What will become of REX [Archive]

KRUSTY 34

29th Mar 2008, 04:21

Shooter.

Last night the Tooth Fairy left a gold coin under my daughter's pillow!

The reason that Mr Lim is still buying shares I must admit alludes me, but unless your comments are tounge in cheek, be prepared for another crew hit in the not too distant future. It's no secret that the CP puts great stock in his flow charts. Back in August last year he told a group of assembled pilots that July was the peak of attrition with 21 pilots resigning. He stated that the numbers would then steadily grow and all things will be on track for a recovery. At that time the annual attrition rate was in the order of 25%. Since then the rate has risen to 60%! So much for the flow chart.

The reality is that REX management have absolutely no idea of how many pilots they will lose in the next six months. My conservative estimates are of at least 40 REX pilots that currently have start dates with other carriers that are yet to give notice. A captain who had recieved a start date with DJ in August has just had that brought forward to next month! DJ's 1st EJ190 is now in Sydney, with many more to follow. Another senior REX captain has just been accepted for V Australia. These are in addition to the senior Check and Trainers that announced their resignations this week alone.

Last year was just a foretaste. The major Airlines will require approximately 1800 pilots over the next 3 years. Those words were spoken by none other than REX's own Chief of Staff! You can put your faith in the Tooth Fairy and the charts, or you can see the reality for what it really is. 60% last year, 60% next year, and probably the year after.

Cadets will not save REX. Unless the exodus of experienced crews is stopped now, they will probably not even see the Simulator, let alone a seat in the real thing!

Kangaroo Court

29th Mar 2008, 04:47

Krusty,

What do you propose can be done to stop the tide? After all, you will no doubt go to fly heavy iron if indeed you are not already?

Capt Wally

29th Mar 2008, 05:08

All of the above is pretty much true when it comes to reasons for REX to be floundering. BUT these events would have happened to even a more stable Co. that had happier employees because expansion/opertunities has hit everybody & we are seeing the Neg impact of that now. Maybe not to the degree we are seeing here now but to some extent the exit of pilots to other more lucrative jobs purely for reasons of MONEY & further education would still be happening!
There's unhappyness at all the Majors just that from those positions there is no further to go unless OS, which isn't worth it to a lot of Aussies anyway. The bigest probelem for the larger Co's is jumping ship to another major for money alone. Any Exec knows that to pay large sums of money by way of wages to keep the staff would cause the ship to sink in another way. One way is to use a lot of profit to pay employees high wages or the other is to loose the employess for not paying them higher wages in the first place.
Like that saying in a famous recent times movie....."do you want to go bankrupt by the big plane or by the big airline"? Diff words obviously but the meaning behind it is the same.

A part answer (it's never that cut & dry) is to keep the wages as high as possible bearing in mind that there is a limit & to keep the one thing that REX is lacking the most happening,....COMMUNICATION! The mindset of 'them & us' is hard to remove within any Co. but communication goes a long way towards a stable & prosperous working relationship for all concerned esspecially whilst the world is on a roller coaster ride.
That like some airlines won't last either.
My opinions only of course.

CW

p.s............btw 'krusty' the tooth fairy needs to leave a Gold credit card under kids pillows these days, a simple gold coin just doesn't cut it anymore !:ok:

THE ORACLE

29th Mar 2008, 05:43

Capt Wally I think we would all agree with your comments on the current pilot labour market dynamic which is unprecedented and has caused the pendulum to swing completely from the long standing 'buyers market' for employers of pilots to a 'sellers market' for skilled pilot labour!

Notwithstanding all you have said, employment terms and conditions is a measure of the level of esteem between an employer and an employee. Yes, the T.C's on offer with operators of larger Jet equipment support much more than turboprop operators can afford to pay, however, the other significant operators of turboprops in Australia (Surveillance, Qantaslink, Skywest, Alliance, Air-North, Sharp and Brindabella) have already improved their T.C.'s to show their pilots that they are valued and that they are wanted. REX is Australia's largest independent turboprop operator, second only in size to Qantaslink and it has not yet moved on this issue.

By not engaging with the REX pilot group, management, wittingly or otherwise, is sending the message that pilots are not esteemed and is thus encouraging them to move to more lucrative jobs! At the end of this cycle REX management may find that significant numbers of it's staff have moved to other comparable turboprop operators simply because they felt they would be better valued (esteemed)with the competitor!

I suspect that REX is no different to many other airlines and has at it's core a group of very dedicated people who genuinely like the company and the work. It is these people that the REX Board cannot afford to lose and from the other threads on this subject, it now seems that perhaps this is the group that may be disintegrating due to the lack of engagement.

A good manager once told me that advice received from accountants must be weighed very carefully because as a breed, accountants generally know the price of everything and yet they know the value of nothing!!

pithblot

29th Mar 2008, 06:43

A good manager once told me that advice received from accountants must be weighed very carefully because as a breed, accountants generally know the price of everything and yet they know the value of nothing!!

