Nick Xenophon - The most important person in the future of Australian Aviation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting in that the J* CP states that a pilot shortage is looming and that is why they need cadetships. Not because in increases the quality of the candidate but that they will run out of pilots.
The same CP who wouldn't place cadets as F/O's, rather SO's on their 744 operation?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The really scary thing is Buchanan thinks that aircraft fly themselves and pilots are just there to monitor!! It's just very dissapointing quite a few have unfortunately flown themselves into the ground recently. He doesn't seem to realise this. Obviously can't see the issue through the cash
What amazed me is how airline 'management' pick and chose whatever worldwide situation that best suits their arguement to try to justify their tight ass shortcomings.
Despite all the issues in the USA, one could argue the first and one of the most successful lowcost airlines in the world is Southwest Airlines. No cadet schemes and poor pay here, some of the highest paid, most engaged, and highly experienced on hire pilots in the world, yes they recently bent one, but no loss of life with one of the largest fleets in the world all on short haul flights sometimes into some rotten WX as well.
Arguements about cadet schemes in Asia. Does anyone care to mention the safety record of Garuda, China Airlines or Korean Airlines ? Even what we all class as a world class airline with a very famous (australian involved) cadet scheme in Singapore Airlines had a very high profile fatal accident in Taipei with a 744.
Cadet schemes in Asia were introduced for only one reason and that was to attempt to nationalise their workforce, so that asians were able to get on their national carrier and for there to be a local upfront, rather than a westerner. These schemes were introduced at great cost to the AIRLINES, not to the individual trainees.
Compare a Singapore Airlines cadet to a Jetstar.
1. Singapore airlines own and operate their own aircraft, and flying training organisations, including jets - Jetstar contract it out, no jet training.
2. Singapore airlines pay the trainee a wage, their flying training costs, living expenses, Jetstar trainees - no wage, pay for their training and have to find own living expenses.
3. Singapore airlines - once basic training is completed, light jet training is provided, then inhouse endorsement training before line training - jetstar all basic training at the contract company, no light jet training, and then endorsement is also contracted out.
The basic difference is that in the above example, Singapore airlines at great cost to themselves wants to ensure that all trainees are performing to a high standing because if they fail or are unsuccessful it costs them a fortune. Singapore is spening a fortune of it's OWN money, in the Jetstar example the trainees themselves bankroll basically all of which in the SQ example the airline is paying for. Comparing a 100% funded, to a 100% funding cadet scheme is like saying that a command a tiger moth is the same as a A380.
Sadly I believe it will take a smoking hole in the ground, with loss of life in this country to shake things up. We have operated jets in Oz since the 60s and never killed anyone and people just believe that it won't and couldn't happen in Australia. Statistically the numbers will line up and it will happen, and won't the public shi*. Whoever it is will destroy their brand, everyone will know someone that knew someone and confidence in the industry will scare people away, can you imagine the media ?
Even CASA don't believe it will happen - why else do they ride GA (where all the accidents are) and leave RPT to self manage. I'm not saying they shouldn't be riding GA, but whatever surveillance they do on GA should be done to RPT ops as well, afterall which one carries the most pax per year?.
Why were operators like Garuda banned from EU airspace, yet we allowed them to fly over our suburbs and at the time allowed staff from Australian government departments to fly on them, a decision which killed some of them ?
Despite all the issues in the USA, one could argue the first and one of the most successful lowcost airlines in the world is Southwest Airlines. No cadet schemes and poor pay here, some of the highest paid, most engaged, and highly experienced on hire pilots in the world, yes they recently bent one, but no loss of life with one of the largest fleets in the world all on short haul flights sometimes into some rotten WX as well.
Arguements about cadet schemes in Asia. Does anyone care to mention the safety record of Garuda, China Airlines or Korean Airlines ? Even what we all class as a world class airline with a very famous (australian involved) cadet scheme in Singapore Airlines had a very high profile fatal accident in Taipei with a 744.
Cadet schemes in Asia were introduced for only one reason and that was to attempt to nationalise their workforce, so that asians were able to get on their national carrier and for there to be a local upfront, rather than a westerner. These schemes were introduced at great cost to the AIRLINES, not to the individual trainees.
Compare a Singapore Airlines cadet to a Jetstar.
1. Singapore airlines own and operate their own aircraft, and flying training organisations, including jets - Jetstar contract it out, no jet training.
2. Singapore airlines pay the trainee a wage, their flying training costs, living expenses, Jetstar trainees - no wage, pay for their training and have to find own living expenses.
3. Singapore airlines - once basic training is completed, light jet training is provided, then inhouse endorsement training before line training - jetstar all basic training at the contract company, no light jet training, and then endorsement is also contracted out.
The basic difference is that in the above example, Singapore airlines at great cost to themselves wants to ensure that all trainees are performing to a high standing because if they fail or are unsuccessful it costs them a fortune. Singapore is spening a fortune of it's OWN money, in the Jetstar example the trainees themselves bankroll basically all of which in the SQ example the airline is paying for. Comparing a 100% funded, to a 100% funding cadet scheme is like saying that a command a tiger moth is the same as a A380.
