|
apache,
mentions NOTHING about the low $$$ on offer,managements refusal to deal with the issues at hand, or the company increasing working hours for no more renumeration.That pilots were pressured to extend their working day because the company didn't want to have a decent number of pilots on reserve lines, or that pilots, sometimes even MANAGEMENT pilots could(and did) earn more $$$ working their second job, than they would by going in to work for the airline. A typical standard ploy and tactic of any organisation's management is to blame the front line people when problems arise. Perhaps REX management should remove the blindfold and look at the big picture. Some pilots will move on to bigger and better things such as a larger aircracft type that is not on offer in their present employment environment, for sure. But some move on due to crap pay, conditions, work environment, rostering and particularly crap management. There is a number of reasons for the decision to change employer. I wonder if REX management was offered similar roles to what they current perform at hypotheticaly lets say The Rat on quadruple the salary with bonuses, huge share allocations and other sweetners would they jump ship ?? I think so. |
What about the issue of cadet F/O 'upgradeability'? Rex might be happy to have the security of a bonded F/O for seven years but where are their captains coming from? The Senate seems to be under the impression (due to a lack of info on this) that there will be a natural career path progression within the company for cadets and because the company is getting them 'early' they will automatically stay longer. :suspect:
Also totally agree with Apache that there are a lot of other unaddressed questions. Not every pilot aspires to fly an A380. How come other companies flying similar equipment didn't experience the same dessertion problems to the extent that Rex did? |
Training bid to force Rex cuts: minimum experience levels | The Australian
Jim Davis and Chris Hine what a pair of scumbags!! Truly bottom feeders of the industry...:yuk::yuk::yuk: |
....and now the political blackmail commences!
|
I know of one kid with a learning disability that is now flying for the Qantas group.....
|
When Rex took on their first direct entry FOs earlier this year, the training captains remarked what a relief it was to fly with them.
Chris Hine has not flown the line for some time, so I doubt he is qualified to make that assessment. Perhaps the training captains need to leak the real situation on the frontline to the good senator. The word is cadets are hard work, sporadic and need to be watched like a hawk. GG |
Green Goblin
Any idea if REX are going to start recruiting direct entry F/O's again soon or do you think they will stick with the cadets? |
Either way it is now a matter of public record that Mr Davis stated that 100% of REX new FO's are cadets that have gone through the Academy because they are 'so impressed with the outcomes'
Well that was the testimony given to the Senate Committee - hope he is not telling porkies!!!. |
The answer is obvious. They'll have to! Jim's Phophecy of having to cut routes if the 1500 hour rule were to be introduced, will ironically come to pass if they continue to employ only Cadets!
So far REX have avoided the real issue. Thanks GFC! Time will tell if their strategy will last. My guess is REX will continue with their pathalogical refusal to actively retain their experienced Captains. I also believe that this attitude will once again result in substantial schedule cancellations. As before the travelling public will be the losers. REX will make say... $18mil instead of $25mil. They don't care! And GG you are exactly correct, but the problem is many of the REX training Captains were still wet behind the ears themselves when offers were made about a year ago. Many experienced Captains simply didn't want the grief! As such most of these training captains are still new enough to put ambition above rocking the boat. You probably won't see many official complaints from that department! :sad: |
So is it a criminal offence to lie to a senate enquiry? Genuine question. :suspect:
|
From the Parlimentary Website
After reading some of the written submissions from the Airlines and Training providers over half of them could be accused of this in my opinion. Many of the documents seem to have been lifted from sales type documents with so much spin in them they are misleading Anyway to answer the question: Contempt of the Senate and remedies for contempt When the actions of a witness or another person influencing a witness have the effect of obstructing the inquiries of a Senate committee (or future inquiries), those actions may be treated as contempts. Examples of such offences include:
The committee has, for example, inquired into a case where the chairman and senior members of a statutory body attempted to place restrictions on another member of the body from giving evidence. Although no contempt was found to have been committed, the committee was highly critical of the actions of the statutory body. In another case, the Committee of Privileges investigated an allegation that a witness received adverse treatment from his superior officers as a result of his appearance at a joint committee hearing. Senior officers of a statutory body imposed a penalty on the junior officer, who had given evidence in a private capacity. The Committee of Privileges found that a contempt had been committed and was strongly critical of the officers and the organisation. The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that a House of Parliament may impose terms of imprisonment or substantial fines for individuals and corporations as a penalty for contempt. To date the Senate has not had occasion to use either of these penalties, preferring an educative and preventative approach. The Senate has accepted apologies and remedial action, and has encouraged government officials in particular to attend training courses on the rights and obligations of witnesses before parliamentary committees. |
Sunfish;
I know of one kid with a learning disability that is now flying for the Qantas group..... What an absurd statement. |
But cadets have to pay for their own training and are bonded for 7 years, no comparison really.
