QF LCC to recruit externally..
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last the truth comes out about a mob that are there but by the grace of god. But we already knew it anyway. This industry has no place for a bunch of prostitutes that are willing to sell their soul to the detriment of the rest. It's time QF woke up and looked at the talent that was Airbus qualified and willing to work and know their own self worth.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that Impulse does crew the LCC, who's going to crew the 717s ? and how are the mainline 73s going to be kept busy with 20 odd A320s taking their passengers ?
Surely they don't believe that they are going to take that many pax off VB or generate that much more business , so as not to effect current mainline routes.
Surely they don't believe that they are going to take that many pax off VB or generate that much more business , so as not to effect current mainline routes.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour seems to have it that "This industry" is about to find yet another place for the aforementioned "bunch of prostitutes". So bang goes that theory.
Airlines are businesses. Their purpose is to make money and to do so in the 21st century costs have to be reeled in. Whether we like it or not, conditions for pilots (and flight attendants, and engineers and lawyers and every other profession on the planet) will continue to go downhill.
You can't stop it, I can't stop it, mainline pilots can't stop it and believe you me, Impulse pilots can't stop it. I think the mistake being made on this thread and others like it is that Impulse is the thin end of the wedge. Wrong. The wedge was driven in years ago (Airlink/ AO/ JetConnect etc) and it still has a long way to go.
Slam Impulse pilots to your heart's content (do you need an invitation?
) but at the end of the day the rank and file are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living. Would you turn down the offer to fly an A320 just so some bloke you never met can get his 737 command in 5 years instead of 10? I doubt it.
Welcome to the real world, people. Not always fair, is it?
Airlines are businesses. Their purpose is to make money and to do so in the 21st century costs have to be reeled in. Whether we like it or not, conditions for pilots (and flight attendants, and engineers and lawyers and every other profession on the planet) will continue to go downhill.
You can't stop it, I can't stop it, mainline pilots can't stop it and believe you me, Impulse pilots can't stop it. I think the mistake being made on this thread and others like it is that Impulse is the thin end of the wedge. Wrong. The wedge was driven in years ago (Airlink/ AO/ JetConnect etc) and it still has a long way to go.
Slam Impulse pilots to your heart's content (do you need an invitation?
) but at the end of the day the rank and file are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living. Would you turn down the offer to fly an A320 just so some bloke you never met can get his 737 command in 5 years instead of 10? I doubt it.Welcome to the real world, people. Not always fair, is it?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask: What are the 'incumbent' pilots (ie those with jobs in mainline etc) going to do to assist the pilots looking for a career progression (and are, or may be, willing to work at a payscale better than they currently 'enjoy', but worse than what should be paid) to help find better options than working for a lower payscale , rather than preaching 'just say no'?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essio2...
You seem to have forgotten the real reason why none of the Impulse pilots were interested in the proposal that you guys put forward. Let me jog your memory.
Firstly you are correct that the proposal protected the impulse seniorty, but only to a certain point. The clause that you guys cleverly tried to slip in was based around whether Impulse got a new type of Aircraft e.g B717-300 if they ever made it. In that event the Eastern seniority would apply first to who would crew the new type.
So if the IPC did accept your proposal it would be Eastern crews that would have first pick at the new Aircraft for the LCC.
I for one am thankful to the IPC for not going a head with that proposal. Must admit though that it was cleverly hidden in the document and give full credit to who ever came up with it.
Pete...
Have no idea why you seem to harbour so much hate towards the Impulse crew or their operation but hopefully one day you could let go of it and get on with your life. All the best.
You seem to have forgotten the real reason why none of the Impulse pilots were interested in the proposal that you guys put forward. Let me jog your memory.
Firstly you are correct that the proposal protected the impulse seniorty, but only to a certain point. The clause that you guys cleverly tried to slip in was based around whether Impulse got a new type of Aircraft e.g B717-300 if they ever made it. In that event the Eastern seniority would apply first to who would crew the new type.
So if the IPC did accept your proposal it would be Eastern crews that would have first pick at the new Aircraft for the LCC.
I for one am thankful to the IPC for not going a head with that proposal. Must admit though that it was cleverly hidden in the document and give full credit to who ever came up with it.
Pete...
Have no idea why you seem to harbour so much hate towards the Impulse crew or their operation but hopefully one day you could let go of it and get on with your life. All the best.
Nunc est bibendum
Col, any time the IPG want to chat to AIPA, I'm sure they would be all ears. That offer has been on the table previously from what my sources suggest. In fact, back as far as just after the announcement that QF had bought Impulse by the now QF CP.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, i am not necessarily referring to the IPG. Those guys already have a job flying airliners.
I am just asking the question.
There are plenty of pilots who aren't currently 'prostituting' themselves (not my quote-not necessarily my opinion) at Impulse, are outside and looking in, who would jump at the chance to progress onto an A320/B737 at their own expense/increased debt level.
There is a hungry horde out there that none of us are considering or helping, because, for example, 'that's GA", and the reality is they are waiting in the wings (excuse the pun) to sign up as soon as the opportunity exists, and there won't be a damn thing anyone will do about protecting themselves.
It'll be every man for himself - cause the collective doesn't really care, and doesn't really exist.
Hence, we are having these discussions.
I don't condone working for less than squillions of dollars. But one mans pittance is another mans fortune.
At the end of the day, and it may seem defeatist, you will never be able to control the pilot market whilst there is a surplus of pilots, however qualified/unqualified, talented/untalented.
Unless of course we resorted to Painter and Docker type tactics, but that's not going to happen, is it.
I am just asking the question.
There are plenty of pilots who aren't currently 'prostituting' themselves (not my quote-not necessarily my opinion) at Impulse, are outside and looking in, who would jump at the chance to progress onto an A320/B737 at their own expense/increased debt level.
There is a hungry horde out there that none of us are considering or helping, because, for example, 'that's GA", and the reality is they are waiting in the wings (excuse the pun) to sign up as soon as the opportunity exists, and there won't be a damn thing anyone will do about protecting themselves.
It'll be every man for himself - cause the collective doesn't really care, and doesn't really exist.
Hence, we are having these discussions.
I don't condone working for less than squillions of dollars. But one mans pittance is another mans fortune.
At the end of the day, and it may seem defeatist, you will never be able to control the pilot market whilst there is a surplus of pilots, however qualified/unqualified, talented/untalented.
Unless of course we resorted to Painter and Docker type tactics, but that's not going to happen, is it.
Last edited by Col. Walter E. Kurtz; 22nd Nov 2003 at 21:52.
AIPA is up against the wall.
The first stand it must take is to insist a training programme for Impulse/LCC pilots similar to the A330 induction. Full Airbus conversion etc.
No short cuts and no cheap and nasty Virgin Blue start up training deficiencies- 20 day US of A 737 courses etc.
If candidates have to pay for proper Airbus training out of Toulose, perhaps the expensive endorsement and poor pay will "relax" the pilot market. Or pressure the recrutiment of experienced pilots-another previously ignored market force!
A Virgin Blue style and start up training neglect should be avoided at all costs by AIPA.
CASA was irresponsible to allow inexperienced jet pilots "buy" poor training packages in the case of the VB startup. But LCC Airbus will have QF tails and a push for a proper endorsement programme will put a $$ value back on the profession. Alleviating some market pressure.
And if a Neil Armstrong from VB sings the praise of a 20 day A320 conversion I will back my argument up with four hull losses.
Easy plane to fly and manage,but the initial full standard Airbus training essential.
The first stand it must take is to insist a training programme for Impulse/LCC pilots similar to the A330 induction. Full Airbus conversion etc.
No short cuts and no cheap and nasty Virgin Blue start up training deficiencies- 20 day US of A 737 courses etc.
If candidates have to pay for proper Airbus training out of Toulose, perhaps the expensive endorsement and poor pay will "relax" the pilot market. Or pressure the recrutiment of experienced pilots-another previously ignored market force!
A Virgin Blue style and start up training neglect should be avoided at all costs by AIPA.
CASA was irresponsible to allow inexperienced jet pilots "buy" poor training packages in the case of the VB startup. But LCC Airbus will have QF tails and a push for a proper endorsement programme will put a $$ value back on the profession. Alleviating some market pressure.
And if a Neil Armstrong from VB sings the praise of a 20 day A320 conversion I will back my argument up with four hull losses.
Easy plane to fly and manage,but the initial full standard Airbus training essential.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: a balanced view
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record...
Light it Up,
For the record, negotiations between turbo-prop committee and the IPC to the level of detail and exclusions to which you refer, never advanced that far. In the many months and meetings that transposed, representations by the IPC were only made on 2 occasions and the air of negotiation displayed at the table was merely at 'messenger' level - a half-hearted attempt to test the water.
