Air New Zealand laying off 600 staff

[hazard02]

Air New Zealand is laying off up to 600 of its ground and engineering staff while maintaining the current size of its fleet.
anyone else kinda worried about this? im just thinking back to a little while ago when stuff was falling off the planes.... that was with full staff.

seriously though, i hope no-one here is one of the unlucky ones. being layed off really bites.

[R6_kid]

'stuff falling off planes' has no direct correlation to staffing levels.

What you have to understand is that the Air NZ facility isnt just for Air NZ they do a lot of work for other airlines too, and those airlines have to fly their aircraft all the way here to be serviced, hence why it is 'cheaper' to do it in asia or europe.

Also the new 777 and 787 aircraft will be getting serviced overseas anyway which leaves the small prop aircraft to be serviced by AirWork and SafeAir (who i think do it already anyway) and the other midsized aircraft (737's and A320s) will probably still get done at Auckland.

Im not sure on the full story so it might pay to wait this one out a bit. Im not sure if they are shutting down the whole operation of aircraft maintenance out there or just cutting it down. I know that the training side of that facility is a main supplier to the industry.

On the other hand the RNZAF is looking for more aircraft and avionics technicians... just not 600 of them!

[Lou Girardin]

I heard the new CEO saying that they are trying to improve shareholder value. Seeing that the Govt is the major shareholder, is puting all these people out of work going to improve the Govt's financial position?
How about a Govt's moral obligations to it's people?
Particularly a left wing Govt.

[Drunken Monkey]

...laying off up to 600 of its ground and engineering staff while maintaining the current size of its fleet.
anyone else kinda worried about this? ....

No, they will contract out the services. Some of the redundant staff will be hired by whatever engineering company gets the contracting service as it will need to grow to take on the extra work. It's not like 600 engineers are getting the sack and the remainder will pick up all the slack.

[Drunken Monkey]

I heard the new CEO saying that they are trying to improve shareholder value. .

Standard accounting practice, cut staff, makes the books looks better, even if you're now spending more contracting the services out to the same people. Happens all the time to big corporates in the USA. People get sacked, then re-hired as contractors, then their contacting position gets turned into a permanent one, then they get sacked...Easy way to farm out the inefficient workers. Yes I should say not everyone gets re-hired.


How about a Govt's moral obligations to it's people?
Particularly a left wing Govt.

That's the hypochrisy. Sounds like the unusually right-wing labour of the 80's, does it not?

[Ixion]

No, they will contract out the services. Some of the redundant staff will be hired by whatever engineering company gets the contracting service as it will need to grow to take on the extra work. It's not like 600 engineers are getting the sack and the remainder will pick up all the slack.
Reply With Quote

Uh, they're contracting out the servicing all right. To China. Not much likelihood of any of the existing engineers being hired there.

Nationalise 'em. Wouldnt even cost anything 'cos the State is the biggest shareholder.

[Fart]

Airnz has no choice. They have to restructure or face bankruptcy in the future. The airline industry around the world are facing huge input cost and competition with major airlines going into receivership.

It will cost the tax payers both ways. If Airnz goes under, then the tax payers will have to bail them out. Airnz is a major asset to NZ in securing that we have a viable tourism industry. Tourism is one of our largest income earner.

The fundamentals are stacked against the airline industry. The cost of air tickets are the same today as they were 15 years ago, yet the input cost of wages, fuel, airport tax, exchange rates.. etc have all gone up.

[James Deuce]

No, they will contract out the services. Some of the redundant staff will be hired by whatever engineering company gets the contracting service as it will need to grow to take on the extra work. It's not like 600 engineers are getting the sack and the remainder will pick up all the slack.

Ahhh the old capitalist maxim that you can follow the job to whatever country it moves to. Bollocks. SOme people don't want to remove themselves from their country, or uproot their families.

[James Deuce]

Airnz has no choice. They have to restructure or face bankruptcy in the future. The airline industry around the world are facing huge input cost and competition with major airlines going into receivership.

It will cost the tax payers both ways. If Airnz goes under, then the tax payers will have to bail them out. Airnz is a major asset to NZ in securing that we have a viable tourism industry. Tourism is one of our largest income earner.

