PDA

View Full Version : Geoff''s love letter.


The_Cutest_of_Borg
5th Jun 2006, 12:38
Did any other QF pilots get a nastygram from the CEO today or does he just hate me?:hmm:

cartexchange
5th Jun 2006, 12:50
so are you going to share this info with us C O Borg ?
What is he up to now!
:hmm:

drshmoo
5th Jun 2006, 12:55
Sowhat did it say? Obviously talking of pay rises across the board and good times ahead:\

blueloo
5th Jun 2006, 13:24
i think we all got the nastygram. I tell you it improved my engagement!

wow, lets make the staff feel better by whipping them till they bleed, all the while telling them how good it is for them....


yup, makes sense to me!

Redstone
5th Jun 2006, 13:33
So what was in this so called nastygram? Don't be shy! Stop talking in tongues! Give us the good oil! What did it say after "Dear Cutest Of Borg"?

Mr McGoo
5th Jun 2006, 14:04
In the best traditions of the Royal Navy:

The beatings shall continue until moral improves.

captaindejavu
5th Jun 2006, 14:26
It was full of misinformation, half truths, 'Yes Minister'-type lingo and downright LIES. Pure unadulterated propaganda !!!

PLUS.... it cost the Company about $1,300 in postage.

It was an absolute insult to the QF pilot body. I can't post a copy of the text here, as I shredded the one-page piece of merde !! :ugh:

jakethemuss
5th Jun 2006, 14:46
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

TineeTim
5th Jun 2006, 22:53
All right, I'll bite.
I appreciated the letter. We need to hear the other side directly from the top. I don't believe the course the current AIPA is setting is leading us in the right direction. We are completely obstinate. Fair enough the previous mob were too close to the Company, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I reckon if the CP stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, AIPA would send us all an email arguing that it was too soon to tell and we'd see them in court to argue the matter! What has been accomplished by this administration? Now, put yourself in the Company's shoes, what WILL be accomplished? An AIPA that can't work with the Company is doomed. We don't have to be floor mats but we do have to be reasonable. Right now we're not reasonable and, until that changes, things will not improve. edit spelling

jakethemuss
6th Jun 2006, 02:14
Well said that Man!:D

Eagleman
6th Jun 2006, 03:31
I too agree that AIPA and the Company must work together, however it is worth considering a couple of issues.

AIPA from its earliest days has been very close to management. Most management pilots over the past twenty years have had some involvement or other with AIPA, be it President, Secretary, Treasurer or committeman. This is the first time they have stood up to GD. It is like SIA and the pacific. GD cannot stand any form of competition.

The letter we have received is very bully-boy. What is GD's real agenda? Is he going to transfer more flying to J*? If we flop back while he scratches out bellies, we will be playing into his hand. The playing field has to be level. Up to now, it has always been tilted to the company's advantage.

There has to be responsible debate with the Company. This means we can ask tough questions and we should expect to have honest answers.

The Qantas is at the cross road. Unless major cost reductions occur the company will not be able to meet the cost of capital. The only solution is outsourcing of mainline work to J*. That is the only quick way available to Geoff.

In asking (or bullying) AIPA to engage, Qantas has to also accept that their management must also engage.




"Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often
possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so
inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death
as soon as they are nicked by the real world."

*Lancer*
6th Jun 2006, 04:51
When I started as an S/O I can remember a skipper telling me that if a crewmember has needed to RAISE something to the "I am concerned" stage, he considered it a personal failure as a Captain. Indicating concern is a powerful thing that should not be dismissed.

I suspect that too many of us have been satisfied reading and talking about what has been going on from a distance, rather than adequately finding out the truth for ourselves. If we are unable to effectively listen to, and act on the information that is being provided now, when Geoff moves onto 'emergency language' we won't have any influence over the outcome. IR is on his side. As are the shareholders, the board, and the public.

Isn't it about time more of us were proactive about our future careers, and moved on from the bar-talk before its too late? Apart from the antagonising, what has 'new AIPA' actually achieved apart from making us feel slightly more hopeful? There is another side to every wednesday update!


[For those reading who don't know what RAISE is: it's the formal process for managing upwards and drawing an oversight or problem to the attention of the PIC]

jakethemuss
6th Jun 2006, 05:26
And well said that Man!:D

Finally people are starting to see the All Rhetoric Group (ARG) for what it is, a group of ideologues stuck in 1960’s style unionist mode.

Read behind the words that they write and see if you can decipher the message. It is all smoke and mirrors and they are spending your money hand over fist in an attempt to feel good. They will win no fight in the Federal Court I will bet London to a brick, but will use a great deal of YOUR MONEY in the process feathering the retirement funds of external lawyers.

The time is here to open your eyes and look after YOUR future. The Senior Captain AIPA Club will be alright jack. Remember, it’s YOUR CAREER at stake, they’ve nearly finished theirs.

:ugh:

DutchRoll
6th Jun 2006, 05:51
Perhaps you should also be asking yourself what the previous AIPA (ie, immediately before this current one) achieved. It is clear why the new one is going to the Federal Court: under the PM's brave-new-world of industrial relations, they have virtually no other option to resolve a dispute (especially when the company isn't interested)! The company have no interest whatsoever in 'negotiating' those cases and anyone who knows the details would understand why (by the way, you can actually find out a lot of the details by just asking, but they sensibly don't want to publicise them in print due to the court action).

