just not good either
Just a thought around regional crew overnighting, would you rather overnight in SIN,HKG or TYO or NPE, NPL or NSN? But we shouldn't forget you can take home cooked meals with you. There's no LAGS or MPI issues etc
I'm all for people both earning a wage they can live on and doing a job they enjoy. I've got no other motive for this and I'm not defending NZ, QF are much the same I believe.
I do think we need to stand back and look at the duties, tasks and skills included in the PD. Firstly some crew do an amazing job and really make the difference between airlines but others are just people in uniform preforming their job. I also completely get the job will have it's challenges, you'll get those snobby, entitled & demanding people who're impossible to please and give almost no thanks no matter how hard you try.
When we look at it, the job is about welcoming passengers onboard, general inflight service/support & delivering a meal service. If we were to align those duties with an on-ground positions we're looking at Wait staff, hotel concierge/receptionist and general customer service roles. They all pay comparable to crew so I'm not sure why crew demand more and are they being short sighted?
There's perks of the job which can't be compared - you get to travel regularly, stay in hotels and 'see the world' so to speak. Isn't there a price on that?
I believe more could to be done to address the following
- Standby Wage / Time rostered on standby
- Non taxable allowances for financial support (mortgage)
I would suggest if penal rates were dropped in lieu of a flat salary you're standby duties would be conducted in the air or at the airport (you won't be at home). You're fortnightly take home pay would be lower. Likewise if the allowance was removed and the airline provided meals by way of room service or meal room - would you prefer this?
Good luck with the bargaining though.
Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:lowesrus wrote:
Regional crew are still divided per fleet. ATR and Q300. Unfortunately the Q300 contact is not very strong and definitely needs a salary increase. They work the hardest out of any fleet.
I can only speak for the ATR as I previously was employed under this contact. They have only just ratified their salary to minimum wage, and allowances have been raised. They work through a different structure, being meal bands i.e Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and then a subsequent overnight allowance if that is in the duty. Their allowance structure was modelled off the old Mount Cook contract of the early 2000s. You only get the allowances if you work through the meal bands, e.g sign on in your base before 0700 you'd receive a breakfast allowance. Operating/signing on between 1100-1300 entitles you to Lunch allowance. Operating/Signing on from 1800 entitles you to Dinner. If you're overnighting, you do not receive a breakfast allowance as breakfast is provided at the hotel.
Depending on your roster, you could earn a healthy amount on allowances prior to 2018. During 2018/2019 they opened several new ATR bases including WLG, NPE, TRG and NSN to reduce the overnight costs for crew. Operations also rescheduled a lot of flights to sign-on just after Breakfast or lunch to avoid receiving the allowances. Same goes for rescheduling flights so sign off was just before Lunch or Dinner. Rosters for AKL based crew, involve a lot of day flying and no overnights however this does change depending on crew levels at each base.
As I said, the allowances aren't bad. You can definitely live off it, as majority of crew did and stayed with the company.
You're right, in respect to your comment about crew taking their own food in ports as majority of places let crew do this. However it all stems back to the salary being so low, that crew wanting to save money for a house etc, this would be the only way to do so. Ultimately locking them selves in their room for the layover.
No, standby isn't new, and yes some airlines offer a standby hourly rate, however 787/777 crew did not receive this. Hence why in negotiations, the main objective is a substantial salary increase and no change in allowance amounts.
After any NRT/SIN/HKG/TPE/ICN/PVG, you were rostered 72 hours clear. Any North American duty (excl. ORD), you had 3 full days clear. This could be reduced down to double the flight time back to AKL, if you wanted to pick up another duty. ORD had 5 days clear after. So ultimately, you could pick up back to back duties, however fatigue would be very apparent and more often than not, the swap system would deny the change. There were also maximum duty hours you could do in 48 hours, 72 hours and 28 days (The roster length).
Yes, as your figures suggest you could receive that amount, however pre 2020, crew were receiving 2 months of standby (sometimes 3 for on board managers) a year as there was a surplus of crew vs flights due to 787 issues and seasonable schedules. Factor in AUS and pacific island returns (incl. PPT which you had to receive 2 days clear after). Recurrency training, Security training, First Aid training + 6 weeks annual leave which you had to take and couldn't accrue, the amount would drop.
Like I said it's livable, and the appeal is definitely there for young adults. It's not bad, it's just not good either
Just a thought around regional crew overnighting, would you rather overnight in SIN,HKG or TYO or NPE, NPL or NSN? But we shouldn't forget you can take home cooked meals with you. There's no LAGS or MPI issues etc
I'm all for people both earning a wage they can live on and doing a job they enjoy. I've got no other motive for this and I'm not defending NZ, QF are much the same I believe.
I do think we need to stand back and look at the duties, tasks and skills included in the PD. Firstly some crew do an amazing job and really make the difference between airlines but others are just people in uniform preforming their job. I also completely get the job will have it's challenges, you'll get those snobby, entitled & demanding people who're impossible to please and give almost no thanks no matter how hard you try.
When we look at it, the job is about welcoming passengers onboard, general inflight service/support & delivering a meal service. If we were to align those duties with an on-ground positions we're looking at Wait staff, hotel concierge/receptionist and general customer service roles. They all pay comparable to crew so I'm not sure why crew demand more and are they being short sighted?
There's perks of the job which can't be compared - you get to travel regularly, stay in hotels and 'see the world' so to speak. Isn't there a price on that?
I believe more could to be done to address the following
- Standby Wage / Time rostered on standby
- Non taxable allowances for financial support (mortgage)
I would suggest if penal rates were dropped in lieu of a flat salary you're standby duties would be conducted in the air or at the airport (you won't be at home). You're fortnightly take home pay would be lower. Likewise if the allowance was removed and the airline provided meals by way of room service or meal room - would you prefer this?
Good luck with the bargaining though.
I think you maybe need to actually talk to some crew about what the job entails and it’s pitfalls because you’re missing a lot.
• Firstly there aren’t many jobs where you work shifts that are up to 20 hours long (and that’s not including transport time).
• You’ve also completely overlooked that the primary roll of crew is safety - they are trained to put out fires, first aid, disruptive/violent passengers, etc. Then of course there’s those service related things you mentioned where the cabin crew really are the face of the airline. With online booking, self checkin, most often cabin crew are the only airline staff that passengers actually interact with (and it’s for up to 20 hours at a time).
• Most jobs don’t involve people being away from home more days than they are home (average 4 days away/3 days home each week). Also most jobs that do have travel elements to them do pay additional because of it.
• Then there’s the hazard/health side of things. Overseas cabin crew are considered to be radiation workers due to the much greater doses of radiation they receive at altitude. Also breathing in thin, dry, and fumey air is also not great for your health. Especially when your job has you in close proximity to hundreds of passengers where there will always be someone sick. The shift work, lack of rest, jet lag all impart a heavy toll on your body too.
So yes I have a lot of sympathy for cabin crew and while the old crew contracts were a bit silly, the new contracts aren’t great.
NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
NZ516 wrote:Today there was 3 flights to RAR from AKL
It must be very popular now and this is before the school holidays begin.
NZ942 at 0600 NND
NZ946 at 0855 NZN
NZ948 at 1330 NZG
zkncj wrote:NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
ZK-NBT wrote:zkncj wrote:NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
Depends who is going to refit them, guess we will find out soon enough but in reality it seems very imo unlikely that they would be able to get seats anywhere near that quickly unless another carrier had cancelled some or something, then there is hangar space to get an aircraft in for refitting at short notice. Imo extremely unlikely.
I do imagine some of the older 789s will be refitted first when the time comes though? And how many configurations will we see on them? Will we just see 2 but more like a code 1.5 with additional J and W seating over the code 1? So a 24J, 28W, 245Y or something? And a code 3 which got partly leaked a while back with 42J and 38W I think it was? Or will we also see another configuration in between?
zkncj wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:zkncj wrote:
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
Depends who is going to refit them, guess we will find out soon enough but in reality it seems very imo unlikely that they would be able to get seats anywhere near that quickly unless another carrier had cancelled some or something, then there is hangar space to get an aircraft in for refitting at short notice. Imo extremely unlikely.
I do imagine some of the older 789s will be refitted first when the time comes though? And how many configurations will we see on them? Will we just see 2 but more like a code 1.5 with additional J and W seating over the code 1? So a 24J, 28W, 245Y or something? And a code 3 which got partly leaked a while back with 42J and 38W I think it was? Or will we also see another configuration in between?
Could even be the third 77W in AKL has been refitted with the new product?
Hopefully the 77Ws will get the new J seats too, and they don’t end up like the 763s.
I think it wouldn’t be too out the question to see a J seat count increase on the 789 fleet.
J/PE seem to be in hot demand at the moment, with the Code 1s only have 18 J seats it seems to sell out some routes very fast. I gusse it will depend how much Asia capacity they are planning to restore with the current fleet.
NZ6 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:
Just a thought around regional crew overnighting, would you rather overnight in SIN,HKG or TYO or NPE, NPL or NSN? But we shouldn't forget you can take home cooked meals with you. There's no LAGS or MPI issues etc
I'm all for people both earning a wage they can live on and doing a job they enjoy. I've got no other motive for this and I'm not defending NZ, QF are much the same I believe.
I do think we need to stand back and look at the duties, tasks and skills included in the PD. Firstly some crew do an amazing job and really make the difference between airlines but others are just people in uniform preforming their job. I also completely get the job will have it's challenges, you'll get those snobby, entitled & demanding people who're impossible to please and give almost no thanks no matter how hard you try.
