Heros doing heros [Archive]

Guptar

28th Sep 2005, 15:22

Well what can I say. You reap what you sow. It seems the " Ï'm all right thanks jack" mentality is still alive and well in the industry, with the pilot community having been reduced to a mad rabble clawing over each other for the crumbs. One group squealing like stuck pigs over percieved injusticess yet quick as a flash they would do exactly the same if it was to their own benefit.

Is one group jumping the que to a command on the wonderjet any different to the same or similar group displacing GA pilots in the great dispute. Their jobs didnt matter as their were only a piston driver(insert type as applicable). But where was the outcry then, or now, what are ex 737 captains doing flying night frieght in Chieftains. I dont hear any Airline drivers or Unions etc standing up and saying its not right.

Its no wonder the various airlines managements think the pilots are aasy to divide and conquor, they are too busy fighting each other. The only way forward is to unite and act as one, defend the wages and conditions of ALL professional pilots be it a lowly Grade 3 Instructor to a 744 C& T Captain.

By all means, make noise when injustice is deemd, but dont commit the same crime unto others. Failure to act as one body will ultimately mean individual contracts for EVERY pilot. 50% less than you're on now, take it or leave it.

HI'er

28th Sep 2005, 22:06

It seems that management are the suckers here.
Why did they offer them 'just a little' more than their current very low A320 salary, when they could have offered them a little LESS, and they still would have been swamped?

And yes, there were quite a few "heroes" in Jit Connict, who qualified in Australia, or in the Ansett N.Z dispute.
Scobs screwing scobs.
Ain't it fun to watch. :ok:

TAY 611

28th Sep 2005, 23:13

There are also a lot of guys that work for Jetconnect that don't fall into the above category that could be screwed as well. Is it also "Fun to watch" just to be able to gloat over a few of your despised ones falling? Lets not stoop to that level eh guys or you will be no better yourselves.

Ralph the Bong

29th Sep 2005, 02:46

Yes Guptar, very true!

But what is this "jumping the que" crap that people use?

I have heard this expression regarding experienced players from overseas wanting to come to Oz; bugsmasher drivers then bleating "join the que".

Unless there exists a contractual datal seniority system, then there is no "que".

Perhaps Expanding et al would like to consider that these new captains at Jet * have significant experience and competance for the job?

ginjockey

29th Sep 2005, 03:32

Yes, I have looked it up and the correct term is heroes.... with an "e". That being a brave or valiant person.

"Heros", without the "e" is however and most appropriately, was the ancient greek god of stabbing people in the back with a razor sharp dagger whilst smiling at them at the same time for no apparent reason.

OK, continue to rant at will angry ones..............

Yorick Hunt

29th Sep 2005, 03:44

Some one told me once that "your only as good as the company you fly for" after that god help you as the heroes out there are only to happy stab you in the back as much as look at you to get an advantage.

Ask any of the heroes that are legends in their own lunch boxes, why don't they quit their phoney baloney jobs and apply to someone else, see how far they get, I bet they secretly pray every day that their bull**** company doesn't fall over, as they know how the heroes operate, the knives are big and sharp, and there will just be a blood bath.

No other profession treats its people like this one, where a 35 year F/O and Captain with experience on the equipment that are operated by Jet* VB or QF for that matter can't even get a look in, be lucky to get a job being a hangar sweeper.

What a pathetic profession, where snotty nosed heroes would have a Chief Pilot with years of experience join below the lowest hero because of a merger. Where ex Ansett people with loads of experience can't get a look in to Jet* and VB because the heroes recon it all belongs to them and they know better.

I presume the ACB, AFL, NRL and others use this method to recruit their people, where only being in the lowest common denominator is the criteria.

So the next time you need dental work or a Cardiologist to do a transplant then get a snotty nosed hero, because if you ask him he will tell you what a hero he is.

TopTup

29th Sep 2005, 05:35

This antiquainted communist / socialist view that promotion is derived from start date is unfortunately alive it seems.

Why should a person be promoted over someone else purely due to a start date? Why should it not go to the better suited applicant? Does flying skill, experinece (on type and other), professionalism and airmanship not come into? No it seems - just based on a date, full stop.

The sad fact of life is that different airlines have differing cultures, good, bad or indifferent. What works for one (or so it seems for them) doesn't work for another. You don't like where you are, leave.

There is (unfortunately) a place for unions - the need to bow down or force the issue of the lowest common denominator will always be needed.

Not meant to be a wind up - but I'm sure it'll raise some heated comments. Again, just my view and no one said I am right. (but I believe so!). Just an opinion that anyone is welcomed to disagree with.

Ralph the Bong

29th Sep 2005, 05:42

Dead right Yorick, datal seniority is a concept whose time has come and gone.

The only criteria for promotion should be and must be merit. Time in the company would be only one component of 'merit' , which should also include qualifications, experience and job performance.

The industry has change over the last 20 years and outmoded promotional systems such as datal seniority simply have no place in contemporary flight operations. Datal seniority is a concept that simply is not supported by ANY respected resource managment philosophy.

Capn Bloggs

29th Sep 2005, 06:37

which should also include qualifications, experience and job performance.
and suck up to the boss.

Ralph, get real.

polemic

29th Sep 2005, 07:07

Well it's clear to see where the people who don't like the seniority system fit into the equation.

HI'er

29th Sep 2005, 07:31

Why should a person be promoted over someone else purely due to a start date? Because several (hundred) aspirants for the one position might have similar experience.

Why should it not go to the better suited applicant? If several applicants are similarly qualified, it probably will - or to the bigger brown noser, or the one willing to work for less than the others.

Does flying skill, experinece (on type and other), professionalism and airmanship not come into?Yes, as well as previous employment history, number of employers over a defined period, incident/accident record, recommendations, peer worker compatability, etc.

No it seems - just based on a date, full stop.That has NEVER been the sole reason for promotion, even with seniority based systems.

Even with post 1989 Ansett, length of service in the company was used as the basis for future promotion - which suited the Heros just fine, once they`d secured their place by other means.

S G

Ralph the Bong

29th Sep 2005, 08:11

Not doing too bad mate. :p

HIer, the process at Ansett was 'qualifications and experience'. This was writen into the Admin. manual.

