PDA

View Full Version : Qantas Seniority Joke


High Octane
11th Jan 2006, 21:55
After years of sitting on the sidelines watching things on here, it is time to register. About the only place I can have my say without fear of retribution (unlike Qrewroom).

The holy grail of everything when you join Qantas is seniority. Your lifestyle, promotions etc. all revolve around your number. When you start, you are at the bottom, cop all the crap that the roster has to offer, work every Christmas, no weekends or days you want off, are almost always on standby or call etc etc. As people join, you move up and things get better. Whether or not the system is fair is another debate, but at the moment it is the system we live under and by giving some a head start is just not cricket.

Why is it that cadets get to join the company with 2 years plus seniority on everyone else? No crappy trips, no blanklines (which equals higher pay than others who join on the same day) etc, and 2 years less until promotion? In the case of the 330, I believe they are being placed close to the top of the seniority pile on this (they get to enjoy the spoils straight away that others have to wait years for). What is completely wrong is that it pushes people who have done some time further down the pile.

There have been threads on Qrewroom, but the majority of punters (except mainly former cadets who support the whole 'give them seniority' scheme) are reluctant to comment as anyone in Qantas who generally mentions anything about cadets becomes a marked person in the eyes of some. I am like the majority who don't have a problem with cadets, I don't care that the cadet program exists, I just don't believe they should get preferential treatment when it comes to seniority in the company.

All the while, AIPA struggles with internal politics due to the former bitter ex-COM making accusations of the newly elects acting without due authority from the membership, thereby not having time to properly deal with this sort of crap. What I cannot accept is that the former COM actually put this deal through which alters the goal posts and gives people seniority they should not have (without the authority their current argument is based around). You get a number the day you join QF. This has always been the case, and always should under the present system. The former COM cannot also accept that this deal was one which really pissed just about everyone off as all can see how unfair and wrong it is (they wonder why they were given the boot so royally - being so arrogant that they could not actually see what the membership wanted). Not just those directly affected, but those like myself who have nothing to lose as we are further up the pile, but cringe to think about how AIPA has sold out some of its members, thereby making me wonder what they will do to us.

With regard to AIPA, I believe it is about 200 people below those with the seniority. I really believe that AIPA should refund the membership dues all these people have paid in the last 2 years or so. At the end of the day, these people have paid these membership dues to AIPA, while AIPA has advanced the interests of a small group of people who have not been financial members. Shouldn't it be doing the opposite?

Sorry for the long rant, but don't want to get involved in Qrewroom, particularly as I don't want to put a target on my melon commenting on this sensitive topic.

:*

High Octane
11th Jan 2006, 21:59
Just to make it perfectly clear, I have nothing against those who have gained from this as not one person here would knock the opportunity back had we all been given it. My beef is with the system and the powers that be who are making it happen, not cadets or those just starting who are gaining.

Crusty Demon
11th Jan 2006, 23:08
If the original LOA was only for about 9 people, why have those further down the list gone down by 25 numbers in the last few days (rumour I have heard).

I fully agree with the above. Why did aipa support this? If the company wanted to do it through other means, let them do it. Aipa is there to represent its members. Those gaining the seniority were not members. By doing so it stuck a knife in the back of some of its fully paid up members.

This is one of the main reasons I voted for the ARG, along with the inaction of the previous group to do anything about loss of flying, and a sell out of junior members again with the Singapore basing.

As new hires, will these new recruits (even with their seniority) be made to sign the contract sending them to Singapore? Or is there further preferential treatment they have been given to make sure they don't have to cop a shafting thanks to our previous Aipa?

Moving down 25 numbers seniority wise can potentially cause a significant financial loss over the course of a career. From someone who is not going to be affected, but who can see the inequity of this deal for newer members, thanks Aipa. If you have to wait another year or more for firstly f/o, then command due to this load of crap deal, what is the financial penalty? What about the lifestyle penalty when it comes to rostering? Where is the fairness in that.

