Reduced layovers at V Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: lalaland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced layovers at V Australia
Unfortunately the V Australia crew website is not anonymous in the forums and in an environment where there is no seniority, those who question or are perceived to not be a yes sir / no sir / three bags full sir sort of employee may find themselves perpetually at the back of the upgrade list. While much is spruced about an open door policy – the door is in Brisbane and the base is in Sydney.
It makes it difficult to comment about changes such as reduced layovers. Spending more time at home is one positive thing but an increase in the number of hours (the only natural extension to truly see the benefit for the company) effectively results in a reduction in pay (per hour) and lifestyle.
I have worked in and participated in the development of FRMS with previous employers. The VAustralia system varies in a number of ways. The training I received at VAustralia was prior to operations commencing and as a result was as useful as could be expected.
It is unusual that no feedback in the form of FAID scores is provided to crew nor actively sought by way of survey. In the end the only input is via those who fill out fatigue reports. Refer to my first sentence to see the flaw.
It was disappointing to read in the minutes of the recent fatigue committee meeting that the majority of fatigue reports were dismissed as irrelevant due to the paperwork not being forwarded or as tiredness rather than fatigue. Whilst there is a distinction, it is one that belongs in academia as a microsleep and collision with a tree, car or pedestrian has the same outcome even if tiredness is the cause. I would have thought that the failure to complete reporting correctly would have been a flag that communication was lacking regarding the forms not an excuse to dismiss the validity of the reports.
It is interesting that the V Australia trial FRMS now contains a further trial of shorter layovers. WTF CASA?
It is, as many are in Australia, based upon reports by the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research. In reading the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research report on reduced layovers produced for V Australia I noticed that they used scheduled time rather than averaged arrival times in addition to ignoring the time taken to clear customs, wait for crew delayed by immigration and bus ride to the hotel. My experience to date would indicate that it is rare to arrive at the hotel prior to within +120 min of on blocks time. In addition whilst the scheduled report time is 75 min prior to departure the actual time required to check out and catch the bus is 145 min. The upshot is that approximately 4 hours of layover time is simply not available for rest even if you do arrive on time.
In the end the FRMS and the studies used to support them appear to be a joke to move responsibility for fatigue related incidents from CASA to the company to the crew – you should have told the company you were fatigued – from the company who is producing the roster with undertones of - if you can’t hack the pace we will get some one who can or you just languish at the back of the upgrade list. All with support from CASA as they have scientific proof that you weren’t fatigued because of the roster.
End of rant
It makes it difficult to comment about changes such as reduced layovers. Spending more time at home is one positive thing but an increase in the number of hours (the only natural extension to truly see the benefit for the company) effectively results in a reduction in pay (per hour) and lifestyle.
I have worked in and participated in the development of FRMS with previous employers. The VAustralia system varies in a number of ways. The training I received at VAustralia was prior to operations commencing and as a result was as useful as could be expected.
It is unusual that no feedback in the form of FAID scores is provided to crew nor actively sought by way of survey. In the end the only input is via those who fill out fatigue reports. Refer to my first sentence to see the flaw.
It was disappointing to read in the minutes of the recent fatigue committee meeting that the majority of fatigue reports were dismissed as irrelevant due to the paperwork not being forwarded or as tiredness rather than fatigue. Whilst there is a distinction, it is one that belongs in academia as a microsleep and collision with a tree, car or pedestrian has the same outcome even if tiredness is the cause. I would have thought that the failure to complete reporting correctly would have been a flag that communication was lacking regarding the forms not an excuse to dismiss the validity of the reports.
It is interesting that the V Australia trial FRMS now contains a further trial of shorter layovers. WTF CASA?
It is, as many are in Australia, based upon reports by the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research. In reading the University of South Australia Human Factors // Centre for Sleep Research report on reduced layovers produced for V Australia I noticed that they used scheduled time rather than averaged arrival times in addition to ignoring the time taken to clear customs, wait for crew delayed by immigration and bus ride to the hotel. My experience to date would indicate that it is rare to arrive at the hotel prior to within +120 min of on blocks time. In addition whilst the scheduled report time is 75 min prior to departure the actual time required to check out and catch the bus is 145 min. The upshot is that approximately 4 hours of layover time is simply not available for rest even if you do arrive on time.
