Qantas Recruitment
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry response? Extend and pretend, capturing the value of the age extension through reduced training costs. Almost ZERO in the way of investment to overcome the demographic challenges that would inevitability occur. Demographics is about the closest thing there to a sure bet, there is no uncertainty about when someone will have a birthday at a particular age. You can model the best case outcome for a cohort to reach mandated retirement age with a good degree of accuracy.
Once again, extension to 67 is proposed, however, there is likely to be an exponential decline in pilots who can hold a medical post 65 and make it all the way to 67. There are going to be tiny incremental gains in pilot number should that come to pass. That is before the "will to continue" is taken into account.
Unfortunately for the managers, the demographic dividend is now about to become an enormous liability for which they are completely unprepared.
There is another factor which is going to come into play into a pilot shortage - an instructor shortage.
I have a mate who wants to do his MECIR as part of a student loans diploma and had his name down at 2 places for intakes this month, both have been delayed until next year due to lack of instructors for new intakes. This is happening while Asian Airlines continue to increase training in Australia demanding more instructors and 'taking them away' from training Australia students. This is without any real significant shortage at the regional's of applicants, now imagine every instructor who has the minimums for qlink applies and gets in. Unless something changes this will severly limit the number of people training.
I have a mate who wants to do his MECIR as part of a student loans diploma and had his name down at 2 places for intakes this month, both have been delayed until next year due to lack of instructors for new intakes. This is happening while Asian Airlines continue to increase training in Australia demanding more instructors and 'taking them away' from training Australia students. This is without any real significant shortage at the regional's of applicants, now imagine every instructor who has the minimums for qlink applies and gets in. Unless something changes this will severly limit the number of people training.
Maybe charging 25k for an instructor rating needs to be addressed? Then paying another 6k for instrument instructor privaliges then 8k for multi training approval might be deterring people?
Oh and schools only paying you per flying hour and expecting you to man reception for free?
This is why nobody wants to instruct.
Oh and schools only paying you per flying hour and expecting you to man reception for free?
This is why nobody wants to instruct.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately for the managers, the demographic dividend is now about to become an enormous liability for which they are completely unprepared.
The Ryan air template has been borrowed by new start and established airlines alike. It was argued by former CFO Qantas Gregg, that JQ was designed to drive competitive tensions ‘across the group’ and as it was modelled on the Ryan air template, as many costs including pilot training pushed at a potential employee unit cost fell. This trend has been part of the industry dynamic for over three decades but hidden in plain sight is the message that a significant departure in the employee employer relationship had surfaced. Airlines were to have very little sunk cost in pilots: pilots funded not only their CPL training but increasingly endorsements and bonding was the norm. Airlines invested in privatised training, thereby deriving a 'profit' from self funded applicants where previously, there was a sunk cost: endorsement of their company pilots.
In demographics is destiny. A sure bet but long tails. As CT correctly alludes to, it is very predictable yet takes a long time to feed through the economy.
As real wages fall and nominal outcomes (from contract negotiations) were limited in upside, slowly but surely the ‘signal’ sent to 'aspirational' pilots was that so much cost had to be borne with limited upside (financially) that the rational participants declined the ‘opportunity’ to commit huge funds to such a pursuit.For a country with a geographical landmass the size of Australia, this strategy was always eventually bound to struggle. Qantas is without doubt the largest employer and indeed remains an aspirational goal for pilots, however without significant improvement in real terms and conditions, whether it be a pilot academy with a nice little dose of corporate welfare, or skill shortage visas unless there is a real change to the relationship model, which includes remuneration the problem will continue to grow in magnitude.
Make no mistake Qantas are acutely aware of the magnitude of the shortage, they are attempting to induce more supply with another externality; more migration. The industry is a long way from addressing the real reduction in terms and conditions that has precipitated the last three decades.
The externality borne by GA and the community will eventually see a return to mean, whereby gradual improvements will signal more supply of pilots. With airline management focused on the next KPI until operating revenue decline noticeably, airlines will do everything before doing the right thing!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh good points Keg especially the last paragraph... it's all about keeping the money-earners (aircraft) moving so they can keep earning the $$$.