Fanx Oracle :ok:

Capt Wally

29th Mar 2008, 06:57

Agree 'oracale', yr just adding to my thoughts that's all. I can't explain it all I haven't that much brain power (who has!). Remember everyones opinion/s here is based purely on self experience or what they percieve to be correct.
If any one person had the answers complete then he/she/they would be considered a hero with God like status. Where's superman when you need him ?:E Sorry Capt Wally is way too busy to fix it all:E

Some years ago now ( & I have mentioned this elsewhere ages ago, yr 2000) I attended an interview process with Kendalls (Rex now) with 15 others.
2, just 2 where offered a job (one an inst from YMMB & the other a GAM pilot flying only AC500's, good luck to them both anyway)& that was from guys/gals who had many 1000's of hrs on turbo props some with Metro time to work for Kendalls. In hindsight they did us a fav 'cause a couple of years latter when Ansett went tits up Kendalls was a wreck & has been ever since! I & 13 others where lucky ! The moral of the story here is that REX`couldn't organize a R**t in a brothel!:bored:

CW

KRUSTY 34

29th Mar 2008, 07:33

K.C.

Not true. I love my Job and would happily stay if it were the career path that it ought to be. I say ought to be in the context of what an airline pilot (yes Regional pilots do have to posess the same credentials as the bigger guys) is now worth. As I have said before, the profession has slipped markedly in terms of respect and remuneration over the years. The only way to redress this is to offer the professional pilot (now in short supply) remuneration commensurate with their worth.

C.W. Don't be misled by the bean counters arguement of going broke if they choose to compete for labour. The cost of matching the wages of the REX pilot to their DJ counterpart would be in the order of $20 per ticket! If they do not compete for labour they will go broke. They need qualified pilots to fly the things, and the numbers simply do not add up (see my previous post).

greenslopes

29th Mar 2008, 07:35

Very strong rumour has it that one of the senior fellows of training & checking at Rex has recently been interviewed by a major.......Will the last one out please turn out the lights.
Shooter, it is great to see the cadet scheme progressing so well.
Have they timed it right or will there be no flight crew to fly with when they complete their trng?

Capt Wally

29th Mar 2008, 07:43

'krusty" there in lies the basic problem here with yr statement. An extra $20 per ticket is what the whole concept of expansion is about to cater for the masses who can & want to fly for peanuts. LCC's or cheaper ticket prices is the way of future air transport. Make them (ticket prices) higher then we are right back where we started from !!!
Expansion & all it's associated problesm which we are seeing now has been created by one sinlge thing. The more people that fly the cheaper the ticket price can be. It's like dog chasing it's tail, make it cheaper to fly make it harder to do so!

CW

KRUSTY 34

29th Mar 2008, 09:08

I do hear ya Wal,

but I'm still not convinced. 10 Years ago the cost of flying was approx twice what it is today. Yet the profits of the larger regionals are now greater than ever. In REX's case it was by retireing debt, growing the business, and in no small measure the advantages of forward internet bookings. Pilots wages, or the lack of them have had little or no bearing on this phenomenal growth. The problem now of course is that due to the efforts of airline managements in keeping Terms and Conditions low, and in the process qualifying for the obscene bonuses to the select few, the profession of pilot has become just too unattractive to many of those that may have otherwise taken up the challenge.

We are now in a golden age of flying. Ironically, further expansion is being restricted by the very mindset that helped create it! Having said that, airline management have never hesitated to pass on the cost of doing business. Fuel levy, Security levy, even the Ansett levy! I honestly think that the current batch of airline executives are deludeing themselves as to the seriousness of the situation. Either that, or they are philosophically incapable of increasing wages above the normal 3 year EBA bunfight.

The penny will drop. those that act first will snare the lions share of a fast dwindling resource!

The remainder will be left scratching their heads as they are forced to shrink their business during a period of unprecedented growth! Doesn't make sense in my book.

Under Dog

29th Mar 2008, 09:18

Krusty
You make sense.

Regards The Dog

Capt Wally

29th Mar 2008, 10:32

krusty I don't have a problem with yr thoughts, yr correct mostly (well said actually) but I don't believe it's about being 'convinced' We as pilots know the real truth but the airlines aren't trying to convince us. They (the airlines) must continue to 'fool' the travelling public into believing that their doing strong passing on savings by way of cheaper fares & safety is above everything else even though we know different.
Passing on the costs of business is a common business practice these days, it's just that in the aviation industry that cost is being used to bolster the the belief that the airlines are doing it hard, again we know better.
Interesting tho that if the likes of QF was purely a private Co (almost impossible I know) rather than having to share with the share holders would they (the owner/s) be doing business any different? I doubt it.

Anyway we as pilots have a lot more choice these days as has the travelling public, one bonus out of all this mess I guess !

CW

Shed Dog Tosser

29th Mar 2008, 11:02

Krusty,

I believe the error of the management team is far more fundamental than being pig headed.

As a manager, you must lead the way in implementing necessary change.

For example, if the company is having trouble holding and/or recruiting pilots, thats means both their "Practices" and "Package" is not competitive.

"Practices" are the tools used to deal with the everchanging industry ( LCC is a step in that evolution ).