In the end the FRMS and the studies used to support them appear to be a joke to move responsibility for fatigue related incidents from CASA to the company to the crew – you should have told the company you were fatigued – from the company who is producing the roster with undertones of - if you can’t hack the pace we will get some one who can or you just languish at the back of the upgrade list. All with support from CASA as they have scientific proof that you weren’t fatigued because of the roster.
End of rant
Nunc est bibendum
My experience to date would indicate that it is rare to arrive at the hotel prior to within +120 min of on blocks time. In addition whilst the scheduled report time is 75 min prior to departure the actual time required to check out and catch the bus is 145 min. The upshot is that approximately 4 hours of layover time is simply not available for rest even if you do arrive on time.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst all your points about the mismanagement of fatigue reports and selective interpretation of the university study are correct, i still find it hard to argue that the SYD and BNE pairings are produce excessive fatigue.
With 4 crew on a 13-14 hour sector, when rest is divided equally, as it usually is, all crew are getting a min of 5 hours in the bunk, and much of that is during normal sleep time. Additional to that, unless you are up at the crack of dawn to go to Hollywood or Disneyland, it is easy to get as much sleep in LA as you need.
I agree that VA management, like most airline management, only pay lip service to fatigue, but i know from experience that as far as long haul ops go, this is a fairly easy gig so far. Wait until they work out they can do back of the clock trips to Hong Kong with only two crew. Then there will be a fatigue problem.
V
With 4 crew on a 13-14 hour sector, when rest is divided equally, as it usually is, all crew are getting a min of 5 hours in the bunk, and much of that is during normal sleep time. Additional to that, unless you are up at the crack of dawn to go to Hollywood or Disneyland, it is easy to get as much sleep in LA as you need.
I agree that VA management, like most airline management, only pay lip service to fatigue, but i know from experience that as far as long haul ops go, this is a fairly easy gig so far. Wait until they work out they can do back of the clock trips to Hong Kong with only two crew. Then there will be a fatigue problem.
V
Prior to first layng eyes on the VA employee contract for pilots, I had thought that T&C's for airlne pliots couldn't go much lower. My critism of what I (and many others) saw as not only inadequate, but more importantly a contract with more holes than a slice of swiss, and about as thin, was derided by some with a level of venom that frankly I found surprising.
I have been on the recieving end of dodgey rostering practices in the past. Rosters and schedules are written by people with little or no knowledge of what being a professional pilot really means. They are outcome focused, and will use any means at their disposal to get the job done. If that requires exerting "preasure" due to inadequate industrial protection, you had better believe they will do it. Having an incompetant and self serving regulator only adds to their arsenal.
From what I have seen, and been told, there ae 2 basic types of VA pilot (Flame suit on) Firstly, the returning expat with the required heavy jet experience, willing to accept lower T&C's as a means to get home to the greatest country on Earth. And who can blame them. Secondly, the optomistic and less experienced pilot willing to accept appalling T&C's with no defined career path, on the chance that the situation may change for the better!
If any of you guys believe that the situaion will become better soley by the good graces of your employer, then I think it's time to accept reality. VA management have used a waffer thin employment contract to quash dissent. Change will only come about by being united. With a pilot group with different agendas, that may be easier said than done. If you don't unite however, the guys pulling the strings will simply pull tighter and tighter.
But I suppose you all did read the contract!
I have been on the recieving end of dodgey rostering practices in the past. Rosters and schedules are written by people with little or no knowledge of what being a professional pilot really means. They are outcome focused, and will use any means at their disposal to get the job done. If that requires exerting "preasure" due to inadequate industrial protection, you had better believe they will do it. Having an incompetant and self serving regulator only adds to their arsenal.
From what I have seen, and been told, there ae 2 basic types of VA pilot (Flame suit on) Firstly, the returning expat with the required heavy jet experience, willing to accept lower T&C's as a means to get home to the greatest country on Earth. And who can blame them. Secondly, the optomistic and less experienced pilot willing to accept appalling T&C's with no defined career path, on the chance that the situation may change for the better!
