People have given plenty of reasons as to why they would vote no..... just because it differs from your logic doesn’t make it any less valid.
Apart from the fact you have made some grossly generalised comments about your ‘esteemed’ colleagues on the 4 engine fleets (funny, I thought we were all on the same team), I have to agree with one of your previous posts that mentioned individuals may vote no to stick it to the company as being ridiculous. Totally agree.
But from what I’ve read, other reasons include the continued dilution of conditions, agreeing to a rule set that is untried, has involved little consultation from those who will operate under it and has many PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects, a desire to retain current conditions (what’s wrong with that?), a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language, a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions, in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions blah blah blah and trying something else that may or may not involve another ‘entity’........ just to name a few.
You view this logic with dismay and criticise those who are prepared to take a stand and fight for something because it risks too much.
That dismay is probably returned in the manner that you so eagerly believe every word uttered in a webinar and a perceived willingness to roll over because of the risk.
Regardless of whose concerns these are, they are concerns to people and it would seem, pending the actual release of the document we are all squabbling about, are big enough concerns to consider a NO vote, just as they are big enough to you to vote YES.
Thanks for actually making a decent post worth talking about. I would like to discuss further.
PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects
So how do we go about this? The flying is opt in, people aren't being forced to do it if they don't want to.
How do you find out the health affects on a new venture like this? It takes time. It takes reports. It takes feedback.
In order for that to happen, you need to do the flying. Is it worth passing up the opportunity for a new entity, on the basis we don't know the health affects?
It will be an extra 3-4 hours on top of a PER-LHR.
a desire to retain current conditions
What conditions are being withdrawn exactly?
Any insider knowledge of the final document?
a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language
Agreed.
a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions
True.
I'm not buying into the C scale argument. They either come into mainline on C scale, or they come into the new entity on a D scale. Pick one. The company will do it.
The 350 will replace the 380, I have no doubt. Management said it in the webinar. The pilots all believe it. If you think we will be paid a 380 wage to fly a 350, its unrealistic and selfish. It's never going to happen.
in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions
True. But a scope clause will never be approved. We all know that. Is it worth the risk of missing out on the 350 flying? Is it worth the risk in giving them a valid reason to start a new entity. Is it worth the risk of giving them a viable direction to further erode the LH conditions? It's the one question NO ONE has answered. What happens to the future LH EBA negotiations with a viable and successful entity undercutting us at every chance?