PDA

View Full Version : Tiger bonding


rodney rude
15th Aug 2016, 22:50
Just wondering if it's true that Tiger will apply a 2 year bond for the transfer to the 737 and, if so, what do the guys think of this.


After all, it is a mandatory aircraft transfer, no choice. Aircraft transfers within an airline have happened since Pontius was a co-pilot, and no bonding (as far as I know). And most of those transfers were pilot request when vacancies were advertised.


Is this just another sign of an industry changed for the worst? At least they haven't sunk to Cobham's ultimate low of making the pilots pay.


Rod

IsDon
15th Aug 2016, 23:17
Yes.

And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000 :rolleyes:

So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.

On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.

I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.

Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.

One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.

I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.

WillieTheWimp
15th Aug 2016, 23:46
I believe its actually 3 years and 45K.

IsDon
15th Aug 2016, 23:49
I believe its actually 3 years and 45K.

The decision just got easier! :yuk:

Keg
16th Aug 2016, 00:06
Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future......

One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond.

QF have a three year $30K bond for initial joiners. It's pro rata though so decreases year on year. No up front costs though! :ok:

The rest of IsDon's point is quite valid though. :D

(Just quietly I think that the QF bonded amount is unchanged for quite a while. I don't have access to EBAs prior to the 2013 determination but it has $30K as well. So it's unchanged from 2013- 2019).

IsDon
16th Aug 2016, 00:18
QF have a three year $30K bond for initial joiners. It's pro rata though so decreases year on year. No up front costs though! :ok:

The rest of IsDon's point is quite valid though. :D

(Just quietly I think that the QF bonded amount is unchanged for quite a while. I don't have access to EBAs prior to the 2013 determination but it has $30K as well. So it's unchanged from 2013- 2019).

True Keg, you are correct.

Doesn't change my point though. Why shackle yourself with a two/three year bond when Tiger might not even be here in two/three years?

If the airline were to fail within that period, would the administrators still chase you for your bond? You betcha!

rodney rude
16th Aug 2016, 00:32
Yeah Keg an initial bond is fine. You choose to join, company trains you at their expense, voila, bonded. But this is a case of a fleet change at company's demand, in other words, you have to change fleets or no job, and by the way, we'll bond you. Were you bonded to change from 767 to 330? (serious question - not trying to sound malicious)

maggot
16th Aug 2016, 00:44
Bonded to go from jstar320 to qf mou?
Vv?

TSIO540
16th Aug 2016, 02:45
Cathay, Dragonair, Hong Kong Airlines, and Hong Kong Express are all hiring..

Starting salary for a A320 DEFO is circa HK $1.2 Million p.a less 12% tax.

Yes.

And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000 :rolleyes:

So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.

On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.

I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.

Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.

One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.

I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.

Keg
16th Aug 2016, 03:20
Rodney. No. And nor would I have expected to be. I agree that what is being done to Tiger crews is uncool. I was simply pointing out that QF have an initial bond.

We can also be denied a type transfer of QF won't get a 2 year return of service on the new type but no $$$ are mentioned.

I think that's just pay for the endorsement maggot.

717tech
16th Aug 2016, 03:39
At least they haven't sunk to Cobham's ultimate low of making the pilots pay

Since when have Cobham made you pay?

Karunch
16th Aug 2016, 12:05
IsDon, 737 type ratings can be had for considerably less than $45K elsewhere. The cost of the TR to Tiger for transferring a crew member however may well come to $45K if the two months off line for the course is included.

I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.

Snakecharma
16th Aug 2016, 12:08
Virgin apply a 30k bond reducible monthly over 30 months where they pay for the endorsement, payable if you leave the business.

You also have a freeze period of 30 months, which means you can't change types inside the 30 months.

The true cost of the training is well in excess of 30k and in the current EBA negotiations they are trying to up it to 45k, which is still well below what it actually costs.

The bond isn't a bank type bond where you put up money and it is held essentially as a security deposit, it is just an amount they can recover from outstanding monies owed and send you a bill for the rest.

Now before anyone was a rant about how it doesn't cost 30k or 45k or whatever, the amount paid to the training provider is only part of the cost.

Even if you do the training in house you need to provide the training facility, licensing for the courseware, the cost of the sim in both fixed base and full motion, the cost of providing the various instructors and check pilots. You also need to pay your wages, and if the course is not in your home base then they pay allowances, accom, and have you offline not being productive and earning a quid for the business for a good two months.

Even if the type rating provider charged say 15k, allowances, accom, salary would bring the amount to close to 50k assuming you were earning around 150k a year. Add super to that, the cost of a supernumerary FO during the first few sectors, the cost of the training captain (there is a differential cost between the cost of a line Capt and line FO and a training Capt and a trainee - particularly if the trainee is a capt) and the real cost of the training mounts up.

As an aside QF are charging external customers over 70k for a 330 endorsement and many providers in Europe are charging 30000 Euro for a type rating.

That all said I don't believe there should be a bond or freeze period for forced transfers, if you put your hand up and said I wanted to move to the new type fair enough, but if the company is forcing the move then it should be the company that bears the burden not the pilot.

Oakape
16th Aug 2016, 19:14
Don't forget the lost productivity when you go to the toilet. You have to pay for that as well. Snakecharma, you sound like a company accountant, trying to spin things to get the highest cost possible.

IsDon
16th Aug 2016, 20:47
IsDon, 737 type ratings can be had for considerably less than $45K elsewhere. The cost of the TR to Tiger for transferring a crew member however may well come to $45K if the two months off line for the course is included.

I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.

That may well be true.

Explain to me why it's is a pilots responsibility to compensate his employer for a decision made by his employer to change aircraft types.

If Tiger wish to change types it is their responsibility to cover the cost of that change.

What about the income loss the pilot has to forego during the time off line for training?

What's next? Expect the pilot is to kick in for the cost of buying the aircraft?

If you think this won't influence anyone's decision to leave then you're kidding yourself. You can only kick a dog for so long until it decides to bite your leg off.

Kranky
16th Aug 2016, 21:44
IsDon, absolutely correct. If a company requires you to be trained then they should wear the cost.
If you however apply for a position which requires training to a certain level, that then is a different story.
Make a stand on the principle I say.