If any of you guys believe that the situaion will become better soley by the good graces of your employer, then I think it's time to accept reality. VA management have used a waffer thin employment contract to quash dissent. Change will only come about by being united. With a pilot group with different agendas, that may be easier said than done. If you don't unite however, the guys pulling the strings will simply pull tighter and tighter.
But I suppose you all did read the contract!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well put Krusty
the big issue is that the regulator is too concerned at being rebuked by operators to implement global FRMS/duty limits etc., Similarly all of our unions are collectively lacking the maturity to work together or to convene an aviation industry aliance to fund relevant, specific and transparent research that would enable a more articulate argument to be held with the regulator.
Pilots and CC - whether LCC, Legacy or even offshore into Oz operators, all must be given reasonable, transparent, accountable processes and protection.
Sadly, with the ICAO agenda being shunted to the backburner yet again, it looks like we may have to wait for the Coroner to draft sensible and realistic provisions.
Idea? - Maybe we all should all walk through the cabin and have several big yawns and pretend to rub sleepy eyes when walking past any onboard pollies! ........naaw they wouldn't get the hint....Julia and Co are too busy telling employers that they won't be disadvantaged!
Keg - on the money re the bus ride - min rest is always 'reduced rest' it seems!
the big issue is that the regulator is too concerned at being rebuked by operators to implement global FRMS/duty limits etc., Similarly all of our unions are collectively lacking the maturity to work together or to convene an aviation industry aliance to fund relevant, specific and transparent research that would enable a more articulate argument to be held with the regulator.
Pilots and CC - whether LCC, Legacy or even offshore into Oz operators, all must be given reasonable, transparent, accountable processes and protection.
Sadly, with the ICAO agenda being shunted to the backburner yet again, it looks like we may have to wait for the Coroner to draft sensible and realistic provisions.
Idea? - Maybe we all should all walk through the cabin and have several big yawns and pretend to rub sleepy eyes when walking past any onboard pollies! ........naaw they wouldn't get the hint....Julia and Co are too busy telling employers that they won't be disadvantaged!
Keg - on the money re the bus ride - min rest is always 'reduced rest' it seems!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I suppose you all did read the contract!
I know this is off topic, but you're wrong Jack!
A Woman marries a man thinking he will change.
A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!
Your other observations however are sad but true.
A Woman marries a man thinking he will change.
A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!
Your other observations however are sad but true.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In a time warp
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have had plenty of dealings with FAID and all of it bad, seems to always favour the company. Had one roster where we were going ok for fatigue & everyone pretty happy etc, then the FAID roster comes along and we all felt dog tired constantly.
Try to talk to management & all u got was "FAID says your ok"
FAID = crock of ****e!
Try to talk to management & all u got was "FAID says your ok"
FAID = crock of ****e!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty - you are quoting the modus operandi.
there is only one way to keep a woman from thinking you'll change after marriage......when you wake up in the morning in the honeymoon suite and your lovely new wife rolls over, kisses you and tells you what a magnificent day it was yesterday and how romantic last night was.............. give her smack in the moosh!.............when she looks at you in amazement and asks "what was that for?".................reply "Nothing................ but step out of line and see what you get !!"
............don't know if that would work on the assholes in v oz..........
A Woman marries a man thinking he will change.
A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!
A Man marries a woman thinking she won't change!
............don't know if that would work on the assholes in v oz..........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: lalaland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all read the contract (well... at least I did) before we signed. Some seemed to have joined to get back to Oz, some to get out of a C310 and for others it was clearly a mid-life crisis (although I've only met one pilot who admitted it as such).
Before operations began VA offered (read tried to shove down our throats) the crew a enterprise agreement. Amongst many changes to our conditions was one regarding max monthly and annual flight times which effectively changed them from 100 and 1000 respectively to the max that VA could screw out of CASA. This was voted down very convincingly.
So now when new shorter layovers are suddenly OK, you can only expect that next will be a push for increased monthly and or annual flight hours. Whilst the RFOs and cabin crew are in the sights now, CPTs and FO will be next.