When we look at it, the job is about welcoming passengers onboard, general inflight service/support & delivering a meal service. If we were to align those duties with an on-ground positions we're looking at Wait staff, hotel concierge/receptionist and general customer service roles. They all pay comparable to crew so I'm not sure why crew demand more and are they being short sighted?
There's perks of the job which can't be compared - you get to travel regularly, stay in hotels and 'see the world' so to speak. Isn't there a price on that?
I believe more could to be done to address the following
- Standby Wage / Time rostered on standby
- Non taxable allowances for financial support (mortgage)
I would suggest if penal rates were dropped in lieu of a flat salary you're standby duties would be conducted in the air or at the airport (you won't be at home). You're fortnightly take home pay would be lower. Likewise if the allowance was removed and the airline provided meals by way of room service or meal room - would you prefer this?
Good luck with the bargaining though.
I think you maybe need to actually talk to some crew about what the job entails and it’s pitfalls because you’re missing a lot.
• Firstly there aren’t many jobs where you work shifts that are up to 20 hours long (and that’s not including transport time).
• You’ve also completely overlooked that the primary roll of crew is safety - they are trained to put out fires, first aid, disruptive/violent passengers, etc. Then of course there’s those service related things you mentioned where the cabin crew really are the face of the airline. With online booking, self checkin, most often cabin crew are the only airline staff that passengers actually interact with (and it’s for up to 20 hours at a time).
• Most jobs don’t involve people being away from home more days than they are home (average 4 days away/3 days home each week). Also most jobs that do have travel elements to them do pay additional because of it.
• Then there’s the hazard/health side of things. Overseas cabin crew are considered to be radiation workers due to the much greater doses of radiation they receive at altitude. Also breathing in thin, dry, and fumey air is also not great for your health. Especially when your job has you in close proximity to hundreds of passengers where there will always be someone sick. The shift work, lack of rest, jet lag all impart a heavy toll on your body too.
So yes I have a lot of sympathy for cabin crew and while the old crew contracts were a bit silly, the new contracts aren’t great.
I've spoken to numerous crew. Many are close friends, some just people you know.
To your points
- On shift isn't continuous work. In fact in some long haul shifts you can sleep. Yes it's different but it's not like you're continuously serving customers for 20+ hours.
- First Aid & Fire are safety procedures which one must be trained in. Let's be fair realistic here, you're not talking paramedic level care or career firefighter knowledge. In fact from what I've seen it's no more than your stock standard first aid course made role specific. Someone on a factory floor has likely received very similar training. But if we were to train to a comparable level; go take a look at their pay levels. They'd grab $80K and run with it.
- As for disruptive/violent passengers. It's not like they're training in defensive tactics to immobilize a threat, it's not the marines. Go take a look at some headlines around retail workers these days.
- Being away from home is part of the role. You're also at home a lot of the time. It's part in parcel with the profession. It's like saying your want to be a paramedic but don't want shift work?
- The health a safety argument is an interesting one, not sure if it quantifies for additional pay and what science supports this and how extra pay makes it any better?
The cost of living issue is a wider topic and many people are struggling with it. Heck I'm not immune, my left over pay isn't going anywhere near as far as it did a few years ago.
At the end of the day, cabin crew isn't a qualified skill, in it's simplest form it's a service role which almost anyone with basic customer service skills could do. Therefore the role doesn't demand a high pay band and the nature of the work with regard to shifts, being away from home is either a pro or con to anyone considering it.
Like I wrote over the weekend, remove all penal rates / allowances etc, move them onto a flat salary with fixed number of LH and SH sectors, meals provided in a crew meal room and so forth. They'll quickly want to switch back.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards crew. I do support them with regards to time sitting around on standby etc but their pay should be comparable to ground based service roles and arguing current conditions vs what conditions existed in pervious generations isn't a very strong one.
NZ6 wrote:lowesrus wrote:NZ6 wrote:
I find it really interesting. Please correct me if I'm miles off the mark here. Regional crew base pay is similar but they don't get those meal allowances. Yet the job isn't all that much different? Yes you prepare and serve meals, but after all you are being paid to "work" so arguably you should be doing something. Yes you're away from home longer but a large potion of crew work towards long-haul for that international experience? So it's selective and by many is a perk they want.
The $336NZD value for SIN equates to around $290SGD. Given you'll arrive in SIN at 0640 you'll be feed and tired so you'd likely do one of two things. Have a short sleep then early night, or stay up and go to bed early. Either way you're looking at lunch and dinner, maybe a bite to eat for breakfast. It's not $300 worth of meals is it.
