Chief Pilots potential demise rumours....

[blueloo]

THere have been a few rumblings about the potential axing of a Chief Pilot at a certain major carrier. Does anyone know the rumour behind the rumour, or the facts behind the rumour............... When, Why, If, When, How, Animal or Vegetable.....

[rescue 1]

Ok...I'll bite.

Which bank err company?

[blueloo]

Something to do with a national icon, which can be BBQd nicely.

[Mr Maverick]

And here was I thinking that The Admiral was going to join MaryAnne. Something about confidence or lack thereof, or so the jungle drums are saying. :8

[Dexter]

awww comeon bloo loo, Emu Airways aint that big you culd call it a natonal carrier.

[TwinNDB]

neither is Alligator... :}

[the wizard of auz]

I didn't even know echidna air had the AOC sorted out.
Or is it wombat air your thinking of?. :}

[RENURPP]

Maverick,

we can only hope.

If it happens the beer is on me.

[QFinsider]

The bar will be packed if it does happen....

And it wont be for those sympathetic to him....:E

[Elroy Jettson]

Cmon Guys, you know these Guys are bullet proof! If Slow Hand Luke could survive the LOSA bebarkle, Dads armies Mr Mannering can survive a vote of no confidence from a splintered pilot group. To prove my point, they aren't going to give us the engagement survey again because they are of no doubt the results will be far worse than last time. Not bad considering the last result was the lowest in corporate history. :ok:

"Righto Chaps, hand these out. Lets see how well we are doing! Just don't hand them out to the pilots, flight attendants or the engineers. Oh yeah, ground staff cant fill them out either, infact I just printed off 2 copies. Chris, could you fill out one, and Wayne, could you fill out the other one, and get them back to me as soon as possible so we can average out the results before the end of the financial year! Chop chop! Bonuses await!" :yuk:

[Avid Aviator]

Great rumour, I wish it was true! Unfortunately, premature. Pressure is building at the roo with court cases L, R and centre (it's a major inconvenience and cost to have to fight them). At least one is directly (personally) aimed at the CP. AIPA are cashed up after jettisoning some dead weight legal types and are now contracting people who will actually pursue the organisation's aims.
I believe the above rumour started from problems wth Jetstar's industrial (pilot wise) mishandling of the transmission of QF A330s to JQ INT. Don't know if that resulted in pressure on him? Can only hope...

[missy]

LOSA bebarkle

What LOSA bebarkle? Would you care to elaborate?

[king oath]

I suggest Avid has got it spot on. A lot of "ifs" before it happens but he may have a few twitches. Imagine life without those big bonus's

[Lagrange]

The rumour about to be fact. KI really screwed up while acting for the chief while he was on leave.

Standby for the entry of David of Brisbane

[slim]

I believe they have booked the phone box near QCC for Mrs Mannerings send-off.

[DirectAnywhere]

Care to elaborate Lagrange??

PM me if you want....

[Elroy Jettson]

Oooops, sorry for the spelling mistake Missy, I promise to try harder in future.

No one took responsibility for the poor results in the LOSA audit, I think the recomendations by Slow Hand were spot on though, I for one shined my shoes and wore my hat and jacket a whole lot more. :hmm:

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Hey Elroy, I notice the current CP reckons that's also the answer to everything also! Reference - a recent Flt Ops Newsletter.

I guess he's got a point - we're QF crew and have to look good. And of course the only time we actually interact with our customers now is when we are stripping off our polished shoes, crisply dry-cleaned jacket, belt and hat at security-screening and being harrassed whilst half-naked with the rest of the punters...

Ah, but we look good, so there you go, everything's fine.

[king oath]

At least Captain Serious won't have to throw a wobbly when some IT literate pilot puts sh*t on the computers at work, causing him to devote half a page of the newsletter to venting his outrage that someone would take the p*ss out of him. Now he can take himself seriously in private.

[DutchRoll]

This rumour is very premature, and personally I'd rather you not get all of our hopes up like that.

[lambsie]

The Easter weekend edition of Boss magazine from the Financial Review features an article on leadership by General Peter Cosgrove (former Chief of the Defence Force). He states, in part, "There are other traits essential for a leader: a sense of decency, moral courage, humility and compassion."

Sadly, these elements are lacking in the character makeup of many department heads at Charlie Q.

When the good General is Chairman we may stand a chance of once again becoming respected employees.

[king oath]

Does Jamie Packer help? He's on the Board.

[Elroy Jettson]

Sure does! Jamie is one of the most truant board members in Australian corporate history. It stands to reason that things perform alot better when he is away. Look what happened when he really did try at One tel! Pray he stays away for the good of the company. :}

[bb744]

I can quite confidently say that any rumour circulating in the aviation world about MY imminent demise in the aviation world is untrue and I have the utmost confidence in my own ability.:yuk:

[CaptCloudbuster]

I have the utmost confidence in my own ability.:yuk:

:} ...but does the board???:uhoh:

[TwinNDB]

Sorry Horst, I'd have to disagree with you.

This is a RUMOUR network and nothing sais that one rumour is mor deserving of length of time than another.

It also shows that most of the people in QF are sick of the intimidatory manor in which QF management decide to rule.

Every QF pilot I have flown with is ALWAYS professional on the flight deck and would never do anything to jeapordise the operation. That however does not stop each person from being allowed to have a different view (politically or otherwise) on how they believe the company is being run.

Qantas owns our flying hours but not our political thoughts.

Twin.

[Woomera]

Horst, the QF pilot group has no say in the closure, or otherwise of this thread. If they want it to go away, they will stop posting responses. Then it will slip into oblivion. Otherwise, we will let it run its course (unless it gets nasty).

Currently Horst, yours is the first post even remotely resembling support. Another 21% are "junk posts" not even related to the sub ject. The remainder seem to be letting of a bit of steam, which they cannot do in Qrewroom without fear of retribution.