Snakecharma
16th Aug 2016, 22:29
oakape Snakecharma, you sound like a company accountant, trying to spin things to get the highest cost possible.

Well if I sound like an accountant trying to "spin" things then you clearly have no clue as to the realities of running a business!

There is no spin in the stuff I wrote, it is all fact.

I am not an accountant, never have been and never will be, but I do have a higher degree that taught me a thing or two as well as nearly 30 years as an airline pilot. I suggest you have a read of my post and tell me where I am incorrect, as I am happy to rethink based on your feedback.

You will also note that I wasn't advocating for higher bonds or in fact for bonds at all for those forced to make a fleet change, merely pointing out the fact that howls of indignation about the 45k and how a type rating "costs half that" are not in fact correct and there are other components involved.

At the end of the day we need to be aware of what the cost of our actions are so we can make a value judgement on whether we should be indignant or not!

Try and stick guys who bid for a type change with a 100k bond then there is reason to be grumpy and to fight it. Try and stick guys with a bond of 30k or 45k then fight it if you wish but if you ask for the actual cost to be the bond then you might be in for a surprise!

Same as the guys who bang on about wanting CPI pay rises instead of 2-3% (in the current environment). Be careful what you ask for as CPI isn't what you think it is.

6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016

kirkbridge
17th Aug 2016, 00:08
The company need you to fly their aircraft to make money, they are not doing you a favour. It is their responsibility to train you. Being time bonded for the cost of the rating (~30k) is fair, the cost of your line training? Sorry, their responsibility.

The end

Watchdog
17th Aug 2016, 00:45
I believe it's going to be a 2 year return of service. Not bad if you want to get out of your turboprop. 2 years would fly by. Who cares if it's $45k, you're not paying, and let's not even mention the quality of those $10k USD "type ratings" that are out there !

In relation to a current employee being forced over and sign up - hmmm yes a good point. Those with "itchy feet" might indeed refuse!

VH-FTS
17th Aug 2016, 02:54
Pilots only have themselves to blame for bonds being introduced in the first place.

Bonds are the fairest way for all parties and for companies to avoid the large cost involved in guys leaving quickly. Paying upfront is a different kettle of fish though...

Good post Snakecharma. Shame some pilots let their sense of entitlement get in the way of accepting the facts.

rodney rude
17th Aug 2016, 04:19
Hey Snakey, I reckon you have this wrong.
6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016


This statement shows the rise and fall of the CPI, ie CPI last year may have been 5.2%, and a fall of 0.2%, mean CPI this year is 5% - a whole lot more than a set 2-3%.

Snakecharma
17th Aug 2016, 04:49
Ah Rodney

I think it is you who has it wrong.

From the ABS dated 27 July 2016

The CPI rose 1.0 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2016. This is the weakest annual rise since the June quarter 1999.

The rises and falls are not rises and falls from a set base number as you suggest, I.e. 5% +/- the rise and fall.

The CPI is a basket of good and services which they measure cost variations in order to determine a number which is just a number. It doesn't accurately reflect the cost of living changes as not everyone buys everything in the basket.

People hang their hat on CPI as the holy grail upon which cost of living payrise should be based,however in times of low inflation the make up of the basket of goods which goes into calculating the CPI can actually show a reduction in the cost of living. If you go with CPI you could well be selling yourself short.

It is swings and roundabouts of course and in times of high inflation CPI usually delivers a better payrise than the company is prepared to offer.

AerocatS2A
17th Aug 2016, 04:49
Change in CPI is what CPI is, when referred to colloquially by us pilots. When it says CPI rose by 1.0% in the year June 2015 to June 2016 then it means you would get a 1% pay rise if you wanted to tie your pay to CPI.

^^^

In response to Rodney, not Snakecharma.

Note also that the things putting downward pressure on the CPI are "luxury" items such as travel and accommodation costs. So if you are a low income earner who mainly spends their money on the necessities then you may find the rise in your personal cost of living is far outstripping the CPI.

Goat Whisperer
17th Aug 2016, 04:53
Thread drift! This is. It about the definition or application of CPI, nor even bonds for turboprop drivers joining Tiger, but existing employees being bonded to keep their jobs as they experience compulsory type change. Not cool. Very not cool.

neville_nobody
17th Aug 2016, 05:11
What happens if you object to the Bond and refuse to leave the A320? Do you then get retrenched?

Could make for an interesting IR situation if everybody refused to change types.

Snakecharma
17th Aug 2016, 05:35
I would think, and this is without looking at their EBA, that you MIGHT be entitled to a redundancy of some form BUT the caveat is that many agreements have a redundancy clause that provides for the company to find "alternative" employment of a substantially similar nature and if you don't accept that then the redundancy comes off the table.

As I say I don't know the specifics, but it is an interesting area.

As I also previously said I don't believe in bonds being applied to forced transfers but at the end of the day if you have been overseas and come home to a job at tiger then you are likely to have come home because you want to be in oz and the job is secondary. Note the number of 777 and A380 captains coming back from EK to turboprop and F100 jobs.

So if that is the case then the bond, whilst a pain and unpalatable, may not be a big issue as they wouldn't necessarily be looking to leave anyway.

The guys who don't want to trade their nice 320's for Stone Age 737's (and I can't say I blame them!) then they are going to bail before the type rating and again the bond isn't an issue.

Ollie Onion
17th Aug 2016, 06:55
I don't really see the issue, if you aren't planning on leaving in the next two years then who cares how big the bond is, if you are thinking of going then you have a choice to make. Perhaps that is exactly why the airline is doing it, I know from my current and previous airlines that they all retained the right to bond for change of equipment and or upgrade training and the EBA had a clause like 'the pilot won't unreasonably withhold agreement to any such agreement'. So check you EBA, if you are planning on departing in the next two years then try and go sooner rather than later, if you are planning on staying then don't worry about it.

Keith Myath
17th Aug 2016, 09:58
There is no bonding or pay for training in the Tigerair pilots agreement. Dunno what all the fuss is about.