Bloggs old boy, a proper set of promotional policies would make it pointless to suck up to the Boss. A professional approach would obviate any brown nosing.

Seniority only makes sense in companies that employ people who all have the same skills and aptitudes when joining. However, as this is rarely the case, seniority is as logical a promotional mechanism as, say, the candidates star sign or favourate sporting heroes. The merger of airlines in Canada resulted in very junior FOs becoming 'senior' to C&T captains. The problem of loss of industry knowledge and other CRM issues should be obvious to even the most brain-dead of the supporters of datal seniority.

There exists some rationale for the practice in a large company where it takes many years for crew to become fully conversant with the companies operation and procedures. Even then, this sole rationale is on fairly shaky ground from perspective of optimal use of human resources; its main benefit from a company and pilot body perspective is convenience.

Note that the longer that you are in a company, the more that one supports datal seniority. I agree that it takes some time to become fully conversant with a company's culture and procedures and that there is good reason to spend some time in a junior position until one is ready. This time spent in a junior role would and should be part of 'merit'.

There are many Ansett guys all over the globe at many companies who have been expedited to command because they were well trained and good at their work. Who benefits from this? The company, the shareholder and the travelling public. The obvious benefit is that those with "qualifications and experience" can more rapidly add their "qualifications and experience" to the operating culture of the company.

The more inexperienced pilots who fly with them benefit from gaining additional knowledge by flying with other pilots who are more experienced and better qualified.

The debate on seniority has been going on since the 1920's. The concept has had many famous and well regarded critics, such as Ernest K Gann who said "seniority protects the weak". Green field companies (Virgin Blue etc) dont use datal seniority for these very reasons. The companies that do have had this system built into their industrial award over many years and would be difficult to abolish, so they persist with it.

Wizofoz

29th Sep 2005, 08:27

Right guys, hands up all those bleating here who have EVER turned down a promotion on the basis of "No, give it to Bloggs, he's been here longer then me".

Capt Claret

29th Sep 2005, 10:35

I wonder how many Ansett (or QF or most other airlines) pilots would have accepted being passed over for a command chance because their employer had access to people more qualified on type, particularly the introduction of a new type?

Ralph the Bong

29th Sep 2005, 11:51

The answer to that Claret is this: Plenty. All pilots at Ansett had access to a grievence process if they were passed over for promotion. What they were usually told was along the lines of ( as I was once) : "You have 4500 hrs of which 1500 hrs is airline time. The successful candidate has 9500 hrs of which 6000 hrs is airline time and he has 1500 multi-crew command. You are simply not going to get a command ahead of him simply because you have been here 4 months more than him. Any other questions FO Bong?"

What we think is 'fair' and what is objective are often 2 different things.

oicur12

29th Sep 2005, 12:12

People have accused former Ansett pilots of undermining the industry by accepting employment at Jetstar for lower wages than they previously enjoyed. However, the same could be said of “89ers” when they joined Virgin Blue, especially when you consider that dispute pilots were the key architects in Virgin’s salary levels. Similarly, QF mainline pilots were apparently happy to accept B scale pay within their ranks. No single group can claim the high moral ground in this puerile debate.

“Scobs screwing scobs. Ain't it fun to watch.”

Hi’er,

Resorting to vilification may comfort you somewhat but such behavior adds nothing to the debate at all. There are enormous forces at play in the airline industry – changing customer demands, low cost carriers, high fuel prices, higher insurance costs and especially in Australia (and the US – read DL and NW), a government keen on industrial workplace reform. The change in the airline industry in Australia is merely a reflection of the industry world wide but according to some ppruners on this thread – the blame lies with Ansett pilots. Or Jetstar pilots. Or “heroes”. Or 89ers. Simple solutions to complex problems may be soothing for the simple mind but achieve very little.

“And it gets better, some of the ex An hero's offering to crew A330's for 'just a little' more than their current very low A320 salary”

Karunch,

Perhaps you could explain why you think an A330 pilot should be paid more than an A320 pilot.

HI'er

29th Sep 2005, 12:28

Quite frankly, the companies don't give a square root about WHO crews their aircraft, just as long as they fly.

The seniority system, if incorporated, is something that the companies are able to use as a lever against the pilot body.
By the same token, it gives the united pilot group an assurance that everyone will one day be GUARANTEED a shot at upgrading.

With a non-seniority system, the companies can place whomever they want, wherever they want. They can work one fella 20 hours a month, and another 100.
They can give one individual minimum days off each and every month, but favour another with whatever they wish.
People have accused former Ansett pilots of undermining the industry by accepting employment at Jetstar for lower wages than they previously enjoyed. However, the same could be said of “89ers” Only to make the point that the Ansett heros are habitual, repeat offenders - first they stuffed the seniority system, now they've set their sights on driving lower what are already miserable salaries by most other standards.
It's the price we're ALL paying AGAIN for not taking an active interest in protecting our environment by keeping it clean, and clearing the muck out.
It's polluting whatever it comes in contact with.

S G.

Capn Bloggs

29th Sep 2005, 12:36

And that, FO Bong (provided you meet the company standard for the left hand seat) is why we need a datal seniority system to stop abuse of people they don't like.

OIC,
you could explain why you think an A330 pilot should be paid more than an A320 pilot.
Because in private enterprise, the more people you have responsibility for and the more expensive the equipment you manage the more you get paid. Or perhaps the John Howard should get the same pay as the Mayor of Giles. BTW, you're not ex military are you?

Yorick Hunt

29th Sep 2005, 13:44

yeah and that's the problem Capn Bloggs, it's the military heroes, somehow they think that it all belongs to them, they are gods gift to aviation, if my friend wants to fly a 330 for the same pay as a 320 that's none of your bisiness, because that is also practised in private enterprise, right hero!!.

Like your company can undercut someone else and drive them out of business and you will shed, how many crocodile tears, as you get your early command way beyond your station, hey hero!!

In Private Enterprise as you put it I'm allowed to under cut my competitor anytime I want, hey what do you recon about that hero,

What about you Hi'er, you just said it as long as the aircraft fly, right hero, and your claim that the Ansett heroes are habitual offenders of what, you know jack **** of what you are talking about, its the heroes of your ilk what I call the cancer that are driving the standards down you are the hero back stabbers.

