I disagree.
The nominal retirement date of the 747 fleet was March next year. The RIN process should be completed prior to 31 March (in fact prior to the end of February given the notice period required for new training courses).
When the 767 RIN occurred there were a number of pilots who waited 2-4 months for their new type course. They were not stood down due to ‘no useful work’ as the training bottleneck is not of their making. The same principle applies to 747 crew from 1 April next year onward. Now a senior 747 pilot may elect to displace to the A380. If there is no ‘useful flying’ (IE, any flying) on that fleet then I agree they remained stood down.
However, if they take redeployment (or displace) to a fleet that actually is doing some flying then they should NOT remain stood down. They’ve elected to displace under the rules in place to a fleet that actually has some ‘useful work’ so should be stood up to train and then fly. Once checked out they should rotate in with the rest of the crew who are doing whatever ‘useful work’ exists.
I’d hope AIPA would take a similar stance and argue as such as strenuously as possible.
The fact that the RIN operated that way previously is no guarantee it will do so now. These are vastly different times.
As you would know, the crew who were the last to be RIN’d off the 767 had no aircraft to fly for up to 4 months. They had training courses planned for a future date BUT they remained a 767 Capt’s or F/O’s until that course and received the pay and conditions applicable to that fleet despite the fact that there were no aircraft to fly.
By the same logic Qantas could easily determine that 744 crew were stood down before the RIN and will remain stood down after the RIN up until a training course is run. The allocation of a future training date need not interrupt one’s stand down.
I would certainly hope that is NOT the interpretation Qantas take but they have a long history of interpreting rules/laws to benefit the company and screw us. Let’s hope I’m proven wrong.