The obvious difference between a cadet now, and a Direct Entry applicant is that the cadet has applied at the outset of their career and entered a structured training programme, whereas the DE applicant has waited a few years before applying and done all the training and experience building themselves.

DE applicants can choose their own training provider and pace (for financial or lifestyle reasons for example), and find their own entry-level jobs without knowing for certain whether they're suitable for Qantas for a number of years.

Cadets have to follow an intensive, structured training and experience programme under scrutiny at all times, but have already passed the Qantas selection.

The airline gets a guaranteed steady pool of suitable pilots that can balance any fluctuations in the number or standard of DE applicants.

Direct entry candidates have just as many check gates to pass through in order to keep their career and future propects afloat. These are not always as structured or absolute but there is a similar culture.
I don't understand why a cadet applicant is given a seniority number before they have completed the training if industry experience is a reqiured part of the process before commencing TSO school.
Are they paying fees to AIPA?
Are they able to vote on the EBA?
Yet they can progress in front of current operating crew:hmm: :confused:

This is a similar issue to Lookindown's I think the subtle difference is between 'need' and 'want' in lookindown's post. Do they 'need' it? Well, we all agree that it would help but I can point to about 80ish cadets who have mostly all passed F/O training with no dramas (a few of whom have now passed command training as well :eek: ) without that CIPP in place. In fact, those people all had at least a couple of years between graduation and starting. Needed? No. (I should acknowledge a couple of spectacular 'misses' from cadets in that time as S/Os though!) Needed? No.

Wanted and desireable? Absolutely- but I don't call it part of the 'formal' training that Poto alludes to and implies that they are still in- notwithstanding the fact that they are still under a degree of assessment Of course, we all know that it actually is 'training' in the same way that a qualified CPL flogging around outback NT in a C210 is 'training' for the day when they'll be doing it in a 310 or other machine and the same way that being a S/O is in 'training' for being a F/O but you get my drift.

Would the seniority issue be different at all if the cadets had been placed with QFLink instead and so therefore part of the group? (I know Hugh, you're always getting lumped with babysitting! :E ;) )

I wonder also too if every pilot that gets into QF would get in if they'd had the level of scrutiny over the preceeding three years of their development that a cadet tends to have. Believe me, there are no favours granted just because you're an ex cadet. If anything, in some respects, the expectations or some people are considerably higher of the former cadet than the GA entrant.

Anyway, that's enough from me for now! :cool: :}

Just going off track a little bit, - what generally constitutes for a cadet to being "kicked out" from the scheme during those three years??

Failure to progress at an acceptable rate??

What else ??

Keg,

Whilst I am not a cadet nor cadet basher....

I think that the job the class of cadets running Flight Ops needs investigating...Maybe instead of berating,threatening and harassing all the pilots, criticising us for our wearing of the uniform and even the quality of a screen saver(!) they could go and do some industry placement where they see how real managers work and indeed interact! Maybe two years or so would seem about right..We will protect their seniority of course, should they actually come back:E

Hi all.......it's quite admirable for the likes of HO and Co who are not affected by the slide in seniority numbers to raise this issue, i myself have slipped back 20 numbers because of this last ammendment not sure if there are more to come (one can only hope not)......,Its been interesting reading the posts as everyone has there own "subjective" take on what constitutes date of joining and whether or not the cadet scheme falls within that...being only relatively new to the company I lack the necessary background information behind LOA 161....i guess what we are all seeking is a fair outcome for all.Unfortunately i believe that wont happen in this case ...some will win and some will lose...i have accepted the fact that in this instance I've drawn the short end of the stick.

HD.

Post reconsidered. "If you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all." There is nothing nice that can be said about this arrangement. Sick of wasting money on a union that seemingly does nothing for and actually works against its members. Off to talk to the TWU.