J* Fined For Imposing Cadet Pilot Training Costs
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they get over 100 applications for each Cadet position.
Yes, using NZ contracts was a dirty, unethical trick.
Yes, they did charge Cadets when they shouldn't have.
Yes, you could do the training maybe $20,000 cheaper yourself.
Yes, spending time in GA is probably good experience.
But - about 90% of the Cadets who start the training finish the training end end up working for Jetstar as a pilot.
A lot of the other integrated have a completion rate of maybe 30% and no guarantee of a job.
If you were a young pilot coming thru and could get into the right hand seat in two years and start earning decent money, rather than bumming around in GA for maybe ten years, it makes sense.
I've met several people who've been thru the Jetstar Cadetship, and while they may have the odd gripe, in general they are pretty happy with the way things have turned out for them.
Yes, using NZ contracts was a dirty, unethical trick.
Yes, they did charge Cadets when they shouldn't have.
Yes, you could do the training maybe $20,000 cheaper yourself.
Yes, spending time in GA is probably good experience.
But - about 90% of the Cadets who start the training finish the training end end up working for Jetstar as a pilot.
A lot of the other integrated have a completion rate of maybe 30% and no guarantee of a job.
If you were a young pilot coming thru and could get into the right hand seat in two years and start earning decent money, rather than bumming around in GA for maybe ten years, it makes sense.
I've met several people who've been thru the Jetstar Cadetship, and while they may have the odd gripe, in general they are pretty happy with the way things have turned out for them.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the choices are slim
How can an organisation like this actually manage to recruit staff?
The supply of pilot jet jobs in this country is VERY restricted.
The demand for these jobs is far, far greater.
So unfortunately its an employers market. The sad probability is that even if we descend to the barrel-scraping low of Pay-to-fly pilot recruits, there will likely be far more wannabes than available positions.
PG
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it only me who's noticed the subtle, yet sweet, irony in all this: the name of the judge who handed down the decision was...Buchanan.
What was the name of the CEO in charge of the Jetstar group at the time this went down...(I think he 'stood down' in 2012)?
What was the name of the CEO in charge of the Jetstar group at the time this went down...(I think he 'stood down' in 2012)?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From his Honour Justice Buchanan's judgment (nice irony)
"25 From the facts agreed by the parties, I draw a number of conclusions. First, Jetstar Airways and its subsidiaries set out to minimise the cost to itself or any of them of the training which would necessarily be involved in the cadet pilot program which it decided to introduce. To that end, it nominated employment arrangements with Jetstar New Zealand which bore no real relationship to operational reality. Despite advice in clear terms about the potential liability under the Award if pilots from the cadet pilot program were employed by an Australian operating entity, Jetstar Group imposed upon cadet pilots a requirement of repaying the cost of training."
"I understand we offered Australian employment to the remaining cadets employed in NZ – I need to let you know that we may have cost ourselves the value of their in flight training (42K) per cadet as the modern award does not permit a prospective employer to charge for training – see clause 16.5."
Email from Mr Bell to Mr Abbott and Cpt Rindfleish.
31 May 2011
Naaaaaahhhh it's ok charge them anyway. DOH!
"25 From the facts agreed by the parties, I draw a number of conclusions. First, Jetstar Airways and its subsidiaries set out to minimise the cost to itself or any of them of the training which would necessarily be involved in the cadet pilot program which it decided to introduce. To that end, it nominated employment arrangements with Jetstar New Zealand which bore no real relationship to operational reality. Despite advice in clear terms about the potential liability under the Award if pilots from the cadet pilot program were employed by an Australian operating entity, Jetstar Group imposed upon cadet pilots a requirement of repaying the cost of training."
"I understand we offered Australian employment to the remaining cadets employed in NZ – I need to let you know that we may have cost ourselves the value of their in flight training (42K) per cadet as the modern award does not permit a prospective employer to charge for training – see clause 16.5."
Email from Mr Bell to Mr Abbott and Cpt Rindfleish.
31 May 2011
Naaaaaahhhh it's ok charge them anyway. DOH!
Credit where credit's due!
Federal Court penalises Jetstar __
I'm sure many of you have by now become aware of the Federal Court decision handed down yesterday relating to the initial employment by Jetstar of cadet pilots. Justice Buchanan of the Federal Court has penalised Jetstar Group and Jetstar Airways with fines totalling $90,000 AUD for breaching provisions of the Fair Work Act relating to the requirement for cadets to repay training costs. Click here to view the decision.
