Qantas Start Dates
Latest Divisor on the 744 for S/O's has dropped because no leave was bid for this coming bid period- that is all.
Not One S/O- ,who is not advantaged by this LOA, is in support of this illegal seniority number allocation.
I think this sums up the entire point. Every Pilot thats starts at QF believes that your start day- reference the QF asic id date is the actual start date and the reference for determining seniority- (hours flown within that for further sorting)
When every cadet completes the cadet course (including the industry placement) they are entitled to a number on day one along with all the DE pilots not two years plus before. You want to improve morale with your boys/girls CM; Over turn this illegal and unfair precedent that the majority of your future drivers hate and want gone
Not One S/O- ,who is not advantaged by this LOA, is in support of this illegal seniority number allocation.
A S/O on completion of the cadet course is OK to commence with QF...and many of them have over the years. That was the intention behind the original courses, the courses in the early '90s and even the course in the late '90s did this for a few years.
When every cadet completes the cadet course (including the industry placement) they are entitled to a number on day one along with all the DE pilots not two years plus before. You want to improve morale with your boys/girls CM; Over turn this illegal and unfair precedent that the majority of your future drivers hate and want gone
Keg,
You have hit the nail on the head, but not in the manner you wanted to: "A S/O on completion of the Cadet Course..." Sorry, but no cadet is a S/O on completion of the cadet course. Being an ex-cadet, I am only too aware of this fact, as OBNO quoted from the website. Their seniority numbers should reflect their start date in QF when they begin their S/O course, not their industry placement. End of story. If I was ex-RAAF or GA and started 2 years prior to these guys/gals, I too would be well p1ssed.
OBNO,
re: '"why are cadets sent on industry placement". Nice bait - why don't you leave it for fishing. Better still get over your little chip about cadets. W@nker.
M
You have hit the nail on the head, but not in the manner you wanted to: "A S/O on completion of the Cadet Course..." Sorry, but no cadet is a S/O on completion of the cadet course. Being an ex-cadet, I am only too aware of this fact, as OBNO quoted from the website. Their seniority numbers should reflect their start date in QF when they begin their S/O course, not their industry placement. End of story. If I was ex-RAAF or GA and started 2 years prior to these guys/gals, I too would be well p1ssed.
OBNO,
re: '"why are cadets sent on industry placement". Nice bait - why don't you leave it for fishing. Better still get over your little chip about cadets. W@nker.
M
Last edited by mmmbop; 17th Jun 2007 at 05:38.
"illegal seniority number allocation"
Is this statement (made twice) based on fact or emotion (
) buddy???
How is it illegal? Surely if it was, it would not have been allowed in the first place.
I don't know how or why this LOA came about, but the fact is that it exists. We might as well get used to it. If we were all in the position to get a 2 year (or 3+ years given how long some have been in the industry placement) increase in seniority, then we'd all take it.
Is this statement (made twice) based on fact or emotion (
) buddy???How is it illegal? Surely if it was, it would not have been allowed in the first place.
I don't know how or why this LOA came about, but the fact is that it exists. We might as well get used to it. If we were all in the position to get a 2 year (or 3+ years given how long some have been in the industry placement) increase in seniority, then we'd all take it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok everyone, it's obviously a sensitive issue, but lets get clear the air.
LOA 161 exists and as far as I know is not "illegal" I have no issue with people taking advantage of it.
I don't like it, (like many others) so therefore instead of just complainin g about it, I'll try to change it.
How to change it? Well I guess I start with the AIPA, but my attempts there have been stonewalled. It's a small issue. It's also an issue that really only affects a small group of starting out DE Qantas SO's. The voice of a starting out Qantas SO is not very loud!
Anyhow, if we want to debate this further perhaps start another thread. The only reason I raised this issue, is that if you are starting with Qantas, be prepared to stay junior for quite a while. Being junior (reserve line rotator, standby holder, bottom of the pile trips) will affect your pay packet and also your ability to commute. I would suggest that if you plan joining Qantas carefully weigh your situation, particularly if you want to commute.
Good luck to all.
