Some Good News ?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only instances that I know of regarding Degrees for pilots are as quoted in the USA and at KAL.
I degree helps for non-flying positions: management, CRM/NTS facilitation, safety investigation and the like.
I think that there is a need for Degree qualified people in avaition, but not as a vanila-flavoured line pilot.
Garzanski is correct that airlines need to do more to attract quality pilots and in the correct numbers. Perhaps Bachannan is right; that cadet schemes are the answer. Although this approach is non-traditional in the Australian context, where pilot recruits are seasoned GA or military, cadetships do address the problem.
Remember Australia is an Aviation backwater and that other countries have done avaition differently and very well for a long time.
What the industry needs to do (employers as well as unions) is recognise that piloting is a long-term vocation and react accordingly. Pilots need long term security of their trade. This means that the industry must incorporate mechanisms that ensure that people are attracted into the industry for the right reasons (aptitude, enthusiasm and dedication) and then have longivity of industry participation.
A system where skills that are built up over decades should be rewarded. Every time a company goes broke, many pilots and there knowledge are lost to the industry forever. It is often the most experienced people who change career or retire as 'seniority' ensures that they will not be rewarded for their abilities. Here, the industry loses as a huge volume of industrial and profession knowledge is lost forever.
Why would anyone become an airline pilot when you are forever expected to dig into your pocket to qualify yourself? Not everyone who gets an ATPL, a B737/A320 rating and a couple of years of 'bush' experience is suitable for airline employment-sad, but true. However, the hopefulls subsidise the airlines, not only buy paying for their own training, but also by providing revenue to the simulator centers. This later point reduces costs to the airlines for recurrency training of existing employees.
A good start would be a set of decent T&Cs backed up by portability of qualifications between companies. However, various vested interests will ensure that this wont happen. Not in my life-time
{Datsun 180B- the 2nd best handling car I have owned. Passat VR6 with a Koni performance kit holds that accolade. 180B definatly had the best headlights-high beam was like 4 searchlights, illuminating country roads like daytime for about 500m
}
I degree helps for non-flying positions: management, CRM/NTS facilitation, safety investigation and the like.
I think that there is a need for Degree qualified people in avaition, but not as a vanila-flavoured line pilot.
Garzanski is correct that airlines need to do more to attract quality pilots and in the correct numbers. Perhaps Bachannan is right; that cadet schemes are the answer. Although this approach is non-traditional in the Australian context, where pilot recruits are seasoned GA or military, cadetships do address the problem.
Remember Australia is an Aviation backwater and that other countries have done avaition differently and very well for a long time.
What the industry needs to do (employers as well as unions) is recognise that piloting is a long-term vocation and react accordingly. Pilots need long term security of their trade. This means that the industry must incorporate mechanisms that ensure that people are attracted into the industry for the right reasons (aptitude, enthusiasm and dedication) and then have longivity of industry participation.
A system where skills that are built up over decades should be rewarded. Every time a company goes broke, many pilots and there knowledge are lost to the industry forever. It is often the most experienced people who change career or retire as 'seniority' ensures that they will not be rewarded for their abilities. Here, the industry loses as a huge volume of industrial and profession knowledge is lost forever.
Why would anyone become an airline pilot when you are forever expected to dig into your pocket to qualify yourself? Not everyone who gets an ATPL, a B737/A320 rating and a couple of years of 'bush' experience is suitable for airline employment-sad, but true. However, the hopefulls subsidise the airlines, not only buy paying for their own training, but also by providing revenue to the simulator centers. This later point reduces costs to the airlines for recurrency training of existing employees.
A good start would be a set of decent T&Cs backed up by portability of qualifications between companies. However, various vested interests will ensure that this wont happen. Not in my life-time
{Datsun 180B- the 2nd best handling car I have owned. Passat VR6 with a Koni performance kit holds that accolade. 180B definatly had the best headlights-high beam was like 4 searchlights, illuminating country roads like daytime for about 500m
}
Last edited by Anthill; 14th May 2012 at 22:56.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My "aviation degree" included loading freight carriages at night at White Bay in Sydney, working as a Flying Instructor during the day, and sleeping for about 3 hours a night, (sometimes in my car) not very safe when I think about it but then I was only 19. Somehow I got thru 49 years, and some double digit hours, and am still alive. Times sure have changed, perhaps for the better, but I would prefer a pilot out of the bush beside me, than a pilot out of a university, but perhaps that is my age.
Back to the future
Seem to remember being involved in a similar thread here (time flies)!
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...rofession.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...rofession.html
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Slice, many of my attitudes have been shaped by observing the behaviours of people like you. 
I know that if I don't look after me, you sure as sh1t wont!
