Rex rebuffs pilot training suggestions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex rebuffs pilot training suggestions
Regional Express Holdings Ltd (Rex) says it is concerned by a Senate enquiry's suggestions requiring all Australian airline pilots to have a minimum of 1500 hours flying time.
Rex managing director Jim Davis said there was no scientific basis that a pilot with less than 1500 hours flying time would be unsafe.
"If that were the case, the RAAF would not be entrusting our sophisticated fighter jets to pilots with less than 500 hours of flight experience," Mr Davis said in the statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below
"In fact European and Australian authorities have officially approved training programmes that allow pilots to fly large jet aircraft with less than 100 hours of direct flight experience."
He said a minimum requirement of 1500 hours for airline pilots would mean the end of all pilot cadet programmes in Australia and make it impossible for airlines to source enough pilots to cope with planned future expansion.
"This would have a disastrous effect amongst small and regional operators as their pilot ranks would get plundered by the larger airlines as we saw in FY 2008 (fiscal year 2008,) when Rex lost half its pilots to the major airlines in one year."
To stay in operation, the smaller operators would have no choice but to accept pilots from general aviation, with sufficient minimum hours but who may not have the desired skill level to be an airline pilot, it said.
This would lead to the opposite effect intended by the proposal.
Rex said the Senate inquiry needed to focus on the quality of training a pilot received and not the quantity of hours flown.
It said the Senate moves followed a similar proposal in the United States that was a knee-jerk reaction to a fatal airline accident involving two experienced pilots who - ironically - had well over 2000 hours of flight experience each.
© 2010 AAP
Rex managing director Jim Davis said there was no scientific basis that a pilot with less than 1500 hours flying time would be unsafe.
"If that were the case, the RAAF would not be entrusting our sophisticated fighter jets to pilots with less than 500 hours of flight experience," Mr Davis said in the statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below
"In fact European and Australian authorities have officially approved training programmes that allow pilots to fly large jet aircraft with less than 100 hours of direct flight experience."
He said a minimum requirement of 1500 hours for airline pilots would mean the end of all pilot cadet programmes in Australia and make it impossible for airlines to source enough pilots to cope with planned future expansion.
"This would have a disastrous effect amongst small and regional operators as their pilot ranks would get plundered by the larger airlines as we saw in FY 2008 (fiscal year 2008,) when Rex lost half its pilots to the major airlines in one year."
To stay in operation, the smaller operators would have no choice but to accept pilots from general aviation, with sufficient minimum hours but who may not have the desired skill level to be an airline pilot, it said.
This would lead to the opposite effect intended by the proposal.
Rex said the Senate inquiry needed to focus on the quality of training a pilot received and not the quantity of hours flown.
It said the Senate moves followed a similar proposal in the United States that was a knee-jerk reaction to a fatal airline accident involving two experienced pilots who - ironically - had well over 2000 hours of flight experience each.
© 2010 AAP
If that were the case, the RAAF would not be entrusting our sophisticated fighter jets to pilots with less than 500 hours of flight experience," Mr Davis said in the statement.
Secondly the general standard of cadet would be significantly higher in the RAAF than in REX.
This would have a disastrous effect amongst small and regional operators as their pilot ranks would get plundered by the larger airlines as we saw in FY 2008 (fiscal year 2008,) when Rex lost half its pilots to the major airlines in one year.
To stay in operation, the smaller operators would have no choice but to accept pilots from general aviation, with sufficient minimum hours but who may not have the desired skill level to be an airline pilot, it said
Last edited by neville_nobody; 1st Nov 2010 at 11:35.
Flawed Analogy Alert!
"If that were the case, the RAAF would not be entrusting our sophisticated fighter jets to pilots with less than 500 hours of flight experience," Mr Davis said in the statement.
The possible differences here are that the RAAF:
- is not an airline,
- is very selective about who gets a crack at "sophisticated fighter jets", (or any aircraft for that matter!)
- is meticulous about the training and assessment hurdles which must be passed in order to be entrusted with said jets,
- does not recruit pilots based on who can pay for their own training, (other than in blood, sweat & tears like any pilot)
- actively seeks from the start to instil airmanship, judgment and command decision-making into pilots, (a trait not appreciated in some airlines which appear to want gullible "compliants" in flight decks) and
- is very rigourous about the standards required to keep flying those machines. (some don't "do" fighters for long)
Airlines outwardly stick to the same types of mantra; selectivity, standards, training, experience. Is the RAAF system perfect? No. But it's a darn site more demanding than simply encouraging the young and impressionable, on the disingenuous hint of a glittering high-paid glamour career, to part with hard-earned to effectively get a mediocre shift-working job for lower real pay than ever before in the industry. And that happens while truly experienced pilots are cunningly circumvented because they are paid more: ask the QF and even the Jetstar pilots!