You 89er heroes had all the choices, and still were able to shat in your own nests without to much dificulty, the Ansett heroes had no choice, they are really the true heroes.

HI'er

29th Sep 2005, 13:57

Which all goes to show that alcohol and pprunes make a pretty lousy cocktail.

Yorick Hunt

29th Sep 2005, 14:10

I think prune cocktails are very nice,......ah a little more gin please Jeeves........

Casper

29th Sep 2005, 21:31

AN heroes - Ah. As ye sewed in '89 , so shall ye reap - now.

Ralph the Bong

29th Sep 2005, 22:53

Bloggs, If 'they' really dont like you 'they' can try to fail you out of the company. It's not hard to invent a standards "problem" when you check someone, if you want to; No one is perfect. This would occur whether or not a promotion occured by the means of datal or experiential seniority. They only remedy for this situation is to ensure that the industrial award provides for an independant person to come on the jump seat during check rides, if required.

HI- The rostering senario that you speak of would only occur with crewing department complicity. Given that the 100hr/month pilot would soon run into duty limits, the system would self correct quite quickly. Rostering systems whereby datal seniority plays role in bidding for flying blocks can cause the same problems too, if 'senior' pilots are bidding for reserve blocks. Same goes for time off at Christmas and new year. There are various practices that companies without datal seniority use that ensures that a fair roster is generated for everyone.

Quite frankly, I am not sure that it is desirable that every pilot should get a shot at upgrading. I am sure that everyone knows a Captain or two that shouldn't be in the job. Consider what would happen if a pilot who was marginal was promoted and then killed people; you could make his epitath "Well he was next in line and he did pass the check". If it came out at an inquest that this person was not the most suitable for promotion at the time, how would you then defend the concept of datal seniority to the greiving relatives, the insurures, the legal system, the industry or yourself?

Pete Conrad

29th Sep 2005, 22:55

Hang on Yorick, steady on....I have allot of time for the military guys, there are quite a few good ex jocks that fly for QF etc etc.

Lets not forget that Impulse NEVER had a seniority system, the core of Jet* is Impulse, the guys that could never get a job anywhere else, started the pay for training rubbish on the C99's, then the 1900's and fostered a culture of suckholes.

Don't equate the Impulse suckholes with the ex Ansett guys, as at one stage, Ansett was a professional airline, Impulse however................well, a picture paints a thousand words.

HI'er

29th Sep 2005, 23:22

If 'they' really dont like you 'they' can try to fail you out of the company. It's not hard to invent a standards "problem" when you check someoneThe checking senario that you speak of would only occur with checking department complicity. :p

The rostering senario that you speak of would only occur with crewing department complicity.Or an edict from upper management, as in "Make sure that Bong works a minmum of xx hours every month, always gets multi day patterns, is home for minimum rest, and is always away on week-ends which is the only time the family has an opportunity for all of them to be together",,,get it Ralph?

Given that the 100hr/month pilot would soon run into duty limits, the system would self correct quite quickly.The 100 hours was given only as an example - so let me help you out here Ralph.
They can work one fella 30 hours a month, and another 90.
" the system would self correct quite quickly" - that statement does not make sense at all :confused:

Consider what would happen if a pilot who was marginal was promoted and then killed people;Would it be any different if an Ace did it?
As long as everyone is checked within the limits of the required and designated standards, then the companies, regulatory bodies, and insurers are going to be happy.

Are telling us, Ralph, that in the job YOU are in, you are not expecting consideration for further advance - be that a type upgrade, or a status upgrading (eg. to Training or Checking, or HIGHER), because of your general overall increase in experience, and specifically your employer's operations, since joing the company, over someone who might be slightly more generally experienced, but has been in the company for a much lesser time?
Do you expect annual, incremental increases?
Should F/O's ever expect a shot at the lhs, regardless of their time in the company simply because there will ALWAYS be more experienced pilots available to the company?

Or should we support "Scabs' Rules"? First in best dressed - and if it looks like you're going to get beaten because the other players look like they might pip you, then offer to work for LESS.

S.G.

TopTup

30th Sep 2005, 02:52

HI'er, or is it Jenny George, Simon Creane...... Mao, Lenin, Carl Marx?

Of course experience in a company should be considered but not as you determine should be so heavilly weighted. It should be one factor BEHIND many such as those stated previously. Imagine if other large companies, or even sporting teams, determine promotion by start date. Just 'cause a guy has played for the club in 4th grade for past 8 years does that mean he should automatically begin proomotion up the ranks? Can't catch, pass or tackle, buy hey, he's been around here a while!

Companies recruit from the outside when the talent from the inside isn't what they need. And yes, that might indicate glitches in the recruitment and inhouse training dept.

"If several applicants are similarly qualified, it probably will - or to the bigger brown noser, or the one willing to work for less than the others".

Get the chip off you're shoulder!!!!! Is everyone out to get you? For every company I've worked for "brown nosers" and the like are easilly identified and not considered real because the way they behave is not real - they go about their business with alterior motives. The person who turns up for work well presented, on time / before time, does some extra work or study because he or she wants to, goes about it in a humble manner, and EVEN loves the job they do IS noticed. But to you that person is a brown noser.....

Get over the state of aviation, and what LCC have caused as a fact of market forces to pilot salaries and conditions. Not one of us likes it (we HATE it!), but you blame the pilots taking up positions when their past company went belly-up, or sold to another, etc. You find ONE pilot with a house, mortgage, kids at school and wife pregnant, or, a younger single pilot trying to get into that first jet job who would not, could not refuse to take up that job to begin an airline career. Yes some pilots do none of us any favours but you're not living in the real world.

Don't blame a person for accepting a job offered to them, despite someone's TWU buddy who called in for a sickie because there was a good episode of Oprah on and missed the position for bid memo on the crew notice board.... but he/she has been around for years!!!

Unfortunately HI'ers thoughts are alive and very well. I know of one regional carrier whose new EBA prohibits anything but promotion via start date seniorority. That to me breeds a culture of mediocrity.

HI'er

30th Sep 2005, 03:22

If you would care to re-read my post, and compare it with your own TopTup, I believe you will find we are more in agreement than not.

