Paraidse Lost

[Patriot One]

As an observer who wasn't in this country during the dispute I have to say that it is incredible how the obvious is consistently ignored.

A certain pilot at VB who led the revolt in '89 that caused such bitterness for so long ,was ironically the same person who led Australian aviation's pilot salaries to the lowest level ever at the commencement of VB. That same person who advised you all to hold out to the bitter end and call your brothers sc*bs, and tell you not to trust management, has, in his capacity as management lied to you all more than once - haven't you noticed, or don't you wish to see?

Does nobody at all see the irony here?

You're all just numbers fella's. Neither QF or VB care about you, not because they despise you, but because on the balance sheet your costs come up in double negative red. When one is in trouble the balance sheet is the check-list of "where can we cut?"

You lost Ansett. You may lose a very significant part of what QANTAS was, as it morphs into a hybrid to respond to VB. You believe VB is good for the country, good for the public. Open your eyes. It's not dificult to see the illusion.

AN & QF (and TAA before them) were some of the best airlines in the world, and held that quality a lot longer than many can say. Their standards were always higher even though at times you got frustrated with bureaucracy - it is everywhere. The cost duopoly that QF and AN once was was not all that bad for the public. Can any of you say it is better now? The duopoly has different players, and the environment has changed forever.

The subtle incidiousness that has crept into Australian aviation in the past 5 years has ruined what was once an extraordinary example of professionalism. It isn't any more, and maybe that it why there is so much bitterness in your fraternity. QF and AN set world standards in Engineering and Flight Performance and Control. The world learnt from what you did. Boeing used to ask Ansett Engineering how to do certain modifications - NASA uses Ansett's Human Factors course. QF has as many admirers, and achievements. Not any more.

VB has changed the environment. It's not VB's fault - it is what they are. But it is sad. VB cuts costs where AN and QF never dared. You could say it was because QF and AN weren't hard nosed businessmen - that's fair comment. Aussies usually do things for better reasons than most - ethicaly, morally, integrity - catch cries that are nooses around their necks when the upstart turns his attention your way. AN died but has taught you no lessons.

It is no longer a bastion of aviation professionalism, the airline industry of Australia. VB has put paid to that. If any of you VB crews believe that your management know or give a hoot about how well you landed in that crosswind, forget it - all they care about is "did it save me money?"

And yet in the heart of most of you is the reason why you wanted to fly and why you still do, even though you complain so bitterly about your masters. You are all still "steely-eyed missile-men" and you know your sh*t. You're just lost in a world that really doesn't give a sh*t and would replace you with a robot tomorrow.

Since when did it become acceptable to change the standard command experience from 5 years of heavy jet and 5000 hours, to 500 hours on any jet?

Can you not see?

[LooseConnection]

You make a number of good points there PL, but I think you lost the arguement when:

NASA uses Ansett's Human Factors course

At last count NASA had at least 18 names on plaques, one burnt out Apollo and 2 Blown up Shuttles.
Whereas Ansett had 1100 heads, so much for a great Human Factors course.

Pat you on the back with one hand and spear you up the a#%s with the other. :hmm:

[Patriot One]

Loose connection - sadly you missed the point completely.

[amos2]

Well, this could be a good thread,and far be it for me to get picky about some spelling mistakes,but really,you've had time to correct the word paradise. Can we do that now and carry on?

[LooseConnection]

PL I didn't miss the point I agree with you, but don't go blowing smoke up my a#%s or anybody else's about Ansett's wonderful Human Factors course when it isn't.

If it was so dam go they would still be flying and I'd still be working for them.

[amos2]

You say you weren't here at the time of the dispute P1, so, perhaps you might like to declare your bona fides before we get into this?

[Kaptin M]

"A certain pilot at VB who led the revolt in '89 that caused such bitterness for so long ,was ironically the same person who led Australian aviation's pilot salaries to the lowest level ever at the commencement of VB."

The "certain pilot" is I assume the Chief Pilot of V.B.
Chief Pilots don't set the salaries - they are resposible for overseeing and maintaining flight standards.
The same high flight standards that you referred to when you wrote, "AN & QF (and TAA before them) were some of the best airlines in the world, and held that quality a lot longer than many can say. Their standards were always higher even though at times you got frustrated with bureaucracy.."

It was also during the time that the AFAP represented the pilots of Ansett and TAA, and had some direct input as a "watchdog", that these high standards you mention were achieved, and that pilots' conditions were continually improved.

Virgin Blue is a new airline that once again is working WITH the AFAP, to establish themselves.
Thanks to the Dispute, and the pilots who subsequently joined the 4 now non-existent domestic airlines, everything that had been established over some 40 years was DESTROYED.

That is the reason why current conditions are as they are! Because a selfish relative few thought they THEY could do better alone, than the group!

"Since when did it become acceptable to change the standard command experience from 5 years of heavy jet and 5000 hours, to 500 hours on any jet?
This isn't peculiar to Australia - the standards requirement for command in Japan is 3 years in the company (which can also include time spent in a subsidiary), and TOTAL time 3,000 hours. I can't say that I like it, but that's the way it's gone.
BTW, there was NEVER any requirement to have "5 years of heavy jet".

The Civil Aviation Authority in each country is the one responsible for setting the standards.
If you disagree with it, then write to them.
Alternatively, join the AFAP and voice your opinion to them.

[Patriot One]

Sorry - new to the forum so I dont know how to change a title...anyone else do it?

Having worked for a number of overseas airlines in Flight and Operations Management, some of whom were US Carriers, I can tell you that Ansett's Human Factors Program was one of the best around. You can disagree and I respect that - you may have been closer to it than I.

Kaptin - in my 20 years in this business I've met a lot of pilots like you. Whilst angry and bitter on the outside, within they were all extremely knowledgeable and simply required approaching in the right way, with respect. I don't want to get into a slanging match with anyone, and will leave if that happens simply because the value of talking amongst us all is lost. On average it takes around 5 years for a new commercial pilot to go from starry eyed to bitter....particularly nowadays. The days when crews were treated with appropriate respect are over, and where they do remain they are limited and the exception not the rule. Each of those pilots maintains the love of what he does, and the bitterness comes from the fact that his true value to an organisation is not in his skill as a pilot, as it is in the value of his salary to the company's costs.

Remember most people that run an airline are not pilots, and on the whole are more commercial than operational. I have worked overseas for some beautiful carriers - that doesnt mean they were successful!! There's irony!

The Union never sets the quality of the airlines integrity.
Pilot Salaries and Conditions have a consequential impact on performance, but not directly.
Chief Pilots ARE senior management. Any Senior Manager that simply implements the strategies of his counterparts, no matter how contradictory they may be to their own beliefs and standards (such as low salaries, poor conditions, etc), is selling himself out as well as those he claims to represent.

The saddest consequence of good managers being promoted to Senior Management is when they suddenly see the role as an opportunity to glorify themselves. The responsibility of achieving a role where you are trusted to manage others is an achievement to be celebrated when it first happens. The higher you go, the greater your responsibility to others - not yourself. Lesson never learned.

[TANUA]

Kaptin M-

Thanks to the Dispute, and the pilots who subsequently joined the 4 now non-existent domestic airlines, everything that had been established over some 40 years was DESTROYED. That is the reason why current conditions are as they are! Because a selfish relative few thought they THEY could do better alone, than the group!

One of the great difficulties with discussion on 89 issues is perspective. You -get frustrated by individuals quoting matters they believe to be fact when you are certain that they are untruthful.Remember the old adage "the first casualty in war is the truth". It's almost 14 years and I am sure many of us have a recall which is not entirely-100% correct?

There is no simple answer to anything about 89 -however- the continued wrangling between ourselves is causing great damage to the Industry -as a whole.

All involved in 89 are responsible in one way or another for the distrust and vitriol that exists today-we were the custodians of the Industry and we "blew it" for the young OZ aviators of today and tomorrow.

Is it possible for everyone to stand back(not forgive or forget)and try and work in the interests of the Industry itself?

As an aside- I was told yesterday that the VB CP was on $500K per annum with a bonus- when it floats of $12 M (OZ).

Interesting thing about perspective-if that information is true -it puts a very different perspective to the one that he recieves a lot less than that?:sad: :oh:

[currawong]

Jump in any time Winstun.


