Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 13th Mar 2011, 07:44
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's on the 18th of March but I don't know a time.
Soar2384 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 09:54
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Also how does one view? is it ABC TV or boardcast on a live feed on the net?

And Kelpie, we all owe you a beer or two.....
Stretch06 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 10:01
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stretch

It is broadcast on the APH website. You can usually go for either an audio or a video feed.

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 10:28
  #344 (permalink)  
gruntyfen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Bob Schieffer talking about lying, spinning and coverups. His message seems very relevant.

YouTube - Bob Schieffer Sounds Off about Lying Politicians.
 
Old 13th Mar 2011, 15:26
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The top of this world

Buried on pages 16 to 17 of Hansard on 25/02/1011, Qantas CEO AJ states, of his own choice, and under no apparent duress:

"We only pick the highest standards of maintenance facilities offshore. They are the
Lufthansas of this world; they are the Rolls-Royces of this world; they are the top facilities."

In a public forum, what else would he say? But did he have to?

He could have stood down from the day's proceedings with credibility intact and when appearing at a later hearing, would have already been properly briefed by managers experienced in their portfolio.

His comments have got me hot and bothered. "Not happy, AJ!"

(Thanks to Steeve Creedy from the Australian for highlighting this on the 11/03/2011)
The lens is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 16:58
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Senate Live Feeds

The following link gives access to the feeds:

Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 21:22
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is Safety the agenda for introducing Cadetships into LCC

The Lens

Be careful how you read the evidence, this is just another example of spin. AJ and BB gave evidence that is full of it!

Alan does not say that he uses Lufthansa and Rolls Royce for maintenance, although the untrained ear would have lead naturally to that conclusion. He simply uses those well respected worldwide brands to craftily springboard a personal view as to the type of organization he believes they do use.

It would maybe not come as a great surprise that over the last couple of days I have gone through the Hansards for the three hearings that have taken place so far and I have a word document that has 34 pages of items that fit into the categories of either inaccurate, misleading (spin) or interesting. All in my opinion of course based on evidence I have seen.

I am the James Bond of the investigative world. Of course that is only my opinion and probably not true but if I said it you would immediately associate the two and liken my investigative skills to a well known 'brand' and give me credibility even if you have never met me before.

That is how brands work.

Take Oxford Aviation Academy, a company which IMHO is no better or worse than the next guy, it is just that they develop the brand using a smooth talking salesman and glossy brochures under the lure of a public set of employment statistics that are highly questionable.

The key selling point for OAA is the relationship they have with airlines, this has two benefits.
  • Firstly, Petteford visits the airline and tells the decision makers that they should allow him to run his cadetship because they were picked by other airlines given their skill and expertise in the area of flight training particularly towards the multi crew airline.and leverages credibility by using brands such as British Airways, Easyjet, Ryanair, Qantas etc.
  • Secondly it lures aspiring pilots in because it has a track record in the United Kingdom of graduates being placed with airlines....eventually.
lets for a minute just look at what I have just said

.....picked by other airlines given their skill and expertise in the area of flight training


A mentor once told me that a business does not do business with another business it is the people that do business with the people, a philosophy that has over my career proved time and time again to be true. This is no exception.

The companies that Petteford uses as his springboard all have decision makers that are part of, or are connected to the Oxford 'Old Boys Network'. Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways is an ex Oxford Cadet (no wonder he sanctioned such a glowing reference for Petteford to include in his submission (read: sales pitch document) to the Senate Inquiry despite BA not employing cadets themselves for the last 10 years. As we all know Alan Joyce, used to work at Aer Lingus where he met and became friends with Willie Walsh, well you know how friends, both described as Irish Businessmen talk!!

I know, I know that is all history but it does give an insight as to how a track record is established.

Whilst reading through the Hansard I was surprised to find Tiger Airways Director of Flight Operations, Tim Berry advocating the recruitment and use of cadets despite Tiger Airways not having a desire to do so. In fact his evidence was so strong I almost felt that he was almost trying to sell something to the Senators, something he has to date not been able to do with his own Board. Perhaps when Cadet schemes are endorsed by the Senate and other airlines accept this is the way to go and that this becomes the norm perhaps Tiger will fall into line. I was particularly interested in the testimony of what he considered were the essential features to the successful use of cadets and drew many similarities with the evidence, both written and verbal given by Oxford Aviation. Petteford must have been there for 'a chat'!!

Wait a minute. Petteford did not necessarily need to do so, he could just ring his old mate Tim up with whom he was in the same pilot group when Petteford did his short sabbatical on the A320 with British Midland in 2001 that was organised through the Oxford 'old boys network'. Friends helping out friends!!

Petteford and Oxford Aviation have a lot to lose if the Senate raise the hours required to enter a Flight Deck and believe me when I say he is calling in favours from 'friends, or friends of friends' to provide evidence to get cadetships across the line. The survival of his business model relies on it. The principle being that if enough people tell the Senator the same thing it must be true!!!

