Krusty

They are graduates of the Advanced Course.

My view is if in the company's eyes they are good enough to sit in the RHS with a regular captain they are good enough to be paid the same as a FO once they obtain their ATPL thus transitioning from a JFO to FO under the OZ EBA.

Whilst I have made argument that salary can be connected to safety elsewhere I personally do not think that the NZ salary and conditons are good enough considering these guys have to start paying back $87k at the end of January plus any student loans they may have. That being said the first three months should be pretty stress free financially as during this time they are officially NZ BASED and their hotels and meals are covered by JQ and are paid overnight allowances whilst away from base.

The real financial pressure will come once they are checked to line - let's see how that affects their stress levels and their performance on the flight deck.

Anybody know whether Westaway has penned a press release for the occasion? Simon, if your reading, I have a suggestion for a headline "Jetstar offers new free service - the opportunity to backseat a flying lesson!"

More to Follow!!

D

well... there is a circular argument if ever I saw one:

Junior F/O's are paid less because they don't have the experience required to hold an ATPL, but experience means nothing because they are a higher quality pilot.
So... the higher quality pilot is paid less?

BUT.... once the "higher quality" pilot gets some experience, he/she will be paid more, therefore joining the ranks of less qualified pilots. and then they will have the experience which we didn't want them to have in the first place.

Hehe apache I had been thinking the same thing for sometime.
The most roundabout upside down and illogical arguements of course must seem right to someone... Bonus for the person who thought up this mess...

Regardless of the operational argument for experienced pilots, there is a wider National imperative to enforcing mandatory pilot experience in RPT.

Historically the GA pathway to the airlines has provided the GA sector with a ready low-cost workforce keen to gain experience requirements of the big employers. Our small but nationally important GA sector needs only relatively small government sponsorship in remote and other critical areas due to it being the pathway to better pilot jobs. If this pathway is no longer viewed as such, governments will be forced to top up millions to keep remote and other smaller essential services running as more operators struggle to get low-paid pilots and salaries jump. The Euro-cadet model in Australia would incur cost shifting from the airline to the taxpayer, and governments will cop this economic deficit without supportive legislation to protect the fragile GA sector.

NZ has a law prohibiting pilot flying as RPT crew with <500hours. US congress has approved law of similar intent, but with higher hours. These countries have GA sectors of vital importance that will now be supported by the legislated RPT requirements. Australia, like the USA in the past, has had no such law, largely due to previous levels of industry self regulation. The USA is now leading the way in enforcing a strategy that keeps the balance right for governments, the economy and the travelling public. This is what the senate enquiry should take note of, and this alone is enough to enforce a minimum experience level for RPT in Australia.

Roller,
a good argument, but this assumes that the government cares about GA!

Ok. So does anyone know the latest on the inquiry. Creampuff kindly posted the link to day one, but since then NADA!

Have they postponed due to the recent natural disasters? Have the airlines bought them off! (just kidding :E).

Or has it just peetered out? :confused:

Next public hearing 25 Feb in Canberra. Amongst the guest speakers Mssrs Joyce and Buchanan I understand.

March is the end of the enquiry from memory.

so.... a senate enquiry will have 3 days of submissions over 6 months?

wow..... how much more "in depth" can you get.

Apache, more specifically, it assumes the regulator doesn't simply hate GA!

A further hearing has been schehuled for 1245 to 1345 (AEDT) today. Should be broadcast here: Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting

Its on now

HMS9V

Gives you a glimmer of hope..

Captain Geoff Klouth you have made us proud. A calm professional front.

The various Senators are getting a bit of an idea of what is going on in this industry.

To quote the Senator at the end:

"Got me packing my daks now, I don't know if I want to get on a plane."

Well done Geoff and all other for having the professionalism and courage to represent all pilots in Australia well.

:D

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received

caught the last 45 mins of that. well done to Geoff.
It is a pity that he could not answer the question on why REX found themselves so short of pilots a few years ago.
one aspect that has been missed, I think, is that airlines themselves admit that good airmanship and technical knowledge is a MUST.
I know that in most cases, airlines actually admit this in a small phrase in the front of either the QRH or SOP's, when they state that they are unable to anticipate and write procedures for ALL emergencies, therefore airmanship/knowledge/experience should be diligently used (or words to that effect).
With respect to the american(?) news report into pilot fatigue, I wonder if they would like a copy of the Wagga Wagga PRIME news piece about pilots and Flight attendants being Forced to stay in sub-standard accommodation as part of their MANDATED crew rest? the student accommodation is barely better than the crew room. At least in the crew room, you would have access to nearby shops for food and drink.