Or are you already here?

:E

[Repro]

Well done Patriot one, I agree.
Kaptan Mistrust won't leave you alone though.
There are always sycotic people out there.
Trouble is , some of them fly aircraft.

[Winstun]

Patriot One........with big head up ass....my gawd!!!!!:rolleyes: You believe VB is good for the country, good for the public. :ooh: and what may I ask, is not good? Cheap fares on national network utilizing new airplanes....:rolleyes: AN & QF (and TAA before them) were some of the best airlines in the world, and held that quality a lot longer than many can say...nother Aussie wet dream....:rolleyes: Boeing used to ask Ansett Engineering how to do certain modifications :p ...like how to install a flight engineer post on a 767.........:hmm: Aussies usually do things for better reasons than most - ethicaly, morally, integrity :ooh: ....like be good closet rascists and incacerate children......Since when did it become acceptable to change the standard command experience from 5 years of heavy jet and 5000 hours, to 500 hours on any jet? friggin bone please!!!!:p Commander Winstun out..:zzz:

[hoodooguru]

Patriot: What a terrific post. I wish I could take all the VB pilots who never got into AN or QF and give them a year there. Then they would see what it's like to work for a real airline with real standards and a great depth of both professionalism and experience. As for the HF course that is a matter of record. I don't think VB would know what an HF course was? Sadly VB are lacking in both and heading further in the wrong direction. I am amazed at the support shown for a guy who 14 years ago helped destroy so many lives along with all the other businesses that failed as a result of 89 then comes back and sells out another generation of great young Aussie airline pilots! What a disgrace. Do they ever mention the decimation they put the tourism industry through and the innocent people who lost their businesses, houses, marriages etc because of their dispute? No they don't. All we get here is constant justification and re iterating of an ancient event and excuse from KM and his ilk who are too scared to even contemplate the truth. I do not mean to attack KM and his colleages as I'm sure you are all thorough professionals and gentlemen in your own right. But when something is continually re inforced like the 89 disput by those on here who see themselves as somehow more righteous than the rest it becomes clear that they are in fact full of self doubt. I think they were stitched up and no doubt about it but the AN destruction makes the 89 barney pale into insignificance when we compare the social, personal, economic, political and personal effect of the An a demise to the 89 pilots dispute. Before I get smashed by the 89 guys let me say that I think what happened to you guys was disgusting but what has happened sinse with the An raping and the VB work for the dole is equally as bad. Ok I'll put the mouth guard and you can all go for it.

[Lodown]

And I remember the beautiful 707 and the DC-9. Oh what an airline pilot's aeroplane!
And then these blasted electronics and fly-by-wire things came in and took the fun out of the job, as well as the job out of the flight engineer.
Then business managers started to wake to the fact that flying wasn't so much of a skill as it had been considered to that stage, but rather an accumulation of knowledge that could be added to in the safety of simulators and classrooms and what-not. They quickly twigged to the fact that a motivated kid with quality time in a sim could fly these big electronic devices just as well as, if not better than, the gnarled old timer with the permanent smell of engine oil and the view of a job for life and a yellow brick road to retirement.
And to add to the humiliation, someone in the gum-mint decided to take the protection away that allowed spending on anything because it didn't matter as both airlines would still be there tomorrow.
Warm blooded VB came along, and in order to be competitive, entered the market with a good gimmick, drastically reduced airfares and spanking new aircraft.

And the new, beer-drinking Joe Customer voiced his opinion with his chequebook! It took a little longer for the chardonnay set to follow, but the lure of the low prices was/is irresistable.

Gotta go with Winstun on this one Patriot One. Memories are nice, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Kaptin M]

Isn`t it funny how those who aren`t/don`t qualify for our positions are those who are always telling everyone how easy the job is. See above posts! :p

[Lodown]

Whooops! Hit a nerve there. I'm not saying it's easy Kaptin M. Far from it. The job is tough and demanding, but it has changed significantly in the last 20 years. Seat of the pants flying is a thing of the past in the airlines and pilot duties have changed considerably.
World economics have changed and until they change back again, then that is what you have to deal with. It doesn't serve much purpose to point fingers and whinge about it.
The customer is king and votes with his or her pocketbook. If you don't like the way the industry is going then try and get the customer to part with his/her money in your direction. But don't try and get airline protection through government legislation slapped back on again in the process. That's a thing of the past.

[Three Bars]

Ah yes, Lodown, what a wonderful success story deregulation has been.

Australia used to have two very good airlines, with worlds-best standards and secure employment. The US probably had four or five majors. Now, thanks to progressive government policies, Australia has one major and one low-cost operator. All of the old majors in the US have either disappeared or are in serious financial trouble.

So who are the winners? The public, I guess. They can now get a cheaper seat and those who probably used to go by bus, now fly. If memory serves, I think the bus companies are pretty stuffed now too!

So now, thanks to deregulation, we have an airline industry where he who goes broke last wins! The travelling public get cheaper and cheaper seats and expect to be bribed with more and more to get them to open their pocketbooks.

And who pays for these bribes. Well, fuel prices are pretty much out of the airlines control. The public expects more entertainment, meals, lounges, newer planes, gimmicks - gee we have to give them that. Aaaaah, wages - we can cut wages and maintain or increase our profits that way!! And keep our performance bonuses as well.

Soon, we will be competing with Emirates (a state-run airline with bottomless pockets) and God-knows who else the Government is prepared to let fly in Australia. Why? So the good old travelling public gets cheaper seats. Gotta be good for the country right?

Yes, lodown, the economic tide has changed. Doesn't mean that we all have to like it and don't know how long it will stay this way!! Maybe until Qantas is gone, thousands of people lose their jobs and we all fly Air Botswana for $10 SY-BN. But hey, the public get cheaper seats it must be good for the country right?

[balance]

Patriot. One of the best posts I have seen on this website. You have perfectly summarised the current state of affairs in Australian Aviation.

Youv'e gotta wonder though. What happens when Australia finally loses a big aircraft? Will the travelling public wake up? Will the bean counters wake up? After all, they fly on our aircraft too...

Was a witness to a VB aircraft that carried out a visual arrival at YPAD last night, in very suspect conditions. I've no idea how they did it legally, I was in a following aircraft conducting an instrument arrival, and the conditions were somewhat (a lot!)less than that required for a visual approach.

I wonder if the passengers (although feral) on the VB aircraft would travel with them again if they understood the peril that their crew had placed them. I'm not suggesting for an instant that QF is perfect, far from it, but we would be crucified if we carried out an approach like the VB one I witnessed.

But, as Three Bars succinctly points out, cheaper must be better, right?

[Patriot One]

The simple fact is that the arrival of VB was the “Pilot Strike of ‘00”, absolutely mirroring the issues behind the ’89 strike. If VB had arrived on our shores in ’89 would all of the pilots have resigned on mass? The reality is that what AN and TN tried to do in ’89 was exactly what VB accomplished in ’00 and yet many pilots meekly accepted the new order of Australian aviation this time around. Low salaries and conditions were accepted without challenge – all for the chance of a pilot job. I don’t see the bitter ‘89ers complaining about the VB pilots who joined in ’00, and yet their reason for joining was the same as those who crossed the line and returned to work in ’89. If you want to claim a moral high ground guys, then you should be consistent; under your theory the first crews inducted into the VB ranks in ’00 were also sc*bs.

However, what didn’t happen in ’89 and did in ’00 was the erosion of flight and engineering standards. If any of you don’t believe that Australia is now a less safe place to fly because of VB then you are absolutely kidding yourselves. VB pilot ranks are made up of inexperienced crews with enthusiasm and technical expertise who know enough to get them into trouble, and very experienced crews who right now would feel distinctly uncomfortable that the subtle and inherent risks have increased in what they understand is a dangerous business. All I can say is thank god for the experienced guys amongst them, and that for the most part Australia is a fair-weather environment. More than anything I hope that the inexperienced guys know their limitations.

The price of bringing VB to our shore is understanding that the base line of standards, safety and integrity has now changed forever. Every current airline in Australia will use the new low base-line set by VB as the measure for their own operation (read QF). And when the 3rd airline comes along, as it most assuredly will, they too will work from the new, bottom of the pile, VB baseline. What you saw as an overt attack in ’89, has actually been affected, much more insidiously in ’00 – and you didn’t even see it coming.

The kitchen isn’t too hot for me – I have seen all this before overseas, particularly in the U.S., and with much bigger players. The bitterness and anger that you often show amongst each other on these threads is a sign of the distortion created by the changing scene of everything you ever held true as professional pilots. Were you more honest and alert to your ever changing, ever diminishing environment then you as a group would openly admit the consequences of VB in your world. Once you see that it is the commercial world that will always seek to flatten the complexity of the operational world (because complexity means cost) then you may unite to set a standard. Operating standards aren’t set by unions; and Regulators will only ever set minimum standards. You as Pilots know the level of standards required here in Australia. If only you could all talk.

Those that snipe at Ansett and QANTAS and mock things that they did - you obviously never worked anywhere else. These 2 carriers contributed as much to world aviation standards as Pan –Am and TWA. I 100% agree that in the ‘00’s they are/were inefficient, bureaucratic, bumbling, process-laden giants that really needed a good clean out to be fit for the ‘00’s. Trouble is the management wasn’t/isn’t experienced enough, and the Unions not open minded enough.

The state of the industry in Australia today was inevitable – it’s written in the history of European and US aviation. Every time you arrogantly laugh that AN had a flight engineers panel, or that AN’s HF course was b/s – well, by identifying isolated issues you deny the huge achievements that some of you made to create such a professional aviation environment for so long. You seem to forget that your actions in the latter years have actually done more to undermine your industry than anything ever before – including ’89.

Go back 5 years – ask AN and QF what they would say about their Pilots – they’d say - “the best in the world”.
Ask Branson what he thinks about Pilots – he’ll say only one thing – “expensive”.
Ask Dixon what he thinks about Pilots – he’ll say – “I need to get them down to VB’s level”.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

One wonders who you bitches would be bitching about if VB hadn't sprung up.

Been said before - pilots are their own worst enemy - especially the ones livin large, looking down on the unwashed masses of those who are too 'psychotic' to fit the QF 'profile', and expecting the ones that have been 'rejected' by theQF high priests of the cockpit to stay in GA or quit flying altogether, rather than take a job flying jets for 'reasonable' pay and conditions - and remember, reasonable pay is a subjective and a comparable thing.

I ask, what have you guys done to promote equality in pilot job positions, pay and conditions in Australia, except line your own pockets and sneer at the rest of us who choose to fly for other airlines at a pay we consider acceptable?

Stop slagging off VB drivers, conditions and the company you insecure w@nkers - most of us like where we are, what we do and how we do it; and despite what you clowns may think, we do it well. Less dead weight in our ranks than some other majors around these parts!

PS Winstun - right on!

[rockarpee]

Col. Why don't you tell us what u really think:ooh:

[ur2]

Patriot One, Succinct, to the point , and above all accurate. well said. It brought a tear in the eye.

[amos2]

I'm starting to wonder whether P1 is a previous stirrer by another name!

Have a look at the Mick Toller thread, where Woomera has already censored him!

And that's not to say that I always agree with Woomera's censoring! Actually, far from it!

Anyway, I think we need more info from P1 as to his previous life. Methinks we have a stirrer in our midst here!

Perhaps a company stooge?

[Patriot One]

..for what it's worth I've never been here before. Apologies over the Mick Toller comment - not apologies to Mick, but apologies if I broke the rules of PPRUNE...

..for what its worth I'm not a pilot either...company stooge - that's interesting - what exactly is one of those? The people you fear most - the bogey man - you think that they're out there, but its just your imagination. Plenty of idiots, plenty of really impotent and talentless people in the management ranks...I'd be the first to agree...

..I came to talk...not to deceive...dont guess, just ask or challenge what I say..its no mystery

[amos2]

OK!...so we know what you came to talk about, we've worked that out.

But why do you want to talk?...

I mean, are you lonely or something?

[balance]

Actually Amos, I'd rather listen to P1 than you. At least his posts are lucid, not rude, not personal.

So please be quiet, mate.

[ur2]

Amos 2, your lack of intellect is all too abvious, all you do is play the man, not the game. you will never move on.

[Kaptin M]

The base line was re-set in 1989, when the AFAP was effectively removed as the pilots` representative.
That the pilots` conditions as provided by Ansett were unrealistic was evidenced by that companies final collapse.
The unrealistic, high salaries, with overtime commencing at 55 hours, were offered to try to lure the previous AFAP pilots back.

Virgin Blue are smarter than that.

And the "low experience" level you allude to has not resulted in any increase in incidents/accidents to the best of my knowledge. If you have some proof to the contrary, P1, please provide the reference material.

The Chief Pilot is well known by those who worked under him and with him previously, and THAT is why he is trusted.

The blame for the lowering /loss of previous conditions can be placed squarely at the feet of those who rushed in to grab Individual Contracts during the Dispute - in which you say you were not involved, P1??
There is no shortage of applicants to VB, so WHY would they want to increase the package currently being offered?
After all, they (the airline) are still in their formative/growing stage!

Would like to spend more time on this, but I`m at work right now.

[Winstun]

Patriot One, Succinct, to the point , and above all accurate. well said. It brought a tear in the eye. :rolleyes: ...presence of intellect? :hmm: “the best in the world”. :ooh: Frankly, this repetitive Aussie pilot wet dream has not only become increasingly nauseating over several decades, but is downright embarassing to an international upmarket player like myself. :rolleyes: Luckily I have several other passports at hand, and able to keep Oz one under wraps avoiding ridicule.

[Lodown]

I apologise to fellow Ppruners profusely for giving my support to Winstun and lending support to his argument.

Take a Prozac quick Winstun. Your ego's getting away on you.

[Sub-Sonic MB]

P1 says he/she is not a pilot.
I say, in this context, he/she is a liar.

[Cap10 Caveman]

Winstun,

No use of the word "friggin" in your last post, did you celebrate your 18th birthday recently and grow out of this phase??

:E :E :E :E :E :E

[Patriot One]

Nope – not a Pilot, which interestingly enough is irrelevant anyway. What is more relevant is the content of my posts, and not the context of my position.

I’m confused Amos – isn’t the whole point of PPRUNE to talk?

Kaptin – you’re a quandary to me. The person I believe you to be is an exceptionally experienced aviator, made bitter by the compromises and hits that the industry has forced on you. Underneath it all I believe you have so much more to say about the injustices brought upon pilots by this ugly industry instead of blaming a few individuals. But instead you lean so heavily on the union to recover what was lost. Can’t you see that the union can’t save you? And can’t you see that it wasn’t your ex-colleagues/fellow aviators that sold you out? It was this sh*t of an industry that puts pilots in such situations, and at the end of the day Kaptin every one is motivated by their personal circumstances. Sadly there will always be those who exploit situations for selfish reward, but on the whole they are the exception. You can’t brand all the guys that returned because most of them did it because they had to feed their kids, their wives, and because they were possibly afraid that the job they loved and wanted to do forever may possibly be nevermore. You probably believe that they should’ve held on together until the bitter end, but the reality is that once the walk-out had occurred the die was cast and there was no going back for the management and politicians. And on top of that was the fact the each pilot was faced with personal issues and what it would mean for their futures. I know when I kiss my kids each night and wake them up each morning that there really is nothing more important in life than them, and I know I’d die to keep them happy and healthy.

I 100% agree that there were those who cared nothing for their colleagues, their families, and even the integrity of their industry, and saw this as a fast-track to opportunity for them. Those people are truly the scum of the earth, but believe me, just read the newspaper – they are everywhere. They may have gained from their actions, but in so many other ways they lost. For most of us respect from our peers is the highest reward. They will have lost that – but the beast that they are would care not. It matters not. Life rewards the opportunist – sadly it doesn’t discriminate the loathsome opportunist.

For what it is worth I would encourage you to not brand the returnee’s as one, but to give at least some of them the benefit of the doubt. When I returned to Australia a few years ago, after many years away, I worked with many, many pilots. ’89 meant nothing to me – I wasn’t here and at the time cared less. In my time here so far I have met some amazing pilots – managers and line – and I met some real bad characters who continuously set about exploiting personal opportunity. Funny how ’89 was not a part of the criteria that made up of each of these guys.