For the time being, thread stays.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest respect, I have to weigh in on the side of the QF staff. One can cheese pare and cheese pare till the cows come home, however by the time you realise that you have cut too deeply the damage is already done.

Cuts in Engineering, pressure on Cabin crew and Pilots, configuration changes to aircraft and so on all add up, but the results may not be seen until there is a catastrophic event.

Readers may note a thread about a diversion to a little known Russian (ok khazakwhatisname) airport after an LHR Bound 747 had a fire warning in the cargo hold.

Anyone care to think about what might happen if the crew is in the middle of an industrial dispute, the aircraft is carrying a few "defects" (such as dodgy tires) and the cabin crew are worn to a shred trying to look after too many pax with too few staff?

When you cheese pare with an airline, you don't get incremental reduction in capacity. Its like a stall, one minute the aircraft is flying, then all of a sudden it isn't. I don't think management understands that.

Translation: The first evidence that maybe you have cut too deep could be a large smoking hole in the ground. Good airlines understand this.

[Tankengine]

Rumour that it is the star, not the rat.:zzz:

[Keg]

I heard the same rumour on a recent trip. The only thing it was based upon was the possible result of a court case which has a long way to go and a rumour about engagement surveys. Now, I'm no company apologist although I do profess a desire to see QF grow and prosper- much the same as the majority of my colleagues- and in this respect, I have viewed some decisions made a many levels of management (Executive down to Flight Ops) with a significant degree of dismay.

However, I've also see QF pilots as a group bring ourselves undone time and again. We telegraph our punches on Qrewroom without batting an eye lid. We do silly, inane things like defacing a computer screen and making ourselves as a group look like dills. We post a rumour on PPRUNE with no significant foundation and profess extreme delight in the fact that if even half true it shows an airline in a bad way. If it's not true and not based on anything then I stilll despair at the current morale and long term welfare of the pilot group as it shows how poorly we are at the moment.

So peddle it if you must but whilst it may make you feel better in the short term, ultimately it may hurt us all!

Regards,
Keg

[blueloo]

Keg, with due respect, I am not sure how a rumour such as this will influence someones demise or not. Either it is going to happen (if there is truth to the rumour) or it won't. Things will continue, be they for the better or worse.

Trying to disguise the ill feeling within the ranks at QF, is a bit like sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. More to the point, it wont fool anyone.

I too hope for the best at QF, but sadly we havent turned the corner yet, and i fear that turn is still along way off, with our current management.

[QFinsider]

Keg,

Whilst you and I share a desire to see the company prosper, as our collective future depends on it, I disagree with your post.

Many of us are only too aware that the current environment is very adversarial, the intimidation less than subtle on many occassions.
One of the chief proponents of this tactic is senior management, ably assisted by elements in Flight operations. Whilst it would appear that "work choices" is something the company would love to use, the legislation makes clear any threats, intimidation or harassment will not be toleratred. Depsite targeting unions overtly the legislation is clear in that you cannot threaten a person due their association with/or representation of a labour organisation.

The punches aren't being telegraphed anymore, which is why some of the players in QCC and indeed corporate are a little annoyed. I believe the direction being taken by the union is consistent and appropriate with respect to the industrial climate and indeed the way the company conducts(and by definition-her managers) itself.

For me, I do not trust management intention. I know the identity of the person making the compliant against( as IW said) the "company" not the individual. I have no doubt that the incident occured and it occured in the way it is alleged. I am aware of the facts.
I have no confidence in the ethics of managment, I belive they have and do use "performance in the simulator" as a tool to control those they deem "loose cannons". As such I will not post on Crew room anything that I believe is legitimate, not personal or defamatory comment about the way the company conducts itself for fear of harassment.

We do control the destiny of the company in our pilot hands. It is management that set a deisred direction, but ultimately we control the execution of that policy. I am sick of the implied threats, the divisive aggressive tactics that ultimately hurt us all in the collective future. Removing elements from the midst that harm our collective desire to see our company prosper is I beleive legitimate. Whilst I continue to fly professionally, I have no belief in the way these uneducated "sheltered workshop" experts conduct themselves. That such behaviour has the tacit approval of management is the scary bit.

Hence the court action. If it is proven that an individual or group did behave as is alleged, then managment in failing to act is liable. It presents an interesting decision should the case be proven. Senior management failing to act implies they not only approve of the conduct, but support it.

To be able to comment on thse matters, without slander and fear of intimidation is a case for optimism, which at our workplace is a long time coming.. Fortunately for us freedom of expression still exists. The rest of the process will be handled in due course by the appropriate entity to handdle such assertions, the legal system.

If the process results in more respect for the contribution to our companies success of the flight crew, excellent. If it removes from our workplace harassment then fantastic. If individuals are held accountable for their conduct and removed from their post, then I believe all the better for all of us:E

[QFinsider]

Ok Horst, I'll bite..

I want people that harm the collective removed..the difference is there is due process followed in a court of law. My understanding of a dictator is such that there is no due process.The leagal system I refer to is not controlled by me, nor AIPA. We are following a process that is enshrined by others in order to ascertain whether the behaviour is legitimate or illegal and must be removed from ourt workplace....

I look forward to due process, something dictators do not....:ok:

[jakethemuss]

Insider,

If individuals were held accountable for their conduct, there would be a number of flight crew, including some on the ARG, who would not be employed. Some have had very serious conduct issues in the past and it has been AIPA that has kept them employed.

If you want it in management, you should also want it in the pilot body. It can't be a one way street. The problem is that the union protects to the hilt those who should be evicted from the profession due to unprofessional conduct.

How many knobs have there been over the years that almost the entire crew used to go sick so they didn't have to fly with them. We all know them but have protected them as though it is their god given right to be a Qantas pilot and that should never be taken away.

IMHO the words of the recently departed DCP are essential fodder for all:

"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"

If you are not a hypocrite, you should be demanding the same treatment for all, not just management.

