Dear Cadet, will you promise us the earth?
 

https://us1.proxysite.com/process.ph...dC3IIOA%3D&b=1

It seems that the AFAP, according to a widely distributed email, has had some success in the Federal Court against Regional Express and an intimidating letter sent out to cadets in September 2014.

http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/...psiu9a1cca.jpg

http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/...psxcf9ssvr.jpg

KinderKat

Your images files are too large to post on PPRuNe. The first page is at least 203 KB, whereas from memory our maximum size is 100 or 120 KB? The reason for the size limit is that any larger and it distorts the forum width.

I don't have the time and energy to resize your image files.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ng-pprune.html

This should provide a link to page 1 and 2 of your letter:

untitled_zpsqa20cjuz.png Photo by kindergartencat | Photobucket

2_zps6ribwc59.png Photo by kindergartencat | Photobucket

I also suggest you redact the date on page 2!

Thanks Tail wheel :ok:

Wow, that's disgraceful. Pretty thankful I don't work for this mob. Future Cadets be warned.

Sounds like a great place to work. :yuk:

Good work AFAP.

What an absolute farce! :yuk:

I wonder if Mr. Howell undertook the WOMBAT test prior to undertaking his COO position in Sept 14, HR normally weed out the passive aggressive types. :=

How does Nev sleep at night after having written that A grade baloney?

That needs to be on page three of The Australian.
What a disgrace. Would a letter like that be sent out without being run past the boss?

Do you need to sign over your first born child as well?

Clearly he should have kept his mouth shut about punitive action that would result for non-conformers but, apart from that, it was actually quite a good fishing letter to see not only how low prospective cadets are willing to go to secure a position but, also, give him some more ideas for driving down conditions.

The wording is absolutely atrocious and describes so much of what seems to be wrong with the Industry these days.

But just out of interest, they specifically mention the "AAPA Accommodation" in this letter, why ARE people not staying there for an overnight for a Sim and instead going to the "Local Motel"? Anyone in the loop can explain? Could be a case for the cadets who do spend the 9 months there that the accommodation provided is not adequate?

That may be the most atrocious thing I've ever read.

Yet members of the "profession" will sign up to those conditions, thus driving down, even further, the cost of cockpit labour.

All for the "common good" of course. :ok:

Is English the CEO's second language?

I may be wrong, but I think it is something along the lines of the accomodation not meeting the EBA Agreed requirements- i.e. shared toilet/bathroom facilities etc.

Thanks Seneca, that would seem about right! If they were so worried they should have built the Accommodation up to spec, pretty sure those sorts of requirements for accom have been around for a while.

Neville, Singaporean if I remember correctly...not a stellar reputation from what I've heard either!

What an interesting letter Mr Howell.

Remember, your staff are a reflection of the caliber of leadership they are subject to. If you find everyone you employ dishonest and lacking integrity; which your letter clearly indicates. Maybe you need to have a very good look at yourself.

Bravo AFAP!

I half expected that letter to be signed by some obscure Nigerian prince..

Surely that letter has been doctored - if not, it is an absolute disgrace.

That's what I thought, but the FWC Judgement looks legit? Absolute numbskull writing it.

Yeah I know, you really couldn't make this stuff up!

But unfortunately it's all too true :{

The writer is deluded. But it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. :}

Must admit, that letter is very unusual for corporate communications, "too much internal information" makes it a very negative correspondence.

It definitely was drafted by a complete f@#king moron - they do exist in all walks of life.

Glad it was posted here, you can sense standards improving if the author of said letter is given his/her marching orders.

When I read it, I thought the wording smacked of something from Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore from back when I had dealings with it.
Then I saw the last line of Ixixly's post (#17) and the penny dropped.
There are obviously still some devout disciples of Mr Lee still about.

So no, NOSIGN, I don't think it was doctored.

Hmm, thanks Square Bear.
That link is just management, though.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a certain xxx may know something about that letter.
.

How much does the "privilege of this life-changing opportunity" cost a cadet?:yuk:

Towering Q, I believe their Contract states something about their First Born Child being required to sign up for a Cadetship as well...but for only half the pay that Cadets currently receive of course! Gotta drive those costs down!

Nothing like selling your soul to the devil ey? :ok:

This is not just a matter for the unions, this is a direct threat to the safety of passengers. Rex has just declared it is unsafe and CASA should at the very least require the removal of the Chief Operating Officer and the repudiation of this letter by the Board. If this does not happen, then sell your Rex shares now because disaster is not far away. Incidentally, no person in their right mind would or should want to work for this company while this pest is COO.

