Racing to the bottom.

[longjohn]

Another tragic day for professional aviation in Australia.

How sad that the only way for NJS pilots to keep their job was to reduce their own terms and conditions. I do not blame them; in the same circumstances I would most likely do the same.

My only question is, when are we going to hit rock bottom?

Pick up the newspaper and read about prospective interest rate rises due to inflationary wage pressure. Read on about various Union claims and wins for 18% over 3 years. Keep reading about the healthy airline travel figures, the highest in years.

Rumour suggests that Jetstar are having trouble crewing their aircraft due to a pilot shortage. Rumours also suggest that airlines like Emirates are calling previously passed over candidates.

So how is it that in this bullish environment pilots are either still trading off terms and conditions for a paltry 3% p.a (AIPA) rise, or worse, taking pay cuts (NJS) to simply keep their jobs.

Some may say that $110k is still too much for a 717 Captain. Consider that some Jetstar and Virginblue Captains had little more than 5 years total flying experience before achieving commands. Once these pilots achieved command then the only way to argue for pay increases are bottom line benefits.

Contrast then, pilots, who potentially after 5 years have achieved the holy grail of aviation, a jet command, with other professionals.

A law, student is looking at a minimum of 5 years to simply achieve degree status, followed by 6 months study at the college of law for admission as a Barrister or Solicitor. All this to be paid $45 - $50k. With 5 years experience they MAY be earning $110k. How many pilots achieved the necessary results to study law at Uni?

A medical student will study for 7 years before graduation, they will then need to work in the hospital system for a number of years in order to gain experience. Starting salary, $70 – 80k after 7 years of study. Would you study 7 years to fly?

Accounting, 3 years study plus for a starting salary of $40k. Maybe $110k with 5 years experience AFTER the degree and IF you are very good.

Of course many would argue that the airline pilots carry huge responsibility and are checked 4 times a year etc, etc. All true, but so are train drivers, and bus and ferry drivers (responsibility)

So when will we reach the bottom?

I suspect that things can get worse. After Ansett, I had pilots tell me that they would fly (in command) for $50k just to keep their jobs, and why not, they were working as night shelf packers at Coles for $15 per hour, $50k to keep your hands clean sounds good.

Are we at a crossroads in Australian aviation where the profession of airline pilot is being whittled away to ‘plane driver’? In its heyday, a locomotive engineer was a highly respected individual, well remunerated and considered a professional. How many of you scoffed at my earlier remark regarding train drivers?

So when will we reach the bottom?

Can we stop the race?

Is it reversible?



:( :{

[schnauzer]

In a recent Readers Digest Survey, readers were asked to rank a list of professions from most to least trusted. At the top were Firies, next Ambo's, and third were PILOTS. The list contained 25 or 30 different occupations, and lawyers were near the bottom, as were car and real estate salesmen. Fairly predictable.

In another way of posing longjohn's question, how long will it be before we as professional aviators drop down that list.

Personally, I am proud to be a trusted professional. But when guys like Ydraw come along, a yobbo with no real idea of aviation, who simply wants to "mix it up", seemingly just for the sake of it, well what chance do we really have.

And unfortunately, there are many yobbo's out there. Pick up the paper any given day and read about the "expert" accounts from some goon who watched an aeroplane come to an unfortunate end.

I don't give us much longer, because Mr and Mrs Average Yobbo don't really understand what it is that we do, but they have convinced themselves that they DO. That can only bring us down. :{

Combine that with our own willingness to undercut one another, jeez we really don't have long at all.

I'd be interested to hear from J* pilots on this. How does it feel to have it done to you, guys?

[Break Right]

Longjohn your figures are completely wrong. I think if you had a real look at how long it took most guys and girls to get there jet commands in VB/JQ you will find that most of us have been flying for a min 10-15 year professionally. The wages for about 98% of that group never earnt more than $15-30k in their first 5 years of flying and never got to stay at home with mummy and daddy for those 5-10 years. Unlike your other professions

I do agree with you we can't let our profession slip any lower, but no one that I can see have the balls these days to do anything about it. AS on other topics no one is willing to make any comments on our up coming EBA's

Unfortunately management knows it.


time to go drive a train!!!!:hmm:

[MkVIII]

Unfortuantely, the profession of pilot is still a HUGELY mis-understood, and under-valued area. Take as a prime example Hawke's statement "They are nothing but glorified bus drivers".

Joe Bloggs Public hasn't a clue as to the complexities of flying RPT. They have no knowledge of what we must first do to get to where we are - approx 1 year full time flying training, followed by working in GA for a few years to clock up hours - usually 1500 before an airline will look at you. Then "school" again to be trained on the particular aircraft, then line training, base checks, route checks.... yada yada yada ad infinitum.

We have to be lawyers, meteorologists, physicists, computer programmers, mathematicians - all at the same time. No specialising here...

We have on average 100 or more people's lives to look after per flight...

And when **** happens, we have to keep cool, calm and collected whilst those around us scream and whail and pray, and figure a way to resolve the situation...

And then we go home, go to sleep, and do it all again another day.

Are we under paid? Yes.

Do the airlines care? No, since we are just glorified bus drivers. Airline accountants see us as the lowest common denominator.

Australian pilots need a union with BALLS, and a UNIFIED union at that - not all these seperate neutered factions that we have in Australia today (that really are a puppet of the airline!).

It is time Australian airline pilots stood together, not apart. No more individual contracts, no more back-stabbing.

I am not advocating a return to the AFAP (we all know that could NEVER happen! :p ), but it is time we stopped thinking of ourselves alone. I am NOT going to bring 1989 into this, but you MUST admit that a LOT has happened since then, to the DETRIMENT of the industry as a whole - pilots became just a signature on a contract.

Actually THINK about this before responding in some vitriolic manner that I expect from a lot here.

[argusmoon]

At last on PPruNE a voice of reason .Follow that man!!!

[bigfella5]

I second that motion!

[johnyblack]

IMHO it is all supply and demand.

Politics aside gentlemen:

1989 saw a mass migration of Oz pilots overseas, Group 1.

They were replaced by whatever means by Group 2.

AN went tits up and DJ filled the void with another mass training effort, Group3.

We now have THREE times the number of pilots that Australia can employ, hence the degradation of conditions.

When the airlines can't get enough crew, conditions will improve. It is happening elsewhere in the world, but our unique situation means that it will take a bit longer here.:*

[LetsGoRated]

What would it take to get all Australian pilots in one union? Is it possible? Where do we start guys?:confused:

[Kaptin M]

A law, student is looking at a minimum of 5 years to simply achieve degree status, followed by 6 months study at the college of law for admission as a Barrister or Solicitor. All this to be paid $45 - $50k. With 5 years experience they MAY be earning $110k. How many pilots achieved the necessary results to study law at Uni?

A medical student will study for 7 years before graduation, they will then need to work in the hospital system for a number of years in order to gain experience. Starting salary, $70 – 80k after 7 years of study. Would you study 7 years to fly?

Accounting, 3 years study plus for a starting salary of $40k. Maybe $110k with 5 years experience AFTER the degree and IF you are very good. Pilots outlay AT LEAST DOUBLE, and in one of the examples cited, FIVE TIMES, the number of $$$'s for their BASIC training to CPL standard.

Lawyers, doctors, and qualified accountants are almost cetainly assured of being offered a position BEFORE completion of their final exams - and if they elect to not take those offers, are able to set themselves up for not a great outlay, in their own business.

Flying is a gamble...or in many cases a gambol!!

But, from my experience - or that of one of my son's, who is engaged in one of the above - the competition is almost as cut throat.
People willing to work obscene hours for little return, whilst "The Firm" charges their work out at equally OBSCENE rates...but at the opposite end of the obscenity spectrum....until that person burns out.
Then it's "Move over, baby." - here comes up-and-coming Hotshot Mark 9,569!!
Sound familiar??

Maybe it's all a part of growing up....perhaps it's just an inherent part of the super-competitive industries in which we're all employed.
But as long as the over-supply to each vocation continues, unchecked, then things ain't gunna improve, until conditions get sooooo bad that no-one else is going to want to be a part of it!!

And AVIATION is just about at that x-road right NOW!!

(KM - "The Oracle"...note the spelling, twerb.)

[the wizard of auz]

I was at a mine site out in the desert the other day, doing an induction so I could carry out the job I was there to do, and lo and behold.........there sits a young chappy I knew flew in the GA sector, doing the same induction.
I asked what he was doing there and why the induction. He replied, I have to give flying a miss. I need to eat and pay bills and just can't manage it on the wages I get from flying.
I had to leave the industry for exactly the same reason, and now that brings the total of people I know personally who have left the industry for the same reason to twelve.
There is something terribly wrong with this picture.

[Animalclub]

A question... or three

Does one get paid what the value of the job is to the company

or

Does one get paid the value of what one thinks of one's self worth

or

Does one get paid what the company can afford.

I would hope that it is a combination of all three. Is it possible to work this out from company accounts that are published? The bean counters at QF don't have a clue according to this thread. Is this true?

[Wiley]

Sorry gents, but anyone wanting to discuss the topic of this thread whilst oh so carefully avoiding any mention of that year we dare not mention is simply conducting an exercise in navel gazing, with about as much effect.

The year we dare not mention was the start of the sorry state of affairs we see today. There’s no one cause for it, but, (and I’m sorry if this offends some, but it has to be said), those pilots who took what I’ll call the path of least resistance that (or early the following) year bear a disproportionate share of the blame for the parlous state most flying careers within the industry are in today.

But, as many will hasten to inform me with varying degrees of outrage, that is all history now, and for everyone’s sake in the industry, including the short-sighted management who are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in turning the pilot’s job into one that is no longer attractive to what used to called ‘the right kind of candidate’, I really hope that someone has the charisma - (and let’s face it, the titanium balls) - to get the vast majority of Australian pilots together into one, united industrial organisation that will at least stop the rot that’s seen T & Cs on a steep down hill slope since t.y.w.d.n.m.

Sadly, I can’t see it happening, not in my lifetime at least.

[56P]

Again, well said, Wiley.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

[R405]

Compared to other professions, pilots have it easy!

For starters, there's not much training required. You can learn to fly in fewer hours than it takes to lean the guitar or a foreign language.

There's not much experience required, either. An entry-level lawyer or accountant working 8 hours per day will gain 1,500 hours' experience in just 9 months. I wouldn't be trusting my court case to someone with 9 months' experience! Of course, flying experience is more than just engine time, but even doubling the comparison to 18 months still makes for an entry-level professional.

As Kaptain M says, many young lawyers and accountants are in professional firms where they are being paid a tiny fraction of their charge-out rate. The hours are terrible and it's little wonder that most of them drop off the treadmill to seek a better life. At least pilots get to enjoy what they are doing!

Wizard of Auz, your example doesn't just apply to pilots: I've spoken to MBAs working for major consulting firms who have been working at the mines. They are shocked to find out that the mining truck drivers are earning more than they are. Most of those MBAs end up working in industry.

Animalclub, I think your options #1 and #3 apply. I don't see any logic in people getting paid the value of their self-worth. I think there's an option #4: that people get paid just above the cost of their replacement. If a company knows someone is hard to replace, they'll pay them more. If they see that there's plenty of cheaper young people eager to jump on the bottom of the bandwagon, they'll grab them instead. This is not limited to aviation, see Kaptain M's example above. It's also why many professional firms get their 2nd year staff doing first-round job interviews of young hopefuls: to give them a stark reminde that there's plenty of people ready to take their place.

Wiley, sorry, I'm not sure what you dare wish to mention. The most obvious path of least resistance I can think of is becoming a pilot in the first place. Let's face it, flying aircraft is fun! Much more so than sitting at uni listening to boring lectures. If you are referring to people agreeing to be paid less, then in the absence of a union, it's a logical strategy otherwise they'll find themselves unemployed completely. A union would be nice, but I don't understand how it could be achieved when there are so many young people eager to do whatever it takes to go flying.

Sorry for the downer, guys, but I just wanted to offer a bit of a reality-check.

[MkVIII]

R405, reality check? I take it that you aren't a pilot then, considering your answer. Please do some research before posting again.

Wiley, as I said in my post, TYWDNM was most assuredly the trigger. THOSE we also do not mention thought merely of themselves. The companies then denegrated the auspicous position of pilot to merely that of a contract worker - disposable labour.

I am NOT going to turn this into a 1989 argument, but if we cannot look at history and how it has shaped this industry, for better or for worse, then we are just sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the awful truth.

As I mentioned, it is time SOMETHING UNITED was done to stem the rot endemic in the Australian airline industry.

If not, before too long, Hawke may just have his prophecy come true - we will be just glorified bus drivers.

And we all want to prove that mongrel wrong!

:p

[rescue 1]

I'm putting on the bullet proof vest as I type this. The spiraling of terms and conditions started the day Virgin and Impulse commenced operations in Australia. This was the catalyst for the ridiculously and unsustainable cheap fares introduced into the market, with each company trying its best to a) win market share; and b) destroy the opposition, the whole while consumers are "loving it!" taking advantage of the fares while they last.

All this was coupled with Pilots (Aussie's) keen to return to live in Australia and were prepared to take and accept changes to what was once Australian industry standard ie $230K for a B737 pilot (inclusive of overtime).

Read the QF or VB balance sheet and you will see that profit from cost cutting cannot be sustained without taking casualties - be it their own or the enemy, and cannot build a sustainable future.

Australia has seen the crash before of discounters and we will see it again.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but have popped on my thinking cap to resolve a strategy.

[27/09]

R405,

I think you talk with tongue in cheek or else you really don't know what is involved in learning to fly.

The flight time required for the various licences and ratings does not reflect the time spent in preparation for those flights nor the time spent studying for and sitting all the exams.

Also the hours for the licences are minimum requirements. Nearly all first jobs in the aviation game are considered as part of the apprenticeship for an airline job. Most airline jobs require a much higher level of experience than just the bare licence requirements.

An entry-level lawyer or accountant working 8 hours per day will gain 1,500 hours' experience in just 9 months

The lawyer might have 1500 hours of time at work, but 1500 hours in the courtroom?, I think not.

To gain 1500 hours of flight time would take at least 3 years for the average person probably more.

You are not giving enough credit to the efforts required to become an experienced pilot.

[MkVIII]

Rescue 1, I disagree in reference to your timeline, but otherwise agree to the greater extent.

I believe the degradation (some will call it rot) started the day the first contract was signed in 1989.

The arrival of the discount airlines did not exascerbate the situation, rather, it just continued with the trend, rather than altering it for better or for worse.

But, we are yet again digressing away from the initial topic - how do we stop the landslide?

[Pharcarnell]

I noted, with some alarm, an article on the weekend about developing DRIVERLESS people moving flying machines.

I wonder how long it will be before the bean counters trot out that one to drive down the professional standing of pilots and reduce conditions offered on EBA's??

