Eagle Air to advertise for Direct Entry Captains [Archive]

Blue-Footed Boobie

8th Jun 2007, 07:41

Empire Building alive and well at Eagle then?

Capt. On Heat has very valid point there. If all the F/O's at Eagle passed the bells & whistles interview process then the company is endorsing them as potential commanders given time on type and experience.

So why then does it turn around and fail 80% of it's upgrade candidates? Either the interview process is a waste of time and there to justify someones position or the training deptartment is a failure?

Blue Foot

Cryten

8th Jun 2007, 08:38

You too can come and live in small town NZ..... and earn as much as a burger turner at Mc Dees ....in about 5 years.....

Sign me up

big buddah

8th Jun 2007, 09:58

If any of you Eagle boys want to come to Africa and earn some real money let me know. We're short of 1900 crew.
PM me

hoggsnortrupert

8th Jun 2007, 19:19

Quote "big buddah":
If any of you Eagle boys want to come to Africa and earn some real money let me know. We're short of 1900 crew.
PM me .
Where in Africa? NAC, AEA, SOL, with either of these?:
B1900's On contract/Tour Mumbai/ I am "told" USD's $8K month. plus housing.
In NZ two pilot in a SINGLE PILOT A/C, how can the F/O's log time? I guess the only place it is recognised is in NZ?
My mates Daughter had a interview with Eagle, then they chopped her, after her ride, because she OVER SHOT THE INBOUND in "strongish winds".
From what I gather, a check Capt, A training Capt, and a bunch of F/O's taking turns. What ever happened to One on One?
I thought this practice of "FEAR MONGERING" had passed in NZ, but apparently not.
A big ask of anyone at that experiance level, with no established Time=Feel on type.
To her and others like her that have suffered the same, put it behind you, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If you want to spend your flying Career in NZ then go the Eagle way:
If you want to do well and "expand" your flying career, get a start by putting your pack on your back, book a Airline ticket, and travel, and knock on some doors.
My young Niece working at Burger King: $30.5K per Annum.
You go figure!:ok:
H/Snort.

Dog One

8th Jun 2007, 23:06

For company to have a 80% failure rate for command upgrades, doesn't speak very highly of the culture of the Check and Training organisation. Such a failure rate indicates that the organisation has no training ability, training is required before checking can occur. In Australia, it is now referred as Training and Checking for that very reason.
If a organisation employs F/O's with the intent to upgrade them to Captains in the future, then the training should start right from initial appointment. In my experience over many years I have found that most people can be check pilots, but few can be both Training and Checking pilots.
With a 80% failure rate, the organisation needs a very in depth audit by the regulator, as it would appear ther could be serious problems in the culture.

KRUSTY 34

9th Jun 2007, 00:34

Don't you guy's see what's going on here.

The new recruits and the majority of the command upgrade candidates have very little multi-command IFR experience. It's not their fault, they have become victims of management policy and shotsightetness.

The previous experience requirement that applied not only to this organisation, but to a large number of other 2nd and 3rd level operators was put in place to ensure the integrity of the flight ops safety standards.

We now have a serious shortage of experienced pilots. As such the calibre of candidate is generally less than what had been enjoyed in previous years. Is it any wonder that they are failing?

Management wordlwide are almost pathelogical in their resistance to what needs to be done to retain experienced staff.

The attitude that "we are only a stepping stone" or "how can we compete with the larger carriers" is no more than an excuse. Pay people well and offer them a decent lifestyle, and you would be surprised at the result.

So what do they do, Lower minimums to a level where there pilots are effectively substandard. If they do not water down the check criteria, then people will continue to fail, and fail they must. As I said not the candidate's fault, but the reality is they are not a suitable candidate.

I believe that the check department are simply applying the standards. They are resisting going easy on these guys and girls out of a real sense of duty. Something management probably have no idea about.

haughtney1

9th Jun 2007, 09:08

Some good points Krusty..but then

I believe that the check department are simply applying the standards. They are resisting going easy on these guys and girls out of a real sense of duty. Something management probably have no idea about.

They aren't resisting, they are protecting/building their own little club/empire within the company, and woe betide if anyone questions their "methods" or results.
I've seen the same thing happen in other airlines training departments..it is more common than you think.

An 80% failure rate is a failure of the training department, NOT a failure or lack of quality of candidate..its THAT simple:=

Dog One

9th Jun 2007, 09:31

Krusty

While some of your points are valid, you are missing the bit that the checkers aren't doing sufficient training to ensure the candidate upgrades are going to make the standard.

