Exodus from Skippers (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref,
There is a lot to be said for the experience gained in the GA world, the "hands on" stick and rudder is only a very small part of that.
Have you flown with these cadet/copilot types ?, whilst most of them are great to work with, their inexperience stands out, their situational awareness is very low compared to a grubby charter pilot with similar TT, ability to adapt is probably one of the greatest concerns i have seen.
If there is an open cheque book on training these cadets, no problems, but as there are both time and fiscal limitations to what training that can be done, very very few are going to meet a command level of competence in this time.
There is not substitute for experience, period.
There is a lot to be said for the experience gained in the GA world, the "hands on" stick and rudder is only a very small part of that.
Have you flown with these cadet/copilot types ?, whilst most of them are great to work with, their inexperience stands out, their situational awareness is very low compared to a grubby charter pilot with similar TT, ability to adapt is probably one of the greatest concerns i have seen.
If there is an open cheque book on training these cadets, no problems, but as there are both time and fiscal limitations to what training that can be done, very very few are going to meet a command level of competence in this time.
There is not substitute for experience, period.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is not substitute for experience, period.
What are the chances of being picked up by Skippers doing either the WAAC CPL course and the ECU Aviation degree?
In a bit of a pickle and cant decide which is better to do? i know skippers dont pay the best but hey you get to fly in WA, with reasonbly good aircraft.
In a bit of a pickle and cant decide which is better to do? i know skippers dont pay the best but hey you get to fly in WA, with reasonbly good aircraft.
Aircraft, I not even going to respond to you. Whats the point anyway, you obviously know more then everyone else on this thread anyway. If you want us to take you seriously, do your self a favour and fill us all in on your credentials (other then the airport managment course at YPJT). Sitting around the bar on a Friday night with your boss telling you how cut throat it is in aviation and why he cant afford a payrise for you wont cut it either. (ah bugger. Sucked in again)
XRlent100
There roughly the figure I was told not that long ago by the GM (ex) at my work place.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Blogsie
That was the stuff between the threshold of 11 and the gate at Duck hole.
You know it was the same colour as your old work clobber. If you tried real hard you could imagine it by looking at the shrubbery around the mess beer garden. It takes on a whole new meaning of course, if you only get to look at it from a max speed of 210kts, instead of that bieng your minimum speed.
richo
That was the stuff between the threshold of 11 and the gate at Duck hole.
You know it was the same colour as your old work clobber. If you tried real hard you could imagine it by looking at the shrubbery around the mess beer garden. It takes on a whole new meaning of course, if you only get to look at it from a max speed of 210kts, instead of that bieng your minimum speed.
richo
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outer-space
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you flown with these cadet/copilot types ?, whilst most of them are great to work with, their inexperience stands out, their situational awareness is very low compared to a grubby charter pilot
how bout you do some time in the 
ing bush then try for a job at SA like the rest of us did
ing bush then try for a job at SA like the rest of us did
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kair1234 - if u had any situational awareness you would have seen that pilotdude09 is currently residing in Karratha............grumpy old fart
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outer-space
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your right kair, but
whoz to say he wont go north after hes done the course then try for skippers.........
WAAC and ECU are completely separate from Skippers and have nothing to do with any form of cadet programs. most of ECU and WAAC guys do head up north. i called u grumpy coz u were so quick to form an opinion of the young chap
whoz to say he wont go north after hes done the course then try for skippers.........
WAAC and ECU are completely separate from Skippers and have nothing to do with any form of cadet programs. most of ECU and WAAC guys do head up north. i called u grumpy coz u were so quick to form an opinion of the young chap
XRlent100 said:
The $500 increase I referred to was applicable to the RPT passengers. I very much doubt that all Skippers pilots fly 800 hours per year on RPT, whilst Network do no RPT at all. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I will regard these circumstances as being correct.
Your $4.16 claim is most probably wrong, but that is not surprising given how simplistic your calculation is. Many posters to PPRUNE come up with similar calculations to justify large salary increases for pilots and they all use the same method as yours. The method is remarkable for its simplicity but also remarkable for how many other factors it manages to ignore!
For starters, to get a net $4.16 out of a ticket price hike, considering GST and other taxes and charges that are a percentage of the price, the price rise would have to be near on $10. But, the biggest flaw in your calculation is that it assumes 100% load factors before and after the price hike.
Do you think you can increase the ticket price by $10 and still get exactly the same number of passengers? On some flights, you will, but for those flights where you don't, the lost revenue that results from having sold 1 or 2 less tickets introduces a major descrepancy to your calculation.