As I stated previously more time at home is good. More hours in the air is a pay cut.
Now the rant is really over.
Before operations began VA offered (read tried to shove down our throats) the crew a enterprise agreement. Amongst many changes to our conditions was one regarding max monthly and annual flight times which effectively changed them from 100 and 1000 respectively to the max that VA could screw out of CASA. This was voted down very convincingly.
So now when new shorter layovers are suddenly OK, you can only expect that next will be a push for increased monthly and or annual flight hours. Whilst the RFOs and cabin crew are in the sights now, CPTs and FO will be next.
As I stated previously more time at home is good. More hours in the air is a pay cut.
Now the rant is really over.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given Virgin's media comments on VA, I think rest periods would be the least of my worries. The patterns look no different to QF, EK or other international carrier.
Unless things turn around on the US route, and $100 notes are not being torn up, the next thread will be on job losses and why did it happen - the "rants" might be a bit different then
Unless things turn around on the US route, and $100 notes are not being torn up, the next thread will be on job losses and why did it happen - the "rants" might be a bit different then
I have many friends flying for Virgin Blue, and although I dont think for a second they will go under I do worry how much damage V is now doing to VB.
It just leaves them very open to attack from say Tiger or someone else.V are bleeding cash at such a rate something has to change and quickly.
The Australian market needs a strong VB not a debt ridden shell that cant compete on a level playing field.
It just leaves them very open to attack from say Tiger or someone else.V are bleeding cash at such a rate something has to change and quickly.
The Australian market needs a strong VB not a debt ridden shell that cant compete on a level playing field.
Government figures released this week show that Virgin's long-haul carrier, V Australia, filled on average 57 per cent of the seats on each flight in April. Qantas fared much better with 82 per cent and United 78 per cent.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it really that bad why don't you just call in tired? A cancelled flight will send them the message no end. The whole reason for FMS coming into existence is to put the onus on the pilot for fatigue.
trojan
The pilot is the last line of defence in these situations. If, for whatever reason, the pilot doesnt call in fatigued, then the good old swiss cheese holes are lining up. The onus by way of law is for the company to implement a FMS, putting the onus on them. If that FMS is not working then the company/pilots need to talk to CASA as they rubber stamp, oh sorry, approve these matters. The company WILL work to within a bee's dick of its approved limits. Ayone who thinks otherwise is dillusional.
The pilot is the last line of defence in these situations. If, for whatever reason, the pilot doesnt call in fatigued, then the good old swiss cheese holes are lining up. The onus by way of law is for the company to implement a FMS, putting the onus on them. If that FMS is not working then the company/pilots need to talk to CASA as they rubber stamp, oh sorry, approve these matters. The company WILL work to within a bee's dick of its approved limits. Ayone who thinks otherwise is dillusional.
Not sure where you're coming from ga_trojan.
AS hunglo has said, the situation with industrial protection at VA is, well there is very little industrial protection! Calling in tired or fatigued is all well and good, but even under a fair and equitable EBA, you still have to justify it. It appears that under the current VA system you may end up severly disadvantaged if you are seen to be "rocking the boat"
IMHO they're in a pickle. Hopefully VA will surive, and if the pilot group are united enough, change may eventually come?
AS hunglo has said, the situation with industrial protection at VA is, well there is very little industrial protection! Calling in tired or fatigued is all well and good, but even under a fair and equitable EBA, you still have to justify it. It appears that under the current VA system you may end up severly disadvantaged if you are seen to be "rocking the boat"
IMHO they're in a pickle. Hopefully VA will surive, and if the pilot group are united enough, change may eventually come?
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 18th Jul 2009 at 04:22.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously stated, companies will work the crews right to the legal limit. They are not sitting around thinking about how to make things better from a fatigue perspective for their staff. They are trying to maximise dollars so people can a) keep their jobs then b) turn a profit for shareholders.
The problem is the regulator + the industry culture. I love these "audits" that get done that uncover absolutely nothing time and time again. Suggest having a read of the Colgan Air crash in the states where fatigue/standards/employment conditions are getting a fair spotlight at the moment.