Some of you might note that the press coverage implies that AFAP was instrumental in the decision - that is not the case. AFAP did raise a legal challenge to Jetstar's activities, but discontinued it in a private agreement with Jetstar. AIPA also raised a legal challenge, fortunately without having to begin formal proceedings. In handing down his decision, Justice Buchanan mentioned the discontinued AFAP action simply in the context of Jetstar ignoring the message that their approach was illegal. Unfortunately, the press coverage did not extend to properly reporting that context. It is most unlikely that the press is even aware of the scope and effectiveness of AIPA's involvement in having this matter decided in the Federal Court.
This particular action was brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) after the issue of the cadets’ conditions of employment gained significant exposure during the Senate Inquiry into Pilot Training and Airline Safety and later during Senate Estimates. AIPA formally briefed the FWO in May 2011 urging them to investigate Jetstar, having already written to the then Minister for Workplace Relations along similar lines. Subsequently, Senator Xenophon raised a private member's bill, the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011, which specifically related to employment strategies that relied on the use of foreign flight and cabin crew. A second Senate Inquiry examined that Bill, as well as another of Senator Xenophon's private member's bills, the Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011.
Many of you will remember that AIPA was actively involved in both Senate Inquiries and we provided substantial support for the Parliamentary processes that exposed so much of the Qantas/Jetstar employment arrangements to public scrutiny. Without this public scrutiny and the dogged pursuit of the matter by Senator Xenophon, we think it very unlikely that the FWO would have acted at all. Our government and regulatory affairs strategies have attracted some critics, but I think members can be quite satisfied that the work we put into this issue has had a very positive and tangible outcome. We are hopeful that the parallel FWO action related to foreign cabin crew will similarly expose the overt cynicism of Jetstar towards the employment conditions of its staff.
Regards
Nathan Safe
AIPA President
Federal Court penalises Jetstar __
I'm sure many of you have by now become aware of the Federal Court decision handed down yesterday relating to the initial employment by Jetstar of cadet pilots. Justice Buchanan of the Federal Court has penalised Jetstar Group and Jetstar Airways with fines totalling $90,000 AUD for breaching provisions of the Fair Work Act relating to the requirement for cadets to repay training costs. Click here to view the decision.
Some of you might note that the press coverage implies that AFAP was instrumental in the decision - that is not the case. AFAP did raise a legal challenge to Jetstar's activities, but discontinued it in a private agreement with Jetstar. AIPA also raised a legal challenge, fortunately without having to begin formal proceedings. In handing down his decision, Justice Buchanan mentioned the discontinued AFAP action simply in the context of Jetstar ignoring the message that their approach was illegal. Unfortunately, the press coverage did not extend to properly reporting that context. It is most unlikely that the press is even aware of the scope and effectiveness of AIPA's involvement in having this matter decided in the Federal Court.
This particular action was brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) after the issue of the cadets’ conditions of employment gained significant exposure during the Senate Inquiry into Pilot Training and Airline Safety and later during Senate Estimates. AIPA formally briefed the FWO in May 2011 urging them to investigate Jetstar, having already written to the then Minister for Workplace Relations along similar lines. Subsequently, Senator Xenophon raised a private member's bill, the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011, which specifically related to employment strategies that relied on the use of foreign flight and cabin crew. A second Senate Inquiry examined that Bill, as well as another of Senator Xenophon's private member's bills, the Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011.
Many of you will remember that AIPA was actively involved in both Senate Inquiries and we provided substantial support for the Parliamentary processes that exposed so much of the Qantas/Jetstar employment arrangements to public scrutiny. Without this public scrutiny and the dogged pursuit of the matter by Senator Xenophon, we think it very unlikely that the FWO would have acted at all. Our government and regulatory affairs strategies have attracted some critics, but I think members can be quite satisfied that the work we put into this issue has had a very positive and tangible outcome. We are hopeful that the parallel FWO action related to foreign cabin crew will similarly expose the overt cynicism of Jetstar towards the employment conditions of its staff.
Regards
Nathan Safe
AIPA President
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Through our program, becoming a pilot need no longer be a pipe-dream for aspiring aviators as this key initiative provides a unique pathway for young people to enter commercial flying. Bruce Buchanan 2nd June 2010.
As Australia's National carrier, we feel we have a responsibility to work with & contribute to the communities we serve everyday. Alan Joyce. February 2014.
An observation
In all of the media reports of this decision that I have managed to peruse, I note that any reference to Qantas (as the ultimate owner) has been redacted.
Might be that my reading list is limited, or perhaps the PR machine made very sure that any link was erased (conspiracy theory).
Informative journalism - bah humbug!
Plainmaker
Might be that my reading list is limited, or perhaps the PR machine made very sure that any link was erased (conspiracy theory).
Informative journalism - bah humbug!
Plainmaker
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 75
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contempt of the Senate?
I wonder if a retrospective examination of Joyce and Buchanan's evidence to the Senate Inquiry will reveal any issues, now that we all have a glimpse of what was actually going on in Jetstar and what their internal advice was? 
Given that both people were renowned control freaks, there wouldn't be much 'plausible deniability' in "really, nobody told me - I would never have authorised that!" 
Given that both people were renowned control freaks, there wouldn't be much 'plausible deniability' in "really, nobody told me - I would never have authorised that!"
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: FL510
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they get over 100 applications for each Cadet position.
Yes, using NZ contracts was a dirty, unethical trick.
Yes, they did charge Cadets when they shouldn't have.
Yes, you could do the training maybe $20,000 cheaper yourself.
Yes, spending time in GA is probably good experience.
But - about 90% of the Cadets who start the training finish the training end end up working for Jetstar as a pilot.
A lot of the other integrated have a completion rate of maybe 30% and no guarantee of a job.
If you were a young pilot coming thru and could get into the right hand seat in two years and start earning decent money, rather than bumming around in GA for maybe ten years, it makes sense.
I've met several people who've been thru the Jetstar Cadetship, and while they may have the odd gripe, in general they are pretty happy with the way things have turned out for them.
Yes, using NZ contracts was a dirty, unethical trick.
Yes, they did charge Cadets when they shouldn't have.
Yes, you could do the training maybe $20,000 cheaper yourself.
Yes, spending time in GA is probably good experience.
But - about 90% of the Cadets who start the training finish the training end end up working for Jetstar as a pilot.
A lot of the other integrated have a completion rate of maybe 30% and no guarantee of a job.
If you were a young pilot coming thru and could get into the right hand seat in two years and start earning decent money, rather than bumming around in GA for maybe ten years, it makes sense.
I've met several people who've been thru the Jetstar Cadetship, and while they may have the odd gripe, in general they are pretty happy with the way things have turned out for them.
Busdriver007 wrote
Nice propaganda piece. It could be used in a study of fictional revisionism. However, cast your eyes back to a previous AIPA insights from May 2011.
In 2011 AIPA were saying that breaches of the Air Pilots Award were ‘ancillary’ and didn’t address the core issue. Yet it is exactly those breaches of the Air Pilots Award that the AFAP first identified in their Federal court action in 2011 that were the basis of the penalties just handed down.
Strange that AIPA find it necessary to now try to claim credit for penalties awarded in a case that was based on what they originally ****canned.
The AFAP’s proceedings were spot on, Jetstar breached the Air Pilots Award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman followed up on the breach the AFAP’s case highlighted.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2014] FCA 33
It speaks volumes that no one thought it worthwhile to mention AIPA in the decision.
The next thing you know, AIPA will be claim to be instrumental in making the sun rise!!!
Credit where credit's due!
Whilst the AFAP has sought to stop the Company from employing cadets and first officers by issuing legal proceedings in the Federal Court, these proceedings only address the ancillary issues as to whether the contracts of, or offered to, cadets and first officers within Jetstar Group Pty Ltd meet the minimum terms and conditions in the Air Pilots Award 2010. It does not in any way address the core issue that these pilots should have been employed under the EBA in the first place, rather than the Air Pilots Award.
Accordingly, we will be demanding that the Company provide AIPA with a written undertaking that it acknowledges that it is the employer of the cadets and first officers, and that it will comply with the EBA with regard to their employment. If the Company refuses to accede to our demands, AIPA will commence legal proceedings against the Company, independent to those brought by the AFAP, to tackle the core and real issue.
