Another Jetstar Whistleblower

[Red Jet]

The following has been submitted in confidence to the ongoing senate inquiry. Cop this ya' pack of mongrels:D. Oh, and BB/AJ - this time you can't sack or intimidate him/her, cause you don't know who it is, - frustrating, isn't it??:}


SENATE INQUIRY INTO PILOT TRAINING AND AIRLINE SAFETY
I have been a pilot in the aviation industry for over 25 years.
I am a captain on the Airbus A320 with Jetstar.
This submission is provided on the basis that my identity remains confidential.
This is due, contrary to parliamentary privilege, to the strong probability of reprisal from
Jetstar management.
Pilot Experience
Jetstar have instigated a pilot cadet program and intends to place these cadets as first
officers on their aircraft. These cadets would have around 200 flight hours at the time that
they start to fly for Jetstar. To put this into some perspective, I sometimes fly 200 hours
in two months. It is not a lot of experience. Jetstar policy under the requirements of its
operations manual (OM1) as approved by the government regulator, CASA, has a
requirement of 1500 flight hours for initial intake for employment as a first officer. The
cadet program would appear to be at odds with this policy, as approved by the regulator.
Of the three airlines that I have worked for, the Jetstar operation would be by far the most
complicated. In great part this is a result of the low cost model and the lack of resources
that this model provides. For instance, traditionally, airlines have load control
departments that look after the entire weight and balance of each flight and once
completed, a load sheet is handed to the captain of the flight. The only input that the
flight crew have is to provide the required fuel figure. This department look after all
facets of the loading of the aircraft including passengers and where they are seated,
baggage and where it is loaded, cargo and where it is loaded, including the carriage of
special loads and dangerous goods with their special placement in specific positions on
the aircraft and many other variables including the segregation of certain types of
dangerous goods and the non carriage of particular dangerous good on particular aircraft
due to such things as lack of ventilation in the cargo hold of some specific aircraft in the
fleet. At Jetstar, this load control function is undertaken by the flight crew, while looking
after all of the other aspects associated with the flight and all on 30 minute turn around.
Jetstar recently outsourced its flight planning department to Manila as part of a cost
saving initiative. This has resulted in many mistakes being made in the flight plans which
are provided to the flight crew including, but not limited to, insufficient and therefore
illegal fuel loads being provided. This results in increased work load in a time limited
environment for the flight crew, to ensure that the flight departs legally.
The Airbus A320 requires, by certification, a runway that is 45 metres wide. Jetstar, by
way of a narrow runway exemption from the regulator, CASA, have approval to operate
the aircraft into and out of 30 metre wide runways. Landing and takeoff on such a narrow
runway, which also tend to be short, leaves little room for error with regard to both lateral
deviation from the centre line of the runway and touchdown due to the runway being
short. If asked off the record, few managers in the flight department of Jetstar would
argue that operations into such ports are not without risk, yet these people lack the
courage to voice these concerns to the commercial department of Jetstar, which basically
dictates where we operate to. The A320 is the largest aircraft in Australia to be granted
such approval.
The A320, apart from being a high performance transport jet also has a unique flight
control set up. Instead of a control column that is in front of the pilot, it has a small side
stick on each side. With the conventional control column, each movement made by the
pilot flying the aircraft is also made by the column in front of the pilot that is not flying.
The pilot not flying can see every control input, because they can see the movement in
their column. If needed, some assistance on the column by the captain, for instance,
would not be that unusual if the inputs being made were deemed insufficient during
landing, for instance. The side stick on the non flying side in an Airbus, however, remains
neutral at all times and if this happens to be the captain, he cannot feel or see the inputs
being made by the first officer. Additionally, if both pilots were to make inputs, they are
algebraically added. This means that if both pilots make the same input, the effect on the
aircraft will be doubled and if both pilots make equal but opposite inputs, the effect will
be zero input. Neither of these may be have good outcomes depending on the situation.
This is known on the Airbus as dual input. It is non standard procedure to have dual input
on an Airbus and the procedure, if required, is for the captain to take control of the
aircraft. This is very rarely required and a last resort. It is a fine line between taking over
too early when it is not required and taking over too late, especially on landing. This
makes the A320 more challenging for the captain with an inexperienced first officer, who
through no fault of their own, still makes errors of judgement due to inexperience.
Additionally, Jetstar scheduled services operate into airports that are outside of controlled
airspace without the assistance of a control tower or air traffic control radar services,
sometimes at night. These airports tend to have 30 metre wide, short runways and tend to
have a large amount of light aircraft traffic associated with them as these airports were
built for lighter traffic. It is the responsibility of the pilots at these airports to maintain
separation from each other. This system is only as strong as the weakest link and the
information that is provided by the pilot of the light aircraft. This pilot can sometimes be
a student pilot flying by themselves. If the position and/or altitude information they
provide is inaccurate and if the crew of the larger transport aircraft are not on the ball,
then this single person light aircraft has the potential to bring down an aircraft carrying
close to 200 people.
Jetstar pilots can fly up to 1000 hours per year. We do this around the clock, 24 hours per
day. We can work up to 14 hours per day up to six days in a row. Under present roster
protocol, we can and do, sign on as early as 5 AM for up to four days in a row and fly up
to four sectors per day and on the fifth day we could be signing on at 10 PM to fly until
7AM the next day, to then extend beyond this time due to delays. This last sign on time is
probably an hour or more past bed time of the previous few days and the duty period is
180 degrees opposed to the previous duties from the clocks view point. These shifts are
known as ‘back of the clock’. There is no way to be adequately rested for such a duty, as
is required by law, and there can be no fatigue risk management in such rostering
practices. Conversely, we could finish at 6AM after working all night, and then be
signing on at 5AM the next day. Still no chance to be adequately rested with such a lack
of routine.
Engineering, like all other departments, are under resourced and their attitude is
sometimes that they have not got time to fix things that are wrong with the aircraft and
‘push’ flight crew to take the aircraft and have it fixed some other place or at the end of
the day so that the schedule is not affected by their department. Flight crew however,
have responsibility for the overall operation and at times have to insist that something is
fixed prior to departure while under some pressure to continue regardless.
Add to these Jetstar specific threats, the normal ones of bad weather and instrument
approaches, thunderstorms, fog, cyclones, general traffic, international operations with
limited support, diversions to unfamiliar places both within Australia and internationally,
high terrain and single runway operations, where if an aircraft becomes disabled on the
runway, the flight may be unable to land and will probably have few options available
with regard to other airports with the available fuel, and you really start to see the
complication of this Jetstar operation overall.
As a captain on the A320, I rely on a competent and aviation experienced first officer for
support in high work load and non normal/emergency situations. When all is good, one
could probably fly the aircraft alone. It is when things are not good that you need the
experience sitting beside you and, you can never tell when that will be.
Jetstar, by providing insufficient resources in other operational areas, place a great deal of
responsibility on the flight crew, particularly the captain, to ensure that the operation is
not only carried out safely but is also done within the requirements of the law. This can
add significantly to the pressure of an already, well known to be, stressful job.
I have provided a lot of specific and general information under this sub section of ‘pilot
experience’ quite deliberately, and that is to show that this Jetstar operation specifically
and regular public transport jet operations more generally, are complicated and
sometimes high risk and are no place for a pilot with 200 flight hours or the experience
equivalent of two months in the industry.
USA 1500 flight hours requirement for RPT services
As is shown on page 4-20 of the Jetstar operations manual (OM1), as approved by the
government regulator, CASA, Jetstar already have a requirement to employ pilots with in
excess of 1500 flight hours to act as first officers. For all of the reasons already stated in
sub section a, this seems to be a reasonable level of experience to start on an operation as
I have described it and, indeed, is seen as such by the Jetstar flight department and
CASA.
Jetstar have started a pilot cadet program and intend to employ first officers with as little
as 200 flight hours, which is well below that which is required by the operations manual.
They have done this, not due to the fact that there is a lack of suitable pilots in Australia,
but purely for financial reasons. The list of cost saving and money making exercises that
Jetstar have running is long and none of them have safety as a consideration, but most are
outside of the terms of reference for this enquiry. For the record, policy of Jetstar senior
management is for a 10 percent cost reduction per year. This is absolutely unsustainable.
There are many examples of major accidents of aircraft that were operated by companies
that, for whatever reason, were in the process of long term, aggressive cost cutting
programs.
Jetstar are possibly making a profit from the substantial training costs associated with the
self funded cadet program. One hundred and seventy thousand dollars, seems to be a
rather large amount of money to train a person to be a first officer on an A320. On top of
this is the fact that once employed (there are no guarantees), these pilots will be on a
much inferior contract to the certified agreement that the rest of the Jetstar Australia
pilots are on. Add the possible profit from training to the significantly reduced wages that
these pilots will be on and you start to see that this is not about demand for pilots but
about a new recruitment method which fits in with Jetstar’s constant drive to undercut
wages and reduce costs and, for the reasons mentioned under sub section a, this will have
a detrimental effect on safety.
Qantas have long run a successful cadet program, employing pilots into their company
with 200 hours or similar. The difference however, is that these pilots are employed as
second officers and are not in the control seat for takeoff or landing. They are there for in
flight rest purposes on long haul flights and it is the captain and first officer who conduct
the flying. These pilots gain experience on the job over some years and would have some
thousands of hours experience by the time that they become first officers on, say, a
Boeing 737.
It needs to be remembered that the USA 1500 hour requirement was introduced as a
result of a catastrophic aircraft accident in the United States that was deemed, in part, to
be the result of crew inexperience. Let us not have to introduce such an initiative after an
event.
Pilot Recruitment and Pay for training schemes
I have touched on Jetstar pilot recruitment and my belief of the reasons that Jetstar have
set up a pilot cadet program, in sub section b. That reason is to reduce wages costs and
has nothing to do with the availability of suitable pilots from within the industry and that
it will have a detrimental effect on safety.
In days past, a pilot would be employed by an airline and that airline would be
responsible for, and take the risk for, the provision of all costs associated with the training
of this pilot including the endorsement on the applicable aircraft. This investment in this
employee was taken seriously at the recruitment stage, as the investment was large. So
seriously, in fact that, in days gone by, an applicant would not even be considered if
above the age of 26. This was so that the airline concerned would get a reasonable return
on the investment made in the individual. Additionally, due in great part to a strict
seniority system (date of joining determines promotion ect.) and the fact that terms and
conditions were much better than they are today in low cost carriers, a pilot would, in
almost all circumstances, stay with the first airline to employ them until retirement.
Today, however, things are very different. Today all of the risk is placed on the employee
and the company have little from a cost view point. It costs around $35,000 dollars
including GST, for a pilot to gain an aircraft endorsement on say an A320. (The pilot is
required to pay the full amount even though Jetstar claim the GST as a business expense
and pocket this in spite of it being paid by the pilot) As the pilot has paid for the
endorsement, after a small amount of company provided induction training, what remains
is line training on the aircraft. Unlike in the past, the first time that a pilot in Jetstar
actually flies the aircraft and probably the first time that they have flown a jet aircraft will
be with a load of passengers on board. I make this point to show that even under training,
this pilot is providing revenue for the airline and is of no cost. If at the end of this
training, which takes around two months, the pilot is considered unsuitable, then their
employment will be terminated. The $35,000 is still paid by the pilot. This means that the
recruitment that in the past was taken so seriously is no longer as critical, as all of the cost
risk is now transferred to the pilot and little cost has been incurred by the airline through
this process. This may mean that a pilot, who would not have been found suitable at the
recruitment stage, in the past, is let through to the training stage due to the low cost risk
for the airline. This pilot may slip through the net and, even though substandard, will
remain at the airline. Along similar lines, when substandard pay and conditions are
offered, such as those offered in New Zealand by Jetstar, then this means that the best
applicants are not attracted to these positions. Jetstar seem willing to accept this
unarguable reduction in safety so long as there is a commensurate reduction in wages
costs.
In days past, the employing airline provided the training via their own simulators with
training conducted by airline employees who were generally current senior training and
checking captains who were obviously up to date with current airline procedures and
processes. Today, these aircraft endorsements are provided by third parties and not an
airline. The instructors are generally not current pilots and may not have flown for many
years. In the case of my A320 endorsement, my instructor had never flown a jet aircraft
and had little idea of Jetstar procedures. This makes it much more difficult for the trainee
to come into the Jetstar system and achieve a reasonable result at a training level. It must
be remembered that the first time that the trainee flies the aircraft will be with passengers
on board. This has not always been the case, with airlines previously providing takeoff
and landing training in the aircraft without passengers. This makes the endorsement
training now, so much more important than in the past, when in fact, the training is, for
reasons stated above, much inferior. Combine this type of training with low experience
cadet pilots and the safety implications really start to multiply.

