Paraidse Lost
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patriot One, now you're making accusations. Based on what facts? A feeling? Your observations?
And who, or what, is the "industry"? Aren't "we" part of the industry? Don't "we" make up the industry. So it's our fault?
What's wrong with the low cost carrier? There's obviously a market there that AN and QF didn't fill.
"They've given you nothing..."
What about a paycheque and a job? What else are they supposed to give? Luxury townhouses on Sydney's north shore?
An honest day's work for an honest day's pay sounds like a mutually acceptable exchange to me. QF does the same to its staff.
Obviously VB is meeting CASA standards or they wouldn't be flying. The pilots and staff working for VB are happy, or they wouldn't be there. Customers are happy or they wouldn't be flying with VB.
But I see in a previous post of yours that it is Dixon's fault for leaving VB hang around. Maybe you should lobby Mr Dixon to kill off VB quick smart and restore some order to Australian aviation.
It seems the only people unhappy with the VB arrangements are those in direct competition and those who long for the way things were.
"QF and AN - haven't you noticed that they didn't/haven't cut costs?" You're quite correct. But haven't you noticed that AN went bust and QF is trying to cut costs now?
So where's the problem and what's your point? Morale? Is that it? If you're lamenting the changes to Australian aviation; tough! That's life. Get used to it.
And as for your "simple" math in a previous post:
"Airline Infra-structure + Airline Costs + Low Fares = low profits.
Airline costs + Minimal Infrastructure + High Fares = high profits (and an unsafe commercial or operational business)."
What's that supposed to mean 'cause it makes absolutely no sense to me? Your "equation" is no equation at all. Profit is nothing more than what's left over after deducting costs from income. There's no mention of income at all in your "equation".
Besides, isn't QF the one with the high fares and VB the one with the low?
Maybe there is no fault. Maybe, just maybe, many people are happy with just the way things are. Perhaps you might want to consider submitting a script to Hollywood for a new blockbuster horror film..."The Low Cost Carrier." Good luck.
And who, or what, is the "industry"? Aren't "we" part of the industry? Don't "we" make up the industry. So it's our fault?
What's wrong with the low cost carrier? There's obviously a market there that AN and QF didn't fill.
"They've given you nothing..."
What about a paycheque and a job? What else are they supposed to give? Luxury townhouses on Sydney's north shore?
An honest day's work for an honest day's pay sounds like a mutually acceptable exchange to me. QF does the same to its staff.
Obviously VB is meeting CASA standards or they wouldn't be flying. The pilots and staff working for VB are happy, or they wouldn't be there. Customers are happy or they wouldn't be flying with VB.
But I see in a previous post of yours that it is Dixon's fault for leaving VB hang around. Maybe you should lobby Mr Dixon to kill off VB quick smart and restore some order to Australian aviation.
It seems the only people unhappy with the VB arrangements are those in direct competition and those who long for the way things were.
"QF and AN - haven't you noticed that they didn't/haven't cut costs?" You're quite correct. But haven't you noticed that AN went bust and QF is trying to cut costs now?
So where's the problem and what's your point? Morale? Is that it? If you're lamenting the changes to Australian aviation; tough! That's life. Get used to it.
And as for your "simple" math in a previous post:
"Airline Infra-structure + Airline Costs + Low Fares = low profits.
Airline costs + Minimal Infrastructure + High Fares = high profits (and an unsafe commercial or operational business)."
What's that supposed to mean 'cause it makes absolutely no sense to me? Your "equation" is no equation at all. Profit is nothing more than what's left over after deducting costs from income. There's no mention of income at all in your "equation".
Besides, isn't QF the one with the high fares and VB the one with the low?
Maybe there is no fault. Maybe, just maybe, many people are happy with just the way things are. Perhaps you might want to consider submitting a script to Hollywood for a new blockbuster horror film..."The Low Cost Carrier." Good luck.
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Jul 2003 at 01:41.
May be Lowy you should pull your head out of the sand (and Allah knows there is too much of it here!)
I think Pat 1 has a few good points, and one of them is that looking over your shoulder isn't a bad thing.
It isn't just DJ, but all the the QF "subsiduries" and contract companies that will come knocking on the QF holy grail doors.
It is the structure within that will bite you on the bum, not the enemy from out side. Lets face it, the domestic oppostion are well under control by the regulators as far as the domestic feild is concerned.
Internationally it's a different game.
QF have to compete against many players. Some may seem more opportunistic under differing policies and be able to take an advantage over the Ol' wight rat, whilst others will argue that it is all fair in love n' war, and that QF have certain "advantages" themselves.
Hope it all goes your way though, and l wish you all the best of fortune.
halas
I think Pat 1 has a few good points, and one of them is that looking over your shoulder isn't a bad thing.
It isn't just DJ, but all the the QF "subsiduries" and contract companies that will come knocking on the QF holy grail doors.
It is the structure within that will bite you on the bum, not the enemy from out side. Lets face it, the domestic oppostion are well under control by the regulators as far as the domestic feild is concerned.
Internationally it's a different game.
QF have to compete against many players. Some may seem more opportunistic under differing policies and be able to take an advantage over the Ol' wight rat, whilst others will argue that it is all fair in love n' war, and that QF have certain "advantages" themselves.
Hope it all goes your way though, and l wish you all the best of fortune.
halas
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patriot One
you wrote
'How's your training? Still using the AN 737-300 Sim? Yup'
Are you saying that VB does all its recurrent training on a 300 sim?
If so I'd be very disappointed. Sim training is training. How can you be prepared for emergencies etc. if you are flying a totally different cockpit to what you are doing on the line.
I've agreed and disagreed with a lot of comments on this thread and have generally been on VB's side, as I think experience levels and conditions are sure to pick up as they become more secure. But how can you do serious training like this. Checking sure, training no.
you wrote
'How's your training? Still using the AN 737-300 Sim? Yup'
Are you saying that VB does all its recurrent training on a 300 sim?
If so I'd be very disappointed. Sim training is training. How can you be prepared for emergencies etc. if you are flying a totally different cockpit to what you are doing on the line.
I've agreed and disagreed with a lot of comments on this thread and have generally been on VB's side, as I think experience levels and conditions are sure to pick up as they become more secure. But how can you do serious training like this. Checking sure, training no.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uppercumbuktawest
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually they don't use the An 300 much these days.
Training is done in Hong Kong 9on a NG sim) with Korea coming on line soon (NG) with our own sims (NG) early in the new year.
people who fly both do one about - ie one 6 monthly cycle in the NG and the next in the classic.
Training is done in Hong Kong 9on a NG sim) with Korea coming on line soon (NG) with our own sims (NG) early in the new year.
people who fly both do one about - ie one 6 monthly cycle in the NG and the next in the classic.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Laptop,
I'm not attacking VB here - this is just a genuine enquiry.
Do you do two sims a year at VB?! I assume you guys have to meet the same training matrix that we do at QF, therefore those two rides must be a nightmare!!
I'm not attacking VB here - this is just a genuine enquiry.
Do you do two sims a year at VB?! I assume you guys have to meet the same training matrix that we do at QF, therefore those two rides must be a nightmare!!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
P1, CX, although you claim to not be a pilot, the essence of many of your texts belie that claim.
Perhaps you are being a little "cute", inasmuch as you are not an active pilot at this time?
"Experience" appears to mean something only to other pilots (and probably insurance companies), as it seems that managements worldwide are seeing just how far the INexperience level can be stretched before it starts reflecting in terms of accidents/incidents.
According to Boeing - and their figures may have been calculated in the knowledge that airlines would be actively placing more INEXPERIENCE on the flight decks - airline hull losses will rise to almost 52 ....1 per week, on average....within the next 10 - 15 years. Pretty scary stuff!!
There has been a noticeable "dumbing down" of flight operations for at least the last 8 years or thereabouts, in my opinion.
Pilots are being taught to operate rote, with the obligatory "clear left - clear right" thrown in, to try to give the impression that there is some airmanship involved in the operation.
True airmanship and lateral thinking is being pretty quickly eradicated in most of the operations I`m referring to, for the simple reason that the people doing the teaching have no depth of experience themselves, and have limited envelopes of experience.
