No more "buy a job" at jetstar???
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Dear G Cantstandya
These are profitable companies that are making money from you the pilot to buffer their coffers. When you accept a job in an Airline (Jet*, VB,QF etc), it is an understanding that you are a professional and deserve to be paid and treated as such. Having to fork out 30k for them to train you, so when you fly, you earn them money and to not pay you while your training (at least a training wage) isn't treating you as a professional.
Wake up
These are profitable companies that are making money from you the pilot to buffer their coffers. When you accept a job in an Airline (Jet*, VB,QF etc), it is an understanding that you are a professional and deserve to be paid and treated as such. Having to fork out 30k for them to train you, so when you fly, you earn them money and to not pay you while your training (at least a training wage) isn't treating you as a professional.
Wake up
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 121.5
Age: 59
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just bend over for us please Mr Cantstandya....
Sure thing Alan and you know why? Because I'm living in Australia!!!!
Are you serious mate. You go through all that testing and interview and if you're really lucky these dickheads will allow you to pay for your own training.
Well isn't that super.
Sure thing Alan and you know why? Because I'm living in Australia!!!!
Are you serious mate. You go through all that testing and interview and if you're really lucky these dickheads will allow you to pay for your own training.
Well isn't that super.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: syd
Age: 56
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guard,
You seem to have all the answers!!!
For a pilot leaving a regional or GA what do you expect them to do?
when they get offered the job at JQ or VB turn it down and say I won't pay for the endorsement, come on!!!
There will another 100 guys behind him saying yes! That's a fact!!!!
So, you can stand there and preach all you like, the bar has been set and by no choice of ours you like it or go and drive a bus or truck because at the end of the day most pilots are not qualified to do anything else!!!
You seem to have all the answers!!!
For a pilot leaving a regional or GA what do you expect them to do?
when they get offered the job at JQ or VB turn it down and say I won't pay for the endorsement, come on!!!
There will another 100 guys behind him saying yes! That's a fact!!!!
So, you can stand there and preach all you like, the bar has been set and by no choice of ours you like it or go and drive a bus or truck because at the end of the day most pilots are not qualified to do anything else!!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 55
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Cantstandya, I think what people are trying to point out on this thread is a frustration at the continued erosion of working conditions for pilots. They and others remember days when the job was valued and your employer wanted YOU to work there and didn't think YOU were disposable. There are many reasons why this has evolved, too many for a dumb fella like me to understand. What I do understand is, if you give an inch they will take a mile. Conditions you accept now, will be worse in 10 years for the people coming behind you. But hey you don't care you're fishing in the bay.
Nunc est bibendum
Incorrect. It IS our choice. We pilots are the ones who keep saying 'yes' and then hand over the dosh. If J* couldn't get anyone willing to pony up the dosh to pay for the endorsement then they'd change their requirements and the training would be free. They still need the drivers to expand. They just finding multitudes of pilots who are dumb enough to hand over the dollars.
You are correct about the 100 others though. The stupidity is that if they had some sense they would realise that they're ultimately doing themselves over. If everyone said 'no' then they'd still have the same chance of getting the job without having to front up with the cash. It's just so short sighted as to be mystifying but there is a sucker born every minute!
There is one other aspect that rarely gets touched on in these forums. Are we ultimately decreasing the skill level of the pilot body? By taking those who are prepared to pay- who may not be as skillful as those who refuse- are we actually lowering the overall standard of the airline (any airline, not J* specifically). This has long term implications which I'm sure J* and others who charge don't care about in the short term because a pilot is a pilot in their eyes.
Interesting times.
You are correct about the 100 others though. The stupidity is that if they had some sense they would realise that they're ultimately doing themselves over. If everyone said 'no' then they'd still have the same chance of getting the job without having to front up with the cash. It's just so short sighted as to be mystifying but there is a sucker born every minute!
There is one other aspect that rarely gets touched on in these forums. Are we ultimately decreasing the skill level of the pilot body? By taking those who are prepared to pay- who may not be as skillful as those who refuse- are we actually lowering the overall standard of the airline (any airline, not J* specifically). This has long term implications which I'm sure J* and others who charge don't care about in the short term because a pilot is a pilot in their eyes.
Interesting times.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% correct Keg. The good news is that supply of pilots willing/able to pay for ratings is drying up. There are already rumours around that Jetstar may have to start bonding soon.
What a bummer if you're the last one on the list forking out $38Gs and the next intake are all bonded.
What a bummer if you're the last one on the list forking out $38Gs and the next intake are all bonded.
80% rubbish Keg.
There are obviously sufficient number of satisfactory quality applicants. For the applicant to get the job, he has to pay for the endorsement - if he won't pay, he won't get the job.
It is ludicrous to expect everybody to refuse to pay for the endorsement. Anybody making this statement has little understanding of human nature. In theory, it is true that refusal by everybody would force the airline to pay, but in practice the concept just does not work.
This is 100% rubbish. There is absolutely no evidence of a link between skill level and preparedness to pay for the endorsement. Or do you have some evidence that can be shared with us?
There are obviously sufficient number of satisfactory quality applicants. For the applicant to get the job, he has to pay for the endorsement - if he won't pay, he won't get the job.
It is ludicrous to expect everybody to refuse to pay for the endorsement. Anybody making this statement has little understanding of human nature. In theory, it is true that refusal by everybody would force the airline to pay, but in practice the concept just does not work.
By taking those who are prepared to pay- who may not be as skillful as those who refuse- are we actually lowering the overall standard of the airline
Nunc est bibendum
I'm not sure why I bother. If you're going to quote me aircraft at least do it in context. It frustrates me having to respond to trolls who maliciously change the entire direction of the dicussion so far.
I was making a point in response to someone who said that pilots have no choice in the matter. My response to him saying that we have no choice is that the pilots are the ones who keep making the choice and saying 'yes' to those who ask for the training to be paid for. It may be human nature but that doesn't change the fact that we only have ourselves to blame through our choices. Clear yet? Reckon you can distort that?
You want evidence as to the latter? I can point you to hundreds of candidates who did NOT apply for QF cadetships over the years because they couldn't afford it. Many of those woud possibly have been better candidates than those that got in. Of course we'll never really know but I'd trust the circles I move in to make estimations of those I have in mind. Making people pay for training (in an airline) does not guarantee the best people, it only guarantees the best of those willing to pay.
Back in your hole.
It frustrates me having to respond to trolls who maliciously change the entire direction of the dicussion so far.I was making a point in response to someone who said that pilots have no choice in the matter. My response to him saying that we have no choice is that the pilots are the ones who keep making the choice and saying 'yes' to those who ask for the training to be paid for. It may be human nature but that doesn't change the fact that we only have ourselves to blame through our choices. Clear yet? Reckon you can distort that?
You want evidence as to the latter? I can point you to hundreds of candidates who did NOT apply for QF cadetships over the years because they couldn't afford it. Many of those woud possibly have been better candidates than those that got in. Of course we'll never really know but I'd trust the circles I move in to make estimations of those I have in mind. Making people pay for training (in an airline) does not guarantee the best people, it only guarantees the best of those willing to pay.
Back in your hole.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for arguements sake,
I will never pay for a job with VB or J*.
$35Kish is pure maddness!
Cant see why they just dont bond you.
I would rather work for a company, regional or otherwise, knowing that i got the job because i made the grade, not cause i payed for it!!
And yes, i'm working in GA!!
Just trying to add some perspective........not EVERYONE in GA will pay for a rating to fly big shiney things
I will never pay for a job with VB or J*.
$35Kish is pure maddness!
Cant see why they just dont bond you.
I would rather work for a company, regional or otherwise, knowing that i got the job because i made the grade, not cause i payed for it!!
And yes, i'm working in GA!!
Just trying to add some perspective........not EVERYONE in GA will pay for a rating to fly big shiney things
Last edited by The Hill; 1st Dec 2006 at 13:54.
Keg said:
No, not at all clear. And no, I could not distort it any more than it already is.
You seem to be saying that pilots have a choice but only one. In other words, they do have a choice and they don't have a choice! With arguments like that perhaps you should take up politics.
It is not the fault of any pilots that some airlines demand applicants pay for the endorsement. This situation arose because, at some time in the past, some airline, somewhere, realised that the sheer number of applicants made it possible for the airline to recover their training costs.
