Singapore Airlines Recruiting Policy?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilost, sorry you got me wrong. I never said that SIA has taken MAS locals, however, neither I know nor I mentioned the nationality of the fodder recruited by SIA. But the fact is that there are guys regularly coming from MAS. The 737-200 guys, I did not mention were from MAS. But the fact is that SIA has recruited few guys on 310 with only 737-200 experience. Once again I would say I actually is not aware about their nationality.
Yes I do agree with you that with the current cost living, the current salaries and work culture MAS is any day a better place to work when compare to SIA. Atleast this what has been my experience. I was actually wondering why people leave MAS and come to work for SIA. I do agree with you that only monkey can be bought for peanuts.
Yes I do agree with you that with the current cost living, the current salaries and work culture MAS is any day a better place to work when compare to SIA. Atleast this what has been my experience. I was actually wondering why people leave MAS and come to work for SIA. I do agree with you that only monkey can be bought for peanuts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Other than flying for Singapore Airlines, what is life like over there? One of our pilots (among numerous others) came from Cathay Pacific and really liked Hong Kong.
Having never gone west of Hickam AFB in Honolulu, is living in Singapore as enjoyable and interesting as in Hong Kong?
Having never gone west of Hickam AFB in Honolulu, is living in Singapore as enjoyable and interesting as in Hong Kong?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now that I've recently looked into SIA, I'm getting a lot of feedback on the airline - usually from extremely disgruntled SIA crews down route. Can anyone confirm:
1. Of the 30 minutes of CVR transcript of the SQ006 accident, only approximately 16 minutes have been published. The other 14 minutes are devoted to the passionate denigration by the flight crew, of SIA in general and the guy in charge of flt ops in particular (de Vaz?). This goes part way to explaining the very cool reception given to the crew on their eventual return to Singapore from Taiwan.
2. Despite SIA flt ops propaganda to the contrary, shortage of flight crews has led to the cancellation of a fair number of flight numbers and 747's, 777's and 340's are regularly to be seen sitting for extended periods on the apron at Changi.
As SIA is having big problems getting crews, the (14?) 777's to be delivered in 2001 are going ex-Boeing straight to the desert. Anyone got photos yet?
1. Of the 30 minutes of CVR transcript of the SQ006 accident, only approximately 16 minutes have been published. The other 14 minutes are devoted to the passionate denigration by the flight crew, of SIA in general and the guy in charge of flt ops in particular (de Vaz?). This goes part way to explaining the very cool reception given to the crew on their eventual return to Singapore from Taiwan.
2. Despite SIA flt ops propaganda to the contrary, shortage of flight crews has led to the cancellation of a fair number of flight numbers and 747's, 777's and 340's are regularly to be seen sitting for extended periods on the apron at Changi.
As SIA is having big problems getting crews, the (14?) 777's to be delivered in 2001 are going ex-Boeing straight to the desert. Anyone got photos yet?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As it is, SIA is running out of time to crew its spanking new 777.
With the IAC throwing the boomerang back at SIA, asking them to continue to renegotiate with ALPAS re the long expired CA, the likelihood of attracting new direct entry captains with the "new" package is once again delayed.
Basically, when all the dust is settled on this issue, the person "responsible" on behalf of SIA in "negotiating" the new CA will not be at the helm for much longer, all he cared at this moment in extending his tenure is to collect his own back-pay/bonus on the matter and leave the pile of sh*t to his successor(s), may it be low pilots morale and/or bad management/crew relationship.
With the IAC throwing the boomerang back at SIA, asking them to continue to renegotiate with ALPAS re the long expired CA, the likelihood of attracting new direct entry captains with the "new" package is once again delayed.
Basically, when all the dust is settled on this issue, the person "responsible" on behalf of SIA in "negotiating" the new CA will not be at the helm for much longer, all he cared at this moment in extending his tenure is to collect his own back-pay/bonus on the matter and leave the pile of sh*t to his successor(s), may it be low pilots morale and/or bad management/crew relationship.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anotherpost75,
All SIA aircraft CVR's has 2 hours of recording time capacity.
And yes, 777 direct entry captains recruitment is very far behind schedule. Some of the candidates that SQ is entertaining (and training) would not even get a more than a standard reply 3 year ago, this is how desperate SQ has come to be.
All SIA aircraft CVR's has 2 hours of recording time capacity.