Sadly I believe it will take a smoking hole in the ground, with loss of life in this country to shake things up. We have operated jets in Oz since the 60s and never killed anyone and people just believe that it won't and couldn't happen in Australia. Statistically the numbers will line up and it will happen, and won't the public shi*. Whoever it is will destroy their brand, everyone will know someone that knew someone and confidence in the industry will scare people away, can you imagine the media ?
Even CASA don't believe it will happen - why else do they ride GA (where all the accidents are) and leave RPT to self manage. I'm not saying they shouldn't be riding GA, but whatever surveillance they do on GA should be done to RPT ops as well, afterall which one carries the most pax per year?.
Why were operators like Garuda banned from EU airspace, yet we allowed them to fly over our suburbs and at the time allowed staff from Australian government departments to fly on them, a decision which killed some of them ?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
puff said is like saying that a commanding tiger moth is the same as an A380.
That's almost exactly what the silver bodgie said 21 years ago, but it was a 747 versus a tiger.
Mstr Caution that is exactly the same person, former CP of AN.
There are many ills threatening the industry, but don't confuse safety with industrial issues, i.e., more money. Senator Xenophon can't help with salary increases. There will be those who will make a connection between safety and salary, tenuous at best, but there isn't one.
We tend to hang our hats on anything that's favourable to our cause, and we all hope the motives of the senator are honourable, but he wouldn't be the first politician to grab a bone and shake the hell out of it for his own personal popularity/gain only to drop it when he's achieved what he's seeking. That's worth remembering.
That's almost exactly what the silver bodgie said 21 years ago, but it was a 747 versus a tiger.
Mstr Caution that is exactly the same person, former CP of AN.
There are many ills threatening the industry, but don't confuse safety with industrial issues, i.e., more money. Senator Xenophon can't help with salary increases. There will be those who will make a connection between safety and salary, tenuous at best, but there isn't one.
We tend to hang our hats on anything that's favourable to our cause, and we all hope the motives of the senator are honourable, but he wouldn't be the first politician to grab a bone and shake the hell out of it for his own personal popularity/gain only to drop it when he's achieved what he's seeking. That's worth remembering.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but don't confuse safety with industrial issues, i.e., more money. Senator Xenophon can't help with salary increases. There will be those who will make a connection between safety and salary, tenuous at best, but there isn't one.
Let me give you a tip - have a look at the average house price vs average salary. Remember we're talking about "Intelligent people".
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether these new generation aviation hot shot CEO's would accept a first year med graduate performing a basic operation? ( which may have complications with inexperience) Why should the general public have to accept inexperience at a risk when there is clearly enough good experience. Complacency could kill in this game. This is a loaded gun, and we are fortunate for now. I'm guessing this was a very similar situation in the states many years ago and now it has come to a head. Unfortunately it took a few fatalities before something was done.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew somebody would do it Mr Hat, but will never convince me. If it was law or architecture we were talking of, then maybe, but not flying.
Many, many very intelligent people would fly for absolutely no pay just for the 'romance and excitement'. Those of us in the industry see it otherwise, but those wanting to get in don't.
Now to add fuel to the fire, flying doesn't need really intelligent people. It has some, and they are a bonus, but a very average IQ will get you in and to the top. What is more important is a psychological profile, often called the 'uniform mentality' (as in military) because of the ability to follow instructions (checklists) and perform very routine tasks many times over without losing interest or concentration.
I know this will draw fire from the many who think they are Einstein reincarnated, but it is fact.
Lester, you make some good points. Pilots are their own worst enemies, and all of us at one stage of our careers would have flown a Tiger Moth around the world for no pay at all. When we reach airline pilot positions, we seem to want to condemn those who are prepared to dos so.
We are but one industry that is being attacked by economic rationalists, and one of the last because of the sacred cow, safety. Most of the ills have been in other industries for decades now, agencies, percentages for CEO's, cutting conditions and salaries, and the list goes on.
Paying for endorsements is no more or less than a firm of architects requiring an architect with experience in designing, say, hospitals or an engineer with experience in designing bridges. The ad reads "if relevant experience isn't available we will train applicants, but at a reduced salary for two (or more) years". Look in the professional employment columns and you'll see similar.
I still say beware of Greeks bearing gifts; it may not all be as it seems.
Many, many very intelligent people would fly for absolutely no pay just for the 'romance and excitement'. Those of us in the industry see it otherwise, but those wanting to get in don't.
Now to add fuel to the fire, flying doesn't need really intelligent people. It has some, and they are a bonus, but a very average IQ will get you in and to the top. What is more important is a psychological profile, often called the 'uniform mentality' (as in military) because of the ability to follow instructions (checklists) and perform very routine tasks many times over without losing interest or concentration.
I know this will draw fire from the many who think they are Einstein reincarnated, but it is fact.