The fundamentals are stacked against the airline industry. The cost of air tickets are the same today as they were 15 years ago, yet the input cost of wages, fuel, airport tax, exchange rates.. etc have all gone up.

So close the airline. It won't stop tourism and it removes one of the major contributors to excessive Government spending.

[Fart]

So close the airline. It won't stop tourism and it removes one of the major contributors to excessive Government spending.

It was Sir Selwin Cushion that fucked it up for Airnz with the investment in Ansett without doing proper due diligence. The more logical decision was to have SIA merge with AIRNZ five years back. That would have added value to airnz and secure a financial base. But thanks to Sir Cushion and company, it is all fucked up.

Without Airnz we are at the mercy of Qantas. Do we really want a Aussie airline dictating our future?

[Drunken Monkey]

Ahhh the old capitalist maxim that you can follow the job to whatever country it moves to. Bollocks. SOme people don't want to remove themselves from their country, or uproot their families.

Firstly, I didn't know it was being outsourced to China. Secondly, whether you think its bollocks or not, it doesn't detract from the fact that you will have to adapt to survive. Yeah, some people don't want to follow work overseas. That's their choice. I don't have any patience for people who sit at home and whinge about losing their jobs. Yeah NZ's a great place to live, which is why I do what I do and why I do it this way. However in this situation, you could potentially look at it in a different way to "I don't want to leave NZ" by thinking "I have an opportunity to grow from simply a skilled engineer on an a respectable salary to a manager of many engineers in a foreign and exciting (and one of the world's fastest devloping) country, and earning a bucketload more money."

I'll steal (and paraphrase) a quote = Opportunities are everywhere, sometimes they are hard to identify as they are often disguised by hard work.

It's only bollocks if you let be bollocks.

[judgeshock]

Good luck to all the engineers being layed off. Most people who havent been down this road dont realise the full stress impacts it can have on ones self and family.
Yes they may well get other jobs and depending on there skill levels may even be lucky enough to receive similiar money or more, however im sure facing uncertantity about that will not be much fun.
:spudwave:

[James Deuce]

I'll steal (and paraphrase) a quote = Opportunities are everywhere, sometimes they are hard to identify as they are often disguised by hard work.

It's only bollocks if you let be bollocks.

Sorry I forgot that human beings should be referred to as interchangeable global human resources.

My mistake.

[MacD]

Sorry I forgot that human beings should be referred to as interchangeable global human resources.

My mistake.

Interchangable global work units please!

Human is so 90's.

[vifferman]

What you have to understand is that the Air NZ facility isnt just for Air NZ they do a lot of work for other airlines too, and those airlines have to fly their aircraft all the way here to be serviced, hence why it is 'cheaper' to do it in asia or europe.
The problem appears to be that the AirNZ engineers have had a very strong union, which has done such a good job of getting good salaries and conditions for their members that they've effectively priced them off the market.
AirNZ will still do much of its own servicing, but they can't compete any more with Asian competitors for servicing other airlines, solely due to labour costs. This has lost them some major contracts recently.

[Ixion]

... However in this situation, you could potentially look at it in a different way to "I don't want to leave NZ" by thinking "I have an opportunity to grow from simply a skilled engineer on an a respectable salary to a manager of many engineers in a foreign and exciting (and one of the world's fastest devloping) country, and earning a bucketload more money."

...

I think the Chinese government may have other ideas about that. They do not subscribe to the capitalist myth. The chances of any of the 600 sacked engineers being " manager of many engineers in a foreign and exciting .. country", at even a fraction of their present wage (checked the salary rates in China lately ? ) , let alone "and earning a bucketload more money" are negligable at best.

Outsourcing stinks, it is the ugly face of Capitalism. A socialist state would have decent jobs for everybody.

[Ixion]

Airnz has no choice. They have to restructure or face bankruptcy in the future. The airline industry around the world are facing huge input cost and competition with major airlines going into receivership.

..

Don't accept that. A national airline is a public good, and should not be predicted on the basis of its capability for capitalist exploitation. It is like the hydroelectrical systems, the post office and such other public goods (and the railways in a sane country).

Nationalise it and determine what the real value is to the country - not the value that overseas capitalists can extract from it.