And yes, 777 direct entry captains recruitment is very far behind schedule. Some of the candidates that SQ is entertaining (and training) would not even get a more than a standard reply 3 year ago, this is how desperate SQ has come to be.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Titan
Thank you for your post of 16 March on the SQ006 Revisited thread – it has given me confidence to bring up a rumour heard fairly recently and which ties in with an item thrown up in the MISSION section of my previous post on that thread, in respect of SQ OSIG. I’ve used this thread for the post as I think it’s more appropriate than the SQ006 one, which I guess should now be reserved for “006” business.
There has long been a “certain aura” surrounding the status of the Lear Jet fleet supposedly owned and operated by SQ, for the purpose of providing jet training for the airline’s cadet pilots plus others deemed to require the Lear Jet training facilities. This worthy fleet not only provides jet training to the cadet body but also to the ex-SAF pilots of recent and ongoing (reserve) A4, F5 and F16 currency plus experienced Puma, Huey and Chinook rotary pilots plus ex-SAF C130/F27 transport/coastal pilots. Further, “sector” experience is provided to pilots who were posted ex cadet training to the B744 and need to make up the “required” P1 sectors (330) prior to command.
In light of titan’s post, the rumours that have circulated for some time, to the effect that it is not, in fact SQ that operates the Lears but a separate company, owned and controlled by certain interests that contract with SQ to undertake what turns out to be a very considerable amount of very expensive (for SQ) and highly lucrative (for the contracting company) jet training, now seem to gain some substance.
Perhaps it should now be asked:
1. Why are cadets (Singaporean) assigned straight to the 744 where they will attain no real handling and P1 sector experience in their time on the fleet and prior to eligibility for command – hence “requiring” further (Lear) sector training in the future. Cadets (Malaysian) who go straight to the 310 fleet have no difficulty in attaining the P1 sector “requirement”. Why can they not all go to the 310 or to Silk Air – the most wonderful training ground imaginable and following which they would not need Lear training to attain the “required” 330 P1 sectors and would have a terrific experience background for the long haul fleets and for movement to the LHS?
2. Who decides that 330 P1 sectors are “required”?
3. Why do experienced military pilots require to fly the Lear? This happens nowhere else in the world but then again there isn’t a set-up quite like SQ anywhere else in the world!
4. Who signs the contract on behalf of SQ, with the Lear company and is the contract put out to tender with other training companies?
5. Who owns/operates the three Lear 45 aircraft 9V-ATH/I/J?
It would seem that there is a lot of “make work” involved here, a large amount of cash in the equation and a number of answers to be given. Anyone help in this area?
Guest
Posts: n/a
this is an old chestnut and has been under suspician ever since the lear came into sq.
while maurice slashes+burns pilot crew costs(and making bonus's) someone else is lining their pockets with this lear progrm to similar effect.
i believe that one or more of sq's simulators is owned by a group who also are involved in the ownership of the learjet leasing/marketing.
All they had to do was put blokes on the A310 or Silk air....mmmm
how do they justify themselves in view of singapores laws.surely this is insider trading of some sorts and smells of corruption....
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 22 March 2001).]
while maurice slashes+burns pilot crew costs(and making bonus's) someone else is lining their pockets with this lear progrm to similar effect.
i believe that one or more of sq's simulators is owned by a group who also are involved in the ownership of the learjet leasing/marketing.
All they had to do was put blokes on the A310 or Silk air....mmmm
how do they justify themselves in view of singapores laws.surely this is insider trading of some sorts and smells of corruption....
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 22 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Corruption indeed. The Lear Jet program is and has been nothing short of a joke. The boys at Lear Jet have been laughing at SIA (never mind, we'll take your money).
Reformasi.
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 22 March 2001).]
Reformasi.
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 22 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The answer to the Lear question can easily be explained by Len's action when pilots started leaving before their bonded period. Len was left high and dry holding the $18,000 cost of their training which SIA capitalised over the bond period. When the pilots left, SIA refused to pay Len for the outstanding amount of their Lear training. Len then had the $18,000 deducted directly from the pilot's first 1.5? years salary - to hell with the contract...pay up or else! One brave Englishman stood up to little Len and won but it was a very nasty excperience. The year was 1994. I believe the automatic deduction occurred to all new recruits after that time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I’d like to write on the subject of bonds/bank guarantees (BG’s) which perhaps non-SQ readers may be a little confused about.
As everyone knows, SQ requires an enormous bond to be signed plus the provision of a large BG before the company will entertain the training of a newly joined non-rated pilot onto a type operated by the airline, or the fleet movement of an established SQ pilot onto a new type. Amounts are typically S$350,000/S$45,000. The two key questions, which outsiders will ask, are:
1. Why do pilots sign the bond/provide BG’s?
2. Why does SQ require bonds/BG’s?
Well I can only answer the first question from my own perspective but I can certainly give both my own plus a more collective view on the second question.
My feeling during the recruiting stage of my entry to SQ was that I would be joining a world class carrier with the highest professional standards and a modern, not to say cutting edge approach to “human resource/man management”, entirely consistent with the highly glossy image of the self proclaimed world’s most successful, efficient carrier etc, etc. Whilst the money at the time was not brilliant (something of an understatement when I eventually found out the cost of establishing in Singapore!), the overall prospect seemed reasonable enough.
My attitude towards the bond/BG was that, OK, I’d be joining an Asian company and a culture that expected a demonstration of an individual’s commitment and worth that provision of bond/BG would effect and that in return for this very significant gesture, I would be treated with the respect accorded a valued professional and could rely on the loyalty and support of a company that would reasonably expect the same approach from its pilots. My experience to date, has, of course, disabused me of any such nonsensical romanticism as I find myself in a brute of an organization that I have grown to absolutely loath and which treats me with the contempt and derision accorded the salve/bondsman who has been tricked into entering his sorry state through his own lack of foresight. By then it was too late, I was financially committed and had to stay. Simply put, if I had known the treatment I could expect, I WOULD NEVER HAVE JOINED. So all pilots mistakenly considering a “career” with SQ, please reconsider because you will merely follow the rest of us, to be USED, ABUSED, CHEWED UP AND SPAT OUT. There are plenty more employment opportunities around (if you fancy Asia, KAL is now excellent), managed by decent regimes which give a fair crack to their employees and keep their troops happy - this one does not!
On the second question, well the answer is corollary to my first answer. Obviously SQ has to bond/BG pilots, otherwise they would lose them in their first year of operation as these pilots steadily became more sickened by their own treatment at the hands of the “management” and became increasingly exposed to the corruption and incompetence of their so called “leaders”. An aspirant has merely to ask himself again (sorry - no girls here) the second question, above. Well, once any such fanciful feeling as I once entertained is firmly discounted, the answer is obvious - THE AIRLINE IS SO AWFUL, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP PILOTS. Aspirants are warned.
Finally, it may interest everyone to note that the airline is now in such a panic to make internal fleet movements of pilots due to intense agitation for movement from the A310 fleet, the wind-down of the A340 fleet, the imminent arrival of a plethora of new B777’s (if they don’t go straight to the desert) and the dearth of new entrant pilot arrivals onto the B744, that all eligible SQ pilots are now being offered the ultimate promotion (in SQ eyes) of the 744, to effect trouble free fleet movement. Pilots are urged to remember that the dearth of new entrants to this fleet is due the correct worldwide perception of SQ as a very poor pay option for work on this type and they are further reminded of the “dog’s life” the fleet offers in terms of desperately high work load, limited leave, very poor COP’s and whatever it is that flavours a fleet culture predominated by “difficult” local captains. Please don’t, however, take my word for how bad things are on the 744 - merely note the droves of local FO’s who regularly turn down the “honour” of “promotion” and elect to remain on or move to fleets with a predominance of ex-pat captains - strange isn’t it?
As a PS. I wonder what will happen to the desperate fleet movement program if pilots politely declined to re-bond and forego the honour of “promotion”?
As everyone knows, SQ requires an enormous bond to be signed plus the provision of a large BG before the company will entertain the training of a newly joined non-rated pilot onto a type operated by the airline, or the fleet movement of an established SQ pilot onto a new type. Amounts are typically S$350,000/S$45,000. The two key questions, which outsiders will ask, are:
1. Why do pilots sign the bond/provide BG’s?
2. Why does SQ require bonds/BG’s?
Well I can only answer the first question from my own perspective but I can certainly give both my own plus a more collective view on the second question.
My feeling during the recruiting stage of my entry to SQ was that I would be joining a world class carrier with the highest professional standards and a modern, not to say cutting edge approach to “human resource/man management”, entirely consistent with the highly glossy image of the self proclaimed world’s most successful, efficient carrier etc, etc. Whilst the money at the time was not brilliant (something of an understatement when I eventually found out the cost of establishing in Singapore!), the overall prospect seemed reasonable enough.
My attitude towards the bond/BG was that, OK, I’d be joining an Asian company and a culture that expected a demonstration of an individual’s commitment and worth that provision of bond/BG would effect and that in return for this very significant gesture, I would be treated with the respect accorded a valued professional and could rely on the loyalty and support of a company that would reasonably expect the same approach from its pilots. My experience to date, has, of course, disabused me of any such nonsensical romanticism as I find myself in a brute of an organization that I have grown to absolutely loath and which treats me with the contempt and derision accorded the salve/bondsman who has been tricked into entering his sorry state through his own lack of foresight. By then it was too late, I was financially committed and had to stay. Simply put, if I had known the treatment I could expect, I WOULD NEVER HAVE JOINED. So all pilots mistakenly considering a “career” with SQ, please reconsider because you will merely follow the rest of us, to be USED, ABUSED, CHEWED UP AND SPAT OUT. There are plenty more employment opportunities around (if you fancy Asia, KAL is now excellent), managed by decent regimes which give a fair crack to their employees and keep their troops happy - this one does not!
On the second question, well the answer is corollary to my first answer. Obviously SQ has to bond/BG pilots, otherwise they would lose them in their first year of operation as these pilots steadily became more sickened by their own treatment at the hands of the “management” and became increasingly exposed to the corruption and incompetence of their so called “leaders”. An aspirant has merely to ask himself again (sorry - no girls here) the second question, above. Well, once any such fanciful feeling as I once entertained is firmly discounted, the answer is obvious - THE AIRLINE IS SO AWFUL, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP PILOTS. Aspirants are warned.
Finally, it may interest everyone to note that the airline is now in such a panic to make internal fleet movements of pilots due to intense agitation for movement from the A310 fleet, the wind-down of the A340 fleet, the imminent arrival of a plethora of new B777’s (if they don’t go straight to the desert) and the dearth of new entrant pilot arrivals onto the B744, that all eligible SQ pilots are now being offered the ultimate promotion (in SQ eyes) of the 744, to effect trouble free fleet movement. Pilots are urged to remember that the dearth of new entrants to this fleet is due the correct worldwide perception of SQ as a very poor pay option for work on this type and they are further reminded of the “dog’s life” the fleet offers in terms of desperately high work load, limited leave, very poor COP’s and whatever it is that flavours a fleet culture predominated by “difficult” local captains. Please don’t, however, take my word for how bad things are on the 744 - merely note the droves of local FO’s who regularly turn down the “honour” of “promotion” and elect to remain on or move to fleets with a predominance of ex-pat captains - strange isn’t it?
As a PS. I wonder what will happen to the desperate fleet movement program if pilots politely declined to re-bond and forego the honour of “promotion”?
Guest
Posts: n/a
An earlier question was asking why on earth dont the spotty new Singaporean second officers join Silk Air for a couple of years? The answer is simple : Dolla.
When Singapore Airlines advertises for its new cadet pilots, its offers the wannabes the temptation of around $8000+ per month, as part of the overall package. However, to earn this sort of money, you cant go off to Silk Air, and dilly dally with flying sectors every day. No lah, cannot. The new Singaporean cadet is sent straight to the B747-400, where pay is biggest for the biggest job, argh. The most meritorious of all SIAs fleets is branded the “Premier Fleet” by SIA’s DFO.
The question then, who crews the remainder of SIA’other aircraft? Well, if you aint part of the Singaporean master race, you’ll more than likely have to do the brunt of the flying for the runt of the pay. Yes, Malaysians and other “foreigners” generally start on the A310, and progress to the A340/B777, as part of the overall meretricious racially biased promotion scheme.
Oh, but promotion based on meritocracy surly has is place, I hear you all mutter. Yes, but dont forget, we are dealing with SIA here. By default, a Singaporean is deemed more “meritorious” by the fact that he was born err, a Singaporean. The rest of the less “meritorious” pilots are left to play for the few remaining scraps of promotion that are thrown their way. How many Malaysians are still stuck on the A340/B777 after several years? And what of the unfortunate Singaporeans that dont make the premier fleet? Well dont worry lah say your fleet managers ,you’ll bypass all those ahead of you in seniority after a couple of years on the lower fleets, well make sure of that.How? Well make sure our SIP & IP’s keep there opinions (and grades) very subjective towards none Singaporean, no worries lah.