Lester, you make some good points. Pilots are their own worst enemies, and all of us at one stage of our careers would have flown a Tiger Moth around the world for no pay at all. When we reach airline pilot positions, we seem to want to condemn those who are prepared to dos so.
We are but one industry that is being attacked by economic rationalists, and one of the last because of the sacred cow, safety. Most of the ills have been in other industries for decades now, agencies, percentages for CEO's, cutting conditions and salaries, and the list goes on.
Paying for endorsements is no more or less than a firm of architects requiring an architect with experience in designing, say, hospitals or an engineer with experience in designing bridges. The ad reads "if relevant experience isn't available we will train applicants, but at a reduced salary for two (or more) years". Look in the professional employment columns and you'll see similar.
I still say beware of Greeks bearing gifts; it may not all be as it seems.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Room 6, Level 65, Aurukun Marriott
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Letter to Nick
Dear Senator Xenophon,
Firstly I would like to say that I, like all my colleagues around me thank you sincerely for taking some action on this very important area. The industry is in sharp decline and we have seen the goal posts for experience move firstly in 2007 to low levels, and now with the Jetstar Cadetship to zero levels. The management of these airlines are claiming pilot shortages are to blame but at the coal face in the typical airline training ground of General Aviation (GA), we see a very different story.
I have been flying since 2005, and to this day remain a pilot in GA. I have to date around 2700 hours flight time, and have had the boxes ticked for airline entry now for several years. In the company I work for, we employ between 20 and 30 pilots, all with experience levels between 1500 and 4000 hours, yet most of us are yet to achieve even an interview with companies such as Jetstar. I must note also that this is not specific to our company, spend an hour at a regional airport around Australia and you will find highly experienced pilots ready to go, that simply cannot get that call.
In the past, pilots have spent a large amount of time in GA (between 5 and 10 years) for an airline interview simply because there had been no movement in the top end of the chain, and this was just the way it was. In the last 5 to 10 years however, we have seen the available pilot positions explode and experience levels drop, which has allowed people move on from GA more rapidly. Since 2008 however, movement from GA to airlines has slowed significantly again to the point where it is almost stagnant, the reason being the introduction of airline training programs.
I find it very amusing to read the Jetstar Chief Pilot say that the GA guys are "just not coming up at the speed at which we're going to need pilots" when there are literally hundreds of fully qualified people like myself in GA unable to get a look in. REX have ceased employing direct entry (qualified) pilots and have opened their own school, Qantaslink, Skippers and Skywest have recently introduced their traineeships and of course Jetstar are pursuing their own cadetship, all the while the GA sector is full of highly qualified and ready pilots who are now second in line to the products of the cadet programs.
Lack of experience is just the tip of the iceberg for trouble in the aviation industry at the moment, and we all hope your action helps unveil some of the problems we are all going to face in the coming years.
We all thank you for the unprecedented action you are moving forward with, be assured you have unwavering support from Australian pilots from the bottom up.
Sincerely,
Aurukun Dreaming
Firstly I would like to say that I, like all my colleagues around me thank you sincerely for taking some action on this very important area. The industry is in sharp decline and we have seen the goal posts for experience move firstly in 2007 to low levels, and now with the Jetstar Cadetship to zero levels. The management of these airlines are claiming pilot shortages are to blame but at the coal face in the typical airline training ground of General Aviation (GA), we see a very different story.
I have been flying since 2005, and to this day remain a pilot in GA. I have to date around 2700 hours flight time, and have had the boxes ticked for airline entry now for several years. In the company I work for, we employ between 20 and 30 pilots, all with experience levels between 1500 and 4000 hours, yet most of us are yet to achieve even an interview with companies such as Jetstar. I must note also that this is not specific to our company, spend an hour at a regional airport around Australia and you will find highly experienced pilots ready to go, that simply cannot get that call.
In the past, pilots have spent a large amount of time in GA (between 5 and 10 years) for an airline interview simply because there had been no movement in the top end of the chain, and this was just the way it was. In the last 5 to 10 years however, we have seen the available pilot positions explode and experience levels drop, which has allowed people move on from GA more rapidly. Since 2008 however, movement from GA to airlines has slowed significantly again to the point where it is almost stagnant, the reason being the introduction of airline training programs.
I find it very amusing to read the Jetstar Chief Pilot say that the GA guys are "just not coming up at the speed at which we're going to need pilots" when there are literally hundreds of fully qualified people like myself in GA unable to get a look in. REX have ceased employing direct entry (qualified) pilots and have opened their own school, Qantaslink, Skippers and Skywest have recently introduced their traineeships and of course Jetstar are pursuing their own cadetship, all the while the GA sector is full of highly qualified and ready pilots who are now second in line to the products of the cadet programs.
Lack of experience is just the tip of the iceberg for trouble in the aviation industry at the moment, and we all hope your action helps unveil some of the problems we are all going to face in the coming years.
We all thank you for the unprecedented action you are moving forward with, be assured you have unwavering support from Australian pilots from the bottom up.
