Gordon, your demand for 'facts' in a negotiation comes across as a bit juvenile. It's a negotiation. Qantas, AIPA and pilots all get to make claims about the state of their world, and what will happen if they don't get what they/we want. Some of those things will be 'facts', such as current pay scales or the current number of planes in the fleet. Most of them are about their future intentions, such as whether QF will set up a separate entity, or whether AIPA will recommend PIA. Trying to pretend that statements about QF's future intentions don't matter because they're not 'facts' doesn't make sense - the entire point of the negotiation and the vote is that we're making judgments about what will likely happen.
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
Fact: QF threatened their staff, via the media no less.
Ok, that's a fact. But I'm not sure what turns on it. QF has set out its side of the negotiation in the press. It's also made the same points directly to AIPA and us.
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 1: The A350 will be outsourced with a no vote.
Yes, that is an assumption a lot of us are making. QF have stated to us, and publicly, that they will do that. They have prior form doing that. As a result, a lot of us think this is a credible assumption. Do you? Do you have any reasons to think this assumption is
not credible?
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 2: The A350 won’t be outsourced with a yes vote.
That's as close to a fact as you'll get in a negotiation. If the A350 is on the EA for LH or ULH operations, it'd be next to impossible for QF to outsource it. If you can think of a way that QF gets past the EA conditions on outsourcing on this, please let us know.
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 3: QANTAS must reduce these (so called) legacy conditions in order to survive.
Assumption 4: That another entity will be a success. (The success to failure rate of this sort of thing does not suggest it will be)
I'm not sure whose assumptions these are? I haven't seen anyone making them in this thread. Comes across as a bit of a strawman, to be honest. From my point of view, all that really matters is that I think it's credible that QF would set up the new entity if they don't get an agreement. I'm not making any assumptions about their reasons for wanting to do so.
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
Are you saying the A350s aren’t coming anyway?
That's pretty clearly not what he's saying. QF have said they'll order the A350 and launch PS if we vote no; it just won't be QF pilots flying the A350 for Sunrise, or for the eventual A380 replacement.
Originally Posted by
gordonfvckingramsay
To be clear, I’m saying don’t fall for the threat, a yes vote merely gives them what they want at a lower cost. Whatever happens to the fleet will happen, we’re now haggling over the price and guys who are being spooked are haggling our value down.
What Norman and a stack of others are asking for, is for people who want to vote no to explain what they think happens next, if the no vote wins? Do you think QF keeps negotiating for a second, third or fourth round vote? Why do you think QF won't carry through on its threat/promise to set up a new entity, when it's made that statement publicly and to investors?