I'm not sure if you are a pilot (or not), as your example of a graded player in a sports team isn't really comparable to that of professional aviators.
It's accepted that pilots' skills continue to develop (in most cases) with experience. Not only manipulative skills required for configuring the aircraft, but also decision-making skills, crew management, knowledge of weather, company operating procedures, and a multitude of others.
The constant C & T systems airlines incorporate soon weed out the types of people you cite, and so although a seniority system will ensure that each person becomes eligible within approximately a similar time frame as though ahead and behind him, it does NOT mean that he must take the offer up when made.
He may prefer to be bypassed.
The seniority system NEVER prevented the companies from making managerial/check/training appointments, to anyone they considered worthy, regardless of their seniority.

The topic under discussion is of ORDINARY line pilots prostituting themselves - actually less than prostituting - whoring themselves, because they believe they are UNABLE to compete on the same level as the ESTABLISHED pilots.

This is NOT normal, non-airline company behaviour.
Company promotions of the rank and file - which pilots are - are generally based on the merits of employees observed over their service period within that company ("seniority").

ur2

30th Sep 2005, 03:26

Since when did J* pilots been told they are going to fly A330,s And have a chance to negotiate on the pay of said appointments ?
What utter BS.

Yorick Hunt

30th Sep 2005, 04:38

No Mr Conrad, I would never equate the Impulse suckholes with the Ansett guys, there is no comparison, I do see in lots of shades of grey when it comes to ex military types like any other types.

And yes Ansett was one of the worlds great airlines, it was a total tragedy on how it was disposed of, something the snotty nose heroes don't understand.

Ralph the Bong

30th Sep 2005, 04:53

HI- A condesending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement. Further, I do not need your help in comprehension of what you and others have writen. You, on the other hand..:rolleyes:

Before we take off on another tangent, the victimisation of any pilot by way of a abuse of the checking or rosatering system cannot be tollerated. In fact there are laws in place (for how much longer under Howard I dont know) that protect people from victimisation. If the senario that you described were played out, the pilot involved would simply have to get copies of the other rosters, determine the average time away/weekends off/ holidays worked hours flow etc. and compare the deviation from the norm that his roster gives him/her. Any bias would be easy to determine and demonstrate a solid case of workplace harrasment.

My interpretation of the thread topic is that of promotion away from datal seniority, not of "whoring oneself". The orginal post stated that the former was what had transpired at Jet*.

I think that we all understand that in the Jet* case, the FOs who were promoted to capt. were experienced on the type and had been in the company for some time. If they were assessed to be superior candidates for the slots, then this would be to the advantage of a greater number of people than if promotion were on strick datal seniority. Does Jet*s EBA mandate promotion soley on data of hire? If not then those who were by-passed have no grounds for complaint. If that was in their contract and they signed it well, that's what they agreed to.

However despite the inclusion that datal seniority IS included in an EBA doesnt make it a good system or a fair one. The airline industry is to my knowledge the only one to use a promotional criteria that is not founded upon any basis of rational discrimination between potential candidates. As you said yourself; the developemnt of the skills of an airline pilot generally improves with experience. So why not use qualifications and experience as two of the dimensions that are used to assess suitability for command?

I also agree with you that time in the company is important as it is required to understand the company culture and how it operates. This should be another dimension that is used to determine promotional criteria. The whole issue is about generating a system that fairly recognises the quality of past experience and how that can be usefully harnessed to generate a quality organisation. This sort of outcome benefits the company, fairly recognises the value of past experience both inside and outside of the company of all candidates and gives the travelling public the best quality pilot at the helm. The use of such a system at Jet* could also be used with a view to engineering a better operating culture; there are no shortage of posts on this forum attesting to the cultural baggage left over from the Impulse days.

What could you possibly have against that?

BAE146

30th Sep 2005, 06:19

Let me see Pete Conrad ,

............ as at one stage, Ansett was a professional airline, Impulse however................

ah yes, I believe the professionalism ceased on the 23rd August 1989.

TopTup

30th Sep 2005, 06:30

Well written Ralph! You summed up my thoughts far better than I could have.

My only addition is my hatred of the labelling of pilots for accepting a job offered to them, or taking the job under circumstances that 99.9% of other pilots would have done as well, especially given that person's situation (age, experience, financial position, career ambition...) at the time.

To me those who label these pilots seem to be either those fortunate enough to have been around in the good 'ole days of excellant pay, conditions and "free" (all be some of them with bond conditions) endorsements, or those who were passed over for promotion as a byproduct of the conditions of employment they signed up for and agreed to.

The global aviation economy has changed. Deal with it. I don't like but have the option to leave at any time.

(Apologies HI'er for the high horse I may have been on earlier! And yes I was a professional rugby player and still play for fun now. I think that any competitive sport leaves a person very apt to the world of industry and aviation / flying for any million of reasons).

Pete Conrad

30th Sep 2005, 06:45

BAE146...Cheap shot at something that happened 16 years ago, why don't you build yourself a big bridge get over it!!!

oicur12

30th Sep 2005, 07:06

Hi’er,

The various airlines I have worked for have employed datal seniority to determine promotion to command or type upgrade but none have employed seniority for rostering or days off. Ansett utilized a 9 month rotation for rostering but your date of joining was not considered.

“They can work one fella 20 hours a month, and another 100.”

This will occur in any system unless rostering still follows the archaic and uncommon practice (especially in this region) of rostering according to date of joining. The simple fact that blank lines still exist today in Qantas is evidence of very outdated work practices.

“first they stuffed the seniority system”

Could you explain how Ansett pilots achieved such a feat?

“. . . now they've set their sights on driving lower what are already miserable salaries by most other standards.”

I know of many former Ansett pilots now working for Jetstar – not one of them has ever “set their sights on driving lower salaries”. Do you really think that this is a reasonable comment to make?

Capn Bloggs,

“Because in private enterprise, the more people you have responsibility for and the more expensive the equipment you manage the more you get paid.”

In private enterprise your compensation will be driven by many factors, the most important one being the size of the workforce possessing the skill set required for the job. The number of people you “have responsibility for” and “the expense of the equipment you manage” are of little consequence to a free labor market.

