SOS Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Surely there should be a moritorium on any appointments until the legitimacy of existing office bearers and, members concerns are addressed. Here! Here! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 $100 - $110k? Laughable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 $100 - $110k? Laughable... What is so funny?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What is so funny?? Trawl through Seek and you'll soon find a bunch of jobs with less responsibility and the same (if not more money). This is directly from the Seek website as of the time of typing my reply: 94 CEO & General Management jobs in Australia paying at least $150k per year Are we trying to hire an office manager or someone that has the experience, knowledge, skills and general ability to turn RA-Aus into an association that can avoid a repeat of our most recent debacles? Right now you could apply for a job with Austrade as a Human Resources Advisor and get $100,276. Why would someone of any real credibility take on a role where HR management is only a part of it and yet get little more than someone whose job is ONLY HR management? There is no need to worry about implementation of organisation wide strategy, dealing with CASA, handling the marketing of the association, oversight of technical and operational aspects of RA-Aus, management of the financial affairs, carriage of legal obligations under the deed of arrangement with CASA, etc. $110k will simply get us what we have gotten before. Ill equipped, under skilled and ineffective CEO/GMs that cannot properly carry out the duties required of them. It's about time RA-Aus got real and provided some real incentive for a quality person to get involved in protecting and enhancing the privileges we currently have and ensuring our ability to fly is extended into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Trawl through Seek and you'll soon find a bunch of jobs with less responsibility and the same (if not more money). This is directly from the Seek website as of the time of typing my reply:94 CEO & General Management jobs in Australia paying at least $150k per year Are we trying to hire an office manager or someone that has the experience, knowledge, skills and general ability to turn RA-Aus into an association that can avoid a repeat of our most recent debacles? Right now you could apply for a job with Austrade as a Human Resources Advisor and get $100,276. Why would someone of any real credibility take on a role where HR management is only a part of it and yet get little more than someone whose job is ONLY HR management? There is no need to worry about implementation of organisation wide strategy, dealing with CASA, handling the marketing of the association, oversight of technical and operational aspects of RA-Aus, management of the financial affairs, carriage of legal obligations under the deed of arrangement with CASA, etc. $110k will simply get us what we have gotten before. Ill equipped, under skilled and ineffective CEO/GMs that cannot properly carry out the duties required of them. It's about time RA-Aus got real and provided some real incentive for a quality person to get involved in protecting and enhancing the privileges we currently have and ensuring our ability to fly is extended into the future. Apparently our "CEO" did not have to take responsibility for the actions of employees such as the Tech Manager, what he did do is not clear to me. Unless the CEO/GM takes responsibility for important matters, why pay them any more? I would have thought less would be more appropriate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Apparently our "CEO" did not have to take responsibility for the actions of employees such as the Tech Manager, what he did do is not clear to me. Unless the CEO/GM takes responsibility for important matters, why pay them any more? I would have thought less would be more appropriate. If the GM/CEO is not taking responsibility for anything then why do we have one? If it is indeed a simple office manager type role with no real responsibility for the running of the organisation then Sue Perakovic is doing an outstanding job, let her keep going. If the job DOES involve more than this then my position remains the same, pay some decent money for a decent person. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 If the GM/CEO is not taking responsibility for anything then why do we have one? If it is indeed a simple office manager type role with no real responsibility for the running of the organisation then Sue Perakovic is doing an outstanding job, let her keep going. If the job DOES involve more than this then my position remains the same, pay some decent money for a decent person.If you pay peanuts you get monkeys... We have one because our illustrious board decided we should, the way I remember it, the position was created for Paul Middleton, not Lee Ungerman as some seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 We have one because our illustrious board decided we should, the way I remember it, the position was created for Paul Middleton, not Lee Ungerman as some seem to think. In which case a review of it's applicability might be a better option. As it stands though the job ad (I'd refer to the more detailed position description but after asking RA-Aus for it twice and Face2Face for it a further four times I still haven't got a copy) suggests the role involves things like "envisaging" and "refining" the future direction for RA-Aus, being the interface between the board and employees (hence my HR example above), financial management, internal and external liaison for RA-Aus related issues and so on. $110k won't get someone who is well versed in these areas and can effectively carry out these responsibilities without embarrassing us as a collective. Don't believe me? Look at history. How many people have we had in this role in the past that have been successful? You've mentioned Middo. We all know about Costemeyer. And Tizzard doesn't exactly have a great record. The definition of insanity is often said to be doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. What does that say about the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Gotta have some aeronautical experience or will possibly be led up the garden path by those that do in my opinion. I work in a professional Project Management organisation where the projects that are managed are generally unique and not rinse and repeat type of work (the projects, not the PM methodology) and the best GM's I know of have an uncanny ability to hone in on the things a Project Manager (PM) would prefer to remain under a rock while he tries to sort them out on his own.......The best GM's can seemingly have them out on the table and disected within about 10 minutes of questioning........ If we could get someone with that life experience then I believe that a lack of aviation experience will very quickly become inconsequential. We just have to allow the learning time to happen and not expect aviation inspired leadership within days of landing into the job. It would be a brave specialist (Opps/Tech) that tries to put one over on a new GM......Its not like the board are likely to set and forget....rather they might want a series of very regular briefings as the GM settles into the role. If they want to set and forget then we are doomed to failure....... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I work in a professional Project Management organisation where the projects that are managed are generally unique and not rinse and repeat type of work (the projects, not the PM methodology) and the best GM's I know of have an uncanny ability to hone in on the things a Project Manager (PM) would prefer to remain under a rock while he tries to sort them out on his own.......The best GM's can seemingly have them out on the table and disected within about 10 minutes of questioning........ If we could get someone with that life experience then I believe that a lack of aviation experience will very quickly become inconsequential. We just have to allow the learning time to happen and not expect aviation inspired leadership within days of landing into the job.It would be a brave specialist (Opps/Tech) that tries to put one over on a new GM......Its not like the board are likely to set and forget....rather they might want a series of very regular briefings as the GM settles into the role. If they want to set and forget then we are doomed to failure....... Andy Andy, A couple of comments if I may please. Re your paragraph 1, it will be dificult to employ the class of experienced and perceptive professional manager that you mention there for a little over $100 K unless that person agrees to partially donate their time and experience to help RAA. The type of person that you describe would do what RAA needs on their ear, compared with what goes on in Industry. Re your paragraph 2, the problem I think is caused or exaserbated by Section 1.01 of the Operations Manual re Organisation and Administration ...... see text lines 5, 6 & 7 where the CEO/GM is responsible to the Executive ..... and see lines 15, 16 & 17 where the Technical Manager & Operations Manager are also responsible to the Executive. (I'll now try to attach a copy) In my experience and opinion this is an unworkable system unless there might be complete goodwill amongst those 3 people, and with them all reporting to inexpert administrators and amateur politicians, (but some professional egomaniacs) on the Executive, full time goodwill between those 3 employees is an impossibility. It is fairyland for an organisation with the charter & the size of RAA, to have all levels of RAA Management reporting to a bunch of amatuer volunteers and with nobody in the Canberra Office actually in-charge of the running of all levels of Management/Employees. No decent competent CEO/GM is going to stick his or her head in that noose ..... and we have seen how well the present systems works now, based on the procession of Techmen over the years. Regards Geoff RAA Section-1.01-Organisation-and-Administration.pdf RAA Section-1.01-Organisation-and-Administration.pdf RAA Section-1.01-Organisation-and-Administration.pdf 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 To me the problem is the way the whole structure works, jobs for the boys and so on, the board function appears to be a problem as does the executive. The board seems to act out of convenience for certain people and not for the betterment of the organisation. At one time there was no CEO and Middleton was the ops manager, then Middleton goes into a newly created CEO position and Ungermann becomes the ops manager, then Ungermann's mate Mick Poole is brought in as the assistant ops manager. Middleton wants to retire from the CEO position so Ungermann becomes the new CEO and Poole is the new ops manager. Ungermann wants to resign from the Ceo position and move north so the Northern Ops Manager position is created for him. Ungermann then dumps us and goes to Casa. Mean while Zane Tully becomes the assistant Ops Manager then Ungermann finds a position for his mate Poole over at Casa who promply dumps us as well. Zane Tully becomes the OPS Manager it doesn't matter if he is not right for the job it is a matter of convenience. After Ungermann left there was no requirement for a Northern OPS Manager, funny about that?? As both Middleton and Tizzard came from CASA that might be a clue as to how Tizzard got to RAAus?? Like you say what does all this say about the board. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 The problem I believe is the 'control' factor that the Committee really really really wants to have over everyone else i.e. the GM/CEO/Ops/Tech/Office in their quest for world domination by having non-professional, owner operators, CFIs, public servants etc mixed in with alpha male personalities rather then be the strategic brains behind cultivating a professional future of the Association and its members. 9 Committee Members that we could convert to a 'Board' comprising of 4 elected professional from anywhere in Australia to the Board positions of Finance, HR, Marketing and Operations (i.e. CASA) plus 5 professional aviator type people of whom all bring a professional flavor to the Board (the likes of Dick Smith, Geoff Dixon...you know the types, the professional aviation business people) mixed in with a couple of say CFIs and small aviation reps from anywhere around Australia not elected by the constraints of geographic boundaries...WOW, imagine where RAAus would go with that mix...look out CASA, RAAus as a professionally run member association is coming through! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 we could have 13000 members in no time! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Greed Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Tecky: The structure doesn't work. The Ops Manual would be seen as a joke by any well run operation. From experience I would also see the expertise of the board a little differently to Ian. The key to any board is the team approach they bring to governance. A capacity to refine an organisations strategic directions with the application of collective wisdom. Not necessarily specific subject knowledge (although that is useful), but ensuring that management (the CEO/General Manager) has the ability to assemble a strategic plan and staff the capacity to carry it out. That is where the investment of industry qualifications, and financial resources, needs to be directed. Pete 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Tecky: The structure doesn't work. The Ops Manual would be seen as a joke by any well run operation. From experience I would also see the expertise of the board a little differently to Ian. The key to any board is the team approach they bring to governance. A capacity to refine an organisations strategic directions with the application of collective wisdom. Not necessarily specific subject knowledge (although that is useful), but ensuring that management (the CEO/General Manager) has the ability to assemble a strategic plan and staff the capacity to carry it out. That is where the investment of industry qualifications, and financial resources, needs to be directed.Pete Well at the moment it is all a bit of a moot point. Today is the first working day that the job ad has been up on Seek. Applications close on 18 January, only five days later. Furthermore, with only four days to go the recruitment company is still not sending out the detailed job description. The whole thing is a mess, how the hell can we expect that this recruiting process will result in a suitable candidate being selected when they don't even know what is required of them? So, we will have a garbage board and a garbage GM if this continues and anyones opinion on what the board should/shouldn't look like will be irrelevant as the association won't exist long enough for it to matter... GO TO THE MEETING OR FILL IN A PROXY FORM AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE YOU TRUST THAT IS GOING. NOT CARING WON'T HELP ANYONE WHO WANTS TO FLY IN THE FUTURE, INCLUDING YOU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I would like to make a point here, when talking about the board, it should be remembered there are a few good board members but unfortunately the majority are a problem. Also I did read some where (I think) that the 18 January deadline no longer applies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Also I did read some where (I think) that the 18 January deadline no longer applies. According to the add on seek applications do close on the 18th of January... http://www.seek.com.au/Job/general-manager-recreational-aviation-australia/in/act-act/23800239 how the hell can we expect that this recruiting process will result in a suitable candidate being selected when they don't even know what is required of them? I would presume they already have a candidate in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I would like to make a point here, when talking about the board, it should be remembered there are a few good board members but unfortunately the majority are a problem. Also I did read some where (I think) that the 18 January deadline no longer applies. That is a very good point re the good board members. All too easy to forget the good ones and I openly apologise to them for my comments. The remarks I made/make here are squarely aimed at the guilty parties and I think we all know who they are. With respect to the closing date issue the ad on Seek (http://www.seek.com.au/Job/general-manager-recreational-aviation-australia/in/act-act/23800239) still says 18 January so I am standing by my comments that the board, as a colelctive, is not handling this issue very well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 According to the add on seek applications do close on the 18th of January...http://www.seek.com.au/Job/general-manager-recreational-aviation-australia/in/act-act/23800239 I would presume they already have a candidate in mind? I took this to mean the closing date did not still apply http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/01/recruitment-10012013/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I took this to mean the closing date did not still apply http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/01/recruitment-10012013/ When have we ever gotten anything straight from the current executive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 When have we ever gotten anything straight from the current executive? Hmm not sure, nothing comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I took this to mean the closing date did not still apply http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/01/recruitment-10012013/ The closing date referred to from the magazine was the 11th of January... 3 days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Error404 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Windsor, from the RAA website (the only official RAA website for communication to members) Face 2 Face recruitment have started the process of recruiting for the General Manager and Technical Manager positions. The closing date for applications as detailed in the magazine are no longer relevant and do not now apply. The positions will be advertised on SEEK either later today or tomorrow. Details of those individuals who have already expressed an interest have been passed to Face 2 Face and those individuals should receive an e-mail giving more information in the next day or so. A reminder of the telephone number for the office of Face 2 Face – 02 6163 7500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Windsor, from the RAA website (the only official RAA website for communication to members) I grok you Error404... Said date in Mag says 11th January.. My take was "The closing date for applications as detailed in the magazine are no longer relevant and do not now apply." Said date in Mag says 11th January.. Closing date on Seek is 18th January... Position closes on 18 January 2013. We will require a resume and 2 referees. " ...so IMO this is the current closing date as it stands... Better hurry if you are qualified! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I grok you Error404... Said date in Mag says 11th January..My take was "The closing date for applications as detailed in the magazine are no longer relevant and do not now apply." Said date in Mag says 11th January.. Closing date on Seek is 18th January... Position closes on 18 January 2013. We will require a resume and 2 referees. " ...so IMO this is the current closing date as it stands... Better hurry if you are qualified! So... the logical conclusion is A. They have just made another complete hash of this... or B. The position is already filled and this is just following a process to make it all look rosy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now