It is an interesting exercise to examine the development and effects of this descrepancy so I will now do that.
Because a few less passengers will fly (due to them no longer being able to afford the ticket that is $10 more expensive), you need to go back and redo your calculation, but when you do, instead of $4.16, you come up with, say, $4.35.
But $4.35 implies, say, a $10.50 gross ticket price hike, but that in turn means you need to redo the calculation again because even more passengers won't now be buying the ticket. So you need to keep redoing and redoing the calculation, but each time, the price hike gets larger. After a while, it dawns on you that the hike is increasing towards infinity!
For this calculation to not "run away" towards infinity, the load factor after the hike must be no less than the load factor before. Is that possible in the real world? Yes, but only for hikes that are very very small (or the special case where load factors are 100% with demand so high that, even after the hike, the load factor stays at 100%).
So, the mechanics of this particular calculation method mean that price rises are impossible, unless they are very very small! But in the real world, we know that largish price rises are possible, so this means that this particular calculation method must be fatally flawed - it just doesn't work, in other words.
To do this calculation properly, you need to conduct it as a "modelling" exercise. Only that way could you estimate, reasonably accurately, how much of a hike is possible, and over which routes. Such an exercise would also show where price decreases would ultimately result in increased revenue.
... and you get a price increase of $2.08 per passenger. Not quite the $500 you talk about. Even to give the piss ant F/O the same pay rise is only $4.16 per passenger....NOT VERY MUCH IN MY BOOKS.
Your $4.16 claim is most probably wrong, but that is not surprising given how simplistic your calculation is. Many posters to PPRUNE come up with similar calculations to justify large salary increases for pilots and they all use the same method as yours. The method is remarkable for its simplicity but also remarkable for how many other factors it manages to ignore!
For starters, to get a net $4.16 out of a ticket price hike, considering GST and other taxes and charges that are a percentage of the price, the price rise would have to be near on $10. But, the biggest flaw in your calculation is that it assumes 100% load factors before and after the price hike.
Do you think you can increase the ticket price by $10 and still get exactly the same number of passengers? On some flights, you will, but for those flights where you don't, the lost revenue that results from having sold 1 or 2 less tickets introduces a major descrepancy to your calculation.
It is an interesting exercise to examine the development and effects of this descrepancy so I will now do that.
Because a few less passengers will fly (due to them no longer being able to afford the ticket that is $10 more expensive), you need to go back and redo your calculation, but when you do, instead of $4.16, you come up with, say, $4.35.
But $4.35 implies, say, a $10.50 gross ticket price hike, but that in turn means you need to redo the calculation again because even more passengers won't now be buying the ticket. So you need to keep redoing and redoing the calculation, but each time, the price hike gets larger. After a while, it dawns on you that the hike is increasing towards infinity!
For this calculation to not "run away" towards infinity, the load factor after the hike must be no less than the load factor before. Is that possible in the real world? Yes, but only for hikes that are very very small (or the special case where load factors are 100% with demand so high that, even after the hike, the load factor stays at 100%).
So, the mechanics of this particular calculation method mean that price rises are impossible, unless they are very very small! But in the real world, we know that largish price rises are possible, so this means that this particular calculation method must be fatally flawed - it just doesn't work, in other words.
To do this calculation properly, you need to conduct it as a "modelling" exercise. Only that way could you estimate, reasonably accurately, how much of a hike is possible, and over which routes. Such an exercise would also show where price decreases would ultimately result in increased revenue.
Only that way could you estimate, reasonably accurately, how much of a hike is possible, and over which routes. Such an exercise would also show where price decreases would ultimately result in increased revenue.
Aircraft, you've overlooked the one fact that will carry the argument for a fare increase through and ensure it will get up:
That is that it is so damned far to drive anywhere in WA etc that people will just about pay anything to avoid having to drive 100's (if not 1000's) of km on badly corrugated dirt roads if they could avoid it.
Edited the rest of the post.
That is that it is so damned far to drive anywhere in WA etc that people will just about pay anything to avoid having to drive 100's (if not 1000's) of km on badly corrugated dirt roads if they could avoid it.
Edited the rest of the post.
Last edited by OpsNormal; 16th Sep 2007 at 01:47. Reason: Not bothering to buy into the argument
Join Date: May 2007
Location: XR Land
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft, It's a simplistic model so that simple minds like yours can understand.