|
Green Goblin Any idea if REX are going to start recruiting direct entry F/O's again soon or do you think they will stick with the cadets? They have been interviewing and hiring direct entry FOs all year. Why? Because they have an extreme shortage of upgradable FOs. A common complaint I have heard with REX, is that they will interview roughly 6 at a time, hire maybe 2, and keep the rest hanging without ever letting them know their interview result. This has been going on for at least 2 years that I know of. Shame on you rex. |
I thought CASA was part of the Qantas Group.
|
"If we were not able to recruit pilots and put them through a cadet scheme it would take us back to the randomness of trying suitable candidates that wouldn't be at a high standard to join our airline or any other airline," he said. |
GA Randomness
what Rex said is that the standards of applicants from GA was crap!
those crappy standards have arisen from a training sector that consistently fails to produce the goods and operators who choose to live with the crap rather than fix it. Rex chose to fix it by starting their own training school focused on producing an airline capable pilot that met their standards for knowledge, skills and behaviour. the root cause is the largely self-regulating flying training sector - CASA needs to fix the problem at source RFN! actually, Rex is still not doing enough to fix the overall problem, despite their self-congratulation. but in all fairness, individual operators shouldn't have to fix a systemic problem, and at least they are doing something. |
That is what Rex said but they have an agenda. Maybe they said it not because the standard of GA was crap but because they saw an opportunity to make money out of training cadets who will pay the airline and then be bonded to them for 7 years under marginal T&C's. That is quite an incentive to rubbish GA.
This has proven to be a money spinner for the EU airlines but their GA was never enough to supply the number of pilots needed, especially now that military pilots are staying put. The USA, which has an extensive GA sector and has recently outlawed this cadet practice by the introduction of the 1500 hour rule for the RHS. |
Aipa gave evidence before senate that it thought glider experience was not appropriate. JQ Singapore cadets on the advanced course can use 700 hours rotary time to satisfy the local Singapore minima - how relevant is that to flying a fixed wing jet?
I hope casa and the government spot that one when these guys are flying round in a vh registered jet!! |
I was just reading a great article from the Royal Aeronautical Society. It is an interview with QANTAS Senior Check Captain David Evans and gives a detailed account of the QF32 uncontained engine failure in November.
When asked the question ASChan: Interesting you mention airmanship. As a training/check captain are you personally worried about the next generation of pilots who may be fixated with the glass cockpits? DE: Absolutely.* Nothing will replace experience. In a legacy airline like Qantas where we have the luxury, if you like, of very experienced pilots (the most junior pilot to the most senior all have extensive backgrounds in aviation – whether it be military or general aviation). That can’t be replaced. More to Follow The Kelpie Ps DE if you are reading this, the QF32 crew did a great job - well done to you all!! |
(the most junior pilot to the most senior all have extensive backgrounds in aviation – whether it be military or general aviation). That can’t be replaced. |
Exactly!!!
|
With respect to QF cadets it must be remembered that they weren't immediately put into the RHS as an FO as their first job.
FRQ CB |
.and that is the difference....
|
It should also be remembered that the Qantas Cadets only make up a very small sample of QF flight crew.
