Contract Pilots for JQI? I don't think so...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contract Pilots for JQI? I don't think so...
IF A CREDIBLE ALTERNATE OPTION FOR CREWING JETSTAR INTERNATIONAL EXISTED, WHY DID MANAGEMENT BOTHER MAKING AN OFFER TO THE EXISTING JETSTAR PILOT BODY?
If a significant supply of experienced labour was available overseas, why would Jetstar management offer the expansionary positions to existing pilots? Why disrupt the expanding domestic operation at a time when it is within sight of achieving stability? Why not start "greenfields". The only possible reason - cross crewing - has been rendered irrelevant by the 787 order which consigned the A330 to being only a temporary solution. The combination of Airbus for domestic and Boeing for international is such that the only logical reason for using existing Jetstar pilots is if the supply of experience willing to return from overseas is not as plentiful as Jetstar management claim. As such, the threat of contractors may be not genuine and simply a negotiating tool.
EVEN IF THE THREAT OF USING AN AGENCY IS GENUINE, CAN THEY PROVIDE PILOTS FOR A TOTAL COST THAT MATCHES THE OFFER ON THE TABLE?
Any agency that places pilots with a carrier charges a fee calculated as a percentage of salary. In the case of contracts this would be an ongoing fee, and for a permanent placement it would be a one-time fee using a higher percentage. Personnel companies generally use fees in the region of 10 to 20 percent. And in the case of contractors, the total cost to the operator is further increased by the obligation to cover relocation costs, and provide accommodation and transport.
As you can see, sourcing pilots from overseas is costly and a significant strain on logistical resources, so much so that a significantly increased offer in the event of a NO vote would still be more economically attractive than using agency sourced pilots. Armed with this knowledge, in all probability management would return to the table sooner rather than later.
WORST CASE SCENARIO - EXPATRIATE PILOTS RETURNING HOME ON A PERMANENT BASIS. IS THIS A LONG-TERM SOLUTION? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
Given the nature of the offer tabled, the supply of returnees would probably not be sufficient to crew the A330. Any initial flurry of returnees would lead to an unfavourable reaction from overseas carriers. There is a dramatic global shortage of experienced pilots which has been the subject of several recent articles, and foreign carriers simply cannot afford to allow skilled personnel depart. Increases in pay and conditions would result, and the supply to Jetstar would inevitably dry up until they responded with a more attractive package. This is the long awaited inflationary spiral.
More importantly, looking to the medium term, Jetstar simply cannot recruit type rated expatriates for the 787. If they implement a strategy of recruiting Boeing rated pilots, how many would be prepared to pay for the type rating? Once again, more pressure would be applied to increase the package to attract personnel.
And so logic suggests a NO vote resulting in external recruitment could only be a short term solution. Eventually management would have to return to the main pilot body and offer a mutually acceptable package to facilitate the expansion.
THE FLYING IS YOURS...HOLD OUT FOR A BETTER PACKAGE
From the above, the flying will eventually going to existing Jetstar pilots. The only variable is when you say yes. There is no reason to cave in now. There is nothing to lose by saying no and holding out.
Look the Tiger in the eye.
Say NO.
If a significant supply of experienced labour was available overseas, why would Jetstar management offer the expansionary positions to existing pilots? Why disrupt the expanding domestic operation at a time when it is within sight of achieving stability? Why not start "greenfields". The only possible reason - cross crewing - has been rendered irrelevant by the 787 order which consigned the A330 to being only a temporary solution. The combination of Airbus for domestic and Boeing for international is such that the only logical reason for using existing Jetstar pilots is if the supply of experience willing to return from overseas is not as plentiful as Jetstar management claim. As such, the threat of contractors may be not genuine and simply a negotiating tool.
EVEN IF THE THREAT OF USING AN AGENCY IS GENUINE, CAN THEY PROVIDE PILOTS FOR A TOTAL COST THAT MATCHES THE OFFER ON THE TABLE?
Any agency that places pilots with a carrier charges a fee calculated as a percentage of salary. In the case of contracts this would be an ongoing fee, and for a permanent placement it would be a one-time fee using a higher percentage. Personnel companies generally use fees in the region of 10 to 20 percent. And in the case of contractors, the total cost to the operator is further increased by the obligation to cover relocation costs, and provide accommodation and transport.
As you can see, sourcing pilots from overseas is costly and a significant strain on logistical resources, so much so that a significantly increased offer in the event of a NO vote would still be more economically attractive than using agency sourced pilots. Armed with this knowledge, in all probability management would return to the table sooner rather than later.
WORST CASE SCENARIO - EXPATRIATE PILOTS RETURNING HOME ON A PERMANENT BASIS. IS THIS A LONG-TERM SOLUTION? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
Given the nature of the offer tabled, the supply of returnees would probably not be sufficient to crew the A330. Any initial flurry of returnees would lead to an unfavourable reaction from overseas carriers. There is a dramatic global shortage of experienced pilots which has been the subject of several recent articles, and foreign carriers simply cannot afford to allow skilled personnel depart. Increases in pay and conditions would result, and the supply to Jetstar would inevitably dry up until they responded with a more attractive package. This is the long awaited inflationary spiral.
More importantly, looking to the medium term, Jetstar simply cannot recruit type rated expatriates for the 787. If they implement a strategy of recruiting Boeing rated pilots, how many would be prepared to pay for the type rating? Once again, more pressure would be applied to increase the package to attract personnel.
And so logic suggests a NO vote resulting in external recruitment could only be a short term solution. Eventually management would have to return to the main pilot body and offer a mutually acceptable package to facilitate the expansion.
THE FLYING IS YOURS...HOLD OUT FOR A BETTER PACKAGE
From the above, the flying will eventually going to existing Jetstar pilots. The only variable is when you say yes. There is no reason to cave in now. There is nothing to lose by saying no and holding out.
Look the Tiger in the eye.
Say NO.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pine Tree, I think that's exactly what Sinala's post is trying to make...
From Rishworth.co.nz:
A330 Crews Captain & F/Os
Reference: 778
Duration: 18 months
Start: within six to eight weeks
Type: JAA license A330 crews required for Australian basing.
Experience: Must have JAA license, current on the A330, current class one medical and passport
Qualifications: JAA license and A330 rating
Benefits: TBA
Any ideas?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many will they get?
Dunno but, four or five others that I know have both and have commenced communications.
Personally, I've been talking to both operators.
Would not be surprised if they could pick up 20 for left hand seat.
Dunno but, four or five others that I know have both and have commenced communications.
Personally, I've been talking to both operators.
Would not be surprised if they could pick up 20 for left hand seat.