There is no point in pointing fingers at management. Its EBA (if you get to negotiate one) and regulator. Other than that if its legal there is nothing you can do (apart from leave).
Eventually this problem will get sorted with a hull loss - it came so close with the EK mishap in MEL.
The problem is the regulator + the industry culture. I love these "audits" that get done that uncover absolutely nothing time and time again. Suggest having a read of the Colgan Air crash in the states where fatigue/standards/employment conditions are getting a fair spotlight at the moment.
There is no point in pointing fingers at management. Its EBA (if you get to negotiate one) and regulator. Other than that if its legal there is nothing you can do (apart from leave).
Eventually this problem will get sorted with a hull loss - it came so close with the EK mishap in MEL.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: lalaland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of thread drift and for those that love to imply that we should bend over and take it like a man because there is a down turn, I would like to ask how much do you expect to claw back when times are good? In the recent boom time most workers conditions were dropping (maybe a little more money but at a cost of conditions) and or shifting onto one sided contracts. Aviation fared better than many areas.
When asking employees to take a cut in T&Cs, Ethical or moral managers would offer something in kind. You know share the risk with stock in equal value to your drop in T&Cs or lack of pay rise, promise to return to current conditions and catch up inflation at a agreed set of conditions etc with management sharing the same % of the pain.
In VB & VA terms; VB still has good load factors, 82% (I believe was recently announced). Its yield per seat is certainly down. The down turn has been an excellent lever to get VB crew into the E-Jets and to VA on lower wages.
With out doubt VA cost money to start up but it also cost money to introduce the E-Jet. Both have a future.
There was a three year plan for VA to break even with . Given the customer base of the existing airlines on the route, I would have thought that a 57% load factor from inaugural flight to end of June was great. Secondhand information is that VA is doing much better than planned even with reduced yields.
Recently load factors been closer to 90% (but then there are seasonal reasons for that).
In acknowledged tough times MDs of public companies use the boards / public's / share analysts expectation of poorer performance to write down costs as much as possible so that there is minimal if any impact on share price. Its also a great time to screw down employees T & Cs, get rid of dead wood and trouble makers and fix the poor choices that resulted in the current structure. Its rare to see senior management suffer as much as the employees who make the money for the company.
Does anyone honestly think VB was profitable on day one. Money was put aside to start VA. Is that being eroded faster than expect by VA - probably not. Opportunistic write downs might be assisting the reported loss.
When asking employees to take a cut in T&Cs, Ethical or moral managers would offer something in kind. You know share the risk with stock in equal value to your drop in T&Cs or lack of pay rise, promise to return to current conditions and catch up inflation at a agreed set of conditions etc with management sharing the same % of the pain.
In VB & VA terms; VB still has good load factors, 82% (I believe was recently announced). Its yield per seat is certainly down. The down turn has been an excellent lever to get VB crew into the E-Jets and to VA on lower wages.
With out doubt VA cost money to start up but it also cost money to introduce the E-Jet. Both have a future.
There was a three year plan for VA to break even with . Given the customer base of the existing airlines on the route, I would have thought that a 57% load factor from inaugural flight to end of June was great. Secondhand information is that VA is doing much better than planned even with reduced yields.
Recently load factors been closer to 90% (but then there are seasonal reasons for that).
In acknowledged tough times MDs of public companies use the boards / public's / share analysts expectation of poorer performance to write down costs as much as possible so that there is minimal if any impact on share price. Its also a great time to screw down employees T & Cs, get rid of dead wood and trouble makers and fix the poor choices that resulted in the current structure. Its rare to see senior management suffer as much as the employees who make the money for the company.
Does anyone honestly think VB was profitable on day one. Money was put aside to start VA. Is that being eroded faster than expect by VA - probably not. Opportunistic write downs might be assisting the reported loss.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hunglo, your post makes sense. Does that mean that you would be prepared to put at risk say 30% of your salary each year and share in the profit (or loss) - like Law Partners, CEO's, etc.
I think your idea is a good one - and it is one way we can claw this industry back where it should be.
I think your idea is a good one - and it is one way we can claw this industry back where it should be.