PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Exodus from Skippers (Merged) (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/259924-exodus-skippers-merged.html)

404 Titan 5th Sep 2007 04:18

Shed Dog Tosser

i find it hard to accept that the intent behind the legislation was to allow Pilots to qualifiy for an ATPL without ever having any real world command experience. If CAR 5.40 was to be considered as a correct and stand alone piece of legislation, what 404 is stating would be correct.
I can assure you that was the exact intent of the legislation. You have to ask yourself why ICAO came up with it in the first place? It is because airlines around the world told them that it was a necessity if the airlines were going to expand just as they have with the MPL recently. It wasnít ICAO that dreamt it up. It was the airlines telling ICAO what it needed. You would be staggered at the amount of lobbying that goes on behind the scenes by the airlines of the world.

And yes it is a stand alone piece of legislation.

podbreak 5th Sep 2007 08:54

SDT;

For years the same sentiment has come from the same corner of this industry; how can these, usually cadets, ever command when they've never done it before. Truth is, the system has been in place since the late 60s. Many senior C&T captains now at retirement, who participated in the first cadet courses could explain this to you alot better than myself.

My guess is, you have come from saab/metro/braz/dash or similar. The majority of operators in this country flying these types do not use this legislation in the same manor as the bulk of large carriers. That is: When an FO takes a sector, they are essentially in command, with the supervision of the skipper (Hence ICUS). As an FO, then, you are essentially training to become a captain on every single sector you fly. This is a much more suitable use of time, rather than being a support pilot throughout and forgetting how to command.

Of this real world command experience you speak of; If you call an extra 500 hours in a single pilot piston twin real world command experience, you are going to be hard pressed world wide finding pilots to fill seats. Who says that you need this to command a multicrew high performance aircraft? A handful of mostly Australians. I'm sure you'd cop a few angry looks, if you told all those who didn't have your real world experience before they took command, that they shouldn't have been allowed to. After all, these may be the very folk teaching you how to fly a particular type in the future.

slice 6th Sep 2007 04:58

podbreak - The intent of the legislation was to allow Command trainees to log ICUS whilst under training - not for Co-pilotsto log them during PF legs. ICUS has nothing to do whatsoever with PF(in this country least - different I believe in the UK). In fact some would argue that during command training the PNF legs are far more important as this is where the essential monitoring and supervision skills are learnt.

Shed Dog Tosser 8th Sep 2007 00:15

Folk have been quiet for a few days on this thread, is it because you've all signed your new AWA ?.

Towering Q 8th Sep 2007 08:58

Either that or they haven't been able to get a word in with all this ICUS discussion.:{

White and Fluffy 8th Sep 2007 10:19

Thats probably because there are no pilots left at Skippers!

Jet_A_Knight 8th Sep 2007 11:07

Caution: Thread Drift
 
Podbreak wrote:

it was given a thorough enquiry by JetA (who fortunately came around!).
It was this Jet_A that gave a thorough enquiry, and still thinks that a co-pilot logging command from the RHS on normal line operations is just kidding themselves.

Earn command the honest way - by learning the ropes & doing the training - not stealing the time.

That's why on applications there's sections for showing actual command and ICUS.

Jet_A_Knight 8th Sep 2007 12:19

Poddy, whatever!

I accept it - but I don't agree with it.

Happy landings:ok:

Shed Dog Tosser 9th Sep 2007 11:55

Apparently about to lose another 3, maybe 4 Brasilia Captains, how many will that leave ?.

This "other operators" are also reference checking some of the remains of the Metro and Dash fleet Captains, an unbelievable turning of the tide.

Can this be true ?, very sad :uhoh:.

Guess the question from my last post has been answered.

laser650 9th Sep 2007 13:03

SDT

The AWA that they boys have to sign to get a $20,000 or 30000 bonus for the Dash/Bras Fleet respectively, is a rough and unfair constitution of an AWA from what I've seen. :ugh:

Who in the hell has to give a 3 month notice of resignation??? Some very high powered exec's on millions only have to give one pay periods notice. Does this go against a fair AWA?? Will it be approved? Probably so by the little Johnny pen pushers who wont even spot the 90 day period. They will say to you "you signed it". :=

This might be an awakening for Skippers as to why some Captains may not sign the AWA. Why would they sign to give a 3 month notice of them leaving and having to 'pay in lieu' if they do leave! Chances of other jobs out there from other jet operators in the near future is fastly growing.

Skippers could fix this by giving a firm yet solid pay rise with the same AWA conditions. Beware of the add for you guys that may be considering SA, Be vary aware........SA are not trustworthy! :E

I feel sorry for you guys over their!