Friday
LOA 161 exists and as far as I know is not "illegal" I have no issue with people taking advantage of it.
I don't like it, (like many others) so therefore instead of just complainin g about it, I'll try to change it.
How to change it? Well I guess I start with the AIPA, but my attempts there have been stonewalled. It's a small issue. It's also an issue that really only affects a small group of starting out DE Qantas SO's. The voice of a starting out Qantas SO is not very loud!
Anyhow, if we want to debate this further perhaps start another thread. The only reason I raised this issue, is that if you are starting with Qantas, be prepared to stay junior for quite a while. Being junior (reserve line rotator, standby holder, bottom of the pile trips) will affect your pay packet and also your ability to commute. I would suggest that if you plan joining Qantas carefully weigh your situation, particularly if you want to commute.
Good luck to all.
Friday
Nunc est bibendum
We've discussed this all before and so I may be repeating myself.
Sorry, this is not always the case. I have about a half dozen or so other pilots who started in QF up to a couple of years behind me who are senior to me. They were eligible to start earlier than me but due to being supported and sent elsewhere by QF they ended up starting after me. I have zero dramas with this.
How about this issue then. Some cadets at the end of their cadetship are sent to AirNorth and some are sent to QFLink. Should those sent to Air North get a 'group seniority number' before or after those at QF link?
I know you guys think this is black and white but it isn't.
Every Pilot thats starts at QF believes that your start day- reference the QF asic id date is the actual start date and the reference for determining seniority- (hours flown within that for further sorting)
How about this issue then. Some cadets at the end of their cadetship are sent to AirNorth and some are sent to QFLink. Should those sent to Air North get a 'group seniority number' before or after those at QF link?
I know you guys think this is black and white but it isn't.
This issue is typical of AIPA/QF negotiating.
For ever and a day AIPA and QF have had a practice of gaining advantage at the expense of those yet to be recruited. Only after time do the affected pilots realised they've been done over (especially by their colleagues)!
This LOA is not the first example and won't be the last.
For ever and a day AIPA and QF have had a practice of gaining advantage at the expense of those yet to be recruited. Only after time do the affected pilots realised they've been done over (especially by their colleagues)!
This LOA is not the first example and won't be the last.
Keg, when those guys came in above you after 3 years, were you pushed back into rotating? How about into reserve lines? If you stayed permanent pattern then I suggest the impact on you was minimal. I assure you, the impact of this on a small number such as the A330 SO's is more keenly felt. I can also assure you they're not happy about it. Maybe they like black and white.
Some of these cadets coming in (presumably) in July will have a seniority date of MARCH 2004. That's a lot of people to bypass, especially for those on reserve lines.
The only way this will affect me is for future promotion; they just don't seem to send these guys to the classic!
ruprecht.
Some of these cadets coming in (presumably) in July will have a seniority date of MARCH 2004. That's a lot of people to bypass, especially for those on reserve lines.
The only way this will affect me is for future promotion; they just don't seem to send these guys to the classic!
ruprecht.
Last edited by ruprecht; 17th Jun 2007 at 07:16.
Every Pilot thats starts at QF believes that your start day- reference the QF asic id date is the actual start date and the reference for determining seniority- (hours flown within that for further sorting)
Sorry, this is not always the case. I have about a half dozen or so other pilots who started in QF up to a couple of years behind me who are senior to me. They were eligible to start earlier than me but due to being supported and sent elsewhere by QF they ended up starting after me. I have zero dramas with this.
Sorry, this is not always the case. I have about a half dozen or so other pilots who started in QF up to a couple of years behind me who are senior to me. They were eligible to start earlier than me but due to being supported and sent elsewhere by QF they ended up starting after me. I have zero dramas with this.
They were employed by QF- Those on industry placement are not Guaranteed
a gig with the rat. I guess that's the crux of the argument- It is considered part of the training process. (words of a management type involved in the placement program)
Someone mentioned earlier that it is here to stay- so does that mean all DE S/O's should just accept it?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the thread keeps going in this direction - I'm going to bite.
