Glitch in the wet leasing concept?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Rumour has it that the wet leasing concept may have a few practical problems not yet thought out by the genius's attempting to destroy the profession in OZ.

An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan. No problem. Lets get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight. "Hold on," says the captain, "isn't this a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures? Sorry can't do it."

The resulting ramifications went all the way to Dixon apparently.

[GUARD]

Didn't think it through eh....

What a surprise. There'll be plenty more where that came from!

[Skystar320]

wtf.......... not what the post description stats

[blueloo]

Seems to make sense to me wrt to topic. AO wet leased to QF now. QF coloured planes (wet leased) flown on some services by AO pilots (really QF pilots on lower wages and conditions) and CC. PAssenegers think they are on QF (unless the read fine print on ticket)


Poor Geoff. That will not help him. Some poor bean counter will get the chop.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Skystar, if you are having difficulty grasping what the post description says and it's relevance to the body of the post, well I can't help you.:confused:

[weasil]

For those of us out of the loop of the news downunder who is AO? ANd what is a "slipping QF captain"?

[Shot Nancy]

Beware of banana daiquiris spilt at the Truck.

[Jetsbest]

I'll try to be brief (it'll be hard) and accurate (but am open to correction),
AO was the IATA code for Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) way back when... Qantas bought/merged with/became subservient to (depending on one's perspective) Australian Airlines 1993? and all domestic and international red-tails became QF... BUT, the AO Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) was placed in 'the bottom drawer' for a rainy day. The use of 'AO' was re-established when QF set up.. you guessed it... Australian Airlines, a wholly-owned yet seperately managed subsidiary based in Cairns, with a lower cost-base to service the leisure market with higher margins than QF itself could achieve on those routes. AO was given QF767s repaintd in the Ochre/White scheme and advantaged particularly from the Ansett collapse to recruit staff who needed to maintain a job.
AIPA (ie QF) pilots secured the 'right of first refusal' for the flying under a 'simplified' (ie cheaper) structure of pay and conditions. It was considered to be a 'win-win' for QF and its pilots and continues to be well-subscribed by those QF pilots with a penchant for earlier promotion, simplified rostering, FNQ residency or all of the above. AO reserves the right to direct-recruit, at even lower pay etc, if it can't get enough pilots sourced through the agreement from the QF/AIPA pool but that hasn't happened yet.
Recently, QF decided that AO was no longer viable and closed 'the brand', but decided to rename the company 'AO Wet Leasing' or some-such, thereby keeping the economies of its labour arrangements while reissuing QF uniforms etc to all its staff, who now provide QF ground services and crew QF flights to QF destinations on lower pay (that discussion's for another time!) but still under the AO AOC. Which leads to the next complication...
A 'slipping' person in QF is someone undertaking a layover or rest period between duty periods on company time. Hence, when;
"An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan...."
and Ops tried to;
"get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight......"
only to find that AO is in fact:
"a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures"
then:
"Sorry can't do it." is the only correct response from said Captain, and the pooh really hits the fan.
Now, I can't verify this particular story but there is a strong body of opinion out there that says that, apart from what at first appears to be a 'cut & dried' cost issue, the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions.
I believe Borg's lateral question, which btw I whole-heartedly endorse, is "How much, after all the spin and 'tricky' tactics to keep the pay & conditions of an otherwise non-viable AO business model in place in an attempt to undercut QF mainline, has the inability to substitute crew already cost the QF group?" This leads to the next question of "How often could this failure happen before real savings are consumed by the inefficiencies of having QF services non-interchangeably crewed by pilots actually working for different companies and under different AOCs?"
Notwithstanding the deplorable levels of respect QF staff have toward management over precisely these types of tactics and false economies, I'm with blueloo. Perhaps it is time some poor (I mean greedy, smarmy & opportunistic) bean-counter got the chop!

[Shlonghaul]

Jetsbest
Actually the code for TAA/Australian was TN........but I catch your drift :ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

JB has summed it up nicely. One of the possible scenarios for the next few years is that J* returns the A330's to QF but keeps the J* crews flying them and wet-leases them back to QF. It sounds like a winner in theory to any beancounter until this sort of situation occurs.

