Get your facts straight mate.

I speak first hand pal, people in these jobs get breaks when they can. That is because schedules cost big money and they have a sometimes misplaced interest in the travelling public. I suppose public includes you friend.

PS Does being a wrong on a fact make you a business specialst?

The difference between Zeal and NZ direct employed domestic flight attendants is astounding. Note. That’s Domestic…..not International.

HOW was this a threat? You can’t fly a plane with no Air Traffic Control, it’s bloody dangerous. In this instance, Air New Zealand’s CEO is saying he will do exactly what should be done to ensure passenger safety.

“who just want to be paid as much as flight attendants working on the same flights who are employed directly by AirNZ”

There are NO flight attendants on the same flight employed by anyone other than Zeal 320, which was the company formed to employ flight attendants for Freedom Air which operated all the A320s now operated by AirNZ. They are demanding equal terms and conditions with cabin staff who operate AirNZ’s long-haul flights, which have different stresses and requirements because of their time in the air.
A typical Trans Tasman duty day has two flights, one each way, with an hour in between, the cabin staff serve their passengers for circa seven hours in that day. A typical long-haul flight is 13 hours long and the crew go out one day and back the next, meaning they have to be away from home for at least one night. Different work, different pay rates.

AND, for the record, Rob Fyfe is the first AirNZ CEO in a very long time whose undergraduate degree was directly related to the airline business, and who has hands-on experience of aircraft operations (well prior to working foir AirNZ). AS has been said earlier ? find out about the man before you start acting like a red queen. (Off with his head!)

Utter bollocks. Nobody is arguing there should not be breaks. Its an attack on unions who demand rigidity whatever the cost. Having staff take breaks at specified times means planes have to circle until controllers are done with their chicken salad. Needlessly unhelpful and a complete waste of resources.

“…

Of course, management, including Fyfe, had been wrestling with what to do about engineering for months. “It was just a freak of timing that it happened on my watch. I was the quy who said, ‘Unless we fix it, this business is stuffed.’ But it created an impression.”

“I went out to the hangers and walked up to this aircraft and within half a minute was surrounded by about 30 guys. I got, “You’re putting my job at risk, I’ve done a lot for this company,’ and finger-pointing in my face. I had to respond forcefully as to why we were doing what we were doing.”

Andrew Little, secretary fo the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which eventually came up with a labour-reform deal that saved engienering and 300 of the threatened jobs, says Fyfe earned respect for fronting up.

“The first real engagements I had with Rob were difficult, but I always appreciated his openess and frankness. There was no sense that you’d go to a meeting and hear one thing and in the next conversation with a senior manager things had changed.”

For a company notorious for tense industrial relations, much of Fyfe’s watch has been relatively harmonious.

“The other thing I admire about him,” says Little, “is that very early in his tenure he took on two big issues – the engineering and airport services restructurings – and stayed. … Rob has not only stayed to see it work out, but been actively engaged in fronting up to Air New Zealand staff.”

Air New Zealand staff have far better access to their CEO than usual, says Andrew Little. Fyfe answers all his emails personally, and his well-publicised habit of spending a day every month working alongside cleaning crews and baggage handlers is more than threare – “He listens and takes action.”

…”

(North and South, April 2009)

You get my general point though.

Adding to my previous comment, having looked through the differentials in allowances, I guess the cost analysis takes into account how much money the company makes through breaking the union completely.

So the bastards will take short term hits in looking to secure extraordinary long term gains.

Thing is. I can’t readily think of an example off the top of my head where a major company has embarked on union busting and failed.

Can I draw your attention to a little thing called the ‘fire at will bill’, Bill? Could easily happen to new workers anywhere.

You can’t have planes flying with no air traffic controllers. Cancelling flights is therfore a H&S necessity. What is it that the air traffic controllers are trying to leverage? ( I assume they are utilising loose or ambiguous wording in their Agreements to take their breaks simultaneously. Why?)

On the second point, AirNZ will get fined for each and every person employed to do the work of the striking workers. I’d guess a cost analysis was done on this and AirNZ concluded it was cost effective to flout the law.

Beyond that. When were workers ever generally afforded respect by bosses? It’s why we organise.

I don’t like Fyffe’s attitude, but can’t see the grounds for him being fired. He’s there to make money. Period. Of course he’s an arsehole. But can you imagine if workers were legitimately fired just ’cause the boss considered them to be arseholes?