Why? You already saw the crucifixion of Dominic James (flying for a Rex subsidiary) over a safety related matter that was the result of a very nasty chain of circumstances, including failures by his employer.

"fiercely loyal and company minded and going way above the call of duty especially in time of need for the company"

This is a direct and unabashed call by the chief operating officer to put the interests of the company ahead of the safety interests of the paying passengers as laid out by the legislation and regulations.

To put that another way, requesting unscheduled maintenance ( for example a tire change), requesting extra fuel or any safety related action that costs the company money, for example a diversion due to weather or perhaps grounding oneself due to illness, is now forbidden under threat of career truncation.

To put that yet another way, the COO has stated that loyalty to the company takes precedence over everything else and threatens retaliation against anyone who acts differently in his opinion, that by definition includes the law and regulations. This is the moral and ethical dilemma for all Rex staff, not just pilots, of "the double bind" on steroids. What a ****ty unsafe organisation.

Agree with all... this letter should be posted on noticeboards far and wide as a prime example of the "race to the bottom". Disgusting.

Despite all that there will still be young hopefuls signing the letter and wanting a start in a turboprop so that they can "escape GA". The sad part is the GA they thought they were escaping no longer exists and the only glamour and lifestyle of the airline industry they think they will be a part of is consigned to the memories of the over 50's.

Sunny if CASA didn't do anything about Pelair then they are certainly not going to do anything about Rex on the basis of one poorly written internal letter. You have stated numerous times that CASA has very little interest in safety.

Sunfish,

I believe we share the same thoughts regarding the tone of the letter and the implications of driving down conditions further in the industry. However, your hyperbole regarding safety is not reflected in what is written. The COO has not said to "put the interests of the company ahead of the safety interests of the paying passengers" and "requesting unscheduled maintenance (for example a tire change), requesting extra fuel or any safety related action that costs the company money, for example a diversion due to weather or perhaps grounding oneself due to illness, is now forbidden under threat of career truncation" is just your take on the matter and is no way implied or suggested in his letter.

"fiercely loyal and company minded and going way above the call of duty especially in time of need for the company" to me could mean keeping my mouth closed and not moaning down the pub/on Pprune about the crap pay and working conditions, getting direct routings from ATC to save fuel, helping Granny Gumdrops on board with her bags when the cabin crew are busy and, in this particular instance (which I wouldn't, by the way) accepting sub-standard accommodation for rest. I'm sure there are a myriad of other examples where one is able to comply with the COO's demands and yet not compromise safety.

I am in no way trying to justify nor agree with either the literal or implied contents of the letter but I think your interpretation of the implications for safety are exaggerated and not reflected in what is written.



No, never flown for them (or any other Australian operator for that matter) but have been a very active pilot union representative in the past and am used to the drivel from Management.

So the standard of accommodation has no impact on the quality of rest, and the quality of rest has no impact on safety. :confused:

In this instance, probably not. PelAir pilots stay there just fine.

With respect Pontius, the COO expects pilots to make duty to the company the highest priority. That is what the letter implies - to always make decisions in the interest of the company first and foremost. Not the passengers and not the profession.

This sets up an impressionable and inexperienced cadet for the double bind dilemma of which I am sure you are aware.

Now add in some maintenance issues (perhaps caused by engineers being placed under the same pressure) some bad weather and we have set up young Bloggs for a major accident due to........company pressure.

P.S I liked the bit about a pilots word being their bond. In 2016 and considering management behaviour these days, that is a little quaint.

Of course it does, Leady, and I never suggested otherwise. It is the only safety-related aspect that can be argued to be relevant to the letter, whereas Sunfish's supposition that the COO's letter has ruled Company loyalty over safety and "takes precedence over everything else" is not supported by anything that is written.

By all means take a COO to task and I would be at the front of the queue when arguing against a direct call to overrule safety for the sake of Company loyalty but I'd be damned sure that was what was actually said and, in this case, it wasn't and certainly did not constitute "a direct and unabashed call by the chief operating officer to put the interests of the company ahead of the safety interests of the paying passengers as laid out by the legislation and regulations."

Sunfish,

As I said previously, I agree with your interpretation of the tone of the letter and the possible implications thereof. However, I do not agree that he has told, or even suggested, that safety takes second place to Company loyalty. Surely, in placing safety at the very highest level one is directly supporting the company. It could even be argued that being 'fiercely loyal' means putting the Company interests first by ensuring business is conducted as safely as possible, after all it's no good being loyal to a company that's gone out of business because of a preventable accident.