But to the same argument crew have always taken dry non perishable goods with them and have pocketed as much as they can so one can argue that using that money for your expenses up there is elective and if you use it all you must be dining in restaurants. With this in mind has the airline factored this into their base salary?
As for using allowances as income; this is a issue which effects many people, those on commission for example but yes I admit this is a major issue. I wonder, if allowances were dropped and built into a salary would this be beneficial or would you be worse off after paying income tax etc.?
As for being on standby - this isn't new is it? hasn't this always been an issue. I thought there was a small allowance for this and higher allowances if called in. I guess it goes back to my comment above. In this scenario you're not actually doing anything. You just need to be able to come in on a set notice. If this was build into a salary would you see less personal downtime and crew rotations tightened to avoid having X number of people on standby, or would you be used on services with shrinkage built into a sectors crewing. I'm thinking about an impact on work / life balance.
If you were on SIN twice a week for 40 weeks of the year, that's an extra $26,880 which is tax free. So working the other way, so your $42K + $38,500 (tax inclusive) = $80,500
That $80K is dam good, with all respect, I think if we aligned the tasks and skills to a ground position the pay would be much higher for crew wouldn't it? I mean, teachers, nurses, fire and emergency are recent careers who've been in the media around pay conditions. That figure is well above those industries.
Regional crew are still divided per fleet. ATR and Q300. Unfortunately the Q300 contact is not very strong and definitely needs a salary increase. They work the hardest out of any fleet.
I can only speak for the ATR as I previously was employed under this contact. They have only just ratified their salary to minimum wage, and allowances have been raised. They work through a different structure, being meal bands i.e Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and then a subsequent overnight allowance if that is in the duty. Their allowance structure was modelled off the old Mount Cook contract of the early 2000s. You only get the allowances if you work through the meal bands, e.g sign on in your base before 0700 you'd receive a breakfast allowance. Operating/signing on between 1100-1300 entitles you to Lunch allowance. Operating/Signing on from 1800 entitles you to Dinner. If you're overnighting, you do not receive a breakfast allowance as breakfast is provided at the hotel.
Depending on your roster, you could earn a healthy amount on allowances prior to 2018. During 2018/2019 they opened several new ATR bases including WLG, NPE, TRG and NSN to reduce the overnight costs for crew. Operations also rescheduled a lot of flights to sign-on just after Breakfast or lunch to avoid receiving the allowances. Same goes for rescheduling flights so sign off was just before Lunch or Dinner. Rosters for AKL based crew, involve a lot of day flying and no overnights however this does change depending on crew levels at each base.
As I said, the allowances aren't bad. You can definitely live off it, as majority of crew did and stayed with the company.
You're right, in respect to your comment about crew taking their own food in ports as majority of places let crew do this. However it all stems back to the salary being so low, that crew wanting to save money for a house etc, this would be the only way to do so. Ultimately locking them selves in their room for the layover.
No, standby isn't new, and yes some airlines offer a standby hourly rate, however 787/777 crew did not receive this. Hence why in negotiations, the main objective is a substantial salary increase and no change in allowance amounts.
After any NRT/SIN/HKG/TPE/ICN/PVG, you were rostered 72 hours clear. Any North American duty (excl. ORD), you had 3 full days clear. This could be reduced down to double the flight time back to AKL, if you wanted to pick up another duty. ORD had 5 days clear after. So ultimately, you could pick up back to back duties, however fatigue would be very apparent and more often than not, the swap system would deny the change. There were also maximum duty hours you could do in 48 hours, 72 hours and 28 days (The roster length).
Yes, as your figures suggest you could receive that amount, however pre 2020, crew were receiving 2 months of standby (sometimes 3 for on board managers) a year as there was a surplus of crew vs flights due to 787 issues and seasonable schedules. Factor in AUS and pacific island returns (incl. PPT which you had to receive 2 days clear after). Recurrency training, Security training, First Aid training + 6 weeks annual leave which you had to take and couldn't accrue, the amount would drop.
Like I said it's livable, and the appeal is definitely there for young adults. It's not bad, it's just not good either
Just a thought around regional crew overnighting, would you rather overnight in SIN,HKG or TYO or NPE, NPL or NSN? But we shouldn't forget you can take home cooked meals with you. There's no LAGS or MPI issues etc
I'm all for people both earning a wage they can live on and doing a job they enjoy. I've got no other motive for this and I'm not defending NZ, QF are much the same I believe.
I do think we need to stand back and look at the duties, tasks and skills included in the PD. Firstly some crew do an amazing job and really make the difference between airlines but others are just people in uniform preforming their job. I also completely get the job will have it's challenges, you'll get those snobby, entitled & demanding people who're impossible to please and give almost no thanks no matter how hard you try.
When we look at it, the job is about welcoming passengers onboard, general inflight service/support & delivering a meal service. If we were to align those duties with an on-ground positions we're looking at Wait staff, hotel concierge/receptionist and general customer service roles. They all pay comparable to crew so I'm not sure why crew demand more and are they being short sighted?