This industry is so commercially ugly that it doesn’t deserve the extraordinarily amazing facet that is the actual flying side, with magnificent machines, incredible technology and a set of men and women that come to work and accomplish the amazing feat of flying every day. It’s your bosses that have sold you out, because they don’t truly value what this industry is about. They simply say “to earn that $100 we’re going to have to cut costs somewhere else”. They’re not pilots, engineers or operations people, they don’t even care, appreciate or understand the incredible accomplishment that flying is.

When you want someone to blame, look to the companies like Virgin Blue that see you as a necessary evil – and p*ss down your back and make you think its raining. They don’t say “pilots are incredible for what they do”, they say “look how much they cost”. Look at your union as well. It was the failure of your union and every other aviation union to see that the costs could simply not be maintained. A big part of Ansett’s death was the continuous hard-nosed fight by the unions to maintain salaries. A big part was the failure of management to bring the employees along with them to understand that costs need to be saved to survive. Take a look at the airlines in the US. For so many years pilot salaries have gone up while productivity has gone down – no thought of preparing for the future challenges that lay ahead. Then Sept 11th occurs, and so many other global disasters, and now union after union is capitulating.

The lesson is never negotiate when you have no choice – effective negotiation is a strategy for improvement when you have choices; it is not a tactical response to a crisis when you have none. It’s no wonder that pilots are queuing up to join VB – they have no choice.

I may sound hard on VB crews – but in truth I respect every one of them for having the courage to accept the worst of everything to keep doing something that they love. Honestly, you pilots don’t realise how lucky you are.

[Neddy]

I love the theory espoused here and on like threads that equate pay scales with a level of safety. “If you only pay ‘x’ dollars (less than the perceived going rate) then therefore the person you have hired is by default less safe”.

Lowdown has spelt out the state of affairs rather succinctly in regard to the driving forces of ’89 and beyond as they relate to skill sets and related remuneration. Fairly predictably he was attacked for delivering “the message”.

Patriot has decided that because Virgin (and others) can do things more cheaply (including wages) and efficiently they must be unsafe and a threat to the “civilised” world.

Pilots (read flight attendants, baggage handlers etc) no longer have the “God given” right to ridiculous salaries and practices such as the antiquated seniority system. Undoubtedly most are skilled at their task, but this in itself does not automatically justify exorbitant wages. Just ask most of the scientists and medical researchers! The argument that “we have been paid large sums in the past therefore it must be justified/continued” is also one for the dinosaurs.

A substantial reason for the ’89 result and the inevitable Ansett demise was the continuous failure to recognise that the political and economic environment had moved on. Were the actions of Bob and his mates immoral? Most probably, were they illegal? Obviously not. The pilots and their union were outsmarted on an uneven political playing field with new rules. The signs were there for all to see! Failure to recognise that the game had been relocated to said field was nobody’s fault but the AFAP and the members.

Like their knowledge of financial investment, motor vehicles and marital relationships the “average” airline pilot’s knowledge of industrial relations and business economics emanates from discussions around the bar at the Georges River Rowers. Amazingly they even deride those of their own fraternity (as witnessed here on pprune) who endeavour to acquire additional qualifications (other than “I knows how to fly”) which may actually be of benefit to the collective. Consequently, they continually navel gaze in search of the enemy who “done them wrong” instead of contemplating their own failures, ill conceived tactics and lessons to be learnt!

[Sub-Sonic MB]

Hmmm.
I wonder why P1 sounds like Citizen XXXXXXX?
For claiming to not be a pilot, P1 seems to have considarable opinions on matters that concern pilots.
His/her rather perverse comments, like don't blame the returnees on the one hand, then criticises them on the other, defies logic.
If you need yet another lesson, so often expounded in this forum, P1, then you will get it.
But then, maybe that is the intent of the post.
So let's assume that is the case, and keep it brief.
The outcome of the '89 dispute can be attributed to the character weakness, and the blatant self-importance each and every scab imagined of him/herself.
Dollar signs in lieu of eyeballs were the clue.
The vision of seniority free promtotion if one brown-nosed the right golden scab formed a part of it as well.
As one prime scab, ******, is known to have claimed, the imaginary "I was taking my job back" cry, was the conscience soothing lie scabs like to use - still.
The scabs are alive, but not well, for the reasons you have stated P1.
The industry is in a mess, but not because you say it is high pilot costs, but because pilots have lost the professional plot.
Unless and until professional pilots meet on the road to Damascus, and realise that unity of the professional pilots in Australia (and worldwide) is the only way to protect the industry from professional and industrial annihilation, then the downward spiral will continue.
Unfortunately, the weakness of the AIPA will deny that revelation until its leaders realise the disastrous mistake GW made in the early '80s.
Meanwhile, P1, keep 'em coming.

[Patriot One]

I don't recall saying that high pilot costs killed the industry - I said they killed the profession.

I didn't contradict myself over the '89ers either. I said not to treat them as one, as the motivation was different from man to man.

It's pretty obvious I can't win the '89 discussion and quite frankly maybe it's really none of my business. I'm not a pilot and don't desire to be one. I admire the profession, but hell - I couldnt stand everyone looking at me like I was a $50 note (sorry, couldnt resist). I also respect the fact that my rather late opinion on such an emotional issue is probably a little insensitive to all of those who had to go through it.

Whether you like it or not VB has re-written Australian aviation history, and you're not going to like the future. Look overseas for examples of where it is going. You know why Dixon allows VB to hang around? Because he's going to use the rules that VB wrote to turn QF upside down.

..oh and by the way Neddy - whilst my discussion to date has been about Pilots, it actually applies to all employees, and management....

It's simple maths;
Airline Infra-structure + Airline Costs + Low Fares = low profits.
Airline costs + Minimal Infrastructure + High Fares = high profits (and an unsafe commercial or operational business).

[No worries mate]

Wasn't it NJS, then Flight West and Impulse who were the first to lower the pay rates for Jet pilots in OZ.

NJS started in the early 90's paying their BA146 pilots less than Ansett 146 pilots. When FWA started F28 operations they also paid their pilots less then what Ansett F28 pilots were paid. When Impulse started B717 operations their pilots were employed by a crewing company and were paid far less than any other jet pilot in OZ. (Please note I'm not knocking any of these companies or their pilots). B717 FO's were paid less than $60k and Capts less than $100k. F28 FO's at FWA were paid in the mid-50's and Capts less than 90k.

Over 90% of the FO's and around 40% of the Capts current flying the B717 came off the B1900 with most of the FO's having less than 2 years on the B1900 before moving onto the B717. The 40% of Capt's (on the B717) who came of the B1900 and have done so in less than 3 years and only a handful had any jet time (Beechjet). So what do you say about their experience level? Are they in the same class as the Virgin Blue pilots? Why haven't they (Impulse) bent an aircraft? Answer their training plus the experience level they have within their senior pilot ranks and C & T pilots. These pilots ensure that the line pilots are trained and checked to the standards set by CASA and the Airline (which is usually a higher standard) before they operate any line flight.

It's the same at Virgin Blue, around 80-90% of the FO's have come from the regionals, with many previously capts on these regional aircraft. They have flown Saabs, E120s, Dash 8s, B1900s CRJs, Metros etc. I would guess that only around 30% of the current B737 capts at Virgin Blue would have had no jet time when they joined the company. So like Impulse, Virgin have a large percentage of senior and C & T pilots within their ranks to ensure that Virgin Blue pilots meet the standards set by CASA and once again the airline.

Low pay does not equal a lower safety standard. In the 10 plus year NJS have been operating have they bent an aircraft? In the 5 years that FWA operated jets (F28/F100) did they bend an aircraft? The answer is no. The only operator to bend an a jet aircraft in the last few years has been Qantas.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

companies like Virgin Blue that see you as a necessary evil – and p*ss down your back and make you think its raining. They don’t say “pilots are incredible for what they do”, they say “look how much they cost”.

Open thine eyes and see that this attitude is not exclusive to VB.

[amos2]

Yes, I'm thinking along the same lines as SubSonic.

CXXX back again by another name doing another thesis!

Tell's a good story though!

;)

[Patriot One]

Hmm..seems I tried and failed to get my point across. Let me summarise..

