Merged: Senate Inquiry

[The Kelpie]

Is Safety the agenda for introducing Cadetships into LCC

The Lens

Be careful how you read the evidence, this is just another example of spin. AJ and BB gave evidence that is full of it!

Alan does not say that he uses Lufthansa and Rolls Royce for maintenance, although the untrained ear would have lead naturally to that conclusion. He simply uses those well respected worldwide brands to craftily springboard a personal view as to the type of organization he believes they do use.

It would maybe not come as a great surprise that over the last couple of days I have gone through the Hansards for the three hearings that have taken place so far and I have a word document that has 34 pages of items that fit into the categories of either inaccurate, misleading (spin) or interesting. All in my opinion of course based on evidence I have seen.

I am the James Bond of the investigative world. Of course that is only my opinion and probably not true but if I said it you would immediately associate the two and liken my investigative skills to a well known 'brand' and give me credibility even if you have never met me before.

That is how brands work.

Take Oxford Aviation Academy, a company which IMHO is no better or worse than the next guy, it is just that they develop the brand using a smooth talking salesman and glossy brochures under the lure of a public set of employment statistics that are highly questionable.

The key selling point for OAA is the relationship they have with airlines, this has two benefits.

• Firstly, Petteford visits the airline and tells the decision makers that they should allow him to run his cadetship because they were picked by other airlines given their skill and expertise in the area of flight training particularly towards the multi crew airline.and leverages credibility by using brands such as British Airways, Easyjet, Ryanair, Qantas etc.
• Secondly it lures aspiring pilots in because it has a track record in the United Kingdom of graduates being placed with airlines....eventually.

lets for a minute just look at what I have just said

.....picked by other airlines given their skill and expertise in the area of flight training

A mentor once told me that a business does not do business with another business it is the people that do business with the people, a philosophy that has over my career proved time and time again to be true. This is no exception.

The companies that Petteford uses as his springboard all have decision makers that are part of, or are connected to the Oxford 'Old Boys Network'. Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways is an ex Oxford Cadet (no wonder he sanctioned such a glowing reference for Petteford to include in his submission (read: sales pitch document) to the Senate Inquiry despite BA not employing cadets themselves for the last 10 years. As we all know Alan Joyce, used to work at Aer Lingus where he met and became friends with Willie Walsh, well you know how friends, both described as Irish Businessmen talk!!

I know, I know that is all history but it does give an insight as to how a track record is established.

Whilst reading through the Hansard I was surprised to find Tiger Airways Director of Flight Operations, Tim Berry advocating the recruitment and use of cadets despite Tiger Airways not having a desire to do so. In fact his evidence was so strong I almost felt that he was almost trying to sell something to the Senators, something he has to date not been able to do with his own Board. Perhaps when Cadet schemes are endorsed by the Senate and other airlines accept this is the way to go and that this becomes the norm perhaps Tiger will fall into line. I was particularly interested in the testimony of what he considered were the essential features to the successful use of cadets and drew many similarities with the evidence, both written and verbal given by Oxford Aviation. Petteford must have been there for 'a chat'!!

Wait a minute. Petteford did not necessarily need to do so, he could just ring his old mate Tim up with whom he was in the same pilot group when Petteford did his short sabbatical on the A320 with British Midland in 2001 that was organised through the Oxford 'old boys network'. Friends helping out friends!!

Petteford and Oxford Aviation have a lot to lose if the Senate raise the hours required to enter a Flight Deck and believe me when I say he is calling in favours from 'friends, or friends of friends' to provide evidence to get cadetships across the line. The survival of his business model relies on it. The principle being that if enough people tell the Senator the same thing it must be true!!!

I want to move now onto the MPL Licence, a process that Petteford seems really enthusiastic about for some reason. MPL requires that the Cadet is linked and guaranteed a job with the airline for it to work. There are a number of commercial difficulties which would suggest this model will never float in Australia and I will for illustrative purposes apply it to the LCC Model. Incidently these would not even be considered by CASA during the approval of a syllabus as it is outside their remit.

• The MPL is a licence within itself. It does not allow you to fly any other aircraft other than the one you were trained on with the company you were linked with (currently restricted to B737, A320 and Q400). Good for retention rates I would say but buggers you when it comes to pay negotiations!
• Even if transferability between employers was facilitated it would need to be accepted across the industry, in all airlines to be effective otherwise there would be further restriction to the number of employers you could possibly work for.
• The LCC model has a track record for closing bases 'to meet the needs of the business'. If your base was closed you have no choice but to move interstate with the company (if that is an option) as your licence is not valid anywhere else or take redundancy - I think this is unreasonable. We 'work to live' in Australia and not the other way around. The effect this has on families, relationships and on children's schooling to name a few is immense and is beyond the call of duty for any employer.
• If made redundant for the reasons stated above or in the event of a downturn skills are not readily transferrable. I estimate that to convert a MPL to a CPL it would involve at least a further $50,000 of training and at least 6 months of your life without income. At a time of redundancy this amount of spare cash is almost never there. This would please Petteford as it is another business opportunity!!!

There are of course the safety aspects as well as the issue of relevance of training if you wanted, or needed to revert to single pilot operations. Petteford has already told us that the cost of a MPL is similar to the traditional route but in the end you get a licence that greatly restricts your ability to be flexible in the difficult times.

Given the history of the Aviation industry the MPL is a commercial ticking timebomb. It is just not the product for the Australian aviation industry. Perhaps Sntr Heffernan was not far off when he called Joyce an 'old irish bombmaker'!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie