https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rk-London.html

From the news article:-

I thought they were going to be using Scarebus A350’s.

Exactly!!!!!

As for the letter from “pilot X”, I happen know a few thousand would be CEOs with a wealth of airline experience who would do his job for a measly $10mill.

That's funny bazza! I've also had countless emails from CEO's who would do his job for much less!

If there is no shortage of pilots Alan, then why do you have to start up a pilot academy?

So what is it Alan? Is there a shortage or not?

The original order was for 115 and was the largest single order for any airline. 100 for Qantas and 15 for JQ. A mix of 787-8s for JQ and QF and 787-9 for QF only. Were supposed to replace the A330-200, A330-300 and B767-200/B767-300.

So with the added savings of having the #chinaboys flying Sunrise , will they be on a retainer until launch in 2023?

Can someone in China Southern tell MW to pull his head in?

He’s giving you (and ex-RAAFies in general) a bad name... :hmm:

Thanks :ok:

Im not sure why this continues to be misunderstood.

Jetconnect isn’t based overseas as far as CASA are concerned. Jetconnect is QF...using the Qantas AOC. Same Chief Pilot, same training dept, sims etc etc. Jetconnect is mainline as far as the operation goes. The pilots all hold CASA licences. Exactly the same as the Jetstar NZ operation. From a regulatory point of view CASA don’t care whether it’s NZD or AUD that are paid to the pilots.

And if you’re going down the path of transfer of business case that’s already been tested.

As above, there is no need for Qantas to get a foreign CAA to go for the extended FTL’s, both Jetconnect and Jetstar NZ are simply crewing companies that supply crew to the Qantas and Jetstar operations. If they were to do this with Project Sunrise they could just put a crew base in Auckland on what ever terms and conditions they see fit and pax crew to Sydney or Melbourne as required. Having said that it has been tried before, think Red Q, Jetstar Hong Kong and the 330 Jetstar hub in Singapore, all were unmitigated disasters. Also I remember when BA set up an off shoot called Open Skies based in Paris to fly the Atlantic on ex Ba Aircraft but crewed on lesser terms and conditions, it was a disaster. The cost involved in setting it up would likely make it loss making, the only upside for Alan is that it creates yet another pilot group to play off against the rest. Personally I think anyone openly touting for work that undermines another pilot group is dubious at best however you can’t blame people who need work accepting potential jobs hat may be on offer. It could work out well for Qantas, get rid of all the Jetstar 787’s, make a proportion of that crew redundant before offering them he choice of flying for this new entity.

The number one problem with a crewing company concept is the massive insecurity that the employees feel. Jetconnect pilots wake up every single morning wondering if they are going to have to start looking for a new job today. That level of continuous insecurity is massively corrosive on a personal level. They hate it, absolutely hate it with a passion. They leave as soon as they can get something more secure. A fixed term contract offers more security (except when a force majeure is declared, ie China at present, but they are by definition, relatively rare) as there is a known start and end point which allows for an orderly plan.

Never underestimate the psychic damage that the continuous corrosion of uncertainty creates. You would find pilots rapidly cycling in and out of such an operation, just as they do in Jetconnect. It will be a recency placeholder and cashflow generator between contracts.

I wonder if the court case outcome would be different now that JC are flying VH airframes directly under the QF AOC?

Wasn’t it a close decision last time?

Can you use Australian Traffic Rights to operate in that manner?

A field day will be had in Parliament over Australian Traffic Rights being used by an operation and employees that don't pay tax here and are not controlled by Australian Law. You might as well just let Air New Zealand apply for Australian Traffic Rights as well while you're at it.

Hear Hear...The audacity is unbelievable!!

..........

As per my post #1185. Our favorite GT wrote :

Has GT made a slip of the keyboard (or his source forgot the script 2023) with A350 entry in 2021 - perhaps this is why the Ti-NO deadlines are steadfast.

Sounding more and more like the old bait & switch, a replacement type with a "Sunrise" chaser twist to set the hares off in the wrong direction. Misdirection for the A330 replacement.

He would be referring to you woodja51.....

neville_nobody. I think you will find Air New Zealand hold Australian Traffic Rights and at one time even operated SYD-LAX nonstop much to the annoyance of Singapore Airlines.

That would be 5th Freedom rights, which allow you to operate through a foreign country. And yes the entire world would love 5th Freedom rights to operate between Australia and the USA but that it isn't going to happen any time soon.

3rd/4th Freedom rights are what enable you to fly from A to B internationally, and my point would be that QF could be in the situation where they are using these rights bestowed on them by the Australian Government to then potentially crew the whole thing with people who don't abode or pay tax in Australia and some of whom would not even be citizens. There was a massive stink in the USA when Norwegian did this in that basically they were taking the mickey of the whole traffic rights arrangement however Norwegian did win a court case that kept them using these rights.

However it is the Australian Government that gives these rights and if you had a left of centre Australian Government get in, they may take a dim view of such arrangements

Ahhhh, now it makes sense.

From the Qantas Recruitment thread.

So this person is a QANTAS wannabe who has already failed the selection process and sees his opportunity through the back door.

Well done! :mad: