Where does the integration award (replacement a/c types) become relevant then? Is it not worth the paper it’s written on?
Good question. I’m not a lawyer, but I expect Qantas would simply argue that these are new aircraft for a new outfit, doing new flying that Qantas has never done - thus not a replacement for anything, and the integration award doesn’t apply.
Qantas can:
a) Pull the A350 off the table.
This invites almost certain PIA. All the cost savings they are chasing in S/O pay, training freezes and multi-variant flying evaporate. Court cases as to the legality of this external entity (and others) will drag on for years and there is a slim chance AIPA could win which carries great risk. Costs associated with this option can mount for 3 years before any savings are realised from the external entity.
b) They can continue negotiating knowing they only need to sway 6% of the pilot body with an improved offer to get it through with all of the benefits and none of the risks above. They can trim just one of the unpalatable elements of the offer and roll on with industrial harmony and a much easier entry into service. The business case can clearly sustain it as they acknowledge it could handle a change to the crew complement. A new vote could be knocked over in 3 weeks. The company starts saving money on training and new hires immediately.
Now some will say that it must be a) because that’s what Tino said would happen. But Tino and Alan also said that their “1st, 2nd and 3rd preference was to deal with the pilots.” So you either believe one statement or the other but they can’t both be true.
Some good points to consider there. As far as court cases go, I suspect that’s a bet Qantas would be willing to take, based on recent history and the way the system’s stacked. Having it drag on for years would be a bonus since the company’s pockets are deeper than AIPA’s, and it would let their new entity become well-entrenched. Still, I don’t know the law, and it may well be a good path for AIPA to go down.
As for whether (a) or (b) is true. Saying ‘Sunrise will be off the table” is pretty unambiguous and hard to weasel out of without losing face, whereas “our 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference is to deal with the pilots” can and will be twisted to mean whatever they want it to.
Can somebody tell me how Qantas can operate with outsourced pilots, outsourced engineering and outsourced cabin crew and still be regarded as a “brand” at all?
Dunno, but they’ve had lots of practice at it by now and seem to be getting good at it.