Geoff Dixon Writes To 2600 Pilots, Threatens Union Payment Cuts [Archive]

Doctor Smith

15th Mar 2006, 22:39

AFR Mar 16th - Qantas warns pilots of a hard landing

For Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon, it is a simple problem: he pays every pilot flying from Sydney to Brisbane about $80,000 a year more than Virgin Blue's Brett Godfrey gives his pilots for the same job.

As the companies compete for a market increasingly dominated by customers loyal only to their wallets, it is a difference Qantas says it must address to compete better with its younger, leaner rival.

It is here, rather than in the sacking of maintenance staff announced last week, that the long-serving Qantas boss faces possibly his most bruising industrial relations battle.

That is why Mr Dixon yesterday wrote to 2600 Qantas pilots and told them the airline was assuming a cost base with oil prices of $US60 a barrel. He told them they must accept change, and accept it now.

He also told them he was cutting off the $500,000 a year Qantas has traditionally paid the Australian & International Pilots Association (AIPA), the pilots' union, to cover the salaries of its president and vice-presidents.

"I don't regard it as just an issue about Virgin," Mr Dixon said.

"It's about productivity and overall efficiency, not just rates of pay. Given our investment profile and the competitive nature of our business, we have no other option."

Mr Dixon, who is chasing cost cuts of $3billion by 2008 under his "sustainable future" program, said Qantas had lost fewer than four days to industrial action in the decade since privatisation.

"That has to continue at a time when the company has to set the price of its operating base at levels that had never before been imagined," he said. "And that means we have to drive new efficiencies into the business."

Yesterday's letter made it clear nothing was sacred.

"Flight crew so far have been unaffected by these changes but when just two line items - manpower and fuel - now account for almost 60 per cent of our cost base, there is no option but to accelerate the rate of change," it read.

Ian Woods, a captain on Qantas 747-400 long-haul aircraft who took control of AIPA last September, is the man whose vocal criticism of Qantas's plans prompted yesterday's letter.

He said Mr Dixon risked an unprecedented fight with all its unions - including the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and Australian Workers Union that represent engineers - if it continued with its aggressive tactics.

"We have never had a day's work lost to a strike," Mr Woods said. Qantas pilots kept out of the strike in 1989 of pilots from Australian Airlines (then not owned by Qantas) and Ansett.

"Pilots are generally very committed people," he said. "Because their commitment relies on their personal integrity, they're normally very pro-company, but their patience is being worn thin."

Mr Woods said that if Qantas could afford to benchmark its executives' salaries against executives in New York and London, then pilots' salaries should not be benchmarked against Asian competitors such as Singapore Airlines and Emirates, who earn closer to the $140,000 a year Virgin Blue pays its pilots than the standard $220,000-plus earned by a Qantas domestic captain.

¢¢¢ Mr Woods also said that as Qantas charged more than Virgin Blue, particularly by offering a business-class service, it should be able to share those higher margins with its pilots.

The problem is that Qantas is increasingly struggling to justify charging more for its services on domestic routes as customers embrace "lowest fare of the day" purchasing.

And if people are less willing to pay a premium for the hops of one and a bit hours between Sydney and Brisbane or Melbourne, it is harder for Qantas to maintain its higher cost base. That is why Jetstar is so important to Qantas: it has established the group as the lowest-cost operator in Australia and hopes to do the same when it starts flying internationally later this year.

It will result in Jetstar captains earning $158,500 a year if they fly internationally, compared with about $135,000 domestically, considerably less than Qantas counterparts.

AIPA's fear is that as Qantas services are transferred to Jetstar, the airline will reduce the standard pay and conditions in the Australian airline industry by stealth.

For a captain, Jetstar represents a sharp dip in wages, but going from a non-command position at Qantas (on a salary about 60 per cent of a captain's) to a captain's role at Jetstar can be appealing and AIPA is concerned this will be encouraged as the main area of career moves.

That is why AIPA is trying to block a new enterprise bargaining agreement enabling Jetstar's 249 pilots (who negotiate separately to the union) to fly wide-body long-haul aircraft.

This blocking movement application was rejected by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission last week, but AIPA is expected to appeal.

"Jetstar is likely to be an area of strong growth for Qantas so AIPA would argue that Qantas pilots have a vested interest," MrWoods said.

"AIPA is concerned that if there is that kind of wage differential, that it becomes standard. It is the classic pincer movement because Qantas pilots become cost uncompetitive."

And while Qantas says some senior pilots earning as much as $375,000 fly only 65 hours a month (and some even have second jobs), AIPA claims Qantas pilots' higher wages are based on the fact they work harder and smarter than their Virgin counterparts.

"Virgin Blue pilots are lucky to average 650 hours a year in the air ... That's where the difference comes from," MrWoods said.

"They [Qantas pilots] are being paid more because they are one of the Western world's most productive and efficient pilot groups. And they are now aggrieved."

[I]Ohhh the pain.........the pain :(

planemad2

15th Mar 2006, 22:46

AIPA claims Qantas pilots' higher wages are based on the fact they work harder and smarter than their Virgin counterparts.

Could someone please explain how the Qantas Pilots work smarter than the Virgin Pilots? :confused:

QFinsider

15th Mar 2006, 22:48

At the end of the day, the contract is solid.
He can bleat all he likes. Played correctly the PR battle will be won. People out there are sick of the scathing attacks. Listen and read the feedback on maintenance...

No matter what he says the office full of bean counters can't fly the aircraft:E

The_Cutest_of_Borg

15th Mar 2006, 23:06

Planemad, I think that is an unfortunate choice of words.
My mates on the QF 737's regularly run up 900 hours a year. Some go to 1000 hours p.a
If that is true that VB pilots average 650-700 per year then "Dixons simple problem" is actually an huge efficiency for him.
An extra 200 hours p.a. per 737 pilot translates to a large number of extra pilots QF doesn't have to employ. Factor in all the on-costs like super and training for these pilots and his 80,000 bucks disappears and then some.

Poto

15th Mar 2006, 23:24

Plus more hours will pay you more money- IF THE HOURS DISCREPANCY IS TRUE -then QF Short haul will be paid more:eek:

56P

15th Mar 2006, 23:29

Played correctly the PR battle will be won.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish that you were correct but history has shown that it will not happen. Remember that he has Johnny and, more importantly, the media on his side. Both assets proved successful (to the operators) in the past!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what he says the office full of bean counters can't fly the aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct - BUT other pilots can and will. That was also demonstrated in the past.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whichever way the situation is considered, the end result will be the same. QF pilots should right now consider reducing debts, downsizing and eliminating in regard to luxuries etc and storing tucker. It's over.

Thumbs up

15th Mar 2006, 23:42

¢¢¢ Mr Woods also said that as Qantas charged more than Virgin Blue, particularly by offering a business-class service, it should be able to share those higher margins with its pilots.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the Aviation populous with this little gem,Mr Woods.
From Casper

Hate to state it BUT, approx 16 1/2 years ago, 80% of the domestic pilots WERE united. The other 20% caused the "fall" that resulted in the general airline pilot pay being offered in Australia today.

16 .5 years ago,Casper,the Companies produced a pay structure that now we must protect!!.
The "fall" in general Airline pay from those conditions rests solely on the sholders of Virgin Blue,the originators of low pay in Australia.
You know.... at the hands of JR and now BK,a couple of high profile individuals 16.5 years ago.

I do agree with you though that we do need Unity,now more than ever.
This appears to be Dixons first stone thrown at AIPA,I bet with many more to come.

Roll forward 3 years....
Jetstar has a handfull of 787's and by now Dixon has given AIPA such a battering that the've been reduced to a snivling group of nothings cowing in the corner.

Geoff "Ian ,I'd like to see you in my office"

Ian "Right away Mr Dixon"

Geoff "now these 787's that we are getting with rat tails"

Ian "Yes,and very nice they are to Mr Dixon and can I commend you on our........".

Geoff "Don't interupt we when I'm talking...now as you know Jetstar have been operating these a while now and I'm very impressed with those Jetstar people and I think that they should operate the rat tail one's as well....you know....now that toilet tissue is 4 dollars a box we have to look at significant cost cutting and...well ...your it.Unless of course you can get the boys to come across to the Jetstar agreement.

Ian,"But thats a transmission of business Mr Dixon,and there's no way that Jetstar could fly an aircraft that has Business Class".

Geoff "Right then thats all,I want an answer in 5 minutes...OH and on you way out tell my PA to get my Financial adviser on the phone,I think I've I just pocketed another couple of mill in bonuses.

Tell me this is not going to happen!.

TineeTim

15th Mar 2006, 23:43

Yes Poto, they'll be paid more for more work but the efficiency saves the company money. Lots of it. Say you need to fly your 737 3600 hours. You can pay about 4 Qantas Captains at 900hrs 220K/annum to fly that=880K. Or you can pay 6 VB Captains at 600 hrs 180k/annum to fly that=1.08m. Saving 200k. Obviously I'v rounded the numbers a bit to make the maths simple but the concept remains.

relax737

15th Mar 2006, 23:55

QF insider, you will not win any PRbattle. That's been proven, and we won'tenterinto when.
The puyblic are not on your side; infact the pub ic hate pilots. Remember this isthe land of the tall poppy syndrome.
Thumbs up you will get no argument from me. Unfortuante it is but it will happen.

5miles

16th Mar 2006, 00:00

So Geoff wants to save a few dollars. Think i could find a few here:

Geoff Dixon, 2005 Total remuneration $6,482,673
Peter Gregg, 2005 Total remuneration $3,630,999

:{

planemad2

16th Mar 2006, 00:06

relax737

16th Mar 2006, 00:43

plane mad and CofB, Dixon doesn't care ifhe has the most efficient pilots in the world for the lowest price. He will wlways want more.
I agree with other posters on these forums/ae, he doesn 't car e if he has you earning less than a base grade clerk he'llkeep at you always wanting more.

What is at stake here is his bonus and the morehe saves the more he gets.
I know it 's been said before. Managements don't give a tinker's cuss about things like safety. If they did then why would they attempt to cut maintenance?? It's up to us, the pilots to keep the operation safe.

They're obliged to say they do because it looks good, but there it stops. They know you don't want to die so will be conservative with maintenance issues and then it will be fixed if you dig in.

I have a number of good matesin Qantas, and one in particular says he is appalled that they hold themselves up to be the safest airline in the world,but their maintenance standard is so poor.
The public are getting onto that but do they stop travelling with Qantas? No because they believe the hype.. Simple as that

56P, dramatic stuff, but quite right. I hope what most see as the inevitable does't hit out Qantasbrothers but Dixon is out to make 10 million a year for himself and the only thatwill happen is to bl eed the tropps for it.
I think Qf insider is deluding himself.

Keg

16th Mar 2006, 00:44

planemad2, of course that is what he meant. I'll also note that the article is written by a journalist. That means that it'll sensationalise any tiny bit that it can- that being one of them.

Chris, you extoll us to 'stay involved' nad you've said the same thing to me personally. I took you at your word but it's becoming very hard to be keen to do that when it appears that every person in the place is trying to knock you down! Ask me about it next time we see each other. If you want the full and honest answer from a line driver, I'll give it to you. :* :(

mustafagander

16th Mar 2006, 01:43

What really gets up my nose about GD's reneging on the MOU is that these conditions for the AIPA executive came out of previous EBA's and hence we bought and paid for them.

What he is doing is theft, pure and simple. He is ripping us off. I am not surprised, that is the calibre of this team of ne'er-do-wells which infests the corridors of power in what was once a great airline.

I am very concerned that "PNR" in the destruction of our airline is dangerously close.

Datum

16th Mar 2006, 02:04

This is an overt attack on all QF Pilots...

GD has no respect for any of the workforce responsible for the Airline's success, be they pilots, engineers, cabin crew or ground staff.... He may be the CEO...however, he is NOT QANTAS..:yuk:

It is time that all the UNIONS and employees start to play hardball... :*

The company is far bigger than one man.... Why let him destroy our organisation... He will move on soon - leaving behind an employee culture I would not wish on anyone! :ugh:

VC9

16th Mar 2006, 04:21

If the Captain Ian Woods is the same Ian Woods that I knew when I was in my early twenty's, I think I would put my money on GD.

B A Lert

16th Mar 2006, 04:26

.....The company is far bigger than one man.... Why let him destroy our organisation...

Datum, dear boy, it's time to get real. Qantas exists for three reasons as most reasonable people see it

1. to serve the public with a viable air service
2. employ its people (including pilots) fairly and justly in line with what society thinks is fair and reasonable, and to provide as bext it can security and continuity of employment.
3. return its shareholders/investors (you know Datum, those who put their money up front to make it all possible) a fair and adequate return on the capital invested - now and in the future.

Since when did the pilot group 'own' Qantas. Have we missed an important announcement to the ASX???