What any new Direct Entry Pilot joining Qantas needs to know, is that due to LOA161 and what I understand is a planned increase in Cadet entrants is that you will stay junior a lot longer than in previous years.
So if you're a little bit older....let's say ex Military or longer term GA and you're thinking, hey all my mates in Qantas say it's only 5 years as an SO.........think again!
This LOA has only really kicked in since early 2004. Given recruiting dried up in late 2005, the cadets have slowly been returning and keeping the DE guys at the bottom. The same will continue to happen (although perhaps to a lesser degree if the recruiting numbers touted come true).
Let me re-iterate, this is no fault of the cadets.
If you dig deeper the real issue is what defines seniority. Some think it's the day you join the company as an SO. Some think it's the day you join mainline. There will always be some who think the LOA is acceptable, as the cadets joined mainline the day they graduated. Qantas told them to go and get some experience - it was part of there contract - not their fault - they shouldn't be penalized.
I don't sit in that camp, and on the balance of things it's a pretty small camp!
However what's done is done, and the LOA exists.
Be nice to your fellow man and eat more vegetables.
Friday
What any new Direct Entry Pilot joining Qantas needs to know, is that due to LOA161 and what I understand is a planned increase in Cadet entrants is that you will stay junior a lot longer than in previous years.
So if you're a little bit older....let's say ex Military or longer term GA and you're thinking, hey all my mates in Qantas say it's only 5 years as an SO.........think again!
This LOA has only really kicked in since early 2004. Given recruiting dried up in late 2005, the cadets have slowly been returning and keeping the DE guys at the bottom. The same will continue to happen (although perhaps to a lesser degree if the recruiting numbers touted come true).
Let me re-iterate, this is no fault of the cadets.
If you dig deeper the real issue is what defines seniority. Some think it's the day you join the company as an SO. Some think it's the day you join mainline. There will always be some who think the LOA is acceptable, as the cadets joined mainline the day they graduated. Qantas told them to go and get some experience - it was part of there contract - not their fault - they shouldn't be penalized.
I don't sit in that camp, and on the balance of things it's a pretty small camp!
However what's done is done, and the LOA exists.
Be nice to your fellow man and eat more vegetables.
Friday
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys this has been going on for ages,
when I started the cadets who "commenced" with me, were bought in the day prior and given seniority...
The fact that to the left and right of the cadets were ex RAAF and airline drivers all with thousands of hours didn't matter, they were junior!
This LOA was rubbish from its inception sold to us by a president and junta who were part of the problem.
when I started the cadets who "commenced" with me, were bought in the day prior and given seniority...
The fact that to the left and right of the cadets were ex RAAF and airline drivers all with thousands of hours didn't matter, they were junior!
This LOA was rubbish from its inception sold to us by a president and junta who were part of the problem.
Nunc est bibendum
Ruprech, no I wasn't....I was already a 767 F/O by the time they joined but I do acknowledge that the possibility exists under LOA 161. In reality I probably rotated as an F/O for an extra bid period or two when these guys checked out as F/Os a couple of years later but I didn't really pay much attention.
Poto, not correct at all. The people I speak of were NOT employed by QF at the time. Look at some of the start dates of seniority numbers in the 1100s.
OBNO, we can argue technicalities about when a 'cadet' ceases to be one (some 15 years after graduating the course and just shy of ten years of being an F/O and I'm still looked down upon by some people for 'being' one) but it won't serve our purposes. I don't know why the CIPP exists but i wish it was around when I graduated from the course! However if it didn't then the great likelihood is that would the cadets would be brought into QF directly as the next cab off the rank- as occurred for the eight courses that graduated in '91- '92 and the other courses that graduated from late '90s through to about 2004 or so. That would mean that the seniority numbers of those affected would be the same.
I guess the 'glass half full' logic on the issue is that for the last [insert time frame here] that some people have been getting better rosters than they would have otherwise have got simply because QF sent the cadets (that would have normally employed before them) elsewhere.
Let me re-iterate though, this could and should have been done very differently a lot of years ago. It would have saved considerable angst.
