^^^ why? That is how a lot of big airlines around the world are or have been structured, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? And what makes an SO seat so special that it gets paid enough money to ensure a good chunk of pilots would rather sit there than move to an A320 FO spot? These are genuine questions, as apart from ‘losing the higher SO pay’ for new joiners and or ‘a bigger list so longer wait times’ there doesn’t seem to be a very good reason to be so scared of this change. |
^^^ might be more reflective of that particular A320 FO spot these days rather than the grandeur of the the SO job.
I remember a time an Air NZ 320 gig was sought after, as was a job at Cook. |
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10251000)
^^^ why? That is how a lot of big airlines around the world are or have been structured, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? And what makes an SO seat so special that it gets paid enough money to ensure a good chunk of pilots would rather sit there than move to an A320 FO spot? Lastly, do the SO's really have it that good? Or has the Airbus simply become undesirable due to poor rostering? If you honestly believe that SO's are avoiding the Bus because they have it too good on the Widebody, then why are A320 Commands forecast to drop as low as 3 years as Captains flee the Fleet for Widebody FO positions? |
Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop
(Post 10250808)
It ("external") never used to be Aerocat, but then nobody currently flying in NZ ever needed jet time either! How exactly would they get that, in New Zealand? Given AirNZ are the major jet operator in the country, you could hardly be reasonably expected to rock up with jet time could you? Never had to, countless Eagle, Air Nelson, Mt Cook, Origin, Air National, Rex, etc pilots will attest to that. I am trying to clear up the distinction between "external", non-group but still NZ resident pilots vs "external", to New Zealand, pilots.
Originally Posted by ElZilcho
I'm struggling to think of any Airlines who combine Jets + Props, but I don't claim to know every Airline in the world. That being said, what benefit does a Cadet get going from a 787 SO to ATR FO? What are they going to learn on the Widebody that's relevant to the Link operation? It's purely a means to slash the SO salary and we all know it. Further more, it would move ~200 jobs to the bottom of the Seniority list meaning anyone who wants to fly Longhual would need to wait for an FO position, which would be ~1000 places up the list if we combine them.
|
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10251000)
^^^ why? That is how a lot of big airlines around the world are or have been structured, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? And what makes an SO seat so special that it gets paid enough money to ensure a good chunk of pilots would rather sit there than move to an A320 FO spot? These are genuine questions, as apart from ‘losing the higher SO pay’ for new joiners and or ‘a bigger list so longer wait times’ there doesn’t seem to be a very good reason to be so scared of this change. |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10251056)
Qantas have an almost identical situation you guys. SOs living the high life and not wanting to move to short haul, two wholly owned turbo-prop subsidiaries with pilots who want to be able to move straight to the jets with a minimum of fuss, and a thread on PPRuNe discussing the various merits of hiring externally to the group vs promoting from within the group (Qantas Recruitment.)
As someone said, the A320 used to be a highly sought after position. When the 737 was the Domestic workhorse, it had rostering rules and CEA clauses (lower incentive threshold) to account for the higher workload of multi-sector days... remember, NZ isn't Aus. Our longest Domestic sector is under 2hrs and the main trunk, AKL-WLG takes about 30 minutes so you can do very high sectors on a Domestic roster. Even then however, 737 FO & Capt positions were a fair way down the list due to lifestyle considerations. Anyway, when the 737 was retired all of the rostering rules went with it and we've been fighting with the company ever since. Some very minor changes were made through a working group which had virtually no impact. This is the biggest cause of grievance on the A320 and many SO's are simply staying put. Plenty would move across (the non commuters anyway) if the Company would just resolve the lifestyle concerns. As it stands however, Pilots are utilizing their right to choose and simply avoiding the fleet. This all leads into why the Company is pushing the Cadetship. Not only will they save a fortune slashing the SO pay, but it will also mean the first Widebody Jobs will sit ~400-500 positions above the most Junior A320 FO. Pilots will have no choice but to sit on the A320 for 15+ years (500 seats / 30 retirement a year) as they cant bid anywhere else. Overnight, the company will solve their crewing issues on the A320 without having address any of the lifestyle concerns. |