Indeed, we don't have to be floor mats, but we were fast becoming floor mats under the previous administration. I haven't seen any evidence that the new reps are not prepared to negotiate and Eagleman makes a good point about cost reductions of one form or another being in the company's interest. I have, however, seen ample evidence that they will not tolerate bullying, underhanded, or strong-arm tactics against the pilots they now represent.

For anyone who thinks the mainline pilot group, or more specifically, their elected reps are not being 'reasonable' about things, could you please post specific examples?

EDIT: Jake, would you do us the courtesy of posting here for all to see, the amount of money that was spent on lawyers together with listing their achievements for the pilot group, by the previous administration? The numbers, I believe, are all on file. You can include overseas junkets if you wish. Don't forget to include the interesting action taken in the caretaker period before the new group took over. And please also provide a comparison with legal salaries for similar duties in the private sector.

Jetsbest
6th Jun 2006, 06:29
Call it what you will, but:
- assertions are not necessarily truths,
- perceptions are subjective,
- politics is not personal (although this letter gets close),
- spin is always spin, and
- this is certainly posturing.

So, let's look at a few extracts. (a small take on the condensed views of perhaps many)

Re AIPA's "negative and confusing information". Confusing to whom? I get it, and I think a lot of AIPA members understand the negative feeling too.

Re the court cases and "...conciliation...concluded without any progress being made." AIPA newsletter of 31st May explained more hearings later this year; it's not over.

Re AIPA "objecting to the QF & AirNZ ... codeshare services...". Explained in AIPA newsletter of 24th May. A strong feeling is that the present threat to reduce services will actually happen anyway, and to an even greater extent if the codeshare goes ahead. I quote "The alternative to codesharing is a reduced Qantas presence on the Tasman, as reflected in our recent decision to reduce Qantas services between Sydney and Auckland from 5 to 4 flights per day, with effect from 1 September 2006". What does that sound like to you?

Re AIPA's "elusive dream of a Group Opportunity List..." and "The Group has absolutely no intention of agreeing to these things." followed by "[each of the QF group] pilots will continue to have their own separate agreements, tailored to the distinct features of each business." Why then is the Australian Airlines pilot contract still continuing if the 'distinct features' of that business are no longer viable?

Re "AIPA's prescription for the Qantas Jetstar relationship looks .. like the failed model..[tried by]... US legacy carriers with their discount arms, ...". How so? Please elaborate in light of AIPA's position that Jetstar is not unnecessary, but that AIPA would like to participate, not on management's opportunistic terms where apparently Jetstar pay is their 'line in the sand' for future growth, but rather one that acknowledges that reputations are not built on the cheapest bidder even though QF pilots are still not the most expensive among our competitors. (NO.. that's not a J*-pilot sledge...Ryanair and Southwest are very well remunerated!)

Re AIPA's view that the QF/JQ career opportunity MOU is 'all but a dead letter'... it certainly appeared to be until recently. The early QF-JQ transfers were mostly A320 endorsed people for quick promotions, some of whom went to Singapore. The subsequent and more recent honouring of the agreement seems to have come only once certain resolve was applied.

Re fuel costs, change, fundamentals, strategies, efficiencies etc... same old.

As was said somewhere else 'No wonder I have no faith in the credibility of any of the pronouncements made by QF management. That view might change if 'they' could start leading by example, telling me the truth without spin, getting serious about letting the staff help, and stop transferring costs from one part of the group to another for what appears to be more about industrial leverage and expediency than 'staff engagement'.

Tinee, AIPA is you and me among many. I know I can work with the company. I've floated proposals in bar chats and more official channels but huge inertia exists on the flight ops management side of the fence too. I'm inspired by the truth, the facts, leadership by example and a recognition that we shouldn't need to be in court to expect the company to honour its undertakings.

And Lancer, I'll raise your R.A.I.S.E... What would be your response to a captain (ie management) who has been R.A.I.S.E.d (ie through the AIPA election last year) and then tells his subordinates 'Get stuffed. Your input, expertise, reputation and our 'good working relationship' is now inconvenient so pull your head in'?

When QF executives demonstrably benchmark themselves against lesser-paid peers in more profitable competitor companies, when fuel is accepted as a cost for all airlines and not just QF staff and when 'the Jetstars' actually stand alone (ie without QF subsidies) I will STILL be there with bells on working for the success of the company and my career. It will just feel better to be doing it without patronising corredspondence such as we've just received.


The foregoing is merely one person's perception. Any resemblance to a substantial body of opinion is purely coincidental.

YesTAM
6th Jun 2006, 07:18
Is Qantas going to be "unprofitable" as in losing money or is it going to be "unprofitable" from the point of view of a falling share price. There is a difference you know.

"The sky is falling" may simply not be true. If QF is the worlds most profitable airline, then what does that say?

You cannot be laughing all the way to the bank one minute and crying poor the next.

I think someone is pulling your leg and perhaps trying the Ryanair bullying tactic.

LTBC
6th Jun 2006, 07:50
Dutchroll, who gives a toss about the previous Committee? They're not there now, so its completely irrelevant what they did or did not do. Noone has EVER argued for reinstating the previous Committee or the so-called old ways, just pointed out that these new tactics of belligerence are so very much worse.

