PDA

View Full Version : Rex recruiting coming to a town near you!


Erin Brockovich
15th Jul 2007, 15:30
Found this at the usual place
REGIONAL EXPRESS - PILOT RECRUITMENT
The Rex Pilot Recruitment team will soon be visiting the following cities:
Perth: ######## July
Darwin: ####### July & ######## August
Cairns: ######## August
Brisbane: ######## August
We would like to meet all Pilots interested in joining the Rex Team.
Looks like advertising overseas didn’t bear any fruit for these clever management folk.

Is this ‘road trip’ evidence of a last ditch effort for Rex to bolster the tech crew ranks?
Maybe they’ll head straight to the aero clubs and flying schools – they did say ‘all pilots interested’.

I feel for the guys and gals working there. It doesn’t look like your company is serious about fixing their crewing problem. Anything but paying pilots more money :rolleyes:

The Kavorka
16th Jul 2007, 00:04
A Rex Pc member recently went to management and mentioned that a pay rise would help in stopping the massive exodus. Not surprisingly, they told him nothing would be done until the EBA is due in aug next year. And according to the C&T manager it's natural attrition....:ugh::ugh:

A little late I reckon...........The horse has well and truly passed the finish post and been put back in the stable!!!!

tinpis
16th Jul 2007, 00:07
Did they try Kiwiland?

deckchair
16th Jul 2007, 01:04
I emailed interest to pilot recruitment at Rex on 29/6 spelling out my qualifications that nicely met with their requirements before they discounted their hours, and have had no reply. How serious are they, and why wouldn't the roadshow include a visit to Melbourne?

Dave Incognito
16th Jul 2007, 01:20
The normal interview process already takes place in Melbourne. I’m guessing this is trying to bolster a bit of interest a little further afield...

KRUSTY 34
16th Jul 2007, 03:47
Kavorka,

You are right. The proposal however was put to the company some time ago.

There are a lot of fence sitters amongst the senior REX pilots. After some rigorous recruiting earlier in the year, there seems to be a pause by the major airlines whilst they organise, sim time, training sched's etc.. This is litterally the calm before the storm!

Once the big end of town starts recruiting in earnest, the blood will flow. Rumour has it that up to 80% of serving captains, not to mention probably most of the F/O's, have CV's in with other carriers. When the mass calls come, the senior guys will walk or stay dependant on what the company does.

Judging by what's been done so far, most will walk.

As far as scraping together the last of the low hour candidates out there; What's the point? There will be no-one left to train them!

Sheer madness!

Howard Hughes
16th Jul 2007, 04:14
Did they try Kiwiland?
Why? Most of them are over here anyway...;)

KRUSTY 34
17th Jul 2007, 09:48
At the Saturday meeting in Adelaide, attended by approximately 30+ Rex pilots, the Chief pilot stated that there was no shortage of pilot applications, and that around 40 will be interviewed over the coming weeks!

There are no plans to improve REX pilots wages, and he believes that in 3 years time his desk will once again be full of resumes.

Management are playing a very dangerous game. If they are right they may prevail, albeit with a professional pilot group with centuries less overall experience. Those senior guys that don't walk will be asked to train what is left. Any takers?

If they are wrong, then REX is scr#wed!

But they did pick up the bar tab!

Capt.G.G.2Shoes
17th Jul 2007, 09:59
Its a company junket!!! If they dont get the pilots who cares. At least they can say they tried and they had fun in the process. Next road tour guys??

I would of thought that anybody with the experience would of thrown their hat in the ring already, or at least as soon as they had the experience

DeltaSix
17th Jul 2007, 12:09
I thought pilots were taken off the occupational shortage listing.

Then again, there is the 457 Visa.

Under Dog
18th Jul 2007, 06:56
Krusty 34

Seems a bit strange the CP advising staff that there is no shortage of potential recruits when they seem to be wasting plenty of shareholders money with their expensive advertising and junket trips which they never had to do in the past.


Regards The Dog

moga
19th Jul 2007, 09:25
Would you have any idea of content of tech quizz for recruitment at Rex?
tks

Shagtastic
19th Jul 2007, 10:44
Tech Quiz

1. How do you propose to live in Australia on virtualy nothing as an F/O?

2. Rex pays peanuts. Does that make you a monkey?

3. Divorce on the grounds of poverty.. discuss

Counter-rotation
19th Jul 2007, 14:40
Shagtastic,

:D:D:ok:

Shapeshifter
19th Jul 2007, 16:21
So how do REX compare salary wise to other Regional Airlines?

Eastern?

M*cair?

Air North?

Maybe you should be asking yourself what came first, the peanuts or the monkeys?

KRUSTY 34
19th Jul 2007, 21:46
Shapeshifter,

Eastern:

Captain $79,007 increasing to $89,554 after 10 years

First Officer $49,683 increasing to $54,978 after 10 years

REX:

Captain $67,991 increasing to $82,481 after 10 years.

First Officer $41,240 increasing to $50,715 after 10 years

Airnorth:

Metro - Captain $58,526

First Officer $39,192

Brasillia - Captain $62,324

First Officer $41,459

Not sure if Airnorth still have the Bandit, but rates quoted the same as Metro.

Not sure of [email protected], but think they may be less than REX.

Gidday Dog,

Strange indeed!

SIUYA
19th Jul 2007, 22:21
KRUSTY 34...................

There are no plans to improve REX pilots wages, and [the Chief Pilot] believes that in 3 years time his desk will once again be full of resumes.


Maybe the Chief Pilot should spend a bit time and read:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284631

It might just make him decide to 'believe' a bit differently perhaps? :}

The 'global' gap between demand for, and supply of, flight crew is increasing at full-speed.............NOW! Anyone in airline management who isn't putting in place strategies to retain existing crews and/or to attract replacements in the belief that there's always going to be an endless supply of wannabees is now well and truly in cloud cuckoo land!

It's the old story................failure to plan is planning to fail!

tinpis
19th Jul 2007, 22:40
there's always going to be an endless supply of wannabees is now well and truly in cloud cuckoo land!

There seems to be an endless supply of wannabes populating this forum from The Long White Cloud Cuckoo Land. :rolleyes:

KRUSTY 34
19th Jul 2007, 22:54
The Chief pilot of REX is saying these things publicly. If he truely believes what he is saying then REX is probably in far greater trouble than we first thought.

If that's possible!

DUXNUTZ
19th Jul 2007, 22:59
Interested on where you got your figures from Krusty. I thought Rex was more like 39k. Thats what they advertise anyhoo.

KRUSTY 34
19th Jul 2007, 23:08
Latest figures from the EBA as of July 2007

SIUYA
19th Jul 2007, 23:58
tinpis.............

Fair call! :)

Erin Brockovich
20th Jul 2007, 08:30
The Chief pilot said this At the Saturday meeting in Adelaide, attended by approximately 30+ Rex pilots, the Chief pilot stated that there was no shortage of pilot applicationsyet the MD said this in the Australian Regional Express managing director Geoff Breust said he believed the industry was losing good people because funding was not available.Get your story straight boys :rolleyes:

TRANSPORT Minister Mark Vaile’s spokesman’s final words "Fixing the looming shortages won't be easy but the work the minister has under way at the moment will ensure the Australian community continues to have access to safe and affordable air transport."Looming shortages…………….shhhh……keep it down………you’ll get the pilots all fired up again. Now repeat after me – There is no shortage, there is no shortage.

