JETSTAR PILOTS
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read Rokape's piece, I am surprised that anyone is prepared to take on the job as its all soooooooooooo onerous and demanding not to mention responsible. If its as difficult as he suggests, then why do it at any price?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oicur 12,
You've flown for three airlines in ten years?! (It must be nearly time to dust off that resume again!)
Alright, I'll grant you some of the arguments that you've outlined regarding pay versus accident statisitics, but much has changed in training, weather forecasting, crew pairing and cockpit technologies over the timespan you referred to. One of my last airline roles was as a B-757/767 systems instructor where I taught procedural training and did company oral evaluations. Much changed in the training department alone with the advances made by NASA/AMES/Safety Foundation work and lets not forget the NTSB and ALPA. What we are talking about here was not about dumbing anything down, which was so popular in the '80s rote learning, but concentrating on correlative learning. The course had to be totally revamped but the results were measurably better.
Given that training and cockpit technologies are all better the only other variable is the quality of "the nut behind the wheel". To say that all pilots are created equal in this part is to say that Australian school teachers should only be allowed to hand out only As. The better quality candidates will shine in the pre-evaluation checkrides in the simulator, in their written and verbal skill-based testing and even with their interaction with your human resources staff. They are your A's. Having identified your higher level candidates, what does an employer do to entice the subject from going elsewhere...yep! Pay 'em more.
Anyway, you've got the right to demonstrate higher than average skill levels for below industry standard wages, but I don't see any reason why you should.
You've flown for three airlines in ten years?! (It must be nearly time to dust off that resume again!)
Alright, I'll grant you some of the arguments that you've outlined regarding pay versus accident statisitics, but much has changed in training, weather forecasting, crew pairing and cockpit technologies over the timespan you referred to. One of my last airline roles was as a B-757/767 systems instructor where I taught procedural training and did company oral evaluations. Much changed in the training department alone with the advances made by NASA/AMES/Safety Foundation work and lets not forget the NTSB and ALPA. What we are talking about here was not about dumbing anything down, which was so popular in the '80s rote learning, but concentrating on correlative learning. The course had to be totally revamped but the results were measurably better.
Given that training and cockpit technologies are all better the only other variable is the quality of "the nut behind the wheel". To say that all pilots are created equal in this part is to say that Australian school teachers should only be allowed to hand out only As. The better quality candidates will shine in the pre-evaluation checkrides in the simulator, in their written and verbal skill-based testing and even with their interaction with your human resources staff. They are your A's. Having identified your higher level candidates, what does an employer do to entice the subject from going elsewhere...yep! Pay 'em more.
Anyway, you've got the right to demonstrate higher than average skill levels for below industry standard wages, but I don't see any reason why you should.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 28th Feb 2006 at 11:53.
Rokape,
I don't see the relevance of your post. In fact, I think you have an insecurity complex.
What you think you are worth matters not one iota in the context of an operating business - it is the market conditions that determine how much you are worth.
I don't see the relevance of your post. In fact, I think you have an insecurity complex.
What you think you are worth matters not one iota in the context of an operating business - it is the market conditions that determine how much you are worth.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft-
There is obviously merit to the traditional supply-demand argument that you just learned in school, but in reality, the ability to sell one's craft at the highest possible price has little to do with supply-demand, but the ability to sell.
I see that you are also a psychologist!
I see nothing in anyones posts here to be indicative of any kind of insecurities nor psychosis. Some lack a certain degree of maturity, but in most of those cases, its all in jest.
There is obviously merit to the traditional supply-demand argument that you just learned in school, but in reality, the ability to sell one's craft at the highest possible price has little to do with supply-demand, but the ability to sell.
I see that you are also a psychologist!
I see nothing in anyones posts here to be indicative of any kind of insecurities nor psychosis. Some lack a certain degree of maturity, but in most of those cases, its all in jest.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 28th Feb 2006 at 14:34.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROKAPE,
Such a comprehensive list of duties required by an airline pilot. Maybe that explains why airline pilots are in a much higher income bracket than the majority of other employees in Australia while working fewer hours. And still you complain.
Chris,
“what does an employer do to entice the subject from going elsewhere...yep! Pay 'em more.”
This is incorrect. There is ample evidence that staff turnover is related to many things, but salary is not the most critical of these. WN is just one example of an airline that enjoyed the lowest staff turnover of any airline in the US industry back when their salaries/profit sharing were not competitive at all (and their safety record was and is the best). Companies commonly make the mistake of believing that raising staff salaries will solve problems arising from an unmotivated, unhappy disengaged workforce. It does not necessarily work. You pay ransom, you get bandits.
‘Having identified your higher level candidates . . “
What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms? Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate” you refer to. Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.
Finally, having been so critical of Jetstar pilots in many posts here on pprune, I thought I would again offer you the chance to prove how in depth your knowledge of Jetstar is.
I ask again,
Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?
Such a comprehensive list of duties required by an airline pilot. Maybe that explains why airline pilots are in a much higher income bracket than the majority of other employees in Australia while working fewer hours. And still you complain.
Chris,
“what does an employer do to entice the subject from going elsewhere...yep! Pay 'em more.”
This is incorrect. There is ample evidence that staff turnover is related to many things, but salary is not the most critical of these. WN is just one example of an airline that enjoyed the lowest staff turnover of any airline in the US industry back when their salaries/profit sharing were not competitive at all (and their safety record was and is the best). Companies commonly make the mistake of believing that raising staff salaries will solve problems arising from an unmotivated, unhappy disengaged workforce. It does not necessarily work. You pay ransom, you get bandits.
‘Having identified your higher level candidates . . “
What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms? Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate” you refer to. Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.
Finally, having been so critical of Jetstar pilots in many posts here on pprune, I thought I would again offer you the chance to prove how in depth your knowledge of Jetstar is.
I ask again,
Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oicur 12,
I started as a baggage handler at the old Oxley Airlines at the age of 16, turned wrenches on their Navajos and flew scenics in their only single, long before it became Impulse or Jetstar. Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.
Your data on Southwest is incorrect. It paid well from the first day of operation, not only in immediate terms of employment but in "sweat equity" stock disbursements. Many flight attendants that started in the beginning became millionaires just off the stock alone. I did not see anything close to this in your Jet "star" offering.
Oicur, its not a comparison of penis size we're talking about here. It's a question of not destroying the profession by selling yourself "short" on what the expectations you defined for yourself when you became a pilot in the first place.
If you want the respect of management, yourselves and the society in general you have to negotiate what is historically acceptable in the society you live in. Otherwise you'll probably end up the satire of a beer commercial too!
I started as a baggage handler at the old Oxley Airlines at the age of 16, turned wrenches on their Navajos and flew scenics in their only single, long before it became Impulse or Jetstar. Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.
Your data on Southwest is incorrect. It paid well from the first day of operation, not only in immediate terms of employment but in "sweat equity" stock disbursements. Many flight attendants that started in the beginning became millionaires just off the stock alone. I did not see anything close to this in your Jet "star" offering.
Oicur, its not a comparison of penis size we're talking about here. It's a question of not destroying the profession by selling yourself "short" on what the expectations you defined for yourself when you became a pilot in the first place.
If you want the respect of management, yourselves and the society in general you have to negotiate what is historically acceptable in the society you live in. Otherwise you'll probably end up the satire of a beer commercial too!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Higgins
For any of the Jetstar Pilots who are considering voting this in: this one's for you!
http://media.putfile.com/Mr-Discount-Airline-Pilot-Guy
http://media.putfile.com/Mr-Discount-Airline-Pilot-Guy
Guys here's a four letter word for those of you who didn't get it the first time...j-o-k-e.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur you've got to be kidding mate.
You have poo pooed just about every suggestion that's been posted and I'm yet to see a constuctive alternatve from you....
You made some comment about pilot pay being in a higher income bracket for hours worked. Bit like many aussie workers especially in the resources sector. Your point would be?? Pilots are already appropriately paid for their duties?? Pilots dont have a right to seek fair remuneration for workload and increased workload??
Re offers of pay rises to retain staff about to jump ship. Are you really saying that the waving of a proposal/promise/review of company re-organisation of those factors that relate directly to job morale other than salary is going to deter someone from taking up another job offer short term? They twiddle their thumbs on the same pay scale for goodness knows how long while management get their act together, maybe?
No. The pay rise offer is just to keep them there long enough to see whether structural reforms are fair dinkum.
And the next one is a doozie! There are no differences between equally qualified pilots?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??
My goodness QF you have been wasting everyone's time and money with your Cadet Program. In fact your direct entry process is a blantant waste of effort. Just take first in best dressed cause the candidates are all clones in actual fact with the same pieces of paper.
What's that old instructor addage? Dont let someone solo unless you would be happy to be left bound and gagged and sitting next to them (or behind them in the last row). Hmm. Don't know I'd feel too happy about doing that with every single person on the planet who happens to have the same piece of paper.
Throws gauntlet down
You have poo pooed just about every suggestion that's been posted and I'm yet to see a constuctive alternatve from you....
You made some comment about pilot pay being in a higher income bracket for hours worked. Bit like many aussie workers especially in the resources sector. Your point would be?? Pilots are already appropriately paid for their duties?? Pilots dont have a right to seek fair remuneration for workload and increased workload??
Re offers of pay rises to retain staff about to jump ship. Are you really saying that the waving of a proposal/promise/review of company re-organisation of those factors that relate directly to job morale other than salary is going to deter someone from taking up another job offer short term? They twiddle their thumbs on the same pay scale for goodness knows how long while management get their act together, maybe?
No. The pay rise offer is just to keep them there long enough to see whether structural reforms are fair dinkum.
And the next one is a doozie! There are no differences between equally qualified pilots?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??
My goodness QF you have been wasting everyone's time and money with your Cadet Program. In fact your direct entry process is a blantant waste of effort. Just take first in best dressed cause the candidates are all clones in actual fact with the same pieces of paper.
What's that old instructor addage? Dont let someone solo unless you would be happy to be left bound and gagged and sitting next to them (or behind them in the last row). Hmm. Don't know I'd feel too happy about doing that with every single person on the planet who happens to have the same piece of paper.
Throws gauntlet down
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris
“Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.”
I am very good friends with many Jetstar pilots but none of them feel inferior at all. I asked you this question – “Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?” as a result of some of the disparaging remarks you made such as:
“What will you make of the kind of personality and with what personal standards will those people conduct themselves in this profession by going against the wishes of the many? A whole airline full of back-stabbers? That should be a great place to work!”
And especially this:
”If you don't pay people properly you will attract those with lower abilities, problems in their personal and training backgrounds, lower total time and lower intellect. I've seen the damage this has done.”
I may have misunderstood the thrust of your argument – please let me know if this is the case.
“Your data on Southwest is incorrect. It paid well from the first day of operation, not only in immediate terms of employment but in "sweat equity" stock disbursements. Many flight attendants that started in the beginning became millionaires just off the stock alone”
According to the 2004 airline salary survey and career earnings comparison (and many other sources), Southwest airlines ranked tenth out of twelve airlines for 30 year career value and you guessed it, ranked the best for low pilot turnover. Delta ranked first for career value. I have no information regarding cabin crew salary.
Lookin Down,
I am having trouble deciphering your post as it is little more than rabble but I will attempt to respond where possible.
‘You have poo pooed just about every suggestion that's been posted and I'm yet to see a constuctive alternatve from you....”
An alternative to what exactly?
“You made some comment about pilot pay being in a higher income bracket for hours worked. Bit like many aussie workers especially in the resources sector. Your point would be??”
