Reduced layovers at V Australia

[hunglo]

Unfortunately the V Australia crew website is not anonymous in the forums and in an environment where there is no seniority, those who question or are perceived to not be a yes sir / no sir / three bags full sir sort of employee may find themselves perpetually at the back of the upgrade list. While much is spruced about an open door policy – the door is in Brisbane and the base is in Sydney.

It makes it difficult to comment about changes such as reduced layovers. Spending more time at home is one positive thing but an increase in the number of hours (the only natural extension to truly see the benefit for the company) effectively results in a reduction in pay (per hour) and lifestyle.

I have worked in and participated in the development of FRMS with previous employers. The VAustralia system varies in a number of ways. The training I received at VAustralia was prior to operations commencing and as a result was as useful as could be expected.

It is unusual that no feedback in the form of FAID scores is provided to crew nor actively sought by way of survey. In the end the only input is via those who fill out fatigue reports. Refer to my first sentence to see the flaw.

It was disappointing to read in the minutes of the recent fatigue committee meeting that the majority of fatigue reports were dismissed as irrelevant due to the paperwork not being forwarded or as tiredness rather than fatigue. Whilst there is a distinction, it is one that belongs in academia as a microsleep and collision with a tree, car or pedestrian has the same outcome even if tiredness is the cause. I would have thought that the failure to complete reporting correctly would have been a flag that communication was lacking regarding the forms not an excuse to dismiss the validity of the reports.

It is interesting that the V Australia trial FRMS now contains a further trial of shorter layovers. WTF CASA?

It is, as many are in Australia, based upon reports by the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research. In reading the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research report on reduced layovers produced for V Australia I noticed that they used scheduled time rather than averaged arrival times in addition to ignoring the time taken to clear customs, wait for crew delayed by immigration and bus ride to the hotel. My experience to date would indicate that it is rare to arrive at the hotel prior to within +120 min of on blocks time. In addition whilst the scheduled report time is 75 min prior to departure the actual time required to check out and catch the bus is 145 min. The upshot is that approximately 4 hours of layover time is simply not available for rest even if you do arrive on time.

In the end the FRMS and the studies used to support them appear to be a joke to move responsibility for fatigue related incidents from CASA to the company to the crew – you should have told the company you were fatigued – from the company who is producing the roster with undertones of - if you can’t hack the pace we will get some one who can or you just languish at the back of the upgrade list. All with support from CASA as they have scientific proof that you weren’t fatigued because of the roster.

End of rant

[Keg]

My experience to date would indicate that it is rare to arrive at the hotel prior to within +120 min of on blocks time. In addition whilst the scheduled report time is 75 min prior to departure the actual time required to check out and catch the bus is 145 min. The upshot is that approximately 4 hours of layover time is simply not available for rest even if you do arrive on time.

The FRMS also doesn't take into account the fact that you've been bounced around all the way to/from the airport on those disgraceful US expressways. You arrive at work literally shaking from the bus ride....and that is without any scares on the expressway.

[Vorsicht]

Whilst all your points about the mismanagement of fatigue reports and selective interpretation of the university study are correct, i still find it hard to argue that the SYD and BNE pairings are produce excessive fatigue.

With 4 crew on a 13-14 hour sector, when rest is divided equally, as it usually is, all crew are getting a min of 5 hours in the bunk, and much of that is during normal sleep time. Additional to that, unless you are up at the crack of dawn to go to Hollywood or Disneyland, it is easy to get as much sleep in LA as you need.

I agree that VA management, like most airline management, only pay lip service to fatigue, but i know from experience that as far as long haul ops go, this is a fairly easy gig so far. Wait until they work out they can do back of the clock trips to Hong Kong with only two crew. Then there will be a fatigue problem.

V

[KRUSTY 34]

Prior to first layng eyes on the VA employee contract for pilots, I had thought that T&C's for airlne pliots couldn't go much lower. My critism of what I (and many others) saw as not only inadequate, but more importantly a contract with more holes than a slice of swiss, and about as thin, was derided by some with a level of venom that frankly I found surprising.

I have been on the recieving end of dodgey rostering practices in the past. Rosters and schedules are written by people with little or no knowledge of what being a professional pilot really means. They are outcome focused, and will use any means at their disposal to get the job done. If that requires exerting "preasure" due to inadequate industrial protection, you had better believe they will do it. Having an incompetant and self serving regulator only adds to their arsenal.

From what I have seen, and been told, there ae 2 basic types of VA pilot (Flame suit on) Firstly, the returning expat with the required heavy jet experience, willing to accept lower T&C's as a means to get home to the greatest country on Earth. And who can blame them. Secondly, the optomistic and less experienced pilot willing to accept appalling T&C's with no defined career path, on the chance that the situation may change for the better!

If any of you guys believe that the situaion will become better soley by the good graces of your employer, then I think it's time to accept reality. VA management have used a waffer thin employment contract to quash dissent. Change will only come about by being united. With a pilot group with different agendas, that may be easier said than done. If you don't unite however, the guys pulling the strings will simply pull tighter and tighter.

But I suppose you all did read the contract!

[airtags]

well put Krusty

the big issue is that the regulator is too concerned at being rebuked by operators to implement global FRMS/duty limits etc., Similarly all of our unions are collectively lacking the maturity to work together or to convene an aviation industry aliance to fund relevant, specific and transparent research that would enable a more articulate argument to be held with the regulator.

Pilots and CC - whether LCC, Legacy or even offshore into Oz operators, all must be given reasonable, transparent, accountable processes and protection.

Sadly, with the ICAO agenda being shunted to the backburner yet again, it looks like we may have to wait for the Coroner to draft sensible and realistic provisions.

Idea? - Maybe we all should all walk through the cabin and have several big yawns and pretend to rub sleepy eyes when walking past any onboard pollies! ........naaw they wouldn't get the hint....Julia and Co are too busy telling employers that they won't be disadvantaged!

Keg - on the money re the bus ride - min rest is always 'reduced rest' it seems!

[jack red]

But I suppose you all did read the contract!

...................and that's the whole point. no use crying in one's beer about fatigue,nepotism and sticking together for a better deal. you signed it now get on with it!!!!!!......it's like these clowns that get married thinking their women are gunna change when they get the ring on their finger..:=

[KRUSTY 34]

I know this is off topic, but you're wrong Jack!

A Woman marries a man thinking he will change.

A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!

Your other observations however are sad but true.:sad:

[Track Direct]

Krusty your post makes sense to me.:ok:

[tasdevil.f27]

Have had plenty of dealings with FAID and all of it bad, seems to always favour the company. Had one roster where we were going ok for fatigue & everyone pretty happy etc, then the FAID roster comes along and we all felt dog tired constantly.

Try to talk to management & all u got was "FAID says your ok" :mad: FAID = crock of ****e!

[jack red]

Krusty - you are quoting the modus operandi.

A Woman marries a man thinking he will change.

A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!

there is only one way to keep a woman from thinking you'll change after marriage......when you wake up in the morning in the honeymoon suite and your lovely new wife rolls over, kisses you and tells you what a magnificent day it was yesterday and how romantic last night was.............. give her smack in the moosh!.............when she looks at you in amazement and asks "what was that for?".................reply "Nothing................ but step out of line and see what you get !!"

............don't know if that would work on the assholes in v oz..........:ok:

[hunglo]

We all read the contract (well... at least I did) before we signed. Some seemed to have joined to get back to Oz, some to get out of a C310 and for others it was clearly a mid-life crisis (although I've only met one pilot who admitted it as such).

Before operations began VA offered (read tried to shove down our throats) the crew a enterprise agreement. Amongst many changes to our conditions was one regarding max monthly and annual flight times which effectively changed them from 100 and 1000 respectively to the max that VA could screw out of CASA. This was voted down very convincingly.

So now when new shorter layovers are suddenly OK, you can only expect that next will be a push for increased monthly and or annual flight hours. Whilst the RFOs and cabin crew are in the sights now, CPTs and FO will be next.

As I stated previously more time at home is good. More hours in the air is a pay cut.

Now the rant is really over.

[rescue 1]

Given Virgin's media comments on VA, I think rest periods would be the least of my worries. The patterns look no different to QF, EK or other international carrier.

Unless things turn around on the US route, and $100 notes are not being torn up, the next thread will be on job losses and why did it happen - the "rants" might be a bit different then :ugh:

[pondoklabu]

I have many friends flying for Virgin Blue, and although I dont think for a second they will go under I do worry how much damage V is now doing to VB.
It just leaves them very open to attack from say Tiger or someone else.V are bleeding cash at such a rate something has to change and quickly.
The Australian market needs a strong VB not a debt ridden shell that cant compete on a level playing field.

