Rex and the Media Release
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just saw a video of latest MPL holder's final check flight... or was that a cadet???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk
But seriously folks, last min rest overnight I did had 11 sectors. The old body just can't take it any more. So off to head office today to resign. Sad really. New job has overtime, bidding and lots more days off for much more money, so why wouldn't cha?
Fenwicksgirl in post 38 had some good ideas. How about thinking outside the square Rex and ask our opinion.
Is there a pilot shortage? Hell yes there is. Just keep applying you'll get the job you want eventually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk
But seriously folks, last min rest overnight I did had 11 sectors. The old body just can't take it any more. So off to head office today to resign. Sad really. New job has overtime, bidding and lots more days off for much more money, so why wouldn't cha?
Fenwicksgirl in post 38 had some good ideas. How about thinking outside the square Rex and ask our opinion.
Is there a pilot shortage? Hell yes there is. Just keep applying you'll get the job you want eventually.
Perhaps as a suggestion Rex needs to pause for a minute and take stock of the situation and look towards those pilots who are not attractive to the airlines but have experience.
They are called older people (40-45+ who are discriminated by airlines), you know those who roar around australia every day and night in high speed turbo-prop aircraft often alone and IFR.
They are called older people (40-45+ who are discriminated by airlines), you know those who roar around australia every day and night in high speed turbo-prop aircraft often alone and IFR.
If Rex want to target the older market they have to start offering better money. No 45+ guy is going to quit a $60K a year Night Freight/RFDS type job to take $41K FO position. They have to start either offering individual contracts to FO's on a higher salary or put them in as Captains. Otherwise nothing will change.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on NEV.
I for One could not support my family on 41k and I would be quite happy with a regional job.
If regionals like rex are not prepared to increase their salaries then they will only capture a small section of the pilot group.
I guess we will see a grave yard of aircraft comming to an airport near you.
Regards The Dog
I for One could not support my family on 41k and I would be quite happy with a regional job.
If regionals like rex are not prepared to increase their salaries then they will only capture a small section of the pilot group.
I guess we will see a grave yard of aircraft comming to an airport near you.
Regards The Dog
One very important question that isn't being asked is that with all the BS sprouting forth from Rex about pilotage shortages where is the AFAP or ANY OTHER professional pilot association? Where is their counter media release?
Hello Laurie anyone there?
There is a whole opportunity being lost here to put the case for the REAL reason for people not wanting to spend $80K plus to earn $60K pa.
Whenever the federal government make a statement on health issues the AMA are right there with a comment and soundbite for the media, where are OUR PAID representatives huh?
Hello Laurie anyone there?
There is a whole opportunity being lost here to put the case for the REAL reason for people not wanting to spend $80K plus to earn $60K pa.
Whenever the federal government make a statement on health issues the AMA are right there with a comment and soundbite for the media, where are OUR PAID representatives huh?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't expect much support from the AFAP....
I did.
I was disappointed.
the ONLY branch of the AFAP that actually runs well is the department that collects money off pilots, and pays themselves.
I did.
I was disappointed.
the ONLY branch of the AFAP that actually runs well is the department that collects money off pilots, and pays themselves.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???????
How can low wages, poor conditions and a pilot shortage exist all at the same time?
The commercial system must be distorted, otherwise it would re-adjust to solve this.
The commercial system must be distorted, otherwise it would re-adjust to solve this.
Aircraft will tell you that regional airlines cannot afford to pay any more as that will raise ticket prices and lower demand etc etc.
I think at the moment the regionals are still finding enough people to employ (so no real supply problem yet) at current wages it's just that they aren't able to keep anybody in the company. REX really need to start offering some of the Captains an incentive to stay. Whether that's in money or some cushy rostering arrangement they need to do something.
Skippers have upped their salaries in a slightly dodgey manner, but it still is an increase.
I think at the moment the regionals are still finding enough people to employ (so no real supply problem yet) at current wages it's just that they aren't able to keep anybody in the company. REX really need to start offering some of the Captains an incentive to stay. Whether that's in money or some cushy rostering arrangement they need to do something.
Skippers have upped their salaries in a slightly dodgey manner, but it still is an increase.
bushy said:
Like several other posters to this thread, you are asking why it is that "supply and demand" hasn't seen to it that pay and conditions have become dramatically improved.
The supply and demand effects are at work in this instance, as they are in every instance involving free enterprise, but there is a certain limit that has come into play. It is worth bearing in mind that there are limits to everything in the universe.
The limiting factor, in this case, is the amount of money that Rex can afford to pay out in the form of salary and conditions.