QF could concievably have 10 A330's flown by QF pilots and eight flown by J* pilots. All of them non-interchangeable under the current system. Did anyone think of this in the rush to introduce the "B"Scale into Qantas?

If this situation is attempted to be circumvented by a regulation change, think of the legal ramifications as a Judge, (and it would go to court) tried to unravel the logic. "Lets see, you want two different groups of pilots flying the same equipment, on the same routes, in the same uniforms, using the same procedures under the same AOC, with half of the pilots being paid 40% less and under different scheduling rules and Terms and conditions?!?"

Of course I could be wrong and this may be fixed by a simple reg change. But if it cannot, then the grand design would be thrown into a state of flux, with possibly both pilot groups, QF and J* being the winners.

[Jetsbest]

Ah... Yes, quite correct. I amaze myself with the stuff I used to know but forgot. I was led to believe though, that it was still the same AOC modified for 767 Cairns or something. The truth is out there somewhere!

[rescue 1]

Fixing this problem would be simple...throw out the AOC and use the "wet lease" pilots on the Qantas Airways AOC just like the MAN and Jetconnect/Addeco (Thai) cabin crew.

[max autobrakes]

Fixing the problem would be simple....throw out rescue 1 :}

[soldier of fortune]

did some one mention the truck- lets here more stories about the truck-

oops sorry thread drift-:=
now back to the topic:E :ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Rescue1, the only justification QF has for paying these pilots less than mainline rates is the fact that they work for "another airline".

If you throw out the AOC and use them under the Qantas AOC, then they become QF pilots and hence there should be no distinction regarding the contract they work under.

[rescue 1]

Thank you Cutest, you have followed the line I was hoping most people would take. A Group of Pilots [QF] cannot have another Group of Pilots [AO] on secondment undercutting QF Pilots. Makes a real mockery. I know AIPA are working a few battle lines, but I'd be starting to send the troops in the AO direction and get it cleared up. That is the biggest trouble spot - not Jet*. Your thoughts Max?

[Dogimed]

did some one mention the truck- lets here more stories about the truck-

A truck flies for QANTAS?

Dog

[Mud Skipper]

Just an observation...

Consider if AO ops was closed I beleived the pilots would return to QF in their current rank. Sounds fair, perhaps, but then those pilots would be very junior BL holders for a loooong time, this is one reason perhaps why many senior F/O's did not jump at the early command.

X AO crew would have to be based out of Sydney as a BLH and increased cost of living or commuting costs. Little or no flying but they hang onto the early promotion...???????

[Avid Aviator]

JB,
"Australian" is the same Company/business name as the old TN, which Qantas "kept in the bottom drawer". However AO is a completely new AOC, worked from scratch when they started the Cairns 767 operation.

I hear AIPA has proposed bringing the wet lease operation under the QF AOC, putting AO pilots on QF pay rates but maintainng current AO scheduling rules for the "Cairns base", as it would become. Cost savings from 1 less AOC and crewing flexibilities (as in this topic's example) would far outweigh the relatively modest salary increase. Up till now QF have been stone walling AIPA on the proposal (refusing to turn up to meetings) - wonder if they'll become more interested now??

[Jetsbest]

That sounds more sensible. My apologies to all re my earlier misconception. I have also heard the same about an AIPA proposal, which returns us to the other angle/viewpoint;

"the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions."

Time and common sense will tell.

[Xatrix]

In $$$ terms alone, junior FO's in Cairns (ie <7years total service QF/AO) would be better off if the Cairns operation stayed on the AO award as opposed to the QF LH award.....it will be a paycut for them to go back to the LH award.

Remember the AO award for FOs was based on the 7th year mainline rate for FO's, which is why it has always been popular for junior crew.

[Capt Claret]

Why is it a glitch in the wet leasing concept?

It's not really all that different to having a 747 with surplus pilots on board when an A330 pilot goes tits up, or vice verca, and wanting to use one of the surplus pilots on the wrong type.

On this logic an airline should only operate one type.

