Originally Posted by
theheadmaster
The trade off is a future flying for Qantas.
As stated above, comparing A330 and B767 hourly rates against the 787 is not a valid comparison. These aircraft are not capable of flying the same sectors. A more valid commment is that if you insisted on maintaining the same pay rate as 767 or A330 and applying the same overtime and night credits the aircraft would not be flown by mainline pilots under the long haul EBA.
Exactly.
The present LH EA for existing types is efficient, from the company's perspective, for shorter tours of duty below the overtime threshold.
Before the -400 ushered in long tours of duty that regularly attracted overtime there were few tours of duty that it applied to. I wasn't around when the thresholds for overtime were originally nutted out but the reasons they were put in is pretty obvious. There needed to be an incentive for crews to extend beyond there normal duty hours to cater for unforeseen events such as diversions. You only have to look at the newly minted 787 agreement for evidence of this. A little known fact is that the 787 attracts overtime if the planned duty hours are exceeded. The company insisted on this. They still want a carrot for crew to extend for unforeseen events.
We have certainly benefitted from more capable aircraft with longer ranges. The regular overtime makes up a very large part of our pay, no doubt about it. So much so leave is tarnished somewhat when you realise your pay will drop $3K/fortnight while you're on leave. The company, quite reasonably, wanted to be able to open up new long haul routes without being hamstrung by paying pilots double dollars. They needed a flatter and more predictable cost structure.
From the company's perspective, the ultra long routes meant this method of overtime was never going to work. If no other option were put forward I feel certain that it would not have been Qantas pilots flying the 787, it would have been Cobham/Jetconnect/(insert startup here) under vastly inferior terms than we will be flying the aircraft under. This opinion was arrived at after several personal discussions with those on both sides of the negotiating table. All are honourable people I have known personally and flown with for many years. I have zero doubt that the only options were to fly the aircraft on terms that were eventually agreed to, or not at all. The option to fly it under our present terms was never an option.
So as to the routes the aircraft will fly, which is the title of this thread, I agree that initially it will be doing the ultra long thin stuff. The A330s will have to be replaced in a few years and the logical replacement for them will be the 787. No brainer. The 330 will become the 767, doing less and less international and more domestic until it's finally pensioned off. The 380 will also possibly pick up some of this flying as the routes mature. But there will also be a need for the 787 on these routes.