I am not really sure what you are asking with this question.
“And the next one is a doozie! There are no differences between equally qualified pilots?”
No, actually what I said was this “What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms? Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate” you refer to. Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.”
Why exactly is such a comment a “doozie”.
“Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.”
I am very good friends with many Jetstar pilots but none of them feel inferior at all. I asked you this question – “Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?” as a result of some of the disparaging remarks you made such as:
“What will you make of the kind of personality and with what personal standards will those people conduct themselves in this profession by going against the wishes of the many? A whole airline full of back-stabbers? That should be a great place to work!”
And especially this:
”If you don't pay people properly you will attract those with lower abilities, problems in their personal and training backgrounds, lower total time and lower intellect. I've seen the damage this has done.”
I may have misunderstood the thrust of your argument – please let me know if this is the case.
“Your data on Southwest is incorrect. It paid well from the first day of operation, not only in immediate terms of employment but in "sweat equity" stock disbursements. Many flight attendants that started in the beginning became millionaires just off the stock alone”
According to the 2004 airline salary survey and career earnings comparison (and many other sources), Southwest airlines ranked tenth out of twelve airlines for 30 year career value and you guessed it, ranked the best for low pilot turnover. Delta ranked first for career value. I have no information regarding cabin crew salary.
Lookin Down,
I am having trouble deciphering your post as it is little more than rabble but I will attempt to respond where possible.
‘You have poo pooed just about every suggestion that's been posted and I'm yet to see a constuctive alternatve from you....”
An alternative to what exactly?
“You made some comment about pilot pay being in a higher income bracket for hours worked. Bit like many aussie workers especially in the resources sector. Your point would be??”
I am not really sure what you are asking with this question.
“And the next one is a doozie! There are no differences between equally qualified pilots?”
No, actually what I said was this “What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms? Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate” you refer to. Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.”
Why exactly is such a comment a “doozie”.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tie Pay
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Play the ball, not the man.
It aint the fault of the pilots. its the industry in general.
Virgin america look like paying a320 caps max 80000 usd all up. if you dont like it, dont apply. lots of others waiting.
the industry is changing.
It aint the fault of the pilots. its the industry in general.
Virgin america look like paying a320 caps max 80000 usd all up. if you dont like it, dont apply. lots of others waiting.
the industry is changing.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dynasty Trash Hauler
Play the ball, not the man.
It aint the fault of the pilots. its the industry in general.
Virgin america look like paying a320 caps max 80000 usd all up. if you dont like it, dont apply. lots of others waiting.
the industry is changing.
It aint the fault of the pilots. its the industry in general.
Virgin america look like paying a320 caps max 80000 usd all up. if you dont like it, dont apply. lots of others waiting.
the industry is changing.
Dynasty, Dynasty, Dynasty!
Virgin America has neither pilots, nor aircraft yet, they are not even an airline. I don't quite see where you see the "lots of others waiting"?
Jetblue has hired most of the USAir guys with A-320 time, the Independence guys are getting lots of offers from Netjets, Jetblue, Airtran and Southwest. Jetblue has stated publicly that they don't know where they'll find enough captain ready pilots to undertake the Embraer 190 program.
So you think that there are "lots of others waiting''?
Waiting for what?
Waiting for Godot?
Waiting for an airline that may or may not make it in a country that has had over 130 start-ups fail since deregulation?
The Nevada gaming comission would close any one of their casinos for such a poor return ratio!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=oicur12]Chris
“Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.”
I am very good friends with many Jetstar pilots but none of them feel inferior at all. I asked you this question – “Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?” as a result of some of the disparaging remarks you made such as:
“What will you make of the kind of personality and with what personal standards will those people conduct themselves in this profession by going against the wishes of the many? A whole airline full of back-stabbers? That should be a great place to work!”
And especially this:
”If you don't pay people properly you will attract those with lower abilities, problems in their personal and training backgrounds, lower total time and lower intellect. I've seen the damage this has done.”
Yes Oicur,
My entire argument is based upon protecting the future of the industry not about the existing staff that have worked hard for less than they should. Why you would suggest that is a good idea to do that for a company that is highly profitable is beyond me.
You may have no shortage of Emirates, ex AN, or even Singapore or Cathay guys that are feeling homesick for the first short while of operation, but that supply will quickly dry up and then what? If the world market for airline labour picks up as predicted, you'll be left with the ones that come to an interview with all kinds of problems in their history-and like the mutual fund disclaimer, might be used to predict an outcome in the future.
“Yes, the pilots have experience and I don't know where this feeling of inferiority comes from that you have to defend your colleagues in this way.”
I am very good friends with many Jetstar pilots but none of them feel inferior at all. I asked you this question – “Do you know what experience levels the crew actually have at Jetstar?” as a result of some of the disparaging remarks you made such as:
“What will you make of the kind of personality and with what personal standards will those people conduct themselves in this profession by going against the wishes of the many? A whole airline full of back-stabbers? That should be a great place to work!”
And especially this:
”If you don't pay people properly you will attract those with lower abilities, problems in their personal and training backgrounds, lower total time and lower intellect. I've seen the damage this has done.”
Yes Oicur,
My entire argument is based upon protecting the future of the industry not about the existing staff that have worked hard for less than they should. Why you would suggest that is a good idea to do that for a company that is highly profitable is beyond me.
You may have no shortage of Emirates, ex AN, or even Singapore or Cathay guys that are feeling homesick for the first short while of operation, but that supply will quickly dry up and then what? If the world market for airline labour picks up as predicted, you'll be left with the ones that come to an interview with all kinds of problems in their history-and like the mutual fund disclaimer, might be used to predict an outcome in the future.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 2nd Mar 2006 at 01:31.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE may help
Originally Posted by Datum
....
If I was a JETSTAR PILOT I would be looking at my situation in the broadest possible sense...
I would be attempting to remain cognisant and acutely aware of the possibility of hidden agendas. Therefore, I would source information from as many RELIABLE sources as I could. AIPA and QF Mainline Pilots could be a source of information....albeit to provide a different perspective to the JPC and other JETSTAR Pilots...I would then sit down with my closest mates / family (not just Aviation related either) over a few beers and talk it out. They may also provide a different perspective...
WHY - Because my single VOTE will effect my working conditions, lifestyle and general level of happiness as long as I remain a JETSTAR Pilot...
Further, this VOTE will effect the Terms and Conditions under which many other pilots will be employed in the future. They too, like me - will have worked very hard to initially get a job with JETSTAR...they will have paid for all their training prior to joining - to then be told they will need to fork out AGAIN - for another endorsement....to then realise their salary will not even allow them to do that adequately....
I would consider very carefully whether the Terms and Conditions proposed in this 'Agreement' will attract the calibre of pilot I would wish to be my part of my crew when things are not going so well (ie: critical emergency over foreign country in poor weather).....Moreover, will JETSTAR be a happy, motivating and fun place to work given the conditions proposed...will my mates (especially the junior guys) have enough money to enjoy a slip now and then?
I just urge all JETSTAR Pilots - Please consider this issue very carefully. Be open minded enough to listen to what others have to say. Finally, unlike management - try to avoid making your final decision with only yourself and your back pocket in mind!
Good Luck.
If I was a JETSTAR PILOT I would be looking at my situation in the broadest possible sense...
I would be attempting to remain cognisant and acutely aware of the possibility of hidden agendas. Therefore, I would source information from as many RELIABLE sources as I could. AIPA and QF Mainline Pilots could be a source of information....albeit to provide a different perspective to the JPC and other JETSTAR Pilots...I would then sit down with my closest mates / family (not just Aviation related either) over a few beers and talk it out. They may also provide a different perspective...
WHY - Because my single VOTE will effect my working conditions, lifestyle and general level of happiness as long as I remain a JETSTAR Pilot...
Further, this VOTE will effect the Terms and Conditions under which many other pilots will be employed in the future. They too, like me - will have worked very hard to initially get a job with JETSTAR...they will have paid for all their training prior to joining - to then be told they will need to fork out AGAIN - for another endorsement....to then realise their salary will not even allow them to do that adequately.... I would consider very carefully whether the Terms and Conditions proposed in this 'Agreement' will attract the calibre of pilot I would wish to be my part of my crew when things are not going so well (ie: critical emergency over foreign country in poor weather).....Moreover, will JETSTAR be a happy, motivating and fun place to work given the conditions proposed...will my mates (especially the junior guys) have enough money to enjoy a slip now and then?
I just urge all JETSTAR Pilots - Please consider this issue very carefully. Be open minded enough to listen to what others have to say. Finally, unlike management - try to avoid making your final decision with only yourself and your back pocket in mind!
Good Luck.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull your head in aircraft.......
Either add to the debate or don't bother. Your last couple of posts have wasted my time and others. If you cannot think of something constructive to say.....don't bother...
PPRUNE has a number of 'Moderators' and last time I checked you were NOT one of them!
If you have genuine gripe and still wish to winge PM the D+G Moderator - Woomera....
Either add to the debate or don't bother. Your last couple of posts have wasted my time and others. If you cannot think of something constructive to say.....don't bother...
PPRUNE has a number of 'Moderators' and last time I checked you were NOT one of them!
If you have genuine gripe and still wish to winge PM the D+G Moderator - Woomera....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm..perhaps my previous post was a little emotive. I’ll unpick some of the ‘rabble’.
I wouldn’t know Chris from a bar of soap and PIT isn’t in my list of top ten holiday destinations (sorry Chris). On rereading his posts, in this thread at least, I’ve found nothing whatseoever derogatory of J* pilots and one instance where a statement has been misinterpreted. Happy to stand corrected. In fact Chris’s posts, Rokape’s and others in this thread have been aimed at supporting the social and economic benefits of all pilots by reminding readers of the true and highly unusual nature of the role.
Oicur and one other in particular have posted nothing but statements devaluing the same, frequently made these via a tasteless personal attack, and been highly selective in responding. Comments decrying the incentive value of salary offers in retaining staff for example without any reference or explanation of alternatives are typical. This is what I meant by my reference to the lack of any positive alternatives.
The singular reference to safe pilots “Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.” ( A full glass and a fuller glass?) is a further example of selectivity and nothing but a distraction. The implication that this is or should be the sole criterion in crew selection as the only concern of the airline and the ignoring of the many human and performance factors that Chris has referred to is an example of the selectivity.
“What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms?” and “Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate”
The vast majority of pilots worldwide are safe pilots and meet the minimum standards of their employer. The incident/accident balance would be tipped severely the other way if this were not the case. The argument seems to be against a merit selection process in the distinguishing of individual performance and aptitude. I just don’t accept this.
Thankyou Dynasty you are right about playing the ball. By responding in kind I took my eye off the game. I'd be very interested by the way in Oicur's and other's opinion on what is a fair offer by the way. What monetary value and conditions should the offer incorporate?
What exactly is ‘rabble’ as opposed to ‘a rabble’?
I wouldn’t know Chris from a bar of soap and PIT isn’t in my list of top ten holiday destinations (sorry Chris). On rereading his posts, in this thread at least, I’ve found nothing whatseoever derogatory of J* pilots and one instance where a statement has been misinterpreted. Happy to stand corrected. In fact Chris’s posts, Rokape’s and others in this thread have been aimed at supporting the social and economic benefits of all pilots by reminding readers of the true and highly unusual nature of the role.
Oicur and one other in particular have posted nothing but statements devaluing the same, frequently made these via a tasteless personal attack, and been highly selective in responding. Comments decrying the incentive value of salary offers in retaining staff for example without any reference or explanation of alternatives are typical. This is what I meant by my reference to the lack of any positive alternatives.