“Or perhaps the John Howard should get the same pay as the Mayor of Giles”

There are many many people that possess the necessary skills to be mayor of Giles and will be compensated accordingly. There are very few people with the political capital, connections, money, party history, dedication and questionable ethics to position themselves to win the top job in parliament.

Ex mil, no.

BlueEagle

30th Sep 2005, 10:41

I can remember this 'productivity' argument being raised many years ago in the Middle East. VC10 and L1011 Captains were claiming ,(and getting), much higher pay on the grounds of 'productivity'.

The facts: the VC10 or L1011 would operate one sector, (full), to LHR, the crew would take one day off and return, also full.
Alternatively they may operate an East bound service, spend a day by the pool and then return. In their four day block of, say, 650 pax I would have flown an average of four sectors a day, all full, in a 737-200 and been paid less. Compare the (then) domestic fares in the ME with the long haul fares and it was not hard to see who was the most productive, didn't work though, they held the high positions in the Pilot's Association and they got the money.

Woomera

30th Sep 2005, 21:51

"A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement."

Words of wisdom indeed!! :ok:

Can we refrain from the personal remarks and stick to well reasoned professional argument? This could be an interesting debate if the personal attacks are eliminated.

Good point Blue Eagle!

Woomera

HI'er

1st Oct 2005, 03:57

"A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement."
Agreed - ABSOLUTELY - Woomera.
However one also assumes that when individuals voluntarily enter these debates, they are going to display more than just the ability to take any examples given totally literally.
My 20 vs 100 hours was an EXTREME example that one respondent grasped with both hands and went hammer for tongs at that example ONLY - hence the need to present another case.

If companies are permitted to build rosters for each pilot, knowing precisely which pilot will be getting what roster, then there is NOTHING to stop workplace victimisation, in spite of the simplistic scenario Ralph presents.
How realistic do you REALLY believe that outline to be Ralph?
If the senario that you described were played out, the pilot involved would simply have to get copies of the other rosters, determine the average time away/weekends off/ holidays worked hours flow etc. and compare the deviation from the norm that his roster gives him/her. Any bias would be easy to determine and demonstrate a solid case of workplace harrasment.Of course employers are not going to be so stupid as to roster a pilot who needs a little "payback", with a schedule that is blatantly abusive, month in and month out.

Working hard, is not the same as working smart, Blue Eagle.
You might well have buzzed your baby Boeing around for 4 sectors each day domestically, but by the same token you were responsible for a much lesser number of pax on each flight, and flying a lesser valued aircraft.
Additionally you didn't have the problems of jet lag, associated with International flying.
A specialist doctor doesn't need to see, nor treat as many patients as a GP in any given month, because he commands a higher hourly rate due to the superior knowledge that he has acquired because of the longer time, and extra study he has under his belt, that allows him to do so.

Why are lame's rated as Year "x", if it is not for the extra "seniority" they have achieved, because of time spent "on the job"?

“first they stuffed the seniority system...Could you explain how Ansett pilots achieved such a feat?”1989.

Thunderbox

1st Oct 2005, 10:04

'merit'

The mantra of those with true scab hearts.

Lets make one thing clear about the seniority system..it guarantees you nothing other than the opportunity to have a go at the upgrade. That's right, it gives you the training slot, nothing more.

If you are up to scratch you pass the check, if not it's back to the right seat. It does'nt matter if you have 2000 hrs or 10000 hrs you're either good enough or you're not.

I've found over the years that 'merit' always comes up from those who for one reason or another have found themselves behind the drag curve for a command, and are desperately looking for a reason why they should get a training slot, and not the guy who has put the hard yards in ahead of them.

Ralph the Bong

1st Oct 2005, 12:10

So Thunderbox, who has done the hard yards, the guy with 2000 hrs. or the guy with 10,000 hrs who started after him? :cool: This should be obvious..

This is what many here are saying and is the whole principle of 'merit'. That commands should go not just to those who have erned them by doing the "hard Yards" in the industry but who are able to bring a higher standard of operation to the cockpit.

It is nobodies interest to have a captain in charge of aeroplane who just scrapes through. A system that supports such a process is quite arguably a hole in the swiss cheese under the Reason model of accident occurance.

The only people who support the system of datal seniority are, in my experience, those who feel threatened by people with better experience, qualifications and command potential who started after them. They are worried that they will be leapfrogged by a more deserving candidate who will make a better captain.

If my support of a system that seeks an optimal standard rather than the lowest comman denominator makes me a "scab", then so be it. :8

The The

1st Oct 2005, 13:01

And so Ralph,

What if it is the guy with better experience, qualifications and command potential who just scrapes through?

BlueEagle

1st Oct 2005, 13:06

Think you may have missed it HI'er.

My little 737 was considerably more exposed to the 'hazards' than the L1011, just review hours flown, T/O's and landings etc. and passengers carried, so my responsibility was greater.

Sector length and time changes don't come into it as in those days they got a day by the pool/shopping in UK etc. etc. after a six to eight hour flight, it is very different these days with sixteen to nineteen hours duties and then minimum rest!

HI'er

1st Oct 2005, 13:11

who has done the hard yards, the guy with 2000 hrs. or the guy with 10,000 hrs who started after him? :cool: This should be obvious..Why should it be "obvious" Ralph?
Is it not possible the 2,000 hour chappie has more QUALITY time than the 10,000 hour one?
A fellow who has accumulated 2,000 hours in rhs in the SAME company, on the same type, would surely have to be a better prospect for command upgrade, than an instructor who has flown a C150 around a circuit for 10,000 hours - wouldn't he? :cool:
There's that lack of "lateral thinking" coming through agian Ralphie (Yes I know, A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement.")

Thunderbox already stated the same as you - "This is what many here are saying and is the whole principle of 'merit'. That commands should go not just to those who have erned them by doing the "hard Yards" in the industry but who are able to bring a higher standard of operation to the cockpit.
It is nobodies interest to have a captain in charge of aeroplane who just scrapes through. A system that supports such a process is quite arguably a hole in the swiss cheese under the Reason model of accident occurance.", when he wrote,
"Lets make one thing clear about the seniority system..it guarantees you nothing other than the opportunity to have a go at the upgrade. That's right, it gives you the training slot, nothing more."