Seniority starts the day you start. Full stop. You can't bend the rules to suit some and not others.

Capt Fathom
11th Jan 2006, 23:21
Those gaining the seniority were not members
Do you have to be a member to get a seniority number?

podbreak
12th Jan 2006, 02:54
No crappy trips, no blanklines (which equals higher pay than others who join on the same day) etc
Gosh, I know people who would love to have them 'crappy trips'. And without blanklines the 'lower pay' is bad?! ha...

Iinthesky
12th Jan 2006, 02:55
HO perhaps this is just extra incentive to join the company as a cadet! While I agree that this appears quite unfair, I guess if you are employed by the company, you play by their rules...

Keg
12th Jan 2006, 02:58
Do you have to be a member to get a seniority number?

No.

You get a number the day you join QF. This has always been the case, and always should under the present system.

This has NOT always been the case. I can think of a few examples over the last decade or so where numbers have been put aside for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they involved people being pushed back, other times it involve people leaping forward by a bunch of numbers.

I'll stick my hand up as one of the 'ex cadets' that HO refers to. My point on Qrewroom wasn't about how a deal on numbers was done, it was about whether it 'fits' with the general principles of what I've always understood seniorority to be- and it certainly isn't always based on the day you join otherwise I'd be about a half dozen numbers senior to what I am now!

I don't know why QF wanted this LOA the way it was or why AIPA agreed to it in the manner that they did. I do know that if QF wanted the cadets to have number a number and then send them elsewhere then they can do that without too many dramas- I know they can because there was no LOA covering the six or so that started up to three years behind me but who are now senior. (I should also note that I agree entirely with the methodology utilised that involves those six now being senior to me....they should be!).

I can however sympathise with the way that information has been disseminated about the issue. Seeing your seniority number increase (in a bad way) by 20 or so numbers without knowing why is never pleasant and it'd be nice if 'someone' could have explained why.

As for the issue of being able to coment on Qrewroom, well there are things that you can say on Qrewroom that will get you tea, biccies and a target on your back and then there are threads like this one! If you reckon opinions such as you've expressed here would make you a target then I'm not sure how I've managed to survive the last six years of being registered on Qrewroom. This is tame compared to some opinions expressed over time. I think you're taking that part of it all a bit too seriously! ;)

Mr.Buzzy
12th Jan 2006, 03:10
Just another joke for the ever growing QF jokebook.

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzoinkzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bazzamundi
12th Jan 2006, 20:57
Is it true that they started some cadets on a particular day - say a Tuesday, (which was after another group who started the day before - say Monday) and then manipulated the system to give the cadet group starting after the others an effective seniority date of before them (the seniority list was changed a few months later without those who were being shafted being told)? This was the experience of a person I flew with several months back.

Keg, there was different situations in the past you talk about (periods of no recruitment) and slightly different circumstances to what is happening now from what I have been told. Personally, I don't care what anyone says, I firmly believe this is totally wrong.

For those of you not in Qantas, seniority is everything once you are employed. Being very lowly in rank means life can be tough, especially if you are lower than what you really should be.

ballteara
13th Jan 2006, 00:52
Being very lowly in rank means life can be tough, especially if you are lower than what you really should be.

Oh yeah life is sooooooo tough getting paid 90K+ to basically sit on your fat arse most of the month. Then when you do fly you just sit in the back and do nothing..... tough ....booo hooo

Crusty Demon
13th Jan 2006, 01:12
Good one Ballteara. 20 numbers seniority would have given me a promotion nearly 2 years earlier than it took. Factor that into f/o promotion, followed by command, and then it becomes a real issue moneywise.

podbreak
13th Jan 2006, 20:38
and then it becomes a real issue moneywise.