Laser

KRUSTY 34 9th Sep 2007 23:27

IMHO, a bonus, and a real bonus is probably the way to go.

For this size of operation, say $20K for F/O's & $30K for Captains. Make it payable every 12 months, and completely dependant on the full years service. Leave even 1 day prior to the 12 month period and you don't get a zack!

Forget about the strings (3 months notice, what nonsence), people see through that kind of cynisism and will reject it, especially in todays dynamic employment environment.

Those who stay to take advantage of the bonus will more than likely plan their future financial goals around it. You will probably "hook" them for years, if not for life.

Those that move on regardless, and good luck to them, won't cost the company a cent!

If we're talking about the viability of the company, a real no-brainer I would think.

aircraft 10th Sep 2007 02:09

KRUSTY 34,

With your imagination, you should write novels - you would make a lot more money than you will in aviation.

A bonus is not a bonus if it is a fixed amount that is paid every year. What you are talking about is a pay rise - pure and simple.

But do you seriously think Skippers can afford pay rises of that magnitude?


If we're talking about the viability of the company, a real no-brainer I would think.
We are talking about the viability of the company - it is always about the viability of the company, but the only thing that is a "no-brainer" is that if you give those kind of pay rises, the company will go broke.

You just can't grasp this simple reality can you?

Skystar320 10th Sep 2007 03:30

Will or Wont?

They both start with teh letter W.......

Flying cash cows come mind......

slice 10th Sep 2007 03:49

aircraft - ultimately yes they can or more to the point they are going to have to. After all they seem to have afforded the huge increases in fuel costs. In the raw calculus of business. labor is just another cost like fuel, nav charges etc. You have to pay the going rate. As aircrew demand is now beginning to exceed supply and likely to continue to do so for some time, renumeration will generally rise.

BrazDriver 10th Sep 2007 04:15

Large mining companies have never been afraid to splash a bit of cash here and there to subsidise pilots wages. Rio has done it previously, including paying for housing too!

The question is if mining companies pay a bit extra to pilots, how much of that money will end up in the Skippers coffers or in management pockets and not in the pilots!

KRUSTY 34 10th Sep 2007 06:35

Yes aircraft it is a bonus.

A Professional retention bonus. It is a payment made to professional pilots for a certain return of service.

Professional pilots are now in short supply, and unless something positive is done, this situation will worsen.

I applaud your conviction in placing yourself in the lion's den. Some people dismiss you merely as a troll.

Maybe they're right. But one thing is for certain you are certainly not a Professional Pilot!

triathlon 10th Sep 2007 06:48

skippers is ok to work for. have good management and pay is above award.

Brasilian Bird 10th Sep 2007 09:10


have good management
That depends on your definition of 'good'.

Some people say Hitler was very good at what he did, too!! :}Seriously though, how long have you worked there? If it's less than 6 months, give it another 6 and see what you say then!!! :E

These 'good' managers are doing a 'great' job of running this company into the ground, and have been doing it for quite some time!! Just look at the so-called 'juicy carrot' they are dangling for newbies... they can't even get it right when they try to fix things!! I concede the one thing they did right was to pay up their engos, those guys are probably the best treated in the whole company!!

aircraft 10th Sep 2007 16:43

Wizofoz said:

Tell me aircraft:- as you, at the grand old age of 23, apparently have a better grasp of the fundementals of aviation than those of us who've been involved for decades, what do YOU think skippers should do to ensure it's aircraft keep flying and it doesn't lose its mining contracts?
There may not be anything it can do. Some people think that only huge pay rises will do, but, whilst that most probably would work (if it's not too late), that option is way, way beyond the means of Skippers or any other similar operator.

It is quite normal for a business to have to close down as a result of changed economic circumstances - it happens all the time (aviation or not). As aviation businesses usually run on razor thin profits it doesn't take much of a change to send them to the wall.

If Skippers does close its doors, can it be said that it was all the fault of management? Possibly - but some challenges to the viability of a business can be so great that no management can deal with them.

Skippers Aviation has been an experiment in pilot/employer relationships. Being tested is whether the company can be successful when it treats the pilots with as little regard as the pilots treat the company.

The jury is still out on whether that experiment has been a success.

I sincerely hope they weather the current storm. As one of the greatest companies in the illustrious history of Western Australian aviation, they deserve to.

Ref + 10 11th Sep 2007 01:56


Skippers Aviation has been an experiment in pilot/employer relationships.
Are you serious?? An experiment?? A 13 odd year experiment. That's one helluva long time to be running an experiment mate.

Some of the things you espouse make me wonder whether you are just one big wind up merchant...


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:54.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.