The only people who support the system of datal seniority are, in my experience, those who feel threatened by people with better experience, qualifications and command potential who started after them. They are worried that they will be leapfrogged by a more deserving candidate who will make a better captain.In my opinion, the people who are willing to commit themselves to a seniority system are those who are willing to commit themselves to the company, for the LONG TERM, as opposed to those looking for INSTANT GRATIFICATION.
People who are in it, because THEY believe THEY can give something to the company over a period of time, and are willing to WAIT for their reward, depending on the companies success - which obviously they will try to ensure, to ensure their OWN success.

On the other hand, we have those looking for fast tracking, based on "experience" (the so-called "hard yards - the same circuit flown 30,000 times!) alone - theoretically gained in (an)other company(s), which they are apparently willing to jettison, once they've used it as much as they are able.

If my support of a system that seeks an optimal standard rather than the lowest comman denominator makes me a "scab", then so be it. Who is to say the "optimal standard" of Company A is the same as for Company Q?
Quite frequently they are vastly different (in my experience).

Each company seeks what IT believes to be optimum operating procedures. Seniority has NO bearing on those standards, other than ensuring that those who should be the best qualified to hold the superior positions, do.

If YOU want to queue jump, then "Yes" that makes YOU an aspiring scab.
Wait your turn, and let those who have patiently waited theirs', be given a shot.
If they aren't up to speed, then you will get your "go" sooner than you might have hoped.

(Edit for Blue Eagle: But you had less crew on the Fluff jet than those big polers, theoretically less exposure to weather extremes, and didn't need to be as strong a swimmer as those boys who flew those long overwater flights.
Who gets paid more, the ferry boat skipper, or the ocean liner Captain?
But just for the record, I DO agree with you.
However THAT is NOT what good debating is all about - is it?! :E )

S.G.

Ralph the Bong

1st Oct 2005, 13:35

Hi there! Look I agree with you that qualit time is important. What if the 10,000 hrs guy has 8000 airline time?

This isn't a lack of "lateral thinking" on my part, mate. It's you!

In the senario you decribe I fully agree, the lesser hr candidate is more worthy of a command position. We are not talking here about 10,000 hr C150 instructors, are we? The new Captains at Jet* are all airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience. We are not talking about giving commands to airline neophytes fresh out of GA! This is what is mean by "QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE. What did you think I meant?

But look at how the industry has changed as companies go broke and valuable, experienced and well qulified people lose their jobs. It does not mean that people have "jettisoned" thier previous company, althogh sometimes this may have been the case(not really relevent, either way, as it doesnt alter what they know or can do).Companies that subsequently employ them should be able to take full advantage of their 'qualifications and experience'.

A person who has already given 15 or 20 odd years(as is the case with Jet* guys) to the indusry is hardly looking for "Instant Gratification" are, they? The investment of time and effort that they have already put in is worthy of recognition and deserves reward.

MTOW

1st Oct 2005, 13:39

It's obvious from a very quick scan of this thread that quite a few people are unaware of the origins of the 'hero' tag.

As I recall, it came after some Australian Airlines (now Qandom) pilot complained to someone in authority after his children were trolling the Internet and found Daddy's name to be on 'THAT' list (the one put together by that bloke in Taswegia).

The (soon to be Christened) 'hero' objected to being called a S*pinally C*hallenged A*ustralian B*loke and the Woomera of the day declared a 'no tolerance' policy regarding 'that' year and 'that' word. So someone came out with what I recall was a very clever poem re-naming the Spinally Challenged Aussie/American and other Blokes (the ones who went back or blew in back in 89) as 'heroes'.

I've done a search through Pprune looking for the poem, but was unable to find it. Is there someone out there with access to the old Pprune archives (or who maybe kept a copy of the poem) who could re-post it here?

I'm also rather bemused at all the old names who've surfaced here on this thread to defend their names and give us all their self-serving version of history. Sorry, gents... I mean, your hero-nesses, it simply ain’t gonna happen. Yo’ll is whut yo’ll is… till the day yo die.

HI'er

1st Oct 2005, 14:29

We're almost full circle now Ralph :ok:

These (ex-Ansett) "airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience." gained their INITIAL positions by queue jumping, back in that year that has now proven to have been so fateful for Australian pilots.
Most of these "airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience." had previous to 1989 been rejected outright employment with some/all of the airline employers.
In that year, "merit" (length of service) was seen fit to dispense with, and when the floodgates were opened, the flotsam and jetsam was allowed to flow in freely.
That which impressed an easily impressionable, desperate management was straightaway given positions that people previously had to (and were prepared to) wait several years service within the company to achieve.
Those who "returned", were treated with some degree of recognition for their previous service - usually.

It was by sheer "luck" that these previous rejects were able to score a position in what had previously been a respected airline.
The standard (of EVERYTHING) dropped thereafter, leading to its final demise due to a LACK OF STANDARDS.

The failure of Engineering in (the post pilots dispute) Ansett to maintain a MINIMUM STANDARD, was a reflection on the (crappy) standards (post 1989) Ansett management inflicted on the Australian public.
The Government saw Ansett as the real threat to public safety it had been allowed to develop into.

Keep your environment CLEAN. :ok:

S.G.

relax737

1st Oct 2005, 20:40

Can somebody tell me how this would be different (if indeed the first post is accurate, and I suspect it to be no more than a wind up) from the senior AN and QF guys heading off overseas in 89/90 and taking instant commands in front of local FO's?? It happened in many countries, particularly middle east, and still happens in Singapore, Emirates, Oman, Gulf, Qatar, and a host of others, although the same 'guns' aren't involved...they just condemn those who do now..

I'm sure they can explain it.

When I put it to a senior captain back in 89, he justified it by saying "that's their system". I responded with " well that's probably what the airlines here want to do in the future," and he staggered me by replying "well we're not going to let them".

This seems like a severe case of double standards..........again.

Looks like somebody is pi$$ed off with his current lot in life and raises the same old argument again.

Lack of standards?? All those who went overseas were aces, of course. I recall a couple, one who went to Sq and anotherto the middle east who were back within a copuple of months with their tails between theie legs because they FAILED the training.