[Biff]

they do a lot of work for other airlines too, and those airlines have to fly their aircraft all the way here to be serviced, hence why it is 'cheaper' to do it in asia or europe.
ay

Not quite - well at least not here in ChCh anyway. The engines are taken off the planes in their (airlines) country of origin, put in crates and flown here, in another aircraft. Hmmmmmm - False economy perhaps?

[Drunken Monkey]

...A socialist state would have decent jobs for everybody.

Now I <i>know</i> you're just taking the piss. You had me for a moment there, I thought you were serious.

[TwoSeven]

This type of announcement is where one begins to see the inexperience of local business leaders.

The question that needs to be asked is how did they allow themselves to get that division into a state where it has become cost ineffective. Why is it still owned by AirNZ. They should have spun it off into a separate company ages ago.

Now because of strategic ignorance they have lost the opportunity for future business development and future oppertunities. Its a cause of 'chop the leg off' rather than cure the wound.

[WINJA]

ITS A FUCKEN OUT RAGE LAYING OFF 600 STAFF , WE AS TAXPAYERS BAILED OUT AIR NZ THEN THEY STILL LAY THESE POOR GUYS OFF , I WANT OUR BAILOUT MONEY BACK

[justsomeguy]

I think that this was in the cards for a long time but was kept under wraps.

With the increased demand for flights and the holiday season isn't this the most cost effective time to shift operations?? Never mind the 2000 odd (600 families) people who will have on of the worst Christmases of their life.

The bastards.

[James Deuce]

Never mind the 2000 odd (600 families) people who will have on of the worst Christmases of their life..

As has already been pointed out, the lazy, useless, shiftless whingers should move to another country for less pay, worse living conditions, and a good dose of culture shock. They don't know how lucky they are. The have an "opportunity".

[Ixion]

The absurd thing is that ANZ's engineering operations have (or had until recently at any rate) a world class reputation. ANZ made a lot of money out of engineering contracts for other companies.

They're nuts if they think they'll be able to keep that revenue once the work is contracted out to China. Firstly, Chinese oiperations just are NOT going to have the good rep that NZ ones did. Secondly, why should Company X pay NZ a middleman fee to get the work done in China. If they're happy with China doing it , they can go direct to the Chinese themselves.

So ANZ will lose that revenue. I bet they're not factoring that into the figures though, cos it will take a while before the contracts stop being renewed. They're just looking at a very short term view, save a bit of money for a couple of years and who cares what it costs over the next few decades.

Typical short sighted incompetant NZ company management. There are very very very few NZ companies that are competantly managed. NZ senior management and directors are, by and large, a total bunch of smug self congratulatory , self protecting tossers.

[justsomeguy]

As has already been pointed out, the lazy, useless, shiftless whingers should move to another country for less pay, worse living conditions, and a good dose of culture shock. They don't know how lucky they are. The have an "opportunity".

Do I detect a trace of sarcasm there Jim??

Dunno bout the pay bit though - NZ has ridiculously low salaries.

The "average" quality of life though is quite high.

[justsomeguy]

Typical short sighted incompetant NZ company management. There are very very very few NZ companies that are competantly managed. NZ senior management and directors are, by and large, a total bunch of smug self congratulatory , self protecting tossers.

Don't forget the bloody politics.......:rolleyes:

[James Deuce]

Dunno bout the pay bit though - NZ has ridiculously low salaries.



Lots of sarcasm.

Engineering/Maintenance graduates/tradespersons are a dime a dozen in China, and the wages are correspondingly lower. The Aviation Engineering business in NZ was founded off the back of post-WWII Air Force expertise, carried forward into NAC, and then Air New Zealand, and is making a huge mark in the vintage aircraft restoration business internationally. NZ Aviation Engineering experts have commanded a premium for a decade.

Once the AirNZ Engineering guys are gone, where does the flow on into the restoration business come from? It doesn't. The current guys relocate, even though the exchange rate really works in their favour at the moment.

Guess what I saw this morning? A Toll Holdings Locomotive painted in Green and Gold. Fantastic. NZ freight hauled by Aussie owned Locos in Aussie colours. Telecommunications, Electricity, and all Transport media should be regarded as important to the future development of any country. The NZ strategy is to sell them or dump them, and let the creative people that make up the meat of any company evaporate elsewhere. Then they whinge about "Brain Drain", and "how do we retain skilled people?"

Dumbasses.

[Drunken Monkey]

The engineers needn't worry. What we have here on this website is a crusader. Jim2 is going to raise some money and buy them all a christmas they won't forget out of his own philanthropists pockets.

[James Deuce]

The engineers needn't worry. What we have here on this website is a crusader. Jim2 is going to raise some money and buy them all a christmas they won't forget out of his own philanthropists pockets.

Lol - I think, if I try hard enough, I can get together 50c.

[heavenly.talker]

The funny thing about this is that AIRNZ laid out hundreds of staff about 10-12 years ago (by memory...it could have been longer or slightly shorter). These are the engineering type people. They then soon realised that oopps they didn't have people to service their planes and took many of the laid off people back on contract. paying them 2-3-4 times the amount of money they were making on wages. I wonder if they were eventually reabsorbed or if this is what will happen this time too.


Regardless...better start training boys and girls.

There is going to be lots of swimming for us all when other airlines determine that New Zealand isn't a profitable run and they stop flying into here!

The nearest international airport will end up being in Aus!

As for the new uniforms...
does anyone else think the colours are incredibly dull?
If that is what they look like on the skinny model like staff members I hate to think they are going to cling to the girls with child bearing hips!

Maybe that is the way forward for more revenue...if that was the case then they should have put them in playboy outfits!! lol

[Drunken Monkey]

Lol - I think, if I try hard enough, I can get together 50c.

Blast! I actually foolishly thought, just for a moment there, that I actually had you wound up over a difference in philosophical viewpoint :(

FWIW I think you've inadvertently joined two of my previous points into one. What AirNZ are doing and how people deal with becoming unemployed are different issues, IMHO.

[Dafe]

Those that are made unemployed, should move to Australia, there is alot of aviation work available in Aus! I've had two mates move to Aus in the last couple of months, both to work on RAAF Hercules.

[James Deuce]

Blast! I actually foolishly thought, just for a moment there, that I actually had you wound up over a difference in philosophical viewpoint :(

FWIW I think you've inadvertently joined two of my previous points into one. What AirNZ are doing and how people deal with becoming unemployed are different issues, IMHO.

That is a good point and one that Internet forums are particularly bad for. It is difficult to present an impassioned view in regard to a general event with the background of personal opinion as a catalyst for the discussion. Too many people take stuff personally, when the person(s) involved are presenting a view, not a personal attack. I hate seeing stuff de-evolve in backbiting and personal attacks. Hasn't happened here thank goodness.

[simo]

I heard from a reliable source that it costs $5000 to land a 747 at Syndey's Airport, it costs $13,000 to land a 747 at Aucklands Airport, is it any wonder they have to cut costs with Auckland Airport Authority screwing Air NZ for every cent....bring on the second airport (Hamilton or Whenuapai) and give em a break. You dont have to look to far to find the reason's why the cost cutting has to be made.

[marty]

i was working in the air nz big hangar in 1990-91, and again last year. if i was still there i would be one of the staff looking at losing my job.

air nz (ANZES) heavy maintenance works like this:

heavy (737 and above) aircraft checks are basically spilt into 4 types - an A check, which for a 737 is overnight (but is split into about a dozen different focus areas, so a full A check takes 12 nights over a 3 month or so period), a B check, which takes about a week (on a 767) and is a bit deeper than an A check, a C check, on a 767 is about 2 to 3 weeks (4 to 6 for a 747) and a D check, which is every 6 years, and is a MAJOR check - up to 2 months in the hangar. i'm pretty sure all the anz 74's have had their second D check now.

air nz staff in auck and chch have traditionally undertaken all of air nz heavy maintenance. in quiet times, or if it has been planned well ahead, they occasionally do heavy work on qantas aicraft (767's mostly in auck - 737 in chch) and very occasionally on other airlines - last year JAL sent an old 747 down for a C check, but it was done pretty much at break even, just to have work in the hangar.