Many of the attitudes expressed here starkly show just how out of touch are many or most of Qantas's pilots. Ive said it before and I'll say it again: this is about pay negotiations at a 'legacy carriers'. of which Qantas is one. Pilots conditions at these carriers were negotiated when not a lot thought was put into what was agreed as airlines then could charge what they wanted, fuel was just another small cost and so on. With hindsight, they lived in a fool's paradise as evidenced by the demise and/or bankruptcy of several of these legacy carriers and the economic basket cases that several remaining carriers are: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, Sabena, Alitalia, Air France and so on. Even Delta, a paragon of best practice a few years ago, has been driven to the wall, by amongst other factors, high wage costs and pressures that are inappropriate in today's world of commercial aviation. The world has now changed and like it or not, a lot of the world's pilots - chiefly those employed by the legacy carriers - are still living in that antediluvian world. Before their eyes, the world is literally passing them by.

Can anyone tell us with a straight face and hand on heart exactly why the president of a wealthy trade union and his side-kick should have their salaries paid by their employer? Ever heard of conflict of interest and wondered why past presidents of AIPA have been so ready to roll over? How could anyone take on the enemy when his salary is paid by the enemy. Give me a bloody break.:yuk:

Simply put, the sooner Qantas is able to break the AIPA grip, the better off everyone will be except for, so they think, the self serving members of that organisation. And no, I am not a disaffected wannabe who didn't make the grade.

WangFunk

16th Mar 2006, 04:47

So Geoff wants to save a few dollars. Think i could find a few here:

Geoff Dixon, 2005 Total remuneration $6,482,673
Peter Gregg, 2005 Total remuneration $3,630,999

I think this speaks for itself, and those are just two!!:\:bored:

Keg

16th Mar 2006, 05:05

Datum,
Can anyone tell us with a straight face and hand on heart exactly why the president of a wealthy trade union and his side-kick should have their salaries paid by their employer? Ever heard of conflict of interest and wondered why past presidents of AIPA have been so ready to roll over?

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

'Wealthy' trade union? Not compared to some!

Salaries paid by employer? They are still pilots and still flying the line so deserved to be paid for that flying.

Conflict of interest? It's been pointed out before (and I tend to agree that it is a conflict) BUT, the payment for our AIPA executive is something that we negotiated in previous EBAs. We did away with a percentage of a pay rise in order to see those situation as it is now. All that is conveniently forgotten now that the company doesn't want to sign an MOU that was negotiated at the same time as the EBA to go hand in hand with the EBA. So, far enough to stop the payment of those positions, give us the percentage of a pay rise back again!

Again, the salient lesson above could also apply to J*. QF have moved the goal posts despite what had been 'agreed to'. They are now applying the 'letter of the law' and any previous intent is null and void.

flyagain1day

16th Mar 2006, 06:03

I look forward to watching this one with great interest.
B A Lert, you do make a couple of very good points.
To all the QF drivers, There is a few long days coming up.
Have fun and good luck.

DutchRoll

16th Mar 2006, 06:35

Datum, dear boy, it's time to get real. Qantas exists for three reasons as most reasonable people see it
1. to serve the public with a viable air service
2. employ its people (including pilots) fairly and justly in line with what society thinks is fair and reasonable, and to provide as bext it can security and continuity of employment.
3. return its shareholders/investors (you know Datum, those who put their money up front to make it all possible) a fair and adequate return on the capital invested - now and in the future.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that making several thousand employees who conduct your primary business (this includes more than just pilots/AIPA members) really pissed off is not conducive to productivity and therefore shareholder returns.

Oh, BTW, I'm both a QF pilot and a shareholder (and one who can see the CEO making a complete hash of this through his arrogance). Where does that leave me?

B A Lert

16th Mar 2006, 07:40

... 'Wealthy' trade union? Not compared to some!
Salaries paid by employer? They are still pilots and still flying the line so deserved to be paid for that flying.....

Who is comparing the wealth of AIPA with other trade unions? Your comment is a red herring. The fact is AIPA IS WEALTHY.

As for salaries of AIPA officials, are you not gilding the lily? Yes, they do some flying each Bid Period but regardless of how much or how little they fly, they are still paid credited hours way in excess of what they actually fly for which Qantas pays double; firstly to the AIPA head-kickers for time spent in YSSY (or elsehwere) and secondly to the pilots who operate the balance of the flying that would have beeen operated by the AIPA officials were they to fly a full line for which they are being paid. Qantas effectively have to keep two more pilots (probably captains) on its establishment to allow this rort to continue. I know the agreement was made in better terms but the times and world has changed. Was the agreement made under duress?

Dutch Roll, you may well be a pilot and a shareholder but do you have more shares than those allocated gratis by the Company? In other words, did you buy any Qantas shares on the market as did shareholders who really expect an ROI on their funds going forward?

Also, for every browned off Qantas employee there are probably a hundred happy and contented souls, and thousands willing to take the place of the disaffected were they brave enough to follow their instincts, tell GD and others what to do with their job and the airline and resign.. As many have said before, if you don't like it, go elsewhere and see what the real world is all about. You may then change your tune but can you walk and whistle or hum at the same time?

LTBC

16th Mar 2006, 08:29

I think everyone needs to get down to the beach and cool off like smarter pilots before us.

Keg, given the size of AIPA's membership it is relatively wealthy to other trade unions. BA Lert has summarised the financial arrangement accurately in that Qantas has provided flying relief for certain AIPA reps. That is at direct cost to the company. To argue otherwise exemplifies a lack of understanding. It has been explained elsewhere how the provisions crept into the EBA over time, but at the end of the day it is illogicial and unethical for the arrangement to exist at all.

Perhaps if there had not been such a proactive campaign against EBA7 and a subsequent challenge of its legitimate certification, Geoff would have been more inclined to sign off on the MOU.

I have very, very serious concerns with AIPA choosing to politicise this into an issue that cannot be won through fighting, especially given the imminent change to the industrial landscape. The thunderous sound of members beating the president's proverbial drum is drowning out some balanced views.

The pilots may be discontent, but there are many ways to positively progress the issues without resorting to 'chest-beating' (on both sides).

relax737

16th Mar 2006, 08:33

BALert you make some valid points, but I'mnot about to wade into that argument/discussion.
It seems to me that Dixon is just poking the cat to see what it does; if it doesn't do much he'llpoke somemore and watch.

If I was a Qantas pilot I wouldn't like what was happ ening. Good luck guys and girls.. Get yourselves organized and ready for a stoush.

Don't fallinto the sametrap that a couple of other airlines fell in to many years ago inthinking that nobody elsecould do their jobs. and never let yourselves become complacent.

relax737

16th Mar 2006, 10:16

Bad medicine QFcainer. Dixon is doing exactly as you say, and I recall friends who worked for acouple of other airlines getting similar
letters many years ago.
He's looking for a brawl.

QFinsider

16th Mar 2006, 10:58

He can beat his chest all he wants...

This is a battle that will be fought on our terms. I will never walk into a kill zone. IR laws make a very dangerous place to be.
We can fight him without engaging on his terms..

It is a premise as old as war itself. If you are not evenly matched irritate...
He won't have anything to aim at, no vocal minority nothing to aim at..
It will cost them more to run the company that is for sure..It is this which will be the way. Just coz Dixon wants a fight NOW, doesn't mean we are ready. He has to have it now he is way too yesterday's man:E

Ronnie Honker

16th Mar 2006, 11:05

He's looking for a brawl.
How else would he want it to look.
He wants to appear in control of the situation, and to do that he's talking tough and mean.
(Your mates will remember the old P.M. and his two airline cronies who did the same thing, "It's war if you go out this time boys". Well it became a war - a war for which they were NOT prepared, and the airlines paid the ultimate price. Extinction.)

Darth Dixon is counting on taking on ONLY the pilots, and that if a scrap does develop, no other employees are going to feel threatened to the point that for their OWN benefit might also decide on a course of action - it is of course, illegal for them to go out in sympathy with the pilots.

Dixon, as an individual, has far more to lose out of this than the pilots.
He's backing himself into a corner - which may well explain his haggard, worn out appearance on the last few Sunday programmes he's appeared on.

Truckster

16th Mar 2006, 11:26

QFinsider is correct. One only has to look around the world to see the intelligent use, and effect of assymetric warfare techniques.

Dixon has the new IR laws on his side and has stated he will use them. Pilots would be foolish to go on strike as the PR battle would be lost on day one.

Fortunately there are another set of laws which can be used to good effect.

If Dixon really wants to piss-off the people who by LAW, control the amount of fuel loaded aboard an aircraft; who by LAW have the final say on whether a tour of duty is extended or whether 400 pax get put up in a hotel at company expense; who by LAW cannot be compelled to operate to company schedule to make the punctuality reports look good; who by LAW cannot be compelled to give away a sector to the FO, thereby bringing the airline to a halt as it struggles to fit in recency simulator rides on already crowded schedules, then so be it.

Striking? Who needs it?

Keg

16th Mar 2006, 12:25

This is a battle that will be fought on our terms. I will never walk into a kill zone. IR laws make a very dangerous place to be.
We can fight him without engaging on his terms..

First sentance wrong, the rest is correct. It can be fought on our terms but that is no guarantee that it will! Of course, it's our own fault if we choose to fight it on his terms! :{

Whoever it was that talked about the pressure from the wife, you ain't half wrong. I mentioned some of this stuff in passing and got a lip full from her. Then againn, perhaps that's just me any day of the week! :}

Torres

16th Mar 2006, 15:08

"....cut off the A$500,000 a year it traditionally pays the Australian & International Pilots Association to cover the salaries of its executives..."

If that is not a conflict of interest, what is????? :confused:

How did AIPA get sucked into that?? :ugh: GOD is now looking for Payola time - divide and rule?

Not that that has ever happened before in Australian airline industrial relations..... :{

king oath

16th Mar 2006, 19:13

The Bluffmeister is having a prod to see the reaction.

Truckster makes a good point. Any "savings" can be quickly eroded by pilots increasing costs if they chose to do so. Its in both sides interests to take a Bex, have a cup of tea and a good lie down.

Meanwhile the Bluffmeister may not like the President of AIPA but he bloody well better get used to him being there.

Ronnie Honker

16th Mar 2006, 19:57

If Dixon really wants to piss-off the people who by LAW, control the amount of fuel loaded aboard an aircraft; who by LAW have the final say on whether a tour of duty is extended or whether 400 pax get put up in a hotel at company expense; who by LAW cannot be compelled to operate to company schedule to make the punctuality reports look good; who by LAW cannot be compelled to give away a sector to the FO, thereby bringing the airline to a halt as it struggles to fit in recency simulator rides on already crowded schedules, then so be it.
That sort of action requires each set of crew to have the balls do it, on each of their flights, and to be ready to wear possible repercussions.
He'd pick us off, one-by-one, so you can count that out.
It's tough talk, but it doesn't work.

Sunfish

16th Mar 2006, 21:13

There is only one thing that will get Mr. Dixon's immediate attention, but I don't think you are capable of arranging it. Please note, I speak as an insignifigant bit of self loading freight, a member of the public with no particular love for Qantas, but I don't like seeing this style of management bullying.

Now Qantas's most precious possession is it's reputation in the marketplace as an Australian Icon. This is termed its "positioning" in the minds of consumers, both here and abroad. This "positioning" in peoples minds is a function of its advertising, actions and news over decades.

The position of Qantas an amalgam of "Spirit of Australia", "I still call Australia home", "Rain man - Qantas the worlds safest airline" and so on and so on.

The only thing that will get Qantas's to back off is to threaten their market positioning in the minds of the average joe public

To me this requires that the statement "Qantas - The Spirit of Australia" has to be threatened directly

The reason that Qantas gets away with what it does is because we still have a warm and fuzzy feeling about it - you have to change that feeling to one of surprise, disapointment and disapproval of the actions of Qantas Management.

This would require a really good media campaign organised by a professional who really knows how to spin this stuff - which I don't.

Furthermore, you will have to roll all the issues into one and say enough's enough.

That means no outsourcing of maintenance, the reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the world's safest airline is because its aircraft are maintained by Australians who have had infinitely more expereince than Asian johnny come lately organisations, and who put pride of workmanship and safety ahead of cost cutting.

That means no outsourcing of cabin crew. The reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the worlds safest airline is that its crewed by Australians who know how work as a team, speak the same language, and know that Qantas's reputation depends on them.

That means no cutting back on Pilots working conditions.The reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the worlds safest airline is that its Australian pilots are superbly trained and have worked their backsides of through a long apprenticeship to even get a chance to be selected by Qantas, and their long expereince is directly reflected in Qantas's safety record.

Why is Qantas "The Spirit of Australia? Its because of its Pilots, Cabin crew and Engineers made it that way. And now management is making Qantas the Spirit of Greed.

