REx Management – “OUTthere” or “OUT of there”

[dragonflyhkg]

Guys/Gals,

I managed to spend some time back in AUS during this past week and I did some travelling on the air transport network around the East coast. Basically, Australian aviation is in a mess showing severe signs of critical problems with service. The regional airlines such as REX and Eastern Australia appear to be coping poorly with schedules and service, and I’d dare say that these two airlines are not alone, given the root cause of a lot of the problems.

One of my trips was into rural NSW flying on Regional Express and this journey proved to be a real eye-opener, not because of journey with REx, but because of the reaction in rural Australia to the causes of the present dilemma at REx and the very real consequences to the customers it serves.

Interestingly, there was considerable knowledge and understanding of the root cause of pilot retention problems at airlines such as REx. Entry level salaries, remuneration to retain senior crew, recent profits, the proposed cadet scheme, schedule cancellations and a myriad of other relevant factors were all openly discussed with me by the friends and business colleagues that I went to visit.

The message was clear; rural Australia requires air transport services and infrastructure, and it won’t tolerate infrastructure or airline managements that won’t respond to the market to ensure reasonable and reliable service. It’s also not just the regional’s that came under fire; Virgin, QANTAS and JetStar also took hits from the rural community.

My return journey to Sydney left me to ponder the state of Australian aviation while watching the landscape from my window of the Saab-340. I then picked up the latest edition of REx’s in-flight Magazine, “OUTthere” (Edition No. 40, 2007, Paul Kelly on the cover).

The opening rexNEWS article, “Staying the Course”, expounded the virtues of the airline’s recent business performance and results; net profit AUD $23.6 M up 50.4%, revenue up 29%, passengers increased by 18%, capacity up 14%, taxed paid dividends, etc.

It was clear that this business has the financial capacity to deal with its issues, but is yet to do anything about it.

The final blow however, came from Page 75 & 76 of the magazine. Within the CountryBIZ section was a Special Feature containing two articles on Human Resources management. The first was “Attracting and Retaining Staff”, followed by another entitled “Mission Impossible”, dealing with the issue of recruitment challenges in times of low unemployment and skills shortages.

Frankly, I was stunned. These articles made an absolute mockery of the incumbent management at REx and the present personnel situation that they’ve not only allowed to develop, but fostered by an ill-conceived denial that all personnel require a fair days pay for a fair days work. Lowering salaries, stagnating remuneration and lowering crew numbers in the pursuit of the “investor’s nirvana” is unfair, un-Australian, and eventually leads to being unprofitable. No Business is entitled to a business at the expense of its employees.

The alarm bells are ringing and it’s time to take action.

Is it any wonder that the CEO resigned for retirement this week; I’m sure he knows what’s coming.

Dragonfly

[KRUSTY 34]

Nicely said dragonflyhkg.

The alarm bells started ringing loudly at the beginning of this year. Blind freddy, the postman, and even the neighbour's cat could see it comming! Everyone of course except the management of REX, and I suspect most other regional and domestic operators. The reality is that it's genesis originated in the oversupply and slashing of wages and conditions of more than a decade ago. Airline operators have become addicted to paying substandard wages. The solution to the problem has become something that they will not, can not, bring themselves to contemplate.

So where are we today? The REX Pilot Committee met with the board today. The meeting was a result of serious petitioning by the AFAP and REX pilots. At no time has the management asked for, or invited the pilot group to offer solutions to this crisis. The details of the meeting will more than likely be made public in a few days. No-one expects any real initiatives from the company, but at least they can say they tried as the last one out turns off the lights.

The real victims will be the communities that REX service, and the staff that will be made redundant as the business shrinks. And shrink it will. As I have said in a previous post, you 'aint seen nothin' yet!

Your point about the stunning sucesses of the airline over the last few years is paticularily poignent. The REXPC hypothesised back in April that it would take nothing less than a 40% increase in salary to retain a majority of experienced pilots in the current circumstances. A substantial amount to be sure. But when placed in the context of what is at stake, a suprisingly small price to pay. If funded by a ticket levy, not taking into account the future growth of the business (now destroyed), the cost would have been in the order of $6.25 per ticket!

Rex are in the process of contracting the business. Just how far they go will depend directly on the number of pilots available to fly the aircraft. The consensus around the industry is that we have only seen a foretaste of what is yet to come. 50% of REX pilots have resigned in the last 18 months. Even my eight year old nephew can do the math on that one.

Over the next year when the wholesale slaughter of regional routes takes hold, we can tell these communities that the loss of these essential services had come at a high price......$6.25 a ticket!

[aircraft]

KRUSTY 34 said:
... we can tell these communities that the loss of these essential services had come at a high price......$6.25 a ticket!
If you had the intelligence, you would realise that, if it did truly only cost $6.25 per ticket, then this increase would have been made long ago and everybody would be living happily ever after.

I will just labour that point a little more, for the benefit of the numerous PPRUNE readers that seem to lack the comprehension ability to understand my simple posts.

If all it took was the little increase of $6.25 per ticket, REX would have made that increase.

So, obviously, 40% salary increases must cost more than $6.25 per ticket.

The calculation that yields these little numbers (e.g $6.25) is so incredibly simplistic that only a fool would use it. The calculation manages to exclude almost all the factors that would affect ticket pricing.

It assumes 100% load factors before and after the ticket price increase - can't have load factors in there now, complicating things, can we?

It ignores GST and other taxes and charges that are a percentage of the total airfare.

My personal feeling on the question of how much of a ticket price increase would be required to facilitate a 40% salary increase is that such a result is utterly impossible. Probably anything over a 3-4% increase is impossible.

This is because, as you increase prices, load factors drop. Increase them even more to compensate for the reduced load factors and the load factors drop even more. This should all be bleedingly obvious.

[neville_nobody]

OK so what's your solution then aircraft? Close the doors?

[aircraft]

OK so what's your solution then aircraft? Close the doors?
No need to close the doors. The company is in a strong financial position, is profitable and expects to remain so for the forseeable future.

[KRUSTY 34]

You know aircraft, you continually show your ignorance, especially when making assumptions from afar. Your blind faith in REX management is even more amazing considering your lack of first hand knowledge.

The amount of $6.25 per ticket to achieve a 40% pay rise was in fact checked by REX management. They conceded that those figures were accurate! So who's the fool now?

The reasons given for not implementing such a move was the belief that It would not prevent the majority of pilots from moving on. Now before you think that you have been given a free kick, here is another fact. The majority of those senior pilots that have moved on, would have stayed for such a recognition of their worth. I have spoken personally to many of them, and the answers are nearly always the same. Have you spoken to them aircraft?

The fact that the management of REX think otherwise is merely a testiment to their complete disengagement with their workforce. They aren't even on the same planet as the rest of us. When you go next door to borrow a cup of sugar, suggest to them that they turn their telescopes towards Earth sometime. Feel free to have a look yourself. You may learn something. Although I doubt it!

P.S. For someone with a glass jaw, you certainly like sticking it out!

[aircraft]

The amount of $6.25 per ticket to achieve a 40% pay rise was in fact checked by REX management. They conceded that those figures were accurate!
Some REX pilot comes up with $6.25, using the braindead calculation method, presents it to management, and then management come back certifying not only the calculation method but the result yielded as well?

Yeah, I can believe that. I suggest you are the victim of hearsay and/or chinese whispers.

[dragonflyhkg]

Guys/Gals, Aircraft, et al;

It's time for us to all get real.

Forget AUD $6.25 per ticket if necessary. Even if it the required action is to double the salary bill of REx, if that's what it takes within the current market, that's what it takes.

No employer, airline or otherwise, is entitled to a business at the expense of its employees; bottom line.

We work as a team, albeit with some different boundaries; employer, employee, customer.

The simple fact is that staff are required to be recruited and retained within all areas of the company, otherwise it's "game over".

It's time we all thought about coming to the table with prospective solutions, not just complaints, and that goes for both sides of the table.

Dragonfly.

[Kelly Slater]

Isn't it about time people stopped paying bus fares to ride on aeroplanes? Passenger numbers would obviously drop if fares were substancially increased but the required load factor to be profitable would also decrease. The number of services between cities would decrease and with that, the number of pilots. Somewhere along the line a new equilibrium would be found. Airlines would continue to make the same profits whilst paying their employees more and running less services with less aircraft. Less pilots required helps with the pilot shortage. The profession of pilot would once again be worthwile financially, thus ensuring a continued supply of would be pilots. Even the environment would benefit.

[aircraft]

Kelly Slater,

Excellent, intelligent and sensible post. Just one little problem - the commercial airline industry.

The commercial airline industry has a mind of its own and it has been doggedly following that mindset for over 50 years now.

That mindset has been for ever more cheaper fares. If you look at the statistics you will see that, in real terms, the decline in airfares over the last 50 years has been nothing less than spectacular.

So how would your idea of more expensive airfares sit with that mindset (or should I say "obsession")?

[Launch_code_Harry]

The not-so-subliminal message brought to by aircraft* is:

"pilot wages are in terminal decline, wannabes & n00bs, get out while you can."

The pilot managers must cringe at your every post as you publicly expose their secret plans to slash pilot wages. Keep going aircraft, help bury the industry deeper in the sh!t.

* assisting the shortage since 2005

[Sunfish]

Please ignore the troll, stop responding to aircrafts vapid posts and he will disappear.

[Hugh Jarse]

Aircraft,

I've watched your numerous debates from the sidelines for some time. A lot of the suggestions made on this forum are from front-line staff, and although at times emotive still hold some merit.

Whilst I accept some of your reasoning, I note that all your responses are of a "can't do" nature and why the suggestions won't work. Modern management should have a "how can we make this work with what we've got" attitude. Are you a modern manager? Are you a "can do" man?

Let me ask you:

You have offered no solutions to the current crisis at this stage. HOW would you address the situation? Using REX as en example, (you claim they are in a financially "good" situation, I don't dispute that). If you were in a position of influence within REX management, what plans would you put in place to retain an increasingly shrinking commodity whilst keeping the shareholders satisfied?

How would you address:

Remuneration;
Lifestyle;
Career expectations;
Morale?

These factors (for your consideration) are not in any specific order. The priority of these is an individual choice.

I look forward to your response.:)

[Dick Smith]

Hugh Jarse, a good positive post mate. Obviously when you were fixing those computers some of the Dick Smith Electronics ethos rubbed off! Congratulations.

[flysaucer1200]

I have been clicking onto this thread and all threads that contain aircraft’s input, in the exploration of aircrafts solution to REX preservation. He seems a willing and educated adversary of the populace, somewhat a subvert, but maybe not. Now Hugh Jarse has asked for a, somewhat ‘formal, but, certainly comprehensible solution and has been supported by a man of the community with status, I, also enthusiastically await the answer from, Aircraft

[gas-chamber]

Salary alone will never fix the problem. Pilots by nature are ambitious animals. Most aspire to fly a large jet and will do almost anything - like pay for their own type ratings - to get a window seat in a big jet. The bigger the better. Young ambitious pilots will sacrifice lifestyle and work their rings off in sh!thole foreign places if it means eventually sitting in the Captain seat of something like a 777. So Rex etc will not retain their younger pilots with money or promises of a laid-back life in downtown Albury etc (whoop-de-doo). Well, maybe a few young blokes are happy remaining on something like a Saab all their life, but I haven't met too many in my long career.
Older guys - like really old enough to have missed the boat - will stay if the workload does not kill them first. And other older guys who have been there done that could possibly be attracted back for a direct entry command, but obviously won't cop co-pilot salaries in a light turboprop like a Saab. Some of these will work out fine and others, especially if they have the skygod syndrome that often comes with flying in large flag-carrier airlines, will be a disaster. What would I do ? Get a deal going to train cadets on behalf of larger airlines in return for their service as F/O's for a set term. Open it up for DEC's and recruit experienced older Captains - being very picky about their atttitude and flying aptitude. Heavy-duty simulator assessments first. No psych testing, but, because old guys will usually fail these.
Budget maybe for a 10% failure rate, but get realistic with the check standards too. The Saab is not the space shuttle, though from what I have heard of Rex their checkies treat it a bit that way. Which also puts off older guys, not because they can't fly but because most of them are over the BS.
And of course, pay enough money to make it worth living in wherever it suits the Company, but with rosters flexible enough to allow a commute to civiilisation with reasonable time off.

Yes, I am smoking some good gear as I write this.

.

[SmokingHole]

you said
No need to close the doors. The company is in a strong financial position, is profitable and expects to remain so for the forseeable future.

This has been your stance on RX's financial position for some time now. WE GET IT! ( despite the share price down $2.80 to $2.10 )

Why then, do you not think the workers would consider a forseeable future with RX if they were on the receiving end of some of this "cream".:confused:

gas-chamber - I know plenty of people willing to settle for a career in the regionals, provided they are renumerated accordingly ie more than a building site labourer who's only outlay was a pair of steel caps.:ugh:

[Skystar320]

Next thing you will know is he will be hacking into the mainframe!!!!!!!

[aircraft]

Hugh Jarse,

A constructive post and I thank you. No time right now but I will be addressing those questions as soon as possible.

[WynSock]

Load factors would not plummet with a "pilot-retention levy" of $6.25 in my opinion.

Aircraft? I also eagerly await your reasoned response.

[THE ORACLE]

Gas-Chamber,
The evidence indicates you are wrong concerning the 'older guys'. This movement of pilot labour is global and affecting Jet operators in our regon including Cathay and Dragon Air as well as Turboprop operators such as Qantaslink and REX. I know many senior pilots in their 40's and 50's who have exercised their free market prerogative and moved to better paying positions.
A decade ago there were few opportunities for the 'older guys', but now with the combination of current 'user pay' recruitment ethics at the LCC's and recognition of a global shortage by legacy carriers, age is not a barrier and in this respect I think Krusty 34 is right to pursue the initiatives at REX to try and retain the flight department corporate memory before it is too late.

[gas-chamber]

Oracle, agree with much already put forward by those who are much closer to Rex than I am.
But, none of it escapes the fact that there are not enough younger guys who want to make a career at the regionals. So the flight ops department just has to start thinking outside their traditional square or face further downsizing.
40 and 50 is no longer considered old in today's employment climate - Emirates etc will quite happily recruit and train 50 year olds.
By "older guys" I was really alluding to 60 year olds who are sometimes forced to retire from overseas at that age but who still have 5 good years left in them. The home industry should not waste these people at times such as this. QF probably needs to also take heed if it wants to stay in the regional game too.
Also, because of their age, 60 year olds won't be blocking the careers of those who do elect to make a life with the regionals. Come the next downturn, at least the younger guys then stuck in the regionals will have something of a career path even if it's not what they had hoped for.
And by all means load the ticket price by six or seven bucks if it will fund a decent pay-rise.
Hell, load it by 10 to chip in for training costs.

[KRUSTY 34]

Gidday ORACLE,

sucinct and intelligent as always.

:= aircraft, I know I'm going to regret even giving you the broadband space, but here goes.

Your accusation that I am a victim of "hearsay and or/chinese wispers" is insulting. It only further reinforces your detachment from the true situation at REX. Mangement did check the numbers and they did agree with the arithmetic. Their decision not to proceed with the proposal was driven by ideoligy, and a mis-reading of the true seriousness of the situation. Having said that, they are now acutely aware of the danger, but are unable to come to grips with their previous inaction! Obviously you do not know who I am. If you did you would realise that my knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors at REX is far superior to your own.

Now, I don't intend to get into a p!ssing contest with you. Suffice to say your posts appear to be slidding more into the personal, as you continue to seek justification for an unwinnable arguement.

Please feel free to post your answer to Hugh Jarse's request. I too look forward to your response. But consider this, Hugh is a highly intelligent professional with his finger on the pulse. If you reply with nonsense, you will only destroy whatever credibility you may think you had!

Have a nice day.

[dhavillandpilot]

All we hear today is pilot salaries and why the industry needs to pay more.

The simple fact is supply and demand. The supply of pilots is drying up whilst demand is increasing.

Simple economics - if you want to operate an aviation business then you have to have pilots.

To have pilots you have to pay the going rate.

Don't pay - you don't fly.

My daughter was interested in becoming a pilot. In the end she looked at the life style and the money and decided that a commerce/law degree paid more, had better flexibility with work and gave her a life style that was conducive to a home life. - End result one less potential pilot.

With regard to REX the management seems to need to go an do Economics I at Macquarie Uni. By losing aircrew at the rate they are currently their business will suffer. how long before passengers decide they are too unreliable to use. And once you have annoyed a client they tend not to revisit your business.

Hence the moral for REX is simple, PAY the crew a market rate salary and service the route properly. The business will grow and everybody would be happy.

[boardpig]

I like many others have been following the Rex situation through the various threads and see that the common theme here is the Mgt seem to have their heads up their ar*es. They may well respond to the new economy of pilot supply and demand, but how and when remains to be seen.
With all the analysis and opinions being offered here, is anyone from Rex MGT actually getting it? Does anyone know if they ever read or pay attention to what is being said here? If this was my business and I read even half of what's been suggested here, I'd seriously be taking a step back and re-thinking my position.
If however I was more concerned about how to afford my Bugatti Veyron and generally didn't give a stuff about staff morale, I'd be doing exactly what the current mgt are doing now.

Just a thought.

[The Kavorka]

Pprune moderators,

It's about time that you got rid of the farken idiot "Aircraft":ugh:

He is nothing more than a waste of mine and other ppruners time..

I like many others probably don't even read his moronic posts, so i say and i'm sure 90% of fellow pruners would agree, get rid of this d*ckhead.

Moderators, you have banned me several times for over expressing my opinion so I don't believe there should be a problem in getting rid of this oxygen thief!!

I know everyone is entilted to their opinion but this guy is one deluded indivdiual that continually posts utter crap and baseless ramblings...:mad:

If you other pruners agree say "I"

[GADRIVR]

Dick.......you've an interest in aviation....whats your opinion of the above topic?

[Ultralights]

being well estblished in Syd with family and a house or 2, i would be willing to fly for REX for the rest of my career, im mid 30's, on the condidtion of decent wages to live with in Syd, with decent pay increases in line with community expectations, and they cover the costs of my training..

not every pilot is in it for the big jets. just a decent living an ill be happy.

[boardpig]

I could not agree more. I too am in this situation with ATPL's and ME/IR, self funded and resonable amount of hours.
I work in a different industry and would love to fly regional and stay there. Being in Syd though with a mortgage and bills to pay, this option is financially unavailable to me. If Rex Bring the T's and C's up to todays levels they would have me banging on their door.

[Hugh Jarse]

Thank you, Dick.

My memory of those days is a little fuzzy, but let me say this: I had a great time, and certainly felt appreciated by my supervisors and work colleagues. I learned heaps about how business is run, and there was as much personal development training on offer as you could take. Actually, that place was well ahead of it's time :E now that I think about it. (Some businesses - not only airlines could take a leaf out of DSE's book when it comes to ways of engaging their staff). I can't remember ever hearing anyone complain about their job. The pay wasn't the greatest, but it was what came with the job that mattered (well, to me at least). The intangible things that draw us to a particular employer (not only the heavily subsidised staff purchase scheme) ;). At DSE you certainly gave your pound of flesh, but in return were treated with respect and given a fair go.

Anyway, there have been murmurings about senior guys in REX moving on. Well, not only REX. You can insert airline name here............ You have to ask why? Surely, it cant only be the money because they've lived with fairly steady wage rates for many years. So there must be some other underlying reasons?

1. Lifestyle (family)
2. Career expectations.
3. Apparent feelings of lack of appreciation (Morale).

Address #3 and you're well on your way to solving #1 and 2.:ok: But you have to get it done while you still have senior people to retain.:cool:

You'll always see people move on for $$$ or the "next big thing", but not everyone aspires to that. The difficulty is when senior people that wouldn't normally be chasing the aforementioned $$$ or "next big thing" move on, you have some serious problems!

Managing a business is not just about managing money. Managing your people is equally, if not more important (particularly in times of skills shortages which makes one's qualifications more portable).

Clearly effective people management is yet to happen in the airline industry, which is evidenced by so many valuable people disengaged across all professional levels (not just pilots).

Good luck to your families :8

[wrongwayaround]

The kavorka: If you other pruners agree say "I"

I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII I I I I II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Help a brother out.

Aircraft... I hope your reply includes those 'special human touches' (f r e a k)

*yawn*

[Under Dog]

"Aircraft" after having read Hugh Jarse's post, he is absolutely right you have not come up with any reasonable reply's to the current situation. It leads me to the fact, your just a pessimist with no real direction what so ever.

Regards The Dog

[Raider1]

During a long drive back home today I caught bits of an announcement from the Coalition about the need to attract pilots to regional airlines. Dont hold me to the exact figures (I was driving), but it was something like if re elected the Coalition will provide $9m to help train new pilots. Basic deal seemed to be that if a trainee agreed to stay with a regional airline for 2 years then 25% of their pilot training fees would be refunded. Look forward to tomorrows papers for the finer details.

