Merged: Joe Eakins: Brave?....or....
The JPC are conspicuously mute on this important workplace issue
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money sent. Urging all my fellow Virgin pilots to support this. Consider it an investment.
1. Nick Xenophon's role in trying to stop this industries decline into the abyss.
2. The Senate Enquiry
3. Jetstars offshoring of Aussie jobs
4. Joe Eakins
No idea not one clue. Never heard of it. And the reason is....
has anybody heard from the AFAP on this matter
They could make the difference but they wont.
Lucky they have the MBF.
has anybody heard from the AFAP on this matter
The weakest link/the mole in a unified pilot community. Their silence/weak approach on the above matters has convinced me that they are the problem and not the solution.
The weakest link/the mole in a unified pilot community. Their silence/weak approach on the above matters has convinced me that they are the problem and not the solution.
AFAP have submitted their views to the Senate Inquiry. If you had looked at the AFAP website under general news you would have seen that. You would have even seen their approach to off shoring.
It seems that your only acceptable action would be unprotected industrial action.
It is an AFAP matter as the AFAP are signatory to the J* EBA. They are thus major stakeholders in ANYTHING to do with J* pilots.
I would have liked to see Joe, AIPA, AFAP ALEA and even the FAAA all together at a media conference explaining where they saw aviation safety heading, particularly in regard to off-shoring.
Unfortunately, most senate hearings are not big media events and a submission to the hearing is seldom reported anywhere.
The case of Joe is a catalyst for huge media attention. An aviation employee organisation would be stupid not to leverage off it for the benefit of their members. You simply can't buy this kind of free kick publicity.
I want to see Joe reinstated. Secondly I want to see that what he has been through will not be for nothing. It will hopefully lead to real change.
I would have liked to see Joe, AIPA, AFAP ALEA and even the FAAA all together at a media conference explaining where they saw aviation safety heading, particularly in regard to off-shoring.
Unfortunately, most senate hearings are not big media events and a submission to the hearing is seldom reported anywhere.
The case of Joe is a catalyst for huge media attention. An aviation employee organisation would be stupid not to leverage off it for the benefit of their members. You simply can't buy this kind of free kick publicity.
I want to see Joe reinstated. Secondly I want to see that what he has been through will not be for nothing. It will hopefully lead to real change.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth hurts.
views to the Senate Inquiry
Joe an AFAP matter
2. The Senate Enquiry
3. Jetstars offshoring of Aussie jobs
4. Joe Eakins
PILOT MATTERS.
AFAP convenient/coincident media silence/very quiet/non existent on all the matters. In fact at once stage Bruce Buchanan used them to support his argument. God help us.
What sort of presence was there at the SYD, MEL and BNE PILOT meetings? NIL. Even the engineers union put an appearance in for god sakes! As a member of this union I did not receive ANY notification of ANY of these events apart from the first meeting haphazardly sent out the night before. Pissed off boys.
Fact of the matter is a unified front is what this industry needs. ALL unions standing together regardless of it being a J* QF VB or whoever matter. The attacks on our industry are everybody's business.
I'll interpret silence as support for big business and reduction in conditions.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Industry
Forget Aca, Forget Sunrise, Forget 60 Minutes. Forget Mornings With Dr Harry Or Whatever.
This Is One For 4 Corners Or Back In The 80's For Those That Remember - The Investigators.
This Is One For 4 Corners Or Back In The 80's For Those That Remember - The Investigators.
What sort of presence was there at the SYD, MEL and BNE PILOT meetings? NIL. Even the engineers union put an appearance in for god sakes! As a member of this union I did not receive ANY notification of ANY of these events apart from the first meeting haphazardly sent out the night before.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
us/them
My point exactly.
This is the root of the problem. "Its their problem not ours. Who cares."
Thats it. Doesn't affect me who gives a..
Maybe I'm different but I'd expect a union to encourage members to attend meetings, raise awareness, participate in, speak out about issues that affect the broader pilot community. Support our colleagues no matter what their membership or colours. A grown up version of what we are seeing today.