Continued in next posting %

[Red Jet]

Retention of experienced pilots
In sub section c, I explained that in the past a pilot would join an airline and stay with that
airline for their whole career. This was due to a strict seniority system (date of joining)
which determined, amongst other things, promotion. If the pilot, after a number of years,
left one airline and joined another then they would start at the bottom again and, from a
promotion view point, the time spent in the previous airline is wasted. These days, in low
cost carriers at least, the seniority system tends to be much less rigid, if it exists at all, and
therefore I could spend many years at Jetstar and have a more junior pilot take a
promotion ahead of me at the discretion of management. This has already happened on
numerous occasions in the history of Jetstar. It means that the guarantees that were
provided previously are no longer there and that to leave is not with the same risks as 1; I
may not get the promotion that I would be due under a strict seniority system and 2; If I
leave and go to another airline I may take a promotion at the expense of another pilot at
that airline and thereby do not take such a risk to leave the first airline. This does,
however, mean that the first airline looses my experience and possibly replaces me with a
first time captain who, now, is a new captain flying with first officers with 200 flight
hours under the Jetstar cadet scheme. This may be okay as a single event but if you end
up with a mass exodus of captains from one airline due to, say, a foreign airline setting up
a base in Australia offering better terms and conditions, then this becomes a serious
safety issue, with inexperienced captains flying, constantly, with inexperienced first
officers. This brings me to my next point.
In the past, apart from a strict seniority system, airline pilots were paid well and the
conditions associated with the job were also good. Additionally, due to the fact the pilots
were well supported with resources to do their job well, as opposed to low cost carriers,
the job was easier. Today, however, in low cost carriers such as Jetstar this is not the case
and we are not, by world standards, well paid. Jetstar A330 pilots would be some of the
lowest paid in the western world. This manifest itself as a negative safety outcome due to
lack of retention of experienced pilots when, for instance, the new foreign airline opens
its base in Australia and for the reasons stated above there is a mass exodus of
experienced crew, leaving a hole in the experience base. It is by no accident that Australia
has the exemplary aviation safety record that it has. That it does has is, historically, due to
well structured training systems in airlines, due to stable working conditions and due to
well maintained aircraft operated by highly experienced crew. As the industry stands
now, I feel that the jury is out on what the next few years will hold if there are not
significant changes made in the legislation that allows airlines to now operate in very
different ways to that which has seen our airline safety record as the envy of the rest of
the world.
Type rating and recurrent training
I have covered the negative aspects of the way type ratings are obtained under sub section
c.
With regard to recurrent training, the point that I will make is that once trained to the
‘line’ on a particular aircraft, and apart from some recurrent courses through the year,
there really isn’t any training. The great majority of time spent in simulators is not
training at all but, instead, checking. A great deal of opportunity is missed to improve
standards by taking this approach. Yes, one has to meet a minimum standard and as long
as this is met there is no training. Once again this comes down to a lack of commitment
by these airlines to improving standards by committing funds, not to meet minimum
standards, but to exceed them.
Capacity of CASA
Casa have in the past allowed Jetstar to vary minimum industry standards to the detriment
of safety for commercial reasons. That is cost cutting.
As one example, is the reduction of required flight attendants on the Airbus A321. In
their constant pursuit of cost cutting, Jetstar approached CASA with a view of reduction
below minimum crew. This involved many changes to standard procedures to make
things work. This means that there are different procedures in place, both normal and
emergency, between the A320 and the A321. It needs to be understood that pilots and
flight attendants fly on both of these aircraft. Some flight attendants also fly on the A330.
This lack of standardisation affects safety and, adds pressure to, and makes crew jobs
more difficult. On the A321, due to the crew reduction, the cabin manager is, during
takeoff and landing, up the front by themselves, when normally and on the A320, two
crew are at the front of the aircraft. During the pre-flight briefing, passengers are required
to be asked to help with an evacuation even when all crew are conscious. It is one thing to
brief passengers on the use of an over wing exit but quite another to require them to use a
primary door just so that Jetstar can reduce the crew compliment by one. What if the
passenger wants to have an alcoholic drink or two in-flight? Are they still fit to be
assisting a flight attendant to operate doors during an emergency evacuation? During a
ditching, the procedure for the first officer is varied on the A321 when compared to the
A320 due, once again, to Jetstar reducing below minimum crew to cut costs. This means
that the first officer needs to remember to vary this procedure depending on the aircraft
type involved. All of this has a negative impact on safety, complicating further, an
already complicated operation and I feel that CASA have erred in granting this approval
to Jetstar based on commercial cost cutting and have negatively impacted safety in the
process.
This will not be the only instance of CASA approving company requests, for commercial
reasons, which have a negative impact on safety.
Legislative immunity to pilots reporting safety matters
Pilots need to be provided with legislative immunity when reporting safety operational
matters as this will encourage the reporting of such matters, without the fear of reprisal
and will thereby have a positive effect on safety.
j. other related matters
1. Fatigue risk management system
Australian airlines should be required by law to adhere to a common and acceptable
FRMS in order to combat poor and unsafe rostering practices.
2. Flight attendant training
Jetstar recently cut by around half, the training provided to cabin crew. This has resulted
in new flight attendants being stood down by both Cabin Managers and Captains due to a
lack of operational knowledge. In one instance, a crew member did not know how to arm
an aircraft door at the start of the flight even though they had completed training and had
been cleared to the line.
Airlines should have to meet acceptable training standard for flight attendant training.
3. Operating manuals
Jetstar pilots are not provided with up to date company documents for study purposes.
Instead, we are provided with a CD with these documents on them. This type of
information dissemination has a number of problems. Jetstar procedures are constantly
changing, and after being thrown a disk with thousands of pages of information, amended
as necessary, one is left with much work trying to work out what has changed. It is very
difficult to effectively study on a computer screen and in the format provided, it is not
possible to highlight text. Further, Jetstar do not provide equipment to read these disk and
don’t seem concerned that some pilots may not have a computer and therefore have no
way of accessing critical procedural information. Even our cabin crew are provided with
hard copies of their manuals. I don’t think that the travelling public would think it good
that the pilots flying their aircraft were not up to date with the latest information.
Jetstar should be required to provide its pilots with up to date manuals in hard copy form
or at least give the pilot the option of such.
4. Qantas group safety survey
A Qantas group airline safety survey has recently been conducted, with input sought from
all staff. If this information is available to this Senate enquiry, then this may provide
some interesting comparisons between the views of Qantas Airlines’ pilots and those of
their Jetstar counterparts. I feel that the views of safety in the respective airlines will be
vastly different and that Jetstar will be seen as much less safe, as an airline, by its pilots.
If this is the case, then it would show a lower level of safety in the low cost model, as
seen by the pilots, and that, in Australia, would be unacceptable.
5. Endorsement GST cost
If able, this Senate enquiry should investigate the fact that Jetstar claim the endorsement
cost GST back as a business cost and pockets this money, even though the pilot has
ultimately paid this money and not Jetstar.
6. Legislative powers granted to airline flight departments and safety departments
If able, this Senate enquiry should investigate the possibility of providing legislative