The narrow minded amongst us have a problem with airlines doing this, but it makes sound business sense. Any shareholder of any company would demand their company recover whatever costs it can.
Charging for the endorsement does not happen because airlines are mean, or because some sector of the pilot group is "dumb" and has somehow invited them to do it - it is the result of perfectly normally functioning capitalism.
Your so-called evidence as to whether there is a link between aptitude and preparedness to pay for the endorsement was in fact pure speculation, not evidence.
Why should there be any link? The requirement for applicants to be endorsed will affect which individuals apply, but whether they progress all the way to the flight deck depends on whether or not they successfully negotiate all the other hurdles - the same hurdles that have always applied.
The Hill, this is a particularly dimwitted observation. Buying the endorsement only gets you endorsed - you still have to make the grade.
My response to him saying that we have no choice is that the pilots are the ones who keep making the choice and saying 'yes' to those who ask for the training to be paid for. It may be human nature but that doesn't change the fact that we only have ourselves to blame through our choices. Clear yet? Reckon you can distort that?
You seem to be saying that pilots have a choice but only one. In other words, they do have a choice and they don't have a choice! With arguments like that perhaps you should take up politics.
It is not the fault of any pilots that some airlines demand applicants pay for the endorsement. This situation arose because, at some time in the past, some airline, somewhere, realised that the sheer number of applicants made it possible for the airline to recover their training costs.
The narrow minded amongst us have a problem with airlines doing this, but it makes sound business sense. Any shareholder of any company would demand their company recover whatever costs it can.
Charging for the endorsement does not happen because airlines are mean, or because some sector of the pilot group is "dumb" and has somehow invited them to do it - it is the result of perfectly normally functioning capitalism.
Your so-called evidence as to whether there is a link between aptitude and preparedness to pay for the endorsement was in fact pure speculation, not evidence.
Why should there be any link? The requirement for applicants to be endorsed will affect which individuals apply, but whether they progress all the way to the flight deck depends on whether or not they successfully negotiate all the other hurdles - the same hurdles that have always applied.
I would rather work for a company, regional or otherwise, knowing that i got the job because i made the grade, not cause i payed for it!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does CASA still publish numbers of pilot licences?? I'm sure the message would get through eventually through cold hard statistics if only 5% of suitably qualified pilots have applications in... 
Grandpa Aerotart
What % of you paid for your CPL, ATPL course, initial Instructors rating and Instrument ratings and initial ME...all to get that first job.
Would that then be construed as 'buying a job'?
Would that then be construed as 'buying a job'?
Whispering "T" Jet
If you are going to follow that "logic" then the Airlines should be charging you for uniforms, Company ops manuals, emergency revals, licence renewals, etc,. etc,.
Unfortunately, the precedence was set and this is what we have until demand (pilots.) exceeds supply (pilots paying for ratings).
A bond is acceptable, but has the same stigma of a pre-nuptial agreement.
Paying for ratings is down right exploitation !
Unfortunately, the precedence was set and this is what we have until demand (pilots.) exceeds supply (pilots paying for ratings).
A bond is acceptable, but has the same stigma of a pre-nuptial agreement.
Paying for ratings is down right exploitation !
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 55
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the saddest thing in this whole situation is the complete lack of loyalty towards our employers. Is that why we pay for ratings? Or do we have no loyalty because we are made to pay for our jobs?
It is a common phenomena that gen x and y stay at their jobs about 2.5 years. Again is that because of the way we are treated by our employers or a whole range of other economic fatcors. Either way employers miss out on the benefits of long term experience and have to retrain and change cultures to suit new managers and staff. This is disruptive at best and destructive at worst and comes back to simple respect on both sides.
It is a common phenomena that gen x and y stay at their jobs about 2.5 years. Again is that because of the way we are treated by our employers or a whole range of other economic fatcors. Either way employers miss out on the benefits of long term experience and have to retrain and change cultures to suit new managers and staff. This is disruptive at best and destructive at worst and comes back to simple respect on both sides.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft is an idiot, but I’ll bite anyway.
Anything that dilutes the number of potential applicants for a particular job WILL DEFINITELY effect the quality.
It can be a positive effect or a negative effect.