The Kavorka
20th Jul 2007, 08:33
Krusty

Are you adding DTA, when I left the first year wage for an F/O was around $41000...(last year..thank god)........

KRUSTY 34
20th Jul 2007, 09:16
Kavorka,

Wages stated are Base.

At the moment DTA is running at 8-9 K per year depending on where you are located.

It is conceivable that a new F/O could gross approx $50k in real terms. still inadequate when you consider what other professionals are earning in this country.

The Kavorka
20th Jul 2007, 09:47
peanuts I say.............mates driving trucks making heaps more, and it took them a week to get a licence........makes me :mad:'n sick really....

To infinity & beyond
14th Aug 2007, 07:05
I heard that the Rex roadshow didn't go so well. Anyone attend and would like to comment?

KRUSTY 34
14th Aug 2007, 08:32
Heard on the grapevine,

Four (4), yes four (4)! turned up in Perth.

3 didn't meet the mins, and when told what sort of income he could expect, the fourth declined the offer.

Apparently Darwin was even worse.

F#@king great waste of time and money.

Counter-rotation
14th Aug 2007, 13:17
So the question is, will they now wake up and smell the coffee?

Rex (and others) management - if you're reading this,

CAN YOU DENY IT ANY LONGER, AND CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO SORT OUT PAY AND CONDITIONS?! :ugh:

aircraft
14th Aug 2007, 13:33
Counter-rotation said:
Rex (and others) management - if you're reading this,

CAN YOU DENY IT ANY LONGER, AND CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO SORT OUT PAY AND CONDITIONS?!
So what must they do to "sort out pay and conditions"? Give a significant pay rise? Or, keep the pay the same but change other conditions so as to improve the lifestyle?

Either way, it will cost the company a not insignificant amount of money. Where will that money come from?

You seem to think it is as simple as flicking a switch, or turning a dial, but making a significant change to the T&Cs is way way more than that.

I will ask you again: What must they do to sort out pay and conditions?

Counter-rotation
14th Aug 2007, 14:07
How about at least look like acknowledging the problem, that would be a start don't you think?

"At the Saturday meeting in Adelaide, attended by approximately 30+ Rex pilots, the Chief pilot stated that there was no shortage of pilot applications"

Didn't have time for a long post - I know it's not a switch flicking situation, but the state of denial - can it possibly continue? :rolleyes:

CR

Erin Brockovich
14th Aug 2007, 14:37
So what must they do to "sort out pay and conditions"? Give a significant pay rise? Or, keep the pay the same but change other conditions so as to improve the lifestyle?
Big Big pay rise first; Big enough to attract and retain experienced quality crew. If that works, (and I say ‘if’ because they have left their run a bit too late) then have a look at the conditions. If you don’t have enough staff then the conditions will always be sh$t.

Either way, it will cost the company a not insignificant amount of money. Where will that money come from?How about from the not insignificant shareholders.

Krusty, how did 3 not meet the minimums? Did they only do the 160hr CPL course.

I can’t believe what lengths these silly managers and owners will go, in order to withhold from giving a pay rise, in spite of their business. Amateur hour incorporated! The only positive I can see from all this is a few more “not how to run a business” case studies for the commerce students.

eye_in_the_sky
14th Aug 2007, 15:45
Company perspective: CAO48 allows us to work drivers THIS hard, so we will.
Even if it involves 6 days on, with 3 minimum rest back-to-back overnights, one day off, and another 3 min rest overnights... I was always tired. Oh yeh, and we were more often late into the overnight port because the Company can't get it's f*cking act together and pay for another BUS at peak times out of gate 47 in Sydney, but you're only half an hour late, right?

Pilots perspective: When I joined, I accepted the lower pay for a better lifestyle. For the first 6 months.

Now that "one hung low" is directing the puppet show from Singapore, and running me into the ground, why on earth would I stay and be tired all the time for half the money I can make elsewhere? Because the Company will look after me? Because it's one big "family Company" ? Good luck.

Get your shares and sell them... they are overpriced as it is.

Like other posts have eluded to, management have to make the big step to actually acknowledge there is a problem.

Diver Dan
14th Aug 2007, 21:07
I understand (well I've heard lots of rumours) that Rex is in the process of employing Ukranian pilots,

The roadshow may just have been to gather evidence to show the Government a need to import pilots.

aircraft
14th Aug 2007, 23:16
Erin Brockovich, you are spectacularly ignorant of the basics of business and the economics of commercial aviation.

This statement is an absolute clanger; and you say the management is "amateur hour"!

Big Big pay rise first; Big enough to attract and retain experienced quality crew.

Have you considered just how big those pay rises would need to be? Would a measley $10K rise be enough? Somebody like Rex, if they really struggled, got very creative, possibly restructured a few things, might be able to manage this much of a pay rise. But would that be anywhere near enough?

No, nowhere near enough. That amount may cause a few individuals to think twice about moving on, but the overall effect on retention rates would be hard to measure. Salary increases of that magnitude would send all GA operators to the wall - and most small airlines.

To the question of where the money will come from, you say this:
How about from the not insignificant shareholders.

This would largely defeat the purpose of being a shareholder. Shareholders are shareholders for the purpose of getting some sort of return on their investment.

To provide the sums of money necessary would require either an enormous one off payment, or smaller, ongoing injections of funds. This is the sort of thing big investors do, provided they can see that there will be returns that are even bigger.

The Kavorka
14th Aug 2007, 23:59
There will be no shareholders if there's no airline!!

the roadshows produced a total of 13 pilots...GREAT WORK!!!

CH continually states that he will have his desk full of apps again soon, "Tell him his dreamn'"

There will be at least 40+ drivers leave before the years out with many more to follow......

Looking at recruiting req's for VB (20 new a/c), JQ (30 new a/c) Tiger (a least 5 with more to follow) and QF recruiting again (heavily) I do believe that rex mangement have to act now to stop the flow of exp captains wanting out because they are getting flogged to death!! (8 days off p/m month not enough!)

wethereyet
15th Aug 2007, 03:22
Aircraft, I think it is you who is spectacularly ignorant of how much a ticket would need to rise in order to provide a satisfactory pay rise for tech crew... each crew member at Rex operates flights in one year that carry a total of around 10000pax, a $5/ticket increase divided between tech crew... you do the sums.

If this were paid in the form of overtime for work over 65 hrs per roster (as is commonplace in airlines around the world), the company would only be paying the increase when it is making good money from the crew by working them hard. Based on present rosters most of us are doing 20 hours more than this. It is a productivity payment, everyone wins. Keep trying to get 20 hours overtime out of crew for free and they will do the sums and leave, it is not brain surgery.:bored:

freddyKrueger
15th Aug 2007, 03:45
aircraft is a TROLL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll). Please do no feed the TROLL.
The sole intent of the TROLL'S post is to wind you up, you are punching a TAR BABY . (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7Eug97/remus/tar-baby.html)

What is Jetstar Asia? Please forgive my ignorance and fill me in. When will they start operating, what routes, what aircraft, etc.Posted by aircraft (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2830283&postcount=26) 7th September 2006

Why would you trust anything it posts?

aircraft
15th Aug 2007, 16:42
... each crew member at Rex operates flights in one year that carry a total of around 10000pax, a $5/ticket increase divided between tech crew... you do the sums.
You are not the first to come up with a calculation like this. And, like the others, you assume that a price increase has no effect on demand. But in reality, if you increase the ticket price, you will sell less tickets. How many less tickets for a given increase? I will look at that below.