[What-ho Squiffy!]

The Salad Days are over.

...and I would suggest that globalisation has an awful lot to do with it. I think global commerce and industry is on the slippery slope to eventual implosion.

Public companies exposed to the global market need to do something to maintain/increase share price and dividends. This can only be achieved by becoming more efficient and/or increasing market share - and in the global market, market share is like the last chip on the beach amongst a thousand seagulls.

The typical CEO route is to increase efficiency, and in the case of an airline this would mean buying more efficient aircraft, increasing redundancies, or reducing pay and conditions. Any increases in market share are a bonus. Just to maintain market share in the face of widening competition is an achievement. Reducing pay and conditions in a unionised environment is difficult. The solution - spin off some different companies with reduced pay and conditions.

This is fine - but where does it end? Unfortunately, shareholders never stop baying for blood - it is the nature of the system. And employees are nothing but an inconvenience.

So the process of finding efficiencies can never end. As opposed to the good old days when businesses were privately owned, and the owners cared about human beings - the business made some money, and families had roofs over their heads.

I don't know "how" the current system will end - but logic dictates that it has to. It's just the "when" that remains to be seen.

[Sunfish]

What - O, its not a downward spiral. What investors chase is returns commensurate with risk and capital appreciation in line with global growth of GDP.

If the expected rate of return for airline investment is 3.5% and GDP growth is 3%, then if you achieve these numbers you are doing OK.

What appears to be happening to airlines is that we are still feeling the after affects of the invention of the low cost carrier. Until the dinosaurs reinvent themselves in this mode there will continue to be angst and tears.

[R405]

MkVIII, yes, I am a pilot, and my research is based not only on the aviation industry but on other industries. Flying just isn't that hard compared to other professions. As you suggest I do some research on the aviation, I suggest you do some research on other professions. longjohn had some good stats in his original post, eg "A medical student will study for 7 years before graduation, they will then need to work in the hospital system for a number of years in order to gain experience. Starting salary, $70 - 80k after 7 years of study. Would you study 7 years to fly?"

27/09, thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I'm not speaking with tongue in cheek. I agree that there is a lot more to experience than engine time, which is why I doubled the amount. If we factor in studying and sitting for exams for pilots, we need to factor the same thing in for comparable professionals. Most of the lawyers I know have double-degrees which took them 5 years full-time - way more than any pilot I know has spent on education. I agree that the lawyer does not have 1,500 hours in court, but they will have 1,500 hours practising law, which comparable to flying experience.

As Sunfish says, the industry is changing and the dinosaurs are reinventing themselves. It's up to the individual whether or not they want to be a dinosaur. Personally, I think unionising will be difficult given the steady stream of eager young recruits, but even if it was done, it would simply strengthen the public perception of pilots being glorified bus drivers and corral the pilots for an airline counter-strategy, obviously off-shore.

[Otis B Driftwood]

It's all a matter of where you stand and look at all of this. If you look at a Pilots worth from a seasoned Pilots point of view, then yes we are all worth more. An experienced Pilot understands what it takes to make it into the Airlines and all of the training and BS that is encountered along the way. Generally speaking only a seasoned Pilot will understand any of this.....

If you look at the Profession of Pilot from the Accountant or Managers point of view things look a little different. 100's of applicants for each position(sometimes 1000's), only 12 months of training for a CPL/IR and no minimum education requirements to get into the course, just a fist full of cash!!!! (It took the Accountant a min of 3 years of Uni study then the CPA/CA study thereafter to get a decent job on 40k-50k: if they show some talent...). So it looks easy to them!!!!!

I think Pilots putting themselves into the same category as Lawyers and Doctors is silly.... It's just too different. It still costs around $33k-$35k (HECS) to do a Law Degree (4 years Full Time) and then postgraduate Legal training to get a Practicing Certificate (more $$$) and the starting pay is still crap.... and most lawyers will never make $100,000 a year. That is a Fact.

One clear difference between a Pilot and a Lawyer is the training. A student wanting to do a Law degree must fulfill academic requirements for entry and then be competitive enough to be accepted, then pass 30+ subjects just to be able to then study to practice.

Imagine if you could just turn up to a Law school and hand over the $$$ and 4 years later you got the degree whether you could do it or not..... just like the sausage factory flying schools.....

A Doctor is just too different for me as a Pilot to ever compare myself... A minimum of 6-7 years of University Study and at least a $50k HECS debt, an Intern year on around $50k, then at last a licence as a Medical Practitioner. But now you have to complete one more year as a House Officer or the like whilst applying to be accepted into a specialty training course that will last another 3-6 years..... and after all of this (12 years minimum)...... Finally a chance to make a decent income..... and just as with lawyers........ Not all Doctors make a fortune...... Only a select few.

A lawyer still has a responsibility to his/her client, the Doctor to the Patient,the Pilot to the passenger. If either make a mistake a persons life can be destroyed in an instant......

Yes we all have responsibility in our jobs, that is a fact for all Professionals. We as Pilots need to stop comparing ourselves to others who are nothing like us (in many ways!!!!) and concentrate on looking after ourselves as a profession to ensure we are remunerated accordingly for the job we do. If we try to be looked at as equals to Lawyers and Doctors we will get shot down because the general public don't have a clue what we really do or have done (Haven't we all been asked if we want to be a commercial Pilot one day after pulling up somewhere on a charter!!!!!). Doctors don't Piss and Moan on a Rumour network..... They have a Bloody strong Union and they respect each other professionally and try to make things better for all Doctors, not just a selfish few.... Sure they all want to make more money than the next Bloke.... but they know the united front of bargaining is far more powerful and secure for the profession than snaking and undercutting.....

Maybe Pilots could learn a thing or two from them.... instead of just comparing themselves to them......

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Kaptin M]

Flying just isn't that hard compared to other professions. That's a debatable issue, R405. The act of flying an aeroplane isn't particularly difficult for most people, but not all.
And just as there are certain "tiers" in the other professions, eg. law - articled clerk, lawyer, barrister, QC, Judge - or medicine, nurse, intern, G.P., specialist, Mister - there are similarly various "tiers" in the profession of flying.
As a matter of fact, there would probably be MORE tiers in aviation than in perhaps ANY other profession (that I can think of).

And so as easy as it is for a PPL with an instrument rating to consider himself just a short flight removed from the professional, multi-crew, multi-engine pilot, the REALITY is quite different, as is the vast difference in knowledge and areas of responsibility between the two.
The requirements of flying are not ONLY of a manipulative nature, but also an ability to make vital decisions quickly in what may be rapidly changing conditions and to accept the responsibilty for those decisions.

If flying were not considered to be a challenging occupation - but rather, a more passive one, such as those listed earlier, where the time to make a decision is often NOT critical and may be pondered by hours, days, or even months before arriving at a final one (which may be further challenged!!) - then pilots would not be subjected to the regular, ongoing, rigorous checks of ability and suitability to retain their jobs.

As in any profession, EXPERIENCE counts, however this seems not to be recognised by some aviation employers - and some pilots.

How many QC's would agree to work for a customer at articled clerks rates?
What would be the reply of an Orthodontist if you asked him to agree to work for the same money as his dental nurse? ":mad: you!!"?

More to the point, what would be Geoff Dixon's respose if you asked HIM to continue, but on an accountant's salary?

The problem today is, it is not PILOTS who are setting the remuneration levels and sticking to them - we are allowing OUTSIDE forces to do that.
Again 1989 (I'll say it), showed that there are pilots who think so little of their peers - and of themselves - that they will undercut/sabotage the mainstream to try to gain an advantage.
How many of you would choose a "cut price" Doctor without wondering WHY he was forced to undercut his peers?

[ReadMyACARS]

Now we've all had a good whinge, bitch, vent, I-told-you-so over two fairly predictble page by the usual suspects, what exactly were the concessions NJS pilots offered to make?

[tinpis]

edited coz some bugger already said it.


:p

[Whiskery]

Australian pilots need a union with BALLS,........

Show me a Union where every member has balls and you have a Union with BALLS !

[schnauzer]

R405. My friend, Kapt M, has succinctly hit the nail on the head. Which fortunately has saved me the pleasure of giving it a serious WHACK!:mad:

Fella, there is no real comparison that can be made between each of the professions that you use to illustrate your points.

I have two degrees, am studying for my third, and I can tell you straight up that there is very little harder than a single engine NDB and circling approach with compound emergencies in crap weather with a senior check peering over your shoulder.

Doctors may have similar "pressure" situations, but most other professions have no comparison at all.

R405, your ignorance of this indicates your probable lack of experience and qualifications in flying. That is no worries, everyone starts somewhere and follows their own road. But when you begin to tell highly qualified professional pilots that their job is "easy", well, you must forgive us for just a little indignance.

Have a good day!:ok:

[MkVIII]

God damn it Whiskery, OK, a union with balls and boobs. (hang on, every union is full of boobs....:p )

Schnauzer said exactly what I was going to, so no further requirements. Resuming own navigation....

Comparing a professional pilot to a doctor or a lawyer is like comparing apples to concrete - not even REMOTELY SIMILAR!

Unless you ARE an airline pilot, chances are you truly do NOT understand. Those that aren't like to try to equate it to other professions, yet nothing even remotely comes close.

Explaining it is futile unless you have done it.

[R405]

Explaining it is futile unless you have done it.
If you really believe that, how are you planning to make a case for better remuneration?

[Lodown]

Animalclub...
Does one get paid what the value of the job is to the company
Does one get paid the value of what one thinks of one's self worth
Does one get paid what the company can afford.
Absolutely none of the above.

One gets paid what one can negotiate.

If you're not in a good position to negotiate, don't expect to get much. If you're in a good position, you can negotiate a bucket load. Knowing one's position comes easy to some and difficult to others.

Cheers

[Motorola]

Lawyers lock up their mistakes.

Doctors bury their mistakes.

I undergo some kind of test every 6 weeks.

Everything I say and do at work is recorded.

A GP friend of mine has to do 1 course per year to stay in the College. He did a CPR refresher last year.

[bulolobob]

Lowdon & AnimalClub

Surely the employer pays only what is necessary to attract and retain the employees it needs.

As always it seems that the supply exceeds the demand - so a pilot's years of training, years of experience, years of being constantly checked carry little weight in the employer's mind when setting pay levels.

Factors that do carry weight are the costs associated with induction of new employees, re-training and maintaining the published schedules and productivity.

Who can argue with an employer who is having to sell for $39 a product which he sold ten years ago for over $250? A $750 Million profit is nice figure - but what is the % return on capital invested?

I think we'll see Airlines paying just enough to retain the Pilots they already have for quite some time in the future. I'd be looking for job security.

Times is tough!
Cheers
Bulolobob

[The Bunglerat]

Having read the various posts debating the apparent easiness vs difficulty of being a pilot when compared to other industry professionals, may I offer the following for us to ponder...

Why do I think pilots should get paid more?

Because when things go bad in the courtroom, the plaintiff or the defendant will suffer much more than the lawyer. The worst-case scenario for the lawyer is that he gets disbarred and cannot practise law. But he still gets to go home and reflect on it.

Because when things go bad in the operating theater, the patient suffers much more than the surgeon. The worst-case scenario for the surgeon is that he gets done for malpractice, and can no longer practise medicine. But he still gets to go home and reflect on it.

Because when things go bad in the cockpit, the lives of the two pilots, nine cabin crew, and the one-hundred and seventy or so passengers ALL hang in the balance. And unfortunately in some cases, no-one gets to go home because the bodies cannot be identified in the wreckage.

Whilst I would never wish this to happen to anyone, I sometimes imagine a scenerio where a planeload of senior airline execs and their beancounters suffer a catastrophic event in flight. It is their lives who are now completely and utterly in the hands of the "cheap labour" up front. And I wonder if, as those frightened execs/beancounters contemplate whether they'll get home to their familes that night, will any of them spare a thought to ask themselves if those two guys are getting paid enough right now?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Because when things go bad in the cockpit, the lives of the two pilots, nine cabin crew, and the one-hundred and seventy or so passengers ALL hang in the balance. And unfortunately in some cases, no-one gets to go home because the bodies cannot be identified in the wreckage.

I would hope that when things go bad in the cockpit things aren't hanging in the balance. Training, currency, SOPs and safety management are all mechanisms to ensure that this isn't the case are they not?

Obviously the argument of being 'life and death' decision-makers is not washing it with the public and employers at large. There is a general perception that flying is among the safer forms of travel and yet passengers seem not to be aware they are perilously close to the precipice according the description above.

Although I don't agree with flying/medical/legal professional comparisons anyway, I think that the idea that a surgeon is somehow absolved of the burden of responsibility that pilots must bear because he still gets to go home and reflect on it is fatuous. A surgeon has to live with his mistakes, a lot of pilots do not. Which is harder?

[Sunfish]

Considering the number of medico's who fly privately themselves, I suspect surgery is closer to being a pilot than many of you think.

Both professions require regular decisions that must be made that cannot and must not be postponed for more than a few seconds.

The rest of us get to scratch our backsides and say "Jeez, I'll have to think about that one for a few minutes", even lawyers.

Frankly, thats the bit about flying that makes it different from anything I have ever done before.

[ash_d]

Hmmm, this is a interesting thread. I don't normally post but this one...I can see it from a different perspective in that I am a maritime professional with a flying problem.
My industry has been thru a similar stage (although about three hundred years longer) where times were tough, markets were down and employers treated crews like cr@p.
A lot of folks here mentioned how a union could help, others went on to point out how that would never come to pass. I'm here to tell you that it can be done, in fact it has been done. Ever heard of the ITF? If not, take a peak at www.itf.org.uk
You might be surprised to learn that they do represent civil aviation, in fact I think they have some big case on now on behalf of Ryanair workers. I guess its a case of getting a local union together to work as an affilate. You then have GLOBAL leverage.

However, the ITF alone did not make things better for us. This may sound terrible but it was a number of nasty accidents (remember Exxon Valdez? The Erika? The Treasure?) that forced governments, regulatory authorities, insurers, banks, not to mention environmental bodies to act and shipowners were pressured into maintaning top quality sea personel which takes good conditions and dineros. We are under a huge amount of pressure for our actions these days (some of which is fair enough) for eg, there are lots of places where we get locked up for spilling just a tiny amount of fuel or residue etc (I'm talking litres) even if its a mechanical failure beyond our control. A serious case of guilty until proven innocent.
The reason I bring this up is that you folks are under the same sort of pressure albeit in different ways and in my opinion should be rewarded for it. The ITF argued on behalf of seafarers that if the world wanted us poor sods to spend 9 months at sea and be held responsible for everything under the sun to the point where we are jailed for it, then they could sure as hell pay us for it. You're in the same boat (excuse the pun, couldn't resist) and I agree that you need blanket representation.

On the other hand, I do think the aviation industry has some issues to work out within itself first. Forgive this from an outsider looking in but I always get the feeling that you folks are really cut throat and independant of one another in the way you do things. Perhaps circumstances dictate this but we in the maritime biz are so much closer together and supportive of our "brothers in arms". I think this may be half your problem.

Re comments re comparison of proffesions, In my opinion both the aviation and maritime industries have unique characteristics in this regard and can't be compared to others. You have the pressures of passengers, most of us have the pressures of the potential magnitude and consequantial effects of our accidents. To make master (captain) on a medium sized dry cargo vessel (panamax) will take you on average about 15-20 years at sea. You need similar qualities as an airline captain. I think anrguments comparing this and the aviation industry to lawyers, accountants or any other 'warm and fuzzy' occupation are a waste of time.

Of course, all just my opinion.

AD

[Woomera]

Thank you ash_d this gets a sticky for common sense and perspective.:ok:

[MkVIII]

A brilliant, insightful post! Thanks Ash!

Captains of the sea, and Captains of the air... brothers.

[Sunfish]

I saw this post from Mr. Ignition Override" on the "Rumors and News" thread "the demise of the Professional Pilot"

I thought it might be germane to some of your discussions...

Ignition Override
Over 500 posts.

US hub-and-spoke airlines, requiring passengers and crews (sometimes hanging around over two hours) to change planes most of the time, were NEVER designed for high employee productivity. High business fares were apparently the foundation for these wasteful operations. After a 10 or 12-hour duty day with short, intense legs flown requiring three or even four rushed changes of aircraft, we feel very productive and tired, but sometimes have logged only about 6 hours of 'block time'. Frustrating, even IF we had more than five hours of sleep in a hotel.

But upper management wants the public to believe that it is the unions' fault that these inefficient operations were created and are, after decades, the heart and soul of daily business, except at Southwest Airlines.

Southwest's 737 pilots are the highest-paid 737 aviators in the US! Southwest has been HEAVILY UNIONIZED for MANY YEARS.

Don't think so? Just check the history over there.... Higher employee costs have not prevented Southwest's brilliant success. They seem to have almost no hub-and-spoke operations. Productivity and high staff/employee morale seem to be the key elements, concepts which are totally lost on typically indifferent, ungifted airline managements in the US. Some airlines attempt to create the superficial facade of a caring management. Who are they really fooling? Most of these so-called "leaders" have no true background in actual airline operations, and little interest in real aviation, as Howard Hughes, Bob Six, Juan Trippe (?) and Eddie Rickenbacker had long ago. At least Continental Airlines has a leader (Bethune) who earned his pilot ratings and has ferried B-757s from the factory. And American Trans Air was created by a pilot, Mr. Mickelson. Even a beginning as a ramp worker or gate agent (at UPS most have worked their way up from loading packages) would create more insight than what most of today's airline CEOs will ever acquire.

[Ultralights]

Most of these so-called "leaders" have no true background in actual airline operations, and little interest in real aviation,

this is the problem right here! and untill this changes, nothing else will.

[druglord]

What's everyone gripping about?
This is happening in every other western country and now oz, only it's about 3 years late. Southwest started the fare war in the US, Easyjet and Ryan in Europe, JetsGo in Canada and now VirginBlue in Australia. Yeah conditions have gone down the gurgler but I don't think anyone is flying for 19K like they are here in the US.
Don't worry, it's gonna get a lot worse.

[cunninglinguist]

Just like to throw this into the mix.
Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. all have the potential to earn big $$$$ with extra study and a bit of hard yakka the earning potential is almost endless ie; lawyer to judge.

The figures that have been bandied around for interns, first year lawyers etc should not be compared to the pay of an airline pilot which is pretty well as far as we can go, it is more comparable to a GA pilot who, if he is real lucky, might get 40k a year for living in the middle of nowhere.

As airline pilots, we are ( arguably ) at the pinnacle of our profession, the only way up is into management.
So those of you who compare us to lawyers, doctors etc, compare our income to those that are at the top of their profession, I think you'll find it's not quite as favourable as you would like to think

[OperationsNormal]

Captain-Fokker 28/CRJ-50 $89715

First Officer-Fokker 28/CRJ-50 $57518

Captain-BAe-146 / Fokker- 100 / Boeing- 717 $97600

First Officer-BAe-146 / Fokker- 100 / Boeing- 717 $62488

Captain-Boeing 737 / Boeing 727 $102600

First Officer-Boeing 737 / Boeing 727 $65600



Base salaries only.

Maybe the award is wrong ?

[RENURPP]

Only speaking of which I know.

Bae 146 Capt $120,000
Bae146 F/O appox $70,000

[rescue 1]

Bulletin February 8, 2005 Geoff Dixon talking about Jetstar
...the airlines we looked at overseas compromised in the deal they had with the pilots...

Why are the Pilots always singled out?

[Agent Mulder]

Because they are always the ones who will gladly do anything to secure someone else's job.

They have always been, and will continue to be, their own worst enemies.

Those of you with any sense of intellect had better start looking for other skills and qualifications, because this job won't be worth having in a few years. Then when the lower gene pool takes over, and things start to go wrong, maybe the salaries will rise. Then again, they do build aeroplanes pretty crash proof these days, don't they?

[ginjockey]

This topic of wages versus study versus responsibility versus lawyers versus doctors has been thrashed to death so many times that it's just not worth worrying about anymore. Time to move on isn't it?

But for my two cents - $230,000 a year is simply way too much to pay some slob to poke about Australia in the front of a jet. The job just isn't worth that sort of money. Regardless of how many "split second live saving" decisions that they think they make each year. This is all fantasy stuff, too many war comics in the flight bag methinks.

Besides, if they were making that many life saving decisons then they should be sacked for getting themselves into that situation anyway.

Secondly, argue as you do about the difference between $100 grand and $180 grand a year but the fact is that most of you wouldn't know what to do with that sort of money even if you were earning it so stop getting all heated about it.



Gin.

[Classic Dick]

Airline reject are we GJ ?:confused:

[AllInGoodTime]

GJ

It is not all about the decisions that these pilots have to make, I am sure this sort of money takes to account a compensatory factor of being away from home alot. Sure these people make the decision to be airline pilots, but surely they need to be compensated properly considering not only their skill, hard work, but the impact it has on their private lives. They miss a fair bit of their kids growing up.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I think you have to realise the way the labour system works in capitalism. People pay the LOWEST amount they need to , to get the numbers of workers they require to make maximum profit.

If companies are short on pilots , they have to pay more -- up until the cost means that hiring another pilot doesn't help profit.

I don't think it is fair for people to throw mud at people for accepting less in pay&conditions (in substitute for losing their job). Basically what people are saying is "You take a hit for the team, and lose your job so that my pay won't decline".

Everyone has to make a living . If you can't accept the pay , don't accept it and find another job. It doesn't matter what you think you should be getting paid , unfortunately it only matters what people are going to pay you. Just look at the difference in pay between someone working on a cure for cancer, and someone who plays golf professionally.

Nothing will ever change. A stronger union may get hirer wages, but the net result would be fewer pilots.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love more money -- but ...

That's just the way it is. :(

[bigfella5]

Jeez............here we go again.....Ginjockey, apart from showing your mentality level...(about on par with a rock)..in the choice of nickname, I have to take my hat off to your windup attempt, well done my lad!!!
The choice is simple...continue as is and earn what an interstate truck driver earns...or....unionise in a cohesive fashion and bring the airline industry to its knees. Until that happens, condiitons will go from bad to worse.
The rest of this subject has been done to death......Woomera, please give this almost dead horse a final belt!!!!!!

[ginjockey]

Yeah yeah attack ginjockey over his abstact online name and the fact he has an opinion different to yours. Attack him because his opinion goes against the common flow of cry baby muck that some of you "underpaid" sooks spew out. All done with....? Great.

What I'm saying to you is that if our particular skills were worth $250K a year to a company we would be getting it. They are not!

Personally, I make under 90 grand a year and I am pretty happy with that. Paying the mortgage, half decent car, a few toys, enough for a night out when it suits me. I don't need to make $300 grand a year to have a choice life so I don't dwell on the fact that someone is getting it somewhere else. Good on 'em, get a good accountant is my only advice.
I'm bloody happy with what I can do with my present cash and I'm not going to die in a ditch bleating for another fifty grand a year that I can happily live without.

If you blokes all NEED to make $200K a year then your problems go way beyond simple employment conditions.

I get paid fairly for what I am expected to produce, it's not hard work and most importantly...... I ENJOY IT.

I tell you what. If you feel so strongly about it then back yourself, walk in, ask for a payrise and put your indefensible case to the boss. Let me know how you go with it.

[Dark Knight]

Maybe this should have been said here?

Perhaps a few people should review. refresh & learn the history of pilot/ management relationships starting back to the 1930s. (not just here, read the excellent books & articles from ALPA)

And don't forget to pause for a thorough reading of Eastern Airlines, Continental, Pan Am, TWA, etc. with reference to the management practices taught in the `Frank Lorenzo School of Airline Management' where Strong & Dixon graduated with distinction. (Ansett management after Abeles failed miserably except those who went to QF)(Did I here someone mention an aged small paddock?)

Those who call for a strong, unified union need a monumental reality check as a union is only as stong as its memebers and their unity.

A union with weak members, a union without a united sense of direction, a union which within it has members who have demonstrated they care liitlle for their fellow man forming a cancer within, is doomed to failure.

Management recognising and understanding these weaknesses can, and will, exploit them ruthlessly.

It is little use whinging and whining about it if you are not prepared to pay.

Losers whine about the past and what could be, winners go home and fcuk the Prom Queen!

[Ralph the Bong]

Hi Ginjocky!!

I like your post. I think you should post more often. When I read it, I realize that that you are dumber than me. This realization fills me with joy as it is further proof that I posess an intellect that places me in the top 3% of the world's population and that you are somewhere down below. It further enhances my ego that I disagree with you.

Let me put this succinctly, so that even you can understand; Your intellectual capacity is that of a slightly trained simian who has mastered the use of a keyboard, nothing more.

Because you have made it so crystal clear that you have failed to comprehend the issue, a B747-400 Captain sits on about $1,000,000,000 of liability, assuming a total hull loss with all lives on board. If you do not a pay a salary that is commensurate with the responsibility, then you will get a dummy who might f$#$%^ up at the moment of truth and then cost the community really big, BIG bucks. Smart people will cost money.

You are happy on less than $90, 000. PA.

Need I say more?



:ok:

[schnauzer]

A good post, Ralph, but I doubt that he will have understood it.:p

And it seems that Dark Knight is WK, the DCP of Qantas in disguise. Out for some more tyranny in management are we DK?

[Lodown]

It might be an idea to take on and change Federal legislation first. Changes made there had far more effect in significantly reducing the bargaining power of unions. Ho hum...

ash_d at the risk of getting bagged for asking a really stoopid question - Do shipping companies have simulators or is it all hands-on?

[bonvol]

DK = WK you reckon Schnauzer?

You may be right. He does seem to possess an encyclopaedic knowledge of union business.

And he should know!

[Dark Knight]

schnauzer missed the point completely.

History shows Qantas management has been screwing their staff for ages having one of the worst industrial relations records of any airline.

There has only been one occasion, to my recollection, where the QF pilots had the intestinal fortitude to take any serious action to further & protect their profession.

Pilots in this country once had a professional union which was as strong as the members within it and did very, very well protecting and furthering pilots salary & conditiions; a union is only as strong as its members and unity of those members.

The QF pilots were first to leave for their own perceived selfish reasons & when the whatsit really hit the fan sat by on the sidelines blinded by the observations`it will not happen to us.'

And where is the industry now?

QF salaries & conditions always under serious attack; Aust airlines - lower pay & conditions, Jet* - we will fly for less and on QF mainland routes (would never happen?); and now, wherever the 717 is going we will fly it for less again? For the Ansett integration squabbles insert any airline within the QF group. One only has to read PPRune to observe tha answers.

I have no truck with airline management particularly QF; I ws only stating the bleeding obvious, airline management have the pilots measure, know the weaknesses within particularly the cancer within they created. They have the big stick and are using it very, very successfully.

It is of little use calling for a strong union if you are not prepared to stand up and be counted as one.

Reading the history mentioned illustrates pilots overall have failed to learn the lessons of the past.

The same old arguments about what a Dr. lawyer, tinker, taylor, sailor, crane, train or bus driver are worth have all been done to death before, prove nothing except detracting people from the main point to irrelevant drivel.

You are worth what you and your profession think you are worth and what you are prepred to stand up for and negotiate.

QF management obviously thingk you are worth peanuts and works assiduously towards reluctantly paying you this.

If you think you are worth more, then as ONE you have to stand up, stay standing up and say this is what you WILL pay us for our services! No IFS, no Buts!

Until such time as this happens most of what I am reading is whining which is distracting me from fcuking the prom queen.

DK

PS>> apologies to the guys from Braniff where, if memory serves me correctly, this is where modern airline management, pilot relationships all started. (was Braniff or Continental Lorenzo's originating port?)

[ginjockey]

Ralph, Here's your news flash......

*** If our piloting skills WERE as valuable as you imagine, we WOULD be getting paid accordingly. ****

Maybe cut back on the old bong a bit.

And what's with all the insults anyway?? Rushing in making personal attacks over a difference of opinion. Not an attractive quality. Try and keep it sensible or just sit quietly while the grown- ups talk OK.

[ash_d]

Lodown,

Its a good question. Complicated answer though. In training levels there is some sim work but its real basic stuff. There are no real "off the showroom floor" ships so its hard to come up with generic models for sims which would 'feel' anything like the real thing but its an ongoing debate.
Marine Pilots (the folks who pilot ships in and out of most ports / canals etc) use sims to practice tight / slow manouvers and emergency recovery manouvers for thier particular local conditions.
Sims are used to test a port or a confined area if there are intentions to push the margins, eg: to find out if 'x' size / type vessel can safely navigate at or thru 'x' location. We would ask a training org to write a sim for the port in question, then introduce the vessel characteristics we need and when its all ready, we'll play with it using different weather / sea conditions to see what works and what doesn't so we can whip up an SOP or use it to convince authourities to let us give it a bash.
Of course, sims are also used to test ship designs and mods.

But as far as jo bloggs the deck officer goes, not much sim time compared to aviation.

[schnauzer]

DK, much of what you state may be true, but it sure as hell hurts!:ouch: :ouch: :ouch:

I'm convinced now that you aren't WK though. He wouldn't stand a chance in hell of going anywhere near the prom queen!:} :p :ok:

[bonvol]

Can't argue with that DK. All very sad but true.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I don't know why people think straying from the union line is selfish. A union is just a collective of selfish people. Unions do nothing in the modern era except harm the economy.
The sooner the practice of "compulsory unionism" is totally ended the better we all will be.

