Qantas Seniority Joke
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
For those of you who are using this thread to take aim at QF pilots - it is those who are yet to be hired who have the most to lose out of this deal (along with the 200 or so who have joined in the last 2 years). After all those years slogging around GA for 40K or less, you get to join QF only to be told you are inferior to those who are starting at the same time as you with less experience.
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
Those GA blokes having a shot should realise that the majority of guys on here from QF complaining were in your shoes not that long ago. We all understand how pathetic it must sound that we are whinging, but this is about the only place we can do it without fear of retribution (i.e. Qrewroom).
To put it in perspective, there is an S/O in Qantas who was a skipper for Air North on the Brasilia, no doubt imparting his wealth of knowledge on the QF Cadet F/Os who were up there at the time. He has now been checked to line in QF for 4-5 months, the cadets are either still with Air North or just starting their S/O training, and he is now JUNIOR to these guys/girls.
That's just one hard luck story, but puts it all in perspective I think.
TL
To put it in perspective, there is an S/O in Qantas who was a skipper for Air North on the Brasilia, no doubt imparting his wealth of knowledge on the QF Cadet F/Os who were up there at the time. He has now been checked to line in QF for 4-5 months, the cadets are either still with Air North or just starting their S/O training, and he is now JUNIOR to these guys/girls.
That's just one hard luck story, but puts it all in perspective I think.
TL
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
The position you achieve in aviation is generally based on good (or bad) fortune! Nothing to do with experience whatsoever.
TL quotes a regional skipper now junior to his trainee FO. Boo Hoo!
I have numerous friends who achieved airline positions during the 80 & 90's, and I missed out! It was a lonely feeling. Now I still have a job in Australia and most of them are overseas, some doing well for themselves, some doing it hard, some not even flying. Now I don't feel so bad about missing out all those years ago.
It's just good luck, not good management! That's the way the industry works, whether we like it or not!
TL quotes a regional skipper now junior to his trainee FO. Boo Hoo!
I have numerous friends who achieved airline positions during the 80 & 90's, and I missed out! It was a lonely feeling. Now I still have a job in Australia and most of them are overseas, some doing well for themselves, some doing it hard, some not even flying. Now I don't feel so bad about missing out all those years ago.
It's just good luck, not good management! That's the way the industry works, whether we like it or not!
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
That wouldn't be the male model himself, would it TL...? 
I noticed his name fitted into the seniority list just below where the cadets slotted in, and thought that he wouldn't be too impressed with that at all...
As most here have noted, the deal is inherently unfair. Unfortunatley it is yet another sad reflection on the former AIPA COM/President who allowed this to be approved with scant thought for existing members - another reason why they were unceremoniously dumped at the last AIPA elections...
I noticed his name fitted into the seniority list just below where the cadets slotted in, and thought that he wouldn't be too impressed with that at all... As most here have noted, the deal is inherently unfair. Unfortunatley it is yet another sad reflection on the former AIPA COM/President who allowed this to be approved with scant thought for existing members - another reason why they were unceremoniously dumped at the last AIPA elections...
Last edited by Johhny Utah; 22nd Jan 2006 at 04:00.
Nunc est bibendum
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
C'mon TL, there are a couple of issues that you need correcting on!
If you reckon a topic or posts such as these on Qrewroom makes you a target for 'retribution' then you're kidding yourself. This is hardly a 'blip' in the scheme of things. The very issue that you guys are pushing (that the senior guys don't care because it doesn't affect them) is the very reason why it is hardly worth them even reading the thread on Qrewroom let alone caring about your position. Why do you reckon there are so few people senior people engaging on the Qrewroom debate? None of them care. I'm not saying that it is right (I love a good debate as much as the next person), I'm just saying it how it is. So fire away on Qrewroom. When you get some of the 'heavy hitters' contributing, perhaps then you'll know that you're getting somewhere. Retribution though....seriously doubt it!
The flying instructors at the college who taught me well enough to get my CPL and MECIR are all junior to me in QF. I remember flying with a S/O just after I checked out as an F/O who had been a 767 F/O for a european carrier. Heaps more experience than I and joined not far behind me! It happens from time to time. The issue shouldn't be about who instructed who and when as that just clouds the issue by adding a degree of emotion to it- see your 'unfair' comment.
