Shed Dog Tosser
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 wasn’t 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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thats probably because there are no pilots left at Skippers!

Caution: Thread Drift
 

Podbreak wrote:
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.

Poddy, whatever!

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

Happy landings:ok:

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Will or Wont?

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

Flying cash cows come mind......

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.

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!

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!

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

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!!

Wizofoz said:
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.

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...

aircraft, get your hand off it mate. You are only making yourself look like a bigger and bigger fool :ugh::ugh:

We all know that there is nothing worse in this world then lining the pockets of a greedy, underworked pig of a pilot. I mean hell, who do they think they are :confused:. There are sooo many of them on this site that know absolutley nothing of what they talk about.

If it was more viable for skippers to park up aircraft, loose contracts or just close shop, as it was to pay the crew more then they would have. The chances are that the managers new for years that this was coming and had budgeted accordingly for it. For as long as it wasn't being asked for, great.

Some of the 'other similar' companies you speak of followed suit within days. I find it hard to believe that they all found the payrise unexpected and unaffordable.

And all those female captains at Skippers! Misogynist Mick must be seething with impotent rage in his mouldy den of 1950's attitude. Whooohoo! Rock on gals!

More SA Captains dropping in to the "other Operators" for a chat about jobs prospects, they have mentioned T&C's as their greatest issue, a fair pay without the strings.

How else can this madness end ?, will SW own some shineys new terminals and hangars to the north in the next 12 months, and a couple of dozens turbo props, highly probable, they already have most of SA's experienced staff on the payroll.

Seems like the cheapest and most effective way to neuter the competition.

Dog,

You are absolutely right.

The operator(s) that lead the way with T&C's, (Real T&C's) not the underhanded crap we have seen so far, will save their business.

The others will be left to fight over what little remains!

Aircraft Said:[QUOTE]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.

Well i think that most people would agree with this,but seeing as "economic conditions" have not changed there must be some other reason for the apparent demise of Skippers.

We are quite often seeing, on this forum, problems with Rex and Skippers but there does'nt appear to be the same amount of gripes for other operators! Just wondering if there are any thoughts as to why!
Maxweight:confused:

Maxweight said:
The big change in the economic circumstances was the escalation of demand for pilots - this started about two years ago.

The economic circumstance was that pilots T&Cs got left behind 2 years ago for the so called pilot demand.

A modest payrise 2 years ago (lets say somewhere between 10-20 thousand), would have kept a fair wack of the crew (some will always leave), and it would have still been cheaper then the expense of training. The cost would have been passed on to the clients anyway.

Some people would forego some of the pay increase for a little recognition and respect (something that is lost these days). A movie ticket or a bottle of wine is cheaper then a payrise and goes a long way to better moral. A sincere 'thankyou' for a last min roster change, going out of your way to make a situation easier ect is a cost to the company of nothing. Yep, that's correct respect is FREE.

I cant believe i've been suckered in :{:{:{

Monopole, well said.

Aircraft, you really do have no idea. What are you doing posting on Prune?Aren't you due for your morning tea with Pass a Frozo?

Claiming :, sounds very much like someone trying to draw the attention away from their very own serious inadequacies.

Misogynism and paternalism are dead in this day and age.

I'm not getting what i want, he must be a misogynist. Have you stopped to consider the sum of your actions, the poor relationships held with your fellow employees/management as a reason for not progressing ?.

Burn't their Bra's in the 70's to become equal, not sure equal is good enough it would appear, is that the case ?.

So are people getting hurt in the rush to sign these new AWA's?

Can't see it happening. I've heard of a few here and there signing them but on the whole, I'd say most haven't and will not sign it.

Ask for the bonus to put to into the AWA, ask for the payrise (and back pay) for the wage increase that everyone should have got in Dec 2006. Ask for a 28 day notice period, the same as every other employer in the country. Funnily enough, if you are made redundant and have been in the company a while, the notice the company has to give you is 28 days.

What's good for the goose...

Monopole said:
I have to pick you up on a couple of things you said there.

Firstly, this "modest payrise" which would have "kept a fair wack of the crew". What is your definition of "kept"? Is it retained forever or something like stayed on until having completed 5 years service?

To cause somebody to want to stay forever, the pay rise would have to be way, way more than $20K - it would have to be at least $100K. For this reason, I suspect you mean something like the latter definition.

But would $20K be enough to inspire a person to pass up the offer of a job with Skywest, Jetstar or Virgin to remain on the clapped out old Conquest/Metro/Dash 8 for another few years? I don't think so.

I think not even $30K or $40K would be enough. The major concern, to such a person, if offered the opportunity to move up, would be that the opportunity may not still be there in a few years time - hence they would feel they have to take it now.

How about $50K or $60K? Well, maybe now some pilots will begin to think about not taking up the offer to move up. Not such a modest payrise any more - but could the company afford this? And how would the Flight Attendants, engineers and various others feel about the pilots getting a $50-60K pay rise?

As for:
You're not the first to say this. Expressed in those words, it sounds so simple, but in reality, this is not so simple.

The clients you refer to would be the mining companies. You could not be referring to the RPT passengers, because for them, the fare increases would have to be at least $500 per ticket, and with that, almost all of them would choose instead to drive or take the bus.

But the arrangement with the mining companies are contracts, negotiated months or years earlier. Think you can just up the pilot wages then send invoices out to the mining companies to cover the cost? That would be like a painter, having reached an agreement with you on the price to paint your house, coming to you half way through the job and asking for an extra $500 because he wants to give himself and his assistant a pay rise.

I can believe the contracts allow for the passing on of fuel price and security surcharge increases, but not salary increases.

So, the only way to pass on salary increase costs is to: wait until the current contract expires, then when bidding to renew the contract, add in the extra costs.

But of course, you wouldn't try to pass on all the extra costs to the one contract. You would plan to plan to win/renew certain future contracts so the costs would then be divided up between those contracts.

But, what if, 1-2 years later, you haven't won/rewewed all the contracts you were banking on, but have awarded the pilots the not so modest pay rise?

OK Aircraft, seeing that you have such formidable expertise here, how much of a pay incraese would solve Skipper's problems?

If a pay hike is out of order, what alternate strategy would you sugest?

Tried getting a painter lately? I think you will find he is making alot more then alot of us.:ok:

Aircraft,

WRONG, Just heard of a Braz Capt at Network who knocked back an F100 F/O slot at Alliance because he wasn't prepared to take the $20K a year pay cut. So already the pay rise has paid off for Network and retained a pilot.

Secondly, These Pilot's at Skippers and Network are probably doing about 800hrs per year. To give them a $20 grand pay rise is $25 per hour. The average return flight time in a Bras to the average mine site is say 5.0hrs. This equates to $125. Divide that by 60seats (30 each way) and you get a price increase of $2.08 per passenger. Not quite the $500 you talk about. Even to give the piss ant F/O the same pay rise is only $4.16 per passenger....NOT VERY MUCH IN MY BOOKS

Cheers

Don't think so! Rumour is, XR won't even consider cross-hiring Skippers aircraft- why would they want to OWN them?!

Aircraft you are more wound up than a slinkey sunshine!

I wonder how the pilots at Skippers felt when the engineers got a big payrise??

Xr100, I agree with what you are saying, I know a few piston drivers on good $ that have turned down a turbine f/o position.

Just a quick Q for the guys in the loop.

What are the chances of being picked up by Skippers doing either the WAAC CPL course and the ECU Aviation degree?

In a bit of a pickle and cant decide which is better to do? i know skippers dont pay the best but hey you get to fly in WA, with reasonbly good aircraft.

Cheers

how bout you do some time in the :mad:ing bush then try for a job at SA like the rest of us did

kair, I'd love to have you as a parent. I can just hear all the "back in my day..." ramblings spewing forth with the kid just looking up at you thinking "times have changed since then but I'll just wait for them to stop". I see that look in their eyes when I do the "back in..." stuff myself.

Times are changing and needing to go bush seems to be becoming less of a need. I did it and most of the people I know did too but less and less people now look at the Slingair's of the world as a necessesity anymore.

Not sure whether it's for better or worse, it's just evolution of the time.