Heros doing heros

[Woomera]

"A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement."

Words of wisdom indeed!!

Can we refrain from the personal remarks and stick to well reasoned professional argument? This could be an interesting debate if the personal attacks are eliminated.

Good point Blue Eagle!

Woomera

[HI'er]

"A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement."
Agreed - ABSOLUTELY - Woomera.
However one also assumes that when individuals voluntarily enter these debates, they are going to display more than just the ability to take any examples given totally literally.
My 20 vs 100 hours was an EXTREME example that one respondent grasped with both hands and went hammer for tongs at that example ONLY - hence the need to present another case.

If companies are permitted to build rosters for each pilot, knowing precisely which pilot will be getting what roster, then there is NOTHING to stop workplace victimisation, in spite of the simplistic scenario Ralph presents.
How realistic do you REALLY believe that outline to be Ralph?

If the senario that you described were played out, the pilot involved would simply have to get copies of the other rosters, determine the average time away/weekends off/ holidays worked hours flow etc. and compare the deviation from the norm that his roster gives him/her. Any bias would be easy to determine and demonstrate a solid case of workplace harrasment.

Of course employers are not going to be so stupid as to roster a pilot who needs a little "payback", with a schedule that is blatantly abusive, month in and month out.

Working hard, is not the same as working smart, Blue Eagle.
You might well have buzzed your baby Boeing around for 4 sectors each day domestically, but by the same token you were responsible for a much lesser number of pax on each flight, and flying a lesser valued aircraft.
Additionally you didn't have the problems of jet lag, associated with International flying.
A specialist doctor doesn't need to see, nor treat as many patients as a GP in any given month, because he commands a higher hourly rate due to the superior knowledge that he has acquired because of the longer time, and extra study he has under his belt, that allows him to do so.

Why are lame's rated as Year "x", if it is not for the extra "seniority" they have achieved, because of time spent "on the job"?

“first they stuffed the seniority system...Could you explain how Ansett pilots achieved such a feat?”

1989.

[Thunderbox]

'merit'

The mantra of those with true scab hearts.

Lets make one thing clear about the seniority system..it guarantees you nothing other than the opportunity to have a go at the upgrade. That's right, it gives you the training slot, nothing more.

If you are up to scratch you pass the check, if not it's back to the right seat. It does'nt matter if you have 2000 hrs or 10000 hrs you're either good enough or you're not.

I've found over the years that 'merit' always comes up from those who for one reason or another have found themselves behind the drag curve for a command, and are desperately looking for a reason why they should get a training slot, and not the guy who has put the hard yards in ahead of them.

[Ralph the Bong]

So Thunderbox, who has done the hard yards, the guy with 2000 hrs. or the guy with 10,000 hrs who started after him? This should be obvious..

This is what many here are saying and is the whole principle of 'merit'. That commands should go not just to those who have erned them by doing the "hard Yards" in the industry but who are able to bring a higher standard of operation to the cockpit.

It is nobodies interest to have a captain in charge of aeroplane who just scrapes through. A system that supports such a process is quite arguably a hole in the swiss cheese under the Reason model of accident occurance.

The only people who support the system of datal seniority are, in my experience, those who feel threatened by people with better experience, qualifications and command potential who started after them. They are worried that they will be leapfrogged by a more deserving candidate who will make a better captain.

If my support of a system that seeks an optimal standard rather than the lowest comman denominator makes me a "scab", then so be it.

[The The]

And so Ralph,

What if it is the guy with better experience, qualifications and command potential who just scrapes through?

[BlueEagle]

Think you may have missed it HI'er.

My little 737 was considerably more exposed to the 'hazards' than the L1011, just review hours flown, T/O's and landings etc. and passengers carried, so my responsibility was greater.

Sector length and time changes don't come into it as in those days they got a day by the pool/shopping in UK etc. etc. after a six to eight hour flight, it is very different these days with sixteen to nineteen hours duties and then minimum rest!

[HI'er]

who has done the hard yards, the guy with 2000 hrs. or the guy with 10,000 hrs who started after him? This should be obvious..

Why should it be "obvious" Ralph?
Is it not possible the 2,000 hour chappie has more QUALITY time than the 10,000 hour one?
A fellow who has accumulated 2,000 hours in rhs in the SAME company, on the same type, would surely have to be a better prospect for command upgrade, than an instructor who has flown a C150 around a circuit for 10,000 hours - wouldn't he?
There's that lack of "lateral thinking" coming through agian Ralphie (Yes I know, A condescending attitude is not a substitute for a well constructed arguement.")

Thunderbox already stated the same as you - "This is what many here are saying and is the whole principle of 'merit'. That commands should go not just to those who have erned them by doing the "hard Yards" in the industry but who are able to bring a higher standard of operation to the cockpit.
It is nobodies interest to have a captain in charge of aeroplane who just scrapes through. A system that supports such a process is quite arguably a hole in the swiss cheese under the Reason model of accident occurance.", when he wrote,
"Lets make one thing clear about the seniority system..it guarantees you nothing other than the opportunity to have a go at the upgrade. That's right, it gives you the training slot, nothing more."

The only people who support the system of datal seniority are, in my experience, those who feel threatened by people with better experience, qualifications and command potential who started after them. They are worried that they will be leapfrogged by a more deserving candidate who will make a better captain.

In my opinion, the people who are willing to commit themselves to a seniority system are those who are willing to commit themselves to the company, for the LONG TERM, as opposed to those looking for INSTANT GRATIFICATION.
People who are in it, because THEY believe THEY can give something to the company over a period of time, and are willing to WAIT for their reward, depending on the companies success - which obviously they will try to ensure, to ensure their OWN success.

On the other hand, we have those looking for fast tracking, based on "experience" (the so-called "hard yards - the same circuit flown 30,000 times!) alone - theoretically gained in (an)other company(s), which they are apparently willing to jettison, once they've used it as much as they are able.

If my support of a system that seeks an optimal standard rather than the lowest comman denominator makes me a "scab", then so be it.

Who is to say the "optimal standard" of Company A is the same as for Company Q?
Quite frequently they are vastly different (in my experience).

Each company seeks what IT believes to be optimum operating procedures. Seniority has NO bearing on those standards, other than ensuring that those who should be the best qualified to hold the superior positions, do.

If YOU want to queue jump, then "Yes" that makes YOU an aspiring scab.
Wait your turn, and let those who have patiently waited theirs', be given a shot.
If they aren't up to speed, then you will get your "go" sooner than you might have hoped.

(Edit for Blue Eagle: But you had less crew on the Fluff jet than those big polers, theoretically less exposure to weather extremes, and didn't need to be as strong a swimmer as those boys who flew those long overwater flights.
Who gets paid more, the ferry boat skipper, or the ocean liner Captain?
But just for the record, I DO agree with you.
However THAT is NOT what good debating is all about - is it?! )

S.G.

[Ralph the Bong]

Hi there! Look I agree with you that qualit time is important. What if the 10,000 hrs guy has 8000 airline time?

This isn't a lack of "lateral thinking" on my part, mate. It's you!

In the senario you decribe I fully agree, the lesser hr candidate is more worthy of a command position. We are not talking here about 10,000 hr C150 instructors, are we? The new Captains at Jet* are all airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience. We are not talking about giving commands to airline neophytes fresh out of GA! This is what is mean by "QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE. What did you think I meant?

But look at how the industry has changed as companies go broke and valuable, experienced and well qulified people lose their jobs. It does not mean that people have "jettisoned" thier previous company, althogh sometimes this may have been the case(not really relevent, either way, as it doesnt alter what they know or can do).Companies that subsequently employ them should be able to take full advantage of their 'qualifications and experience'.

A person who has already given 15 or 20 odd years(as is the case with Jet* guys) to the indusry is hardly looking for "Instant Gratification" are, they? The investment of time and effort that they have already put in is worthy of recognition and deserves reward.

[MTOW]

It's obvious from a very quick scan of this thread that quite a few people are unaware of the origins of the 'hero' tag.

As I recall, it came after some Australian Airlines (now Qandom) pilot complained to someone in authority after his children were trolling the Internet and found Daddy's name to be on 'THAT' list (the one put together by that bloke in Taswegia).

The (soon to be Christened) 'hero' objected to being called a S*pinally C*hallenged A*ustralian B*loke and the Woomera of the day declared a 'no tolerance' policy regarding 'that' year and 'that' word. So someone came out with what I recall was a very clever poem re-naming the Spinally Challenged Aussie/American and other Blokes (the ones who went back or blew in back in 89) as 'heroes'.

I've done a search through Pprune looking for the poem, but was unable to find it. Is there someone out there with access to the old Pprune archives (or who maybe kept a copy of the poem) who could re-post it here?

I'm also rather bemused at all the old names who've surfaced here on this thread to defend their names and give us all their self-serving version of history. Sorry, gents... I mean, your hero-nesses, it simply ain’t gonna happen. Yo’ll is whut yo’ll is… till the day yo die.

[HI'er]

We're almost full circle now Ralph

These (ex-Ansett) "airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience." gained their INITIAL positions by queue jumping, back in that year that has now proven to have been so fateful for Australian pilots.
Most of these "airline industry veterans with thousand's of hours of type, international and in many cases command experience." had previous to 1989 been rejected outright employment with some/all of the airline employers.
In that year, "merit" (length of service) was seen fit to dispense with, and when the floodgates were opened, the flotsam and jetsam was allowed to flow in freely.
That which impressed an easily impressionable, desperate management was straightaway given positions that people previously had to (and were prepared to) wait several years service within the company to achieve.
Those who "returned", were treated with some degree of recognition for their previous service - usually.

