And if a case were brought against Jet* on the basis of inadequate line training a better outcome is assured. The Jet* training department & certain trainers will crumble under such scrutiny. Even Bruce would have difficulty putting a positive spin on it.

Jet*'s strong legal defence of pay for training is linked to the large sum of money owed to them by their employees.

From a bar-room lawyer, I would argue this guy still has a case - but only if I've got my facts right - but not just against Jet*.

Aerocat and others, I don't disagree that he paid for the endorsement and that's what he got but you've got to look at the circumstances of why he did.

1. He had to, to get the job. Fine - on it's own probably as the judge decreed.
2. He had to use Jetstar's choice of provider (I assume) - this is where things should start to swing in his favour.
3. Jetstar subjected him to testing prior to offering him a job subject to...... If that testing was not aptitude based, that's not the pilots fault.

So, IMHO, there is still a case against Jet* and the training provider based on:
1. You put me up for something after checking me out. To then conclude that I was never going to make the grade points to flaws in your process and that I was led to believe something that you now concede was never right.

2. You forced me to use your training provider (and get CASA involved here!) and I can demonstrate (either contractually or anicdotally) that the standard of training was insufficient to prepare me for the position (not best practice in number of trainers, breaks)

3. You (the training organisation) passed me on the endorsement which I paid for as part of the recruitment process (presumably) without any warning that passing a line check might be problematic.


If it were I and I had buckets of money, I would try the following:
a) going for the training provider for not doing the job properly
b) going both the trainer and Jet* under the trade practices act for deceptive and misleading conduct - i.e. you selected me, told me to jump these hurdles which I did and then scrubbed me. The trade practices act is your friend here - it over-rides the conditions of any contracts and all that is required is to demonstrate a loss.


Ultimately, the AFAP should spend the money and publish a summary of this case as an ad in every Flight Safety magazine and on the front page of its website from now until infinity as a warning to those coming along.

I'm biased I know but an even worse scheme is the QL traineeship in it's current form - pay $18k for ground based training and we're not required to even necessarily start your endorsement training. That anyone signed up for that leaves me shaking my head...

UTR

Opportunity lost!

Imagine your kid's in Year 12.
We'd all agree, a pretty important year. Imagine how you'd feel & what you'd say if your kid had 6 teachers in that year for say maths or english and the lessons were regularly canceled and re scheduled. You're going to say something becasue you know you're kid's results can & probably will suffer & for some kids they will probably fail. However, given the basic fundamental resources of adequate staffing and sensible scheduling you're kid and most if not every other kid will pass the year.

I think this magistrate has actually got it very wrong. By his own confirmation, this trainee had multiple trainers and irregular training schedules. Any reasonable person would expect that for Jestar to win this one they needed to have provided the very basics of good teaching, which they have not. There must be other test cases in other arenas?

I say its an opportunity missed because imagine the immediate boost to the quality of training if airlines knew they're going to pay for the guys that wash out if they fail to provide proper, education dept. standard, training processes. Surely the magistrate does not expect new hire's to monitor the quality of training as well as learn a new aircraft?

For mine, as a former school teacher and airline pilot, its a flawed judgement.

Where's CASA to lift these training standards? Where's a union to back this guy and others who will end up in the same situation in the future?

UTR, the problem is that you can't make the airline industry one in which once you get past the selection process you can't be failed. The C&T department must have the ability to freely fail pilots if it is warranted. The fact that the guy got through his endorsement but struggled on the line is no great surprise, flying the line has a different set of challenges to just doing emergency drills and approaches in a simulator. It seems that he can fly the aeroplane in a controlled environment but for whatever reasons he struggled in the real world.

I don't disagree that Jetstar may have been unfair to him, but I think trying to get out of paying for the endorsement is taking the wrong approach.

Bar room brawling tactics rule here.
Kick these Boston Consulting pseudo-managers where it hurts.
Just read the good will amongst fellow pilots that is now manifesting
since Australian pilots have finally worked out that they are all in the same boat.
AIPA, could they come to the party and help this fellow pilot out if the AFAP won't?
Think of the good will that would produce.
Who's to say this chap couldn't have made the grade if extra training was given?
That's the problem isn't it when the applicant pays for his own training.
Assuming a Bell standard distribution curve, some applicants take less time ,some take more.
One can only assume that with the low cost mentality that permiates throughout Jetstar the lowest amount of time has been used to keep the self funded training costs within reach of most people.Does that mean that people who may take a little longer to "get it" are no longer catered for, because the costs would become prohibitive?
One other question, Jetstar's endoresment costs are one of the highest around, this training concept of their's isn't just another profit center is it?

I personally think Airline Managers, Australia wide are worried as a result, or should I say non-result, the Federal election produced.
No Party will have a mandate to do anything.
The sqillions the likes of Qantas and Jetstar have spent on political lobbyists will not be returned.
The independents will have the whipping hand.
Small unions like the AIPA and AFAP will be on an equal footing with large Multinationals when it comes to Government influence.
I'd suggest knowing some of these Independents, AIPA and the AFAP will more than likely get a more favorable hearing than some money grubbing
Political Hack in the employ of political lobbyists paid off by the likes of the Qantas group, and any other Airline that has taken "80's era Business Management Lessons from Boston Consulting, Freehills, Oldmeadow Consulting, etc, etc.
It's a new political arena that has not been seen in Australia since WW2.
Make the most of it whilst you can.
Remember rule number 1 in bar room brawling.
Kick 'em whilst they're down, and keep kicking to ensure they don't get up!
No Queensberry rules here, unfortunately. Bruce and his mates in Jetstar set the standards. I'm sure the pilots in Australia will be only too happy to reply with interest

It has for this little black duck. Which is why I am not pursuing a career in aviation anymore,and likely earning as much as, if not more so, than a lot of jet drivers...And I didn't have to fork out megabucks in training, years at uni, or spend years in the middle of bumphuck to do it. Flying is meant to be fun, and until it returns to that, a lot of prospective people will be put off flying commercially...

Good luck to those who do choose to pursue such a career, but, be warned, this is the result if you don't cut the mustard...

And he was criticised for making that decision! As one FCTM states under the general heading of Automatic Flight:

"Early intervention prevents unsatisfactory airplane performance or a degraded flight path. Reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained.

Of course there may be more to it but on the basis of that one comment by the training captain, it would appear to the casual observer he was rubbishing the pilot for taking the correct action under the circumstances - regardless how he got himself into those circumstances.

I partnered a dude in the sim once who had been a metro captain. He could hand-fly really well but his autopilot skills were crap. He would revert to manual flying at any hint of getting behind the autopilot which was good, but it was a symptom of having poor automation skills which was not so good. It may be that this bloke had similar problems and he was relying on manual skills to make up for deficient automation skills, or he may have had a poor checker, we will probably never know the full story.

Very true, sad but true :{

blown, I seem to recall reading about this in an AIPA newsletter a little while ago. I may be incorrect but I thought that AIPA was actually providing the support in this case in the first instance. Happy for someone to tell me otherwise.

A new way for airlines to make money, "employ" twice as many pilots than you want, scrub 50% of them and pick up $30k per head on each of the "failures".

:rolleyes:

Not really. The $30,000 just goes straight to Alteon or who ever the training provider was (do they use Air NZ anymore? I hear they provided a very good course.)

But it seems he displayed sufficient skills to hand fly the aeroplane down.

What do they want? Just an excuse to get rid of him perhaps ?

Aerocat- not quite, Jet* add a facilitation fee of around $7K to the Alteon cost. Whether they are making money or not or simply covering their costs is debatable.

Training costs are a tax deduction for the airline.
End of story.

blow.n.gasket, probably the best response I have read on here in ages!! The window for AIPA and AFAP may be brief

Karunch, ok then, so it would be cheaper to do the endorsement direct to Alteon? Or do Jetstar not allow that?

Yep, you can do the course directly through Alteon without the facilitation fee however I believe Jetstar have most of the sim spots pre- booked so getting a course would be difficult.

The distance between Jet* & Alteon suits Jet* when dealing with Casa.

Before this spins off into further decrying of the pay-for-endo issue; I thought the most interesting part of the judgment was it's recognition of the pilot as a permanent employee, denying Jetstars claim of 'under probation'.
Surely that would be worth exploring? Further, the amount awarded in judgment was only for lost wages due lack of notice. If an unfair dismissal action was brought (or appealed), then that might address many of the training issues raised in this thread, and also the issue of the impact on future earnings. The judgment clearly refers to where the pilots case failed (and should be easy to address, if there is enough money at stake).

If you flunk at Uni in the final exam you don't get your fees refunded or waived....:rolleyes: