Hold your fire buster...
" Fact 1 - As far as I would understand Jetconnect would have to tender for the Jetstar contract, for which I imagine Jetstar Australia would also tender!"
On the contrary - Alan Joyce and senior management have been telling anyone that will listen that Jetconnect are doing the trans tasman flying. No tendering. Fact. Primarily, as I understand, because of the lower crew/pax ratio (Aust has 1:36, NZ has 1:50). On an A320, that means 4 crew instead of our regulation 5 for dispatch.
"Fact 2 - Jetconnect would pick up the flying in leiu of the flying they they will lose as a result of JQ taking on the NZ flying - Jetconnect currently operate all NZ domestic services and a number of NZ/Aus routes that JQ will takeover."
There's no word on exactly what is being replaced in terms of Short Haul/Long Haul trans tasman flying, or of new markets (ie. HLZ-SYD, DUD-SYD, etc).
So - whilst replacement is the key here, so is the possibility of new routes that neither Jetstar, or Jetconnect, currently operate.
"Fact 3 - Jetconnect is very much like Jetstar, its young, dynamic and full of a great bunch of people who just like you are fighting to improve their conditions and proruct on a daily basis."
And good for them too! I wasn't questioning their youthfulness, dynamism, or anything. In fact, I wasn't going the crew at all - as with us, decisions such as these are out of our hands.
"Fact 4 - When you work for the company that is taking a whole lot of flying away from QF SH and QFL then I wouldn't be complaining that someone may get some flying that has never even been yours."
A few facts for you...
When QantasLink (Impulse) took over some Short Haul routes in 2001, it was done as a means of complimenting Short Haul services and freeing up capacity.
Then Ansett fell over. And all hell broke loose.
We were soon purchased by QF, made a subsidiary, and gained additional aircraft to increase frequencies and build up traffic between previously non linked cities (ie. Sydney-Townsville direct).
Then - when Jetstar came into effect, all our flying was transferred across. Short Haul, in fact, gained many more overnights than previously available because we (and Southern Australia) had done them previously. Places such as Gold Coast, Hobart, and Launceston suddenly became available. So - it could be argued that whatever we took away was easily given back to Short Haul in spades.
SO - overhere - who's taking what from whom? We lost our overnights (and everything associated with that), for longer days and dual aircraft endorsement. With the exception of expansion, not much in the way of financial or lifestyle gain.
As Short Haul has the Regional Flying agreement, would you really think that Jetstar would seriously impact on Long Hauls flying? AKL base, BKK and LHR base have seen to that I would have thought.
True - we don't currently fly to the proposed destinations, and arguably, that doesn't give us the automatic right. Guess I'm just one of these Aussie's that believes the national airline of the country should consider employment within Australia before looking offshore for cheaper, foreign based labour. What was the tagline again - Spirit of Australia? Or maybe that doesn't apply if you're 'all day, every day, low fares?'
" I don't work for Jetconnect anymore, but they are a great bunch of people who, without this contract could well be left with their wings clipped!"
I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but here goes...
I never intended offence (or at least, redundancies) to the Jetconnect people. As the plans have yet to be outlined with regard to who goes where, and when, I'm sure we'll all have a better idea of the impact this change will have. Yes, it has been mentioned that we will complement existing QF services - but as to who cops what where, is anyones guess.
My problem, as mentioned previously, is that we do not have the facility for an overseas base within our Agreement. Even if they operated under a different name (ie. Jetstar NZ, similar to Pacific Blue), Short Haul at least had a provision under their Agreement (at one point), where any flying performed by Jetconnect would not disadvantage Short Haul crew, to the point where they would receive replacement flying.
As nothing of this nature has - to my knowledge - been discussed, I have natural concerns that we (the Australian operation) risk being operationally undercut by our cousins across the pond. Without the benefit of at least a defining clause limiting how much flying is divided up, you may well understand our anxiety given upcoming EBA III negotiations.
Att: Blueloo -
Word of advice: We didn't undercut anyone. We were operating as a single aircraft endorsed, high capacity jet operation with single class operation. Our agreement was negotiated as such - which saw the Impulse crew go from $24K p/a to $approx 35K p/a overnight.
What's the saying that makes repeated showings here? "Play the ball, not the player"?
There's been plenty said about who undercuts who, but quite frankly, rather than looking to the crew who work for any subsidiary, we should all consider the moves being made by the various illustrious individuals that occupy our said Head Offices. Notice how in the drive to reduce costs, bonuses and shares rise in constrast? It's never those in the ivory towers who suffer, is it?
Interesting times my friends. May we all, at least, remain employed!