Sort of like in GA when a pilot from the opposition was in a pickle and you'd lend a hand because ultimately the only difference was the shirt colour.
I need to lower my expectations and curb my ideals.
This is the root of the problem. "Its their problem not ours. Who cares."
Thats it. Doesn't affect me who gives a..
Maybe I'm different but I'd expect a union to encourage members to attend meetings, raise awareness, participate in, speak out about issues that affect the broader pilot community. Support our colleagues no matter what their membership or colours. A grown up version of what we are seeing today.
Sort of like in GA when a pilot from the opposition was in a pickle and you'd lend a hand because ultimately the only difference was the shirt colour.
I need to lower my expectations and curb my ideals.
Grandpa Aerotart
The degree of naivety on this thread is just mind boggling.
When I read Eakins' letter to the Australian I experienced a sharp intake of breath. From the moment it was published under his real name his tenure at J* was EXTREMELY tenuous.
Do you people not remember WHY we don't use our real names on this forum?
Is there an airline anywhere in the world at any time that has NOT had a clause in its employment agreement that PROHIBITS the very behaviour that Eakins' has demonstrated?
Why didn't he keep it in house if he really believed the issues were safety rather than industrial?
I am going to suggest the reason we have heard nothing from JPC/AFAP is that they KNOW Eakins has shot himself in both feet in such a way that he is beyond realistic help.
Eakins has expressed a degree of shock and dismay at the predicament he has found himself in - welcome to the real world Mr Eakins. Life is generally harder when you don't ask, and take heed of, advice from the grown ups. I can think of several people he SHOULD have asked advice from and LISTENED to BEFORE he went public.
To a man they would have said "Do this Joe and they WILL sack you and there will be not one thing AFAP/AIPA, or JC himself, will be able to do about it".
I watched AJ interviewed yesterday on ABC and he was asked about Eakins. He made it very clear that Eakins was spoken to on more than one occasion about these matters (before he went public) but was unwilling to modify his attitude ultimately leading to the Australian article. J*/QF management are not the guilty party here.
Eakins backed them into a corner.
Unlike AIPA, and many posters on PPrune, AFAP is industrially savvy enough to know what an 'industrial issue' looks like, let alone which ones are worth fighting.
If QF group wants to start an airline in Singapore, Vietnam or outer fcking Mongolia it has NOT ONE THING to do with AIPA or AFAP.
NOTHING!
IF J* offers temporary postings to staff to get that airline off the ground - with all the protections they have put in place re right of return, seniority etc - then that is a matter for the staff concerned NOT AIPA/AFAP.
If said staff accept the T&Cs on offer then that is their right - if they end up running foul of the ATO tough ****, they should have been better informed.
If that entity operates into and out of Australia then so be it. Its got NOT ONE thing to do with AIPA/AFAP let alone the greater Australian pilot polity.
SQ,EK,BA,CX, RBA, PX, Air Pac, Air Vanuatu ALL operate into and out of Australia with Australian nationals at the controls but for some strange reason that is not deemed an industrial, let alone safety, issue.
J* Singapore as a legal entity is NO DIFFERENT and AIPA/AFAP have no more input to it than they do at EK or CX.
It seems only AFAP has the industrial maturity to understand that fact.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal or even inappropriate. All I see in this thread, and across the Australian aviation landscape generally, is a bunch of industrially naive Gen X/Y children spinning themselves into a knot over stuff that is either none of their business or a complete NON ISSUE.
10 years ago Impulse was a small airline in Port Macquarie operating B1900s. It was bought, re fleeted with B717s, staffed with appropriate experience to allow the former B1900 crews to progress to the LHS of jets in a short period. Sold again it became J* with Airbus aircraft and providing quality employment to a huge number of people.
A DEC C&Ter accepting employment at Impulse on the 717 was paid 90k with a one page contract - no overtime etc. 7 years later through diligent and mature negotiations undertaken in good faith that same individual can earn triple that early wage under an EBA that, even AIPA acknowledged, is VERY good. The most junior FO at J* now earned more than the most senior C&Ter did just a few years before and with command prospects measured in years rather than decades.
