A great effort, but 1.8% per year is a bit poor.
Better than the alternative. Have a think about how far we've come. We can afford to pull back a bit on our claims.
2 weeks buy back of leave? No thanks how about a training allowance of 2 weeks for any course you wish, not necessarily aviation related...
...External B1/B2 courses course excluded from training selection criteria, if externally trained then internal training to still be completed by QF training school, allow QF training school to offer QF employees courses to avoid potentially shutting down of our training school. This would produce an income for QF and also save QF engineers from having to spend +6K for practical training. WIN WIN WIN
Not really sure how these two fit together. I assume you mean external theory and internal POC/PCT and differences? So you do an external course and miracle of miracles you're lucky enough to be anointed with the holy water, get on a differences course and have your license recognised, then when push comes to shove your external license is not counted in selection criteria? Why bother. Many do the external course for job security but this concept provides none.
It also encourages the company to rely on sub-standard courses offered by external RTO's. Anyone who has done one will tell you the courses are woefully inadequate and are little better than a famil course. Compare the old ~10 week A330 course QF training ran. It produced LAMEs that actually knew something about the A/C. The current ~5 week Kellogs Packet licenses on offer leave many saying they still know little about the A/C.
I agree with you that QF should be keeping training in house. Once upon a time QF pilot and engineering training was a world-recognised highly desirable commodity that we charged a premium for. That has been wiped out by managerial short-sightedness, incompetence and apathy. QF has failed to build on our strengths and foregone major opportunities to train external engineering customers like Emirates and failed to buy A380 sims when they were avaialble at rock-bottom prices, and keep that training skill set and knowledge base in-house.
I would like to see a forward plan for obtaining internal and external work, maybe automatically QF work goes to QF Engineering.
Wouldn't we all? Maybe we can "better utilise the manpower we have" by going back to how things were a few months ago, instead of the current shemozzle in evidence in Sydney.
Cat A licenses to all in LMO converted to full license within the term of the EBA.
Unfortunately the ALAEA won't have much say on this issue, pending the outcome of legal cases to allow the ALAEA to represent Cat A's - which is the absolute last thing the company wants.
A review of new positions created over the last 3 years to determine WHAT they have brought to the business, if nothing then why are they there?
Great idea. SDO once ran ~140 people with a planner, a secretary, 4 x DMMs and a manager. We now have <60 people run by a terminal manager (position vacant), 4 x ops managers, 4 x DMMs, a facilities manager, a MAC, a WHS manager, multiple planners, a secretary and one guy who sits in a corner whom I still haven't quite figured out what he actually does. Have I forgotten anyone? And the mooted response to this top-heavy structure is to cut back the DMMs - the ones who know a thing or two about running the operation, and giving more scope to the ops managers, many of whom are clueless neophyte wannabes.
Long service leave to be minimum of 4 days.
Would suit the roster of SDO and SAM.
If keeping wage averaging then apply this to sick leave so we don't have to come in sick on weekends.
Not going to happen.
Moot point. The current WD will be rolled over to the new EA with absoulutely minimal changes. Save your mental energy.