There's perks of the job which can't be compared - you get to travel regularly, stay in hotels and 'see the world' so to speak. Isn't there a price on that?
I believe more could to be done to address the following
- Standby Wage / Time rostered on standby
- Non taxable allowances for financial support (mortgage)
I would suggest if penal rates were dropped in lieu of a flat salary you're standby duties would be conducted in the air or at the airport (you won't be at home). You're fortnightly take home pay would be lower. Likewise if the allowance was removed and the airline provided meals by way of room service or meal room - would you prefer this?
Good luck with the bargaining though.
Zkpilot wrote:NZ6 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:I think you maybe need to actually talk to some crew about what the job entails and it’s pitfalls because you’re missing a lot.
• Firstly there aren’t many jobs where you work shifts that are up to 20 hours long (and that’s not including transport time).
• You’ve also completely overlooked that the primary roll of crew is safety - they are trained to put out fires, first aid, disruptive/violent passengers, etc. Then of course there’s those service related things you mentioned where the cabin crew really are the face of the airline. With online booking, self checkin, most often cabin crew are the only airline staff that passengers actually interact with (and it’s for up to 20 hours at a time).
• Most jobs don’t involve people being away from home more days than they are home (average 4 days away/3 days home each week). Also most jobs that do have travel elements to them do pay additional because of it.
• Then there’s the hazard/health side of things. Overseas cabin crew are considered to be radiation workers due to the much greater doses of radiation they receive at altitude. Also breathing in thin, dry, and fumey air is also not great for your health. Especially when your job has you in close proximity to hundreds of passengers where there will always be someone sick. The shift work, lack of rest, jet lag all impart a heavy toll on your body too.
So yes I have a lot of sympathy for cabin crew and while the old crew contracts were a bit silly, the new contracts aren’t great.
I've spoken to numerous crew. Many are close friends, some just people you know.
To your points
- On shift isn't continuous work. In fact in some long haul shifts you can sleep. Yes it's different but it's not like you're continuously serving customers for 20+ hours.
- First Aid & Fire are safety procedures which one must be trained in. Let's be fair realistic here, you're not talking paramedic level care or career firefighter knowledge. In fact from what I've seen it's no more than your stock standard first aid course made role specific. Someone on a factory floor has likely received very similar training. But if we were to train to a comparable level; go take a look at their pay levels. They'd grab $80K and run with it.
- As for disruptive/violent passengers. It's not like they're training in defensive tactics to immobilize a threat, it's not the marines. Go take a look at some headlines around retail workers these days.
- Being away from home is part of the role. You're also at home a lot of the time. It's part in parcel with the profession. It's like saying your want to be a paramedic but don't want shift work?
- The health a safety argument is an interesting one, not sure if it quantifies for additional pay and what science supports this and how extra pay makes it any better?
The cost of living issue is a wider topic and many people are struggling with it. Heck I'm not immune, my left over pay isn't going anywhere near as far as it did a few years ago.
At the end of the day, cabin crew isn't a qualified skill, in it's simplest form it's a service role which almost anyone with basic customer service skills could do. Therefore the role doesn't demand a high pay band and the nature of the work with regard to shifts, being away from home is either a pro or con to anyone considering it.
Like I wrote over the weekend, remove all penal rates / allowances etc, move them onto a flat salary with fixed number of LH and SH sectors, meals provided in a crew meal room and so forth. They'll quickly want to switch back.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards crew. I do support them with regards to time sitting around on standby etc but their pay should be comparable to ground based service roles and arguing current conditions vs what conditions existed in pervious generations isn't a very strong one.
I’ve had a lot of respect for you and your opinions over the many years, but frankly your views on your cabin crew colleagues is disgusting.
On to your points:
It is irrelevant whether crew are serving customers or “resting” (which isn’t really much of a rest - things like turbulence, noise etc). You are still at work, on duty and flying around in a pressurised tube with everything else that goes with that. Also there are many occasions where that rest is not possible for a variety of reasons.
You are correct in the level of first aid - it is a pretty standard level 2 workplace first aid with additional considerations, such as there is no ambulance at 33,000 feet and often no doctor either. It is rare that there isn’t a medical issue on a longhaul flight (often several) - altitude affects a lot of people along with stress and other factors. Compare that to most ordinary workplaces where the workplace first aider typically goes years without being needed.
As for fire, it is quite possibly the single most dangerous thing on an aircraft. Most workplaces don’t have any kind of fire training whatsoever.
Disruptive/violent passengers training - Actually, they are trained especially post 9/11. Again there’s no police car at 33,000ft.