I never espoused higher salaries for pilots - my point was to discuss the low and lowering morale of Australian pilots. First they challenge your salary, then they take away the level of standards. Reading the threads of PPRUNE you've got to be the most bitter and angry bunch of pilots I've ever seen. The constant theme of most threads appears to be a constant bitch about the job and who amongst you is to blame. I was trying to point out that it isn't you, it's the industry.

I was also trying to point out the consequence of your actions and your Unions actions over salaries and conditions actually created the environment for your worst nightmare - the low cost carrier. Rather than see that for what it is you welcome them as almost refreshing for your industry.

They've given you nothing, and taught you only to be grateful that someone created some pilot jobs.

I never said that lower salaries mean unsafe. What I said was the average VB cockpit is now very inexperienced - isn't that a safety issue? How are your rosters? Productive? Your schedule is a mess because your staff and management don't know any better. How's your training? Still using the AN 737-300 Sim? Yup. What's the ratio of NG's to 300's? - 30-1 isn't it? ("Hmm..looks like a 73..smells like a 73..must be a 73..arent they all the same?"). How's the line maintenance? All over the place - that's a fact. How are the F/A PA's? Still playing games in view of joe public?

Bit like the lower-right corner of the Virgin credit card.

Cost reductions by experienced airline people make efficiencies. Cost reductions by talentless morons create risk - after all they don't know what they've cut out. And before you say I'm preaching for QF and AN - haven't you noticed that they didn't/haven't cut costs?

[Lodown]

Patriot One, now you're making accusations. Based on what facts? A feeling? Your observations?

And who, or what, is the "industry"? Aren't "we" part of the industry? Don't "we" make up the industry. So it's our fault?

What's wrong with the low cost carrier? There's obviously a market there that AN and QF didn't fill.

"They've given you nothing..."

What about a paycheque and a job? What else are they supposed to give? Luxury townhouses on Sydney's north shore?

An honest day's work for an honest day's pay sounds like a mutually acceptable exchange to me. QF does the same to its staff.

Obviously VB is meeting CASA standards or they wouldn't be flying. The pilots and staff working for VB are happy, or they wouldn't be there. Customers are happy or they wouldn't be flying with VB.

But I see in a previous post of yours that it is Dixon's fault for leaving VB hang around. Maybe you should lobby Mr Dixon to kill off VB quick smart and restore some order to Australian aviation.

It seems the only people unhappy with the VB arrangements are those in direct competition and those who long for the way things were.

"QF and AN - haven't you noticed that they didn't/haven't cut costs?" You're quite correct. But haven't you noticed that AN went bust and QF is trying to cut costs now?

So where's the problem and what's your point? Morale? Is that it? If you're lamenting the changes to Australian aviation; tough! That's life. Get used to it.

And as for your "simple" math in a previous post:

"Airline Infra-structure + Airline Costs + Low Fares = low profits.
Airline costs + Minimal Infrastructure + High Fares = high profits (and an unsafe commercial or operational business)."

What's that supposed to mean 'cause it makes absolutely no sense to me? Your "equation" is no equation at all. Profit is nothing more than what's left over after deducting costs from income. There's no mention of income at all in your "equation".

Besides, isn't QF the one with the high fares and VB the one with the low?

Maybe there is no fault. Maybe, just maybe, many people are happy with just the way things are. Perhaps you might want to consider submitting a script to Hollywood for a new blockbuster horror film..."The Low Cost Carrier." Good luck.

[halas]

May be Lowy you should pull your head out of the sand (and Allah knows there is too much of it here!)

I think Pat 1 has a few good points, and one of them is that looking over your shoulder isn't a bad thing.

It isn't just DJ, but all the the QF "subsiduries" and contract companies that will come knocking on the QF holy grail doors.

It is the structure within that will bite you on the bum, not the enemy from out side. Lets face it, the domestic oppostion are well under control by the regulators as far as the domestic feild is concerned.

Internationally it's a different game.

QF have to compete against many players. Some may seem more opportunistic under differing policies and be able to take an advantage over the Ol' wight rat, whilst others will argue that it is all fair in love n' war, and that QF have certain "advantages" themselves.

Hope it all goes your way though, and l wish you all the best of fortune.

halas

[Sooty]

Patriot One

you wrote

'How's your training? Still using the AN 737-300 Sim? Yup'

Are you saying that VB does all its recurrent training on a 300 sim?

If so I'd be very disappointed. Sim training is training. How can you be prepared for emergencies etc. if you are flying a totally different cockpit to what you are doing on the line.

I've agreed and disagreed with a lot of comments on this thread and have generally been on VB's side, as I think experience levels and conditions are sure to pick up as they become more secure. But how can you do serious training like this. Checking sure, training no.

[Capn Laptop]

Well actually they don't use the An 300 much these days.

Training is done in Hong Kong 9on a NG sim) with Korea coming on line soon (NG) with our own sims (NG) early in the new year.

people who fly both do one about - ie one 6 monthly cycle in the NG and the next in the classic.

[Three Bars]

Captain Laptop,

I'm not attacking VB here - this is just a genuine enquiry.

Do you do two sims a year at VB?! I assume you guys have to meet the same training matrix that we do at QF, therefore those two rides must be a nightmare!!

[Capn Laptop]

4 sims a year, 2 every 6 months

It is a Big T organisation

[Kaptin M]

P1, CX, although you claim to not be a pilot, the essence of many of your texts belie that claim.
Perhaps you are being a little "cute", inasmuch as you are not an active pilot at this time?

"Experience" appears to mean something only to other pilots (and probably insurance companies), as it seems that managements worldwide are seeing just how far the INexperience level can be stretched before it starts reflecting in terms of accidents/incidents.
According to Boeing - and their figures may have been calculated in the knowledge that airlines would be actively placing more INEXPERIENCE on the flight decks - airline hull losses will rise to almost 52 ....1 per week, on average....within the next 10 - 15 years. Pretty scary stuff!!

There has been a noticeable "dumbing down" of flight operations for at least the last 8 years or thereabouts, in my opinion.
Pilots are being taught to operate rote, with the obligatory "clear left - clear right" thrown in, to try to give the impression that there is some airmanship involved in the operation.
True airmanship and lateral thinking is being pretty quickly eradicated in most of the operations I`m referring to, for the simple reason that the people doing the teaching have no depth of experience themselves, and have limited envelopes of experience.
This CANNOT be said for the vast majority of Virgin Blue Training Captains - many of whom I know personally, and MANY of whom left far better paid jobs to join VB, having previously flown jets in Australia`s pre-`89 airlines, and then continued overseas.
As a matter of personal opinion I would guess that the airline experience level in VB is HIGHER now, than it was for a couple of years in Ansett, TAA, East-West and IPEC immediately post 1989 and for several years thereafter!

So P1, I`m afraid that your "concern" re the "lack" of experience is not indicative of someone who claims that he is NOT a pilot.

The reason for employing many more inexperienced pilots is probably due to several factors - the retirement of the "Baby Boomers", rapid fleet growths, and the opportunity to REDUCE salaries.
Singapore Airlines has been exploiting pilots for decades - taking young G.A. guys and bonding them for $1/4 million over 7 years, then paying them $1,000 per month.

Read the threads of "Flying for free" that occasionally pop up - there are PLENTY of novices who would give their SOUL to fly airline equipment - forget about the salary. Until they realise that you really can`t live on love.

Again IMO, the base experience level of VB Flight Ops has a real depth.
Pilots do not HAVE to work there, however if they WANT to, then they will have to join a very long queue, and pass a screening test to find out whether they are acceptable.

[Patriot One]

Thanks for that Kaptin. Well said.

I can't argue with you guys any longer. You see I am not a pilot, and I came on here to try to offer an objective view of your profession.

You seem to be very content and defend yourselves very well. So why are you all so angry? Your pages are full of spit and vitriol at each other.

Good luck to you all. I honestly believe that Australian aviation is in a massive state of transition. Count on the fact that the scene will be entirely different in a couple of years time.

Meanwhile, draw a line on standards fella's. When they start turning everything upside please don't rely on your Union or this joke of a regulator to keep things safe. You guys know the limitations. Fight for them and dont confuse them with salaries.

And hey, QF - do something about your cabin service. I don't feel safe on VB so I have to travel on you.

The bright day is done....we are for the dark!

[Lodown]

Hang on Patriot One. I'll agree with your belief in a massive state of transition, but what industry isn't?