powers to airline flight department and/or safety departments so that they alone, are
responsible for the safety of the airline operation and have the power to determine how
and to where the airline will operate, with safety as its primary focus, with severe
penalties for not operating with safety as the primary focus.
Airline safety departments should be made, by law, to be separate and independent from
the commercial departments of airlines, just as the judicial system is separate from
government, in the interests of safety.
If an airline, such as Jetstar, is to maintain the ‘privilege’ of having the responsibility to
determine its own safety outcomes by the regulator, then they need to take this
responsibility seriously by allocating sufficient resources to allow safety departments to
do their work and, indeed, should be required to do so by the law. Jetstar, I feel strongly,
do not provide even nearly enough of these resources and they do not take safety nearly
seriously enough.
7. Pilot Morale
Since the inception of Jetstar in 2004 and even prior to this in Impulse Airlines, this pilot
group have ‘bent over backwards’ to ensure the success of the Airline during its
continued growth in the absence of suitable operational resources as has been explained
elsewhere in this document. They have accepted substandard wages and conditions, by
world standards, to ensure the viability of the model. All that they have expected in return
is for Jetstar management to honour the commitments, both legal and inferred, that they
have made to this group. Of particular note, are notices written by then C.E.O Allen
Joyce in the lead up to the 2008 Jetstar Pilot’s EBA vote. These notices indicated that if
the 2008 EBA was voted in the affirmative, that this would ensure that the pilots covered
by it would share in the future growth of the aircraft covered by it, most notably the
Boeing 787. The 2008 EBA was accepted by the majority of the pilot group on this basis.
As it now turns out, Jetstar decide that they are no longer willing to play by the rules set
in good faith by EBA 2008 and by contrast have decided that they will offshore, in one
instance, these jobs to overseas ports and in the second instance, start up a new contract
company within Australia, no less, featuring, no doubt, based on past performance, vastly
reduced terms and conditions. All the while reducing its wages bill and reneging on its
commitment that it made to its pilots in 2008.
The cause and effect of this is difficult to reconcile. The cause is the way that Jetstar
operate at an industrial level and is in no way covered by this Senate inquiry. The effect
however, is the potential to have a very negative safety outcome for aviation and is
therefore absolutely covered by this inquiry. I have described previously how
complicated that this Jetstar operation is and it needs no further expansion. With such an
operation however, comes a requirement for, at times, absolute concentration of thought.
In a company where a pilot, rightly or wrongly, feels to be under constant ‘attack’ this
can prove difficult. I can tell this inquiry through this submission that, rightly or wrongly,
a great deal of time on Jetstar flight decks is spent discussing the industrial relations
strategy of Jetstar management. This probably happens on every Jetstar flight deck every
day to varying degrees.
Pilots are a different employee group to any other by virtue of the fact that we tend to be
very long term. Contrary to Jetstar managements’ appalling ‘catch cry’ that they don’t
expect their pilots to last more than around five years, as we will be ‘burnt out by then’,
(this is a stolen catch cry from Ryan Air CEO Michael O’Leary) the vast majority of
pilots will be around for many years longer than this. Indeed, the average pilot will be
around many times longer than the average manager, including senior management. This
is why pilots take the future direction of a company so seriously. Long after the managers
have left, taking their KPI performance based bonuses, achieved through cost cutting,
with them, it is the new management and the long term employees who are left to pick up
the pieces and try to make things work. The attempted private equity buy out of Qantas
by, amongst others, TPG and Macquarie springs to mind and the open joy that this was
met with by then CEO Geoff Dixon, based on greed. Qantas would very probably be
bankrupt now, given that the whole transaction was based on debt and that the future, at
the time, would see the global financial crisis take place and claim a great many
companies worldwide with high debt profiles.
In my 25 years plus, in aviation, I have never seen morale amongst a group of pilots
nearly as low as that of this Jetstar group. I strongly believe that the Australian travelling
public deserve much better than to be flown around by pilots of a major Australian airline
who feel under constant threat and who are worried about their futures.
Jetstar management have, I can confirm, been warned by some very senior pilots, who
see what goes on on Jetstar flight decks, that they have a major problem in this regard.
The reply by these managers is typical, and to quote, ‘’we don’t think we have a
problem’’. I wish to state for the record, that I strongly feel that this low morale amongst
the Jetstar pilot group is a huge problem and has the potential for a negative safety
outcome.
If a solution to this problem is beyond the scope of this inquiry, then CASA should be
commissioned to recognise that the problem exists in the first instance, and to then work
with Jetstar and the pilot body to find solutions to its cause.
Conclusion;
The low cost model generally and the Jetstar model specifically, are operated with
minimum resources allocated to them in the interests of cost savings.
These airlines are operated to the limit in all areas, with the allocation of resources based
on a perfect outcome every time. In reality, however, this is never the case. As soon as
one aircraft runs late, for instance, the operation, which relies on the perfect outcome
each time, is adversely affected.
James Reason, an aviation risk expert, devised a simple model some years ago, which I
have included as a diagram. The model consists of slices of Swiss cheese lined up on end.
Each one represents a layer of resistance, representing procedures and processes that are
designed to ensure safety. Like all systems, there will be flaws and these are represented
by the holes in the cheese. Invariably, one layer will be penetrated via a hole, only to
have the next layer trap the threat and the problem is averted. When it just happens that
something goes wrong, and it so happens that all of the holes line up, then the treat gets
though each layer that is designed to trap it and the accident occurs. The first of these
layers tend to be systems and procedures controlled by senior management and are
representative of the way that the airline is run. Pilots tend to be the last layer of this
model and thereby represent the last chance to save the operation from an accident or an
incident occurring and this is often the case.
When an airline is run right to the limit every day, in all aspects, as I hope that I have
been successful in describing throughout this submission, then the odds of the holes all
lining up are vastly increased.
As detailed at the start of this submission, my name and contact details must remain
confidential and appear nowhere in any document that could reveal my identity.
SENTATE INQUIRY INTO PILOT TRAINING AND AIRLINE SAFETY
Summary
Pilot experience
An explanation of how complicated an RPT jet operation is, particularly one that is of
the low cost model and my view that it is no place for an inexperienced pilot.
USA 1500 flight hour requirement for RPT
An explanation of the Jetstar minimum experience requirements, as approved by the
regulator, the fact that these match the new USA minimum requirements for RPT and the
fact that these US requirements were introduced as a result of an accident and that we
should act prior to not after an event.
Pilot recruitment and pay for training schemes
An explanation of the way that recruitment and training in airlines used to be conducted
and that today it is not as good as then, even though the operation of low cost carriers is a
complicated one and now, the first time that a pilot will fly the aircraft is with passengers
on board.
Retention of experienced pilots
An explanation that a strict seniority system and good pay and conditions in the past
ensured that airlines retained their most experienced crew members and that today with
low cost carriers possibly having neither of these two things, that experienced pilots may
be hard to retain.
Type rating and recurrent training
An explanation that simulators are not, but could be, used to much greater effect for
recurrent training to not just meet, but to improve standards.
Capacity of CASA
An explanation that CASA have previously granted concessions to Jetstar, requested for
commercial reasons, and that these concessions have an adverse affect on safety.
Legislative immunity to pilots reporting safety matters
Self explanatory.
j. Other related matters
Self explanatory.
James Reason’s Model.

