Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Pilot shortage

Old 20th Jan 2018, 19:02
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,410
"bet on the horse, not on the rider".
This is very true. At Qantas I believe the problem to begin with the world view held by Leigh Clifford. I have mentioned on other forums that I have CEO level connections who have been present at corporate functions, he has neither vision, nor leadership, unless of course you consider moving forward to be driving flat out with your view firmly focused on the rear vision mirror. (Apologies to Paul Keating) The problem with corporate structures is as a business matures, an overly complex internal structure. A bit like a computer it fills with junk, like HR, IR and all these other cost centres. So much so that businesses actually forget what it is they are supposed to do. The inefficiency that these cost centres focus on is ALWAYS elsewhere. Usually operational areas. Front line bank employees, service technicians. Outsource to contractors and automation. In airlines this is seen as get the customer to self check in, self tag their bag etc. Not always bad decisions but increasingly there are two parts of the business: 1. Operational 2. Administrative. One cuts the other, growing in importance.

Most airline 'administration/management' hierarchy can be bolted on in a telecommunications, manufacturing or banking 'management' and their day to day function changes little. This is why airline employees need a bigger bucket for BS than $$. As I regularly consult with many different organisations i can attest to operational employees at most organisations needing similar buckets. There is a fundamental disconnect. High level discussions believe it is part education (Generic MBA) and interestingly the modern paradigm of infinite growth from a finite business; things get whackier and whackier in search of the perpetual growth. It was not always like that.





Many modern airlines are indeed horses, not really in tune with what it is they actually do...
Airlines need pilots, they need cabin crew and they need good engineering.
Whether they voluntarily rescind their adversarial HR/IR posture, reducing the influence (cost) or the market does it for them, this horse may in its current form need to go to the glue factory...

Last edited by Rated De; 20th Jan 2018 at 19:17.
Rated De is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2018, 23:04
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by JamieMaree View Post
Angry rat, if you truly believe that then you donít understand one iota of what that was all about.
BTW have you heard much from Steve Purvinas or Tony Sheldon on airline industrial matters since that unfortunate occurrence?
If you believe for one moment that management think it was an accident, mistake or just unlucky that the pilots were caught up in the lockout, it's time to put the cup of KoolAid down.
angryrat is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2018, 23:13
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by angryrat View Post
If you believe for one moment that management think it was an accident, mistake or just unlucky that the pilots were caught up in the lockout, it's time to put the cup of KoolAid down.

No I donít think that. I do think that getting the pilots caught up in the projected lockout and what followed was a bonus. I do believe that if was just the pilots taking the protected action it wouldnít have happened. Wearing red ties and making propaganda PAs wasnít causing a problem.
JamieMaree is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2018, 23:24
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by JamieMaree View Post
No I donít think that. I do think that getting the pilots caught up in the projected lockout and what followed was a bonus. I do believe that if was just the pilots taking the protected action it wouldnít have happened. Wearing red ties and making propaganda PAs wasnít causing a problem.
Yes it was a bonus because they hate us. If they liked us they could have easily shifted us aside and applied for the lockout on the rest and delt with the pilots separately. Nope, they saw another opportunity to smash pilot terms and conditions in Fair Work. It didn't work out for management how they hoped.
angryrat is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 02:25
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 398
Define Experience?

Define Experience?

Are 250 hour plus pilots capable of sitting in the right hand, or even the Left Hand seat of todayís modern aircraft?

Who should define experience required?

Human Resources; Industrial Relations Clerks?

History and experience shows pilots with minimal experience are daily fulfilling these roles having done so successfully for many years with many becoming the senior experienced Captains of today.

The pilots illustrated below and equally pilots of the allied forces, Britain, Canada, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, to mention but a few, (with apologies for not having the corresponding figures) particularly those who survived, went on to establish the airlines, the excellent procedures we have today. Along the way they trained and, more importantly, mentored their protťgť producing todayís professional airlines crews.



WWII U.S. Army Air Corps

Back in the day when America was in the "Big War" WWII, these planes were flown by young boys. Politically correct was go to war to break things and kill the enemy. Apparently, no one worried about nose art on the bombers.
BTW: More airmen died in WWII than Marines.