Sincerely,
Aurukun Dreaming
"Senator Xenophon also called for Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce and the airline's head of safety, John Gissing, to appear before a Senate committee to explain the circumstances behind a 2007 Jetstar incident in Melbourne."
This is the statement that captured my attention. Firstly, well done to Senator Xenophon for making the statement. We must all remember that the australian travelling public expects safety. Be it Qantas, virgin, jetstar or tiger. Infact qantas trades on this and extracts a premium from this mantra. Unfortunately the likes of Buchanan, Joyce etc have the concept that to make money it requires targetted cost reduction at any cost.
But what does this mean?
Well, many have already spoken about pay as you go career type progression, but let's not stop there. Perhaps Senator Xenophon could ask CEO Joyce what 'targetted failure rates' are. And what they mean for the average line pilot and safety standards.
Let me tell you, if you change type, upgrade etc, flight ops departments expect you to pass. However, managers and accountants look at it from an entirely different perspective. They don't give a rats if you pass or fail they are only concerned with cost. If 100% pass, that means they can shorten the course, maybe one less sim, maybe one day less ground school . So then the pass rate may be 95%, failure rate 5%. But, look we saved "x" dollars for the 95% and we will give the failures a little bit more training.
Sure, every training package should be improved or reviewed but the use of targetted failure rates is a false economy. It purely looks at cost/time taken to cover the requirements. They continually squeeze to reduce costs but to what detriment? And lets not even start on the effects on the poor bastards who may have had an umblemished record to the point of starting conversion until they run into the 'targetted' course , where perhaps another sim or two would have had them pass with ease. But now they find themselves in such a position because some manager/ accountant used a targetted failure rate of 5,10,insert figure. Yep she's all about safety.
Despite what the CEO and airline managers say, the trajectory that the likes of Joyce persue for the qantas group when it comes to cost cutting and pilots, standards and safety, is worrying.
And getting back to the initial statement, and the importance of self reporting. How does this reflect the corporate culture that the qantas group really wants? Did someone mention the word Just?
So many questions Mr Joyce.
This is the statement that captured my attention. Firstly, well done to Senator Xenophon for making the statement. We must all remember that the australian travelling public expects safety. Be it Qantas, virgin, jetstar or tiger. Infact qantas trades on this and extracts a premium from this mantra. Unfortunately the likes of Buchanan, Joyce etc have the concept that to make money it requires targetted cost reduction at any cost.
But what does this mean?
Well, many have already spoken about pay as you go career type progression, but let's not stop there. Perhaps Senator Xenophon could ask CEO Joyce what 'targetted failure rates' are. And what they mean for the average line pilot and safety standards.
Let me tell you, if you change type, upgrade etc, flight ops departments expect you to pass. However, managers and accountants look at it from an entirely different perspective. They don't give a rats if you pass or fail they are only concerned with cost. If 100% pass, that means they can shorten the course, maybe one less sim, maybe one day less ground school . So then the pass rate may be 95%, failure rate 5%. But, look we saved "x" dollars for the 95% and we will give the failures a little bit more training.
Sure, every training package should be improved or reviewed but the use of targetted failure rates is a false economy. It purely looks at cost/time taken to cover the requirements. They continually squeeze to reduce costs but to what detriment? And lets not even start on the effects on the poor bastards who may have had an umblemished record to the point of starting conversion until they run into the 'targetted' course , where perhaps another sim or two would have had them pass with ease. But now they find themselves in such a position because some manager/ accountant used a targetted failure rate of 5,10,insert figure. Yep she's all about safety.
Despite what the CEO and airline managers say, the trajectory that the likes of Joyce persue for the qantas group when it comes to cost cutting and pilots, standards and safety, is worrying.
And getting back to the initial statement, and the importance of self reporting. How does this reflect the corporate culture that the qantas group really wants? Did someone mention the word Just?
So many questions Mr Joyce.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the coverage of Senator Xenophons interview it was resported that;
"Senator Xenophon said he was shocked to learn that the 2007 pilots shortage had seen required flight hours for new pilots at QantasLink drop from 1000 hours to 200 hours."
I would love to know is exactly where Senator Xenophon is actually getting his information from?. What this statement suggests is there was not one suitable pilot available in Australia in 2007 who had more than 200 hours flying experience who had applied to and were willing and able to start with Qantaslink!.
Bollocks. I know of dozens of experienced pilots who fly in GA and regionals who exceeded 10-20 fold (and more) these hours who had applications in with this company and would have been proud to work for them (and other airlines feeding up the same tosh) during this period and who were not even so much as offered an interview or were excluded from being interviewed because they did not have an HSc (very important to have a chap thats well educated up front rather than experienced!!)
As a senator of some experience Senator Xenophon I am sure is well verse with the art of spin and airlines seem to be getting pretty good at this. Perhaps the good Senator needs to investigate further.
What the airlines mean when they refer to a pilot shortage is that they are having trouble finding pilots that meet their narrow band of ideal candidates they want to fill their cockpits.
