Dixon crosses the line in the sand...

[Sonny Hammond]

Based on AIPA's response to the announcement today regarding Jetstar Asia operating a QANTAS mainline route into Australia, it appears that AIPA has reached a point where it is going to act.

Thats what the boss said this arvo via email.

Whats the next move?......

[DutchRoll]

Well, I have to hand it to Geoff Dixon. He certainly is getting stuck into his plans to trash the Qantas brand with gusto. Never mind. I guess Emirates, Cathay & so on will pick up all our business and other premium customers.

[SOPS]

hope they will be carefull..very ver y carefull!

[Sonny Hammond]

A not so veiled threat that if QF proceed with this operation AIPA will react with action (with in its legal rights).

What that'll be is the big mystery. Dixon must've had a restless night last night...not.

I personally hope they come up with something that hits the hip pocket of QF, cause I am over all this and ready for some form of resolution.

Remember there is still 2400 mainline pilots, the company still need us despite their portrayal that Jetstar can manage the lot.....

[ratpoison]

Remember there is still 2400 mainline pilots, the company still need us despite their portrayal
I believe that's what the AFAP more or less said back in "that" year. Be very careful lads, the 2400 can be very quickly reduced to a very efficient and lean 1400. :p

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Only if they intend to fly 2/3 of the aeroplanes. Unlike the domestic award back in the 80's and unlike the spin some would like to put on it, QF pilots are efficient... they are just paid more than others in this country and that is where the pressure comes from, not efficiency.

[N2O]

I believe that's what the AFAP more or less said back in "that" year. Be very careful lads, the 2400 can be very quickly reduced to a very efficient and lean 1400. :p
Just to be sure about the numbers:
Mainline Longhaul (B744, B747, A330, B767 without FEO's) approx 1630 Pilots
Mainline Shorthaul B737 approx 640 Pilots

The B737 is are already there with 'lean and mean' contract, no savings here.

BTW has anyone actually seen an AOC that lists the mainline B737's. The current QF AOC does not list any B737's?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Whilst considerng what 'legal' action they can take, I wonder how many now, and in late 2007 / early 2008, will be reflecting on "Who they trusted" in 2004.

[SOPS]

I say again...be very very careful..and I hope AIPA remembers, that even before they start they have "an enemy from within". As I have said before..if and when anything happens..it will be interesting to see who jumps where.

[DutchRoll]

So what did he do?
He hasn't really done anything yet, per se. The AIPA leadership will not go down the rocky industrial roads previously trodden, and they are acutely aware of the limitations the new IR laws place on dispute resolution etc. They're also aware of public perception and the fact that shoe salesmen don't see why we should earn so much, and believe that flying a 747 is only marginally more demanding than driving a Mazda 323. For those who know the Pres, his statement suggested that we're pretty much over stomping our feet on the floor & banging fists on the table.

Kinda weird. AIPA has been seen as the quintessential representative body by some sections of management for years - compliant, hasn't taken industrial action since, what, the 60s or something, very company-friendly overall. If Qantas says 'bend over', AIPA in the past has generally said 'how far?' and 'please allow us the honour of providing the KY'. It'll be fascinating to see what happens in the next few months.

[Ultralights]

the first thing the employees will do when threatened, is reduce efficiency, which of course will be used as ammunition against said employees.

the company is well and truly divided, and numerous large departments have been eliminated, i feel that whatever the AIPA will do, its already way to late.

[mustafagander]

Do not forget that under the current industrial rules, "work to rule" will expose the union and the induvidual to potential legal action.

Wonderful, isn't it, that obeying all the rules can get us in the sh1t. OTOH if CASA were to think that we did not obey all the rules we are in the sh1t again. Please nurse, may I have the red ones a bit early tonight!! :}

[Charlie Rich]

I believe that's what the AFAP more or less said back in "that" year. Be very careful lads, the 2400 can be very quickly reduced to a very efficient and lean 1400. :p
That "very efficient and lean 1400" number lasted less than 12 months, until the airlines couldn't fly them anymore.
The final numbers, afetr 2 1/2 years, ended up very close ot the original, but at a MUCH higher wages bill, due to the greatly increased salaries needed to lure pilots.
As a result, NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL AIRLINES IN THAT DISPUTE SURVIVED.
Don't believe the propaganda machines that try to make out the airlines had a win back then.
You should note that airlines have actually AVOIDED head-on confrontations since then, knowing that it would result in their demise.
Today's attacks are more the stealth type tactics that Mr Dixon employs - say one thing, do another with his "long-term, I have a plan" spiel)!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Isn't the issue really that the AIPA membership should have acted about three years ago when the thin end of the wedge got it's foot in the door. Now it is way too big, and far too entrenched.

As I recall there seemed to be a "it won't happen to us" approach.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Can AIPA find a legal/logical justification for taking action that attempts to stop QF feeding some work to a financially sick part of 'the Qantas group'...Jetstar Asia?

You know...the kind of justification that won't make them look like silly spoilt brats to the public when the media starts reporting their actions.

Just a thought.:hmm:

[SOPS]

Yeh..and just wait for the media story "Granny Smith only wanted to visit dying grandson"

"Granny Smith lived on cat food for 3 months to save enough money to travel on Jetstar from Darwin to Singapore to see her grandson Willy Wonker. Willy is in hospital in Singapore after contracting the possibly fatal disease "Golden Moth Syndrome." It is possible that Golden Moth syndrome was introduced into Singapore on the wet suits of Qantas pilots who do luxury diving tours on their regular 6 day stop overs in Singapore.

"I just wanted to see Willy"| said Granny Smith. "I know that 285 dollars is not a lot to a Qantas pilot, but for me its a years savings"

A spokesmen for Qantas confirmed last night that the average Qantas pilot earns $392,000 a year and flies on average 36 hours a month. He also stated that the average layover time in Singapore is 7 days..and many of the pilots undertake luxury diving tours...............blah blah blah

Like I said..be careful...very very careful.:confused:

[coaldemon]

That "very efficient and lean 1400" number lasted less than 12 months, until the airlines couldn't fly them anymore.
My understandind was that as of 11/9/2001 there was around 800 pilots in AN and in QN shorthaul around 600. That makes up the 1400 How many were there prior to the great event and what hours were they flying? Sounds like a crock to me:ugh: Once again 89 crashes through................ AN died from events that were greater than 89

[VVS Laxman]

When considering work to rule...

http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/news/1157590976_17416.html

These folk lost a weeks pay because they refused to work OT, during a "protected period" of industrial action... The ETU is taking it to the federal court, the outcome has far reaching consequences for all of us.

[DutchRoll]

A spokesmen for Qantas confirmed last night that the average Qantas pilot earns $392,000 a year and flies on average 36 hours a month. He also stated that the average layover time in Singapore is 7 days..and many of the pilots undertake luxury diving tours...............blah blah blah
Once again there's a major problem. Media reporters aren't rocket scientists and journalistic ethics (if there ever was such a thing) in Australia has pretty much followed a graceful nose-dive into a bottomless peat bog like journalism in the UK. Any story will do, as long as it sounds good to the masses. Cross checking facts is an unnecessary encumberance for most journos. Tall-poppy syndrome is alive and well, and they love nothing more than slagging off at doctors who've done more study and training than most people would even dream about, or pilots who've taken 15 years of slogging away to get where they are - both of whom can end a life/many lives within a few seconds of making a wrong decision.

However talk of work-to-rule is rather premature, and it'd be illegal now anyway (in fact, I'm surprised even disliking the Government's IR policies hasn't been made illegal yet). What you'll find initially is that cooperation and goodwill towards the company, ie, bending over backwards to make things work, extending duty-periods, accepting voluntary scheduling requests, being frugal with additional fuel, and so on, will virtually cease. There is evidence that this is already happening.

Edit: Que? Speedy hasn't even made a post on this thread!

[Vorsicht]

Whilst i wouldn't expect you to understand, you and your like are exactly the reason why Dixon is going to win this battle, and win it easily.

[N2O]

Quote
"When considering work to rule...

http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/n...976_17416.html (http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/news/1157590976_17416.html)

These folk lost a weeks pay because they refused to work OT, during a "protected period" of industrial action... The ETU is taking it to the federal court, the outcome has far reaching consequences for all of us."

