We're not helping the Airline. We're helping ourselves and our mates/colleagues. I wish more Pilots would see it this way. Management will always pay themselves bonuses, and share options, and celebrate each other in media. Capitalism at its finest. We need to ensure however, that all sacrifices are in deed made to help the collective and not the Exec.
...so waiving the rights of our colleagues to 42 and 60 day notice periods of leave allocation,
prior to their 3 months redundancy notice was not helping the airline? Don't make the mistake of the young fella above and conflate my discussion points as my personally held views. I totally agree that a pay cut was appropriate - socially, and strategically - but that did not in, and of itself "save" jobs. The part-time job arguably did that - though given the rhetoric from Walmart HQ, would you bet the house on it? This is a restructure. There is no need to carry hundreds of extra, expensive employees if your aim is "a smaller airline". BTW that's my bolding up there...
In the Manual of the various Aircraft we fly/have flown, there's almost always a statement that says (in so many words) "While extensive, these procedure are not exhaustive and cannot cover every possible Scenario". QF32 is a good example of this.
The CEA is not an all-inclusive document, and has been shaped by historical events. Ever heard an American say you cannot change the Second Amendment? Why's it called an Amendment then? Every single negotiation round we push for changes/tweaks to the CEA and yet when a pandemic rolls around, suddenly it's written in stone handed down to moses by the almighty himself.
1.) QF32 is a
bad example of a lot of things.
2.) I see you're a fan of Jim Jefferies...
3.) True, nice turn of phrase. Did we not have a clause that related to "redundancy" that would have worked already? Does/did the modality of redundancy require an alteration to the wording - a variation? Maybe. As you rightly point out there are myriad scenarios that may drive a redundancy scenario. Should we rush to a variation every time? Should we waive built-in protections for those most vulnerable? If you believe genuine job cuts are coming your way - absolutely, self-interest trumps critical thought every time. I'm sure that never crossed the company mind...
Do we not have a clause that relates to "seniority", and "direction"? Are/were they not fit for purpose? (I'll give you that one is a difference in interpretation of different clauses though..).
Back to the original though experiment -
when do multiple variations alter the original intent of the CEA?
To assist those prone to attributing
their perception of my thoughts, to
my thoughts:
I agree the pay cut was appropriate.
I agree this is an "unprecedented" situation -
in the near term.
I agree "out-of-the-box thinking was/is required.
I acknowledge that this was no negotiation - we have no leverage, we could have simply have been
told what was going to happen. (Funnily enough, that's exactly where we'll be in May next year - confident in our "strategic partnership" with Gollum and Carrie aboard are you?)
I like the method of achieving the pay cut - it's not one, we just agreed to work part-time. A better solution than a flat 25% actual pay cut as proposed by FANZ IMHO.
I think it likely that a roll-over of the variation after 9 months will be appropriate - in the absence of a effective treatment, or vaccine. But not necessarily if the company follows-through on another round of cuts. (yes, I acknowledge your thoughts around the realities of actually making them). Because that will be taking the p!ss, and not "good faith". And let's remember, despite InZed's smartar$e protestations to the contrary, I have read the variation - there is a review every
THREE MONTHS isn't there? 9 months is a poorly understood misnomer.
I will not do anything without thinking about it first. I understand InZeds self-interest in promoting a roll-over as a fait accompli, and that a vaccine is right around the corner, we all have that - should we suspend critical thought because of it?
Let's just make sure we
are "helping ourselves and our mates/collegues".
That was the point. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish more pilots would see
this....(hopefully, if you're comprehending this post in its entirety instead of red-misting your response half-cocked, and halfway through, you'll see I'm actually largely in agreement with both of you).
As someone said in another forum "trust but verify". (props to SR there
)