Anyway you get my drift, unless you can send this message, you are doomed.

mrpaxing

16th Mar 2006, 21:38

but sunfish that would mean ALL qf unions have to work together to protect that image to the travelling public. yeah, pigs fly one day too!!!!!!!!:}

SM4 Pirate

16th Mar 2006, 21:56

Because they are basing the arguments on abilities to make ongoing profits; perhaps the alternate pay structure, if thought about, should be heavily weighted on a % of the profit.

Whilst highly unlikely to be accepted by either side, From a PR battle point of view, if you say we are willing to take pay cuts provided that the profits are shared fairly with staff that facilitated those profits by accepting reductions, it creates a great counter position and hard for GeoFf and co to say it's not about profits but only ability to compete...

$763M last year is an awfully big bucket... If you locked in a reduction in base - Say$20K each but $52M per annum but also locked in 7% of profit $53M to be divided by the 2600 who gave up the $20K each; of course neither side would want it... because its too big a risk for both... But from a PR view point the 3 seconds media attention would turn this into a story about profits over workers everytime.

You find that most management type contracts are profit incentive based (EBIT) levels, if you lock in a % of that, you're all on the same gravy train...

DutchRoll

16th Mar 2006, 22:42

Also, for every browned off Qantas employee there are probably a hundred happy and contented souls
It appears you're not aware of the results of the employee engagement survey.
and thousands willing to take the place of the disaffected were they brave enough to follow their instincts, tell GD and others what to do with their job and the airline and resign.
I don't doubt at all that many others are willing to step in for vastly less pay. This has become the Australian way. However, resigning is not necessarily brave, and could in fact be quite foolish and playing right into Dixon's hands.

B A Lert

16th Mar 2006, 23:04

It appears you're not aware of the results of the employee engagement survey..

I am, but while surveys give indications they don't tell the full story. Would you in an personal interview with your CP or DCP tell them exactly what you wrote anonymously in a survey? Surveys must be factored for the fictions and vexatious positions exhibited in anonymous surveys. The low staff turnover at Qantas suggests that things aren't as bad as you and others suggest.

Dutchy also wrote "I don't doubt at all that many others are willing to step in for vastly less pay."

Take a look at the numbers at Jetstar, Virgin Blue, and in the case of Cabin Crew only, Australian Airlines. All of these people are working for a damned sight less than those at Qantas doing the same jobs. Your comments show just how much you, like many of your colleagues who live and work in a rarifed atmosphere where your every whim is satisfied, are out of touch with reality.:E :E

56P

16th Mar 2006, 23:07

B A Lert

16th Mar 2006, 23:35

You chaps must ALWAYS be aware of the fact that pilots will NEVER attract a sympathetic response from the media - nor the public. As such, you will never win a PR battle. Other tactics need to be employed.

Absolutely correct, 56P. They didn't learn at the end of the 1980's and in 2006 they are too self-centred to take in the implications of what you so accurately state. Whether they like or or not, certain of the pilot fraternity are seen as greedy, spoilt, and self-interested (:yuk: :yuk: )and they don't even get that! They are so removed from the trevails of what is a normal existence it beggars belief

How can anyone on the salaries of many Qantas pilots, 5 star accommodation and allowances to kill for, first class deadheading travel, massive superannuation 'entitlements' and so on ever expect sympathy from the majority of the population who are mostly doing it tough as they toil to eke out a living, aka as little Johnnie Howard's Battlers on Struggle Street. OK, some pilots are doing it tough but thats because of broken marriage/s, a business or farm to run as well as a flying career but this one can say is self-inflicted.

Before the critics jump in, let me answer your question: am I jealous of any Qantas pilot? No wucking fay.

56P

16th Mar 2006, 23:47

the salaries of many Qantas pilots, 5 star accommodation and allowances to kill for, first class deadheading travel, massive superannuation 'entitlements' and so on
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.... USED to be par for the course. It just ain't so any more BECAUSE other pilots will do it for a whole lot less.

Delaying tactics such as conducting NDB approaches, cruising at M.6 or entering 3 in the CI can all be quickly identified by management and the culprits "counselled."

Use those brains of yours to think of unidentifiable tactics that hurt!

Datum

16th Mar 2006, 23:50

B A Lert,
Although you can construct a reasonably good arguement....you fail miserably in your attempts to hide your ENVY...
Get a grip...

max autobrakes

17th Mar 2006, 00:26

Over paid Qantas pilots . Average wage of a mainline QF pilot is appx $150K.
[wage bill of appx $340 million divided by appx 2400 mainline pilots}
"B A Lert" sorry but you are obviously a Qantas manager or worse still a Qantas management wannabe.So what level of remuneration do you think would be appropriate for these "Fat Cat" Qantas pilots ?

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 00:27

I think B A Lert is a pseudonym for Kevin Brown or some other pencil pusher in a cubicle who knows the ins and outs of a lot of people’s jobs while never having done them…

Tell us BA where you work and would you be so analytical if your job was threatened by someone wanting to do it for less then yourself or if someone described your job as overpaid and inefficient.

People who work on the ground for the company will always be jealous of crew especially when they see them depart and arrive from a trip and they have been stuck in an office during this time..it has always been this way and always will....people like BA would love to see crews conditions cut as it some how makes them feel better with their lot..very sad really

The_Cutest_of_Borg

17th Mar 2006, 00:39

Gotta agree there. B A Lert, you give yourself away. You work for QF, either as a management drone or some other minion. You have far too much knowledge of QF specific terms to be an outsider.

So what is it exactly you do? Maybe you are pilot who justs likes to wind people up; idiots like that exist.

What is your interest in this. Envy... boredom... schadenfreude?

B A Lert

17th Mar 2006, 00:43

As I am very content and satisfied with my lot, I am neither jealous nor envious of any Qantas pilot. I am just a realist! It's obvious that many don't like reality doses as they hit a little too close to home.

As insults will make not a jot of difference to my views, please try another tack. Might I suggest logic?

max autobrakes

17th Mar 2006, 00:44

PS
Does Little Johnnies Battler on struggle street need good school results, need to fork out $110K for a Qantas cadet course, need to pass stingent medical standards continuously, need to maintain rigorous standards in order to pass simulators and route checks,has "big brother" QAR recorders monitoring everything and I mean everything you do at work,etc,etc
Come your revolution, I suppose you'll be telling me I'll need to pay $30k for an aircraft endorsement to work for you at 3rd world employment rates ,because that's what benchmarking to the lowest common denominator is all about.
Downsize = Rightsize = Capsize.

max autobrakes

17th Mar 2006, 00:47

Hows the beach BA?

Casper

17th Mar 2006, 01:05

Does Little Johnnies Battler on struggle street need good school results, need to fork out $110K for a Qantas cadet course, need to pass stingent medical standards continuously, need to maintain rigorous standards in order to pass simulators and route checks,has "big brother" QAR recorders monitoring everything and I mean everything you do at work,etc,etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There ARE pilots who meet all the above criteria and who ARE prepared to do your job for much less, Max. AND GD KNOWS IT!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come your revolution, I suppose you'll be telling me I'll need to pay $30k for an aircraft endorsement to work for you at 3rd world employment rates ,because that's what benchmarking to the lowest common denominator is all about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad, but now true. You guys are not indispensable. THAT was demonstrated in the "late 80s."

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 01:05

“I’m just a realist”….who knows how to do everyone else’s job….sure sounds like KB and his press releases…notice how Lert never tells us where he works for the company ?

just that he has all the answers….yep management all right and most probably Darths script writer

max autobrakes

17th Mar 2006, 01:20

Casper you're not a very friendly ghost after all , are you?

Binoculars

17th Mar 2006, 01:25

I don't expect to be heard, because I have nothing to do with this on a personal basis, but it's precisely that disinterest that perhaps some should listen to.

From where I sit there are a few people here putting their fingers in their ears and loudly saying "I can't hear you, nanaanananana" over and over. Regardless of B A Lert's position in the organisation, the fact that he is saying things you don't want to hear should not blind you to their truth. Accusations of jealousy and other personal attacks are schoolyard responses unworthy of the calibre of person that max autobrakes wishes to place above the battlers of the world.

All the abuse in the world is not going to change the sad truth of the two points Casper made in his last post. Until they are accepted, you have no chance of changing them.

Datum

17th Mar 2006, 01:26

B A Lert,

If you are indeed a 'MANAGER'....apply some real thought to this situation...which is quickly becoming a real 'MANAGEMENT PROBLEM'..!!

Put YOURSELF in the shoes of your pilots (if you are QF) and try and understand why they feel the way they do.... SHOW some LEADERSHIP... a very important tenet in any organisation, particularly in a company which is considering and implementing so much change.

QF Pilots should be considered an ASSET to the company - NOT as merely a RESOURCE. This is the heart of the problem. It is not all about money or terms and conditions. The fact is, QF Pilots feel severely undervalued because management treat them as a resource which can be easily replaced by others, possibly at a cheaper rate...

This is NOT the way to harness your workforce and create an environment of teamwork and loyalty.

As lowerlobe eluded to... 'How would you feel in your present position - if your boss found someone who would do it cheaper...and for that reason alone decided they should take your position...'

The current situation and problems facing Qantas are one thing. However, the management and leadership (or lack thereof) provided by the Senior Execuitves is another.... Without solid leadership, which is based on INTEGRITY, MORAL FORTITUDE and LOYALTY (both to those above and below you)....the process of change and pursuit of profit will DESTROY QANTAS from the inside out...:uhoh:

Like I said before - GET A GRIP and show some LEADERSHIP:*

B A Lert

17th Mar 2006, 01:45

Binos - you are very wise indeed. The truth does sometimes hurt, and many have no wish to know it when it does hurt.

People will listen if they are faced with facts and logic but a response embedded with insults, innuendo and nonsense based on incorrect assumptions will only reinforce the views of the 'reasonable man'.

Can we get some objectivity back into the discussion or have the thread locked?

Animalclub

17th Mar 2006, 01:54

Maybe I've missed something here.

Have QANTAS pilots been asked to work for less money? Or to create more efficient ways of working?

Pilots have lawful maximums on duty and flying time so they can't have been asked to do more work.

Excactly what is the beef.

B A Lert has hit the nail on the head from what I can read here.

Casper

17th Mar 2006, 02:01

The fact is, QF Pilots feel severely undervalued because management treat them as a resource which can be easily replaced by others, possibly at a cheaper rate...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum,

THAT is the manner in which pilots are treated by nearly ALL operators these days. It's sad but "them's the facts." Accept the fact that it's a case of THEM Vs YOU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said before - GET A GRIP and show some LEADERSHIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership IS being shown - by management against pilots! And management will always (in this case) have the support of the new IR laws and control of the media.

Somehow, you guys & gals have got to put your heads together and fight smarter. Forget PR, media and every other tactic that failed in '89.

Max,

I AM friendly in this case - but also realistic.

56P

17th Mar 2006, 02:10

Animalclub,

The below item in today's Australian supports your post. Still no reason for the troops not to be prepared for the worst case scenario, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Brown said the airline was due to renegotiate an enterprise agreement with pilots at the end of this year and was likely to seek productivity improvements rather than wage cuts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

QFinsider

17th Mar 2006, 02:17

Fighting head on we will lose. We are totally dispensible
The IR laws will ensure that.

Flying the contract, withdrawing goodwill and costing them more money puts budgetary pressure on management, something they have very little of(other than for bonus purposes)

Sun Tzu: Be extremely subtle, to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious to the point of soundlessness.

Old but true. If there is no form, the fight can't happen. Dixon wants to provoke something, until we have an advantage best to irritate without being individually identifiable. QAR's will be checked, threats have been made to certain union executives. A directive from AIPA that we will no longer speak to management without legal representation will reduce harassment of the individual.

56P

17th Mar 2006, 02:26

Some more Sun Tzu, Insider:

* Never attack what can be defended.
* Never defend what can be attacked.
* My enemies' enemies shall become my allies.

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 03:06

“like many of your colleagues who live and work in a rarifed atmosphere where your every whim is satisfied, are out of touch with reality. ”

This quote from BALERT shows exactly the problem with management and others that do not fly and that is basically jealousy…..they believe that crew are spoilt and get everything they wish for………basically tall poppy syndrome.

“People will listen if they are faced with facts and logic but a response embedded with insults, innuendo and nonsense based on incorrect assumptions will only reinforce the views of the 'reasonable man'.

Can we get some objectivity back into the discussion or have the thread locked?”

B A Lert will be on to the moderator by now asking for this thread to be banned because he does not understand or respect other view points and people that have the temerity to criticize him.He has on more than one occasion resorted to exactly the same methods as he accuses others of.

If Darth set an example of restraint when it comes to remuneration then other sections of Qantas would as well but it is the exact opposite that is occurring.

You cannot expect groups within the organization to exercise restraint when you have just given yourself a 167% pay rise in the previous financial year and earn more than the CEO’s of SIA,BA and Cathay especially when the CEO’s of those airlines have bigger fleets to manage.

People like B A LERT will never admit to this contradiction in policy especially when it is they that benefit financially through bonus’s when others have their wages and conditions reduced or slashed.

B A LERT continues to avoid the question of where he works and does he think his job could be done by someone else for less.

OBNO

17th Mar 2006, 03:54

Hey GD and Co. Thanks for the letter.

I'm willing to be flexible, heck I'd even take a pay freeze - But will you?! Thought not.

LTBC

17th Mar 2006, 04:32

CEOs are not pilots. Geoff gets paid a lot, and most of the workers don't like it, but its the Board and the shareholders that decide what to pay him, not you.

It doesn't matter whether BALert is a pencil pusher or not, the comments made are facts. Lowerlobe, you've tried to dismiss the statements as irrelevant because BALert doesn't sound like a pilot... so what? That doesn't remove their truth. It is time you and the rest started waking up to reality.

Pilots are a resource. We may not like to be labelled as such as it takes away some perceived dignitiy, but that doesn't change the way employers regard employees anywhere in the world.

Pilots are in exactly the same boat as the Flight Attendants and the Engineers. The significant decisions Qantas made with regard to these two groups were based on the same rationale that Geoff will probably use on the pilots. Is over $70,000pa for a junior sandwich maker reasonable? Is $140,000pa for a back seat driver reasonable? Apart from carrying the 'legal responsibility' card, what do these roles actually do for $100,000pa apart from taking drinks orders and filling out a nav log? You may not like to admit it, but that is reality.

The sooner the pilot body starts to accept reality, the sooner some positive work can be done on your own sustainable futures program.

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 04:40

LTBC....Darth pays himself 5 times what the CEO of SIA gets and who has a bigger fleet to manage and darth assigns himself the pay and actioned by the board not the sharholders...

BALERTS comments are irrelevant because they do not adress the issue of a bench mark for most QF workers on one hand being the cheapest you can get and the other benchmark for the corporate club being one of the most expensive especially in terms of fleet size.

If you want to have credibility then you have to behave in a fashion that creates it..Thats what you and BALERT have not addressed..

I'm glad you mentioned Darths sustainable future and Australian employee minimising program becasue that is exactly what it is

Emplyoyees of an organisation are not a resource or a liability they are an asset which Darth is ignoring

By the way,you are not a J* techie are you?..I wonder.....because your idea of reality is different to others

the REALITY is that the J* guys and girls blinked first in a game of chicken and darth has won again

LTBC..will you tell us what fleet you are on and will BALERT tell us where he works?....some how I doubt it

relax737

17th Mar 2006, 04:59

Tsun Tsu....the art of war. All very well until you're under fire.

Ever heard this: When you're up to your ar$e in alligators it's very difficult to remember that your original aim was to drain the awamp.
Pilots are trained to fly aeroplanes, deal with emergencies, manage crises, and the listgoes on, but when called on to mount an
industrial campaign they are hopelesss. and events of many years ago proved that.

I'll say it again Qantas pilots. Good luck. You're going to need it and I'm on your sidefor what that'sworth.
Can't remember who said he's not envious of Qantas pilots, but he came in for a bit of flak furtherup the page. Mayhave been BALert.

Well I' ve been airlineflying for 30 years, short haul, long haul and in between haul, and let me say I'm not envious of Qantas pilots or any other pilots. This is just a job as any job becomes.
I don't need to put a uniform on and walkdown a concourse to feelgood about myself. I can t wait for retirement in a couple of years. Simulators, BOC, hosties, I'm over it all.

I think this is a $hit of a lifestyle and wouldn't encourage any youngguy to take it up. It's just too difficutl to keep a family together and live a normal life
Let me say agin; Qantas pilots be very careful because the man is after you. I hopehe doesn't do a jobon you, but if you think you on the game, better think again. Dixon is months ahead in his tactical war.

lowerlobe, you're not listening to what others are saying, namely, Dixson doesn'tcare if h e has value for money or not, whether you're the safest, best, cheapest, etc., he wants you for less.

Sandy Freckle

17th Mar 2006, 05:16

My enemies' enemies shall become my allies
Sun Tzu was wrong.

My enemies' enemies aren't necessarily my allies.

Jetstar have come along and set a new benchmark, and guess what? The @rsehole GD wants to use it ALREADY!

You proud of yourselves over there in J* fellas? We warned you. Any chance of progressing your case for wage increase has just flashed by you, with a blinding brilliance.

Idiots.

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 05:40

Relax737..

You would have to be in a coma to not know what Darth is trying to do however I don’t have to like it or like people who condone Darths actions especially when some of them would not know the difference between an altimeter and a coffee machine.

I was merely pointing out the discrepancy in Darths slash and burn philosophy to his acceptance of his own pay packet and others in the corporate club

J* tech crew acceptance of his offer has not only affected QF mainline tech crew but all others employed by Darth in the QF group as well and that is something that J* crew have not thought of…

If he can get a cruise F/O for $45000 then what is going to offer cabin crew and others that will work for J*International

QFinsider

17th Mar 2006, 06:24

Oh relax737

Sun Tzu: Every battle is won before it is ever fought...

Dixon is trying to stooge the fight, if resistence is formless he can't fight it:E

podbreak

17th Mar 2006, 06:28

pilots recognise the need to cut costs, but few appreciate confronting letters, a seeming unwillingness for discussion, and media outbursts exposing internal affairs.

QFinsider

17th Mar 2006, 06:45

You got it in one..
podbreak
I have never in my years in and watching business/ finance before QF, heard of an executive who publicly belates his workforce...

As i continue to say if we simply fly the contract he will look increasingly stupid...
A330 maintenance offshore(today), last week's announcment and now this.....

The public may be in-different to our plight, but they are scared of workchoices...Sunfish had it right a concerted campaign bringing together the attack on the australianness of the "icon"

Formless resistence that generates additional cost pressure..we can outlast him and give him nothing to aim at, flying the contract to the letter of the law:E

LookinDown

17th Mar 2006, 07:00

LTBC

The most highly trained nav log filler outers in existence? Well...yes.

Binoculars

17th Mar 2006, 07:42

I don’t have to like it or like people who condone Darths actions especially when some of them would not know the difference between an altimeter and a coffee machine.

Oh dear, lowerlobe, you really are more intent on shooting the messenger than hearing the message, aren't you? Several have tried, it appears all have failed. I'll try one more time. Nobody here is condoning the situation, nobody. And it simply doesn't matter what you are angry at, difficult as it may be for you to accept that.

Think what you like about me, it's irrelevant. Your fellow pilots and people who know the danger signs because they've been there before are trying to get you to see commonsense, but you are simply too angry and wrapped up in your own situation to see it.

There are no Dixon supporters here from what I can see, you are simply flailing at windmills in your anger, and I say again that until you can step back and look dispassionately at the big picture without referencing it to the way you want things to be, or stay, you are going to be no help to your own side in the upcoming fight.

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 07:58

Dear Dear Binoculars..

I have never read 3 paragraphs about nothing until now…you must be management

I’m not angry at all in fact quite the opposite I’m just curious reading posts from people who think that other people are overpaid and have never done that persons job but know everything.

This is all about the “me” generation and Darth is appealing to them and succeeding

LTBC

17th Mar 2006, 08:18

Oh come on lowerlobe, BALert and I are no more likely to tell the world where we come from than you are to sign a post with your real name. That's the beauty of Pprune isn't it? However, you don't have to stress about applying the Jetstar brush to make yourself feel better about my point of view.

It's time for mainline pilots to get their heads out of the sand and start thinking of working with Dixon rather than whining about how protected the industry used to be.

lowerlobe

17th Mar 2006, 08:36

OK so now we can dispense with that question as I imagine we can all guess who you work for..but

Now we are talking really naïve…can you imagine trying to talk and work with Darth …Not all that long ago a few other naïve people thought you could negotiate with old Adolf as well but we all know how that story finished…

As I said in my previous post this is the “me” generation and old Darth is making the most of it….sad really

Binoculars

17th Mar 2006, 09:18

Management? Try checking profiles before you blindly accuse everyone of being the enemy.
this is the “me” generation....
Yes, it is.
and old Darth is making the most of it….
Yes. He is.
sad really.....
Yes, it is.
It would seem that perhaps you are finally getting the hang of it now.

Dropt McGutz

17th Mar 2006, 12:29

Am I right in assuming that a Jetstar cruise FO is paid $45,000 yet has to fork out $40,000 to buy an endorsement for the privelidge??

Blue-Footed Boobie

17th Mar 2006, 13:15

Dropt McGutz,

..and needs to know 5 people in the company.

Blue Foot

oldhasbeen

17th Mar 2006, 14:32

Is it just me or is all this crap sounding like a certain scene from "Life of Brian",where we're talking about Reg changing his name to Loretta. For God's sake either down tools or put up with the sh*t Dixon's dishing out.You are the keepers of your own destiny. Don't blame history or other groups for your problems. Do the f*ck something about it or get out of Dodge!!:mad:

radnav

17th Mar 2006, 16:22

All this cr@p about the new IR laws coming into effect soon. Most people are scared of something they don't even understand...bit like being afraid of your own shadow. Its all scare tactics for pathetic management to use against the frightened and the ignorant worker.

Everyone just needs to take a weeks STRESS leave; can't be helped if it all occurs at the same time, after all GD is hitting everyone with some pretty stressful stuff right about now.

Put the Fleet on the Ground!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just don't Bloody RESIGN.

relax737

17th Mar 2006, 20:27

lower lobe, I'm not suggesting that pilots are overpaid, but the guy paying them IS!!!!! That's what matters.
And if he was paying you halfwhat you 're being paid now, he'dstill think you were overpaid. It's that simple. He will always want you for ,less.

What Dixon is paid is irrelevant. Yes it is obscene, but you don't control it, the board does. Don't fall into the trapof attemptingto compare you and him because there is no comparison.

QFInsider, it seems you are treating this Sun Tsu th ing like abible taking everything it says literally. There is no manual for what Dixon is trying to put Qantas pilots through, but you can bet he's thought it out well.

And don't believe Dixon when he says he would prefer to increase productivity than lower wages. It wasn 't so long ago he was on record as having said he was happy withpilots ' productivity. Maybe he's read Sun Tsu as well; it must say in there somewhere "confuse the enemy'.

Casper

17th Mar 2006, 20:57

Binoculars

Just Binos

Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 3,298 Quote:
I don’t have to like it or like people who condone Darths actions especially when some of them would not know the difference between an altimeter and a coffee machine.

Oh dear, lowerlobe, you really are more intent on shooting the messenger than hearing the message, aren't you? Several have tried, it appears all have failed. I'll try one more time. Nobody here is condoning the situation, nobody. And it simply doesn't matter what you are angry at, difficult as it may be for you to accept that.

Think what you like about me, it's irrelevant. Your fellow pilots and people who know the danger signs because they've been there before are trying to get you to see commonsense, but you are simply too angry and wrapped up in your own situation to see it.

There are no Dixon supporters here from what I can see, you are simply flailing at windmills in your anger, and I say again that until you can step back and look dispassionately at the big picture without referencing it to the way you want things to be, or stay, you are going to be no help to your own side in the upcoming fight
-------------------------------------------------------------
I've re-posted Binoculars' statements here because he is CORRECT!

Forget what GD is paid, forget what YOU paid to get where you are, forget how skilled you are (others are also) and forget the industry as it has been until now.

THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. AND YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDES AND APPROACH IF YOU ARE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE IN THIS COMING BATTLE BEING INSTIGATED BY GD. LEARN FROM THE PAST - it's only 16.5 years ago!

Ultralights

17th Mar 2006, 20:58

Is $140,000pa for a back seat driver reasonable? Apart from carrying the 'legal responsibility' card, what do these roles actually do for $100,000pa apart from taking drinks orders and filling out a nav log? You may not like to admit it, but that is reality.

No. The Reality is, when your sitting in your seat at 33,000 Ft, enjoying your boxed meal and inflight movie, then a sudden bang, airframe shudder and rapid Yaw to the left lights go out, Pax scream etc etc,

then Thats when i would have the crew be as paid as much as they deserve! its not the filling out of Navlogs, its how they handle and keep control of an aircraft when the ****e really hits the fan! sadly a more likely occurence now with the thought of Outsourced deeper maintainence on the cards!

i know QF have tough criteria required to be met before getting a front seat job, but i would rather prefer a real pilot up there with the training required to save my sorry Pax arse when things turn pearshaped, Just watch Memphis Bell, in particular the scene when cruising through broken cloud, and they emerge to find themselves only a few feet behind and below another aircraft and looking at a definate collision within seconds..... which pilot would you have flying the aircraft? the cool well trained capatain? who menouvers the aircraft to safety, of the other pilot who ****es himself, screams then hides below the panel????

Johhny Utah

17th Mar 2006, 22:02

Given that a number of Qantas direct competitors (Singapore Airlines for example) operate with a crew of 2 captains, 1 FO and 1 SO on longhaul flights, Qantas crews are already offering substantial efficiences. If you were to assume that pay rates between the two airlines are the same (simpy for comparisions sake) that would mean that the Singapore crew cost their company something along the lines of $300K + $300K + $240K + $120K = $960K whereas the Qantas figure would be something similar to $300K + $240K + $120K + $120K = $780K. When you factor in that there are a number of Second officers who have hit their 900 hour stick limit in recent times, there appear to be arguments that SO's are actually quite productive & provide the company substantial savings.

Granted, these are only round numbers, but demonstrate the marked savings that Qantas enjoy by crewing their aircraft in this manner. Of course, the beancounters choose to ignore this; At the recent roadshows they used a slide comparing Captain pay rates between Qantas & various competitors - and quickly changed the topic when the topic of using SO's/FO's in the above scenario was raised by the audience.

Typical... So - rather than banging on about how much SO's get paid for doing 'nothing', why don't people instead lament the fact that there are probably hundreds of pilots at Qantas who are effectively fulfilling the role of FO yet receive only 60% of the compensation for doing so...:rolleyes:

The_Cutest_of_Borg

17th Mar 2006, 23:02

QF share price down approx 15% in the last three weeks.

Just how much do you want the prospect of industrial action, Geoff?

LTBC

17th Mar 2006, 23:51

Ultralights, you clearly have never flown a 747. The reality (there's that word again) is that a 747 in 2006 is not a B17 in 1944. These days you have 5 seconds to disengage the autopilot and smoothly pitch the aircraft out of the red-zone. If you are approaching an imminent collision without TCAS, you're dead. Ace or not.

The assumption that increased renumeration directly relates to increased safety is a fallacy. It's nice to lament the legends of the past: the various United Airlines pilots dealing with simultaneous depressurisations and engine failures, but these days the travelling public don't really care whether you're an ex-RAAF fighter pilot, an ex-night freight punter, or an ex-tropical adventurer. They want a cheap ticket, a professional tone, and maybe an Aussie accent, but that's as far as it goes.

AIPA members should pay close attention to Kearnsey's farewell... "pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing". Like it or not, it's time to think laterally and creatively about workplace agreements and move towards the future, rather than hold onto an out-of-date past.

1DC

17th Mar 2006, 23:54

I reckon if Mr. Dixon is reading this thread he would say to himself that it is all going to plan,as expected, the natives are fighting among themselves.He would then go out and enjoy his weekend.
Where I come from there is a large seaport, it employed over two hundred river pilots who were the highest paid pilots in the UK.The port authority wanted to negotiate new terms, the pilots gave them the finger because they were invincible nobody could do their job because the river was one of the hardest estuaries to navigate in the world.The port authority employed some experienced pilots from elsewhere, gave them a month,s training on the river. The local pilots went on strike new pilots came in by the score and the river is now run with less pilots at a fair rate of pay and less than ten of them are originals.
The message is that the river pilots were not invincible, the only people who believed the war stories about difficulty and accidents were the original river pilots themselves.
Don't fall into the same trap, change is coming and if you don't get involved you wil be worse off than if you didn't.

Ultralights

18th Mar 2006, 00:07

i think you have missed my point...

i am aware that a vast majority of Pax dont care about anything other than the price of the ticket, but there is still a large group of people who are scred ****less about flying, and fly QF in some security that the aircraft are well maintained and flown by the top crew that the company can find!

and yes, 99.999% of flight go wothout a hitch, but its that unforseen percentage when the skill of the crew WILL be the difference between being interviewd in the media, or your name chissled into a monument or headstone.

I know some will see my post as saying the higher paid = better pilot, but the perception of the public is that QF pilots, based around the company reputation, are the best in the industry.

Gordon Shumway

18th Mar 2006, 00:45

And while Qantas says some senior pilots earning as much as $375,000 fly only 65 hours a month (and some even have second jobs), AIPA claims Qantas pilots' higher wages are based on the fact they work harder and smarter than their Virgin counterparts.

"Virgin Blue pilots are lucky to average 650 hours a year in the air ... That's where the difference [in salary] comes from," MrWoods said.

07/2002 - 12/2002: 387.3 hrs
2003: 788.5 hrs
2004: 814.9 hrs
2005: 779.6 hrs

.... and I try to avoid as much work as possible!!!

Would someone please pass on to Capt. Woods to get his facts right before he slags of at Virgin pilots again!

'holic

18th Mar 2006, 01:32

The assumption that increased renumeration directly relates to increased safety is a fallacy.
Remuneration is not the only factor, but it is a factor. How else do companies attract the best possible candidates for the job? And once they've got them, how do they keep that experience and knowledge base and stop employees moving on to greener pastures? As far as I can see, that relates directly to increased safety.

podbreak

18th Mar 2006, 02:56

Renumeration relates indirectly to safety; renumeration relates to engagement, which directly affects safety. Reducing this adversly affects motivation. Safety very much is a factor in this whole saga. Bean counters can't comprehend the task...

Chimbu chuckles

18th Mar 2006, 03:07

Comparing QF crews to EK, SQ etc pay is also a fallacy....EK pilots do not pay 49% income tax...they pay none...SQ pay 15%.

If the UAE introduced similar personal income tax rates EK pilot's pay would skyrocket...if it didn't EK would be grounded within hours.

This is the single biggest difference between Oz airline and many foriegn airline's aircrew cost bases.

Imagine the total gross payroll difference across the entire airline when comparing QF,EK,SQ...but we'll fix it not by evening up the paying field but by taking it out of your hide!

On that subject where will the tax revenues come from when the Govt and management have driven everyone down to much lower paid jobs with commensurately lower tax?

Does anyone still wonder why the 'need' for GST?

rescue 1

18th Mar 2006, 03:27

Firstly, it would seem to me that everyone is overreacting to Mr Dixon's note.

Secondly, throughout my years in aviation, all I see is pilots going against and fighting other Pilots. I never see the same antagonism in the medical or legal or any other professional body, yet Pilots go about change tactics in the same way the BLF would respond.

Perhaps its time to take a look around and act as the professionals that we all claim to be.

DutchRoll

18th Mar 2006, 05:42

Take a look at the numbers at Jetstar, Virgin Blue, and in the case of Cabin Crew only, Australian Airlines. All of these people are working for a damned sight less than those at Qantas doing the same jobs. Your comments show just how much you, like many of your colleagues who live and work in a rarifed atmosphere where your every whim is satisfied, are out of touch with reality.
You seem to directly agree with my statement in one part of your paragraph then go on to say I'm out of touch with reality. Now I'm really confused. I'm guessing, of course, that if you were offered a job with QF mainline, that you would politely decline on the basis that the conditions are unrealistically good.:rolleyes:

bushy

18th Mar 2006, 06:07

Is it really true that qantas pays $5000,000 to the executives of the pilots union???

Is this bribery??

Can theses "executives" be expected to be impartial in their dealins with the company??

Oh well, I guess we do live in the land of the underarm bowlers.

We are pretyy good at selling wheat too.

'holic

18th Mar 2006, 06:40

Yep, but it's not bribery. The short story is the $500,000 has been negotiated into the contract over the past 30+ years at the expense of pay rises and conditions. Think of it as cutting out the middle man. Instead of Qantas giving the money to the pilots who then pay the union, the company gives it direct to AIPA.

As for impartiality, I guess Qantas reneging on this agreement because they don't like the direction the union is heading is a pretty good indicator they have stayed impartial.

The Professor

18th Mar 2006, 07:44

Johnny Utah,

I suggest you use more accurate information when presenting an argument.

A 744 First Officer with SQ would be closer to 150,000 SG (give or take) – roughly 130,000 AUD. Most Captains in SQ would be pushing to earn as much as your First Officers – assuming your 240,000 AUD is referring to a Qantas 744 FO which I assume it is. QF SO’s for almost the same cost as competitors FO’s are unable to crew the aircraft other than as SO’s. Many airlines competing with QF around Asia pay lower salaries than QF.

Salary aside, QF has inefficiencies built into the system of crewing aircraft that Jetstar is being used to circumvent. Blank lines is an example. Crewing compliments likewise – many of QF’s competitors in the region operate similar aircraft on similar sectors with 1 less crew member than QF. At one stage, QF was even running domestic sectors with an SO.

OhSpareMe

18th Mar 2006, 07:59

Sorry Prof, but I just had to weigh in on this one;
At one stage, QF was even running domestic sectors with an SO.
They still do. But the reason is for positioning the SO rather than having to occupy a revenue seat.
And I don't know of any FO in QF earning $240,000 AUD per annum.

The Professor

18th Mar 2006, 08:37

Oh spare me.

QF were (not long ago – 3-4 years maybe) rostering SO’s on SYD-PER-SYD returns as crew, not positioning, according to friends in the company.

I don’t know of any QF FO earning 240k either, I was just responding to a post by someone using such figures. The point still remains that Johnny utah is way off with his salary comparisons and should use more accurate info.

Datum

18th Mar 2006, 09:27

I understand many of the arguments put forward in this forum....Furthermore, I appreciate reading other peoples thoughts... they help me to understand the issues at hand and broaden my outlook…

However, I believe the time has definitely come to stand up to GD (an overt supporter and 'Vanguard' of the Howard Government’s new IR legislation). The CEO and QF shareholders are NOT the only people who should be rewarded for the relative success of the company….

There are thousands of other workers (Engineers, Cabin Crew, Ground Staff, Support staff and Pilots) who deserve respect and appreciation for their efforts towards the recent success of Qantas… Some may argue that I am being too idealistic. However, allowing GD to continually berate and scare his staff is just plain WRONG. He has been in the position long enough…. Much of what is happening, particularly between GD and AIPA is based on EGO and long term frustration.… He must be removed and replaced with an individual who can rebuild the damage already done...

Why – Because the employee culture has suffered severely due to this obvious lack of respect, the constant instability due to poorly managed change and the perceived (yet obvious) inequality between QF workforce and QF management re-numeration levels. If these problems are not addressed adequately and as a priority, the company’s recent success is NOT SUSTAINABLE….

I would also suggest that investment analysts and institutional investors have started to cotton on to these critical issues…

Let’s not forget – this airline made $1,000,000,000 PROFIT (before tax) last year! What amount of profit will be enough?... Most shareholders are average Australians who just want to own a small part of a successful Aussie ICON…. If GD is left to continue on his profit hungry campaign QF will be far from Australian…

I also agree that QF may need to become more efficient in some areas. However, if the company’s Senior Management were to engage their workforce and cease from dividing and alienating their employees – they would be amazed at the efficiencies their very own people could find!! I can guarantee that pilot’s flying the line know any airline’s operation and areas of possible savings far better than most number crunchers in an office. However, if QF Management continue to treat their people purely as a resource (and not as an ASSET that can value add) they will have to push their so called ‘efficiencies’ through causing extreme heartache to employees, management, customers and god forbid - shareholders…:ugh:

DutchRoll

18th Mar 2006, 10:08

Sorry Prof, but I just had to weigh in on this one;
They still do. But the reason is for positioning the SO rather than having to occupy a revenue seat. And I don't know of any FO in QF earning $240,000 AUD per annum.
I will weigh into this too, and say that I have never heard of an F/O earning that much in QF. Still, as Dixon & his cronies would say, never the let the truth ruin a good story. I'm sure the media will pick up on this as 'Qantas Second Officers earn $250K plus'.

'holic

18th Mar 2006, 10:12

Prof,
How exactly are blank lines ineffecient? If the company has got their crewing levels correct (which is what management are paid to do) then blankliners will be worked up to the minimum guaranteed hours, which is what the company pays them. Hours worked = Hours paid. After that, the company can make them work more hours, which gives the company greater flexibility with unforseen flying/sickness/training etc.
As far as SOs on SYD-PER-SYD, they were there because the TOD was over 11 hours, so it's a CASA requirement, nothing to do with the company or the pilots. Domestic have an exemption for this. Not sure why the exemption doesn't apply to longhaul, but London to a brick if the company could have pressured CASA into it, they would have. Anyway, effeciencies and legalities aside, if your family were travelling on a back of the clock sector with pilots doing 11+ hr TODs, would you want the SO there? I know I would.

Datum

18th Mar 2006, 10:16

I agree 'holic - I would want a Second Officer there too...:ok:

Ronnie Honker

18th Mar 2006, 21:16

Well Datum your views are very appealing emotionally, but they woon't "cut the mustard" with Darth and his advisors.
Our loss is his gain (read "bonus"). He's shown over the previous several years that he doesn't care about the hardship he inflicts on other (lesser) mortals.
Browsing another forum, I cam across this interesting article GOD and the QANTAS pilot (http://70.86.224.210/~aqwquuwt/forum/viewtopic.php?t=95), which points out Dixon's Achilles Heel.

The time draws near for command decisions to be made.

VH-Cheer Up

18th Mar 2006, 22:27

Crikey was trying a bit of shareholder activism to question the wisdom of benchmarking GD and other senior exec packages against the world's top decile: http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/03/16-1523-3464.html

Meanwhile the people quoting Sun Tsu should understand this: Sun Tsu was not fighting his own divisional commanders; his enemies were the generals of other armies. To that extent, GD and the pilots are all supposed to be on the same side, because the battle is supposed to be between QF and other airlines.

Applying Sun Tsu to business is just an allegory... And it's not one that is conveniently adapted to a smaller-scale conflict, IMO...

Good luck QF drivers. And don't be naive.

VHCU

ur2

18th Mar 2006, 23:18

Can anyone tell me what are the average annual hours flown by QF Capt's and F/O's on long haul and short haul.
That should put the question of productivity to rest.

Dehavillanddriver

19th Mar 2006, 03:05

I would like to see, and this is not airline specific, our salaries pegged to the CEO's salary.

Work out what the CEO gets as a package (so he/she can't shift bits into bonses etc) and then decide on what is a reasonable percentage for a F/O and Capt.

Then everytime the CEO awards themselves a payrise we get one too.

It is an established practice in our environment - F/O's get a % of a Captains wage, why shouldn't it extend to CEO's?

So what is $220 000 as a percentage of 7 mill? A bit over 3%.

So in Dixon's opinion the average Captain is worth a mere 3% of what he is worth to the company.

Hmmmmmm

'holic

19th Mar 2006, 03:08

Don't think you can compare the two on flying hours alone ...

Some people could argue that shorthaul are more productive per hour flown. Doing multisector days, they log less flying hours than longhaul for the same tour of duty. In other words, they have to work longer per hour flown.

Some people could argue that longhaul are more productive as they carry more bums on seats, carry higher revenue business and first pax, mostly night flying with multiple time zone changes etc.

Not saying who is right or wrong, just that the two hauls are completely different flying.

The_Cutest_of_Borg

19th Mar 2006, 03:15

It varies from fleet to fleet and is a function of the route structures and the two different awards, longhaul and shorthaul.

If I was to hazard a guess:

737: 850-1000 hours

747-400: 800-850 Capts and FO's, up to 900 hours for SO's

747 classic: God knows due to small fleet and wildly varying flying program.

A330: 650-700 hours due to mainly regional flying program. i.e. Can be inefficient due to a lot of destinations not having daily services... NRT BOM PVG and PEK etc.

767: 650-700 hours due flying mainly inefficient domestic trunk routes. i.e. usually 1.20 block times.

'holic

19th Mar 2006, 03:29

I would like to see, and this is not airline specific, our salaries pegged to the CEO's salary.
That could be a double-edged sword. When times are tough the CEO more than likely will be the first to take a hit, in bonuses at least.

What we should not accept is downward pressure on salaries from management and/or other pilot groups at a time when the company is making record profits.

Pass-A-Frozo

19th Mar 2006, 03:48

The CEO and QF shareholders are NOT the only people who should be rewarded for the relative success of the company….

There are thousands of other workers (Engineers, Cabin Crew, Ground Staff, Support staff and Pilots) who deserve respect and appreciation for their efforts towards the recent success of Qantas

Does this mean you would be happy to take pay rises and be rewarded when the company is doing well and take a proportional pay cut when the company isn't performing?

planemad2

19th Mar 2006, 04:28

Well Datum your views are very appealing emotionally, but they woon't "cut the mustard" with Darth and his advisors.
Our loss is his gain (read "bonus"). He's shown over the previous several years that he doesn't care about the hardship he inflicts on other (lesser) mortals.
Browsing another forum, I cam across this interesting article GOD and the QANTAS pilot (http://70.86.224.210/~aqwquuwt/forum/viewtopic.php?t=95), which points out Dixon's Achilles Heel.
The time draws near for command decisions to be made.

That article doesn't count, that was by Kaptin M......... ;)

Datum

19th Mar 2006, 05:03

Maybe putting pilot's (and other workers) salary at risk is a possible solution...However, in the case of Flight Crew I reckon it would raise concerns within the safety department.

My point is – IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE MONEY!!! :oh:

GD and QF Senior Managers DO NOT value their workforce. This is clearly evident by the fact that they continually 'benchmark' their employees against the CHEAPEST alternatives available (ie: QF Pilots v Jetstar/Virgin, OS based Cabin Crew and Chinese Maintenance workers)...

Clearly, they do not adequately value the quality of the product and/or the service their current employees work to provide….what is worse is that they denigrate and berate their staff in the public forum. It is an absolute disgrace. I cannot understand how the Board allows this behavior to go on..

Not surprisingly, this lack of respect is a two way problem. Any organisation in which it's so called leaders are not respected has significant problems!

Foreign Worker

19th Mar 2006, 09:04

Obviously you think more of yourself than your employer does.
Stuff like the CHEAPEST alternatives available (ie: QF Pilots v Jetstar/Virgin only re-inforces in other pilots' (and the public) minds the opinion many have always held of Qantas pilots - that you think you are superior beings to all others.
So in a way, some people might feel that what is about to happen, is long overdue.
Sorry.

amos2

19th Mar 2006, 09:17

Yeah!...it's a shame isn't it?
Qantas drivers have been a joke in this country for the last 40 yrs!
And after 40 yrs they still don't get it!!

:sad:

Ronnie Honker

19th Mar 2006, 09:58

We all enjoy reading your informative posts, AniMOSity. The constructive criticism, the profound thinking....I could go on, but I know it will only be a waste of time.

Go and take a dose of Andrews Liver Salts for your sol.

Datum

19th Mar 2006, 10:21

Foreign Worker and Amos2,

I did NOT say that QF Pilots are any better than Virgin or Jetstar....

I said they COST LESS... big big difference!

Cheaper does not necessarily mean better and nor does more expensive guarantee a better product...

However - If QF Pilot Terms and Conditions are reduced, you can bet there will be the same downwards pressure applied to Virgin, Jetstar, Eastern, NJS, all GA operators...etc etc...

Get my drift! :oh:

Foreign Worker

19th Mar 2006, 10:47

Cheaper does not necessarily mean better and nor does more expensive guarantee a better product...That being the case, then why wouldn't Dixon want to have his pilots on similar salaries?
However - If QF Pilot Terms and Conditions are reduced, you can bet there will be the same downwards pressure applied to Virgin, Jetstar, Eastern, NJS, all GA operators...etc etc...

Get my drift! :oh:No, I don't.
What makes you think QF pilots should be on higher salaries than their domestic counterparts? Just because the T & C's of QF pilots are knocked back, it doesn't mean that those of (say) VB, Jetstar etc, are going to stay pegged in the ratio at which they were before (which is what you seem to think).
There are lots of pilots in the world who fly in far more demanding conditions, day in-day out, than the QF, VB, and Jetstar pilots.
Dixon is seeking parity of conditions for the QF pilots, with the other Australian pilots (at the moment.)

The sooner the lot of you realise you ALL need to unify, the better of you're ALL going to be, imho.

Datum

19th Mar 2006, 11:04

Foreign Worker,

How do you think QF attracts just about every Australian pilot to apply to fly their aircraft?.....For the same reason most bankers wants to work at Macquarie Bank, or for the same reason most accountants want to work for one of the 'Big Firms', or for the same reason footy players chase the 'best contract'...

It is very simple - If QF Pilot Recruitment wish to retain the ability to pick and choose who they see fit (whether their selecton process is right or wrong)...they will need to continue to offer TOP DOLLAR...if they do not, their pool of eligible people will diminish...or they will be forced to drop their standard...I am sure I know what Qantas Premium Travellers would want!

However, 'benchmarking' your employees to the CHEAPEST alternative is not a good way to show mutual respect or build cohesion within your organisation.;)

The Professor

19th Mar 2006, 12:26

Qantas will never struggle to attract pilots. Even if Dixon “attacked” your conditions of service they will still be generous compared to Jetstar and virgin. Qantas has a lot of industrial baggage that will always ensure that pilots (engineers cabin crew) will enjoy premium pay and conditions, even if its by one dollar.

Comparing corporate accountants, high flying bankers and footy players with wage and salary earning pilots is pointless. Try again.

Change is inevitable but its not the end of the world. Don’t panic.

Quietachiever

19th Mar 2006, 12:44

If you were around in 1989 you would remember the name Ian Oldmeadow who was hired by THE FATMAN to sort out those awful AN drivers.
He has been re hired by Mr DICKSSSSON ( which must mean son of a dick) to sort out the QF drivers.
The QF drivers are not about to make the same mistake. You have a new industrial war about to occur.

Foreign Worker

19th Mar 2006, 20:13

You have a new industrial war about to occur.It seems you're unaware that the war has begun already - those letters to your homes were a major strike for the Dixon camp.
There was nothing wrong with the way the previous war was waged, imho, that's why the Gov't had to make temporary alterations to Australia's legislation.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in GOD and the QANTAS pilots (http://70.86.224.210/~aqwquuwt/forum/viewtopic.php?t=95) - "Dixon is placing all of his money on the premise that QANTAS pilots will accept lower than current conditions to remain where they are (Australia), rather than moving offshore."

3 Holer

19th Mar 2006, 21:49

Dixon is placing all of his money on the premise that QANTAS pilots will accept lower than current conditions to remain where they are (Australia), rather than moving offshore."

I would say Dixon's money is on a sure thing.

DutchRoll

19th Mar 2006, 22:08

Does this mean you would be happy to take pay rises and be rewarded when the company is doing well and take a proportional pay cut when the company isn't performing?
We're one step ahead of you PAF - we took a 12 month pay freeze after Sept 11, in a year which the company was one of few if any airlines still making a profit (and actually not such a bad one either)! You might note however, that QFs bonus and incentive scheme for employees in years of record-profits is, err, somewhat lacking in substance shall we say. The great unwashed employees have this kind of bizarre desire to get a few crumbs of the increased profit-pie when they've spent all year trying to operate more efficiently and burn less fuel, help fix scheduling traumas through goodwill, extend duty hours after diversions, etc, etc, etc.

Pass-A-Frozo

19th Mar 2006, 22:37

G'day DutchRoll,

What I'm saying is if you want a piece of the profit pie, maybe you should accept a piece of the loss pie. One of the benefits of just being an employee is that if the company makes a loss you still get paid. Pay freeze is ok., but all I'm saying is if you want a greater slice of the profit in the good times, perhaps when QANTAS have a year when they lose $1 Billion, it would be equitible to take a 10% pay cut.

As for record profits, you'd have to look at the return in relation to market capitalisation to see if it's a "huge profit". Probably comes out in the vicinity of 14-16%. The numbers might look big, but look at the amount of money being used to create that profit. $20 interest from your bank in a year probably sounds a lot to your 10 year old, but he wouldn't understand that with current banking practices you probably need $2000 to earn that :)

LTBC

20th Mar 2006, 00:04

A billion dollar profit is all well and good, but you have to consider the return on investment.

Renumeration has got nothing to do with safety. Using 'safety' is just a way of glorifying the role further. Virgin 737 crews are paid less than Qantas 737 crews (even when you factor in the efficiency differences) but they are not any less skilled. Did the overrun in Darwin occur becuase the pilots were paid less? Would the Qantas 737 have avoided the hill in Canberra more effectively if they were paid even more?

No Qantas applicant has "the renumeration package is the best in the country" as the main reason they apply. It's not the money, and it never has been... its the image, the lifestyle, and the security. These things are more closely related to 'engagement', and these are the ideals AIPA should be focussing on.

It would be advantageous for executive management to consider them too...

Keg

20th Mar 2006, 00:40

PAFie, all the management guns from Flight Ops up to the CEO have a package that pays on top of 'base' pay. If the company does poorly, they stilil get their 'base'. So I'm more than happy to sign up for the same deal as the CEO. Get my base pay and if things go fantastic then I'm rewarded. If things only go OK then I'm more than happy on a lesser bonus. If things go south then my base pay will suffice.

We've been articulating such a thing for a long time now but the CEO et al want us to put some of our pay 'at risk'. When they put some of their base pay at risk, i'll consider putting some of mine at risk. I reckon I'll be waiting a bloody long time.

LTBC

20th Mar 2006, 01:36

What are you talking about? Most of his earnings already are 'at risk'. Geoff has a reduced FAR to obtain access to bonus and equity payments. That is how executive renumeration works.

You can't have a bonus scheme on top of your existing salary.

You're also forgetting that if Qantas goes south, Geoff will be the first to lose his job, not the pilots.

Executive contracts are also negotiated individually - attracting specific pressures. What would happen if pilots negotiated the terms of their employment as individuals? You've already seen what small groups of pilots will do to access career opportunities to the disadvantage of more established groups.

An EBA system is one of protections. There are very few contractual protections for the long-term careers of managers.

Elroy Jettson

20th Mar 2006, 02:08

Its ok LTBC, I am sure GD will be ok if it all comes unstuck at QF. Hopefully he is able to put some of his $130,000 a week away for a rainy day. But who would know, what with the exorbitant prices you have to pay for a 57' Chateau latief nowdays, he may just be going paycheck to paycheck. :}

Have you seen a list of the Qantas execs? Can you tell me which of them dont have a golden parachute, or a fall back position? :{ Is Eddingtons great work at Ansett an example of execs missing out? Maybe Toomey? Even he survived to run another company. How bad do you have to do? What about the IT manager who lost $200mil in a year, she even left with millions to pick up another high flying position. Yep, they must be trembling in their respective boots or high heels every time they get driven into work!

I think I will save my sympathies for the engineers who have had their livelyhoods decimated by these nice folk. Their salaries at risk? Please...:yuk:

Ralph the Bong

20th Mar 2006, 02:26

Toomey's payout was $10,000,000 btw. (sorry about the topic creep). Guy's this whole issue is about how the wealthy and executive classes are simply seeking to redistribute the wealth from the middle class into their own pockets. Note how executives get more bonus when the workers get screwed?? These pr!cks will be the first against the wall if ever we can up off our a22es and organise a revolution!

Now, hands up if ya voted for little honest Johny??

Pass-A-Frozo

20th Mar 2006, 02:38

I did and will again!

Did you think that maybe the reason that QF is doing so well (when most other airlines around the world have been going bankrupt) is that the Australian economy is doing so well.

The Howard government is responsible for the good business environment QF operate in. He doesn't set executive salaries.

organise a revolution!
Oh if only Ho Chi Minh was still alive!

Keg

20th Mar 2006, 04:12

LTBC, wer'e essentially arguing semantics but it's an important one.

The CEOs 'base' is set at about $2.5Mill (plus or minus a lazy Million). That is his base pay no matter what. If the company does well, his bonuses and options take him up to $6.4. If the company does not so well then his base pay is all he gets. (I do recall the management taking a 'half bonus' three or four years ago?!?!).

To use the same logic, if I too were on a bonus of say 50% of my pay then I too would have a significant portion of my 'earnings' at risk- 1/3 of it to be exact. In fact, bring it on! As I said before, i'd LOVE to be on a similar wicket to the powers that be. I'd be happy to be on the same deal as the Chief Pilot where my base pay is fixed and I take a bonus for when the company does well.

OK, lets look at the other side of your argument. Things don't go so well- IE, GD doesn't deliver on his KPIs- then he gets the flick. I'm not sure how this is any different to me not delivering on any of the KPIs that the company puts in front of me every three months or so (every two days at the moment! :E ). If I don't deliver as advertised, I get the flick too. The only difference between GD and me in this respect is that he probably gets a great pay out and I get zero. Compare that to the CP if he doesn't do well. How much does he have 'at risk'? Only that part that takes him from a normal line Captains pay up to CP pay. I bet his bonus is significantly more than what he has 'at risk' too.

Finally, just because executive renumeration 'works this way', doesn't make it right! Not all 'conventions' are good ones! :*

Sunfish

20th Mar 2006, 04:14

With the greatest of respect. Unless you and your Jetstar colleagues threaten QF's profits, you are simply peeing into the wind.

rudderless1

20th Mar 2006, 04:14

PAF $2 000 000 000 + a month going backwards in GDP even during a resources boom (our only chance to make money given the state of industry and the importing of everything) when will Johnny show us his dynamic economy. Where is Australia going, down the toilet becoming a baby of Yanks. All its shyt social problems not to mention quality jobs, education, health and transport.

Two weeks a year leave, nomadic work, insecure futures, a few rich and a lot of working poor is that what we want? Wake up! What’s happening to society? I better get in the trailer business.:yuk:

3 slips and a gully

20th Mar 2006, 05:39

$20 interest from your bank in a year probably sounds a lot to your 10 year old, but he wouldn't understand that with current banking practices you probably need $2000 to earn that

...actually about $370-$450 in capital should yield $20pa. I wouldn't lecture in economic theory if your cash is earning you 1% when 4.5% - 5.4% cash management rates are readily available to the average punter.

Rudderless1 says it all really quite succinctly.

QFinsider

20th Mar 2006, 05:49

No wonder PAF sees it as going well, he sits comfortably in the ether of public service...
Sitting in sheltered workshops workchoices and Dixon represent a new march to efficiency.........As delusional as lil Johnny (the iron man this) is Dixon wants these provisions it represents his best chance to drive cost down(Nb: PAF static revenue at QF growing the company in the last 3 years take vision and skill-cost cutting the cutprice management technique). The nature of the states challenge means he must push ahead quickly as the High Court may not see the workchoices as a good thing!

It is always the most ignorant that see things as so black and white..

Workchoices

"Unfair dismissal provisions apply to flight crew",
Next paragraph "unfair dismissal doesn't apply to those grossing more than $94,000"....

Keep on reading these are scary provisions, Lil johnny will turn this country for the sake of ideology into the 51 US state, a basket case at that! But hey it looks great from Canberra! And we can always have tourism and mining!

Rudderless1- a succinct summary
Sunfish-Exactly once "intangible" goodwill translates into "tangibles" on the cashflow then we stand a chance..

DutchRoll

20th Mar 2006, 06:02

Actually PAF, US economic growth has been pretty robust too, like Australia's, yet their big airlines are in all sorts of trouble.:confused: Maybe there is more to it than only economic circumstances?

The Howard government does indeed have generally good economic sense, but they have also been fortunate to ride a wave of western prosperity in recent years. The same is true for many western governments, irrespective of whether their policies have lent to the 'left', 'centre' or 'right' in the last 15 years. Even the arch-socialist countries of Europe (aka France, etc) are still growing economically, albeit slowly! I have to draw the line at praising him though, in respect of the IR laws. You'll be largely insulated from them in your current job (which BTW now pays WAY more than 10 years ago primarily because mine pays better! I can run through the history of that if you like).:ok: I sure as heck won't be!:uhoh:

Keg brings up a very pertinent point. I too would be quite happy to have the same 'ground rules' applied as the CEO. Unfortunately though, corporate governance (if there is such a thing) in Australia just doesn't work like that. For example an Aussie CEO, far more so than an American CEO, can lead a viable company into oblivion and still walk away with millions.:*

3 slips and a gully

20th Mar 2006, 06:12

The Howard government does indeed have generally good economic sense, but they have also been fortunate to ride a wave of western prosperity in recent years. The same is true for many western governments, irrespective of whether their policies have lent to the 'left', 'centre' or 'right' in the last 15 years.

Spot On! The British govt has been 'left' for a long time. The Canucks just voted a conservative govt in after over a decade in opposition. The Canucks have a budget surplus, trade surplus, oil, a strong dollar (aprreciated over 15% to the AUD in the last 8months) but threw the 'left' govt due to a financial corruption issue between the feds and some Quebec party hacks. BTW the corruption was a lot less in strength to the AWB wheat hypocrisy/fiasco IMHO.

Mind you, its a 'right' govt (a loose term) in DC that is fiscally buggering that once great nation whilst alienating 7/8ths of the globe. Clinton handed over a reasonably sound fiscal machine in 2000.

Foreign Worker

21st Mar 2006, 02:23

Anyone else sick of being treated like a kindergarten kid?

inthefluffystuff

23rd Mar 2006, 11:05

Little bloody Johnny the first Aussie dictator!!!

HotDog

23rd Mar 2006, 11:50

Little bloody Johnny the first Aussie dictator!!!

Maybe you are too young to remember the "Silver Bodgie"?:yuk:

JulieJetstarFan

23rd Mar 2006, 12:16

It is such a pity that the Jetstar Pilot Council didn't have the courage to turn down a crap deal. They could well take a page out of the book of the Jetstar Flight Attendants who have voted down their EBA or the Jetstar engineers who mangaged to squeeze the company for more money by announcing their intentions to conduct industrial action. The JPC really blew it for all aviators in this country... thanks boys.

I wish the Flight Attendants the best of luck in negotiating a better deal and congratulate them on having the courage to stand up and respect what they are worth.

HotDog

23rd Mar 2006, 12:37

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8315/picture3876cz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

An interesting and thought provoking article from the New York Times.

By BOB BUCK
IT'S that time again — time for airlines to make pilot pay the burning issue in labor negotiations. At Delta Air Lines, pilot salaries are in arbitration; at Northwest Airlines, pilots are close to striking.

Why is pilot pay always such a source of contention? Perhaps because it seems so high. After all, a pilot can make as much as $220,000 a year for working only 85 hours a month.

But this is only part of the story. True, a handful of senior pilots make $220,000 a year, but 85 hours is only half true because pilots spend as much time planning flights, looking at weather, studying, training and sitting around airports waiting for delayed flights, as they do flying. The 85 hours is counted only from the time the airplane leaves the terminal until it arrives at its destination. What's more, this is the very top salary; a captain for a regional airline, for example, makes around $60,000 a year.

And it's not as if pilots haven't already taken a hit. The Delta pilots agreed to an annual pay cut of $1 billion, or 32.5 percent, in late 2004. (Now Delta is asking for an additional $305 million.) Their Northwest counterparts agreed to $265 million of cuts in 2004 and $215 million in temporary cuts last year. Now the company wants to cut $145 million more. Pilot pensions are in a similar state of disarray.

This is not to say that pilot pay isn't high relative to other lines of work. The high pay dates back to just after World War I, when airmail service, which was managed by the Post Office, was established. And to my mind, the pay was wholly justified.

Back then, flying was dangerous; no radio guidance, no instruments for bad weather, no de-icing equipment or radar to reveal thunderstorms. Flying was all contact, meaning that you stayed in visual contact with the ground. Trying to see ahead when fog or low clouds forced the pilot lower and lower, with no visibility; pilots lost their lives running into hillsides or unseen obstructions.

In exchange for risking life and limb, pilots were well paid. In 1924, the top salary was $8,000 a year, or close to $1 million in today's dollars. In 1938, when I started flying DC-3's for Transcontinental and Western Air (later Trans World Airlines), we still were paid more for flying at night and over mountains.

As flying became safer, pay was reduced but still remained high. How? The pilots formed a union, the Air Line Pilots Association, in 1931. The key man was David L. Behncke, a retired United Airlines pilot, who fought the airlines' attempt to have one industry-wide contract for pilots. By seeing to it that pilots had individual contracts with each airline, Behncke ensured that each negotiation could build on the one that came before it.

He also helped to keep salaries high by emphasizing productivity as well as safety. Behncke argued that a pilot hauling 400 passengers should make more than one transporting, say, 70 passengers. This was a winning tactic, though I was never certain that it was entirely accurate. Smaller planes are not necessarily any easier to fly. A 747 pilot, for example, takes off from New York and lands in Paris: one flight. A regional jet pilot, by comparison, can wind up making five stops during one day, or night — or making all his flights in the same lousy weather system.

People think that computers have made flying easier — you just turn on the autopilot and relax. Not so. Computers do many things, but they don't know what to do when a line of severe thunderstorms blocks the flight path, nor do they worry about marginal weather at destinations and what to do about reserve fuel and a host of possible situations that can be resolved only through human intelligence informed by experience.

There are simply too many situations that demand a professional in the cockpit. I've flown for a long time, and I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard a colleague say (or felt myself), "I earned my year's pay on that flight."

Here's just one story. In June of 1970, I was piloting a TWA 747 from Paris to New York. Forty minutes into the flight, TWA's Paris dispatch office called to tell me I had a bomb on board. According to the warning call they had received, the bomb was due to go off in 45 minutes.

We turned around and dived toward Paris. We started dumping fuel to get our weight down, but we didn't have time to reduce the weight to the legal landing limit.

Decision time: land and risk going off the end of the runway, or circle around dumping fuel before the bomb goes off? Landing a plane that's overweight takes up runway space. I visualized what was off the runway's end: farmland. I concluded that it was probably worth the risk, even though we'd knock out lights at the end of the runway as we slammed through.

Thankfully, we landed safely. The passengers were evacuated down the slides while still far from the terminal. (Officials didn't want us nearby in case we blew up.) The only injury was a fracture in a flight attendant's ankle. They never found a bomb.

Airline pilots go through stuff like this all the time. This is why they deserve to be paid decently (if not extravagantly). It's for this reason that I hope the union will remain strong as it works with Delta and Northwest (and whoever's next) on problems of pay, retirement and safety. As they talk, pilots, I know, will do their job of getting airplanes from departure to destination safely. After all, the pilot is on board, too — a fact that should be respected, but not taken for granted.

Source:

max autobrakes

23rd Mar 2006, 22:13

Fellow pilots after some serious navel contemplation and soul searching, I believe BA Lert, Casper LTBC and all the other QF Management stooges are correct.
So it's off to re-education camp for the lot of us until we have all collectively learnt by rote the company mantra,
NOW chant after me
ALL DAY,EVERY DAY, LOW PAY
OMMM.

B A Lert

23rd Mar 2006, 23:06

Hey Max - I resent that. I can't speak for the others you name but I am NOT a QF Management stooge, just a logical and pragmatic thinker who's living in the 21st century. After that libel, I'm now making an appointment to instruct Slater and Gordon to take appropriate action! :ok:

Lucius Vorenus

23rd Mar 2006, 23:15

Hey Max,

Our glorious leaders say "frank and forthright" is no longer ok. Now that they can't grandstand on company money its
This episode is a complete departure from the amicable and cooperative arrangements that have existed between AIPA and past Qantas Management, and I hope and am confident that this will prove to be a temporary episode.
If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious! What a waste!

Binoculars

23rd Mar 2006, 23:35

Guess that must make me one of them there Qantas stooges too. I'm sure Casper would be equally amused at the irony.

Still shooting the messenger, Max? I know, it's a lot easier that way, isn't it? If you're good enough at it, you never have to hear anything you don't like, which brings us back to the nine year old with his hands over his ears yelling "I can't hear you!" :rolleyes:

B A Lert

23rd Mar 2006, 23:59

...Still shooting the messenger, Max? I know, it's a lot easier that way, isn't it? If you're good enough at it, you never have to hear anything you don't like, which brings us back to the nine year old with his hands over his ears yelling "I can't hear you!" :rolleyes:

Max has plenty of mates, Binos, and that's exactly why AIPA is being done over like the proverbial dinner, and yet they don't get it. It really is a matter of there being no one quite so deaf, or blind, as he who doesn't want to hear, or see. I wonder if they'll even wake up when the train is literally crashing through them?

LTBC

24th Mar 2006, 07:07

Some won't have to worry too much with such a healthy Chifley package.

It's the junior members left behind who will be left to pick up the pieces of their careers.

LookinDown

24th Mar 2006, 07:30

B A,
Some might consider 'management stooge' complimentary!

inthefluffystuff

24th Mar 2006, 19:54

Hot Dog

Silver Bodgie?:bored:

Casper

24th Mar 2006, 21:07

I'm certainly no management stoogie. Just trying to get some of you guys to realise that you are now in the real world, one vastly different to that when many of you first entered the holy halls of the red rat. GD has turned those halls into a battleground and many of you have yet to notice it! Some good advice has been offered on this post - just think about it.

"Sometimes he sits and thinks and othertimes he just sits!"

Please don't claim that you weren't warned.

HotDog

24th Mar 2006, 22:56

Hot Dog
Silver Bodgie?:bored: aka Bob Hawke.

oicur12

25th Mar 2006, 07:54

The article by Bob Buck is extremely selective.

“People think that computers have made flying easier — you just turn on the autopilot and relax”

Computers have made flying infinitely easier and do indeed enable the pilot to relax. Sometimes even fall asleep.

“. . . . nor do they worry about marginal weather at destinations. . . .”

The aircraft that I fly is capable of Cat III landings in zero viz, let alone “marginal” weather.

“. . . and what to do about reserve fuel . .”

What exactly do you “do” with reserve fuel that the FMC doesn’t calculate for you?

“Airline pilots go through stuff like this all the time”

What utter nonsense. I have never met an airline pilot that has been subject to a bomb threat. It is extremely rare and something for which the QRH is designed to cope with.

vagabond 47

25th Mar 2006, 09:31

PW1830

25th Mar 2006, 11:07

I hope I can avoid being ïn an aircraft "commanded" by oicur12

oicur12

25th Mar 2006, 11:52

Vagabond,

“. . . . .and that the QRH solves all evils. . . . “

Actually, I only referred to the QRH in connection to Bomb On Board. I would never suggest that the QRH solves all evils, however when it comes to the extremely remote chance of having a bomb, the QRH is more than enough.

PW1830,

Perhaps you could explain which part of my post you find so offensive. I was merely commenting that the job of flying transport aircraft is far less complex as a result of technology than in days gone by, the statistics don’t lie. There are numerous ways to justify the high salaries usually paid to airline pilots but operational complexity is becoming less relevant.

You may harbor a distrust of the gadgets installed in modern aircraft but most of my colleagues are more than happy to recline behind the newspaper and work through a sudoko or two. The days of sitting at the ready, eyes fixed on the horizon and hand ready to takeover the controls are gone. 777’s and A330’s are not flown, they are monitored.

Electras and Viscounts – now that’s a different story.

blueloo

25th Mar 2006, 12:01

oicur, your post is a tad flippant. does your cat III which lets you autoland in marginal conditions let you do it at 30kts xwind? of course i know what you meant by your post, but it can be read many ways.

what does your fmc do with reserve fuel, my one merely reflects what i put in it preflight, or if i update it inflight. it doesnt calculate legal or company requirements for a diversion. i do that.

computers havent made the pilot necessarily relax and fall asleep, some people can fall asleep anywhere. maybe you feel at ease cause you have faith in the other pilot with you on duty, combined with the relatively reliable aircraft systems.

QRH more than enough for a bomb threat - in what sense- if you have a bomb on board your stuffed anyway?

HotDog

25th Mar 2006, 12:59

oicur12, I have been involved in three bomb threats during my career in the Far East. Fortunately all of them hoax calls but none the less disturbing when informed by Control. Especially after one of our aircraft was blown up over Viet Nam by an in flight insurance beneficiary.

ys120fz

25th Mar 2006, 21:01

rescue 1 said, on page 5:

Secondly, throughout my years in aviation, all I see is pilots going against and fighting other Pilots. I never see the same antagonism in the medical or legal or any other professional body, yet Pilots go about change tactics in the same way the BLF would respond.

Perhaps its time to take a look around and act as the professionals that we all claim to be.

well rescue, they do attack each other, just as much as you see pilots doing. It's not a new phenomenon. It's been going on since men were hanging from trees and still goes on in the animal kingdom. It's called "survival" and it will never change.

Some are more aggressive at it than others, but all are capable of it to a greater or lesser degree.

CaptCloudbuster

25th Mar 2006, 22:39

Just love these "shiny butt Baron to Boeing NG Capts" that think Cat111a Autoland whilst having a coffee is bad WEATHER, and that the QRH solves all evils.....Shows a fundimental deficiency in Maturity with this RELIANCE on all that is electronic and that is what is scary about modern Aviation.

Vagabond... you really tell it like it is. It's scary to read a post and see a pilot who thinks he's got no more to learn, experience to gain or f@ck ups to make :uhoh:

I only hope I'm not a passenger on his flight some day when hard earned experience is required not blind reliance on the wonders of modern aviation technology.

I guess the old addage is right.. pay peanuts get monkeys.

oicur12

26th Mar 2006, 00:35

Hotdog,

Bomb threats do occur; I have not suggested that they don’t. The article written by Bob Buck finished with “Airline pilots go through stuff like this all the time” after detailing a bomb on board incident. This is simply not true.

Cloudbuster,

It wouldn’t be pprune without someone arguing against a point of view that simply does not exist. Thank you for your reasoned, well constructed and objective opinion. Bravo.

I have not suggested that I have “no more to learn”. I do not for a second believe that I have no more “experience to gain”. From what part of my post you have gleaned such an impression I am not sure but please accept my apologies for misleading you.

As for any future “f@ck ups” that I may make – and I will make them - I thank the fine people in Toulouse for giving me 3 ADIRS, 2 GPS, 2 autopilots, autothrust, autoland, flight envelope protections, TCAS, EGPWS, Predictive Windshear Detection, FPV, Nav Display’s and many other goodies that thankfully will ensure that my “f@ck ups” are far less consequential than when I flew aircraft with little or no automation and that I spend less time flying the aircraft and more time monitoring its progress. And reading the paper.

I make just as many mistakes as the next person and I am fully aware that the swiss cheese is full of holes just waiting to be aligned. But I also understand that operating a glass jet requires a reliance on technology that once did not exist. The flying skills required to operate an A320 or a 777 are not the same as the skills required to operate a Conny and to argue as such is simply falling prey to a common problem facing the airline industry – the thinking of the end user often lags way behind the actual technological developments of the equipment being used. In simple terms, pilots often try to complicate something that the manufacturer has spent vast sums of money simplifying.

The main point I am trying to make is that the threats facing the operation of a modern automated aircraft are very real but also very different from many of the issues discussed in the article by Bob Buck.

Times change. That is all.

Gnadenburg

26th Mar 2006, 02:24

oicur

You take every opportunity possible to dumb down the profession. Are you a contrarian or is it just perverse symptoms of professional masochism?

In the simulator, are you required to demonstrate the ability in your Airbus to fly without ADR's in an engine failure scenario? Or manage the ambiguity of the Franglais in the QRH bomb threat, justifying your interpretation ( there are at least two ). Then post detonation, managing an emergency descent, landing etc etc.

It would seem you are paid more for what you know, more so than what you do on a sunny day.

Bob Buck " Airline pilots go through stuff like this all the time". Depending on the airline, every 90 days!

Failsafe CAT 111 a or b? You sound Arabic or Korean. Beware of sandstorms, gustfronts and typhoons.

Chris Higgins

26th Mar 2006, 02:46

Oicur, did you go the same school that Bob Hawke went to for flying lessons? The one that taught him that airline pilots are just glorified bus drivers?

I have seen the damage that attitudes like this have had on the industry Stateside. A local flying school has had three accidents in three successive months. The increasing problem comes with insurance and liability. No flying school can afford to pay a livable wage in this part of the country, so the self-defeating cycle just continues.

We were in New Orleans the other night on a ferry leg in and learned that a charter outfit flying a light jet refused to land there without a VASI.

How 'bout we actually get back to putting down the newspapers and card games, (I can't actually believe your company doesn't have policies against this, that's what crew rest is for), and go back to hand-flying once in a while when the boredom sets in? It might just save you one day..being able to fly proficiently.

DutchRoll

26th Mar 2006, 04:11

rescue 1 said, on page 5:
well rescue, they do attack each other, just as much as you see pilots doing. It's not a new phenomenon. It's been going on since men were hanging from trees and still goes on in the animal kingdom. It's called "survival" and it will never change.

Yeah I'm sorry rescue 1 but I have to completely agree with ys120fz that, from 1st hand experience, other professions do indeed attack each other. There is sometimes a difference in the way that they do it, but that's not necessarily a positive thing. The medical profession can, for example, be quietly and privately ruthless when attacking a colleague.

Dynasty Trash Hauler

26th Mar 2006, 05:11

Gnads, chris, cloudy etc - being a bit paranoid are we not.
No one has suggested that flying is easy, just different to what it was and i agree. gimmee the 744 any day over a classic - much easier to operate. automation makes our jo easier - no question about it. autothrust especially.

getting upset cos you think its going to result in lower pay is stupid - every industry job builds itself into mystery just to justify maintaining conditions of service.

flying is no different.

Gnadenburg

26th Mar 2006, 05:47

Gnads, chris, cloudy etc - being a bit paranoid are we not.

Well look where dumbing down the profession got China Airlines. Technology can't always stay ahead of the lowest common denominator. ;)

CaptCloudbuster

26th Mar 2006, 06:30

I have not suggested that I have “no more to learn”. I do not for a second believe that I have no more “experience to gain”. From what part of my post you have gleaned such an impression

These three statements gave me the impression you have not been flying multi crew jet transport for very long or you are one of those pilots who like to dumb down our profession.

1: "the aircraft I fly is capable of CatIII landing in zero viz, let alone marginal weather"

I always used to get annoyed when another crew member said the aircraft could land itself to a visitor on the flight deck. Flippant and inaccurate. Have you ever experienced x-winds or turbulence in excess of that which the autopilot in the aircraft you fly could safely handle?

2: "what exactly do you "do" with reserve fuel that the FMC doesn't calculate for you?"

With experience you learn that the FMC cannot predict for example when an aircraft might blow a tire closing the airport you wanted to land at or the weather forecasters got it completely wrong and you now need an alternate.

3: "I have never met an airline pilot who has been subject to a bomb threat"

I have. Stick around a little longer and I'll bet you do.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage

"There are old pilots and bold pilots but none that are old and bold":}