I'm not criticising you, but I do have trouble with your argument. It appears personal, disjointed and unsupported by information based on facts. Your information about simulators and experience levels at Virgin Blue appears incorrect, yet it makes a substantial contribution to your recent postings. Your knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing seems to be the product of some beers at a local pub. You've blasted the union, the industry, Virgin Blue, Virgin, Richard Branson, CASA, Qantas, Geoff Dixon, Qantas cabin service, and by acquaintance, many of the people who read these postings, and yet you somehow believe you're aloof from the spit and vitriol that you've been dishing out. And you want us to take you seriously?

Now, if you have something substantial to say, then I'm prepared to read and learn, but your postings haven't even been worthy of rumours. They appear to me to be more like rantings and ravings aimed at stirring the pot. Have you got anything good to say about the future of Australian aviation, or is it all just doom and gloom and are we just idiots for not being able to "see" what you "see"?

[Kaptin M]

"I can't argue with you guys any longer. You see I am not a pilot, and I came on here to try to offer an objective view of your profession." Patriot One

Perhaps it's the Aussie "culture" that you need to get used to, P1, rather than taking the comments too personally. We're a blunt lot and call a spade a spade, rather than sugar-coating what we have to say.
At the moment we're "scratching", to see exactly WHERE you're coming from. From reading your posts, you certainly seem to have it in for VIRGIN for whatever reason, and appear to be using PPRuNe as your platform (perhaps only one of...) to spread some unfounded rumours.

Most pilots are aware of changes that are occurring in aviation, and are happy to accomodate them IF it can be proven that they are beneficial and ENHANCE Safety - or at least do not detract from it.
It is also very obvious to those of us who have been in the industry for a while that there is a mindset with many of the so-called "management" to expand the companies in questionable areas whilst simultaneously reducing/trimming or substituting others that are necessary.

Non-aviation qualified management are having too much influence in areas that affect flight safety, and the effect is becoming more noticeable - to the point where I believe aircraft and occupant safety ARE going to be compromised, and this is where the friction is, between the airline staff at "the coalface" and the management of many companies.
B.A. is one prime example at the moment, of a workforce that is telling Eddington, "Enough is enough!".

Yesterday I received the following email from a non-aviation mate of mine in Brisbane, and I'd like to share it with you.

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do.
Finally he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway, it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbours to come over and help him.

They each grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realised what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to
everyone's amazement, he quietened down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer looked down the well, and was astonished at what he saw.
As every shovel of dirt hit his back, the donkey did something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer's neighbours continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up.

Pretty soon, everyone was amazed, as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off.

The Moral: Life is going to shovel dirt on you. The trick is to shake it off and take a step up.

Remember the five simple rules to be happy:
1. Free your heart from hatred.
2. Free your mind from worries.
3. Live simply.
4. Give more.
5. Expect less.

O.K., that's enough of that... The donkey later came back, caught the farmer out in the field and bit him. Then kicked him. Then he went over to each of his neighbours farms and bit and kicked them too for helping.


The REAL Moral: When you try to cover your ass, it always comes back to bite you...

[Patriot One]

Kaptin - bloody good e-mail. I would tend to disagree with you on some issues but I respect the opinions you expressed.

Lodown - my argument isn't disjointed, I have been consistent throughout. Unsupported by facts? If I was to state the facts Woomera would ban me from PPRUNE. By the way I hardly think one line about a simulator (which I still insist is correct - 50% of the training is done on the AN sim) makes up a "substantial contribution to your postings".

And finally, your mockery of my "knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing" is almost breathlessly ignorant....and remember Lowdown "....real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance".

But I will concede one point to you - what the hell is my point?

[amos2]

Well it's been interesting reading what P1 has had to say the last few days...and I agree with a lot of it! Not all, but a lot!

A guess P1 made the mistake of thinking this is some sort of chat forum when in actual fact it's a rumour and abuse forum.

That is, you start a rumour and we abuse you. If you want to chat I guess Oprah might be the correct forum!

We also have some sensitive souls here, some are a bit thick and a sense of humour often seems to be lacking!

So, having said that, let me also say that I am joking!!

:p

PS: We should all take note of Rev M and his very wise epistle!

[Clive]

Well.... I go on a short holiday with the family and miss out on such a good thread... ****** !!

Must agree with your praise of NZ in past posts Kaptin. Never got to see much in the year I was based there but this holiday improved my vision. Missed Hanmer Springs but had some quality time on the slopes of both Islands, should have taken the family long ago.

Patriot 1.

I have enjoyed your posts. You say that your point is lost and you are failing in your intent. That is not the case. Please review the number of posts v's the number of viewings of the threads. There are many more who read this forum than post replies (as an example, note the number of replies I have made during my years registered here). You have much to offer... don't be detracted by personal attacks. Your assesment of Kaptin M is accurate. He has much to offer and is a good sparring partner for matters relating to this industry... but he can get cranky on the '89 issue.

I too have spent many frustrating hours at the keyboard attempting to put my aviation degrees to some use by waxing lyrical in this place on the parlous state of our industry. My conclusions are similar to yours (or what I think are yours)... the industry itself is to blame.

We have educated the customer to believe that a fair price to travel from BNE to SYD is $80 bucks (or there abouts), when we should be saying that if you want to do that trip in just over an hour... and safely.... then we may need to charge you more. To attribute blame for such failings would require a motivated intelectual with the need to complete a thesis. All I can say is that within aviation management the "Peter Principle" is alive and well. A fact that will always make aviation a dangerous place... both operationally and commercially.

Again... from this observer.... thank you for your input.

[Boney]

I find it interesting the amount of talk about low experience people being taken on by VB.

I know of about 7 drivers who got in about a year or so ago.

The least experienced had TT 2,000, 1000 multi, most of it turbine. The most experienced had TT 5,000, 3000 multi including 2000 turbine Capt. over 5,700. Everyone else was somewhere between.

Is it just another urban myth?

Lets face it - it is not as if there is a shortage of drivers with the above experience.

[Karunch]

Boney, the inexperience refered to is only of concern when combined with rapid promotion.

The experience you outline is quite reasonable for a jet F/o position, however these same people may only have 500 hrs jet experience when being considered for command upgrades. While for some candidates this is acceptable, the majority require more (but may not get it).

Bear in mind that not so long ago five years jet experience was a minimum with Australia's airlines, so the rapid reduction to six months is a quantum leap. Over a protracted period a culture of inexperience results.

The left hand seat is not the place to be learning to fly jet aircraft. Cheers

[Boney]

Karunch

Point taken!

[Lodown]

Patriot One, maybe I misconstrued some of your postings, but I still can't see your point. You lay blame on someone for disrupting the incumbents by having the foresight to see a new market as well as the economic conditions for the supporting infrastructure and the relevant costs and then taking action to profit from it. Surely that is the beauty of capitalism at work. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got - to paraphrase and massacre a well-used line.
You're blaming Virgin and Richard Branson and also Qantas to some extent, for something that isn't specific to the aviation industry. It is happening to every business and industry where electronics are taking, or have taken, over routine, repetitive tasks and employees are working more from SOPs. The company that can analyse the customer, have the discipline to focus the company on achieveable goals and measure and assess the competition and beat the opposition to the punch gets the spoils. And once ahead, the innovative company is in a much stronger position to stay ahead. The fact that Qantas and Ansett made, and Qantas continues to make, changes in direction at a speed that makes a snail's pace look positively blistering only leaves avenues open for continued VB growth and confidence.
Qantas and Ansett controlled the market for passengers and pilots/staff. That was great for people employed by Qantas. Having the benefit of hindsight, both companies, and their respective unions, were painstakingly slow in recognising the changes in the World economic scene and horrendously slow to react to at-home political reforms. Virgin Blue stepped into the vacuum with a very flexible business plan by comparison.
Perhaps some people feel gratitude towards you for pointing out that Virgin Blue ownership may change around in 18 months, but isn't that business, assuming it even happens? Who knows? The future could be completely opposite to your prediction and VB could have 70% of the Australian domestic market share by then with Richard Branson on the edge of owning a true World airline. I would think that the more likely scenario, but it's only a hunch. I would guess that if Geoff Dixon had the inside scoop to know that VB wouldn't be around in 18 months, he'd be taking a different view to Qantas reforms.
VB is expanding rapidly, and there are a number of issues with a rapidly expanding company in any business - finance, communication, training, personnel development, supply line continuity - to name a few. You're pointing out these problems. I take the view in a growing company like VB that I'd be worried if they didn't have these issues. I'm sure CASA has a great deal of interest in ensuring standards are maintained. Yes, to some extent you're right in terms of comparing it to a house of cards. But I could just as easily make that comparison to just about every business. There is usually a situation or more with every business that could bring the house down, but part of management's role is to minimise exposure.
Just a difference of opinion I guess, and we'll have to agree to leave it at that. I'm keen to see what's in store over the short to medium term.

