Here we go...
I have been reading this thread over the last few weeks with two thoughts in mind:
That it is interesting, and that it is disappointing.
Interesting because many relevant points have been raised, and hopefully will be addressed, and disappointing because many posts are little more than gratuitous whining, or worse, character assassination.
For context, I am an FO, with less than two years with Rex, and can still say that they are the best company I have worked for. Yes maybe I’m still looking at things through rose coloured glasses. (albeit these days they are photochromatic Serengetis’).
What I would like to see is some mutually beneficial solutions suggested, feel free to disagree with mine, however have a think about it, and come up with some of your own. A discussion with solutions in mind is likely to have more impact than the standard “we should be paid more”.
Most of us know how much the bond is (not sure if disclosure agreements allow me to post it). And over two years it is fairly reasonable. The actual cost of training crew is probably higher than the bond we would be charged. (Taking into account instructor time, airfares for training, wages for “non-revenue personnel” , simulator time etc). From the company’s point of view, the cost of an FO is probably closer to 50-55k/annum for the first two years. For a company that still refuses to charge up front for training, is this really so abhorrent?
A couple of facts;
fact one. The company is reluctant to pay more, as staff will still leave for better things, and they then will have to be replaced (at cost).
fact two. Employees will leave because they can get better money/career progression elsewhere.
The bond is implemented to retain crew, however after two years, employees are not obligated to stay.
There are annual pay increases, to try to counteract staff leaving, however why not pay a retention bonus?
If it is going to cost 10-20k to replace a departed crew, why not offer to pay an extra 10k after 2 years additional service. This is cheaper than replacing the employee, and a 10k bonus would entice many to stay that extra time. You could argue that many crew would stay without a bonus, however just as many would leave before becoming eligible. Could this be a win/win prospect for crews and the company?
On a separate topic, yet just as radical, How about commencing Command training after two years service to stimulate and retain crew, and also promulgate a culture of knowledge. I am not saying the command training needs to be completed (until a slot is available) but think of the costs versus benefits.
-All initial endorsements are command, so there is no extra sim time (costs) required to conduct line training for FO’s in the left hand seat.
-Training Captains are paid an allowance for any month in which they do training, so if they are not training new FO’s or captains upgrading, why not utilise them to put senior FO’s in the left seat?
-An FO who has done 20 sectors in the left seat would be a better, more aware FO, able to assist/monitor the Captain more effectively, as he has real experience doing that side of the job.
-If the company requires Captains urgently (such as if several leave at once) there would be a plethora of FO’s who require minimum training time, and have had extra time contemplating what the job entails from a first hand perspective.
-FO’s who have been in the company for a long time, such as in melb or Adl where commands are slower, would at least have a sense of career progression, which would flow on to better morale.
Are there any negatives to this idea?
(ok, opening myself up to a barrage there...)
Here endith my story...
Happy flying to all.