Originally Posted by
A little birdie
Feel free to point out the errors in what I’ve presented. The data I’m using is available to every Qantas pilot and has been posted at multiple webinars.
The numbers of days worked, the overtime, etc, changes depending on which base is considered. Overtime out of Perth will be less than overtime out of Sydney. Density out of PER for ULH flying is likely slightly higher than SYD. Density of non MVF (A330) flying for a PER MVF pilot is different to the density out of Sydney which is different to the density out of Melbourne. This is simply analysing the data. If you’re incapable of doing that yourself I’m not sure why you’re having a go at me when I can do it.
You previously asked was I an A380 senior check captain. No I am not. You’ve now asked am I a Senior Check Captain. No I am not. Do you intend now on going through every category demanding to know who I am?
You may think you know who I am. You may even be correct. It doesn’t make a difference. The data I present is either accurate or it’s not. So far no one has pointed out an error in what I’ve presented. Feel free to point out my mistakes.
Or keep shooting the messenger. What’s the saying about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?
Hi Little Birdie,
Sorry, my posts were a little ambiguous. The two points I'm trying to make are:
I'm aware of the conditions for the new LHEA. My point regarding your accuracy can probably best be shown by comparing credited hours (i.e pay per trip and therefore per days worked) for a SYD-LHR-SYD or SYD-JFK-SYD under EA9 (current conditions) vs EA10 (proposed conditions). There will be (depending on the night flying component) around 15-20% less credited hours under the new agreement. All the other components muddy the water, however the end result is the same.....less pay per trip or pay per day worked. If you really know the figures then you'd realise this. I never see you make this point.
The second point has to do with the extremely adversarial nature of these negotiations. Large adversarial companies (and countries!) have been known to manipulate social media in order to achieve their objectives (fake news etc). Companies that have lost engagement with their employees (which is well and truely the case here) often try to influence employee opinion by using trusted peers (people in respected roles) to disperse their message. Is this your role in these negotiations?
Hopefully this clears up the ambiguity. PS the original 380 was a typo, I meant 330.