I have seen this before and have checked failed candidates as part of a quality assurance program, to find that giving the candidate some additional training in the areas deficient, that they have passed without many dramas and have become good reliable Captains.

One also finds that applying the same standards to the black & white to the book checkers usually results in a fail because they cant think outside the square. Its that old adage, don't ask some one to do something unless you can do it within tolerance.

Split Flap

9th Jun 2007, 22:01

Lets face it, More than 80% of pilots out there can command a 1900. It simply cant be that hard, so why are 80% of candidates failing? Cr@p system thats why. Simple.
Some of these "seniors" at Eagle must be pretty bitter and twisted.
Anybody with the necessary requirements would surely be doing something more rewarding.........like sticking ones appendages in a vat of boiling fat!
Oh dude I almost fell off my chair laughing with that one. :ok:
Perhaps one day Eagle can apply some realistic entry criteria, great training, and quaility training and checking, and surprise surprise some of their problems with attracting good staff that can pass their upgrades may just vanish.
I think with regards to training departments they get out of their pilots what they put in.

muttly's pigeon

10th Jun 2007, 06:52

In NZ two pilot in a SINGLE PILOT A/C, how can the F/O's log time? I guess the only place it is recognised is in NZ?

Not entirley correct hoggsnortrupert, Can think of more countries running B190 two crew than one. In anycase it must be very recognised overseas given the swarms of Eag crews who have left to take jobs in Asia, Africa, Middle East and America of recent times. You can go onto you argue your own view but its getting the boys and girls jet gigs world wide so one cant complain.

conflict alert

10th Jun 2007, 08:32

Mattyj wrote

None of Eagles 1900s have autopilots mate so by NZCAA rules they must have two crew for IFR ops. Its the same for any aircraft..no autopilot 2 crew..even a C152.

Bollocks....the days of having 2 of everything (ADF/VOR/ASI/ALT etc etc) and an autopilot for single pilot ops are long gone. You can fly anything single pilot ops except where the flight manual for the aircraft type dictates otherwise and as long as you can communicate without having to take your digits off the flight controls. Nothing to do with whether there is an autopilot or not. 2 crew..even a C152:rolleyes:....pleeease:ugh:

27/09

10th Jun 2007, 09:51

You can fly anything single pilot ops except where the flight manual for the aircraft type dictates otherwise and as long as you can communicate without having to take your digits off the flight controls. Nothing to do with whether there is an autopilot or not.

Better check with the regulator on that.

Air Transport ops have extra requirements, at least in NZ. Can't remember the exact requirements, but I think any ATO must have 2 pilots if not equipped with an operational auto pilot and I think any ATO with or without auto pilot, with above 9 PAX, must be two pilot also.

6080ft

10th Jun 2007, 10:39

In nz if you are doing ato's IFR then you must have an auto pilot - or a two pilot crew. If you are part 91 then single pilot no auto pilot is ok. I wouldn;t bother with that tho!

You can fly around in anything on an ATO VFR with no auto pilot.

conflict alert

10th Jun 2007, 21:23

I probably didn't explain myself very well..you are correct in that under ATO's you must have an auto pilot for single pilot ops IFR and 2 pilots if no autopilot - or - manual dictates 2 pilot operation.

The way I read Mattyj's message was that he was referring to IFR ops in general (including private ops). This was reinforced by his reference to C152 and the use of "all IFR Ops". This was what I was responding to. If Joe wants to fly his privately owned learjet around IFR without an autopilot - and the the flight manual says you don't need two pilots - then he can

hoggsnortrupert

11th Jun 2007, 21:35

Not entirley correct hoggsnortrupert, Can think of more countries running B190 two crew than one. In anycase it must be very recognised overseas given the swarms of Eag crews who have left to take jobs in Asia, Africa, Middle East and America of recent times. You can go onto you argue your own view but its getting the boys and girls jet gigs world wide so one cant complain.

Where, or Who , or What authority, allows F/o time on such, to contribute towards time for ones ATL? If it is as per its FM a single Pilot A/C::suspect:

H/Snort

Bongo Bus Driver

11th Jun 2007, 21:45

I may be wrong but I believe the CAA made a ruling on other GA operators a few years back whose pilots were logging Co pilot time in aircraft whose flight manual did not require two pilots. They said that even though air operations require two crew for IFR flights with no auto pilot (in this case part 135 ops) the second pilot cannot log the time unless they are the pilot flying.

Does the AFM of the 1900 require two pilots? If not then no co pilot time can be logged using the same rational.

However I am not sure of the details so this might be bollocks. Can anyone expand on this?

kmagyoyo

11th Jun 2007, 23:21

Any chance of getting back to the subject???

muttly's pigeon

12th Jun 2007, 02:11

If it is as per its FM a single Pilot A/C

Might want to check with one of the B190 boys around the country but I believe there are words in the flight manual are along the lines of "Minimum flight crew of one except when operated as a (insert relevant rule) category aircraft in which case the minimum number of flight crew is two"

B1900's in NZ fall into the relevant category on thier ATO's and hence require two. The boys log Co-Pilot time towards thier ATPL, and many of which take the logged time and licence it earned overseas - everyones happy.

horserun

12th Jun 2007, 23:49

What does ALPA think of all this??

always inverted

13th Jun 2007, 01:19

Obviously not that much as I haven't heard of it being a problem and CAA would be th first to step in something like that wouldnt they.

Thats just the way it is here and if you dont like sand then stay out of the sandpit...
Think the call bout looking for direct entry captains is some-what of a fishing exersize as I'm not sure where they will come from. May be a good boot in the ass for the co's to hurry up and meet the req's for the lh seat.

muttly's pigeon

13th Jun 2007, 01:38

Think youll find ALPA fine with it (presumably conditions attached) as they have taken DEC before when there was no one else to fill the seat.
Agree with AI... would probably be more hassle that upgrading a company co so may well be intended at a rev up with the co's at this point.

Sqwark2000

13th Jun 2007, 04:22

Maybe a rev up for the co's, but was told at same meeting that there were 10 command upgrades slotted into the training program over the next couple of months, and at last check of the seniority list there's only about 4-5 co's that meet the legal/company requirements.

Also spoke to a recent contract captain who has returned to Eagle after a number of years out of flying, and was surprised (shouldn't be really :hmm:) that he is back at year 1 Capt pay despite his previous service, qualifications and time on type.

Cloud Cutter

14th Jun 2007, 05:35

I'm pretty disappointed that they've been allowed to do that with the bond. Did the current employees try to fight it, or just let it through because it doesn't affect them?

Either way, it's not good or fair, and will see more and more good pilots opt to spend that little bit longer in GA until they can get into Air Nelson or other.

At the end of the day, the large pay disparity between Eagle and the next step, will often make it viable to cut one's losses, and pay out the bond. It's disappointing when a company tries to stem the personal progression of its employees.

flyby_kiwi

14th Jun 2007, 07:38

Bugger its gone up but faced with what is the norm over the tassie which is self funding the type rating, at least the bond keeps the ball in the employees court as to wheather he/she wil be parting with cash.

Those bold enough can always contend it and probably win (as one past employee is rumoured to be finding out as we speak). The burning bridges saying comes to mind however.

Cant see too many guys wanting to stay stuck in what they percieve thier dead end GA jobs for another 12 months waiting for NSN, especially given that youll probably have a B190 command after 12 months vs starting out as a Q300 f/o. - One of the two will dress the CV a little better and its not the latter.

Current pilots didnt let it through on the basis it didnt affect them..... more that the company just made the offer to new pilots at the interview and was accepeted by all..... I assume that because the bond conditions themselves are not part of the acutal CEA(?) (a testament to how enforceable a bond is) it was not disputed by the pilot group.

always inverted

14th Jun 2007, 21:24

The bond is totaly inforced if one decides to leave and not pay up. The now contract captain had done exactly that, he had left and now he came back, why should you get the same money if you leave then come back.
Curent pilot group not very vocal about it only because we read about it in the summary of the cmg minutes.... There may have been a few that knew but who realy cares.

If up and comming pilots want to get a job in a turboprop then they make the decision to sign or not dont they.
I really dont know why some people in here are making such a big deal over the eagle stuff, I mean does it really concern them...
Seems like a whole lot of idiots that have too much time to bitch and moan when they could be a bit more constructive and give positive comments to the current situation. Could it be that they have been shafted and now its payback or are their noses all sticky from putting them in other peoples business ?
Again, if you dont like the sand......:=

haughtney1

14th Jun 2007, 21:52

If up and comming pilots want to get a job in a turboprop then they make the decision to sign or not dont they.
I really dont know why some people in here are making such a big deal over the eagle stuff, I mean does it really concern them...