Speaking of fancy acronyms, how about this one: GRADE? How can you make a valid decision if you haven't resourced more than one side of the story?

longjohn
6th Jun 2006, 09:15
The simple fact that Qantas is addressing each individual pilot to union bash indicates to me that AIPA are starting to gain some traction.

The fact that it is the CEO Geoff Dixon and not the Chief Pilot who is the writer of said letter indicates to me that AIPA have already effectivley sidelined the Chief Pilot.

That Dixon chooses to use a Union bashing comminication to also flag further cuts to pilots terms and conditions speaks volumes of the extreme level of arrogance displayed by this man. Dixon is staying on for one reason IMHO, to screw the staff of Qantas. He will go out like Robert Ayling of BA, a very very unpopular man with great wealth. (rumour has it that by the end of his tenure at BA Ayling could not check luggage or eat Airline food for fear of staff retribution). Who knows, he may even get an AO.........

The amount they threaten and bleat will be directly proportional to the effect that AIPA is having on them.

Keep up the good work Woodeye.:D

Motorola
6th Jun 2006, 09:51
Sounds like the EBA softening up period has begun.

Keep up the good work Ian.

jakethemuss
6th Jun 2006, 15:02
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Mud Skipper
6th Jun 2006, 18:46
Jetsbest & Longjohn, well said. I was going to post before but apathy got in the way, not a letter I'd bother re-reading that's for sure.

Woodeye and you bunch of merry men, keep up the good work. Looks like some runs are starting to get up on the board as the other team has started slagging again. :D :D :D

Dropt McGutz
6th Jun 2006, 23:16
I'm sorry, but I've lost all faith and trust in management. Remember prior to the last EBA how they said that if we voted yes, we would be considered for a role in Jetstar International? Once the yes vote came through, it was never offered nor mentioned. Executive management never come out and praise the staff, it's always bash, bash, bash. Now they want to make the pilots more efficient by flying more. I have some mates on the 744 who are staring at 900 hours. I believe some second officers even ran out of hours. How much more efficient do they want? Then at the other end of the spectrum, management would appear to have placed too many pilots on the 737 and there hours are subsequently low. Now that's hardly the fault of the pilots is it?
It will be interesting to see what happens to the A330 pilots hours once those aircraft are seconded to Jetstar. Will the slack be taken up by training on the A380?
Instead of blaming the staff all of the time perhaps management should take stock and look at the way they manage the company.

rammel
7th Jun 2006, 01:45
One thing at QF is, that is always the staff who actually have something hands on to do with the flight who are not efficient enough (ramp, cleaning, cust serv, pilots and fa's). It doesn't matter what these people do it is never good enough for management, they always want more. Over time I have become more militant towards the company because of this. You never hear of management becoming more efficient.

So hopefully the pilots do well out of this and don't roll over as GD would like. Just my 2 cents worth.

Keg
7th Jun 2006, 03:30
Same crap, different day.

I think all this comes down to Newtons first (or is it third, I can never remember) law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I wonder if Geoff can't work out why AIPA have gone 'cold' on the company? Perhaps it was because the company went 'cold' on the pilot body a long time ago. Geoff can't understand why we do the things we do? The answer is looking at him each time he looks in the mirror- although there are a few other places where he could see if if he looked hard enough! :ugh: :rolleyes:

I'm not yet an Army of One but by gee the company just loves pushing me closer to the line in the sand where I and a number of others will become a lot more potent than that one!! :* I've tried a search for the thread that explains the 'army of one' title but I can't find it. If anyone else can, please post it up. :ok:

missy
7th Jun 2006, 03:45
www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=55755&referrerid=39811

Woomera
7th Jun 2006, 03:48
I am an Army of One (or 2, or 300, ...)

I am an army of One - A Captain in the Continental Airlines army.
For years I was a loyal soldier in Gordon's army. Now I fight my own war.
I used to feel valued and respected. Now I know I am mere fodder.
They (CAL) used to exhibit labor leadership. Now they exploit legal loopholes.
They used to enjoy my maximum. Now they will suffer my minimum.
I am an army of One.

I used to save CAL a thousand pounds of fuel per leg; finding the best FL, getting direct routing, throttling back when on-time was made, skimping during ground ops, adjusting for winds, being smart and giving the company every effort I could conjure. Now, it's "burn baby, burn".
I used to call maintenance while airborne, so the part would be ready at the gate. Now, they'll find the write-up when they look in the book.
I used to try to fix problems in the system, now I sit and watch as the miscues pile up.
I used to fly sick. Now I use my sick days, on short notice, on the worst day of the month.
I am an army of One.

I used to start the APU at the last possible moment. Now my customers enjoy extreme comfort.
I used to let the price of fuel at out-stations affect my fuel orders. I still do.
I used to cover mistakes by operations. Now I watch them unfold.
I used to hustle to ensure an on-time arrival, to make us the best. Now I do it for the rampers and agents who need the bonus money….but this too may change.
I used to call dispatch for rerouting, to head off ground delays for bad weather. Now I collect overs, number 35 in line for takeoff.

I am on a new mission - to demonstrate that misguided leadership of indifference and disrespect has a cost. It's about character, not contracts. It's about leading by taking care of your people instead of leadership by bean counters (an oxymoron). With acts of omission, not commission, I am a one-man wrecking crew - an army of One. My mission used to be to make CAL rich. Now it's to make CAL pay.

