Ref,

There is a lot to be said for the experience gained in the GA world, the "hands on" stick and rudder is only a very small part of that.

Have you flown with these cadet/copilot types ?, whilst most of them are great to work with, their inexperience stands out, their situational awareness is very low compared to a grubby charter pilot with similar TT, ability to adapt is probably one of the greatest concerns i have seen.

If there is an open cheque book on training these cadets, no problems, but as there are both time and fiscal limitations to what training that can be done, very very few are going to meet a command level of competence in this time.

There is not substitute for experience, period.

Certainly not. But Kunnus, Broome or Darwain is not the be all to end all either. We have many good skippers that never spent a day in the bush in their lives.

. Mate have you actually been reading this thread :confused::confused::confused:

Aircraft, I not even going to respond to you. Whats the point anyway, you obviously know more then everyone else on this thread anyway. If you want us to take you seriously, do your self a favour and fill us all in on your credentials (other then the airport managment course at YPJT). Sitting around the bar on a Friday night with your boss telling you how cut throat it is in aviation and why he cant afford a payrise for you wont cut it either. (ah bugger. Sucked in again)

XRlent100

There roughly the figure I was told not that long ago by the GM (ex) at my work place.

What's that? :}

Come on Blogsie

That was the stuff between the threshold of 11 and the gate at Duck hole.

You know it was the same colour as your old work clobber. If you tried real hard you could imagine it by looking at the shrubbery around the mess beer garden. It takes on a whole new meaning of course, if you only get to look at it from a max speed of 210kts, instead of that bieng your minimum speed.

richo

Kair1234 - if u had any situational awareness you would have seen that pilotdude09 is currently residing in Karratha............grumpy old fart

so i suppose just living in karratha and considering taking an aviation course means that they have done their time in the bush gaining invaluable experience flying charter :ugh:

your right kair, but

whoz to say he wont go north after hes done the course then try for skippers.........

WAAC and ECU are completely separate from Skippers and have nothing to do with any form of cadet programs. most of ECU and WAAC guys do head up north. i called u grumpy coz u were so quick to form an opinion of the young chap :=

Any truth to the rumour about 2 show causes being issued by CASA Skippers?

XRlent100 said:

The $500 increase I referred to was applicable to the RPT passengers. I very much doubt that all Skippers pilots fly 800 hours per year on RPT, whilst Network do no RPT at all. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I will regard these circumstances as being correct.

Your $4.16 claim is most probably wrong, but that is not surprising given how simplistic your calculation is. Many posters to PPRUNE come up with similar calculations to justify large salary increases for pilots and they all use the same method as yours. The method is remarkable for its simplicity but also remarkable for how many other factors it manages to ignore!

For starters, to get a net $4.16 out of a ticket price hike, considering GST and other taxes and charges that are a percentage of the price, the price rise would have to be near on $10. But, the biggest flaw in your calculation is that it assumes 100% load factors before and after the price hike.

Do you think you can increase the ticket price by $10 and still get exactly the same number of passengers? On some flights, you will, but for those flights where you don't, the lost revenue that results from having sold 1 or 2 less tickets introduces a major descrepancy to your calculation.

It is an interesting exercise to examine the development and effects of this descrepancy so I will now do that.

Because a few less passengers will fly (due to them no longer being able to afford the ticket that is $10 more expensive), you need to go back and redo your calculation, but when you do, instead of $4.16, you come up with, say, $4.35.

But $4.35 implies, say, a $10.50 gross ticket price hike, but that in turn means you need to redo the calculation again because even more passengers won't now be buying the ticket. So you need to keep redoing and redoing the calculation, but each time, the price hike gets larger. After a while, it dawns on you that the hike is increasing towards infinity!

For this calculation to not "run away" towards infinity, the load factor after the hike must be no less than the load factor before. Is that possible in the real world? Yes, but only for hikes that are very very small (or the special case where load factors are 100% with demand so high that, even after the hike, the load factor stays at 100%).

So, the mechanics of this particular calculation method mean that price rises are impossible, unless they are very very small! But in the real world, we know that largish price rises are possible, so this means that this particular calculation method must be fatally flawed - it just doesn't work, in other words.

To do this calculation properly, you need to conduct it as a "modelling" exercise. Only that way could you estimate, reasonably accurately, how much of a hike is possible, and over which routes. Such an exercise would also show where price decreases would ultimately result in increased revenue.

Yes, but it shows your $500 was a load of old codswallop.

Aircraft, you've overlooked the one fact that will carry the argument for a fare increase through and ensure it will get up:

That is that it is so damned far to drive anywhere in WA etc that people will just about pay anything to avoid having to drive 100's (if not 1000's) of km on badly corrugated dirt roads if they could avoid it.

Edited the rest of the post.

Aircraft, It's a simplistic model so that simple minds like yours can understand.

You said it yourself that most of Skippers work is mining FIFO work. Therefore all aircraft are running around at 100% load factor whether or not they've got passengers on them, the mining company are paying for the whole aircraft. Really its an increase to the client of $125 for the charter but I would assume that most clients would break that down and put it into per passenger terms, ie $125/60=$2.08 per passenger. As Wizofoz said it proves that your $500 per passenger was a tad unrealistic and that was all it was meant to do.

I think you'll find that many of the Skippers and Network pilot's are doing at least 800hrs per year. I'd be interested to here some actual figures. The one person I know over at Network is on about 850hrs per year and I don't think he's any busier than the rest.

Shed Dog,

I haven't flown with the cadets as the company I'm at doesn't have them but I've seen plenty of pilots coming through with massively different levels of experience and just as massively different levels of skill. I wasn't disagreeing with the "there's no substitue for experience" because i happen to agree with that sentiment. The changes that are being seen in the industry mean that people are going to gain experience at companies like Skippers and so on. Not the way we all used to in Broome, Kunners and the like.

Not arguing your point at all because I agree. The times and the method of gaining said experience is what has changed.

Hello folks, I am new in this thread, I have a question: how much multi time PIC is required by Skippers for a captain position?

Think i really stated the question wrong. Of course i dont want/or expect to waltz into a job with an airline with 250 odd hours!, as much as i hate living in the "Bush" i love it as well, i mean the things you can see and you do actually have to fly to get somewhere and you can actually go places. The towns are starting to go ahead, Broome and Karratha in particular- so the bush isnt really that bad anyway, but then again if youve lived in a city all your life like some cadets etc your gonna struggle.

From what everyone says the Bush is the way to go and i dont want to be one of those people that looks great on paper but in reality?

Trying to find out what course is going to be the best for a new pilot that wants to have the best career one can have and everyone on this board should relate to that!

I always thought Skippers had a good fleet of aircraft, but obviously not and obviously have a hell of alot of disgruntled employees, but seriously if you dont like it why stay? that is what i cant work out. Theres a few threads earlier on in the thread that talk about the bush being better in pay and conditions, why stay with Skippers?-dont attack me for that but i would like to know the reason if you are so disgruntled why would you stay?

But no one actually answered my Q, is one of those courses going to help you get a leg in with skippers or even skywest later on once you have some multi?


But geez some people are quick on the ball to attack people around here, no wonder some dont go anywhere in their careers with attitudes and obviously some of you just got to where you are without considering which paths are better and going to give you a better job/career and which will get you there quicker. :mad:

:ok:

Richo,

You're losing it, mate! :} It was 12 :ok:

pilotdude09

That is the whole point of this thread.....
They are not staying :ugh:

As for your queston as much chance as everybody else. Neither course will 'give you an edge'.

Apparently more disgusted Captains out the door, some very very important and senior types it would appear.

Heard a rumour that the TWU is now looking closely at the T&C's for another Perth based operator that operates aircraft with blue tails.

Would that operator be the subject of this thread or some other blue tailed operator?

REF+10 - Options, life is full of options! Could it be:

Skippers with the blue tail?
National Jet with the blue tail?
Skywest with the blue tail?
Network with the poofy greeny blue tail?
CASair with the Reddy blue tail?
Maroomab with the Red and blue mixed tail?
or
Ad-Astral with the red and blue tail?

Options,Options,Options, Who is it??????????

Yeah yeah. Skywest already has a branchwhich comes under the TWU. National Jet has the TWU fighting for them already. Network would be called a greeen tail by anyone. Maroomba is burgundy really. CASair doesn't have two planes the same colour. Alliance maybe?

Hence why I asked if it was the company at the title of this thread or not. I would think it was Alliance if it wasn't.

Two Dash 8 Captains on their way to jets.

Interesting remark from a mate in CASA today.

Apparently the WA office has instucted Skippers management to do more to retain their experienced pilots!

If the drain continues, they (CASA) are going to look seriously at restricting the operation.

Amazing! Even the department can see the danger. It appears that the only group not interested in the fundamental value of it's experienced pilots are Airline management themselves.

Funny old World!

How could CASA not be morbidly interested/concerned ?.

There are more than 2 Dash guys on the roll, rumour is that someone else, very very high in the C&T is putting some serious feelers out, looking for Jets and a lifestyle change ( less stress ), and will more than likely get same really soon.

More Bras resumes on desks and one of the other blue tail operators continues to make it a company sport to recruit from a very specific sector of the industry.

Contempt begets contempt, bad will begets bad will, disappointing but rather simple really.

Of course CASA are concerned.
2 recent 'show causes', as per previous post. No one seemed to pick up on it.

Yes, but are Airline management?

And what are they doing about it?

piston broke, we picked up on it but there were no replies. I doubt that it would be the sort of thing discussed on this type of forum even if you did know something about it...

Ref + 10,

I hear what you're saying, but it is a rumour network.

Whether CASA in any office has or has not instructed/suggested/demanded that management do more to retain key staff is really being made rapidly irrelevant.

Management came up with a new AWA with more dollars but poor terms, the pilot body has replied with their feet by at least three resigning in the last 10 days and three others known to be having interviews this and next week.

I think that answers the offer of a new AWA:\. The smart thing to do would be for the pilot group to now act as a group nominate some movers and shakers to redraft the AWA more to their liking and then offer it back to management as a solution.

The next few months will be critical for this company. Apparently Network also increased their pay but without the onerous conditions.

Let the games commence.:D

What are Network paying now?

I heard 80k for a Braz Captain :suspect:

Apparently at some stage the AFAP has had a close'ish working history with Skippers, have they involved themselves in the latest AWA offer ?, as a Pilot Union body or Mediator ?.

so does anyone know whats happening with the new awa? is anyone signing it?

They are making all Braz F/O's sign it. The latest batch of cadets all signed their life away. I hear a few experienced (500multi) guys have knocked back the AWA and have gone to greener pastures instead. 25k bond 3 months notice, the great Skippers shaft!

How on earth can they find the leverage to do that?
Sign or else we will find someone else, has lost its impact all of a sudden.:\
Guys, stick together and write your own AWA and pass it back up the chain to the boss and show them what YOU want in an AWA.

Hard to get a backbone when so many cadets with stars in their eyes and daddy's dollars paying for everything!

Grapevine has it 7 capts are leaving or in the process of leaving after being told to sign the AWA


Just had to spill the beans!

Nothing that Skippers are doing in recent times, in my opinion is legally binding. They are shooting themselves in the foot and will continue to lose pilots. Guys/Girls that pay for their endorsements ($8500) and get a command endorsement are being asked to pay out their bond for the upgrade, even though the AWA states 'where you already hold an endorsement relative to the upgrade (ie. FO -> Capt) you are not required to pay'.
The result? They dock you of your final pay. Let's not let this continue.

I wouldn’t bother wasting your time with Skippers and similar minded companies. A tiger doesn’t change its stripes – or in this case, a pig’s tail is always crooked.

There are much better jobs out there with companies that will survive the next financial year.

Skippers RIP 1990-2008.

Brazdriver,

No offence buddy, none of the existing staff are being forced to sign the new AWA ( as far as i have seen ), it quite clearly states within the offer " Employee's wishing to remain on their existing AWA are entitled to do so and will not be prejudiced as a result of their decision ", that is consistent with what i've seen in the workplace, and no, i did not accept the new AWA for personal reasons.

As for new staff or fleet upgrades, well that's their decision.

Stating that Pilots are being forced to sign anything is quite an allegation, and it would be considered Libel, unless you are absolutely, first hand, sure of it, perhaps you should edit said statement for your own benefit.