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10251000)
^^^ why? That is how a lot of big airlines around the world are or have been structured, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? And what makes an SO seat so special that it gets paid enough money to ensure a good chunk of pilots would rather sit there than move to an A320 FO spot? These are genuine questions, as apart from ‘losing the higher SO pay’ for new joiners and or ‘a bigger list so longer wait times’ there doesn’t seem to be a very good reason to be so scared of this change. As ElZilch has said, this proposal fixes the massive own goal over the S/O pay disparity (not just the recovery of monies paid, but also the closure of the gap between S/O and A320 F/O), and the A320 retention problem in one foul swoop (freudian slip???)..... Ollie, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? |
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10251000)
^^^ why? That is how a lot of big airlines around the world are or have been structured, why is Air NZ so special that Jets and Turboprops shouldn’t be mixed? And what makes an SO seat so special that it gets paid enough money to ensure a good chunk of pilots would rather sit there than move to an A320 FO spot? These are genuine questions, as apart from ‘losing the higher SO pay’ for new joiners and or ‘a bigger list so longer wait times’ there doesn’t seem to be a very good reason to be so scared of this change. i also like having SOs on the flight deck who have experienced more than a VFR flight from Ardmore to Hamilton and back. We have some of the most experienced group of guys and gals in the middle seat on the planet! Are they utilising their experience? Probably not. But they have a CHOICE. S/O on long haul or F320. Links Pilots won’t have that choice if we vote for this change. There are no other airlines that I know of which train cadets to then sit as a SO for two years in a wide body then move to an ATR/dash. The problem is not in the jet fleet. It’s a Link problem! Train for the Links. Don’t reduce the conditions of our hard fought for terms and conditions. SO cadets are off the table now anyways so it doesn’t really matter. |
Originally Posted by ElZilcho
(Post 10251417)
The high life? That's a bit of a stretch.
As someone said, the A320 used to be a highly sought after position. When the 737 was the Domestic workhorse, it had rostering rules and CEA clauses (lower incentive threshold) to account for the higher workload of multi-sector days... remember, NZ isn't Aus. Our longest Domestic sector is under 2hrs and the main trunk, AKL-WLG takes about 30 minutes so you can do very high sectors on a Domestic roster. Even then however, 737 FO & Capt positions were a fair way down the list due to lifestyle considerations. Anyway, when the 737 was retired all of the rostering rules went with it and we've been fighting with the company ever since. Some very minor changes were made through a working group which had virtually no impact. This is the biggest cause of grievance on the A320 and many SO's are simply staying put. Plenty would move across (the non commuters anyway) if the Company would just resolve the lifestyle concerns. As it stands however, Pilots are utilizing their right to choose and simply avoiding the fleet. |
Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop
(Post 10251462)
I'll throw this one back at you without prejudice - Why are Links pilots so special they're the only ones who don't need jet time to get a job?
|
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10251508)
Probably because they normally get hired to SO positions.
|
Originally Posted by Brakerider
(Post 10251513)
So why can’t Air NZ hire SOs externally who don’t have Jet time (within the 70:30 ratio) without Link pilots jumping up and down? |
Qantas and VA both train cadets to long haul SO positions so it's not so uncommon.