When they furlough more pilots than the rest, pilots that cost them 60 cents on the dollar - I will make them pay.
When they under-staff bases and over-work reserves to keep pilots downgraded, down-flowed, or downtrodden - I will make them pay.
When over-booked customers are denied boarding system wide, while jets are parked in the desert - I will make them pay.
When they force pilots, who have waited 12 years to become captains, to be FOs again - I will make them pay.
When they ask CAL pilots to show leadership at Express, and then deny them longevity - I will make them pay.
When they recall F/As for the summer, just to furlough them again in the fall like migrant workers - I will make them pay.
When they constantly violate the letter and spirit of our contract - a contract that's a bargain by any measure, and force us to fight lengthy grievances - I will make them pay.

My negotiating committee speaks for me, but I act on my own. I am a walking nightmare to the bean counters that made me. Are you listening? This mercenary has a lot of years left with this company; how long can you afford to keep me bitter? I'm not looking for clauses in a contract, I'm looking for a culture of commitment and caring. When I see it, I'll be a soldier for CAL again. Until then, I am an Army of One…And I'm not alone!

Lagrange
7th Jun 2006, 04:12
www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/Pdf/AnArmyofOne.pdf

The_Cutest_of_Borg
7th Jun 2006, 05:19
Maybe someone should write a letter to Geoff.

Interesting that we only get these letters when AIPA actually stands up to Geoff, who lets face it, doesn't give a schmick for the careers of even guys like Jake and the rest of the "Peace in our time" mob.

king oath
7th Jun 2006, 06:14
It felt so good to get a letter from Geoff. P*ssed off and nothing he can do about it except turn up in the Federal Court with a team of expensive lawyers. If he's got a case why is he so red faced.

The best part is the knowledge that he's p*ssed off at the fact that the pilots union is showing a bit of mongrel at last. Considering his view that we are all a bunch of soft cocks, it must be bugging him no end.

Oh, and I hope his lackey gets my address right next time.

max autobrakes
7th Jun 2006, 06:20
The floggings will continue until morale improves.
By Order CEO

Sonny Hammond
7th Jun 2006, 06:35
If he was pissed before at AIPA, wait till he reads the latest shorthaul EBA update. WOW, I would love to be a fly on the wall for that!

I nearly fell of my chair myself AND I am fully behind the new and improved association.
Great stuff and can't wait the fin reveiw article where the company's paid editorial team put the pro QF spin on it and try to make the staff the baddies. Again.

amos2
7th Jun 2006, 08:46
:mad:
Yeah, Well!!...this "army of one" nonsence is all well and good but which of you turkeys has got the guts to become an army of one!

No takers?...why am I not surprised!

Different era, different people!

:mad:

Sonny Hammond
7th Jun 2006, 08:59
Amos, I agree.
It's a heart warming tale but is totally unsuited to todays reality.

The bureaucrats are not interested in such things.
The only answer is to play the game on their paddock. This hasn't happened for a long time (if ever, the company used to have to play on our paddock) however times are a changin' and based on the flurry of letters this week, i'd say its game on.

Al E. Vator
7th Jun 2006, 10:30
Its got to be time for you guys to take a quantum leap and start looking after yourselves AS A GROUP.

Whether you think your union in mired in 60's rhetoric (don't think so - AIPA's never stood up for themselves, hence the CEO's belittling term 'softc*cks') or intelligent strategists (don't think so either given the J* blunder) whatever you're doing, it clearly aint working.

GD and his ilk are out to get you (and any other soft targets that will improve their CV's and better their chances of positions on other boards etc), that should be very evident by now.

For those few that gullibly follow their routine of "we've all got to knuckle down and make sacrifices in these challenging times" - get wise. They are laughing at your naivety and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that they are getting salary increases and bonuses beyond all historical precedent?

Don't like pshyco-babble but you lot need a paradigm shift. AIPA and the AFAP need to get back together, eat humble pie and then mend fences with the J* Pilot Group. You then need to invent some form of unique industrial action AS A COHESIVE GROUP that bites yet still complies with the new industrial crules.

Otherwise what choice do you have? Forever watching your conditions of service decline, yet the only way you retalliate is to bitch at each other on PPRune. Not very useful that technique. Don't work in Oz at present but only writing because I hate seeing my profession reduced to this level.

Mangling another awful cliche but 'United you may stand, divided you are already falling'. Time for a radical change in your handling of this issue folks.

Lodown
7th Jun 2006, 16:37
Business 101: Step X - Drive down costs. It's one of the fundamental aspects of business management in a strategy to remain perceptionally competitive.

QF managers are going to continue to target costs until they hit a wall and then they'll push again anyway. It's in their training and the corporate group-think of the current crop of managers. Get used to it. Unless you designate a line in the sand as a group, you're going to have your wages and benefits continually cherry picked.

Make it a personal battle and you'll come out the losers.

ur2
7th Jun 2006, 22:36
Just A thought.
Maybe it is true, they have to reduce costs dramatically for the airline to survive.
Good and large airlines do go broke, it has already happened once in the last 5 years in this country.

Lagrange
8th Jun 2006, 00:06
Qantas is in serious trouble. If the current BBB+/A2 rating is downgraded, the company will have junk bond status. The down grading from stable to negative overnight is very serious.

With over $20 Billion worth of orders out there, it is time for drastic action.