I well remember one announcing to all and sundry in the Coburg town hall that he was a millionaire, was considering offers from a number of companies for 747 commands, and would decide in his own time. Well they decided for him!! What a joke he was.

He was the one who had a cheap Filipino oil painting of himself, towering over his family with all the airline types he's flown zipping around the background. The painting would have been at least 6 feet high and hung over in th eentry of his house.

Ralph you put forward good points. It's just a shame that the fools continue with the same old rubbish. It's like trying to rationalize with a 3 year old; they just don't have any developed reasoning powers.

spinout

1st Oct 2005, 21:47

Simply put Seniority is the reward you get for spending time in One company, (years of service) it gives you choice in when you might undertake training on a new type or upgrade, it does not guarantee a pass.
Some of you have mentioned “just scraping through” an argument used a lot by the “merit” supporters to justify queue jumping, is still a pass. No company sets the bar for a pas at the minimum level, and given that all that do pass their checks etc, meet the company set standard, then the only fare way for the company to offer upgrades etc is to the longest serving employee.
I fully support an individuals right to work for whom ever he/she likes but don’t agree with new comers all be it with a lot of experience saying they are better than longer serving employees.

HI'er

1st Oct 2005, 22:57

From your post, relax 737, it appears that you do support a system whereby promotion is determined by an orderly systemsenior AN and QF guys heading off overseas in 89/90 and taking instant commands in front of local FO'sbut you then indicate support for Ralph the Bong's "merit" alone ideas.

Yes, overseas airlines such as those you mentioned NEED to incorproate a DEC system to supplement their local pilots, simply because they have an inadequate supply of new joiners of their own nationality.
Expatriate Captains are not seen as queue jumpers, as the local F/O's are given a shot at upgrade as soon as they reach the minimum requirements. These airlines therefore incorporate BOTH the seniority and "merit" system.
Promotion for expatriate Captains on contract might be offered, depending upon his track record during his contracted period (his seniority), but he can also be leapfrogged by new joiners.
Australia does not NEED a "merit" system, as there is an adequate, constant, steady supply of pilots to train up for the established airlines - and to supply the rest of the world as well, it seems!

He was the one who had a cheap Filipino oil painting of himself, towering over his family with all the airline types he's flown zipping around the background. The painting would have been at least 6 feet high and hung over in th eentry of his house.LOL, some guys really have tickets on themselves, don't they! It reminds me of the post 89 Ansett, where there was one Yank who appeared on television - shirt open, and a thick gold chain adorning his neck - declaring, in his best Texan drawl, that he had "Come to save Ansett".
No doubt he was also one of those who jumped out of his seat as soon as the fuel levers were selected to cutoff, to thank the passengers for flying with him.
Yep, there are a few - fortunately only a few - in professional aviation like that.

S.G.

relax737

1st Oct 2005, 23:13

I knew you could justify it Hi'er. No doubt about you guys, you can make anything fit.

I suppose the way the Oz airlines saw it, and the blow ins, was that most of the pilots had resigned here, and jobs were being advertised, so they applied and were accepted.

Seems simple enough to me.

Don't come on with the industrial dispute junk here. For once in my life I did agree with the bodgie, and he said that there was no dispute because the pilots had resigned. That's also pretty simple.
We walked into the left hook, and then backed up for the right cross and were decked through our own stupidity. Also pretty simple.

The industrial relations scene is changing, and WILL change, despite the best, even all out, efforts of the employees. I may not like it, but it will happen, and for the next 20 years or so, the employers are going to screw the employees. It is cyclic, however, and will turn.

The point I made about the oil painting wacko is that he was one who was so principled that he didn't return, but went off and took a DEC ahead of a local Fo. I see you try to justify it.

He subsequently set himself up as an 'aviation consultant'. He wouldn't have made an effective consultant on $hithouse paper.

Another analogy comes to mind. If true, and some "89 hero" duds a colleague, is this any different from those back in 89 having five bob each way???

There were those who applied, were rejected, and then became rock solid to the cause. They set out to dud their mates, and there is a well known one who makes the most vociferous posts on these forums.
There were some very high profile ones, backing the movement, but negotiating privately to cut out their "mates".

How is that any different??.

bushy

2nd Oct 2005, 01:54

Just like GA isn't it?

Willie Nelson

2nd Oct 2005, 02:23

Ralph,

Its not a rugby team trying to win a world cup!

Its not a company tring to find a captain of industry to lead them out of dire straits1

And it certainly isn't "Top Gun" where only the best of the best need apply.

Its Fair to most, and it doen't require your qualifying arguments regarding;

1. Rostering abuse

2. What should be cosidered significant previous experience

3. Reasons for leaving a previous job

If you need to explain it to us, the union will need to battle it out with management. Unfortunately, you cannot assume reasoned debate in such circumstances.

For the record I am at the bottom of such a list with many moons to go until my number is up.

Willie

mattyj

2nd Oct 2005, 03:17

one old Ag pilot once told me..30000 hours..so what if I have 30000 hours..its just one hour done 30000 times..

..surely once you get into your first job your hours become irrelevant..its how well you perform and your work ethic..

..seniority has to be a good way of rewarding loyalty??

HI'er

2nd Oct 2005, 03:58

There's no "justifying" anything relax737 - the airlines that those pilots went to as DEC's always had, and still have that system inplace.
A system operated in full agreement with the local pilot unions - no different to the way Virgin Blue recruited during their early days of rapid growth.
No local f/o's in Emirates, Gulf, Oman, or Singapore were done out of their commands at that time - as a matter of fact some of those airlines also took on ex-dispute pilots as first officers, such was their need for crews.
Quite different to the dispute in Australia, that saw pilots picketing airports, and their union engaging in a series of court and IRC cases, and a Prime Ministertempotrarily altering a country's constitution to win a "war" that he had declared on them.
There were those who applied, were rejected, and then became rock solid to the cause. They set out to dud their mates, and there is a well known one who makes the most vociferous posts on these forums. Yes, that went on without a doubt, but they and the names of the others (such as yourself I assume) can be located - even today - at a certain website.