[TwinNDB]

Jakethemuss

I am not fully aware of some of the points you made in your previous post, however; you talk of pilots that have previously been represented by AIPA in order to keep their jobs.

If they pay their AIPA % why should they not be entitled to legal representation in a case made against them by the company. If the process was allowed to make its way through our legal system, with the resultant finding allowing them to keep their jobs then why should they not remain employed? If the legal process found they should indeed be removed from their position, as the company may have sought, then the process has also proved itself.

As to your quote of a just departed DCP:

"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"

Could just as easily relate to those who so quickly find a management seat after heading AIPA, to start undoing the work that they started during their tenure as president.

I do however agree that at other times pilots have been their own worst enemies. We shall see how things go from here with the new IR laws in place and the eventual negotiation of EBA 8.

Twin.

[blueloo]

Horse schitt, you are right I did post it on here to create whisperings etc, I wanted to find out what the base of the rumour was - refer to my first post - its pretty obvious!

Aside from that, the only person who is trying to stir things up is you.

[Mr Maverick]

Oh dear, it seems the jungle drums might be a bit ahead of their time. One can live in hope though!

[blueloo]

Absolutley Horst couldnt agree with you more. Thats it weakness of character. Couldnt be anything else. :ok:

[*Lancer*]

Why is every online pilot forum so full of rubbish?

TwinNDB, have you had any experience with our legal system? You are right in saying that there is due process etc, but unfortunately that takes TIME and MONEY - two things neither AIPA nor Qantas really wants to sacrifice. That is why 'back-door-dealing' has always been the vastly more efficient way of conducting and resolving negotiation. e.g. Settling out of court achieves satisfactory results much faster than sitting in front of a judge. e.g. Diplomatic deal-making by assistants during the coffee breaks rather than during head-of-state summits.

The American style of litigate everything (Be Safe!) isn't the direction we should be encouraging our leaders.

[Datum]

Taken from the Australian Financial Review - Boss Magazine, Vol 7, April 2006, p 64.

"WHAT I AM WORKING ON....

Associate Professor Verena Marshall - Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology.

There is an old saying: 'Doctors bury their mistakes; pilots are buried with them!'...Along with my colleagues Dr Margot Wood (Curtin University) and Dr Robert Dannatt (of Aviation Consultants - Avise and Associates) we are reseraching the organisational factors and managerial processess that impact on safety culture, with a particular focus on airlines. I contend that every crack in an aircraft's fuselage - or error made in an organisation - can be traced back to a chasm in management policy and practice. Data has been gathered from 12 major airlines in Australiasia and South East Asia. From it we are identifying cultural characteristics that reflect companies' resilience to accidents..."

I hope these academics have spoken to a diverse cross section of the QF workforce....

Most QF pilots are afraid to post on their own chat site - Qrewroom....for fear of retribution!!....so I seriously doubt whether the 'reporting culture' characteristic of QF presently is as 'open' as it might otherwise be....

QF management continue to create new and widening 'chasms' everyday....:uhoh:

[QFinsider]

Facts remain

There is an action underway in the federal court.
If proven there will be significant fallout.

All individuals have the ability to rebutt allegations of misconduct, harassment and intimidation. For one I am glad our association is.

As to the "tools" you sometimes experience in our job...Due process is something that applies to all parties. Having heard plenty of rumours about individuals, only to be pleasantly suprised I am glad, should I be threatened/labelled that there is due process! In this case the individual at the centre of the allegation should be glad that there is due process. For once an independant system will make a decision.

As for the the overtones of Horst(an appropriate acronymn)
Im certainly no dictator, but the dictatorial tone of management is being held, at least to this point accountable. That has not happened in the previous AIPA committees. I am happy to let the court have its say. Unlike most dictators, I am a mere observor. I am a line driver exerting no control over the process, the participants or indeed the outcome:E

[DutchRoll]

Horst, I'm not making a judgement on whether blueloo was right or wrong in starting this thread, nor on the relative merits of playing on poster's pseudonym, but do you know what 'PPRUNE' stands for? Do you understand how it started and what the initials mean?

I re-read your statement 'If you truly wished to find if there was truth in the base of the rumours why did you not consult with other QF pilots...' several times and I am still pondering the inherent oxy-oxy-oxymorons in using the words 'truth', 'rumours', 'consult' and 'other QF pilots' all in the one sentence!

Rumours are rumours, and for the most part they are fair game on PPRUNE whether you find them pleasant ones or otherwise. If you do not like that, cease posting, delete it from your favourites, and cancel your registration. 'PPTRNE' just somehow doesn't have the same ring to it!

[Mud Skipper]

Personally I didn't realize there was any PILOT in such a position, just chief I think would be the correct title. :} :bored:
AHHH! Watch out for the rocks, what's that you say, there's no-one manning the wheel. We are all dooomed I tell you DOOOOOMED.
:{ :{ :{ :{ :{ :{ :

[Ulysses1]

A Qantas colleague of mine has just sent me the latest AIPA weekly newsletter as the information contained therein seems pertinent to this thread.

It appears that Qantas' infamous leader, (previous leader of the AIPA), is really the one responsible for the lack of communication between the Union and Qantas management.

It would appear to me, as an outsider, that the demise of the Chief Pilot is, and will be, caused by his total miscalculation of the animosity that exists towards him from within the pilot body. Apparently this was caused by his total reliance on the previous AIPA President's ability to hand Qantas a destroyed union. This would appear to have backfired.

As for the demise of the Deputy Chief Pilot, or Manning's sacrificial lamb, I think rather he is actually the prodigal idiot that most dictators need at their right hand.

[TineeTim]

Who the F**k care what you 'an outsider' thinks? Sorry, but 'outsiders' know what they hear from mates and what the read on rumour orientated websites- hardly reliable sources.:yuk:

Who'll go first IW or CM. My money is heavily on IW.

[*Lancer*]

Oh get off it Ulysses! Is everything AIPA President and team says absolutely gospel? :hmm:

You could have almost gotten away with that post until you called the former DCP the prodigal idiot. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Have you read what the Chief Pilot said in his update as well, or would that be too balancing for you?

I doubt an outsider would have created a new profile for that as a first post...

(Edited to remove names for those sensitive types who think initials dont give away anything! :))

[JJ&MFMary]

No Names !!!!

Ban Lancer
:}:}:}:}

[bb744]

Sorry Lancer but Wayne Kearns is not the D.C.P. , has not been for some time. I suspect there is a fall guy in the position at the moment.

[Sonny Hammond]

bb744,

You suspect?
You obviously aren't in a position to comment on your future then.

After all, you hired him.

[bb744]

BUGGER, well done Sonny, I have been caught out

[jakethemuss]

The current AIPA President is so poorly thought of by everyone from the Chairman down at Qantas that it would be highly unlikely that he could influence the colour of the toilet paper, let alone the career of the current CP.

Perhaps the thinking people should dig a little deeper to fully understand the history of those in power at AIPA at the moment and gain some insight into why they are considered "morally bankrupt" by the management of QF.

Then you will understand why your futures are not as bright as perhaps they should be.

Negotiation or arbitration? You decide!:confused:

[QFinsider]

Who cares what the Chairman, CEO or any other manager thinks of the AIPA president...

It is the membership that must be confident and most are!
I'm glad the union isn't rolling over...

I'm glad there isn't a cosy relationship

It was only cosy because the pilot group could be relied upon to roll over....A relationship takes two..To suggest that management have an open dialgoue and the door of the CP or anyone else has been open is to deny reality...They aren't open, but they sure are gettin the message that the business is getting a little more difficult to operate..It isn't the profesisonalism being withdrawn, it's the goodwill:E

QF negotiation is take it or leave it!
If they don't realise it is a two way street, then arbitration is another option and luckily "work choices" can't affect our ability to take action through the court!:ok:

[Sonny Hammond]

Boo hoo, the management types don't like the new AIPA chief.

Well, maybe cause he doesn't roll over at every opportunity like his predecessors. Maybe cause he is actually representing the pilots, unlike his predecessors.
Maybe cause he is a block in thier path to totally screwing the entire pilot group, including the next generation of pilots.

"The current AIPA President is so poorly thought of by everyone from the Chairman down at Qantas"?? That is a joke, right?

Maybe they should look in the mirror.

[JJ&MFMary]

Jakie-boy.

I understand you have a personal interest in the demise of the former COM, but it all depends on results.

The former pole-smoking of the last COM did not deliver JQ int, it may well be that the current approach will not work either.

From the CEO down, the management have a pathelogical hatred of the pilot body.

regardsless of who is in charge of AIPA, nothing can change that now.

[Sue Ridgepipe]

.....they are considered "morally bankrupt" by the management of QF.


...mmmmm... "morally bankrupt" eh?
And how would you describe the treatment of staff by QF management?

[LTBC]

The previous Committee was attacked (and still is) about the failure to negotiate a Jetstar deal, and yet while the current Committee was getting on with the business of 'reforming' the AIPA office the horse bolted (again) on JQI.

QFinsider, and Sonny, you have to realise that if Dixon wants to play hard-ball, Dixon will win. You think the flight attendants and engineers lacked some secret advantage the current AIPA President has?

Wake up!

Its time to realise that if Qantas is going to think outside the square and reduce pilot costs, whining about it and taking Qantas to court is not going to solve a thing. Antagonising your boss is not a very constructive way forward when they hold most of the cards (don't delude yourselves and pretend they don't).

I sincerely hope more and more pilots are waking up to the fact that there is no substance to the ARG other than spin. Interestingly, the last update was very cleverly worded to try and mitigate that perception.

[JJ&MFMary]

smoke that pole LTBC, smoke it !!!!

[Sonny Hammond]

So what do you suggest?

We played ball, so to speak, over the years and while that might have worked in the past, recently, management have abused this position.

We got locked out of negotiations re J*. Not much else to say there.

So now we have the sh*ts and are standing to be heard on a few issues. Some important in there own right, others making a point.

I think you will find most pilots are now awake to what is going on, on both sides, but you cant seriously suggest we sit by idley while we are made totally irrelevant.
Maybe its inevitable, maybe it isn't but by doing nothing we'll get nothing, (proven that) and maybe if we can get some respect back we may become relevant at the table.

Personally, I doubt it's possible. Management seems to relish treating their long term staff badly. Why? Sure there are some bad eggs etc etc, but there are heaps who have done there best and are willing to do what it takes to keep the roo going for all.
Unfortunately, that is being ignored by the bosses, who think the better path forward is to alienate nearly everyone.

[DutchRoll]

Jake, the current AIPA leaders were obviously not thought of poorly by the overwhelming majority of QF pilots who elected them (if you don't understand the term 'overwhelming', perhaps you could post the relevant AIPA COM election results onto PPRUNE for the benefit of the uninformed, along with annotations of which 'side' they belonged to?).

I also find it a little bit hypocritical that current QF managment might consider them 'morally bankrupt'. Anecdotally (and I'm sure you're not one for anecdotes), a disturbingly large proportion of QF pilots I've spoken to in recent months tend to share this sentiment.

Also, just for my benefit because I'm a bit dim, could you please quantify - perhaps using Jetstar as an example - how 'negotiation' by the previous AIPA reps has protected and/or furthered mainline pilot pay, conditions, and career prospects?

[Sandy Freckle]

I had heard that the potential demise had something to do with his attempts to remove a SO "after" a trip (rather than before...), when he was suspected of drug usage. The rumour is that CASA has become involved and is p1ssed about the whole episode....:ouch:

You know the rules, no names. W :mad:

[Veruka Salt]

That's what I heard too, Sandy :ooh:

[Eagleman]

QF management can't control the current AIPA president. Well isn't that just such bad luck NOT!!

While this position remains, the current CP will not be replaced. Simply, GD and "youngpaddock" can't be seen to give in to AIPA.

Game over.

[QFinsider]

Eagle whilst I share your observation about the arrogance of management, both senior and Flight ops, I do beg to differ about the potential demise of management personnel in Flight Operations.

The incident allegedly involving the pilot and alleged drug use is not where the pressure is being bought to bear. Presently there is an action pending in the courts involving harassment and implied threats by elements of managment toward an office holder in AIPA. The company not any one individual will be defending the action.Unfortunately for senior management failure to act and remove the said indiviidual at the centre of this allegation( should it be proven) will be implied tacit approval. As such management right up to and including a CEO will be deemed liable in the event of a successful prosecution.

No matter what individuals think of APIA, this kind of behaviour, no matter from where it comes it is not legal, ethical but until AIPA withdrew "co-operation" and took action all too common at QF. I for one am glad there is the option of independant arbitration.:E

Due process will decide the outcome, something management at QF isn't used to:E

[Datum]

The CP should be sacked for any number of things...least of which is the fact that very few QF pilots trust him...

Importantly, trust is the foundation of an organisation's safety culture... a lack of trust (towards key individuals or the system as a whole) leads to a reluctance to report faults in one's own performance or the performance of the organisation. That is, staff will only report issues if they do not fear retribution or blame.... The level of professionalism characteristic of QF flightcrew is of the highest order, however cultural change in this regard will occur insidiously if not managed by the organisation's operational managers....they do not need to follow the poor example set by corporate management.

It has been said many times before - PEOPLE are the key to any organisation's success. To achieve maximum performance people (the workers) must feel valued and must TRUST the organisation's leadership. It follows then that an organisation must choose it's managers and leaders very carefully...or in some cases choose to relieve them.

In light of recent QF corporate management decisions and their poor behaviour regarding dealings with QF employee unions - 'distrust' is now a commonly held feeling within the entire QF workforce. Obviously, this is not an insignificant problem for the company. However, if this very destructive corporate culture of 'distrust' is permitted to spread down into the operational level of the company - far greater and longer lasting damage is possible.

[LTBC]

And if senior management decide to utilise a workforce that isn't part of an existing union... what then? What if Dixon just decides to get new people?

e.g.
FAAA and the London base
ALAEA and Avalon
AIPA and Jetstar

If AIPA keeps up its agressive and spiteful attitude, that's exactly what will happen, and no amount of legal action will prevent it. The membership need to start asking serious questions of their seniors (CM said so himself - read it), to start seeing through the empty promises haemorrhaging from AIPA.

Ask the questions, or bet your career that the AIPA leadership knows what its doing.

[QFinsider]

AIPA and J* that was the previous committee's debarcle...

Why don't we all just lay down and die-Nahhh until J* Int replicates enough of the intenrational flying to start the fight Dixon can't afford it...I will bet $12 billion dollars of revenue on it...

Oh and by the way, the first step to overcoming a potentially lethal and fatal set of circumstances- is to acknowledge the reality. The reality is the adversity started years ago, left unchecked it festered. It is not the present committee, so dig your head in the sand, appease the oppressor, and there will be peace in our time.

Not naming names, but where in management do you work LTBC?

[JJ&MFMary]

Not management.

An ex committee member from bne

[Viagra]

...... (current) legislation makes clear any threats, intimidation or harassment will not be tolerated..
......(management threaten) "performance in the simulator" as a tool to control those they deem "loose cannons".
QFinsider hit the nail on the head and a few folks missed the answer to the whole thread on page 2.
If a charge of Workplace Threat/Harassment is convicted, does that result in a criminal record?

[Lucius Vorenus]

Guess what? I know this will come as a shock to some of you but I have to tell you...

Qantas pilots aren't the only pilots in Oz!

And also by my reckoning they're not the best or the smartest either. If you read their postings on these pages and see their recent behaviour you would have to agree something is seriously amiss in the QF recruiting criteria!

Are they the dumbest in Oz?

Yep, almost certainly, given their inability to accept facts.

[SHRAGS]

Nice try Lucius,
No one has said they are the smartest or better than anyone else; they just work for Qantas.
But they cetainly are NOT stupid enough to fall for that feable attempt at a 'wind up' from QF managers.
DUH!! :}

[Lucius Vorenus]

Shrags,

Yep mate they work for Qantas. End of story. The sum total of their life achievement.

Hey..look at me, I work for Qantas. The world stops when I talk. I am the smartest nicest correctest person around because I work for Qantas.

Likewise if I was on COM. Hey look at me, everyone must agree with what I do because they voted me on COM.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not management. Not even close.

But forgive me if I am a little weary of the bull and spin you guys keep spouting here.

The fact is Qantas pilots have very little to be proud of recently.

[JJ&MFMary]

You, lucius, are a fkucwit and a wind up merchant.

This thread is about the end of the chief pilot, not about your own hatred of QF pilots

The vast majority of the pilot body are ordinary guys and girls who are pissed off they have been scabbed on. Noone I know thinks they are better than anyone else, quite the opposite actually - we were all in GA or the RAAF or even other airlines at one point of another and we know the score.

Thats the problem - nothing else.

Now the CP comes into this becaue it is alleged, in the federal court, that he is a bully and has used threats and intimidation to influence a member of the AIPA COM.

The truth or otherwise of the allegation will be determined, by facts, in a court of law.

[LTBC]

JJ&MFMary, you have demonstrated the problem exactly. Pilots like yourself, are so bent on behaving like the 'pissed off' brats you claim to be, that you have delluded yourselves with your own infallibility.

For those members out there who have even the slightest bit of doubt about the direction your AIPA 'team' is taking you, ask the questions yourself. Don't be content to submit to a fatty's brainwash or be misguided into the spiteful standoff AIPA will lose your career to!

I was not voted off off COM last year, so stop wasting time with the character assassination.

