Qantas vertical promotion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas vertical promotion
Looks like its a done deal.
Soon second Officers on the 744 will not be allowed to bid for a F/O slot on the 744 and will be forced to go back on the 76. Big pay drop and commuting a nightmare if you live out of Syd as a lot of S/Os do.
Pity the company couldn't just fix the debacle on the 76 rather than penalise blokes who have played by the rules and now find that they have to cash the cheques for the company stuff ups.
The standards argument doesn't wash either. Lots of S/Os have heaps of jet command,military time or thousands of hours as jet F/Os. Sure shows a lot of confidence in the Check and Training system. "Sorry bloggs we know you have umpteen thousand hours command on Orions/Hercs/ etc and have straight A's on all your checks but if we were to let you out as an F/O on our flagship jet then we just couldnt have any confidence that you'd be any good. Losa and all that you know. Now be a good chap and do as you are told, sorry about the pay drop."
AIPA will probably say its a standards rather than a seniority issue and disclaim any jurisdiction.
Be funny, if despite all the coercion no one went anyway.
Soon second Officers on the 744 will not be allowed to bid for a F/O slot on the 744 and will be forced to go back on the 76. Big pay drop and commuting a nightmare if you live out of Syd as a lot of S/Os do.
Pity the company couldn't just fix the debacle on the 76 rather than penalise blokes who have played by the rules and now find that they have to cash the cheques for the company stuff ups.
The standards argument doesn't wash either. Lots of S/Os have heaps of jet command,military time or thousands of hours as jet F/Os. Sure shows a lot of confidence in the Check and Training system. "Sorry bloggs we know you have umpteen thousand hours command on Orions/Hercs/ etc and have straight A's on all your checks but if we were to let you out as an F/O on our flagship jet then we just couldnt have any confidence that you'd be any good. Losa and all that you know. Now be a good chap and do as you are told, sorry about the pay drop."
AIPA will probably say its a standards rather than a seniority issue and disclaim any jurisdiction.
Be funny, if despite all the coercion no one went anyway.
Nunc est bibendum
Actually bonvol, shouldn't cost them a red cent. In fact, they should make money by going to the 767 first. A compatriot of mine stayed on the 744 as a S/O and my pay has been better than his for at least the last two years. I have more nights at home during the roster and depending on the roster, less actual days away at work too. The only difference here is that he gets more time off around the world than I do and so he has less tours of duty in his days away at work. So if they held off for (say) six-ish plus years, then did a couple of years on the 767 it shouldn't work out too much differently. Certainly not the $90K quoted elsewhere!
Commuting is another thing entirely and I'm in just about full agreement with the 'debacle' on the 767 although admittedly, life is a truck load better now for the most junior on the list than it was a few years back! Who knows how good life may be in the next 12 months!
(Yes, there was a touch of irony and scepticism in that comment!)
The bit I reckon is a bit different is the standards thing. It's not unheard of for an ex military or airline person to struggle with F/O training after a lengthy time as a S/O- especially those who are a little 'older'. Whether we point the finger at the trainee or the training system is a discussion for another forum entirely.
Still, it's an interesting one for us ALL to deal with. I was quite happy at the prospect of being pretty senior on the 767 in the next 12 months or so. Looks like I'll be going backward whilst the 20+ S/Os senior to me on the 744 bid back to get the requirements. I guess I can also kiss away the prospect of a 767 command in the next couple of years due to the senior 744 F/Os who had been holding off for a command on the MRV probably now bidding for a 767 command.
Now that I look at it that way..............
Interesting times.
Commuting is another thing entirely and I'm in just about full agreement with the 'debacle' on the 767 although admittedly, life is a truck load better now for the most junior on the list than it was a few years back! Who knows how good life may be in the next 12 months!
(Yes, there was a touch of irony and scepticism in that comment!)The bit I reckon is a bit different is the standards thing. It's not unheard of for an ex military or airline person to struggle with F/O training after a lengthy time as a S/O- especially those who are a little 'older'. Whether we point the finger at the trainee or the training system is a discussion for another forum entirely.
Still, it's an interesting one for us ALL to deal with. I was quite happy at the prospect of being pretty senior on the 767 in the next 12 months or so. Looks like I'll be going backward whilst the 20+ S/Os senior to me on the 744 bid back to get the requirements. I guess I can also kiss away the prospect of a 767 command in the next couple of years due to the senior 744 F/Os who had been holding off for a command on the MRV probably now bidding for a 767 command.
Now that I look at it that way..............
Interesting times.
Since when does having 'umpteen thousand hours command on Orions/Hercs/ etc' guarantee how someone will go during promotion.
Regardless of backgrounds, some people will find promotion pretty straight forward. A lot will struggle!
Regardless of backgrounds, some people will find promotion pretty straight forward. A lot will struggle!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, yeah, the 90K did seem to be a bit over the top.
I feel one of the big issues is the tinkering with the seniority system. Your number used to buy you a go and you passed or you didn't. Now that is no longer the case.
Time will tell but the level playing field has tilted once again.
Interesting times indeed.
I feel one of the big issues is the tinkering with the seniority system. Your number used to buy you a go and you passed or you didn't. Now that is no longer the case.
Time will tell but the level playing field has tilted once again.
Interesting times indeed.
Nunc est bibendum
Easy lads, we can spin off into oblivion on this one by going the man instead of the ball. We do that and we're ALL worse off.
There are guys who didn't make it through pilots course who have checked out in command and there are ex-RAAFies who have struggled to various degreees with promotion. Me, I didn't even get the priviledge of trying my hand at the RAAFs pilots course. There are GA drivers who have struggled through promotional training, etc, etc, etc.
Lets just leave the discussion about training and trainee's for an entirely different thread as that is NOT the issue facing us at the moment.
Bonvol, your second post is what it should be about. If the company is concerned about standards, experience, exposures to lots of approaches, (whatever) then that is their problem to fix via sim sessions, training etc, not via an arbitrary line in the sand that changes the goal posts NOW! Fair enough if they wanted to introduce it then how about giving us a couple of years lead time to work out the implications and bid accordingly but to change the posts with no notice is a bit cruel. Still, I've yet to see the thing in print yet so won't comment beyond the hypotheticals of it until I do.
It certainly makes an already very murky crystal ball even murkier!!
There are guys who didn't make it through pilots course who have checked out in command and there are ex-RAAFies who have struggled to various degreees with promotion. Me, I didn't even get the priviledge of trying my hand at the RAAFs pilots course. There are GA drivers who have struggled through promotional training, etc, etc, etc.
Lets just leave the discussion about training and trainee's for an entirely different thread as that is NOT the issue facing us at the moment.
Bonvol, your second post is what it should be about. If the company is concerned about standards, experience, exposures to lots of approaches, (whatever) then that is their problem to fix via sim sessions, training etc, not via an arbitrary line in the sand that changes the goal posts NOW! Fair enough if they wanted to introduce it then how about giving us a couple of years lead time to work out the implications and bid accordingly but to change the posts with no notice is a bit cruel. Still, I've yet to see the thing in print yet so won't comment beyond the hypotheticals of it until I do.
It certainly makes an already very murky crystal ball even murkier!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the standards issue however I think the company has good reason to want it pilots with "thousand(s)" of hours to use the experience earlier as FO and not as a SO for 6-7 years.
QF employed these pilots, along with other reasons, for this experience and should expect a return. Esp if their time to retirement is less than the the norm as some are employed well above 30.
According to a SCC(ex RAAF) the RAAF guys/gals appeal for employment is being tarnished with these long term SO's.
Having said that it is poor form to change the rules for current SO/FO's.
Regards
FFRATS
QF employed these pilots, along with other reasons, for this experience and should expect a return. Esp if their time to retirement is less than the the norm as some are employed well above 30.
According to a SCC(ex RAAF) the RAAF guys/gals appeal for employment is being tarnished with these long term SO's.
Having said that it is poor form to change the rules for current SO/FO's.
Regards
FFRATS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the reason for that FFrats?...its not attractive for them to bid for it. In most industries when you take promotion you get better pay and conditions as a general rule.
In this case you get worse conditions and worse pay..although there can be a debate about the pay. If the senior S/O's thought they would be better off on the 76 then they would have bid for it ages ago. I guess this stuff is in the eye of the beholder but to fix the problem in mid stream and disadvantage a pile of guys who acted in accordance with the seniority system and based their plans accordingly is a disgrace.
It's so simple...make it attractive for blokes to take promotion.
In this case you get worse conditions and worse pay..although there can be a debate about the pay. If the senior S/O's thought they would be better off on the 76 then they would have bid for it ages ago. I guess this stuff is in the eye of the beholder but to fix the problem in mid stream and disadvantage a pile of guys who acted in accordance with the seniority system and based their plans accordingly is a disgrace.