AnQrKa

2nd Oct 2005, 11:41

One question I would like to put to Hi’er and his ilk. Do you accept any responsibility for the unfortunate events of 89 or were you merely victims, swept up in events totally beyond your control?

HI'er

2nd Oct 2005, 12:49

Speaking for myself only AnQrKa, I would need several pages to notate the responsibility I accept for the VERY unfortunate events of 1989.
I accept full responsibility for:-
+ Standing up and being counted publically, as one who fully supported my fellow pilots;
+ Being responsible for trying to maintain the BEST conditions negotiated for the then domestic airline pilots;
+ Being willing to forego the initial threats and cajoling of the companies, by media, and by direct personal contact (telephone, mail, and courier) to "surrender";
+ Realising that there was more to this attack on our conditions that would affect only ME in the short term;
+ Understanding that WE were all in this together, for OUR future;
+ Knowing that the outcome of THIS fight would undoubtedly determine how OTHER (non-pilot) employees would be "handled" ("Who will be next?");
+ Having been responsible for my family, and ensuring that THEY could have faith in my values - taught to me by my parents and church - and that I would continue to appreciate their trust in me;
+ Not having any tolerance of the scabs - those who saw quick gain for little outlay;
+ Realising that our union (The Federation, the AFAP) was resourcing many and varied professionals to advise them;
+ Having FAITH in a system that had worked for our betterment for more than 30 years;
+ FOOLISHLY believing that the scum trio of Hawke, Abeles, and Murdoch would play fairly;
+ Finally - 16 years later - being able to look back at what had been a HUGELY successful airlne, started by a PILOT ~ Sir Reginald Miles Ansett ~ and knowing that RMA, a pilot himself, would probably have been happy to have seen the airline named after him, die, because it was infested by pilots who chose the the easy way, rather than those who were willing to stand steadfast for their principles.

I accept FULL responsibiltiy for all of that.

What do you who destroyed that system (the scabs) stand for?

S.G.

Repro

2nd Oct 2005, 14:42

HI'er, you forgot to mention the responsibility for all the service industry people that lost their jobs because of the dispute.
I suppose you would say it was for the betterment of mankind, but I don't think they would have seen it that way

HI'er

2nd Oct 2005, 15:04

I would need several pages to notate the responsibility I accept for the VERY unfortunate events of 1989.But then again Repro many "service industry people" saw beyond the charade the airlines and hawke took on at the time, and decided to "Strike back".
That the Australian Prime minister saw fit to inflict a protracted industrial dispute upon his country, for the INDIVIDUAL reward of a (relative) few - Himself, Murdoch, Abeles, the scabs - to the detriment of the MAJORITY, is something you need to talk to Bob about (and the ACU[n]T).
In a not dissimilar vein, if the "service industry people" couldn't see further than beyond their own noses, to make a stand, then they need to employ professional apologists, in my opinion.
In the majority of cases though, they CLEARLY saw that hawke was UNNECESSARILY prolonging an industrial dispute to massage his own ego, at the expense of the Australian tax payers.
(The truth is he was being treated for an impotence problem at the time - HINT : Research "Hazel Hawke, Blanche de Pulget, and impotence")

E.P.

3rd Oct 2005, 02:46

HI'er et el

There is simply no difference between the promotion of better qualified pilots within J* Oz and the DE commands of Oz pilots in foreign airlines. That is the topic here, not '89.

The Impluse f/os will hopefully get their chance with the proposed growth and intro of the A330, just like the displaced f/os in the foreign airlines you mentioned.

I am not a J* pilot however, I do desire that the most quailfied pilot to be in the left seat when I am down the back. :ok:

Sandy Freckle

3rd Oct 2005, 03:14

I do desire that the most quailfied pilot to be in the left seat when I am down the back

I would strongly advise you not to fly Jetstar then, EP.

E.P.

3rd Oct 2005, 03:26

Stetched Freckle

I said "desire"......... :}

Yorick Hunt

3rd Oct 2005, 05:15

Oh, it seems the likes of HI'er is really NOT from the real world, he is akin to a Zombie, being brain dead for many years brought back to life by some Voodoo priests.

Like other '89er Zombies, there is no point in reasoniong with them, or argue logic, these people just walk around blindly with dead eyes just following orders and believing their own mythology as peddled by their beloved AFAP.

They don't care who's life they have messed up or ruined, they seem to have this Zombie outlook, they are the inocents who did no wrong and its all the fault of Hawke, Ables, Scabs, etc, etc, or any one else they can pin anything on.

Its a common thread is, it's never them, its always someone elses fault while they parade around as "holier than thou", one just needs to look at the list HI'er wrote on the other page is only a list of his own distorted beliefs that would very much appeal to other '89er Zombies, totally blind to the fact that most people don't agree with them.

But luckily people with reason and understanding went back to work, other employees within the airlines were so happy that new hires were comimg in as everybody had a gut full of these moronic bloody minded bastards ruining their lives.

I see it no more than the bizarre belief a scuicide bomber has that volunteers to blow themselves up for that great distorted Islamic cause that has festered in their minds, again reasonable and inteligent people cannot comprehend their motivation or logic that drives them, just like the '89er Zombies.

greybeard

3rd Oct 2005, 05:28

Well now, reading all this some ??? come to mind.

Why would anyone think the HEROS from a previous situation would change their ways and means of getting ahead?

Why do we have divided sets of people in Aviation and many other Industries in Australia?

Why do we not find it amazing that the Labour party is against Individual Contracts, as they FORCED??? them on the willing/gullible returning and imported pilots?

Why does everyone cry about the terrible conditions and workplace pactices when they have signed the bottom line?

WE ARE WHAT WE ACCEPT!!!!!

Yes you can say I am on the moral high ground if you wish, I work under individual contracts, as does my wife, my employees and many of my friends. We are happy because we were content with the Contract.
I did not sign the others because they were not acceptable!!!

I still find employment requests for my services, so "holding out" has not caused any grief.

Yes, I am a non $c%b, ex Ansett pilot who has enjoyed Overseas Contracts since '89, I have returned to Aust, found acceptable positions and enjoy the so called retirement.

The wingers, backstabbers and low condition wingers are only getting what you signed!!!!!!

AS BEFORE, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, THEN AND NOW.

Cheers