International Trader
18th Aug 2016, 00:23
I would advise to refuse to sign as a group.
What are they going to do , sack you?
Will they outsource the whole 737 fleet with people paying to fly?
I can imagine that they will get some people out of GA or the corners of the world who will pay but, will CASA approve it and, with Tiger's record?

Who is going to run the fleet, a guy with a bare endorsement with no heavy time, management experience or check approval and a Permit to fly on a foreign licence?

That would be a right good way along the road to being shut down again.

Why is it that these Lowcosts make decisions based on less than the best processes and then want to cover the possibility of having their incompetence been exposed by getting the little people to pay ( or take up some risk)?
Probably better chance of getting job somewhere with an Airbus 330 Rating than a 737.

Ollie Onion
18th Aug 2016, 06:28
The problem is International Trader, is that organising pilots is like trying to 'herd cats', not impossible but not likely to work. There will always be an element who will talk the talk but when push comes to shove they will look after number one and sign the bond to get ahead.

imperial shifter
18th Aug 2016, 10:34
Sorry, boring but interested engineer here with a penchant for the technical side of things. Anybody who signs a bond under the current EA is doing it by agreement. I know the line is "45k or the door" but that is against your EA.

FLEXIBILITY CLAUSE
3.1


Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the
Company and an individual pilot may agree to vary the application of certain terms of this Agreement to meet the genuine individual
needs of the Company and the individual pilot. The terms to which
the Company and the individual pilot may agree to vary the application are as follows;


3.1.1 Arrangements for when work is performed;
3.1.4 Higher duties;
3.1.5 Allowances; and
3.1.6 Provisions relating to salary sacrifice
e.g. endorsements and bonding


3.2


The Company and the individual pilot must have genuinely made the agreement without coercion or duress.


That's the only mention of bonding in your EA. Given you have been made an offer under duress. Termination under para 30 of your EA becomes invalid.

Fight the good fight Ladies and Gents. And talk to the ginger beers about this stuff as we've been playing these games for years. Also, for the Mexicans, I understand that bonds are not enforceable under state legislation though I can't find a point of law to back that claim but I've seen a few blokes do as they please without regret despite supposed bonds. Have fun.

AerialPerspective
19th Aug 2016, 07:16
That may well be true.

Explain to me why it's is a pilots responsibility to compensate his employer for a decision made by his employer to change aircraft types.

If Tiger wish to change types it is their responsibility to cover the cost of that change.

What about the income loss the pilot has to forego during the time off line for training?

What's next? Expect the pilot is to kick in for the cost of buying the aircraft?

If you think this won't influence anyone's decision to leave then you're kidding yourself. You can only kick a dog for so long until it decides to bite your leg off.
Well, I'm a ground person not a Pilot but this sounds to me like if QF decided to change its Departure Control and Reservations system and then tried to charge the employee for the training... it would be laughed out of the building - making changes like this is a business decision, last time I worked in a real airline, business decisions were made after a process of a business case and cost-benefit analysis - asking a Pilot to pay for their own training when they are internal is simply pathetic and why companies like these will never be 'real' airlines like QF and others are... external I can understand but internal, what a joke.

Tankengine
19th Aug 2016, 07:24
I don't really see the issue, if you aren't planning on leaving in the next two years then who cares how big the bond is, if you are thinking of going then you have a choice to make. Perhaps that is exactly why the airline is doing it, I know from my current and previous airlines that they all retained the right to bond for change of equipment and or upgrade training and the EBA had a clause like 'the pilot won't unreasonably withhold agreement to any such agreement'. So check you EBA, if you are planning on departing in the next two years then try and go sooner rather than later, if you are planning on staying then don't worry about it.

Yep!
I remember joining Qantas the bond was about $2K for two years, been there 28 so no issue.
T.

atlas12
19th Aug 2016, 08:01
IsDon,

All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.

IsDon
19th Aug 2016, 21:30
IsDon,

All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.

Agree completely mate. I've spent enough time in Dubai to know it's not a place I would like to work, or take my family to. That said I understand why people still want to go there, especially the young single guys/girls.

Qantas hasn't recruited externally since 2009. It's just about to crank it up. Our first tranch of guys started this week, and good luck to them.

Once Qantas makes its way through the QLink guys it will open the floodgates. That will happen soon.

Tiger, Rex, DJ and the military have clearly forgotten the impact Qantas recruitment has on the whole landscape in Australia. They are still living in their cosy little Utopia where they can get pilots to buy their ratings for the privilege of working for less than they're worth. It's been an employers market for so long.

Tiger attempting to change aircraft types, while they are already struggling to crew flights with one type, while Qantas is about to steal many pilots from them is a perfect example of atrocious timing. Add to that the attempt to extort a bond out of those considering whether they will stay or leave is just pig ignorant corporate stupidity which will bite them on the arse, big time.

atlas12
20th Aug 2016, 09:55
IsDon,

Yes I couldn't agree more. Personally I know of many people who will flock from VA to QF given the chance next yr! Fingers crossed and good luck to all! It will indeed be a reality check for TT and VA :ok:

wheels_down
20th Aug 2016, 11:50
Mabye Virgin wants pilots to leave?

They are about to cut the E190 fleet and multiple props...leaving excess pilots.

What better way to sort out over crewing by people leaving?

Snakecharma
20th Aug 2016, 13:28
No excess pilots, they are looking to recruit.

atlas12
20th Aug 2016, 22:00
Shortage of pilots here at VA.... people resigning left right and center, Air NZ and AJX being the main culprits at the moment. Add QF to that and it could get interesting!

IsDon
20th Aug 2016, 23:05
I've just had a chat from a very well placed bloke involved in the recruitment process.

He's been told QF will be recruiting 10 pilots a month for the foreseeable future. The 170 that has been bandied about is a very conservative stab in the dark from the very early stages after the 789 purchase was a very rough estimate of how many we'll need, but it's apparent this will be nowhere near enough.

The guy I spoke with expects the first external applicants to be starting courses in April/May next year which would mean recruitment processes starting in November.

Rumour has it though that QLink and JQ are so short already they are very reluctant to release those that have been successful in the QF recruitment process. I suspect there may be some deal done to keep these guys doing what they're doing until they can be released to QF, ghost seniority numbers have been mentioned by one manager recently.