when the 777 purchase went ahead, air nz would not guarantee ANZES the heavy work on the 777, not sure why, but there is a lot of composite in the 777, and air nz is traditionally alloy work. also, the rolls royce trent engine on the 777 has a lotof new technology, and my understanding is that RR would not issue air nz a licence to overhaul the trent, so all that engine work was going overseas anyway. also, a new hangar is really needed for the 777, but they won't spend the money to build one, so they (may not) get the work.

the strong nz$ is hurting, as it is not that economical for operators to pay in NZ $ when they can get the work done local to them - in singapore/canada/aussie/europe. when the NZ $ was at .42US cents, then it was very attractive.

as they have said, some redundancies were expected, but not 600. i was talking to one of the guys the other night, and they are already looking at cutting back the shifts - no more overnights (lucrative for engineers) except for A checks, no weekend work, any 'must get out' work will be on overtime. some of the big overseas hangars work like this, and the overheads seem pretty low.

i'm glad i found something else. shame though - it's a great place to work, with great, experienced guys.

[heavenly.talker]

is it any wonder they have to cut costs with Auckland Airport Authority screwing Air NZ for every cent....bring on the second airport (Hamilton or Whenuapai) and give em a break.

Auckland International Airport make more money from their retailing activities than they do with their landing fees...in fact its around 58% of all revenues.

The balance of revenue changed significantly under the stewardship of John Goulter as he diversified the business to make the airport less reliant on what flew in!

As a ex-business owner of a shop at the airport I can say with hand over heart that they were not crooks (can't say this for sure these days as John and I have both gone) in fact they went out of their way to help support both airlines and shops with many initatives.

It isn't there fault that they are a monoply nor can we blame them for trying to protect that income stream...if it was your business you would do the same!

Landing fees go towards capital expenditure planned over the next 50 years...upkeep of the runways and provision for the 2nd etc. Without them we would quickly go from having one of the top airports in the world in terms of service provision and facilities to being a banana airport.

I'm for another airport at Whenuapai...although I'm under the flight path at present...those flyboys in the national uniform drop landing gear over our place and come in real low...plus they seem to be flying at all hours of the day now. Hopefully if it went commerical there would be a drop wheels zone further out...i.e. over the hauraki gulf.

Quantam leaping the conversation...have you had the chance to look at the airport in Japan that has been made on a man-made island. It operates on top of hydraulic jacks that get adjusted when the land underneath subsides!
There is a 3 mile long land bridge leading out the the new airport. Totally fasinating, if you have time and you like looking at engineering feats its well worth the google...sorry can't remember the name :Oops:

[marty]

I heard from a reliable source that it costs $5000 to land a 747 at Syndey's Airport, it costs $13,000 to land a 747 at Aucklands Airport, is it any wonder they have to cut costs with Auckland Airport Authority screwing Air NZ for every cent....bring on the second airport (Hamilton or Whenuapai) and give em a break. You dont have to look to far to find the reason's why the cost cutting has to be made.

whenuapai and hamilton will never have 747's. whenuapai only has 1800m of runway, hamilton 2000m. wellington has 2000m and they are not allowed 74's there. whenuapai is having problems with noise now - they will NEVER have heavy jets in there. hamilton doesn't have the infrastructure. auckland has 3800m, customs and immigration to move 1000's of people etc etc. that's where it will stay.

landing fees are a very small cost of lifting 600 000 lbs into the sky and putting it down somewhere else.....

[oldrider]

ITS A FUCKEN OUT RAGE LAYING OFF 600 STAFF , WE AS TAXPAYERS BAILED OUT AIR NZ THEN THEY STILL LAY THESE POOR GUYS OFF , I WANT OUR BAILOUT MONEY BACK
Why do we (The Taxpayers) need a "National Carrier" when all we need is to fly somewhere and back?

The only ones who needed a "National Carrier" are the Politicians, to enable them to retain their Perks of Free travel all over the world (in some cases) for bloody ever. And we paid for it. Dumb arse taxpayers aren't we?

I would rather pay those 600 redundant staff for maintaining an Air force that we may hopefully never need, rather than an airline we don't need!

Just like the Fire brigades we hope we never need. Cheers John.