If you want to win this argument then the ONLY leg you have to stand on is date of joining QF. As noted on Qrewroom previously, QF can get around this pretty easily without the LOA if they want to- as other have shown and see my Qrewroom post for two of the four examples I was thinking of! However, if you persist with the 'who trained who' line then you're going to take a hit and the entire discussion will get side tracked- possibly into oblivion.
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
...this is about the only place we can do it without fear of retribution (i.e. Qrewroom).
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
... there is an S/O in Qantas who was a skipper for Air North on the Brasilia, no doubt imparting his wealth of knowledge on the QF Cadet F/Os who were up there at the time. He has now been checked to line in QF for 4-5 months, the cadets are either still with Air North or just starting their S/O training, and he is now JUNIOR to these guys/girls.
TL
TL
If you want to win this argument then the ONLY leg you have to stand on is date of joining QF. As noted on Qrewroom previously, QF can get around this pretty easily without the LOA if they want to- as other have shown and see my Qrewroom post for two of the four examples I was thinking of! However, if you persist with the 'who trained who' line then you're going to take a hit and the entire discussion will get side tracked- possibly into oblivion.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Timber Ck
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
High Octane,
Huh, the hide of you pesants.
Do you really think that my daddy should have paid for you to be a cadet as well as me? Tell me you don't subscribe to the illusion that all men are created equil.
Was your father a baggage handler? perhaps a pesant farmer? Don't tell me the class system has fallen so far into decay that you to may have become a pilot in this great boys club.
I don't recall your name in the 'Kings College Yearbook'.
Oh lord, make me humble enough to hold my toung untill the next cigar smoking leather lounge lazing session in Daddys Kiribilly residence with the other true gentlemen of the industry.
Don't even think of turning up there. I will have Daddys security guards eject you from the premises post haste.
Huh, the hide of you pesants.
Do you really think that my daddy should have paid for you to be a cadet as well as me? Tell me you don't subscribe to the illusion that all men are created equil.
Was your father a baggage handler? perhaps a pesant farmer? Don't tell me the class system has fallen so far into decay that you to may have become a pilot in this great boys club.
I don't recall your name in the 'Kings College Yearbook'.
Oh lord, make me humble enough to hold my toung untill the next cigar smoking leather lounge lazing session in Daddys Kiribilly residence with the other true gentlemen of the industry.
Don't even think of turning up there. I will have Daddys security guards eject you from the premises post haste.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
Keg, seniority based on date of joining is the issue. For some to be given an artificial dreamed up date of joining backdated to when they got their CPL's while others don't stinks. Make one rule applicable for everyone.
If QF could have done it without the LOA so easily, then why didn't they? Why did the union stand up for non members (these cadets) at the expense of current members? Sorry, the union works for the company, doing what it wishes with pleasure. Not interested in benefitting those who pay to join.
As for Qroom, you don't mention cadets in Qantas where management may see. Not unless you enjoy assessment sims.
If QF could have done it without the LOA so easily, then why didn't they? Why did the union stand up for non members (these cadets) at the expense of current members? Sorry, the union works for the company, doing what it wishes with pleasure. Not interested in benefitting those who pay to join.
As for Qroom, you don't mention cadets in Qantas where management may see. Not unless you enjoy assessment sims.
Nunc est bibendum
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
Originally Posted by Bazzamundi
Keg, seniority based on date of joining is the issue.
Originally Posted by Bazzamundi
If QF could have done it without the LOA so easily, then why didn't they?
Originally Posted by Bazzamundi
Why did the union stand up for non members (these cadets) at the expense of current members?
Originally Posted by Bazzamundi
As for Qroom, you don't mention cadets in Qantas where management may see. Not unless you enjoy assessment sims.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New world order
Now what's going to happen next EBA when the number of allowable matters is slashed? Do youse reckon you'll keep seniority or will it not be an "allowable matter"?