As we begin our look at pricing theory, it is worth noting that, according to the theory of "optimal pricing", despite selling less tickets, you may actually make more net revenue. But also, depending on where the former price was, in terms of the optimal price, you may end up making less net revenue.

I present this theory to show that the notion that "greater prices equate to greater revenue" is simply not true. This theory (optimal pricing) simply states that, for a particular product in a particular market, there is one price that results in the maximum net revenue. Prices above that bring more revenue per item sold but the lower number of sales result in less revenue overall. Prices below the optimum result in more sales but the lower prices outweigh the greater sales to result in, again, less revenue overall - analagous to the optimum speed to fly for maximum range - fly faster or slower than the optimum and you will get less range.

To the question of how many less tickets will be sold for a given price increase, it is necessary to consider the "own-price elasticity of demand" for air travel. There have been studies done on this, and I must thank Pass-A-Frozo for locating one and posting this information in a recent thread.

There is this Canadian study (http://www.fin.gc.ca/consultresp/Airtravel/airtravStdy_2e.html), which examined short route air travel in NSW, and this Australian study (http://www.brynmwr.com/BattersbyandOczkowski2000.pdf), which looked simply at domestic air travel in Australia.

For the short route NSW study, the estimate of price elasticity was 2.54, which means that for each 1% increase in ticket price, there is a 2.54% decrease in demand. The Australian study came up with estimates between 0.9 and 2.5.

So, for a $5 increase to Rex airfares that average about $120 (a 4.2% increase), the estimates from those studies suggest a decrease in demand of between 4% and 10%, which equates to 1-3 tickets in a 30 seat aircraft.

With 30 seats filled at $120 each, total revenue is $3,600, but ...

With 29 seats filled at $125 each, total revenue is $3,625.
With 28 seats filled at $125 each, total revenue is $3,500.
With 27 seats filled at $125 each, total revenue is $3,375.

KRUSTY 34
15th Aug 2007, 21:33
Aircraft,

You really are a Tool!

I was more than prepared to take Freddy's sage advice, but I can't help it.

The situation the industry finds itself in today is for one reason only.

PILOT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE INADEQUATE!

All your economic 101 is just what it seems. Rehtorical "BULLSH!T"

Xeptu
15th Aug 2007, 23:26
As this thread has raged on for a while, it's probably worth throwing some perspective into the fray from a silent observer.
As a long term industrial man and fully versed at both the Industrial and Corporate ends in the Airline business, I can tell you that you are both correct.

Your problem is simply, you have outgrown the 30 seat market and have done so for some time. Rex has for reasons unknown resisted the step up to High Capacity Aircraft for years and to not do so is ultimately fatal.

A 70 to 100 seat Aircraft, two flights a day, morning and evening service,deployed over your high yield routes will resolve most arguments from both ends of the business.

Having said that, if you must remain with an all 30 seat saab fleet, your new hires only need to be young 300 hour pilots, no multi engine experience required. Don't worry, they learn quick and will be just as good as you in no time. Europe has been doing it that way for decades, it works there and it works here too, it's just a matter of getting your head around it.

It's fair to say that Rex Pilots pay scales are appropriate for the class of operation, however, in the current labour market they fall way short of expectations, this would not be the case if you were a high capacity operation and clearly you should be. That issue falls squarely on the shoulders of Corporate Management, not middle management who are usually the ones who take the heat over these issues.

Hope this provides a clearer perspective of the issue

TweetTweet
16th Aug 2007, 06:11
:\
Rumour has it, now after the unsuccessful recruitment drive around OZ, not only are they interviewing overseas, but I hear there are big discussions with setting up cadet schemes with flying schools.......................anyone else heard this? :ugh:

Guptar
16th Aug 2007, 07:36
Aircraft is spot on the money, he obviously sounds like he has some training in accounting. The level of remuneration for pilots is quite a different matter to market forces and pricing stategies. Its all quite amusing for me(who has a masters degree in accounting.......and several thousand hrs as well and an ATPL) to see pilots, and other professions carrying on about topics they nether comprehend or have even thought about rationally.

Pilots should stick to piloting and accountants stick to accounting.

'holic
16th Aug 2007, 08:00
Blah, blah, blah.

Having only attended the University of Common Sense myself, maybe you blokes can educate me. Are you saying that an increase in ticket prices of $5 will make or break company profits? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will be sufficient.

(Hint : Before you answer, take into consideration how much effect fuel surcharges/security levies etc etc (all way in excess of $5) have had on the bottom line.)

Diver Dan
16th Aug 2007, 19:50
If Rex are about to employ a considerable amount of pilots from Eastern Europe then you may as well go and get a degree in accounting.
The supply/demand equation will be fixed (may even go the other way - you know "these boys will do the job for XX less than you").
Could be game, set and match for the pilot group in Rex.

Capt Kremin
16th Aug 2007, 21:45
How is this for economics 101?

Pilots leave=aircraft grounded=airline goes bust.

I don't think anyone needs a masters in economics to comprehend that.

Lodown
16th Aug 2007, 21:57
A couple of points:

First, if Rex want to get pilots from Eastern Europe, then good luck to them. Maybe they can bring in some Ukranian controllers and LAME's while they're at it. Desperate measures. Maybe CASA can make a few bucks from the imports.

Where will that money come from?

Who cares??? That's what management have to work out. Other jobs are available and pilots can move on. Eastern Europeans are going to work out very quickly that other options abound in Australia and back overseas with Australian experience.

There is a reality looming on Rex management that is quickly overtaking consideration for elasticity of demand and load factors. It's providing them with only two options: raise prices and accept less passengers, or continue to sell tickets at current prices and not have pilots available to crew the aircraft. Neither option is desirable, but that's the hand they have to work with.

How much to raise pay? Anything less than 30% will not stem the drain of pilots leaving for other professions/companies, or attract enough school leavers into the profession. No one wants to see prices go up, but 20 years or more of static wages and eroded conditions has taken its toll.

And the greater concern is that this potential pilot shortage is only in the very early stages. It's not going to hit a peak (or trough) until around 2012-2015.

Xeptu
16th Aug 2007, 22:25
Pilots from East Europe, well thats laughable and anyone that thinks that's going to happen is dreaming. Even if the offer was tempting they wouldn't come, no different to you wouldn't go there for the same offer. The only people that think Australia is the place to be are Australians. But that's another story.
Rex will have to increase it's fares and will need to pay a Labour Retention Bonus through this period of High Labour Opportunities. You need to be united and bargain collectively. By that, this means you have to agree on what you want and how to move forward as a collective pilot group, no breakaway splinters. The Company needs to stop bringing in more Saab's bite the bullet and go High Capacity.
If Rex doesn't acheive either of those things within the next two years, it will probably cease to exist, either by staff numbers, or being run over by competative opposition. Both sides needs to stop whining about it and get it done.

KRUSTY 34
17th Aug 2007, 03:33
I've been pushing this barrow for some time now. It is just my opinion, but obviously shared by a great many out there. As well there are those who disagree with me, and I guess only time will tell who is right.

