change is good ??
Kane :
To play devil's advocate the DEFO needs no Adelaid (not that any does) and takes the FO course on entry into the company.
The DESO takes the Adelaid course the intro SO course and the FO course. Therefore, on paper more training cost per hour of productivity over 8 years. If the DEFO s were employed in Hong Kong this would be offset by higher cost by way of higher salary benefits etc. and there by make an SO a cost saving. This is the theory that was the seed of the SO programme. So if the company hired SOs on to a base and paid less than the current DEFO contract they could save even more money !!! (Shhhh don't say this too loud !!) However the only thing that seems to be preventing that is the reluctance of a number of interviewees to take SO positions. So we now have what we have, DEFO passanger based, that cost the company considerably less than Hong Kong based SOs. They are also more flexible than an SO as well.
While I can appreciate the business sense in this scheme I do not agree with it whole heartedly, as the impact on current SOs has to be negative. The plan is being sweetened by saying that you will upgrade as fast as you would if there was no expansion. Well that is great but that actually means you will upgrade slower than if there were no DEFOs. No question.
The DEFO slots should be offered with less strings to current SOs. I am sure that anywhere else in the world we could make perfectly safe FOs out of our current SOs. If that is not totally palpable we should be trying to minimise the impact by offering the DEFO slots to SOs with the qualifications. NOT making them quit, loose seniority, and join on the DEFO contract. I can see no benefit to the company by doing this. Someone please explain why the SOs are being forced to quit ?
FG