Anyone else who falls outside this band regardless of experience I can only assume is simply not a pilot in the context of the shortage issue.
Well done Senator for your stand but if you use your skills as a former lawyer, a little more cross examination of the airlines will be needed to unearth the truth.
"Senator Xenophon said he was shocked to learn that the 2007 pilots shortage had seen required flight hours for new pilots at QantasLink drop from 1000 hours to 200 hours."
I would love to know is exactly where Senator Xenophon is actually getting his information from?. What this statement suggests is there was not one suitable pilot available in Australia in 2007 who had more than 200 hours flying experience who had applied to and were willing and able to start with Qantaslink!.
Bollocks. I know of dozens of experienced pilots who fly in GA and regionals who exceeded 10-20 fold (and more) these hours who had applications in with this company and would have been proud to work for them (and other airlines feeding up the same tosh) during this period and who were not even so much as offered an interview or were excluded from being interviewed because they did not have an HSc (very important to have a chap thats well educated up front rather than experienced!!)
As a senator of some experience Senator Xenophon I am sure is well verse with the art of spin and airlines seem to be getting pretty good at this. Perhaps the good Senator needs to investigate further.
What the airlines mean when they refer to a pilot shortage is that they are having trouble finding pilots that meet their narrow band of ideal candidates they want to fill their cockpits.
Anyone else who falls outside this band regardless of experience I can only assume is simply not a pilot in the context of the shortage issue.
Well done Senator for your stand but if you use your skills as a former lawyer, a little more cross examination of the airlines will be needed to unearth the truth.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How will you answer the questions:
Is it correct that pilots joined TAA, Ansett (including subsidaries), East West, etc. with as little as a bare Commercial Licence, no instrument rating transitioning straight onto DC3, DC4, F27, etc. thence, in some cases, to Viscount/DC6Bs within 12 to 18 months of joining the airline?
Having done this these pilots progressed through to B727, B707, B747, Airbus B4, A300/310, A330, A340, 380 and other large jet types with long and distinguished incident free careers?
Is it correct that numerous airlines throughout the world (Middle East, Asia, China, India, etc) have for years been training pilots as cadets and putting them straight into the First Officer seat with as little as 250 hours (or thereabouts)?
Is it correct that numerous airlines throughout the world will continue to do as above?
If Australia were to implement the suggestions and changes mentioned here would it not make the Australin industry further un-competitive?
If the airline industry here considered any changes would severely impinge upon their competitivenes and profiability would they not consider revamping their operation to circumvent any changes? (Jetstar with Singapore based crews comes to mind)
Similar to knowing the result of any Royal Commission you have to have answers to these and many other questions before you enter the lions den.
Is it correct that pilots joined TAA, Ansett (including subsidaries), East West, etc. with as little as a bare Commercial Licence, no instrument rating transitioning straight onto DC3, DC4, F27, etc. thence, in some cases, to Viscount/DC6Bs within 12 to 18 months of joining the airline?
Having done this these pilots progressed through to B727, B707, B747, Airbus B4, A300/310, A330, A340, 380 and other large jet types with long and distinguished incident free careers?
Is it correct that numerous airlines throughout the world (Middle East, Asia, China, India, etc) have for years been training pilots as cadets and putting them straight into the First Officer seat with as little as 250 hours (or thereabouts)?
Is it correct that numerous airlines throughout the world will continue to do as above?
If Australia were to implement the suggestions and changes mentioned here would it not make the Australin industry further un-competitive?
If the airline industry here considered any changes would severely impinge upon their competitivenes and profiability would they not consider revamping their operation to circumvent any changes? (Jetstar with Singapore based crews comes to mind)
Similar to knowing the result of any Royal Commission you have to have answers to these and many other questions before you enter the lions den.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lester and Dark Knight,
You both have hit the nail on the head.
Lester, you are 100% correct WRT people here wanting to twist the issue of safety to justify themselves a payrise. The unbelievable hypocrasy that exists from posters here who indeed funded their own endorsement, whether it was pay upfront, or god forbid "salary sacrifice"(but that's ok, it's not as bad as paying for it), and then have the audacity to criticise others that do likewise. People have very short memories and need to look long and hard in the mirror. These individuals have certainly put their own agendas well before the very agenda that they are pursuing here. This is the root of the problem; it all started with "pay for training". Oh how the irony. Please don't use the "safety" ticket to justify your ever diminishing T&C's. And that's all this is about. Deep down you know it but won't openly admit to it.
Indeed, Senator Xenophon is their "white knight" to save themselves from themselves.
Dark Knight,
Touche, sir.
You both have hit the nail on the head.
Lester, you are 100% correct WRT people here wanting to twist the issue of safety to justify themselves a payrise. The unbelievable hypocrasy that exists from posters here who indeed funded their own endorsement, whether it was pay upfront, or god forbid "salary sacrifice"(but that's ok, it's not as bad as paying for it
), and then have the audacity to criticise others that do likewise. People have very short memories and need to look long and hard in the mirror. These individuals have certainly put their own agendas well before the very agenda that they are pursuing here. This is the root of the problem; it all started with "pay for training". Oh how the irony. Please don't use the "safety" ticket to justify your ever diminishing T&C's. And that's all this is about. Deep down you know it but won't openly admit to it. Indeed, Senator Xenophon is their "white knight" to save themselves from themselves.