A real issue? you truly have no idea, how can 100K plus be a real issue? Your command being delayed by to years (for around 200K) a real issue?
Try paying off a big-ass mortgage whilst on 40K flying stupid hours in dangerously old planes.

brisbane observer
13th Jan 2006, 22:08
hey podbreak

boohoo idiot. you choose your own destiny mate, i chose mine. You go get yourself a big-ass mortgage on 40k then you are the dumb one my friend.

ballteara,

pretty sure its about 120k on their fat arse, so boohoo to you too sook

Karunch
13th Jan 2006, 23:00
Perhaps more relevant- your seniority (or juniority in this case) determines the order of redundancy or transfer to a low cost subsidiary.

podbreak
13th Jan 2006, 23:33
brisbane,

neither of us did mate, QF have the final say. my point is simply that if this small seniority is your biggest issue, then you've truly lost sight of the bigger picture. I may not have landed the best jet job, but i've still got perspective.

SkyJetJockey
14th Jan 2006, 02:33
Look on the bright side, you still get paid doing what you love. And no matter what number on the ladder. Just think yourself lucky you have what you have.
Look at those guys in the U.S in the airlines there, with so many on the brink of chapter 11. Now how shaky would you be, going to work knowing today or next week it could be all over red rover.

So be greatful for what we have, that for GD to keep the airline expanding and to keep us all in employment. If you dont change with the times we could have all ended up like AN. Now thats a tough act to swallow.

Crusty Demon
14th Jan 2006, 02:41
Podbreak, I have been in the position of flying crappy dangerous aircraft around, and have seen the same sort of thing where the bloke who has a couple of years on the single gets leapfrogged by some bloke with no experience who turns up wanting to fly the twin (and also get paid more). So I assume if this happens to you, it gives the others the right to say boo-hoo because you are getting 40 grand a year? I got a lot less than 40 grand in GA for starters, and so are a lot of people at present. You can actually earn less than that in some of the regionals.

I suppose then that when you end up in QF or some other airline, you will want to let others start on a lot better terms and conditions than yourself because it is so much better than the 40 grand you get now? If you look closely, the majority expressing concern at this deal are ones who are not directly affected by it. However, they are wanting to look after those who are yet to join so they are not subjected to the same discrimination. It is unfair, just as it is to the bloke in GA who has spent time with one operator to have the newby inexperienced get the better flying above him. It has nothing to do with pay.

Or will you be happier with your extensive GA experience to start and have cadets who start on the same day get 2 years less time for promotion, and a major head start when it comes to rostering all because they are better qualified than yourself. In effect, they will be paid a lot more over the course of their career. Does this sound fair to you?

tinpis
14th Jan 2006, 02:50
In effect, they will be paid a lot more over the course of their career. Does this sound fair to you?


Yes.

Next !

Bazzamundi
14th Jan 2006, 09:37
SkyJetJockey: if you were to be retrenched where would the first to go come from? That's right, the bottom of the seniority pile. But hey, in Qantas, lets then kick a bloke out who has up to 2 years experience in the company while the Johny Come Lately who has not even finished his endorsement but has 2 years false seniority stays. From what I gather most retrenchments happen on a last on first off base.

As for changing with the times, I suppose we would all end up like AN with the company going bankrupt if we don't fudge with peoples seniority numbers. Sounds like a deal critical to the survival and expansion of QF. Perhaps that view was what forced the former aipa into accepting this deal behind everyones back. That sort of logic makes me wonder. The company could have presented anything to the previous group, told them it was critical or the company would not survive, and hey presto, a pen came out and said where do we sign.

Lord Snot
14th Jan 2006, 16:42
This thread has more than a couple of comments by young, ignorant GA watanabes. No problem with who they are, I was a young, ignorant GA watanabe once BUT I kept my mouth shut when older guys talked about how things were in their particular sphere of the aviation world.

For example, I had an opinion on the Pilots’ Strike or Dispute or whatever but thank God I kept my mouth shut because years later I realised how freakin daft and ignorant I was about it.