This CANNOT be said for the vast majority of Virgin Blue Training Captains - many of whom I know personally, and MANY of whom left far better paid jobs to join VB, having previously flown jets in Australia`s pre-`89 airlines, and then continued overseas.
As a matter of personal opinion I would guess that the airline experience level in VB is HIGHER now, than it was for a couple of years in Ansett, TAA, East-West and IPEC immediately post 1989 and for several years thereafter!
So P1, I`m afraid that your "concern" re the "lack" of experience is not indicative of someone who claims that he is NOT a pilot.
The reason for employing many more inexperienced pilots is probably due to several factors - the retirement of the "Baby Boomers", rapid fleet growths, and the opportunity to REDUCE salaries.
Singapore Airlines has been exploiting pilots for decades - taking young G.A. guys and bonding them for $1/4 million over 7 years, then paying them $1,000 per month.
Read the threads of "Flying for free" that occasionally pop up - there are PLENTY of novices who would give their SOUL to fly airline equipment - forget about the salary. Until they realise that you really can`t live on love.
Again IMO, the base experience level of VB Flight Ops has a real depth.
Pilots do not HAVE to work there, however if they WANT to, then they will have to join a very long queue, and pass a screening test to find out whether they are acceptable.
Perhaps you are being a little "cute", inasmuch as you are not an active pilot at this time?
"Experience" appears to mean something only to other pilots (and probably insurance companies), as it seems that managements worldwide are seeing just how far the INexperience level can be stretched before it starts reflecting in terms of accidents/incidents.
According to Boeing - and their figures may have been calculated in the knowledge that airlines would be actively placing more INEXPERIENCE on the flight decks - airline hull losses will rise to almost 52 ....1 per week, on average....within the next 10 - 15 years. Pretty scary stuff!!
There has been a noticeable "dumbing down" of flight operations for at least the last 8 years or thereabouts, in my opinion.
Pilots are being taught to operate rote, with the obligatory "clear left - clear right" thrown in, to try to give the impression that there is some airmanship involved in the operation.
True airmanship and lateral thinking is being pretty quickly eradicated in most of the operations I`m referring to, for the simple reason that the people doing the teaching have no depth of experience themselves, and have limited envelopes of experience.
This CANNOT be said for the vast majority of Virgin Blue Training Captains - many of whom I know personally, and MANY of whom left far better paid jobs to join VB, having previously flown jets in Australia`s pre-`89 airlines, and then continued overseas.
As a matter of personal opinion I would guess that the airline experience level in VB is HIGHER now, than it was for a couple of years in Ansett, TAA, East-West and IPEC immediately post 1989 and for several years thereafter!
So P1, I`m afraid that your "concern" re the "lack" of experience is not indicative of someone who claims that he is NOT a pilot.
The reason for employing many more inexperienced pilots is probably due to several factors - the retirement of the "Baby Boomers", rapid fleet growths, and the opportunity to REDUCE salaries.
Singapore Airlines has been exploiting pilots for decades - taking young G.A. guys and bonding them for $1/4 million over 7 years, then paying them $1,000 per month.
Read the threads of "Flying for free" that occasionally pop up - there are PLENTY of novices who would give their SOUL to fly airline equipment - forget about the salary. Until they realise that you really can`t live on love.
Again IMO, the base experience level of VB Flight Ops has a real depth.
Pilots do not HAVE to work there, however if they WANT to, then they will have to join a very long queue, and pass a screening test to find out whether they are acceptable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Kaptin. Well said.
I can't argue with you guys any longer. You see I am not a pilot, and I came on here to try to offer an objective view of your profession.
You seem to be very content and defend yourselves very well. So why are you all so angry? Your pages are full of spit and vitriol at each other.
Good luck to you all. I honestly believe that Australian aviation is in a massive state of transition. Count on the fact that the scene will be entirely different in a couple of years time.
Meanwhile, draw a line on standards fella's. When they start turning everything upside please don't rely on your Union or this joke of a regulator to keep things safe. You guys know the limitations. Fight for them and dont confuse them with salaries.
And hey, QF - do something about your cabin service. I don't feel safe on VB so I have to travel on you.
The bright day is done....we are for the dark!
I can't argue with you guys any longer. You see I am not a pilot, and I came on here to try to offer an objective view of your profession.
You seem to be very content and defend yourselves very well. So why are you all so angry? Your pages are full of spit and vitriol at each other.
Good luck to you all. I honestly believe that Australian aviation is in a massive state of transition. Count on the fact that the scene will be entirely different in a couple of years time.
Meanwhile, draw a line on standards fella's. When they start turning everything upside please don't rely on your Union or this joke of a regulator to keep things safe. You guys know the limitations. Fight for them and dont confuse them with salaries.
And hey, QF - do something about your cabin service. I don't feel safe on VB so I have to travel on you.
The bright day is done....we are for the dark!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on Patriot One. I'll agree with your belief in a massive state of transition, but what industry isn't?
I'm not criticising you, but I do have trouble with your argument. It appears personal, disjointed and unsupported by information based on facts. Your information about simulators and experience levels at Virgin Blue appears incorrect, yet it makes a substantial contribution to your recent postings. Your knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing seems to be the product of some beers at a local pub. You've blasted the union, the industry, Virgin Blue, Virgin, Richard Branson, CASA, Qantas, Geoff Dixon, Qantas cabin service, and by acquaintance, many of the people who read these postings, and yet you somehow believe you're aloof from the spit and vitriol that you've been dishing out. And you want us to take you seriously?
Now, if you have something substantial to say, then I'm prepared to read and learn, but your postings haven't even been worthy of rumours. They appear to me to be more like rantings and ravings aimed at stirring the pot. Have you got anything good to say about the future of Australian aviation, or is it all just doom and gloom and are we just idiots for not being able to "see" what you "see"?
I'm not criticising you, but I do have trouble with your argument. It appears personal, disjointed and unsupported by information based on facts. Your information about simulators and experience levels at Virgin Blue appears incorrect, yet it makes a substantial contribution to your recent postings. Your knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing seems to be the product of some beers at a local pub. You've blasted the union, the industry, Virgin Blue, Virgin, Richard Branson, CASA, Qantas, Geoff Dixon, Qantas cabin service, and by acquaintance, many of the people who read these postings, and yet you somehow believe you're aloof from the spit and vitriol that you've been dishing out. And you want us to take you seriously?
Now, if you have something substantial to say, then I'm prepared to read and learn, but your postings haven't even been worthy of rumours. They appear to me to be more like rantings and ravings aimed at stirring the pot. Have you got anything good to say about the future of Australian aviation, or is it all just doom and gloom and are we just idiots for not being able to "see" what you "see"?
Last edited by Lodown; 25th Jul 2003 at 04:11.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"I can't argue with you guys any longer. You see I am not a pilot, and I came on here to try to offer an objective view of your profession." Patriot One
At the moment we're "scratching", to see exactly WHERE you're coming from. From reading your posts, you certainly seem to have it in for VIRGIN for whatever reason, and appear to be using PPRuNe as your platform (perhaps only one of...) to spread some unfounded rumours.
Most pilots are aware of changes that are occurring in aviation, and are happy to accomodate them IF it can be proven that they are beneficial and ENHANCE Safety - or at least do not detract from it.
It is also very obvious to those of us who have been in the industry for a while that there is a mindset with many of the so-called "management" to expand the companies in questionable areas whilst simultaneously reducing/trimming or substituting others that are necessary.
Non-aviation qualified management are having too much influence in areas that affect flight safety, and the effect is becoming more noticeable - to the point where I believe aircraft and occupant safety ARE going to be compromised, and this is where the friction is, between the airline staff at "the coalface" and the management of many companies.
B.A. is one prime example at the moment, of a workforce that is telling Eddington, "Enough is enough!".
Yesterday I received the following email from a non-aviation mate of mine in Brisbane, and I'd like to share it with you.
One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do.
Finally he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway, it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbours to come over and help him.
They each grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realised what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to
everyone's amazement, he quietened down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer looked down the well, and was astonished at what he saw.
As every shovel of dirt hit his back, the donkey did something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer's neighbours continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up.
Pretty soon, everyone was amazed, as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off.
The Moral: Life is going to shovel dirt on you. The trick is to shake it off and take a step up.