I know a young person who, when they found how little a RAAF trainee makes, let alone GA, decided that their $120K+/yr driving trucks was the better option. THIS is what will make Mr Davis' recruiting job harder, so I hope the experience and training criteria are tightened in order to force companies to train pilots for the long and safe careers the paying public expect, and thinks pilots are still getting.
Furthermore, another flawed analogy:
"...a fatal airline accident involving two experienced pilots who - ironically - had well over 2000 hours of flight experience each."
is, more than experience levels, about the safety impact of arduous work rules and the low-pay pressures. But sensible fatigue management might cost money too, and is therefore another facet of the enquiry companies will seek to pre-emptively discredited!
I feel better now...
The possible differences here are that the RAAF:
- is not an airline,
- is very selective about who gets a crack at "sophisticated fighter jets", (or any aircraft for that matter!)
- is meticulous about the training and assessment hurdles which must be passed in order to be entrusted with said jets,
- does not recruit pilots based on who can pay for their own training, (other than in blood, sweat & tears like any pilot)
- actively seeks from the start to instil airmanship, judgment and command decision-making into pilots, (a trait not appreciated in some airlines which appear to want gullible "compliants" in flight decks) and
- is very rigourous about the standards required to keep flying those machines. (some don't "do" fighters for long)
Airlines outwardly stick to the same types of mantra; selectivity, standards, training, experience. Is the RAAF system perfect? No. But it's a darn site more demanding than simply encouraging the young and impressionable, on the disingenuous hint of a glittering high-paid glamour career, to part with hard-earned to effectively get a mediocre shift-working job for lower real pay than ever before in the industry. And that happens while truly experienced pilots are cunningly circumvented because they are paid more: ask the QF and even the Jetstar pilots!
I know a young person who, when they found how little a RAAF trainee makes, let alone GA, decided that their $120K+/yr driving trucks was the better option. THIS is what will make Mr Davis' recruiting job harder, so I hope the experience and training criteria are tightened in order to force companies to train pilots for the long and safe careers the paying public expect, and thinks pilots are still getting.
Furthermore, another flawed analogy:
"...a fatal airline accident involving two experienced pilots who - ironically - had well over 2000 hours of flight experience each."
is, more than experience levels, about the safety impact of arduous work rules and the low-pay pressures. But sensible fatigue management might cost money too, and is therefore another facet of the enquiry companies will seek to pre-emptively discredited!
I feel better now...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines won't be able to get enough pilots for future expansion. hmmmmm when will they realise the demise will come from lack of retention, and not from lack of candidates applying. If you are going to offer a poor salary and continue denying that there is an issue with basic wages and conditions, then PLEASE stop blaming proposed legislation and other airlines etc etc when you start canceling flights again. Here is you chance to fix the problem before its gets worse. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND!!!!!!!!!
Retain, reward loyalty, encourage people to stay,
naaa just blame the government
Retain, reward loyalty, encourage people to stay,
naaa just blame the government
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is more along the lines of that airlines are employing low hour pilots because they aren't prepared to pay for experienced ones. It has been done to death I know, but to purchase a house and raise a family in this country on a minimal wage is not a viable long term offer, when someone else is offering twice the pay. It's a no brainer. Its not all about the shiney jet. Its the whole package. I would rather be a well paid turboprop driver with my desired lifestyle than a low paid jet driver. But even the lifestyle is disappearing at an alarming rate. Unfortunately the difference between turboprop and jet wages is such that people are lured more and more for financial reasons. I don't expect the two jobs to pay the same but it wouldn't hurt any regional in Australia to try and close the gap a little. You never know it might even help with retention.
The ADF difference is largely that pilot experience and progress is carefully managed both during and after initial qualification.
In addition to factors already mentioned above, the RAAF system is highly structured towards pilot progression after wings and supervised at every stage. There is a categorization system where pilots move through levels of qualifications by aircraft type, and this is linked to increasing experience. Then there is continual personal supervision by flight commanders and other execs, and overlaying nearly every flight is an an authorization process where aspects such as crew qualification, experience and risk factors are double checked, advice is given and changes sometimes made by a separate approved supervisor before the task is allowed to occur.
There is no way that such a process could be replicated in an airline without extraordinary managerial change and cost. For the Rex CP to make an analogy like this is naive at best.
In addition to factors already mentioned above, the RAAF system is highly structured towards pilot progression after wings and supervised at every stage. There is a categorization system where pilots move through levels of qualifications by aircraft type, and this is linked to increasing experience. Then there is continual personal supervision by flight commanders and other execs, and overlaying nearly every flight is an an authorization process where aspects such as crew qualification, experience and risk factors are double checked, advice is given and changes sometimes made by a separate approved supervisor before the task is allowed to occur.