I want to move now onto the MPL Licence, a process that Petteford seems really enthusiastic about for some reason. MPL requires that the Cadet is linked and guaranteed a job with the airline for it to work. There are a number of commercial difficulties which would suggest this model will never float in Australia and I will for illustrative purposes apply it to the LCC Model. Incidently these would not even be considered by CASA during the approval of a syllabus as it is outside their remit.
  • The MPL is a licence within itself. It does not allow you to fly any other aircraft other than the one you were trained on with the company you were linked with (currently restricted to B737, A320 and Q400). Good for retention rates I would say but buggers you when it comes to pay negotiations!
  • Even if transferability between employers was facilitated it would need to be accepted across the industry, in all airlines to be effective otherwise there would be further restriction to the number of employers you could possibly work for.
  • The LCC model has a track record for closing bases 'to meet the needs of the business'. If your base was closed you have no choice but to move interstate with the company (if that is an option) as your licence is not valid anywhere else or take redundancy - I think this is unreasonable. We 'work to live' in Australia and not the other way around. The effect this has on families, relationships and on children's schooling to name a few is immense and is beyond the call of duty for any employer.
  • If made redundant for the reasons stated above or in the event of a downturn skills are not readily transferrable. I estimate that to convert a MPL to a CPL it would involve at least a further $50,000 of training and at least 6 months of your life without income. At a time of redundancy this amount of spare cash is almost never there. This would please Petteford as it is another business opportunity!!!
There are of course the safety aspects as well as the issue of relevance of training if you wanted, or needed to revert to single pilot operations. Petteford has already told us that the cost of a MPL is similar to the traditional route but in the end you get a licence that greatly restricts your ability to be flexible in the difficult times.

Given the history of the Aviation industry the MPL is a commercial ticking timebomb. It is just not the product for the Australian aviation industry. Perhaps Sntr Heffernan was not far off when he called Joyce an 'old irish bombmaker'!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Last edited by The Kelpie; 13th Mar 2011 at 22:51.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 21:35
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pity City
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question without notice - Mr Joyce!

You said -
We only pick the highest standards of maintenance facilities offshore
Before Mr Dixon and yourself took the knife to Qantas Engineering it was classed as a "highest standards of maintenance facility". The cost of going offshore was not required.

Why did you, and why do you continue to destroy Qantas' engineering facilities? Why have you moved jobs out of Australia?
33 Disengage is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 21:53
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: @ss end of the world
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it true a document apparently released by Jetstar in the last week or so stating that cadets are to be based in MEL/SYD/BNE/Goldy

If so that would mean it was released just after bruce stated at the enquiry that cadets would not be flying in Aus
magicbox is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 21:59
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Magicbox,

It is true, the document in question came out last week.
Artificial Horizon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2011, 23:30
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have posted on the Cadets Grounded thread about this.

Last edited by The Kelpie; 13th Mar 2011 at 23:41.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 00:47
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I get a bit confused with the Qantas business structure.

Is it just me or is the Qantas Group (Holding company rather than the collection of subsidiaries) acting like a private version of CASA with its 'Franchises'? It seems that they are not interested in the day to day responsibility for operations, only for policing it in the sense that the standards are requirements within the 'franchise' or brand agreement.

Alan Joyce told the Senate Inquiry that Qantas (not sure which part) only has a minority shareholding in operations such as Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Vietnam, he said

we do not have the same responsibility for those entities, because we are a minority shareholder; we have a brand responsibility for them, Other shareholders have the majority of those entities. We have a brand responsibility to ensure that safety meets the standards applying to the brand.
and went on further to say

Under the brand agreements we do [have the authority to enforce the same standards that would apply to Qantas and Jetstar Australia]. We have the ability to withdraw the brand if we are not comfortable with the standards applying to those entities.
when questioned further by the astute and Switched on Senator X Joyce replied

It gives us very strong influence over the standards, and allows us to make sure that we are very comfortable. We would not have the brand on these entities if we were not comfortable that these met the high safety standards.
On top of the analogy to being a regulator, Does that mean Qantas 're-sells' the benefits and concessions granted to the Qantas Group by CASA, IASC etc. to any Tom, Dick or Harry that is willing to enter into a franchise agreement with them?

Sounds like the Qantas Group is purely an entity to sell, monitor and enforce brand agreements rather than controlling anything on a day to day. I see a fundamental problem here in terms of safety!!

Take the latest reports of expansion into the Japanese market. This would allow Qantas to re-sell, without further reference to CASA or the IASC the right for a Japanese operator to operate domestically under the guise of Jetstar international tag flights.

Think the Senator is onto this in any case.

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 01:45
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is Safety the agenda...

The Kelpie,

Thanks, and apologies also to everyone for the slight diversion to the debate.