Away from home - yes it is part of the role - and part of the reason for the pay! Again most job’s people get to be home most if not all nights. There aren’t too many jobs out there were people are away from home more than 50% of the time.
Health & Safety - overall the science acknowledges the issue but hasn’t be confirmed per se. That said, it does confirm the radiation risk (which is why pregnant crew must stop flying fairly early on).
https://www.businessinsider.com/airplan ... 015-11?amp
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nd-aircrew
How does extra pay make it better? Ask anyone in a hazardous role why they get hazard pay.
The role needs to be done, so if someone is going to do it and risk harm to themself doing it then the least that can be done is to be compensated in some form for it.
I’m not sure where you get this high pay band thing from. The pay band is close to minimum wage. Crew do get allowances as per both industry and indeed common business practice for travelling workers. Both the company, and the IRD make it clear that these allowances aren’t and shouldn’t be considered pay (except when it comes to contract negotiation time the company does try to flip that - as do other airlines).
I’m going to leave it at that.
Zkpilot wrote:I’ve had a lot of respect for you and your opinions over the many years, but frankly your views on your cabin crew colleagues is disgusting.
On to your points:
It is irrelevant whether crew are serving customers or “resting” (which isn’t really much of a rest - things like turbulence, noise etc). You are still at work, on duty and flying around in a pressurised tube with everything else that goes with that. Also there are many occasions where that rest is not possible for a variety of reasons.
You are correct in the level of first aid - it is a pretty standard level 2 workplace first aid with additional considerations, such as there is no ambulance at 33,000 feet and often no doctor either. It is rare that there isn’t a medical issue on a longhaul flight (often several) - altitude affects a lot of people along with stress and other factors. Compare that to most ordinary workplaces where the workplace first aider typically goes years without being needed.
As for fire, it is quite possibly the single most dangerous thing on an aircraft. Most workplaces don’t have any kind of fire training whatsoever.
Disruptive/violent passengers training - Actually, they are trained especially post 9/11. Again there’s no police car at 33,000ft.
Away from home - yes it is part of the role - and part of the reason for the pay! Again most job’s people get to be home most if not all nights. There aren’t too many jobs out there were people are away from home more than 50% of the time.
Health & Safety - overall the science acknowledges the issue but hasn’t be confirmed per se. That said, it does confirm the radiation risk (which is why pregnant crew must stop flying fairly early on).
https://www.businessinsider.com/airplan ... 015-11?amp
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nd-aircrew
How does extra pay make it better? Ask anyone in a hazardous role why they get hazard pay.
The role needs to be done, so if someone is going to do it and risk harm to themself doing it then the least that can be done is to be compensated in some form for it.
I’m not sure where you get this high pay band thing from. The pay band is close to minimum wage. Crew do get allowances as per both industry and indeed common business practice for travelling workers. Both the company, and the IRD make it clear that these allowances aren’t and shouldn’t be considered pay (except when it comes to contract negotiation time the company does try to flip that - as do other airlines).
I’m going to leave it at that.
aerokiwi wrote:Oh and save their lives in the event of an emergency, risk their own via mechanical/pilot error
aerohottie wrote:Sounds like tomorrow is the day for the new J class announcment.
I'm both excited, and also a bit anxious that they've gone "cheap"... god i really hope they haven't gone cheap or generic.
Any final predictions on what you all think before it's launched?
Avtur wrote:NZ516 wrote:Today there was 3 flights to RAR from AKL
It must be very popular now and this is before the school holidays begin.
NZ942 at 0600 NND
NZ946 at 0855 NZN
NZ948 at 1330 NZG
I fuelled NZG. It went off gate 6, and had 282 pax on board. Quite a full flight….!
NZ516 wrote:Avtur wrote:NZ516 wrote:Today there was 3 flights to RAR from AKL
It must be very popular now and this is before the school holidays begin.
NZ942 at 0600 NND
NZ946 at 0855 NZN
NZ948 at 1330 NZG
I fuelled NZG. It went off gate 6, and had 282 pax on board. Quite a full flight….!
Well that's a decent load and shows how much the RAR market has grown recently.
aerohottie wrote:Sounds like tomorrow is the day for the new J class announcment.
I'm both excited, and also a bit anxious that they've gone "cheap"... god i really hope they haven't gone cheap or generic.
Any final predictions on what you all think before it's launched?
a7ala wrote:NZ516 wrote:Avtur wrote:
I fuelled NZG. It went off gate 6, and had 282 pax on board. Quite a full flight….!
Well that's a decent load and shows how much the RAR market has grown recently.
Its a shame for the rest of New Zealand they couldnt have considered a few a week WLG/CHC-RAR...
NZ801 wrote:a7ala wrote:NZ516 wrote:
Well that's a decent load and shows how much the RAR market has grown recently.
Its a shame for the rest of New Zealand they couldnt have considered a few a week WLG/CHC-RAR...
