New move for Jestar pilots

[fartsock]

Ok Woomera, I apologise for the inflamatory title of my last attempt at posting this information, so he goes again.

I have it on excellent authrority from a source in QF Industrial Relations that part of the QF boards considerations for the purchase of the A340-500 (to be decided at the may board meeting) is the use of the impulse / jetstar pilot body to fly both types (320 / 340) at rates 50% or more less than mainline.



thanks again to the impulse pilot body, what a top bunch of blokes


regards

FS

[Z Force]

Since when has the QF board been considering A 340's?

[Capt Fathom]

I can't imagine any source from within Qantas (or other company for that matter) revealing 'market sensitive' information.

[ur2]

Don't you mean, thanks to the Qantas Pilots for not allowing them to join the IAPA in the first place !
Now it is all Impulse pilot's fault eh.

Oh I am sorry I mean AIPA , well whatever.
If the poor old Impulse guys were not good enough then. Why does all the Qantas p00fters what to join them now ?

[Woomera]

fartsock

Apology accepted. :O

'Tweren't the title that was found inflamatory, rather some of the adjectives used in the text.

Doesn't it feel good to write basically the same story without having to call people names? :ok:

[Ralph the Bong]

There is no way CASA will allow CCQ on A320/A340. The issue has been explored previously(AN A320/A330) and, whilst the decision may not be set in concrete, we all know that their brains are.

[blueloo]

Fartsock
I preferred the original version.

:}

[proplever]

Jeez, wont that make the QF 744 blokes sit up and take notice.

It's going to keep happenning unless we take a stand now. How low do we have to go?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

The A340 rumour has been doing the rounds since QF found out how difficult it was to secure more 744's on short notice.

Getting Impulse to fly them, whilst I personally view as unlikely, would have to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I could only view such a move as some sort of Oldmeadow inspired tactic to force AIPA into industrial action.

There is a thread on Qrewroom now detailing the push for a scope clause in EBA 7. I believe it to be a high priority, and if QF baulks at it, one would have to wonder why.

[Keg]

I asked a forme AIPA pres why we had never sought a scope clause. He responded that 'the company wouldn't allow it'. I asked him since when what the company would or wouldn't allow had so much impact on what we ASKED for.

Besides that, the SH EBA had a clause in it about the company 'discussing' 'low cost' issues and they certainly didn't discuss Jetstar before going ahead. Why would they do differently with scope? Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely but getting the company to 'sign off' on it willingly is another story. Tread softly and carried an armoured tank division I say! ;) :} :E

[EPIRB]

I'm no legal eagle but I would have thought that if they were to get others to fly the A340's, would this not be "transmission of business"?

[bonvol]

That Pres wouldn't now be in management would he?

[blueloo]

You mean that Pres, inow in a new management position, who sent out a flyer/memo in the last few weeks saying essentially we should wear lower accomodation standards due to commercial pressures and to help the profit/return to capital situation?

THe same pres who now will get a hefty bonus to screw us?

[aresti]

If the SH EBA has a clause in it about the company 'discussing' 'low cost' issues, then any 'pres' who is actually representing the pilot interest should have had the company in the IR commision for not delivering. So should said previous 'pres' re a myriad of 767 issues that have been reneged upon. Instead we gave an offset.

Viva la revolution.

[Keg]

Someone check my maths for me on this but hear is some food for thought.

We fly about 800 hours per annum. Even J* may struggle to do more than that.

Based on an aircraft speed of (say) 480 knots, that's about 384,000 nautical miles per annum.

Change that to km and we're looking at about 711,168km.

Times that by the number of seats on an domestic 767 (which I think is about 30/220 but it's been about five months since I've flown one!) and you've got 177,792,000 ASKs per crew.

Now, this is where it get's interesting. Currently, a QF 767 crew (Captain and F/O combined) will earn about $150,000 per annum more than the equivalent J* crew. If we divide the $150,000 by the number of ASKs the crew fly, we'll get the price differential per ASK that we're talking about.

The answer..........................

Less than .1 of a cent per ASK. (.092 according to my calcualations!)

So, that's what all this angst is about. The company saving .09 of a cent per ASK! Note that just by switching from the B717 to the A320 they saved about .5 of a cent so the crew costs are pretty insignificant compared to cost saving elsewhere!

A couple of other little things. If we put total crew costs on a 767 at about $370,000 (that could be up to fifty grand high in my expectation but would equal a very senior F/O in the equation), then we are talking about .22 cents per ASK. So, to save less than .1 cent we are talking about 4%.

Anyway, I've created a little EXCEL program that can convert the figures for different seat numbers, crew costs and so on. Email or PM me if you'd like me to email you a copy.

