Originally Posted by
knobbycobby
Justin.
Totally incorrect.
The A380 arrived and was operated prior to EA agreed terms and conditions. The same was true of the 747-400.
The contract permits three months of operations too.
“42.3 Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment when declared airworthy for a minimum period of three (3) months even if agreement not reached on pay and conditions
Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment on the Company's scheduled and non- scheduled operations at such time as the aircraft or equipment is declared airworthy by the aviation regulatory authority whether or not rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the aircraft or equipment have been agreed but this obligation will not continue if rates of pay, rules and working conditions have not been agreed upon within a period of three (3) months after the new aircraft or equipment has been placed in service by the Company.”
Your just pandering to the company line as it suits them to rush AIPA into a deal. Qantas may wish for a deal sewn up prior, however it’s not essential. I suppose if you were a poor or weak negotiator you’d allow yourself to be rushed.
As Rated D suggests you just fell for the Company’s IR strategy.
If the A380 replacement deal is a superior one then fine, however if it’s not then why be rushed by the company?
But then Qantas have many experienced professionals advising them and AIPA have pilots with little formal training.
AIPAs dismal legal record is not dissimilar.
It worries me greatly that you think it’s acceptable for an AIPA president to talk down the pilots prospects prior to an EA.
He spoke only of the fuel price pressures facing Qantas(from very low levels) which have since reversed, and he made NO mention of a single bargaining strength such as a well documented global pilot shortage for experienced pilots. Nor did he make any mention of recurrent record profits or bonuses.
In the past good presidents and the AIPA executive lead by strength and formed a strong position.
This protected pilots from themselves on the back of company fed and spun rumours. That ensured strong EAs were put forward and didn’t exacerbate a race to the bottom mentality.
knobby
I never said that a new type cannot be introduced without agreed terms and conditions, I’ve said that the current management will not do so. There is a difference. You clearly misunderstand how the ceo thinks and operates if you think there is any chance of him locking in billons of dollars in new planes without agreed terms.
No one, neither the pilots of FWC, can force management to order new aircraft. And if management makes a business case including employee costs a pre condition of ordering new aircraft, then no ceo in their right mind would walk away from that pre condition.