The lesson to learn here is that there is obviously commercial realities that may come in to play here. Keeping those successful candidates in the regionals until they can be released without it affecting their operations. NO SUCH REASONS EXIST FOR EMBARGOING GUYS FROM TIGER OR VIRGIN. If QF need them, they'll take them. Cutting the throat of your competitor at the same time will just be a fortunate byproduct of that process.

Open Descent
21st Aug 2016, 00:34
I'm sure there will be a lot of interest among VA crews to head to QF, but let's not forget that QF still have a pretty stringent recruitment process to negotiate, and it's not just a case of draining one company's resource group to expand another.

People will apply, some will succeed and some will not. So i don't think it will be quite as simple as Tiger pilots, or VA for that matter, telling their company to shove it cause they're off to QF....they have to get in first!

I am intrigued at the prospect of QF potentially not having enough interest among its SO ranks to fill required vacancies on the 737 when people start moving around. Is that a possibility and does anybody have any idea what the company approach is in that example? Can they force people onto the 737 in reverse order of seniority?

Slezy9
21st Aug 2016, 00:41
I am intrigued at the prospect of QF potentially not having enough interest among its SO ranks to fill required vacancies on the 737 when people start moving around. Is that a possibility and does anybody have any idea what the company approach is in that example? Can they force people onto the 737 in reverse order of seniority?

Air NZ are currently experiencing the same... They cannot get SOs to go to the A320 as FOs. Guys joining off the street going straight in as FOs on the A320. I wouldn't be suprised if Qantas end up doing something similar.

Open Descent
21st Aug 2016, 00:46
Thanks Slezy9, I didn't know that.

Well then, interesting times ahead for everyone I guess!!

Berealgetreal
21st Aug 2016, 01:48
As I understand it, there isn't any requirement for QF mainline to fill vacancies with Qlink or JQ guys. QF isn't going to cost itself money by doing this if it doesn't have to. This is a shrewd business that has been around for donkeys years. They know what they are doing and they do it well. No fanfare, no carry on, it was seamless last few times I flew with them.

Those QF group 787's were bought at dirt cheap prices and there was also massive delay compensation to factor into the running costs. If you think QF are unstoppable now, just you wait til the 787/320NEO delivery starts!

Didn't know that about ANZ, I do know from a mate at CX that Direct Entry FO positions have started up again.

EK? It's crazy, they can't get anyone to go there anymore. Probably need to wake up to themselves a bit. More money in Asia, similar time zone AND days off are at home as opposed to less money and days off in the Middle East. Probably suited more to Ryanair type guys as the time zones and distances aren't as huge. Having said that it's not commutable from what I read.

ME airlines haven't realised that most guys have worked out that their money and conditions aren't as life changing as they were years ago. Life changing money is available in China, not the ME. Korean or China Southern a great example: big money and basically live anywhere in the world. A mate with a narrow body command and widebody FO time just picked up a 777 command with CSA and he's deciding which part of the world he wants to live in. Apparently you can also swap rosters and do one roster in Melbourne next in New York. Not sure how true that is.

The Longreach guys reckon the Chinese carriers haven't even started recruiting. What you see now is tip of the iceberg. He said conditions are rapidly improving. Reverse rostering, business class travel, command upgrade program for FO's and not to mention triple the take home pay of the Australian jobs. I guess the really big stumbling blocks for most guys are the medical and the uncertainty. Still seen as risky by many in my group. Having said that "fortune favours the brave"... And I've never been brave LOL!! I get less brave the bigger the family gets, single me would have been gone years ago.

Don't know much about the bond, but if you don't intend to leave it shouldn't worry you. Guess they are trying to protect themselves from a pilot doing the endorsement and resigning a week later for a job with Hainan. From that point of view I kind of get it.

Slezy9
21st Aug 2016, 02:36
I am interested to know why they (both Air NZ and Qantas) can't get SOs to go to FO on the short haul fleets? I would have thought a window seat and getting to actually do some Takeoffs and Landings would have been attractive, but obviously not...

Berealgetreal
21st Aug 2016, 02:41
Lifestyle, Slezy. I think on the 74/38 with QF the money is good but the 330 isn't. So 330 SO's tend to go across to the narrow body. Don't know about ANZ would assume the same. Not sure what the deal will be on the 78. I'm told from friends that were narrowbody FO's and moved up to widebody as FO's that narrowbody work is hard yakka compared to the long haul.

Had a mate was senior SO 74, did the MOU thing with a command at JQ. In the end went back to QF as an SO I think 380. Reckons similar money and a better life.

Slezy9
21st Aug 2016, 02:58
Lifestyle, Slezy. I think on the 74/38 with QF the money is good but the 330 isn't. So 330 SO's tend to go across to the narrow body. Don't know about ANZ would assume the same. Not sure what the deal will be on the 78. I'm told from friends that were narrowbody FO's and moved up to widebody as FO's that narrowbody work is hard yakka compared to the long haul.

Had a mate was senior SO 74, did the MOU thing with a command at JQ. In the end went back to QF as an SO I think 380. Reckons similar money and a better life.

Perhaps both QF and Air NZ are paying SOs too much!

WillieTheWimp
21st Aug 2016, 03:09
I find it hard to believe they would send a qf SO for a command at Jetstar. If so, there is something wrong with the system at Qantas.

Berealgetreal
21st Aug 2016, 03:26
Was a pretty senior guy, had FO narrowbody seniority from memory.

Brown Cow
21st Aug 2016, 04:22
Perhaps both QF and Air NZ are paying SOs too much!

Most SOs are already highly experienced before they join the company. Most come from the military or regionals and all have a heap of command time.
If they weren't paid decent money they wouldn't hang around for 10-15 years waiting for a window seat. They arent inexperienced guys fresh off the street. If you want decent people to work for you, you need to pay them accordingly. They also give the company a vast pool of pilots who are already up to speed with the operation to upgrade when they are needed. In my opinion these guys aren't paid enough.
Anyway back to the original topic

Slezy9
21st Aug 2016, 05:13
Most SOs are already highly experienced before they join the company. Most come from the military or regionals and all have a heap of command time.
If they weren't paid decent money they wouldn't hang around for 10-15 years waiting for a window seat. They arent inexperienced guys fresh off the street. If you want decent people to work for you, you need to pay them accordingly. They also give the company a vast pool of pilots who are already up to speed with the operation to upgrade when they are needed. In my opinion these guys aren't paid enough.

