|
I agree with Offcut. There is not a chance that anything the career pathways were proposing will even get to ratification. If it did get that far it’ll be voted down in huge numbers. I would be focussing on the process of how HR choose Links Pilots for interviews and trying to make it more transparent and fair to all. |
Originally Posted by Offcut
(Post 10252410)
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. On the other stuff I completely agree. Link pilots need to secure better pay and conditions but unfortunately this little side project (pathways) is been dangled like a carrot to confuse and cause in fighting amongst the masses. As far as recruiting goes, well thats anybodies guess. |
Originally Posted by BO0M
(Post 10253379)
Sorry I have to disagree..........The company can put Cadets in the SO seat /FO seat if they see fit and pay them the current SO/FO pay rate (unless I have missed something in the contracts?)
On the other stuff I completely agree. Link pilots need to secure better pay and conditions but unfortunately this little side project (pathways) is been dangled like a carrot to confuse and cause in fighting amongst the masses. As far as recruiting goes, well thats anybodies guess. |
Boom, agreed. But they won’t, will they. There is still a line down the block for SO jobs. Why would they hire a cadet, spend vastly more on training them, have much higher failure rates, etc, and then pay the same as they could employ an experienced pilot for? People still want to work for the airline. If that changed and they were unable to hire pilots then cadets might make sense. But surely not into the SO role that most link pilots want? What exactly is your desired outcome? |
Does anyone know the result of the recent GOP list survey? The silence is deafening... |
Not closed yet, 3 days to go. |
“How do we create and implement a superior career pathway that provides attractive long-term career and lifestyle opportunities for all pilots within the Air NZ Group” - this is the opening line in the Pathways mission statement. Hiring external turboprop drivers with the same or less experience that currently exists within the Air NZ group does not provide a superior career pathway that’s attractive for these Link pilots. Hence a few guys for Prop* not getting the positions they were told they had. One aspect of the GOP is that it initially benefits the top hundred or so Link guys that want that longhaul jet position so they can live in the regions and commute, but won’t take the f20 gig to get on the list in the first place. Yes there is a chance they could get s/o, but they don’t like the idea that with the EOI they have RSL seniority but have pilots junior to them taking a jet seniority number ahead of them. Of course if they are on tag and release then they can turn down the first jet position offered and wait for the next one ( within 3 years or by mutual agreement). The GOP is dead and buried I’d say. The masses have spoken. As John Campbell would say “now ponder this” (and this could be reaching but....) if the GOP exisited all it requires is a majority vote in years to come to amend the contract to change seniority to ‘group’ DOJ. Why would you support that possibility if you are on jet list now and know there are a lot of link guys with group seniority to you. Say goodbye (potentially) to that wide body command you were hoping to get. This is great for Link pilots so of course they would support the GOP. But they don’t get to vote on it so it’s a non issue. And as mentioned earlier, a GOP serves the companies interests to future crewing issues on the airbus if it remains that way. I could go on... Reality is, there is no problem filling jet positions in terms of willing and able Link applicants (though I believe it’s essential to continue to have external experience from other operators/airforce) . It’s the Links that have the issue and that is pilots not taking commands (believing they will go jet without one which won’t happen anymore) or company expositions having a set hour minimum on type to take the LHS. We don’t need cadet s/o’s and hopefully won’t have them in the way Whittaker wants them i.e lowest paid flying job in Air NZ with lowest experience. The term cadet is even a stretch using it as that implies the company will pay for their training and that’s something they are not willing to do. I must say, it’s nice to read a thread with different opinions and it not to have turned into a bitter slagging fest which other threads of other aviation groups have. Just saying. :ok: Is the briefing complete? Questions, suggestions. Fuel for Canberra Capt M? :E |
|
In time there would be no need to vote in a group wide DOJ list because as those currently on the air nz list leave/retire then everyone will simply have a group seniority - a pilot joins on whatever fleet they are given, jet or prop and moves up.
Also, I don't think there are many, if any, prop FO's turning down commands waiting for jet. In addition although company experience reqs can limit FO's getting commands the problem is bigger than that. The links may hire 250hr FO's and they will do 400-500 hrs a year, an ATPL reqs 1500 hrs minimum, so that fo needs 3 years just to the have experience for an ATPL yet on current planning the links need to be issuing commands after 18-24 months. Hiring low time pilots into the links just kicks the can down the road 18 months. That's how you come up with an idea to build time in the middle of a wide flight deck - as pointless as that may actually be! As much as the gop list would work for me I think it is having a still birth. But I still think something needs to be changed, how many jet jobs can be created or kept if the regional feeders are broken? |
Mt Cook f/o’s in Chch are not taking commands in Wgtn (12 commands was the number a month ago) when they have the seniority to. Air Nelson can’t upgrade guys because of the 1000 hr company requirement. These are facts. And Kel Duff and co are trying to address them. The jet pilots will vote on a GOP and the general consensus is no. It’s not still in birth - it’s a miscarriage. Aluminium hail I don’t think you understand the GOP if you think in time once the jet list is renewed (which will take 40 years in its entirety) that people will be given a group number. There are 3 separate companies we are talking about here. To join on whatever fleet and have a number means it would be one company with one contract like the jet fleet is now with different fleet pay scales. There’s a lot of change that needs to be implemented first. The Links aren’t just going to hire low hour pilots that need 3 plus years to get their hours up. There would be a mix of experience from GA guys, instructors, overseas GA etc. You are naive to believe every pilot hired would be a cadet. (If we had them). This isn’t how the Pathways Project is designed from the hiring point of view. A low hour guy needs stick and rudder time and sectors under their belt to get the experience up. Not watching 3 takeoffs and landings a month from the back and a couple of extra sims a year. They may learn the longhaul operation but that doesn’t help them fly the dash or atr from a skills point of view. The s/o role is fine for the guys sitting there now as the experience levels of s/o’s is quite humbling and they are effective members of the crew. You ask guys how many time the s/o has saved some paperwork for the skipper. Reality is a cadet wouldn’t have the same level of experience to. I’ll say it again, the jet fleet has no problem, it’s the Links. And now it’s even better for Link guys as they know they will get a jet job, in seniority of the EOI now so there is a clear progression. A GOP stops externals and without them in times of expansion we are parking up planes left right and centre if we are only taking guys of the links. Externals don’t have to be hired when it’s slow, the Link guys can trickle through. 70:30 is a limit not a target. |
Originally Posted by Offcut
(Post 10254141)
What exactly is your desired outcome? Can I just throw out something that may throw a cat amongst the pigeons........If Air NZ management really want this combined GOP list, which they do by all accounts. Whats stopping them from dissolving Mt Cook and Air Nelson legal entities and changing everyones employer to Air NZ? If that happens the RSL would automatically be placed on the bottom of the GOP list. No vote needed. |
Originally Posted by BO0M
(Post 10283350)
Sorry Offcut I'm not here often haha. To be honest I don't have a desired outcome, as I alluded to earlier it doesn't effect me. It would be nice to see some common sense displayed by all parties. The company need to realise anything that promotes a reduction in T&Cs isn't going to get anywhere with either pilot group. (1)Moreover the pilot groups need to get on the same page and come up with something that suits all instead of infighting and insulting one another.