Maybe some background of how the "10 hours may be reduced to 9hours free of duty if it encompasses the hours of 2200-0600 local" rule came about? How iot was a trade off YEARS ago by airlines/pilots so that they COULD operate that first flight back in the morning without costing the companies exorbitant amounts of money.... BUT, it was supposed to be only used for ONE sector, as the pilot was having MINIMUM rest! This has now been abused by companies the country over to get that extra drop of blood from the stone.

Looks like the senators are finally asking some good questions, and they are starting to listen!

Just got through watching the hearing. Capt Klough did an excellent job with his submission.

A couple of points that were raised during the submission that if we have the opportunity needs further clarification.

Pilot fatigue:

There are regulations in place which govern flight and duty time limitations for pilots, however, most operators operate under exemptions to the published Flight and Duty time restrictions in CAO48. These exemptions are issued to airlines by CASA at the airlines request, are generally less restrictive and permit a company to roster a pilot to work and fly for an extended period of time than would otherwise be allowed. The exemptions to the flight and duty time restrictions fall into the same category as exemptions allowing airlines to operate onto narrower runways or operate aircraft with fewer flight attendants than would otherwise be allowed by the regulations. CASA are exempting airlines from certain published regulations in order to bring the airline a cost advantage even though there is a negative safety outcome.

REX:

Capt Klough seemed reluctant to say what I am sure he and most of us know. REX's pilot exodus and their inability to fill the empty positions was a direct result of the bad reputation they have as an employer. Even given their reputation and below market pay and conditions I still find it hard to believe that they could not find enough "suitable" pilots. Did one of the senators say the REX chief pilot searched the country looking for suitable pilots but could not find any??? What a load of rubbish!

I have just watched the coverage of the Senate's enquiry.

Well Done GK your courage to step up is to be commended. Your opening Statement was, I have to say excellent, well thought out and well communicated.

Unfortunately when it came to answering the questions I felt you were not given an obvious opportunity in your responses to the questions posed to cover some of the more pertinent topics of your written submission such as outsourcing and funding of flying and making these relevant to safety although you may have been able to 'stitch' these into some of the other responses you gave - but you were on the spot and these links do not always manifest themselves at the right time.

I believe you were picked to give evidence out of the many people who made a submission because of your vast experience across a range of functions within the industry, not least an Airline Training Captain and ex ATSB investigator. This should have allowed you to leverage a credible argument from an industry perspective, IMHO you didn't quite achieve this but a good effort all the same.

Safe Flying!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie


ps. Does anybody know what the Agenda is for the Senate Hearing on the 25th February?

hopefully the 25th will see some hard questions being asked of the Orange Emperor and Lady Bruce. - there a re few good prompts in a few of the submissions - esp those that came with a confidential tag.

AT

I thought he said that there were enough pilots with the 1500 hours but maybe Rex just weren't looking hard enough. I thought he also said ask Rex why they were leaving in the first place. Anyway hopefully it will finally put to rest the idea that Jetstar pilots aren't willing to step up to the plate in the struggle to stop the race to the bottom.

And if the 1500 hour minimum is mandated, and Rex or Jetstar don't increase their salaries and terms and conditions, they still won't get the applicants they need to fill the right hand seats, or at least that is what they will say to the department of immigration.

Has anyone guessed yet where they will source the applicants if they "cannot find suitably qualified Australian residents?"

TLAW,

About 5 years ago as the pace of the resources boom in WA was really starting to accelerate, several publicly listed mining companies realised they were losing skilled employees (geologists, heavy machine operators, diesel mechanics, etc) to bigger operators and that such a continual labour drain would progressively impact their long term competitiveness. A google search by any interested poster will turn up the associated media.

After looking at the alternatives some of the miners advised the ASX they were implementing a deliberate one time short term profit reduction, to fund provisions to significantly increase wages and improve staff terms and conditions, to arrest the skilled worker losses and become more attractive employers in the labour market.