A union asking for more wages only prevents other people getting jobs in the same industry. :eek:

Everyone complains if a company like the old Telecom has a monopoly and prices it's products accordingly -- Why does no-one have a problem with a union having a monopoly on labour and pricing wages monopolistically.

:yuk: Unions..

[ReadMyACARS]

After 5 pages of this drivel, I still haven't found anyone who can tell us what exactly were the concessions that NJS pilots had to make.

If there were any.

Okay kiddies back to the bitching and whinging.

[rescue 1]

I wonder who is paying for the A380 endorsement? :confused:

[Icarus2001]

Airbus Industries

[Capt Claret]

Sleuth,

If we took your advice then QF would in all probability announce that they were unable to finalise terms with NJS and that Jetstar was now the preferred tendered, subject to the successful negotiation of operating conditions.

Besides, there was no pressure from the company.

[dirty deeds]

We are all at the cross roads of where our profession is heading! Anyone with any small amount of intuition, forsight or business accumen can clearly see that unless some of the serious issues that will effect the future of our careers are tackeled now, and with a united force (let the barage of quotes begin, " It's been tried before and failed, look at 89", " Everyones looking out for themselves", " Lets compare surgins, lawyers etc etc") its time we forgot all this crap and looked inwards towards each other and ourselves and really grew some backbone and gained some sence of pride in ourselves and each other.

Lets not just sit hear and complain about what our management are trying to do to our profession and let it happen right in front of our eyes, lets be pro-active instead of being just a reactionary group of professionals, what should be happening when one group of pilots from company XYZ are about to BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again), pilots from other companies should forget all their narrow minded self serving commitments and stand together as a group of professionals willing to uphold the very institutions and ethics of professionalism we display everyday online in the cockpit.

History has proven that the current form of representation we have is not working. Our representatives in my small and meaningless opinion are very similar to all of us who are only there to serve their best interests (and preserve their B727 check Captains pay etc etc.) at the expence of our conditions and professionalism. Its also been proven that our comments, arguments, suggestions seem to always pass unheeded, especially when EBA negotiations are underway. And why may you all ask does this happen time and time again, its because firstly we let this happen, secondly our best interests are not acted upon, and thirdly the ties between our representatives and our managements is too cosy for our liking.

You may all ask the question how do we rectify this problem?

Firstly we gain some moral fibre and sence of pride in ourseleves and gain some upper hand in stopping our management from down grading, or should I say down playing our professionalism, (I bet if GD or BG or the general public were sitting in seat A or B, and the number 1 engine is on fire, would they be thinking about shareholders expectations, yields, squeezing the last possible cent out of every possible department, of course not, they would be thinking I hope the people at the pointy end dont f#%^ this up).

I pose the question of starting a unified group of the whole collective pilot body in this country that uses independant, highly qualified industrial/law experts that are total untouchable in regards to the above comments, that once their tasks are completed they move on (their contract finishes) and our current represention is used as a policing tool in regards to the finalised agreements.

Do any of my fellow professionals agree?
How do we go about doing this?
Will any common sence prevail?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

bet if GD or BG or the general public were sitting in seat A or B, and the number 1 engine is on fire, would they be thinking about shareholders expectations, yields, squeezing the last possible cent out of every possible department, of course not, they would be thinking I hope the people at the pointy end dont f#%^ this up).

Probably not. But I bet they won't be thinking "Geez if this pilot was getting paid another $3,000 I'd have a better chance of living" ...

"Tell 'im he's drreeeamen"

[captainrats]

The moment you become a management pilot your membership of the AIPA should be supended until such time arises when you return to the ranks.During this time the AIPA offers no representation and you do not receive any information whatsoever.Your web access(AIPA) is also suspended.

[Icarus2001]

issues that will effect tackeled now Lets compare surgins sence of pride Will any common sence prevail? sence of pride in ourseleves

Nice sentiments dirty deeds but your post speaks volumes. Tell me are you a professional pilot?

[dirty deeds]

Icarus2001, yes I am. Why do you ask?

[Andu]

What Icarus is trying to say, dd, is that your arguments might carry more weight if you were to make use of your computer's spell checker before hitting the 'send' button. I know the marks you got in English Expression have absolutely no bearing on how you fly an aeroplane, but the fact remains, if you’re claiming ‘professional’ status, correct spelling does aid your argument, if not in all, then certainly in many people’s eyes.

I’m afraid I’m here to kick you while you’re down. You say We are all at the cross roads of where our profession is heading!I’m afraid that crossroads was reached 15 years ago, when a minority of Australian pilots, but unfortunately a large enough minority, made a fateful decision that has affected everyone in the industry in the years since.

Spelling mistakes notwithstanding, I genuinely applaud your sentiments and wish you well at the crossroads you and your colleagues finds yourselves today. It is possible that the enormous damage that was started by the ‘heroes’ of 1989 can be undone, but as someone has said before me, it’s going to take a leader – and an overwhelming majority of what I’ll very inaccurately call ordinary pilots – with tremendous nerve and courage to achieve it.

Don’t for one moment think that the hurdles you will have to face are any steeper than were those faced by the pilots who established ALPA back in the 1920’s and 30’s. I urge you to read ‘Flying the Line’, the story of the establishment of US ALPA. The bastardry practised by the management (and their all too willing ‘hero’ helpers within the pilot ranks) of those times was every bit as nasty as anything management of today have thrown our way.

[Animalclub]

Dirty Deeds
I'm not a pilot, and I'm not a stirrer (well, not always).

If it was possible to get all pilots into one union, as you wish, how does the union negotiate pay and conditions for different airlines/aircraft operators? All just can't afford wages and conditions that, say, QF grant.

Could, say, QF state to the union that pay and conditions for XYZ operator which operates similar or same equipment is so much - so why should we pay more?

Please understand that I use QF only as an example as, from reading these message boards, they appear to pay the highest wages and give the most generous conditions.

Would it be better to get the total workforce of each different airline in the same union to do the bargaining/negotiations rather than many different unions pulling in different directions?

I don't know.

[dirty deeds]

Andu and Icarus2001

Thanks for letting me know how intelligent and smart you both are. You have just proven the point I was trying to make in my discussion. I hope you guys never have to a make a decision that will effect your lives, cause I think I know which side of the fence you would propably sit on.
Have a great Day!

[captainrats]

Well so much for that attempt at accord.There will never be peace on earth and Airline Companies are well aware of this .Give it another 5 years and you will be receiving the same renumeration as a train driver.
Guess who will be to blame???

[Spad]

'dirty deeds', if you were as quick to take good advice as you are to bite back at what to me looked like pretty fair comments from 'Icarus2001' and 'Andu', you might get somewhere in your quest to be treated as a professional.

From where I sit, 'Icarus2001' was spot on in pointing out your many typos, and 'Andu' was only answering the question you yourself asked before going on to wish you well - and you bite his **** head off.

I'm afraid the last poster is also right in his conclusions.

[rescue 1]

I was reading some stuff on Brig. Gen Charles "Chuck" Yeager - there is a man that has done an enormous amount for aviation, who until his retirement at age 80, earned a simple service income. He said the secret to a happy life was to work where you want to work, and live within your means.

[Three Bars]

Dirty Deeds,

I started a post called "what happens next time??" about five days again that said much the same thing as you have said, (namely be proactive and have a common union). It had 5 replies and the thread then died.

Those that did reply said basically that I was too idealistic and that it would never happen because pilots are all too selfish. To me, it seems that most pilots on this forum are happy to see all the white-anting and back-dooring going on as long as it is to their betterment.

So maybe those replies are right. Pilots are too selfish and therefore we deserve what we get, and management will laugh all the way to the bank with their bonuses that we earned for them and subsidised through our reduced conditions.

In line with the spirit exhibited by most members of this board, I will be fighting to keep what I have. Watch for the next QF EBA though - if ever one was going to be voted down it will be this one.

To Animalclub, as I recall, both sides (TAA and Ansett) were represented by the AFAP prior to 1989, so there is a precedent.

[Animalclub]

Three Bars

I think you're correct regarding AN and TN, but weren't they paying similar wages and granting similar conditions?

I was thinking along the lines that it could be difficult (I didn't say impossible) if one union represented say Virgin AND QF shorthaul pilots...(hey, they may do now, for all I know) arguing for differing wages/conditions when pilots fly similar equipment.

On the other hand is that what pilots want?

[ginjockey]

Rescue 1,

You said it. It should not be only about the money. Too much emphasis on it these days.

[piniped]

Back in the days when ships were wood and men were steel,
Air Traffic Controllers had their pay based on the salary of the FO of a DC9.

So, my question is...do FO's now get about 120K per year? And if they do, what do the captains now get?

Similarly, do you think that ATC's are overpaid?

[Flying Tiger]

In my opinion this long, slow race to the bottom will shortly be replaced by a very sharp, quick sprint to the top.

The industry is changing rapidly and as employers exploit pilots, we as a group become downcast as real wages initially decline and paying for endorsements becomes standard. This has two effects - first, it makes airlines more efficient, and second, it makes the industry less attractive to prospective pilots.

More efficient industries mean more growth. No industry was more in need of change than the airline industry, and the efficiencies being created are leading to massive worldwide growth. Essentially this means more aircraft, and obviously more pilots. This growth will be more resistant to cyclic downturns for the simple reason that it is more flexible and more efficient.

At the same time management screw pilots in the short term because there is still fat out there from the historically inefficient legacy carriers, but this can only last for so long. With less pilots coming in (and why would you start now), there will be a MASSIVE shortfall of pilots within 5 years.

A common theme amongst the new players is they have plans for very fast growth, which means they require experienced operators, and the supply is becoming quite thin on the ground.
If you don't believe me look around you. China, Japan, and Singapore are desperate for expat pilots and will be so for at least the next decade - it takes a long time for a cadet to reach Captain. In India there have been several press reports in the past couple of weeks highlighting the dire plight of the newly deregulated industry's growth prospects due to the lack of experienced pilots, and all carriers including the state owned dinosaurs have indicated a requirement for foreigners. A320 pilots in Singapore have just had a significant pay rise. Virgin Blue have instituted a significant rise in the form of their "retention allowance", so disguised so the rest of the company don't object to percentage increases greater than the standard 3%. Jetconnect have lost 10 percent of their pilot body in the last 3 months, and this despite a significant base payrise, a retention allowance, and the inclusion of overtime over 65 hours. There is no jet experience left in NZ and all their new FO's have no jet time and can't take commands for at least a couple of years. Its not as if they can call upon the airforce any more! They are now looking at direct entry captains, but who knows where they'll come from? The net 737 FO package, even if you make adjustments for currency and super, is only about 10K less than I get as a 767 FO in Australia (Ive don the sums, don't make me print them). The major factor in this is the lower tax rates.

So I say to the NJS guys, you only have to cop the crap if you are adamant you want to stay where you are. Settled with a wife, kids in school etc, all valid reasons. But if not, don't cop it. Don't bother paying for a dead end 717 endorsement. You may as well spend the same money on a 737 or A320 qualification and get a job with ongoing employment prospects. Look around you and see whats on offer. The structure and conditions are different to old style carriers, but the money is really not so bad if you're prepared to work. You can then screw the same shortsighted management types that are now screwing you on the basis they think pilots are a dime a dozen. That may be true on the surface, but EXPERIENCED pilots are nowhere to be found. Take charge of your own destiny. There is so much more out there.

FT

[cornholeyo]

Flying just isn't that hard compared to other professions Who the hell said that????

If that's true, why do so many doctors make absolutely TRAGIC private pilots??

Eventually conditions will reach the point where guys would rather crop-dust, for a little less. Then they can palm off airline-flying to the train-drivers' union and morons like the above-quoted will finally be happy.


Sorry to hear you didn't make it in aviation, R405

[Chris Higgins]

I know plenty of doctors that do a great job of flying an aeroplane too, it's just that the thinking processes are completely different. If they get the right guidance as students and are kept humble, there's not a problem with the outcome, much like celebrities.

Flying Tiger

Your solutions do appear somewhat flawed. You insist that an individual already employed and settled shouldn't pay for an endorsement, then insist he go out and buy another one?!

I say that you should all stop paying for bloody jobs-period!

[Pinky the pilot]

Three Bars; Re your post above which referred to the earlier thread you started; Sorry if my reply in that thread gave you the impression that I considered you too idealistic. My intent was far from that! I do hold the opinion that some pilots are too selfish for their own good, however I do hope that eventually the profession as a whole will wake up before it's too late and preferably unite under one banner.
The various managements of various airlines must be rubbing their hands together with glee at the fragmentation and infighting that is going on currently within the pilot fraternity, for they realise the truth in the old saying that disunity is death.
The big question is, do we?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Kaptin M]

I'm in agreement with Flying Tiger on most of his points.
Management have been very short-sighted, and overly aggressive during the past decade or so, and the chickens are now coming home to roost - to the detriment of those managers.

In those companies where the pilots have been "abused", there is no longer the company "spirit" that existed in many airlines, prior to these attacks on our conditions.
It was almost as if pilots were being PUNISHED for being pilots, and for the inefficiency of the schedulers who roster us.
Items that cost the company absolutely ZERO - such as upgradeable travel on space available - were taken away, along with the salary and allowance reductions.
Company loyalty has been beaten out of us, together with most other staff members.
"Loyalty" now goes to the highest bidder!
Staff have become a commodity now, whereas before they were an ASSET.

SAFETY is just a buzz word with modern management - a word that they believe they can throw around on the odd occasion to keep the regulators happy, whilst preparing schedules that do not take into account start/finish times.
These rosters would probably work okay for the 9-5'ers doing the rostering - people who have a regular sleep pattern, sleeping in the same familiar surrounds each night - and working at normal O2 levels, getting up and leaving their desk to make a trip to the toilet, or to grab a cup of water/tea/coffee, when they want to.
NONE of these factors leading to crew fatigue are a consideration in crew scheduling.
And so, along with the obvious cost cutting, I believe SAFETY has also been reduced under this New Age management.

Pilots have had a lot taken away from them - there is a lot to regain, before we get back to where we were a decade ago.
It's now a case of whichever company is willing to offer the BEST package that will determine how well those companies are able to meet their future growth requirements to make bigger profits, through aircraft crewing requirements, whilst the others downsize, or disappear completely!

Imo, the pilot workforce has never been as "mobile" as it is today - many pilots are now willing to move from one country to another, for enhanced employment opportunities.

[Sunfish]

I have a sneaking suspicion that QF's profits aree coming from winding back "provisions" ie provisions for annual leave, sick leave, long service leave and so on.

Your senior cabin staff are being forced to take leave because the provision has to increased every time they get a pay rise. The less leave "overhang", the less the increase in the provision.

Of course if pilots and others resign in frustration and are replaced with people on "new" (lesser) awards then the provisions can be reduced yet again. The reduction of course goes straight to the bottom line as profit.