[Raider1]

Here is the press release:
Australian Aviation - The Coalition Aiming Even Higher
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, today announced that a re-elected Coalition Government will establish an Australian Aviation Technical College, a regional airline pilot scholarship scheme and a new cadet pilot programme to provide a jobs pathway for young Australians into the exciting aviation sector.
Mr Vaile said the Coalition will also provide funding to assist the aviation industry to investigate further ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“As an island nation Australia is heavily reliant on air transport for the movement of passengers and trade, while regional Australia depends on aviation for so much including medical needs, commerce and social links,” Mr Vaile said.
“As a result of the Coalition’s policies and initiatives over many years, the Australian aviation industry is experiencing strong growth, record passenger numbers and unprecedented
development in airport infrastructure.”
Industry growth is creating great demand for skilled and qualified aviation professionals, from pilots to aircraft maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers.
“A re-elected Coalition Government will establish a Regional Airline Pilot Scholarship Scheme to encourage pilots to work in regional airlines across Australia,” Mr Vaile announced.
Under the Scheme, a Coalition Government will invest $9 million to reimburse up to 25 per cent of the training costs for pilots if they remain with a nominated regional airline continuously for a period of two years.
“While there is significant interest in aviation, many people, particularly school students, are unsure about how to pursue a career in the industry,” Mr Vaile said.
“A re-elected Coalition Government will also encourage high school students to pursue a career in aviation by investing $250,000 in a programme run in partnership with Royal Australian Aero Clubs.
“The funding will subsidise a cadet pilot certificate course to be run by interested local Aero Clubs.”
Mr Vaile also announced that a re-elected Coalition Government will help more Australian students to pursue their dream career in aviation by establishing an Australian Aviation Technical College.
“The new Australian Aviation Technical College, to be established in close proximity to Perth Airport,
will complement the already committed Australian Technical College campus in Nowra, which will have a focus on aviation trade training,” Mr Vaile said.
“These two campuses will be two of the 30 new stand-alone Australian Technical Colleges announced by the Prime Minister on 29 October 2007.
“The College at Perth Airport will enable up to 200 year 11 and 12 students each year to undertake studies towards year 12 qualifications, while gaining one third of their apprenticeship in an aviation field, including avionics and aircraft maintenance.”
Mr Vaile said the Coalition recognised that, while aviation as a whole contributed only an estimated two percent of global carbon emissions, government needed to work in partnership with industry to address emissions in a way that didn’t threaten jobs.
“The Coalition has introduced a range of measures to reduce aviation greenhouse emissions including: improving fuel efficiency through more flexible flight tracks; improving aircraft air traffic control sequencing; more efficient runway use; and continuous descent approaches,” Mr Vaile said.
“Our commonsense, balanced approach to climate change allows the aviation industry to go for growth.”
Mr Vaile also announced that a re-elected Coalition Government will provide $500,000 to help the aviation industry plan better infrastructure and obtain access to state-of-the-art technology to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
“The Coalition also remains strongly committed to not investigate sites for, or build, a second Sydney airport and to maintaining the current Sydney Airport curfew and regional airline access.
“And we will continue to open up new opportunities for Australian aviation industries by encouraging more international airlines into Australia’s regional international airports, working to conclude an open-skies agreement with the United States, and continuing negotiations on an open skies agreement with the European Union.”

[Going Boeing]

A great initiative, but, Mr Vaile appears to be unaware of the congestion problems in and around Perth airport.

[BrazDriver]

:ugh:

Aircraft, What a wind up artist! I hear Maccas are short on staff, prehaps you could fix their problem too!


Also Dick, as a man of business I too would be interested to see how you would fix this one? Or suggestions at least.

Going Boeing,
I agree they have missed the point completely! It is infrastructure we need!
And the systemic loss of ATC services!

[Ultralights]

unprecedented
development in airport infrastructure.”
:hmm:

developed into housing and industrial lots!

[training wheels]

Also Dick, as a man of business I too would be interested to see how you would fix this one? Or suggestions at least.

Yeah, I'm surprised we haven't seen Dick Smith Airlines enter the market as yet, considering Dick's interest and expertise in aviation as well as his business prowess.

As for Mr Aircraft .. we're all waiting, matey, for your reply to Hugh. waiting ..waiting ..waiting ...

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Aircraft

My intel sources at the RIA (Reindeer Intelligence Agency), a secretive outfit based in Lapland, tell me XMAS is just around the corner!!:eek:

Anytime before then would be fine by us.

Blue Foot

[Launchpad McQuack]

25 per cent of the training costs for pilots if they remain with a nominated regional airline continuously for a period of two years


...before moving elsewhere for better T&Cs. Maybe it's just my view, but to me that won't solve retention issues, nor does it fill the void left by the exodus of senior Pilots to greener pastures.

Does this equal problem solved? As I see it, there will cadets avaliable for the RHS, but few (if any at this rate) senior staff for training etc in the LHS?

As for aircraft, I'm not waiting. I used to read his posts with interest but these days they are baited and waiting for bites, I'll waste no more time reading them. :ugh:

LP

[WarmNuts]

I reckon HJ clean bowled aircraft :}
it's all about self interest from a managerial perspective... if you have a look at the annual report by industry standards the board isn't paid all that much... even with all their options cashed in the package merely average... what incentives does REX management have to rectify the current problems?? none
whilst they probably aren't dumb deaf and blind it's a classical example of agency theory

[ABX]

This should give a laugh to most... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3698942&postcount=23)

Well done max!

[aircraft]

Hugh Jarse said:

I note that all your responses are of a "can't do" nature and why the suggestions won't work.
In making my posts to these REX threads I have been trying to make others aware of when their ideas and suggestions are unrealistic. Unfortunately, most of what is posted is unrealistic.

Modern management should have a "how can we make this work with what we've got" attitude. Are you a modern manager?
You would have to be naive to think the management aren't approaching the issues in that manner.

No, I am not a manager and have never been one. I am a GA pilot. I have no association with REX.

You have offered no solutions to the current crisis at this stage.
There are no realistic solutions to offer. You will find that Dick Smith is also unable to offer any solutions. You will not see "DicK Smith Airlines" anytime soon - he is too smart for that.

If you were in a position of influence within REX management, what plans would you put in place to retain an increasingly shrinking commodity ...
I would identify those pilots that "would like to remain with REX but are finding it increasingly difficult to do so". With those individuals I would begin regular discussions. The principal purpose of the discussions would be to:

1. Gently persuade them that their chosen industry just cannot afford satisfactory terms and conditions anymore. This persuasion would make mention of the fact that it is only a matter of time before the terms and conditions offered by operators such as Jetstar, Qantas and VB will find their way down to the same level as those of REX. It may be necessary to "open the books" and delve into the financial details to make this case.

2. Obtain their ideas as to what arrangements can be reached (between them and the company) that will make their lives easier. These ideas may vary greatly, depending on personal circumstances, but once obtained, faithfully seek ways of achieving, then implementing those arrangements. If a particular arrangement cannot be achieved, honestly and openly advise them of this and the reasons why.

Large increases to terms and conditions are just not possible for operators such as REX, who, outside the current booming economic conditions, just do not bring in sufficient revenue.

Although the current profits are very good, getting a share of them would require approval of the board (and most probably, the shareholders) but I doubt the shareholders would approve.

The REX route structure is such that there is significant competition from the other modes of transport (e.g train, bus, car). This level of competition makes for a much greater "price elasticity" than could be expected for most other air routes in Australia. This in turn means the demand for air carriage over these routes is highly sensitive to changes in the price of the ticket. It is for this reason that small increases to the ticket price (for the purpose of funding increased pilot terms and conditions) would quite likely have a counterproductive result.

The commercial aviation industry is not what it used to be. Throughout its entire existence there has been an unmistakable and relentless trend towards safer carriage and cheaper fares. For the first few decades, the technological improvements to aircraft and engines alone were enough to keep the fares coming down, but these days, those improvements aren't enough to keep the fares coming down at the desired rate so staff remuneration has had to be cut to the bone.

Considering this trend and the future demand for pilots from countries such as China and India, it is quite easy to see what is just around the corner:

Pilotless passenger aircraft.

[Wizofoz]

Wow!!
Have you ever seen anybody more comprehensively or eloquently prove what a complete idiot they are!!

[Launch_code_Harry]

There are no realistic solutions to offerHugh Jarse called you bluff, yet you have nothing to offer.

Considering this trend and the future demand for pilots from countries such as China and India, it is quite easy to see what is just around the corner:

Pilotless passenger aircraft.Is that the best you can do? Others have called you a troll, but you are not actually clever enough for that. Trolls are well aware that their arguments are totally fallacious, simply to elicit certain responses . I think you may actually believe what you are saying.

Even worse, you really know nothing about this industry. To think a pilotless RPT aircraft is anything other that a European engineers wet dream is beyond the pale. If you are waiting industry to be saved by such a device, rather than pay pilots more money simply highlights just how delusional you actually are.

It takes a very unusual personality to repeatedly post in the face of almost unanimous criticism. Others offer solutions, but not you, because you don't have any. You are not a builder, but a destroyer. You add nothing but noise, and simply detract from any argument you choose to enter.
Leave the rest of us alone.

I can only wonder your motivations & mental state.

And you fly an aeroplanes? Just very small ones I hope.

[wrongwayaround]

What I don't like about 'aircraft' is his ignorance... and the way he thinks he is always correct. (No questions asked)

He does not show appreciation to other peoples views and takes his own word for gospel.

Not a good trait for a pilot - I hope I never train you in a cockpit, aircraft... That's if you ever make it to multi-crew.

Lets hope not.

I suggest we just ignore him now :ok:

[Hugh Jarse]

Thanks for your response, aircraft.

In making my posts to these REX threads I have been trying to make others aware of when their ideas and suggestions are unrealistic. Unfortunately, most of what is posted is unrealistic.Which terms would consider realistic?

You would have to be naive to think the management aren't approaching the issues in that manner.I'm not naive, aircraft. I don't like beating my own drum, but I've successfully run 3 businesses during my pre-aviation career. (Paid for my flying lessons!) Two of these were started up (greenfields, I believe is the buzzword) in a time of huge shortages of staff with skills in their particular area of expertise. When I think back about it there was a very common thread between the difficulties of staffing those businesses, and what the Regionals are experiencing today, only on a smaller scale. However, I'm yet to see any "can-do" from REX - yet. Other airlines and GA operators are taking steps in the right direction with significant pay rises and retention payments, and should be commended for at least taking some action, but money alone doesn't address a multi-faceted problem.

There are no realistic solutions to offer. You will find that Dick Smith is also unable to offer any solutions. You will not see "DicK Smith Airlines" anytime soon - he is too smart for that.There are always realistic solutions, aircraft. (That's the difference between can and can't do managers). You just can't think of them at the moment :) I never thought I'd say this, but you don't know Dick Smith very well. One thing I will say of his leadership style at the time (from experience) was that if you had a problem and took it to him, the best way to get a hearing was to have the solution before you walked in his door. Not a bad thing really, because who has a better handle on the marketplace than your front-line staff?

Quite a few people on this thread have offered solutions in one way or another. Irrespective of the merit of such solutions it appears that they are falling on deaf ears.

