Originally Posted by
Derfred
Now, this is the sticking point: Qantas have claimed that the business case won't stand up if the pilots don't agree to these concessions.
This is where Qantas have made themselves look very foolish, because anyone can see that if the project is built around such tight margins that a few dollars out of the pilots' pockets will make or break the business case, then it most certainly should not go ahead. Or, as is obviously the case, the business case presented to threaten the pilots is a complete fabrication and nobody believes a word they are talking about. The obvious truth is that Qantas are putting a lot of pressure on pilots to reduce costs in general and are using such threats as a negotiating tool. The pilots don't like being lied to, and this probably isn't helping the negotiation.
If it's all down to negotiating the last brass razoo out of the EBA, to make this finely-balanced equation work, then they must have cast-iron certainty about every other revenue and expense line in the feasibility. Which, of course, cannot possibly be true. For a start they don't know for sure what the best deal is going to be on whichever customised airframes, engines and interior packages they end up buying. Supposing for one moment the unicorn of an aircraft capable of consistently delivering 20+ hour sectors with 300 passengers, bags and freight in all seasons and conditions is actually obtainable... How much will those cost? What will be their operating CASK sans crew cost? They don't know this stuff - they're simply making a string of assumptions.
In every feasibility of this kind I've ever looked at, the cost of flight crew is the least of your worries. Easily covered by an extra percentage point or two on RPK, mostly from the pointy end.
It's really very undignified of them to be carrying on about the pilots making or breaking the cost structure when it's patently obvious that cannot be true. And very unedifying behaviour.