Remember the five simple rules to be happy:
1. Free your heart from hatred.
2. Free your mind from worries.
3. Live simply.
4. Give more.
5. Expect less.
O.K., that's enough of that... The donkey later came back, caught the farmer out in the field and bit him. Then kicked him. Then he went over to each of his neighbours farms and bit and kicked them too for helping.
The REAL Moral: When you try to cover your ass, it always comes back to bite you...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin - bloody good e-mail. I would tend to disagree with you on some issues but I respect the opinions you expressed.
Lodown - my argument isn't disjointed, I have been consistent throughout. Unsupported by facts? If I was to state the facts Woomera would ban me from PPRUNE. By the way I hardly think one line about a simulator (which I still insist is correct - 50% of the training is done on the AN sim) makes up a "substantial contribution to your postings".
And finally, your mockery of my "knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing" is almost breathlessly ignorant....and remember Lowdown "....real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance".
But I will concede one point to you - what the hell is my point?
Lodown - my argument isn't disjointed, I have been consistent throughout. Unsupported by facts? If I was to state the facts Woomera would ban me from PPRUNE. By the way I hardly think one line about a simulator (which I still insist is correct - 50% of the training is done on the AN sim) makes up a "substantial contribution to your postings".
And finally, your mockery of my "knowledge of airline and World economics, risk management, basic accounting and aviation marketing" is almost breathlessly ignorant....and remember Lowdown "....real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance".
But I will concede one point to you - what the hell is my point?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's been interesting reading what P1 has had to say the last few days...and I agree with a lot of it! Not all, but a lot!
A guess P1 made the mistake of thinking this is some sort of chat forum when in actual fact it's a rumour and abuse forum.
That is, you start a rumour and we abuse you. If you want to chat I guess Oprah might be the correct forum!
We also have some sensitive souls here, some are a bit thick and a sense of humour often seems to be lacking!
So, having said that, let me also say that I am joking!!
PS: We should all take note of Rev M and his very wise epistle!
A guess P1 made the mistake of thinking this is some sort of chat forum when in actual fact it's a rumour and abuse forum.
That is, you start a rumour and we abuse you. If you want to chat I guess Oprah might be the correct forum!
We also have some sensitive souls here, some are a bit thick and a sense of humour often seems to be lacking!
So, having said that, let me also say that I am joking!!
PS: We should all take note of Rev M and his very wise epistle!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: BNE
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.... I go on a short holiday with the family and miss out on such a good thread... ****** !!
Must agree with your praise of NZ in past posts Kaptin. Never got to see much in the year I was based there but this holiday improved my vision. Missed Hanmer Springs but had some quality time on the slopes of both Islands, should have taken the family long ago.
Patriot 1.
I have enjoyed your posts. You say that your point is lost and you are failing in your intent. That is not the case. Please review the number of posts v's the number of viewings of the threads. There are many more who read this forum than post replies (as an example, note the number of replies I have made during my years registered here). You have much to offer... don't be detracted by personal attacks. Your assesment of Kaptin M is accurate. He has much to offer and is a good sparring partner for matters relating to this industry... but he can get cranky on the '89 issue.
I too have spent many frustrating hours at the keyboard attempting to put my aviation degrees to some use by waxing lyrical in this place on the parlous state of our industry. My conclusions are similar to yours (or what I think are yours)... the industry itself is to blame.
We have educated the customer to believe that a fair price to travel from BNE to SYD is $80 bucks (or there abouts), when we should be saying that if you want to do that trip in just over an hour... and safely.... then we may need to charge you more. To attribute blame for such failings would require a motivated intelectual with the need to complete a thesis. All I can say is that within aviation management the "Peter Principle" is alive and well. A fact that will always make aviation a dangerous place... both operationally and commercially.
Again... from this observer.... thank you for your input.
Must agree with your praise of NZ in past posts Kaptin. Never got to see much in the year I was based there but this holiday improved my vision. Missed Hanmer Springs but had some quality time on the slopes of both Islands, should have taken the family long ago.
Patriot 1.