I'll repeat my assertion that good management of people is as equally important as managing the books. One aspect of good people management is actively seeking input from your staff (see my reference to DSE above). This ain't happening.

Thanks for your response to my hypothetical: I won't go into great detail, but to summarise, you still haven't really offered any solutions, because the tone of your whole post is "can't do" and doesn't really address the people side of the equation. REX isn't alone in its inability or unwillingness to understand, engage and manage its workforce. This is a problem pervading the airline industry. The baton needs to be passed on to managers that possess these skills. I don't think I can be any clearer......

The key problem facing REX and other Regionals is addressing those people who love their job, hold some pride in their company (a lot of people at REX and other Regionals) and don't want to leave - but are!

The key? Ask them why, and THINK OUTSIDE THE SQUARE when formulating the solution ;)

Gidday!

[THE ORACLE]

Yesterday REX held their AGM with both the annual results and presentation now posted on the ASX website. Information provided includes a graph showing the pilot attrition rate for the last 3 years which has/is increasing at an impressive and seemingly unsustainable rate. REX management have been subjected to a lot of criticism in these threads but who are the REX management?

If you seriously research REX you will quickly establish that although it is a public company, it's major shareholder is the overseas based Executive Chairman who controls well in excess of 50 percent of the shares. There is a Board of Directors (now minus a Managing Director) comprising some executive and some non executive directors (who appear to be minor shareholders compared to the Executive Chairman) and that under the Board there is a team of full-time managers who work to run the business. According to ASX rules an Executive Chairman (who outranks a Managing Director) must act in the interests of the majority of shareholders. Catch 22!!

[Ralph the Bong]

Ha, got you Sunshine! :8

I've narrowed it down to 4 people, all brothers :}

You're either Larry, Curly, Moe or Shemp!

:)

[The PM]

In that case Ralph, maybe you could mention to his employer that he feels that pilot T and Cs in Australia at the moment are unsustainable and that eventually they will fall further (his own words), and therefore he must feel he is being overpaid and is volunteering for a pay cut!

Problem solved!

:}:}

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Here Here Mr. Jarse, Very succinct post outlining some of the problems with current management thinking. Now I won't get too vitrious but I personally think one of the main problems in Aviation is the lack of experienced aviation managers. These days we get the modern MBA types who flit from industry to industry and can achieve good short term results but don't have the long term experience to ensure profitable survival. Not too many old boy/girl pilots getting to explain the realities to boards any more. They cop the aircraft line of "it's just too complicated for you to understand".

Now I'm not too au fait with the REX situation and everyone I know who worked there left to fly jets. What I would be curious about would be the type of managers they have, because blind freddy should have seen this coming and there are ways to put solutions in place. Some things are monetary, some are lifestyle, some are staffing levels. If you don't do this what's the cost of having nothing? You can't run an airline without pilots so what's the point of having good bottom lines if you go under?

[lowerlobe]

Aircraft.....Hugh Jarse has suggested that you are...

I note that all your responses are of a "can't do" nature and why the suggestions won't work.

To which you basically answered....

There are no realistic solutions to offer.

You could have saved yourself a lot of work by just agreeing with him...

Imagine if all managers had your attitude..."sorry...won't work...can't do it....."

We would all be walking around with clubs and living in caves.This has nothing to do with being realistic it is all about your attitude.

Aircraft.....Not only are you on the wrong horse but you are riding the wrong way.

One day you will wake up and look around and wonder where everyone has gone.All you will hear is your own voice asking "Where is everybody"

[boardpig]

I think there has been more time spent on this topic trying to hoist aircraft on a pile of sticks and burn him (perhaps warranted) rather than on the original topic.
I suggest we start a new topic called "Who is aircraft?" and use that to marvel at the one man, jaw dropping logic show, that is "aircraft".
Too much focus on him for my liking, and sadly not just in this thread.

:ugh:

[Mudflat]

Aircraft,
Say something funny again...c'mon, keep making me laugh.

Hee Hee.

[Ultralights]

if i was one of those pilots, and if rex would drop the fees for training, then i might well be, and you called me in the office and said this
1. Gently persuade them that their chosen industry just cannot afford satisfactory terms and conditions anymore. This persuasion would make mention of the fact that it is only a matter of time before the terms and conditions offered by operators such as Jetstar, Qantas and VB will find their way down to the same level as those of REX. It may be necessary to "open the books" and delve into the financial details to make this case.
i would quickly be leaving and looking for the nearest employment section in the herald.. (or Australian)

[UDH]

aircraft :
Please don't stop, Please, Please, Please don't stop.
Hang on, just wait, wait almost shut down
almost there , in 10 seconds post !



Hang on I forgot to say " YOU IDIOT"

[flysaucer1200]

Some additional, worthy of note information to perhaps sustain the motion of this debate

November 16, 2007
COUNTRY airline Regional Express Holdings has lifted passenger numbers in the first quarter of fiscal 2008 and says higher fuel costs are helping it compete with car travel.
At its annual general meeting in Sydney yesterday, Rex stuck to its earnings guidance for this financial year, predicting net profit to rise by 10per cent in the 12 months.
In 2006-07, Rex reported annual net profit growth of 50.4 per cent to $23.6 million.
The airline also said first-quarter profit had risen by 5.6 per cent to $5.7million, up from last year's first-quarter result of $5.2 million.
Passenger numbers in the quarter rose 11.4 per cent to 383,611.
Rex deputy chairman John Sharp said as fuel prices increased, so did Rex's ability to compete with the car.

"Our competition in most of our destinations is not Qantaslink or the train, it is the motor car," Mr Sharp said.
"With the rising price of fuel, our ability to compete with the motor car has increased.

"This may be a surprise to many people but it is a fact that for most of our network, the car is our only competitor and rising fuel prices seem to have resulted in more people opting to use our services."

Mr Sharp said the average ticket price had been reduced to $118.50,
"which is a more than 20 per cent reduction over the last four years".

At the start of the month, Rex increased its fuel surcharge to $27 a sector, up from $24, as a result of rising fuel costs.
Rex posted fuel costs for the first quarter of this financial year of $10.8million, up 20.7 per cent on the previous corresponding quarter.
Rex this week announced that managing director Geoff Breust had resigned after four years at the helm.


Reference: the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22764739-23349,00.html

[Mudflat]

C'mon aircraft....don't stop now, your on a role!!!! Funnyist $hit I've read all year comes from you.:D

[Hottie]

'AIRCRAFT' :
I used to work for the former Saab operator, so because I don't anymore, and because they don't exist, I won't beat you over the head too much regarding your idiotic, stupid, careless and IQ-equivalent of -100 capacity.
What I will say however is that you are a TOOL ! If the Aviation Industry in Australia was to listen to you, the situation would reach mayhem levels ; the industry would be cemented as doomed (at present, I believe it is recoverable) but more importantly, you'd have lots after you...
I hope that I can, one day, return to a BETTER Australia - I can only offer my best wishes to all 'genuine' people involved in the Ozzie Aviation Industry.. sorry 'Aircraft' (what an inappropriate name for a person who is willing to promote pilotless aircraft ?!) - this doesn't involve you.
Many of us DEFINITELY do NOT possess your low intelligence levels, or lack of real passion for this Industry, that you yourself are somehow involved in also. As Hugh Jarse, and others have said, this Industry is full of VERY capable, experienced (OUTSIDE of Aviation) people, WITH people/interpersonal communications skills and the ability to be 'CAN' people, rather than your meagre, lowlife attitude.
Wrongwayaround has put it perfectly - I hope nobody in here has the displeasure of training you, in any capacity. If so, boy, you better pull your head in and retrain that 'brain' of yours with more positive and aviation-relevant ideas...
It's true what they say - This Industry really does attract d***heads !

[Keg]

lol. If you didn't think aircraft was a troll before his response to Hugh's questions then surely everyone must now be convinced after it!?!? I'm not sure why people keep giving oxygen to the thief though! :confused: :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Defenestrator]

Was going to post something constructive to the thread but have thought better. It's actually quite entertaining reading his rot. And as much as I dislike the use of name calling it sure does fit here. What a FCUKHEAD! Isn't anonimity grand. The prick would never work another day in this industry if he had the guns to post under his own name. Show's how convicted of his mindless prattle he is. Gutless wonder.

:hmm:

[FlexibleResponse]

According to what is listed on CommSec:

REX

Current Directors

Mr Russell Hodge Non-Executive Director, Pel-Air Operations
Mr John Wallace Sharp Deputy Chairman, Independent Director
Mr David Miller Executive Director
Mr Kim Hai Lim Executive Chairman
Mr James (Jim) Davis Executive Director Operations
Mr Thian Soo Lee Non-Executive Director
Mr Robert Winnel Independent Director
Mr Stephen Jermyn Non-Executive Director


Major Shareholders

Canberra Air Pty Limited
Kim Lark Lim
Kerk Chuan Seah
Kim Hai Lim
Joo Chye Chua
Ming Yew See Toh
Joe Tiau Tjoa


Canberra Air Pty Limited holds about 7.67% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds 19.00% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds 11.50% of the shares
Kim Lark Lim holds about 9.97% of the shares
Kerk Chuan Seah holds about 9.03% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds about 6.83% of the shares
Joo Chye Chua holds about 6.48% of the shares
Ming Yew See Toh holds about 6.48% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds about 5.76% of the shares

That leaves about 17% of the shares held elsewhere

[aircraft]

You guys just don't get it. If you just took a look around you, you would. But if that is too hard, you only need to read between the lines of every second PPRUNE thread.

Terms and conditions for pilots, all over the world, are steadily reducing and have been so for decades. With booming economic conditions you will occasionally see short term reversals to this trend, but these are just little wiggles on the line that represents the long term trend.

The airline pilot strike of 1989 was an attempt by pilots to change the direction of that line. There have been numerous other attempts by pilot groups around the world. American Airlines pilots are currently contemplating another attempt, as are the NJS pilots.

My money is on the aviation industry to brush aside these attempts, should they occur. That means, I am betting against the pilots to succeed. The aviation industry is just too good at getting its own way.

The fundamental reason for the decline in T&Cs, of course, is that everything in aviation has had to become steadily cheaper to facilitate the ever cheaper air travel for the people of the world - cheaper aircraft, engines, maintenance, management - and cheaper pilots.

On top of all that, aviation has always been the world's least profitable industry. If you average out the profits made by the world scheduled airline industry for the 54 years prior to 2001, you find that each operator averages $1,000 (USD) profit per year. One thousand dollars - how's that for razor thin profits?

Problems and solutions...

To the people of the world, enjoying plentiful and cheap air travel, there is no problem.

To the industry, the problem is a shortage of pilots and an inability to train new pilots quickly enough. There is only one practical solution to that, as I said in my previous post, and that is pilotless airliners. The only question about pilotless airliners is when - in 10 years time, 15, or 20? Would anybody like to come out and declare that there will never be pilotless airliners?