[JJ&MFMary]

Chris. (or should I say LTBC)

We all know you love the CP, after all you are one of his QLD mafia as well.

If you think his alledged behaviour is acceptable, you need your head read also.

[Lucius Vorenus]

JJ&MFMary,

Forgive me, I was under impression that this thread was all about what fools you and your mates are making of Qantas pilots. I stand corrected.

You know the score?

Unfortunately I doubt it.

You say:
Now the CP comes into this becaue it is alleged, in the federal court, that he is a bully and has used threats and intimidation to influence a member of the AIPA COM.
How do you know this? Can you tell me at which AIPA COM meeting such a legal expense was approved? In the interests of openness and the "new deal" surely you can tell me this?

Thanks for your earliest advice.

[CashKing]

Maximization of combined outcomes required both parties to cooperate. Cooperation resulted in greater individual outcomes relative to outcomes resulting from mutual non-cooperation. However, a strategy of defection, characterized by a proponent pursuing non-cooperation while an opponent chose cooperation, led to the greatest possible outcome for the defecting proponent while the opponent received the lowest possible outcome. It is very hard to change our interests. And sometimes, apparently, they clash with morals and ethics. The solution is in attitude. We have to control our feelings. If we are led by negative feelings no matter how much we want to be ethical and moral, we can't. But if we have positive feelings, there is no need to think about moral and ethics. They will come naturally.

[Keg]

Ah, now I've worked out who Cashking is.

No paragraphs, no punctuation, posts that just leapfrog from one thought to the next. The style is very 'Michael'! If not then he has a very capable successor! :E

[DirectAnywhere]

Nah, Cashking knows what a full stop is.

[CashKing]

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

[Keg]

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment Cashking- if I had I would have voiced my opinion on such- just that the style is very familiar.

Beyond that, we're speculating pure and simple!

I do agree that relations aren't what they should be- and that probably applies to AIPA as well as the company.

[James4th]

What is it about Qantas Pilots (a very small number I should think) that makes them want to air their dirty washing in a public forum? If I was in an airline that had the moral problem that Qantas has, I wouldnt be telling the world.

But then I guess, who cares? At least they are not being their usual sactimonious selves and belittling us other poor sods who are unworthy.:hmm:

I know I shouldn't feel like this but I am enjoying watching cannibalism in action.

And it's DEBACLE boys, DEBACLE! (but its pronounced debarcle!)

james

[speeeedy]

Qantas pilots, in fact all Qantas Staff from my observation, have a morale problem. This is exactly why people are airing their dirty laundry on a public forum - they just don’t care any more! (kind of the definition of a morale problem wouldn’t you say?:= ).

The problem with morals rests with the management which in turn might have caused the morale problem.

[B A Lert]

Qantas pilots, in fact all Qantas Staff from my observation, have a morale problem. This is exactly why people are airing their dirty laundry on a public forum - they just don’t care any more! (kind of the definition of a morale problem wouldn’t you say?:= ).


If there is a morale problem, it's not apparent when service is being delivered to those who pay their way. I travelled on 4 domestic sectors in both classes on four recent days and could not fault service levels from anyone, whther they were pilots, FA's or ground staff. The professionalism at the coal face was second to none: keep up the fantastic work and just don't listen to the nay sayers - here or elsewhere. :ok: :ok:

[Keg]

Lert raises an interesting scenario and one that has been the discussion point on many flight decks that I've been on over the last month or so. That is the fact that whilst crew feel very alienated from the 'management', they are fully 'engaged' with the job of being a professional pilot. We're all working to a high standard to ensure a safe, comfortable, on time and economically viable. I've watched guys and heard of guys move heaven and earth to achieve that standard whilst at the same time giving the 'company' an awful bagging for some of the methodology utilised in dealing with their employees.

Perhaps that's why some people don't think there is a problem- ultimately people like Lert don't see the effect of it. I'll take that as a back handed compliment for the level of professionalism shown by the various crews!

[Elroy Jettson]

Keg, thats why 'Mr Mannering' wont let you resit the engagement survey. "Everythings fine, they are not out there actively crashing aeroplanes, so whats the problem?" :yuk:

Go on, be honest, you haven't seen anyone up the fuel order or the cost index, or wait for non essential catering etc etc etc "Just cos the company couldn't give a fcuk so neither do we" routine? You havent seen this on any of your trips? Or are you just too firm handed and stamp out that nonsense the moment it rears its ugly head on your flight deck? :}

[Lucius Vorenus]

Elroy, are you saying you have seen such behaviour?

I'll tell you what happens.

Spoilt brats whinging about "how hard they got it" and "how bad it is because I should be in the next seat" and "I shouldn't have to change airplanes to take promotion" whilst doing the bare minimum in their jobs and frankly often showing a standard little better than Flying Clubs (in fact sometimes worse).

Of course they're disengaged. The company is asking them to actually justify their money and maybe work for a living instead of swanning from pi** up to pi** up.

[Keg]

Elroy,

Heard of it? Yep- I was in a place over the last few years to hear of it frequently. Those who know me know where I was. Generally it was reported as the same few people.

Seen it in the last 18 months on the 767? No.

Seen it on my short time on the 744? No.

If someone tried it on me, I'd question it. Beyond that we're playing Geoffrey Robertson (or is it Robinson?!?! :confused: ) hypotheticals. :ok:

If you're not going to add something constructive Lucius, find somewhere else to play!

[Elroy Jettson]

Hmmm LV. Thanks for telling me how it is. I originally had you pegged as a QF wannabe that failed to get in and now hates QF pilots. I then thought, hang on, maybe a "has been" com member that was dumped at the last election, and now thinks all QF pilots who voted against you are scum. Now, it seems you are suitably qualified to judge the performance of other techies and rank their performance based on what you saw at an aero club. Very impressive.