Translation : They don't want you. You cost too much.

I'd check the super funds as well. They are frequently used as a hollow log.

[Ralph the Bong]

I would say that it is time to get fifth column. NOW! The whole industry in Oz is going right down the toilet unless you people stop wring your limp-wristed little hands and GO ON STRIKE!

For the National jet boys: Do not fork over any money for you B717 training. The company is now committed to service the contract. Use this to your advantage to screw the bastards over. Get some GOOD advice on the tort position so as you aren't liable. I would say that there is NO requirement in the Workplace Relations Act that says that you have to pay for your training. To do so is unreasonable and you will almost certainly be able to argue the point! Take them on in court and SET A F#&ING PRECEDENT!!! Even AIPA could join forces or provide assistance as it is just a matter of time before it will be a requirement the the pilot pays for upgrade training at QF!

Or do nothing and get screwed. Up to you, really. Good luck.

[Ralph the Bong]

News online
First step to victory for Ryanair pilots

3 February 2005

Irish pilots employed by low-cost anti-union airline Ryanair have won the first part of a court battle with the airline, securing a guaranteed investigation into their complaints against the company.

Ryanair pilots, supported by the Irish Airline Pilots Union (IALPA) - part of the Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union (IMPACT)- were complaining about victimisation after the company employed bullying tactics against them. These included being forced to pay 15,000 euros for training to fly new aircraft; if they refused, they faced the sack.

The Irish labour court, unconvinced that Ryanair’s employee representative committees constituted independent bargaining forums, highlighted “the need for new measures to afford additional support to employees where there are no arrangements for independent negotiation on pay and conditions.”

The court’s ruling on 25 January means that the IALPA/IMPACT claim that Ryanair pilots should be given a copy of their terms and conditions of employment may be given a hearing. The complaint regarding victimisation in the workplace may also now be heard by an Irish Rights’ Commissioner.

Ingo Marowsky, ITF Civil Aviation Secretary commented, “In its support for its IALPA division, IMPACT strives to provide employees in Ryanair with a collective voice as well as give them their pride back. This is a breakthrough for the Irish pilots, and we have congratulated the union wholeheartedly on behalf of our affiliates.”

[Thewad]

Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen, we suffer one major disadvantage compared to all other professions - we love what we do. All we desire is to fly. This presents quite a disadvantage when we want to negotiate a remuneration package.
Monkeys can fly but only aviators take it as a profession.
In reality most of us would do it for free, but we want to be paid a good wage. It's not easy to see the solution.
We ahve to risk what we love to get what we want.

[sys 4]

test test test test

[Pass-A-Frozo]

The whole industry in Oz is going right down the toilet unless you people stop wring your limp-wristed little hands and GO ON STRIKE

:yuk:

Ever heard the saying don't bite the hand that feeds you? Well, no-one will ever get me to strike and I don't care what you label me. Striking is selfish.

It's not like you're a POW asking to get at least one meal a day.
If you don't like the pay / conditions, go to your boss and ask for more money . YOU ASK. If he says no, you can quit. simple.

:yuk:unions.

[Capt Claret]

Ralph,

Don't give up your day job to become an IR advocate.

NJS is "preferred tenderer subject to satisfactory negotiation of the operating agreement".

I can imagne how satisfactorally the negotiations will go if NJS goes back to Qantas and says, forget about our bid here's a new one! :oh:

[Ralph the Bong]

Pass-a frozo..

Don't worry, I am going to heap invective upon you. You seem a little too delicate.

"Striking is selfish" Wow. What a good little boyscout you are. I bet the boss and the shareholders just LoVe you:p .

Ever heard the saying "If you cannot bite the arse that sh!ts on you, then kiss it"? 'Seems more applicable in this case.

I can just see you asking for a rise (cap in hand) the boss saying "NO!!" then you appologising and asking if he asking if he would like you to get him a cup of tea or something.. (Oh .. um ..sorry...um can I get you a cuppa..'mate'..haha...would you like to me to bend over and assume the position again, boss?:= )

If you think that the only options after being knocked back for a pay rise are either staying or quitting then you have VERY limited powers of intellect.

Clarrie, I can under stand your problem now if the contract has not been signed, You beef is with your employer who has said basically "sign or else". Well, are you going to be stood over all of your life? (Just thought of that line from the movie 'Mad Max': "Any...thing... you say.. what a great philosopy of life") What they have presented the pilot body at NJS is amoral.

What is being put to you is that

you are now required to subsidize their business. They are telling you that you must dig into your personal wealth to pay for the business to operate. If this is going to happen, then at least require that you become a shareholder with all commensurate rights. You have them by the balls by the sound of things. If they lose the QF contract, they go broke. Its a booming market for pilots out there, mate. You'll get another job.

Remember the building indusrty tactic of the concrete pour: wait under the pour is half way through, then down tools. So, you should give consideration to waiting until the contract has been signed and then put the screws into NJS. They will then be under pressure to provide the service to QF. Like I said GET LEGAL ADVICE AND GET HELP FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. Good luck.

[Capt Claret]

Ralph,

You speak of things you don't know.

At no time has the company said "sign or else", either to me or to my knowlege, to any one.

It was a competitive tender. The tender was based on agreed conditions. Had the tendered bottom line been higher than it was then perhaps instead of continued employment, many of us would be looking at a bleak future.

Perhaps not.

We'll probably never really know the full details.

[Ralph the Bong]

Clarrie,

I know that NJS has said to you that they have sought to tender at the lowest price. As part of the low price, the cost of training on the B717 has been passed onto you. They have either said or implied that you continued employment is contingent upon the pilot group asceeding to this request/demand. This sounds like an 'Or Else...' to me.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Ralph,

You're right. There is another option. You could found an economic system where people are paid what their skill set is worth, and pay levels are set by a central body. Oh, that's right ... there is one already.. it's called Communism. Shame the USSR collapsed, you could be booking you're airfare to the Union right now.. :rolleyes:

Unions have a dead weight loss on the economy. If you want to argue they result in positive outcomes, read up on Monopsonies (in relation to the demand for labour). I may agree with you in that circumstance.

As for your comments of the "shareholders" or "boss's" loving me, well you're probably right. Got a problem with that? Become a shareholder, go to the QANTAS annual general meeting and argue that the company should try to increase the cost base.

Anyway, keep trying to push costs up by demanding you get paid more than you're worth to the company - I'm sure you'll be the first one in tears on the news when you've lost you're job because the company moves jobs offshore or goes out of business because it can't compete. I'm off to make the boss a coffee :ok:

[grip-pipe]

Some of you guys really have missed the point here. We are at the bottom and from here on in it is about how low the water level can go.

Any form of endorsement training is employment related, otherwise why would you go through the drama of a command type rating on a transport category aircraft, for fun! So the employer requires that skill not the industry just that employer, that makes it their operating cost, not yours or mine. Once an industry standard there is no going back, so the offload of that cost to you the employee is complete, when and how it works through mainline QF is anybodies guess, but it will, QF is the standout now not the rest.

This is all not such a bad thing, if you fund the qualification, you own the skill, so its transferrable to other markets like overseas operators. The cost is an allowable outlay to earn income until the ATO says otherwise, so you reduce your tax and offset the cost. The issue is equity and access. If I come from a background where access to capital for education is not a reality, I have to generate surplus from my income, so it takes longer and may if you make other choices along the way, be impossible. That is inequitable.

EBAs and WPGs are here to stay, industry standards will provide a commencing platform for conditions but thats all, after all Cathay drivers are not working for a bowl of rice a day are they? Believe it or not there is a raft of quite established contract law which supports your interests vis a vis the employer as well. If your communal in orientation then the issue is how to fund the collective in using the Courts. Frankly, my interests are very much tied to the success or otherwise of my employer(s) so while I find the industry wide issues interesting, like every other driver I will look after my personal interest first and I am only interested in my company succeeding and surviving, not yours, are you going to be responsible if not? No of course not.

The Ryan Air case while illuminating is not binding on any Australian Court. If you think a return to the days of imposed costs via the IRC and awards, then you have paid no attention to where IR has gone and is going in Oz at the moment.

The issue is also one of choice, if you pay now for your further training you can actually perhaps make a better choice about what qualifications you would really spend money on. I found a HECS supported vocational course and that is the choice I have made in the face of paying for additional or more in aviation. Putting out more cash for a piloting ticket is a bad investment in myself. In the face of my departure in several years my employers will realise it may have been cheaper to fund the training investment themselves, but then I won't care.

Simple HuH!

[pgroper]

Rah rah rah, sorry if I repeat something in the seven pages I didn't read, but all I can see is that wage bargaining is a game, like winning a court case, and big companies (eg Q), are very good at it. They have an ongoing process involving softening the employees up with beautifully written and produced (with colour photos) literature. This stuff is basically propoganda about how the shareholders need bigger profits, and even though "the company" is making a massive profit already, it is not enough. If employees want to avoid the possibility of the company folding and everyone losing out, then they'd better toe the line and accept offsets for any wage increases they may get. (an offset means: if you get a pay rise, even in accordance with inflation, then you must give up something to get it). Every offset is a devaluation of the worth of every pilot, and the big companies are very good at training us to be ready to accept it. This is understandable, they are doing their job, and any executive will get a bigger salary and payout if they can screw the workers as much as possible (if the workers actually like it all the better). I have no answer, except to see what is going on and start to question it. At least by talking about what is going on, it makes it harder for them to pull the wool over our eyes, and they 'may have to work a bit harder to turn us into slaves.

[Iakklat]

:O

[numbskull]

When will we have hit rock bottom?

When 1 single union tells their employer that I'm sorry but your offer is not good eneough and we are going to engage in protected industrial action in accordance with IRC rules until you can offer something that is acceptable to us.

QF LAMES are currently in EBA negotiations and of course they have stalled because QF won't offer anything beside the standard 3% as long as we sell our soul again.

Well I get the feeling that we might just be pissed off as a union eneough to tell them to get stuffed!! All you cabin crew and tech crew can help by calling for a LAME whenever you need help or would like us to check something you're not sure about.

There just aren't eneough of us to go around and it might result in delays(which is an anathema to us all) but they simply won't listen otherwise!!!!!!

I'm sure it will be easier for pilots, flight attendants and everyone else to argue for a 5-6 % pay increase if the LAMES got one(in line with the rest of the country).

So if we do engage in protected industrial action in coming weeks help us and help yourselves by calling for a LAME if in doubt about something. Remember-the company motto is "BE SAFE"

You never know it could signify the bottom for all of us!!!!!!

[rtforu]

Afraid to say the horse bolted years ago folks. All anyone can do these days is make as much as you can as fast as you can, and if somebody offers you somthing better, take it with both hands!

[cunningham]

Food for thought. Found this article in a recent edition of the Financial Review.


Netballers join union

The Australian Netball Players Association has signed a deal with the Australian Workers Union. The alliance is aimed at improving the income and health and safety conditions of elite players.

If a group of netballers can get their act together why can't the Australian Pilot body?

In the past I personally have had resrvations about unions especially after what happened in the 70's. Many of the Unions of the day brought many companies to their knees. (My father's included.) This left a bad taste in my mouth for a long time.

However, as I have sat back and watched this industry sink like the Titanic I strongly feel if we want to salvage anything from this industry we must unite. I strongly believe there is no other way.

In a previous life I was an accountant and we had dozens of guys on our books who were working in underground mines operating equipment worth millions of dollars. Many of the guys ( and girls) were licenced to operate 5 or six machines.

NONE of these people paid for their licences/endorsements.

[Ultralights]

Pass-A-Frozo Can i employ you? :D i would love a coffee every hour! oh, and you will be working a 55 hr week! annual leave, hmmmmmm no. sick leave, only if you die! superannuation? HA!
but ill pay you $1200 a week after taxes and you will pay for your HR and HC licences,and medicals and forkies ticket, but if you want to earn $1300 a week, you will need a dangerous good ticket, that will cost you about $2000. and while your out there on the road, you will pay for the fuel you use, i will reimbuse you the GST component.

does this sound fair to you?

Unions have their place. otherwise you would be seriously considering my offer above.



A communist state! its called NSW, why should i pay land tax and vendor tax to help a first home owner? oh, and if i walk to a sporting event, i will pay tax to cover those going by train.


great windup!

:ok:

[Exciter Box]

Pass-A-Frozo

:yuk: unions.

You must have the utimate employee if you don't see any value in Unions, and good luck to you if that is the case.

As far as I am concerned my Union Membership Card is as an essential item in my flight bags as my approach plates, torch etc.

Perhaps you are confusing general union membership with the more militant such as those from the past, ie: BLF SP&D and the Waterfront Workers.

Maybe Ultralights is correct, a windup.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Ultralights:

1> No I won't work for those conditions. I just wouldn't accept your job.
2> However also, I won't join a union, accept your conditions and then complain like a 12 year old girl who lost her barbie doll. I reckon union members are nothing but a pack of whingers. Take what you're worth. I think most of us are overpaid anyway.

Unions no value: It's true. It is economic fact. Unions cost the economy money . They cost jobs, and force companies to pay people more than they are worth. You only like unions because you are selfish and wish to be paid more than the economy says you are worth. People like you complain about the state of the aviation industry in Australia. You want hundreds of jobs, and them all to pay well. Welcome to life, it doesn't work that way.

If you don't like the pay and conditions, put up with it or change jobs. It's called supply and demand. :ok:

You want to see what people think of pilots and the pilots union take a trip up to Kalbarri. Where pilots going on strike put a seafood company out of business and left hundreds of families broke. :yuk:

You're not living in a Nazi death camp. Don't like the pay, QUIT.

I'm not stopping you joining a union. But, don't complain because people like me won't join with you, and refuse to strike.

[HIALS]

In my present Company we have a doctor, several lawyers, several Masters (MSc, MEc, MAppFin etc not bullsh1t MBA's - though there's a few of them in the management...), lot's of Bachelor degrees and so on and so forth. They are all pilots.

Should they be paid for the multiples of years spent training for all their qualifications and to recognise all their intelligence - or should they just be paid for being pilots?

I'm sure they all think it's only fair to receive pilot wages. But their existence does highlight the nonsense of claiming that 'pilots', as a class of humans, couldn't do those sort of jobs.

As a general point - I think comparisons between occupations are unwelcome and unhelpful. Each occupation is a unique blend of attributes and occupies it's own place in the greater labour market. Benchmarking is bullsh1t.

What we need is a tightening of the labour market in our particular area.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Don't like the pay, QUIT

What sort of twisted logic is that?

How about.. don't like the pay, collectively and responsibly bargain for a better deal, preferably for a win-win situation with your employer, thereby enhancing both your bottom lines.

Pass-a-frozo.. let me guess... Air force?.. Military of some type. Been there... swallowed the propaganda... then saw the real world.:*

[Believe Brother]

The_Cutest_of_Borg

You are exactly correct about the responsible collective bargaining with the employer. Unfortunately, most Airlines these days don't want to be responsible to their employees, only the shareholders (or oil-wealthy owners), and hence executive management.