"Package", whilst we are all saying more money, stable rosters, it really is not a negotiatable statement, like being able to lick your own testicles, you either can or can not:) ( i just wanted to see if testicles would be blanked out by pprune :8).

KRUSTY 34

29th Mar 2008, 11:48

Crack up S.D.T.

I guess in the end all we can do is pack up our testicles and take them with us! :p

shooter

30th Mar 2008, 10:47

Krusty

For the last 6 months you have been saying that the exodus is coming. The airlines were going to take most of the Rex pilots in November of last year according to you! Here we 4 months later and attrition is actually slowing and crew numbers will soon start stabalising.

KRUSTY 34

30th Mar 2008, 11:30

Actually shooter, I've been saying it for 12 months! If a 60% loss of pilots in the last year is not an exodus, then I am unsure of what planet you have been living on. In the past, attrition, any sort of attrition was handled by airline management in one way only. Recruitment.

REX have been dealing with this problem in the same old tried and true fashion. The fact that they have not totally collapsed is due to a severe reduction in the experience requirements of their candidates. As a result we are seeing the employment of people that only a year ago would not have been considered. Some of these individuals may work out. Some will not, and in fact some are not! The essential fact however is that we are now scraping the bottom of a barrel that will take years to replenish. The root cause of the barrel's demise has not been addressed in any way. Ergo, unless you believe in some sort of devine intervention, the barrel will soon be empty.

Now back to the issue of the exodus. If a 60% loss is not considered an exodus IYHO, then a further 60% PA over the next 2 years or so should be considered normal!? Problem is that these people will still need to be replaced. Oops... forgot about the barrel!

So you see the exodus is well and truely on. If you honestly think that REX pilots will not continue to leave at a similar rate to that of the last year, then I'm afraid you haven't really been up to date with the expansion plans of the major airlines. It will continue, and continue for some time. Remember the numbers quoted in the REX chief of staff's press release. Late last year the CP made very similar statements to what you are making now. It has since come to pass that those comments may have been a tad optimistic. Not related are you?

Anyway, as enjoyable as this banter has been, the outcome will continue to play out over the next year or so. For the sake of REX, I hope you are right, and if that is the case the majority of people on this forum are wrong!

bushy

30th Mar 2008, 13:34

There was a long period (a few decades) when pilots were a dime a dozen and airlines just needed to snap their fingers whenever they needed more pilots. There has always been a large "barrell" full of wannabies who were instantly available. this was good for flying schools, but disastorous for the rest of the industry and the pilots. But it has backfired. Pilots have lost confidence and are reluctent to spend their money, many have given up, and many have gone overseas. And some of our airlines relied on having a "barrell" of wannabies in reserve, with no cost or committment from the airline. So, because of this some of our airlines have not planned for training and replacement of pilots and are now having to cancel flights.
It's to do with money. Companies are there to make money for shareholders. If downsizing makes them more profitable, that's what they will do. Their object is not to provide service, or to train and employ people.(they would rather not) Their object is to make profits.
But some profits will decline, because some companies have relied on the "barrell" full of self funded pilots, and have had no long term plan. The pilots have had no long term plan either. So they go.

carbon

30th Mar 2008, 16:10

That's the problem bushy, no one with power has a long term plan these days.

Politicians, CEO's, senior management of public companies, etc it's all "who cares about 5 or even 10 years time, I need to get re-elected/ keep my job next year or in 18 months time. It doesn't matter if I wreck decades of positive work to fudge the next financial figures in my favour".

All retarded really, in for the quick buck and f:mad: the rest.

This must change before the white collar criminals destroy everything.

MJMJKG

30th Mar 2008, 17:21

show me the money

Capt Wally

30th Mar 2008, 22:45

the engineering industry (LAME's) are suffering the same thing. Fewer & fewer apprentices taking up the tade & now we see a shortage of these very much needed guys/gals. The part answer for those Co's? hire OS labor which we are seeing now. The same thing is happening in the crew at the pointy end, hire OS`labor. The pilot shortage is know to be world wide, heavens know I read just the other day that 20 Chinese new airlines want to start up but have no crew so in light of that the pilot market now in OZ is world wide not just in-house as is the same for every other country seeking drivers.
Opertunities aboud these days, but at what long term price? that is the zillion dollar question !

"Krusty 34" excellent veiw points in yr posts.

CW

Dixondik

30th Mar 2008, 23:44

I couldn't give a flying rat's testie about Management. I feel for the poor ops and crewing folk walking into an Office with such crap going on around them. Sad to say I've done some time in that Office, and I tells you wouldnt be fun nowerdays!

KRUSTY 34

30th Mar 2008, 23:54

Dixondik.

I don't think many here gives 2 tosses about management, (shooter, aircraft, and kev09 exepted of course). But sadly you are right. It is their actions, or more to the point inaction that help create such a difficult working environment for everyone else.

Frankly, I wonder how they manage to sleep at night?

SIUYA

31st Mar 2008, 00:40

KRUSTY...........

Frankly, I wonder how they [REX management] manage to sleep at night?

Not too well, I'd imagine, particularly if they own shares in the Company. :{

And based on the present (and constantly declining) share price, I still think that it's unfortunately looking like it will be all over for Rex by about October this year. Hope I'm wrong.

shooter

31st Mar 2008, 01:33

Krusty

Your suggestion that Rex has lowered standards in a desperate bid to crew aircraft is completely without foundation. I can assure you the recruitment process has not changed and only pilots who are of suitable calibre are being invited to work for Rex. Further the induction and training process is as comprehensive as it has ever been and any candidate who is not able to meet the high standard of a Rex pilot will not be afforded consessions simply because "the barrell" is getting low!

KRUSTY 34

31st Mar 2008, 02:36

Shooter, you really should stop shooting from the hip.

I said that REX have reduced the experience "Requirements" for their candidates. A year ago it was 1500 hours total, ATPL subjects (essential for command), and at least 500 hours Multi under the IFR (also essential for command).

Seeing you're the man with all the answers, what are the minimum "Requirements" today. I know what they are, and so does everybody else. Do you?

As far as standards are concerned, you are absolutely right. I have even mentioned this fact in previous posts. I for one would fight tooth and nail to have these standards remain. I believe the head of Check and Training feels likewise. When dealing with a less experienced candidate the maintanence of the standards can however come at a price. That price is an increase in the fail rate and/or an increase in the time and cost that it takes to train a new F/O. An interesting phenomena we are seeing now is the employment of a "Third" check, where previously it was "Two" strikes and you're out!

Finally, so the "barrel" is getting low is it?

Phlap1

31st Mar 2008, 03:42

Okay Shooter
If you have not reached the bottom of the barrel.
How come Rex will be using 200 hour Cadets instead
of 1500 hour GA recruits as FO inductees.
However management spin numbers there is
a difference between 1500 and 200.
But its allright, the training program will produce
the same end result. Fool someone else!
The real question is how long will Rex last.

overhere

31st Mar 2008, 03:54

They need to use Cadets, because anyone with a CPL & the mins is probably looking elsewhere.

Come to think of it, people without the Mins are getting snapped up to fly Dash 8's for more money, better conditions & at least an aircraft with an APU so the summer cabin temp is bearable.

Think about it - if someone has 800TT/250T, would they not endure another 250 hours in GA, meet DJ's requirements & jump into a jet as a FO & get paid more then ZL pays their skippers?

Even if they want regional lifestyle - then QFL or Surv Aus are offering a much better deal.

It would be a tough call to take a job at Rex - since even the decent GA operators have realised they need to pay above award to retain crew - it would be a decrease in pay & conditions for a lot of us to leave GA for a Rex gig.

If you can't afford to pay your team properly, you can't afford to be in operation - it's really that simple.

bushy

31st Mar 2008, 03:55

The barrell is getting low????
So it should. It is not reasonable to expect lots of pilots to spend lots of money and effort just so they can be "in the barrell" for an indefinite time.
"High standard"airlines have a properly planned, long term recruiting and training program, and provisional agreements with wannabies. These ones do not get caught when the barrell is not so full.
A big shakeout is occurring, and things are changing.
I hope australian pilots and wannabies do not let things go back to what we had in the past.

shooter

31st Mar 2008, 08:10

Pharlap

Yes there is a big difference beween 1500 and 200 but as you are aware, some 200 hour pilots have performed better in their training and checks than some 1500 hr pilots. Given that the cadet scheme has been a tried and proven way of crewing airlines the world over for many years including Kendell airlines before the Ansett collapse, why do you think it will not work for Rex?

Wizofoz

31st Mar 2008, 08:29

Given that the cadet scheme has been a tried and proven way of crewing airlines the world over

Yes, but which airline?

After they graduate, the cadets are then Pilots, and, like all other pilots, will go to whichever job is most advantageous to them. It's sure gonna hurt when the first guy you've invested all that money in hands in his notice as he's off to fly the heavy metal.

Don't think it can Happen? easyJet lost 50% of its first Cadet course to BA and Virgin within 12 months of their graduating. And THEY were given jet jobs from the outset!

All so note your classic "Strawman" argument against KRUSTY, saying he talked about reduced "Standards" when he said "Requirements", and then not responding when he spelled it out to you.

KRUSTY 34

31st Mar 2008, 09:11

Thanks Wiz.

I was hoping (somewhat naively) for an appology. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath!

Just rude really.:{

bythenumbers

31st Mar 2008, 09:24

I think shooter is referring to places like Lufthansa. Cadetships that offer real progression and a fantastic career path run like a fine Swiss (or German) clock.

None of this BS such as the Qlink or Rex Traineeship/ cadet schemes. Who in their right mind in their early 20's (Qlink trainees); will want to stay at Qlink forever. Kids these days want progression progression progression. Not even necessarily more money but the chance to learn a new type, fly a newer ship. The sooner the regional carriers start acting like second fiddle to the domestic carriers (as they should) and not expect that their pilots should stay forever the better. Two or three years on a dash or Saab and progression onto a jet is what’s needed. If guys want to stay on the Dash then they should be paid fairly.

