Originally Posted by
Capt Colonial
I feel dragon man may be reflecting on areas of the long-haul T & C’s. Which took a hit with the introduction of the B-787.
Currently, there are some problems with scheduling and several comparative items on the B-787 fleet so it is timely to have the EA once again approaching. Certainly, we will see how much metal the collective long-haul group have if they wish to change some unpalatable areas in the current EA.
During the last EA, one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause for those that (will) be redeployed to the B-787 from the B-747. Notably, those pilots that may be redeployed are considering that Fleet (B-787) even though eligible to jump to the A380 as they don’t want to commit to the A380, to have to, once again, retrain in a few years time. Rumours of A380 Wing Cracks and alleged extended Interior Refurbishment times abound apparently over in the maintenance areas.
What I feel and see is that Pilots over on the B-747 Fleet are waiting for some positive leadership out of AIPA (information) re the Reduction In Numbers from the B-747 onto ‘other fleets’. Certainly, after the SIT Manager produced a basic handout of the B-747 fleet retirement dates (timescale) for the B-747 certainly a forward redeployment scale could be drawn out for those Pilots (even if it is the 'best guess' at this time!). Yet nothing from AIPA. Once again Qantas Management is running the full show, with NO guidance from the Association currently! IMO that makes people very frustrated and leaves them pondering why AIPA is not more pro-active to its affected members.
I can understand the uncertainty that an upcoming RIN will be stressful and those likely to be affected will want information. I think you need to wait to see what unfolds here before criticising AIPA.
Not sure how you have come to believe 'one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause'. The way you have worded that statement, it makes it look like without that input, there would be no such protection. If this is your proposition, it is incorrect.