But is anybody hailing the JPC (of the day) and the J* pilot group generally as worthy of praise?
Nope they are attacked and derided at every chance.
It may be (who knows?) that BB has the current J* EBA in his sights - THAT would be a battle worth fighting - in the meantime all I see is people bleeding out on the industrial sidewalk for no good reason.
When I read Eakins' letter to the Australian I experienced a sharp intake of breath. From the moment it was published under his real name his tenure at J* was EXTREMELY tenuous.
Do you people not remember WHY we don't use our real names on this forum?
Is there an airline anywhere in the world at any time that has NOT had a clause in its employment agreement that PROHIBITS the very behaviour that Eakins' has demonstrated?
Why didn't he keep it in house if he really believed the issues were safety rather than industrial?
I am going to suggest the reason we have heard nothing from JPC/AFAP is that they KNOW Eakins has shot himself in both feet in such a way that he is beyond realistic help.
Eakins has expressed a degree of shock and dismay at the predicament he has found himself in - welcome to the real world Mr Eakins. Life is generally harder when you don't ask, and take heed of, advice from the grown ups. I can think of several people he SHOULD have asked advice from and LISTENED to BEFORE he went public.
To a man they would have said "Do this Joe and they WILL sack you and there will be not one thing AFAP/AIPA, or JC himself, will be able to do about it".
I watched AJ interviewed yesterday on ABC and he was asked about Eakins. He made it very clear that Eakins was spoken to on more than one occasion about these matters (before he went public) but was unwilling to modify his attitude ultimately leading to the Australian article. J*/QF management are not the guilty party here.
Eakins backed them into a corner.
Unlike AIPA, and many posters on PPrune, AFAP is industrially savvy enough to know what an 'industrial issue' looks like, let alone which ones are worth fighting.
If QF group wants to start an airline in Singapore, Vietnam or outer fcking Mongolia it has NOT ONE THING to do with AIPA or AFAP.
NOTHING!
IF J* offers temporary postings to staff to get that airline off the ground - with all the protections they have put in place re right of return, seniority etc - then that is a matter for the staff concerned NOT AIPA/AFAP.
If said staff accept the T&Cs on offer then that is their right - if they end up running foul of the ATO tough ****, they should have been better informed.
If that entity operates into and out of Australia then so be it. Its got NOT ONE thing to do with AIPA/AFAP let alone the greater Australian pilot polity.
SQ,EK,BA,CX, RBA, PX, Air Pac, Air Vanuatu ALL operate into and out of Australia with Australian nationals at the controls but for some strange reason that is not deemed an industrial, let alone safety, issue.
J* Singapore as a legal entity is NO DIFFERENT and AIPA/AFAP have no more input to it than they do at EK or CX.
It seems only AFAP has the industrial maturity to understand that fact.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal or even inappropriate. All I see in this thread, and across the Australian aviation landscape generally, is a bunch of industrially naive Gen X/Y children spinning themselves into a knot over stuff that is either none of their business or a complete NON ISSUE.
10 years ago Impulse was a small airline in Port Macquarie operating B1900s. It was bought, re fleeted with B717s, staffed with appropriate experience to allow the former B1900 crews to progress to the LHS of jets in a short period. Sold again it became J* with Airbus aircraft and providing quality employment to a huge number of people.
A DEC C&Ter accepting employment at Impulse on the 717 was paid 90k with a one page contract - no overtime etc. 7 years later through diligent and mature negotiations undertaken in good faith that same individual can earn triple that early wage under an EBA that, even AIPA acknowledged, is VERY good. The most junior FO at J* now earned more than the most senior C&Ter did just a few years before and with command prospects measured in years rather than decades.
But is anybody hailing the JPC (of the day) and the J* pilot group generally as worthy of praise?
Nope they are attacked and derided at every chance.
It may be (who knows?) that BB has the current J* EBA in his sights - THAT would be a battle worth fighting - in the meantime all I see is people bleeding out on the industrial sidewalk for no good reason.
