ATR Replacement Decision

[benwynn]

QUOTE

Im sure most places could take the 737 (Not sure about Invercargill)[/quote]

QUOTE

Its the normal ALT for ZQN.[/quote]

I know Qantas use it as an alternate but I think Air NZ goes to Christchurch or Dunedin.
Once Qantas flew a basically emtpy (no passengers) 733 from Invercargill direct to Rotorua
The problem with Invercargill is there is no security screening facilities so once they offload the passengers they can't get back on

Daniel

Sim-holic

 

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:42 pm

Posts: 946

Location: New Zealand

Top

[A185F]

QUOTE (benwynn @ Aug 6 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plus, I say this time and time again, They are seperate airlines under contract from Air New Zealand.

Benwynn I may have to say this again. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AIRLINE !!!!!!!!!! it is called AIR NEW ZEALAND. They are NOT and I repeat NOT under contract from air new zealand they ARE air new zealand. Airlines who are under contract from AirNZ are the likes of Air national and Vincents doing stuff for them. Yes, they are operated by different groups but are still owned and over all operated by the one. It is Airnz who own these places and who are buying the planes so if you think sort of in "the grand scheme of things" this is where the comonality factor is coming from and why comonality is probibly the biggest thing going for the Q400. Hense why they already have like 15 (cant rememebrexact number) options and purchase rights for the Q400.
The biggest and probibly the only main thing the ATR has over the Q400 at this time is they are a bit better on the gas and with the price of the stuff at the mo I wouldnt be supprised if they go down that route...

At the end of the day if they got Q400s they could say "right. you two (air lel, mt cook) are now 1. Share your planes, crew and reasourses. Play nice"
Because they can. Not that I think they would, but it would make sense.

[Anthony]

Yip the subsidiaries are exactly that - wholly owned subsidiaries.
If Air NZ wanted to make them one group then they could.
The commonality issue makes much more sense if Air Nelson and Mount Cook Airlines share a common crew pool who are rated for the Q300 and Q400.
Much the same way if they both operated ATRs if that helps illustrate my point.
Oil went down $3 or $4 tonight as well, which is good.

[benwynn]

Wholly owned subsideries or not, if im a pilot for Air Nelson, I dont work for Mt Cook. Thats what im saying. Im sure they can share everything else..

(At this stage, it could change is what your saying) Correct me if Im wrong

[Anthony]

Yer I'm saying it could change, but I doubt it would.
Air NZ and everyone else seems to be quite happy with the set up as it is.
I doubt they will be looking at fleet commonality as a major advantage, especially when it comes to crewing.

Mavman, thanks for the update. That's a long time to be waiting for information everyone is anxious to hear.

Also I doubt they will scrap Mount Cook altogether and just get 737s.
The 737 is a great aircraft but a lot harder to fill than an ATR or a Q400 as well as more expensive and less suited to some of the routes NZM flies.
Turboprops just make a lot more sense for regional routes in NZ in my opinion.
Jungle Jets from Embaer would be an interesting choice, but we've been over this in the thread and that's not likely either.

[Yak52aholic]

I just hope they get Q400's over ATR's. (Me being a slight Bombardier fan of course)

[victor_alpha_charlie]

QUOTE (Anthony @ Aug 6 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mavman, thanks for the update. That's a long time to be waiting for information everyone is anxious to hear.

Yeah but then we have to wait until like 2010 to actually see them.

I'm enjoying watching this thread. A few people think they've got it absolutely sussed. Why are you not running your own airline?

[Peppermint]

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Aug 6 2008, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah but then we have to wait until like 2010 to actually see them.

I'm enjoying watching this thread. A few people think they've got it absolutely sussed. Why are you not running your own airline?

It's cheaper to get fspassengers

[Naki]

well you know what they say - to make a small fortune in the airline business .........is to start with a big fortune!

[chickenman]

QUOTE (A185F @ Aug 6 2008, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the end of the day if they got Q400s they could say "right. you two (air lel, mt cook) are now 1. Share your planes, crew and reasourses. Play nice"
Because they can. Not that I think they would, but it would make sense.

Common sense would suggest so but there is one major factor that will prevent that from happening. The unions . You'll notice that when Air Nelson cabin crew or pilots go on strike Mount Cook don't. That's because they are on different contracts with different conditions and trying to combine them would be near on impossible.

IF (big if) they did all fall under one company then that parent company would need to purchase the pilots contracts on their current conditions and I would imagine that some conditions would be airline specific. You would then have multiple groups of pilots on different contracts for one company. You would have to uindertake up to three collective negotiations per annum. Or sack all of the pilots under the guise of restructuring and make them all apply for their jobs again.