In that case, pay short haul FOs more!

Derfred
21st Aug 2016, 07:58
SOs are already highly experienced before they join the company. Most come from the military or regionals and all have a heap of command time.
If they weren't paid decent money they wouldn't hang around for 10-15 years waiting for a window seat. They arent inexperienced guys fresh off the street. If you want decent people to work for you, you need to pay them accordingly. They also give the company a vast pool of pilots who are already up to speed with the operation to upgrade when they are needed. In my opinion these guys aren't paid enough.
Anyway back to the original topic

The reason QF 4-engine S/O's are paid close to narrow body captain pay is not for the reasons you describe. It's due to a long history of EBA's during which the pilots were clever enough to see the future of ULH ops out of Australia and negotiated generous "overtime" payments for flights over 12 hours. That is why the A330 pilots don't see such generous salaries.

It's a shame because career-wise, a few years in a window seat flying a narrow-body 50 sectors a month does wonders for one's flying skills and job satisfaction.

But many are not prepared to take the massive pay cut to do it. Some suffer later in their career when they don't make the grade for an upgrade because they've let their skills lapse irrecoverably. That is very sad, both for the individuals and the Company.

Personally, I don't get it. I became a pilot to be a pilot, not an S/O, and money takes a back seat. But statistics show that many don't share my outlook.

Most new S/O hires from this point on won't be on such generous terms (the B787 terms are different in overtime payments), so I guess we'll see if your argument holds weight with a lack of experienced pilots applying for QF.

Keg
21st Aug 2016, 08:07
As I understand it, there isn't any requirement for QF mainline to fill vacancies with Qlink or JQ guys. QF isn't going to cost itself money by doing this if it doesn't have to.

There are two aspects to this.
1. Qantas group policy is that all vacancies are advertised within the group. Of course whether that will suit the powers that be if 9/10 QLink drivers apply to mainline is something that remains to be seen. So at this stage being in QLink may actually be an advantage.

2. If QF bias away from our own regionals then it's likely we'll simply lose those pilots somewhere else anyway- EK or the VOZ group. It may cost some $$$ in double training if we take regionals but we are likely to have to double train anyway if we don't take them.

Keg
21st Aug 2016, 08:13
I am intrigued at the prospect of QF potentially not having enough interest among its SO ranks to fill required vacancies on the 737 when people start moving around. Is that a possibility and does anybody have any idea what the company approach is in that example? Can they force people onto the 737 in reverse order of seniority?

I heard a rumour the other day that someone has pulled out of a 737 F/O slot. There were no S/Os with bids in for that slot to replace that pilot Not sure of what base it was. For one slot I suspect they'll just up the divisor by an hour. If it becomes more than one though....... say 10 or more? :eek:

The issue is that when there's been no recruiting for 7 1/2 years people have geared their pay, lifestyle, family, etc around what is now. They're in their early to mid 30s, kids, big mortgages, etc. Certainly going to the 737 for ex 767 F/Os (and now A380 S/Os) isn't particularly palatable. They're holding off for the A330 or 787.

The company can't force anyone to the 737. If they get desperate then what you may see is some of the crew starting from last Tuesday onwards may get a very early F/O slot. That said, many S/Os are senior to 737 F/Os and so maybe their won't be massive swathes of movement away from the 737 F/O ranks in the short term.

Interesting times.

Derfred
21st Aug 2016, 10:38
The simple reason that QF can't force S/O's to the 737 is that despite them all being employed by the same company (QF mainline), the 737 operates under a different EBA. It is not legal to force an employee onto a different EBA. AIPA has previously proposed merging the EBAs but QF (probably due ideolgy and costs) has never been interested in even talking about the idea. So they are left with what they have created.

That said, the respective EBA's make it possible (in practice) for direct entry to B737 F/O. And best wishes to any who gain that. It's a great job (and career).

ruprecht
21st Aug 2016, 10:56
They're holding off for the A330 or 787.

The latest TACM has added the 787 to the 744 and 380 requiring previous company FO time. SO's without previous company FO time will have to go to the 737 or 330.

ruprecht

Keg
21st Aug 2016, 12:23
Sure. Probably didn't make myself very clear that I was talking about ex 767 F/Os for those holding off for the 787.

Ten Two Hundred
21st Aug 2016, 13:34
Lot of junior 737 FO's and almost every SO at VA interested in applying for QF, not to mention displaced TT A320 drivers, VA Ejet & ATR crew.

Even if only a meagre amount make the cut at QF, what will be VA's response? They are losing talent and about to lose many many more and know perfectly well how much training is costing them. Their response is to make sure their employees are acutely aware by inforcing bonds and freeze periods. I predict their arrogance will be their downfall. Those in power at VA have absolutely no idea and they are going to bankrupt this company. And who pays??

QF hasn't hired in how many years? I think many have forgotton the impact on the entire industry QF recruitment creates. And now we have desperate airlines from all over the world fighting over Australian pilots.

Time to step up to the mark VA management. Step up.

Fuel-Off
21st Aug 2016, 16:56
And now we have desperate airlines from all over the world fighting over Australian pilots

Perhaps a bit of a stretch? I would guess that airlines are desperate for pilots, period. Regardless of which country they hail from. Australian pilots are no better or worse than others, if anything they seem to have a reputation (generally from the ex-AN crews and the chip on one's shoulder they seem to have) overseas.

Ten Two Hundred, if you have documented proof that airlines out there are purposefully headhunting Australian pilots, I'll eat my hat and goggles. I think you'll find airlines will generally look for people who can spell pilot, and have a pulse.

I see an increasing amount of Australian operators advertising they'll consider 457 applicants - interesting times ahead.

Fuel-Off :ok:

skysook
21st Aug 2016, 22:33
Most new S/O hires from this point on won't be on such generous terms (the B787 terms are different in overtime payments), so I guess we'll see if your argument holds weight with a lack of experienced pilots applying for QF.