Government figures released this week show that Virgin's long-haul carrier, V Australia, filled on average 57 per cent of the seats on each flight in April. Qantas fared much better with 82 per cent and United 78 per cent.

[Mr. Hat]

I'm all for conditions and getting a good deal. But I think the timing on this one couldn't be worse.

I and many others have our fingers crossed for you.

[ga_trojan]

If it really that bad why don't you just call in tired? A cancelled flight will send them the message no end. The whole reason for FMS coming into existence is to put the onus on the pilot for fatigue.

[No Idea Either]

trojan

The pilot is the last line of defence in these situations. If, for whatever reason, the pilot doesnt call in fatigued, then the good old swiss cheese holes are lining up. The onus by way of law is for the company to implement a FMS, putting the onus on them. If that FMS is not working then the company/pilots need to talk to CASA as they rubber stamp, oh sorry, approve these matters. The company WILL work to within a bee's dick of its approved limits. Ayone who thinks otherwise is dillusional.

[KRUSTY 34]

Not sure where you're coming from ga_trojan.

AS hunglo has said, the situation with industrial protection at VA is, well there is very little industrial protection! Calling in tired or fatigued is all well and good, but even under a fair and equitable EBA, you still have to justify it. It appears that under the current VA system you may end up severly disadvantaged if you are seen to be "rocking the boat"

IMHO they're in a pickle. Hopefully VA will surive, and if the pilot group are united enough, change may eventually come?

[Mr. Hat]

As previously stated, companies will work the crews right to the legal limit. They are not sitting around thinking about how to make things better from a fatigue perspective for their staff. They are trying to maximise dollars so people can a) keep their jobs then b) turn a profit for shareholders.

The problem is the regulator + the industry culture. I love these "audits" that get done that uncover absolutely nothing time and time again. Suggest having a read of the Colgan Air crash in the states where fatigue/standards/employment conditions are getting a fair spotlight at the moment.

There is no point in pointing fingers at management. Its EBA (if you get to negotiate one) and regulator. Other than that if its legal there is nothing you can do (apart from leave).

Eventually this problem will get sorted with a hull loss - it came so close with the EK mishap in MEL.

[hunglo]

At the risk of thread drift and for those that love to imply that we should bend over and take it like a man because there is a down turn, I would like to ask how much do you expect to claw back when times are good? In the recent boom time most workers conditions were dropping (maybe a little more money but at a cost of conditions) and or shifting onto one sided contracts. Aviation fared better than many areas.

When asking employees to take a cut in T&Cs, Ethical or moral managers would offer something in kind. You know share the risk with stock in equal value to your drop in T&Cs or lack of pay rise, promise to return to current conditions and catch up inflation at a agreed set of conditions etc with management sharing the same % of the pain.

In VB & VA terms; VB still has good load factors, 82% (I believe was recently announced). Its yield per seat is certainly down. The down turn has been an excellent lever to get VB crew into the E-Jets and to VA on lower wages.

With out doubt VA cost money to start up but it also cost money to introduce the E-Jet. Both have a future.

There was a three year plan for VA to break even with . Given the customer base of the existing airlines on the route, I would have thought that a 57% load factor from inaugural flight to end of June was great. Secondhand information is that VA is doing much better than planned even with reduced yields.

Recently load factors been closer to 90% (but then there are seasonal reasons for that).

In acknowledged tough times MDs of public companies use the boards / public's / share analysts expectation of poorer performance to write down costs as much as possible so that there is minimal if any impact on share price. Its also a great time to screw down employees T & Cs, get rid of dead wood and trouble makers and fix the poor choices that resulted in the current structure. Its rare to see senior management suffer as much as the employees who make the money for the company.

Does anyone honestly think VB was profitable on day one. Money was put aside to start VA. Is that being eroded faster than expect by VA - probably not. Opportunistic write downs might be assisting the reported loss.

[rescue 1]

hunglo, your post makes sense. Does that mean that you would be prepared to put at risk say 30% of your salary each year and share in the profit (or loss) - like Law Partners, CEO's, etc.

I think your idea is a good one - and it is one way we can claw this industry back where it should be.

[hunglo]

yes of course. Not only will I have a vested interest in the companies profit by when times boom again I may make more than the salary I lost. The only caveat is that the risk should be shared by management.

[ga_trojan]

The onus by way of law is for the company to implement a FMS, putting the onus on them

My understanding is that CASA brought in FMS to put the onus on the Pilot after a particular incident with a certain airline because the CAO was legally useless.

[No Idea Either]

Ga trojan

In the grand scheme of things, yes the onus is on everyone when it comes to fatigue management. The company has to implement a FMS, CASA says they have to. The company then rosters within the limits of the FMS. If you are fatigued due to that rostering then call it and get it changed. You would need a significant amount of pilots to prove your point, not just one or two "whingers". I would think in a company without decent employment protections, the lone whingers might find themselves in the cross-hairs. But in an approved system I dont think that there will be much change. The way I see it, CASA says you have to do it, the company designs (therein lies the problem),implements and rosters by it, the pilots and FA work to it, all because CASA says its OK. If it isnt then try and get it changed. Good luck.

[ga_trojan]

the lone whingers might find themselves in the cross-hairs

However under the FMS pilots have the right to call tired, this is the whole point of it. If an operator starts pressuring you under this I would be going to CASA about it. They want FMS because it legally protects the pilot, and keeps CASA out of the firing line, that is why they brought it in!! It's about covering CASA's backside.

[High-Bypass]

Everyone was told how crap the terms and conditions were when they interviewed. If you agreed to be raped and pillaged from the get-go, don't start complaining now. You had a choice/voice. Maybe you bought this on yourselves?

[No Idea Either]

GA Trojan,

Under the FMS, according to the company and CASA, you shouldn't be tired. Give it a go. I trust you stand by your convictions. Again, good luck.

[ad-astra]

If anyone is interested or anyone remembers there is a thread that thrashed itself to death in April this year named;

"V Australia commenced BNE-LAX today"

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/369138-v-australia-commenced-bne-lax-today-5.html#post4876149 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/369138-v-australia-commenced-bne-lax-today-5.html#post4876149)

At the time the 'new start optimism' was all that could be heard.
There is some very interesting reading with hindsight!

A few like myself were most uneasy at the belief that the good times would roll on and never end and that the VA T&C's would/could only improve.

Well the economic realities are setting in and unless there is a collective (read unanimous) push by the VA Pilot group to contain the economic realists then things WILL only get worse and the better T&C's that you all hoped for will be as far away as ever!

Yes the VBA T&Cs did improve (as indicated by a resigination rate close to naught), but the last VBA EBA was fought for with what I saw was a strong pilot group working towards a common goal.

Good luck

[KRUSTY 34]

And there'in lies the challenge ad-astra.

The T&C's at VB did mprove, although to start with they were nowhere near as rediculous as those at VA! They improved because of a united pilot group, but also due to strong company growth, aided in no small measure by the death of Ansett!

The situation now is very different.

No competitor about to fall over
Significant decline in demand
Red ink forcast for the forseeable future
A serious lack of industrial protectionWithout doubt a united pilot group will be fundamental for change. The other factors however may just put the VA pilots between a rock and a hard place!:sad:

[Beeroclock]

High Bypass is right..You all new what you were signing up for no use crying about it now,that document you signed spelt out pretty clearly you were all going to be bent over and it was not going to change in a hurry,especially if one RT has anything to do with it..

I hope things change for you people there but unfortunately whilst they managed to get so many to sign up for this Sh*T sandwich they would be kicking themselves now as they would think they are over paying..When the exact number of people that apply equals the amount of positions available they will consider the terms and conditions about right but could do with some tweaking in favour of the company..

[Tankengine]

Nobody on this thread has mentioned what these reduced layovers ARE!
How many hours off do you get in the US before returning home?:confused:

[somewhereat1l]

InandOut - if you read the full email from V re: reduced layovers its states the intention is for all layovers to go to one night. With travel times etc we will be getting less than 24hrs at the hotel. Yuck I can see fatigue reports and sick leave going through the roof.

[KRUSTY 34]

A fairly well known QF pilot once remarked in a magazine interview that prior to joining Qantas she never had a holiday, let alone an overseas one. I don't think it was an attempt at being glib, but indicative of what can lie at the end of the long hard slog up the ladder.

As a professional long haul pilot, I don't think many would argue that it were unreasonable to either have the time to embrace the destination on the layover, or at least to be earning an income that would allow a lifestyle (including travel) on their days off.