These employees probably didn't have a statutory licence.
The PIC is the ultimate authority in the flight deck and answers to the regulator for decisions made.
Is a court (industrial context) really going to decide after the event that a diversion was for other than "operational reasons" and additional fuel should have been ordered?
Are these same courts going to become arbititors of when an MEL should be carried, whether an ILS or instrument time should be logged? Is the court to decide the pilots fatigue levels and hence whether an TOD should have been extended?
On the other hand, if the Federal Goverment wants to complete control for the operational decisions for "industrial reasons", they are quite welcome to legislate for operational control. Do they really want that responsibilty? I don't think so.

[Al E. Vator]

AIPA have four enemies to battle, but it's a battle they MUST fight and NOW:
I accept the following is idealistic but what are the alternatives?

1) Airline Management: They usually stay with airlines for a few years and then leave for other airlines or often other industries. Their priorities are first themselves and then the shareholders. Pilots are a pain-in-the-bum commodity and they will stop at nothing to reduce the cost of that commodity. They are outsmarting AIPA time and again. They are winning handsomely. AIPA are so afraid of a 'repeat of 1989' that they are effectively impotent. What they must do now is join forces with the AFAP, try to mend relationships with the J* pilots and fight the common enemy. Idealistic - true, but there is no other way.

2) Other Pilots: Just trawl the pages of PPRUNE to see those myopic few who delight in denouncing the Qantas pilots at every opportunity. It doesn't matter if they were knocked back at an interview or take offence to some Qantas pilots' arrogance, there are those who delight in the thought of knocking these folks off their 'pedestals'. Well, that might feel good in the short-term but what benefit does that bring the Professional Pilot in the longer term? Get over it.

The same thing happened in 1989 (without opening up that can of worms). Pilots undermined their colleagues and signed individual contracts. Managers didn't destroy that industrial action, pilots did. Unity within the industry has never been the same since.

So there are dispute pilots holding a grudge agains scabs, J* pilots with a grudge against Qantas pilots and vice versa and GA pilots with a grudge against them all! Who needs management to undermine your progress when you do it all so well yourselves! Time to mature girls and develop some form of unity.

3) Media: You will probably never win this battle, certainly not using the 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules pilot unions seem to prefer. Qantas pay for advertising, AIPA don't, so editorial opinion will always be pro-airline. The lower echelon of the media is populated by cynics who just want today's good story and then to move on to the next good story. Tall-Poppy cutting IS a national skill and the media repeatedly use this as their formula for selling papers and advertising space. Qantas pilots are in fact paid modest salaries by global standards (have a look at what a Fed Ex Captain gets or an A-Scaler at Cathay or A JAL Captain). You need to get this information out there.

The only way to beat the management in the media, should you wish to, is to play them at their own game - dirty. Pictures of CEO eating caviar in Paris whilst laying off hundreds of LAME's etc. Stories perhaps of wayward manager's daughters in driving accidents where daddy uses influence to have her released etc. It's filthy stuff but to survive in the world of media today unions need to play the modern game. It's appalling and we'd all aspire to rising above such nonsense but it's the way the 'game' is played. Only for us it's not just a damn game it's our careers.

4) The 'Average' Mentality: Why do we always hear this line 'Oh well, given the average salary in Australia is $56,000, we can't grumble at getting $180,000 or $220,000 or $70,000' or whatever. What a load of nonsense. That is a non-empirical method of judging ones' worth and stupidly self-defeating.

Why this obsession in Australia with what's 'average'. Who cares? I didn't bust my guts working crap jobs, studying after hours, having no social life, driving crap cars, and moving all over Australia (and the world) to get a decent flying job just to compare myself to Joe Average. He left school in Year 10, got p!ssed at the pub every Saturday and aspired to nothing more than a Commodore and a Mortgage. Good for him. No criticism of him intended but that's not what I wanted from life and I took sacrifices to make sure I didn't do that. I'm not going to let some little Irish Jet* airline manager or media person tell me 'Joe Average gets $56,000 so you should be grateful' or that I'm overpaid. Tom Cruise gets $20m for a movie. Is he overpaid? A 28 year-old options trader on Wall St gets a US$7m bonus annually, so what. Good luck to them. They have a skill somebody wants.

As always it's all about supply and demand and in Oz for the past few years there has been too much pilot supply and insufficient demand. Look at the back of Flight International now though and see what's happenning. The world is desperate for pilots and eventually Australia will follow. Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines and the Japanese airlines to name just a few will all have to cancel flights very soon (if they aren't already) if they don't get more pilots. A sign of the times.