Nice attitude inverted...could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG, and use this forum to voice those concerns? because lets be honest...things aren't that great at the moment:rolleyes:
I should also add that there are plenty of us on here who have been around this industry both in NZ, Oz, and other parts of the world who will take umbrage with your comments inverted..the "I'm alright jack" brigade have a lot to answer for with regards to the denigration of existing terms and conditions.
For what its worth, I actually think a bond is a fair and equitable solution to pilot retention...as long as its reflective of the true cost of training..and not an artificial impediment to movement.

muttly's pigeon

15th Jun 2007, 03:32

could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG
Yeap but there seems to be more people on these forums knowing about whats going on at EAG than people working there.

AI has i the summed it up perfectly...... should be a standard disc. for any thread involving EAG: if you dont like the sand...... :ok:

Now EAG have culled many over the years (rightly or wrongly), most of whom have moved on and done well for themselves....... then there are those who on every thread make a song and dance about have moved on to such greater heights yet little known to themselves actually view this forum in a false attempt to convince themselves that that it really was the best thing that ever happened, and therefore the rest of us should all despise the place. Not to many present/past EAG boys and girls bitching about it, it seems to be more those who have as they put it.... 'moved on'.

Now play nicely :ok:

horserun

15th Jun 2007, 03:34

Ha ha ha ha:}:}:}

Eagle just gets better and better!! I was told the other day that 70% of people fail their command check first time round. Any truth to it??

Must have a piss poor check and training culture!

nike

15th Jun 2007, 04:10

could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG

First hand? I think not.

You can check your horse at customs next time you're in town.

It is fair to say that Eagle gets more than it's share of bashing on this forum, and it's generally from the same handles, with the same tone.

I doubt many here (particularly the neigh-sayers) have worked or currently do work for Eagle, and in such do they have a direct beef with them?

At the very least, by all means have your say, but then don't make out that these negative posts are somehow improving the situation. Further to that, it's probably fair to say that this isn't exactly breaking news and in such the arguement of spreading the word for the greater good is equally weak.

You're all winners in my book.

haughtney1

15th Jun 2007, 08:28

Nike you are so right mate...oooooopps I forgot to say all my info is first hand, straight outta the mouths of a several current line pilots, in both seats:ok:
BTW I'm quite fond of my horse, its the cowboy boots and spurs that cause problems....:}
I've said it plenty of times before, EAG is a good outfit to get some kerosene multi-time, and it is also a good first "proper" job. It isn't despite the indignation expressed on here any better or worse than most other semi-GA outfits operating similar kit.
It could IMHO do things a lot better for both its employees, and its shareholders.
Comments like "if you don't like the sand" emphasize a particular type of arrogance that prevails in the small minds of those who don't know any better:=

distracted cockroach

15th Jun 2007, 08:39

Hey guys, a wee heads up regarding bonds...not sure what the policy is, but if you remain within the Air NZ group (go to NSN or Air NZ), there is a good case for the bond not applying.
Anything's worth a crack, and something to bear in mind if the bond is a deciding factor on whether the job is worthwhile taking.
Any doubts, give ALPA a call.:ok:

nike

15th Jun 2007, 09:15

I forgot to say all my info is first hand, straight outta the mouths of a several current line pilots, in both seats
Fair cop.

It just seems weird that their conduit lives on the other side of the world, having never worked for the company but pipes up at each chance with the all seeing all knowing surmon of the day.

And that appears to be a common theme within these posts. If it is so bad there, why are there very few posters from within the company?

You have to forgive me for thinking that it does reek somewhat of soapbox syndrome, thats all.

haughtney1

15th Jun 2007, 10:01

It just seems weird that their conduit lives on the other side of the world, having never worked for the company but pipes up at each chance with the all seeing all knowing surmon of the day.
Its called a day off;) but I wouldn't describe it as a sermon...more like an opinion with a slightly different perspective.
As far as actual EAG drivers are concerned...well there are plenty who frequent these threads, I'm quite confident (according to my well placed sources) that most of what is put on here..both good and bad, ain't that far removed from the real picture, but as Nike, you and I both know, you have to filter out some of the BS.
Relating to your soapbox comment..that is probably well deserved for me (at times) but I make no apology for having an opinion...it really comes down to the fact that I am passionate about all things related to aviation in NZ, aviation in NZ got me to where I am today, it taught me how to survive, and how to become a reasonable aviator. I now temper those thoughts with the experience I have gained flying in other parts of the world...the people I have met...and the different ways I have seen various companies/individuals resolve identical problems to what appears to be happening at EAG now. Then when I read "if you don't like the sandbox" comments it just reinforces to me the attitudes that prevail in some parts of aviation in NZ, you know what I mean Nike..the barbed aeroclub bar comments, that frustrated "c" cat who cant get that first job because he/she is so full of their own BS, they can't see the wood for the trees, or that 40ish shortish balding training skipper who has his own non-standard way of doing things that do more to mess a student up..than to train them.
So in essence I'm guilty of trying to pass on a little of my experience to those in NZ etc, who might think "hey..you know what? hes got a point"
It just so happens that it appears from the people that I know in EAG that they are going down a bumpy expensive road of their own choosing simply because of a little empire building going on in the training/checking department.

nike

15th Jun 2007, 13:24

Fair enough.

I guess I chose to ignore the "sandbox" comment as I simply put it down to frustration, hence the hipshot. Or at least I would hope that was the case....

Quite right, it is a big bad world out there, with plenty to be gained from jumping the waka, but I'm not quite ready to believe NZ is as lost as it is sometimes made out to be.

I agree there are differing attitudes out there, and they are frustrating and sometimes dissappointing, but like the Labour Government's keenness to legislate everything from leashes to electric companies, sometimes the message affects the wrong people.

Sandboxes & soapboxes - the bane of our lives.

27/09

15th Jun 2007, 20:04

And that appears to be a common theme within these posts. If it is so bad there, why are there very few posters from within the company?

Nike, Was wondering exact same thing myself.

muttly's pigeon

16th Jun 2007, 05:41

Lets pretend (or maybe he is :hmm: ) muttly's pigeon in a past/present EAG pilot and decides to weight up some of the ****e one sidedness portraid by posters such as horserun, split flap etc....

1) Interview process is unfair?

MP needed 3 days off work for what is a rather carreer altering interview and made sure he got them, had a good time at the group interview meeting the other canditates, had a panel interview which was standard stuff no real dramas, did and apt test which didnt take long and didnt have to do a flight so wont comment. Got in.... no worries.

2) Pay is crap?

Not enough to tempt me to stay for life, but 27 years old, single living in provincial NZ 40k base + 10k tax free allowances pays the bills with some play money left. Not too mention a free trip to Canada, super, staff travel company paid loss of licence insurance, salary continuance. $100 per night in the hand for overnights means some bases make a bit more.

3) Planes are smallest in the group?

Someone has to have them, in anycase will outperform any of the other props in the group with ease :cool:. Dealing with pax is what you make of it.... can be a bit of eye candy to keep one awake and a couple of romances sparked up between pax and co's

4) Check programme is unfair?

Challenging but MP hasnt had anyone 'out to fail him'. Understandable problems complicate things due to not having a sim but its not in the company interests to fail everyone.

These seem to be the main issues people not working there have, but for a guy/girl with 1000hrs looking to fly a nice jet someday the 'product' eagle produce keeps operators like cx happy and there is a big representation of eag pilots in Hong Kong, in anycase 14-18months to a command beats 3 or 4 elsewhere. have a cmmd for 6-12 months and go fly that jet when you may otherwise be a co on an albiet bigger prop.

If your looking to make eag a short stepping stone then youll be fine...... Most of the guys are a good sociable bunch with plenty of new blood and no old dinosaurs who should have retired many moons ago but just wont leave.
If you want to make you life about flying props then there a better options out there, but for as far as a two or three year stepping stone its what you make of it and and aint all bad kids :ok:

6080ft

16th Jun 2007, 05:48

muttly's pigeon - excellent post could not have put it better myself.