**Ducks & runs**
**Ducks & runs**
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
I will stand by what I believe re Qroom Keg. Who trained who and a whole lot of other garbage are not the issues with this debate. Seniority based on date of joining is, and why aipa sold some of its members out. Who has got a response from aipa re this issue? Lots of questions have been asked, but few answers are put forward. Do you think it was right what aipa did? No telling the troops, just a seniority list and LOA come out after the deal was done.
So far there has not been a rational argument put forward as to why it (seniority) should be varied to the benefit of cadets only. I firmly believe it is wrong, along with a significant majority in QF. My final comment on this matter. Over and out.
So far there has not been a rational argument put forward as to why it (seniority) should be varied to the benefit of cadets only. I firmly believe it is wrong, along with a significant majority in QF. My final comment on this matter. Over and out.
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
Keg,
My argument is not based on experience, but rather on date of joining, I was simply using that particular example as an indication of the unfairness of it all. I have seniority over guys with many more thousands of hrs than me, but I imagine none of them are bitter about it, simply because they know my date of joining was before theirs, even if it was only months or weeks. This is an entirely different matter.
As for posting on Qrewroom, you should know as well as anyone the consequences. No-one wants to be known as a cadet basher (which I'm not) but I'm sure it would appear like that some. Of course none of the "heavy hitters" give a flying f*ck, they're just making sure that the LOA protects their offspring (or their mate's offspring), so they don't have to be shipped off to Singapore and can still have mummy ironing his white shirts and packing his bag before each trip.
Johnny Utah, Wasn't actually referring to the male model, but it obviously affects him as well - I'm sure he's over the moon too!
St Elmo's Fire Nice wind up!
TL
My argument is not based on experience, but rather on date of joining, I was simply using that particular example as an indication of the unfairness of it all. I have seniority over guys with many more thousands of hrs than me, but I imagine none of them are bitter about it, simply because they know my date of joining was before theirs, even if it was only months or weeks. This is an entirely different matter.
As for posting on Qrewroom, you should know as well as anyone the consequences. No-one wants to be known as a cadet basher (which I'm not) but I'm sure it would appear like that some. Of course none of the "heavy hitters" give a flying f*ck, they're just making sure that the LOA protects their offspring (or their mate's offspring), so they don't have to be shipped off to Singapore and can still have mummy ironing his white shirts and packing his bag before each trip.
Johnny Utah, Wasn't actually referring to the male model, but it obviously affects him as well - I'm sure he's over the moon too!
St Elmo's Fire Nice wind up!
TL
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Qantas Seniority Joke
So the focus finally settles where it should be...on QF entry date. Where on earth did this cadets having "two years seniority on everyone else" rubbish come from?
Till 04 cadets were generally taken up just months or even weeks after graduation. Then with the intro of the two years regional airline experience initiative they were directed to where they would get solid hands on experience as FOs albeit on <$40K pa and having spent up to $100K on training (see earlier posts).
Havent heard of a single person (including cadets despite the huge loss of anticipated income for those two years) who didnt think this was the right move in terms of the end product. That these guys were sent without choice to regional Australia (and OS even though not within the original guidelines) should make no difference to seniority whatseover. They would otherwise have had the same priority dates that they have now.
Till 04 cadets were generally taken up just months or even weeks after graduation. Then with the intro of the two years regional airline experience initiative they were directed to where they would get solid hands on experience as FOs albeit on <$40K pa and having spent up to $100K on training (see earlier posts).
Havent heard of a single person (including cadets despite the huge loss of anticipated income for those two years) who didnt think this was the right move in terms of the end product. That these guys were sent without choice to regional Australia (and OS even though not within the original guidelines) should make no difference to seniority whatseover. They would otherwise have had the same priority dates that they have now.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
Have always enjoyed ur posts. However you said:
"If you reckon a topic or posts such as these on Qrewroom makes you a target for 'retribution' then you're kidding yourself. This is hardly a 'blip' in the scheme of things."
Incorrect! I know of one CrewRoomer who posted a very valid and fairly tame post on the seniority debate, and the "powers that be" got in contact with him and said "don't like what u said in ur post, pull ur head in"...
LookinDown,
From the Qantas website,
"Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program."