Union playing safety card for industrial reasons – Joyce
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 12:12 pm, Monday November 29 2010
Alan Joyce has defended the sacking of a Jetstar pilot.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has accused AIPA (the Australian and International Pilots Association) of playing the “safety card” when it is instead waging an industrial dispute over Jetstar’s sacking of first officer Joe Eakins for a recent newspaper article, noting that Eakins had breached Jetstar’s code of conduct.
“When something is related to industrial relations issues and it’s a breach of the code of conduct we’re going to act in that way,” Joyce told ABC TV’s Inside Business program in an interview which aired on November 28. “And again, for the union to use this as an example and use this to say it’s all about safety is them using the safety card for industrial relations. It’s purely that yet again. It is outrageous that they keep doing this.”
Said Joyce of Eakins’ actions, “He was given opportunities to come in and talk about why he was doing it and to correct the action. He refused to come in and talk to the management and the management were left with no other action but to actually terminate his employment.”
Joyce also defended Jetstar’s decision to base pilots in Singapore on Singaporean wages and conditions, Eakins’ key point of contention in his newspaper article.
“What the pilots in Singapore are actually employed to fly for [is] Jetstar Asia which is a Singapore entity, flying and competing against all of the carriers in the region and the pilots are paid quite well,” Joyce said.
“They’re paid in the top few per cent of the population in that country.”
Meanwhile, AIPA has launched a petition protesting the sacking, which will be sent to Jetstar Australia and NZ CEO David Hall, and a support fund to raise money for Eakins.
“You can be sure that this event is a turning point for Australian aviation. Pilots’ jobs and the safety regime they fly by is under attack by airlines, particularly aggressive low cost carriers such as Jetstar that pretend to welcome feedback but sack people when that feedback is too clear and too compelling to hear,” AIPA posted on the pprune.org website.
“You can also be sure that AIPA will devote whatever is required to assist Joe Eakins return to his career as a pilot.”
Conveniently omitted the issues that CASA may be forced to oversight the operation of Oz registered aircraft based in a foreign country, and pilots on "Leave without pay" from the mothership are likely to pay Aussie tax rates making them much worse off than J* Asia guys.
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 12:12 pm, Monday November 29 2010
Alan Joyce has defended the sacking of a Jetstar pilot.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has accused AIPA (the Australian and International Pilots Association) of playing the “safety card” when it is instead waging an industrial dispute over Jetstar’s sacking of first officer Joe Eakins for a recent newspaper article, noting that Eakins had breached Jetstar’s code of conduct.
“When something is related to industrial relations issues and it’s a breach of the code of conduct we’re going to act in that way,” Joyce told ABC TV’s Inside Business program in an interview which aired on November 28. “And again, for the union to use this as an example and use this to say it’s all about safety is them using the safety card for industrial relations. It’s purely that yet again. It is outrageous that they keep doing this.”
Said Joyce of Eakins’ actions, “He was given opportunities to come in and talk about why he was doing it and to correct the action. He refused to come in and talk to the management and the management were left with no other action but to actually terminate his employment.”
Joyce also defended Jetstar’s decision to base pilots in Singapore on Singaporean wages and conditions, Eakins’ key point of contention in his newspaper article.
“What the pilots in Singapore are actually employed to fly for [is] Jetstar Asia which is a Singapore entity, flying and competing against all of the carriers in the region and the pilots are paid quite well,” Joyce said.
“They’re paid in the top few per cent of the population in that country.”
Meanwhile, AIPA has launched a petition protesting the sacking, which will be sent to Jetstar Australia and NZ CEO David Hall, and a support fund to raise money for Eakins.
“You can be sure that this event is a turning point for Australian aviation. Pilots’ jobs and the safety regime they fly by is under attack by airlines, particularly aggressive low cost carriers such as Jetstar that pretend to welcome feedback but sack people when that feedback is too clear and too compelling to hear,” AIPA posted on the pprune.org website.
“You can also be sure that AIPA will devote whatever is required to assist Joe Eakins return to his career as a pilot.”