Posts introducing the notion of how badly off those in GA are on $40K a year are utter garbage and should be erased from this worthwhile thread.

Podbreak, you might realise one day what your perspective truly is from your perch in GA. You obviously do not yet, though, because you have only seen one side of the coin. Come back when you have seen both sides and cringe at your own infantile comments.

Podbreak, once upon a time, if you kept at it in GA and weren’t a complete cripple, you’d do your time and finish up in your “best job” eventually. Now, thanks to greed and clever management by CEOs, we have an utter shambles of a process but that’s another topic. Wait your turn and you will get there eventually – that is, of course, unless some other enterprising young pilots do some sort of newer, cheaper deal to circumvent the system and cut you out.

Podbreak, don’t mention your crappy aircraft and measely $40K. MOST of us here have done the same for years but without anywhere near $40K, without GPS, without VB and J* offering a way to jump the queue (for a lot less cash) after only a couple of years in a PA-31 and definitely without pprune to whinge about it all on.

Seniority IS everything in an airline like The Rat. This is no great revelation, Ernie Gann pointed it out quite clearly many years ago. If and when Podbreak makes it to an airline, he can enjoy the novelty of the “crappy” trips others don’t like…. for a while. Then he might find himself irritated when he is assigned them again and again while junior pilots get around them.

High Octane
14th Jan 2006, 20:15
For those of you who are using this thread to take aim at QF pilots - it is those who are yet to be hired who have the most to lose out of this deal (along with the 200 or so who have joined in the last 2 years). After all those years slogging around GA for 40K or less, you get to join QF only to be told you are inferior to those who are starting at the same time as you with less experience.

Transition Layer
15th Jan 2006, 05:44
Those GA blokes having a shot should realise that the majority of guys on here from QF complaining were in your shoes not that long ago. We all understand how pathetic it must sound that we are whinging, but this is about the only place we can do it without fear of retribution (i.e. Qrewroom).

To put it in perspective, there is an S/O in Qantas who was a skipper for Air North on the Brasilia, no doubt imparting his wealth of knowledge on the QF Cadet F/Os who were up there at the time. He has now been checked to line in QF for 4-5 months, the cadets are either still with Air North or just starting their S/O training, and he is now JUNIOR to these guys/girls. :hmm:

That's just one hard luck story, but puts it all in perspective I think.

TL

Capt Fathom
15th Jan 2006, 08:44
The position you achieve in aviation is generally based on good (or bad) fortune! Nothing to do with experience whatsoever.
TL quotes a regional skipper now junior to his trainee FO. Boo Hoo!
I have numerous friends who achieved airline positions during the 80 & 90's, and I missed out! It was a lonely feeling. Now I still have a job in Australia and most of them are overseas, some doing well for themselves, some doing it hard, some not even flying. Now I don't feel so bad about missing out all those years ago.
It's just good luck, not good management! That's the way the industry works, whether we like it or not!

Johhny Utah
15th Jan 2006, 10:52
That wouldn't be the male model himself, would it TL...? :rolleyes: I noticed his name fitted into the seniority list just below where the cadets slotted in, and thought that he wouldn't be too impressed with that at all...:(
As most here have noted, the deal is inherently unfair. Unfortunatley it is yet another sad reflection on the former AIPA COM/President who allowed this to be approved with scant thought for existing members - another reason why they were unceremoniously dumped at the last AIPA elections...:yuk:

Keg
15th Jan 2006, 11:13
C'mon TL, there are a couple of issues that you need correcting on!

...this is about the only place we can do it without fear of retribution (i.e. Qrewroom).

If you reckon a topic or posts such as these on Qrewroom makes you a target for 'retribution' then you're kidding yourself. This is hardly a 'blip' in the scheme of things. The very issue that you guys are pushing (that the senior guys don't care because it doesn't affect them) is the very reason why it is hardly worth them even reading the thread on Qrewroom let alone caring about your position. Why do you reckon there are so few people senior people engaging on the Qrewroom debate? None of them care. I'm not saying that it is right (I love a good debate as much as the next person), I'm just saying it how it is. So fire away on Qrewroom. When you get some of the 'heavy hitters' contributing, perhaps then you'll know that you're getting somewhere. Retribution though....seriously doubt it!