As a result, the only formal documentation came from the t/prop committee without challenge or correction from the IPC. "Nothing in it for us" was the ultimate response and where negotiations faltered.
No formal response, acknowledgement or written material was ever forthcoming from the IPC (in my view, quite a deliberate "legally indefensible" spin on proceedings.)
While there was room for further discussion, the attitude of the IPG remained typically separatist, defiant, almost elitist and this is the main point of my reply - the IPG has considered themselves "above the rest" when perhaps they should be a little more reflective on where they are and how they got there.
Not forgetting that the institution of AirConnex, categorically made others in QF employment redundant.
At the time of negotiation, it would have been advantageous for the many and the opportunity for the IPG to acknowledge this fact partially - an olive branch if you will, but instead this attitude further cemented the separation and spoke volumes about where the IPG sees themselves. Perhaps it's actions like these that causes the IPG to be so derided by many in these pages.
Collectively, you have shown no intention to be a part of a larger group or to pursue common goals.
You may win this current battle through devaluation, rather than through legitimate means, fly an Airbus and consider yourselves "the anointed ones" in the eyes of QF management - but be clear on where your peers place you and why they do.
Colonel,
I agree that the "unity" view is idealistic, but IT IS achievable and must start with the current encumbents, that is ALL pilots in QF- employment, to safeguard against the "hordes". While we remain factionalised internally, with no intention of redress, we will always be a target. Be certain that in the "management against flight crew" debate, we are moreso the protaginists than the victims.
There has been a lot of talk about the realisation of commercial reality, conditions everywhere on the downslide, governed by supply and demand. Even with this in mind, it does not remove the option for negotiation between management and their own workforce, before external applicants are even considered and a commercially realistic solution found. However, separate entities within the one organisation, removes the need to even open discussions in the first instance and the battle is won without challenge! The IPG's willingness to "capitulate without debate" is testimony.
Again, I hope that AIPA seizes this opportunity to come off the sidelines and aggressively seek to unite the QFPG.
I have no doubts that this is the only way forward.
For the record, negotiations between turbo-prop committee and the IPC to the level of detail and exclusions to which you refer, never advanced that far. In the many months and meetings that transposed, representations by the IPC were only made on 2 occasions and the air of negotiation displayed at the table was merely at 'messenger' level - a half-hearted attempt to test the water.
As a result, the only formal documentation came from the t/prop committee without challenge or correction from the IPC. "Nothing in it for us" was the ultimate response and where negotiations faltered.
No formal response, acknowledgement or written material was ever forthcoming from the IPC (in my view, quite a deliberate "legally indefensible" spin on proceedings.)
While there was room for further discussion, the attitude of the IPG remained typically separatist, defiant, almost elitist and this is the main point of my reply - the IPG has considered themselves "above the rest" when perhaps they should be a little more reflective on where they are and how they got there.
Not forgetting that the institution of AirConnex, categorically made others in QF employment redundant.
At the time of negotiation, it would have been advantageous for the many and the opportunity for the IPG to acknowledge this fact partially - an olive branch if you will, but instead this attitude further cemented the separation and spoke volumes about where the IPG sees themselves. Perhaps it's actions like these that causes the IPG to be so derided by many in these pages.
Collectively, you have shown no intention to be a part of a larger group or to pursue common goals.
You may win this current battle through devaluation, rather than through legitimate means, fly an Airbus and consider yourselves "the anointed ones" in the eyes of QF management - but be clear on where your peers place you and why they do.
Colonel,
I agree that the "unity" view is idealistic, but IT IS achievable and must start with the current encumbents, that is ALL pilots in QF- employment, to safeguard against the "hordes". While we remain factionalised internally, with no intention of redress, we will always be a target. Be certain that in the "management against flight crew" debate, we are moreso the protaginists than the victims.
There has been a lot of talk about the realisation of commercial reality, conditions everywhere on the downslide, governed by supply and demand. Even with this in mind, it does not remove the option for negotiation between management and their own workforce, before external applicants are even considered and a commercially realistic solution found. However, separate entities within the one organisation, removes the need to even open discussions in the first instance and the battle is won without challenge! The IPG's willingness to "capitulate without debate" is testimony.
Again, I hope that AIPA seizes this opportunity to come off the sidelines and aggressively seek to unite the QFPG.