[Waghi Warrior]

The big question is will anyone take this submission at the inquiry seriously, for the simple reason that the author wants to remain unidentified, and quite rightly so.

This well written artical clearly indicates that budget airlines have destroyed the aviation industry in Australia.

[Led Zeppelin]

I would be very surprised if cadets don't meet Jetstar operations manual requirements.

There would have to be Australian regulator involvement and also an FCI/FCN (or whatever Jetstar's equivalent is) that would have the effect of an immediate ops manual amendment.

[Shell Management]

So why is it that a British LCC such as Easyjet is considered to be proactive on safety but in Australia a LCC is a threat to safety?

[Sunfish]

Please thank the anonymous pilot for a lucid and informative submission.

Jetstar is now permanently off my airline list. This is not about "preference", I mean that if a destination is only served by Jetstar, then I'm not going there by air.

Jetstar will reply that they "take safety seriously and that their operations comply with all laws and regulations."

[tiger19]

Fatigued Pilots Exposed (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/us-22424932/fatigued-pilots-exposed-24144948.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fus-22424932%252Ffatigued-pilots-exposed-24144948.html)

[breakfastburrito]

Shell management, funny I didn't notice Easyjet mentioned once in the submission. How many non-towered & non-radar aerodromes do Easyjet operated into at night? How many 30m runways? I'd take a Cat II/III approach & autoland over a night non-tower non-radar non-precision approach everyday of the week with a 200 hour cadet sitting next to me.

To the author of the submission, excellent work.

[crow17]

As an engineer in the Qantas group, all I can say is :D:D:D:D:D:D:D!

[ROH111]

Bravo!

Well worth the read, hopefully will attract the attention it deserves.

[Dangnammit]

A stone may bleed for so long....
...until it breaks.

[balance]

A great summation for which the author should be commended.

In my 25 years plus, in aviation, I have never seen morale amongst a group of pilots nearly as low as that of this Jetstar group. I strongly believe that the Australian travelling public deserve much better than to be flown around by pilots of a major Australian airline who feel under constant threat and who are worried about their futures. Jetstar management have, I can confirm, been warned by some very senior pilots, who see what goes on on Jetstar flight decks, that they have a major problem in this regard.
The reply by these managers is typical, and to quote, ‘’we don’t think we have a problem’’. I wish to state for the record, that I strongly feel that this low morale amongst the Jetstar pilot group is a huge problem and has the potential for a negative safety outcome.


Are you reading this all you journalists out there? Are you happy to go flying still? So find a way to report it! Let the people know what is really happenning. Because we have seen what happens when a pilot reports it!

Jetstar pilots, you guys need to grow a backbone. You need to fight. You need to stop saying to Qantas pilots "but you guys didn't want us, you didn't help us". No - thats because we could see what was coming. And here it is happenning.

So now we ALL need to stand up and say "NO"! EVERYBODY. Engineers, Flight Attendants, Ground Staff and Pilots alike.

The consequences if we don't? As our friend suggested above, "A NEGATIVE SAFETY OUTCOME". Aka: a smoking hole in the ground.

[tiger19]

Are you reading this Steve Creedy, would make a nice story for your Friday edition in the Australian!!!!

[xjt]

couldn't agree with you more balance.........the sad fact remains that unfortunately 50% of the J* pilot group find it acceptable to run through the day without a backbone.....We should be out there with our Qantas brothers and sisters breaking these bastards knee caps (metaphorically speaking......:cool:) . I can picture a couple of our captains writing this article, but its unfortunate that 100% do not feel the same way......To those...let it be know your gravy train is about to run dry...

[Hold_Short]

The most well written, indepth, truthful publication to discribe the aviation industry here in Australia. I take my hat off to you Red Jet, your choice of words and sensitivity to the current issues involving Jetstar are immaculate. I support you 100% and agree that this is a growing issue that needs to be changed and needs to happen now!

It is a company like Jetstar and many alike who continue to drive safety standards into the ground. After reading that submission, I will never again fly Jetstar, and havn't done so for many years because of this very information. I knew it was there but not to this extent.

When is there an senate inquiry? This needs to be backed up by current pilots, engineers and managers who strive for a safe working evironment. I am all for this to change...GET RID OF CADETSHIPS (like J*)! your ruining it for everyone!

[Datum]

Well Done for taking the time and expending the considerable effort in constructing such a solid submission. I just hope the Senate inquiry reads it fully and understands what you have written.:D:D:D:D

[Jabawocky]

Don't think it is actually Red Jet who wrote this, its copied from a submission to the senate inquiry.

[The Green Goblin]

Well done that person :D

If only more of our peers had the initiative to do the same thing.

Let's keep the bastards honest :cool:

[1a sound asleep]

Cant say I disagree with any of the content....

:ugh:RESPONSE FROM SENATE - "We have reviewed the submission and have reviewed all of the allegations. At this point there is no evidence that there has been any safety compromise. In fact Jetstar has an unblemished safety record and CASA records show an outstanding compliance profile. We do not comment on individual workplace arrangements however industry and parliamentary consultation has indicated that the airline industry is under going rapid change. Our advice is that the innovative workplace arrangements introduced by Jetstar has actually contributed to job growth in the industry sector and helped save jobs from being exported to cheaper labour markets.

[Capt Toss Parker]

Is this a whistle blower or a piss taker?

YouTube - Jet Star Pilot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3m6IkHX3M)

[balance]

Oh my farking God....

At this point there is no evidence that there has been any safety compromise.

What, straight from the horses mouth isn't enough?

Go to Safety investigations & reports (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-investigation-reports.aspx?mode=Aviation) and have a look for yourselves. There are plenty of examples where there has been a safety compromise in Jetstar.

Our advice is that the innovative workplace arrangements introduced by Jetstar has actually contributed to job growth in the industry sector and helped save jobs from being exported to cheaper labour markets.

They aren't serious are they? Jetstar are doing exactly what the enquiry has said they aren't???

JETSTAR PILOTS: THE COMPANY HAS THUMBED ITS NOSE AT YOU, NOW THE SENTATE IS TOO.

GROW A SPINE AND STAND UP TO THEM BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE (if it isn't already). THIS IS YOUR BED, YOU HAVE MADE IT. YOU NEED TO SORT IT OUT!

[Red Jet]

It is not me who have penned this Senate submission, apologies if that was not made sufficiently clear. I am in awe and admiration of the author of this work though, and hope that the message can be conveyed to the traveling public loud and clear. Ben Sandilands and Steve Creedy: there is a job to be done - this side of the story sells papers too!!

[Kemerton]

Email the forum link to Steve Creedy and see if he bites. Would look something like BloggsJ at theaustralian dot com etc

[Sunfish]

It will take not One but Three hull losses in a short time frame before the public wake up.

The managers will be long gone by then.

As for the story that "reduced working conditions have kept jobs in Australia" that is rubbish. The jobs will be moved offshore as soon as suitable arrangements can be made.

[breakfastburrito]

Just received anonymously: LINK (http://www.mediafire.com/?x8zocipjicsp82v) (missing first couple of minutes) ~30M.

[genex]

Balance,

Your descent into profanity is not welcomed in a professional arena. Grow up. Being offensive simply erodes your credibility.

Nor does complete subjectivity help your case. The use of cadet pilots may have industrial connotations but properly handled it is not necessarily a safety issue AT ALL. End of that story.

As for the Jetstar focus....in very recent times QF mainline crews destroyed a 747 at Bangkok, flew a 767 straight through a thunderstorm at OOL, descended way too close to terrain in a 737 near CCK, came very close to losing two 737s, one in an approach to BNE under a clearly evident microburst and the other to very simple incompetence in fuel management en-route to SYD.

Maybe it's time for a Senate Enquiry into QF mainline training and standards? Maybe QF's protected and privileged position has given their pilots and 217 system a cosy sense of invulnerability and smugness that needs a wake up call here and now before it gets any worse. Maybe?

[Teal]

It's now making news in the broadsheet papers -

Cost cutting eroding airline safety: Jetstar pilot trainer (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/cost-cutting-eroding-airline-safety-jetstar-pilot-trainer-20110215-1auun.html)

Cost cutting eroding airline safety: Jetstar pilot trainer

February 15, 2011 - 4:48PM

Airline safety is being eroded as operators cut crew training time and other costs, a senior pilot trainer has warned.

Geoff Klouth, an A320 training captain with budget carrier Jetstar Airways, said a drop in training standards and checks had prompted him to make a submission to a Senate inquiry into airline safety.

"Safety margins that were a normal part of the aviation industries and which contributed to Australia's safety record have been and are being eroded to a point where airlines' safety can no longer be considered as a given," Mr Klouth told the inquiry in Canberra on Tuesday.

He said insufficient pilot and cabin crew training, poor rostering leading to increased fatigue and an overall reduction in resources were cause for concern.
Airlines had cut the training time for cabin crew and were relying more on cadet pilots to drive down their operating costs, Mr Klouth said.

Under the training system cadets effectively ended up paying an airline for their qualifications.