There is no way that such a process could be replicated in an airline without extraordinary managerial change and cost. For the Rex CP to make an analogy like this is naive at best.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the Rex CP to make an analogy like this is naive at best
The trouble is that the general public doesn't know much about the aviation industry & they don't really care, as long as the fares are cheap & they think that they are safe. The article reads well, is believable & comes from a senior executive in the industry. And yes, most people do believe what they read in the papers.
Every time a statement like this is made in the press & is left unchallenged & unanswered, we lose a little bit of ground with the public. It has to stop. Every self-serving, biased & misleading statement made around the world by anyone in airline management must be countered with a reasoned, measured response so that the public becomes, & then remains educated about the important aspects of the industry.
The only way to fight this is to provide a counter argument in the press from a credible source, each & every time. The press needs to develop a need to check for a response from the pilot group every time a statement is made by airline management, & then print that response. And a credible source would be the PR department of a major pilot union, preferably a national union, speaking for all Australian pilots.
Why fight this in the press? We need two things from the public. A demand for increased safety & a tolerence for higher airfares. Higher airfares are the only way the airlines will pay more for crew & training. And more training will lead to better safety.
We can go on all day about the profits made & how the airlines can afford to pay more for salaries & training, but with the shareholders continually putting the pressure on company management for increasing returns on investment & current business practice paying more & more for senior executives, this just isn't going to happen any time soon.
If the demand for increased safety forces the politicians to act & they then force the regulatory authority to legislate, the result will be a level paying field for the airlines. The increased costs will affect all. The public will hopefully accept the increased fares this will bring, as they have read about the issue in the press & are willing to pay a little extra for their safety.
But the union better have a credible spokesperson who does well under pressure, who can debate on his/her feet & who has all the facts. Because the airlines will unite against this dissemination of the facts in an attempt to discredit it as biased, unsubstantiated, self-serving & fear-mongering. And if we can't counter those allegations, we will be even worse off.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oakape
I agree, except for this bit:-
It is a relatively miniscule component in the grand scheme of profit and loss of large transport companies .... the problem is of course that bean counters hide behind non-op blame curtains put between the coalface and the books. They are trained to believe that they are immune from damage if it all goes bad, and that to be company greedy to the enth' degree is GOOD! 
Ain't that wrote law (pun intended) ...............
Stand (quietly if need be ... you know what I mean) together - think about those "ewww fe(k" moments already had (we are all regaled with them) and think about the next time the less well experienced and/or lucky might not be so, lest we are all lookin' at the pavement with black suits, solemn faces, remembering good crew (and their pax) who were let down by the faceless money machine men/women who push and push to breaking point!
... they and their leash holders won't be at the scene when sh1t turns to trumps!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree, except for this bit:-
Higher airfares are the only way the airlines will pay more for crew & training
the union better have a credible spokesperson who does well under pressure, who can debate on his/her feet & who has all the facts. Because the airlines will unite against this dissemination of the facts in an attempt to discredit it as biased, unsubstantiated, self-serving & fear-mongering. And if we can't counter those allegations, we will be even worse off
Stand (quietly if need be ... you know what I mean) together - think about those "ewww fe(k" moments already had (we are all regaled with them) and think about the next time the less well experienced and/or lucky might not be so, lest we are all lookin' at the pavement with black suits, solemn faces, remembering good crew (and their pax) who were let down by the faceless money machine men/women who push and push to breaking point!
... they and their leash holders won't be at the scene when sh1t turns to trumps!!!!!!!!!!!
It took REX some time to offer a rebuttle. Not surprising when you factor in the general dis-engagement from reality with regard to their crewing issues. Jim's attempt to draw a parralel to the RAAF with airline cadet schemes only goes to re-enforce their level of ignorance. Or perhaps they are just being as dishonest with the public as they have with themselves!
One thing's for sure, they are starting to worry, and for good reason. Pity that level of concern was never directed at the only thing that could and will save them from the inevitable crewing issues they'll face for years to come!
One thing's for sure, they are starting to worry, and for good reason. Pity that level of concern was never directed at the only thing that could and will save them from the inevitable crewing issues they'll face for years to come!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 1st Nov 2010 at 22:39. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He said a minimum requirement of 1500 hours for airline pilots would mean the end of all pilot cadet programmes in Australia and make it impossible for airlines to source enough pilots to cope with planned future expansion.
To stay in operation, the smaller operators would have no choice but to accept pilots from general aviation, with sufficient minimum hours but who may not have the desired skill level to be an airline pilot, it said.
