QLINK to get a new Manager Standards and Development (CAR 217 leadership)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Back in Oz
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few at the top of the tree have found themselves in Toronto at Bombardier this week! hmm.
AGM is when?
Can-Adl sectors, Syd to Gladstone....hmm. Get ready!
Although this talk may have happened for the last 20 years, actions speak louder than words and action is occuring here!
I would be pissed if I just left for Jetstar!
AGM is when?
Can-Adl sectors, Syd to Gladstone....hmm. Get ready!
Although this talk may have happened for the last 20 years, actions speak louder than words and action is occuring here!
I would be pissed if I just left for Jetstar!
are you part of management?
I would be pissed if I just left for Jetstar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looked at the Sunstate EBA - Eastern is very much the same because would you believe it, two pilots groups actually agreed not to undercut eachother! In FY2014 if the type were to be introduced
FO - $94190
Skipper - $144908
FO - $94190
Skipper - $144908
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jarse,
I'm with you mate. The old "jet" chestnut has been doing the rounds since I care to remember. We, at SAA of course did have jets, but the catch phrase at EAA has been going around since Adam was a boy.
The LINK of course does have a fleet of jets now; 13 of them actually. And the word on the street is that at least 5 more are required for the east coast. I don't need to remind folks here that the agreement between QF and NC was only renewed last year for another 6 years with a 2 year extension on the clause. That would be 2019 folks. I would not want to be holding my breath at EAA/SSA for the figment of the imagination of many.
I have been on the record before for saying that any red tail expansion by a wholly owned subsidiary of QF would be via the expansion of Network, and I still stand by that statement. Time will tell I guess, but as previously stated, don't hold your breath 32 MP.
And just food for thought. If QF are as extremely happy with NC as they state they are, well wouldn't it make more cents(sic) for QF(read cheaper) to keep that venture going. After all, it then becomes NC's problem(expense) re crewing/engineering/admin etc and QF get the service without having the extra capitol outlay and personnel on the books.
I am quite sure that if QF could contract out every part of their labour force to an external labour supplier, they would!
I'm with you mate. The old "jet" chestnut has been doing the rounds since I care to remember. We, at SAA of course did have jets, but the catch phrase at EAA has been going around since Adam was a boy.
The LINK of course does have a fleet of jets now; 13 of them actually. And the word on the street is that at least 5 more are required for the east coast. I don't need to remind folks here that the agreement between QF and NC was only renewed last year for another 6 years with a 2 year extension on the clause. That would be 2019 folks. I would not want to be holding my breath at EAA/SSA for the figment of the imagination of many.
I have been on the record before for saying that any red tail expansion by a wholly owned subsidiary of QF would be via the expansion of Network, and I still stand by that statement. Time will tell I guess, but as previously stated, don't hold your breath 32 MP.
And just food for thought. If QF are as extremely happy with NC as they state they are, well wouldn't it make more cents(sic) for QF(read cheaper) to keep that venture going. After all, it then becomes NC's problem(expense) re crewing/engineering/admin etc and QF get the service without having the extra capitol outlay and personnel on the books.
I am quite sure that if QF could contract out every part of their labour force to an external labour supplier, they would!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norm,
That being the case why not place the new Chief Pilot (of the last couple of months) and this new checkie that is coming straight into national Jet or Cobham, or whatever they are called now.
Also why spend all the money on a massive new management structure for QLink, they would be best sending the people and structure to the above mentioned.
That being the case why not place the new Chief Pilot (of the last couple of months) and this new checkie that is coming straight into national Jet or Cobham, or whatever they are called now.
Also why spend all the money on a massive new management structure for QLink, they would be best sending the people and structure to the above mentioned.
That being the case why not place the new Chief Pilot (of the last couple of months) and this new checkie that is coming straight into national Jet or Cobham, or whatever they are called now.
1 Cobham already has a CAR 217 C&T organization in place;
2 QF does not own Cobham and cannot simply "place" staff there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why then, when Qantas is trying to save money throughout the company are they spending an absolute fortune on these new people and a massive new management structure, if everything is going to go to Cobham.
Some times you have to take the blinkers off and have a look outside the box.
Some times you have to take the blinkers off and have a look outside the box.
I now have three points:
1. I am not on a high horse, I was there when the EBA with those rates was introduced. I voted on it. I don't need any education.
2. There weren't any points that need to be corrected. In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't make any points for you to correct.
3. If you want to compare lower salaries, have a look at the 737 rate for Express Freighters FOs. Then compare that to the high end at Qantas and Virgin. There is a very wide spread and just picking one random company out of hat doesn't support your view on what the "industry rate" is.
Spare me.
1. I am not on a high horse, I was there when the EBA with those rates was introduced. I voted on it. I don't need any education.
2. There weren't any points that need to be corrected. In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't make any points for you to correct.
3. If you want to compare lower salaries, have a look at the 737 rate for Express Freighters FOs. Then compare that to the high end at Qantas and Virgin. There is a very wide spread and just picking one random company out of hat doesn't support your view on what the "industry rate" is.
Spare me.
Last edited by Dragun; 21st Oct 2012 at 11:16.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teggun,
I would assume that this "management structure" that you are talking about would not be an "absolute fortune" as you state.
It is quite possibly the case that these individuals that have been appointed are on the same salary(or a tad more; not a fortune more) than their predecessors. The funny thing about these positions is that people do them for SFA because it empowers them and makes them feel important amongst the rank and file; kind of a power trip if you will.
So how many actual positions have been created as opposed to replacements? Obviously the incumbents were way out of their league. Some here have referred to it as "The Bankstown Aeroclub", and having worked there for the best part of a decade, tend to agree with the assumption. Something had to give.
All I say is this. The new management structure was needed. People see this as an opportunity to mark their own turf; become a big fish in a small pond as opposed to the small fish in a bigger pond. But knowing the Company well enough to comment, I can guarantee you that these folk are not getting paid a fortune. After all we are talking about QLINK are we not?
I would assume that this "management structure" that you are talking about would not be an "absolute fortune" as you state.
It is quite possibly the case that these individuals that have been appointed are on the same salary(or a tad more; not a fortune more) than their predecessors. The funny thing about these positions is that people do them for SFA because it empowers them and makes them feel important amongst the rank and file; kind of a power trip if you will.
So how many actual positions have been created as opposed to replacements? Obviously the incumbents were way out of their league. Some here have referred to it as "The Bankstown Aeroclub", and having worked there for the best part of a decade, tend to agree with the assumption. Something had to give.
All I say is this. The new management structure was needed. People see this as an opportunity to mark their own turf; become a big fish in a small pond as opposed to the small fish in a bigger pond. But knowing the Company well enough to comment, I can guarantee you that these folk are not getting paid a fortune. After all we are talking about QLINK are we not?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
32 and others
I hate to dissapoint you but they are in Toronto for a largish order for more 400's. 200's to go and phase out of 300's.
The 400's are still too economical to put jets on routes (inc. SYD-GLA).
All jet equipment will go to Cobham and Network. C series may be purchased but not till 2017 with 717's comming of lease in 2018. By the way QLink just (last year) renewed the Cobham contract to 2018.
I hate to dissapoint you but they are in Toronto for a largish order for more 400's. 200's to go and phase out of 300's.
The 400's are still too economical to put jets on routes (inc. SYD-GLA).
All jet equipment will go to Cobham and Network. C series may be purchased but not till 2017 with 717's comming of lease in 2018. By the way QLink just (last year) renewed the Cobham contract to 2018.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the clowns out there that suggest flying a q400 is easy then think again. I've been lucky enough to have flown a jet prior to a q400 and let me tell you, a jet is much easier. So in essence if you can fly a q400 then you'll be very competent at flying a jet.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang,
I don't think anybody is suggesting what you're alluding too!
Like you, I too have flown both and each has its vices. To suggest that one is more difficult than the other is quite fallacious. Automation can make the task easier, but the understanding of what the automation is doing is the double edge sword.
The Dash 8 is a fantastic and very flexible machine. Great payload and economics, but very expensive to purchase compared to its direct competitors.
However, your assumption that X is a lot harder to operate than Y is wrong. It's the quality of the training that counts.
I don't think anybody is suggesting what you're alluding too!
Like you, I too have flown both and each has its vices. To suggest that one is more difficult than the other is quite fallacious. Automation can make the task easier, but the understanding of what the automation is doing is the double edge sword.
The Dash 8 is a fantastic and very flexible machine. Great payload and economics, but very expensive to purchase compared to its direct competitors.
However, your assumption that X is a lot harder to operate than Y is wrong. It's the quality of the training that counts.
Last edited by Normasars; 22nd Oct 2012 at 02:02.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree normas,
Dutch said to leave the jet flying to the guys that know how to fly jets. So I assume that we aren't good enough....
Also I find the 400 a mongrel. Can't intercept a loc. Put flap 35 and it balloons like crazy (even if it has autotrim), and a go around with oei and flap 35 nearly rolls you on it's back (not that I'd ever try that with flap 35), oh and of course it's crazy vne at low level.
A very challenging aircraft as a whole.
I do also agree that training is instrumental.
Dutch said to leave the jet flying to the guys that know how to fly jets. So I assume that we aren't good enough....
Also I find the 400 a mongrel. Can't intercept a loc. Put flap 35 and it balloons like crazy (even if it has autotrim), and a go around with oei and flap 35 nearly rolls you on it's back (not that I'd ever try that with flap 35), oh and of course it's crazy vne at low level.
A very challenging aircraft as a whole.
I do also agree that training is instrumental.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Back in Oz
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at these articles. I know they are somewhat dated.
Be patient! Loose lips sink ships and whilst everyone else can see the overhaul and change of management at Qlink, the jets are on the way! We will know by the end of this year what is going on.
On the note of flying Q400s vs jets. Q400s much more complicated aircraft! (not to start a tire pissing contest!).
Qantaslink regional jet surge adds 717s to Queensland | Plane Talking
Bombardier CSeries on radar for QantasLink upgrade
QANTAS has its eye on Bombardier's new CSeries jet as a potential replacement for Boeing 717s flying for QantasLink.
While the airline is under no immediate pressure to replace the now discontinued 717s, acquired during its takeover of Impulse Airlines almost a decade ago, it is already canvassing potential replacements.
Bombardier, which currently has 90 orders and 90 options for the mid-sized single-aisle plane, is planning models CS100 (a 110- to 130-seater) and CS300 (a 130- to 145-seater).
The CSeries comes with new high-efficiency engines from Pratt & Whitney and is expected to enter service in 2013. The Canadian manufacturer is predicting the new plane will boost fuel efficiency and cut costs by 15 to 20 per cent , improvements that have prompted Boeing and Airbus to look at putting more efficient engines on their 737 and A320 workhorses.
The QantasLink fleet is already predominantly Bombardier and adding the CSeries would make sense, bringing it under one manufacturer.
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce confirmed this week that the CSeries was a contender as a replacement for the 717s.
However, he said the airline would also look at similar sized new jets from other manufacturers. "We're keeping our options open," he said.
"We think the CSeries looks like a great aircraft. It goes up into the 160-seat range, it's got new engine technology and the seat costs on it are very attractive.
"As you know, Lufthansa have gone into it but we wouldn't rule out keeping an eye on Mitsubishi and what they're doing, and what Embraer are doing."
Aviation executives were expecting Airbus to announce at the recent Farnborough International Air Show it would re-engine the A320 but it stuck with its timetable of making a decision by the end of the year.
Boeing has also yet to announce a decision on whether it will re-engine or take the plunge on a new narrow-body aircraft.
The US manufacturer's chief executive, Jim McNerney, told reporters this week that customers were more interested in a 737 replacement than in a re-engined plane, although some supported this option.
"The decision framework for us, and we'll work through it for the balance of the year, is when does a new airplane come together in terms of the technology readiness and customer willingness to pay for one," Mr McNerney said. "We think that's the first question that has to be answered.
