oz jump seats
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
therefore I get to choose who I allow in the office to watch me work for the next 1-10 hours. It's for that reason that I've been part of the decision making process that has declined certain people to ride on the jump seat (staff on standby duty travel for example) whilst I've accepted other people with a much lower priority for onload on staff travel- Second, if my family is travelling on my flight then they are travelling with me on a trip and that has priority over everyone elses staff travel. If I was allowed, my seven year old will beat the most senior staff traveller in the company to the jump seat every day of the week.:
You precious people just don't get it and that's why most of your colleagues on the ground and even in the air despise the pilot group as a whole, but generally not as individuals. Who says the jump seat is the Captain's to do as he or she wishes? I thought it was for the carriage of supernumerary crew - nothing more, nothing less and certainly not the plaything of a pilot for him or her to bestow to his or her family members who can't manage a seat in the cabin based on their travel priority. What a mob of self-serving greedy individuals you are to assume that the property of the company is your personal fiefdom.
And, dear Keg, if you want the proof of what I am suggesting, just ask any ground staff for his or her views. I know the truth can hurt and that this will alienate many pilots but they should try to look at the bigger picture or, better still, join the ground staff and learn how an airline really functions. Airlines and the benefits they offer staff are for all - on a fair, even-handed and equitable basis..that is what Staff Travel and priorities are all about, and not for the pilots to "pull rank".
Actually the flight deck IS our personal fiefdom, and it is enshrined in the regulations.
As for ground staff hating us - tough - that is their problem not ours.
There are a lot of people with petty jealousies. Personally, I reckon if they treat us well we should treat them well. I accept that there some of us that don't, but similarly there are ground staff that treat us like crap too, that is not an excuse to treat all pilots like we are dirt.
The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair.
Sometimes that is not what is in the best interests of all parties and captains sometimes make decisions that are not popular, but they don't make decisions just to piss people off....
As for ground staff hating us - tough - that is their problem not ours.
There are a lot of people with petty jealousies. Personally, I reckon if they treat us well we should treat them well. I accept that there some of us that don't, but similarly there are ground staff that treat us like crap too, that is not an excuse to treat all pilots like we are dirt.
The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair.
Sometimes that is not what is in the best interests of all parties and captains sometimes make decisions that are not popular, but they don't make decisions just to piss people off....
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by Don Esson
And, dear Keg, if you want the proof of what I am suggesting, just ask any ground staff for his or her views.
Then again, perhaps it's just as simple as the fact that they too recognise the privilege of riding on the jump seat if there are no other seats in the cabin and are grateful for the offer of it. We can say 'no' but strangely, we mostly never do. We put up with the inconvenience (and there is a degree of disruption having a non pilot on the deck) in order to get as many staff away as possible. Perhaps I need to rethink that stance and just say 'no' to everyone except pilots from now on because according to you, most ground staff hate our guts.
There is no way could I ever think about demanding one of the jump seats because I happened to have a higher priority than say the wife and/or children (or even other relative) of the operating crew just because I'm 'senior'. The seat may be 'owned' by QF, but once they assign the aeroplane to the crew, the jump seat 'belongs' to the Captain.
I can lend you the hammer and nails if you need them but you're going to have to source your own wood in order to build that bridge and get over it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry Keg but you still don't get it! Staff Travel has been designed in such a way that staff can travel in accord with the protocols based on position in the airline and seniority (date of joining) so that it's applied in an equitable fashion. That said, how is it fair that an "out-of-order" flight crew beneficiary can get away, albeit in a jump seat, when an actual staff member without connection to the crew gets left behind?
You have said "It says a lot about a person when they're effectively saying ''stuff your seven year old daughter, she should stay in [insert city here] on her own because I'm more senior'." This statement I think says more about you than me! As a pilot you must know about the vagaries and uncertainties of Staff Travel - as a responsible parent and pilot, I'd be very surprised that you'd put any seven year old in the position you portray. In other words, if Staff Travel looks problematical, leave the kids at home. After all, most of us did not take our kids to work to the office or to far flung places when on Duty Travel.
deHD...no the ground staff don't hate your guts. As individuals go, you'll not find animosity. It's the behaviour of the group as a whole that annoys people as it acts in a very greedy, self-serving way with little regard for others.. You only have to read some of the comments posted here to see how these descriptors fit to the pilot group as a whole, especially when one reads the bile directed at the JetStar guys who are trying to make the best of their opportunities in the most difficult of circumstances. They have been caught in the 'real world' - something from which Qantas Longhaul have long been insulated.