Dark Knight,
Touche, sir.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dark Knight, you are right on the money.
I recall many years ago, joining an airline and flying with an F27 Captain who had joined the airline with a bare CPL, 170 hours from memory, and no instrument rating. When he was upgraded, he was given extra training because the F27 HAD BEEN HIS FIRST TWIN ENDORSEMENT!!!
One might ask how the situation has changed.
I maintain that the issue of safety, as being pursued by the senator, and T&C's, are mutually exclusive, and Normasars, I agree that there are those misusing, or attempting to misuse, the safety issue.
I feel for the young hopefuls entering the industry, but a company is surely entitled to train/recruit from wherever it chooses....surely?? I may not agree with it as an employee, but if I was running a company, I would be looking the same way.
I've flown with 200 hour FO's (along with 50+ hours jet simulator) in a jet, and whilst it may not be ideal, it hasn't been unsafe, quite busy at times, but not unsafe.
I would be more concerned about sending an experienced 2 man crew off on a 16+ hour tour of duty (flight 5 hours late), as Jetstar did on a flight MEL-BGK back in late February (and one can make the assumption that this is the way they operate as a matter of course), because of fatigue issues. The flight was scheduled to leave at 1600, and one might assume the crew were out of bed at latest 0800, so they would be awake for 24+ hours by sign off in BGK.
Senator Xenophon will do nothing for T&C's, and whilst that's sad to say, it's realistic. He would have to be termed, at best, a political lightweight, and may not even achieve anything of significance in the safety arena, if indeed what some airlines are doing is unsafe. Another factor worth considering, human nature being what it is, is that the senator's position may change when he establishes that a QF Captain earns 2.5-3 times what he does and a VB/JQ Captain about 50% more.
I don't believe pilots can rely on the unity myth because that won't happen. Some will see the opportunity to short circuit the system to achieve their own goals. Whilst speaking of unity, I recall the QF union president back in '89 addressing an AFAP pilots' meeting and undertaking to not fly over domestic routes (QF was the international airline back then before the merger), and whilst he was talking QF 747's were flying SYD-PER. Forget unity!!
I recall many years ago, joining an airline and flying with an F27 Captain who had joined the airline with a bare CPL, 170 hours from memory, and no instrument rating. When he was upgraded, he was given extra training because the F27 HAD BEEN HIS FIRST TWIN ENDORSEMENT!!!
One might ask how the situation has changed.
I maintain that the issue of safety, as being pursued by the senator, and T&C's, are mutually exclusive, and Normasars, I agree that there are those misusing, or attempting to misuse, the safety issue.
I feel for the young hopefuls entering the industry, but a company is surely entitled to train/recruit from wherever it chooses....surely?? I may not agree with it as an employee, but if I was running a company, I would be looking the same way.
I've flown with 200 hour FO's (along with 50+ hours jet simulator) in a jet, and whilst it may not be ideal, it hasn't been unsafe, quite busy at times, but not unsafe.
I would be more concerned about sending an experienced 2 man crew off on a 16+ hour tour of duty (flight 5 hours late), as Jetstar did on a flight MEL-BGK back in late February (and one can make the assumption that this is the way they operate as a matter of course), because of fatigue issues. The flight was scheduled to leave at 1600, and one might assume the crew were out of bed at latest 0800, so they would be awake for 24+ hours by sign off in BGK.
Senator Xenophon will do nothing for T&C's, and whilst that's sad to say, it's realistic. He would have to be termed, at best, a political lightweight, and may not even achieve anything of significance in the safety arena, if indeed what some airlines are doing is unsafe. Another factor worth considering, human nature being what it is, is that the senator's position may change when he establishes that a QF Captain earns 2.5-3 times what he does and a VB/JQ Captain about 50% more.
I don't believe pilots can rely on the unity myth because that won't happen. Some will see the opportunity to short circuit the system to achieve their own goals. Whilst speaking of unity, I recall the QF union president back in '89 addressing an AFAP pilots' meeting and undertaking to not fly over domestic routes (QF was the international airline back then before the merger), and whilst he was talking QF 747's were flying SYD-PER. Forget unity!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something else that is very much intertwined with the QF/JQ relentless push towards cadet programs is the fact that in this world of globalisation and competition, QF and by default JQ are competing head on with state owned flag carriers. Dixon used to bang on about it all the time, and FWIW I do agree with him somewhat, but as a publicly listed company on the ASX, QF are answerable to their shareholders and have a duty of care to pay a dividend to their shareholders.