"If that is sometime this decade, then the case for re-engining weakens dramatically . . . if you did re-engine, you would be doing two major developments in the course of four or five years, which makes no sense. If, on the other hand, the new plane comes together much, much later . . . the case for re-engining strengthens."
Be patient! Loose lips sink ships and whilst everyone else can see the overhaul and change of management at Qlink, the jets are on the way! We will know by the end of this year what is going on.
On the note of flying Q400s vs jets. Q400s much more complicated aircraft! (not to start a tire pissing contest!).
Qantaslink regional jet surge adds 717s to Queensland | Plane Talking
Bombardier CSeries on radar for QantasLink upgrade
- by: Steve Creedy
- From:The Australian
- July 30, 201012:00AM
QANTAS has its eye on Bombardier's new CSeries jet as a potential replacement for Boeing 717s flying for QantasLink.
While the airline is under no immediate pressure to replace the now discontinued 717s, acquired during its takeover of Impulse Airlines almost a decade ago, it is already canvassing potential replacements.
Bombardier, which currently has 90 orders and 90 options for the mid-sized single-aisle plane, is planning models CS100 (a 110- to 130-seater) and CS300 (a 130- to 145-seater).
The CSeries comes with new high-efficiency engines from Pratt & Whitney and is expected to enter service in 2013. The Canadian manufacturer is predicting the new plane will boost fuel efficiency and cut costs by 15 to 20 per cent , improvements that have prompted Boeing and Airbus to look at putting more efficient engines on their 737 and A320 workhorses.
The QantasLink fleet is already predominantly Bombardier and adding the CSeries would make sense, bringing it under one manufacturer.
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce confirmed this week that the CSeries was a contender as a replacement for the 717s.
However, he said the airline would also look at similar sized new jets from other manufacturers. "We're keeping our options open," he said.
"We think the CSeries looks like a great aircraft. It goes up into the 160-seat range, it's got new engine technology and the seat costs on it are very attractive.
"As you know, Lufthansa have gone into it but we wouldn't rule out keeping an eye on Mitsubishi and what they're doing, and what Embraer are doing."
Aviation executives were expecting Airbus to announce at the recent Farnborough International Air Show it would re-engine the A320 but it stuck with its timetable of making a decision by the end of the year.
Boeing has also yet to announce a decision on whether it will re-engine or take the plunge on a new narrow-body aircraft.
The US manufacturer's chief executive, Jim McNerney, told reporters this week that customers were more interested in a 737 replacement than in a re-engined plane, although some supported this option.
"The decision framework for us, and we'll work through it for the balance of the year, is when does a new airplane come together in terms of the technology readiness and customer willingness to pay for one," Mr McNerney said. "We think that's the first question that has to be answered.
"If that is sometime this decade, then the case for re-engining weakens dramatically . . . if you did re-engine, you would be doing two major developments in the course of four or five years, which makes no sense. If, on the other hand, the new plane comes together much, much later . . . the case for re-engining strengthens."
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
32, REALLY, a piece dated 30 JULY 2010?????????
The board has approved nothing as alluded to above. This will need to be done prior to any signings.
The turbo prop division cant even crew what its got at the moment. They are not going to say to COBHAM in 2018 sorry old chaps but no work for you anymore. Ive also heard 5 more 717's for the East Coast to come 2013.
Sorry but you need to be realistic.
The board has approved nothing as alluded to above. This will need to be done prior to any signings.
The turbo prop division cant even crew what its got at the moment. They are not going to say to COBHAM in 2018 sorry old chaps but no work for you anymore. Ive also heard 5 more 717's for the East Coast to come 2013.
Sorry but you need to be realistic.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Back in Oz
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, I know I said that The Australian article is dated. The plane talking one is more recent.
I couldn't care less coming up with anything else to prove or disprove anything. Believe what you will! At the end of the day, it's only a job!
I couldn't care less coming up with anything else to prove or disprove anything. Believe what you will! At the end of the day, it's only a job!