G'day again Prof
I didn't say the QF L/H award was perfect, and I didn't say a company should change it's commercial decisions to suit pilot lifestyles. You're quite correct in saying;
'... Jetstar are not going to change destination frequency just to suit the lifestyles of pilots. More importantly, how is more money going to improve the family life when sitting down route for “4 days”. It sux no matter what the income is.'
I accept that the company will factor in the lowest costs achievable from the pilots in question, and if those pilots can't figure out the adverse aspects of a proposition, they stand to carry an unpleasant burden until they (once again, having placed themselves in the predicament by ignoring history) trade off future pay-rises to improve their lifestyles.
What is evident to me though, is that if the work on offer (ie J*Int) is not fully understood then those pilots accepting the deal may be sorely disappointed when the reality turns out to be crap money and crap lifestyle. I believe J* pilots potentially face the prospect that despite their small contribution to the overall cost base (& remember that all pilots, even QF pilots, are a very small component of airline cost base!), their low pay may make the most marginal of route proposals 'worth a try' and hence find themselves sitting around a slip port accruing 'days off' on no pay at the company's pleasure. You ask why a company should pay for that time; I ask why a respectable company should expect its employees to have no 'credit' for time away on company service? A credit system does not give more money for being away as a trade-off against family time as you infer. I would make much more money and have more days off if all my flying was efficient 40hrs/7days etc. What a credit system does is redress in part those occasions when my company CAN'T, because of commercial priorities, get me to fly more while I'm at work and thereby goes some way to preserving a certain number of days off at home. Is that really so unreasonable?
Having said all that, if some are prepared to do it, it is not the management's fault for capitalising on such opportunities. They will make their money regardless and the profits will keep on coming as route 'experiments' are conducted at pilots expense.
As a 'retired airline manager' I'm sure you find the idea of easy, uncomplicated decisions within a contract tailored for minimal HR or humanising ramifications appealing. But you might also acknowledge that good managers have always managed, even complex employment contracts, to produce continual record profits. Sounds a bit like Qantas don't you think?