Legally and technically they are seperate entities and you can't make any employees change jobs, they would have to be contracted under the current structures.

As far as ownership is concerned - did you know that Trans Emipre Airway 1965 Limited owns 50% of Mount Cook? Of course they are owned by Air NZ Ltd

[A185F]

gosh OBVIOUSLY I didnt mean this would happen at the flick of a switch. Nor did I suggest it would happen. Just that it could. Airline mergers take place all the time let alone ones within one parent company. Sure it would be dificult but far from impossible. It depends on how difficult they want to make it with regard to crew. Yes the unions would get in the way but I would be very supprised if there was even one (talking pilots for eg) air nelson pilot who would turn down a mt cook equivilant contract/conditions. (with obvious alterrations for basings etc). Of course cook guys could not step backwards but nelson guy could step forwards with regard to that. AND AGAIN Im not suggesting it would happen, just that it could.
Perhaps I need to outline the obviousness in my posts a little better

[Alex]

QUOTE (benwynn @ Aug 6 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wholly owned subsideries or not, if im a pilot for Air Nelson, I dont work for Mt Cook. Thats what im saying. Im sure they can share everything else..

Everyone works for Air NZ, regardless of whether you're employed in different branches (Eagle Air, Air Nelson, Mount Cook). Thinking of branches, compare it to a bank or something...

Alex

[Anthony]

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Aug 6 2008, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah but then we have to wait until like 2010 to actually see them.

I'm enjoying watching this thread. A few people think they've got it absolutely sussed. Why are you not running your own airline?

Well if your Dad would give me his...
Or if Air New Zealand decided to offload one of the link carriers then there's room for them here.
Lots of armchair CEOs here, but it makes for good discussion.

Alex, I thought all the subsidiary employees had their own contracts, hence legally they work for Air Nelson/Mount Cook/Eagle/Zeal/Mainline and get collective agreements and renewals at different times.
Or do you just mean in general, in which case you're right - they're all Air New Zealanders at the end of the day, just not equal Air NZers.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

QUOTE (Anthony @ Aug 7 2008, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if your Dad would give me his...
Or if Air New Zealand decided to offload one of the link carriers then there's room for them here.

You may have to work slightly harder than that

[Link148]

Hey guys.
You are right about the subsidiary thingy. From what I understand you are correct in saying that Air New Zealand purchases the Aircraft. I believe Air Nelson leases them from Air New Zealand and does not own them. As an Air Nelson employee I am paid by Air Nelson. My wages are done at Nelson. There are different contracts for staff for each subsidiary and there are different contracts with in each airline. I know the ground crew and Palmy are paid different to Napier and different again for Nelson. Must be a mind blowing exercise for the coin counters within Air Nz some days. Hope we will see a result on the aircraft soon. Anyway how about Vincent getting some more Dashes! I love VAC or known in Nelson as the VACum cleaner. It's the sports car of the sky!

[Anthony]

QUOTE (Link148 @ Aug 7 2008, 07:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey guys.
You are right about the subsidiary thingy. From what I understand you are correct in saying that Air New Zealand purchases the Aircraft. I believe Air Nelson leases them from Air New Zealand and does not own them. As an Air Nelson employee I am paid by Air Nelson. My wages are done at Nelson. There are different contracts for staff for each subsidiary and there are different contracts with in each airline. I know the ground crew and Palmy are paid different to Napier and different again for Nelson. Must be a mind blowing exercise for the coin counters within Air Nz some days. Hope we will see a result on the aircraft soon. Anyway how about Vincent getting some more Dashes! I love VAC or known in Nelson as the VACum cleaner. It's the sports car of the sky!

Cheers mate, thanks for the info
As for Vincent, read this thread for some interesting info, partly confirmed by Victor_alpha_charlie (Tom) our resident specialist on all things Vincent.

[Daniel]

Well I had a talk to several Q300 pilots earlier in the week and here is what they reckon,

-One reckons they will keep the current ATRs and just run them to the ground. He thinks the Q400 is too much of a gas guzzler.

-One reckons that they will go for the ATR 72s 600s

But they all reckon that it is unlikely that the Q400 will make it now.

[kestrel]

Heard from Rob Fyfe, himself, they are keeping the ATR72-500 for now

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (kestrel @ Sep 20 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heard from Rob Fyfe, himself, they are keeping the ATR72-500 for now

Not surprised ...... think the plane would have been out date by the time any decision was made

[mavman]

QUOTE (kestrel @ Sep 20 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heard from Rob Fyfe, himself, they are keeping the ATR72-500 for now

Wouldn't surprise me either, the ATR is a fantastic machine from an economic point of view....(compared to "other" turboprops anyway).