Conveniently omitted the issues that CASA may be forced to oversight the operation of Oz registered aircraft based in a foreign country, and pilots on "Leave without pay" from the mothership are likely to pay Aussie tax rates making them much worse off than J* Asia guys.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the biggest issue (now) is that J* have exposed their plan- they have clearly stated that the reason for this 'off shoring' is to avoid the costs of doing business in Australia eg. taxes, employee entitlements, any rules regarding experience which may or may not come about etc. They constantly bang on about the individual being no worse off (whether that is true or not is hotly debatable, especially when they make comments along the lines of "the pilot will have his super paid directly to him"! ie. included in the package as salary), but what they are really saying is that they will reduce their costs. By avoiding the costs that Australian based companies have to wear.
The pollies might want to think about that.
The pollies might want to think about that.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inside Business 28th November
Play Video Employment policies are not safety concerns: Joyce - Inside Business - ABC
ALAN KOHLER, PRESENTER: By any measure it's been a pretty awful month for Qantas.
The potentially devastating disintegration of an engine in one of the new A380 with 466 souls on board spawned a global media frenzy.
And that incident over Indonesia was quickly followed by a succession of other mishaps and turn backs and just this week a pilot at Jetstar was sacked after criticising the low cost subsidiary's off-shore employment policy and the effect it could have on safety.
More headlines, more damage control. By the end of the week Qantas did manage to get two of its multibillion-dollar A380 fleet back into limited service with the boss, Alan Joyce, on board.
Appearing comfortable and relaxed of course.
I spoke to him before he boarded the flight to London.
Alan Joyce, how do you reconcile the sacking of Joe Eakins, the Jetstar pilot, for raising safety concerns when you've always said that you would never discipline anyone for raising safety concerns?
ALAN JOYCE, CEO QANTAS: Yeah well in this case the pilot in question didn't raise safety concerns. He raised issues that are industrial relations issues related to employment in Singapore and relating to progression within the organisation. Nothing to do with safety.
ALAN KOHLER: Well he did say that lower pay that you're paying in Singapore will lead to safety problems.
ALAN JOYCE: What the pilots in Singapore are actually employed to fly for Jetstar Asia which is a Singapore entity, flying and competing against all of the carriers in the region and the pilots are paid quite well.
They're paid in the top few per cent of the population in that country. So there's no issues here with safety and I think in the case of this pilot, he did break the code of conduct. It is very clear what the code of conduct for the organisation is. That was broken on multiple occasions.
He was given opportunities to come in and talk about why he was doing it and to correct the action. He refused to come in and talk to the management and the management were left with no other action but to actually terminate his employment.
There were other pilots there, there was another pilot did the same thing and the process ended with that pilot understanding what the code of conduct was and he stopped the conduct. Now I have to say Jetstar, like all of Qantas, really takes safety reporting as a top priority. We get thousands of reports every year that we pass on to the ATSB and a lot that we look at ourselves. We go out and encourage reporting when it's related to safety issues.
When something is related to industrial relations issues and it's a breach of the code of conduct we're going to act in that way. And again, for the union to use this as an example and use this to say it's all about safety is them using the safety card for industrial relations. It's purely that yet again. It is outrageous that they keep doing this.
Play Video Employment policies are not safety concerns: Joyce - Inside Business - ABC
ALAN KOHLER, PRESENTER: By any measure it's been a pretty awful month for Qantas.
The potentially devastating disintegration of an engine in one of the new A380 with 466 souls on board spawned a global media frenzy.
And that incident over Indonesia was quickly followed by a succession of other mishaps and turn backs and just this week a pilot at Jetstar was sacked after criticising the low cost subsidiary's off-shore employment policy and the effect it could have on safety.
More headlines, more damage control. By the end of the week Qantas did manage to get two of its multibillion-dollar A380 fleet back into limited service with the boss, Alan Joyce, on board.
Appearing comfortable and relaxed of course.
I spoke to him before he boarded the flight to London.
Alan Joyce, how do you reconcile the sacking of Joe Eakins, the Jetstar pilot, for raising safety concerns when you've always said that you would never discipline anyone for raising safety concerns?
ALAN JOYCE, CEO QANTAS: Yeah well in this case the pilot in question didn't raise safety concerns. He raised issues that are industrial relations issues related to employment in Singapore and relating to progression within the organisation. Nothing to do with safety.