Regards,

[longjohn]

Keg, what you say is undoubtably true, however, the fact is that the company looks at the bottom line savings. ASK is a good measure of cost comparisons, but it is only when you multiply it out that the real savings are apparrent.

The fact that the company has come after such cost centres as transport and accomodation should indicate this. I am sure if we worked out how much per hour of rest the new London hotel would save, similar parrallels could be drawn. However, the overall saving in the order of $1.5 million per year is significant.

It may sound petty in the overall scheme of things, but this is how finely tuned the airline needs to be.

My issue is that the savings given by aircrew seem to be disproportionate.

What irritates me is that AIPA has not slammed the company for the deal it struck with the TWU over Jetstar. 5% less. Do we know what the average earnings of a bag snatcher in Sydney was last year? Would anyone believe $70k. I have reason to believe it to be more like $80 - $90k. For slinging bags.

The problem is we are not as industrially smart as these guys. They have just as much incentive to keep their work as we do (probably more), and I can guarantee if QF advertised for ramp staff tomorrow, fixed price $50ky they would get innundated. So why is it these guys keep their jobs and maintain their pay?

Quite simply because they play hard, their union does not constantly bow to management and its officials are not falling over one another to engratiate themselves with management.

Send the AIPA team back in to the negotiating room, if Jetstar pilots want to fly for less than the bag snatchers then thats their business, but AIPA should aim higher. Furthermore, for every 737 removed and replaced by an A320, QF pilots should be offerred 20/20 positions.

[DDG]

longjohn,
If a bag thrower in Sydney can earn a minimiun of $70k with no overtime then i will change job`s.I would have believed this figure if it was inclusive of overtime/nil 10 hr rest breaks ect considering that a check of wagenet shows that QF baggage handlers base wage is $700/week + shift loadings + overtime(no info on jet* or nopulse).I know many of the ex-ansett baggage handlers did earn around the $70k+ mark but they did live at the work place all day every day.
Fact remains that pilot wages have the most margin and therefore will be the biggest target to management,next on the hit list would be the flight attendants particularly on long haul and to a lessor extent short haul.

[blueloo]

Yes QF longhaul Cabin Crew generally will get paid as much as a Jetstar F/O. How does that make you feel. Id rather get paid to be Cabin Crew on QF than have the responsibility of flying the jet at JetStar. makes you wonder why you accepted less $. Soon longhaul Cabin crew will be paid better than pilots, as pilots sacrifice themselves.


What a strange world we live in.

[DDG]

blueloo,
Good on anyone that earns a decent wage,i do not begrudge anyone that earns good money for what they do,in any position with in the industry.
Market forces and reality show that many of these current highly payed positions are under pressure for pay rates and conditions of employment due to changes with-in the industry weather we like any of the changes or not.
The hay days of the industry are over,unfortunately for all of those still with-in it.
Indeed it is a strange world

[blueloo]

I think well done to QF cabin crew for getting paid that much too. My point is what a sell out Jetstar Techies have been - but as you say supply and demand seems to unfortunately have dicated their wage - only thing is that it appears they accepted such a low wage without much of an attempt at bargaining a better one - much to the detriment of the entire industry. :uhoh:

[proplever]

Quite correct blue. However information on other threads seems to suggest that these guys put forward their proposal to management first, not the other way around.

The concept of "market forces"? Since when do market forces require a new group of pilots to carry out the same flying at half the pay? This is nonsense. Reduced pay maybe, perhaps something akin to Virgin. But sinking to this level is pure stupidity.

They have taken a giant dump in our collective nest. And there are those out there wondering why QF pilots are so annoyed at them.

[spinout]

Considering the pay in the regionals it was once said “I fly for Eastern for free they just pay me for the irritation they cause to my life” :rolleyes:

[Roadrunner]

I guess the 717 boys wanted to offer a deal that Q couldn't resist, thus ensuring their continued existence. Seems to have worked. They will no doubt be looking to increase the salaries in time.
The flyboys from Oz just keep doin it to each other,eh.
Am I right in saying that the baggage snatchers at Jetstar will be non union and paid lower salaries to reflect that, as with Virgin?

[aresti]

The 717 boys might've wanted to offer a deal that Q couldn't resist, but sh!t, there's over a hundred of them, that has to count for some industrial muscle. At least try and get a better deal.
The old GA mentality wins out. Still..... AIPA got them a pretty good deal, pity about it's own financial members.

[Reflex10]

Keg,

While .1 of a cent per ASK may appear a minor saving it depends on your baseline.

QF Profit Before Tax from the 2002/3 Annual Report of A$502m is only .5 of a cent per ASK averaged across the business.