[Kaptin M]

Before passing my short comment on your well thought-out posting, Lodown, I would like to prefix it by saying that I do NOT agree with P1's assertion that VB are using insufficiently experienced pilots in the lhs.
I consider your critique and comparisons, Lodown, to be more those of a non-pilot (which P1 professes to be) wrt "experience".

And so to my main point, which is that your observations are quite interesting, Lodown, however the "house of cards" around which this type of discussion centres, involves the carriage of people, and a collapse of the said house, as such, MAY involve the loss of hundreds of lives.
This is where pilots differ from non-pilot management, when we (pilots) cite "experience" as an important factor for consideration for promotion, or eligibilty to occupy a seat in the cockpit.

[Lodown]

Kaptin M, thanks for the opportunity for discussion. I am assuming your comments regarding experience stem from my comments on page 1 of this topic when I intonated that skills are an accumulation and application of knowledge and something that can be taught.
I might be way out in left field, and I'm sure you (and many others) will tell me if I am, but I tend to regard aviation "experience" when used as a minimum qualification for a position or promotion, as a carry-over from the past when there was no other way to define, measure, analyse, modify and monitor a pilot's performance. I should point out that it is still applicable in many, many situations. Can I ask you some questions about "experience"?
First, what exactly is the difference in skill sets between a pilot with say 8 years experience and one with say 2 years? In other words, what exactly does the 8 year pilot know, that the 2 year pilot doesn't that is derived solely from an additional 6 years of experience in a cockpit environment?
Second, after looking over this list, how do you know that the 8 year pilot does indeed know everything on this list, and can apply it when and as necessary?
Third, what aspects are absolutely necessary for promotion into the lhs?
Fourth, what are the essentials on this list that can't be trained into a 2 year pilot in the presence of a good classroom, a competent instructor and an excellent simulator?
There are certainly other questions that will arise when I have longer to think about it, but I'm interested in your thoughts.

I deliberately didn't mention the possibility of an accident in my previous post, because that image gets dragged out with every discussion on pilot competencies and conditions. It is an ever-present thought, but has been used so often without qualification that it loses its impact with anyone but pilots. There are many other professions also responsible for similar numbers of people's lives - driving a petrol tanker, designing and engineering a bridge or high rise, power station operators, working in an oil refinery or chemical plant, ensuring cleanliness in the manufacture of peanut butter, air traffic control, pharmaceutical company employees, and lots more. I'm sure someone in aviation will take offense at being equated to someone manufacturing peanut butter, but that is not the intent. It is just to mention that there are many, many jobs where people are entrusted to exercise good judgment in the performance of their duties at the risk of innocent lives.

[Hostie Humper]

I had a laugh at the attempted wind-up by Balance a couple of pages ago, referring to the apparant visual appr into AD in non-vmc conditions by a virgin aircraft. If the conditions were so bad, how did you witness it? I have been operating into AD for years, and AD approach have NEVER assigned me an approach, with a visual segment, in non-vmc conditions. Do you all agree?

Are you saying (you must be) that the DJ aircraft specifically requested a visual approach?

[Repro]

As far as I know , experience come from how many times you have had to resolve problems etc with a/c.

A bloke with 8 years experience would probably have had more exposure to problems than a bloke with only 2 years experience.

[Spotlight]

Repro

Spot on, my sentiments exactly. The proposition is mendacious nonsense. Would Lodown have us believe that should he or a member of his family find themselves in need of good legal representation he would engage a 22 year old with a fresh certificate in favour of an old hand.

What experience brings in any endeavour is an enhanced ability to see patterns developing, recognise a likely or alternative outcome and position yourself to capitalise on this.

Brown noses and backstabbers are obviously adept at the above. I think on their side of the fence its called 'Life Skills', with the skills and techniques practised from an early age.

[amos2]

Been in this business for 44yrs and probably still learning, but in response to Lodowns questions the following are my answers...

1. The pilot with 8yrs experience has 6yrs more experience than the pilot with 2yrs experience!

2. The pilot with 8yrs experience has 6yrs more experience than the pilot with 2yrs experience!

3. The pilot with 8yrs experience has 6yrs more experience than the pilot with 2yrs experience!

...and finally question 4.

The pilot with 8yrs experience has 6yrs more experience than the pilot with 2yrs experience!

And the above would apply to a Butcher,a Baker,a Candlestick maker,a Travel Agent,a Sim Technician and an Air Traffic Controller

Are we getting the message here Lodown?

[Patriot One]

Lodown - I have to say that it is an extraordinarily brave claim that you make that experience has no value, and that technical skills are the key. You operate in what is undoubtedly one of the most commercially dangerous and unpredictable environments on earth - to assume that the only criteria needed is the technical skill to operate your aircraft is fantasy. Australia may be a predominantly fair-weather environment, but is also has extremes of weather that occur randomly - experience, and many years of it, is the only way to truly achieve maximum situational awareness. The same applies to your aircraft - they may be very modern, and idiot-proof, but they are machines and they have a tendency to "say what they don't mean", and behave in a manner not specified in the operating manual. Just ask any Lame that has scratched his head over a problem that he just can't fix logically.

Combine weather, aircraft and inexperience and at the very, very least you end up with a very poor level of operational control, which may not necessarily create a safety incident, but it certainly compromises commercial integrity.

So, in summary, experience is an important prerequisite when it comes to safety and efficiency of operations. As most experienced pilots have been at it for years they tend not to accept low-paid jobs in airlines. Therefore, VB sets its criteria at low levels because it needs a pilot workforce. It trades off salary for experience and cares even less. This is what VB has brought to your side of the industry. It's advantage in this area is that there are precious few cockpit seats available today, and so experienced pilots have to grab at opportunities even if it means accepting lower salaries. This is not a strategy of VB, this is a consequence of the collapsing industry.

The point is that if the survival of your business hangs so tentatively on an unpredictable and dangerous operating environment, then you had better make damn sure that you don't dumb down the airline, and instead get the best of the best. What you spend iin the detail, you save in the delivery.

Lesson never ever learned.

[Kaptin M]

Lodown, I get the impression - rightly or wrongly - that you are either TOTALLY ignorant of aviation, or, that you are trying to muck us around by having us waste our time posting long-winded replies to your questions.
Quite frankly, I can't be bothered!

I agree with some of P1's sentiments, however as he is aiming them directly at VB, I must disagree that they are solely a VB problem, or that thay are anywhere near the scale that he implies.

Virgin Blue has - and continues to - employ many, many highly experienced pilots with a vast depth of airline experience. It is these pilots that form the C&T backbone of VB.
Just as in EVERY other airline, there are lesser (and possibly more) experienced pilots making up the remainder.
However ALL of these VB pilots - to date - have been selected by a panel of pilots, ALL of whom are well respected not only within Australian aviation circles, but many also overseas, where they successfully operated in checking/training positions.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that the DEPTH of airline experience in VB is far deeper than it was in the "new Ansett", post 1989, not least because those employed in the C&T side of VB have a genuine known history.

Lodown, as previous posters have responded quite succinctly to you, allow me to ask you what you believe would be the difference between two exponents of karate (karatekas) - one with 2 years experience and holder of a 1st degree (shodan) black belt, and another with 8 years and holder of say 5th dan?
As spotlight says, "What experience brings in any endeavour is an enhanced ability to see patterns developing, recognise a likely or alternative outcome and position yourself to capitalise on this.".
The OBVIOUS, subtle differences are more than likely not readily obvious to the uninitiated, and at the outset the two might even appear equal, but over a period of time the experience is going to show through, perhaps slowly at first, but then in ever increasing leaps and then bounds.