To the pilots, the problem is a remuneration level that is headed for the poverty line, but as I said in my previous post, there is no practical solution to this problem. Participants to this debate must realise that, just because there is a problem, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a solution. The profession of airline pilot would by no means be the first in the world that has been made extinct by the market that it serves, and every one of those extinctions started out as just "a problem".

Hugh Jarse,
Other airlines and GA operators are taking steps in the right direction with significant pay rises and retention payments...Can you elaborate?

There are always realistic solutions, aircraft.To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke.

... who has a better handle on the marketplace than your front-line staff?This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace.

REX isn't alone in its inability or unwillingness to understand, engage and manage its workforce.
I believe this statement is just a populist way of saying the management need to "be nice" to the workers. Populist? maybe that should be "political".

How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?

No matter how hard you try, the vast majority of workers do not want to be engaged. They just want to be allowed to do their jobs without fuss, collect their paycheques then go home.

As for not managing its workforce: How is it possible to do this? The only way I can think of doing this is to give them no job descriptions, rosters or tasks - just let them wander around the workplace doing whatever takes their fancy, in other words. I'm certain that this is not what happens at REX. Of course there will be rostering/tasking mistakes made, from time to time, but this is what happens when you have humans as managers.

I am really beginning to think that when you said "REX is unable or unwilling to understand, engage and manage its workforce", you really meant that REX are just not being nice enough.

So, are the workers understanding and engaging REX? Or should I say, are the workers being nice to REX?

If the REX pilots are anything like the pilots in the company I presently work for (and the companies I have worked at), then it will be the case that a significant number of them treat the company with disdain - to be used and abused then dropped like a hot potato when something better comes along.

It never seems to occur to these individuals that it is their own disregard for the company that is being reflected back when, following some dealing with management, they don't get the favourable result they were expecting.

But I have also seen good relationships, and it is noticeable how much more often the pilot gets the "favourable result" in those cases.

About the disaffected staff at REX that "don't want to leave, but are", you said:
Ask them why, and THINK OUTSIDE THE SQUARE when formulating the solution
Hugh Jarse, you are in the position to have asked them why, and, you will have thought outside the square when seeking a solution.

What do you come up with?

[Monopole]

Aircraft, I did not read all of your last lot of dribble. I not only lost interest posts ago, but really lost all hope that you had half a brain mid way throuh your last post.

Let me explain (and i'll keep it simple)!!!!!!

I work in GA. I have recently gainded a 30% payrise (not though Skippers) for the same job for the same company. If a GA company can afford this, so should an RPT co.

Of course I fully understand where you are coming from. 12 months ago you where looking for advise on your first job. Now you are a Baron driver and you know all. I bow down to your knowladge.....

[Icarus53]

Tell a man he's an idiot - he'll get defensive;
Show a man he's an idiot - he'll get angry;
Prove a man is an idiot - he'll say "You just don't get it .....".

Unfortunately (and according to my longstanding, yet to be published theorum on idiots: the Grand Unified Fcukwit Theorum (GUFT)), the third law states that:

3. The idiot never knows he's an idiot.

The first two laws are also demonstrated to certain degrees by our man aircraft:

1. There's never a need to be an idiot.
2. There's always another idiot.

Hence, aircraft exists; unneccessarily and without the possibility of being otherwise. I therefore suggest we all focus on other matters such as holding back the tide, rather than the relatively futile pastime of showing aircraft the error of his ways.

Why not a nice chat about Geoff Dixon instead???

Icarus

[Torres]

Unbelievable! At the tender age of 23 years, an ATPL and a Baron endorsement, aircraft claims to have solved the very problems I struggled with for three decades in airline executive management - problems I still do not have the answers to!

Jarse and Dick are close to the mark. Australia is at a time of record low unemployment and the pilot shortage is an industry problem; no carrier is immune.

I manage a corporation with 500 employees, predominantly in rural and regional Australia where unemployment in some towns is < 1%. As a package deal, staff terms and conditions have been progressively improved in order to compete with other regional labour demands. Despite an average 30% increase in administration staff wages, employer funded staff development training, more flexible employment and a further $1 mill investment in staff living accommodation in the bush, our administration staff attrition rate was over 30% in the past year.

99% of staff voluntarily signed AWAs in the past year, those AWAs providing income, terms and conditions in aggregate up to 50% better than the previous outdated Award system.

Australia has a deficit of workers to meet the demands of an increasingly affluent and aging society. Similarly, the airline industry has insufficient qualified and experienced technical staff to meet the ever increasing demands for air travel.

REX (or any other airline) could improve it's terms, conditions and remuneration to solve it's own problem, but it would be at the expense of another industry sector. And in the case of REX (and all regional airlines), individual desire for personal development will always see staff moving up to larger, more sophisticated airline aircraft types.

Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution. Whilst some erroneously blame government for recent interest rate increases, the reason is inflation, fueled in part by significant increases in wages. Expect further wages increases, a result of the increasing demand for labour, resulting in further inflation and interest rate increases.

Unlike aircraft's simplistic and illogical solutions, I recognise the problems but don't have the answers!

[Hugh Jarse]

To answer your question, aircraft:

Surveillance Aust. and Skippers are but 2 operators who have reviewed (increased) remuneration on their turboprop fleets. There is at least 1 large Regional Airline which has introduced a retention scheme for its pilots. (You can work out who it is). Some parts of GA are offering unprecedented increases in salary in an attempt to retain staff.

While I won't comment on the merit of these schemes, what I will state is that these are examples of a "can-do" management style. Well, sort of.:E

To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke.Funny you say that. That must make the aforementioned airline management idealists? You can pull all the theories out of your Wikipedia aircraft, but this problem is industry-wide and needs a realistic approach to the solution, which clearly you haven't offered as yet. To cop out and say there is no solution demonstrates a lack of lateral thinking. You can do better than that.

You will note that I have avoided the remuneration aspect of this topic. You claim that any pay rise might send airlines broke. That's a very simplistic assertion to which I'll give you a simplistic answer: Increase fares to cover the cost. (not saying that's the answer) The airlines and transport companies did it with fuel. Why should it be different with labour costs? Quite clearly there has to be a balance. This is evidenced by my first answer. Companies are slowly coming to the realisation that part of the answer is to pay more to retain staff. How they cover this is up to them. Without staff there is no company. A fine balancing act indeed....

This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace.Ask Dick Smith what he thinks about that one. In fact, most progressive companies go even one step further and regularly place senior managers on the front line for the very reason I stated - To find out how their product is doing, and where they need to do things better. This, of course in conjunction with talking to your front-line staff. Good front-line staff (if you can attract them to your company) have far more than a "small picture" of the market. I'm yet to witness this management style in the airline environment.

I believe this statement is just a populist way of saying the management need to "be nice" to the workers. Populist? maybe that should be "political".

How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?True - to a point. You are talking about 2 different subjects: Understanding your staff and understanding your market. The difficulty is that once you move away from the front line (particularly in an industry which is changing so rapidly) you WILL lose some of both commodities. (See above)

Hugh Jarse, you are in the position to have asked them why, and, you will have thought outside the square when seeking a solution.

What do you come up with?Aircraft, I am not in a position to ask REX staff about their situation as I'm not employed by REX. However, if you ask anyone in any industry why they want to leave a particular company I'll bet lack understanding the employee's needs and expectations is near the top of the list.

I think a few REX people may have answered your question already (but you don't seem to be listening):) This is the very reason airlines are in this predicament. They are neither seeking input from nor listening to their staff.

As for thinking outside the square - I can think of several successful innovations I've made in business which have benefited both parties at little or no cost. I have had the good fortune to have experienced a reasonably long career prior to getting into aviation. Have you?

As a pragmatist, you probably won't understand how or why looking after your staff works, but I'll give you one example anyway of how it worked for me:

I had several mobile technicians working for me (a business I was running in the ACT. No, not a brothel as some have suggested). Most of them lived within a few minutes drive of our customers, (mainly in the outer suburbs). Company policy was no private use of company vehicles. I persuaded my boss to trial something new which involved a review of that particular policy. When required, I would coordinate their jobs to finish near home. From their last job they could take the vehicle home, providing they started their first job from home the next day.

The benefits were twofold: A huge increase in productivity. We could now fit 2 extra jobs per day that our opposition could not. Operating costs slashed because the vehicle and crew was virtually on-site and did not have to travel 80km return for 2 jobs. An increased client base because of our increased flexibility in service delivery (can-do) There's that word again :}
The advantages to my staff? They saved on their own vehicle running costs and travel time to/from work. In most instances they would be home with their families earlier than they otherwise would have been, had they needed to bring their vehicle back to the warehouse.

This trial was so successful that company policy was changed to permit this type of operation throughout the business. A win-win for everyone!

The intangible benefit (to senior management, until I drew it to their attention) was increased job satisfaction, increased morale, virtually non-existent absenteeism and unprecedented staff retention.:)

This was but one simple example of thinking outside the square and engaging and managing your workforce. All that without an MBA :8

One final point:
No matter how hard you try, the vast majority of workers do not want to be engaged. They just want to be allowed to do their jobs without fuss, collect their paycheques then go home. I could not disagree with you enough on that statement. My example above dispels that statement. The terms in one of my previous posts - Lifestyle, career expectations and morale are all basic aspects of employment which will engage your staff. These are all things that CAN and must be addressed. The above example addressed 2 out of these 3 aspects. IMHO, these are the sole remaining factors (apart from remuneration) that are affecting staff retention in the current climate. People have a fundamental psychological NEED to be engaged in their work. It is a unique part of our nature that makes human beings different to other primates. It appears you hold the opinion that taking an interest in your staff's wellbeing and looking for ways to make things better is a sign of a weak management technique. I guess that makes me a weak (but successful) manager.

The anger and frustration being expressed in this thread by other contributors supports my assertions. They are all people screaming out to be engaged by their employer.

I don't think I'll bother responding to your posts anymore aircraft. Clearly you are incapable of seeing what is obvious to the average person. I'll leave the last word to you (as no doubt you'll have it).

I really hope REX and the rest of the industry survives. Until some fundamental management philosophies change it looks increasingly unlikely.

Good luck to your family.:E

Sorry 'bout the long-winded post.

[lowerlobe]

It's pointless talking about anything with aircraft as he is either unable to understand reality or he is just trolling.

If you are in GA, aircraft....You will be there for a long time

[Mudflat]

Aircraft!!...thanks for the "you just don't get it" line...I always know it will be a pi$$ funny post when you bring that one out, although its getting a tad old. Have you got any different material?!?

Most comedians try to mix it up a bit, but if that sort of stuff is all you've got thats fine too...still the funniest crap I've read all year.

[Torres]

Jarse. Thanks for highlighting aircraft's principal IR theories. I must admit after his first few posts, I didn't bother to read his posts in detail.

"To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke."

and........

"This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace."

Unbelievable! Nothing could be further than the truth!

My staff are very well informed, actively engage with management and the Board, have "taken ownership" of our problems and participate in the management decision process.

Improved terms, conditions and remuneration resulted in very significantly improved corporate profits last financial year, in a very competitive industry!!! :ok:

[Ralph the Bong]

I think that Aircraft might be David Miller. :rolleyes:

[KRUSTY 34]

Either that or Dave's love child. If you believe the "Bio"?

[VH-Cheer Up]

Aircraft said: On top of all that, aviation has always been the world's least profitable industry. If you average out the profits made by the world scheduled airline industry for the 54 years prior to 2001, you find that each operator averages $1,000 (USD) profit per year. One thousand dollars - how's that for razor thin profits?

Someone quoting Warren Buffett here? Didn't Warren Buffett once say "Any right-minded capitalist who had seen the Wrights' contraption take to the skies in Kitty Hawk might have shot it down and saved investors 100 years of agony". Buffett argued, airlines as a whole hadn't netted a dime since 1903.

Averages and cross-market accumulations are always interesting. If you average all the gains and all the losses of actual trades on the stock market, I think you'll find they average out to zero.

On a similar basis, the average Australian possesses one boob and one testicle. Approximately.
(sampling error -0001%, SD=0.9999, other terms and conditions apply).

Net returns for an industry where some players are producing stand-out returns (SIA, Qantas, for example) simply highlight the differences between management that can turn a buck and management that can't.

Do QF or SIA make world-leading profits by paying world's lowest salaries?

Airlines are price-makers, not price-takers. Of course there are competitive pressures, but cars and buses and to some extent trains all use the same hydrocarbon based fuels or derivatives thereof, and the same cost pressures apply.

Noticed how the price of an airline ticket is now markedly MORE expensive than it was in the immediate post 9/11 environment, when less people wanted to fly?

The thing is that all airlines are forced to become low-cost carriers in order to survive. Low-cost does not equate to low-price. Airlines are forced to compete for scant resources - customers, staff, fuel, routes, slots, real estate (terminal space), sometimes even for aircraft. The airline that juggles the cost and price pressures best with the available resources will give the best return to its shareholders.

Pilots are just another resource. A resource that has its own market, which these days is global. A pilot suitably qualified could work for a small island hopper, a mainline, or go play in the great big sandpit. In fact. of all the resources that have to be juggled, the pilot is probably one of the most flexible. A terminal in Dubbo can't be moved to become a terminal in Dallas, Devonport or Dubai, at least, not economically, whereas the appropriately-qualified pilot can redeploy her/himself to those places at very little notice and very little expense.

If I ran an airline, I'd be careful to maintain my most valuable, and easily lost, resources, if I understood that they were critical to my strategic capability of providing a service to my customers.

Not properly understanding the criticality of key resources, or treating any of those key resources with disdain, will surely result in the business going downhill, and not very slowly.
______
VH-CU

[lowerlobe]

Aircraft....Just to show that you have no idea what your talking about and that your logic is so deeply flawed that you fail to impress ......look at your own words.

The fundamental reason for the decline in T&Cs, of course, is that everything in aviation has had to become steadily cheaper to facilitate the ever cheaper air travel for the people of the world - cheaper aircraft, engines, maintenance, management - and cheaper pilots.

Cheaper Aircraft...........WRONG....Show us which aircraft are cheaper!

Cheaper Engines...........WRONG....Show us which new engines are cheaper!

Cheaper Management....WRONG and in fact the complete opposite.

Cheaper Maintenance.....WRONG but only because of short sighted management and their bonus driven mentality.

Cheaper Pilots...............WRONG.....because once again management do not want anyone else to be paid for what they do...unless of course your job is in management.

[BrazDriver]

Aircraft, Thats not a Baron endorsement on a model remote control aircraft is it?? If it Isn't I think you missed your calling!

Hugh,

Air NZ brass regularly spend time on the front line. At least twice a month from memory. Look how Air NZ is on the up and up!

[Pundit]

You guys just don't get it. Aircraft = management

Who in management has been expousing these views?

Now you get it.

[SIUYA]

aircraft............

You've observed that 'a significant number' of pilots treat the companies that they work for with disdain, that is, the companies are:

to be used and abused then dropped like a hot potato when something better comes along.

How do you know it's a 'significant' number? :confused:

In any case, if some pilots are treating the companies that they work for with disdain, why do you think that is? It's pretty simple really, aircraft.............sh1tty T&Cs lead to sh1tty attitudes.

I'd suggest that you re-read Torres' comment 'Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution.' (post #67), Torres' comments about corporate performance (post #71), Hugh Jarse's comments on thinking outside the square (post #68), and VH-Cheer Up's comment (post #74):

'If I ran an airline, I'd be careful to maintain my most valuable, and easily lost, resources, if I understood that they were critical to my strategic capability of providing a service to my customers.'

Hello...............anyone at home aircraft? Perhaps those comments may lead you to understand a bit better why some pilots are p1ssed off. :rolleyes:

Then again, they probably won't, resulting in your continued perception that you're the only one that's right, and that everyone else is wrong! :ugh:

[FlexibleResponse]

Just a quick note on Icarus53's idiot theory...

An engineer on this forum once said that every time they designed something to be idiot-proof, someone else came up with a better idiot.

[Guptar]

It was said to me by a couple of friends who ar HR professionals who have been reading this thread that some pilots need a reality check. A $6.00 pilot retention surcharge, what about the engineers, ops people, marketing people, accountants....or are pilots the only ones who deserve extra. Just playing devils advocate.

So everyone has been quick to disparage aircrafts arguement and even his liniage, but no one has actually come up with what should be done. Lets see some suggestions, if you guys can.....for such aeas as.

Salary for FO, Capt
Duties
Rosters
Check and Training

Sure, some wally is going to suggest a new FO should work 3 days a week and start on 150K but lets keep it realistic.

Some ideas passed to me by current and ex REX drivers.

Hats - get rid of them. Their only use is a place to stash your roster.

Dedicated flight planning and load contol staff at major ports. The FO shuld be FOing, no standing at the bottom of the steps saying thank you for flying Rex at boarding. Flight dispatch should be doing the trim, not FOs

Give the crews a bus to and from the hangar to the ramp at Syd, crew hitching a lift on the toilet cart or catering truck is not a good image.

50K plus allowances for a year 1 FO, maybe 85K for year 1 capt.

Rethink flight ops proceedures, the SAAB was designed to have NO recal items, yet the REX FCOM is a voluminous document that make the space shuttle seem simple by comparison.

Fire the checkies whos sole aim in life is to fail guys on sim checks, talk to anyone who has been through it, they know what I am talking about.

For the record, I do agree that rex management are making a complete hash of the situation and are indeed risking the future of what could be a very sucesssful operation.

While i dont agree with Airrcaft 100%, he does make some sense. At least there is one person who doesnt think the world revolves around pilots...and yes, I am a pilot.(turbine driver and all).

Rather then just be part of the äint it awful" crowd, come up with suggestion to improve the work environment. There has to be some common sense, the revenue that a company makes is all it has to carve up in remuneration, its just like a pie, you cant serve 8 pieces if you only have enough to make 7. The trick is to make a bigger pie. BUT, if there is a bigger pie, ALL concerned deserve a bigger piece, not just one select group.

Gets hard hat and waits for the incomming fire.

[knackeredIII]

Torres,

Whilst some erroneously blame government for recent interest rate increases, the reason is inflation, fueled in part by significant increases

Must disagree with your statement here. In economics, inflation refers to an expansion of the money supply, more dollars chasing the same number of goods, which will then lead to price and wage inflation. So whilst you're correct in saying that the government did not raise interest rates, it's the government's policies of printing more money which leads to reason for rates being raised, as it's effectively the only tool it has available to fight inflation (referring here to price and wage inflation).

When I left Oz in '90, the apartment I sold then is worth about 3 times that now. My salary at the time in Airlines was about 2/3 about what it is now, that is to say, pilots these days are earning about 50% more for the same job. Other price increases in Oz reflect the increase in the property I mentioned.

So if you do the math, a pilot today is only earning about 50% what he was back in 1990, and even worse after tax. So, to say that inflation is caused by wage demands is misleading and disingenuous. The wage demands are coming about because of the reduced spending of fewer dollars earned by employees. Airlines are getting pilots much cheaper than previously and yet still claim they can't manage.

When are pilots and employees in general going to stop putting up with rubbish?

[KRUSTY 34]

Guptar.

No fire from me mate. Some very good points made.

The issue of a pay rise for pilots but not for the rest of the workforce has been trundled out by management before as a reason for inaction in this area. On the surface it appears a logical arguement. Except for one thing. This crisis is the result of a lack of pilots, and not, with all due respect other less technical staff. When the direct operation of the airline is being threatened by the shortage of baggage handlers, CSO's, caterers, etc..., then it will be time to review the remuneration of these people as well. Irrespective of what others may think, no pilots, no flying, no airline. It really is as simple as that.

As for most of your other initiatives, agree 100%. Ironically, the only way you will achieve a better lifestyle for REX pilots, is to have more REX pilots. Mmmmm....

Knackered,

Interesing point. The United Airline pilots are currently petitioning for around a 50% payrise. They have stated that this will restore their pay to what it was, (relatively speaking) back in 1991! Pretty close to the mark mate.

[lowerlobe]

Krusty....The only problem with your argument is that if one group within any company gets a substantial payrise or any increase really in conditions then every other group within that company will want the same.

I have seen pilots do the very same when cabin crew got something they did not.

It always leads to other groups....Human nature i suppose

[Launch_code_Harry]

No pilot or engineers = no flying = no job for FA's / baggage / groundstaff / management.
Not trying to be rude, but that's just the reality.

[The Kavorka]

Lowerlobe,

the problem with your argument is that they are not cancelling large numbers of flights because of shortages in the other areas....

ops, cc, ground staff can all be replaced quickly with minimal training, pilots can't....and if the others still want a company i'm sure they would not protest to the pilots getting paid more to save it!!

[lowerlobe]

The problem with an isolationist argument is that you are only seeing it from one side and there are always more than one side to an argument.

it's true that an airline needs pilots but they also ned cabin crew unless it's a cargo outfit.They also need engineers,groundstaff etc..it's a team effort.

Your argument falls down with a perfect example the medical profession.If it wasn't for nurses then the whole system would collapse within days.

Are nurses paid their true worth?

Doctor's are highly trained and paid for their efforts but nurses are treated in much the same way as cabin crew.

If all cabin crew walked out the whole airline would stop as well and take some time to get going again....but it would.

Just as it did during the domestic pilots dispute.....

[The Kavorka]

Lowerlobe,

you points are relevant, however, for example there is an outfit at brissy airport called aviation australia who charge cabin crew 3000 for training with no job at the end....rex could pick them up and have them ready in days....also go to your local maccas and ask who wants to be a flighty, i'll bet most of the young girls would stick their hands up!!