"The cadets at Jetstar I have just finished training, one of the cadets is getting paid in New Zealand dollars but is required to pay back his training in Australian dollars," he said.

The New Zealand currency has depreciated 6.4 per cent against the Australian dollar since June 30, 2010.

Mr Klouth said shortening the training time for cabin crew had implications for the operation of the aircraft and passenger safety.

"If you are crammed with six weeks' worth of knowledge in three weeks, it is inevitable that you are not going to be able to recall all the important pieces of information that you need to," he said.

Mr Klouth recommended to the committee that training for a commercial pilot's licence be a minimum of 1500 hours and all airlines should release their draft or final reports on safety incidents to the ATSB.

AAP

[Jabawocky]

I gather he has a job somewhere else........ :sad:

[Captahab]

Well done Genex!

At the time when airline pilots in this country need to start uniting to keep the industry viable and stand up to increasingly vindictive management, you post more of your anti-Qantas vitriol.

Shark Patrol, I dont see a problem with Genex's post, its a statement of fact.

The problem is now that the precious mainline conditions etc are being threatened they suddenly want to unite.

They didn't want to know Qlink, Sunstate or the embryonic state of Jetstar a few years ago when they thought it wasn't going to effect them.

The wheel turns doesn't it :=

[Shark Patrol]

Try not to live in the past Ahab, and you might just have a future. Keep indulging the chip on you're shoulder and you'll be undercut as well.

None so blind as those who cannot see. In your case you cannot see that the only way that Jetstar (or any other Australian pilot for that matter) has a chance of preserving what they have now, is by supporting the Qantas case.

Keep bending over Ahab and you're just gonna keep getting shafted!!!

[404 Titan]

Captahab

It’s not a statement of fact. It’s his/her opinion. I think you will also find if you do your homework that most of the posts and complaints about J* management are from J* pilots not QF though I am sure most QF drivers would support their stance.

genex

The use of cadet pilots may have industrial connotations but properly handled it is not necessarily a safety issue AT ALL. End of that story.

You want to prove that statement, after all it is an opinion of what you may think not a statement of fact.

By the way if you haven't already been told it is very bad Karma pointing the bone at another airlines mistakes especially when you can't even get the facts correct in the first place.

[Cactusjack]

Captain Toss Parker - GOLD !!!!
I am very very pleased to see you extending your humour beyond the bounds of CX pi#s taking and into JQ ! Keep up the good work, i love it....

[Lookleft]

All this was said with parliamentary privalege so I kthink you will find that if Jetstar try and sack him then it will be them looking for a job.

[teresa green]

Sadly this pilot has now been named on the SMH website. If I were you JQ, rather than condemn him (which is what you will do) and deny all, I suggest you read what he has to say, address the issue, and then assure the public any complaints from pilots are a serious matter, and the company takes them seriously and the matter will be addressed. (If only).

[balance]

Genex. Now isn't the time for your usual anti QF slanging. Just don't bother.

Sadly this pilot has now been named on the SMH website. If I were you JQ, rather than condemn him (which is what you will do) and deny all, I suggest you read what he has to say, address the issue, and then assure the public any complaints from pilots are a serious matter, and the company takes them seriously and the matter will be addressed. (If only).

Agreed, Teresa. Makes a nice change, doesn't it? :ok:

[PLovett]

We haven't got to the end of page 2 and already you can see how airline management has managed to rape and pillage their flight crews. Gentlemen, and I use the term advisedly, there is little to be gained by finger pointing and insulting each other - the common enemy is elsewhere. Continued sniping at each other only allows the companies to divide and rule.

Jaba, Capt Klouth has confirmed something that was related to me by a Jetstar employee that Jetstar has contracted for the lowest cost training and A320 endorsement possible. There is no allowance for more detailed training due to of the lack of experience by the cadets.

[gobbledock]

He has confirmed something that was related to me by a Jetstar employee that Jetstar has contracted for the lowest cost training and A320 endorsement possible.
And of course they conducted a detailed risk assessment on the proposed method of training and all its components before opting for this particular endorsement course ? Of course, how silly of me, safety before profit !

[genex]

Gentlemen,

I live for a lot more than to indulge in slanging at anyone. I have a lot of QF shares and no desire to bucket them, my fellow pilots or indeed anyone else-even those who find themselves rather short of civility and apparently of experience as well.

The issue of cadets has many facets and safety will only arise as one of them if training is neglected or rushed. That is a fact and well proven. If the general contention is that there is something inherent within JQ that it will necessarily neglect or rush the cadet training then that issue and that alone must be raised. That cadets may or may not be faced with impoverishment is a choice for them to make. Qantas pilots had a chance to get a scope clause many moons back....didn't have the strength to act to secure their future then and now cadets and off-shore T & C are a fact.

As for the QF incidents. They are facts, not slanging. I am sad that they happened. I'd be sad if they happened to any other carrier too. There is no joy in ineptness ever, specially in a cockpit with live bodies down the back. The ATSB slammed Qantas after BKK just as they should have and just as I hope they do for any other carrier whose pilots similarly stuff up. That's any carrier from NASA to Air Bazurkistan. The point I was trying to make was that this stuff happens to all carriers. Some of the notable recent clangers have come from major established carriers: Air France (Toronto), Southwest (Midway), American (Jamaica). It is a very foolish pilot who only ever points the fingers at others. Humility may not be a popularly understood attribute for good pilots to develop: it is however indispensable for good pilots to be say often: "There but for the grace of God go I"....I cannot find it within my capability to see any difference between a near hull loss on a poorly flown go-around and a near hull loss on a go around from an approach that should never have been attempted. Both are poor piloting whoever was at the controls and whatever logo is on the tail.

Unity is the only future pilots have.....but right now there are precious few believers of that concept even in pilot ranks. The truth is that the forces arrayed against a "good" group-wide outcome for pilots are probably darker, well-led and more unified than was even the case in 1989.

Good luck.

[Sir Donald]

Shell managemmmmmnt wrote
So why is it that a British LCC such as Easyjet is considered to be proactive on safety but in Australia a LCC is a threat to safety?

Ahh the European LCC chestnut.
Are you familiar with the stickshaker incident at Bordeaux, which happened during a circling approach?
Or the circling approach that was done on the wrong side, at another airport,only two of many close call instances that never make the papers or fare paying public, where inexperienced European LCC style pilots were at the controls?

No I didn't think so but you keep to your statistical approach to safety!

[Capt Toss Dudley]

Congratulations GK there should be more pilots like you, you are an inspiration
to the future of all pilots in Australia.

We need more pilots like yourself to stand up to these so called bean counters, and of course THE so called MANAGEMENT of these low cost airlines.

Keep up the good work..

Capt T D

[Jack Ranga]

"The cadets at Jetstar I have just finished training, one of the cadets is getting paid in New Zealand dollars but is required to pay back his training in Australian dollars," he said.

The New Zealand currency has depreciated 6.4 per cent against the Australian dollar since June 30, 2010.

mmmmm, did said gen y'er do his/her research before forking out?

caveat emptor............eh, eh!

[mcgrath50]

I don't think Gen Y is to blame for this. Shiny Jet Syndrome has been alive and well for years, it's just only started to be exploited!

[teresa green]

Capt. Toss, having listened to your rather amusing (and horribly close to reality!) account of airline life, you seem very young for a command at 23. At exactly what age did you become a JQ cadet? And how many hours have you logged.

[Capt Toss Dudley]

Well Teresa
Just for the record I am not a JQ cadet nor do I have command experience on jet or turboprop, having said that I do have substantial twin piston time in my book.

My comments, there above are only true with the hope that terms, conditions and safety are not eroded by the time I get the opportunity to fly a big new shiny Jet.

Capt T D

[Back Seat Driver]

genex
The ATSB slammed Qantas after BKK just as they should have and just as I hope they do for any other carrier whose pilots similarly stuff up.

ATSB Media Release (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2001/release/2001_11.aspx)
Like most major accidents, QF1 resulted from a complex mixture of active failures, inadequate defences and organisational factors - these are spelled out in our investigation report without fear or favour but not apportioning 'blame'."

Thank-you for your own personal accident analysis which goes beyond the official report. I see you're still a d!ckhead.

[Jack Ranga]

macca,

It's not very wise to bet your left one, doesn't matter how sure the bet, but I'm very close to making a decision on betting the left one that at least 90% of these cadets are gen y.

The best thing about this scheme is that gen y will get a very good lesson on compound interest and debt service. Something that other generations learnt from purchasing a home. At least these generations will have somewhere to live when they retire :ok:

[Capt Toss Dudley]

Teresa

No! I am not JQ cadet. I come recently from GA

Cheers
Capt T D

[mcgrath50]

Oh I'm sure Gen Y is the majority of all cadets. At worst late Gen X. But as a member of Gen Y (who is not a Jetstar cadet) I like to think that it's a issue of Naivety from being young not being part of Gen Y.

[Harbour Dweller]

G'day Capt Toss Dudley,

Would you be any relation to another Gods gift aviator who keeps us mere mortals in check with his ace of base skills and supreme knowledge gained on the mighty Caribou?