You have written " The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair." Your education is sadly lacking as there are a lot more ground staff to get you flying than the airports staff who worry about the SLF. Your responsibilities and skills are always acknowledged but to suggest that ground staff just want you out of the place is hardly fair comment.
Reverting to Staff Travel and jump seats, Keg suggested that "The seat may be 'owned' by QF, but once they assign the aeroplane to the crew, the jump seat 'belongs' to the Captain. " Judging by the way in which people are mysteriously moved to the forward parts of aircraft after departure, maybe they think they also 'own' the premium cabins as well!
This is one matter on which we'll never agree so why don't we declare a truce? The robust debate however is enjoyable.
Cheers.
You have said "It says a lot about a person when they're effectively saying ''stuff your seven year old daughter, she should stay in [insert city here] on her own because I'm more senior'." This statement I think says more about you than me! As a pilot you must know about the vagaries and uncertainties of Staff Travel - as a responsible parent and pilot, I'd be very surprised that you'd put any seven year old in the position you portray. In other words, if Staff Travel looks problematical, leave the kids at home. After all, most of us did not take our kids to work to the office or to far flung places when on Duty Travel.
deHD...no the ground staff don't hate your guts. As individuals go, you'll not find animosity. It's the behaviour of the group as a whole that annoys people as it acts in a very greedy, self-serving way with little regard for others.. You only have to read some of the comments posted here to see how these descriptors fit to the pilot group as a whole, especially when one reads the bile directed at the JetStar guys who are trying to make the best of their opportunities in the most difficult of circumstances. They have been caught in the 'real world' - something from which Qantas Longhaul have long been insulated.
You have written " The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair." Your education is sadly lacking as there are a lot more ground staff to get you flying than the airports staff who worry about the SLF. Your responsibilities and skills are always acknowledged but to suggest that ground staff just want you out of the place is hardly fair comment.
Reverting to Staff Travel and jump seats, Keg suggested that "The seat may be 'owned' by QF, but once they assign the aeroplane to the crew, the jump seat 'belongs' to the Captain. " Judging by the way in which people are mysteriously moved to the forward parts of aircraft after departure, maybe they think they also 'own' the premium cabins as well!
This is one matter on which we'll never agree so why don't we declare a truce? The robust debate however is enjoyable.
Cheers.
Last edited by Don Esson; 1st Feb 2006 at 23:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don Esson.
You are wrong old son.
The jumpseat IS my personal feifdom .Its my office. Who else would allow strangers to come into their office and sit watching them work? What a bloody cheek.
Since my wife and kids have been banned by QF, because they choose to "interpret" regulations such, nobody sits on my jumpseat, except for one exception.
As a professional courtesy to my fellow pilots they are most welcome at any time. And I'm sure they would reciprocate.
Don baby, if that sounds elite to you so be it. Guess I'll just have to live with it and try not to lose any sleep.
You are wrong old son.
The jumpseat IS my personal feifdom .Its my office. Who else would allow strangers to come into their office and sit watching them work? What a bloody cheek.
Since my wife and kids have been banned by QF, because they choose to "interpret" regulations such, nobody sits on my jumpseat, except for one exception.
As a professional courtesy to my fellow pilots they are most welcome at any time. And I'm sure they would reciprocate.
Don baby, if that sounds elite to you so be it. Guess I'll just have to live with it and try not to lose any sleep.
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by Don Esson
...most of us did not take our kids to work to the office or to far flung places when on Duty Travel.
I will admit one thing though Don, you do have me in two minds now on whether I should ever bother offering the jump seat to a ground staff member ever again. Despite your protestations and beliefs to the contray, it still is 'ours' to offer!
I wonder if your ground crew mates realise the disservice you are doing them!
Don Esson - from my (limited) understanding of the staff travel priority ranking system, family members of the operating crew actually are the highest priority. As such, they should be allocated seats first, before any other staff travellers. If the sole remaining seat happens to be the jumpseat, then I guess that's what they will get.
I'm pretty sure that Keg isn't implying that he regularly turfs higher ranking staff travellers out of the way 'just because he can' - that would be completely out of order (unless you happen to have the surname of Dixon or Jackson). Not too mention completely unrealistic - operating crews have better things to do than peruse lists of staff travellers pre-flight, and I can honestly say that I've only ever heard a Captain/FO ask "Did we get all the staff travellers on?" to the ground crew, as opposed to "did you make sure XXX XXX didn't get on...?"