Here's some food for thought. Ask any bank-runner what he or she is making per day (casual) or fortnightly if fulltime. 16 years ago, when I was doing it, I was paid $180 per day! 5 years later the same company was paying $150 per day. 5 years after that they were screwing them down to $120 per day. Classic supply and demand stuff. But seized upon by management, who's only focus was increasing profits.

Obviously it is vital that companies remain viable, but jesus wept! this whole cycle of exploitation has led us to where we are today.

Lowdown is right. The true worth of the regional airline pilot today is approx 30% more in monetary tems to what they are currently being paid.

Management are living in the past. the old doctrine of simply replace those you lose is truely building a house on sand. From the heady boy's own adventure days of more than 20 years ago, the profession is now about as popular as a pork chop at a jewish christening!

As far as cadets for REX is concerned, this may be a real possibility. As an experiment the company has taken on in it's latest ground school a bare CPL with instrument rating. Apparently, quite a clever and pleasant chap. How he fares may form future policy in this area?

Rex is like a bucket of water with holes in it. The logical choice would be to mend the holes and save the water. What they are attempting to do is fill the bucket at a rate equal to or greater than the loss. The problem is we are in a drought the likes of which has not been seen in generations.

Diver Dan
17th Aug 2007, 03:36
Look at todays Oz - Aviation Section (wish I knew how to create a link - but I don't).

Bingo - Minister about to approve (and encourage I would suggest) the use of foreign flight crew.

And from the Ukraine, I would think Australia might look very nice indeed.

Sqwark2004
17th Aug 2007, 05:36
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22255908-23349,00.html?from=public_rss

mention1
18th Aug 2007, 07:20
SO many rumours so little time.

Only 13 acceptable candidates from the Road Show.

FLights being cancelled due lack of crew - true.

Talk of setting up REX FLYING SCHOOL using brand new singles and twins. OMG !!! But I still can't get a rain coat for the bad days!!!

I must say larger aircraft is a great idea...what with 6 return flights per weekday, say, SYD - WGA and all flights full!! There must be better economies of scale.

radnav
18th Aug 2007, 15:20
I seem to recall that sometime in the distant past when it was suggested that an arbitrary pay rise of around 30% for pilots might be worth bantering around that this ludicrous thought was nipped in the bud by the rapid and judicious use of foreign pilots. :eek::uhoh::sad:

There is no shortage of Australian pilots just a shortage of Australian pilots in Australia....go figure. :rolleyes:

KRUSTY 34
19th Aug 2007, 06:37
radnav,

More like a 40% payrise would be required this time around!

As well, the problem is global and nothing short of the above figure would be needed to attract most overseas candidates.

Once the dust settled on that little war 18 years ago, the pay had in fact rissen to above the 29% being demanded!

Truely ironic!

ShockWave
20th Aug 2007, 06:38
Yes, and the thousands of Australian pilots who were forced over seas to be replaced by less experienced foreign pilots and those who have subsequently joined them are still out there. Australian aviators have formed the core component of many over seas airline''s expat employees. Thus helping to build the very stiff competition that Australian airlines now face.
Australian airline management created this problem themselves and will have to deal with it.
If the conditions were to improve there would not be a shortage of pilots in Australia at all. Some would return home and younger troops would flood the flying schools. But obviously this is unlikely, management really don't like to do the obvious.

2p!ssed2drive
20th Aug 2007, 07:20
Quote from the article:

They've got to start making piloting, ground engineering and some of those skilled professional areas attractive again," Mr O'Connell said. "They've been squeezed so much in work conditions, in degradation of salaries, and people have a lot better options now than used to exist 10 years ago.

WELL SAID THAT MAN

aircraft
21st Aug 2007, 05:46
Lodown said:
Where will that money come from?
Who cares??? That's what management have to work out.

Who cares? Err, you do. To the question of where the money must come from, the answer is very simple, as there is only one answer: the travelling public.

KRUSTY 34:
More like a 40% payrise would be required this time around!

But, raise the ticket prices by the amounts implied by this statement and you will so dampen demand for air travel that there will no longer be a pilot "shortage" - it will be a pilot surplus. Operators will be laying pilots off.

You care.

marreeman
21st Aug 2007, 07:57
Aircraft in order to give the crew a 40% payrise the ticket price does not have to rise by 40%, that my friend is a crazy statement.

OnTheShaker
21st Aug 2007, 08:11
This is spot on !!!

Forget the 40 % payrise, thats just ridiculous head of pilot committee talk, its based on no fact and a number this fool plucked out of his arse !!

Forget economy of scale etc for a sec guys, the raincoat line is spot on, the problems in REX are systemic and deep. No raincoats, no aircons, no servicable GPUs it goes on and on and on and on and on.............Geoff just says "we're working on it" thats solves the problem in the mean time until he cultivates himself some balls and stands up to whoever is required to get the results ...sadly Geoff :} is not a results man.

Forget payrises and the like for a minute (not permanently) there are a considerable number of things at REX like raincoats, carparking, adequate breaks etc that management could fix now but WONT.

That alone should tell everyone what the companies actual position is.

The CP is currently busting his balls to get pilots just so he can say "See there is no shortage"

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND :ugh:

MOVE ON PEOPLE MOVE ON:ok:

KRUSTY 34
21st Aug 2007, 10:14
JEEEZUSS!!!

Shaker,

Who are you? Aircraft's love child!

I've heard some spray in my time, but your's would fill an olympic swimming pool.

You my friend are a bully. And like all bullys a complete coward. By your post I take it you are a current REX employee. Instead of [email protected] on about what others are not doing, how about showing some backbone and step up with your time and efforts and enlighten all of us as to how you would deal with intractible management?

I was speaking to the Chairman of the REXPC last week, and he is just as frustrated as most REX pilots. The idea of a 40% payrise, while sounding outrageous to some, would bring the base salary of a first year F/O up to $57K PA. That my saliva dripping friend is approx 5% higher than the "average" Australian wage, and I would suggest in the current environment a bargain!

Aircraft,

Whether it's 40%, 10%, or whatever, the fact remains that the industry is in such decline as a career for one reason only. It is just not worth it any more. There will always be the diehard passionate ones who are so single minded that they will overcome almost anything to fly, but in the end they are becoming much thinner on the ground. Especially so when you look at the "REWARDS" to be found at the end of the rainbow.

And F.Y.I. The cost of such an adjustment (the 40%) would be in the order of $6.25 a ticket! While the ticket price of regional services are generally higher than those of the Domestic airlines, on average, travelling with REX is around 50% cheaper that what it was a decade ago!

This is testiment to the prodidgeous efforts of company management, (Yes credit where credit due), in retireing debt, cutting waste, and growing the business. Believe me the travelling public will pay, and with many airline fares barely more than the associated taxes and charges, they will barely notice!

After all that hard work, Management are now prepared to put all that at risk.

It defies belief.

As my friends, so do you!

aircraft
23rd Aug 2007, 16:26
KRUSTY 34:
The cost of such an adjustment (the 40%) would be in the order of $6.25 a ticket! ... Believe me the travelling public will pay, and with many airline fares barely more than the associated taxes and charges, they will barely notice!
You guys have got to stop making these simple calculations - they ultimately result in you getting all mystified and hot under the collar.

For the net revenue to be $6.25, the actual price increase would have to be somewhere around $10 (to allow for GST and other fees and charges). Rex fares seem to range between about $80 and $150 so that increase would be between 7% and 12.5%.

The biggest problem with your calculation however, is that it assumes the number of passengers, after the price increase, will remain exactly the same.

The vast majority of passengers would not notice the increase but it would certainly prevent some passengers from buying the ticket (it is the price of the ticket that is relevant, rather than whether the price has changed).

How many passengers would be prevented? In an earlier post to this thread, I used "price elasticity" estimates to calculate that between 1 and 3 less passengers would buy the ticket (assuming a 30 seat aircraft). That estimate was based on a $5 increase to the ticket price, so a $10 increase would have an even greater effect.

On many flights, it may well be that no less passengers travel. But, on most other flights, it should be assumed (from my calculation), that at least one less passenger will have purchased a ticket.

To look at the effect of one less passenger on your calculation, consider a 30 seat aircraft and a ticket price, before the increase, of $120.

30 pax at $120 per ticket = $3,600 gross revenue;
29 pax at $130 per ticket = $3,770 gross revenue.

More revenue, certainly, but only $170 more when your calculation (for this scenario) assumed $300 more (i.e. 30 x $130 = $3,900 - $3,600 = $300).

So, after allowing for the reduced ticket sales, it can be seen that the increase needs to be quite a bit more than $10 (to bring in the revenue that will provide a 40% improvement in terms and conditions). But, the more the increase, the more the dampening of demand.

If you were to redo your calculation, taking into account the decline in sales as the price goes up, you would probably arrive at an interesting but highly unpalatable reality: that the law of diminishing returns makes it simply not possible to achieve the hoped for gains - that you just cannot wring that much more out of those routes, in other words.

Such an exercise would not be a "calculation", but more a case of "modelling", and it would yield an estimate of what the maximum sustainable price increase could be. Such a number could well be of the order of only a few dollars!

But there is no need for you to commission that modelling - airline management do this sort of thing all the time - if there is more to be wrung out of a particular route they want to know it, and rest assured, will immediately commence doing so!

Lodown
23rd Aug 2007, 21:46
Who cares? Err, you do.

No, I really don't.

According to my calculations, a reduction in pilots by 10% will result in a decrease in ticket price by 15% and an increase in the number of passengers by 5%. Therefore, commonsense tells me that if we get rid of all the pilots, we'll be flying more passengers than we have aircraft and our profits will go through the roof.

KRUSTY 34
23rd Aug 2007, 21:55
I don't know aircraft,

I'm cutt'n, but you ain't bleed'n.

What will be the cost to the business when they start parking aircraft?

aircraft
24th Aug 2007, 14:43
Some problems are just not solvable.

In the current climate, the problem Rex has in attracting and retaining pilots may well fit into that category, but rest assured, the Rex management are not stupid and will be working hard to find a solution.

Erin Brockovich
24th Aug 2007, 23:14
Rex management are not stupid
And I can vouch for that. They are some of the most gifted and innovative thinkers of their time. I am literally in awe of their cutting edge ideas in staff retention. The recent ‘Road Show’ was just brilliant. Brilliant!

I have been moved by inspirational leaders in the past, but this group “had me at hello”. Where do I sign? Bravo, bravo.

Jet_A_Knight
25th Aug 2007, 01:20
They should have a look at what Netjets (Europe) did wrt to changing conditions and renumeration for their crews - and to attract crews - when they were really starting to get into trouble crewing their expansion plans.

Oh, and get the crews a fukcing ride from the car park to the terminal in Sydney, tightar$es:ugh::ugh:

KRUSTY 34
25th Aug 2007, 08:20
Ok Jet_A_Knight,

What did Netjets do?

Genuine question. Were they successful?

As for the Carpark in Sydney, Crews can catch the Long term carpark shuttle as it goes by, usually every 15 mins. Mind you, my crew and I tried to catch it this morning only to see it sail past because it was full!

Jet_A_Knight
25th Aug 2007, 10:32
From memory, the pilots were going to organise into a collective to improve conditons. Whther that came off or not, I;m not sure but From what I read and understood, the company made it more attractive to crews by increasing renumeration and rostering practices, from what i gather. I think they also streamlined progression in the company. As far as I can tell, it had the desired effect.

So far as the bus is concerned, I forgot about that option. I just have the image stuck in my mind of many times watch crews, in full uniform with flt bags and o'night bags in tow, walking to the terminal in 40degree heat:{

KRUSTY 34
25th Aug 2007, 11:04
Thanks J.A.K

Sometimes it doesn't take much, especially when so much is at stake.

To date REX management's entire stategy in dealing with this crisis has been to focus on recruiting and nothing else.

As far as improving the working conditions of existing crew....

D!CK!

bra83d
25th Aug 2007, 12:12
No matter how much you guys think they have a pilot shortage, which they do don't get me wrong, they've got a bigger problem in engineering.

It's not just this industry thats hurting any industry that has tradsmen going to the mines or any job that hasn't been "attractive" to the universities is really up shit creek. The money aint there and it is a joke.

Take your car to the dealers and they will charge you 100-120 an hour to work on it and most people will pay without batting an eyelid because they have no idea about their vehicle. When i comes to flying but all of a sudden 120 bucks an hour, +/- average sector length, in a million dollar operation, seems out of the question.

Any way thats my two cents worth make of it what you will.:sad:

White and Fluffy
25th Aug 2007, 12:39
Putting the whole retention of senior staff issue aside. The F/O's are being paid what they are legally entitled, ie; the Award. This award is developed by the government, hopefully with input from the appropriate unions. Therefore that is what they think we are worth and more concerning that is what the union think we are worth.

So rather then try and get payrises out of the company management why not make them by getting the union to raise the award? The AFAP seem unwilling to do this so why not form or call in one that will?

Keg
25th Aug 2007, 13:16
I don't think it's unreasonable given that this was in the Australian today:

A marine technician earning $50,254 in 2001 now receives $80,451, including a $10,000 retention bonus.

Over the same period, pay for an army administrative clerk has jumped from $41,237 to $56,101.

An Army Admin Clerk (about six months training all up I think) is on the same money as a Saab F/O. We're deluding ourselves if we think that a Saab driver isn't worth more than that!

KRUSTY 34
25th Aug 2007, 21:00
Thanks Keg,

The Saab F/O was on the same money as the Army Clerk. Said clerk is now on substantialy more!

The marine technician is now earning the same as a senior Saab Captain. Plus a retention bonus! Not for one minute suggesting that the mechanic isn't worth every penny, and it appears this particular company has recognised that.

Plenty more of this to come methinks.

The Kavorka
26th Aug 2007, 23:14
Not many saab fo's making 57k.....

base is 40ish and dta of around 8000........POX

KRUSTY 34
27th Aug 2007, 07:13
Kavorka,

I think what Keg was saying, was that the Army Clerk was on what a Saab F/O is on today; $41K.

But now is being paid what a Saab F/O should at least be on now; $57K.

We all know that REX pays its new professional airline pilots a base salary that is approx $10K below that of the average Aussie salary.

Unless this practice is reversed imediately, and their F/O's are remunerated to at least the rate of an Army Clerk, (not too much to ask I would imageine) then nobody considering a career in aviation will even give REX a second thought.

If they think cadets are the answer, then ponder this. It will still cost the applicant in the order of 60-80K to qualify, and Qantas are going to need hundreds!

What airline do you think they will head for?

Under Dog
27th Aug 2007, 08:36
Luv Ya work Krusty keep it up!

Regards The Dog

2p!ssed2drive
27th Aug 2007, 09:57
I agree

Keep it up Krusty.

KRUSTY 34
27th Aug 2007, 10:14
Thanks Guys,

Just trying to spread some reason.

As I keep saying ad nauseum, it ain't rocket science!

aircraft
27th Aug 2007, 15:16
... that the Army Clerk was on what a Saab F/O is on today; $41K.

But now is being paid what a Saab F/O should at least be on now; $57K.
Forget about what you think you should be being paid - it has absolutely no significance and is a distraction.

It is wrong to think that pilot salaries should stay in step with salaries elsewhere in the community. We all wish it were true but unfortunately, that is just not in the nature of commercial aviation.

If you consider that commercial aviation has been on a 50 year quest to make air travel ever more affordable to the people of the world, you should expect pilot salaries, in real terms, to be slowly decreasing.

And slowly decreasing, they have been. And slowly decrease, they will continue to do - but rest assured, they cannot decrease to zero!

2p!ssed2drive
27th Aug 2007, 15:47
And slowly decreasing, they have been. And slowly decrease, they will continue to do - but rest assured, they cannot decrease to zero!

:ugh:

I've never made a "personal attack" on any level....... but aircraft...... your post wasn't worth..... "2 squirts of ferrets P!sS"

honestly.

Crawl back in your hole, son. :zzz:

aircraft
27th Aug 2007, 16:33
2p!ssed2drive,

What did I say that you don't agree with?

KRUSTY 34
27th Aug 2007, 22:23
2P2D,

Check out some of aircraft's previous posts.

He is a wind-up master extrordinair!

27/09
27th Aug 2007, 22:38
Aircraft
If you consider that commercial aviation has been on a 50 year quest to make air travel ever more affordable to the people of the world, you should expect pilot salaries, in real terms, to be slowly decreasing.
And slowly decreasing, they have been. And slowly decrease, they will continue to do - but rest assured, they cannot decrease to zero!

So if this drive to make air travel more affordable is dependant on pilots salaries, why is it not also depandant on other salaries being paid in the airline industry. How come CEOs and the like are earning packages that are vastly increased on previous years and continue to get increases that far outweight any that pilots or any other workers get?

Commercial aviation is not the only industry that hase been on a quest to make it products more affordable. The car you drive today is much better equipped than one of 50 years ago and accordingly is relatively cheaper, are the workers are Broadmeadows or Fishermans Bend having their conditions squeezed in the manner that is happening to pilots? I think not.

Your argument that making airline travel more affordable is the reason for driving down pilots salaries is bumkum. It's all about making a profit, and a profit has to be made otherwise the whole exercise is a bit pointless. It's the way it is achieved sometimes that concerns me.

For many managers today, if reducing prices by what ever means available, (fair or foul), can get enough people on your aircraft to make more money then that's what happens.

The Kavorka
28th Aug 2007, 04:41
Aircraft...you need to find a hobby..golf/fishing..something...

Your attempts to wind people up are pathetic....

Justin Grogan
1st Sep 2007, 03:58
Rex earnings take off

Regional Express posted a 50.4 per cent rise in annual net profit and predicted earnings would rise another 10per cent this year.

Australia's biggest independent regional airline group glided through 2006-07 with a $23.6 million profit and a 29 per cent increase in revenue to $225 million.

The strength of the market was underscored by an 18 per cent rise in passenger numbers, to 1.4million, and the fact that load factors rose 1.4 points to 68.5 per cent, despite a 14 per cent increase in capacity.

Rex's 14.7 per cent revenue margin edged out Virgin Blue's solid 14.2 per cent, as it produced a 23.1 per cent return on equity.

Management expects the arrival of new aircraft and growth opportunities to be the foundation for another 10 per cent rise in earnings this financial year.

It has also boosted activity in South Australia, Tasmania and NSW and is the sole operator on 31 of its 39 routes.

It has also completed a switch to a single fleet of 34-seat Saab aircraft, transferring four smaller Metros to its Pel-Air unit to be used in freight and charter work.

Rex executive chairman Lim Kim Hai said the airline's results were evidence of the group's focus on its growth strategy and reducing unit costs.

Rex's costs remained unchanged when an 18.6 per cent increase in fuel expenses was excluded.

Source and full article may be read online in The Australian at the url below
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22330529-23349,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22330529-23349,00.html)

KRUSTY 34
1st Sep 2007, 06:35
REX Cancelled Syd-Ballina and Syd-Cooma return last night due lack of crew.

Both flights full on the busiest night of the week!

The Cooma flight would have been particulary gauling for PAX that have paid big bucks for their weekend in the snow.

36 new recruits currently under training. Better get them on line ASAP. No wait a minute that wont help, at least 40 odd expected to resign by the end of the year!

No problem, just hire some more, they grow on trees. What there's none left!!!!

How the F#@K did that happen?

How indeed.

Naverick
1st Sep 2007, 21:40
Mara,

Sorry mate, but you completely lost me. English is the first language generally used on this forum.

Krusty,

Despite the passion you, myself and others have displayed regarding Rex t&c's, nothing will change until action is taken. A lot of guys are still working their rdo's. Before the 'exodus', I'm sure that mangement had deliberately held off recruiting more pilots realising that paying for rdo's worked, is the cheaper option. Also maintaining the current salary levels has proved to be a major incentive to work those days.

As I suggested in a previous thread, work to rule! That will really hurt the B$#tards and may get your voice heard beyond this forum.

Counter-rotation
2nd Sep 2007, 10:16
Naverick,

Yeah as you correctly say, it's tough to knock back a bit extra when you're on less than peanuts...

And refer to another thread in the forum re: AFAP and their lack of effectiveness etc.

My question is (and I don't work for Rex) regarding the training bond. Now it seems to me that some who've signed would jump, but for the thought of the bond looming over them...

What if I said:
"if Rex aren't holding up their end of the contract, ie. giving days off and weekends etc. as stated, that you could walk, and tell them that the contract is invalid based on their own actions"..."

Would anyone with more of a legal understanding please give me your thoughts on that?

Also, I understand that this concept has been tested in the courts already, with the company losing. Is this correct, or are there differences between that case and this?

Love to be able to light up a loophole for those who want out to get through, without having to sell their firstborn - considering where 3 months of this caper in Sydney would leave you.

I'm not in favour of shafting anyone in general, but I firmly believe in karma, and you reap what you sow.

(P*** off aircraft I'm not interested in you or yours. D**KHEA*)

CR.

Bendo
2nd Sep 2007, 12:39
Hi CR

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that someone will do something, or forego the doing of something, in return for a 'consideration'.

We are talking about contract law here and a contract must have four essential parts:
1). A meeting of the minds, which is to say; you have both agreed on the same thing, not a mistaken understanding; and
2). an offer (for example, "I will give you this bag of peanuts in exchange for your firstborn"); and
3). consideration, meaning not "Ummmm..... OK" but that I will give you a sufficient consideration for your firstborn; and
4). Acceptance, which is to say that yes we both agree to the respective offerings and consideration made, or offered, in return.

When you sign up to Rex and sign the EBA you are entering into a contract with the employer.

Part of that contract, and it is stated explicitly in the EBA, is that you might be called on to work your rostered days off. The consideration for foregoing your day off is (I seem to recall) either $50 cash, or 1 bag of peanuts.

If Rex breaches their contract with you in some other way there are legal remediesfor that. I am not up to speed on the legalities of training bonds (they look like a simple contract on the face of it) but if you shirk your responsibilities under a contract and then try to use the other parties' breach as justification, I am sorry to say it is YOU in the wrong and YOU that has shown bad faith :ugh:

Good Luck :ok:

wethereyet
3rd Sep 2007, 06:57
It is seriously disturbing to see people who contemplate trying to get out of a bond arrangement to which they have entered.

It is people like that who are responsible for BYO training. Rex need to improve T&C's for the amount of flying they are getting out of us, no question... but not wanting to payout your bond (this is one thing Rex is doing right) - have some integrity!

Gen. Anaesthetic
4th Sep 2007, 08:42
CR

I've studied a bit of employment law in the past and find it quite fascinating. What you are talking about is called 'constructive dismissal'. A very good text on the topic is "Law of Employment" by Macken, O'Grady, Sappideen and Warburton (2002). Can be found at most university law bookshops, and I would encourage all pilots to become familiar with this (although it is written in a fair amount of legal-ese and it helps if you have at least had some exposure to the law beyond reading the CAOs etc').

In it they quote a passage by Lord Dunning from a case in 1978 which establishes the basis of constructive dismissal:

If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer's conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or ... he may give notice and say he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct must in either case be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. Moreover, he must make up his mind soon after the conduct of which he complains: for, if he continues for any length of time without leaving, he will lose his right to treat himself as discharged. He will be regarded as having elected to affirm the contract.

I have a list of cases that generally affirm this view of constructive dismissal cases within Australia if you are interested. You can also do a search for "constructive dismissal" on www.austlii.edu.au (http://www.auslii.edu.au) and see what you come up with (I haven't checked this out myself).

In terms of remedies, the first basic question is one of whether or not a statutory and/or common law breach has occurred. The sort of thing we are talking about here is a common law issue, but there would be instances, such as discrimination, in which a statuory breach may be found. It is my understanding that as a plaintiff you cannot press for damages in both arenas. Either you are seeking to be awarded damages under statute or under common law but not both. No double dipping in other words.

There are a few important things to consider when taking action for damages for breach of contract:
Readiness and willingness: If an employee undertakes to strike then they will not be able to demonstrate willingness to work and therefore no action for damages will be available to recover moneys not paid during the strike period.
Remoteness of damage and measure of damages: Where a party sustains a loss due to breach of contract of the other party, the damages that the party should receive ought to be such as may fairly and reasonably considered either arising naturally or as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract. (This is an abridged quote taken from a judgement in Hadley v Baxendale (1854), which is still considered relevant in today's context). Additionally, where a party sustains a loss he should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
Liquidated damages. Unlikely to be an issue in this environment. Sometimes you see in contracts a clause which stipulates a sum to be payable upon breach of the contract. If this clause exists then the court will not be called upon to assess damages.I've probably gone into too much detail already but hopefully that gives you some idea. It's hard to really get all of the thinking into a few paragraphs here but it gives some sense of how the courts look at this stuff...

The Kavorka
4th Sep 2007, 10:17
Gen An..

If a pilot chose not to pay his/her bond out even if its only a couple of grand, what type of action can the company take?

Gen. Anaesthetic
5th Sep 2007, 12:49
K

For a simple answer I would say that the risk/reward payoff for an employer is too risky to come chasing someone for $2000 or even $15,000. The legal waters on this matter are such that the scales tend to be tipped in the employee’s favour, although every case is of course different. It is not a clear-cut case of “the pilot has every right to walk away” unfortunately.

Basically though, if an employer decided to go down that path then the action would be pursued in the Magistrate's court of whatever state you're in. Expensive no matter how you look at, both for employer and pilot, regardless of the outcome. I imagine the process would involve several letters from solicitors, then failing any resolution from that, preparation of court proceedings. Not fun.

For a slightly more involved answer that gives some idea of what can happen, there are two relatively recent cases to consider, both of them involving aviation operators:
• Rex v Clarke [2007] FCA 957 (can be found here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/957.html))
• McLennan v Surveillance Oz [2005] FCAFC 46 (can be found here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/46.html))

Both of these are cases where a pilot attempted to avoid the payment of their bond obligation, and in both cases the pilot won, although in McLennan v SA it was on appeal to the Federal Court (the first round went to SA). Note that in Rex v Clarke, Rex was the initiator of the action and appealed once they lost the first round. In both cases the reason for the finding in favour of the pilot was basically that the bond agreement was inconsistent with the terms of the Certified Agreement (CA) or AWA (respectively). Since both of these (CA’s and AWA’s) are statutory instruments under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) a contract cannot act in such a way as to avoid the obligations of such statutory instruments. In other words, you can’t contract out of an obligation that has been legislated.

That said, in McLennan v SA the Magistrate in the original case made some very important points that need to be considered by anyone subject to a bond:20 In summary, the Magistrate found that the bond agreement was enforceable on the basis that the bond agreement did not provide for payment of a penalty, was not executed under duress, was not unconscionable, was a reasonable and genuine pre-estimate of the losses the respondent would incur if the appellant left the respondent's employ before the expiration of the return of service and had not been made in contravention of the Act. As to the last matter, the Magistrate found that the parties had not intended the appellant's AWA to be an exhaustive statement of the rights and obligations of the appellant and respondent and that the appellant's AWA contemplated an agreement between the parties outside the provisions of the AWA.
All of the considerations listed in the above paragraph are important, in a general sense, in understanding whether or not the bond is enforceable or not, and I would suggest pilots consider these if ever they wish to look at avoiding a bond, notwithstanding the remaining discussion on bonds and their relationship to CA’s/AWA’s/EBA’s etc’.

The only difference between the Magistrate and the Federal Court’s judgments (in McLennan v SA) is that whereas the Magistrate didn’t consider the entrance into a bond arrangement a variation to the AWA, the Federal Court did, and accordingly approval of the Industrial Relations Commission was required. A small difference, but it made a world of difference to McLennan. This relates to the requirement for any variations to AWA’s/CA’s/EBA’s etc’ to pass the no disadvantage test. Unfortunately with the advent of Workchoices legislation the relevant sections of the Workplace Relations Act have since been deleted, thus making much of the above perhaps irrelevant, however in my quick reading of the changes, it would seem they have been put into different sections of the Act and are likely to still apply. I can’t yet see whether the changes are more or less restrictive on the employer but I would suspect the former. (Detail of the changes can be found here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wraca2005418/sch1.html). Do a search within the page on “Variation” and see what comes up. Also some law firms have some excellent material on Workplace Relations stuff. Have a look here (http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/wr/index.htm))

I think I’ll leave it there Kavorka. There is a lot more to consider in all of this, and in particular, if an employer has breached the employment contract then that changes the ball game quite considerably, but the employee needs to know how to play the game correctly. Also, one needs to consider things like harassment, intimidation, etc’ as forms of constructive dismissal. It's interesting to note that in Rex v Clarke, there was no assertion by Clarke that the contract had been breached. I imagine this was a conscious strategic decision by Clarke's legal counsel.