Nah, I'll stick with the wannabe. What year did you miss out? :}

As for your assessment of engagement, it is so far from the mark, you sure you aren't in management, or at least in an advisory role? ;)

[Elroy Jettson]

Geez Keg, I stand corrected! Maybe they were a little more discrete by diguising it with comments like "weather avoidance fuel" or "rolling tempos" or "extra taxi"? :)

Ok, i'll see myself out.

[B A Lert]

I'll take that as a back handed compliment for the level of professionalism shown by the various crews!

Dear Keg - don't be such a bloody pr!ck. There was nothing about my post that suggested a back-handed compliment. Just as Management know about the dis-engagement between staff and them, they know even better that when the rubber hits the road, all staff (well 99.99% of them) work the only way they know: professionally. You have a problem if you can't tell an honest compliment from one that's not.

Cheers.

[Lucius Vorenus]

Elroy,

Pal, I notice you don't find fault with what I say, just the fact that I say it. You use the argument "he puts the counter-point, ergo he must not know the facts or have an ulterior motive." Sorry, not valid.

Keg, sorry old son but you have missed the point too. This thread is not for construction. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Elroy Jettson]

LV ole Pal, I'll tell you whats not valid, it is those pathetic complaints you have made up, that you think are the pilot bodies basis for lack of engagement.

"How hard they got it". This is just BS. The pilot body realise they are in a privilaged position, they are happy with current T&Cs, they dont want them reduced due to "Market Forces" that our own management created. We are told that jester is the new yard stick for T&Cs and we now have to compete with them. This would be valid if they were opposition, but they are part of the Qantas group. Not conducive to good morale or engagement or company loyalty.

"I should be in the next seat". We have seniority that determines who gets the next seat. Seniority is not an issue that is causing disengagement. So again, BS.

"Changing planes for promotion?" If you think vertical promotion is still an issue, think again. Bidding is now open for the 380. Just move over to that.

Your reasons for disengagement show a distinct lack of touch that only comes from outside the company or an aloof individual with absolutely no comprehension of the issues that are of concern to the pilot body.

So yes, I do find fault with what you say, it is isn't hard when you speak absolute cr@p.

[Lucius Vorenus]

Dear Elroy,

Thanks for playing ball.

The pilot body realise they are in a privilaged position, they are happy with current T&Cs, they dont want them reduced due to "Market Forces" that our own management created. We are told that jester is the new yard stick for T&Cs and we now have to compete with them.

OK so we have to compete with Jetstar? Is that better or worse than having to compete with Emirates or Singair or another non Q LCC like Virgin Blue? Is that better or worse than Q having to compete with other airlines for a dedicated workforce? Mate globalisation weren't invented by Q but by golly they're stuck in it now. People just want no progress (like being made to work harder) ...when it happens they whinge.

I should be in the next seat". We have seniority that determines who gets the next seat. Seniority is not an issue that is causing disengagement. So again, BS.

Seniority not an issue? Guess you haven't been following the SBL saga? People want promotion to be as fast as in 2002. When they don't get it they whinge.

"Changing planes for promotion?" If you think vertical promotion is still an issue, think again. Bidding is now open for the 380. Just move over to that.

Sorry mate, again no cigar. Guys are mighty peeved that they have to work for a living on lesser types instead of swanning away on the MRV.

One thing you do learn and I'll tell you this for free...when people get peeved they whinge...but not necessarily about the things that have peeved them.

[Elroy Jettson]

Ok, I'll bite! :) Of course it is better to fight an external fight with management and staff headed in a common direction. It beats the hell out of fighting each other, and trying to compete in that environment. Jester and QF are competing in completely seperate markets. GD knows this, he has said it numerous times. You dont see Daimler Benz starting a price war with Kia, they are smart enough to know that they would lose. Plenty of full service airlines have failed by making that mistake. JQ was set up to compete with VB, now they are saying we must compete with it. Go figure...

As for a fight with singas and EK, different story. Different game. We are fighting with an inferior product, and an uncompetetive playing field in the form of foreign investment limitations and a massive tax imbalance.

SBLs? Only an issue for a few greedy children who dont want to share their toys. They are too busy fighting to realise that Daddy is manouvering to take their toys away from all of them. Those closer to the door can hear Daddy in the hall, and are watching for the door handle to turn. Doesnt mean we have a problem with seniority though. No one else has come up with a fairer system for promotion, or bidding, but they have come up with a fairer system for rostering, so it needs to be discussed, voted on, and tested. Anyway, the disengagement is with the company, not between factions within the pilot body. Different arguement.

Everybody knows that promotion in 2001/2 was due to the demise of AN, and the rush for both QF and VB to fill the substantial market share void left in its wake. It was a gift to both operators that we probably wont see again in the near future. No one was expecting that rush to continue. The slow down has also come at a time where the group has seen massive expansion, with the mainline pilots knowing that every command, every jet that went to Jester wasnt going to mainline, and we weren't even given a seat at the table to discuss an AO type deal. So yes promotion has slowed, its no suprise to us why. No one sitting here wondering where their command went, they can see them on the tarmac at every domestic terminal.

I'll tell you this for free, when a group prides itself on a long standing good working relationship with managment suddenly thumbs their nose at you and doesnt want to move forward as one with the company anymore, it may pay to listen, and not just think you know why.

[Lucius Vorenus]

Dear Elroy,

We are fighting with an inferior product
Not correct. Customers are generally more than happy with our product. We excel at safe, friendly, efficient Australian service. We also excel at being inconsistent in the delivery of that service and that is the area we must improve on. We must get it right every time. If the price is much the same people like to fly the big Q. If I can help to get that consistency and price to competitive levels without hurting myself or family I will.

You are correct in saying that there is a perception of competition between Q and JQ. I think this is more a perception (closet fear) than a fact. The airlines are in fact complimentary. Sure management wants to play up the competition aspects but do we let them? I say no! I say business as usual! They are, after all, different business models. Keep them separate.