It was by sheer "luck" that these previous rejects were able to score a position in what had previously been a respected airline.
The standard (of EVERYTHING) dropped thereafter, leading to its final demise due to a LACK OF STANDARDS.

The failure of Engineering in (the post pilots dispute) Ansett to maintain a MINIMUM STANDARD, was a reflection on the (crappy) standards (post 1989) Ansett management inflicted on the Australian public.
The Government saw Ansett as the real threat to public safety it had been allowed to develop into.

Keep your environment CLEAN.

S.G.

[relax737]

Can somebody tell me how this would be different (if indeed the first post is accurate, and I suspect it to be no more than a wind up) from the senior AN and QF guys heading off overseas in 89/90 and taking instant commands in front of local FO's?? It happened in many countries, particularly middle east, and still happens in Singapore, Emirates, Oman, Gulf, Qatar, and a host of others, although the same 'guns' aren't involved...they just condemn those who do now..

I'm sure they can explain it.

When I put it to a senior captain back in 89, he justified it by saying "that's their system". I responded with " well that's probably what the airlines here want to do in the future," and he staggered me by replying "well we're not going to let them".

This seems like a severe case of double standards..........again.

Looks like somebody is pi$$ed off with his current lot in life and raises the same old argument again.

Lack of standards?? All those who went overseas were aces, of course. I recall a couple, one who went to Sq and anotherto the middle east who were back within a copuple of months with their tails between theie legs because they FAILED the training.

I well remember one announcing to all and sundry in the Coburg town hall that he was a millionaire, was considering offers from a number of companies for 747 commands, and would decide in his own time. Well they decided for him!! What a joke he was.

He was the one who had a cheap Filipino oil painting of himself, towering over his family with all the airline types he's flown zipping around the background. The painting would have been at least 6 feet high and hung over in th eentry of his house.

Ralph you put forward good points. It's just a shame that the fools continue with the same old rubbish. It's like trying to rationalize with a 3 year old; they just don't have any developed reasoning powers.

[spinout]

Simply put Seniority is the reward you get for spending time in One company, (years of service) it gives you choice in when you might undertake training on a new type or upgrade, it does not guarantee a pass.
Some of you have mentioned “just scraping through” an argument used a lot by the “merit” supporters to justify queue jumping, is still a pass. No company sets the bar for a pas at the minimum level, and given that all that do pass their checks etc, meet the company set standard, then the only fare way for the company to offer upgrades etc is to the longest serving employee.
I fully support an individuals right to work for whom ever he/she likes but don’t agree with new comers all be it with a lot of experience saying they are better than longer serving employees.

[HI'er]

From your post, relax 737, it appears that you do support a system whereby promotion is determined by an orderly system

senior AN and QF guys heading off overseas in 89/90 and taking instant commands in front of local FO's

but you then indicate support for Ralph the Bong's "merit" alone ideas.

Yes, overseas airlines such as those you mentioned NEED to incorproate a DEC system to supplement their local pilots, simply because they have an inadequate supply of new joiners of their own nationality.
Expatriate Captains are not seen as queue jumpers, as the local F/O's are given a shot at upgrade as soon as they reach the minimum requirements. These airlines therefore incorporate BOTH the seniority and "merit" system.
Promotion for expatriate Captains on contract might be offered, depending upon his track record during his contracted period (his seniority), but he can also be leapfrogged by new joiners.
Australia does not NEED a "merit" system, as there is an adequate, constant, steady supply of pilots to train up for the established airlines - and to supply the rest of the world as well, it seems!

He was the one who had a cheap Filipino oil painting of himself, towering over his family with all the airline types he's flown zipping around the background. The painting would have been at least 6 feet high and hung over in th eentry of his house.

LOL, some guys really have tickets on themselves, don't they! It reminds me of the post 89 Ansett, where there was one Yank who appeared on television - shirt open, and a thick gold chain adorning his neck - declaring, in his best Texan drawl, that he had "Come to save Ansett".
No doubt he was also one of those who jumped out of his seat as soon as the fuel levers were selected to cutoff, to thank the passengers for flying with him.
Yep, there are a few - fortunately only a few - in professional aviation like that.

S.G.

[relax737]

I knew you could justify it Hi'er. No doubt about you guys, you can make anything fit.

I suppose the way the Oz airlines saw it, and the blow ins, was that most of the pilots had resigned here, and jobs were being advertised, so they applied and were accepted.

Seems simple enough to me.