[Launch_code_Harry]

Lobe, I am genuinely not try to be rude & many of the things you say are correct. I am not trying to 'dis these other groups, just the opposite. However the airline is looking down the barrel of severely reduced flying.
Grudgingly, the other groups may have to accept that pay increases for pilots so they can keep their job. Many of the other groups do not see the tortured path into the pilot's seat of an RPT aircraft.
If the flying gig is so lucrative, they could always apply for the cadetship themselves. There you go, a positive suggestion!

[KRUSTY 34]

Lowerlobe,

As you can see by the responses there is no problem with my arguement. The problem is that we do not have enough pilots, and they are becoming scarcer by the day. The Idea of the problems associated with paying an increase to one group and not another is not lost on me either. If you carefully re-read my post you will see that.

One way of mitigating the fall out would be a professional retention bonus. After 2 years as a REX pilot you can then qualify to enter your first bonus period (say 12 months), after that if you have not gone to another job, whallahh... you get the dough! Stay for another 12 months and guess what?..., well we all get the picture.

If another employee group would like a peice of the action, then all they have to do is meet the criteria.

[aircraft]

... if you have not gone to another job, whallahh... you get the dough!
And where does that dough come from KRUSTY 34?

Launch_code_Harry,
I see you haven't accepted my invitation to come out and declare that there will never be pilotless airliners.

Monopole said:
I work in GA. I have recently gainded a 30% payrise (not though Skippers) for the same job for the same company. If a GA company can afford this, so should an RPT co.
You work for Network Aviation, a company that does almost 100% of its work for the resources industry. A lucrative contract or two has made possible this pay rise for you.

That pay rise will be causing great headaches for your company when the flying associated with the resources boom starts to abate.

[aircraft]

Torres said:
REX (or any other airline) could improve it's terms, conditions and remuneration to solve it's own problem, but it would be at the expense of another industry sector.

I don't understand. To improve the T&Cs, REX would have to increase fares, which would result in less people flying with REX, and more taking the train, bus or car. So, rather than being at the expense of another industry sector, this action by REX would advantage those other industries.

Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution.
I don't disagree with this, but where does the money come from to finance these improvements?

Hugh Jarse,
To my request for more details on the pay increases that have occurred elsewhere in Australia, you named Skippers and Surveillance Australia.
I am not so sure the Skippers pilots are any better off. Perhaps somebody from there can enlighten us. Their job ad that mentioned $75K salary for Metro and $95K for Brasilia (captains) was related to their new AWA. That new AWA contained some lamentable conditions, from what I can gather. Both the AFAP and TWU recommended that pilots not sign up to it.

I was unaware re Surveillance Australia. Can anybody indicate how much of an improvement to their T&Cs was made?

I had heard rumours about Network Aviation pilots getting an increase. Monopole has confirmed that the rise was about 30%.

About staff "being engaged", I said that most staff don't want to be engaged. To that, you said:
I could not disagree with you enough on that statement.

It seems we might have different definitions for the word "engaged" when it applies to a workforce. Could you please give me your definition? Perhaps someone from Qantas could give the definition as it applied to their recent "engagement survey".

It appears you hold the opinion that taking an interest in your staff's wellbeing and looking for ways to make things better is a sign of a weak management technique.How can you say that, when, in my earlier post I said I would open discussions with certain staff in order to find arrangements that would make their lives easier? (Post #43).

VH-Cheer Up,
In your post "the laws of averages" it appears you are suggesting that the cumulative profits for the airline industry are near zero because they are supposed to be near zero.

Does this apply only to airlines? I bet the oil & gas industry cumulative profit isn't anywhere near zero.

Net returns for an industry where some players are producing stand-out returns (SIA, Qantas, for example) simply highlight the differences between management that can turn a buck and management that can't.
I'm glad you agree with me about the Qantas management. I have had many debates on PPRUNE with Qantas staff about their management.

Management alone is not the sole determinant as to whether a company is profitable. A lot depends on outside events and circumstances beyond the company's control.

KRUSTY 34,
Going back to your earlier assertions that the management had agreed with the suggestion put forward by the pilots that a $6.25 surcharge would finance a 40% salary increase for the pilots.

I am curious about this and would like more information. If it wasn't "hearsay and chinese whispers" then it must have been a manager being "diplomatic" (telling a little white lie). Managers do this sometimes, unfortunately. They really shouldn't, and whenever I see one doing it I always point out to them just how foolish it can be.

[Icarus2001]

Aircraft...pilotless RPT heavy aircraft huh? Well let's look at driverless trains. They exist, they are technically feasible but are they widespread? No. Why?
Two reasons. One, the technology is more expensive than having a driver and a driver can deal with failures, obstructions on the line etc better
Two. People like having someone responsible for their safety AT THE FRONT of the vehicle on which they are travelling, because that way that person has a vested interest in getting home safely.
If you did indeed have pilotless aircraft (actually it would be "flown" from a ground terminal) you would still need a PILOT, and a second PILOT in case the first dropped dead. Where is the cost saving there then?

Which just goes to show how poorly thought out your posts are.:ok:

[Guptar]

Gentlemen, the last few post have been a perfect example of the value of PPRuNe as a formum for discussion, well thought out arguements that not necesarily agree but none the less valid. Well done chaps.

It seems to me that there is one word at the heart of the matter, a word whos omission, is the key factor in the ailment of many a company. That word is RESPECT.
In REX, its obvious;

That management has no respect for the workforce.Pilots or otherwise.

Some pilots dont have respect for other pilots.
Some groups, dont have respect for other grouups.
You give the word RESPECT its due reverence, and treat others as ou would have yourself treated, I think many of the problems would evaoprate almost overnight. Then, working as a TEAM, you can grow the business and make the pie bigger.

I allways use Southwest Airlines in the US as my model, at the core of their values is respect, and it comes down right from the top. Thats why they are the most successful airline in the world. I;m sure Herb Kheller would roll his eyes if he saw what was happening at REX. Now i;m not gettng all new age with warm fuzzys, its just good business.

Of course, pilots at REX should be paid at a rate that is competative in the market place, just the same as any other profession, I would be interested to see how much of an increase would be needed to make them more competative.

Unfortunately as long as the airline is owned by Chinese interests, there is little likely hood of change as they view employees as numbers, not people. I myself work for a chinese boss.

A boss I worked with taught me a valuable lesson when i bacame a supervisor for the first time. He said "You look after your boys, and they will look after you".

[aircraft]

Icarus2001,

Two pilots?

Try 4 or 5, but "looking after" several hundred aircraft.

[VH-Cheer Up]

aircraft, bless him, said"Icarus2001,
Two pilots?
Try 4 or 5, but "looking after" several hundred aircraft."

Tell 'im he's dreaming.

I'll go out on a limb here, and say never in any of our lifetimes.

As long as the cost of the crew is a fraction of the value of the hull, expect to find warm bodies operating the systems in attendance on board at all times.

Autonomous UAVs are for high risk combat theatre situations only. Not for shifting 7-800 people around at a time.

Even cattle trucks have drivers.

[ABX]

Aircraft:


Two pilots?

Try 4 or 5, but "looking after" several hundred aircraft.


You live in a fantasy land, not everything you see in the movies is true you know...

[Ultralights]

so i should be looking at an Air traffic controller position then? looking after several hundred aircraft at a time! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:ugh:
imagine the workload, directing air traffic! and flying the aircraft at the same time!!!

[Capt Wally]

........a lot of the travelling public (probably business men/women) don't like props on planes (there for boats remember!) hence a lot of RJ's now exist(& for various others reasons obviously). That being the case I would love to see the faces of future pax when they board a pilotless plane !!!!
Brings a whole new meaning to that saying (which I might add would be broadcast from a pre recorded tape!) "is there a pilot on board" !!!!!.....................the answer to that..................nope, not one within several thousand feet !!.........(most times)

...............I believe that we shall in our lifteime & our childrens lifetimes & their childrens lifetime & so on shall always see a human intervening onboard an A/C at the pointy end !:-)

Capt Wally:-)

p.s............funny actually A/C how are already being 'controlled' by ground personal, ATC.......scarey to think that them & us would be seated side by side in the future !:-)

[Monopole]

scarey to think that them & us would be seated side by side in the future !:-) No, that would be awsome.

Just imagine........ You are 400' after takeoff, engage the autopilot, put feet on console and chill out. Passing 10'000 call out for someone, anyone, we don't care, to go and make us a cup of coffee. You then look over smuggly to the ATCer in the chair next to you and ask for track shortening. Now here's the good bit........
No matter how p!ssed he is with you right now, he can't refuse it because we would be able to see what is exactly on his screen :D:D:D:D

Now with the lesser track miles (but same ticket cost) some real savings could be made to properly pay the crew. Maybe Aircraft is actually onto something here :E

[Going Boeing]

Pilotless aircraft will need a fully automated system for Wx avoidance. The latest multi-beam Wx radars in service are obviously a technological step towards such a system. The only problem is - THEY DON'T WORK. The system analyses the weather 3 dimensionally and only shows Wx on the screen if it thinks that it will affect the aircraft. Often though it thinks that weather is not significant until the aircraft is very close to it and a very quick response is required by the pilots to avoid injuries in the cabin. A lot more development is required before this can be adapted for pilotless aircraft.

Also. controlling the aircraft from the ground will obviously be via satellite links which from experience so far with CPDLC operations can not be relied on - especially during periods of increased sunspot activity.

[Keg]

Guptar, when there is a shortage of F/As, check in staff, engineers, etc, then I'll be the first one barracking for a 'F/A, check in staff, engineer, etc retention surcharge'. :E

Although this shortage has been created due to crap terms and conditions, the short term answer is not going to be solved by playing at the edges of those pay rates, etc. What is needed is drastic action- like what the airlines have done with fuel surcharges. It's a short term solution until the 'industry' (and that includes Rex management) can work out what they need to do to get more young people opting for an aviation career. So far they've been short on all ideas.

[aircraft]

Even cattle trucks have drivers.
Getting the human driver out of motor vehicles is a far more challenging exercise than getting pilots out of airliners.

... I would love to see the faces of future pax when they board a pilotless plane !!!!
The passengers would know in advance, and think nothing of it.

Also. controlling the aircraft from the ground will obviously be via satellite links which from experience so far with CPDLC operations can not be relied on
No "controlling", just monitoring, with a touch of "intervention" once in a blue moon.

It's all in the up/down links.

As for the weather concerns, I imagine that all airborne aircraft would be continuously downlinking their weather and radar data to enable the computers on the ground to maintain a continuous, high resolution 3D model of the weather. Supplementing the airborne data would be satellite observations and the odd strategically placed ground station.