However, grouping ex-military pilots in the same lot as Pass-a-Frozo, only serves to divide the pilot community further, and hence assist the overall outdated, but regularly used, management plan of 'divide and conquer'. Most of the ex-military pilots I know agree with responsible bargaining. Maybe Pass-a-Frozo just has his own 'unique' :hmm: set of values.

[Point0Five]

collectively and responsibly bargain for a better deal, preferably for a win-win situation with your employer, thereby enhancing both your bottom lines

The_Cutest_of_Borg

I'm curious as to how an employer providing a better deal for you will enhance their bottom line? Simple logic dictates that if you are paid more, your employer needs to find additional sources of income, reduce costs elsewhere or accept reduced profits. Unfortunately, Australian industry isn't run as a communist collective so I guess that rules out reduced profits.

Hmmm, here's a good idea: let's cut costs in other areas such as maintenance by sending work off shore... nup, your fellow pro-union collaborators have made their views on this very clear in this forum.

So that just leaves us with finding addional sources of income: let's charge the punters more! This approach will be crucial in ensuring that SAL doesn't gain a foothold in the Australian market and challenge your on-going employment.

As PAF the crazy military capitalist has stated:

Take what you're worth. I think most of us are overpaid anyway.

Aviation is a high risk industry, right across the board, you would have known that when you started and made a large capital outlay to get a foothold. QF pilots don't have a bad lot in life, and it is certainly commensurate with the expenses you incurred entering the industry. Spoken to anybody in one of the industries that you would consider yourself a peer with about their HECS and professional accrediation costs lately?

In short, what other industry that purports to be in the upper echelons of responsible and important employment within this country still operates as unionised labour? Bus drivers perhaps?

But I digress, seriously though if you wish to make some more coin beyond what the marketplace determines you to be worth, look at how the economic systems work in this country and buy shares in your company. Surely the quality of your efforts will generate profits and you too can share in it.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Cutest of the Borg:

I find it quite amusing that someone with Borg in their name would argue for "collective" bargaining :E

What kind of twisted logic is "If you don't like the pay and conditions associated with a job, quit". Well it's a quaint little economic system called Capitalism.

How dare someone ask you to be qualified to do a job. (e.g. Have paid for your own endorsement).. :rolleyes:

You all seem to imagine that you are battling the Kerry Packer types and trying to get your money from him. I've got news for you, the shareholders are mums and dads. Don't believe me, why then is QANTAS included in the Commonwealth Securities' Mums and Dads index? So next time you are claiming that you don't get paid enough, and "stick together" to gouge another payrise that's whose pocket it is coming from.

While you are making quite an assumption to call me ex-military, I'm curious as to what "propaganda" you think the military espouses?

The kids are out of the mines people, put the union to bed and stand up for yourself - don't expect others to do it for you. A bit of rugged individualism wouldn't go astray. No-one "forced" you to go into aviation, no one "forced" you to work for a particular company. Don't like it -- you can quit. Or you can continue to try and screw the Australian public; your choice.

Unions reduce the number of jobs available in an industry. It is an economic fact. So how about next time you're pushing for a big pay rise you take a trip down the local aero club and explain to the kids down there why you're making it harder for them to get a job in Aviation.... or don't you care because you've 'made it'?

[HIALS]

A point of order - Point0Five - aviation is not classified as a high risk industry.

It is classified as a "High threat but low risk industry". Along with nuclear reactors and oil tankers.


That is - it doesn't go wrong often, but when it goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way.

[Ultralights]

I'm curious as to how an employer providing a better deal for you will enhance their bottom line? Simple logic dictates that if you are paid more, your employer needs to find additional sources of income, reduce costs elsewhere or accept reduced profits. Unfortunately, Australian industry isn't run as a communist collective so I guess that rules out reduced profits.

lets see, Im an Employer, I employ 4 full time drivers, ALL are members of the TWU! i was a Unuion delegate at QF.

I pay my drivers well, my drivers are happy, and willing to go the extra mile for me when i ask of them. my customers are happy because my public face to them (my drivers) are happy! sure i could pay them 30% less, my bottom $$ will look good! but my employees will do less for me when asked, they might become unhappy, and that will be felt by my customers, (who by the way entrust me with an average of $3 MILLION worth of their stock PER DAY! not including master cd, and all associated pre release recordings) so i need drivers i can trust, and keeping them happy is the only way we can earn each otehrs trust, not only that i will have a higher turnover of drivers.

lets see the benefits of Overpaying my employees!, customers are happy, my drivers will go the extra mile without question, to get an urgent or important job done, i get a good rep, customers decide to give me more work (with a company and drivers THEY can trust) more work = more income! trust me, its a fantastic feeling being asked to take over a contract form a very large competitor!

not only that i get the satisfaction of running a sucessfull and Reputable business, that will have a secure income for all involved for the Long term!

I have kept all my drivers for 3 yrs! almost a record in the trucking game. why would they leave?


the reason the aviation industry is the way it is, is simply because Air fares at Train ticket prices is NOT sustainable! corrigan can see that! airlines can see that, but they must cut cost to stay alive! and they do that the only way they know how!


So Mr passed- a- frodo you need a reality check when it comes to Employee- employer relations! as it seams to me you dont understand any side of the argument.

as for screwing the australian public, how about the australian public screwing the industry for wanting to fly from SYD to PERTH for $4.50

a quick question MR passed-a-frodo, (i know it wont be answered truthfully) but how long will you work, at the job you have loved since day dot, in an industry you love, without a pay rise???


sure, i am earning 4 times what i earnt at QF, but i sit in an office, and in a truck and cart pallets, boxes and envelopes, i would rather be fixing planes for a living! its what i love to do most.

you sound like a very unhappy man.

wages and money dont buy happiness! satisfaction in a job well done and pride in doing something that you love and doing it well, creates happiness.

[Binoculars]

As I was attempting to phrase a response to Mr Frozo, Ultralights has done it nicely for me. So I'll try to put it into even briefer grabs for Frozo than his own utterances from the HR Nicholls society.

Frozo, a happy workforce is a productive workforce. With me so far? The kids may be out of the mines, but the obscenities that contract-based CEO's are committing in their short-sighted obsession with the companies' bottom lines mean that if they had their way the kids would be right back in the mines. Great for the shareholders.

If you want to keep bending over and taking it up the arse and thanking the company for employing you, then you just carry on, but don't be surprised if your beloved employers don't thank you for it.

Strangely enough, as should be evident here, your fellow employees probably won't think much of you either, but you're a good capitalist, so you will be rewarded in the long run for your loyalty. Won't you? Actually, CEO's of listed companies rarely stick around for more than four years, so it's regrettably possible that your boot licking won't be noticed in that time. Bugger! Perhaps you should move on to page 2 of Industrial Relations 101?

Hint: check my profile, I'm not a pilot, that's always a good place to start attacking.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

How long will I work in an industry ... blah blah..

Quiet simply.. until I'm not happy with what the industry pays, and I'm unhappy with the day to day conditions I encounter . That is what I've been argueing..
I'm quite happy with my income.

As for not understanding how labour markets work, I'm sure you'll find the majority of economists side with me; given my statements are based in economic fact.

You raise points about what you pay in relation to a happy workforce. Well congratulations, I am indeed happy for you. You have found what you are willing to pay, in relation to the work / attitude your employees provide. THAT is how capitalism works; Why abuse companies that pay less.. if you can do it better, start your own an aviation company. I have no problem with that. I'm sure you would have a problem if your employees turned up tomorrow asking for a 28% pay rise, and said that they would go on strike for it!

As for your arguement, you are saying that the customer is SCREWING the provider of a service?? Unbelievable... the customer will pay the minimum that they have to. So you turn up at the ticket counter and say "I think the pilots don't get paid enough, please - I'll pay double the price - just make sure you tip the pilot". What you have a problem with is competition, and predative pricing behavour.

If you really wish to study human behaviour in an economic context, study Marginal Utility behaviour. It guides all.

I'm quite happy, if I wasn't I'd be looking for a new job. Your final statement almost sums up my arguement. Lots of people are happy to be pilots, and they will accept a pretty low pay rate to do that job. Don't blame anyone other than yourself for that. Again , look at marginal utility theory. It really defies belief that hundreds stand in a queue to take the job of a pilot, yet people abuse them for saying they will do the same job for cheaper. Selfish indeed.

[HIALS]

I only have an incy-bitcy, tincy-wincy bit of knowledge.

So perhaps you, Pass-a-frozo, can explain to me how, "Unions reduce the number of jobs available in an industry." Without the blanket statement, "it's a fact".

I was under some misapprehension that 'demand' is consumer driven.

Even assuming a worst case scenario, surely unions affect the 'supply' side of the equation?

If we embrace the modern 'market economy' (p.s. which is demand side driven) then the number of jobs demanded in an industry is a response to consumer demand. In a market (which by definition has an infinite number of buyers and sellers ) the price and volume of supply is determined by demand. It is a process of equilibrium.

If we are going to relegate unions to the fringes and castigate them as market aberrations, then we must do the same to the employer organisations.

To paraphrase you then - "the CAI and other employer organisations reduce the number of jobs in an industry".

In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise.

Neither are reflected in your ignorant and biased views.

[Point0Five]

HIALS

I belive that you have missed the point that I was trying to commnicate... aviation is a high risk industry from an employment point of view.

With regards to safety etc.: your understanding of semantics has highlighted a weakness in my contention. Having said that, I'm the first to agree that the potential consequence of failure is high.

I'm big enough to admit when I've made my point poorly.

Ultralights

I actually agree with you. Excellent managment style!

One simple question: if you are such a good employer and your employees are so satisfied, why are they still members of a union?

By the way: earnt isn't actually a word. It is earned. :D

[Ultralights]

why are my guys still in the union? point being, i negotiate my terms with them through the union, no individual contracts! we all know wht would happen to inter employee relations if i gave one driver something the others didnt!



i knew passed a frod wouldn't answer my Question, i spent 11 Yrs at QF and NEVER received a payrise, even after numerous traing courses! then was finally told to get a pay rise, i needed to go to another pay scale, (take a CUT) then work again in the new scale for another 10 yrs to get back where i was!

were would you have stood in that situation without a union.???

without union negitiation, (and by union i mean a collective bargaining group) all of us would be Begging for tips just to scrape a living!

the underlying point to my previos post is....

Pay and conditions should never be based purely on Numbers and the bottom line!
Sure pay them what their worth, what their worth TO YOUR BUSINESS!!!

sorry for the typos, but after working 12 hrs a day, and being 1 am and all. my mind isnt exactly on good grammer and spellchecking.

though i must thank you for a good entertaining thread/ windup! :ok:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

knew passed a frod wouldn't answer my Question,
Fair go... I don't just sit at my computer all Friday night :D


I tried to avoid the economics lesson. Here it is in laymans terms (taking it to extremes for illustration)
If a flight crew cost $1 an hour, how many routes would be profitable. The demand for pilots at that rate would me immense.
If a flight crew cost $500,000 an hour, how many routes would be possible. Not many, because pilots don't produce $500,000 in income per hour.

Here's the economics (in short) (trying to keep it simple)
http://www.theshortrun.com/classroom/glossary/micro/wage7.gif

Inclusive or Industrial Unionism

Inclusive or industrial unions try to unionize every worker in a certain union so they have the power to impose a higher wage than the employer would otherwise pay. Note that employers will hire fewer workers than they would if the workers were free to accept a lower wage

Your truck driving example highlights exactly what I'm saying. You are getting the employees that you pay for. Eventually if the industry continually lowers wages, the pool of skilled aircrew will decline. Once they can't get the numbers required the pay and conditions will pick back up. Once it's attained equilibrium. Forcing QANTAS or any other company to accept higher wages reduces the number of people they will hire.

HIALS:

If we embrace the modern 'market economy' (p.s. which is demand side driven)

o.k... you are a Keynesian. I'm not sure how this relates to labour economics - The disequilibrium achieved by unions.

the number of jobs demanded in an industry is a response to consumer demand.

In part. What is more important is Marginal Productivity of Labour. An that is where imposed higher wages blow you out of the water.

the CAI and other employer organisations reduce the number of jobs in an industry".

How are you assuming that ? I'm not sure where that statement fits into labour market economics.

In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise

No.. they are only required because of militant unionism.

Neither are reflected in your ignorant and biased views
Well, I'm not particularly worried about your opinion in that regard. I think your first statement said it best, and it's almost the only thing I agree with you on:
only have an incy-bitcy, tincy-wincy bit of knowledge

[OBNO]

Pass a Frozo

There is theory and there is the real commercial world.

Unfortunately, your industry experience is rather limited to say the least isn't it. Considering you have had your Degree and every single hour of your flying training funded by the Taxpayers, it is rather naive and narrow minded to say if you don't like it just leave. If you ever do decide to leave the RAAF and continue to enjoy a flying career with an airline, you may one day need the assistance to your welfare a "Union" can offer you. Assistance with your medical, loss of licence insurance, scheduling problems, leave issues or indeed loss of licence on medical grounds ( from eating too many frozo's say!).

When you have worked in the Commercial world you may be better placed to comment with some credibility.

[Three Bars]

I think that we have discovered NEXT GENERATION's new nickname - PASS-A-FROZO.

Guys, you will never get PAF to change his mind, you will just inspire him to new levels of BS.

My profile of him is:

Must be very young - probably just out of university with a management degree (or similar) and absolutely convinced of his own infallibility in every regard.

Must be single - therefore enough time on his hands to keep the management degree BS fresh in his mind, and can afford to live (maybe just barely) on whatever pittance his employer deigns to gives him.

Must not work for an airline as a pilot - or he would not be arguing the abolition of unions since he would have already been exposed to enough corporate greed to make him renounce his management degree BS forever.

OTOH, if my profile is wrong and he is content to be paid whatever his employer deems appropriate, is prepared to negotiate his own payrises with Uncle Wayne (or similar) and is happy to represent himself at any hearing arising out of a flying incident/accident then he deserves our pity, not our animosity. His employers will salute his ideals and smile benevolently upon him as they slowly destroy his and his family's livelihood.

PAF, you said that there are plenty of starry-eyed flying graduates happy to take our jobs. That may well be true at the moment, but if all of us were like you, that would soon stop, becuase nobody would seriously consider flying as a career - they would all be managers and fly for fun on the weekend.

[Ultralights]

quote:In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise


mr PAF.
No.. they are only required because of militant unionism.


mr passed a frodo, Please explain your theories behind this statement, im quite interested to hear how you came to this conclusion.....................

[HIALS]

Pass-A-Frodo, I have to take my hat off to you. While I think it's creditable that you don't spend Friday night glued to PPRuNe - I'm suspicious of your statement, because of the obvious effort involved in dragging down that text book, finding the supply and demand curve, and somehow importing it into this thread. Well done. But it does smack of too much effort.

Unfortunately, it further supports my contention. You are supply side obsessed. Your chart shows the effect of an isolated increase in wages, acting through constant supply/demand equations. It does not deal with changes in the curves themselves. You are clutching at fancy straws.

I have long held the view that unions exist because they need to. Or, in other words, Companies that deserve unions get them.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Well gents, you are free to assume what you will about my current employment situation etc. I'm all for free speech , in case you hadn't noticed. :D

As for putting to much effort in etc. Trust me it's not hard, it's all over the net, and yes in text books. I'm surprised you don't agree with text books.

The example was a more simplistic ceterus parabus situations, as most things in economics must be to analyse them in isolation. I'll not post chapters on the topic (well, anymore than I already have). The number of employees (yes, assuming a non shifting demand curve) is based on supply / marginal productivity of labour. No company employs more employees if they don't make any more money to do so (assuming they are operating to maximise profits). You are correct in that unions can cause the demand curve to shift... a contraction of demand when people don't consider air transport reliable after strikes. Naturally the final outcome would be based on the price elasticity of demand for air transport.

narrow minded to say if you don't like it just leave. If you ever do decide to leave the RAAF and continue to enjoy a flying career with an airline, you may one day need the assistance to your welfare a "Union" can offer you.

Well let me explain.. If you knew my circumstances and education I've attained you'd know that I've set myself up so that I'm not limited in career options. If you are so limited you are "stuck" in your present job and you can't "not accept" whatever pay you are offered, why blame others for that lack of forsight? You may well end up putting yourself in the structurally unemployed ranks during tough times.

As for young people not coming through the ranks etc. etc., that will result in a shortage of qualified pilots, which leads to companies having to pay more / improve conditions in an attempt to gain qualified labour.

No, I won't go to a union if I "eat too many frozo's and lose my job", I'll endevour to fix the problem myself. Too many people in society these days expect others to pick up the slack for them

and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs - I think you are making too many assumptions on who I am , or what you know about me.

[Icarus2001]

FrozoI'm surprised you don't agree with text books. Really, why? Do you think that because someone has their thoughts and opinions published in a text book it makes them infallible and their theories somehow become accepted fact? If you really think that then that explains your very theoretical take on industrial dynamics.

There are many accepted economic theories, they cannot all be correct. They are usually theories constructed to answer a specific question or address an observation and most fall apart when put to the complexity of a real world test.

[Ultralights]

and yes in text books. I'm surprised you don't agree with text books.

im done stirring. better things to do......

[Kaptin M]

From P-A-F, "Note that employers will hire fewer (unionised) workers than they would if the workers were free to accept a lower wage."
Rubbish! They will hire fewer NON-unionised workers, and schedule them to the point of excessive fatigue, then should any of them step down for SAFETY reasons (fatigued), they will be summarily dismissed for being unable to perform to the level required by the company. THAT is the REAL WORLD!

If a flight crew cost $500,000 an hour, how many routes would be possible. Not many, because pilots don't produce $500,000 in income per hour.Your comment wrt the above shows a measure of inexperience in REAL WORLD dealings, P-A-F. Employees' salaries, in general, don't determine the viability (or otherwise) of products - the market price is set by (i) the DEMAND for the product, (ii) the existing (if any) current price, (iii) the available supply, (iv) the ABILITY of the consumer to pay.
As an example, it is possible to purchase a seat between 2 major cities in Oz for as low as (say) $100 on a B737, however, there is also a limited market for VIP's who will charter a B737 for their sole use, hence paying well above the market average.

Your example of a pilot's salary being based on $500,000 per hour is ridiculous to the extreme - however, let's assume that a pilot is paid $500,000 per YEAR :eek:
Let's assume that this pilot flies 850 hours per annum (a realistic target) - that works out at $588.24 per hour.
On a 150 seat B737, flying a 1 hour leg (say, BNE-SYD) that works out at a cost of $3.92 per passenger!!
Assuming the F/O is on 70% of the ($500k p.a.) Capt's salary, that adds another $2.75 to the ticket...a total of $6.67 per passenger ticket!!

[Animalclub]

No, I won't go to a union if I "eat too many frozo's and lose my job", I'll endevour to fix the problem myself. Too many people in society these days expect others to pick up the slack for them

This tends to be true. John Singleton discussed a similar situation called " the Government orta do something" syndrome in his book "Rip Van Australia" - an interesting read.

[Binoculars]

I'm surprised you don't agree with text books


Frozo, If you're going to pass off others' ideas as your own at least change a couple of words so that a random cut and paste into Google doesn't give away your source on the first page. You are beneath contempt.

http://www.theshortrun.com/classroom/glossary/micro/wage.html

[Capt Snooze]

Ease up Binos,

It's not really plagiarism!

He did refer to 'textbooks'. That's a citation of sorts.........................not exactly as per Harvard though..................

'and I'll just add I have worked in the commercial field in several jobs'

.......... ahhh, let me think.... 'Would you like fries with that?' (and my congratulations for working part-time to subsidise your degree, more people should do it)

I tend to agree with Three Bars' evaluation.


:-)

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I'm sorry folks I wasn't aware Pprune had the harvard referencing system in use. I never claimed those words to be mine. If I was endevouring to "plage" I would not have included the link to the graphic.

As for the "that's just academics, the real world doesn't work that way". I would disagree. Those theories have been developed over hundreds of years, rather than your 10, 20 or 30 years experience when viewed from the pilots perspective. In fact that is entirely a new topic (Education vs. "school of life")

I stand by my claim that the number of employees a company hires is based on the cost of that employee (using a given demand) and the productivity that employee creates.

Let's turn your arguement around. You truely believe the wage that employer is forced to pay (using a union example) has no outcome on the number of employees??

What's my real problem with unionism ? Well, I think it comes down to ethical decision making. I believe in deontological ethics - where you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do - not base on the final outcome (utilitarian ethics). I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage. While the old saying "if you want a second opinion ask the same economist" is true. I think you'll find that other than truely leftist economist, they believe in the statement i referenced on unions.

[matca]

Pass A F^*kwit,

I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult. Are you Mr Qantas but with a different handle, passing him off by spelling badly?

Here goes;

Why do you think unions came into existence? Is it because 12 and 13 year old boys were forced to work in coal mines 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is it because when they became injured in the mines in the course of their employment they were then useless to the company and discarded without any sort of help with their medical/living expenses etc?

I think you will find that Ultralight's drivers belong to a union for all of the benefits not just a payrise every now and again. Things such as legal assistance should they be involved in an incident. They are smart enough to know that justice is bought when they are up against people who have the views that your identity pass off here (You don't exist, if you did your work mates would have given you a good slapping).

Other things like union shopper - have you seen what prices they can source for you on ANYTHING! (I recommend membership for this alone!)

If you did exist, when you did your university education your lecturers would have advised you on quoting material found on the internet, especially sourced through google (not knocking it, invaluable tool but any crackpot can pass off BS as fact on it).

Why have you spent so much time qualifying for other work in case you decide to walk out on your employer? Not only are you blocking up the education system from someone who may use it, shouldn't you be putting in 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week for your all caring employer? Were you a full fee paying student? If you weren't I want the difference refunded to the taxpayers you duped by not using the education that we paid for. Woops! Sounds like you benefitted from a form of collectiveism by having your education subsidised by the many?

If the views passed off by your identity are those of a professional pilot, please let me know your roster. I don't fly often but I don't want to be flown by a selfish, self-centred, egomaniac who can't function as part of a team.

Unions aren't perfect but one day pilots will get their act together and realise the need for a SINGLE body that represents every pilot not the elite few. That has plusses and minuses because it means that turkeys like you wil get the pay and conditions regardless of whether they are members of the union.

In a perfect world unions wouldn't be required, but it's not a perfect world is it. ENRON, HIH, WORLDCOM, ONETEL were any of these destroyed by the worker? When your organisations behave responsibly and treat people morally and ethically then I will forgo my union membership, in the mean time enjoy the fruits of my labour you stooge.

Cheers.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Comrade Matco,

Pass A F^*kwit,

I seriously doubt you or your ideas exist in a rational, life experienced adult .

Perhaps I should be striving for your level of maturity. :rolleyes:

If you did exist, when you did your university education your lecturers would have advised you on quoting material found on the internet

Actually as I've said before, that example can be found in all manners of economic texts.

Why do you think unions came into existence?
Well, if you read a previous post you would see my comment that the children are out of the mines and continue to be.

Why have you spent so much time qualifying for other work in case you decide to walk out on your employer? Not only are you blocking up the education system from someone who may use it

Why "overeducate"? Simply because I don't wish to be in the situation you clearly are. I think your "anger" over the issue illustrates this best. You are in your present position because of decisions you made. The value of peoples "labour" continually changes, it's something you should accept.

Yes you did subsidise the cost of my education, as I subsidise the cost of others right now. That again is another issue totally. However you may wish to consider the social benefits to society of educating people. Yes, even people like me who you clearly despise simply because I disagree with you. User pays!


You may believe in the "workers of the world unite" speech , but I don't. End of story. I believe in a system where you are presented with choices , and you make your own choices.

As for the show me your roster so I don't fly with you:
Good to see you're ready to accept others have different opinions to those of yours.

Enjoy your cheap shopping card, have a cool drink and settle down a little. :ok:

"If you're not a communist by age 20, you don't have a heart.
If you're not a capitalist by age 40, you don't have a brain."

[Kaptin M]

P-A-F, with every post, it becomes more evident that you are still very "green" (inexperienced) in matters concerning the workplace,
Statements such as, "you should base your decisions on what is the right thing to do", and, "I still think it is "greedy" ("for lack of a better term" - Wall Street) to hold a gun to a companies head to force them to pay above market wage.", have only further re-inforced this opinion.
Precisely what "guns" are you referring to?

I have had the "experience" of working for a company, without union representation, for the past 6 years, and I can assure you that BECAUSE there is no union to keep these people in check, they do WHATEVER they feel like doing, regardless of what the mutually agreed-upon contract states.

But unions can also be BENEFICIAL for companies, from the point of view of collective bargaining, and representation, as well as being a cohesive for the employees that lets them know they have at least the possibility of maintaining/improving their conditions, thereby creating a more stable workforce.
Of the original 2 dozen pilots who started here where I am now, over 50% have left BECAUSE of the treatment we have been dished out - in spite of our individual objections.
With the prospect of several more leaving, the company is now asking what can be done to to prevent losing any more.

Anyway, as you have a "problem" with unions, it is your prerogative whether or not you decide to join one when you grow up. I, also, was "anti-union" during my formative years - probably mainly because of the bias the media showed - the same media controlled by BIG businesses, and BIG, anti-union businessmen who owned them, in those times the Murdochs and the Packers.
It wasn't until I realised that almost all work conditions are NEGOTIATED and agreed upon by employers, and the employees' representatives - the unions - that I realised that workers have just as much right to expect the NEGOTIATED conditions to be fulfilled, as did the employer!

By the way, I suggest you learn to spell, before you start applying for jobs, otherwise prospective employers might think you're a little unedumacated!! :ok:

[Animalclub]

There is a place and sometimes a need for unions. I feel that there is one service that unions could provide which would endear them to employees and employers. That is to provide a list of available jobs within their profession.

[Ultralights]

sorry couldnt help myself.


Why "overeducate"? Simply because I don't wish to be in the situation you clearly are.
you may wish to consider the social benefits to society of educating people.
how can anyone possibly be Overeducated?????????
hmmm a little contradictory. but hey, i like to know more stuff.! you never stop learning right!

over educated?, or over qualified. the difference between a student and someone with experience in life.


A lesson for all you students out there! the first thing you learn on entering the workforce? is that everything you learnt in school doesnt mean Jack!!!!! sure i have a lovely folder at home full of my academic achievments in school/UNI/Boeing/! not once has it been opened apon graduating! at every interview all those years ago, it sat there, on the desk, totally ignored by my would be employer.

If you ever gain employment in anengineering field, you will also quickly learn, the text books make good paper weights! otherwise there wouldnt be engineers! dont forget your wheetbix before your next lesson PAF!

[HIALS]

I'd like to come back to P.A.F.'s leading contention - that unions decrease the number of jobs available. I really will try to be civil, because though I might disagree, I certainly support anothers right to their different opinion.

I hope we can all agree that individuals are seen as choosing between two things which give (pardon economic parlance) utility : leisure and goods.

As goods can only be acquired through work and as, in this regard, time spent not at leisure is spent at work, it is clear that by analysing individuals' choices we will discover how many hours of work they wish to supply. Individuals will supply hours of labour up to the point where their marginal rates of substitution between leisure and goods are equal to their wage rate. The income and substitution effect of a wage-rate change make it impossible, a priori, to say which will be stronger. Therefore, we can say nothing about the effect on hours of work of a change in the wage rate. The Neoclassical Theory

The demand for labour is derived from the value of the goods and services it produces. An employer who is aiming to maximise profits will employ labour as long as the value of the goods produced by additional units of labour is greater than, or at the margin equal to, the cost of labour.

How does the profit maximising firm choose between the various alternative combinations of capital and labour which can produce any given output? It does so on the basis of the relative costs of labour and capital services.

In isolation - the demand for labour decreases as the wage rises and vice versa. However, labour markets do not operate in isolation. To assume that the price of capital services remain constant while wages change is rarely the case.

Conclusion - It can be seen that, on its own terms, marginal productivity theory provides a precise explanation of the demand for labour. It does not, however, purport to explain wages because for that we need to include supply factors as well.

All of this has been partially para-phrased and sometimes directly quoted from The Economics of Australian Labour Markets by Keith Norris

So back to you P.A.F. Do you still insist on your simplistic assertions?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

HIALS:

Thanks for keeping it civil :ok:

I'm glad you posted that extract from a text. It explains precisely what I have been explaining.

That an increase in wages (whether union forced or not) has an negative impact on levels of employment. The end of the text simply states that while this relationship is true, it is not the only factor relating to supply. I've never claimed it was, however the relationship between wage levels and employment still remains true.

Particularly say if the market was at equilibrium when a wage shock hits the system (say from a union "bargaining" for a 28% wage rise and using threats such as go slow / strike action).

By the way, I suggest you learn to spell, before you start applying for jobs,

Ahh.. true.. we all have our weaknesses.

[matca]

Pass A Dimwit,

I believe the term is 'Brother' and I'd prefer you didn't use it as you are not one.

Yep, it's me again, I'll try and keep it short as I know you've (or whomever's views you represent) been awaiting my reply.