... there is an S/O in Qantas who was a skipper for Air North on the Brasilia, no doubt imparting his wealth of knowledge on the QF Cadet F/Os who were up there at the time. He has now been checked to line in QF for 4-5 months, the cadets are either still with Air North or just starting their S/O training, and he is now JUNIOR to these guys/girls.
TL

The flying instructors at the college who taught me well enough to get my CPL and MECIR are all junior to me in QF. I remember flying with a S/O just after I checked out as an F/O who had been a 767 F/O for a european carrier. Heaps more experience than I and joined not far behind me! It happens from time to time. The issue shouldn't be about who instructed who and when as that just clouds the issue by adding a degree of emotion to it- see your 'unfair' comment.

If you want to win this argument then the ONLY leg you have to stand on is date of joining QF. As noted on Qrewroom previously, QF can get around this pretty easily without the LOA if they want to- as other have shown and see my Qrewroom post for two of the four examples I was thinking of! However, if you persist with the 'who trained who' line then you're going to take a hit and the entire discussion will get side tracked- possibly into oblivion.

St Elmos Fire
15th Jan 2006, 11:45
High Octane,

Huh, the hide of you pesants.

Do you really think that my daddy should have paid for you to be a cadet as well as me? Tell me you don't subscribe to the illusion that all men are created equil.

Was your father a baggage handler? perhaps a pesant farmer? Don't tell me the class system has fallen so far into decay that you to may have become a pilot in this great boys club.

I don't recall your name in the 'Kings College Yearbook'.

Oh lord, make me humble enough to hold my toung untill the next cigar smoking leather lounge lazing session in Daddys Kiribilly residence with the other true gentlemen of the industry.

Don't even think of turning up there. I will have Daddys security guards eject you from the premises post haste.

Bazzamundi
15th Jan 2006, 20:43
Keg, seniority based on date of joining is the issue. For some to be given an artificial dreamed up date of joining backdated to when they got their CPL's while others don't stinks. Make one rule applicable for everyone.

If QF could have done it without the LOA so easily, then why didn't they? Why did the union stand up for non members (these cadets) at the expense of current members? Sorry, the union works for the company, doing what it wishes with pleasure. Not interested in benefitting those who pay to join.

As for Qroom, you don't mention cadets in Qantas where management may see. Not unless you enjoy assessment sims.

king oath
15th Jan 2006, 21:55
St Elmo's.

Obviously Kings College doesn't teach you to spell very well.

Keg
15th Jan 2006, 23:25
Keg, seniority based on date of joining is the issue.

I don't have a major problem with that. My point was to not get distracted with arguments about who trained who and when.

If QF could have done it without the LOA so easily, then why didn't they?

I don't know but I can categorically state that you won't find out by posting it on PPRUNE. There is a MUCH better chance of getting people to engage on a discussion on Qrewroom. Go a step further and give some of the former COM a call.

Why did the union stand up for non members (these cadets) at the expense of current members?

Again, you won't find an answer to that on PPRUNE! I can give some thoughts but they are just musings from my point of view. However, if I'm the only person engaging then we're not actually achieving very much.

As for Qroom, you don't mention cadets in Qantas where management may see. Not unless you enjoy assessment sims.

I've said my piece on this and I don't think that the 'cadet' issue will receive such a response. That said, having seen a few things over the years, the assessment sims are way too obvious. Were you to say something that puts a target on your back then means are always far more subtle than the assessment sim! :eek: :mad: :yuk:

Doctor Smith
16th Jan 2006, 00:18
Now what's going to happen next EBA when the number of allowable matters is slashed? Do youse reckon you'll keep seniority or will it not be an "allowable matter"?

**Ducks & runs**:}

Bazzamundi
16th Jan 2006, 00:58
I will stand by what I believe re Qroom Keg. Who trained who and a whole lot of other garbage are not the issues with this debate. Seniority based on date of joining is, and why aipa sold some of its members out. Who has got a response from aipa re this issue? Lots of questions have been asked, but few answers are put forward. Do you think it was right what aipa did? No telling the troops, just a seniority list and LOA come out after the deal was done.

So far there has not been a rational argument put forward as to why it (seniority) should be varied to the benefit of cadets only. I firmly believe it is wrong, along with a significant majority in QF. My final comment on this matter. Over and out.

Transition Layer
16th Jan 2006, 06:16
Keg,

My argument is not based on experience, but rather on date of joining, I was simply using that particular example as an indication of the unfairness of it all. I have seniority over guys with many more thousands of hrs than me, but I imagine none of them are bitter about it, simply because they know my date of joining was before theirs, even if it was only months or weeks. This is an entirely different matter.

As for posting on Qrewroom, you should know as well as anyone the consequences. No-one wants to be known as a cadet basher (which I'm not) but I'm sure it would appear like that some. Of course none of the "heavy hitters" give a flying f*ck, they're just making sure that the LOA protects their offspring (or their mate's offspring), so they don't have to be shipped off to Singapore and can still have mummy ironing his white shirts and packing his bag before each trip.

Johnny Utah, Wasn't actually referring to the male model, but it obviously affects him as well - I'm sure he's over the moon too!

St Elmo's Fire Nice wind up!

TL

LookinDown
17th Jan 2006, 02:26
So the focus finally settles where it should be...on QF entry date. Where on earth did this cadets having "two years seniority on everyone else" rubbish come from?

Till 04 cadets were generally taken up just months or even weeks after graduation. Then with the intro of the two years regional airline experience initiative they were directed to where they would get solid hands on experience as FOs albeit on <$40K pa and having spent up to $100K on training (see earlier posts).

Havent heard of a single person (including cadets despite the huge loss of anticipated income for those two years) who didnt think this was the right move in terms of the end product. That these guys were sent without choice to regional Australia (and OS even though not within the original guidelines) should make no difference to seniority whatseover. They would otherwise have had the same priority dates that they have now.

Abe Froman
18th Jan 2006, 01:34
Keg,

Have always enjoyed ur posts. However you said:

"If you reckon a topic or posts such as these on Qrewroom makes you a target for 'retribution' then you're kidding yourself. This is hardly a 'blip' in the scheme of things."

Incorrect! I know of one CrewRoomer who posted a very valid and fairly tame post on the seniority debate, and the "powers that be" got in contact with him and said "don't like what u said in ur post, pull ur head in"...

LookinDown,

From the Qantas website,
"Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program."
So why should these non-employees get a QF seniority number while they do their 2 years industry experience? Based on that, why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience? (Obviously this isn't practical but I'm pointing out that neither is giving a select bunch of non-employees a seniority number). As u said LookinDown, people should receive a seniority number based on their "QF entry date" - and that is the day they actually start earning a wage from Qantas (ie at the end of the industry experience not the start)...

Abe Froman.

drshmoo
18th Jan 2006, 05:12
LookinDown ............ are you a cadet?

VH AMF
18th Jan 2006, 06:02
LookinDown... Are you a Cadet?

I think he meant Onwards. Further on.... Not I'm a cadet, well, as I see it.:zzz:

dr_doLiTTle
18th Jan 2006, 06:31
:confused:

LookinDown
18th Jan 2006, 23:10
No DRSHMOO;) ....I'm not a cadet nor was I but know several at various levels and am greatly interested in their roles in and contribution to the industry.

