Originally Posted by
JPJP
Do you think this has never happened at any other airline ? Look around the world. This has all happened before; The time pressure, the ‘last but final vote’ - British Airways, Delta, United and Southwest Airlines and many more.
The ones that caved recently were British Airways. They had their ‘Normantons’, cringing and whining - and their pay rates are an embarrassment, and they fly two crew to Chicago from LHR. Delta and Southwest voted down managements offer and produced decent contracts. EBAs that dwarf the Qantas contract, with 20% and 12% profit sharing in 2019. And you want to give up pay and conditions?
If Alan Joyce thought he would make more money by outsourcing ULH at Qantas, he would have already done it. He seems to understand the game. And you don’t.
Normanton et al. dont seem to understand the ultimate joke of this game - These are replacement aircraft. They'll still be stuck as a S.O. With stagnated promotion. Even after they’ve doomed themselves to a low pay contract, and responsible for the new B Scale (sound familiar Normanton ?) of new S.O.
That's a nice personal attack. You seriously think I will be stuck as an SO with a YES vote?
Wait till you vote NO, and a new entity is formed flying the 350. What happens when the 380/330 is retired, and replaced by 350s under the new entity? RIN's and redundancy's for all junior pilots. You familiar with what happened when the 767 was retired and replaced by nothing? Let that sink in to your sub-standard argument.
Pat yourself on the back though, because you did the right thing and tried to protect your legacy conditions for yourself.
Your logic is short sighed, flawed, mis-guided, and quite frankly embarrassing.
Originally Posted by
A little birdie
My understanding is that the legal advice provided to AIPA COM last Friday was that there are few industrial protections in place to prevent what Qantas is proposing with this external crewing company should Qantas pilots vote 'no'. I also heard that AIPA is seeking urgent external opinion to more effectively inform the 10 March COM meeting.
That's a good thing.
As a union member, I would expect them to fully explore all alternatives. Lets' hope they get it right. It would be very embarrassing to recommend a NO vote based on legal advice, only to loose the 350 flying, and the court case at the same time.