Terms of Ref. item (j) 'any other related matters' could be an inquiry in its own right.
The lens is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 02:20
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This was a previous post I made which the mods moved to the GA Area. I asked for it to be moved back but no assistance. In relation to the way the Senate Inquiry seems to be developing I thought it was worth asking the question again in the hope that a driver or CC could provide an answer.

Just reading about Crew Travel Authority on the Immigration Website. It says that "Crew operating commercial flights into Australia should be registered with a Crew Travel Authority (CTA). It raised a question for me.

On a Jetstar flight from an overseas base to Melbourne would overseas flight crew / Cabin crew be required to go through Customs and Immigration at Darwin (or the first port of entry) before proceeding to Melbourne being their first port of call in Australia?

If the answer is yes - Would that mean that if the same overseas crew flew the 'Tag Flight' from Darwin to Melbourne they would be undertaking work for the purposes of immigration bearing in mind that for immigration purposes - “Work” is defined as “an activity that, in Australia, normally attracts remuneration.” ?

If they are undertaking "work" what provision of the Crew Travel Authority by which they legally enter Australia without a visa allows such work?

If the CTA does allow such "work" then why should the overseas crew not be entitled to the same pay and conditions as an Australian with work rights??

If Overseas crew are to be paid the same as Australian Crew, What is the point of off-shoring jobs?

.........Just a thought
Note the wording 'into Australia' and not 'within Australia'.

Maybe why they were offerring Aussie pilots the opportunity to move over there as they have an automatic right to work in Australia. You guys hold the key as other foreign nationals will not be allowed to fly the tag flight is my understanding. If I am correct you are probably the most important asset the company has at the moment as you are the key to enabling them to switch a mel - drw - sg - dw - mel flight into a sg - dw - mel - dw - sg one.

Although the IASC allows these flights to take place from an operational point of view I am sure that the assumption is that all other aspects of law are satisfied, including the Migration Regulations.

There is a world of difference between a London based crew flying from London and Singapore to a destination that is it's one and only port of call in Australia to flying from an overseas into an australian port of entry and then taking off again after boarding further passengers to another Australian airport.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Last edited by The Kelpie; 14th Mar 2011 at 02:32.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 02:34
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Horn Island
Posts: 1,044
Received 33 Likes on 8 Posts
All inbound passengers and crew go through immigration and customs, proceed to the domestic terminal prior boarding a flight with domestic passengers who do not go through immigration. I.e. The sectors from Darwin o melbourne/cairns etc are totally domestic they arrive at domestic terminals
RENURPP is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 03:20
  #356 (permalink)  
 
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
Kelpie, this is a classic attempt at labour arbitrage, with a twist. Normally this would involve offshoring the work to another country where that same skills exist, but at lower cost. So, here's the twist, excess pilots don't exist in Asia! So, what they are doing is offshoring the job to a cheaper place of doing business, and in effect forcing the skill to go offshore, to work back in the host country (Australia) - offshore/inshore. Look very carefully at the NZ cadet base, ticks all the box for this game plan. All of this is simply an end-run around Australian migration/labour/superannuation/tax law.

The central question for the Federal government, is, if Qantas succeed, how many other companies will do the same? What would the anticipated tax revenue hit be. WA FIFO mining would be a prime candidate for this style of operation (Karratha upgraded to handle a B767, Asia anyone). Imagine if all those high paying mining jobs were offshored/inshored. The miners would ask for the same "cash in hand", but without the Federal government receiving the tax.
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 03:27
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought so!!!

trust me when I say that 'the world is watching this one'!

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 04:16
  #358 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
It's certainly clear that what J* are doing here is different to what occasionally used to occur on the QF long haul fleets. We used to regularly fly QF10 SIN-MEL-SYD and clear customs in Sydney. It's important that J* management isn't able to imply that this is what they're doing when they're flying JQ62 SIN-DRW and then changing to JQ 'whatever' from DRW to [insert other Australian city here]. They're not 'continuing the service' to another city and then clearing customs in that city. They're operating a domestic service.

The exception would be if they still do the QF62 SIN-DRW-CNS. That they can have if it's the same flight number and operated as an international service with crew clearing customs in CNS.
Keg is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 04:33
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keg

The issue is not about clearing customs, the important point is that on your QF10 flight all the crew should have been Australian Citizens or have the right to work in Australia. It is an immigration issue.

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2011, 05:01
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Inv

Although J* and the Rat are the two highest profile operators featuring in this inquiry, remember there are a lot of other operators out there that have their own unscrupulous spin doctors and bean counters that are helping to poison the industry.

Why is this happening? Because the regulator had this grand idea that the industry should be self-regulated!! So now certain operators believe that as long as all the boxes are ticked, they now have a licence to do what ever they want!!

Also due to the good Senator Cameron, the terms of reference have now been expanded to include maintenance So another hole in the swiss cheese is about to be exposed.

Still waiting for the bang!!

Sarcs

ps By the way, word is that the 'in camera' hearings are on prior to the public hearings this Friday!!!
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.