We can clearly see that two or three years on a dash or Saab and jet progression is working… It’s just that Virgin is a sperate company…

Anyway… I’m done…

Kangaroo Court

31st Mar 2008, 12:23

Absolutely!

No kid wants to fly at less than 400 kts or lower than FL350; and that's the way it should be. Props are for boats, especially now the jungle jet is here.

KRUSTY 34

31st Mar 2008, 20:39

Ironic isn't it KC.

Methinks REX may be targeting the wrong demographic with their "solution" to this crisis!

Mind you any solution isn't really a solution at all if it doesn't address the root cause.

Kangaroo Court

31st Mar 2008, 21:07

Bingo! We have a winner!

40 year old plus people who want to change careers but don't want to spend the rest of their lives recovering from jet lag.

These are are what Qlink and REX should be going for.

MajorLemond

31st Mar 2008, 21:09

Why are people still talking about this? :ugh:

MajorLemond

31st Mar 2008, 21:11

wrong demographic? what would you suggest?

bra83d

1st Apr 2008, 07:07

Have the cadets got any planes yet??? There gonna be busy getting up to twin status if they are to be finished by july/august or any time this year if you look at it realistically.:hmm:

KRUSTY 34

1st Apr 2008, 07:38

Quote:

"Why are people still talking about this? :ugh:"

What would you suggest major?

MajorLemond

1st Apr 2008, 08:36

I`d suggest people who want to do the job, what has age got to do with it?

KRUSTY 34

1st Apr 2008, 08:51

Nothing.

My comments were primarily directed at REX's failure to address the root cause of the crisis. The reason they are targetting young people for their cadet scheme is obvious. With all due respect major, most young people would be seriously unaware of what they are getting into. Get em' in. Get em' financially shackeld. Lock em' in to a long term commitment with little chance of future advancement. Result: Captive workforce!! That's the plan of course. The reality is that with the way this thing has been going so far, It will be a long time before any of them see a job on the line.

Most older, wiser heads will/have seen through this.

flyitboy

1st Apr 2008, 09:34

K34 interesting slant there. most likely has truth in it.

In the not too distant future perhaps we shall be reading threads here with such words as REX who? I would feel sorry for all the employees but would just love REX to fold so we could all say 'told ya so'!

F

bythenumbers

1st Apr 2008, 10:18

Its a funny thing... But if you look back over history, the countries of our small planet have really had some monumental F*$K UPs resultant from not addressing problems directly and rather going for the bandaid fix.

TotalTime0.5

1st Apr 2008, 12:52

KRUSTY 34 - Methinks REX may be targeting the wrong demographic with their "solution" to this crisis!

Kangaroo Court - Bingo! We have a winner!

40 year old plus people who want to change careers but don't want to spend the rest of their lives recovering from jet lag.

These are are what Qlink and REX should be going for.

Yeah, that's the frustrating thing reading this thread and others like it. Being 41 years young (;)) I'd be willing to put my head down and get cracking and do the cadet course and give REX plenty of loyalty in respect to years of service. I and many others like me reading this, being mature, having a strong work ethic, probably well travelled (worldly) would surely offer stability, focus (not looking over my shoulder at the big silver jet I want to fly...not that there's anything wrong with that for the younger punks) and offer some solution to the hemorrhage of flight crew. Not looking for special treatment over anybody else...just consideration.

Obviously the current situation in regards to T&C needs looking at....actually FIXING, and also someone like me needs to acquire the required command hours in order to progress from being stuck as a FO forever(no thanks), with the prospect of getting a seat on the left hand side at some point to make the whole exercise worthwhile, which means getting over the APTL hurdle as well! Do-able I guess, but needs a good plan. Reading these posts you just don't get a feeling of there being a 'stable-table' at REX to slap your 80k down and asking,"Well, do I make the cut". I'd be nervous even if I was eighteen years old.

Their are solutions to this current problem...maybe management could be a little bit more "proactive".....and a little less "reactive"(though "passive" might suit some readers here...I don't work for them) to their staffing issues. I neither now whether the cadet scheme is a proactive or reactive initiative to be honest. But from an outsider looking in, Rex over the last couple of years has become less than the sum of its parts...Sad really.

I wonder if anyone my age has thrown their hat into the ring, vis-a-vis the cadet scheme and had a crack...Let us know.

Regards Everyone

TT

Kangaroo Court

1st Apr 2008, 12:59

"The solution" , is obviously of major concern to Krusty 34. S/He has dedicated a sufficient level of energy to regional Australia to feel a kinship with the people S/He has served in this capacity.

If "wiser heads were to prevail", Krusty 34 would be part of the solution, but sadly, many management "teams" are not, and therefore will not take his/her advice.

People have to stop believing that the workforce should be unable to learn anything new or make dynamic contributions past the ripe old age of say...24! Walter Disney went bankrupt three times and did not find his first success until age 62. Hollywood has done a lot of damage to what we see as an iconic image of success.

There are three keys to recruitment success at the regionals.