If aviation was as lucrative an industry as oil and gas, for example, then this particular limit may still be some way off, and good 'ol supply and demand would have seen to it that salaries and conditions are way up on what they were a few years ago (e.g $200K for turboprop captains, $150K for FOs, free motor vehicle and all manner of duty and living concessions).
But aviation is just not that lucrative.
Some would say that supply and demand has had no effect whatsoever and there is no discernible difference between the T&Cs offered today and those of a few years ago.
And this would generally be true, for it reveals another little reality that posters to this thread will find rather unpalatable:
That Rex have always paid their staff about as well as they can afford to!
In fact, this statement will be generally true for not just every other aviation employer in Australia, but virtually every other business in the world.
How can low wages, poor conditions and a pilot shortage exist all at the same time?
The supply and demand effects are at work in this instance, as they are in every instance involving free enterprise, but there is a certain limit that has come into play. It is worth bearing in mind that there are limits to everything in the universe.
The limiting factor, in this case, is the amount of money that Rex can afford to pay out in the form of salary and conditions.
If aviation was as lucrative an industry as oil and gas, for example, then this particular limit may still be some way off, and good 'ol supply and demand would have seen to it that salaries and conditions are way up on what they were a few years ago (e.g $200K for turboprop captains, $150K for FOs, free motor vehicle and all manner of duty and living concessions).
But aviation is just not that lucrative.
Some would say that supply and demand has had no effect whatsoever and there is no discernible difference between the T&Cs offered today and those of a few years ago.
And this would generally be true, for it reveals another little reality that posters to this thread will find rather unpalatable:
That Rex have always paid their staff about as well as they can afford to!
In fact, this statement will be generally true for not just every other aviation employer in Australia, but virtually every other business in the world.
Aircraft,
You again bang on with your theme to justify low renumeration in Aviation.
There is only one problem with that, it's RUBBISH.
To remain in business, airlines MUST attract and retain pilots. (One of your solutions to this in another thread was "Well, just go broke then"- remind me not to put YOU in charge of any of my investments!!). This is a cost to them, like fuel and maintenance. Note that fuel, which is a much larger cost to airline than Pilot wages, has increased dramatically. You haven't suggested airline stop buying it!!
To offset these costs, companies must pass them on to their customers.
Ahh!! you say...But customers then just won't fly. This is where your age and inexperience shows.
Previous to deregulation in 1990, airfares in Australia where, in real terms, something like 150% higher on average than post deregulation. And guess what? People paid them. Travel is essential for most passengers and highley desired by most. The number who would simply not travel if airfares went up, say 20% (which is much more than would be required to produce REALLY attractive packages for pilots) would be small. It might mean some marginal routes become non-profitable, it might mean some small operators go out of business. But the DEMAND would still exist, so SUPPLY would be profitable if sold at a sustainable price.
Turbo-prop Captains in Europe earn around 60 000 Sterling, which is around $150 000 AUD, and fares on those airlines are still very cheap.
Bleat all you like, but in all your posts you have never answered one simple question- if regonals can't keep pilots without raising wages, how do they stay in business?
You again bang on with your theme to justify low renumeration in Aviation.
There is only one problem with that, it's RUBBISH.
To remain in business, airlines MUST attract and retain pilots. (One of your solutions to this in another thread was "Well, just go broke then"- remind me not to put YOU in charge of any of my investments!!). This is a cost to them, like fuel and maintenance. Note that fuel, which is a much larger cost to airline than Pilot wages, has increased dramatically. You haven't suggested airline stop buying it!!
To offset these costs, companies must pass them on to their customers.
Ahh!! you say...But customers then just won't fly. This is where your age and inexperience shows.
Previous to deregulation in 1990, airfares in Australia where, in real terms, something like 150% higher on average than post deregulation. And guess what? People paid them. Travel is essential for most passengers and highley desired by most. The number who would simply not travel if airfares went up, say 20% (which is much more than would be required to produce REALLY attractive packages for pilots) would be small. It might mean some marginal routes become non-profitable, it might mean some small operators go out of business. But the DEMAND would still exist, so SUPPLY would be profitable if sold at a sustainable price.
Turbo-prop Captains in Europe earn around 60 000 Sterling, which is around $150 000 AUD, and fares on those airlines are still very cheap.
Bleat all you like, but in all your posts you have never answered one simple question- if regonals can't keep pilots without raising wages, how do they stay in business?
Wizofoz said:
Yes, airlines must, but does this mean they will? I didn't say "just go broke then", I actually said that Rex, Skippers, etc are almost powerless when it comes to trying to prevent these circumstances from closing them down.
I also said, in that other thread, that changes to economic circumstances always force the closure of businesses. Every day in Australia there is a business that closes because, due to a small change to the economic circumstances, that business is no longer viable.
The thing about fuel price rises is that they affect all carriers uniformly, so no one particular carrier is disadvantaged. Air travel as a whole is certainly affected though, and demand for it does drop - it has to.
Yes, but how much air travel was there in those days compared to today? Put the airfares up by 150% today and yes, people will still fly, the pilots could be paid what they were then, but demand for it will so contract that you will probably have the same number of flights as there were then. How many pilots would that put out of a job?
Don't try to compare European salaries with Australian. That is not an "apples to apples" comparison.
To remain in business, airlines MUST attract and retain pilots. (One of your solutions to this in another thread was "Well, just go broke then"
I also said, in that other thread, that changes to economic circumstances always force the closure of businesses. Every day in Australia there is a business that closes because, due to a small change to the economic circumstances, that business is no longer viable.
The thing about fuel price rises is that they affect all carriers uniformly, so no one particular carrier is disadvantaged. Air travel as a whole is certainly affected though, and demand for it does drop - it has to.
Previous to deregulation in 1990, airfares in Australia where, in real terms, something like 150% higher on average than post deregulation. And guess what? People paid them
Don't try to compare European salaries with Australian. That is not an "apples to apples" comparison.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I have to disagree:
Coming from a Forensic Accounting Background adrshmoo your talking out of your a*se cause its flappin in the wind!
Goodwill:
A broader concept of goodwill recognizes the economic value of a business' internally developed nonpurchased goodwill such as name, developed markets, managerial talent, labour force, government relations, ability to finance operations easily, etc. Such nonpurchased goodwill has not been recognized in the balance sheet and expenditures which may result in internally developed goodwill have not been capitalized. The primary reason for not accounting for goodwill developed in this manner is the absence of generally accepted objective methods of measurement.
Goodwill which is internally generated by an entity is not permitted
by this Standard to be recognised as an asset by that entity. This is
principally because of the difficulty, or impossibility, of identifying
the events or transactions which contribute to the overall goodwill
of the entity. Even if these were identifiable, the extent to which
they generate future benefits and the value of such benefits are not
usually capable of being measured reliably. Internally generated
goodwill which is not recognised as an asset will either go
completely unrecognised or will be recognised as an expense.
Spot on the industry will be run by accountants and always will be. We make the figures work.
Now I totally disagree to your point of
"Now accountants only really care about next years results and then move on to the next company for better T&Cs (sounds familiar)"
Yes in some points we are, but in the long run were more about running the business profitably otherwise without us.............................. Say goodbye to airlines.
Accountants are the power in the engine, the pilots drive the plane, and everyone else makes it run smoother.
Now I could ramble on, but Fark off
trying to take the piss out of accountants and go get a real job 
Coming from a Forensic Accounting Background adrshmoo your talking out of your a*se cause its flappin in the wind!
Goodwill:
A broader concept of goodwill recognizes the economic value of a business' internally developed nonpurchased goodwill such as name, developed markets, managerial talent, labour force, government relations, ability to finance operations easily, etc. Such nonpurchased goodwill has not been recognized in the balance sheet and expenditures which may result in internally developed goodwill have not been capitalized. The primary reason for not accounting for goodwill developed in this manner is the absence of generally accepted objective methods of measurement.
Goodwill which is internally generated by an entity is not permitted
by this Standard to be recognised as an asset by that entity. This is
principally because of the difficulty, or impossibility, of identifying
the events or transactions which contribute to the overall goodwill
of the entity. Even if these were identifiable, the extent to which
they generate future benefits and the value of such benefits are not
usually capable of being measured reliably. Internally generated
goodwill which is not recognised as an asset will either go
completely unrecognised or will be recognised as an expense.
Originally Posted by adrshmoo
Well first of all I'd like to say that I never worked for REX. Several of my mates did/do and they have all enjoyed their times their in a professional company with good people who have good will - accountants can't see this on a spread sheet so therefore it doesn't exist.
Our industry has been and will be run by accountants for the foreseeable future. Now accountants only really care about next years results and then move on to the next company for better T&Cs (sounds familiar). So why would they try to implement long term strategies (like pilot retention) that would hurt the next years report and bonuses when the mess can be left for the next manager/accountant to clean up.
Our industry has been and will be run by accountants for the foreseeable future. Now accountants only really care about next years results and then move on to the next company for better T&Cs (sounds familiar). So why would they try to implement long term strategies (like pilot retention) that would hurt the next years report and bonuses when the mess can be left for the next manager/accountant to clean up.
Spot on the industry will be run by accountants and always will be. We make the figures work.Now I totally disagree to your point of
"Now accountants only really care about next years results and then move on to the next company for better T&Cs (sounds familiar)"
Yes in some points we are, but in the long run were more about running the business profitably otherwise without us.............................. Say goodbye to airlines.
Accountants are the power in the engine, the pilots drive the plane, and everyone else makes it run smoother.
Now I could ramble on, but Fark off
trying to take the piss out of accountants and go get a real job
Last edited by Skystar320; 12th Oct 2007 at 04:52.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippers have upped their salaries in a slightly dodgey manner, but it still is an increase.
Part of this argument is the price of tickets. Are we getting airfares to cheaply? I agree partly with what Aircraft says in that REX and the like cannot be the same as BHP. However maybe the presupposition is incorrect. Maybe airfares are to low.
Airlines have no problems in jacking up the price of airfares on the grounds of oil price. You surely cannot argue that it is better to close up shop instead of upping your salaries slightly.
One could also argue that like Telcos, Aviation may be better off in having a regulated system. That's another argument for another day.
In the case Qlink, I have no sympathy at all. If they had set up their system similar to American Eagle and American Airlines 10 years ago they would never have a crewing problem ever. They recruit Eastern/Sunstate people to a Qantas standard, then after 3 years or whatever you go to mainline, or stay as a Captain. Yet they decided to play silly buggers in trying to playoff everyone against each other and it may come to haunt them. If they had an intergrated system you wouldn't have to worry about paying people more because they would hang around knowing that mainline was on the horizon.
Maybe REX should get some arrangement with Virgin. By giving people a career path it would save everybody alot of hassle.
Airlines have no problems in jacking up the price of airfares on the grounds of oil price. You surely cannot argue that it is better to close up shop instead of upping your salaries slightly.
One could also argue that like Telcos, Aviation may be better off in having a regulated system. That's another argument for another day.
In the case Qlink, I have no sympathy at all. If they had set up their system similar to American Eagle and American Airlines 10 years ago they would never have a crewing problem ever. They recruit Eastern/Sunstate people to a Qantas standard, then after 3 years or whatever you go to mainline, or stay as a Captain. Yet they decided to play silly buggers in trying to playoff everyone against each other and it may come to haunt them. If they had an intergrated system you wouldn't have to worry about paying people more because they would hang around knowing that mainline was on the horizon.
Maybe REX should get some arrangement with Virgin. By giving people a career path it would save everybody alot of hassle.
How many pilots would that put out of a job?
This sentence alone shows you are either a troll arguing for the sake of it, or just plain dumb!!
The whole salery increase/ fare increase we are talking about is being driven by the SHORTAGE of pilots. Airlines need to raise conditions to the point they keep enough pilots to operate their current schedules. If conditions led to their being more pilots than jobs, what do you suppose that would do? That's right! Drive pay and conditions down, as has been the case worldwide since 9/11!!
Anyway, talking to a brick wall gets old after a while, so I think I'll leave you to it!!
Seasonally Adjusted
It is worth bearing in mind that there are limits to everything in the universe
Skippers have upped their salaries in a slightly dodgey manner, but it still is an increase.
And if they are not careful they could be in for some serious trouble....
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the price of fuel goes up - the company pays, and either absorbs the cost (if possible) or passes it on in the price of tickets.
If the price of parts goes up - the company pays, and either absorbs the cost (if possible) or passes it on in the price of tickets.
If the price of airport usage & airways goes up - the company pays, and either absorbs the cost (if possible) or passes it on in the price of tickets.
Etc etc.
NOW, the price of PILOTS is going up.
DEAL WITH IT - or stop operating.
Simple, really
If the price of parts goes up - the company pays, and either absorbs the cost (if possible) or passes it on in the price of tickets.
If the price of airport usage & airways goes up - the company pays, and either absorbs the cost (if possible) or passes it on in the price of tickets.
Etc etc.
NOW, the price of PILOTS is going up.
DEAL WITH IT - or stop operating.
Simple, really
Nunc est bibendum
Yes, I would have thought that a Pilot retention surcharge of $3 a ticket would probably do OK. On a full Saab that's $108 per sector isn't it? (Been a while since I knew what the capacity of a S340B was!). Over five sectors a day spilt between Captain and F/O that should do quite nicely for retention I would have thought.
Now aircraft, tell me why $3 per ticket pilot retention surcharge is going to slam the demand to the stage that REX goes broke! If they can do it for fuel they can do it for pilots.
Now aircraft, tell me why $3 per ticket pilot retention surcharge is going to slam the demand to the stage that REX goes broke! If they can do it for fuel they can do it for pilots.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, you would have to call it something else, or bury the charge in a general increase.
Wouldn't want those passengers who trust us so much to kick our car headlights in at the carpark, over $3 now would we.
Wouldn't want those passengers who trust us so much to kick our car headlights in at the carpark, over $3 now would we.