You said it yourself that most of Skippers work is mining FIFO work. Therefore all aircraft are running around at 100% load factor whether or not they've got passengers on them, the mining company are paying for the whole aircraft. Really its an increase to the client of $125 for the charter but I would assume that most clients would break that down and put it into per passenger terms, ie $125/60=$2.08 per passenger. As Wizofoz said it proves that your $500 per passenger was a tad unrealistic and that was all it was meant to do.
I think you'll find that many of the Skippers and Network pilot's are doing at least 800hrs per year. I'd be interested to here some actual figures. The one person I know over at Network is on about 850hrs per year and I don't think he's any busier than the rest.
You said it yourself that most of Skippers work is mining FIFO work. Therefore all aircraft are running around at 100% load factor whether or not they've got passengers on them, the mining company are paying for the whole aircraft. Really its an increase to the client of $125 for the charter but I would assume that most clients would break that down and put it into per passenger terms, ie $125/60=$2.08 per passenger. As Wizofoz said it proves that your $500 per passenger was a tad unrealistic and that was all it was meant to do.
I think you'll find that many of the Skippers and Network pilot's are doing at least 800hrs per year. I'd be interested to here some actual figures. The one person I know over at Network is on about 850hrs per year and I don't think he's any busier than the rest.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South O Equator
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed Dog,
I haven't flown with the cadets as the company I'm at doesn't have them but I've seen plenty of pilots coming through with massively different levels of experience and just as massively different levels of skill. I wasn't disagreeing with the "there's no substitue for experience" because i happen to agree with that sentiment. The changes that are being seen in the industry mean that people are going to gain experience at companies like Skippers and so on. Not the way we all used to in Broome, Kunners and the like.
Not arguing your point at all because I agree. The times and the method of gaining said experience is what has changed.
I haven't flown with the cadets as the company I'm at doesn't have them but I've seen plenty of pilots coming through with massively different levels of experience and just as massively different levels of skill. I wasn't disagreeing with the "there's no substitue for experience" because i happen to agree with that sentiment. The changes that are being seen in the industry mean that people are going to gain experience at companies like Skippers and so on. Not the way we all used to in Broome, Kunners and the like.
Not arguing your point at all because I agree. The times and the method of gaining said experience is what has changed.
how bout you do some time in the ing bush then try for a job at SA like the rest of us did
From what everyone says the Bush is the way to go and i dont want to be one of those people that looks great on paper but in reality?
Trying to find out what course is going to be the best for a new pilot that wants to have the best career one can have and everyone on this board should relate to that!
I always thought Skippers had a good fleet of aircraft, but obviously not and obviously have a hell of alot of disgruntled employees, but seriously if you dont like it why stay? that is what i cant work out. Theres a few threads earlier on in the thread that talk about the bush being better in pay and conditions, why stay with Skippers?-dont attack me for that but i would like to know the reason if you are so disgruntled why would you stay?
But no one actually answered my Q, is one of those courses going to help you get a leg in with skippers or even skywest later on once you have some multi?
But geez some people are quick on the ball to attack people around here, no wonder some dont go anywhere in their careers with attitudes and obviously some of you just got to where you are without considering which paths are better and going to give you a better job/career and which will get you there quicker.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotdude09
That is the whole point of this thread.....
They are not staying
As for your queston
as much chance as everybody else. Neither course will 'give you an edge'.
but seriously if you dont like it why stay? that is what i cant work out
They are not staying
As for your queston
What are the chances of being picked up by Skippers doing either the WAAC CPL course and the ECU Aviation degree
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently more disgusted Captains out the door, some very very important and senior types it would appear.
Heard a rumour that the TWU is now looking closely at the T&C's for another Perth based operator that operates aircraft with blue tails.
Heard a rumour that the TWU is now looking closely at the T&C's for another Perth based operator that operates aircraft with blue tails.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 18th Sep 2007 at 09:37.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: XR Land
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REF+10 - Options, life is full of options! Could it be:
Skippers with the blue tail?
National Jet with the blue tail?
Skywest with the blue tail?
Network with the poofy greeny blue tail?
CASair with the Reddy blue tail?
Maroomab with the Red and blue mixed tail?
or
Ad-Astral with the red and blue tail?
Options,Options,Options, Who is it??????????
Skippers with the blue tail?
National Jet with the blue tail?
Skywest with the blue tail?
Network with the poofy greeny blue tail?
CASair with the Reddy blue tail?
Maroomab with the Red and blue mixed tail?
or
Ad-Astral with the red and blue tail?
Options,Options,Options, Who is it??????????