Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Tigerair chief Merren McArthur warns on aviation industry’s lack of diversity

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

Tigerair chief Merren McArthur warns on aviation industry’s lack of diversity

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th Aug 2018, 08:57
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

So I would think the employees have a lot to fear from an internal getting the job.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 21:59
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
the usual rationalization is that if you are stupid enough to work for us, you can't possibly be promoted to CEO.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 06:53
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 2,213
Received 69 Likes on 36 Posts
They are advertising for Head of Flight Operations in today’s The Australian.
Any transgender, dwarf, group hugger, basket weaving, non married but in a committed relationship, climate changer believer, Toyota Prius driver available to apply?
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 14:11
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 1,913
Received 295 Likes on 124 Posts
Forget MM for the job, CW from SQ surely a lead contender for the job. A Tiger to Scoot rebrand would work well for the parent no doubt also. Would get SQ closer grip on any plans for a full takeover. Watch this space folks.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 04:58
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
Forget MM for the job, CW from SQ surely a lead contender for the job. A Tiger to Scoot rebrand would work well for the parent no doubt also. Would get SQ closer grip on any plans for a full takeover. Watch this space folks.
That is a very astute observation.
Singapore has repeatedly argued for greater Australian access.
Rated De is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 08:25
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by The Bullwinkle

ABSOLUTELY!!!
There is no one internally who is any good... anyone with any talent or experience has been culled and drummed out by the current regime and the only choice is external... the current regime are so unbelievably incompetent the only thing they've demonstrated 'competence' at is getting rid of anyone with any ability.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 01:17
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above the Trenches
Posts: 189
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks Stationair. Just noticed on the same web page, Tiger also have a opening for a new CEO. Wonder where the incumbent is off to....oh surprise surprise...

Last edited by The Baron; 19th Aug 2018 at 01:18. Reason: accuracy
The Baron is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 13:45
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ideally SQ buys out EY for full takeover, brings in CW to run the joint, and bumps off EB. Tiger absorbs into Scoot branding providing greater feed to its 787 operation. Would be a large coup for SQ, not sure how the new Chinese owners would feel about this lol.

SQ really need to takeover this mob, they have large input behind closed doors compared to the others, who essentially have little involvement in key decisions. Etihads once heavy involvement essentially went with Hogan. Out the door.

Last edited by wheels_down; 19th Aug 2018 at 13:57.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 23:32
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I just watched her presentation from the CAPA conference earlier in the month, when pressed on the fleet transition from A320 to 737 and how long that would take she answered ‘a year or so... a few years.’ Surely for a low cost carrier with only 15 airframes to have a split fleet for what may be up to 4-5 years (given the transition started 18-24 months ago) this is terribly inefficient.
ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 02:17
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,253
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
Always be careful what you wish for! There were many people at Ansett who thought that SQ was going to be the white knight and fix all the problems, after all they were a big successful international carrier. SQ are indeed a big successful international carrier but whenever they stray outside their own territory they have a dismal record.

Whether its a complete lack of understanding of politics in Australia and NZ or an inability to influence decisions behind the scenes I don't know. When it comes to successful offshore partnerships they just don't have the runs on the board.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2018, 11:38
  #91 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,956
Received 861 Likes on 257 Posts
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
I just watched her presentation from the CAPA conference earlier in the month, when pressed on the fleet transition from A320 to 737 and how long that would take she answered ‘a year or so... a few years.’ Surely for a low cost carrier with only 15 airframes to have a split fleet for what may be up to 4-5 years (given the transition started 18-24 months ago) this is terribly inefficient.
A conversion time from one type such as the A320 to the B737 for a fleet of 15 aircraft will be dependent on the management of surplus of flight crew and maintenance staff, as well as finances. Short haul operators average 4 to 5 crews per aircraft dependent on the employment contracts and FTLs. Reducing operating aircraft will not give as many spare crews as long haul does for entering training activity. Management usually is much less than 10% of the total manpower, so does not add greatly to the available manpower, but does assist in the early stages while qualifying training staff.

Normal leave coverage provides some slack, if the crew training can be negotiated to occur in lieu of annual leave. That at best may add up to 10% crew availability for entering training. To do that, the management would need to have good relationships with crewing. The type training and line training is going to be in the order of 60 days to complete processing. To that end, the 15 aircraft fleet will be able to work up to transitioning around 7.5/2 crews per month using leave allocations only, which is about 1 aircraft worth of transition a month without too much stress. If you add some management to the current and new flying to release crews to training, then that can be increased by a couple of crews, but that would be about it, making for 1 plane a month being a practical rate of transition, without adding additional staff in a surge through contract or other source. Going to contract on either type increases ramp up rate. There is still an initial delay in process to achieve approvals for the initial crews, adding to the front end time.

Transitioning from the 320 to the 737 without using extra crewing is going to to a year long program at the minimum, and up to 15-18 months for a fleet of Tigers size. Add enough additional crew, and it can be done as fast as aircraft can be delivered, if the line training staff are on hand, but they will usually be the bottle neck. Going from the 320 to 737 is going to be faster and more reliable in outcome that doing the other way round... Company policy and Regulatory guidelines add to the IOE training time which will be unique to each operator, with short haul doing well if the controlling factor is sectors, and less so if they are hours flown, compared to long haul.

Maintenance is a bottle neck, dependent on the regulatory licensing requirements. AF & PP courses will remove staff from current activity, putting demand on oversight and specialists, and could be just as limiting or more so than the flight crew.
fdr is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2018, 11:51
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,878
Likes: 0
Received 246 Likes on 106 Posts
SQ are indeed a big successful international carrier but whenever they stray outside their own territory they have a dismal record.
You are correct, SQ is Temasek is the government. They get what they want at home,

The quote also applies to Qantas....Red Q? Jetstar Hong Kong? Jetstar Vietnam with management under house arrest?

Transitioning from the 320 to the 737 without using extra crewing is going to to a year long program at the minimum, and up to 15-18 months for a fleet of Tigers size.
Great analysis but they have been going for 18 months already and that is WITH contract crews on short term contracts to speed up the process.

One explanation is the same as the Bali debacle...incompetence.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2018, 13:35
  #93 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,485
Received 101 Likes on 58 Posts
Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride,,,,

Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2018, 22:51
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 606
Received 13 Likes on 3 Posts
Interesting article in the AUSTRALIAN which amongst other things said that the person in question was “said to be a popular leader”

Not sure if the person who said that was the person running the pr campaign but it brings into doubt the level of research and industry knowledge these so called aviation reporters have.

how hard is it to do some research and report facts?
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2018, 09:26
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting article in the AUSTRALIAN which amongst other things said that the person in question was “said to be a popular leader”
Didn’t see that article but surely they’re not talking about JB!
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 21:48
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tiger EBA

Anyone know how the Tiger EBA vote turned out?
PammyAnderson is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 22:04
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PammyAnderson
Anyone know how the Tiger EBA vote turned out?
Yes = 39.5% (73 votes)
No = 60.5% (112 votes)

The final participation rate was 91% (185/204).
shoddy88 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2018, 22:26
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shoddy88
Yes = 39.5% (73 votes)
No = 60.5% (112 votes)

The final participation rate was 91% (185/204).
oh wow. Didn’t both unions endorse the agreement?
What is it that the pilots were most unhappy about?
Genuine question as I don’t know.
PammyAnderson is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2018, 07:00
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn’t both unions endorse the agreement?
Its not the first time a union endorsed EA has been voted down. The first version of the recent Cobham EA was overwhelmingly supported to the verge of being forceabley promoted by the unions. There were promises made to the company that the unions simply couldn’t back up and it was subsequently voted down. Pilots are not going to listen to a union who doesn’t represent their best interests. This is bad for the employees and bad for the company.
GWhizz is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2018, 11:08
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 189
Received 113 Likes on 31 Posts
Originally Posted by PammyAnderson


oh wow. Didn’t both unions endorse the agreement?
What is it that the pilots were most unhappy about?
Genuine question as I don’t know.
Both unions endorsed it. Doesn’t mean it a good deal. The unions are more and more detached from their members than ever before. Unfortunately neither union is after the interests of Tiger pilots and only Tiger pilots. They will look after their majority and it’s not TT pilots!
davidclarke is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.