THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1984. Union trouble in the air

Press, 11 May 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1984. Union trouble in the air

Air New Zealand’s progress towards economic recovery is not being helped by the Airline Stewards’ and Hostesses’ Union. For more than a year the union has either opposed or obstructed many of the efforts attempted by the company to sharpen its competitive edge in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. The union’s rigid stance has now placed Air New Zealand at a serious commercial disadvantage. For instance, the cabin attendants’ refusal to service an enlarged business section-last September has restricted the airline to 16 seats for business class travellers on its Boeing 7475. Three of the airline’s biggest competitors have been reaping a rich harvest in the lucrative business market. Pan American has as many as 100 businessclass seats on some of its flights, British Airways has 62, and Qantas, 42. Air New Zealand had wanted 36. The company proposed what seemed to be reasonable staff arrangements for its business class, and a flexible plan that made ratios between staff numbers and passenger numbers on Air New Zealand look quite favourable when compared with other airline ratios.

The company has also been hamstrung by the union in its efforts to fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Auckland. Disagreement over manning levels is forcing the flights to make an expensive stop at Honolulu solely to change crews. Apparently spared of such industrial obstruction, both Pan American and Qantas are enjoying the rewards of increased non-stop services across the Pacific. Regrettably, the rumblings of discontent are continuing with monotonous frequency. Notices of pending industrial action have been filed, then withdrawn. This is action unlikely to win the confidence of travellers wanting to plan international trips free from disruption. The union’s latest tactic appears to be one of passive resistance. Last week the “unavailability” of cabin staff to replace, at short notice, two who had reported sick, forced the airline to charter a Qantas aircraft and crew to fly between Auckland and Brisbane.

The 13 cabin attendants who originally turned up for the Air New Zealand flight more than met the legally safe minimum of 11. The attendants nevertheless elected not to man the aircraft. As a result, the company had to face further unexpected expense; its passengers had to face frustrating delays of up to nine hours. The airline has now become so concerned about the increasing incidence of absenteeism, that it will require medical certificates to confirm even a one-day illness. This kind of expensive detail does nothing to improve good relations between staff and management; yet the response is inescapable if absenteeism becomes disruptive.

It seems a pity that the very people who, over the years, have helped to establish Air New Zealand as a leader for service aboard airliners are now trying to tear the business apart. International cabin attendants certainly have to work odd hours and must adjust to different time zones. They are, however, well paid. They receive generous allowances and leave, and enjoy worth-while perks in the form of heavily discounted travel and accommodation, as well as discounts on a broad range of other goods.

By many overseas standards, they are not overworked. Most of Air New Zealand’s international flights cover sectors of eight or nine hours of darkness. Some overseas airlines require their crews to provide a full bar service, meals, and duty-free service on flights that are as short as 90 minutes. Air New Zealand has no such short flights that are obviously very testing for the crews. The airline employs 620 international cabin attendants to service its five Boeing 747 s—an average of 124 an aircraft. The union’s claim for more can hardly be justified and the apparent reasons for all these disputes do not carry much conviction. This suggests some underlying reason for discontent with which the union and the company must grapple. Both will have to uncover the reason; otherwise, the antagonism may lead to a crippling showdown, probably on some barely relevant, or not-very-substantial dispute.