And VB are paying EXTRA for that experience, as their C&T pilots receive remuneration at a higher level than line pilots.
Furthermore, VB knows full well that pilots will trade off salary for lifestyle.
We have had a couple of pilots resign their job here, to return to Australia (with VB) for around 1/2 the salary they were on. There is also a Canadian guy here - who having discovered Oz - would love to do the same!
I don't disagree that the pay scales aren't up there with QF, however, given time, I believe that the 2 will eventually be much closer!

Lodown, the occupations you cite..."There are many other professions also responsible for similar numbers of people's lives - driving a petrol tanker, designing and engineering a bridge or high rise, power station operators, working in an oil refinery or chemical plant, ensuring cleanliness in the manufacture of peanut butter, air traffic control, pharmaceutical company employees, and lots more."...ALL operate within a fairly static environment.
If a problem develops, stop/pause the machinery, call in outside help, and if necessary get the fcuk OUT and save your own neck!
The petrol tanker can be stopped at the roadside; the bridge/high-rise engineer can go over his plans time and time and time again; the power station operator can shut the whole thing down, as can the employees in the oil refinery, chemical plant, peanut butter factory, etc; the ATC'er can tell all aircraft to "enter hold in present position"...(and let the pilot(s) worry about HOW long they have :hmm: ).
Pilots don't have those same luxuries available to them.
Evaluation, decision-making, and re-evaluation are required in even the day-to-day line ops.
It is this process - one of many - that is honed with flying experience, allowing a pilot to reach the CORRECT (or more correct) decision more efficiently, than his lesser experienced compatriot.

[Lodown]

Yep, I agree, it was a terrible series of questions about experience. I was thinking about something else that was somewhat related and that was the result - not a great deal of association with my initial thoughts. If I had a do-over, it would be completely different. My post related to skill and somehow I got myself in a tangle discussing experience out of context to my original intent. So, I appreciate the responses and apologise for the way the questions were worded.

[balance]

HH...

Good name, especially for someone that clearly fly's for DJ! Like it.

No mate, no wind up. Sh1t conditions into AD that night, I was in a following aircraft (2 - 3 min behind - they were on our TCAS the whole time) and we were carrying out a 05 VOR appr. And we broke out well below that required for a visual arrival. An IAL was the only way you could legally land that night.

And yes, the VB aircraft got in somehow via the Black arrival with a vis transition. Perhaps AD should not have assigned it, but after all, who's responsible in the end. Yes, PIC.

Sorry, but this was a valid point. If those passengers understood what a situation they were placed in, well, I'm sure they wouldn't be happy!

Back to the topic!

[Kaptin M]

You're assuming, balance, that the wx conditions that YOU experienced on your track, and at the time YOU made YOUR approach, were the same as those that the other aircraft encountered.
You know the old adage about ASS-U-ME.

Or perhaps they are were just more on the ball, and craftier than you guys. :cool:

As you gain more experience, balance, you'll realise that an aircraft even 5 miles ahead on the same approach as you, may encounter considerably changed conditions.
Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

[balance]

A very condescending post Kaptin. YOU make certain assumptions about ME, which are not yours to make. You know nothing of me, my background, age or experience. ASS-U-ME. Perhaps you should take a leaf from your own book.

I know what I know, and I saw what I saw. If you wish to down play it by telling me that I am inexperienced (I must be!), then fill your boots.

Benefit of the doubt is wonderful until someone comes unstuck. And then what? Those who gave that benefit dive for cover. We have regulations which are in place to keep people safe. Bust them, and that level of safety is reduced, or removed. And that, without any shadow of a doubt that is what I witnessed.

And craftier? Jesus, if that was "crafty", I'd hate to see straight out dangerous! Where in hell do you define a boundary between "crafty" and purely illegal?

No assumptions on my part, Kaptin. How about yours?

[Break Right]

balance if i understand what your saying the boys have done something very silly and/or broken some rules. So with what your saw and heard, because i'm sure you would have been able to see exactly what they were looking at out their windows, they would have been 225 by the tower at least if not by YOU being the ACE of maintaining "We have regulations which are in place to keep people safe".;) :ok:

[Sooty]

You can't judge what's out in front unless you are in that aircraft. Unfortunately this kind of unsubstantiated accusation causes more problems than its worth. I know what you are saying balance, but be careful that you are dead certain of your facts.

Also as balance said:

Back to the topic!

So far this has been possibly the most civil and interesting post on this forum. Lets keep it that way....

[Kaptin M]

"I know what I know, and I saw what I saw."

Precisely correct, balance - however you do NOT know what the crew of other aircraft ahead, or behind, you saw.
That is the reason why some aircraft are able to land off an approach, whilst another has to go around.

Grow up! Your accusations are against qualified pilots of another airline are unprofessional to say the least, and YOUR lack of understanding of the simple fact that weather conditions fluctuate, indicates lack of experience!

[balance]

Well, I should have known better. Don't critisize VB lest you get struck down. I wonder if this had been a red rat in front of me, would the response have been different.

Thanks for setting me straight, Kaptin. I now understand meteorology completely, given your arrogant teachings. By your judgement, one person is not allowed to tell another that they have done wrong, because it is "unprofessional". Utter tripe.

Weather is often subjective, but sometimes it is quite clear cut. In this circumstance, it was clear cut. And we are not talking about lnding off an ILS here. We have a B738 that somehow became visual off radar vectors with an overcast cloud base of 1000', and reduced vis in driving rain.

Visual approach? Sorry, but no way was this legally possible. And no, the wx did not suddenly crump in between our two aircraft.

Good grief. Now please, back to "Paradise lost".

[Hostie Humper]

Balance, did you hear the DJ crew request a visual approach instead of a 05 VOR/DME?

Give us an approx time, and the date, and lets check the ATIS that was being broadcast around then.

Once again, has anyone (who actually flys) had AD Approach assign a Visual Approach onto 05 in Non-VMC conditions??

If anything, they are conservative, and issue the VOR/DME approach when any significant cloud/showers are around.

[balance]

Last word.

I'm not going to give times and dates, because I'm not going to "dob the guys in". Not my place - and THAT would be unprofessional. We all know that CASA believe this forum to be legally binding!

I think however that the wx even caught AD Appr and Twr by surprise, but in the end the PIC is responsible.

The example I have given isn't meant to be specific, it has a wider cultural meaning, and I think it has been seized upon by a few, and blown out of proportion.

[Hostie Humper]

Balance, thanks for being honest and effectively admitting 'you made it all up'.

So what's your real reason for trying to put dirt on the DJ crews?

Then we can go back to Paradise Lost.

[balance]

Head back into the sand, HH. Blokes like you will never learn.

[ur2]

Bit RICH coming from you Kapt M.

[Kaptin M]

I think however that the wx even caught AD Appr and Twr by surprise
Rapidly changing wx conditions, balance. Seems as though we are in agreement at long last. :ok:

[prospector]

Kaptin M
It would appear you are the one making assumptions.
Cant speak for balance of course, but following this thread, and others, the arrogance you display by assuming that people are inexperienced when they do not agree with your assumptions is the only thing that there could be any agreement over.

Prospector

[Sherm Boy]

Serious question:

September 1989. Australian Airlines starts flying again. Anyone know the average recency level of the first few months crews? Anecdotes tell of quite a few who'd medically retired years before and management pilots who hadn't flown in a long time. Anyone got details? It would be interesting to compare say the number of single pilot IFR sectors done by the average VB new hire F/O in the previous 12 months vs. a similar measure by the brave airmen who overcame dreadful medical problems and onerous deskwork to rebuild Australian Airlines.

[Desert Digger]

Serious Answer:

In AN, there was one Brisbane scab who had claimed to be blind, got medically discharged from service, got LOL, then zoomed back when MT cried out for scabs.

Also in AN, there was yet another Brisbane retiree, who managed to drop a lighty into a dam in QLD in his new retired life, and answered the same call to scab.

Yet another cigar smoking Melbourne AH, who made Dusty's landings look like he landed on glass, zoomed back to terrorise the NH and RH scabs.

It is true to say the AH's in the flight department who became golden scabs sought refuge there because they were generally hopeless as pilots, and preferred to wear a star on their epaulettes.

Sad to say the Wing Commander, an old boy of my old school, got his son to scab.