It is some time before QF cadets have an opportunity to try their hand in a control seat and by this stage should have a very good grasp of QF/airline flying ops and only need to concentrate on the handling part as the standard ops should be well ingrained. The combination of Airlines putting through large numbers of cadets through their ranks and the possibility of fast promotion to command ends up with the blind leading the blind. If these airlines really believe that cadet programs produce a better result than GA/experienced pilots why not foot the entire bill for training and pay a decent wage at the end of training. If the cost to the airline was the same, airlines would take experienced pilots every day of the week. |
FRQ CB i beg to differ but Q cadets placed direct into RHS in QLink and with the ICUS (which noone is required to verify) and their vast experience a number now hold commands at QLink. Unless regional experience and 74 seats doesnt count. A couple have even been placed in the sim as training instructors without been yet able to hold an ATPL. Youve got to love the company that is QLink.
|
Suggest trying here.
Nick Xenophon - Independent Senator for South Australia Being put in the back seat for 10 years on international is completely different to rhs of a jet on domestic sectors in Australia. |
Does anybody know whether Anthony Petteford from Oxford Aviation Academy has been asked to give evidence in front of the Senate Enquiry?
His written evidence is at first glance confusing, he states: There is no evidence to indicate that the source of funding for ab initio airline pilot training courses has any impact upon either the quality of training or safety of pilots who have self funded their training course rather than an airline. Quite the opposite as these courses are full-time duration over 18 months requiring real commitment and devotion to achieving the standards. Airlines receive a more motivated pilot as a consequence.
Petteford does makes specific reference to British Airways, a company which, through the "old boys network'' has had a long and established relationship with Oxford - he emphasises the success of this particular Cadet Program over a long period of time. This program has not run since 2001 and prior to that was fully sponsored by BA. It is interesting that he does not mention Easyjet, Ryanair and Flybe, all programs that Oxford certainly do have business dealings and all of which are self-sponsored and for Low Cost Carriers. The reality of these programs is that they do not guarantee jobs and have graduated many pilots who are now unable to find jobs and who are being drowned by GBP80,000 ($160,000) loan repayments without the prospect of a job which they have trained for. For those who have not secured the loans against family homes, bankruptcy is a serious consideration and a drastic course of action some have elected for. Why did Petteford emphasise the success of the airline sponsored programs in his submission which have nothing to do with Oxford Aviation yet fail to mention those self-sponsored programs which Oxford has involved itself with and has an in depth knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding them? Perhaps the good Senator should ask this question why this was so. The answer may lie in some of his later statements nestled in with his conclusions. In relation to the Colgan Air Accident Petteford citing the NTSB report concludes: What would have had an impact is more relevant training. Had they communicated better as a team from this more relevant training and made better use of the aircraft automation, the event is unlikely to have occurred. Poorly paid, unsupported pilots on the flight deck can have a deleterious impact upon flight deck performance and communication due to poor morale and dissatisfaction.
Does Petteford's submission to the enquiry suggest that there is in fact a link between the Colgan Air Accident and the JQ Cadet Program in that a link between safety and self-funded training/poor pay does exist? This question is central to the enquiry and needs to clear all of this up - Perhaps Anthony Petteford could help the Senators figure it out. More to Follow The Kelpie |
Lets go back to the old way. You do your training then head north for a few years and learn to fly. I have seen some of these cadets in action and it scares me.
Sorry but i believe a 1500 hour limit should be brought in. Nothing can beat experience. |
Aipa gave evidence before senate that it thought glider experience was not appropriate. Lets go back to the old way. You do your training then head north for a few years and learn to fly And that is how Qantas used to do things in the 60's. Produced I understand a generation or two of the types of aircrew you want in the pointy end. |
I wonder how keen the airlines would be to continue with cadet programs if the government insisted that all cadets must be tied to the airline and guaranteed a job and that all training costs be borne by the airline.
Surely it would not make any difference because it is the benefit that cadet schemes produce a higher quality pilot that really matters. I think not- they would be dropped tout suite!! |
Well there are a few would be airline short cutters (would be cadets) that are playing russian roulette with 180k out there that would be losing some sleep at this stage. The good Senator is onto this little scheme.