Sadly I think the majority of (and apparently permanent) RFO's will see niether.

[goddamit]

have to disagree with Krusty with VB conditions:

The T&C's at VB did improve, although to start with they were nowhere near as rediculous as those at VA!

I think not. VB Capts were on 110k back in the day. 8 days at home a month. I should know. But yes VA terms aren't great. In comparison both companies started with similar packages(in a way). Few days off & low pay. In fact I think if VA wasn't affiliated with VB it would be a reasonable starting point for crew in this climate.
However I'm by no means endorsing VA T&Cs. The fact is it should've been aligned with VB better, but we all knew that would never had occurred.

I wish all in VA well, I'm sure things will pick up soon.
cheers

[Beeroclock]

Krusty..you are very much correct!! But again they chose it,nobody forced them to become RFOs or CFOs or SOs or whatever you want to call the position,personally i would have stayed in GA rather then take one of those positions, again if nobody applied they would have had to do something about the terms and conditions but instead they just had to choose who will take the shafting the best..

As for the layover min 29 hours?? We all want longer layovers but you do need to remember you are not going there for a holiday.. I cant wait i can see it now once they start flying to other destinations that have little to do on the layover they will be whinging that the layovers are too long..

You people ordered your Sh*T sandwich now eat it!!:D:D

[KRUSTY 34]

godammit,

Point taken re: VB's start up salary and long hours (days). The boys and girls back then however had a reasonable set of working condirions (industrial protection) from which to lay the foundation for change. Something I'm afraid the VA HR wonderkids have nipped in the bud.

Beeroclock.

You're right of course, they are not there for a holiday. But I reckon the novelty will wear off very quickly when one cannot even afford to buy a house, or provide a decent lifestyle for the family.

Anyway, I've certainly said my piece. Goodluck guys. Tough times ahead methinks.

[Sand dune Sam]

Beeroclock....you would have stayed in GA would you? Rather than go and get a command endorsement on a B777, take the chance, if things improve you then move up through the ranks and have the world as your oyster should you chose that path....From what I've heard, quite a few VB guys didnt have a choice..it was either go to VA or not have a job!! Are you going to sh!tcan those guys as well?

Are you also going to sh!tcan the many expat pilots who have vast levels of experience in International long haul operations who maybe just wanted to come home for family reasons etc?

Should things improve over the next 18 months or so, VA may just be in a strong position..They have the right aircraft, they have the right interline agreements, they have good guys working there and as time goes on and the demand for pilots improves, you may just see a better package of T&C's.

[3 Holer]

No matter what happens, the B777 rating is the rating to have on your licence. It will be like the B767 rating was fifteen years ago! :ok:

[greenslopes]

If you are all being rostered fatiguing duties then a confidential report to ATSB, particularly if the majority all put one in, will raise awareness. It may not fix the problem but it will be noticed and should any incident/accident occur then there is a record of less than best practices being employed.
In order for something to change you must work within the guidelines.
raising awareness via PPRUNE will achieve nothing. It needs to be on an official level.

Good Luck

[Beeroclock]

Sand Dune,again those guys with the vast experience that chose to come home also chose the Sh*T sandwich..The CFOs from what i understand dont even have a command endorsement so alot of good that is..And the guys from VB that have gone across are all senior enough to have kept there jobs, all went across as Captains and FOs..I know of only 2 that went across as CFOs and i still think they were mad.(At least they got command endorsements though)

As for the other CFOs hell yes i would have stayed in GA you all carry on about T and Cs going backwards and its exactly because people accept these positions that they go backwards..No sympathy from here one little bit!! I feel for the Qf SOs though that are threatened with job loss as they didnt except positions that make our industry and profession a disgrace...

The T and Cs you cant compare to VB and how they were as Krusty said there was protection and the pilots were all trying to head the same way..VAs powers have killed that off and there is really nothing to even start with let alone build on..

Anyway thats my rant but all you people need to now live with the monster you created!! Simple as that...

[Beeroclock]

In..Why do some and not others have this?? I had heard how true this is i dont know it was to stem people leaving once they got some experience??

[Keg]

Many( Not All) CFO DO HAVE A COMMAND 777 RATING.......

...which means bugger all in the grand scheme of things when accompanied with a bunch of co-pilot time. It may make them eligible for a contract F/O slot overseas on the 777 so good luck if they choose to jump ship at some stage in the future.