What better time for AIPA, the AFAP and the J* pilots to get together and do something worthwhile for the lot of Professional Pilots? What more evidence do you need that Dixon and his ilk are hell-bent on destroying your lot? The truth is you ARE a valuable commodity and airlines WILL succeed wether you are on $250,000 or $380,000pa. They would prefer it if you got less and less but it wouldn't be show-stopping if you got the global standard pilot salary.

The only thing you AREN'T it appears is united.

[Captain Sand Dune]

It's about now that I earnestly thank Qantas recruiting for not hiring me 6 years ago.

Well said Al E. Vator.

[crank]

The final numbers, afetr 2 1/2 years, ended up very close ot the original, but at a MUCH higher wages bill, due to the greatly increased salaries needed to lure pilots.
As a result, NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL AIRLINES IN THAT DISPUTE SURVIVED.

but isn't that exactly the point? high wages bill = long term unsustainability?

[speeeedy]

Vorsicht wrote to me:

Whilst i wouldn't expect you to understand, you and your like are exactly the reason why Dixon is going to win this battle, and win it easily.

You're right, I don't understand....I have not made a post on this thread :confused:

[Vorsicht]

Apologies

I had been trying to reply on another thread that became locked for some mysterious reason. It was 3am so i guess i was a bit confused.
Having said that the statement is still valid i believe.

V

[Taildragger67]

Al E. Vator's point #3 is spot on.

You blokes need to get some good relationships going with the press.

The Board certainly appears to have - I wouldn't exactly be backing a favourable run on a certain network.

I suggest to have a hope of winning, you'll need to get good media advice, get someone who looks good on camera, can interpret industrial and flying jargon into bogan-speak and can come up with good, hard-hitting soundbites for the TV news.

The last war had PR as one of its major battles. Your foe has oodles of cash and experience on that front. You'll need to be just as smart (so no in-fighting) as them. They will look for any and every chink in your armour.

Good luck. Not to say you can't win, but I reckon you'll need it. Add get ready for some nasty tactics and sleepless nights.

[SOPS]

My point exactly Taildragger..the media will chop them up into little pieces unless they are careful

[RedTBar]

There is a certain channel 7 female reporter who is in the news herself at the moment who would love this sort of story and both she and channel 7 would love to have a win over their arch rival...channel 9 ,who's owner just happens to be on the qantas board at the moment....

AIPA,FAAA ..if you are interested in putting your members case forward

Just an idea

[Sunfish]

This is beginning to sound like some of you know where the battles are going to be fought....in the court of public opinion.

My suggestion is to find out who the archtiect of the MUA's campaign was and hire him.

[DutchRoll]

Al E. Vator's point #3 is spot on.
You blokes need to get some good relationships going with the press.
The Board certainly appears to have - I wouldn't exactly be backing a favourable run on a certain network........Add get ready for some nasty tactics and sleepless nights.
Quite right. The press likes access to the big guns in the company. If the big guns happen to be a trifle...err...'loose with the truth' shall we say, the press doesn't really care all that much.

Nasty tactics from the company? They started some time ago and are becoming quite bold & brazen.

[Chronic Snoozer]

How about spinning it like this - the average Q pilot earns less than 5% of what the CEO and CFO do.

They pull in more than 20 times as much coin as the 'average' pilot.

Who is really reaping the benefits of the cost reduction program?

[aircraft]

Err, you guys are talking about taking industrial action?

Why? Because Dixon is giving too many routes to Jetstar? Because he is paid 20 times more than the pilots?

Forget it! If this is the best you can do, you are still a million miles from where you would need to be, as a starting point, if you want to have any public opinion in your favour.

[RedTBar]

Aircraft ...I don't think that an interview with the head of AIPA or the FAAA constitutes or can be construed by QF as industrial action.

QF gives interviews all the time and as such it can be argued that in a country with free speech and supposedly free media that it has nothing at all to do with industrial action.

The interview is simply that and in the interest of balanced and realistic information people can make whatever they choose of the information that is supplied to the interviewer.

If there is going to be a dispute or fight then you want your point of view known before you start anything....public opinion is a powerful tool and QF uses it all the time

[Vorsicht]

I dont think it has much to do with other pilots trying to bring Q T&C's down. The point is that the conditions of airline pilots has changed all over the world and Qantas will change with it, whether speedy likes it or not. It has little to do with being "the best" pilots and more about being an adequate pilot. There are Australians all over the world working harder, in worse environments for less money. They are not going to sit back and accept that as their lot,just because the Q pilot group would prefer them not to apply to J*.