I seem to remember many a young pilot being screwed over by individuals who claimed 'dibs' on several jobs at once. A tradition of bastardry that continues with the notion that Junior Pilots must lose so that the Senior Pilots can have a win.
Are those of your industrial pedigree all squeaky clean? I have a perfectly clear, clean industrial record and YOU are WAY OUT OF LINE in suggesting otherwise.
My support for a meritorious promotional process is rooted in mirco-economic concepts. Concepts that would advantage and further the stature and renumeration of our profession. What are your motives? Protecting your own ass?
You choose to hide behind a list that protects you from talent and ability. So you are clearly looking after Number 1, aren't you. Except YOU claim that it is for some noble reason, which it plainly isn't
Pardon me while I just laugh in your face
I know that if I don't look after me, you sure as sh1t wont!I seem to remember many a young pilot being screwed over by individuals who claimed 'dibs' on several jobs at once. A tradition of bastardry that continues with the notion that Junior Pilots must lose so that the Senior Pilots can have a win.
Are those of your industrial pedigree all squeaky clean? I have a perfectly clear, clean industrial record and YOU are WAY OUT OF LINE in suggesting otherwise.
My support for a meritorious promotional process is rooted in mirco-economic concepts. Concepts that would advantage and further the stature and renumeration of our profession. What are your motives? Protecting your own ass?
You choose to hide behind a list that protects you from talent and ability. So you are clearly looking after Number 1, aren't you. Except YOU claim that it is for some noble reason, which it plainly isn't
Pardon me while I just laugh in your face
Anthill obviously did join Ansett in 1989. Whether he deserves the hard times or not is debatable. I know,and are friends with plenty of people who joined in 89. I nearly did but could not make the interview because I was so bloody busy flying that I could not get to the inteview and eventually decided to stay out of it. I am glad I did now, in hindsight. Hey in 1983 all I had was a Datsun 180B and a really ****ty stereo and one Billy Joel tape, An Inoccent Man. I have flown jets and had a ton of fun. At present I have a great job working really hard overseas. I have met lots of people had great, times and in maybe 5 years-I hope- will leave it all and ride my bike with my chick around Asia and NZ. I am a millionaire now, and flown for 31 years, starting as soon as I left school. I never had a degree but wish I did and recommend it to any one interested in starting a career in aviation, if not for a more balanced view on life, and the maturity that uni eventually gives you. I have flown with FO,s, guys and girls, that have done degrees and those that have not and I must say that those that have the degrees are better more rounded pilots, then again I have met some real naturals who have no tertiary education. All I can say is go with the flow and take lots of photos, and meet and respect a good woman or man and when you do, do anything for them and keep e'm.
Craven
Craven
Craven
Craven
Give it a rest Tankengine. The argument has been done to death, reborn and done to death again about a thousand times over. Some of us have degrees, some of us don't. We work as pilots. End of story.
Mods - please can any more threads about degrees!
Mods - please can any more threads about degrees!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Craven, I joined Ansett when the dispute was wayyyy over, done and dusted....and not during 1989 at all
I am often bemused when some pilots are so self-confident in incorrect conclusions that are founded on subjective interpretations. A dangerous practice, really.
Oh well...
I am often bemused when some pilots are so self-confident in incorrect conclusions that are founded on subjective interpretations. A dangerous practice, really.
Oh well...
Last edited by Anthill; 17th May 2012 at 23:33.
Well I seem to have hit a raw nerve with No. 1
An individual who has found himself at the bottom of several seniority lists and seems to be eternally bitter at their existence.
Oh I see. What are these
?
If I understand the question correctly (those what ?) then...ahhh...yes it is. As Lookleft points out, that period was, how shall we say, special. So no, I am not
to suggest that it is entirely possible that you were taking ambit advantage of the industrial situation at the time.
The micro-economic concept being basically it's all about your micro-economic situation, yes? Who decides what 'merit' is applicable and who asseses this 'merit'. In previous rants on the evils of 'datal seniority' you have never provided any detail on the concept of 'merit'.
I had no 'motive' as such in my post. Just an expression of gratitude and a glaring observation.
I chose nothing other than the organisation I work for!
If I understand correctly you are implying that a datal seniority list protects me from talent and ability!?! How is that? The same checking standards apply to all flight crew (at least anywhere I have worked). Am I right in thinking that what you really seek is prior recognition of flight experience (which is not merit). As such yes, a seniority list, will 'protect' you. But by the same token it also protects you from fleet and base displacement, which many crew in 2 of the large domestic operators have discovered to their cost when they don't have it. What is this noble reason I have claimed? Are you confusing me with someone else?
and finishing with an infantile sign off. Nothing more needs to said about the content of your character then - you said it yourself.