Almost 1,000 Army planes disappeared enroute from the US to foreign locations. But an eye-watering 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causes overseas.

In a single 376 plane raid in August 1943, 60 B-17s were shot down. That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant 600 empty bunks in England. In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe.

Pacific theatre losses were far less (4,530 in combat) owing to smaller forces committed.. The worst B-29 mission, against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas.
On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day. By the end of the war, over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat theatres and another 18,000 wounded. Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including a number "liberated" by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured, half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were pegged at 121,867.

US manpower made up the deficit. The AAF's peak strength was reached in 1944 with 2,372,000 personnel, nearly twice the previous year's figure.
The losses were huge---but so were production totals. From 1941 through 1945, American industry delivered more than 276,000 military aircraft. That number was enough not only for US Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but for allies as diverse as Britain, Australia, China and Russia. In fact, from 1943 onward, America produced more planes than Britain and Russia combined.

And more than Germany and Japan together 1941-45

However, our enemies took massive losses. Through much of 1944, the Luftwaffe sustained uncontrolled haemorrhaging, reaching 25 percent of aircrews and 40 planes a month. And in late 1944 into 1945, nearly half the pilots in Japanese squadrons had flown fewer than 200 hours. The disparity of two years before had been completely reversed.

Experience Level:

Uncle Sam sent many of his sons to war with absolute minimums of training. Some fighter pilots entered combat in 1942 with less than one hour in their assigned aircraft.

The 357th Fighter Group (often known as The Yoxford Boys) went to England in late 1943 having trained on P-39s. The group never saw a Mustang until shortly before its first combat mission.

A high-time P-51 pilot had 30 hours in type. Many had fewer than five hours. Some had one hour.

With arrival of new aircraft, many combat units transitioned in combat. The attitude was, "They all have a stick and a throttle. Go fly ďem." When the famed 4th Fighter Group converted from P-47s to P-51s in February 1944, there was no time to stand down for an orderly transition.

The Group commander, Col. Donald Blakeslee, said, "You can learn to fly `51s on the way to the target.

A future P-47 ace said, "I was sent to England to die." He was not alone.
Some fighter pilots tucked their wheels in the well on their first combat mission with one previous flight in the aircraft. Meanwhile, many bomber crews were still learning their trade: of Jimmy Doolittle's 15 pilots on the April 1942 Tokyo raid, only five had won their wings before 1941.

All but one of the 16 co-pilots were less than a year out of flight school.
In WWII flying safety took a back seat to combat. The AAF's worst accident rate was recorded by the A-36 Invader version of the P-51: a staggering 274 accidents per 100,000 flying hours.

Next worst were the P-39 at 245, the P-40 at 188, and the P-38 at 139. All were Allison powered.

Bomber wrecks were fewer but more expensive. The B-17 and B-24 averaged 30 and 35 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, respectively-- a horrific figure considering that from 1980 to 2000 the Air Force's major mishap rate was less than 2.

The B-29 was even worse at 40; the world's most sophisticated, most capable and most expensive bomber was too urgently needed to stand down for mere safety reasons.. The AAF set a reasonably high standard for B-29 pilots, but the desired figures were seldom attained.

The original cadre of the 58th Bomb Wing was to have 400 hours of multi-engine time, but there were not enough experienced pilots to meet the criterion. Only ten percent had overseas experience. Conversely, when a $2.1 billion B-2 crashed in 2008, the Air Force initiated a two-month "safety pause" rather than declare a "stand down", let alone grounding.

The B-29 was no better for maintenance. Though the R3350 was known as a complicated, troublesome power-plant, no more than half the mechanics had previous experience with the Duplex Cyclone. But they made it work.

Navigators:

Perhaps the greatest unsung success story of AAF training was Navigators.
The Army graduated some 50,000 during the War. And many had never flown out of sight of land before leaving "Uncle Sugar" for a war zone. Yet the huge majority found their way across oceans and continents without getting lost or running out of fuel --- a stirring tribute to the AAF's educational establishments.