I wanna be there when the 74 goes into Gove! :8

[Senatorial]

Sorry to bust your bubble cutie, but me thinks you are getting your rumours mixed up. Twas a QF Skipper sick in Cairns and they replaced the whole crew with an AO crew for the sector south. No problem, apparently the passengers only noticed because they got service :D on this flight.

It was a credible post of course...:suspect: they always ring GD when they have an issue in operations as big as a sick pilot !

[404 Titan]

I’m sorry but am I missing something here? If AO and QF operate under two AOC’s as I suspect they do, how does a QF crew operate an AO aircraft or VV? It would be like QF asking an AN crew (if they were still around) to operate one of their B744's, B767's or B737's if they were appropriately endorsed. It just wouldn’t happen because quite simply it’s not legal. Just because QF owns the AO AOC is irrelevant to the debate. They are still two separate AOC’s.

[ennui]

What the truck?

Those drivers work really hard............a glorified bus driver though, that's another story heh bob?

(No apologies for those kiddies too young to understand the reference)

[Swift6]

In response to 404 Titan,

The aircraft belong to Qantas and are interchanged through the AO network as nessecary. All of the GE 338's are on the AO AOC hence AO crew can operate on them.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Senatorial. I stand by my original post and source.

[B A Lert]

Pilots flying for AO are on secondment from Qantas. Does anyone in their right mind believe that AIPA signed off an agreement that saw some of its members undercutting the pay and conditions of other members who all work for the same company? Stop the dreaming and mis-information! :ugh: :ugh:

[Dark & Stormy]

Would this scenario be similiar (in a smaller scale).
An Easterns flight crew member goes sick, and they call a sunnies flight crew member to replace him/her.
As far as I am aware the aircraft are owned by Qantas/Qantas Link (they have at least one aircraft that floats between both Easterns and Sunnies, sorry that it isn't a 400 hey guys).
They are both on different eba's (correct me if I am wrong), and they are on different AOC's (again from what I have been told).

[Hugh Jarse]

Gidday D & S,

I think the Sunstate/Eastern scenario might be slightly different. I'm not current on the present situation regarding the progress of "commonalising" SOP's between the 2 companies, but they would be sufficiently different to preclude mixed crews at the moment, even on a common 1/2/300 series.

There would also be the issue of the document suite in the aircraft. Presently they are completely different animals, so I think this may preclude mixed crews as well.;)

Industrial arrangements (EBA's) would probably be irrelevant from an operational standpoint.:E

[Ken Nuff]

Quote from Swift6 -
The aircraft belong to Qantas and are interchanged through the AO network as nessecary. All of the GE 338's are on the AO AOC hence AO crew can operate on them.

Do QF and AO have the same Ops manuals?
Do the QF and AO pilots all complete the same training cyclics?
Do QF and AO pilots train together and operate together in normal operations?

What is the CASA position?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

No
No
No

[Skystar320]

I have grasped on what your actually thinking off but my mind went wandering to Wet Leasing of aircraft, no jsut crews

[Senatorial]

I reckon I am going to enjoy this post, stand by your source do you Borg man. The source is on the sauce, s/he is just wrong. There has not been an AO Captain or FO go sick in Japan...from my source not since July 1st changeover or even in their living memory. But a good rev up all the same.

If indeed you do have a source, give us a date or is he, she just reving you up. And I've never seen aanyone do that to you before.

It didn't happen !

And on the manuals, I'd fully check your NO NO NO too. Me thinks it is a,

Basically,
Yes,
and NO.

Oh and the CASA position, that'd be "They are flying !" :ok:

[triadic]

this is a windup cuty! I have it on good authority that it never happened

Makes one wonder when some post cr@p in order to try outdo the F/A's on their thread, which is mostly trash from a vocal few. This is much the same trash. I guess this is a rumour network - pays not to believe all you see here. :E :E

[Veruka Salt]

Senatorial. . . .

Not sure about the Flt libraries being the same because I'm regularly having to remove AO manuals and re-install QF ones preflight. I assume therefore that they are different.

As for cyclics being the same, I didn't think you guys did circling approaches? We still do!

VS.

[ftrplt]

circling done but not 'assessed' until on final

[regitaekilthgiwt]

Then the answer to question 2 would be no then wouldn't it...