Pilots? They're a liability as Jimmy-bow-tie once slipped out by mistake at an AGM many years back.
The key phrase is though, something you said earlier:
Yes, QF may be gloating that they have many applicants but those applicants now have many options, depending on their lifestyle choice or needs. It's a global market and QF isn't "top of the pops" anymore. This availability of choice for the pilots hasn't happened in decades and it's obvious many HR departments & Airline managements are struggling with the shift in power (so is AIPA and AFAP!!!). The QF Group will continue to lose applicants to other airlines, until they match what's on offer with the airlines they've 'lost them to" and also clean up the "divide & conquer" EBA mess that is Sunnies v Eastern; Jetstar v Mainline; Network v Cobham etc etc etc (Engineering is the same, sadly).
I don't know where people have their heads but they're certainly not seeing what I'm seeing or reading the journals I am because there's a DESPERATE shortage of pilots everywhere now.
Name a continent and I'll give you half a dozen airlines immediately screaming for crew. Legacy carriers are now in the mix too. It's not rocket science... pay more $$$! Share you Managerial Bonuses around, to those at the coal-face instead of what amounts to blackmail bonuses.
Perth is a classic example that shows the shortage well. When I fly in I see so many Skippers/Cobham/Network/VARA aircraft on the ground... and it's peak morning or afternoon time when they are meant to be flying. Heck QF even have their B747 running a domestic run each day (great for punters and yes I'm aware of the "training bottle-neck").
OPINION: Pilot shortage has no easy solution
Shame on them for wishing another downturn! What bastards to even think it and the realities of what happens to millions of families!
Pilots? They're a liability as Jimmy-bow-tie once slipped out by mistake at an AGM many years back.
The key phrase is though, something you said earlier:
Yes, QF may be gloating that they have many applicants but those applicants now have many options, depending on their lifestyle choice or needs. It's a global market and QF isn't "top of the pops" anymore. This availability of choice for the pilots hasn't happened in decades and it's obvious many HR departments & Airline managements are struggling with the shift in power (so is AIPA and AFAP!!!). The QF Group will continue to lose applicants to other airlines, until they match what's on offer with the airlines they've 'lost them to" and also clean up the "divide & conquer" EBA mess that is Sunnies v Eastern; Jetstar v Mainline; Network v Cobham etc etc etc (Engineering is the same, sadly).
I don't know where people have their heads but they're certainly not seeing what I'm seeing or reading the journals I am because there's a DESPERATE shortage of pilots everywhere now.
Name a continent and I'll give you half a dozen airlines immediately screaming for crew. Legacy carriers are now in the mix too. It's not rocket science... pay more $$$! Share you Managerial Bonuses around, to those at the coal-face instead of what amounts to blackmail bonuses.
Perth is a classic example that shows the shortage well. When I fly in I see so many Skippers/Cobham/Network/VARA aircraft on the ground... and it's peak morning or afternoon time when they are meant to be flying. Heck QF even have their B747 running a domestic run each day (great for punters and yes I'm aware of the "training bottle-neck").
OPINION: Pilot shortage has no easy solution
Shame on them for wishing another downturn! What bastards to even think it and the realities of what happens to millions of families!
Global airline pay has increased dramatically and will continue to for experienced crew. It’s only going to get worse for airline executives. The US was a bloodbath post 9/11. Now US major airline pay exceeds that of QF and Cathay.
If you look at Ryanair, O Leary used to openly ridicule his flight crew whilst a steady supply kept knocking on his door.
He looks a fool now as pilot shortages cancel thousands of flights. He has even recognised the role of pilot unions . Joyce modelled Jetstar on Ryanair as Dixon’s servant. He may well pay to heed what has happened in Ryanair which despite the Prior Aggression pays far higher than Jetstar.
Economics is supply and demand. The peak retirement wave breaking globally will be greater than the effect of any potential downturn.
I don’t think the unions know how strong a position they are in. For current entrants they will ride a wave like the fortunate joiners around 1988/89. Either that or they can gain experience in any Qantas group entity and make lucrative global contracts work for them.
Regardless the pilot shortage is very real and getting worse.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last 10 posts here at least have been so bang on correct I just shake might head at those in positions of power who still don’t think any of these things are an issue. I’m not so sure they have completely removed their heads from their backsides yet. To an extent they have but not enough.
I’d like to be taking people from other airlines, people from the RAAF, people who have been C&T on Dash’s and other small turboprops for smaller operators. The wider the level of experience (with experiences across technical, management, etc) that comes into mainline the less chance of it being insular and inward looking and ultimately that builds strength.
The reality of the situation is that QF is insular because you have to get in your early to mid 20's to be able to get to a command early enough to be able to move onto the next level.
What you suggest is a great idea however unless QF pilots wish to surrender seniority or there is massive expansion or a alignment of AOCs into mainline, nothing will change.
If Qlink drivers aren’t experienced enough (we aren’t all cadets) then I’d love to know what everyone thinks of the 700 hr Grade 3 instructors and Kak Air pilots taking up the backseat of the 787.
Nunc est bibendum
Lol. You idiots think it’s just about hours in the log book? Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly in one respect though.
A few themes running parallel so ill try and cover them off.
1. I’ve long been an advocate that the back seat is a great place to learn about airline operations. Maybe the ideal path for a cadet should be S/O for a few years, then a regional F/O and perhaps even to command before returning to a jet. In that respect Dunda you’re definitely taken a wrong turn in your logic.
2. The right person with little experience is a better long term option than the wrong person with lots of ‘’experience’. Sure, there is a nuance and a balance to this point but there are ways of structuring your operation to cater for the less experienced. (I hope one of you clowns doesn’t think I’m advocating for ‘no experience’. Still, it’s 2018 and very little surprises me this days when it comes to people wilfully mis reading posts).
3. I’m not sure in any of my recent posts the issues that I’ve raised was about the lack of experience that regional drivers have. In fact a re- read of my earlier posts advocates taking a wide range of candidates from across multiple disciplines to assist in building a more robust experience base. Sometimes that means taking on the people I’ve spoken about in point 2. My issue has always been about the atttide, not the experience.
4. Any ‘sole source’ internal recruiting pool is damaging for the long term success of an airline. I like flying with people from other airlines, the RAAF, GA, cadets, internals, because it gives me and others of my vintage a new set of eyes and minds to review our operation. It took some of those eyes post Ansett in 2001 to be able to get some cut through on certain CRM policies and definitions within Qantas.
Let me be blunt- far more than I have been to this point. My sole interest in the recruiting process is whether it gets the ‘right person’ identified in point 2. If you’re in a ‘group airline’ and suggesting that because of this status you should be the only pool of candidates mainline recruits from you’re actually demonstrating why you’re not suitable for mainline- at least not at the moment... maybe when you wise up a bit more and/or adjust the attitude. If you’re suggesting that you’ve got three years experience as a Dash F/O and therefore this will make you a good airline pilot then you’re sorely mistaken. It might if you’re the right person- though the right person would also know that it’s actually less to do with the 1800 Dash F/O hours and more to do with who they’ve become in those 1800 hours. Those hours mean squat though if you’re not the right person. No amount of experience will make up for it.
So take a good hard look in the mirror mirror folks and ask yourselves what makes you the ‘right person’. If you’re telling yourself it’s because you’ve been in the group for a few years so you should have priority then I’ve got some hard news. If you’re telling yourself it’s because of who you are as a pilot and a person and what you bring to the table then I look forward to flying with you.
Actually, I think these words sum it up.
Recognise them Dunda? Are these not the crux of my point?
A few themes running parallel so ill try and cover them off.
1. I’ve long been an advocate that the back seat is a great place to learn about airline operations. Maybe the ideal path for a cadet should be S/O for a few years, then a regional F/O and perhaps even to command before returning to a jet. In that respect Dunda you’re definitely taken a wrong turn in your logic.