Flyin Low

16th Jun 2007, 06:43

in anycase will outperform any of the other props in the group with ease Oh please! This is the exact mentality that Eagle produces...

have a cmmd for 6-12 months and go fly that jet when you may otherwise be a co on an albiet bigger prop You need a command at Eagle to get your ATPL... those of us that were on the 'albiet bigger prop' just did it on a sim check, then moved onto the jet's, no need for a command so that argument doesn't really work.

kmagyoyo

16th Jun 2007, 06:53

How about we pick on the hat wearing jacket clad types at Air Nelson for a change, they're WAYYYYY more arrogant than anyone I've come across at EAG :E:E

cjam

16th Jun 2007, 07:10

Flyin Low
You don't need a command at EAG to get your ATPL, you need your ATPL to get your command....pretty obvious really, I'm sure thats what you meant. I think the argument does still work a bit cause a command is a command, to a degree , I'm sure 1900 command hours would help more in a jet interview than Dash F/O time etc. It's obviously not as heavy but you fly through the same weather to the same airports at the same speeds (ignoring the dash's last 6-10 miles of course), making pretty much the same descisions.
So in my opinion if two guys joined Link at the same time, one Eag and one Nelson, I reckon the Eag guy would be in better shape after three years. On average of course. No doubt there are Nelson super stars and Eag plonkers :)

Flyin Low

16th Jun 2007, 07:45

I meant that at Eagle you need to be up for your command then do your ATPL/Command check (same ride right?). At Air Nelson and Mt Cook, you do a year or so then you can do the ATPL in the sim, you don't need to be anywhere near a command.
So in my opinion if two guys joined Link at the same time, one Eag and one Nelson, I reckon the Eag guy would be in better shape after three years I don't think so, I think it's more up to ones motivation and luck (especially with Air NZ) more than anything. Most jet operators need turbine time, they don't stipulate command or co. Maybe if you went to Vincent and took a direct command on the 1900 then yea you should be in better shape. Lots move on from Eagle because you need to, plenty are happy to stay at Air Nelson and Mt Cook and fair enough too!

Bongo Bus Driver

16th Jun 2007, 09:51

Kmagyoyo

Why not start a thread on Air Nsn arrogance. It should be a bit of a laugh whatching the responses.

outboundjetsetter

16th Jun 2007, 22:54

DECS'? what are there requirements????

muttly's pigeon

17th Jun 2007, 06:55

Most jet operators need turbine time, they don't stipulate command or co

If was a betting man id prefer to have the PIC box filled up over the CO one.

Why not start a thread on Air Nsn arrogance. It should be a bit of a laugh whatching the responses

Its displayed everytime there is an eag thread. Most of the NSN boys are good fellas, and good mates of MP, but there is the old joke of a NSN f/o just being someone who failed thier EAG interview (rightly or wrongly). Sadley a few of those boys who were owed a job in the first place only have time to take thier hand of thier tools long enough to write a bitch about the company that didnt want them (and drag the line flying boys into it who had no input on thier outcome)........ JUST WATCH THE NEXT FEW POSTS PEOPLE.

Oh please! This is the exact mentality that Eagle produces

Then im sorry. You can call me a liar :E Just making a point that having a small plane is not all bad.

muttly's pigeon

17th Jun 2007, 08:06

Outboundjetsetter;

Its just talk at this stage with no depth to the plan as far as I have heard but would expect requirements to be along the lines of an ATPL and 2000tt, and safe to say some multicrew turbine.

flyby_kiwi

17th Jun 2007, 08:17

Can current captains resign and re-apply as a DEC on a deal with a few sweetners? :ok:
Maybe if the Link group merged up (as we all know will never happen) could create a bigger pool of pilots to move around and keep everything ticking along?
I hear its about 3 years for a Mt Cook cmmd now? I remeber being told it was nearly ten years for a Cook cmmd once upon a time, that time not all that long ago.
Exciting times ahead for career progression :8

conflict alert

17th Jun 2007, 09:27

Just as an aside, how many of you who whinge about how work is ****e were told when you entered the fully funded pilot factories that life would be sweet??

kmagyoyo

17th Jun 2007, 21:53

flyby_kiwi

Re the command thing and Chook; its been about 3 years to command for the last 3 or 4 years. It was kicked off with the fleet doubling in size then Air NZ going ballistic on the hiring front. Its been sustained by the Fiji setup and the odd retirement but seeing how we have handed back an ATR (albeit two years ago) its going to stretch out a bit...the last of the 3 years to left seat guys are going through now. What it will go to??? Who knows, but after two years at NM a 'friend' is still in the bottom half of the CO list.

Caveat. Like anything in aviation it will probably change tomorrow. In the meantime the Capt list is about 20% longer than the CO list so if your interested....

billyt

17th Jun 2007, 22:22

For Interest..

