100 Qantas Pilots to join Jetstar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tsalta, you've got me, I'm not an accountant.
Since you are, can you please explain the business case to have an employee sitting sitting on additional assigned leave, whilst employing someone else to do the work in another part of the organisation?
Since you are, can you please explain the business case to have an employee sitting sitting on additional assigned leave, whilst employing someone else to do the work in another part of the organisation?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
breakie burrito has a valid point!
If it was my business, and i had a surplus of higher cost Airbus Captains even in mainline, I would provide them to JQ at the cost of JQ F/O's even if thats what was needed for the duration required. Beats the costs of importing training etc etc and still paying the other bloke to sit at a desk or at home! That sounds like some of the things at Ansett...........but lets not go there!
J
If it was my business, and i had a surplus of higher cost Airbus Captains even in mainline, I would provide them to JQ at the cost of JQ F/O's even if thats what was needed for the duration required. Beats the costs of importing training etc etc and still paying the other bloke to sit at a desk or at home! That sounds like some of the things at Ansett...........but lets not go there!
J
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmmm,
Do you really think a QF Airbus mainline pilot who is being assigned leave, be it annual or long service, is going to suddenly pack up and move to NZ for a salary in JQ that would be one of the lowest in the western world and as an F/O?
The Aussie JQ guys/girls don't even want to go!
Like others have stated, S/O's are the first to go in regards to QF job losses and they are not qualified!
Not to mention moving costs, selling/Renting the house, moving children/schools e.t.c if one Elects or is even allowed to move.
The JQ/QF MOU sounds all warm and fuzzy but at the end of the day too restrictive and useless.
The F/O's from overseas are already A320 endorsed and are willing to move to NZ for a change.Doubt if money is their top priority.
Some are probably Kiwi's that are heading home for a stint.
Mountain out of a molehill.
You should be making more of a fuss about the nice shiny new Qantas 737-800's that are now being flown by Jetconnect crews with nice Red tails and Qantas uniforms.
Do you really think a QF Airbus mainline pilot who is being assigned leave, be it annual or long service, is going to suddenly pack up and move to NZ for a salary in JQ that would be one of the lowest in the western world and as an F/O?
The Aussie JQ guys/girls don't even want to go!
Like others have stated, S/O's are the first to go in regards to QF job losses and they are not qualified!
Not to mention moving costs, selling/Renting the house, moving children/schools e.t.c if one Elects or is even allowed to move.
The JQ/QF MOU sounds all warm and fuzzy but at the end of the day too restrictive and useless.
The F/O's from overseas are already A320 endorsed and are willing to move to NZ for a change.Doubt if money is their top priority.
Some are probably Kiwi's that are heading home for a stint.
Mountain out of a molehill.
You should be making more of a fuss about the nice shiny new Qantas 737-800's that are now being flown by Jetconnect crews with nice Red tails and Qantas uniforms.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m with Jabawocky on this one . . . people sitting at home on any kind of leave not producing any revenue is VERY expensive and should be avoided at all costs. Getting some kind of revenue for them at JQ is a much less expensive option.
But there is a bigger picture . . . which Fearcampaign alludes to in the question posed about “shiny new Qantas 737-800's that are now being flown by Jetconnect crews with nice Red tails and Qantas uniforms”.
Fearcampaign is right – he correctly predicts the future, in my humble opinion. I regularly listen in to ‘Eastern xxx’ reporting over Wonthaggi . . . and yet the average punter thinks they are on a Qantas flight (says so on the ticket), sitting in a Qantas aircraft (certainly looks like one) that it is being flown by Qantas pilots (they certainly act like that at the airports).
And of course everyone trusts Qantas – right?
Cheers
Pedota
But there is a bigger picture . . . which Fearcampaign alludes to in the question posed about “shiny new Qantas 737-800's that are now being flown by Jetconnect crews with nice Red tails and Qantas uniforms”.
Fearcampaign is right – he correctly predicts the future, in my humble opinion. I regularly listen in to ‘Eastern xxx’ reporting over Wonthaggi . . . and yet the average punter thinks they are on a Qantas flight (says so on the ticket), sitting in a Qantas aircraft (certainly looks like one) that it is being flown by Qantas pilots (they certainly act like that at the airports).
And of course everyone trusts Qantas – right?
Cheers
Pedota
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Whether anyone is sitting at home or not is not the point leave is accumulating and it is a growing liability, it has to be paid out, and if companies delay it it gets paid out on higher rates of pay?! Correct me if I am wrong but putting people on leave now actually saves money rather than delaying it thats why it is happening! I would be very happy for my leave to accumulate and get used in a decade! Unfortunately its not gonna happen! lol!
It's horses for courses i guess !!
Get a flying job...prob in Darwin with JQ, .. or be an in flight office b*tch for the next 6 yrs, with the possibility of having to move anyway ??
