Air NZ Engineers Threaten 21-23 December Strike
Dec 11, 2018, 1:34 am
#46
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,083
Correct, different contract so will be running as normal in theory.
This is exactly the purpose of strike action in an employment relationship. The intent *is* to cause disruption. Looking at the airline offer (worse hour structures, reduced wages, and claw backs on benefits) I am not surprised that the union fired off an equally ridiculous range of demands. The cleaners and other non-engineering staff under the contract are *not* "well paid".
Right! They should be lucky they're not engineers in Saudi or the UAE where they could be locked up without trial by the government, eh? How dare they exercise legal rights! If the airline is going to maintain record profits then it's only right they should do so on the backs of the employees by reducing comp & benefits!
Etc.
Look, quite honestly, I don't think the public has much to complain about: the union is giving *lots* of notice, the airline has every opportunity to rearrange flights - remember, if the strike goes ahead it's because the airline has chosen to make *no* effort to negotiate in good faith; *any* real effort at GF bargaining by NZ is enough for the airline to then seek an injunction against the action.
If they feel so aggrieved, maybe they should see how green the grass is on the other side at say Jetstar?
Etc.
Look, quite honestly, I don't think the public has much to complain about: the union is giving *lots* of notice, the airline has every opportunity to rearrange flights - remember, if the strike goes ahead it's because the airline has chosen to make *no* effort to negotiate in good faith; *any* real effort at GF bargaining by NZ is enough for the airline to then seek an injunction against the action.
Dec 11, 2018, 1:37 am
#47
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: NZ GE, QF
Posts: 389
What a miserable bunch...I respect their ability to strike, but for the unions to jeopardise peoples plans around Christmas is truly abhorrent. These aren't employees who are treated poorly our paid poorly either, how many other companies give all their staff bonuses? If they feel so aggrieved, maybe they should see how green the grass is on the other side at say Jetstar? Whilst I am "lucky" to have the flexibility that I don't need to be at a wedding, graduation etc., the grandparents who see my daughter 2-3 times a year stand to be deprived of a few days with her, they probably aren't as relaxed as me about it.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the strike it is a very cruel time to have it and I doubt it will gain the engineers much sympathy.
Dec 11, 2018, 2:41 am
#48
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 93
As a former (non-Air NZ) aircraft engineer and now an employee at a company that employs ex Air NZ engineers I can confidently say Air NZ pays them very well by NZ standards and much better than my previous or current employer.
Unions are just so bad at PR its not funny, and it blows my mind how E tu think pulling this stunt is a good idea at all.
Unions are just so bad at PR its not funny, and it blows my mind how E tu think pulling this stunt is a good idea at all.
Dec 11, 2018, 11:49 am
#51
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AKL
Programs: NZ Silver
Posts: 1,817
Correct, different contract so will be running as normal in theory.
This is exactly the purpose of strike action in an employment relationship. The intent *is* to cause disruption. Looking at the airline offer (worse hour structures, reduced wages, and claw backs on benefits) I am not surprised that the union fired off an equally ridiculous range of demands. The cleaners and other non-engineering staff under the contract are *not* "well paid".
Right! They should be lucky they're not engineers in Saudi or the UAE where they could be locked up without trial by the government, eh? How dare they exercise legal rights! If the airline is going to maintain record profits then it's only right they should do so on the backs of the employees by reducing comp & benefits!
Etc.
Look, quite honestly, I don't think the public has much to complain about: the union is giving *lots* of notice, the airline has every opportunity to rearrange flights - remember, if the strike goes ahead it's because the airline has chosen to make *no* effort to negotiate in good faith; *any* real effort at GF bargaining by NZ is enough for the airline to then seek an injunction against the action.
This is exactly the purpose of strike action in an employment relationship. The intent *is* to cause disruption. Looking at the airline offer (worse hour structures, reduced wages, and claw backs on benefits) I am not surprised that the union fired off an equally ridiculous range of demands. The cleaners and other non-engineering staff under the contract are *not* "well paid".
Right! They should be lucky they're not engineers in Saudi or the UAE where they could be locked up without trial by the government, eh? How dare they exercise legal rights! If the airline is going to maintain record profits then it's only right they should do so on the backs of the employees by reducing comp & benefits!
Etc.
Look, quite honestly, I don't think the public has much to complain about: the union is giving *lots* of notice, the airline has every opportunity to rearrange flights - remember, if the strike goes ahead it's because the airline has chosen to make *no* effort to negotiate in good faith; *any* real effort at GF bargaining by NZ is enough for the airline to then seek an injunction against the action.