AIR
18/06/2007
GENERAL

REL: 0957 HRS Air New Zealand Limited (NS)

GENERAL: AIR: Air NZ Subsidiary Eagle Air Emergency landing at Blenheim

Air New Zealand Subsidiary Eagle Air Emergency landing at Blenheim

Air New Zealand Subsidiary Eagle Air wishes to advise that one of its Beech
1900D aircraft with 17 people on board made an emergency wheels up landing at
Blenheim airport around 0915 today. All passengers and crew are uninjured and
are receiving support at Blenheim airport.

NZ 2300 was on a flight from Timaru to Wellington when it diverted to
Blenheim.

always inverted

18th Jun 2007, 05:28

The sandpit comment was not made in arrogance as there is enough of that with some of the new f/o's here. Just get sick of hearing about how shyt eagle is and this and that... who cares, if you dont want a turbine job, or dont agree to the bond they inforce, or dont like the checking regime- then dont apply. :{
I have never been targeted to fail a check and I think it's those that are ill prepared for the check that do indeed fail.
Would you concider turning the wrong way in the hold or flight below route msa s/e or descent below mda/da a cause for a fail ?? If not then I would not want to fly with you my friend.
Sure, we dont have a sim, but if you do some practice on line and doing touch drills, and read the sop's ifg etc before the check then as I said, you should not fail a check...

Seems like everyone has something bad to say but not much good to say, as is generally the case on here.:=

flyby_kiwi

18th Jun 2007, 06:27

Well put AI, on a possitive note..... good work in WB today boys :ok:

always inverted

18th Jun 2007, 08:50

On the topic of moaning, it really bugs the shyt out of me all those people that sign the bond form and then are supprised when the company says we take cash or check, what the hell did they expect, oh well you did sign it but we suppose we could rip it up for you, would you like that ???:uhoh:

Again, if you dont like the bond, offer to pay for all your training and checks, or dont apply to them.
Seems simple and even I can see that.

haughtney1

18th Jun 2007, 11:01

Just for clarification AI, are you bonded?

always inverted

18th Jun 2007, 21:03

Yes I am, and IF I was going to leave before my bond period then I would fully expect to have an invoice presented to me at my exit interview, if people dont expect this to happen then this would indicate a level of immaturity/ arrogance that a previous post somewhat directed towards me. Have heard that an individual that has left to fly for vb is real gutted that the company has enforced the bond on him, why should he be, HE SIGNED THE FORM...
Seems that great well payed jet job not looking so great when you have to pay out the bond from your previous employer eh ? also the fact that debt collection will hit up when they step back into the country, and seeing as they fly here, hmmmm.

It just amuses me no-end that people seem to think that signed documents dont mean anything when it comes time to depart. For people that should have some amount of grey matter between their ears, seems some don't use it at times like these. Not directed at any particular individual/s just in general.

flyby_kiwi

19th Jun 2007, 01:28

AI, Not sure if we may be talking about the same person, but I think one of the recent departees (and i imagine others may follow) agreed with the company that he wouldnt make a claim against them re: the time 1.5 backpay thats tied up in the courts if the company waived the remainder of his/her bond.
Company agreed and everyone went home happy. Think there are a couple of other recent departures who may be taking a different line ie: challenging it rather than negotiating a deal.
Agreed if I was underbond would bargain it down if I was in a position to do so (ie owed money) but at the end of the day would be prepared to pay it.

sexy time

19th Jun 2007, 03:40

Re the bond.....the laws of supply and demand will dictate in the long term!

Ummmm......where's that vat of boiling fat?

always inverted

19th Jun 2007, 09:33

I think- no, I know that you are wrong as I can count 3 in the last 6 months and at least another 5 with interviews, and thats without thinking hard about it...
Check !

As I said in an earlier post, the bond comment was not aimed at anyone specific.

always inverted

19th Jun 2007, 10:03

Hope you not refering to me not knowing anything about the company.
B190 cant sustain 3000'/min til thru more than about 8-9k but can do 1500'/min at auw to around the 16k mark at 180 knots in the lower levels and back to 170 at the levels above transition, before everyone embarks on a pissing contest that is pretty general and do-able most days.

Outclimbed a dash and an atr today tho, in speed and roc (looking from the fishfinder tho.)

I think that it would be a good move from airwork as you get staff tavel and super and the other associated stuff. Up to the individual tho I guess.
Pay is around the 49k plus allowances I think, could be wrong tho.