On receiving this news did the market punish the miners for deliberately reducing the profit that year?

No, the market was well aware of the labour market pressures and understood the need for management to fund T & C increases to retain, preserve and attract the most valuable resoure of all - skilled and dedicated labour. The market responded to these announcements positively and share prices either didn't change or increased, with the media support of labour and mining market analysts, who saw the move as sensible and providing for a sustainable future.

Aviation is a very capital intensive business, just like mining. I think the 'race to the bottom' in aviation experience, skills and associated T. & C.s results more from naval gazing airline managers, who are too close to their own problems and lack the insight to look at other similar industries (mining in this case) for inspired solutions to these problem.

Uninspired management always looks to the accountants (CFO's) for advice and the problem with accountants is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Which is why their answer is always to cut costs.

The Oracle

Last time, REX scoured G/A and then went overseas in an effort to find "suitable" pilots. The G/A experience whilst initially sucessful, soon became problematic as most of the prime candidates had already accepted jobs with the Majors. Subsequent candidates were of a calibre that made them increasingly "unsuitable", but not for the reasons that Jim Davis has purported!

REX then went to Eastern Europe, but this amounted to naught. One can only speculate at the miriad of reasons for this. REX found some relief by going to South Africa. They employed 6 guys with a variety of experience, the last of whom are now completing their Command upgrades. By and large these guys have worked out well (I have personally flown with them all), but IMHO they were no better or worse than one would have expected from the ranks of Aussie G/A applicants with similar experience.

So why had the Experienced G/A applicants (and there are still plenty of them) become unsuitable, but more to the point, why are the South African Guys who come from similar backgrounds, suitable? Simple, as far as the Aussie G/A applicants are concerned, THERE WAS NO WAY REX COULD HOLD ON TO THEM! The Law and Order issues in South Africa, and the desire for these pilots to provide a better life for their families, enabled REX to "secure" their services. REX paid for their relocation costs, and provided up to $30K in settlement expenses for them to come over. In return, they give REX 7 years service, or they have to pay the money back. Do we see a trend here? In a similar way the same applies to the Cadets, Captive Workforce.

Senator Heffernan's remark about REX not being here today if it weren't for the Cadet Scheme is unfortunate, but not surprising. He has taken REX management at their word, and as such has failed to grasp the true nature of the problem. REX would most certainly still be here today. The company's impressive debt/equity ratio would have seen to that, but one of two things would have happened. Either REX would have contracted in size, or the company would have had no choice but to compete for experienced pilots. Jim Davis has stated on more than one occasion that the latter course of action would bankrupt the company. The fact of the matter is, that to effectively compete for the limited experience pool out there, REX would probably need to increase fares by approx $7 dollars per ticket! If such an increase would lead to financial disaster, especially when you consider REX enjoy a virtual monopoly on 90% of their routes, then they should probably close the doors right now! Somehow I don't think so.

So what will happen in the not too distant future when REX are once again cancelling flights because of a lack of Captains? Well, they could pray for GFC MK2, or hope that another friendly English speaking nation descends into chaos, or they they can do the only thing that will lead to workforce/schedule reliability into the future. $7 a ticket? Money well spent I would say.

Unless of a course a fundamental make-up of your DNA (see Airline management) prohibits any thought of such a response! :rolleyes:

I think the good Captain 'struggled' answering the Rex question because in reality the answer is an industrial one. If Senators start to see this as pilots whinging about wages then the real point will be lost.

That said, the reason Rex is not an option for me is the massive paycut I'd have to take from my GA gig. Can't fund a mortgage on what they offer.

In his interview GK was asked about the statement he made in his submission relating to a strategic objective voiced by Bruce Buchanan to make cost savings year on year by 10%. GK was not able to recall where that was published and replied to the Senator's question on that basis. The manner by which the Senator then responded sounded like the good senator fully intended to find out (words to the effect of 'not to worry we can find that out). I would imagine it is certainly something that BB will be asked about next Friday.

Does anyone know where the 10% saving statement originated from?