2. The right person with little experience is a better long term option than the wrong person with lots of ‘’experience’. Sure, there is a nuance and a balance to this point but there are ways of structuring your operation to cater for the less experienced. (I hope one of you clowns doesn’t think I’m advocating for ‘no experience’. Still, it’s 2018 and very little surprises me this days when it comes to people wilfully mis reading posts).
3. I’m not sure in any of my recent posts the issues that I’ve raised was about the lack of experience that regional drivers have. In fact a re- read of my earlier posts advocates taking a wide range of candidates from across multiple disciplines to assist in building a more robust experience base. Sometimes that means taking on the people I’ve spoken about in point 2. My issue has always been about the atttide, not the experience.
4. Any ‘sole source’ internal recruiting pool is damaging for the long term success of an airline. I like flying with people from other airlines, the RAAF, GA, cadets, internals, because it gives me and others of my vintage a new set of eyes and minds to review our operation. It took some of those eyes post Ansett in 2001 to be able to get some cut through on certain CRM policies and definitions within Qantas.
Let me be blunt- far more than I have been to this point. My sole interest in the recruiting process is whether it gets the ‘right person’ identified in point 2. If you’re in a ‘group airline’ and suggesting that because of this status you should be the only pool of candidates mainline recruits from you’re actually demonstrating why you’re not suitable for mainline- at least not at the moment... maybe when you wise up a bit more and/or adjust the attitude. If you’re suggesting that you’ve got three years experience as a Dash F/O and therefore this will make you a good airline pilot then you’re sorely mistaken. It might if you’re the right person- though the right person would also know that it’s actually less to do with the 1800 Dash F/O hours and more to do with who they’ve become in those 1800 hours. Those hours mean squat though if you’re not the right person. No amount of experience will make up for it.
So take a good hard look in the mirror mirror folks and ask yourselves what makes you the ‘right person’. If you’re telling yourself it’s because you’ve been in the group for a few years so you should have priority then I’ve got some hard news. If you’re telling yourself it’s because of who you are as a pilot and a person and what you bring to the table then I look forward to flying with you.
Actually, I think these words sum it up.
In the airline world, you'll be just fine if you have a good attitude and meet the standard. Most of you're learning will occur on the line anyway. But please, d*ckheads need not apply. No one likes flying with a d*ckhead, no matter what your background is.
What about loyalty? Some guys have said no to the likes of Virgin, CX or EK to maintain within the QF group only to get the no from QF.
Says little to me for those who use group airlines as stepping stones to apply for competitors only to realise the grass is not greener. Then decide to apply for QF and get accepted.
Does the HR panel consider this in their decisions?
Says little to me for those who use group airlines as stepping stones to apply for competitors only to realise the grass is not greener. Then decide to apply for QF and get accepted.
Does the HR panel consider this in their decisions?
Good post but I sympathize with the frustration if not confusion with the “process” expressed in this thread. It strikes a similar chord with recruiting here at our equivalent of QANTAS: DL, UA, AA, SW, UPS and FedEx (and even lesser outfits). So, I’ll ask a question or two.
How do the processes at work, from a candidate’s brief and carefully-coached interview performance, purport to foretell with accuracy whether an applicant will be the “right person” over a span of several decades ?
I’ll admit that the recruiting process apparently gets it right most of the time but can’t say with 100% certainty if the process is responsible or whether the majority of all candidates just would’ve turned out as suitable anyway after being immersed in (and further shaped by) the airline and its culture...assuming technical competence as a given.
We’ve all got stories of really good people (whom WE knew far better than any HR process ever could) being turned away or never even getting a shot at an interview…and then flying with people sporting absolutely toxic attitudes who shouldn’t even have been hired to sweep out the hangar; they all came through the same “scientific” process.
How does one account for that ?
Is there follow up post-hiring/training to correlate the effectiveness of the HR process with results the Chosen Ones demonstrate over time ? And then adjustments made to the process to correct the errors demonstrated in the process results ?
The interview process here has reached the level and tenor of a Monty Python skit; even getting the chance to participate involves some mysterious miracle. Professional application review by someone specializing in the particular airline, study and practice for a tech and/or cognitive exam, interview coaching, attending career “fairs” (plural...if you can even get a slot from the limited number available) in hopes of getting literally minutes with a recruiter who might just look at your application, then maybe an online psych assessment like the Hogan, Gallup or some other “organizational fitness” test, then a video interview to see if they even want to give you a face-to-face go at it. A stumble at any point can be life altering.
[Perhaps I’ll address the panel interview itself another time]
And yet, those having none of the traits which the HR experts claim to deliver continue to appear. Yep, their train set and all, but I understand the frustration.
Last edited by bafanguy; 4th Sep 2018 at 20:30.
What about loyalty? Some guys have said no to the likes of Virgin, CX or EK to maintain within the QF group only to get the no from QF.
Says little to me for those who use group airlines as stepping stones to apply for competitors only to realise the grass is not greener. Then decide to apply for QF and get accepted.
Does the HR panel consider this in their decisions?
Says little to me for those who use group airlines as stepping stones to apply for competitors only to realise the grass is not greener. Then decide to apply for QF and get accepted.
Does the HR panel consider this in their decisions?
Secondly, after witnessing the behaviour of the Group under Alan, Leigh, Olivia & co in recent years, anyone who passes up a more attractive job because of loyalty should probably be rejected on the grounds of diminished mental function.
Secondly, after witnessing the behaviour of the Group under Alan, Leigh, Olivia & co in recent years, anyone who passes up a more attractive job because of loyalty should probably be rejected on the grounds of diminished mental function.
I think the concept of loyalty is something wrongly taught to the current generation from a bygone era. I imagine my career would be further progressed had I shown as little of it as the operators I worked for had. At the end of the day you are a just a number in a system. 30 or 40 years later you walk out for the last time and are forgotten by organisation and remembered only by those you had a personal connection with.
Your replacement will arrive with no knowledge of you and the show will go on.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lol. You idiots think it’s just about hours in the log book? Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly in one respect though.
A few themes running parallel so ill try and cover them off.
1. I’ve long been an advocate that the back seat is a great place to learn about airline operations. Maybe the ideal path for a cadet should be S/O for a few years, then a regional F/O and perhaps even to command before returning to a jet. In that respect Dunda you’re definitely taken a wrong turn in your logic.
2. The right person with little experience is a better long term option than the wrong person with lots of ‘’experience’. Sure, there is a nuance and a balance to this point but there are ways of structuring your operation to cater for the less experienced. (I hope one of you clowns doesn’t think I’m advocating for ‘no experience’. Still, it’s 2018 and very little surprises me this days when it comes to people wilfully mis reading posts).
3. I’m not sure in any of my recent posts the issues that I’ve raised was about the lack of experience that regional drivers have. In fact a re- read of my earlier posts advocates taking a wide range of candidates from across multiple disciplines to assist in building a more robust experience base. Sometimes that means taking on the people I’ve spoken about in point 2. My issue has always been about the atttide, not the experience.
4. Any ‘sole source’ internal recruiting pool is damaging for the long term success of an airline. I like flying with people from other airlines, the RAAF, GA, cadets, internals, because it gives me and others of my vintage a new set of eyes and minds to review our operation. It took some of those eyes post Ansett in 2001 to be able to get some cut through on certain CRM policies and definitions within Qantas.
Let me be blunt- far more than I have been to this point. My sole interest in the recruiting process is whether it gets the ‘right person’ identified in point 2. If you’re in a ‘group airline’ and suggesting that because of this status you should be the only pool of candidates mainline recruits from you’re actually demonstrating why you’re not suitable for mainline- at least not at the moment... maybe when you wise up a bit more and/or adjust the attitude. If you’re suggesting that you’ve got three years experience as a Dash F/O and therefore this will make you a good airline pilot then you’re sorely mistaken. It might if you’re the right person- though the right person would also know that it’s actually less to do with the 1800 Dash F/O hours and more to do with who they’ve become in those 1800 hours. Those hours mean squat though if you’re not the right person. No amount of experience will make up for it.
So take a good hard look in the mirror mirror folks and ask yourselves what makes you the ‘right person’. If you’re telling yourself it’s because you’ve been in the group for a few years so you should have priority then I’ve got some hard news. If you’re telling yourself it’s because of who you are as a pilot and a person and what you bring to the table then I look forward to flying with you.
Actually, I think these words sum it up.
Recognise them Dunda? Are these not the crux of my point?
A few themes running parallel so ill try and cover them off.
1. I’ve long been an advocate that the back seat is a great place to learn about airline operations. Maybe the ideal path for a cadet should be S/O for a few years, then a regional F/O and perhaps even to command before returning to a jet. In that respect Dunda you’re definitely taken a wrong turn in your logic.
2. The right person with little experience is a better long term option than the wrong person with lots of ‘’experience’. Sure, there is a nuance and a balance to this point but there are ways of structuring your operation to cater for the less experienced. (I hope one of you clowns doesn’t think I’m advocating for ‘no experience’. Still, it’s 2018 and very little surprises me this days when it comes to people wilfully mis reading posts).
3. I’m not sure in any of my recent posts the issues that I’ve raised was about the lack of experience that regional drivers have. In fact a re- read of my earlier posts advocates taking a wide range of candidates from across multiple disciplines to assist in building a more robust experience base. Sometimes that means taking on the people I’ve spoken about in point 2. My issue has always been about the atttide, not the experience.
4. Any ‘sole source’ internal recruiting pool is damaging for the long term success of an airline. I like flying with people from other airlines, the RAAF, GA, cadets, internals, because it gives me and others of my vintage a new set of eyes and minds to review our operation. It took some of those eyes post Ansett in 2001 to be able to get some cut through on certain CRM policies and definitions within Qantas.
Let me be blunt- far more than I have been to this point. My sole interest in the recruiting process is whether it gets the ‘right person’ identified in point 2. If you’re in a ‘group airline’ and suggesting that because of this status you should be the only pool of candidates mainline recruits from you’re actually demonstrating why you’re not suitable for mainline- at least not at the moment... maybe when you wise up a bit more and/or adjust the attitude. If you’re suggesting that you’ve got three years experience as a Dash F/O and therefore this will make you a good airline pilot then you’re sorely mistaken. It might if you’re the right person- though the right person would also know that it’s actually less to do with the 1800 Dash F/O hours and more to do with who they’ve become in those 1800 hours. Those hours mean squat though if you’re not the right person. No amount of experience will make up for it.
So take a good hard look in the mirror mirror folks and ask yourselves what makes you the ‘right person’. If you’re telling yourself it’s because you’ve been in the group for a few years so you should have priority then I’ve got some hard news. If you’re telling yourself it’s because of who you are as a pilot and a person and what you bring to the table then I look forward to flying with you.
Actually, I think these words sum it up.
Recognise them Dunda? Are these not the crux of my point?
Your post is absolutely garbage!
Anyone flying a Dash 8, is more than capable of taking the next step and operating an A320/737/A330/787, AS an F/O,
whether with QF or any other airline around the world.
You seem to have issues or you don't like people coming into QF mainline, from the Dash 8's or general aviation,
you should be continuously mentoring S/O's, not being critical of people.
Words used to describe people in your above post, demonstrate to me, that you have an attitude problem.
You give the impression with your post, that you're the only person with an ATPL and fly a wide body aircraft in the world.
Have a bit more respect towards other pilot's, no matter what they fly.
You're only an employee number and not management!
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you explain it to them?
Keg, so you want the right fit people that you will have to sit next to, yet see no benefit in someone being in the group for 3-5 years being continually monitored and assessed to group standards?
I hope you’ve never been in charge of assessing these poor bastards and affecting their careers.
I hope you’ve never been in charge of assessing these poor bastards and affecting their careers.
It may not be an indication of numbers, but when the picture of new recruits is sent through in the propaganda emails, there is usually one female to a group of 8 or sometimes 2 to the larger groups. The blokes seem to be getting a fair go.
Didnt someone on here say that roughly a third of the QF cadets were cut, with males making up that entire third? Surely that can’t be correct. Otherwise wouldn’t it mean 30 odd guys were cut, yet not a single female?