Q. If you were running the business(ie if it was YOUR business), why would you pay one lot of employees more than the other to do exactly the same job?
A. You wouldn't!
They are now so why wouldn't they in the future? Further, there are transmission of business issues to cross here as well.
You blokes are dreaming if you think you will crew it under your present conditions.
QF are after efficiencies when it comes to the 787. Despite the general belief to the contrary, we've been prepared to look at efficiencies for quite some time now. EG: currently 767 crew are cheaper per ASK than mainline 737 crew. I reckon that would put us very, very close to the cost per ASK for a J* A320 or J* A330. We don't need to be too much more efficient to be 'on the mark' to get to fly the 787. It may be a set of conditions slightly different to the current ones but will certainly be acceptable.
Further, many crew look at the current conditions- designed for 707s and extrapolated to the 744 when aeroplanes flew for max 14 hours- and realise that it's not a situation that can continue into perpetuity. Again, it's an issue that crew have been open to for some time.
I think part of the issue with many people on PPRUNE is that they see what AJ tells the media about pilots (normally the max earners on the A380) and then project that across all fleets. Many PPRUNE contributors don't actually realise the reality. That doesn't bother me overly much but it does amuse me when I read comments that talk about how over priced I am despite the fact that I'm in part of the group that has contributed to massive profits over the past bunch of years- more than J* anyway!
It also amuses me when people tell me I'm dreaming if I think I'll get the 787 on current terms and conditions when they're not entirely authorities on current terms and conditions as it is let alone the negotiations that have taken place to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. At the end of the day, agreeing to a deal for the 787 is a ****e load cheaper than 400+ redundancies.