By default, QF is totally disadvantaged by this very fact, and needs to find areas within the business rightly or wrongly that are vulnerable. Pilot recruitment and associated training costs are a soft target area and these CEOs and Management type know this. It happened with front end counter staff; CC, and now it's happening with pilots. The "ginger beers" will be next, although they are more steely than pilots and WILL stick together. Make no mistake, this will be unrelenting if QF want to remain competative in a global market against state owned carriers. Sorry to tell you guys this but you are NOT going to change it and quite simply, the business will not let you. It is a case of survival of the fitest.
The compaany has no control of the price of airframes, very limited control of fuel(hedging, which if not savvy can end up costing more), nav charges,etc etc. The ONLY aspect the company has financial control over is its LABOUR costs.
By default, QF is totally disadvantaged by this very fact, and needs to find areas within the business rightly or wrongly that are vulnerable. Pilot recruitment and associated training costs are a soft target area and these CEOs and Management type know this. It happened with front end counter staff; CC, and now it's happening with pilots. The "ginger beers" will be next, although they are more steely than pilots and WILL stick together. Make no mistake, this will be unrelenting if QF want to remain competative in a global market against state owned carriers. Sorry to tell you guys this but you are NOT going to change it and quite simply, the business will not let you. It is a case of survival of the fitest.
The compaany has no control of the price of airframes, very limited control of fuel(hedging, which if not savvy can end up costing more), nav charges,etc etc. The ONLY aspect the company has financial control over is its LABOUR costs.
Just because the domestic airlines had cadets in the 50’s going directly into the right seat of a large piston twin or turbo props doesn’t mean it was safe. That said the cadetship back then don’t bare any resemblance to the cadetships the airlines like J* are proposing today. Did the airlines back then pay those cadets ⅓ the salary of a DEFO? Did the cadets have to pay for the courses or were they 100% paid for by the airlines?
The reality is that airlines like J* etc are using a mythical pilot shortage in this country to justify these cadet schemes. They are planning on all future pilot recruitment being 100% from cadetships on substantially lower T&C’s. The lower T&C’s is the real motive for the airlines promoting these schemes not any pilot shortage. This was never the case in the 50’s where there was a very real pilot shortage caused by the booming world economy after WW2. Most pilot recruitment back then though was still via DE and no amount of spin by the likes of you can change this fact.
Such large scale recruitment of cadets, who will be trained from GFPT to jet endorsement completely by the cheapest outsourced contractor, will have a serious detrimental effect on airline safety standards in this country.
Relax737 keeps pushing this BS about pilot unity being a myth. What he fails to say is you will never find 100% unity in any profession. Infact you don’t need 100% unity to fight a successful industrial battle but you do need a majority on your side. I will give you a recent example of where I work in Hong Kong which has almost no protections for employees. Earlier this year our cabin crew, which has about 70% union membership were scr*wed over by management who unilaterally changed their ability to swap flights. The girls gave the management an ultimatum to change it back or they walk. The company not only jumped and reversed their decision but they also apologised to the flight attendants for the stress caused.
The reality is that airlines like J* etc are using a mythical pilot shortage in this country to justify these cadet schemes. They are planning on all future pilot recruitment being 100% from cadetships on substantially lower T&C’s. The lower T&C’s is the real motive for the airlines promoting these schemes not any pilot shortage. This was never the case in the 50’s where there was a very real pilot shortage caused by the booming world economy after WW2. Most pilot recruitment back then though was still via DE and no amount of spin by the likes of you can change this fact.
Such large scale recruitment of cadets, who will be trained from GFPT to jet endorsement completely by the cheapest outsourced contractor, will have a serious detrimental effect on airline safety standards in this country.
Relax737 keeps pushing this BS about pilot unity being a myth. What he fails to say is you will never find 100% unity in any profession. Infact you don’t need 100% unity to fight a successful industrial battle but you do need a majority on your side. I will give you a recent example of where I work in Hong Kong which has almost no protections for employees. Earlier this year our cabin crew, which has about 70% union membership were scr*wed over by management who unilaterally changed their ability to swap flights. The girls gave the management an ultimatum to change it back or they walk. The company not only jumped and reversed their decision but they also apologised to the flight attendants for the stress caused.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the sky, mostly
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be more concerned about sending an experienced 2 man crew off on a 16+ hour tour of duty (flight 5 hours late), as Jetstar did on a flight MEL-BGK back in late February (and one can make the assumption that this is the way they operate as a matter of course), because of fatigue issues. The flight was scheduled to leave at 1600, and one might assume the crew were out of bed at latest 0800, so they would be awake for 24+ hours by sign off in BGK
Normasars, you say that management has a duty of care to deliver a profit to shareholders. That is exactly why management should avoid any practice that might cause an accident. The years of law suits and bad publicity would hardly be an environment in which to provide a healthy dividend. We can do this, all we need to do is forget about the T's & C's and remember that this is about safety and safety alone. When we force airlines to realise that pilots are more than just button pushers along for the ride, then T's & C's will slowly improve to suit- just like any other highly trained profession that is taken seriously. SAFETY FIRST.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan said The reality is that airlines like J* etc are using a mythical pilot shortage in this country to justify etc.