The A380 order should be cancelled wie

All A330's should be transferred to JQ together with their route structure to take advantage of the lower cost structure

The 787 should all go to the mainline and replace the 767's and A330's

B737's should be replaced with the A320 family (319 / 321) and this network transferred to Jetstar

Order 747-9 aircraft to replace the A380 and 744 types. Forget 777's

Reduce training costs by introducing direct entry Captain's (the same as SIA and other safe airlines do)

Outsource 60% of cabin crew to labour hire companies or immediately introduce AWA's to address poor productivity, efficiency and standards.

Lobby CASA for 1:50 cabin crew in line with world practice.

Outsource maintenance. Reality not emotional debate in needed here

Outsource airport functions as per the Jetstar model. The last outsourcing attempt was flawed, true competion is required

Down size the corporate functions by at least 15% wie

Remove the duplication introduced in the last reorganisation. Prior to the re org, QF had 23 Group General Managers, how many does it have today? ..twice as many you say ..check again
Get rid of the Boston Consulting Group - BCG - and their $25m annual price tag. They are expensive brain dead leeches! If you need to know the time, check your own watch.
Tough times require tough responses. Qantas is a sheltered workshop. It has the lowest staff morale of any major Australian company, indeed in the world, yet it has the lowest staff turnover rate. Completely overhaul the HR department.

Qantas is headed down the path of other former great airlines, PanAm, Eastern, Ansett. The issues are not different. History is a great teacher, start reading it, and I suggest you start reading the "jobs vacant" section as well.

max autobrakes
8th Jun 2006, 00:19
Come the inevitable world wide economic downturn where would I rather be?
JetStar? Just had 2nd B'day
Section 35 REDUNDANCY
2-3 yrs service=6weeks severence pay.

Virgin?
Section 27 Stand Down
Legalese gobblygook which means see JetStar only worse.

Qantas?
Sections 12/15/16
Costs the company lots to furlough/ downsize the pilots ranks.

It would appear to me Airline Managements collectivly around the world will be asking "Where did they all go" (the pilots that is)
Who the "Effing hell in their right mind is going to pay a fortune to get a job that is heading towards crap pay ,crap conditions,minimal training,
treated like a leper, no job security, etc, etc.

Is it just me, or is this the beginning of the end? :bored:

max autobrakes
8th Jun 2006, 00:23
Hear Hear Lagrange,
Well said ,and while you're at it give yourself a 60% pay rise. ;)

Trevor the lover
8th Jun 2006, 01:14
And while you're at it Lagrange,

Can you get rid of the BANDY LEGGED LITTLE FERRET IN HR with the swelled head and muscular tongue (from years of workouts ars*licking Chief Pilot's butt holes)?????????

DutchRoll
8th Jun 2006, 01:18
I'll ask the same question once again for the benefit of the detractors of the new AIPA which was voted in overwhelmingly by mainline pilots:

'For anyone who thinks the mainline pilot group, or more specifically, their elected reps are not being 'reasonable' about things, could you please post specific examples?'

......anyone?

No, I didn't think you could. Nor did I expect jake to justify his thoughts on legal costs compared to what was being frittered away by the previous illustrious leaders, as that would be a trifle embarrassing.

Ejector
8th Jun 2006, 01:26
Is it true that new pilots for QF are to employed on renewible 3 year contracts?

Sonny Hammond
8th Jun 2006, 01:35
La Grange,

Good stuff that. And if GD actually followed that type of path, as a group employee you would have to accept the reality of the situation and roll with it. Additionally, this would still result in lots of opportunity for many people.

Instead, GD chooses to wholly rely on cutting staff pay and conditions as the only attempt to really cut costs. Except his own of course.

And there in lies the lack of credability for the whole exercise.

Keg
8th Jun 2006, 02:58
Ejector, that hasn't been the case up until this point in time.

Dutchy, I'll give you one example. The letter to Canberra regarding the Tasman codeshare. I agree with QF moves on that one and think AIPA missed the mark. We've lost money on that route for a long, long time and either way, we'll be doing less flying on that route in the future. If we can tie up with ANZ, reduce the losses (or heaven forbid, turn a profit on it) and redeploy the asset to an expansion route then that is a good thing for mainline drivers- and something to be encouraged. There are other benefits to QF on top of that as well.

That said, there are a lot of things on which I agree with the current COM. Years of being 'flexible' with the airline led us to being locked out of getting a guernsey at the table to discuss Jetstar and we also got a crap MoU- with requirements attached that lock out many of the current QF crew anyway! :rolleyes: One definition of insanity (or stupidity) is to continue the same behaviour and expecting a different outcome. I think we proved that over a long period of time. If the company is going to continue to ignore it's crew despite our demonstrated flexibility in the past, why would we continue with that kind of behaviour? It ain't going to change the outcomes in the future- as Geoff showed in his recent letter.

In my opinion from the 'cheap seats', both sides have made mistakes over the last few years but no one can accuse the pilot body of not being willing to compromise or be open to discussion in that time. QF closed the door in the faces of the pilot body about a year after they bought Impulse. Now they get upset when they find the door shut on them in some instances! :ugh:

Ken Nuff
8th Jun 2006, 03:47
AIPA has to get B:uhoh: LLs.

Don't be intimidated by a two bit country reporter who has more ass and luck than anyone I've ever known.

