“ Oicur and one other in particular have posted nothing but statements devaluing the same, frequently made these via a tasteless personal attack, and been highly selective in responding.”
Lookin down, I have responded to individual posts using the posters name, yourself and Chris being two examples. The comments I have made have not been personal attacks, I have not attempted to insult or denigrate the skills, abilities or professionalism of any player in this debate. Muddying the waters with such an accusation does little more than show a certain siege mentality so common amongst airline pilots.
I am unsure what exactly I have devalued by simply expressing an opinion however I suspect that market forces, changing customer expectations and deregulation of the industry have been more influential than my posting on pprune.
“Comments decrying the incentive value of salary offers in retaining staff for example without any reference or explanation of alternatives are typical. This is what I meant by my reference to the lack of any positive alternatives.”
You are quite correct, I have not offered any alternatives and I apologize sincerely. My comments were in response to Chris when on numerous occasions he suggested that an airline could solve staff turnover rates amongst pilots by simply raising salary levels. This may in some cases work however generally this is not an effective strategy. Some airlines in the ME and one in particular in Asia have raised salary levels numerous times only to find it has done nothing more than mask the real reasons why people are leaving. A big issue in my airline, and many others (especially booming startups) is rostering and roster changes and disruption. Many smarter airlines and fractionals in North America and Europe have successfully attracted sufficient crew numbers by providing benefits such as flexible rostering and lifestyle instead of simply out paying their competitors. I fully understand that in many cases, higher salaries are required in order to attract the necessary experience levels to regions such as Asia/ME but I would argue that this is not the case in Australia where there is a huge pool of qualified and well-trained pilots to choose from. Likewise North America and Canada where Frontier/Jetblue/Airtran/Westjet attract crew without the need to pay AA/NW/CO wages (and more importantly conditions).
My point – Jetstar does not need to pay QF wage levels (as suggested by some here on pprune) in order to safely crew their aircraft. It may be unfair to some, it my represent a double standard to others, but it is simply a reflection of a changing set of market conditions that is occurring in many places, not just Australia.
“The singular reference to safe pilots “Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.” ( A full glass and a fuller glass?) is a further example of selectivity and nothing but a distraction. The implication that this is or should be the sole criterion in crew selection as the only concern of the airline and the ignoring of the many human and performance factors that Chris has referred to is an example of the selectivity.”
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was suggesting that safety levels should be the sole determining factor in aircrew selection. I don’t believe this to be the case at all. Airlines should look at a wide range of key behaviors when selecting pilots, one of which should be technical competence.
“The argument seems to be against a merit selection process in the distinguishing of individual performance and aptitude. I just don’t accept this.”
This is not my argument at all. I strongly believe that airlines should select crew based upon individual technical merit as well as in competencies that go beyond simply flying an aircraft. I am suggesting, however, that many airlines chose candidates that meet the MINIMUM acceptable levels of technical ability. There is little to be gained by providing a financial incentive to attract pilots with higher levels of technical ability. What would this achieve?