Get a flying job...prob in Darwin with JQ, .. or be an in flight office b*tch for the next 6 yrs, with the possibility of having to move anyway ??
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
people sitting at home on any kind of leave not producing any revenue is VERY expensive and should be avoided at all costs.
Breakfastburrito stated that assigning leave was front loading costs onto mainline. I was pointing out how this assertion was incorrect. Not debating the pros and cons of contract crew versus existing crew.
The leave which is being assigned is already on the Qantas books as a liability. Even if it was possible to send crew to J* without busting open an enormous can of worms, the liability still exists.
tsalta
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tsalta - quite correct burning leave, especially prior to 30 June reduces the liability on the balance sheet - it does however impact on the net operating for the qtr and that's a factor that Messrs Creedy and Co will have to guesstimate in their writings when the annual reporting season begins.
- The question is however if JQ really needs 100 extra drivers, where are they really going to be slogging to?
- JQ has already had a circa 35% lift in pax bums - as Going Boeing rightly pointed out - largely on the back of the xfer of routes and airframes from mainline.
- QF has a new app with JAL for codeshare on SYD/MEL/SIN - reciprocals for this it could see the red tail 330 Japan service replaced with QF pax respectfully shunted onto JAL and the balance of the business (typically discount/non travel agent originted + frieght) covered by JQ - that would of course free up (yet?) another 330 airframe for deployment to JQ........speculation of course that goes back to the first bullet point and AJ's statment to AIPA which like most QF statements, are prefaced with ..."at this time, [insert relevant g'tee]
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
any QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O with no more than line training, on the same type. ie.A330
Don't know about that........
any QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O with no more than line training, on the same type. ie.A330
Don't know about that........
Or is a QF SO on the 330 is not at the same standard as a JQ CFO on the 330, who is moving from the 330 to the 320 as an FO? Funny...i thought that was exactly same move....
Please clarify...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tasmania
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please clarify...
The comment was made:
"any QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O with no more than line training, on the same type. ie.A330"
I cannot comment on Jetstar operations that u alluded to. I disagree with the above comment because QF second officer endorsement simulator training and first officer endorsement simulator training are essentially very different. There are skills that are required as an F/O that are not taught to the same standard as an S/O in the sim as the job descriptions are different. Therefore I disagree that without doing the F/O endorsement sims an S/O would be able to transfer to F/O with only line training. Also, if the S/O was going to F/O on a longhaul type which would carry an ‘S/O’ or ‘CFO’ or whatever they are called today, they would require a M/E Command Instrument Rating which, as S/Os have co-pilot instrument ratings, presents a problem to the above comment.
I am not trying belittle the S/O role here, S/Os are a vital part of the operation and are an essential link in the error chain on the routes they operate on which usually involve time zone changes and the associated fatigue. I am just saying when to seat move is made, more than just line training would be required. I do agree however that any (or most anyway) QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O on any type with the required training...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tasmania
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also
If at Jetstar the only training done when moving from 330 CFO to 320 FO was line training then I would be alarmed...
Or is a QF SO on the 330 is not at the same standard as a JQ CFO on the 330, who is moving from the 330 to the 320 as an FO? Funny...i thought that was exactly same move....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that one of the major areas where SO training is lacking compared to FO training is the approach and landing phase. Sure the SO can fly instrument approaches but the actual landing gets less emphasis than if you were doing a FO conversion. The is not much emphasis placed on aim point retention, visual transition in low vis situations, crosswinds etc. Basically if you can get it on the ground in a reasonable manner you will pass you're cyclic.
But this is just the nature of the beast, we aren't trained to be takeoff/land pilots we are cruise pilots only and the training emphasis is on that. However it would only take a few sims to achieve the required standard. And if the rest of the crew went missing in action, I am sure that any SO would be able to do a safe manual landing, although autoland would be the preferred option.
But this is just the nature of the beast, we aren't trained to be takeoff/land pilots we are cruise pilots only and the training emphasis is on that. However it would only take a few sims to achieve the required standard. And if the rest of the crew went missing in action, I am sure that any SO would be able to do a safe manual landing, although autoland would be the preferred option.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: On a date with destiny.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard this one just recently... All the J* crew to be moved onto the QF long haul award and be paid what a pilot is entitled to after all the years of hard work and below pay and conditions they have to put up with in GA!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few Points,
I agree with Tsalta.
It is easier for the company to manage the excess pilots in QF now through leave and LSL.
From what I am told in QF this is how the contract is written.
QF are legally held to manage excess numbers using steps outlined in the contract.
Transferring pilots to JQ may or may not be a wise idea but agreed steps are in the contract and they have precedence.
If a QF F/O takes his LSL now on the 767 it is cost affective for QF to pay it now and not in twenty years time when he is a Captain.
The future liability is reduced at a cheaper rate now presuming said F/O obtains command or promotion in years to come.
The issue is not about qualified S/O's or who is more qualified JQ or QF. Immature route to go down.
JQ has the right to employ those whom it feels are most qualified at the time of need.
A song and dance was made about ten or less contract F/O's joining JQ NZ.
My point was that it is no big deal. These guys have a minimum of 1500 hours on type as F/O's with a s*&^load of experience flying multi sector days in busy European airspace.
If it gets down to the point of job losses then I think QF guys should have the right to a gig in JQ.
It is however premature to jump to this step until measures have been exhausted by AIPA and the company.
Should it get that bad we will have the answer.
I agree with Tsalta.
It is easier for the company to manage the excess pilots in QF now through leave and LSL.
From what I am told in QF this is how the contract is written.
QF are legally held to manage excess numbers using steps outlined in the contract.
Transferring pilots to JQ may or may not be a wise idea but agreed steps are in the contract and they have precedence.
If a QF F/O takes his LSL now on the 767 it is cost affective for QF to pay it now and not in twenty years time when he is a Captain.
The future liability is reduced at a cheaper rate now presuming said F/O obtains command or promotion in years to come.
The issue is not about qualified S/O's or who is more qualified JQ or QF. Immature route to go down.
JQ has the right to employ those whom it feels are most qualified at the time of need.
A song and dance was made about ten or less contract F/O's joining JQ NZ.
My point was that it is no big deal. These guys have a minimum of 1500 hours on type as F/O's with a s*&^load of experience flying multi sector days in busy European airspace.
If it gets down to the point of job losses then I think QF guys should have the right to a gig in JQ.
It is however premature to jump to this step until measures have been exhausted by AIPA and the company.
Should it get that bad we will have the answer.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James B
Cheers, understand what you're getting at now....
FWIW the training for the CFO's on the 330 to go to FO on the 320 is a CCQ with a few sims, and then line training...thats it.
Cheers, understand what you're getting at now....
FWIW the training for the CFO's on the 330 to go to FO on the 320 is a CCQ with a few sims, and then line training...thats it.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tasmania
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Wobby, agree totally, that is why I am saying that to move from S/O to F/O would require sims which would emphasis (of the top of my head): RTOs, V1 cuts, Low Vis, Engine out handling at low altitudes and engine out approach and landings as well as all engine approach and landings with particular attention (ie much greater emphasis) to handling, aim point retention, flare technique etc etc. as you point out some of this is lacking in the S/O endorsement because they are different jobs and it is not required. What is required is proficiency in SOPs to know what you are actually there to monitor and then support in the event the Capt or FO become incapacitated, and I guess if you subscribe to having a ‘double failure’ (of both Capt and FO) then yes they could land safely.
Back Seat Driver, I am aware of the licensing requirements for Long Haul crew, however not sure if is it the same at Jetstar? I do not think the standard of the S/O endorsement is different to an F/O endorsement because of the type of instrument rating, I think it’s because of the training required for the job required. In any event yes S/Os hold a co-pilot rating so technically they are qualified (once recent etc) to operate as a co-pilot I guess, however I do not think the standard of the S/O endorsement training would be such that “any QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O with no more than line training, on the same type. ie.A330” without doing some simulator training as well which has been my only point to this conversation throughout. If it was possible to do the aforementioned statement, why do they bother having SO/FO training in the sim at all for the same type. I think we both know the answer (and if only to get a MECIR then why do they have more than one sim).
Astroboy, no worries, was just trying point out, even with CCQ or being on the same type, the jump to FO from CFO or S/O requires more that just line training. Cheers.
Back Seat Driver, I am aware of the licensing requirements for Long Haul crew, however not sure if is it the same at Jetstar? I do not think the standard of the S/O endorsement is different to an F/O endorsement because of the type of instrument rating, I think it’s because of the training required for the job required. In any event yes S/Os hold a co-pilot rating so technically they are qualified (once recent etc) to operate as a co-pilot I guess, however I do not think the standard of the S/O endorsement training would be such that “any QF S/O would be more than capable of operating as an F/O with no more than line training, on the same type. ie.A330” without doing some simulator training as well which has been my only point to this conversation throughout. If it was possible to do the aforementioned statement, why do they bother having SO/FO training in the sim at all for the same type. I think we both know the answer (and if only to get a MECIR then why do they have more than one sim).
Astroboy, no worries, was just trying point out, even with CCQ or being on the same type, the jump to FO from CFO or S/O requires more that just line training. Cheers.
Jimmy
Very politically, and politely, correct of you. Unfortunately poor old S/O endorsement is next to useless outside of QF. S/O's are more useful brewing a cuppa on ferry flights than anything else...sorry but the truth.
By the time QF management work out how to manage the surplus the recovery will be here anyway.
Very politically, and politely, correct of you. Unfortunately poor old S/O endorsement is next to useless outside of QF. S/O's are more useful brewing a cuppa on ferry flights than anything else...sorry but the truth.
By the time QF management work out how to manage the surplus the recovery will be here anyway.