There you go assuming again 'The situation you are clearly in'

mmmmm, look at my profile dood. I'm well into the top tax bracket which means I subsidised your education by more than the average punter. User pays eh, pay for your education in full as you would an endorsement, I'll even cop you donating the money to my favourite charity (The Royal Children's in Melbourne). But you'd think they are bludgers and should pay for their own treatment? User Pays??

I'm also a Company Director, yes a capitalist with a social conscience. Not a bad situation to 'actually' be in eh? (Not the 'assumed' situation you think I'm in)

There are few things that make me angry, Melbourne not getting the Super 14 franchise upset me, what really makes me angry are people who don't leave a place in better condition than what they found it. I'll bet you leave your sh!t every where when you've finished your macca's? But then again, after a hard days yakka trying to upsize everybody you deserve a rest?

The same goes for a work place, YOU have benefitted directly from the union movement in your work place environment i.e. pay and conditions. If you signed them away in place of a WPA or a contract that strips all of your conditions away you are a FOOL. I enjoy very good benefits and conditions, hard fought for and deserved, all of which are affordable to my employer. I contribute levies (happily) in return for the negotiation my representatives provide. Those levies also protect me from legal action and other issues.

YES THE CHILDREN ARE NOW OUT OF THE MINES, BUT WHO GOT THEM OUT OF THERE???????

God help you sunshine if you get sick or injured and are working on a contract, you're on your own.

How about you leave the place in a better condition than you found it rather than sh!tting in mine and our childrens nest?

Yours faithfully again.

[Woomera]

Mr matca is taking stress leave for a short while.

Not for his views by the manner in which he adresses others.:mad:

By all means have a vigourous discussion but name calling doesn't make your case.

[Gnadenburg]

Pass-A-Frozo

You are trolling at a level rarely noted on Pprune.

Have you ever bemoaned your military wage or conditions? ( you'd be a first if you hadn't )

Imagine if your neoconservative theories of capitalism pervaded in the RAAF. Rare, expensive to train, expensive to maintain commodities such as bomber/fighter pilots would be paid twice as much, get more promotion and better pensions than lesser more common, transport commodities.

If you are in the profe$$ional civilian world now, take some advice, you will realise nobody is shooting at you very soon.

Keep your hair on! ;)

My contibution to the discussion - Australian pilots stay where you are! Voting with your feet abroad is feeding a far worse foe than Dixon/Godfrey. Not to mention the woes of being paid in USD!

[schnauzer]

Indeed, Gnadenburg is quite correct. Judging by what is happenning on the outside, our Military "brothers" are way overpaid. We should all be writing to our local MP's and lobbying to reduce PAF's pay and conditions. In accordance with his own theories, he clearly doesnt deserve the pay.

Have a nice day!:ok:

[Boney]

Paying for Herc endorsements make it hard but you really struggle when you have to pay for the F111 endoresement, that old thing just chews so much fuel. But what really makes it hard is 20% pay cut afterwards (because the hours are gonna look great in ya log book son).

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Let's get a few points straight. You are extending my arguments out to other areas and topics in which I never even made my opinion known. You're drawing a very long bow indeed to assume I'm "one of the people that leaves my stuff out at maccas" ? Or even assuming what my views on health care are? Where the hell did that come from anyway?


I think you believe my opinion is "f#ck everyone". Well it's not :D


User pays / Paying for endorsements - I believe there is nothing wrong with a company asking you to pay for the qualifications you attain. Do I think it is a good business decision to do so? Personally no, because they are limiting the prospective employee field by pricing some out of the job. Do I think companies should be allowed to ask, yes.

Pay and conditions - Do I think companies should pay $1 an hour. No. Do I think the market should set wages - Yes with the limit of minimum wage still applying. This is why we have laws protecting society against market failings. However, you get to make the decision as to whether you wish to work in that job for that pay.

Unions - Do I think it is right to strike for better pay / Do I think unions serve the greater community. No! I raised in a previous post an example where hundreds of families were left on welfare because of a group of people striking. The company they worked for went bankrupt , and to this day they still hate that group.

So what's next Matco, I suppose next you'll say I kill small animals, simply because I don't like unions :rolleyes: I do find your 1+1 = 758 approach to what I've been saying amusing though.

Oh and schnauzer, I think you'll be surprised to find that I'm quiet happy to accept the wage that the market deems I deserve. I have the choice to move on if I wish. I'm all for choice.

Anyway, I guess I better get back to killing small animals and dancing with the devil ;)

[schnauzer]

Choice. Yes. What a load of tripe, PAF.

Believe me mate, I have done the military thing, and I know where you are coming from. As I am, most in the military are right wing conservative. BUT, you my friend have apparently seen only the military and what you read in a text book. And believe me too when I tell you that you lead a terribly sheltered existence, because I did too.

I got a little bit of a shock when I came into the big scary world. And I realised that text books are irrelevant and there are employers out here who don't read 'em either. Collectively, they want one thing. That is - cost reduction. And they will stop at nothing to achieve it. They don't give a sh1t about your concept of choice.

And whilst our respective associations are as weak as p1ss, they are something that we can hang our hat on. They make the occasional earth shattering break through (like the Captains car park, and no foil trays! :mad: ) and for these little triumphs we are grateful. They hopefully prevent our profession from spiralling into oblivion.

But the main point here is CHOICE. OK, so I've made the choice to come to QF, supposedly the ultimate job in Aussie Aviation. But you are advocating GOD's antics with fanatical cost reductions and the associated anguish caused to employees of airlines Australia wide, on the basis of "well YOU made your choice!" Hmm, well, what would you have me do, PAF?

That is absolute bullsh1t my friend. It is a simplistic cop out. When you have spent a little time in the REAL world, then please feel free to lecture all about your economic theories. Until then, that is all they are. Theories.

Cost reductions are fine, but in this case they have gone too far and are having an inverse effect upon the bottom line. Staff are disenfranchised and so are the punters. There is a limit, and we have definately reached it.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

You've missed the mark my friend assuming I have not worked in the real world.


Think what you may, but unionism is not a fair solution. Unions cost jobs, and cost the economy overall.

What would I have you do? Well, that is for you to decide. Unfortunately some people think the answer is to strike and cost the company (and many others, that's what most forget) millions and millions of dollars. That is what I have a problem with.

So explain to me how you think in the "real world" employers will be able to hire the same number of employees if you jack up wages 28%?

[Point0Five]

"Other things like union shopper - have you seen what prices they can source for you on ANYTHING! (I recommend membership for this alone!)"

Couldn't you just use Shop-A-Dockets?

[Three Bars]

PAF,

You criticise others for their "illogical" posts on this topic, yet you keep talking about unions demanding 28% payrises. This is complete crap!

Unions in all industries these days feel that they have done well if they can negotiate a 5% increase. As for QF, they want offsets for measly 3% (less than CPI) increase. Who's trying to screw who here?

I know that nothing will ever change your mind. You can have your opinion, but don't expect to get much support for your views here.

:yuk: :yuk:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

How about the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union last month "negotiating" with Toyota. Were they asking for 3-5%? No, they wanted a 10 percent payrise each year for three years. :yuk: So I guess you're right. That's not 28%, it's 30%. Give it a few years and they'll be complaining that Toyota is moving off shore.

I'm not expecting to change the left wingers that have emerged in this thread. However, don't expect every pilot to join your union.

[OBNO]

PAF - You are remarkable! How have you managed to gain all of your experience "working" in the real world between joining the Defence Force Academy at age 17 or 18 and the Squadron you are flying with now?

Another thought. I seem to recall not too many years ago Military aviators receiving quite a reasonable Flying Pay increase. To the extent that now, outside of the major airlines, the military would probably be next best paid flying jobs in Aust. The reason for the payrise was to try and stem the flow of military pilots leaving for the improved pay and conditions offered by the major airlines. Pay and Conditions negotiated over many years by the relevant Union/Associations with their employer. So PAF may be indirectly, you actually have the Unions to thank for your current pay and conditions.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

OBNO:


You do not know what my situation or history is. You assume.

Perhaps if you think you know me you can approach me at work some day and I'll explain it to you. I'll keep my eyes peeled for a communist ;)

Yes, military pay was based on stopping people from leaving. As in "I'm not happy with my pay and conditions, I'll quit". But hang on, I thought that was all "theory" , not "real life". You have just proven my point. People had the CHOICE to leave.

Anyway, I'm suprised you aren't protesting for the government to cut funding to all university economics programs -- they don't provide anything useful for "real life" :rolleyes:

While you're enjoying the "pay and conditions" negotiated over the years perhaps you can visit Kalbarri and explain to them why hundreds of them ended up on the dole queue. I'm sure they'll be happy for you.

[Ultralights]

a 10 percent payrise each year for three years

again you show your lack of real world experience, asking for a 10 or higher pay rise in the initial stages is a typical negotiation ploy.

you go in asking for this and that, know full well you wont get it, then it becomes a game what we can trade for what

eg, we drop our 15% pay claim to 7% and you drop your Pay for endorsements claim, and so it goes on until an agreement is reached.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I never implied that was the end result Ultralights. I was responding to
yet you keep talking about unions demanding 28% payrises. This is complete crap!

[Three Bars]

And I'll stand by it PAF.

You can't just add three percentages together and represent it as a total figure.

While 3 lots of 10% may be 30% of one year's salary, it is still only 10% of 3 years salary.

Your figure is sensational nonsense.

PS I too, have done my time in the military. Are you hoping for an airline job in the future? If you are, I anticipate your politics will change in the future.

[Point0Five]

Ultralights
I curious as to what makes your experiences more "real" than those of PAF?

Surely you're not suggesting that his employment with the military lacks credibility as being "real" when compared to the sheltered workshop that is Qantas?

After all, isn't this what the majority of posts in this forum are about.... whinges and bleats from QF employees who are unable/unwilling to accept the realities of employment in a commercially competitive marketplace; justifying why they need to hide behind the skirt-tails of unions to protect employment conditions based in the days of a government owned monopoly?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I'm actually thinking of getting into Human Resources and negotiating pay cases. :p

Remind me again on the '89 demand? Something like 29%?

[OBNO]

PAF - don't assume I don't know you (SM)!

[Pass-A-Frozo]

OBNO: Don't assume you know my life story! I wasn't aware I had worked with such a left winger... the shame ! ;)

[Woomera]

Gentlemen and others, we do not nor is it our role to have a position on this issue.

PPRuNe is here to enable you to discuss fully and vigourously if necessary any matters aviation.

If we have a position it is that posters distinguish themsleves here by both the quality of their argument and the manner in which they conduct themselves.

It is about the facts and circumstances, ideas and opinions surrounding the issues NOT playing the MAN/WOMAN or your personal perception imagined or otherwise of him or her, .

So let's play nice shall we and give the other side the respect that you expect in return.

We might all learn something.

I have come close to locking this thread on several occasions with one thread ban already.

It makes my life much easier just to lock it.

Posts not directly addressing the issue and containing any personal slights or snipes will be deleted.

Its up to you.

[Captain.Q]

What everyone seems to forget is that the higher your disposable income the more goods you are able to purchase.These goods need to created/manufactured by someone..creating employment and income and so on.Taxes and unemployment reduce demand and ultimately jobs..anticyclical.I accept and understand that high income earners also purchase a lot of imported goods ,creating BOP problems.We need import replacement.Our economic growth is limited by a finite workforce.
Therein lies another problem.Labour like anything else is governed by supply and demand.Asia is going to expand rapidly over the next ten years and with it travel and aviation.Factor in retirement and you are looking at a shortage of personnel(pilots etc)It is human nature to go for the bucks.Some airlines growth will restricted by a finite number of qualified personnel...the worm is turning.The laws of supply and demand prevail.The ascendancy of the employee is beginning.Lets hope we and the government dont screw up the coming opportunities

[Ultralights]

edit. had a few drinks, my post made no sence to me either!

continue!

sorry PAF, miss read that bit.

[Three Bars]

You're clutching at straws PAF.

89 was 15 years ago - I would sugggest that the industrial situation has changed markedly since then!!

Nurses in NSW are going for more than 4% per year becuase others in the medical profession have gotten 5% per year.

I stand by my statement that union claims these days are different (and more responsible) than 15 years ago. As Ultralights said, 10% may have been an opening gambit in the case you cite. You don't start negotiating with your best possible outcome (unless you're AIPA).

[Pass-A-Frozo]

The Australian Education Union is disrupting Victoria's education system in pursuit of a 30 percent pay increase, the Minister for Education and Training, Lynne Kosky, said today.

Ms Kosky said the AEU claim, which includes a 30 per cent pay increase, would cost the tax payer $2.7 billion, which is more than one third of the annual education budget.

"The AEU is walking away from discussions at the negotiating table to take needless industrial action that will only impact on students and parents across Victoria," Ms Kosky said.


That was a year and a half ago.

Unions don't change.

[Point0Five]

It wasn't until I realised that almost all work conditions are NEGOTIATED and agreed upon by employers, and the employees' representatives - the unions - that I realised that workers have just as much right to expect the NEGOTIATED conditions to be fulfilled, as did the employer!

All fairly common sense really, I'm surprised that you hadn't worked it out earlier... but then again I thought PAF was the naive one?

[matca]

Pass-A-Frozo,

I respect your right to an opinion,

I'm interested in your thoughts in comparing 'extravagant' union wage claims of 10% per year against the corporate excess shown by CEOs' and Board Members, awarding themselves pay rises sometimes in excess of 60-70-80% per year?

Remembering that these CEOs' etc donot need an association or union to represent them as they simply vote these payrises for themselves.

I would also like to know the full story behind the Toyota wage claims;

When was their last pay rise? (inflation has a very insidious affect on personal wealth etc)

What wage increases have middle and upper management received in the same time?

What productivity gains have been achieved by the workers?

How much time has been lost in the last 3 years due to industrial disputes?

In regard to the Teachers Union in Victoria, perhaps they are just reacting to the enormous excess within the Bracks Government. The wage increases are a matter of public record. Comment?

PointOFive. Please let Pass-A-Frozo answer this post, I'm sure he doesn't need you to defend him. I could also PM you an explanation of the union shopper comment, however they don't fit into a text book situation so may be a little hard to understand, just let me know?

Regards and apologies for the sometimes strongly worded past posts.

matca (not matco)

[Point0Five]

PointOFive. Please let Pass-A-Frozo answer this post, I'm sure he doesn't need you to defend him.

Apologies, I should have known better than to attempt a form of collective bargaining when debating this topic.:ugh:

I could also PM you an explanation of the union shopper comment, however they don't fit into a text book situation so may be a little hard to understand, just let me know?

The Shop-A-Docket comment was a joke... and not a bad one at that.:)

I don't recall making any references to text books, so I don't know where you are coming from there. I think it's quite clear that nobody has ever learned anything useful from books and that Mr Hitler knew exactly what to do with them. :hmm:

[matca]

PointOFive,

Dood: Apology Accepted. (I knew you coouldn't help yourself!)

Pass-A-Frozo????