You seem to have a strange slant on things - on one hand you're criticising Keg with regards to the vagaries of staff travel, when it would appear that the very same vagaries are the things that you seem to be so worked up about...
As an aside, if there are employees on standby duty travel, then I guess the company has decided that when they get back to work is actually second to any cost savings that come from booking a standby ticket instead of a space confirmed seat.... problem solved.
I'm pretty sure that Keg isn't implying that he regularly turfs higher ranking staff travellers out of the way 'just because he can' - that would be completely out of order (unless you happen to have the surname of Dixon or Jackson). Not too mention completely unrealistic - operating crews have better things to do than peruse lists of staff travellers pre-flight, and I can honestly say that I've only ever heard a Captain/FO ask "Did we get all the staff travellers on?" to the ground crew, as opposed to "did you make sure XXX XXX didn't get on...?"
You seem to have a strange slant on things - on one hand you're criticising Keg with regards to the vagaries of staff travel, when it would appear that the very same vagaries are the things that you seem to be so worked up about...
As an aside, if there are employees on standby duty travel, then I guess the company has decided that when they get back to work is actually second to any cost savings that come from booking a standby ticket instead of a space confirmed seat.... problem solved.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Woomera
Why isn't this thread showing under D&G Reporting points.
Jump seats in GA & Charter, aren't all 1B seats in bug bashers "jump seats"?
I would like to say that from a PR perspective, putting agents or VIP/CIP intp jumps was brilliant, making for very very loyal pax, having been involved with this on numerous occasions.
Why isn't this thread showing under D&G Reporting points.
Jump seats in GA & Charter, aren't all 1B seats in bug bashers "jump seats"?
I would like to say that from a PR perspective, putting agents or VIP/CIP intp jumps was brilliant, making for very very loyal pax, having been involved with this on numerous occasions.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
'most of you' don't spend 50-60% of your life away from home ON duty travel.!
Animalclub
Most of us have chosen this lifestyle and field of aviation because the remuneration does properly compensate us for the inconvenience it causes in our lives. Just as a deep sea diver is properly compensated for the dangers in his job, long haul pilots are compensated for the endless disruption caused to their family lives. So yes we accepted the lifestyle, but your point is?? 
but it was/is your choice of lifestyle.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point - Don't use personal choice as a basis of an argument or debate.
When I was based in USA in a non-flying capacity, but with an airline, I spent at least 40% of my time out of town doing my job. My choice (I wanted the job and enjoyed it) so I can't blame anyone else... or use it in an argument or debate.
When I was based in USA in a non-flying capacity, but with an airline, I spent at least 40% of my time out of town doing my job. My choice (I wanted the job and enjoyed it) so I can't blame anyone else... or use it in an argument or debate.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny U just don't what you're talking about when you say "from my (limited) understanding of the staff travel priority ranking system, family members of the operating crew actually are the highest priority. As such, they should be allocated seats first, before any other staff travellers." Proof again that you just don't get it, and that your knowledge is indeed limited. Hope you can fly an aeroplane better than you can apply staff travel regulations. In fact I'd say you're incapble of getting it. Since when did Qantas pilot family members (of operating crew) have the highest staff onload priority? What a load of unaldulterated bullschizer? You have to be living in fantasy land, or if you're not, tell us where it is written. How do family members of operating cabin crew fare?
Have any of you thought that the pilots' attitude on this issue is causing grief with ground staff in that the former's family members receive an unfair advantage and that is why Management has chosen to interpret the regulations the way they have? Better to do that than to have an industrial confrontation.
Animal Club - spot on buddy!
Have any of you thought that the pilots' attitude on this issue is causing grief with ground staff in that the former's family members receive an unfair advantage and that is why Management has chosen to interpret the regulations the way they have? Better to do that than to have an industrial confrontation.
Animal Club - spot on buddy!
Nunc est bibendum
Geez, this is way too easy. When you focus on the minutae Don, you tend to miss the big picture. JU is actually talking about the 'accompanied' trip that is part of our award and is an entitlement for Captains. He is correct about the higher priority that comes with this trip. Whether it is the highest priority, I don't know and don't care.