(2)Can I just throw out something that may throw a cat amongst the pigeons........If Air NZ management really want this combined GOP list, which they do by all accounts. Whats stopping them from dissolving Mt Cook and Air Nelson legal entities and changing everyones employer to Air NZ? If that happens the RSL would automatically be placed on the bottom of the GOP list. No vote needed. 2.) Honestly? Probably nothing. The Unions would negotiate the payscales for Link Aircraft and they would subsequently be added to the Air NZ CEA (upon ratification). All Link Pilots would then be employed by Air NZ, under our CEA... a massive win for them. Would the company ever do that? Hard to say, but I doubt it. As much as they're flogging the A320 crews they can still flog Link Pilots more! |
Still waiting on the results of the survey... I could be wrong but I'm guessing they are trying to justify the less than positive result for the GOP list!
|
Originally Posted by Slezy9
(Post 10285090)
Still waiting on the results of the survey... I could be wrong but I'm guessing they are trying to justify the less than positive result for the GOP list!
I found it quite disappointing that the wagging finger was pointed at us saying "A GOP list has been in your contract since 2002, you just didn't read/understand it!" when that GOP list clearly relates to Subsidiary JET operations (i.e. Freedom). It has nothing to do with the Link Group. |
Any advancements on this proposed list? |
Originally Posted by Kittykat2704
(Post 10307011)
Any advancements on this proposed list? Recruitment looks to be ~100 Pilots in 2019. *70:30 recruitment means 70% internal, 30% external. The Company intends 180 Link Pilots to be added to the list in FY19 (i.e until end of June). 18 are already there so 162 left. Of that 162, they've indicated 32 can be "Released" from the links, meaning 130 will be given reserved seniority numbers. This will bring the ratio of Link Pilots Vs Externals (already hired) more into line with the 70:30. |
Originally Posted by ElZilcho
(Post 10308718)
Some Comms came out today. GOP list, while not Dead, is certainly on Hold in favor of the *70:30 recruitment model. Cadetship is now focusing on T-Prop F/O point of entry opposed to SO.
Recruitment looks to be ~100 Pilots in 2019. *70:30 recruitment means 70% internal, 30% external. The Company intends 180 Link Pilots to be added to the list in FY19 (i.e until end of June). 18 are already there so 162 left. Of that 162, they've indicated 32 can be "Released" from the links, meaning 130 will be given reserved seniority numbers. This will bring the ratio of Link Pilots Vs Externals (already hired) more into line with the 70:30. I see they've opened up shop for externals again today on the careers website. I've heard of a fairly large number of guys awaiting start dates, including guys who have left the links who have become anxious about a 24 month stand down being proposed. With the 70/30 ratio and 100 pilots required this year surely there is already going to be a surplus of guys currently awaiting starts and there will be no need for further externals if they're to honour what they say? |
The Stand down (I believe) comes into effect immediately. If you've left the links within the last 24 months, you either need to re-join the Links (yea right) or wait out the stand down period.
As for numbers, a lot will depend on how many Link Pilots (beyond the 32 mentioned) get starts. The more jobs that go to externals, the more the "Tag and Release" Pilots back up. Ideally, the Company wants to give courses to Tagged Link Pilots within 3 years of going on the list, but if the numbers get too large that wont (cant) happen. Assuming there will be 130 Tagged Link Pilots, and the Links can only release 50 per year, then by June the list will already be more than 2 years long. So it's a balancing act based on Jet Fleet demand. Once we have a queue of Link Pilots on reserved numbers, can they be released to keep up with Jet demand? If yes, no externals hired. If no, externals will still be required, and for each hired another 3 Link Pilots get numbers. |
Surely that stand down won't be applied to guys who have been vetted and awaiting starts early 2019? Cheers for the insight. Time to update the application😃 |
Originally Posted by Kittykat2704
(Post 10308757)
Surely that stand down won't be applied to guys who have been vetted and awaiting starts early 2019? Cheers for the insight. Time to update the application😃 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.