Might wanna re-think that last statement. Most Qantas cadets that have just started have in excess of 3000 hours and when the flood gates open you can bet your arse guys with 5000 hours plus, including turbo-prop command will apply...

Slezy9
21st Aug 2016, 22:48
Might wanna re-think that last statement. Most Qantas cadets that have just started have in excess of 3000 hours and when the flood gates open you can bet your arse guys with 5000 hours plus, including turbo-prop command will apply...
Add to that the 8 years of RAAFies that haven't had a lot of options... I'd guess most (non Fast Jet) would have minimum 5000 hours.

Ten Two Hundred
21st Aug 2016, 22:54
Fuel-Off I agree. I don't think foreign airlines are particularly head hunting Australian pilots per se because they are superior, despite what some news articles suggest such as the Australian article the other day describing Australian pilots "as a target market, as they are well-trained, with good cross-cultural communication skills, and they are perceived to be very capable of adapting to the local culture and flying environment". If there were significant candidates available in Antartica I'm sure they would send recruitment roadshows there too.

I know this is suppose to be a negative forum, but opportunities in the short to mid term for jobs both in Australia and abroad look better than just alright and that's got to be a good thing.

Derfred
21st Aug 2016, 23:31
Might wanna re-think that last statement. Most Qantas cadets that have just started have in excess of 3000 hours and when the flood gates open you can bet your arse guys with 5000 hours plus, including turbo-prop command will apply...

I never said they wouldn't. I was responding to Brown Cow who said that S/O's are intentionally paid high salaries to attract experienced applicants. That is not the case at all.

Popgun
22nd Aug 2016, 01:05
S/O's are intentionally paid high salaries

QF SOs are paid high salaries mainly because AIPA possessed sufficient industrial strength over many years that enabled those high salaries to be successfully negotiated.

While the QF 787 conditions amount to a kind of B Scale, I'm very sure you could reduce the terms even further and still find the number of positions available massively oversubscribed with more-than-adequate candidates. (Shhhh...don't tell management!).

Such is the allure (and pay, benefits etc) of working for the national carrier and the lack of supply of similarly highly attractive positions in the Australian pilot job market.

But back to the subject of Bonding. I hope the Tiger guys can get something fair and reasonable sorted.

PG

Keg
22nd Aug 2016, 01:49
If the 787 starts replacing the A380 on some of the current long haul legs then the pay for many A380 crew may decrease markedly. If QF replace an A380 to LHR with a 787 via PER and transition the A380 instead to HKG that will start to impact things. A 787 daily from SYD and MEL to DFW to replace the A380 currently doing SYD- DFW would have an impact also. These are all options that QF have floated previously.

I don't reckon QF will be caught short of applicants in the short to medium term.

Brown Cow
22nd Aug 2016, 02:06
I never said they wouldn't. I was responding to Brown Cow who said that S/O's are intentionally paid high salaries to attract experienced applicants. That is not the case at all.
That's not really what I meant. I was trying to say that if they didn't have reasonable salaries, a lot SOs wouldn't hang around for decades waiting for an upgrade. The vast majority are highly experienced and extremely competent. They would have no trouble finding employment elsewhere.
I believe they are worthy of what they are paid for the role they play in the company is what I was trying to get at.
As for short haul FOs deserving more...I couldn't agree more

Keg
22nd Aug 2016, 07:23
Try this (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/chinese-airlines-lure-expat-pilots-with-lucrative-pay-perks) link instead. :ok:

Berealgetreal
22nd Aug 2016, 07:32
Thanks Keg.

Looks like the Longreach fella wasn't kidding.

“It’s the documentation, the work permits, the immigration, the medicals,” she said. “They say they want pilots, but there aren’t the resources.’’

Yep, not a whole lot of folk are going to toss in a major airline gig with the scenario they describe above. If they drop the red tape and medical routine they might actually get some people interested. Know several blokes doing 900-1000 hours a year living in Sydney that could do with 4 times the take home pay!

ernestoservin4
22nd Aug 2016, 15:24
Hello do you know if they are hiring a320 captains.
And i so where e-mail is to send it
will appreciate your feedback
ernesto

Ollie Onion
22nd Aug 2016, 18:24
Chinese contracts are good if they work out! One bloke I know personally that resigned his command to go there spent 12 months on training pay trying to get his Chinese licence issued and then was 'let go' due to paperwork irregularities, they wouldn't specify what irregularities. So, if you can get the medical and licence issued and live on the training wage and maintain the medical and licence then you could earn $25,000 per month.

WillieTheWimp
22nd Aug 2016, 23:43
Hello do you know if they are hiring a320 captains.
And i so where e-mail is to send it
will appreciate your feedback
ernesto

Unfortunately level 6 English may be a requirement.

atlas12
23rd Aug 2016, 00:18
About QF taking guys within the group from Qlink and JQ..... yes probably a few but they won't empty the place out especially now that they are desperately short on crew. That is the reason I left after 8 years, because I knew that Q400 skipper is the best you will ever get and I got that impression within the first month. Period. If they had a pathway in place to QF I never would have left.

And you can bet your arse that plenty of experienced VA 737 drivers will be applying for QF for the job security alone. No one is sure VA will still be around 5 years from now. We had a few guys in NZ turn down commands and go to Air NZ, speaks volumes!!

Lookleft
23rd Aug 2016, 01:59
No one is sure VA will still be around 5 years from now.

Which also means Tiger won't be around; which means the whole bonding discussion is pointless; which would also mean that all the Tiger pilots would be applying for other jobs be they QF or elsewhere.

Ollie Onion
23rd Aug 2016, 02:18
I have heard that the Qantas board is exploring ways to keep group within the group such as providing a pathway to mainline during the upcoming recruitment drive. That came from a group company chief pilot, it could be bollocks, but this is a rumour network after all!

Keg
23rd Aug 2016, 04:08
See my previous post at 55. Current QF group policy is that vacancies are advertised internally in the group before they are advertised externally. That is extant policy and it should apply to S/O positions also.