[KRUSTY 34]

So inandout, just to clarify. How many of the applicants who aready had a Command endorsement went on as CFO's? Did they lack the experience level for a window seat?

[insert_name]

who ever came to VA witout a 777 rating as a CRFO/RFO/SO got a co pilot rating.

The difference with the start of VA and VB was the VB guys had a union from the start or almost from the start :D

VA pilots dont have anything. If the balance was more equal then that wouldnt be so bad, but VA pilots need a union. I guess this is thread drift but until VIPA is up and running they should all join AFAP. If and when they want to change in the future decde then. Do die waiting :ok:

[KRUSTY 34]

So I guess it would be safe to say inandout that CFO's with command ratings who left jet jobs (especially those with commands), would after a time be able to move to a front seat. Otherwise...

WTF!!!

[Beeroclock]

Yes big call on there behalf?? It was well known that provision had been made for aircraft 4 to 7 to be crewed by VB pilots so i cant see where the progression they thought was going to come from that was no secret.. I guess they could all afford the pension on offer..

[knowall]

Will it ruin a good point if I point out that the AFAP agreement with VB was that 4/7th of the flight crew slots were to be offered to VB pilots? They don't have to fill them. Very few came over before they were forced to by threatened job losses. Many of those that took CFO and FO slots took a gamble on quick upgrades in an expanding airline. If that doesn't happen then many will leave for greener pastures if and when they appear. Having said that there are a portion for whom a CFO job was a pay rise. Surprising given some of the comments about pay in this thread. The rosters promised at the interview meant this job enabled a good life style. I agree with hunglo that a 29hr layover is not an issue until you up the workload, then you have fatigue, crappy pay and no lifestyle. But I think the point Hunglo was trying to make is that; FRMS in general and particularly when companies administer them without any feed back except when you are too fatigued to fly or drive; all in a environment devoid of industrial protection are ineffective and dangerous. I'm sure that no one expected the long layovers to last forever but the lack of progression opportunities because VB pilots are being forced to come to VA and delayed aircraft deliveries have meant that there is no upside. It has become GA just with bigger toys. Poor communication and lack of information from management ( dinky ra ra news letters that say nothing meaningful don't really hit the spot) along with people management section (PMS how appropriate) refusal to even be flexible with car spaces for those who commute all contribute to a ground swell of discontentment. VB worked hard to alienate their crew as well (read the intro to the current VB agreement). I can only hope that VA management will take notice rather that get defensive when suggestions and comments are made. If they don't, when aviation picks up generating those greener pastures the very staff they need will be on their way some where else.

[Beeroclock]

Knowall..Again the VB pilots that have taken FO slots were not threatened with job loss,they are all senior enough to not be let go if they lay the bottom 737 guys off!! Only the couple that have accepted CFO positions may have been in trouble had they laid the bottom guys off..

Crying the VB guys are taking your upgrades makes me laugh,were not alot of you told to get a window seat you will have to go to VB when the time comes??

You all took the positions with stars in your eyes and now its not what you thought it was going to be..And as for many it was a pay rise so what if thats how you look at it thats why all pilots around the world are being screwed down because people like you are willing to be scab labour to try to climb the ladder quickly..Well guess what if the likes of these people willing to do it for nothing just to get on a jet continue there wont be any point getting to the top of the ladder cause there will be nothing worthwhile up there for you or to support your family..:ugh: Think big picture not big jet!!

[W00kiee]

Again the VB pilots that have taken FO slots were not threatened with job loss

Not true, Not all of the junior guys at VB have low hours. Two of my former colleges went to VB with around 3000-4000 hrs on 737's one was retrenched the other was faced with retrenchment or VA and chose to go across to VA as an FO.

Can I throw something else in the mix here. Everyone is on about how the VA guys are lowering T&C's in Australian aviation if not the world, What about when Qantas started charging for the skills and psychometric testing who was the first person to say “but it’s Qantas if I have to pay $200 then I’ll do it”, or when JQ started charging $15 just to have a CV on file. What about the first people to pay for endorsements, what about when guys starting working at the local drop zone or the local aero club for free just to "get their hours up".

Sorry but you can not blame these guys, this industry has been slowly getting inbred over the years, and will take a lot to turn it around .