So why should these non-employees get a QF seniority number while they do their 2 years industry experience? Based on that, why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience? (Obviously this isn't practical but I'm pointing out that neither is giving a select bunch of non-employees a seniority number). As u said LookinDown, people should receive a seniority number based on their "QF entry date" - and that is the day they actually start earning a wage from Qantas (ie at the end of the industry experience not the start)...
Abe Froman.
Have always enjoyed ur posts. However you said:
"If you reckon a topic or posts such as these on Qrewroom makes you a target for 'retribution' then you're kidding yourself. This is hardly a 'blip' in the scheme of things."
Incorrect! I know of one CrewRoomer who posted a very valid and fairly tame post on the seniority debate, and the "powers that be" got in contact with him and said "don't like what u said in ur post, pull ur head in"...
LookinDown,
From the Qantas website,
"Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program."
So why should these non-employees get a QF seniority number while they do their 2 years industry experience? Based on that, why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience? (Obviously this isn't practical but I'm pointing out that neither is giving a select bunch of non-employees a seniority number). As u said LookinDown, people should receive a seniority number based on their "QF entry date" - and that is the day they actually start earning a wage from Qantas (ie at the end of the industry experience not the start)...
Abe Froman.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No DRSHMOO
....I'm not a cadet nor was I but know several at various levels and am greatly interested in their roles in and contribution to the industry.
I suspect that though the topic is seniority, that many underlying core criticisms are actually of the cadetship program itself. (Refer to the earlier misspelt though funny post on the presumed priveleged life of cadets). The reality is often somewhat different. Of course there are captains who want their sons and daughters to follow in their footsteps as any father would, and a number do. In most cases however not without a history of waiting on tables, cleaning, shelf packing etc to earn the $$ needed for flying training that most people have.
You might be surprised at just how many hail from non priveleged and non QF and even non aviation family backgrounds and just dont deserve the cadet bashing that occasionally occurs. But lets get back to seniority...
Abe is dead right in terms of the legal status of cadets and their relationship with their employer, sorry Abe, future possible employer. Egg was left on faces a couple of times back in the past while the employment guarantee existed and so no written guarantee of employment is offered. But lets be less pedantic and look more at the reality.
The reality is that cadets who graduate are offered employment; that Q invests heavily in supporting the program in addition to the mega$ paid by the cadets through personal/professional support, uniforms, relocation expenses. In other words there is a big commitment by the company and a big commitment by the cadet. This training structure is I believe unique or at least extremely rare in this country but fully jusitified given the circumstances.
So "non employees"? Not really. A "select bunch"? Yep. Very few initial applicants make it through to graduation. "Why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience?" Because its your industry experience determined and chosen by you, unlike the cadets' industry experience which is not optional, has a prescribed time frame and has been arranged and directed by their 'non employer'.
The matter is quite a bit more complex than at first glance but I come back to the point of my original post. Seniority nos. would have been issued to cadets pretty much as they now if the regional airline requirment had not been put in place. The outcome is therefore no different.
....I'm not a cadet nor was I but know several at various levels and am greatly interested in their roles in and contribution to the industry.I suspect that though the topic is seniority, that many underlying core criticisms are actually of the cadetship program itself. (Refer to the earlier misspelt though funny post on the presumed priveleged life of cadets). The reality is often somewhat different. Of course there are captains who want their sons and daughters to follow in their footsteps as any father would, and a number do. In most cases however not without a history of waiting on tables, cleaning, shelf packing etc to earn the $$ needed for flying training that most people have.
You might be surprised at just how many hail from non priveleged and non QF and even non aviation family backgrounds and just dont deserve the cadet bashing that occasionally occurs. But lets get back to seniority...
Abe is dead right in terms of the legal status of cadets and their relationship with their employer, sorry Abe, future possible employer. Egg was left on faces a couple of times back in the past while the employment guarantee existed and so no written guarantee of employment is offered. But lets be less pedantic and look more at the reality.
The reality is that cadets who graduate are offered employment; that Q invests heavily in supporting the program in addition to the mega$ paid by the cadets through personal/professional support, uniforms, relocation expenses. In other words there is a big commitment by the company and a big commitment by the cadet. This training structure is I believe unique or at least extremely rare in this country but fully jusitified given the circumstances.