The singular reference to safe pilots “Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.” ( A full glass and a fuller glass?) is a further example of selectivity and nothing but a distraction. The implication that this is or should be the sole criterion in crew selection as the only concern of the airline and the ignoring of the many human and performance factors that Chris has referred to is an example of the selectivity.
“What exactly is a higher level candidate in piloting terms?” and “Surely if your cockpit crew meets minimum standards of safety and efficiency then there would be no need to offer a premium to attract the “higher level candidate”
The vast majority of pilots worldwide are safe pilots and meet the minimum standards of their employer. The incident/accident balance would be tipped severely the other way if this were not the case. The argument seems to be against a merit selection process in the distinguishing of individual performance and aptitude. I just don’t accept this.
Thankyou Dynasty you are right about playing the ball. By responding in kind I took my eye off the game. I'd be very interested by the way in Oicur's and other's opinion on what is a fair offer by the way. What monetary value and conditions should the offer incorporate?
What exactly is ‘rabble’ as opposed to ‘a rabble’?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“ Oicur and one other in particular have posted nothing but statements devaluing the same, frequently made these via a tasteless personal attack, and been highly selective in responding.”
Lookin down, I have responded to individual posts using the posters name, yourself and Chris being two examples. The comments I have made have not been personal attacks, I have not attempted to insult or denigrate the skills, abilities or professionalism of any player in this debate. Muddying the waters with such an accusation does little more than show a certain siege mentality so common amongst airline pilots.
I am unsure what exactly I have devalued by simply expressing an opinion however I suspect that market forces, changing customer expectations and deregulation of the industry have been more influential than my posting on pprune.
“Comments decrying the incentive value of salary offers in retaining staff for example without any reference or explanation of alternatives are typical. This is what I meant by my reference to the lack of any positive alternatives.”
You are quite correct, I have not offered any alternatives and I apologize sincerely. My comments were in response to Chris when on numerous occasions he suggested that an airline could solve staff turnover rates amongst pilots by simply raising salary levels. This may in some cases work however generally this is not an effective strategy. Some airlines in the ME and one in particular in Asia have raised salary levels numerous times only to find it has done nothing more than mask the real reasons why people are leaving. A big issue in my airline, and many others (especially booming startups) is rostering and roster changes and disruption. Many smarter airlines and fractionals in North America and Europe have successfully attracted sufficient crew numbers by providing benefits such as flexible rostering and lifestyle instead of simply out paying their competitors. I fully understand that in many cases, higher salaries are required in order to attract the necessary experience levels to regions such as Asia/ME but I would argue that this is not the case in Australia where there is a huge pool of qualified and well-trained pilots to choose from. Likewise North America and Canada where Frontier/Jetblue/Airtran/Westjet attract crew without the need to pay AA/NW/CO wages (and more importantly conditions).
My point – Jetstar does not need to pay QF wage levels (as suggested by some here on pprune) in order to safely crew their aircraft. It may be unfair to some, it my represent a double standard to others, but it is simply a reflection of a changing set of market conditions that is occurring in many places, not just Australia.
“The singular reference to safe pilots “Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.” ( A full glass and a fuller glass?) is a further example of selectivity and nothing but a distraction. The implication that this is or should be the sole criterion in crew selection as the only concern of the airline and the ignoring of the many human and performance factors that Chris has referred to is an example of the selectivity.”
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was suggesting that safety levels should be the sole determining factor in aircrew selection. I don’t believe this to be the case at all. Airlines should look at a wide range of key behaviors when selecting pilots, one of which should be technical competence.
“The argument seems to be against a merit selection process in the distinguishing of individual performance and aptitude. I just don’t accept this.”
This is not my argument at all. I strongly believe that airlines should select crew based upon individual technical merit as well as in competencies that go beyond simply flying an aircraft. I am suggesting, however, that many airlines chose candidates that meet the MINIMUM acceptable levels of technical ability. There is little to be gained by providing a financial incentive to attract pilots with higher levels of technical ability. What would this achieve?
Lookin down, I have responded to individual posts using the posters name, yourself and Chris being two examples. The comments I have made have not been personal attacks, I have not attempted to insult or denigrate the skills, abilities or professionalism of any player in this debate. Muddying the waters with such an accusation does little more than show a certain siege mentality so common amongst airline pilots.
I am unsure what exactly I have devalued by simply expressing an opinion however I suspect that market forces, changing customer expectations and deregulation of the industry have been more influential than my posting on pprune.
“Comments decrying the incentive value of salary offers in retaining staff for example without any reference or explanation of alternatives are typical. This is what I meant by my reference to the lack of any positive alternatives.”
You are quite correct, I have not offered any alternatives and I apologize sincerely. My comments were in response to Chris when on numerous occasions he suggested that an airline could solve staff turnover rates amongst pilots by simply raising salary levels. This may in some cases work however generally this is not an effective strategy. Some airlines in the ME and one in particular in Asia have raised salary levels numerous times only to find it has done nothing more than mask the real reasons why people are leaving. A big issue in my airline, and many others (especially booming startups) is rostering and roster changes and disruption. Many smarter airlines and fractionals in North America and Europe have successfully attracted sufficient crew numbers by providing benefits such as flexible rostering and lifestyle instead of simply out paying their competitors. I fully understand that in many cases, higher salaries are required in order to attract the necessary experience levels to regions such as Asia/ME but I would argue that this is not the case in Australia where there is a huge pool of qualified and well-trained pilots to choose from. Likewise North America and Canada where Frontier/Jetblue/Airtran/Westjet attract crew without the need to pay AA/NW/CO wages (and more importantly conditions).
My point – Jetstar does not need to pay QF wage levels (as suggested by some here on pprune) in order to safely crew their aircraft. It may be unfair to some, it my represent a double standard to others, but it is simply a reflection of a changing set of market conditions that is occurring in many places, not just Australia.
“The singular reference to safe pilots “Surely a safe pilot is just as good as a really really safe pilot that costs more.” ( A full glass and a fuller glass?) is a further example of selectivity and nothing but a distraction. The implication that this is or should be the sole criterion in crew selection as the only concern of the airline and the ignoring of the many human and performance factors that Chris has referred to is an example of the selectivity.”
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was suggesting that safety levels should be the sole determining factor in aircrew selection. I don’t believe this to be the case at all. Airlines should look at a wide range of key behaviors when selecting pilots, one of which should be technical competence.
“The argument seems to be against a merit selection process in the distinguishing of individual performance and aptitude. I just don’t accept this.”
This is not my argument at all. I strongly believe that airlines should select crew based upon individual technical merit as well as in competencies that go beyond simply flying an aircraft. I am suggesting, however, that many airlines chose candidates that meet the MINIMUM acceptable levels of technical ability. There is little to be gained by providing a financial incentive to attract pilots with higher levels of technical ability. What would this achieve?
Nunc est bibendum
It'll sure as hell be negligent if the lower conditions eventually result in a lesser candidate getting in (because the higher skilled candidates went somewhere else for more money) and it resulted in a prang! Of course, that'll be far enough removed from the 'organisation' that the Reason model won't pick it up.
Before people start jumping on me, I know that low pay doesn't necessarily mean crap drivers are there at the moment. However, if this split in conditions continues and the emerging pilot shortage becomes more accute, it may well mean that the higher quality candidates get snapped up elsewhere on better terms and the LCCs are left with the dregs. Bring it on I say.
Before people start jumping on me, I know that low pay doesn't necessarily mean crap drivers are there at the moment. However, if this split in conditions continues and the emerging pilot shortage becomes more accute, it may well mean that the higher quality candidates get snapped up elsewhere on better terms and the LCCs are left with the dregs. Bring it on I say.