Cadet To Colonel:

It was possible for a flying cadet at the time of Pearl Harbor to finish the war with eagles on his shoulders. That was the record of John D. Landers, a 21-year-old Texan, who was commissioned a second lieutenant on December 12, 1941. He joined his combat squadron with 209 hours total flight time, including 2 in P-40s. He finished the war as a full colonel, commanding an 8th Air Force Group --- at age 24.

As the training pipeline filled up, however those low figures became exceptions.

By early 1944, the average AAF fighter pilot entering combat had logged at least 450 hours, usually including 250 hours in training. At the same time, many captains and first lieutenants claimed over 600 hours.

FACT:

At its height in mid-1944, the Army Air Forces had 2.6 million people and nearly 80,000 aircraft of all types.

Today the US Air Force employs 327,000 active personnel (plus 170,000 civilians) with 5,500+ manned and perhaps 200 unmanned aircraft.
The 2009 figures represent about 12 percent of the manpower and 7 percent of the airplanes of the WWII peak.


IN SUMMATION


Whether there will ever be another war like that experienced in 1940-45 is doubtful, as fighters and bombers have given way to helicopters and remotely-controlled drones over Afghanistan and Iraq.

But within living memory, men left the earth in 1,000-plane formations and fought major battles five miles high, leaving a legacy that remains timeless.
Dark Knight is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 02:44
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 330
With those horrendous losses quoted I think we all (including HR and IR Clerks) can safely deduce the experience required/ demanded by the fare paying 21st Century public to be more than that of a WWII Pilot.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 04:13
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,520
Originally Posted by Raptor090 View Post
You can either fly, or you canít.

Iíve flown with 300 hours pilots whoís skill is better than some 3,000 hour pilots Iíve flown with. There are good and bad operators in EVERY aspect of the industry, GA, military and the airlines.

A good indication is time taken to solo. I think anything from 10 to 15 hours to solo is on the mark and these pilots generally progress to become competent pilots.

The point Iím making, is the pilot shortage can be resolved by lowering the unreasonable minimums required for the right hand seat. Hours aside, if the applicant is a good pilot, why do they not deserve a shot?

Letís not forget, you only need a CPL as a minimum to fly as the FO. Asking for 2,000 TT, 500 multi PIC , ATPL and all the other crap they ask for to be an FO is over the top and unnecessary and doesnít necessarily make them an outstanding pilot.

Something more reasonable would be 500 PIC and 3 years to attain the ATPL exam credits.

Raptor
So really, the only interview question that is ever relevant is "Did you solo in under 15 hours?"

Sounds kinda dumb, right? Yeah, exactly. Yes, I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, one could find an extraordinarily talented 300 hour pilot who was better than an extremely inept 3,000 hour pilot. But pretending that there's no difference between the average 3000 hour pilot and the average 300 hour pilot is a bit inane.
A Squared is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 04:35
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 50
The reality is minimum requirements will be dictated by supply (as has been stated time and again). Whether a 300 hour pilot is as good or better than a 3000 hour pilot is irrelevant. Attitude and a willingness to learn from others is more important, particularly from the 3000 hour pilot ( I say that only cause the 3000 hour pilot has seen and done far more than the 300 hour pilot and may be of the belief that they know better)

There were plenty of jobs I would have liked to be a part of but with no ATPL, I wasn't considered. Now those jobs will look at you with a CPL (last I looked, it has been a while).

If Airlines really want to pick the best of the best advertise the minimums that are in accordance with the regulations. Pilots put their name in, when their name get's to the top they get a chance, If they're good enough they've got the job, if not, name goes to the bottom of the list and try again when their name is at the top again.
Who stole my meds is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 07:07
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 97
Plus in The Air Force, fails and you are gone. No lets throw more cash at it
Thai Pom is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 10:00
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 6
Posts: 628
Why does the cadet debate have to find its way into every second thread? Management decide what they want and that’s pretty much it.

Natural talent takes you nowhere without work. The one natural talent you do want in life, career and love is that of working at it and trying to improve no matter what your experience level. Naturally persistent.
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 10:13
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 1,246
If the Govt at the time hadn't let flying school schools access to Fee Help we would have a big short fall of pilots right now.

Wages would have increased and hiring mins decreased.
pilotchute is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 12:01
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 37
Posts: 118
I think a point is being missed here. What if you had the opportunity to hire a good operator with 300 hours, or hire that same pilot 3000 hours later but at a higher salary due to that accrued experience. Cadets are good for the bottom line, regardless of ability.
Gligg is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 16:22
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Lower North Shore
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Gligg View Post
I think a point is being missed here. What if you had the opportunity to hire a good operator with 300 hours, or hire that same pilot 3000 hours later but at a higher salary due to that accrued experience. Cadets are good for the bottom line, regardless of ability.
In Australia, you can't pay the cadet less because they only have 300 hours. Same role, same pay.
Brakerider is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 17:17
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 1,246
I am sure there is a company that pays "junior first officers" a lower salary.
pilotchute is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 03:06
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Alaska
Posts: 149
The Airlines need to have Cadet schemes that are fully funded by the Airline , this way they will have a larger pool of people to choose from , instead of the wealthy family types .
The training could have a $200,000 5 year bond that is deducted pre tax for the first 5 years of employment , this way everybody wins !
Rabbitwear is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 04:09
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 574
Originally Posted by Rabbitwear View Post
The Airlines need to have Cadet schemes that are fully funded by the Airline ,
Problem #1 - Liability for the operator, Add's debt to the balance sheet.

Problem #2 The operator will have to bear some or all of the financial risk for failures. Who is going to sign up to a deal where they owe $200,000 without a job? Chicken and the egg problem - you have to prove you can be a pilot before someone will help your to pay to become a pilot.


The training could have a $200,000 5 year bond that is deducted pre tax for the first 5 years of employment , this way everybody wins !
problem #3 Is education tax deductible prior to getting a job that requires that education? If not, it must come out of post tax pay.

problem #4 Other operators have incentive to poach and pay out the bond as they don't have to take the expensive risk & liability, plus they are getting a proven performer.


I don't believe that Australian operators have yet come to the realisation that we will need to go down the path of creating a liability for themselves just to keep the planes flying. This will happen, but we need a major crisis before this happens. We are not there yet...
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 06:24
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
Problem #2 The operator will have to bear some or all of the financial risk for failures. Who is going to sign up to a deal where they owe $200,000 without a job?
This is already how funding is for most cadetships in Australia.

Virgin uses the government fee-help as their funding, so there is no risk to the operator if the cadet doesn't make the grade or pulls out.

I'm pretty sure Rex offer the loan themselves (80% of a ~$120k loan), but if the cadet fails to complete the program and their service period, they are liable for paying the full amount back to Rex.
mikewil is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 07:07
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 574
Yes, I understand the VET/FEE-HELP system is in place. The cadet still ends up paying the total bill in after tax dollars. Failure to qualify still falls on the shoulders of the cadet backstopped by the Federal government as the loan is eventually recouped through via the tax system.

Doing it this way removes most ability for the operator to control the pilot. Just starting to hear experienced FO's are taking China contracts too, I presume for their upgrade potential.

Learning to fly is still financially highly risky. Operators may eventually need to assume some of that risk to keep the equipment flying.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 07:39
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,410
Operators may eventually need to assume some of that risk to keep the equipment flying.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rights-workers

As the contractor assumed responsibility for costs usually borne by an employer (think retirement and sick leave) the push continued unabated.

For pilots the risk and expense is substantial and a serious impediment. It is this reality and a sober assessment of terms and conditions that likely is in part responsible for the lack of qualified applicant.

Eventually airlines in Australia will have to abandon their adversarial posture and perhaps even realise that all the fancy bolt on bits of the modern corporation need revenue; for an airline that remains flying. Flying needs pilots.

It will be amusing to see faux smiles and media releases as airline managers through gritted teeth say pilots are important and as a result our airline is investing...and actually incur the cost instead of outsourcing it to the pilot. It has been amusing watching Mr O'Leary have to back off
Rated De is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2018, 07:53
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,035
Well I think with the latest comment from Andrew David re Jetconnect and Network the gloves are off, PIA will be the only way, bring on delayed EBAs!
Angle of Attack is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.