The weather model would be continuously uplinked to all the aircraft, of course, and weather avoidance would most probably be better than it is today.

[Monopole]

The weather model would be continuously uplinked to all the aircraft, of course, and weather avoidance would most probably be better than it is today. If I see a big dark fluffy cloud, I go around it. Cant get much better then that :}:}

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Aircraft

You'll certainly get first prize for making bold sweeping statements based on absolutely no research or facts whatsoever.

The passengers would know in advance, and think nothing of it.

with a touch of "intervention" once in a blue moon.

and weather avoidance would most probably be better than it is today.



Keep it up, it's getting hilarious.

Blue Foot

[BrazDriver]

This Aircraft fella has been hitting the Turbocabbage pretty hard lately!!

[Capt Wally]

..........."monoploe" I had a chuckle at yr additional statement as for asking the guy (he being ATC) next to us (us being pilots) for track shortening!..........only to see he can't BS us by saying not avail due traffic 'cause we can see it all right there in front of us both!.............the mind boggles at what funny situations would arise if we (as in again 'them & us") where seated side by side on the ground in some ways both controlling the same plane !:-) Of course they would be funny situations 'cause looking at it any other way is just plane (yes plane) stupidity !!! & the most funniest is the fact that some believe in here that it will happen.....pilotless A/C in our time or anywhere near the forseeable future.............sheeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzeven Jules Vern would turn over in his grave at that thought!

Think about this.................a hijacker (obviously not one that's very bright, in fact are any of them?) boards a pilotless plane thinking it's a ploy to fool him that there are no actual pilots on board. At an opertune time he bursts thru the cockpit door (no further need for bullet proof doors now is there?) only to find......................yep......no pilot/s........well maybe a blow up doll just ic case. (ie: flying high!)so he sits there with no flight controls in sight (assuming there's s seat anyway) & thinks about his few flying lessons he took, hey just had a thought here, now technically it's not a 'pilotless' plane anymore !!............so yes there are advantages in having pilotless A/C but I think for now lets keep the guys/gals there just for instances like the above.................afterall why are we all here right now in PPRUNE?............'casue where pilots etc. or affiliated as such!!:-)

Capt wally :-)

[lowerlobe]

NEWSFLASH.........

Historians have just discovered a missing novel believed to have been written by Jules Verne under the pseudonym of 'aircraft'......

The book deals with pilotless aircraft flying all over the World carrying passengers and freight.

In his book the passengers have no idea of where the actual pilot is and laugh ,drink,play cards and watch movies while their pilotless aircraft wings it's way across the world.

The pilot's meanwhile sit in a hangar in a mythical airport somewhere in the West Australian outback.They sit at a console and with the latest commodore 64 artificial intelligence and control the aircraft with a joystick and drink weak black tea with lemon.

They can look at each aircraft regardless of it's position via a crystal ball.This allows them to see any obstacles such as Mountains,Buildings and any weather which might be potentially dangerous.

The aircraft-less pilot's can see all the relevant instruments on their school desks and so know when anything untoward is going to happen.

The passengers are given a boxed lunch and a toilet roll and there are drink dispensers which are coin operated situated around the aircraft.

During take off,landing and turbulence the seat belts automatically fasten with the incredible artificial intelligence computers.

All maintenance work on the aircraft is done by the tooth fairy and any medical cases on board will be looked after by the stork who is also there for any impending child birth.

Santa calls in periodically for any children that are bored and every thing is thought of.To cope with any problems of aircraft taxiing all airports are fitting roundabouts on taxi ways.

Apparently,Darth has bought the rights to this book and hopes to make it into a movie and has his R & D people working around the clock to bring this fantasy to reality.

Rumour has it that the author has also written a book on doctor/nurse less hospitals which are run by robots.

John Howard and Tony Abbott has bought the rights to this book

[Hugh Jarse]

Rumour has it that the author has also written a book on doctor/nurse less hospitals which are run by robots.

I don't see a problem with that, LL. As long as they are FEMBOTS and not Solenoid Robots ;)

[lowerlobe]

I know what you mean Hugh Jarse and I'd like the Fembots too except for their gun ports if you know what I mean.....

[Mudflat]

Aircraft,
I ask for new material, and you deliver!! Funniest stuff I've read to date are coming from your posts.
Tell us the one where everyone else is wrong and your the only one who is right again....champaine comedy.

[boardpig]

Either this guy is a comic genius or (dread the thought) is acutally out there and flying around... IN THE AIR!!!!

"The passengers would know in advance, and think nothing of it"

oh dear.... I'd LOVE to know how you know this? If you have indeed perfected time travel to the future to gain this info, I think its time you told us. Either that or give me next weeks lottery numbers by PM.

:rolleyes:

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Sorry for shifting the topic away from the Dreamtime Drone, but I'm wondering if this whole discussion is that complex.

In my limited economics education I remember something called supply and demand. It was one of those wonderful economics theories that applied to everything, I was and am a touch sceptical at the simplification. It said that if you didn't have supply of something (pilots) when demand was high (Rex) then costs rose accordingly (wages, T&C's). This cost was then shifted to the consumer (fares) and if demand stayed the same or rose (fuel prices, ease versus time) then the supply of things (pilots) was maintained.

It is disingenuous to suggest that an airline would fail if wages were increased for a segment of employees. It lacks sound business sense and shows up managers as being not that smart in the way they run their company. There are many ways to save money and recoup any payments made to staff, productivity changes, stock control, marketing and other MBA type restructures. Worst case is you pass those costs to the punters and if demand drops you get into an oversupply situation then that funky supply/demand thing kicks in.

I know it's not that simple but how far away from this is it?

[training wheels]

It said that if you didn't have supply of something (pilots) when demand was high (Rex) then costs rose accordingly (wages, T&C's).

It appears the way Rex is dealing with supply and demand is to increase their supply of pilots through their cadetship programme. :confused:

[Ndicho Moja]

Interesting topic but we not ready for this by a long stretch. That aside, all this equipment costs money to develop, establish, run and maintain. Who s going to pay? A major reason we still have to fool with HF radios in the 21st century, is that most ICAO member states and all non-ICAO member states will not or cannot come up with the money to pay to have these things.

As with so many issues in the aviation business, and life in general, money talks and everything else walks. I believe that might take us back to many of the problems by REX et all.

Ndicho Moja

[Balthazar_777]

Guys, I think the relentless pursuit of Aircraft is a bit tiresome now. We are focusing too much on the pseudonym and not the argument.

One of the benefits of people like Aircraft is their contrarian attitude and i would like to use some of his(her) points to further the debate.

1. Pilotless aircraft.

The technology that allows pilotless aircraft is effectively here. For it to work with large scale passenger operations, weather avoidance, datalink communications and ground intervention would need to be enhanced, but i that is doable.

However, automation is not going to get rid of on-board crew in the near, or even distant future. I would suggest that there a a few reasons, but they would include;

A. Passenger Acceptance. All passengers I meet seem to be concerned with the quality of the crew up front. There is a human need to identify with whoever has control over us. This alone will require some sort of human authority figure on board for pax to fly.

B. Unexpected non-normals. There is always a chance that even the best designed system may encounter a problem hitherto unplanned. The most effective troubleshooter is the one at the scene. Airlines may be able to do a cost/benefit of a hull loss, but many pax wont.

C. Reality of the job. During command training at my airline there is constant reinforcement the whilst flying the aeroplane is paramount (and we get extensive training in aircraft handling in all phases of flight, both normal and non-normal) there is an almost equally strong emphasis on the management of aspects of the operation that are additional to flying, ie. coordinating with pax, cabin crew, ground staff engineers etc etc.

So, based on the above I believe that there will always be a need to have at least one person that can operate the aircraft and troubleshoot technical and operational problems at the coalface. As all the other systems in the aircraft would have redundancy, then we should probably follow suit and have 2 such people. You can call them whatever you like, but i believe that this job description fits mine as a pilot.

2. Equality of pay.

Pilots cannot fly without engineers, cabin crew, ground staff etc. It is not possible. At best, if all of these people went on strike, then maybe some pilots could do some of their jobs. But the roles are still necessary, it would just be somebody else doing it.

However just because every member of a team is necessary doesn't mean that we get equal pay (unless you are a marxist). Renumeration is based and responsibility, the training required to undertake a role, and as has been discussed already, supply and demand. (amongst other things)

May I suggest that pilots getting a payrise is good for all other employees of an airline. Pilots are usually at the top of the pay totem pole, so if their pay goes up, there is more scope for those under them to also go up. If, however, pilots pay falls to rates that are barely livable on, that does not auger well for a stewardess or check-n staff. There are few (if any) airlines where these staff are not paid less than a pilot.

3. The nature of the business (I am sorry for being long winded).

Can I also suggest that if a business cant price its product so that the cost of doing business is covered, then there is probably an argument that the business is economically unnecessary. I believe that there is a moral and political need for airlines operations in rural Australia, but a lot of rural infrastructure needs to be supported by the government. It is the price we pay for living in this "Big brown land". Maybe there needs to be some sort of contribution from the government. A suggestion, each person living in a rural region gets an allowance that can be spent topping up and airfare. This would be based on factors such as remoteness and levels of service at a station. A person in Dubbo might be allowed to buy a ticket to Sydney for 80% of the fare with the government topping up the rest, whilst a person from Wilcannia might only have to pay 50% of the fare. I think that for this to work there would have to be co-payment by pax (to avoid abuse of the system) and the payment would be made to the airline so that it is not seen as a system to be used to get cash.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers.
:)

[FlexibleResponse]

Getting the human driver out of motor vehicles is a far more challenging exercise than getting pilots out of airliners.

How amazing, the solution has been staring us in the face!

REX should simply employ remote pilots to fly their pilotless aircraft! These employees could be positioned close to the managers and constantly monitored. In fact the management could do the remote duties themselves between and during management bonus review meetings.

[43Inches]

Pilotless aircraft at REX!

Not going to happen! they can not afford it today, tomorrow or in 10,15, 20 years.

The technology does exist today but it is far off being retrofitted to a 20+ year old turboprop. Then it needs to be capable of operating into airports with only an NDB for guidance, undulating runways etc..., that technology does not exist without human interference.

Besides who will do all the turnaround duties!

When the airforce developes a pilotless herc (or similar) for dangerous missions out of dubious airstrips then i might start rethinking my job, but until then.

[Chris Higgins]

Given the complexity of airspace these days, I think we are further from pilotless aircraft now than we were in the 1950's. They still have pilots anyway, in remote control rooms...and they still crash, with higher regularity than manned missions.

[wrongwayaround]

with the money they've spent on endless training recently.......

could amount to enough to have paid pilots more to stay!...

I've never seen so many pilots recruited in such a small time space.

WWA :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Given the complexity of airspace these days,
I agree. Keep it simple. Controlled airspace and Uncontrolled airspace. The drones will be able to handle that...:}