And so why do aspirants continue to join? Well I think Insider 107 hit the nail on the head. Potential employees believe that it just cant be this bad, that the info avaliable on pprune (and there's been lots of it over the last 5 years, asll bad!) is from a disgruntled few. Well, there’s more than a few now, we’re the ever increasing voice of dissent against the facade of SIA’s employer relations. Problem is, after leaving your moderately paid charter job, for an equally “make ends meet” salary (by Singapore standards) its hard for most guys to leave. Where to go? Korean, well ok if you have the 747, but most SIA recruits are from narrow body jets, and go to the B777., sign away nearly 6 years, and become increasingly frustrated.
Like a Vindaloo curry on a Saturday night, you think you can handle it after ten pints, but eventually it will make you puke your guts up, big time!
When Singapore Airlines advertises for its new cadet pilots, its offers the wannabes the temptation of around $8000+ per month, as part of the overall package. However, to earn this sort of money, you cant go off to Silk Air, and dilly dally with flying sectors every day. No lah, cannot. The new Singaporean cadet is sent straight to the B747-400, where pay is biggest for the biggest job, argh. The most meritorious of all SIAs fleets is branded the “Premier Fleet” by SIA’s DFO.
The question then, who crews the remainder of SIA’other aircraft? Well, if you aint part of the Singaporean master race, you’ll more than likely have to do the brunt of the flying for the runt of the pay. Yes, Malaysians and other “foreigners” generally start on the A310, and progress to the A340/B777, as part of the overall meretricious racially biased promotion scheme.
Oh, but promotion based on meritocracy surly has is place, I hear you all mutter. Yes, but dont forget, we are dealing with SIA here. By default, a Singaporean is deemed more “meritorious” by the fact that he was born err, a Singaporean. The rest of the less “meritorious” pilots are left to play for the few remaining scraps of promotion that are thrown their way. How many Malaysians are still stuck on the A340/B777 after several years? And what of the unfortunate Singaporeans that dont make the premier fleet? Well dont worry lah say your fleet managers ,you’ll bypass all those ahead of you in seniority after a couple of years on the lower fleets, well make sure of that.How? Well make sure our SIP & IP’s keep there opinions (and grades) very subjective towards none Singaporean, no worries lah.
And so why do aspirants continue to join? Well I think Insider 107 hit the nail on the head. Potential employees believe that it just cant be this bad, that the info avaliable on pprune (and there's been lots of it over the last 5 years, asll bad!) is from a disgruntled few. Well, there’s more than a few now, we’re the ever increasing voice of dissent against the facade of SIA’s employer relations. Problem is, after leaving your moderately paid charter job, for an equally “make ends meet” salary (by Singapore standards) its hard for most guys to leave. Where to go? Korean, well ok if you have the 747, but most SIA recruits are from narrow body jets, and go to the B777., sign away nearly 6 years, and become increasingly frustrated.
Like a Vindaloo curry on a Saturday night, you think you can handle it after ten pints, but eventually it will make you puke your guts up, big time!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Only just seen the postings by Insider107, Gladiator and Mark86uk who all appear to be running on fumes and few facts. They need to check their 'reality levels!'
Fact - SQ have four Learjet which are listed in their Annual Reports as owned. They are not on the SQ AOC as they are not used for hire & reward.
Fact - the Learjets are owned by SQ and no contracting comapny is involved
Fact - SQ held a competition between Learjet and Beech which both fought hard to win
Fact - SQ are not alone in the use of corporate jets. Read Flight International 6-12 March Page 26. Now CX are about to embark on the same programme. LH have been using hi-performance Cheyannes for 10 years for their ab initio crews/cadets
Fact - the last time I checked military crews we often trained for single crew ops(A4, F16) NOT multi-crew ops so they may well need to be trained again. The C130 is a three crew machine so the Engineer is someone the line pilot will not see these days unless he is on Classics and the Rotary Guys have on manage with one less control stick! Remember that not all ex-ilitary Jocks make airline pilots - even an ex-Red Arrows Team Leader found the transition too hard!
Fact - It is not the SAF it is the Republic of Singapore Air Force!