I have no doubts that this is the only way forward.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ESS102, I think you would find that one of the real reasons no one wanted intergration with EAA was due to the problems that occured after QF bought Impulse. The carry on from most quarters in the QF regional group has been well documented previously on this forum. Needless to say, what was probably a small but very vocal minority screwed the rest of you. Having talked to mates that fly in EAA, I know for a fact that they were very annoyed by the public conduct of their "professional collegues".
Unfortunately they painted a pretty ordinary picture of the groups. By this I mean EAA, Sunstate and Southern. Remember the CASA complaint by Southern. Brilliant result that must of left egg on so many faces within the Southern group.
Also one of the sticking points was the fact that out of 30 or so redundant pilots on the bottom of the list I think 1 was taken into EAA. So Impulse were required by you to intergrate but it was all a one way street. How does that work?
Contrary to you protesting that there was action from the IPG regarding this issue, I can tell you that it was debated at length for months. The rank and file having the final say. The proposal, that was put forward seemed to be pitched at 5 yr olds. I found the differing seniority systems, how many were there 3 or 4?, to be too messy. Who ever dreamed them up needed to have it explained that no matter how deep within the document you hide this stuff, people who can actuall read will find it!
In short , as has happened before a very vocal minority made it nearly impossible for any other group to want to take you on.
Your previous post only highlited that the correct decision was made.
Unfortunately they painted a pretty ordinary picture of the groups. By this I mean EAA, Sunstate and Southern. Remember the CASA complaint by Southern. Brilliant result that must of left egg on so many faces within the Southern group.
Also one of the sticking points was the fact that out of 30 or so redundant pilots on the bottom of the list I think 1 was taken into EAA. So Impulse were required by you to intergrate but it was all a one way street. How does that work?
Contrary to you protesting that there was action from the IPG regarding this issue, I can tell you that it was debated at length for months. The rank and file having the final say. The proposal, that was put forward seemed to be pitched at 5 yr olds. I found the differing seniority systems, how many were there 3 or 4?, to be too messy. Who ever dreamed them up needed to have it explained that no matter how deep within the document you hide this stuff, people who can actuall read will find it!
In short , as has happened before a very vocal minority made it nearly impossible for any other group to want to take you on.
Your previous post only highlited that the correct decision was made.
Last edited by Douglas Mcdonnell; 23rd Nov 2003 at 05:55.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ES,
I didn't necessaritly mean just the QF pilots either, and is not a QF crew slag off.
In reality, QF crews have had a pretty good wicket for years, and I don't care how it compares to United pilots or anyone else, in this country, it is pretty bloody good, despite the odd justified/unjustified gripe.
When you have others wanting a 'part of the action', even if it means for 'less' but still 'more' than what they are accustomed too, QF crews jobs or any other airline job, is a fair target.
In a previous post, someone ran the idea of a 'Pilot's Guild' - which is probably the best idea so far with regard to establishing wilfully or forcefully a pilot collective.
The problem is though, and this is the root of it, that pilots, being generally a bunch of self loving b@stards, are very much about 'my sacrifice, my struggle, my command, my mortgage' especially when they are on a good wicket, and adopt a Marie Antoinette attitude of 'let them eat cake' for the rest of the 'have nots'.
So it is natural that the other pilots, take the same attitude, for less money. (I don't think Pacific Blue or DJ are experiencing a shortage of applicants).
If the 'haves' do nothing about helping or creating a better environment for the 'have nots' well, you had better guard the ramparts.
But it's a bit late for that now, really.
I didn't necessaritly mean just the QF pilots either, and is not a QF crew slag off.
In reality, QF crews have had a pretty good wicket for years, and I don't care how it compares to United pilots or anyone else, in this country, it is pretty bloody good, despite the odd justified/unjustified gripe.
When you have others wanting a 'part of the action', even if it means for 'less' but still 'more' than what they are accustomed too, QF crews jobs or any other airline job, is a fair target.
In a previous post, someone ran the idea of a 'Pilot's Guild' - which is probably the best idea so far with regard to establishing wilfully or forcefully a pilot collective.
The problem is though, and this is the root of it, that pilots, being generally a bunch of self loving b@stards, are very much about 'my sacrifice, my struggle, my command, my mortgage' especially when they are on a good wicket, and adopt a Marie Antoinette attitude of 'let them eat cake' for the rest of the 'have nots'.
So it is natural that the other pilots, take the same attitude, for less money. (I don't think Pacific Blue or DJ are experiencing a shortage of applicants).
If the 'haves' do nothing about helping or creating a better environment for the 'have nots' well, you had better guard the ramparts.
But it's a bit late for that now, really.
