It's all a bit disturbing, but for info they sign for and on behalf of QL not Cobham!!

On the B717, Qlink engineers are signing Cobham paperwork on behalf of Qlink (they have approval). Cobham are the Part 42. Half the engineers in Canberra aren't directly employed by Qlink, they are employed illegally through Sigma and are contracted to Qlink. Do a bit of research, ask your tax accountant or ask the ATO. If you earn 100 % of your income from 1 company, If you are only providing manpower etc you are considered a full time employee. There is plenty of case study on this. It's no secret. Korr will do the same thing with the heavy work. Cobham, whilst being a contract company, meaning they have a contract with Qantas employ people legally as full time employees. It's really not that hard.

Blitzkrieger, you obviously had a long day. Re read it mate

Meanwhile...

Network's newest F100 in full QLink colours

http://fnqskies.********.com.au/2015...vh-nhy-in.html

I see they still require the full ATPL for FOs to apply, not just CPL with subjects. I wonder how many otherwise suitable candidates that tick all the other boxes are not able to apply.......I know of at least one:}

Good old PPrune,


Australia, New Zealand Forum + a Cobham thread and the intellectual age of the discussion plummets to an 8 year olds level everytime.

FMC, gettin' there meant "CPL with ATPL subjects".

What's the difference in ability and aptitude between someone with all their ATPL subjects who ticked over 1500 hours in August 2014 vs. someone who hit 1500 hours in November, apart from one being gifted a piece of paper saying ATPL on it?

What they said.

I have no problem with the new regs requiring someone actually demonstrate the ability to act in command of a multi crew aircraft before they are given an ATPL; to the contrary I think it is a good idea.

I was more referring to the fact that given the very few ATPLs that have actually been issued since the introduction of the new regs, over time, the pool of suitable candidates will be getting smaller won't it?

Getting there gets it.

They can ask for whatever they want, but the inevitable result will be a smaller candidate pool, thus diminishing the potential quality of applicants should they exclude those with a CPL and subjects.

In time, they'll be forced to change. When? Who knows. Sooner the better for all parties involved.

'Higher requirements diminish the potential quality of applicants'.

Seriously?!

Or how about this for a conspiracy: They are actually targeting ex turbo prop skippers who will have an ATPL anyway.

Has anyone heard any more info regarding where the 2 'new' B717's are coming from and who will be operating them? Im hearing more and more it might not be Cobham? Interested to hear of potential future recruitment opportunities. :rolleyes:

Divide and conquer or more for a contractor??

Given the costs of adding a totally new high-capacity RPT aircraft onto an operators fleet are not small and there are significant down sides to having to endorse pilots who are employed by QF or a subsidiary onto a type that has limited use in Oz, it would have to be a VERY good argument for the two aircraft to go to anyone other than Cobham. I am not saying it would not happen, just that it would be surprising.

I think you'll see all the aircraft go to Qlink. Given some of their engineers can't tell the difference between skydrol and deice fluid, it will be very interesting. I guess you can't blame them though, I haven't seen too many bug smashers with phosphate ester based systems....

I believe Network has 2 B717 experienced drivers, and from what I'm told, with Network's crewing numbers policy, that should be enough

Where are the majority of Cobham B717 FO's recruited from?

Qlink (EAA and Sunstate)?

The last expansion had people from the RAAF, QLink, Rex, Skippers, Toll and a number of other operators. I don't think they target any particular airline but as with any recruiter they take the best candidates they can get.

I believe there is a clause in the contract that says Cobham must be the sole provider of type for QF,or words to that effect.

That being the case, why are these two jets on such shaky ground according to Cobham HQ? Wouldn't be industrial would it?