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
aerohottie wrote:Sounds like tomorrow is the day for the new J class announcment.
I'm both excited, and also a bit anxious that they've gone "cheap"... god i really hope they haven't gone cheap or generic.
Any final predictions on what you all think before it's launched?
a7ala wrote:NZ801 wrote:a7ala wrote:
Its a shame for the rest of New Zealand they couldnt have considered a few a week WLG/CHC-RAR...
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
NZ516 wrote:Avtur wrote:NZ516 wrote:Today there was 3 flights to RAR from AKL
It must be very popular now and this is before the school holidays begin.
NZ942 at 0600 NND
NZ946 at 0855 NZN
NZ948 at 1330 NZG
I fuelled NZG. It went off gate 6, and had 282 pax on board. Quite a full flight….!
Well that's a decent load and shows how much the RAR market has grown recently.
NZ6 wrote:Oh and save their lives in the event of an emergency, risk their own via mechanical/pilot error.
This is what I mean by weak arguments.
They are trained in what to do in the event of an emergency, preforming these duties is NOT a routine task. If the argument is there's risk in flying, you need to be reminded you have people paying you to be there.
But let's leave it at that like you say.
a7ala wrote:NZ801 wrote:a7ala wrote:
Its a shame for the rest of New Zealand they couldnt have considered a few a week WLG/CHC-RAR...
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
DavidByrne wrote:a7ala wrote:NZ801 wrote:
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).
To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?
It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.
I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.
DavidByrne wrote:a7ala wrote:NZ801 wrote:
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).
To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?
It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.
I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.
mrkerr7474 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:a7ala wrote:
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).
To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?
It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.
I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.
Well said, couldn't agree more really.
Would JQ A320s reach RAR from the likes of WLG/CHC? If they could, I'd see JQ starting that route before NZ even if it were a couple flights a week.
Otherwise as you say, NZ will continue to funnel everyone through AKL and have those great(not) extra transits...
zkncj wrote:NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
NZ321 wrote:zkncj wrote:NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/
There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.
aerokiwi wrote:NZ6 wrote:Oh and save their lives in the event of an emergency, risk their own via mechanical/pilot error.
This is what I mean by weak arguments.
They are trained in what to do in the event of an emergency, preforming these duties is NOT a routine task. If the argument is there's risk in flying, you need to be reminded you have people paying you to be there.
But let's leave it at that like you say.
A weak argument? You likened flight crew to hospitality workers on the ground with entirely different working conditions, which suggests a prevalent attitude in HQ. And you're not fooling anybody - current FA compensation is not commensurate with the physical and emotional stress they work through, let alone the risk to their own safety and the responsibilities they carry for others' welfare, no matter how rare. I learnt recently from some FAs about the impacts they have with bloating throughout the day, compounded by altitude/pressurisation and, for women, their monthly cycle. I had no idea! But... respect!
I work in an industry with two distinct sides as well - the core team that delivers the core business to our customers, and the corporate side that is meant to support that core delivery. And our executive teams have swung from exactly your attitude, which has been predictably disastrous, to attempting to define corporate as supporting, which is reflected in increased staff and customer satisfaction and, ultimately, sales.
Again, if it boggles your mind that crewing and staffing ground handling is becoming more challenging and impacting your business performance, while holding the above attitude, then I dunno how to counter that. Like willful blindness.
And "leave it at that" - beautifully sums it up. When the conversation gets hard, and the real attitudes get revealed, let's retreat form confronting that.
zkncj wrote:NZ321 wrote:zkncj wrote:
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/
There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... MIUEKVALU/
NZ Hearld has a set map, 8xJ+ 42J 52PE 125Y 6 Skynest
NZ321 wrote:zkncj wrote:NZ801 wrote:Hanger 22 opening Wednesday.
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/
There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.
NZ6 wrote:NZ321 wrote:zkncj wrote:
Must be the new J product launch? I do wonder if they are planning to have it onboard some of the 789s by the time JFK launches.
With the 789s going to the USA for repaints, could be a prefect down time to refit the J cabins at the same time picking up the new seats in the USA without having to ship them to AKL.
https://paxex.aero/air-new-zealand-busi ... e-skynest/
There are some quite detailed images of the new product available at the above link. Quite big changes from the current product; would be interesting to see a seat map and the actual seat count.
I was expecting disappointment and criticism from some here. Apart from the Business Premier Luxe product which is a small move towards F class (but managed within the one cabin) the J product has the same basic design principals as the current one with regarding to being closer to that herringbone design to other options out there.
Skynest is yet to be approved and I'm still surprised SkyCouch lasted given the extra weight it adds.
Overall it's a very premium heavy LOPA which shows where the airline is heading on it's LH network.
nz2 wrote:I thought hard shell seats had had their day. The old space seats were pleasant, fantastic on a day flight but that sliding base did not make for a comfortable sleep, lets hope this new iteration is better. Also, why, why have inward facing herring bone - NZ must be the only airline using them, or certainly introducing them in a new refresh. While there is progress it still seems stuck in the vision from the 2000's. Sky nest is innovative for sure but I heard somewhere it is limited to 4 hour booking periods - talk about hot bunking!
ZK-NBT wrote:The press release mentions 8 789s, no mention of 781 at all. I think the first 2 of these arrive second half 2023?
DavidByrne wrote:a7ala wrote:NZ801 wrote:
Why? People connect from around the country and that need to connect isn’t a barrier given loads from the oncarriage.
Correct the requirement to connect isnt a barrier when that is the only option. I would argue that both ports can support profitably services to RAR, but the airline has decided they can make more money (reduce costs) by funneling through AKL in the absence of any competition. I can tell you now that if someone else had operated WLG/CHC-RAR then Air NZ would be there straight away, as they said they would when Mike Pero was looking at it. Other connecting markets are just not large enough.
Here’s a left-field idea. Allocate (say) three international A320s to be based in CHC, and two based in WLG, and have a local marketing team responsible for scheduling them and filling them on whatever routes local demand indicates. Capacity could still be “lent” to other centres during low periods. Maybe we’d then see other routes which SHOULD have some merit - like the WLG-TBU/APW route which was operated for many years by PH, as well as CHC/WLG-RAR. And based on the loads that SQ was actually carrying on WLG-CBR (and terminating there) I still maintain that there’s a case for that route 2-3 times a week (though I concede we don’t know how much of the customer demand was because of the WB novelty factor).
To those who say that these routes are adequately served by transits via AKL, I say that this is very much an airline-centric point of view, and certainly not a customer-centric point of view. NZ’s attitude shows clearly in this regard: would we have seen CHC/WLG-NAN even if it hadn’t been for FJ’s competition (others have also alluded to this)?
It’s more and more evident globally that point-to-point is the future - and I’d support that also for the environmental benefits of flying direct routes. Ask any traveller what THEY would prefer and you can guarantee almost all would prefer a nonstop route over a transit stop. If NZ doesn’t recognise this, it does risk erosion of its customer base by competitors who have a more progressive approach to their customers.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that, given so many posters here have close links to NZ, that they don’t question the carrier’s strategy in this regard. But the vast majority of the potential customer base are not so beholden. They just want to get where they want to go as quickly and comfortably as possible.
I’d like to see NZ as a proactive airline in terms of its (non-AKL) network, while in this respect it seems more reactive. And please don’t tell me that the carrier’s profits are threatened by a different strategy - heaps of carriers have embraced low-frequency point-to-point operations and are doing just fine. And many of them are LCCs whose operation is in many respects not dissimilar to NZ’s.
PA515 wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:The press release mentions 8 789s, no mention of 781 at all. I think the first 2 of these arrive second half 2023?
The first two GE 787s (789s) were due in FY2024, Sep 2023 and Oct/Nov 2023. However the Press Release says 2024. It could be that the person who prepared the Press Release does not appreciate the difference between Financial Year and Calendar Year, or the first two aircraft have been deferred since the April Investor Presentation. And it is unlikely Air NZ would convert all the eight 787-10s to 787-9s, unless the expected performance improvements of the 787-10 are not going to happen.
PA515
Avtur wrote:nz2 wrote:I thought hard shell seats had had their day. The old space seats were pleasant, fantastic on a day flight but that sliding base did not make for a comfortable sleep, lets hope this new iteration is better. Also, why, why have inward facing herring bone - NZ must be the only airline using them, or certainly introducing them in a new refresh. While there is progress it still seems stuck in the vision from the 2000's. Sky nest is innovative for sure but I heard somewhere it is limited to 4 hour booking periods - talk about hot bunking!
Yeah, I’ve heard it’s limited to 4hrs too. Good luck trying to get an obese snoring 150kg person with a bad attitude out of one after 4hrs…..! And like you suggest, who would want to get in it afterwards?
Avtur wrote:nz2 wrote:I thought hard shell seats had had their day. The old space seats were pleasant, fantastic on a day flight but that sliding base did not make for a comfortable sleep, lets hope this new iteration is better. Also, why, why have inward facing herring bone - NZ must be the only airline using them, or certainly introducing them in a new refresh. While there is progress it still seems stuck in the vision from the 2000's. Sky nest is innovative for sure but I heard somewhere it is limited to 4 hour booking periods - talk about hot bunking!
Yeah, I’ve heard it’s limited to 4hrs too. Good luck trying to get an obese snoring 150kg person with a bad attitude out of one after 4hrs…..! And like you suggest, who would want to get in it afterwards?
