The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

RAAF pilots leaving

Old 2nd Jan 2012, 11:02
  #541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 60
With the amount of decent paying airline jobs out there I don't think they have to worry about separation.
Rumours of CX recruitment later this year:http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...911-bases.html

Rumours of DJ recruitment later this year also:http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ue-hiring.html

Jungle Jet starting pay is solid and steps up to ball park RAAF figures, not factoring in the ACA.

So enforced promotion plus the above two rumours, reckon the wheel will continue to turn with guys heading back out the door.

Wonder what the ACA Mk II will look like.

PLE Always is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 22:54
  #542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,865
Toppie,

I'm being the devil's advocate here, I realise, but this is way too pie in the sky - the practicalities would be insurmountable.
The RAAF isn't a business, it's a public service and always will be, albeit a very special one.

Taxpayers provide the money, so there's no mechanism to boost income via more efficient work practices or greater effort. The bottom line is fixed from above, so decisions by those in the organisation just shuffle limited resources around.

Your model reads as if commanders would become bosses, but the reality will always be that they are middle managers in an unwieldy bureacracy that sometimes has conflicting directives coming from above.

I'm not saying lots of hard work doesn't occur, just that the profit motive isn't there, with its bad aspects (blatant corner-cutting, for example, and lack of job security for personnel) as well as good (generally less wastage of resources, and few unneccessary practices).

FEG Commanders would allocate budgets to OCs and COs to do their job. They'd have clear capability objectives to deliver and these would be independently measured.
Independent measuring organisation required - more cost.
What would be measured? Sorties flown vs planned? Serviceability rates? Cargo/pax moved or practice bombs delivered? Too broad and ultimately meaningless, given the uncontrollable variables that affect figures like this, not to mention massaging that can be done by those standing to lose if the figures don't look good.
What, then?

Budgetary pressures like SRP would mean budget is squeezed, leaving less to do the job. Not enough money means commanders, no matter how good, are hamstrung from the start.

How far would OC / CO budgets be required to stretch? Equipment, maintenance, procurement, essential services, medical, dental etc etc? If not, which parts to be administered by OC / COs? Massive administrative burden on them, more so than now perhaps.

They would choose their own personnel by advertising jobs in the organisation.
Limited pool of candidates within the organisation, so one squadron's rejects would be shunted to another. Laterals could help, but same issue would apply.

They'd use their budgetary flexibility to pay their staff as required to retain them.
Personal likes/dislikes and 'jobs for mates' situations would develop, and this and the pay inequality would breed much discontent.

Necessarily limited budget would still lead to mass departures come airline recruiting time.

Unit structures would be based on their job and not the standard pyramid.
The standard pyramid works, in a squadron!

If they didn't cut the mustard they'd be moved out of the organisation, rather than just posted to be mediocre elsewhere.
Huge training bill for replacements, so not justifiable except in the very worst cases on a cost basis. Open to lengthy appeal process (more cost and complexity) unless CO / OCs given ultimate dismissal power, in which case an atmosphere of mistrust and fear develops, plus the jobs for mates/favourites problem is also rife.

The CO would manage the requirements of the organisation by having a true management team (no just and Admino). They'd have a Risk and Compliance Manager who'd have a safety and risk team working for them. Their role would also include compliance with governance like EEO, ethics etc. The CO would keep the Logo but they'd have an expanded role to manage the budget supported by a professional (non-uniformed) accountant. The admino would be a (properly qualified) HR manager. The XO would truly be an operations manager with lots of flying experience but in a non-flying position to properly manage ops.
Fair enough, COs need a good team to cut through the swamp of alligators and let them focus on what's important. Still, if the system can't pay for this already, it will be stretching the budget even further to provide it.

Accountable managers would put some of their pay at risk. They could be rewarded with bonuses for meeting or exceeding their requirements or fired if they failed.
See above re measurement of 'targets'.

Unit pay structures would be totally flexible.
Where does the extra money come from when external pressures like airline recruiting suck crews out of the system?

NCO pilot and aco aircrew could be used if it met capability requirements.
Why bother? The pay's negotiated anyway, so why would you differentiate?

Well, that concludes my waffle. It's all been reactive and generally negative comment to Toppie's postulates, so I'll put some thought to an alternative scenario for what it's worth.

The reality, though, as I see it, is that a squeezed defence budget exacerbated by super-costly equipment purchases doesn't leave a hell of a lot of scope for sweeping reform, and the RAAF will continue to struggle along and do what it can under the constraints of the resources allocated to it.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 23:12
  #543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 12
AOTW,

All good points and I think most would agree with you. I guess I was trying to highlight the scale of change I think would be required to enable the system to support the type of personnel initiatives guys often rightly suggest in the Organisation. The 'business' model is just one model and would require a total rebuild which is clearly unlikely and not without huge challenges. I thought it would be good food for thought.