ALAN KOHLER: Well he did say that lower pay that you're paying in Singapore will lead to safety problems.
ALAN JOYCE: What the pilots in Singapore are actually employed to fly for Jetstar Asia which is a Singapore entity, flying and competing against all of the carriers in the region and the pilots are paid quite well.
They're paid in the top few per cent of the population in that country. So there's no issues here with safety and I think in the case of this pilot, he did break the code of conduct. It is very clear what the code of conduct for the organisation is. That was broken on multiple occasions.
He was given opportunities to come in and talk about why he was doing it and to correct the action. He refused to come in and talk to the management and the management were left with no other action but to actually terminate his employment.
There were other pilots there, there was another pilot did the same thing and the process ended with that pilot understanding what the code of conduct was and he stopped the conduct. Now I have to say Jetstar, like all of Qantas, really takes safety reporting as a top priority. We get thousands of reports every year that we pass on to the ATSB and a lot that we look at ourselves. We go out and encourage reporting when it's related to safety issues.
When something is related to industrial relations issues and it's a breach of the code of conduct we're going to act in that way. And again, for the union to use this as an example and use this to say it's all about safety is them using the safety card for industrial relations. It's purely that yet again. It is outrageous that they keep doing this.
Last edited by Ichiban; 29th Nov 2010 at 10:51.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Image, AJ now confuses the public with QF & JQ brands?
Gentleman, AJ speaks to the media on the 28th of November regarding J Es sacking and presto on the 29th Nov two stories (although not directly related to JEs situation) appear in the same paper SMH all day long, headed;
Both nothing stories but a good example of how some at QF/J* have come across to the reporters over the last few weeks. The inside business story should/could have been avoided as it only sowed more doubt, not only with the public but highlighted J Es case again, telling the world that there is something not quite right with the staff as well. I believe we are at a point where the guys in the control tower at QF/J* take a deep breath, learn from its PR disasters of late, sit down and listen to the staff and try and resolve a few issues in-house. Please forgive me for posting on this thread, but I felt starting a new one is not appropriate at this time.
Having said that, I do understand that Joe Eakins situation is the main thrust of this thread, I wish him well, and trust, his predicament can somehow result with a happy ending. Best wishes to all.
1. NEW QANTAS NIGHTMAREVideo - Qantas baggage bug - The Sydney Morning Herald
Sydney-bound passengers were told they could walk out on to the Sydney Airport tarmac to "search through trolleys" of missing bags if they signed a form and donned a yellow vest.
and
2. "I'll never fly Qantas again" : death of an iconic brand?'I'll never fly Qantas again': death of an iconic brand? I was dismayed when I turned on the TV news last night. I don't want to overdramatise it, but I felt I had tuned in to watch an iconic Australian brand struggling for its life.
Sydney-bound passengers were told they could walk out on to the Sydney Airport tarmac to "search through trolleys" of missing bags if they signed a form and donned a yellow vest.
and
2. "I'll never fly Qantas again" : death of an iconic brand?'I'll never fly Qantas again': death of an iconic brand? I was dismayed when I turned on the TV news last night. I don't want to overdramatise it, but I felt I had tuned in to watch an iconic Australian brand struggling for its life.
Having said that, I do understand that Joe Eakins situation is the main thrust of this thread, I wish him well, and trust, his predicament can somehow result with a happy ending. Best wishes to all.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAN JOYCE: What the pilots in Singapore are actually employed to fly for Jetstar Asia which is a Singapore entity, flying and competing against all of the carriers in the region and the pilots are paid quite well. They're paid in the top few per cent of the population in that country.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAN JOYCE, CEO QANTAS: Yeah well in this case the pilot in question didn't raise safety concerns. He raised issues that are industrial relations issues related to employment in Singapore and relating to progression within the organisation. Nothing to do with safety.
Hmmm. Alan Joyce and the QF group have started digging a hole. I can see some smiling lawyers/barristers filling their pockets with fistfulls of cash in the high court.