1. Pay what the market requires you pay. Nobody should be getting out of bed and putting four stripes on their shoulders to fly an airliner, (albeit a turbo prop), for less than 100k/pa.

2. Stop recruiting kids. They'll leave.

3. Stop crying in the media. Your workforce is starting to believe you've lost a grip on your own company.

P47

1st Apr 2008, 18:06

Capt Wally, maybe you should give some thought to the fact that the reason you missed out on KENDELL is most likely because you have never even taken the time to learn how to spell it correctly.
I heard from a good source that DMK took great pleasure in throwing any application he saw, straight into the bin if his name was spelled KENDALL !!!
I don't blame him either !!!

Kangaroo Court

1st Apr 2008, 19:07

P47,

I was scholastically challenged as a kid growing up in the bush. When I went to the big smoke it was very difficult to adjust to social behaviours and city lore. Any good employer will make allowance for this before bringing down the axe. I am grateful for many chief pilot's counsel and the educational opportunities that have come with this career. I look forward to offering the same to others who might have found themselves overlooked.

bushy

2nd Apr 2008, 03:11

90% of the posts that appear on here are poor, and inferior to yours.

Lodown

2nd Apr 2008, 03:29

A significant proportion of businesses fail through one reason or another. If Rex or any other aviation company fails through strategy, resources, finances, competition or whatever, it won't be the first and it certainly won't be the last. It's all the more exciting when companies succeed and thrive against all odds.

Employees provide services and companies reward employees for providing those services...simple. If Rex pilots don't believe they are being recompensed sufficiently for their services, then they can choose to move on. It appears that the company believes it does provide adequate and attractive conditions and compensation and can afford to ride out the tough times of sparse labour. It seems a very short term strategy to me, but then I'm not in charge and I'm definitely not getting the big bucks for making those decisions.

flyitboy

2nd Apr 2008, 03:30

I can't see why older guys want to go to the regionals. I would have thought that the older types where too set in their ways to be 'moulded'. I know my Co. seem to think this way when it comes to hiring older types for 2 crew ops (unless they nhave many hrs on type). This has been the case in the past esspecially with older guys having many hrs SP. Hard to adjust to SOPS where you have to do it right everytime unlike SP sops where you only need to do it by the book during a test.

F

Ref + 10

2nd Apr 2008, 03:38

Krusty, are you still with REX? I only ask as I haven't noticed too many posts of yours using "we" or "us" lately... Slight thread drift I know

Lodown

2nd Apr 2008, 03:39

I agree flyitboy. Not so much too set in their ways, but too comfortable doing other things, enjoying their families and stashing earnings away for the retirement. There'll always be a few, but I can't see too many trying to kick start a new career on a lame wage in middle age.

mainteng

2nd Apr 2008, 03:57

Capt Wally,

I hear what your saying in regards to the engineers/ LAME's who are maintaining the REX fleet. Same boat as the pilots. Instead of employing a **** load of cadets to fill the void, Rex choose's to employ a large amount of apprentices and AME's to fill the labour short fall, especially in their heavy maintenance base. Putting increasing pressure on the LAME's to not only do their own job, but supervise and train aswell, surely gonna end in tear's but i hope it doesn't. REX's other sollution to the LAME shortage is to employ oversea's contractors from NZ etc, paying them over double per hour what the permanent guy's are getting on the floor, if that isn't kicking someone in the head while their down i dont know what is.

Recently 2 NZ engineer's have just been convicted of manslaughter after the crash of a R22 helicopter they certified for, which tragicly killed the pilot. Apparently these 2 guy's have spent their last 6 months contracting in Aus for REX at their heavy maintenance base in Wagga. Just doesn't make sense to me, pay the local guy's the right money and they would have engineer's/pilots comming out their ass. check out the full story here about the NZ guy's,

Family of crash victim relieved at guilty verdict

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:11p.m.

The family of pilot Philip Heney said today they were relieved two men responsible for maintenance of the helicopter he was killed in were found guilty of manslaughter.
Mr Heney, a father-of-nine, was killed when a tail component failed while he was landing his Robinson R22 helicopter near Murchison, southwest of Nelson, in August 2005.
Former maintenance company owner, John Horrell, 56, and a senior engineer, Ronald Potts, 60, were today found guilty in the High Court at Nelson of his manslaughter and causing injury to a passenger.
Mr Heney's wife Raylene said life had been hard for her and the children over the past two-and-a-half years.
"It is justice, it will help us as a family ... he is missing a huge part of his family with new babies and his son just getting married, as a family we've just got to stick together," she told Radio New Zealand.
Mr Heney's son Keiran will follow in his father's footsteps on Saturday when he sits his private aircraft licence.
"Definitely with pre-flight I'll take a lot more time, I'll definitely be more cautious," he said.
The family said life would never be the same but the guilty verdict would allow everyone to move on.
Detective Sergeant Mark Kaveney said the verdicts were a small measure of comfort for the family.
He said aircraft engineers needed to take more care and be more vigilant in their work.
"We don't want to see another one of these incidents," he said.
The prosecution said Horrell and Potts failed to properly supervise maintenance work on the helicopter.
A jury returned its verdicts this morning after deliberating for around 10 hours over two days.
The crash occurred near Mr Heney's home on August 26, 2005, the day he collected the chopper from Skytech Aviation where it had been undergoing maintenance.
Horrell owned the company and Potts worked for Skytech as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.
Investigators found the Robinson R22 crashed when an incorrectly assembled flange, connecting the tail rotor driveshaft, failed.
In closing yesterday Crown prosecutor Glen Marshall said the defendants failed to ensure work on the helicopter was directly supervised by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer and inspected twice by qualified engineers.
They will be sentenced on May 2. NZPA

nomorecatering

2nd Apr 2008, 12:11

CATA have recieved their first 2 warriors up and Mangalore with 3 more and a glass cockpit Seminole being assembled in a hangar at MB. They should be starting flying training next week.

The cadets seem like a fairly switched on group and should do well. Though they might have to spend some time in Pelair first.

Wish them all the best and safe flying.

KRUSTY 34

3rd Apr 2008, 03:41

Why Pelair first?

Is the flying less demanding? I would think not.

Is the demand for F/O's greater across the road?

Remember, these cadets are due to graduate in July, and they haven't even logged a minute! As switched on as they may be, It will be a long time before they see the control seat of an airliner. Also, who is going to pick up the tab for board and lodgings past their original graduation date? Is Rex going to provide extra accommodation space for sucessive courses?

My best guess Jan 09 at the earliest. Anyone like to take bets?

flyitboy

3rd Apr 2008, 05:36

Good point Krusty 34. "why Pelair first?" Anyone like to take bets on when the first hull loss will occur? Where playing with fire here. Some things can't be rushed, experience can't be 'bought' or rushed.

F

SIUYA

3rd Apr 2008, 06:08

flyitboy...........

Anyone like to take bets on when the first hull loss will occur?

Low time F/Os have been put into the right hand seat of bigger and more complex aircraft than SAABs for a long time flyitboy, but as far as
I'm aware, there's been no noticeable increase in hull losses as a result.

I'm just curious to know exactly what you're trying to suggest?

porch monkey

3rd Apr 2008, 07:22

I think he's suggesting it may not be long before there is a loss. You have to admit, those low time F/O's you speak of nearly always have an experienced Captain beside them. This may well not be the case here anymore, judging by the way the experienced Captains and trainers are jumping ship. That is the real issue to come, I would suggest.

flyitboy

3rd Apr 2008, 07:32

"PM" finally a word with some sense to it:D
Let's face it you can fly all regional planes with a monkey (no offence to the monkies) in the R/H seat,(2 crew are for safety reasons, like having two engines, like having two A/H's, not operational ones) but when that monkey is being supervised by a low time Capt (because the airlines have little choice ) then there in lies my reasoning as per "PM's" words.

F

La La Land

3rd Apr 2008, 10:21

Just out of interest "flyitboy", where have you gained most of your experience and what type do you currently operate?

La La Land

3rd Apr 2008, 10:56

In fact further in reference to my previous may I direct you to:

From Febuary 2008: posted by "flyitboy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys

New to all this & read with much interest. I've read a few wx forecasts & they seem to a newbie to be veey difficlut at times to decipher.
Am keen to learn all. Keep the good explanations up Tnxs

F
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And now our little fly it boy expert sees fit to impart his words of widsom on this thread to state-

"Let's face it you can fly all regional planes with a monkey (no offence to the monkies) in the R/H seat,(2 crew are for safety reasons, like having two engines, like having two A/H's, not operational ones) but when that monkey is being supervised by a low time Capt (because the airlines have little choice )"

Please Mr flyitboy, refrain from degenerating mine and others hard earned qualifications, experience and knowledge by sprogging (increasingly I may add) your unfounded, unqualified, useless and self serving opinions on these forums.

Cheers

La la

dreamjob

3rd Apr 2008, 11:14

La La Land, flyitboy=Capt Wally :E:E

tenfouroldmate

3rd Apr 2008, 11:17

I'm wondering what will happen to the likes of Pelair and Airlink (if Rex goes belly up). How are those guys and gals going now?
How do they fill crew positions when the bigger guys can't fill theirs?
10-4

astroboy55

3rd Apr 2008, 13:04

Let's face it you can fly all regional planes with a monkey (no offence to the monkies) in the R/H seat,(2 crew are for safety reasons, like having two engines, like having two A/H's, not operational ones) but when that monkey is being supervised by a low time Capt (because the airlines have little choice ) then there in lies my reasoning

At the end of the day, a captain is a captain. they should be able to fly with anyone. If they cant handle having a low time guy/girl next to them, then the company shouldnt put them in the LHS in the first place.

KRUSTY 34

3rd Apr 2008, 20:33

Very true Astro,

and during the checking process at REX the "knife" is particularily sharp when it comes to command candidates. But a good performance on the day doesn't necessarily make up for a real lack of experience on either type and/or the operation. Commands at REX are now running at less than 8 months! I've got in excess of 5000 hours on type, and I'm still finding things that I haven't seen before!