So "non employees"? Not really. A "select bunch"? Yep. Very few initial applicants make it through to graduation. "Why couldn't I and others in GA or regionals have a seniority number while we do our x number of years industry experience?" Because its your industry experience determined and chosen by you, unlike the cadets' industry experience which is not optional, has a prescribed time frame and has been arranged and directed by their 'non employer'.
The matter is quite a bit more complex than at first glance but I come back to the point of my original post. Seniority nos. would have been issued to cadets pretty much as they now if the regional airline requirment had not been put in place. The outcome is therefore no different.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LookinDown has summarisied exactly the logic that was applied to LOA161.
Historically cadets have started immediately after their training, and received seniority based on that date. Now, they are placed in regional airline positions for 2 years between those two events.
Qantas could indeed employ the cadets and grant a leave of absence for the CIPP thus providing them with a seniority date based on graduation (2 years ahead of you HO). The end result is exactly the same, however the company does not have the protections or flexibility in place if it decides subsequently to not progress a cadet from the CIPP to become a TSO.
It all comes down to this: "Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program"
This is a legal phrase that allows Qantas to refuse employment at any time during a cadet's development. Refusal sometimes (although very rarely) happens, and without that phrase termination can be subject to a legal challenge by the cadet. The intention of LOA161 allows cadets to gain a seniority number that they would otherwise have if employed, while preserving a mechanism to deny actual mainline employment if necessary.
On a similar issue, all those affected by LOA161 are also directly and equally affected by the Jetstar MOU. There are many, many more protected seniority numbers.
Historically cadets have started immediately after their training, and received seniority based on that date. Now, they are placed in regional airline positions for 2 years between those two events.
Qantas could indeed employ the cadets and grant a leave of absence for the CIPP thus providing them with a seniority date based on graduation (2 years ahead of you HO). The end result is exactly the same, however the company does not have the protections or flexibility in place if it decides subsequently to not progress a cadet from the CIPP to become a TSO.
It all comes down to this: "Cadet pilots are not employees of Qantas and Qantas gives no guarantee or commitment of future employment at any time after completion of the training program"
This is a legal phrase that allows Qantas to refuse employment at any time during a cadet's development. Refusal sometimes (although very rarely) happens, and without that phrase termination can be subject to a legal challenge by the cadet. The intention of LOA161 allows cadets to gain a seniority number that they would otherwise have if employed, while preserving a mechanism to deny actual mainline employment if necessary.
On a similar issue, all those affected by LOA161 are also directly and equally affected by the Jetstar MOU. There are many, many more protected seniority numbers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LookinDown and *Lancer* - fair points. You both seem to have an insight into the inner workings of the cadetship so could u or anyone else explain the original reason for introducing the 2 years of industry experience? I understand that in the past cadets generally started straight after their training so therefore they get a seniority number from then. But obviously if QF have said "for reasons a, b and c these cadets need some real experience" then surely that is just an extension of their training before they start with Qantas?
I agree with QF introducing the industry experience but think it weakens the argument for the existence of the cadetship over hiring from the vast direct entry pool of military/regionals/GA etc. Afterall the cadet at the moment is someone who has passed the 59 QF aptitude & psych tests, plus has 2 years of industry experience, which sounds pretty similar to a direct entry candidate...
At the end of the day, QF management can generally do what they want, when they want. However the subsequent frustration and ill-feeling of the troops is something they either don't consider or simply don't care about (ill-feeling not towards the cadets but towards the system in place, the management who introduced it and the union who agreed to it)...
I agree with QF introducing the industry experience but think it weakens the argument for the existence of the cadetship over hiring from the vast direct entry pool of military/regionals/GA etc. Afterall the cadet at the moment is someone who has passed the 59 QF aptitude & psych tests, plus has 2 years of industry experience, which sounds pretty similar to a direct entry candidate...
At the end of the day, QF management can generally do what they want, when they want. However the subsequent frustration and ill-feeling of the troops is something they either don't consider or simply don't care about (ill-feeling not towards the cadets but towards the system in place, the management who introduced it and the union who agreed to it)...