It's so simple...make it attractive for blokes to take promotion.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF had a period where pilots were second officers for 12-15 years (or longer). These guys consisted mainly of the ex-cadet mafia who run the joint now. They didn't seem to run into difficulites with their jumbo upgrades. Strange that they think others will.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ladies & gents,
To start with - I'm not suggesting ANYTHING against the pilots here - more just asking if this is the logic.
Bonvol raises a 'standards' argument. I find this a tad disturbing, if I am following the correct logic. Is it that management are saying that a S/O has to go across to the 767 fleet as they are not of a high enough standard to be a F/O on 747s? This is a bit scary - they're not good enough to fly 747s, but they're good enough to haul around the poor punters who get lumbered with 767s? Again, I'm not saying ANYTHING against the pilots here - more just asking if this is the logic.
If that's the logic, then wouldn't safety be a bit more enhanced if they were promoted to F/O on an aircraft where they're often flying with relief crew - hence always at least a third set of eyes - rather than just relying on two sets, one of which is possibly (by this logic) not good enough to be on the big pwane??
Frankly one would have thought that whilst there are doubtless some differences in skill amongst individuals - the standards are there for a purpose & anyone unable to meet the minima should not be in the job full stop, whether on bugsmashers, fruitbats or Jumbos.
Or maybe I've got it all wrong? I look forward to being enlightened.
TD67
To start with - I'm not suggesting ANYTHING against the pilots here - more just asking if this is the logic.
Bonvol raises a 'standards' argument. I find this a tad disturbing, if I am following the correct logic. Is it that management are saying that a S/O has to go across to the 767 fleet as they are not of a high enough standard to be a F/O on 747s? This is a bit scary - they're not good enough to fly 747s, but they're good enough to haul around the poor punters who get lumbered with 767s? Again, I'm not saying ANYTHING against the pilots here - more just asking if this is the logic.
If that's the logic, then wouldn't safety be a bit more enhanced if they were promoted to F/O on an aircraft where they're often flying with relief crew - hence always at least a third set of eyes - rather than just relying on two sets, one of which is possibly (by this logic) not good enough to be on the big pwane??
Frankly one would have thought that whilst there are doubtless some differences in skill amongst individuals - the standards are there for a purpose & anyone unable to meet the minima should not be in the job full stop, whether on bugsmashers, fruitbats or Jumbos.
Or maybe I've got it all wrong? I look forward to being enlightened.
TD67
Nunc est bibendum
I see it a little bit differently TD. It isn't that they're good enough but a combination of the fact that by default they've been a S/O for the last eight or so years and then jumping onto an aircraft where as an F/O you are extremelly lucky if you average one sector a week for yourself and obviously one for the boss. Given the right set of conditions, possibly less than one a week. Compare that with the average 767 driver who would probably do three plus per week and then also gets to watch 3+ from the boss and you can see the differences in 'experience' that can develop over a short period of time.
In short, I think the issue is about guys not doing much/any 'real' flying as a S/O for eight years (not denying that their long haul management is probably fantastic but their stick and rudder may be the the one lacking) and then jumping into a seat that gets very little exposure to the stick and rudders and little chance to observe it from the other bloke either. Despite what some say, this IS different to what happened years ago. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The route structure was vastly different and no airliner around stayed airborne for 16+ hours at a time.
Still, that shouldn't make it a 'crew' issue. It is still a company issue to solve I would have thought.
In short, I think the issue is about guys not doing much/any 'real' flying as a S/O for eight years (not denying that their long haul management is probably fantastic but their stick and rudder may be the the one lacking) and then jumping into a seat that gets very little exposure to the stick and rudders and little chance to observe it from the other bloke either. Despite what some say, this IS different to what happened years ago. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The route structure was vastly different and no airliner around stayed airborne for 16+ hours at a time.
Still, that shouldn't make it a 'crew' issue. It is still a company issue to solve I would have thought.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is a crew issue. The fact is on the 400 no-one gets acceptable currency, boss, f/o or s/o. The route structure doesnt allow it. And by acceptable I dont mean legal currency, I mean the currency that makes a pilot feel "current" if you get my drift.
The company should seriously look at this issue instead of these band-aid fixes that have ramifications for the whole of the seniority system.