Take him and Oldmeadow on. The fight is not about more money, it is about saving the company, saving our jobs. I for one don't want to have to up root my family and live in the Middle East because of GD incompetence.

Take on John Italianame. He is weak, a yesman. He doesn't understand operations.

Take on Peter the Money Counter. From what I'm told he is nothing more than a big fat bullyboy.

AIPA fight tem on saving the airline. When we have done that we will at least have job security. And that is something that does not appear to be a given at this time.

I am prepared to fight, I want my job, and I am not going to allow the current bunch of dropkicks to take it from me.

Instead of tossing stones at each other, lets unite

AIPA convene a meeting of the unions, FAAA, ALAEA, AWU, ASU form a united front. DEMAND DISMISSALS

drshmoo
8th Jun 2006, 13:26
Reduce training costs by introducing direct entry Captain's (the same as SIA and other safe airlines do)


Dear Lagrange

Direct entry Captain's I think not. That will be great for morale:ugh:


Why are singapore so safe?

They have F/Os on the 744 with about 500 hours total time that not one year ago were struggling to meet the standards of an Australian CPL. They weren't even aloud to take the barons out on solos. The Direct entry Captains at SIA have their work cut out for them. (Not a stab at the staff at Singapore flying college in YPJT, they are hard working competent pilots that just dont have a lot to work with student wise)

Zapatas Blood
8th Jun 2006, 14:04
The Army of One document first appeared when Frank Lorenzo was in charge of Texas Air, namely Continental and Eastern Airlines. The author was a soldier in “Franks Army” when pilots were paid considerably less than industry standard, in some cases less than half. “Temporary” 20% wage concessions lasted for years only to be followed by permanent wage cuts of up to 40% and furloughs despite some profitable years. Aircraft were old and poorly maintained with both airlines were investigated for maintenance fraud. CO was heavily fined for illegally re cycling engine components.

The document was probably a valid commentary on the state of affairs within the Texas Air group when Lorenzo was in charge but to post the document in an attempt to compare CO/EA to QF is ridiculous.

Butterfield8
8th Jun 2006, 14:26
ZB you make an assertion ...thats all.Back it up with some cogent,logical argument.
QF is heading in the same direction as CO/EA.
The comparison is perhaps alittle premature but valid nonetheless.
The management mentality is certainly comparable.
Dixon and Lorenzo are both dysfunctional sociopaths

max autobrakes
13th Jun 2006, 23:17
Mr Keg, I know you are a great bloke,(I've had a few beers with you in the past) .Before you cane AIPA over the Trans Tasman Code Share Submission. What did AIPA write ?,what were the terms of reference they responded to ?,what was in Qantas' 100 page submission that AIPA responded to ?, no idea? Well how about asking someone at the AIPA office and see if your original accusation still sits comfortably, rather than swallowing Geoff's rhetoric. If you think Geoff had an apoplexy over that,
well lets just say the ride only gets better ,if my source in AIPA is correct.

odimus duces nostros improbos pravosque!

slim
14th Jun 2006, 00:14
Keg, have to agree with Max. Get on the phone and get the facts. My source tells me that the full implication of the agreement Dixon seeks is that NZ aircraft and crew would be able to fly not only across the pond but also on Oz domestic routes once here. In addition, it would allow Jetstar to operate most of the trans-Tasman flights. I'm sure you can see the ramifications of that for QF crew. AIPA is doing what it should by lodging an objection, looking after the jobs of you and your QF compatriots.

LTBC
14th Jun 2006, 01:55
There is more than one number you can call to get the 'facts'. Its just a question of who you want to believe.

Noone wants to believe that Qantas is facing a critical impasse next financial year. Its much easier to write it all off as 'more of the same', or 'bad governance', or 'EBA softening up', or 'pigs at the trough'. We don't want the fuel price to be what it is, nor do we want competition protections to be threatened by airlines better positioned than our own. Unfortunately, life isn't fair, and sometimes we all need to confront reality. The Australian government is unlikely to allow the company to collapse, but the process of protecting Qantas for the future (which is already in action) will pay little attention to EBA caveats. Is it not better for AIPA to have an element of control over the significant changes that are coming, rather than persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything?

Qantas has admitted that it should not have excluded AIPA from the original Jetstar negotiations. Unfortunately, for all of us, that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today.

The victor in the coming battle will be the one backed by the board, the shareholders, and the public. You must accept this reality.

Lagrange
14th Jun 2006, 03:27
LTBC,

you are spot on, except for one fatal flaw. Do not assume the government of the day will save the airline. 15,000 Ansett employees thought that, 43,000 Pan Am employees thought that. The Prime Minister's brother does not work for Qantas!

LTBC
14th Jun 2006, 04:20
No assumption made. The point being however, that in order to insulate the company from such an outcome, honoring the protections of an antiquated EBA will be a low priority.

Sonny Hammond
14th Jun 2006, 06:02
Forget about "honoring the protections of an antiquated EBA"

Qf can't even honour the agreements of an EBA agreed upon only months ago.

Fact is that QF can't be trusted at any level.

Tofasttofly
14th Jun 2006, 06:15
Oh Gee I am so sorry for the QF pilot group. Geoff get out the biggest stick and screw them for all they are worth. GO HARD OR GO HOME GEOFF.