A military man from memory with a special passion for GA folk like your young self.

[Capt Toss Parker]

No it's a different TOSS .... I am the original and the finest

But as we all know there are lot's of Toss's out there in this wonderful industry!

:E

[sumtingwong]

QF, JQ, VB, CX Impulse, Tiger, Ansett. Gen Y A B C or Z. -At this point who gives a f*&^k. Perhaps what matters is that another thread about pilot unity gone to s^&t. The industry if not already there is next.

Awaiting the inevitable naysayers

[AnQrKa]

I can’t find anything in the author’s long document that has not applied to airlines I have flown for in the past or present.

200 hour cadet’s – been there, done that. Standard practice around the world.
Hard work with fatigue – yep, all the time.
Manual load sheets – all the time.
Flight plan errors – finding these is part of your job I thought.
Cabin crew working different types – again, very common.

But my favorite from the document – FCOM on CD.

Goodness JQ are a mean and nasty bunch of people forcing pilots to study from a computer.

If you think that the aim of the game is ZERO accidents then you are sadly mistaken

[Sunfish]

Stupid pontificating, nit picking, tossers!!!!!

I know that some of you understand exactly why the FAA mandated 1500 hrs. experience.

Do you know why it was done so quickly and with so little opposition from the rest of the industry?

The answer to that is SHAME, pure and simple.

Read the transcript linked below of the Colgan Buffalo crash CVR.

F**k the technical details -, you are listening to Two badly trained and inexperienced pilots, both badly paid and with money worries operating in rotten working conditions in a sick, cost cutting, corporate culture. For both of the pilots, this was "just a job", and a not very good one at that.



Do you want to be reading a similar transcript from a Jetstar or Qantas cockpit one day?


Read the full transcript and weep.



http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/418693.pdf



Extracts which just jumped out of the pages at me.




21:32:13.0
HOT-2
they didn't do a twenty four hour ice protection test.


21:35:15.0
HOT-2
I've written— I mean I've written other planes up before. just not from—
with Colgan.



21:35:59.0
HOT-1
that way if I screw up and write it up one way and it grounds the airplane
but it's not— it's not exactly or I could write it up slightly different to get an
MEL to get it back to where you can do maintenance type of deal.


21:46:22.0
HOT-1
right.
21:46:22.9
HOT-2
depending you know how— how long would it be to make that worth my
while. would it— would I make more money upgrading into the Saab right
away or would I make more money if I waited for the Q for a little while.
21:46:32.6
HOT-1
well think of it this way uh if you— if you stayed on the on the Q obviously
you're gonna— you're not making the captain rate.
21:46:42.0
HOT-2
right.
21:46:42.5
HOT-1
but you may have a better quality of life to begin with uhh with regards to
buying a house and having a schedule to where you you know you could
work around and you could be—
21:46:55.3
HOT-2
exactly.
21:46:55.6
HOT-1
you know home with your husband to to take care of all that kind of stuff.


........

21:47:13.5
HOT-2
just because I don't want to commute my whole life...so um once I do
upgrade you know once once Alaska starts hiring I don't— I mean I don't
necessarily have to have a thousand hours PIC. I need to have some PIC.
21:47:25.7
HOT-1
you don't have to with uh Alaska?
21:47:26.8
HOT-2
um it it depends. you you you do and on paper you do but it just— it it
depends who you know. if you know people then you can kind of sneak
away with it a little bit. I definitely need to have you know the proper
experience you need to be qualified. but if I have—.
21:47:36.6
HOT-1
huh...sure.
21:47:40.4
HOT-2
you know if at about five hundred hours they said to to go and interview
and then I can interview and they can say we want you to have a
thousand hours. so once you get a thousand hours um we're gonna put
you into ground school. they'll say stuff like that.


...21:48:27.2
HOT-1
uh not too far from where he lives. but uh.
21:48:36.3
HOT-2
yeah I wouldn't mind— you know I could even see myself doing like I
mean for quality of life I could see myself doing cargo stuff and just I
mean like small stuff like there's a company that flies right out of my
hometown to Spokane Washington and back every night.
21:48:36.7
HOT-1
that's just—.
21:48:49.5
HOT
[tones similar to ACARS message reception]
21:48:51.2
HOT-2
and I'd do that three nights a week and be home. I could have kids and
raise a family. and I think that that might be more worth my while.
something like that.


21:49:18.3
HOT-1
I've gotta do this. I've gotta— I'm ready to move on. um [sound similar to
yawn] excuse me. it's kind of like me. you know I started this this little gig
late in life.
21:49:28.7
HOT-2
yeah.
21:49:28.9
HOT-1
oh it's like it's a second career for me basically because I— I was able to
take that package with Verizon.
21:49:34.1
HOT-2
yeah.
21:49:35.5
HOT-1
but uh...you know it's...you know do I— g— at this point do I go to a major
and you know not be able to be there for very long.


.21:50:03.4
HOT-1
uh and just and and dwell upon the quality of life part of it or do I stay here
with Colgan and uh...


22:12:05.0
HOT-2
I've never seen icing conditions. I've never deiced. I've never seen any—
I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that
and make those kinds of calls. you know I'dve freaked out. I'dve have like
seen this much ice and thought oh my gosh we were going to crash.

[teresa green]

That just makes us old blokes squirm.

[Jack Ranga]

But as a member of Gen Y (who is not a Jetstar cadet) I like to think that it's a issue of Naivety from being young not being part of Gen Y.


Yeah mate, I admit it's easy to make generalisations. But I'm wondering where these guys parents are, if my kid came to me asking what I thought I'd be pointing out what they are setting themselves up for? Do they understand how far behind the eight ball they are putting themselves? They will not even be able to get a second job to chip away at the debt.

Naivety in this case is a little hard to justify, if you are intelligent enough to get yourself a CPL, ME-CIR etc you should have the smarts to be able to workout how much of a rip off this scheme is.

It keeps coming back to the return on investment you are getting, at the end of 7 years (or whatever it is) who knows where pilot conditions will be?

[TIMA9X]

Passenger safety 'at risk due to cost cutting' | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/cost-cutting-putting-air-safety-at-risk/story-e6frfq80-1226006868540)
"The cadets at Jetstar I have just finished training, one of the cadets is getting paid in New Zealand dollars but is required to pay back his training in Australian dollars,'' he said.

Training Costs......it just never ends, no wonder pilots get grumpy....

[wishiwasupthere]

Passenger safety 'at risk due to cost cutting' | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/cost-cutting-putting-air-safety-at-risk/comments-e6frfq80-1226006868540)

The comments on the above article are worth reading. If its any indication of wider public perceptions, it seems the general public can see past all the CEO smoke and mirrors.

[oicur12.again]

Sir Donald,

Easyjet operate 170 plus planes. Many many sectors.

Are you really painting the LCC model with some isolated example such as "the circling incident"? Every airline has a similar skeleton in the closet.

What’s the point? Move on, no statistics support the “Low salary pilot is more accident prone” money driven argument.

Look at who has goofed here in my neighborhood lately,

UPS FEDEX (numerous times) Continental Southwest American (twice)

[Sir Donald]

oicur12.again,
Your post sums up your appreciation or knowledge of what this is all about and it ain't about priapism!(but don't hold back from paying for your so called job)
However feel free to take heed from Sunfish's post above.

[metrosmoker]

Hardly a whistleblower. Much like the last infamous article. There no revelation of illegal practices.
Some practices could be argued as unsafe, they would have to be argued. If the company is compling with the regulations, then they can throw it back on CASA.

One of the posts earlier aludes to AIPA having the foresight to see what was going to happen in the future. If AIPA had such foresight, they would have tried to represent J* pilots form the start. And then steered the pilot body on the directon that would have been most beneficial.

As for the Buffalo crash and the fact that the pilots had slept in crew rooms and had been awake for X number of hours. How many Emirates pilots would like to live in Australia and still fly for Emirates. I bet a lot. But the job is in Dubai, not Australia. If you want the job, then move there.
You all moved for G.A jobs over the years, but now you are an airline pilot, you should only have to live in the city of your choice. You guys bitch and whinge about Gen Y, have a look at yourselves.!
As for pay, $17000 as a starting salary in the U.S, and yet plenty of guys lining up for the jobs. We got along way to go before we are going to win the wage argument.
Stop foreign workers being allowed to fly in Australia under the guise of 'tag' flights, and you will go along way to stopping BB and J* march.

[oicur12.again]

Sir donald,

You have made the common pprune mistake of ASSuming that I have chosen a line of argument to fit my personal agenda.

I am not a Jetstar cadet applicant, far from it. In fact my only agenda in aviation is to exit stage left as soon as financially possible.

But shooting the breeze with low brow thinkers like you keeps me entertained on night stops.

So can you enlighten me - what exactly DO YOU think this debate is all about?

Safety? Or maintaining the good ol boys club?

Over to you.