Come on Guys wake up, smell the Starbucks. deal in facts not fiction....
Happy days
Fact - SQ have four Learjet which are listed in their Annual Reports as owned. They are not on the SQ AOC as they are not used for hire & reward.
Fact - the Learjets are owned by SQ and no contracting comapny is involved
Fact - SQ held a competition between Learjet and Beech which both fought hard to win
Fact - SQ are not alone in the use of corporate jets. Read Flight International 6-12 March Page 26. Now CX are about to embark on the same programme. LH have been using hi-performance Cheyannes for 10 years for their ab initio crews/cadets
Fact - the last time I checked military crews we often trained for single crew ops(A4, F16) NOT multi-crew ops so they may well need to be trained again. The C130 is a three crew machine so the Engineer is someone the line pilot will not see these days unless he is on Classics and the Rotary Guys have on manage with one less control stick! Remember that not all ex-ilitary Jocks make airline pilots - even an ex-Red Arrows Team Leader found the transition too hard!
Fact - It is not the SAF it is the Republic of Singapore Air Force!
Come on Guys wake up, smell the Starbucks. deal in facts not fiction....
Happy days
Guest
Posts: n/a
Landing Lights,
Fact - SQ have four Learjet which are listed in their Annual Reports as owned. They are not on the SQ AOC as they are not used for hire & reward.
We never said the Lear Jets were for hire or reward. So what is your point?
Fact - the Learjets are owned by SQ and no contracting comapny is involved
What do you know about the internal workings of accounting and corruption?
Fact - SQ held a competition between Learjet and Beech which both fought hard to win
What is your point?
Fact - SQ are not alone in the use of corporate jets. Read Flight International 6-12 March Page 26. Now CX are about to embark on the same programme. LH have been using hi-performance Cheyannes for 10 years for their ab initio crews/cadets.
Ab-initio crews/cadets doing what? SQ tried selling the program to CX.
Fact - the last time I checked military crews we often trained for single crew ops(A4, F16) NOT multi-crew ops so they may well need to be trained again. The C130 is a three crew machine so the Engineer is someone the line pilot will not see these days unless he is on Classics and the Rotary Guys have on manage with one less control stick! Remember that not all ex-ilitary Jocks make airline pilots - even an ex-Red Arrows Team Leader found the transition too hard!
What is your point here?
Fact - It is not the SAF it is the Republic of Singapore Air Force!
OK it is not SAF, I will refer to it as Leepublic of Singapore Air Force, only if RSAF people stop calling the United States Air Force, "YUSAAF" (for USAF) during the air shows.
Fact - SQ have four Learjet which are listed in their Annual Reports as owned. They are not on the SQ AOC as they are not used for hire & reward.
We never said the Lear Jets were for hire or reward. So what is your point?
Fact - the Learjets are owned by SQ and no contracting comapny is involved
What do you know about the internal workings of accounting and corruption?
Fact - SQ held a competition between Learjet and Beech which both fought hard to win
What is your point?
Fact - SQ are not alone in the use of corporate jets. Read Flight International 6-12 March Page 26. Now CX are about to embark on the same programme. LH have been using hi-performance Cheyannes for 10 years for their ab initio crews/cadets.
Ab-initio crews/cadets doing what? SQ tried selling the program to CX.
Fact - the last time I checked military crews we often trained for single crew ops(A4, F16) NOT multi-crew ops so they may well need to be trained again. The C130 is a three crew machine so the Engineer is someone the line pilot will not see these days unless he is on Classics and the Rotary Guys have on manage with one less control stick! Remember that not all ex-ilitary Jocks make airline pilots - even an ex-Red Arrows Team Leader found the transition too hard!
What is your point here?
Fact - It is not the SAF it is the Republic of Singapore Air Force!
OK it is not SAF, I will refer to it as Leepublic of Singapore Air Force, only if RSAF people stop calling the United States Air Force, "YUSAAF" (for USAF) during the air shows.
Guest
Posts: n/a
After reading all this, my intentions to SIA have, well, have been unchanged. I think I might pay SIA a visit here in the US.