Sonny Hammond
14th Jun 2006, 06:43
Thanks for the balanced, well thought out post.

Fliegenmong
14th Jun 2006, 06:51
LaGrange
"PM's brother does not work for QF":D
Priceless - shame the mug voting public don't remember these sorts of things:ugh:

Jetsbest
14th Jun 2006, 06:57
"Qantas has admitted that it should not have excluded AIPA from the original Jetstar negotiations." When? And if it did then I find such utterances to be highly disingenuous.

"... that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today." Perhaps, and I feel some QF pilots need to, at times, be reminded who started this again. I too wish the company had not acted in this way.

To my mind the managers are fully conversant with their powers and our obligations when they want to apply some leverage, but surprisingly lacking in the same fervour when they choose to overlook 'inconvenient' clauses agreed to during negotiations arising from 'the good working relationship' we once enjoyed.

I'm non-plussed by Mr Dixon's confusion over the current antipathy from AIPA. If Speedbird and others can make improving profits (as does QF) even with an oil crisis, and QF's total crewing costs for pilots are demonstrably lower than many of our competitors, with comparable productivity, then why are QF pilots apparently so actively circumvented? Management's 'sorry we forgot to include you when we had agreed we would' attitude was not the making of 'new AIPA'; it happened despite the conciliatory roll-over mindset of old AIPA. Even an accepted EBA, in compliance with the CEO's insistence about J*Int opportunities, did not get AIPA a geurnsey at the table. Hence, the change of tack. To me that's logical.

Also, I've not seen AIPA 'persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything'... Company spin would represent it as that; whether one buys it is another thing.

I know AIPA to be populated by motivated and innovative thinkers who will actively consider all potential efficiencies, but it does not serve the management agenda to have facts, truth, prior undertakings, integrity or loyalty disturb the con-jobs they've perpetrated on segments of the group in the name of profitability. Neither does it serve them to concede that nobody is always wrong (even AIPA), when they are evidently always right and their bonuses hinge on what others can be persuaded to believe as irrefutable.

The court actions may win or lose but, either way, we'll unambiguously know where we stand when it's all shaken out. At the least we may finally get the honest truth from someone upstairs. Better that than death by a thousand cuts I reckon.

Sunfish
14th Jun 2006, 22:30
I keep hearing about the "doom and gloom" caused by oil prices. Don't any of you understand that all airlines are going to be equally affected? (absent short term hedging) Qantas is not going to lose its competitive position unless other airlines decide to absorb the fuel cost increases themselves without raising ticket prices.

Translation: Read your poetry "We'll all by rooned said Hanrahan..............."

Mr. Dixon = Hanrahan and he has been reading you this same poem for years and you keep believing it. If it wasn't oil prices it would be something else to scare you with.

Eagleman
14th Jun 2006, 23:17
I agree Sunfish. It is like the tide, smart mariners don't get beached.

The general poor management of QF by GD and his second rate Exco was relflected in an article by Fluer Leyden in this morning's paper. QF shares have fallen 21.9% since Jan 3 this year. Woolworths (James Stong's stable) rose 10.7%. Chalk and cheese, or metal and cheese, perhaps but my guess is James will replace Chairperson Marg shortly, he will the select a new CEO from the real world - i.e outside QF

Elroy Jettson
15th Jun 2006, 01:46
Interesting comparison Eagleman, maybe Strongy has found a way to get groceries to his shops without using fuel!!! Maybe he can pass on the secret to Dicko now that he is on the board. :hmm:

Eagleman
15th Jun 2006, 10:55
I think Dixon and AJ have the secret, off set fuel by giving the work to the LCC

blueloo
15th Jun 2006, 11:21
Maybe they have Jetstar shop-a-dockets.

Ken Nuff
15th Jun 2006, 23:37
It is so tragic that all we want to do is talk. Unless we unite and demand the removal of Dixon, we are doomed.

max autobrakes
16th Jun 2006, 03:43
An interesting story passed to me by a very close friend.
Apparently ,as passed on to my friend ,by a very senior person in Qantas ,an interesting insight into Geoff was recounted as follows, Mr Dixon boasts continually that he has never lost a fight against a union, and he's not about to lose against these "soft cock" pilots.

Consider this unwavering belief with the fact he has now backed Qantas pilots into a corner as a result of the trends set by the JetStar award whereby Qantas pilots will be looking at a 30-40% cut in real wages as well as a massive cut in conditions, sooner rather than later. Very good for the company bottom line ,but hardly conducive for the long term fostering of piloting as a career.

One can hardly blame the Qantas pilots for voting in a group who espouse the taking of "Viagra" rather than continuing to be "soft". It would appear their collective futures rely upon what is bargained for over the next few years.

However, how can one bargain in good faith if one's opposite has such a strong and negative mind set?
Mr Dixon, is that the best way to run a company with regards to it's long term viability, by treating what is probably one of your most valuable assets with such contempt?

Sunfish
16th Jun 2006, 04:58
OMG! I should have made the connection long ago!

You guys are the victims of a FUD campaign. It's a computer industry marketing term. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" and it has been used by generations of computer marketing types to herd their customers in the direction they want them to go.

I was wrong to think you are simply getting the "We'll all be rooned" line from Mr. Dixon. It's more than that, it's a deliberate campaign to destabilise the pilots as a group to ensure that they are incapable of any collective action and decison making.