Disclaimer: This has been written after a glass of wine and I am not a lawyer, so use the advice carefully! (Goes without saying on prune).

Also, I should add that I am very committed to helping people stay educated, constructive, and positive in an environment where people seem to get quite frustrated. In other words I am not taking sides here; rather I am just trying to present my understanding of the facts so that reasonable and educated discussion can continue. In my mind it’s fair enough if people want to blow off some frustration, but really it’s all for nought if you can’t do something constructive to create better outcomes. When it comes to the law, knowledge is definitely power, and Australian law is actually fairly employee friendly; it’s the companies and employees that try to circumvent it that makes things messy sometimes!

If you want any more info just let me know. I’ll provide whatever knowledge time and brainpower can bring…

pill
5th Sep 2007, 20:48
Was I working for you at flightwest, Aircraft? Your greasy grip on accounting sounds familiar.

The PM
6th Sep 2007, 06:55
Very quick local news highlights on Prime TV just now, "Air Link cancels all flights to Dubbo"......will post more details if i get to see the news tonight....

The Kavorka
6th Sep 2007, 07:21
Gen An..

Excellent post once again......

I have recently paid my bond out...only a couple of grand, but have a few mates who are not going to pay and run the gauntlet..

Personally I hope they win, aviation companys such as rex have been shafting their employees for far too long and I hope they get a taste of their own medicine....

If all the people who are leaving rex at the moment don't pay their bonds rex will rack up a huge legal bill trying to get their coin back!!!!!!!!!!!

Bendo
6th Sep 2007, 07:57
Yeah Kav... that'll be great, then they can justify pay-for-endorsement, even if only on a partial basis.

Those who follow behind will all thank you for your help, I'm sure. :ugh:

The Kavorka
6th Sep 2007, 08:00
Bendo....

Relax.... nobody will be paying for a stinkn' saab endorsment in the current climate!!

Howard Hughes
6th Sep 2007, 08:04
I think Bendo's point is, that's how we got pay for endorsements in the first place!:rolleyes:

Counter-rotation
6th Sep 2007, 09:24
First and foremost, thank you Gen. Anaesthetic, I appreciate your time and effort. Excellent posts...

Secondly, as I said earlier, you reap what you sow, and it is probably a very smudged line between "pilot welches on training bond" and "screw 'em, they deserve everything they get" - but I know which side of that line Rex are on, IMHO. That's an opinion, my opinion, and everyone else is free to have theirs.

I take your point about "that's why we got BYO endorsement in the first place", and that is a hard thing to deny...

In this case I simply cannot defend Rex or feel any sympathy for them, and my question was simply to get some facts.

I don't work for them, but I know guys that do, and I know they're watching this thread, I thought it might be worth discussing. That's all.

Bendo, they can justify it all they want - the tree I'm barking up is getting them to pay the troops what they're worth. That is another angle on solving the problem - ie. people won't be looking for the door...

CR.

Bendo
6th Sep 2007, 11:21
CR

Point taken

I too would like to see a few extra bucks spread around amongst the crew, espec the FOs. It would make for fewer heated discussions in my house, for one :oh:

KRUSTY 34
6th Sep 2007, 11:40
REX company line is, and always has been....

"No matter what we pay 'em, they will still leave to fly the big shiny jet!"

This attitude, although partly correct but also flawed for several reasons, gives justification to management in their determination not to pay their pilots what they are worth.

I'm sure this will be a great source of comfort to them when the last of their experience base walks out the door, when the mass cancellation of services becomes a daily reality, and God forbid they realise that a 200 hour wanabee sitting next to a brand new Captain probably wasn't the best scenerio on a dark and stormy night!

The PM
6th Sep 2007, 12:09
Okay, just caught the local tv news wrap up.Seems it is official, the REX group, through Airlink, have cancelled the vast majority of Sydney - Dubbo services operated by Airlink due lack of crew.

Does this make them the first operators to park aircraft due to crew shortages?

The Kavorka
7th Sep 2007, 01:45
And so it begins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Toluene Diisocyanate
7th Sep 2007, 09:21
People might have gotten tired of DM calling the pilots cock%$#&ers and hurling abuse.
Kind of went out in the 70's, David.

How the worm turns. He can go root his boot :=:yuk:

To infinity & beyond
8th Sep 2007, 12:03
From AFAP website:

The Rex tour continues....

wethereyet
8th Sep 2007, 16:08
Desperation! It's embarassing when there is no initiative from the company to retain existing crew :=

SmokingHole
8th Sep 2007, 16:22
Company attitude may have stood the test of time to date, but in the words of an old stoner, the times, they are a-changing! Especially when flight cancellations start to reflect on the bottom line. Stand back and make way for the eminent payrise! With the stone NJS looks likely to drop into the pond, I'm waxing up the surfboard;)

The Company
9th Sep 2007, 05:26
Lets make it loud and clear.

There will be no massive pay rise. Not on this watch. Not under this control or ownership.

Flights might have been cancelled this week, but pax were shifted onto Saab services. The network will ensure that the system keeps running and these petty issues do not disrupt the most important people at Rex, the passenger.

The more people whinge and whine, the less anyone will listen.

Me included.

slice
9th Sep 2007, 06:36
NEEDED : Long term parking for multiple SF340 aircraft - possible need to provide tow services for aircraft to site due lack of aircrew

CONTACT : Rex management:}

TINTIN25
9th Sep 2007, 07:02
(The Company) quote - The network will ensure that the system keeps running and these petty issues do not disrupt the most important people at Rex, the passenger.

Well I think Rex would feel that their share holders are more important than the passengers. Maybe that is wrong again. Rex's senior management only care about how much they get paid themselves so they consider themselves more important than pilots! I really don't know what would be going on in the minds of senior management :rolleyes:

I know us pilots would love to be paid for what we are worth but the share holders would put up a fight to stop it from happening and senior management will always support the share holders above passengers and pilots!

Metro man
10th Sep 2007, 00:09
Rex advertised in Saturdays Singapore Straits Times Newspaper for; Executives, Programmers, Finance Manager & Accountants, LAMEs and Pilots (even RETIRED ones).

Remember the job a few weeks ago for non current Instructors, employer will pay for recurrency ?

Wanted: Person to prevent HR manager from falling into barrel as he leans further in looking for suitable employees. Apply: Aviation companies throughout Australia :E

KRUSTY 34
10th Sep 2007, 01:06
The Company,

Nice Wind-Up mate.

You almost had me biting with that one.

wessex19
10th Sep 2007, 01:16
please correct me here if i am wrong but i have heard of this DM from airlink making his pilots polish the aircraft tyres with boot polish, is this true????


Below is taken directly from airinks website.....

"Pilots - Initial Entrance

Minimum qualifications for Flight Crew are:

Commercial Pilots Licence with Multi-engine endorsement
Command Instrument Rating with at least three renewals
1,000 hours Total Time
700 hours Pilot in Command
150 Hours Multi Engine
50 hours Night Flight
Air Link places a strong emphasis on an applicant's ability to successfully undertake our training regime and the applicant's potential to adopt the culture and standards of the Company.

Only written applications detailing qualifications and experience including at least one section in the applicant's own handwriting, are acceptable. Applications are to be forwarded to: The Chief Pilot, Air Link Pty Limited, PO Box 223, DUBBO NSW 2830 and marked "Pilot Application".

....................................