After I wrote the last post I thought I should add that if the prime performance marker for the pers system is delivery of capability, it is clearly achieving its goals. Over the last 10 years or so the RAAF has delivered all that was asked of it. Maybe not with maximum efficiency or perfect staff engagement but, successful nevertheless. On that basis, the system is doing fine.
Toppie is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2012, 02:32
  #544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,865
I thought it would be good food for thought.
Definitely, and as I say, my responses were mostly rebuttals, so I and others should put our money where our mouth is, so to speak, to think of alternatives.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 17:13
  #545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 18
Any more word on the capability allowance?

1 April is fast approaching - I assume they will have nothing in place for the next 6 months.
CamOnRed is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 03:29
  #546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 657
Continuation from RAAF Flight Screening thread...

Howdy.

An interesting discussion was taking place on the RAAF Flight Screening Program thread from the Military Discussion area. As was correctly decided, the conversation was probably not appropriately related to Flight Screening, but it was a worthwhile discussion that is perhaps more suited here.
I hope it can continue to be just that - a "discussion" and not an argument, because the points raised are valid and relevant to RAAF retention.
I wish to continue the discussion with DBTW, who, with all due respect, has made a few incorrect assumptions.
I am close enough to the system to know that nearly 100% of the youth approaching the screening process wish to fly fast jets. That is the same as it has ever been and no amount of talking down to the youth of today will change that.
Well, you're obviously not close enough and I would humbly suggest a little naive about the true motivations of our candidates. If you wade through the 2000+ posts on the Flight Screening thread, you will pick up on a truth that has always been there - if you are applying to join the RAAF as a pilot, ALWAYS tell the recruiters you want to be a fighter pilot - doesn't mean you necessarily want to be one, but unfortunately it's the reality of the aircrew recruiting process. That is the same as it has ever been...

I fully understand there are not enough fast jet slots available for all of the 140 odd students who commence BFTS each year, and the subsequent training process is such that most graduates do not achieve their initial goal. IE: they finish up flying something else.
Well, at the moment, 79 is almost taking everyone they can get - those that want to go there anyway...

To be frank, you are all wrong.
"Everyone else except me...", hey?
Really, really? Do you want to come across like that? I reckon most of the knucks are actually a pretty good bunch, but there are of course some who ruin for the rest - I'm sure you didn't mean to come across like such a person - don't make it easy for the (incorrect) stereotype to prevail.

I believe the youth of today are just as capable and motivated as any youth have ever been.
As I do and I hope we all do - maybe they're just not aiming at what you aimed at - and that is not a detraction of their motivations nor abilities.

NB: it is a generational thing that the people here are appearing to be condescending towards you. Continue boldly and reach for the stars. Don't let them talk you down.
I don't think anybody is talking anybody down - my impression is that you're the only one who has talked down to anyone else.
You seem to be surviving with it in your "sponsored by the people of Australia" commercial pursuits. I suppose you think everyone in the RAAF should join an airline like what you did?
DBTW - I respect your opinions and would like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your personality, but your post in the previously mentioned thread does not go much way to painting a good picture. ACG have a BIG problem ahead. Nobody here is trying to demotivate potential fast jet candidates - ACG is doing a good enough job of that itself. The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting one exists - that's ACG's biggest hurdle.

As I said, I hope this can be a discussion, not an argument, because perhaps some positive ways ahead/suggestions can come of this.

Cheers.

Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 15th May 2012 at 03:34.
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 04:10
  #547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 223
Perhaps DBTW can explain why the ex-USN F-14 RIO who did RAAF pilots course and passed 2OCU wanted out of the fast jet world asap.

I would guess it's probably because the RAAF fast jet world do things better than the rest of the world, even the yanks. After all what would the Americans know about operations......

I stand by my original statement that DBTW is out of touch with today’s students, after all he was the CO of a fighter SQN, I can't imagine he would have much time for the students at 2FTS.

Oh and to respond with your rather disparaging remark that I must have slipped thru the cracks. I have been slipping thru for 15 years now and while I did have a dabble in the fast jet world, I could not be happier with my career post Willy town. Overseas operational command, doing the real job, not just visiting Vegas, Alaska and the training area.
Slezy9 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 04:20
  #548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
the second step would be for QFI's to not sling gherkins such as 12+hr days / 6 days a week as the SOP. 45-50Hrs/5days a week is the norm.

With rumours like 12hrs 6 days a week no wonder the kiddies are scared
flighthappens is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 04:22
  #549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 60
Posts: 150
Well reasoned points there Slezy...soz to have offended.

I was never in the RAAF, so probably never rated RAAF knucks as highly as you might think. Doesn't mean I think people should not aspire to be one though. You obviously had aspiration that way at some point? Sorry to hear about the ex USN F14 RIO. Did he get out or switch jobs?

Last edited by DBTW; 15th May 2012 at 04:23.
DBTW is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 04:27
  #550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 223
the second step would be for QFI's to not sling gherkins such as 12+hr days / 6 days a week as the SOP. 45-50Hrs/5days a week is the norm.
Perhaps it's not the norm but fast jet QFIs I was working with at 2FTS often spoke about going to work on Sundays.

Compare a 50 hour week to what is done at the other SQNs when not deployed, maybe if I was busy I would have worked 30-35 hours. Off to the "Gym" around 3pm most days.

Last edited by Slezy9; 15th May 2012 at 04:28.
Slezy9 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 05:21
  #551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by DBTW View Post

I was never in the RAAF
There goes your credibility
Joker89 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 05:38
  #552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 60
Posts: 150
Judging by the other comments today, credibility was never there and being a crab wouldn't have helped...never mastered those short, sharp sideways steps
DBTW is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 05:57
  #553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nocte volant
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBTW

I was never in the RAAF

There goes your credibility
You were too busy actually being a combatant to be RAAF knuck, weren't you DBTW?
Trojan1981 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 06:28
  #554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
CSD. would the following quote refer to one David E? Quote: "I recall a certain Chief of the Air Staff (as he wanted to be called back then) going through an uncomfortable experience on 60 Minutes answering questions about RAAF pilot manning." Unquote.

If so, the same person, in a published interview in Australian Aviation magazine, described those leaving the RAAF for greener pastures thus "Oh, I'm not concerned about RAAF pilots leaving to go to Qantas or other airlines, they are usually only the malcontents, the one's who believe correctly that they do not have any real prospects in the RAAF" or words to that effect. The same bloke some years later was concerned at the bleeding of pilots from the RAAF when he was trying to get elected to parliament.

Arm out the window, "Taxpayers provide the money, so there's no mechanism to boost income via more efficient work practices or greater effort". from one of your posts. Having flown 122.9 hours in a month (plus spent 28 hours Simulator instructing) there was not too much scope for "more efficient work practices or greater effort". What I did get for it was a bollocking for exceeding the monthly 120 hrs per month limit. That was October 1976 in a C130A, not sure about today's work practices or effort but doubt much has changed.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 08:09
  #555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,865
Big month there, Old Fella.

I'm not sure if you were taking issue with what I wrote, but to put it in context it was in response to Toppie who essentially suggested the RAAF could run a bit more like a business and pay employees more for efficient and effective work practices.

I was saying that as the RAAF is in that regard a public service outfit with the budget dictated from above (and squeezed accordingly), it wouldn't work.

This is by no means a criticism of those actually doing the job - I know lots of people put in some massive efforts to make it all work to the best of their ability with the sometimes limited resources at their disposal.

I know I had to come up with some big efforts in my time, and put up with the usual crap we signed up for, but also had some wonderfully rewarding times.

P.S. Though not as early in the piece as you were (joined 1980), I remember old SDE shooting off his mouth too! The guys leaving weren't just 'malcontents,' they were 'dead wood' too ... he was a strange bloke to say the least.

Last edited by Arm out the window; 15th May 2012 at 08:11.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 10:03
  #556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Big Month

Thanks AOTW. No, not taking issue with you, just letting you know how it was and most likely still is on occasion. The manning ratio used to historically be 1.5 crews per aircraft in the transport world. Did not work too well in the first couple of years with the B707, especially as usually both the B707's were available and the tasking was pretty heavy. I flew over 500 hours per year as well as traveling back & forth to Hong Kong to use the Cathay Sim for all training and check sessions. Qantas dismantled their B707 Sim when we finished our conversion. It eventually came back to Mascot after being in Ireland for some years. Eventually the RAAF got a modern sim of their own. I left the RAAF in 1981, so am obviously well out of touch with current RAAF life. I have never lost sight of the value of the training and the opportunities the RAAF gave me.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 11:23
  #557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 36
Posts: 427
So, I've heard Qantas is taking 630, and poachings/retirements opening up another 400.

White paper released today showing another bunch of planes coming.

The great exodus looks to be nearly exactly timed with introduction of a bunch of new stuff. This is going to be interesting...
Shagpile is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 11:41
  #558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: space
Posts: 283
Tell the RAAFies to F off! They do not meet Civvie standards.
Keep Civvie jobs for Civvie pilots!

Karma? Good enough for them to be picky why can't we return the favour?
Maybe make a condition on their Civvie employment that they PAY FOR THERE TRAINING like the rest of us had to? How many millions would that be?
zanthrus is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 11:54
  #559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 657
Didn't get in, eh Zanthrus?
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 11:55
  #560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 298
So, I've heard Qantas is taking 630
I thought the number was 170. And before anyone in GA or the RAAF get too excited, there are enough pilots flying turbo-props as well as F100's and B717's on shit pay who would jump at the chance to be an A380 SO on 200K p.a.
Falling Leaf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.