[Sand dune Sam]

WOOKiee.......your correct on a few accounts, however what you are dealing with are people who dont reason very well. For whatever reason, they find comfort in being negative about V Australia and tend to troll pprune in search of a negative post about the company.

It makes me think they were either knocked back for an interview or failed one, or are a bit envious of mates of theirs that may be flying B777's and they arent. Why else would they concern themselves with the operation? there is absolutely d!ckall they can do to improve conditions, and sledging V Australia pilots and the operation itself, I think is a futile attempt at making themselves feel better.

But hey....they are experts though...some of them fly for REX and are champions at taking on the Singaporeans, so they are obviously well versed to offer us all advice on what T&C's to accept and are great at telling other pilots "I told you so"..:ugh:

[pigdriver]

Wookie, just remember the VB guys were the first ones to pay for their type ratings, so before you go slagging off at others, just remember who started all this rubbish in the first place??...

[Beeroclock]

Wookie no pilots at VB have been made redundant or retrenched whatever you want to call it!! They may have been pointed in a certain direction but chose to go that way..

[W00kiee]

the VB guys were the first ones to pay for their type ratings

No sh1t, thats what I was getting at.

just remember who started all this rubbish in the first place??...

Who? Qantas by making you pay for your interview. Or the guy working for nothing at the local flying school, who is now a check captain.

Sand dune Sam, Well said!

times 2

[KRUSTY 34]

Points well made Sam.

But why single out REX pilots. I thought this was supposed to be an anonymous forum. You don't work for REX's opposition do you? :=

[cunninglinguist]

Lets not let NJS off unscathed whilst we are talking about lowering standards:

1) 12+ year employees paying 15K for a type rating ( OK, it was a 3yr interest free loan to the company ) for a fleet change.

2) B scale pay, circa 50K for a 717 effo.

But you do get to pretend you're a Qanats pilot :hmm:

[ozbiggles]

Beero
Not much of a choice when you are told your position is redundant but you can move home and take a 20% paycut or 12 months LWOP...or made redundant.

[Tangan]

Wookie, just remember the VB guys were the first ones to pay for their type ratings, so before you go slagging off at others, just remember who started all this rubbish in the first place??...

Piggy and Wookie that is not correct .. this distinction belongs to Impulse aka Jetstar

[Mr. Hat]

Question for the guys/gals at V.

Do the 777's have a crew rest separate crew rest to the main cabin? As in a small bed down the back? I ask because I was told that the J* guys on the 330 just lie/sit in a comfy pax whereas the QF guys on the same type have a bed/bunk down the back somewhere.

How many hours do you do in the seat and then the bed? How does that work?

Just interested thats all. Not having a crack at anyone.

[puff]

Unsure of V australia exact set up but I believe for the 300ER it's a fairly similar set up

Cathay
JetPhotos.Net Photo » B-KPE (CN: 36156) Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 777-367ER by Colin Parker - The Hong Kong Spotters (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6163392&nseq=4)
Air France
JetPhotos.Net Photo » F-GZNA (CN: 35297) Air France Boeing 777-328ER by Pierre Dumas (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6453995&nseq=0)
Air India
JetPhotos.Net Photo » VT-ALN (CN: 36312) Air-India Boeing 777-337ER by Harri Koskinen (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6311985&nseq=1)

FAs have their own seperate ones further down the back

JetPhotos.Net Photo » B-KPE (CN: 36156) Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 777-367ER by Colin Parker - The Hong Kong Spotters (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6163397&nseq=3)

[farrari]

At VA, CC have 8 Beds down the back in the roof, Tech have an area up front in the roof with 2 Buss type seats and behind that two beds. Same as the Cathay photos.

[KRUSTY 34]

Is there private bathroom, shower? facilities?

[V-SFO]

I assume your are joking Krusty???

The crew rest areas on the 777 are fantastic. The tech crew rest area has very nice reclinable seats with a full entertainment system. It is above business class. There are no private toilets or showers.

Behind the seats are two bunks, side by side, divided. It is a very roomy space. The only complaint is the mattress is too hard and the pillows are too small. This is being worked on.

Jetstar doesn't provide a "comfy" seat on the 330. You sit in row 6 with a curtain around it. Sometimes you could even have a passenger sitting next to you. When the seat in front of you reclines, it is extremely "uncomfy". I really don't know how they get it by CASA that it is a "separate" resting area.

Anyway, V's crew rests are first rate.