Accordingly, we will be demanding that the Company provide AIPA with a written undertaking that it acknowledges that it is the employer of the cadets and first officers, and that it will comply with the EBA with regard to their employment. If the Company refuses to accede to our demands, AIPA will commence legal proceedings against the Company, independent to those brought by the AFAP, to tackle the core and real issue.
Strange that AIPA find it necessary to now try to claim credit for penalties awarded in a case that was based on what they originally ****canned.
The AFAP’s proceedings were spot on, Jetstar breached the Air Pilots Award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman followed up on the breach the AFAP’s case highlighted.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2014] FCA 33
It speaks volumes that no one thought it worthwhile to mention AIPA in the decision.
The next thing you know, AIPA will be claim to be instrumental in making the sun rise!!!
Keith,
The "core issue" is that Jetstar NZ is exactly what Jetconnect is, an employment agency that specifically bypasses not only the Australian Agreements but also the Fair Work Act. In 2011 it received a $15 million "interest free" loan from Jetconnect just to keep soluble, having less than $4500 in the bank. After 12 months the $15 million was written off and the interest Jetstar NZ would have paid was instead reported as profit. Jetconnect is a similar financially engineered entity that does not pay it's own way, in other words the profit/loss reported each year is the result of Qantas(Australia) paying the cost of operation plus or minus whatever the company feels like reporting. For example in 2011/2012 Qantas paid 112% of the operating costs of Jetconnect and reported the 12% as Jetconnect profit. This sets the trend for what aviation companies can and will do. That my friend, is why the words "ancillary issues" were used. If Qantas spent more time running an airline instead of creating schemes to save them small(in the scheme of things) ways. This is not a AIPA/AFAP thing. You should open your mind to long term problems facing the industry and the future careers of the next generation. All these issues were raised by AIPA with the FW Ombudmans at their request in 2011. Qantas would have us concentrate on the smaller issues instead such as the Modern Pilot's Award instead of concentrate on the big picture. There are certain tax implications that both the New Zealand and Australian Governments may need to look at. The sooner AFAP and AIPA got together the better off we will all be but the older generation need to move on and forget what happened in 1981 or 1989. So much wasted energy fighting each other which is exactly what the employers want.
The "core issue" is that Jetstar NZ is exactly what Jetconnect is, an employment agency that specifically bypasses not only the Australian Agreements but also the Fair Work Act. In 2011 it received a $15 million "interest free" loan from Jetconnect just to keep soluble, having less than $4500 in the bank. After 12 months the $15 million was written off and the interest Jetstar NZ would have paid was instead reported as profit. Jetconnect is a similar financially engineered entity that does not pay it's own way, in other words the profit/loss reported each year is the result of Qantas(Australia) paying the cost of operation plus or minus whatever the company feels like reporting. For example in 2011/2012 Qantas paid 112% of the operating costs of Jetconnect and reported the 12% as Jetconnect profit. This sets the trend for what aviation companies can and will do. That my friend, is why the words "ancillary issues" were used. If Qantas spent more time running an airline instead of creating schemes to save them small(in the scheme of things) ways. This is not a AIPA/AFAP thing. You should open your mind to long term problems facing the industry and the future careers of the next generation. All these issues were raised by AIPA with the FW Ombudmans at their request in 2011. Qantas would have us concentrate on the smaller issues instead such as the Modern Pilot's Award instead of concentrate on the big picture. There are certain tax implications that both the New Zealand and Australian Governments may need to look at. The sooner AFAP and AIPA got together the better off we will all be but the older generation need to move on and forget what happened in 1981 or 1989. So much wasted energy fighting each other which is exactly what the employers want.
The only people here trying to rewrite history are AIPA.
Penalties were handed down because Jetstar contravened the Air Pilots Award, and it was the AFAP that ran the case that pointed that fact out. The Fair Work Ombudsman ran the case that got penalties awarded against Jetstar. AIPA reported it to the FWO.
Warren, if you think the AFAP did some underhanded shady deal, maybe you should raise that with them directly. And if AIPA raised a legal challenge, there would be a public record of it in a court. How about you find it, $100 says you can’t.
Given that AIPA is the ex overseas branch of the AFAP, maybe you should seek to re-integrate yourself back into the AFAP. The other airlines and aviation entities / individuals represented by the AFAP all seem to co-operate and get along fine. The alternative is to stay isolated as an enterprise union that only looks after Qantas Pilots.
Penalties were handed down because Jetstar contravened the Air Pilots Award, and it was the AFAP that ran the case that pointed that fact out. The Fair Work Ombudsman ran the case that got penalties awarded against Jetstar. AIPA reported it to the FWO.
Warren, if you think the AFAP did some underhanded shady deal, maybe you should raise that with them directly. And if AIPA raised a legal challenge, there would be a public record of it in a court. How about you find it, $100 says you can’t.
The sooner AFAP and AIPA got together the better off we will all be but the older generation need to move on and forget what happened in 1981 or 1989.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so
is false?
AFAP did raise a legal challenge to Jetstar's activities, but discontinued it in a private agreement with Jetstar. AIPA also raised a legal challenge, fortunately without having to begin formal proceedings.
The Sun Rises __
I'm sure many of you have by now become aware that the sun has risen this morning. Click here to view the decision or alternatively walk outside and look up at the big yellow ball in the sky.
Some of you might note that the press coverage implies that gravity and the laws of physics were instrumental in the decision to make the sun rise - that is not the case. While gravity did attempt to raise the sun, it was discontinued it in a private agreement with the Sun.
It was through our sheer might that the sun rose. We wrote letters of demand, followed by stern letters of demand, followed by raised voices and a threat to walk out. The clincher was red ties and sternly worded PA’s to the sun.
Our strategies have attracted some critics, but I think members can be quite satisfied that the work we put into this issue has had a very positive and tangible outcome.
I trust that you are in no doubt as to the sheer might and power of our organisation.
Regards,
Saeed al-Sahhaf (AKA Comical Ali)
Australian and International Propaganda Association
I'm sure many of you have by now become aware that the sun has risen this morning. Click here to view the decision or alternatively walk outside and look up at the big yellow ball in the sky.
Some of you might note that the press coverage implies that gravity and the laws of physics were instrumental in the decision to make the sun rise - that is not the case. While gravity did attempt to raise the sun, it was discontinued it in a private agreement with the Sun.
It was through our sheer might that the sun rose. We wrote letters of demand, followed by stern letters of demand, followed by raised voices and a threat to walk out. The clincher was red ties and sternly worded PA’s to the sun.
Our strategies have attracted some critics, but I think members can be quite satisfied that the work we put into this issue has had a very positive and tangible outcome.
I trust that you are in no doubt as to the sheer might and power of our organisation.
Regards,
Saeed al-Sahhaf (AKA Comical Ali)
Australian and International Propaganda Association
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waren9
How quickly you forget this item was at the time subject of many posts and copies of our newsletters at the time.
Do an advanced search and you will find it under Jetstar Legal action update. It included the newsletter that printed the consent orders of Justice Marshall on our legal action which are reported in the relevant legal publications for all to see, so there was no back room deals. The fact that AIPA did not raise an application at the time is why there is no reference to any position held at the time.
Bus driver your quote about the two unions coming together is something i have put publicly on these forums but again your references that AIPA are superior to AFAP is part of the reason it is unlikely to happen.
It equally does not help when faux positions are put about how successful the legal strategy of AIPA is in respect to Jetstar. The recent case was not run by either union it was a prosecution by the FWO and the reason we were mentioned is because we have actual material proof of action rather than being 'verballed'.
The final decision in this matter is usually an agreed set of facts and the real reason AIPA wasn't mentioned was nobody thought them relevant.
Lawrie Cox
AFAP
How quickly you forget this item was at the time subject of many posts and copies of our newsletters at the time.
Do an advanced search and you will find it under Jetstar Legal action update. It included the newsletter that printed the consent orders of Justice Marshall on our legal action which are reported in the relevant legal publications for all to see, so there was no back room deals. The fact that AIPA did not raise an application at the time is why there is no reference to any position held at the time.
Bus driver your quote about the two unions coming together is something i have put publicly on these forums but again your references that AIPA are superior to AFAP is part of the reason it is unlikely to happen.
It equally does not help when faux positions are put about how successful the legal strategy of AIPA is in respect to Jetstar. The recent case was not run by either union it was a prosecution by the FWO and the reason we were mentioned is because we have actual material proof of action rather than being 'verballed'.
The final decision in this matter is usually an agreed set of facts and the real reason AIPA wasn't mentioned was nobody thought them relevant.
Lawrie Cox
AFAP