God willing, the total experience level in a REX cockpit of less than a year will not lead to an incident or worse. A situation that REX management are apparently comfortable with!

:confused:

tenfouroldmate

3rd Apr 2008, 22:28

God willing, the total experience level in a REX cockpit of less than a year will not lead to an incident or worse.

Well said K34.

Which takes me back to another thread that I replied to and got ridiculed about (not to dwell on it however). The combined age of pilots in the cockpit is in some cases very low. It is does not mean that they are incompetent-they may be extremely skilled pilots. But regardless of how crazy the general public can be (and I've seen some unbelievable behaviour), they are now well aware that there are younger pilots flying the line.

Having tallent and knowledge is great, however experience counts for a lot as well.

SIUYA

3rd Apr 2008, 23:21

K34........

Re the perceptions of the (pending??) lack of total experience in a REX cockpit which sees to be:

A situation that REX management are apparently comfortable with!

That's probably a pretty fair call KRUSTY :D, but I don't think that CASA would be at the same level of 'comfort' as REX management presently appear to be at. Particularly when it (CASA) is no doubt very carefully considering REXs obligations under Section 28BE and 28BF of the Act, as follows (bold/underlining is my emphasis):

28BE Duty to exercise care and diligence
(1) The holder of an AOC must at all times take all reasonable steps to ensure that every activity covered by the AOC, and everything done in connection with such an activity, is done with a reasonable degree of care and diligence.
(2) If the holder is a body having legal personality, each of its directors must also take the steps specified in subsection (1).
(3) It is evidence of a failure by a body and its directors to comply with this section if an act covered by this section is done mainly because of:
(a) inadequate corporate management :ooh:, control or supervision of the conduct of any of the body’s directors :ooh:, servants or agents; or
(b) failure to provide adequate systems for communicating relevant information to relevant people in the body.
(4) No action lies, for damages or compensation, in respect of contravention of this section.
(5) This section does not affect any duty imposed by, or under, any other law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, or [U]under the common law .

AND............

28BF Organisation, personnel etc.
(1) The holder of an AOC must at all times maintain an appropriate organisation, with a sufficient number of appropriately qualified personnel :ooh: and a sound and effective management structure, having regard to the nature of the operations covered by the AOC.
(2) The holder must establish and maintain any supervisory positions in the organisation, or in any training and checking organisation established as part of it, that CASA directs, having regard to the nature of the operations covered by the AOC.

Some pretty strong 'catch-all' provisions in that lot I'd say!

So, with the benefit of hindsight of the circumstances involving flight crew (in)experience in a recent and VERY bad accident involving LC RPT operations, I'd strongly suspect that (despite flyitboy's 'wild' assertions) CASA will definitely be stepping in and taking action a l-o-n-g time before it gets to the stage where inexperience in REX cockpits could/may lead to an accident.

Kingswood

4th Apr 2008, 00:28

"So, with the benefit of hindsight of the circumstances involving flight crew (in)experience in a recent and VERY bad accident involving LC RPT operations, I'd strongly suspect that (despite flyitboy's 'wild' assertions) CASA will definitely be stepping in and taking action a l-o-n-g time before it gets to the stage where inexperience in REX cockpits could/may lead to an accident."

SIUYA you give CASA way too much credit. They can't even stomp out the shifty ops in GA let alone have an impact on high capacity RPT operators.

Exactly who carried the can for that event? Yup the one guy who couldn't really say much in his own defense. The operators responsible for the operation, the sale of the tickets, and those who fostered the culture that led to the inevitable.. Charges were laid against... anyone... Bueller...

Don't hold your breath waiting for a bureaucrat to stick their neck out.

Kingswood

SIUYA

4th Apr 2008, 00:34

Kingswood..........

Good call, and I agree with the sentiments you express. :D

But the bureaucrats can't keep hiding forever, and I reckon there'll be a very bloody big tar and feathering party for the bureaucrats involved up in Canberra if/when there's another similar accident!

KRUSTY 34

4th Apr 2008, 00:47

You'd hope they would SIUYA. Although as long as the crew occupying the seats at the front of the aircraft meet at least the bare minimum requirements, I'm not sure just how much CASA can do.

The arguement of experience vs advanced initial training has been going on for years. By all accounts, some large Jet operators have sucessfully gone down this path in one form or another. Of course REX is not a large Jet operator, and the operating conditions can be quite dissimilar.

Years ago I worked for an operator that was of the opinion that as long as the crew met the minimum requirements, then there was no problem. That particular company I must say had very little in the way of formalised surveilance of it's crews, and the CAA at the time appeared equally blase' with regard to just how dangerous it can be out there. Some of the pilots were diligent and conciencious professionals. some not so. The travelling public were litterally playing Russian roulette and didn't even know it! One cold, dark and particularily nasty winters evening one of the not so dilligent captains made an error and 7 people didn't go home!

I'm not for one minute saying that REX are anything but 100% complient with their check and training obligations, but the acceptance of the bare minimum as being acceptable rather than the retention of experience, does give one food for thought.