Fear - as in will I have a job? Get promoted? Will the Jetstar guys take my job?

Uncertainty - If we take action we don't know where it will lead. What if I decide not to pay for a rating? What if I complain?

Doubt - What if Qantas is telling the truth?

The whole process is designed to make you totally risk averse so that you will do anything the company says.

I have been wondering for some time about whether management would deliberately destabilise its workforce or was just inept. I guess the letter home demonstrates that its a deliberate FUD campaign. You guys seem to be constantly the target of rumours and what appear to be petty decision making (or non decision making). Same with the engineers. These rumours, stories and so on are deliberately planted.

At the same time an appeal is made to follow your union leadership, because it is "responsible" (translate - risk averse).

Translation: divide and rule and scare the crap out of you.

Please look up the term on the internet although it mostly relates to computers.

You may say "so what"? Well at least you can put a name to it. You also know the antidote to FUD - truth, although its sometimes hard to find.

arby
16th Jun 2006, 06:34
LET ME SAY FROM THE START I DONT WORK FOR QANTAS
But I have worked in a Road transport employer group,One of our members thought drivers should be given a$1 a week and be glad of it (underpay the morons were his words) I reminded him they were in control of his ASSET worth $800,000 with up to $500,00 worth of his customers products on board.
Did he really feel happy about getting a monkey to be in charge of that Liability...???? He took a new look at his drivers when he realized that if the monkey stuffed the gearstick ($18000) or didnt put enough oil in the engine($45000) and the customers product was acouple of days late (not renew the contract) what were the consequences to his bottom line?? ... How nice he became to the monkey ..In fact him and his monkeys are all good mates and now work as A TEAM... it works well, they get productivity bonuses and work together to do things better, he has no problems with unions or DRIVERS and boasts as to how he wont employ monkeys, they had a union rep who was told to "P..s Off"and when one of the drivers displayed monkey like characteristics he was "SHOWN THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS "by his Driver friends,... IR works for TEAM players maybe GD might just read the one man army and this little Missive.. Good Luck:D :ok:

speedbirdhouse
16th Jun 2006, 10:06
Which sounds a little like this little HR gem from Aer Lingus........
The following is circa 2004 and was reported in the UK's Financial Times-

------------------------

Leaked HR document gives new Aer Lingus boss much to ponder

A controversy over a leaked Aer Lingus HR strategy document has brought into sharp focus the often difficult and sometimes bitter industrial relations environment that has prevailed in the state-owned airline over the past decade.

References in the document, which was drawn up within the Aer Lingus HR department in 2004, are made to what are termed environmental 'push factors' , like the 'tap on shoulder' . There is also a suggestion that a change of uniform for flight attendants could act as a pressure point in the context of the company’s current business plan.

The document was drawn up as part of the radical business plan first put forward by former chief executive, Willie Walsh, in 2004. That business plan is still seen as crucial in securing reduced staff numbers as well as change and productivity improvements as the airline prepares to face up to partial privatisation.

Aer Lingus executive chairman, John Sharman, said the company appreciated that the language used was seen 'as impersonal and clinical' . He expressed 'regret for any offence taken or implied' , but insisted that the push factors were never acted on, a view rejected by the trade unions.

Over the past decade, independent industrial relations observers have seen fit to comment on the industrial relations and HR environment in the company. Even the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Bertie Ahern, told the Dail (Irish Parliament) last year that the level of trust between management and unions in the airline was 'non existent' . Critical comments have also been made by state dispute resolution agencies such as the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the National Implementation Body.

The controversial HR document was leaked to Ireland’s highest circulation daily, the Irish Independent, which carried it as an exclusive front page lead story in July 2005. The row over the document was then given extensive coverage by other media, with the executive chairman, John Sharman, answering questions about it from elected political representatives at a parliamentary committee hearing.

The controversy would not have been as great without the benefit of an 'informed source' , who provided the Irish Independent with crucial elaboration on some of the 'environmental push factors' that caused the furore. According to the Independent, suggestions were made in the document that cabin crew - including 'older air hostesses' - would have to abandon their current uniform for 'jumpsuits and t-shirts' .

The same source revealed that there were suggestions that the airline might bring in a tedious training programme for some pilots -like 'Guantanemo bay' the source was quoted as saying.

The Independent also reported that in relation to a push factor headed 'adverse changes in work/shift patterns' , management could hint that shift patterns could be altered to make life at the company uncomfortable. This particular caused considerable annoyance, in view of the fact that some sections, like cabin crew and ground staff, are mostly female and have strong demands for flexible options.

The company denied that it acted on the suggestions but did not deny that the HR department had devised the strategy document, not did it refute any of the elaboration provided by the Independent’s informed source. In fact, the company itself decided to publish the document due to media and political pressure.

Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the controversy was the fact the language used in the document was committed to paper, as many of the suggested tactical approaches may not be so unusual in industry. In fact, most of the document is innocuous. If the push factors are excluded, then little by way of controversy would have emerged.

The leak has put the focus squarely on the airline’s HR department and other top managers. The new chief executive, Dermott Mannion, knows that HR and industrial relations issues are critical to the company’s success. Meanwhile, talks aimed at securing work practice changes under the business plan in return for a productivity deal have taken over 18 months to date, with a final agreement expected this autumn.

This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.

------------------

http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2005/09...e0509201n.html