She couldn't possibly be any more out of touch than MR.... Seems to me that the CP role at JQ is all about being a yes man/ woman who will tow Carla's line

Well sort of. Good ol WINEo is on a self mission of greed and financial gain at the expense of all and sundry. It is one garbage of a "human being". One must pay the boat bills somehow. And..."it" actually would be the yes man to bogan ears whose parents were no doubt brother and sister, not Carla.

Yes well, the decent "folk" that wore the blue shirt could not stand the snake excrement, as well as the Singa's locals. But that's probably for a separate post in itself. :confused:

Anyway, what's happening over there? It appears as though the "girl" may not make it, as a particular "regulator" (for want of a better word:ugh::ugh:) is having second and third thoughts for probably good reasons.

Carla may also be on the hit list for pre-planning over and around certain heads and recommending her. :cool:

The certain "Regulator" is indeed not happy with this nomination with fourth and fifth reservations.

Not only Carla, but the other one will regret this absurd situation where the nominee can't hold any of the required delegations:confused:

They will be scrambling to surround her with people who can exercise the required functions of a CP.

What a pathetic joke this is:mad:

What delegations are the issue?

It is normal customary practice to talk to your regulator before appointing a post holder. It saves a lot of time and possibly wasted effort for all concerned. I think it's called due diligence.

Except you usually don't announce the candidate until AFTER that is done. No point announcing to the world your CP appointment only for the regulator to find them unsuitable. :rolleyes:

NN - Disagree with you. The likes of OW would have seen that as a triumph. The publicity was generated for a Female CP and that was the purpose (qualifications aside and nothing against the person involved) of the announcement. Whether a Female CP happens or not isn't really relevant, as with most things Qantas/J* its the press coverage that is object of the exercise.

There won't be a half page Press Release saying there isn't going to be a Female CP - I don't think they care, they've already milked it - someone is in line for a bonus, well done!

Would have expected you to know that!!:):)

You guys really think someone would resign from an airline, to take up a position with another, if that position was not guaranteed?
You'd want to have a pretty good nest egg up your sleeve!

What makes you think she has resigned from QF? Even Jane and David don't work for Jetstar they are still paid by the mothership. Have a look at the Jetstar seniority list and you will still find the Qlink CP with a number. Watch what happens when that number is eligible for a 787 Command.

Disagree with you NN,

If what you say is true, there is a gross dereliction of duty and responsibility. This is not an advertising exercise, but a search for someone who actually has all of the qualifications to do the job (and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the selected person).

It is indeed good policy to sound out the regulator before any appointment is made public.

This process has been a rush of blood to the head of a few people who should have known better.

But remember, this is Jetstar and a hallmark and further example of many "odd" things this outfit does.

I think some of you people are blowing up nothing into something.

The head of flight operations doesn't need to be a check pilot, so doesn't need any delegations from that perspective. They need to be a fit and proper person and know how their management structure works - that is about it.

Casa needs to know that the person is going to do the right thing and not be a puppet, but don't forget the designated CEO is also the "responsible person" so the HOFO Is only one part of the accountability chain.

I would think that it will happen when it happens. It was never going to happen over Christmas and new year.

"going to do the right thing and not be a puppet", that is the funniest thing I have seen. A 'puppet' is exactly what the current chief pilot is.

Mrs Doubtfire may have good intentions but the money will soon sway her to just toe the line! History will be your guide! Nothing is going to change in the Qantas Group.

Boy, some people will cling to '89 in every possible way.

To Popgun and busdriver007 and anyone else who chooses to run a character assassination based upon a woman's appearance without knowing of her skills or strength of character as a professional aviator, you only diminish yourselves.

While you sit on your computer late at night chucking rocks at your betters, Georgina Sutton has been building her career and leaving a legacy for her industry that in time will have real men and women judge on its professional merits not her appearance.

Have you ever had a go at any other male chief pilot based upon their appearance. Let's be clear none of Georgina's predecessors have been particularly attractive and yet in your world they will sink or swim based upon nothing to do with their appearance.

Your daughters, wives, sisters and mothers would be ashamed of you. So am I. Crawl back in your caves and take your cheap shot pejorative nicknames with you.

The nickname I refer to has been used twice on this thread and only Keg had the balls to call Bull$#!t. To the rest of you that let it slip through to the keeper, grow a pair and speak up for the girls and women in you lives, lest they become victims to this quiet insidious filth that serves nobody.

I call BS too.

I have also butted heads with Georgina over a few issues, but I was one of the first to congratulate her on her appointment. She was certainly not the best boss I've worked for, but she was far from the worst. Her gender, sexual preference and appearance are not relavent to the way she does her job, just as the same factors are not relavent to the way we do ours.

Those calling names, and hiding behind pseudonyms are just spineless arseh0les.

Absolutely correct and I agree 100% :ok:, but her qualifications sure as hell are relevant.

Her appointment reeked of another agenda rather than the qualifications that should have been the true test of selection to this position.

Go figure.

Then please all stick to the facts rather than name calling.

She put in her CV, did an interview and put forward her case for why she should be appointed. If she was given the job, it's clearly not her fault if CASA decides she is not qualified. It is clearly the fault of those who appointed her for not doing their homework in the first place. Probably some overpaid HR parasite.

Or maybe it's CASA being incompetent twits. Not as if they don't have form of incompetence and inconsistency in these areas.

It would not have been "some overpaid HR parasite".

There would have been 2 people who ultimately made the final decision. I'll leave you to work out who they were.