Forum whore
Blast! I actually foolishly thought, just for a moment there, that I actually had you wound up over a difference in philosophical viewpointOriginally Posted by Jim2
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.
World's fastest Cook Islander
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.
Forum whore
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.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.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Scooter boy
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.
Ducati 1979 SD900 & 900SS, Moto Guzzi 88 Leman 1000, 1987 Suzuki GSXR-750, Ducati 1983 SL600 Pantah, 1999 Suzuki TL1000S, 1987 NSR Honda 600 Track Bike, Ducati 748s
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.
Guru
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
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.....
Just faidin away!
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks