RedQ or Red Herring?

[rechoboam]

I have no problems with Qantas expanding into Asia and either creating a new entity or partnering with a local operator. But I do have concerns about how they will choose to run the so-called "RedQ".

In the good old days Qantas used to fly to NZ ferrying Aussie business people and tourists to that fabulous cousin of ours, and vice-versa with some Kiwis. Meanwhile AirNZ was doing the reverse.


Then Qantas management realised to their horror that AirNZ were paying their predominantly Kiwi pilots and crew Kiwi wages. "Why don't we do that?" they thought, and promptly created Jetconnect and effectively terminated the Qantas trans-Tasman presence. So Qantas revenue is used to pay a Kiwi based operation to ferry Australians to and from (and then around) NZ.


Now I am not Australian but when I fly Qantas I expect to be piloted and crewed predominantly by Australians. There are some logical exceptions for long-haul (e.g. - handing over to a UK-based crew in Asia for the second leg to the UK), but for domestic travel and international flights to/from Oz ports I think Qantas should employ Australian citizens and residents - not outsource to the lowest bidder.

I know - this hardly promotes shareholders and management as the most important people on this planet, but that's just my view on life.

Important or not-- the shareholders own the company. It is their property just like my car is my property and they have the right to have their nominated directors use shareholders assets to run a business. At what point is it OK to start putting business performance first? When profits are going down? When profits are zero? What if the business is losing money? Should the airline continue to pay more than market rates for its requirements?

 

[simongr]

Now I am not Australian but when I fly Qantas I expect to be piloted and crewed predominantly by Australians. There are some logical exceptions for long-haul (e.g. - handing over to a UK-based crew in Asia for the second leg to the UK), but for domestic travel and international flights to/from Oz ports I think Qantas should employ Australian citizens and residents - not outsource to the lowest bidder.

I think you may have missed the point entirely. the issue at hand is not about the nationality of the pilots in question, except perhaps those trained in countries that have a perceived lack of aviation safety and regulation. The issue is that Qantas pilots, irrespective of their nationality ought to be paid the Australian pilots wage.

It is pretty clear that moody was stating that the pilots should be Australian.

Im sure that Hong Kong and Singaporean pilots would be up in arms if expats were brought in on lower wages, as has been done with "Jitkineckt" and a model that QF would undoubtedly like to extend across its entire network.

I have no issue with Qantas using the Thai and UK based crew between Australia and the UK via BKK but I certainly dont expect to find them on OZ-LAX flights, Why you ask? because I dont see their relevance. By that I mean their language skills are not relevant to the sector and this is the sole differentiator between them and OZ based crew. Oh yeah, that and their salary!!

I see lots of nationalities on QF flights: German, French, Brazilian, Chinese as not everyone on a flight between Australia and for example LAX is actually Australian. Many of them are Americans even. I think the crew used should be the one that reflects the best operational purposes of the business. I also think that if a foreign resident is used on an Australian aircraft they should be paid based on their country of residence as that will reflect their cost of living.

This situation does not exist with the tech crews. Im not pretending to know if jetconnect crews are trained to the same high Qantas standards, but given QF's insistence (when it suits them) that they are a wholly owned subsidiary and ARE NOT QANTAS, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the training is at best different and at worst, inferior to mainline pilots.

I think you should find out what the training standards are before you assume that the training is probably inferior.

 

[markis10]

This situation does not exist with the tech crews. Im not pretending to know if jetconnect crews are trained to the same high Qantas standards, but given QF's insistence (when it suits them) that they are a wholly owned subsidiary and ARE NOT QANTAS, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the training is at best different and at worst, inferior to mainline pilots.

Its interesting looking at the minimum requirements for entry though:

The minimum requirements for selection as a pilot with Jetconnect are

• Hold, or be eligible to hold, a NZ ATPL (NZ CPL with passes in all written NZ ATPL exams may be considered)
• Current Class 1 Medical Certificate
• Hold a Multi-Engine Instrument Rating
• Level 6 English Language Proficiency Demonstration
• Hold New Zealand residency or the legal right to work in NZ

First Officer Position minimum requirements

• 2,000 hours total flight time
• 1,000 hours total Multi-Engine flight time
• Total instrument time - 100 hours
• Total night flight time - 25 hours
• Total time on Air Operations- 100 hours
• Boeing 737 Type Rating (-400 and -800 variants)*

*A Boeing 737 Type Rating (-400 and -800 variants) is required; however if you do not hold this rating Jetconnect will arrange a subsidised type rating course through Qantas for successful candidates. The cost of this subsidised course is approximately AUD15, 500.


For comparison, JQ:


[h=3]are the minimum requirements to join Jetstar?[/h]

• Hold an Australian ATPL;
• Have passes in all Australian ATPL subjects or equivalent;
• Hold an Australian Class 1 Multi-Engine Command Instrument Rating;
• Current Class 1 Medical Certificate;
• ICAO Level 6 English Language Proficiency;
• Hold relevant Australian Permanent Residency status;
• Minimum 1500 hours total aeronautical experience of which only 500 hours may be helicopter time;
• 500 hours Pilot in Command or First Officer on Multi Engine Aircraft; and
• 250 hours Pilot in Command of fixed-wing aircraft of which 150 may be ICU

 

[wilco]

I see lots of nationalities on QF flights: German, French, Brazilian, Chinese as not everyone on a flight between Australia and for example LAX is actually Australian. Many of them are Americans even. I think the crew used should be the one that reflects the best operational purposes of the business. I also think that if a foreign resident is used on an Australian aircraft they should be paid based on their country of residence as that will reflect their cost of living.

I think you should find out what the training standards are before you assume that the training is probably inferior.

I disagree. You cannot roster your crew based on the ethnic mix of passengers you expect to have on a flight. On flights to Japan for example, it would be wise to have Japanese speakers. On flights to Germany, it would be wise to have German speakers. On flights to America, it would be wise to have English speakers.

Using your model would only encourage the use of foreign based crews for all flights as youd get 2 or 3 for the price of 1 local staff member. there would be no financial incentive to retain local staff and that does not in any way shape or form sit well with me.

I actually really dislike how AA make announcements in Spanish. If you live in an english speaking country, you ought to speak english. Its YOUR responsibility to know the official language of the country in which you reside. Whats next? Safety announcements in 50 languages to cater to every minority group? Give me a break.

As for the training standards, how do you suggest I find out? I did not assume nor suggest that the training is inferior. I said the possibility exists for it to be inferior.

I just dont get why posters like to take everything so literally and then argue semantics. It does nothing to support your argument.

 

[nlagalle]

yeah... actually I do.

Then you would know that your point wouldn't happen!

 

[simongr]

I actually really dislike how AA make announcements in Spanish. If you live in an english speaking country, you ought to speak english. Its YOUR responsibility to know the official language of the country in which you reside. Whats next? Safety announcements in 50 languages to cater to every minority group? Give me a break.

As for the training standards, how do you suggest I find out? I did not assume nor suggest that the training is inferior. I said the possibility exists for it to be inferior.

I just dont get why posters like to take everything so literally and then argue semantics. It does nothing to support your argument.

Re the spanish comment - a very large proportion of the country speaks spanish as their first language - AA are catering to that. On every other non english speaking carrier I have flown on they provide the safety briefing in ENglish and their native language - should they stop doing it in English.

Re the training comment - maybe I just inferred from your post that you assumed it would be inferior - it certainly read like that to me.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think you should find out what the training standards are before you assume that the training is probably inferior.

don't need to. the fact that a pilot in India was able to fly on forged documents, and having no qualifications, is good starting point. the pilot was caught after landing the aircraft on its nose wheel.