The company should seriously look at this issue instead of these band-aid fixes that have ramifications for the whole of the seniority system.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You either have a seniority system or you don't. QF have a system of grading people as to whether they are ready for promotion or need to be assessed. If they are considered to be ready for promotion then it shouldn't matter which type they are bidding for as long as their number allows it. I also agree that any promotion should involve a pay rise. Unfortunately pay rates have been based on a speed/weight formula which was ok when new aeroplanes were bigger and faster than the types they were replacing. If the airlines want to encourage people to seek promotion from S/O to F/O then it should translate into a bigger pay packet.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PermFO,
I completely agree - people will bid for a promotion if they get a payrise. It is the system that's wrong - not the participants in it. 747-400 fleet pay across the board (with an appropriate freeze period) would IMHO sort out some of these issues.
Personally, I don't think there's much more too it than that the powers-that-be are sick of some guys staying at the top of the tree until they get a vertical promotion on the 400. Particularly when they have come into the company with a lot of previous experience.
When it comes to loyalty to family or company, not many of us need to think too carefully about where our primary loyalty lies. If the company wants our loyalty they should be prepared to pay for it. We all have bills to pay - why would some people volunteer for a pay drop when the same bills still need paying.
Also, I have not seen or heard of any great failure rate in the vertical promotion training path to warrant this action. And no, I am not one of the permanent S/Os. In fact I have been an F/O on both the Classic and the 767 in the last three years, so I have already done my two years on other jet types. Personally, I found doing an upgrade on a type I hadn't flown before to be very difficult - it is not just the aircraft, it is the route structure the people and the philosophy which are all different. In my opinion, doing a vertical promotion on type would be easier since all of the other variables (except for the bottom 5000 feet) are already known.
Keg, while your (and my) seniority on the 767 could slip for a short time, we could also find ourselves on the MRV sooner than we thought as a result of this action. But self interest aside, I still don't think that it is fair to suddenly turn the system on its ear. I think that a grievance procedure could be warranted in this case, and it will be very interesting to see AIPA's reaction to a group that it has not felt a lot of sympathy for in the past.
I completely agree - people will bid for a promotion if they get a payrise. It is the system that's wrong - not the participants in it. 747-400 fleet pay across the board (with an appropriate freeze period) would IMHO sort out some of these issues.
Personally, I don't think there's much more too it than that the powers-that-be are sick of some guys staying at the top of the tree until they get a vertical promotion on the 400. Particularly when they have come into the company with a lot of previous experience.
When it comes to loyalty to family or company, not many of us need to think too carefully about where our primary loyalty lies. If the company wants our loyalty they should be prepared to pay for it. We all have bills to pay - why would some people volunteer for a pay drop when the same bills still need paying.
Also, I have not seen or heard of any great failure rate in the vertical promotion training path to warrant this action. And no, I am not one of the permanent S/Os. In fact I have been an F/O on both the Classic and the 767 in the last three years, so I have already done my two years on other jet types. Personally, I found doing an upgrade on a type I hadn't flown before to be very difficult - it is not just the aircraft, it is the route structure the people and the philosophy which are all different. In my opinion, doing a vertical promotion on type would be easier since all of the other variables (except for the bottom 5000 feet) are already known.
Keg, while your (and my) seniority on the 767 could slip for a short time, we could also find ourselves on the MRV sooner than we thought as a result of this action. But self interest aside, I still don't think that it is fair to suddenly turn the system on its ear. I think that a grievance procedure could be warranted in this case, and it will be very interesting to see AIPA's reaction to a group that it has not felt a lot of sympathy for in the past.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonval / permFO......the 767 FO's hourly rate is more than the 744 SO's rate. The SO gains greatly through the fact that most flights they do are long and attract overtime payments. Now if you could get the 767 to do 12hour+ sectors it would be a different game.
Three Bars....... 400 fleet pay for all
! I'll vote for that but it will NEVER happen.
Three Bars....... 400 fleet pay for all
! I'll vote for that but it will NEVER happen.
Nunc est bibendum
3B, I could have BEEN on the 744 by now if I had wanted it. The equal time off (on mostly days of my choosing) and remote possibility of an early command on the 767 (in Sydney as opposed to CNS) was why I chose to enjoy the 767 for a while longer. Alas, the whole dynamic has changed. The plans will have to be re-evaluated in the lead up to the next round.
Never has my latin moniker seemed more appropriate!
Never has my latin moniker seemed more appropriate!