For example a company may not employ pilots based on levels of hours, or types of experience (IFR, Twin, Turbine etc), this would cause dilution of the candidates, but in this case it would increase the Quality of the candidates for their particular needs.
On the flip side, if you just use an arbitrary limitation, say, only blondes need apply, then you limit your numbers by in excess of 50%, the remaining pool will be thinned with no slant to Quality and therefore the final numbers employed, will most certainly be of a lower quality on average – that is a statistical certainty.
I would say that charging for endorsement would cull about 50%, but it is much worse than the blonde hair argument above.
In the charging for endorsement case many may just knock it back due to lack of funds, or principal. But there will very likely be a skew exluding many with the experience and confidence in their own ability to know that they can do better elsewhere. The result will be poorer quality group of candidates on average – no doubt about it. The pilots may well be adequate, but statistically speaking they are not the BEST that they could get.
We know Jetstar management don't care, but I wonder how their customers feel about that?
If the bosses reckon they don't care than the catch phrase should be: Jetstar - near enough is good enough!
Anything that dilutes the number of potential applicants for a particular job WILL DEFINITELY effect the quality.
It can be a positive effect or a negative effect.
For example a company may not employ pilots based on levels of hours, or types of experience (IFR, Twin, Turbine etc), this would cause dilution of the candidates, but in this case it would increase the Quality of the candidates for their particular needs.
On the flip side, if you just use an arbitrary limitation, say, only blondes need apply, then you limit your numbers by in excess of 50%, the remaining pool will be thinned with no slant to Quality and therefore the final numbers employed, will most certainly be of a lower quality on average – that is a statistical certainty.
I would say that charging for endorsement would cull about 50%, but it is much worse than the blonde hair argument above.
In the charging for endorsement case many may just knock it back due to lack of funds, or principal. But there will very likely be a skew exluding many with the experience and confidence in their own ability to know that they can do better elsewhere. The result will be poorer quality group of candidates on average – no doubt about it. The pilots may well be adequate, but statistically speaking they are not the BEST that they could get.
We know Jetstar management don't care, but I wonder how their customers feel about that?
If the bosses reckon they don't care than the catch phrase should be: Jetstar - near enough is good enough!
Last edited by speeeedy; 2nd Dec 2006 at 07:52.
Nunc est bibendum
The BOND for the cadetship? $15K in 1990 dollars. Prior to that I'd forked out about $12-15K on my UPPL plus a few hours plus subjects. I'd started the comm subjects but hadn't done the exams when the phone rang for the cadet course. CPLs back in those days cost about $45K although the cadetship (including accommodation and messing) was supposedly about $90-100K. The reasoning given for teh bond was to ensure that given the significant and ongoing investment that QF had in us that we too had something of our own on the line. A significantly different prospect to paying for your own endorsement.
For the actual endorsement in Qantas once they said 'start'? $0 but I did have a bond (two years?). For the F/O upgrade from the 744 to the 767? $0. For the upgrade from the 767 back to the 744? $0.
Compare the logic of QF in those early days of investing (significantly) in us and wanting a 'bit' in return as compared to now where airlines want to invest nothing in their crew. It won't be long before QF will have to start looking at paying cadets to learn to fly for them....check out some of the European forums where cadets are being poached by other airlines upon graduation due to lack of qualifed crew.
Thanks Speeedy. Exactly the point I was trying to make without the ability to explain it so clearly.
For the actual endorsement in Qantas once they said 'start'? $0 but I did have a bond (two years?). For the F/O upgrade from the 744 to the 767? $0. For the upgrade from the 767 back to the 744? $0.
Compare the logic of QF in those early days of investing (significantly) in us and wanting a 'bit' in return as compared to now where airlines want to invest nothing in their crew. It won't be long before QF will have to start looking at paying cadets to learn to fly for them....check out some of the European forums where cadets are being poached by other airlines upon graduation due to lack of qualifed crew.
Thanks Speeedy. Exactly the point I was trying to make without the ability to explain it so clearly.
Nunc est bibendum
I will acknowledge that the circles I mix in these days are considerably different to those I mixed in this time last year and so the subject of going to J* for F/Os is normally a source of mirth rather than anything else.