India has an extreme shortage of pilots, they have a higher maximum age and many foreign pilots end up there after not being able to fly commercially elsewhere (not that they aren't able to fly, but regulations Iin other countries are tighter).

the training standards on paper are undobtably in line with world best standard... but it is the monitoring and enforcement of those regulations which are the issue, especially when people can fly on forged documents.

 

[nlagalle]

I think you may have missed the point entirely. the issue at hand is not about the nationality of the pilots in question, except perhaps those trained in countries that have a perceived lack of aviation safety and regulation. The issue is that Qantas pilots, irrespective of their nationality ought to be paid the Australian pilots wage.

Im sure that Hong Kong and Singaporean pilots would be up in arms if expats were brought in on lower wages, as has been done with "Jitkineckt" and a model that QF would undoubtedly like to extend across its entire network.

I have no issue with Qantas using the Thai and UK based crew between Australia and the UK via BKK but I certainly dont expect to find them on OZ-LAX flights, Why you ask? because I dont see their relevance. By that I mean their language skills are not relevant to the sector and this is the sole differentiator between them and OZ based crew. Oh yeah, that and their salary!!

This situation does not exist with the tech crews. Im not pretending to know if jetconnect crews are trained to the same high Qantas standards, but given QF's insistence (when it suits them) that they are a wholly owned subsidiary and ARE NOT QANTAS, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the training is at best different and at worst, inferior to mainline pilots.

Yes the nationality is! That is exactly what was said! "australian pilot" was the term used. and jet connect has already been explained on how and why. It has actually been around for some time.

and where has it been said anyway that QFi or domestic ops will be crewed by foriegn pilots? it's hasn't been suggested at all.

 

[mannej]

By your logic Wilco, you would dislike how QF make announcements twice on flights to HKG, once English once in Cantonese.

I am also fairly sure QF attendants have flags on their badges to indicate what languages they can speak, that goes for domestic ops as well.

 

[mannej]

don't need to. the fact that a pilot in India was able to fly on forged documents, and having no qualifications, is good starting point.

It is not limited to India. It took 13 years for Swedish authorities to catch Thomas Salte doing the same.

 

[wilco]

Its interesting looking at the minimum requirements for entry though....(i removed the following text in the interests of saving space)

I was referring to QF mainline and not JQ, but it is an interesting comparison nonetheless.

However, I suspect those requirements are for direct entry pilots. I know that JQ takes very few direct entry pilots in comparison to cadets, the entry requirements for which are significantly less. A colleagues son just got in as a JQ cadet with a frozen MECIR ATPL, class 1 medical and about 250 hours total.

Im happy to be proved wrong but I think QF's standards are about as high as they get and im not so sure the same standards apply to their offshoots.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes the nationality is! That is exactly what was said! "australian pilot" was the term used. and jet connect has already been explained on how and why. It has actually been around for some time.

and where has it been said anyway that QFi or domestic ops will be crewed by foriegn pilots? it's hasn't been suggested at all.

the issue with Australian pilots for qantas is the brand and image thing. I suspect many people, rightly or wrongly, would perhaps perceive an Australian pilot as being more experienced. the captain on the A380 incident is a good example.

therefore, as the qf image is all about the safety image, Australian pilots go hand in hand with that.

other airlines do not market themselves based on safety... with Singapore it is the Singapore girl (and 'in flight service even other airlines talk about'). the nationality of their pilots maybe not such an issue?

 

[markis10]

I was referring to QF mainline and not JQ, but it is an interesting comparison nonetheless..

QF mainline direct entry (which has been suspended for over two years):

Flight Qualifications
500 hours in command of a powered fixed wing
aircraft (excluding ICUS),
or
250 hours in command of a powered fixed wing
aircraft (of which up to 100 hours may be ICUS)
and 1000 hours First Officer time on turbine RPT
operations, or
150 hours in command of a powered fixed wing
aircraft (excluding ICUS) and 1500 hours First
Officer time on turbine RPT operations, or
250 hours in command of a powered fixed wing
aircraft (of which up to 100 hours may be ICUS)
and 500 hours in command of rotary wing
aircraft.