As for the discussion about lifestyle, I'm entirely happy with my choice and it's impacts on my family. That was never the point of my statement. Don brings up the fact that he or she doesn't take his or her family on duty travel so why should we AND expect to get the flight deck when he or she may be senior to me (and my family). My point was that if Don spent 50-60% of his or her time away from home on duty travel then he or she would probably consider how they could take their family away with them on the occasional trip. That was the end of the point.
The interesting flow on effect though is that if the aircraft was full and the old system still existed, Don would be BEGGING for the flight deck seat to get his kith and kin to where he needed them to be.
You're kidding me. Now you really have shown your paranoia! What industrial confrontation. It's MY office and it's my RIGHT and requirement as a crew member to voice my opinion to the Captain. It is his RIGHT (as enshrined in the company documentation called the Flight Administration Manual) to determine what staff sit in OUR office. so there goes your 'unfair advantage'....and there goes your basis for industrial confrontation. Now you're just an angry idiot with a chip on your shoulder!
The really sad thing in all of this is that most of the time, we do go with the staff priority- we even tend to give priority to those on 'real' staff travel trips rather than the stand by duty travellers. The only rule is generally colleagues and family first. This doesn't happen that often. Still, it's a shame I don't know your real name Don. That way I could tell all the ground staff who get knocked back from my jump seat now and in the future who they have to blame- especially considering you have stuck yourself forward as the spokesperson for their opinions.
Let me know where I should post the hammer and nails to Don.
As for the discussion about lifestyle, I'm entirely happy with my choice and it's impacts on my family. That was never the point of my statement. Don brings up the fact that he or she doesn't take his or her family on duty travel so why should we AND expect to get the flight deck when he or she may be senior to me (and my family). My point was that if Don spent 50-60% of his or her time away from home on duty travel then he or she would probably consider how they could take their family away with them on the occasional trip. That was the end of the point.
The interesting flow on effect though is that if the aircraft was full and the old system still existed, Don would be BEGGING for the flight deck seat to get his kith and kin to where he needed them to be.
Originally Posted by Don Esson
... the pilots' attitude on this issue is causing grief with ground staff in that the former's family members receive an unfair advantage and that is why Management has chosen to interpret the regulations the way they have? Better to do that than to have an industrial confrontation.
The really sad thing in all of this is that most of the time, we do go with the staff priority- we even tend to give priority to those on 'real' staff travel trips rather than the stand by duty travellers. The only rule is generally colleagues and family first. This doesn't happen that often. Still, it's a shame I don't know your real name Don. That way I could tell all the ground staff who get knocked back from my jump seat now and in the future who they have to blame- especially considering you have stuck yourself forward as the spokesperson for their opinions.
Let me know where I should post the hammer and nails to Don.
Don - why don't you try to calm down. I'm basing that on the fact that when my wife travels with me on a trip that I'm rostered to operate, I fax a copy of my roster to staff travel then they change her staff travel priority (their words, not mine). I had been told that it was to the highest priority, but then again, maybe someone was p1ss1ng in my pocket - I don't really care, as (touch wood) she has always made it onboard on those flights.
As for not understanding the staff travel priority - I'll cop that one, but really - honestly, who does? The way things are these days, most crew are flat out trying to keep up with the never ending procedural changes that appear with monotonous regularity in our mailboxes, let alone wasting time trying to understand the vagaries of the staff travel system. Mostly the decision on who gets on is made by the ground staff anyway - like I said before, the crew are busy doing more important things.
As a suggestion, perhaps you could post how it actually works, so then we'll ALL know - what do you say? As far as I can see, that would go a long way to resolving any differences of opinion that are causing everyone grief (apparently). And if it is as simple as you say, then it shouldn't take too long. So - how about it...?
p.s
As for not understanding the staff travel priority - I'll cop that one, but really - honestly, who does? The way things are these days, most crew are flat out trying to keep up with the never ending procedural changes that appear with monotonous regularity in our mailboxes, let alone wasting time trying to understand the vagaries of the staff travel system. Mostly the decision on who gets on is made by the ground staff anyway - like I said before, the crew are busy doing more important things.
As a suggestion, perhaps you could post how it actually works, so then we'll ALL know - what do you say? As far as I can see, that would go a long way to resolving any differences of opinion that are causing everyone grief (apparently). And if it is as simple as you say, then it shouldn't take too long. So - how about it...?
p.s
