Why Must Helicopter Operators Advertise Vacancies?

[SASless]

After staggering home from my local American Legion Hall and our Saturday afternoon Staff Meeting, I got on the net and hit a US based helicopter web site to look at the scantily clad ladies in their thongs (not footwear thongs) and read a few threads that reported some strife and ill feelings towards more than a few US Helicopter operators.

The Staff Meeting having stoked my intellectual curiosity, I began to question why Helicopter companies ever had to advertise openings for pilots.

It would seem to me, since they were all such happy places to work, with excellent pay, benefits, and the like...that those that work there would be spreading the word about how grand a life it was and all of their friends working other places would be clamouring for a good word with the bossfellah to ensure they got hired.

Now it comes to me...that I hear very little of that going on. I wonder, is it just me or does there seem to be Helicopter operators cannot rely upon the "Old Boy" network to recruit pilots for them and prevent the need for all that costly recruiting they do with outside Personnel firms? If the Old Boys are not selling their friends on the wisdom of jumping ship to join their own company....is there a problem?

If an operator has a 30% turnover rate in pilots each year....is it the pilots that are the problem? Is the operator not doing something they should to stop that loss of people and money or is it just a cost of doing business?

Are pilots just a bunch of Carnival workers that hop from job to job....show to show and in reality all we are doing is playing musical chairs? Why is it more than a few helicopter pilots have had more employers than they have types on their licenses?

[papa68]

SASless,

You raise some interesting obsevations regarding the helicopter industry in the US that I'm sure have relevance elsewhere in the world. As far as I understand it, you are dealing with two separate issues.

As far as the advertising of pilot vacancies is concerned, there may well be a legal requirement to do so for "transparency' purposes. As far as I'm aware, in Australia there is a legal requirement for certain positions to be advertised in a public forum, presumably to reduce (or provide the impression of reducing) the incidence of nepotism etc. Exactly, which companies, and for what positions this is legislated for I'm not sure as not all positions are advertised. In Australia, the bigger operators like CHC, Bristow's, ESSO and the EMS operators certainly advertise but whether they advertise for all positions would be difficult to ascertain.

With regard the second issue, that of pilots essentially being mercenaries and moving from employer to employer, there are I believe a few reasons for this.

I think most people would agree that the good old days of working for one operator for one's entire career are all but over and it would be easy to blame this trend solely with either the employer or employee. I think a combination of the two would be closer to the mark.

There can be no doubt that the loyalty between an employer and an employee should be a two way street but as companies go public, they have to deal with the competing interests of shareholders vs employees. As such, the bottom line (ie. the shareholders) will generally win over in the end otherwise public investment would dry up. For employees, this means fighting for second place in the pecking order of priorities. The upshot of course is employees are becoming increasingly aware of where they stand and believe the loyalty balance has shifted in the company's favour - hence they feel a level of disenchantment with their lot and feel more inclined to take their skills elsewhere where they may be appreciated more.

The other issue is that the young employees of today have quite different expectations of what they want to achieve with their working lives. 20 years ago, security was undoubtedly the primary influence in making (or not making) a career move. These days, security is not as important in one's decision making. Other factors have come more into play such as variety, fulfillment, ambition and so on. In fact, my generation almost sees staying in the same place doing the same thing for 30 odd years as something to be avoided because the world is a smaller place than it used to be and therefore opportunities abound.

If you combine these two issues, it's inevitable that the workplace will become more transient in nature. For better or for worse, it's a brave new world out there.

Cheers,

P68:D

[Brian Abraham]

In Oz its the law. But that doesnt mean the company hasnt already had some one accept the position prior to it being advertised - usually as a result of the person being a known entity with people already in the companys employ.

[John Eacott]

In Oz its the law.

Brian,

Are you sure? Maybe for Government positions, but I've never heard of any such statute pertaining to private companies. Especially as I've never advertised.........:rolleyes:

[paco]

It might be for immigration purposes, as it is in Canada.

In my experience, pilots are certainly gypsies, and you can't expect them to stay for ever, but they will stay longer if they are treated right, and that doesn't necessarily mean money.

Phil

[EBCAU]

[quote=paco]It might be for immigration purposes, as it is in Canada.

In my experience, pilots are certainly gypsies, and you can't expect them to stay for ever, but they will stay longer if they are treated right, and that doesn't necessarily mean money.

I think paco is correct that pilots might stay if they are treated right, but there are a lot of factors to make up the perfect situation. Getting those factors can be difficult.
Even if the money is right, the personell agreeable, the maintainence and machinery good, unless it is a large company at the top of the industry in time you hit a ceiling for that company. Then you will see those that move around progressing and gaining new types and experience, gaining the increased income that comes with that, and you still fly the same machinery for the same pay.
In my experience the pay will stagnate unless sufficient pilots leave or suddenly there is a requirement for an influx of skilled pilots and these have to be 'enticed" from other companies.
A lot of companies do not reward the loyal - they seem to prefer to exploit them. Moving on is usually the only way to progress - it took me far too long to realize that.:*

[paco]

I agree, companies that exploit their pilots deserve all they get, but there are some who are OK as well (Alpine, Aerogulf, etc), from my own knowledge, and if you luck across one, it's worth staying that little extra. I'm personally not fussed about the lates and greatest technology (well, the tiltrotor look like fun......), so it's less of a priority with me. A well maintained older fleet will get my interest a lot quicker than an indifferently maintained new one.

Phil

[SASless]

Eacott,

Since you have never advertised...what method do you use to fill your vacancies? What rate of turnover in pilots have you averaged in the past few years? Can you use your experience in this area to give us an idea of the reasons your leavers have cited for going to the greener pasture they saw elsewhere? You being a former Navy type.....you include a Tot as part of your benefit package?

[MightyGem]

US based helicopter web site to look at the scantily clad ladies in their thongs
Hmmm....seems like Pprune could pick up a few tips here! :}

[handysnaks]

Hmmm....seems like Pprune could pick up a few tips here!
I like JH for the thongs too!
However, you have to browse through 90% Cr*p to get the 10% of decent stuff on the forum. Still, at least you can get it off your chest there!!

[Unhinged]

In Oz its the law.

No it's not.

[Brian Abraham]

Recall some sort of "fairness" code being the intent in that all could have the ability to apply with out fear or favour. Going back to the just post Whitlam years here but I stand aside to wiser council. Perhaps it was a company thing. Wheres a lawyer when you need one