[fridge magnet]

As for the Buffalo crash and the fact that the pilots had slept in crew rooms and had been awake for X number of hours. How many Emirates pilots would like to live in Australia and still fly for Emirates. I bet a lot. But the job is in Dubai, not Australia. If you want the job, then move there.
I have to correct this shallow statement. In the US T&C's are so poor many (usually with families) cant afford to live where the company bases them. This is why pilots are paxing in from their home city before duty and sleeping in the crew room. Some do it properly if you count having a quick sleep at a trailer park before a duty.

A mate of mine in the US qualified for social security while he was a Dash8 F/O for a major carrier. He got a LHS on CRJ fairly quickly but then got based in a city he couldn't afford to move his family to. After the second hull loss in the company due to pilot error he just walked away in fear of his life. Luckily his family had some money to help him do this and he scored a better gig. But he left behind thousands of people who can't get out (due training debt) and cant get an upgrade either due to industry downturn. These people can't give their job 100% because they spend most of their effort just surviving and working out how to feed their families. A great state of mind to be operating aircraft - not.

[Sunfish]

Fridge magnet gets it - its the totality of the pilots environment.

Individually, nothing is really illegal or substandard, however when you look at the Colgan crash, you see the totality:

Poorly paid, overworked, under-trained, wage slaves trying to make ends meet in a sick, cost cutting, corporate culture.

Read the transcript and weep.

[metrosmoker]

For F%^K Sake, cry me a river fridge magnet.
If you can`t afford to live on the salary the job pays, then you can`t afford the job.
Or is it somehow different over there where it is okay to work for sub standard pay and conditions, but in Australia it is not? Apparently our pay and conditions aren`t that bad as I am continually reminded here. Enough of you keep reminding us about all the better jobs out there compared to Jet*.

Explain to me the difference.
Did you ever work more than one job to pay the bills?
Did you ever move for a job?
Have you ever lived somewhere you didn`t want to for a job?
I can gaurantee half the wives and girlfriends I meet in Darwin aren`t real happy living up here, but do so for there partners career.
But again, that would be somehow different as well,

[fridge magnet]

Metro, wont catch me crying. I did all those things you asked in the eighties and got into QF as a result.

What I'm not impressed about is looming mistakes being made during industrial trasformation within the Australian industry. The US sets an example of where it is not worthwhile going. I have nothing against economic reform but have no faith that our bosses know what they are doing.

[Slippery_Pete]

Approximately 8 or so years ago when this pay for endorsement stuff started, I came on Prune very vocally and said it was the beginning of the end.

I stated we needed to stick together, encouraged mass union support and tried to make it clear that the airlines would be the only winners.

I was ridiculed by scabs (who were jumping the experience queue buying jobs at J* and Virgin) as an idealist who was letting the world pass me by.

Now I listen to those same people complain about cadets paying for training.

We have no-one else to blame than ourselves.

The airlines wanted to screw our conditions, and we stood by and watched.

[Ngineer]

So how does it feel when they find a cheaper and nastier replacement????:eek:

[Icarus2001]

Jetstar management are running an experiment.

How low can we go with experience levels and therefore pay and conditions and still operate aircraft "safely".

There is only ONE PERSON who will carry the responsibility for any broken aircraft, injured passengers or cabin crew and that is the PILOT IN COMMAND.

If a cadet rounds out late and bounces it down the runway breaking the aircraft and causing injuries, the PIC will be asked why he or she did not take over.

CAR 224

2. The pilot in command is responsible for;

(b) The operation and the safety of the aircraft during flight time; and
(c) The safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) The conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

So although it could be argued that airline management run the risk of tarnishing their brand with an accident, the reality is that the PIC carries most of the responsibility by law. Garuda killed plenty of Australians at Yogjakarta but they seem to have no problem filling their aircraft with happy holidaymakers on their way to Bali.

The PIC on flights with low time cadet FOs will carry a huge responsibility. If this is managed well, ie well trained supervisory Captains then it will work for them and aviation will head down the road of the maritime industry. Low paid foreign workers and low paid local cadets trying to escape to something better. Ships of shame and flags of convenience. Bruce has already announced asian crews are wanted for their operations.

[Sand dune Sam]

oh well, at the end of the day, its called reaping what one sows......the Impulse guys started it, they know it, they are the top 100 or so guys at Jetstar....they and the other guys now have to live with it...they paid for their initial rating on turboprops in the 90's, then flew 717's, then A320's on the cheap, then they vote yes to EBA's when everybody else votes no.....they have no qualms undercutting mainline guys or anybody else to do it..

Another thing, why join Jetstar, knowing what they are like, and then 12 months later start whinging about how pathetic and cheap they are?....no offence, but no point being a whistleblower if only 12 or so months before you signed a contract to be a pilot with them...it's like the new girlfriend trying to tame the wild boyfriend..its only going to end in tears.......:{

[3 Holer]

Approximately 8 or so years ago when this pay for endorsement stuff started, I came on Prune very vocally and said it was the beginning of the end.........................................

...................and what was your User Name then Pete?;)

[genex]

Sand Dune Same

That is the most pathetic, puerile, self centred piece of drivel I have ever read on Prune and let me tell you, you beat some pretty significant competition to get to the top of the heap.

Qantas pilots left the AFAP 30 years back to look after themselves. They repeated the "me first" exercise in 1989. They repeated it again by shutting out Impulse (also Air Express, Jet Connect etc) when it was wholly owned by QF and they steadfastly refused to ever build the wherewithal emotionally and industrially to get a scope clause and ensure that any pilot working for the Group had the chance to qualify on any type according to Group seniority. Then they, the mainline AIPA puppets come on these forums and bleat that non-mainline pilots should fight to the last drop of their blood and give up the right to ever fly shiny jets just to keep the mainline EBA in its inflated, featherbedded secure cocoon.

I am astounded at your audacity, staggered by your lack of humility, appalled by your ignorance and stunned by your selfishness.

[Hugh Jarse]

Perhaps what you say is correct, genex. To a point ;)

However, what Sand Dune Sam writes is definitely and absolutely correct :ok:

Tally-ho!:}

[Shark Patrol]

That is the most pathetic, puerile, self centred piece of drivel I have ever read on Prune

Sorry Genex, were you talking about SDS's post, or were you previewing the "self centred piece of drivel" you were about to write?

[genex]

OK....here's a genuine offer.

$1000 to your favourite charity and I promise never to post on Prune again if someone will explain to me concisely, carefully and in practical terms:

1. what exactly should a pilot have done, years back, or even now, when the only job offered in Australia WASN'T with Qantas mainline and there was no prospect of ever being hired by a "full service-high wage" carrier.

and.....

2. If my final years salary as a domestic jet captain in 1989 was indexed to inflation I would think it would by now be something similar to the salary of a senior Qantas S/O. Why is it so?

Serious answers only....on another thread if need be.

[Jack Ranga]

1. what exactly should a pilot have done, years back, or even now, when the only job offered in Australia WASN'T with Qantas mainline and there was no prospect of ever being hired by a "full service-high wage" carrier.


How many thousands of commercial pilots do you reckon there are that missed out due timing? I know a few.

How many hundreds of pilots do you reckon there are that stuck it out during these times, built experience, waited their turn and made it into mainline? I know a few of these as well.

Answer? Don't pay for endorsements at any level, give your employer a return of service or pay for the endorsement when you leave early. Wait your 'turn'

Don't buy yourself a jet job.

Some of you lot are pretty thick, you think it's the way of the world. You need to get out a little and see what employers pay for these days.

[Keg]

If my final years salary as a domestic jet captain in 1989 was indexed to inflation I would think it would by now be something similar to the salary of a senior Qantas S/O.

What was your final year's salary? How many hours did you fly? I'll crunch the numbers.

Interesting how your still jaded view of AIPA comes from a time when they left AFAP due to being continually done over by the higher number of domestic pilots and then AIPA's refusal to join the AFAP in giving themselves both barrels to the feet. I guess you could argue that it was the AFAPs self interest that forced AIPA to look after their own self interest.... and yet now you criticise AIPA for trying to do something that the AFAP didn't care about in the early '80s- taking care of ALL the pilots they cover, not just those with the numbers.

[Shark Patrol]

Genex,

Question 1:

What should a pilot have done? As has already been said, HOLD OUT. If nobody rushed in to take the deal ahead of the pack behind them, the package offered would have had to improve. This argument was also made 8 years ago, but those advocating this approach were labelled silvertails by those with Shiny Jet Syndrome. The argument was lost because there were too many who were prepared to accept the miserable (compared to Qantas mainline) package that was on offer.

Question 2:

The pay level struck for S/Os is a straight mathematical application of the money paid to Captains - that's it! Are they overpaid for what they do? This argument has raged here for years, but my firm belief is that one group of pilots should NEVER EVER attack the conditions of another pilot group. Given that Qantas flies with a CPT, F/O and 2 S/Os to Europe from Asia whereas British Airways flies the same sector with 2 CPTs and 2 F/Os, I would sggest the S/Os are good value for money. Nobody joins Qantas to be an S/O, I'm sure, but in the current stagnation due to Jetstar, Jetstar NZ, Jeconnect, Jetstar International, Jetstar ???? they have little choice.