Whether they choose to enforce it given the significant impact it could have on the regionals remains to be seen.

Maisk Rotum
24th Aug 2016, 03:54
Rumoured to be half a dozen or so instant Captains to be recruited to cover the transfers to the Boeing. Two years, then to be let go!!! Anyone???

porch monkey
24th Aug 2016, 06:06
2 years +/-, depends on what's required. Allegedly all contract positions offered will have a fixed time. After which you can go wherever you like, or you can stay in a position that accords with the seniority you hold on the GDOJ.

Fuel-Off
26th Aug 2016, 07:38
You wouldn't be a Kiwi would you?

True blue Aussie:cool: With a dash of Kiwi in the family so I guess that's where the bias comes from :}

Fuel-Off :ok:

Anthill
27th Aug 2016, 05:43
The buzz that the B777 FOs on command by-pass pay being offered contracts at TT is exactly that. Is/was never going to happen.

Keith Myath
28th Aug 2016, 00:42
Add to that the attempt to extort a bond out of those considering whether they will stay or leave is just pig ignorant corporate stupidity which will bite them on the arse, big time.

No, what is pig ignorant is the belief that you can even be bonded in Tiger. This whole thread is BS helped on by a couple of urgers pushing their own agenda.

THERE IS NO BONDING IN TIGER.

Just the pig ignorant outsiders that havenít read the contract.

IsDon
28th Aug 2016, 02:24
No, what is pig ignorant is the belief that you can even be bonded in Tiger. This whole thread is BS helped on by a couple of urgers pushing their own agenda.

THERE IS NO BONDING IN TIGER.

Just the pig ignorant outsiders that havenít read the contract.

So, Keith, for the obviously ignorant of us, could you please enlighten us on what happens when a pilot completes his compulsory 737 conversion, and then resigns?

Are you suggesting that he/she is free to seek employment elsewhere without any financial penalty whatsoever?

Or are you suggesting that Tiger are merely attempting to bluff pilots into believing there is a bond, when this is not part of the agreement?

Are the answers to these questions only available after clarification in court?

From AFAP briefing of 29 Jun 16:

Bond and type freezes Ė We suggested that the Company consider reducing the length of the bond period for all pilots taking a position on the initial start-up of the B737 operation to 24 months. This can be contrasted with pilots who move onto the B737 in future having a bond/ freeze of 36 months apply, creating an incentive to take up an initial seat.

Further, to encourage bidding for B737 FO positions, we suggested that the Company consider waiving the bond after the 12 month type freeze where an FO takes up a command on the A320. We note that A320 FOs are indicating reluctance to bid because they are concerned about getting their command on the A320 and do not want to be bonded for 36 months as an FO on the B737.

So if I'm ignorant, it seems so are the AFAP.

galdian
28th Aug 2016, 03:01
Just wondering

Often contracts have to be revised/amended/adjusted when changes are made, obviously a lot going on at the moment in the Virgin empire regards fleets, crews etc and would imagine that will have to happen here.

Maybe the idea of bonding is part of that process??

Aurora8
28th Aug 2016, 05:02
This might clear a few things up:

"To facilitate an exciting period of growth, Tigerair has a number of contract opportunities for Boeing B737 First Officers in our Melbourne base and Airbus A320 First Officers to join the team in our Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney bases. Contracts will be for a minimum term of (18) months. At the completion of the contract, it may be possible to gain permanent employment with Tigerair. The endorsement will be provided by Tigerair if required, but is subject to a return of service agreement. Preference will be given to First Officers who already hold a current type rating."

From:

https://tigerair.com.au/corporate/careers

Watchdog
29th Aug 2016, 20:28
Hawk,
On average between 50 and 70 a month depending on your base etc
No overnights on line flights, so only for sim/SEP/NTS etc, again depending on your base.
Flexi roster with requests/one weekend guaranteed a month OR choose fixed roster 5 on 3 off (with less annual leave).

Keith Myath
1st Sep 2016, 05:25
So, Keith, for the obviously ignorant of us, could you please enlighten us on what happens when a pilot completes his compulsory 737 conversion, and then resigns?

Are you suggesting that he/she is free to seek employment elsewhere without any financial penalty whatsoever?

Yes, thatís exactly what happens when there is no bond. You can leave at any time with no liability.

Or are you suggesting that Tiger are merely attempting to bluff pilots into believing there is a bond, when this is not part of the agreement?

No, Iím suggesting that Tiger cannot impose a bond under the current agreement. You are the one asserting that Tiger are imposing bonds, right from your first post and itís obvious that you havenít read the agreement or have a clue of what's going on.

Are the answers to these questions only available after clarification in court?

The AFAP have already clarified that for everyone in McLennan v Surveillance Australia. Bonds are not enforceable unless part of an enterprise agreement.

From AFAP briefing of 29 Jun 16:

Quote:
Bond and type freezes Ė We suggested that the Company consider reducing the length of the bond period for all pilots taking a position on the initial start-up of the B737 operation to 24 months. This can be contrasted with pilots who move onto the B737 in future having a bond/ freeze of 36 months apply, creating an incentive to take up an initial seat.

Further, to encourage bidding for B737 FO positions, we suggested that the Company consider waiving the bond after the 12 month type freeze where an FO takes up a command on the A320. We note that A320 FOs are indicating reluctance to bid because they are concerned about getting their command on the A320 and do not want to be bonded for 36 months as an FO on the B737.

So if I'm ignorant, it seems so are the AFAP.

No, its just you. Gotta love selective quoting. Try a bit more reading, it helps with context. IF Virgin agree to adding the Tiger pilots to the bottom of the Virgin Group Pilots List, as part of the agreement virgin will seek to have bonding for the 737. Itís by no means a done deal. IF the majority of pilots vote for it, it will become part of a new agreement.

IsDon
1st Sep 2016, 13:20
So aren't the AFAP and Tiger leaving the clarification of this just a little late?