However guess what I've just found in Flight International 27 March - 2 April 2001
SIA MAURITIUS LTD REQUIRES B777 CAPTAINS FOR OPERATING SINGAPORE AIRLINES SERVICES OUT OF PERTH AND BRISBANE
Requirements blah blah blah
The current annual salary including allowances and year-end bonus) is approx AUD 168,000. In addition subsistence allowance will be paid for each hour away from BASE (for meals and incidental expenses whilst flying on duty) and a bonus depending onthe compny's performance (** now that sounds good**)
If type qualified a gratuity of AUD 55000 is payable upon completion of the contract period of 3 years with prospects for extension
If given conversion traing, a gratuity of AUD 92500 is payable upon completion of the contract perios of 5 years with prospects for extension.
Free air travel on SIA servvices for employee, spouse and eligible dependents once a year. Discounted on other occastions. Free private medical insurane)
Yea yea yea
SIA Mauritius LRd
General Manager Mauritius
5 Duke of Edinburgh Avenue
Port Louis
Maritiius
yea yea
[email protected]
********
Now what do you think of that!!!??
I am a bit confused
[This message has been edited by TheComparer (edited 27 March 2001).]
However guess what I've just found in Flight International 27 March - 2 April 2001
SIA MAURITIUS LTD REQUIRES B777 CAPTAINS FOR OPERATING SINGAPORE AIRLINES SERVICES OUT OF PERTH AND BRISBANE
Requirements blah blah blah
The current annual salary including allowances and year-end bonus) is approx AUD 168,000. In addition subsistence allowance will be paid for each hour away from BASE (for meals and incidental expenses whilst flying on duty) and a bonus depending onthe compny's performance (** now that sounds good**)
If type qualified a gratuity of AUD 55000 is payable upon completion of the contract period of 3 years with prospects for extension
If given conversion traing, a gratuity of AUD 92500 is payable upon completion of the contract perios of 5 years with prospects for extension.
Free air travel on SIA servvices for employee, spouse and eligible dependents once a year. Discounted on other occastions. Free private medical insurane)
Yea yea yea
SIA Mauritius LRd
General Manager Mauritius
5 Duke of Edinburgh Avenue
Port Louis
Maritiius
yea yea
[email protected]
********
Now what do you think of that!!!??
I am a bit confused
[This message has been edited by TheComparer (edited 27 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
gladiator old chap...
well..again you have seemed to get your knickers in a twist and have responded to landing lights last posting with the usual jerry-mandering evasiveness that we have become accustomed to from your kindself. getting to/answering to the point may certainly not be your forte but at least your are consistent in your treatment of views that are divergent from your own.
your last comment (in refrence to LL's item 4)clearly shows a very weak mentality of discourse based on the most regressive of traits. wow! "Leepublic of Singapore Air Force"...how absolutely hilarious!!! This coming from the very same person who embellished his legal wranglings with SIA in the name of accuracy and correctness of definition!!
LL point 1 and point 2: IMHO perhaps to reinforce the belief that the L45 are actually owned by SIA and not a (maybe outside) private company and then leased in.
LL point 3: to indicate that the eventual contracts were held in open competition and above board. after all, any SIA shareholder may query the entire purchasae of these aeroplanes
LL point 4: to illustrate the use of high performance, multicrew aircraft for ab-initio or post CPL standard training is neither unique to SIA nor a relatively new development in civil aviation training. (by the way...QF had some HS125s for this same purpose..anyone have any idea what happened to them??)
good flying n cold beers to all!
well..again you have seemed to get your knickers in a twist and have responded to landing lights last posting with the usual jerry-mandering evasiveness that we have become accustomed to from your kindself. getting to/answering to the point may certainly not be your forte but at least your are consistent in your treatment of views that are divergent from your own.
your last comment (in refrence to LL's item 4)clearly shows a very weak mentality of discourse based on the most regressive of traits. wow! "Leepublic of Singapore Air Force"...how absolutely hilarious!!! This coming from the very same person who embellished his legal wranglings with SIA in the name of accuracy and correctness of definition!!
LL point 1 and point 2: IMHO perhaps to reinforce the belief that the L45 are actually owned by SIA and not a (maybe outside) private company and then leased in.
LL point 3: to indicate that the eventual contracts were held in open competition and above board. after all, any SIA shareholder may query the entire purchasae of these aeroplanes
LL point 4: to illustrate the use of high performance, multicrew aircraft for ab-initio or post CPL standard training is neither unique to SIA nor a relatively new development in civil aviation training. (by the way...QF had some HS125s for this same purpose..anyone have any idea what happened to them??)
good flying n cold beers to all!