I have enjoyed your posts. You say that your point is lost and you are failing in your intent. That is not the case. Please review the number of posts v's the number of viewings of the threads. There are many more who read this forum than post replies (as an example, note the number of replies I have made during my years registered here). You have much to offer... don't be detracted by personal attacks. Your assesment of Kaptin M is accurate. He has much to offer and is a good sparring partner for matters relating to this industry... but he can get cranky on the '89 issue.
I too have spent many frustrating hours at the keyboard attempting to put my aviation degrees to some use by waxing lyrical in this place on the parlous state of our industry. My conclusions are similar to yours (or what I think are yours)... the industry itself is to blame.
We have educated the customer to believe that a fair price to travel from BNE to SYD is $80 bucks (or there abouts), when we should be saying that if you want to do that trip in just over an hour... and safely.... then we may need to charge you more. To attribute blame for such failings would require a motivated intelectual with the need to complete a thesis. All I can say is that within aviation management the "Peter Principle" is alive and well. A fact that will always make aviation a dangerous place... both operationally and commercially.
Again... from this observer.... thank you for your input.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting the amount of talk about low experience people being taken on by VB.
I know of about 7 drivers who got in about a year or so ago.
The least experienced had TT 2,000, 1000 multi, most of it turbine. The most experienced had TT 5,000, 3000 multi including 2000 turbine Capt. over 5,700. Everyone else was somewhere between.
Is it just another urban myth?
Lets face it - it is not as if there is a shortage of drivers with the above experience.
I know of about 7 drivers who got in about a year or so ago.
The least experienced had TT 2,000, 1000 multi, most of it turbine. The most experienced had TT 5,000, 3000 multi including 2000 turbine Capt. over 5,700. Everyone else was somewhere between.
Is it just another urban myth?
Lets face it - it is not as if there is a shortage of drivers with the above experience.
Boney, the inexperience refered to is only of concern when combined with rapid promotion.
The experience you outline is quite reasonable for a jet F/o position, however these same people may only have 500 hrs jet experience when being considered for command upgrades. While for some candidates this is acceptable, the majority require more (but may not get it).
Bear in mind that not so long ago five years jet experience was a minimum with Australia's airlines, so the rapid reduction to six months is a quantum leap. Over a protracted period a culture of inexperience results.
The left hand seat is not the place to be learning to fly jet aircraft. Cheers
The experience you outline is quite reasonable for a jet F/o position, however these same people may only have 500 hrs jet experience when being considered for command upgrades. While for some candidates this is acceptable, the majority require more (but may not get it).
Bear in mind that not so long ago five years jet experience was a minimum with Australia's airlines, so the rapid reduction to six months is a quantum leap. Over a protracted period a culture of inexperience results.
The left hand seat is not the place to be learning to fly jet aircraft. Cheers
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patriot One, maybe I misconstrued some of your postings, but I still can't see your point. You lay blame on someone for disrupting the incumbents by having the foresight to see a new market as well as the economic conditions for the supporting infrastructure and the relevant costs and then taking action to profit from it. Surely that is the beauty of capitalism at work. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got - to paraphrase and massacre a well-used line.
You're blaming Virgin and Richard Branson and also Qantas to some extent, for something that isn't specific to the aviation industry. It is happening to every business and industry where electronics are taking, or have taken, over routine, repetitive tasks and employees are working more from SOPs. The company that can analyse the customer, have the discipline to focus the company on achieveable goals and measure and assess the competition and beat the opposition to the punch gets the spoils. And once ahead, the innovative company is in a much stronger position to stay ahead. The fact that Qantas and Ansett made, and Qantas continues to make, changes in direction at a speed that makes a snail's pace look positively blistering only leaves avenues open for continued VB growth and confidence.
Qantas and Ansett controlled the market for passengers and pilots/staff. That was great for people employed by Qantas. Having the benefit of hindsight, both companies, and their respective unions, were painstakingly slow in recognising the changes in the World economic scene and horrendously slow to react to at-home political reforms. Virgin Blue stepped into the vacuum with a very flexible business plan by comparison.
Perhaps some people feel gratitude towards you for pointing out that Virgin Blue ownership may change around in 18 months, but isn't that business, assuming it even happens? Who knows? The future could be completely opposite to your prediction and VB could have 70% of the Australian domestic market share by then with Richard Branson on the edge of owning a true World airline. I would think that the more likely scenario, but it's only a hunch. I would guess that if Geoff Dixon had the inside scoop to know that VB wouldn't be around in 18 months, he'd be taking a different view to Qantas reforms.
VB is expanding rapidly, and there are a number of issues with a rapidly expanding company in any business - finance, communication, training, personnel development, supply line continuity - to name a few. You're pointing out these problems. I take the view in a growing company like VB that I'd be worried if they didn't have these issues. I'm sure CASA has a great deal of interest in ensuring standards are maintained. Yes, to some extent you're right in terms of comparing it to a house of cards. But I could just as easily make that comparison to just about every business. There is usually a situation or more with every business that could bring the house down, but part of management's role is to minimise exposure.
Just a difference of opinion I guess, and we'll have to agree to leave it at that. I'm keen to see what's in store over the short to medium term.
You're blaming Virgin and Richard Branson and also Qantas to some extent, for something that isn't specific to the aviation industry. It is happening to every business and industry where electronics are taking, or have taken, over routine, repetitive tasks and employees are working more from SOPs. The company that can analyse the customer, have the discipline to focus the company on achieveable goals and measure and assess the competition and beat the opposition to the punch gets the spoils. And once ahead, the innovative company is in a much stronger position to stay ahead. The fact that Qantas and Ansett made, and Qantas continues to make, changes in direction at a speed that makes a snail's pace look positively blistering only leaves avenues open for continued VB growth and confidence.
Qantas and Ansett controlled the market for passengers and pilots/staff. That was great for people employed by Qantas. Having the benefit of hindsight, both companies, and their respective unions, were painstakingly slow in recognising the changes in the World economic scene and horrendously slow to react to at-home political reforms. Virgin Blue stepped into the vacuum with a very flexible business plan by comparison.
Perhaps some people feel gratitude towards you for pointing out that Virgin Blue ownership may change around in 18 months, but isn't that business, assuming it even happens? Who knows? The future could be completely opposite to your prediction and VB could have 70% of the Australian domestic market share by then with Richard Branson on the edge of owning a true World airline. I would think that the more likely scenario, but it's only a hunch. I would guess that if Geoff Dixon had the inside scoop to know that VB wouldn't be around in 18 months, he'd be taking a different view to Qantas reforms.
VB is expanding rapidly, and there are a number of issues with a rapidly expanding company in any business - finance, communication, training, personnel development, supply line continuity - to name a few. You're pointing out these problems. I take the view in a growing company like VB that I'd be worried if they didn't have these issues. I'm sure CASA has a great deal of interest in ensuring standards are maintained. Yes, to some extent you're right in terms of comparing it to a house of cards. But I could just as easily make that comparison to just about every business. There is usually a situation or more with every business that could bring the house down, but part of management's role is to minimise exposure.
Just a difference of opinion I guess, and we'll have to agree to leave it at that. I'm keen to see what's in store over the short to medium term.
Last edited by Lodown; 30th Jul 2003 at 01:26.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Before passing my short comment on your well thought-out posting, Lodown, I would like to prefix it by saying that I do NOT agree with P1's assertion that VB are using insufficiently experienced pilots in the lhs.
I consider your critique and comparisons, Lodown, to be more those of a non-pilot (which P1 professes to be) wrt "experience".
And so to my main point, which is that your observations are quite interesting, Lodown, however the "house of cards" around which this type of discussion centres, involves the carriage of people, and a collapse of the said house, as such, MAY involve the loss of hundreds of lives.
This is where pilots differ from non-pilot management, when we (pilots) cite "experience" as an important factor for consideration for promotion, or eligibilty to occupy a seat in the cockpit.
I consider your critique and comparisons, Lodown, to be more those of a non-pilot (which P1 professes to be) wrt "experience".
And so to my main point, which is that your observations are quite interesting, Lodown, however the "house of cards" around which this type of discussion centres, involves the carriage of people, and a collapse of the said house, as such, MAY involve the loss of hundreds of lives.