No one sitting here wondering where their command went, they can see them on the tarmac at every domestic terminal.
Hypothetically if JQ hadn't happened where would all those commands be? You can bet they would not have been at Q. JQ exists only to protect market share of Q.

when a group prides itself on a long standing good working relationship with managment suddenly thumbs their nose at you and doesnt want to move forward as one with the company anymore, it may pay to listen, and not just think you know why.
Listen to what? I generally make up my own mind on things thanks mate. Haven't seen too much recently to change my mind. Generally when I see someone doing something silly I don't imitate.

[Elroy Jettson]

Customers are more happy with our product, we just cant deliver it? Seriously? :} Inferior product, which ever way you want to justify it. The company knows we would be decimated if we had to go head to head with SQ and EK on the pacific run, so they hide behind the thin veil of government protectionism while accusing the opposition of doing exactly that. If they thought for one minute they had a better product, they would allow them to fly it to show them how things are done. Remember, you said we were having globalisation thrust on us. Where is the evidence of it?

Hypothetically speaking? OK, if the management allowed us to negotiate an AO style agreement with JQ, then yes, our junior guys commands are parked next to us at the terminal. Do you think hiring direct entry captains from overseas is an efficient ethical use of labour while the compay pays displaced A330 crews to sit around in mainline? Or are they just whingers who dont want to work too? Remember, the 330 for JQ is just there for the short term anyway.

As for "listen to what?" The company scores the lowest "Engagement" result in corporate history, do I really need to elaborate? Or are we just all whingers, and that is that. Dont want to discuss it anymore! :{

[Lucius Vorenus]

Dear Elroy,

.Inferior product, which ever way you want to justify it.
Sorry, in which way is the product inferior? Specifics please and customer survey results please.

The company knows we would be decimated if we had to go head to head with SQ and EK on the pacific run, so they hide behind the thin veil of government protectionism while accusing the opposition of doing exactly that.
Incorrect. Q knows it would lose market share on the Pacific. Equal losses would be felt by United and ANZ. Q can only maintain some sort of protection on the Pacific if it can show that it is a company that is trying to compete against unfair opposition. Very hard to do that with a perception of fat-cat staff.

OK, if the management allowed us to negotiate an AO style agreement with JQ,
And why should they do that? They have people who will do it for less. Don't say because we're loyal employees because you keep saying we ain't! You guys keep going on about how disengaged you are. Why trust the disengaged ones? Why trust a mob whose "president elect" couldn't keep his mouth shut even before he was elected?

[lowerlobe]

Lucius,

Quote…..
“Sorry, in which way is the product inferior? Specifics please and customer survey results please.”

As you believe that our product is superior ,please give me specifics and details as well as customer surveys that show that we do have a superior product to EK and SIA !

[RYAN TCAD]

[QUOTE=Lucius Vorenus]Dear Elroy,


Sorry, in which way is the product inferior? Specifics please and customer survey results please.

NOTE TO LV:

QF's service is crap! - expensive crap at that! - and Australians know this and are spreading the word. Where have you been? Under a rock or head in the sand?

MENTAL NOTE TO SELF:

Do not waste time spelling things out to idiots like this in future if you can help it.

Bo!

[Lucius Vorenus]

Dear Gentle Correspondents,

Rather than flaming me perhaps you should read again what I said:

Customers are generally more than happy with our product. We excel at safe, friendly, efficient Australian service. We also excel at being inconsistent in the delivery of that service and that is the area we must improve on. We must get it right every time. If the price is much the same people like to fly the big Q.
Now you disagree. You say our customers are unhappy. You say we don't excel at safe, friendly efficient Australian service.

Well pardon me but every time I am in the cabin, every time I am at the cockpit door when they deplane, every time I talk to customers of ours wherever I meet them they tell me the above things without prompting. They like us but they are price sensitive and we are inconsistent.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here's another quote of mine:
when people get peeved they whinge...but not necessarily about the things that have peeved them.
Feeling peeved chaps?

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Lucius, have you thought that they only tell you that because they feel sorry for you? :eek:

[Elroy Jettson]

Specifics? Ok, IFE, inferior, business lounges, inferior, inflight service, inferior, route structure and destination choice, inferior. Average aircraft age, inferior. Customer service, inferior. Can I stop now?

How about some survey results...

Just the first google throw up,

http://www.airlinequality.com/StarRanking/5star.htm

Cathay Pacific Airways

Malaysia Airlines

Qatar Airways

Singapore Airlines



Oops, sorry you wont find QF on the 5 star list, you have to go to the 4 star list and look down below....




Air Dolomiti

Air France

Air New Zealand

Air Tahiti Nui

All Nippon Airways

Asiana Airlines

Austrian

Bangkok Airways

British Airways

BMED

China Airlines

Dragonair

Emirates

EOS Airlines

EVA Airways

Frontier Airlines - low cost ranking

Gulf Air

Japan Airlines

JetBlue Airways - low cost ranking

Korean Air

Lufthansa

Luxair

Midwest Airlines - low cost ranking

OzJet - suspended

Portugalia Airlines

Qantas Airways

Royal Brunei Airlines

Silk Air

South African Airways

SriLankan Airlines

Swiss Int'l Air Lines

Thai Airways

Virgin Atlantic

Virgin Blue - low cost ranking

Ah, there it is at number 23. I suppose all those customers that voted are just whingers, again, with no idea. Dont take my word for it mate, click on the link. Or are they just a whinger website too? :{

There are none so blind as those who are not prepared to look, or so deaf as those not prepared to listen. (I wish I had said that). :}

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Elroy, as much as I agree with you on the thrust of what you're getting at, you're going nowhere with an ALPHABETICAL list and arguing that the companys down near the bottom are the worst performers! Also, you are ignoring the 3, 2 and 1 star lists on the same website, so you're presenting a very distorted picture.

Without counting the total stars each airline scored for each part of the study (and I haven't) you can't exclude the possibility that QF is the best 4 star airline in the list, which would make it 5th best in the world (behind the 4 five-star carriers)!

Cmon...... you can do better than that.