Don't come on with the industrial dispute junk here. For once in my life I did agree with the bodgie, and he said that there was no dispute because the pilots had resigned. That's also pretty simple.
We walked into the left hook, and then backed up for the right cross and were decked through our own stupidity. Also pretty simple.

The industrial relations scene is changing, and WILL change, despite the best, even all out, efforts of the employees. I may not like it, but it will happen, and for the next 20 years or so, the employers are going to screw the employees. It is cyclic, however, and will turn.

The point I made about the oil painting wacko is that he was one who was so principled that he didn't return, but went off and took a DEC ahead of a local Fo. I see you try to justify it.

He subsequently set himself up as an 'aviation consultant'. He wouldn't have made an effective consultant on $hithouse paper.

Another analogy comes to mind. If true, and some "89 hero" duds a colleague, is this any different from those back in 89 having five bob each way???

There were those who applied, were rejected, and then became rock solid to the cause. They set out to dud their mates, and there is a well known one who makes the most vociferous posts on these forums.
There were some very high profile ones, backing the movement, but negotiating privately to cut out their "mates".

How is that any different??.

[bushy]

Just like GA isn't it?

[Willie Nelson]

Ralph,

Its not a rugby team trying to win a world cup!

Its not a company tring to find a captain of industry to lead them out of dire straits1

And it certainly isn't "Top Gun" where only the best of the best need apply.

Its Fair to most, and it doen't require your qualifying arguments regarding;

1. Rostering abuse

2. What should be cosidered significant previous experience

3. Reasons for leaving a previous job

If you need to explain it to us, the union will need to battle it out with management. Unfortunately, you cannot assume reasoned debate in such circumstances.

For the record I am at the bottom of such a list with many moons to go until my number is up.

Willie

[mattyj]

one old Ag pilot once told me..30000 hours..so what if I have 30000 hours..its just one hour done 30000 times..


..surely once you get into your first job your hours become irrelevant..its how well you perform and your work ethic..

..seniority has to be a good way of rewarding loyalty??

[HI'er]

There's no "justifying" anything relax737 - the airlines that those pilots went to as DEC's always had, and still have that system inplace.
A system operated in full agreement with the local pilot unions - no different to the way Virgin Blue recruited during their early days of rapid growth.
No local f/o's in Emirates, Gulf, Oman, or Singapore were done out of their commands at that time - as a matter of fact some of those airlines also took on ex-dispute pilots as first officers, such was their need for crews.
Quite different to the dispute in Australia, that saw pilots picketing airports, and their union engaging in a series of court and IRC cases, and a Prime Ministertempotrarily altering a country's constitution to win a "war" that he had declared on them.

There were those who applied, were rejected, and then became rock solid to the cause. They set out to dud their mates, and there is a well known one who makes the most vociferous posts on these forums.

Yes, that went on without a doubt, but they and the names of the others (such as yourself I assume) can be located - even today - at a certain website.

[AnQrKa]

One question I would like to put to Hi’er and his ilk. Do you accept any responsibility for the unfortunate events of 89 or were you merely victims, swept up in events totally beyond your control?

[HI'er]

Speaking for myself only AnQrKa, I would need several pages to notate the responsibility I accept for the VERY unfortunate events of 1989.
I accept full responsibility for:-
+ Standing up and being counted publically, as one who fully supported my fellow pilots;
+ Being responsible for trying to maintain the BEST conditions negotiated for the then domestic airline pilots;
+ Being willing to forego the initial threats and cajoling of the companies, by media, and by direct personal contact (telephone, mail, and courier) to "surrender";
+ Realising that there was more to this attack on our conditions that would affect only ME in the short term;
+ Understanding that WE were all in this together, for OUR future;
+ Knowing that the outcome of THIS fight would undoubtedly determine how OTHER (non-pilot) employees would be "handled" ("Who will be next?");
+ Having been responsible for my family, and ensuring that THEY could have faith in my values - taught to me by my parents and church - and that I would continue to appreciate their trust in me;
+ Not having any tolerance of the scabs - those who saw quick gain for little outlay;
+ Realising that our union (The Federation, the AFAP) was resourcing many and varied professionals to advise them;
+ Having FAITH in a system that had worked for our betterment for more than 30 years;
+ FOOLISHLY believing that the scum trio of Hawke, Abeles, and Murdoch would play fairly;
+ Finally - 16 years later - being able to look back at what had been a HUGELY successful airlne, started by a PILOT ~ Sir Reginald Miles Ansett ~ and knowing that RMA, a pilot himself, would probably have been happy to have seen the airline named after him, die, because it was infested by pilots who chose the the easy way, rather than those who were willing to stand steadfast for their principles.

I accept FULL responsibiltiy for all of that.

What do you who destroyed that system (the scabs) stand for?

S.G.