Believe me, I'm no Management stooge and have come perilously close to being slung out on my arse for my vehemence in some of the meetings I've attended. Likewise, I've become quite adept at reading Management edicts but I'm at a loss to draw the same conclusions as you've drawn from this particular letter.

If it's insufficiently "loyal" to use the accommodation to which a pilot is entitled, prior to simulator checks, just imagine the pressure on the pilot when the cost to the company of a decision made by the pilot may be many times more than the $100.

I would have thought that simulator checks have safety implications - otherwise, why have them. Perhaps the company considers that not being sufficiently rested before simulator checks is entirely the pilot's risk? Not much loyalty being shown by the company to the pilot, in that case.

We can't expect junior people in our industry to interpret this letter in a way that does not effect safety. Just because a senior person ( COO or crusty old pilot) might naturally read this and infer that safety comes first, a junior cadet has yet to learn what safety is made up of and might not get the balance right. These cadets will be our Captains in the blink of an eye. Our senior CASA approved people need to be ensuring an environment where our safety critical people can learn their trade without threats, not sending messages like this. It's the Australian public who will pay the price for allowing cultures like this to exist in our Airlines. CASA is the watchdog who ultimately says " Carry on" or " Nah mate, not good enough for this country" .

Now I have read it again, this letter is pure psychopath stuff. It uses some of the most commonly employed techniques one might use to get the weaker minded individuals in our society to strongly align themselves with the "leadership".

"We consider this a very special honour as it means you have been assessed to have among the best technical/academic aptitudes amid the thousands of applications we have on record"

Lets break that opening salvo down:

"Very special honour"- You are indeed privileged, we the company bestow greatness upon you, don't let us down.

"You have been assessed"- We have poured over your application, we have invested ourselves in you and your academia, we consider you (yes you) important to the future of this company, we are taking you seriously.

"Among the best technical/academic aptitudes"- Only the best of the best need apply here, and you fit the bill, you have the right stuff!

"Thousands of applications we have on record"- Introduces a sense of urgency, you must not dally about here, we have been very busy assessing all those other possible high achievers. Who knows who might get your spot? It also insinuates that we are a very popular place to work, very exclusive.

Just the opening sentences, and it is riddled with some extraordinary connotations. Who wouldn't want to apply here? That's the first filter, anyone who is still interested will now be softened up with several more paragraphs of very suggestive words and phrases. Life changing, commit, company minded (note the Capital in Company), fiercely loyal etc.....

"Above and beyond the call of duty"- We will rely on you as we do any other hero. Filling you with pride.

"Especially in time of need for the Company"- We may be in for a struggle at some point for which we will need good, solid men and women. Lays out the mission and hints at the soft underbelly which you will be helping to protect.

"We have encountered many Cadets in the past who promised us the Earth in order to be selected"- Would you do this?

"But once selected they very quickly show their true colours"- Now let's start weeding out the pretenders from the players. Are you really that soft, that weak as to be duplicitous in our time of need?

The list goes on and on. I could go all day, but by the end of this letter, the reader has been put on a pedestal multiple times, given the mission, given the impending doom story and finally threatened with a stunted career if you subsequently slip into lucidity and have yourself an independent thought.

Some question the safety aspect of this letter, but all I see in this letter is call to arms for the purely aspirational; those who want to belong and feel wanted. Easily impressionable young men and women who will do anything to fly a turboprop, launch their airline career and go on to aviation's' higher echelons. And it is very cleverly done without once explicitly stating what will be expected of you once you join the ranks of the privileged.

So the threats you ask? Traditionally airline pilots were expected to be critical thinkers, people motivated by getting it right even if it meant doing something unpopular. This letter surreptitiously filters out those who would do that by bestowing an air of importance on those who would modify their decisions based on company wishes, a hint of job security and career progression. If that doesn't represent a significant risk to safety given of the impressionable minds it is aimed at, then nothing does.

Well analysed, Blitzkrieger.

I showed that letter to my sister who has serious qualifications in industrial psychology.
She couldn't stop giggling and took a copy to share with her colleagues.

In my case, it reminds me very much of the kind of thing that one would find in a briefing folder given to 'specially selected'
teen-age applicants for the position of door-to-door encyclopaedia salesman back in the late sixties.

No doubt, Neville Howell is being supported and counselled by his loving wife for having been dumb enough to be pressured into
putting his moniker on that masterpiece penned by one of "xxx's" anointed and up-coming favourites.

We sympathise with you at this difficult time, Neville. :D
.