 

[wilco]

Re the spanish comment - a very large proportion of the country speaks spanish as their first language - AA are catering to that. On every other non english speaking carrier I have flown on they provide the safety briefing in ENglish and their native language - should they stop doing it in English.
.

English is the official language of aviation wether you like it or not. That applies to ATC and pilots, wether they are in continental europe, south america or asia.

If I havent made it clear already, I have no issue with announcements being made in the native language of a flight departing or destined for any given country. Your logic suggests that QF domestic flights should have safety announcements made in English, Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek, Italian and every other language spoken by migrants in Australia. It is impractical if not impossible!

As for Australian crews that speak a foreign language, that is a bonus, but to roster a thai based crew member on flights that having nothing to do with thailand simply because they are 60% cheaper than a local crew member is IMO unacceptable.

 

[nlagalle]

English is the official language of aviation wether you like it or not. That applies to ATC and pilots, wether they are in continental europe, south america or asia.

If I havent made it clear already, I have no issue with announcements being made in the native language of a flight departing or destined for any given country. Your logic suggests that QF domestic flights should have safety announcements made in English, Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek, Italian and every other language spoken by migrants in Australia. It is impractical if not impossible!

As for Australian crews that speak a foreign language, that is a bonus, but to roster a thai based crew member on flights that having nothing to do with thailand simply because they are 60% cheaper than a local crew member is IMO unacceptable.

Yes English is the international standard, however as always there are variances (fly over russia and you deal in metres and not feet for example).

I'd also like to know where your crewing issue is happening? Is there any proof that cheaper labour is being employed now? I don't seem to recall this happening or are you speculating?

 

[wilco]

and where has it been said anyway that QFi or domestic ops will be crewed by foriegn pilots? it's hasn't been suggested at all.

From what i've heard, and I stress that this is unsubstantiated, it is not unheard of for jetconnect pilots to operate domestic sectors.

 

[nlagalle]

From what i've heard, and I stress that this is unsubstantiated, it is not unheard of for jetconnect pilots to operate domestic sectors.

well that is the first I have heard anything of the sort - I am sure the pilots union would have been on top of that one if it were true.

 

[wilco]

By your logic Wilco, you would dislike how QF make announcements twice on flights to HKG, once English once in Cantonese.

I am also fairly sure QF attendants have flags on their badges to indicate what languages they can speak, that goes for domestic ops as well.

I think i have made my position on this quite clear. I have no issue with announcements being made in the language of a country from which a flight originates or is destined to and would have no problem with it being mandatory. But to suggest that QF should make announcements in Chinese on a LAX bound flight is absurd.

As for the language skills of domestic crews, this is IMO, nothing more than a bonus.

 

[wilco]

I'd also like to know where your crewing issue is happening? Is there any proof that cheaper labour is being employed now? I don't seem to recall this happening or are you speculating?

Thai based crew were hired on the understanding that they were to crew flights originating or destined for BKK. They now crew flights system wide. IME, their english skills are often not up to scratch either. If I was flying with CZ for example, I wouldn't expect the crews to be as fluent as a native speaker, but on QF, I do, and I think I have the right to. Qantas is an Australian airline and I expect to be able to communicate effectively in unbroken English.

 

[simongr]

If I havent made it clear already, I have no issue with announcements being made in the native language of a flight departing or destined for any given country. Your logic suggests that QF domestic flights should have safety announcements made in English, Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek, Italian and every other language spoken by migrants in Australia. It is impractical if not impossible!

I thin the situation is quite different in the USA where in some states the official language might be English but Spanish is the language primarily spoken and I don't think it is culturally sensitive to be angry with an airline who are actually sensitive to that.