I suspect that though the topic is seniority, that many underlying core criticisms are actually of the cadetship program itself. (Refer to the earlier misspelt though funny post on the presumed priveleged life of cadets). The reality is often somewhat different. Of course there are captains who want their sons and daughters to follow in their footsteps as any father would, and a number do. In most cases however not without a history of waiting on tables, cleaning, shelf packing etc to earn the $$ needed for flying training that most people have.

You might be surprised at just how many hail from non priveleged and non QF and even non aviation family backgrounds and just dont deserve the cadet bashing that occasionally occurs. But lets get back to seniority...

Abe is dead right in terms of the legal status of cadets and their relationship with their employer, sorry Abe, future possible employer. Egg was left on faces a couple of times back in the past while the employment guarantee existed and so no written guarantee of employment is offered. But lets be less pedantic and look more at the reality.

The reality is that cadets who graduate are offered employment; that Q invests heavily in supporting the program in addition to the mega$ paid by the cadets through personal/professional support, uniforms, relocation expenses. In other words there is a big commitment by the company and a big commitment by the cadet. This training structure is I believe unique or at least extremely rare in this country but fully jusitified given the circumstances.

So "non employees"? Not really. A "select bunch"? Yep. Very few initial applicants make it through to graduation. "Why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience?" Because its your industry experience determined and chosen by you, unlike the cadets' industry experience which is not optional, has a prescribed time frame and has been arranged and directed by their 'non employer'.

The matter is quite a bit more complex than at first glance but I come back to the point of my original post. Seniority nos. would have been issued to cadets pretty much as they now if the regional airline requirment had not been put in place. The outcome is therefore no different.

*Lancer*
18th Jan 2006, 23:28
LookinDown has summarisied exactly the logic that was applied to LOA161.

Historically cadets have started immediately after their training, and received seniority based on that date. Now, they are placed in regional airline positions for 2 years between those two events.

Qantas could indeed employ the cadets and grant a leave of absence for the CIPP thus providing them with a seniority date based on graduation (2 years ahead of you HO). The end result is exactly the same, however the company does not have the protections or flexibility in place if it decides subsequently to not progress a cadet from the CIPP to become a TSO.

It all comes down to this: "Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program"

This is a legal phrase that allows Qantas to refuse employment at any time during a cadet's development. Refusal sometimes (although very rarely) happens, and without that phrase termination can be subject to a legal challenge by the cadet. The intention of LOA161 allows cadets to gain a seniority number that they would otherwise have if employed, while preserving a mechanism to deny actual mainline employment if necessary.

On a similar issue, all those affected by LOA161 are also directly and equally affected by the Jetstar MOU. There are many, many more protected seniority numbers.

Abe Froman
19th Jan 2006, 23:22
LookinDown and *Lancer* - fair points. You both seem to have an insight into the inner workings of the cadetship so could u or anyone else explain the original reason for introducing the 2 years of industry experience? I understand that in the past cadets generally started straight after their training so therefore they get a seniority number from then. But obviously if QF have said "for reasons a, b and c these cadets need some real experience" then surely that is just an extension of their training before they start with Qantas?

I agree with QF introducing the industry experience but think it weakens the argument for the existence of the cadetship over hiring from the vast direct entry pool of military/regionals/GA etc. Afterall the cadet at the moment is someone who has passed the 59 QF aptitude & psych tests, plus has 2 years of industry experience, which sounds pretty similar to a direct entry candidate...

At the end of the day, QF management can generally do what they want, when they want. However the subsequent frustration and ill-feeling of the troops is something they either don't consider or simply don't care about (ill-feeling not towards the cadets but towards the system in place, the management who introduced it and the union who agreed to it)...

*Lancer*
20th Jan 2006, 02:25
The obvious difference between a cadet now, and a Direct Entry applicant is that the cadet has applied at the outset of their career and entered a structured training programme, whereas the DE applicant has waited a few years before applying and done all the training and experience building themselves.

DE applicants can choose their own training provider and pace (for financial or lifestyle reasons for example), and find their own entry-level jobs without knowing for certain whether they're suitable for Qantas for a number of years.

Cadets have to follow an intensive, structured training and experience programme under scrutiny at all times, but have already passed the Qantas selection.

The airline gets a guaranteed steady pool of suitable pilots that can balance any fluctuations in the number or standard of DE applicants.

Poto
20th Jan 2006, 10:38
Direct entry candidates have just as many check gates to pass through in order to keep their career and future propects afloat. These are not always as structured or absolute but there is a similar culture.
I don't understand why a cadet applicant is given a seniority number before they have completed the training if industry experience is a reqiured part of the process before commencing TSO school.
Are they paying fees to AIPA?
Are they able to vote on the EBA?
Yet they can progress in front of current operating crew:hmm: :confused:

Keg
20th Jan 2006, 11:44
I don't understand why a cadet applicant is given a seniority number before they have completed the training....

This is a similar issue to Lookindown's ...if QF have said "for reasons a, b and c these cadets need some real experience...

I think the subtle difference is between 'need' and 'want' in lookindown's post. Do they 'need' it? Well, we all agree that it would help but I can point to about 80ish cadets who have mostly all passed F/O training with no dramas (a few of whom have now passed command training as well :eek: ) without that CIPP in place. In fact, those people all had at least a couple of years between graduation and starting. Needed? No. (I should acknowledge a couple of spectacular 'misses' from cadets in that time as S/Os though!) Needed? No.

Wanted and desireable? Absolutely- but I don't call it part of the 'formal' training that Poto alludes to and implies that they are still in- notwithstanding the fact that they are still under a degree of assessment Of course, we all know that it actually is 'training' in the same way that a qualified CPL flogging around outback NT in a C210 is 'training' for the day when they'll be doing it in a 310 or other machine and the same way that being a S/O is in 'training' for being a F/O but you get my drift.

Would the seniority issue be different at all if the cadets had been placed with QFLink instead and so therefore part of the group? (I know Hugh, you're always getting lumped with babysitting! :E ;) )

I wonder also too if every pilot that gets into QF would get in if they'd had the level of scrutiny over the preceeding three years of their development that a cadet tends to have. Believe me, there are no favours granted just because you're an ex cadet. If anything, in some respects, the expectations or some people are considerably higher of the former cadet than the GA entrant.

Anyway, that's enough from me for now! :cool: :}

raafboy26
21st Jan 2006, 08:27
Just going off track a little bit, - what generally constitutes for a cadet to being "kicked out" from the scheme during those three years??

Failure to progress at an acceptable rate??

What else ??

QFinsider
21st Jan 2006, 20:55
Keg,

Whilst I am not a cadet nor cadet basher....

I think that the job the class of cadets running Flight Ops needs investigating...Maybe instead of berating,threatening and harassing all the pilots, criticising us for our wearing of the uniform and even the quality of a screen saver(!) they could go and do some industry placement where they see how real managers work and indeed interact! Maybe two years or so would seem about right..We will protect their seniority of course, should they actually come back:E

happydriver
22nd Jan 2006, 22:52
Hi all.......it's quite admirable for the likes of HO and Co who are not affected by the slide in seniority numbers to raise this issue, i myself have slipped back 20 numbers because of this last ammendment not sure if there are more to come (one can only hope not)......,Its been interesting reading the posts as everyone has there own "subjective" take on what constitutes date of joining and whether or not the cadet scheme falls within that...being only relatively new to the company I lack the necessary background information behind LOA 161....i guess what we are all seeking is a fair outcome for all.Unfortunately i believe that wont happen in this case ...some will win and some will lose...i have accepted the fact that in this instance I've drawn the short end of the stick.

HD.

Iron Bar
23rd Jan 2006, 04:59
Post reconsidered. "If you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all." There is nothing nice that can be said about this arrangement. Sick of wasting money on a union that seemingly does nothing for and actually works against its members. Off to talk to the TWU.