.1 of a cent represents a 20% change in profit. Bottom line impact is the focus.

[fartsock]

Well the last week has been interesting to say the least.

It would appear the level the Impulse pilot body is prepared to stoop to literally knows no bounds.

The A340-500 purchase has been recommended to the board by all the relevant departments of QF. As part of these considerations, the aircraft will be operated by the Impulse pilot group on roughly 50% of what current 747 classic pilots are paid.

This offer was made to Qantas via Oldmeadow consulting. I understand that a dinner was held during the week at a CBD restaraunt between Oldmeadow and senior members of the IPG to thrash out in principle agreements.

All this going on whilst the IPG is in the AIPA office at Mascot working towards 'a joint position' (from the AIPA friday update) to take to QF over Jetstar.

And for those of you that doubt the quality of this information, or who continue to stick your heads in the sand consider the fact that there is no guarantee, anywhere in the applicable short haul of long haul awards that guarantee mainline pilots will fly a new type.

I am astonished that the Impulse pilots have escaped serious centure, both on this forum and on Qrewroom.

They are a disgrace.


FS

[Spad]

With the benefit of hindsight, I wonder if there’s not the odd QF mainline pilot out there today who now believes that the stoush the domestic pilots got themselves involved in back in 198you-know-when might actually have been their fight too?

It’s been said before by others far more erudite than me: if you blokes – QF mainline and every other airline pilot in Australia - don’t get yourselves quick smart into one, united union, go out and buy yourselves a pair of bib and brace overalls, a striped baseball cap and an oil can and learn how to whistle ‘Casey Jones’.

It’s not too late, but if you keep up this idiotic bullsh*t that you’re somehow a superior being just because you’re a QF mainline driver, it very soon will be.

[amos2]

Yeh!...I gotta agree with Spad on this one.

I like what Fartsock has to say, but I think he's away with the pixies...

and Keg, ol' buddie, do you get sore sitting on that fence?

[Kaptin M]

Let me put a proposition to you, fs, as Oldmeadow might well do.

What would be the response from the QF pilots if QANTAS were to tell you that you could have ALL of the J* flying if you accepted it on the same terms as the Impulse guys have?
In other words, the Impulse pilots go when the 717 goes.

Now if the QF pilots agreed to that would THEY be thought of in the same light as some of you QANTAS guys think of the Impulse pilots?

Don't some of you get it YET?!

Because the IPG are not a part of AIPA, the company is using one group as a lever against the other.

UNITED you'll stand and have some strength - DIVIDED not only is Oldmeadow & Co ripping you BOTH apart from the outside, but some of you are doing a pretty bl00dy good job from within, on YOURSELVES!!

[Keg]

Spad, amos, thanks once again (and again, and again) for the history lesson. I'm sorry that I was just 18 years old at the time and couldn't do more about it than keep learning to fly. You've made the point now, you've made it before. I don't care whether or not what AIPA did back then was right or not, I'm just concerned that whether or not we have learned all we can from '89 and we can now get on with the real job of dealing with the future- rather than being stuck a decade and a half in the past. You really need to get off the high horse and let go! Just goes to show that post traumatic stress disorder isn't just for combat operators. Also applies to people who can't learn the lessons and then learn to move on to ensure that they're not repeated! :rolleyes:

As for the fence amos, which would that be. You agree with Spad and yet conveniently miss the point that it is the EXACT stand that I'm advocating and have been advocating for a good while now. A united, focussed, determined and resolute pilots association that represents all pilots from all segments of the Qantas group. Once that is done, it'd be nice to go with ALL pilots from ALL airlines! It ain't impossible either but it sure as heck isn't going to happen with if we continue to focus on 'woe is us, we should have joined the AFAP in the '89 dispute!' :rolleyes:

So, maybe I'm having a slow night but I'm not sure which fence it is that you're referring to!?! Perhaps your desire to once again attempt to sink the boot into QF drivers in retribution for leaving you guys to your own devices in '89 is causing you to not actually read posts correctly or put them into the correct context. Believe me, I KNOW which side of the fence I'm on. I've never sat on the fence before on any issue and so I'm not going to start now! :E

(Edited for spelling and to try and ensure that people like 410 (see the next post) get the message correctly first time around!)

[410]

I’ve looked at all the threads on this subject over the last week or two and have been constantly amazed at how short-sighted (or should that read blind-sighted?) the few QF mainline respondents have been when someone outside their ranks dares to makes a suggestion that AIPA might not be the way to go for the future.

That boldface was for you, ‘Keg’, as you, like so many QF pilots, seem to go off on a tangent about ‘forget the long ago past’ whenever 89 is mentioned. ‘Spad’ and (I think it was) ‘Wiley’, on an earlier thread has said what the proverbial Blind Freddie can see – you guys REALLY need to remove the blinkers and drop with all possible haste this crazy notion that a company union will protect your fast eroding position. You and every other pilot employed by an airline – any airline – within Australia need to form a united front industrially against an increasingly confrontationalist management who seem to have a long term plan to reduce your status - and remuneration - to that of (un)glorified bus drivers.

I’m not a Qantas pilot, but if it makes my opinion any more acceptable to you QF people, I was offered employment in QF mainline way back in 1979. There have been times, (particularly exactly ten years after that date!), when I bitterly regretted knocking back the QF offer. I mention this only because it seems to me that, incredibly, there seem to be pilots within Qantas who appear to look down on fellow aviators who have not been accepted into the Qantas ranks.

‘Wiley’ made the excellent analogy (and was promptly shot down in flames for making it) of the pre-war RAF accepting their perhaps not quite so polished wartime colleagues into their ranks when there was no other option. Had the ‘superior’ (in their own opinion) pre-war RAF pilots decided they would not accept the ‘riff raff’ wartime-trained pilots, everyone would have lost everything, just as you QF pilots seem doomed to do. (And isn’t amazing how many of those wartime-trained ‘riff raff’ pilots ended up as the stars and aces of the RAF as the war progressed? I think that given the chance, the years would show that the same might apply with many of the Impulse and Qantaslink pilots, but that’s just an opinion I don’t need to explore here.)

The point everyone seemed to miss in ‘Wiley’s’ analogy was that the quickly trained wartime pilots had to make the grade or they died. The analogy can be stretched to the current situation within QF. Accept that the Qantaslink and Impulse pilots are a fact of life – (they are) – and that they are now within your ranks. Those (I think very few, but I know some will disagree) that really are below standard will be weeded out in the QF training/checking process just as the wartime RAF pilots were weeded out by a far harsher and absolute ‘check and training’ process that came literally out of the barrel of a gun.

Gentlemen, I no longer work within Australian Aviation, but I certainly retain an interest in it and its future. You all simply must convince yourselves to look past petty – and even major – squabbles within your ranks and get yourselves into one, united association to protect an industry that is being all too quickly ruined by fly-by-night blow-ins in management who can’t see beyond the next quarterly profit statement. And by ‘all’, I mean ‘all pilots’ and not just those within Qantas and its offshoots. Before 1982, Qantas pilots were the leading force within the AFAP and therefore with all Australian pilots, both airline and GA. They need to re-establish themselves in that position in whatever you all choose to call the one, united union all Australian pilots simply must form and support right *** now.

Don’t fall into the trap of reminding us old codgers that ‘you were only 18 in 1989’ or some such throwaway line. Accept or don’t accept that mistakes were made in 1982 and 1989. Look to the future, but for God’s sake, don’t ignore the mistakes of history. You can be damned sure Management aren’t.

[Keg]

Geez 410, you're the second person that's taken a shot at me and then gone on to make an identical point to the one that I've been making for about the last five months! :rolleyes:

Foir the avoidance of doubt, I DO want AIPA and Aussie pilots to learn from the events of '89. I DO want to present a unified, robust adn determined front to a management that would reduce us to nothing. I DO want to ensure that we're well informed and unblinkered.

That said, I am sick of people telling me what morons AIPA were back in '89. That may or may not have been the case however I'm not going to waste time beating myself up over decisions that I wasn't a part of or had no influence on. The ONLY time I want to be spending on '89 is to learn from it. Amos and Spad go on and on and on all the time about how AIPA should have done things differently in '89. Well, it's water a decade and a half under the bridge now. About 1100 current Qantas pilots out of the 2300 in weren't in Qantas (or Australian) at the time of the dispute. We won't forget the lessons of the dispute but we won't be wringing our hands and saying 'if only we had done things differently over the last 2-20 years then things would now be OK! :rolleyes: THAT is the point I make to Spad and Amos (and now you).

I've been pretty vocal on PPRUNE about the direction that I think AIPA should be taken and so far my feeling is that our Pres at least is working in that direction (although I'm not sure about various members of the COM (and rank and file as well) who are undermining him). Fire away if you will. Call me blinkered if you like but I'll say again that the ONLY way to stop the rot is with a united, robust, resolute bunch of pilots backing up their association!

Is that clear enough yet? :confused:

[rockarpee]

All your posts have been clear to me Keg, I would suggest that there are those who CANNOT/WILL NOT look outside there own blinkered view of the world(89).Or its all a s**t stir...Frankly, 89 has become passe, and alot that is said on these forums are windups by some extremely verbose characters.:D