Some interesting concepts coming up here. Freedom of speech and the code of conduct crossing paths. So why bother having a Senate Enquiry at all if the people that know the most about whats happening in the flight deck technically can't speak about it due to a potential breach of the code of conduct? Indeed this whole forum should be outlawed.
For the record I don't think anyone should attach their name to an article or submission to a Senate enquiry for these very reasons. And thats why the Senate enquiry will never get the full truth about this industry. Very few would risk a career under the control of a dictatorship.
Maybe North Korea could learn something from Australia. Thats it, pretend to be a democracy but deep down hold extreme dictatorship values as the basis on which to run the country. The history of whistleblowers in this country isn't very good. Do you remember the Four Corners episode about the whistle blower. Recommended viewing.
Indeed I'd say the message to employees is "Keep your mouth shut or we will fire you". Safety officially in free fall. Good luck Senator Xenophon, big business wins in Australia. ALWAYS.
I really think this is coming back to bite you guys on the arse,not that I'm blaming anyone as such.
When these airlines started demanding recruits to have a type rating,that's when things went down hill. I think Impulse might have even been the first airline in Australia to do this.
This led to the situation where experienced pilots like myself,said bugger the industry in Australia and left for another country. It's a sad case of affairs as myself and just about every other Aussie pilot flying overseas would dearly love to come back and fly in our home country,but we simply can't afford to,due to lower wages,and having to in some cases pay for another type rating just to get a job,regardless of our experience. This is the main reason why Australian pilots are so popular with a large number of the major international airlines throughout the world,and in reality it's a huge loss to the aviation industry in Australia. That's life and sadly it's not going to change,well in my lifetime anyway.
The concrete has already set "HARD AND PROPER".
Post edit: Forgot to mention,funny that all these problems are related to budget airlines in most cases,that certainly say's something !
When these airlines started demanding recruits to have a type rating,that's when things went down hill. I think Impulse might have even been the first airline in Australia to do this.
This led to the situation where experienced pilots like myself,said bugger the industry in Australia and left for another country. It's a sad case of affairs as myself and just about every other Aussie pilot flying overseas would dearly love to come back and fly in our home country,but we simply can't afford to,due to lower wages,and having to in some cases pay for another type rating just to get a job,regardless of our experience. This is the main reason why Australian pilots are so popular with a large number of the major international airlines throughout the world,and in reality it's a huge loss to the aviation industry in Australia. That's life and sadly it's not going to change,well in my lifetime anyway.
The concrete has already set "HARD AND PROPER".
Post edit: Forgot to mention,funny that all these problems are related to budget airlines in most cases,that certainly say's something !
Last edited by Waghi Warrior; 29th Nov 2010 at 23:48.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst there are alot of feel good "pilot unity" type posts here, I really do not understand how pilots from other operators would see it in their interest to support the JPC, even if they had appeared as a blip on the RADAR.
From what I can see there must be a great amount of apathy within the organisation, towards the organisation and towards each other.
Personally I believe, any QF pilot that offers support, be it financial or emotional assistance to this group, will be doing so at their own demise.
In previous posts I have offered my personal low opinion towards this culture and those within it to the readers of pprune, have stopped only marginally short of using the "S" word to describe my view of their actions, no response from the effected parties, intelligent or otherwise.
Why would any of you honourable, intelligent and morally just individuals posting here assist our morally corrupt counterparts, let them fend for themselves, they have done nothing to help us, quite the opposite infact.
From what I can see there must be a great amount of apathy within the organisation, towards the organisation and towards each other.
Personally I believe, any QF pilot that offers support, be it financial or emotional assistance to this group, will be doing so at their own demise.
In previous posts I have offered my personal low opinion towards this culture and those within it to the readers of pprune, have stopped only marginally short of using the "S" word to describe my view of their actions, no response from the effected parties, intelligent or otherwise.
Why would any of you honourable, intelligent and morally just individuals posting here assist our morally corrupt counterparts, let them fend for themselves, they have done nothing to help us, quite the opposite infact.
Why would any of you honourable, intelligent and morally just individuals posting here assist our morally corrupt counterparts, let them fend for themselves, they have done nothing to help us, quite the opposite infact.