There is evidence that BB has made similar comments publically but only to the extent of 5% savings year on year. He is quoted in the press as follows:

Jetstar Chief Executive Officer, Mr Bruce Buchanan, said the cooperative approach was a result of the two organisations’ strong focus on costs.
“Jetstar and AirAsia are passionate about offering consistently low fares,” Mr Buchanan said.
“Year on year, Jetstar is reducing its controllable costs by up to five per cent annually. This agreement will enable a further step-change in our cost position and ensure sustainable low fares.

Not quite the 10% but the intent is there and if BB denied to me that he had ever made the 10% statement I would have to doubt whether he was being honest with me.

More to follow

The Kelpie

Kelpie on Klouth
 

Kelpie,

Given you thought to provide Geoff (and the rest of the PPRuNe world) with the benefit of your critique of his live performance, can you just let me know which of the submissions are yours and when you are to appear before the Committee so that I might be able to see how it is done? :cool: :cool:

It will be good to see you control the Committee members to ensure that they ask you only the questions that provide the vehicle for you to correct all the misconceptions under which the members are currently labouring. :ok:

I guess you will also be helping Geoff put together his supplementary submission to correct the errors and missed opportunities that you have identified.....

Krusty on Wild Bill
 

Krusty,

That is what is supposed to happen in the absence of dissenting testimony. If no one is prepared to say it, it doesn't exist.....

Here's the transcript for Captain Klouth's statement to the Senate Inquiry, a very balanced and true to life presentation of the current state of affairs in Australian aviation. I only hope the Senate Committee took notice!!??:D

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...tee/S13622.pdf

Here's hoping there is more G.Klouth's to come........

cheers

Sarcs

YouTube - 747 Pilot Flying Lesson

A light hearted look at The Future

I don't know why Captain Klouth needed to give evidence. Heffernan knows everything already. :ugh:

Geoff klouth, one of aviations true gentleman.

Well done!

Submission 45 and 46
 

The two latest submissions that have been processed are also very good :Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received

Mr Laming's submission also includes a thread from pprune, hinting perhaps that he is a member on here!:ok:

The GKs and JLs of this world keep up the good work!!!:D

Don't get too excited. The government have staff who troll through the media collecting data, information, articles and stories not because they care but so they can prepare statements and comments in response to any negative publicity, especially during senate inquiries and anything else that raises public awareness of their little hidden secrets or 'dirt' that could affect the poor Ministers lucrative political career.
Spin doctors and PR machines, thats all. The pollies will have a print-out of each story, blog or Pprune post on their table each morning. Same goes for the airline CEO's.

The details of the 25th February hearing has just been posted on the APH website although no Agenda as yet.

9am until 4pm.

Wow 7 hours!!! (although I expect there will be breaks) I don't know who is appearing but if it is just Alan and Bruce they had better take their vaseline!!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

We are in for a good day!!!



Mr Alan Joyce,

I haven't read J. Laming's submission but can tell you that he is a true gentleman. I can imagine already what he says in it.

A very experienced aviator and a lovely fellow. He has my total respect.

Yes Mr Hat I too have sat in a sim with John and he is indeed a Gentleman

I have had dealings in person with one of the CASA people to speak before he held his current office, over a percieved licencing issue. Even in his regional role he was so far out of touch with the reality of the industry and so obstructive that a simple matter took weeks to sort. He clung to his rule book like it was a life preserver after a ditching when it was clear the rules had short comings in the paticular situation and some judicious use of his powers was the sensible option. I concluded after (when the dust had settled) that a combination of jealousy and ego must have been his prime motivators. I am saddened to see he has the audience he has now and hope that his CASA colleagues aren't cut from the same cloth.
Framer

What the hell is a Permission Application Centre?

Is this the same John Laming?

John Laming - 10 Squadron RAAF - Townsville

framer, I can only speak of the experience I've had. Found him to be pretty helpful and a nice guy. I'll have a read of the submission and get back to you.

I don't know of the role in CASA but understand your frustration if you had dealings with them. You're not alone it seems. That's government for you.

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received

Read it and all I have to say is:

GAME, SET, MATCH: John Laming.

60 years of experience and nothing to gain from his submission. Recommend the read. There's even a few laughs in it.

If the Senators can't work it out after that submission then they either don't want to or... I let you figure out the rest.