This entire thread is a great example of why pilots are our own worst enemies! Fighting over who has the hardest job with some unjustified/ uneducated arguments and opinions that will only result in a win to the company. TP and Jets are two very different beasts, I've seen experienced TP guys fail going onto the jet and the same number of jet guys fail when coming back to TP's. Reality is they both require different skill sets and any half reasonable training department (of which Air NZ has very good ones) can train pilots to the required standard regardless of previous experience. SOs are coming wether the pilot group likes it or not! |
Look I can see a couple of different themes here. One is a reluctance for this deal due to the perchieved reductions in Terms and Conditions with regard to the SO position. I totally understand that and would defend everyone’s right to protect those as they are hard won. Two, I don’t get trying to dress up the objections By saying things like ‘ex Cadets couldn’t fly an ATR into a small NZ strip, or without Jet experience you shouldn’t be sitting in a Jet’. BA, Cathay Pacific and Emirates all take direct entry FO’s who have no Jet experience, Qantas and Cathay both put SO’s onto large jets who only have 200 hours with very little multi time, using experience as a reason not to join the list is just not valid, maybe with the exception of Emirates the rest could pick and choose from a pool of relatively experienced candidates but the airlines want to get some cheaper people in at the bottom and keep them for longer, why does that surprise us? One of my Air NZ mates said to me the other day ‘I think this is a bad idea as it would allow an ATR driver to move straight into an FO spot on the A320 and that is just dangerous!’ Why....... I am actually genuinely interested in this attitude as I have seen a lot of different pilots with different levels of experience successfully get trained into quite different roles all over the world, the most important thing is a good training path and I am intrigued if people actually believe in the experience argument. If I was actually voting on this deal then I would vote no as terms and conditions once given away will never be gained back. |
One of my Air NZ mates said to me the other day ‘I think this is a bad idea as it would allow an ATR driver to move straight into an FO spot on the A320 and that is just dangerous!’ Why....... |
Originally Posted by Brakerider
(Post 10251513)
So why can’t Air NZ hire SOs externally who don’t have Jet time (within the 70:30 ratio) without Link pilots jumping up and down? |
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10251646)
Look I can see a couple of different themes here. One is a reluctance for this deal due to the perchieved reductions in Terms and Conditions with regard to the SO position. I totally understand that and would defend everyone’s right to protect those as they are hard won. Two, I don’t get trying to dress up the objections By saying things like ‘ex Cadets couldn’t fly an ATR into a small NZ strip, or without Jet experience you shouldn’t be sitting in a Jet’. BA, Cathay Pacific and Emirates all take direct entry FO’s who have no Jet experience, Qantas and Cathay both put SO’s onto large jets who only have 200 hours with very little multi time, using experience as a reason not to join the list is just not valid, maybe with the exception of Emirates the rest could pick and choose from a pool of relatively experienced candidates but the airlines want to get some cheaper people in at the bottom and keep them for longer, why does that surprise us?
One of my Air NZ mates said to me the other day ‘I think this is a bad idea as it would allow an ATR driver to move straight into an FO spot on the A320 and that is just dangerous!’ Why....... I am actually genuinely interested in this attitude as I have seen a lot of different pilots with different levels of experience successfully get trained into quite different roles all over the world, the most important thing is a good training path and I am intrigued if people actually believe in the experience argument. If I was actually voting on this deal then I would vote no as terms and conditions once given away will never be gained back. What I have heard, however, are questions about a Link Captain going directly to an A320 Command when seniority permits i.e. not bidding F20 and simply waiting until C20. However, I'm sure the company will have systems in place for that much the same way they do for SO's taking A320 Commands. In regards to Cadets Ollie, the biggest gripe is not so much the Company putting them into the Widebodies, but putting them in Widebodies under the guise of "Gaining experience before joining the Link Carriers". They've all but come out and said it! "Feedback from Link Training Captains is that low hour Pilots don't integrate well into Multi-Crew operations, so we'll make them SO's for 2 years before starting in the Links.... on severely reduced pay of course" Many of the objections need to stop being viewed in isolation. The Company (and ALPA unfortunately) tried to sell us an entire package.
Originally Posted by Brakerider
(Post 10251513)
So why can’t Air NZ hire SOs externally who don’t have Jet time (within the 70:30 ratio) without Link pilots jumping up and down? But until now, it's been mostly Supply & Demand driven. Air NZ has been bombarded by CV's with 5k-10k+ hours and thousands of hours Jet so they had their pick of bunch... especially since, as I mentioned earlier, we ran shortened courses for A320 rated Pilots. |
Originally Posted by BO0M
(Post 10251605)
SOs are coming wether the pilot group likes it or not!
|
Originally Posted by RubberDogPoop
(Post 10252303)
No kidding! They arrived almost 30 years ago....
|
Boom, no mate. They aren’t. It requires a vote by the jet pilot group and I’d say the chances of that vote succeeding is, well, remote to say the least. That ship has sailed. The only question that remains is whether they push for a GOP, which also requires a vote by jet pilots, and also is unlikely to succeed. If I was a link pilot I’d be focusing my energy on firming up the recruitment process and improving conditions where you are. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.