Finally, let me make this clear for you Genex: this dispute is just as much about protecting YOUR conditions as it is about protecting ours. Do you think the QF group would pay you ONE MORE CENT to do your job if mainline was eradicated? And with mainline gone, who do you think would be the next tall poppy to be lopped??

[oicur12.again]

Slippery,

What is the "beginning of the end" you refer to. What do you think the endgame will look like.

And what is the experience que you refer to. Who determines how much waiting is acceptable.

[Sand dune Sam]

genex..I dont think what I wrote was as you described....putting it another way, there is no point complaining about matters now after you join a company knowing what they are like...aimed at whistleblowers.....I'm not attacking Jetstar guys, I have good mates there...and allot of those guys are happy with their lot....and good on them if they are happy.

You want to talk about purile drivel, I think enough of that has come from the mouths of bitter 89ers on these forums over the years than from anyone..:ugh:

[Mstr Caution]

Another thing, why join Jetstar, knowing what they are like, and then 12 months later start whinging about how pathetic and cheap they are?....


1. what exactly should a pilot have done, years back, or even now, when the only job offered in Australia WASN'T with Qantas mainline and there was no prospect of ever being hired by a "full service-high wage" carrier.




J* was seen as the growth vehicle, employment on a jet otherwise earlier than what would have been the case.

Then once employed at J* the opportunity for a quicker than otherwise promotion.

How many guys & girls at J* have transferred to mainline operations since the 2004 MOU? ZERO!

Admittedly, only available to those employed at J* pre 2004.

How many guys & girls at J* had applications at Qantas Mainline when they were recruiting up till 2009. I've been told from a reliable source, he couldnt recall any.

MC

['holic]

Genex,

Fair dinkum, what happened, did a mainline pilot get your Mrs pregnant?

Reading your posts, Qantas pilots have been responsible for the GFC, both world wars and small pox.

Every single sentence in your previous post is wrong which, I believe, is a new record for Pprune:ok: I could argue each facet of your post with you, but what would be the point? Whenever someone provides a reasonable argument to your crap, you just skulk off for a few weeks and then return to post the same crap again.

You can see a psychologist about it, you know. Really .... you can even claim it on medicare.

[LeadSled]

------ when they left AFAP due to being continually done over by the higher number of domestic pilots and then AIPA's refusal to join the AFAP in giving themselves both barrels to the feet. I guess you could argue that it was the AFAPs self interest that forced AIPA to look after their own self interest.... and yet now you criticise AIPA for trying to do something that the AFAP didn't care about in the early '80s- taking care of ALL the pilots they cover, not just those with the numbers.

Keg,
That's a pretty accurate short summary.

If AIPA (ne.the "Overseas Branch" of the AFAP) in those days had gone along with the Melbourne AFAP push, and their neanderthal approach to change, arguably QF would have disappeared from the scene.

Just to remind a few of you, AFAP directives required 3 man crews on any aircraft more than 100 pax seats, (remember the Ansett B767, TAA had already fought and lost a strike for three pilot B737) rejected "glass" cockpits, reduced power takeoffs, intersection departures etc etc etc.

Not a "problem" ( except for the traveling public's ticket prices ) in the then cost plus world of Australia under the two airline agreement, but a financial noose around the neck in the competitive international market.

In 1989 our then AIPA President addressed a meeting of domestic pilots in Melbourne, told them that politically they would not beat one R.J.L.Hawke ( and an Australian board far more hawkish than one E.H.P.Abeles at Ansett) ---- his views were howled down.

As we soon saw, the then AIPA President was vindicated.

Tootle pip!!

[balance]

Genex really isn't worth replying to. He is a bitter troll, and by replying, you guys are feeding him. I suggest, don't.

Sam Dune Sam. Well said.

Mstr Caution, be careful with those thoughts, I've known a few Jetcancer / Implausible pilots who were knocked back by Qantas, some of them more than once. One or two I wouldn't let my missus and kids fly with, and they are still flying bigger and better than before. Its a worry, and probably only a matter of time before something happens.

[Slippery_Pete]

Most argued they had no choice


Exactly, Blue Foot. They rolled over and selfishly looked after themselves by paying for a Virgin or Jetstar endorsement. It's funny how the majority of pilots talk the talk, but when it comes crunch time, they will do whatever it takes for their own short term gain.

oicur12.again:

What is the "beginning of the end" you refer to. What do you think the endgame will look like.


The endgame is where pilots will no longer be high income earners. We will work massive hours with minimum rest, be away from family for long periods of time, shoulder massive responsibility and have to fight for our jobs every 3 months in the sim... and get paid average wages for the privelege, while paying off a 35k endorsement. That's what the endgame will look like - when the trade off between how much you give/how much you get is so pathetic you're better off cleaner the sh*tters in the airport than flying the aircraft.

And what is the experience que you refer to. Who determines how much waiting is acceptable.

The experience queue is the traditional employment route - while it obviously depends on sim & interview performance, generally the higher experienced were better pilots, and got the jobs first.

3 Holer...

My username and all my posts were subsequently deleted at my request by a moderator I PM'd - I feared my identity was compromised and wanted to protect my identity from my employer.

Putting the safety issues aside as a whole separate issue...

I refuse to listen to a J* pilot who paid for their endorsement complain about cadets. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Lookleft]

You blokes are priceless. The title of this thread suggests that it is the Jetstar pilots who are trying to get the message out there about the current state of the industry and all you can do is suggest that they are destroying the industry. Other than AIPA I haven't seen too many Qantas pilots put in submissions and go before the Committee to express their deeply held concerns about aviation safety and the role of the Jetstar pilot in driving it down.

[VSubC]

"Other than AIPA I haven't seen too many Qantas pilots put in submissions and go before the Committee to express their deeply held concerns about aviation safety ..."

Some would call that UNITY ...............

[balance]

Other than AIPA I haven't seen too many Qantas pilots put in submissions and go before the Committee to express their deeply held concerns about aviation safety and the role of the Jetstar pilot in driving it down.

And by your warped logic, that means that Jetstar pilots AREN'T driving it down by their actions (or lack thereof)? Spare me.

all you can do is suggest that they are destroying the industry.

Yup.

[Lookleft]

Obviously with your superior logic by saying nothing and doing nothing you are enhancing the aviation industry? By speaking out Jetstar pilots are raising the issue of safety in the industry. Don't confuse industrial issues with operational issues. I'm also finding it difficult to follow your logic that says if you didn't get into qantas then you are a second rate pilot.

[oicur12.again]

“We will work massive hours with minimum rest”.

Really. Is CASA planning on introducing new flight time limitations for pilots? I was not aware.

“be away from family for long periods of time”.

Wow, longer than the 12 days away my QF chums already do? And why do you draw a parallel between self-funded training and resulting trip length?

“shoulder massive responsibility”

As apposed to now where . . . . someone else takes responsibility?

“have to fight for our jobs every 3 months in the sim”

Again, why would this change?

“while paying off a 35k endorsement.”

OK, so lets assume this is completed within several years. Hardly a big cost when compared to the following 35 years of airline career.

“traditional”. Hardly a reason to maintain the status quo just because that’s how you did it?

But good scare mongering though.

[breakfastburrito]

You cherry picked his quote, my bold.
We will work massive hours with minimum rest, be away from family for long periods of time, shoulder massive responsibility and have to fight for our jobs every 3 months in the sim... and get paid average wages for the privelege, while paying off a 35k endorsement
If, as it has been reported is correct, j* cadets are on NZD42K, but effectively based in Oz then his assertion is already happening. NZD42K ~= AUD32K which is actually about half the Oz average wage, and only 5K above minimum wage for a 35 hour week.

[Kangaroo Court]

...and still no shortage of idiots who have been warned, but continue to pay into this scam, because, "...that's the way it's done now".

[Slippery_Pete]

oicur12.again,

Thanks to breakfast burrito I won't have to explain to you the point of my post you completely missed - not that it was rocket science.

While I may be wrong, you and lookleft both sound like J* pilots.
If in fact you are, enjoy the cadets mate as they are here to stay - and you and pilots like you started it by buying up jobs - there is no one else to blame than yourselves.

The are only two main differences between you and J* cadets:
1. they managed to save up a hell of a lot more money than you (180k compared to 35k)
2. you should have known better (their naivety can be understood).

If you are infact not a J* pilot, I hope you are saving up your 35k... You'll fit right in.

[Slippery_Pete]

Recruitment of DE has pretty much completely stopped from what I've heard. Several people I know who are on the hold file have been contacted to say no Australian based jobs can be expected from here on.

It's either an overseas base or cadets only :D

[Capt Kremin]

Australian based jobs can be expected, but only if you sign the NZ based individual contract and take LWOP to be able to fly in Australia at substandard NZ conditions.

[Red777]

Yet again another ****** who is trying to stir **** about a mate of mine.

Capt Toss Dudley, grow a pair of balls and stop pretending your Mr Dudley...clearly you have a massive chip on your shoulder that he is in a far better position then you. Shame to see you have to resort to rubishing a great bloke and fine aviator..

do us all a fav and F*&K off and stop dribbling crap you know nothing about!