We may disagree on the unity issue, but we're as one on the myth of 'desperate pilot shortage' and you'll draw some flak for that, as I have.
My bet would be that if the FA's in your company wanted more money the management would have stood firm. Changing rosters isn't a big deal and was probably no more than chest beating by some mid level manager. The other point to consider is that may have been a smokescreen to introduce something more sinister and it may have been done whilst FA's were engaged in putting out spot fires. Management training covers all these issues, one being how to f*** the workers and have them think they're winning.
patienceboy, I can imagine the situation, but if they operated to CAO 48 requirements, one of the holes in the Swiss cheese is removed. 16+ hours tours of duty and a 200 hour FO starts to look somewhat more uncomfortable. Legal operation is a cornerstone of safety and flight and duty time limitations are there fora reason. If JQ do operate in this way, and I know of at least one instance where they did (I was on the flight) they should be called to account as a consequence, but they aren't, so one must also make the assumption that the regulator is in the pocket of the airline. Whilst that situation persists, nothing will happen. Summing that up, the regulator doesn't care!! If/when there is a serious incident then they duck for cover, but until then, nothing happens. How many shonky GA operators do you know of that aren't called to account??
gordon etc., terms and conditions won't improve because of safety. Exactly the opposite is likely to happen. Managements will see that pilots can, and will, keep the operation safe whilst being paid peanuts and will continue to attempt to erode T&C's. Pilots have been cost reduction targets for quite some years because of their professionalism and desire to do the job well in spite of other issues.
Regrettably, managements do take their corporate responsibility seriously, the responsibility to deliver ever increasing dividends to shareholders. They will continue to attempt to crew aircraft for less to achieve that aim. I don't like it either, and I've said previously that managements would have airline crews being paid less than a base grade clerk if they could, but that's the way it is. It would have always been so in QF and AN, but one was the public service, and the other a private company.
We may disagree on the unity issue, but we're as one on the myth of 'desperate pilot shortage' and you'll draw some flak for that, as I have.
My bet would be that if the FA's in your company wanted more money the management would have stood firm. Changing rosters isn't a big deal and was probably no more than chest beating by some mid level manager. The other point to consider is that may have been a smokescreen to introduce something more sinister and it may have been done whilst FA's were engaged in putting out spot fires. Management training covers all these issues, one being how to f*** the workers and have them think they're winning.
patienceboy, I can imagine the situation, but if they operated to CAO 48 requirements, one of the holes in the Swiss cheese is removed. 16+ hours tours of duty and a 200 hour FO starts to look somewhat more uncomfortable. Legal operation is a cornerstone of safety and flight and duty time limitations are there fora reason. If JQ do operate in this way, and I know of at least one instance where they did (I was on the flight) they should be called to account as a consequence, but they aren't, so one must also make the assumption that the regulator is in the pocket of the airline. Whilst that situation persists, nothing will happen. Summing that up, the regulator doesn't care!! If/when there is a serious incident then they duck for cover, but until then, nothing happens. How many shonky GA operators do you know of that aren't called to account??
gordon etc., terms and conditions won't improve because of safety. Exactly the opposite is likely to happen. Managements will see that pilots can, and will, keep the operation safe whilst being paid peanuts and will continue to attempt to erode T&C's. Pilots have been cost reduction targets for quite some years because of their professionalism and desire to do the job well in spite of other issues.
Regrettably, managements do take their corporate responsibility seriously, the responsibility to deliver ever increasing dividends to shareholders. They will continue to attempt to crew aircraft for less to achieve that aim. I don't like it either, and I've said previously that managements would have airline crews being paid less than a base grade clerk if they could, but that's the way it is. It would have always been so in QF and AN, but one was the public service, and the other a private company.
Last edited by relax737; 18th Sep 2010 at 07:41.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because the domestic airlines had cadets in the 50’s going directly into the right seat of a large piston twin or turbo props doesn’t mean it was safe
Having flown overseas with 250 pilots into the right hand seat or as S/Os straight from an airline training scheme or cadetship made for interesting times requiring a high degree of watchfulness by the Captain.
The example of fatigue is a valid and factual representation of what happens daily around the world and not just in non Western countries!
When one is operating a long haul flight departing midnight (18hour tour of duty) requiring a crew of four comprised of Captain, Two F/Os and one second officer who can only occupy the right hand seat with the Captain in his seat; the traffic is such the Captain needs to stay in his seat for at least the first 3 hours and then must occupy his seat to transition an operation alarea shortly thereafter the fatigue level rises rapidly. (It originally was 2 Capts/2 F/Os but was `legally' able to be changed as the 2 F/Os held ATPs and for `financial reasons (sound familiar??))
With two F/Os occupying the seat whilst the Captain gets bunk rest time the slightest bump, movement or noise gains rapid and close attention; effective rest is difficult to obtain!
Not attempting to suggest any of this is necessarily the right way just this is the way of the world and when presenting a case the correct answers need to found.
Last edited by Dark Knight; 18th Sep 2010 at 07:50. Reason: addition