This is where pilots differ from non-pilot management, when we (pilots) cite "experience" as an important factor for consideration for promotion, or eligibilty to occupy a seat in the cockpit.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M, thanks for the opportunity for discussion. I am assuming your comments regarding experience stem from my comments on page 1 of this topic when I intonated that skills are an accumulation and application of knowledge and something that can be taught.
I might be way out in left field, and I'm sure you (and many others) will tell me if I am, but I tend to regard aviation "experience" when used as a minimum qualification for a position or promotion, as a carry-over from the past when there was no other way to define, measure, analyse, modify and monitor a pilot's performance. I should point out that it is still applicable in many, many situations. Can I ask you some questions about "experience"?
First, what exactly is the difference in skill sets between a pilot with say 8 years experience and one with say 2 years? In other words, what exactly does the 8 year pilot know, that the 2 year pilot doesn't that is derived solely from an additional 6 years of experience in a cockpit environment?
Second, after looking over this list, how do you know that the 8 year pilot does indeed know everything on this list, and can apply it when and as necessary?
Third, what aspects are absolutely necessary for promotion into the lhs?
Fourth, what are the essentials on this list that can't be trained into a 2 year pilot in the presence of a good classroom, a competent instructor and an excellent simulator?
There are certainly other questions that will arise when I have longer to think about it, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
I deliberately didn't mention the possibility of an accident in my previous post, because that image gets dragged out with every discussion on pilot competencies and conditions. It is an ever-present thought, but has been used so often without qualification that it loses its impact with anyone but pilots. There are many other professions also responsible for similar numbers of people's lives - driving a petrol tanker, designing and engineering a bridge or high rise, power station operators, working in an oil refinery or chemical plant, ensuring cleanliness in the manufacture of peanut butter, air traffic control, pharmaceutical company employees, and lots more. I'm sure someone in aviation will take offense at being equated to someone manufacturing peanut butter, but that is not the intent. It is just to mention that there are many, many jobs where people are entrusted to exercise good judgment in the performance of their duties at the risk of innocent lives.
I might be way out in left field, and I'm sure you (and many others) will tell me if I am, but I tend to regard aviation "experience" when used as a minimum qualification for a position or promotion, as a carry-over from the past when there was no other way to define, measure, analyse, modify and monitor a pilot's performance. I should point out that it is still applicable in many, many situations. Can I ask you some questions about "experience"?
First, what exactly is the difference in skill sets between a pilot with say 8 years experience and one with say 2 years? In other words, what exactly does the 8 year pilot know, that the 2 year pilot doesn't that is derived solely from an additional 6 years of experience in a cockpit environment?
Second, after looking over this list, how do you know that the 8 year pilot does indeed know everything on this list, and can apply it when and as necessary?
Third, what aspects are absolutely necessary for promotion into the lhs?
Fourth, what are the essentials on this list that can't be trained into a 2 year pilot in the presence of a good classroom, a competent instructor and an excellent simulator?
There are certainly other questions that will arise when I have longer to think about it, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
I deliberately didn't mention the possibility of an accident in my previous post, because that image gets dragged out with every discussion on pilot competencies and conditions. It is an ever-present thought, but has been used so often without qualification that it loses its impact with anyone but pilots. There are many other professions also responsible for similar numbers of people's lives - driving a petrol tanker, designing and engineering a bridge or high rise, power station operators, working in an oil refinery or chemical plant, ensuring cleanliness in the manufacture of peanut butter, air traffic control, pharmaceutical company employees, and lots more. I'm sure someone in aviation will take offense at being equated to someone manufacturing peanut butter, but that is not the intent. It is just to mention that there are many, many jobs where people are entrusted to exercise good judgment in the performance of their duties at the risk of innocent lives.
Last edited by Lodown; 30th Jul 2003 at 05:13.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a laugh at the attempted wind-up by Balance a couple of pages ago, referring to the apparant visual appr into AD in non-vmc conditions by a virgin aircraft. If the conditions were so bad, how did you witness it? I have been operating into AD for years, and AD approach have NEVER assigned me an approach, with a visual segment, in non-vmc conditions. Do you all agree?
Are you saying (you must be) that the DJ aircraft specifically requested a visual approach?
Are you saying (you must be) that the DJ aircraft specifically requested a visual approach?