Ex-airman takes flak from Air NZ CEO in debate

[Dave Homewood]

Ex-airman takes flak from Air NZ CEO in debate
Sunday, 11 February 2007, 3:36 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Alliance Party
Alliance Party media release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sunday 11 February 2007
Ex-airman takes flak from Air NZ CEO in jobs debate

84-year old ex-airman Eric Gamble of Christchurch wrote an email on Friday to Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe saying a plan to outsource 1800 jobs was a case of "corporate bullying."

Mr Gamble served in the RAF in World War Two, and the RNZAF in the Malaya Emergency, and after leaving the services worked for decades throughout New Zealand as a qualified Flight Service Officer and supervisor.

The active Alliance Party member takes a keen interest in politics and current affairs – and he feels strongly about the plan for Air New Zealand to outsource hundreds of jobs. He was surprised to hear back from Mr Fyfe – who seems to be very sensitive to such matters and launched into a broadside.

The highly paid CEO replied "I am not aware of ever having met you and am not sure on what basis you are personally attacking me and labelling me a bully – an allegation I take seriously, particularly when published in an email."

Mr Fyfe continued by telling Mr Gamble he had "a lack of understanding of the issues we are grappling with at Air New Zealand and it is identical to emails I have received from a number of other parties and is obviously therefore a form email. It does nothing to advance the case of our employees or the issues we are grappling with."

A further email discussion took place with Mr Fyfe about the need for "profitability" and "flexibility." Mr Gamble says the aggressive approach by Air New Zealand management is wrong. "Air New Zealand is mostly owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, and it should be run to benefit New Zealand in all aspects." He believes Air New Zealand should be publicly owned, and run for the benefit of the public, one of the reasons he is an Alliance Party member.

He also believes that jobs at Air New Zealand should not be outsourced overseas, and Air New Zealand has a responsibility to maintain well paid, secure jobs in New Zealand along with a highly skilled domestic workforce. "It is obvious that the short sighted corporate approach to slash and burn will be a failure." He says that the Labour Government has to take some responsibility and start looking after the interests of workers.

ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Gamble has extensive experience in the practical side of the aviation industry. He was born in Hackney, London, joined the RAF in 1941 and trained as Wireless Operator/Air Gunner. He served with 62 Squadron in India\Burma in the transport support role completing one operational tour 1944/45, and enlisted in the RNZAF in London arriving in New Zealand August 1954. In the 1950s, he served at Whenuapai on the Transport Support Unit operating with Bristol Freighter aircraft, and served a two and a half year operational tour with 41 Squadron in Singapore/Malaya during the emergency 1958/1960.

He took a honourable discharge in 1960, and joined Civil Aviation Authority of the Air Department, serving 4 years as Communications supervisor, Nadi Airport, Fiji, and the Auckland Communications Centre, until 1974 when promoted to higher grade supervisor position at Christchurch Airport.

As a qualified Flight Service Officer, he did relieving duties at Timaru, Oamaru, Hokitika, Westport, Queenstown and Milford Sound. Mr Gamble retired in September 1986 as Aerodrome Superintendent at Milford Sound but did a further 6 months as Air/Ground radio operator for the following Deepfreeze Season.

ENDS

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00124.htm

[Peter Lewis]

Can't say that I entirley agree with Mr Gamble, but he's entitled to express his point of view.

[flyjoe180]

At least he got a reply, even if it wasn't what he wanted to hear. As Peter says, he's entitled to an opinion. I don't see how Fyfe's reply was a broadside, just a reflection of HIS opinion as CEO.

[Dave Homewood]

It's a party political release by a fringe go-nowhere party. that's why it's seen as a "broadside"

[corsair67]

Why do these groups always seem to send out form e-mails: do they really think that other people are so stupid as not to be able to see that it's from the same mob with the same axe to grind?

[Peter Lewis]

This item could open up a discussion on what is the appropriate role for Air New Zealand.
Possible options are:

- a hard-nosed profit orientated company focussed solely on the business aspects, where any opportunities for cost cutting are implemented and all routes are only operated if they return a profit. Staff are considered as a cost, and are replaced with a lower cost option at any opportunity. In this model, the shareholders and staff are rewarded for all profits made and if/when the company hits the wall it is allowed to collapse. (eg the recent Feltex debacle)

- an operation focussed on creating an image overseas and a service to New Zealand as a country. Routes are maintained to carry tourists to New Zealand and urgent/perishable exports to our overseas markets. Air New Zealand is maintained as a 'national airline' and when losses occur the New Zealand taxpayer pays the bill 'in the national interest'. (In my view, the current model).

- the airline is maintained as an organization designed to mop up unemployment and to train its staff in an assortment of skills. The resultant expenses are reflected in a very high cost structure, and the extremely high fares that result are protected by Government regulations that explicitly protect the airline from competition. (The model that existed from TEAL's foundation up to around 1970).

Obviously the current role does vary over time given the political and economic climate, but in the long term what is the appropriate role for Air New Zealand?

[chrisnpl]

Just an opinion - but I think the current model is the best one; particularly at the present time, when airlines seem to be amalgamating - or going bankrupt - all over the place.
The old TEAL structure was also protected with IATA stating what the fares were to be until about 1975. Airlines had to compete on food and service offered instead.