Poto, not correct at all. The people I speak of were NOT employed by QF at the time. Look at some of the start dates of seniority numbers in the 1100s.
OBNO, we can argue technicalities about when a 'cadet' ceases to be one (some 15 years after graduating the course and just shy of ten years of being an F/O and I'm still looked down upon by some people for 'being' one) but it won't serve our purposes. I don't know why the CIPP exists but i wish it was around when I graduated from the course! However if it didn't then the great likelihood is that would the cadets would be brought into QF directly as the next cab off the rank- as occurred for the eight courses that graduated in '91- '92 and the other courses that graduated from late '90s through to about 2004 or so. That would mean that the seniority numbers of those affected would be the same.
I guess the 'glass half full' logic on the issue is that for the last [insert time frame here] that some people have been getting better rosters than they would have otherwise have got simply because QF sent the cadets (that would have normally employed before them) elsewhere.
Let me re-iterate though, this could and should have been done very differently a lot of years ago. It would have saved considerable angst.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort it OUT...
Once again - Qantas is throwing it's very dirty laundry out for everyone else to see.
Another example of the extremely poor leadership and management at all levels within the airline.
Cadets are 'cadets'... they are NOT employees...
Therefore, they should be treated as such.
'Cadets' should not benefit at the expense of others. Simple....
Both QF management and AIPA need to address this problem.
Another example of the extremely poor leadership and management at all levels within the airline.
Cadets are 'cadets'... they are NOT employees...
Therefore, they should be treated as such. 'Cadets' should not benefit at the expense of others. Simple....
Both QF management and AIPA need to address this problem.
Why not ammend LOA161 to make it fair for everyone. How about we adjust everybodies seniority number back to the date that they met all requirements for employment with QF.
i.e. HSC English and Maths, 500 hours command, CPL, MECIR and ATPL subjects. Surely that would be fair.
I have just had a look at the seniority list and i think i have just gone up by 500 numbers or so.
i.e. HSC English and Maths, 500 hours command, CPL, MECIR and ATPL subjects. Surely that would be fair.
I have just had a look at the seniority list and i think i have just gone up by 500 numbers or so.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOA161 makes sense from the companies side as it gives them flexibility with the cadets going to different outfits as part of industry placement, and gives them the freedom to try to extend the cadet placement when suitable, without having to deal with any fairness issues for that particular cadet course.
As far as the guys who are on the line for a few years and then have courses coming in over the top of them, LOA161 stinks. Even as a cadet I still disagree with how it works.
As far as the guys who are on the line for a few years and then have courses coming in over the top of them, LOA161 stinks. Even as a cadet I still disagree with how it works.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the original thred, IF Qantas are to start courses in a matter of weeks, then there must be people out there that have been advised of a course date. Perhaps the first few courses will be cadets only - if so, can you advise us please of your start dates? However, if this is not the case, then it seems that the hype of July starts and a possible ramping up of recruitment is yet another blow of hot air - for now!
On 161, I to agree it is unfair to those who are hoping to join as DE at the moment. Or will Qantas give us 2 years backdated seniority on joining? I think not!
On 161, I to agree it is unfair to those who are hoping to join as DE at the moment. Or will Qantas give us 2 years backdated seniority on joining? I think not!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid July will be the first course. In typical Qantas fashion that is today's plan. Tomorrow might see another plan of more courses, or none at all.
Not unknown for QF in the past to advise applicants only a few days before of their course start date. Have even known of some who have been rung about 5pm in the afternoon to start the next morning.
Not unknown for QF in the past to advise applicants only a few days before of their course start date. Have even known of some who have been rung about 5pm in the afternoon to start the next morning.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite amazing since most (not all of course) guys who wish to join eventually stay for 25-35 years. It's an accurate display from day one of the shi*house treatment to those at the bottom of the QF ladder. The company expects four weeks notice of resignation but doesn't afford those companies losing the 'lucky' winners of QF slots (and the winners/winners families themselves) the same courtesy. Compared to many other professional industries (or many other companies in the same industry), this organisation's HR practises are haphazard at best.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Last edited by Victor India; 20th Jun 2007 at 11:19.