Dec 11, 2018, 12:23 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,190
Dec 11, 2018, 12:36 pm
#54
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,643
Looking at the issues which is reduced overtime and reducing sick leave. Base pay doesn't seem to be a sticking point from what I am reading.
They are in a safety of life role. I as a pax would prefer the person doing maintenance on the plane is 100% not pushing through being sick, as they are out of sick leave, and potentially missing an issue with the plane. There are studies that show places with unlimited sick leave take less of it. Hypothesis is when people are sick they stay home don't infect the rest of the organisation and they get better once and don't do the worse/better/worse/better cycle because they never take the time to actually get better. Often get the same amount of work done if take two days off Vs working a couple of weeks at <100%
They are in a safety of life role. I as a pax would prefer the person doing maintenance on the plane is 100% not pushing through being sick, as they are out of sick leave, and potentially missing an issue with the plane. There are studies that show places with unlimited sick leave take less of it. Hypothesis is when people are sick they stay home don't infect the rest of the organisation and they get better once and don't do the worse/better/worse/better cycle because they never take the time to actually get better. Often get the same amount of work done if take two days off Vs working a couple of weeks at <100%
Dec 11, 2018, 12:58 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,190
Looking at the issues which is reduced overtime and reducing sick leave. Base pay doesn't seem to be a sticking point from what I am reading.
They are in a safety of life role. I as a pax would prefer the person doing maintenance on the plane is 100% not pushing through being sick, as they are out of sick leave, and potentially missing an issue with the plane. There are studies that show places with unlimited sick leave take less of it. Hypothesis is when people are sick they stay home don't infect the rest of the organisation and they get better once and don't do the worse/better/worse/better cycle because they never take the time to actually get better. Often get the same amount of work done if take two days off Vs working a couple of weeks at <100%
They are in a safety of life role. I as a pax would prefer the person doing maintenance on the plane is 100% not pushing through being sick, as they are out of sick leave, and potentially missing an issue with the plane. There are studies that show places with unlimited sick leave take less of it. Hypothesis is when people are sick they stay home don't infect the rest of the organisation and they get better once and don't do the worse/better/worse/better cycle because they never take the time to actually get better. Often get the same amount of work done if take two days off Vs working a couple of weeks at <100%
Dec 11, 2018, 1:09 pm
#56
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BNE
Programs: NZ*G, QF Bronze, VA Red
Posts: 563
I suppose the real question is, from experience, does anyone here know how resistant NZ is during IRROPS to arrange OAL carriage? I have heard UA does it as the option of last resort, and some carriers are so resistant to it that for the most part if your plane doesn't fly, neither do you.
Because if the strike goes ahead, NZ is going to have a lot of planes in the wrong places, and no way to safely move them. I don't think they'll be sending turboprops over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, meaning that their fleet may as well be grounded.
Because if the strike goes ahead, NZ is going to have a lot of planes in the wrong places, and no way to safely move them. I don't think they'll be sending turboprops over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, meaning that their fleet may as well be grounded.
Dec 11, 2018, 1:43 pm
#57
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand (most of the time)
Programs: Air NZ Elite *G, Honors Gold, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 6,112
I suppose the real question is, from experience, does anyone here know how resistant NZ is during IRROPS to arrange OAL carriage? I have heard UA does it as the option of last resort, and some carriers are so resistant to it that for the most part if your plane doesn't fly, neither do you.
Because if the strike goes ahead, NZ is going to have a lot of planes in the wrong places, and no way to safely move them. I don't think they'll be sending turboprops over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, meaning that their fleet may as well be grounded.
Because if the strike goes ahead, NZ is going to have a lot of planes in the wrong places, and no way to safely move them. I don't think they'll be sending turboprops over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, meaning that their fleet may as well be grounded.
You are in effect looking at what would be a near 3 day grounding of jet services in a worst case scenario. The impact of other airlines who may rely on NZ engineering is also an unknown.
Dec 11, 2018, 2:23 pm
#59
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New Zealand (when I'm home!)
Programs: Air NZ Elite
Posts: 1,218
Dec 11, 2018, 3:14 pm
#60
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,083
The thing I'm wondering about is the aircraft outside NZ when the strike kicks in. Those are presumably serviced by non-NZ engineers and cleaners. Will NZ bring them back or leave them outside the country so as to help clear built up loads at the other end of the strike? It'd be fascinating to know what NZ's planning is - they claim to be planning for the strike to happen (Haha - NZ? Plan for a strike?!) but I really doubt their planning is all that sophisticated. The fact they've done nothing (AFAIK) to contact customers and offer up front contingency options shows how high customers rate in their planning.