I would have expected a competent organisation would have clarified exactly the terms and conditions of whether or not they are subject to a bond before anyone is sent for the course in question.

bigbrother
5th Sep 2016, 02:28
My 2 cents worth
Captain spaghetti hasn't taken his ship into 'black' financial waters since day 1, and a decision to "off" the one part of the fleet actually turnng a profit without him having much of a chance to f#%k with it, is beyond stupid. ANZ were right to demand walk the plank, and take his board of ship mates with him. When every operator in Australia is turning to new newer efficient acft with one eye on the future, (and a rise in oil cost) rather than a last gasp short term profit (could it be parachute time approaching lads) one must ask, he is either a genius yet undiscovered, or a charleton in emperors clothes. I think the latter. The situation is teetering on collapse, albeit for another Capital raising.

Prepare a Plan B, plan C and D

Sadly, a turn to send old worn out 737's to Tiger will only damage the improved reputation so hard worked for with a lot, and I mean a lot of good will from the pilot group. With cabin crew leaving nearly as fast as Aerocare ground staff, and pilots now sourcing an escape plan, and an ambivalent attitude from Tiger Management to the loss of this experience, the future looks grim matey.

Not so much as a gee guys we understand his is VERY disruptive to you, but it was forced on us from Virgin, we're sorry. The spin from management shows how thin the air must be up there. What a great opportunity this is for everyone. Say what!


loss of flight pay
Cattle class tickets to L.A, followed by another leg to Miami to do your 73 rating
Nothing negotiated and in contravention of the EBA (in my vew)
Bonding for the cough "privilege"
Potential for further loss of flight pay if there are unforeseen delays (surely this has been planned in meticulous detail)



I'm feeling the love already.

Sadly pilots are like Dairy Farmers, and until they all go on strike to recover some dignity, let alone some conditions of service, nothing will change.

porch monkey
5th Sep 2016, 07:09
You can always vote no. Hand the "shit sandwich" back and see what happens. Keep in mind that you got at least another 2 years worth of employment out of VA buying you in the first place.

grrowler
5th Sep 2016, 07:21
I certainly scratch my head at the decisions made by Virgin, and I appreciate the disruption to TGs pilots (and the ATR guys, and the Ejet guys), however one must wonder exactly how "profitable" Tiger would be without the ability to launch routes that Virgin conveniently withdraw from, and without the various ancillaries that Virgin provide.

Berealgetreal
5th Sep 2016, 07:29
Porch, don't think bigbrother is talking about the vote, rather the forcing across to the 737. In his/her shoes we to wouldn't be happy. "Here's a bunch of books, go learn them for no extra money". Normally when doing an endorsement, we are accustomed to a pay or lifestyle rise so it would be hard to take. Also, it would be pretty painful going 320 to 73 for the obvious reasons. I guess the Ejet guys can sympathise, although they are getting a payrise. Having said that, some of them (even senior ones) are being forced out position and base so I guess it's that puts things into perspective.

Better than being out of a job, so fingers crossed it works!

porch monkey
5th Sep 2016, 08:39
Yes, I figured that, but my point stands. They need to say no. The company is requiring the type change, that isn't an individual changing types. As far as the T's and C's are concerned, it's really type for type. It would be simply unrealistic to expect extra money for flying a 737v's an A320. I don't think that's the beef tho. The type costs are, as you said. I disagree with the requirement, and I think the company will cave, if there is enough resistance. However, it isn't me, and I've been wrong before.
What does their EBA say about redundancy? The only reason the E jet guys are getting a payrise is because the larger type they are going onto pays more.

skysook
5th Sep 2016, 09:36
grrowler,

In think you will find that now Virgin management have a deed of agreement signed with AFAP/VIPA that they are able to expand Tiger on existing VA routes. The purpose of the deed is to ensure that any such expansion does not disadvantage VA group pilots by making that flying available to them.

wheels_down
5th Sep 2016, 11:33
The numbers were run by Singapore a few years ago. Tiger couldn't turn a profit as standalone entity unless they had 30 aircraft.

Two options. Close it, or get Virgin to run it on cheap end of lease 737s. Even with sky high fuel prices, the numbers still favour these 737s which are being leased next to nothing.

The writing has been on the wall for at least 7 years.

roundhouse
22nd Nov 2018, 23:07
Could anyone PM me with current interview information? Do they still make you pay for type rating? Many thanks :)

wishiwasupthere
23rd Nov 2018, 03:03
3 year bond, $45k.

zanthrus
23rd Nov 2018, 05:10
Airlines need to pay to train crew. Not applicants. Simply a cost of doing business. I will never pay back a bond if forced to sign one. It is disgusting that so many airlines have them nowadays. They can all get stuffed!

Icarus2001
23rd Nov 2018, 05:13
Airlines need to pay to train crew. That is what they are doing.

Flyboy1987
23rd Nov 2018, 07:03
Airlines need to pay to train crew. Not applicants. Simply a cost of doing business. I will never pay back a bond if forced to sign one. It is disgusting that so many airlines have them nowadays. They can all get stuffed!

iím afraid Itís what weíve allowed.
Pay over the top for a license, go through ga and earn bugger all, self fund atpls, self fund ipcs.
Finally have some competitive experience and get told you wonít be considered without a MCC, so go and pay 6k for a week course consisting of readbacks in a fixed base sim.
Then youíre lucky enough to pay for your type rating.

And if you have morals and refuse, there will be someone with 200 hours willing to pay.

Icarus2001
23rd Nov 2018, 07:09
Which airlines in Australia charge for a type rating? Not bonding as that is not paying for a type rating.

Go to university or TAFE and it is also self funded.

wishiwasupthere
23rd Nov 2018, 10:51
Bonded and full pay from day 1. Even the crem de la creme (QF) donít do that.

roundhouse
23rd Nov 2018, 21:24
Cheers for the info folks. Can anyone PM me with base pay and also any information about the interview process? IE what sort of questions to expect in the panel interview and sim profile etc. Cheers!

Stretch06
24th Nov 2018, 00:43
Bonded and full pay from day 1. Even the crem de la creme (QF) donít do that.

Virgin does. Full pay from day one, allowances whilst training, bonded on type for 3yrs. Itís no issue if you donít plan on leaving within the 3yr period.

Berealgetreal
24th Nov 2018, 01:28
At Virgin on the 737 there are 3 levels of pay for First Officers. So on joining full pay at level 1.