It said the Senate moves followed a similar proposal in the United States that was a knee-jerk reaction to a fatal airline accident involving two experienced pilots who - ironically - had well over 2000 hours of flight experience each.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NZ Senate's suggestion seems to be in line with the US proposals that airline pilots should have a minimum of 1500 hours. I think ICAO might be pressuring airline operators to channel all cadets into the MPL stream so that there will be no option for the self-funded pilot to join an airline at 250 hours. That would send all wannabes reeling, won't it ?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
I've noticed the resumption of ML-GTH and more frequent SY-MER (dct) rather than the SY-MRY-MER. Which would mean more crew? So have they trained up more crew? Only for them to be now leaving? Or leaving in the next upturn?
I've noticed the resumption of ML-GTH and more frequent SY-MER (dct) rather than the SY-MRY-MER. Which would mean more crew? So have they trained up more crew? Only for them to be now leaving? Or leaving in the next upturn?
It's time for Rex to understand that like the Air Force in the past that they are the trained manpower shock absorber to keep the big jets flying.
When times are tough Rex will have plenty of pilots and when times are good they will have trouble keeping them - unless they have built employee loyalty through appropriate measures. Blind Freddy can read the stats and see what is coming but it is much harder to convince accountants about the economic fundamentals of supply and demand.
So, for Rex let's put their problems down to a p!$$ poor environmental scanning (purposeful use of $ symbol implying a lack thereof).
But then again ....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
When times are tough Rex will have plenty of pilots and when times are good they will have trouble keeping them - unless they have built employee loyalty through appropriate measures. Blind Freddy can read the stats and see what is coming but it is much harder to convince accountants about the economic fundamentals of supply and demand.
So, for Rex let's put their problems down to a p!$$ poor environmental scanning (purposeful use of $ symbol implying a lack thereof).
But then again ....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pump op the tunes at the picket line
Unfortunately there will always be far more willing applicants to take up the abysmal wages than are required by the abysmal managers. This year there are 180 students at the RQAC and Griffith University BSc(Aviation) course. There are 8 or 9 similar courses around the country all with similar numbers of students. Not even counting the non degree trainees and ADF pilots, there will always be more than are required.
Unfortunate but true. Industrial Action is the only option. I’m painting my placard.......
Unfortunate but true. Industrial Action is the only option. I’m painting my placard.......
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The glib assertations of Davis can easily be countered by equally glib soundbites by the right person.
"100 hour pilots"?
"Why do airlines require less hours to fly a fully loaded airliner than the NSW Govt demands to get a Provisional Drivers licence?"
"Is a 100 hour driver less safe than a 1500 hour driver?"
Put it in the language that people can easily relate to and you will get the message across.
"100 hour pilots"?
"Why do airlines require less hours to fly a fully loaded airliner than the NSW Govt demands to get a Provisional Drivers licence?"
"Is a 100 hour driver less safe than a 1500 hour driver?"
Put it in the language that people can easily relate to and you will get the message across.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Comments like this really need an informed rebuttal as previously mentioned. There are some great replies on here. If it is not an 'official' union reply, surely at least some can write a reply to the newspaper where the article is printed?! A few comments from a current Rex driver or two to paint 'the other side of the story' would add even greater weight to the balancing argument.
Unfortunately this article is very believeable to those who don't realise there is another side to the story. There is no better time than now with the Senate inquiry etc to try and give a balanced view. Airline PR departments are already on the front foot and anything they want to say will be printed and will have the weight of trust in the public eye. The public need to know there is a debate going on here - that means more than the official airline view on these subjects...
If journalists are not going to 'dig' for a response from the other side anymore, then the least we can do is feed them a bit of intelligent feedback...
Unfortunately this article is very believeable to those who don't realise there is another side to the story. There is no better time than now with the Senate inquiry etc to try and give a balanced view. Airline PR departments are already on the front foot and anything they want to say will be printed and will have the weight of trust in the public eye. The public need to know there is a debate going on here - that means more than the official airline view on these subjects...
If journalists are not going to 'dig' for a response from the other side anymore, then the least we can do is feed them a bit of intelligent feedback...
tsalta
you can count out most of the ADF guys from the mob patiently training for local flying jobs (unless QF opens up the cobwebbed recruiting door again) . Nowadays the starting salary for a LCC RHS jet job is significantly below ADF rates (after serving minimum 10 years return of service) so there is virtually no current financial incentive to leave the ADF for a jet job in Australia - if so it is becoming pretty much a lifestyle choice to leave, with preferred options being better paying overseas carriers. Strangely enough the resignation rates of ADF pilots are now at an historic low!
you can count out most of the ADF guys from the mob patiently training for local flying jobs (unless QF opens up the cobwebbed recruiting door again) . Nowadays the starting salary for a LCC RHS jet job is significantly below ADF rates (after serving minimum 10 years return of service) so there is virtually no current financial incentive to leave the ADF for a jet job in Australia - if so it is becoming pretty much a lifestyle choice to leave, with preferred options being better paying overseas carriers. Strangely enough the resignation rates of ADF pilots are now at an historic low!