Another one that might be worrying a few is that big brother over in the US thinks its not the way to go and we generally follow them in anything/everything. The only thing that doesn't work in our favour is that both sides of politics in Australia support/promote sweat shop conditions. |
Losing sleep is not a good thing for airline safety - Right?
180k for training that costs circa $100k outside of the cadetship is a rip-off that should be considered anti-competitive - after all there is no commitment from the airline it is just an approved course!! |
Got to wonder where the facilitator err i mean regulator is on all of this.
Oh that right ..facilitating. Wined and dined... |
As far as BA cadets go this is what I understand:
In 2006 they were called SSPs, self sponsored pilots. They recieved a reduced salary for the first 5? years. After that on the same scale as everyone else for their years of service. The SSP guys on my course had around 250-300 hours with Seneca the largest a/c. BA had put them through a full A320 JOC course prior to their start with BA (as a trial I believe) They then did the full endorsement with other DEPs, direct entry pilots. We (2) had 500hrs on an ATP, and 1500hrs on a DHC8 respectively along with other experience. The SSPs performed very well and all got through their training with flying colours. Off the top of my head they were scheduled for more hours/sectors line training but I am not sure how many. They also had to do circuits prior to their first line training flight. The DEPs did not. After check to line they flew RHS as PF on low vis down to 300 m for T/O, with the ability to conduct the RTO. And autoland to Cat 1 radio alt. During my time there I am not aware of any incidents or issues with SSPs however some captains did mention it was nice to fly with someone "where some previous experience was evident." I guess it will come down to selection and training. Hopefully Jetstar will work with other companies in establishing their own training regime. All the best to these guys. |
The last BA-sponsored course as far as I am aware, was AP211A at OAT, starting May 2001.
The British Airways SSP was not in itself a cadet programme, it is important to recognize that. BA had on its radar a number of schools, Oxford being one of them, that run what we now recogise as integrated courses. My understanding is that SSP was merely a scouting exercise through the old boy network where high flyers (or kids of existing captains) were tagged, their training monitored and based on results possibly given an opportunity to apply to join BA once they graduated. The BA SSP has not run since the GFC and responding to this in an effort to survive, schools like CTC and Oxford have re-marketed the model to use the carrott of strong airline links and prospect of employment to encourage prospective pilots to train with them under the banner of a cadetship. They are not cadetships in the true sense of the word only 'Approved Courses'. Given the low level of economic activity in the Uk, it is no surprise that it is this model that has now found it's way to Australia where CTC and Oxford feel justified in charging UK market rates for training ( approx. 100% more than an Australian school) for essentially the same product albeit with a 'designer brand'. Oxford did not buy GFS just because it was a school with a good reputation, it bought it because of it's existing links with the airlines and saw the opportunity to use these to bring its UK cadetship model over and exploit prospective young pilots as they have done successfully in the UK over recent years. Does it work? Ask the 300 pilots who graduated from Oxford in the UK on self funded courses over recent years who are crippled with debt and cannot secure a job - so much for the links with airlines. |
I guess it will come down to selection and training. |
On another thread Tarkeeth wrote, before getting closed down:
Jet Star Cadets with 500 hrs + now F/O rostered East Coast AU Was told today of cadets with low hours who will be flying as an F/O on Monday 3 Jan on East Coast routes. Restrictions apply as to Airports they can fly into as F/Os. Is it legal to fly as F/O on A320 A/C with so few hours? Good Luck!! |
At the top of the thread reads
"PASS THE EMIRATES INTERVIEW". People over in Dubai have their finger on some of the skippers' pulse! |
Are they Cadets Kelpie, or accelerated low time CPL's. I don't think the true cadets (zero to hero) have completed their training yet. Either way a bloody steep learning curve, but at least they have some flight experience.
The real rub of course is the reduced pay for CPL holders only. It's good enough for them to sit in the RHS of a 188 pax airliner, but it's not good enough for them to be remunerated the same as other F/O's who hold an ATPL. Some may argue that's fair enough. My arguement is that if they don't deserve the same pay for doing the same job, then they probably shouldn't be there in the first place! As you say... More to follow! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.