An individual who has found himself at the bottom of several seniority lists and seems to be eternally bitter at their existence.
the behaviours of people like you
behaviours of people like you
Are those of your industrial pedigree all squeaky clean? I have a perfectly clear, clean industrial record and YOU are WAY OUT OF LINE in suggesting otherwise.
WAY OUT OF LINE
My support for a meritorious promotional process is rooted in mirco-economic concepts
Who decides what 'merit' is applicable and who asseses this 'merit'. In previous rants on the evils of 'datal seniority' you have never provided any detail on the concept of 'merit'.
What are your motives? Protecting your own ass?
You choose to hide behind a list that protects you from talent and ability. So you are clearly looking after Number 1, aren't you. Except YOU claim that it is for some noble reason, which it plainly isn't
If I understand correctly you are implying that a datal seniority list protects me from talent and ability!?! How is that? The same checking standards apply to all flight crew (at least anywhere I have worked). Am I right in thinking that what you really seek is prior recognition of flight experience (which is not merit). As such yes, a seniority list, will 'protect' you. But by the same token it also protects you from fleet and base displacement, which many crew in 2 of the large domestic operators have discovered to their cost when they don't have it. What is this noble reason I have claimed? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Pardon me while I just laugh in your face
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of raw nerves Mr Slice...
If I understand the question correctly (those what ?) then...ahhh...yes
it is. As Lookleft points out, that period was, how shall we say, special. So
no, I am not
...is incomprehensible waffle.
The fact is, Slice, is that you have repeatedly chosen to offend me in this forum in two ways: First, by saying that I joined Ansett at 'an inconvenient time'. I have told you several times that I applied, was interviewed and subsequently employed at a time when the dispute was OVER, This is a fact that you should just accept. Your persistant failure to accept this is irrational. And offensive.
Secondly, your continued assertion that my opposition to datal seniority is based on some manifest personal greed is also irrational. If I say that I think DS is a form of labour market regulation that skews the supply side of the equasion in favour of employers, it is because I mean it. I have asserted several times that I think that the pilot group as a whole would benefit from ditching DS. Many have agreed with me. Many others disagreed and brought up some valid concerns. That is the basis of a rational debate. Several, such as yourself say that I am against DS for reasons of pure self-interest.
The reality is that you have no means to determine what goes on in my head other than what I write, do you? You only imagine that I am motivated by self-interest, don't you. So, here again, your
is also way out of line. Aside from being out of line, it is also irrational and based on pure conjecture. And offensive.
So no, I am not
Quote:
...to suggest that it is entirely possible that you were taking ambit advantage
of the industrial situation at the time.
Yes you are. Appologise immediately!
If you want details on what would define merit, then why not ask nicely?
My post:
and I'll say it again:
Obviously...
Slice, your behaviour towards me has been continually irrational and offensive. Whatever your problem is , get over it.
If I understand the question correctly (those what ?) then...ahhh...yes
it is. As Lookleft points out, that period was, how shall we say, special. So
no, I am not
The fact is, Slice, is that you have repeatedly chosen to offend me in this forum in two ways: First, by saying that I joined Ansett at 'an inconvenient time'. I have told you several times that I applied, was interviewed and subsequently employed at a time when the dispute was OVER, This is a fact that you should just accept. Your persistant failure to accept this is irrational. And offensive.
Secondly, your continued assertion that my opposition to datal seniority is based on some manifest personal greed is also irrational. If I say that I think DS is a form of labour market regulation that skews the supply side of the equasion in favour of employers, it is because I mean it. I have asserted several times that I think that the pilot group as a whole would benefit from ditching DS. Many have agreed with me. Many others disagreed and brought up some valid concerns. That is the basis of a rational debate. Several, such as yourself say that I am against DS for reasons of pure self-interest.
The reality is that you have no means to determine what goes on in my head other than what I write, do you? You only imagine that I am motivated by self-interest, don't you. So, here again, your
"lookin' out for No. 1
So no, I am not
Quote:
...to suggest that it is entirely possible that you were taking ambit advantage
of the industrial situation at the time.
If you want details on what would define merit, then why not ask nicely?
My post:
The application of datal seniority is full of holes anyway. Witness the number of companies that say they promote datally, yet find loopholes or massage the system to promote who they want. A proper 'merit' based system would have a promotions committee with representation from the C&T system and unions and even a rank and file nominated observer as well as management. This would ensure fairness and transparency
When you challege the sacred cow of seniority, you invite all sorts of accusations from being a 'queue jumper' to $c@b. Have you not heard,that those who use some common sense approach to promotion are howled down as being down there with the kiddy fiddlers? 
Slice, your behaviour towards me has been continually irrational and offensive. Whatever your problem is , get over it.
Last edited by Anthill; 18th May 2012 at 04:55.