On the other hand it is the right of the Q pilot group to use industrial muscle to achieve their preferred outcome. That would clearly demonstrate that the Q pilot group was prepared to fight their own fights rather than have everyone else do it for them. In that case i believe that very few Aussies would accept jobs that were associated with industrial action.

I would also suggest that if everyone who has ever applied to Q had to go through the process again, half of the guys that got in wouldn't, and half that didn't probably would. Qantas selection is far from an ability indicator.

As an aside, have you ever considered that the psych test may be a way of selecting self centred egotists who will never stick together when it comes to a fight with management. And with that in mind could it be that Dixon is now happy that he has enough of that type of person to know that the pilot group doesn't have a chance in the face of a management committed to cost reduction. The psych test is for the company's benefit, not yours.

just my view as an interested observer from the other side of the world.

V

[Al E. Vator]

......er, sure you're not going on TV to say that stuff! It's a PPRUNE point to make folks realise they shouldn't accept the spin-doctoring we all seem bound by in this country. The point was that there are even those amongst us that accept the argument 'Oh well, given the average salary in Australia is $56,000, we can't grumble at getting $180,000 or $220,000 or $70,000'. Why?

Tom Cruise doesn't say 'Oh well, Noni Hazelhurst gets $850 for each episode of Playschool so I should be happy with $25000 for Mission Impossible. No way - he jumps on couches like a Wally and gets $20 million and good luck to him.

You don't have to advertise the fact that you aren't average but you worked bloody hard to get to where you are and don't let any PR-savvy upstart try to ruin that. Aim higher, not lower.

Now AIPA President, go and jump on Geoff Dixons' couch......

[Taildragger67]

A bit more free advice, if I may.

"Dirty Tricks" - not just going through the garbage. Management has access to a range of sweeteners - a few miles in your QF account, lifetime platinum FF, etc. (or, the other way round, being nasty to those who write unfavourable stuff; amazing what the odd bag going to Vladivostok can do... )so you've got to come up with some stuff which is better journalistically.

Steps back into the shadows...

[Vorsicht]

There is a subtle difference. Tom Cruise is in demand and there is someone willing to pay him that amount of money. Pilots are arguably not in demand and management are not willing to pay them the amount of money they are currently getting.

Ask Tom how much he is being offered per movie now after jumping on the couch and making a goat of himself. I believe his contract was terminated in fact. Might be some food for thought there.
V

[speeeedy]

Vorsicht, you seem to keep draging me back into this, so let me respond.

On the other thread I went to lengths to explain what "not good enough" meant. You interpret that as you must be "the best", that's your words not mine.

My post was in response to someone who thought that it is OK to undercut purely as retaliation for missing out on QF, clearly someone you really shouldn't want to defend... or is it?

Now go back and read my analogy about the footy team I got knocked back from, my point was that I was actually a good footy player, this seems to be contrary to how you took my post.

[AnQrKa]

Cutest - Is it true that QF pilots are paid credit hours as apposed to flight hours? I was once told QF pilots are paid a higher credit hour on long haul at night for eaxample and paid credit hours during accomodation on nightstops.

Is this still the case?

[B A Lert]

Cutest - Is it true that QF pilots are paid credit hours as apposed to flight hours? I was once told QF pilots are paid a higher credit hour on long haul at night for eaxample and paid credit hours during accomodation on nightstops.
Is this still the case?

Opening a can of worms here mate! To understand how Qantas Longhaul pilots are paid requires something just a bit less than a Rhodes Scholarship. Their pay formulae is quite complex and herein lays one of the problems that Qantas has been saddled with and would surely like to get rid of. To answer your Qs --yes, yes and sort of!

[Keg]

Also true that the pay per credit hour for an F/O on the 767 is significantly lessthan a pay per 'stick credit' on the 737.

QF drivers get somewhere between 1000 and 1100 credit per annum for about 700-800 hours of flying. I haven't checked for a while but a bunch of years back the 737 F/O rate was more than 25% greater than the 767 F/O rate.

We also get a 'min daily credit'- IE if the company flies me to LAX and sits me around for ten days then I pick up 5:30 per day.

I think the extra credit for night flying will be targeted very soon. :( Company stated aim is for us to get 5% more money but to work 10% more for it. Any way you cut it that's a pay cut based on the amount of work we do.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

When you fly at night under the long haul award, the credited hours accrue at a rate of 1 1/3 hours for every hour flown.

This does not mean you get paid more for night flying. It means, if you do a fair amount of it, that you get to the divisor faster and hence work less days in the roster. It is a way to take into account the more fatiguing nature of a lot of the "back of the clock" flying that LH pilots do.

On average, 744 pilots would work 3-4 days less per roster than a 767 pilot because of this facet of the award. The 744 guys generally needs this, due to the jet lag inherent in their operation.

[RedTBar]

The_Cutest_of_Borg...Are you saying that 767's don't fly at night ?

I'm sure there are a few 767 crew who would debate that last part of your post...( the jet lag part )

"On average, 744 pilots would work 3-4 days less per roster than a 767 pilot because of this facet of the award. The 744 guys generally needs this, due to the jet lag inherent in their operation."

Or was this because the guys in AIPA who set this up flew the 400...just a thought..any 767 crew want to comment

[rockarpee]

Red the 767 operates under the long haul award therefore recieve night credits aswell.:rolleyes:.With regards to the "jetlag" comment,this is all about time zone change not necessarily, night flying. Night hours on the 767 are hard work, like any other night job, but a coupla hours kip when I get in sorts out the problem and a normal nights rest follows.

[noip]

Or was this because the guys in AIPA who set this up flew the 400...

In 1967, when the long-haul award was developed, the 747-100 was a paper aeroplane.

Oh, and the particular AFAP people you just slagged off at, contributed to their fellow pilots welfare .... can you say the same?

Kind Regards,

N

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Red, I have flown both types so I know what I am talking about. This provision in the LH award goes back to before even the 747 was in Qantas.

Yes the 767 flies at night. But generally the 744 guys fly more, hence they have less days at work in a normal roster. This is meant to be a statement of fact, not stirring up some sort of inter-necine warfare here...:rolleyes:

[Keg]

Just to back up some other issues too. I've been back on the 744 for less than six months after nearly nine years on the 767 as an F/O- and a S/O on the 744 prior to that. I've had three colds in that time back on the 744 and have been regularly tired at home anywhere between two and four days after getting home. I attribute this to back of clock and night flying. On the 767 I had maybe one cold every couple of years and was rarely tired anything longer than the day I got home from a trip. I should also note that for the last few years on the 767 I was almost exclusively an international pilot which guaranteed that I would be flying a night sector home to Australia more often than not! Sure the 744 has it easy at times- heavy crew, time off in slip port, etc- but it is certainly much harder on the body at home as well as the family.

I did an eight day London pattern recently which was daylight most of the way there and back. Trip credit was 44:00. Stick hour credits was about 42. I felt magnificent when I got home from the trip. They've gone to the top of my bid! It just goes to show that the night credit is worth it....it takes much more out of you.

Finally I do love it when someone tries to slag off a particular fleet/airline or take a particular angle only to find that they have completely and utterly mis-read the situation and the backgrounds of those they are responding to. The proof as to RedTBar's bona fides will be whether there is an admission of 'oops I stuffed up' or vitriol in response to Borg et al. :D :E

[RedTBar]

Keg,
There is or was no vitriol in my post re Borgs post ..

I was just curious as most 76 crews I have met seem less than enamoured about their flying than you seem to have been.In addition the ones that have gone over to the 400 or airbus tell me that they have never had it so good on the new aircraft. So no I don't think I have stuffed up as you put it.

[RedTBar]

Keg,
There is or was no vitriol in my post re Borgs post ..

I was just curious as most 76 crews I have met seem less than enamoured about their flying than you seem to have been.In addition the ones that have gone over to the 400 or airbus tell me that they have never had it so good on the new aircraft. I also totally agree that daylight flying is far better than night flying but then any shift worker will tell you that so no I don't think I have stuffed up as you put it.

[DutchRoll]

Have flown the 744. Now on the 767. The 767 has changed with new rostering software which aggressively drives towards the lowest cost to the company (irrespective of pretty much anything else, including common sense). The flying leaves you acutely fatigued on many trips due to long multi-sector days and short slips. It's not uncommon to run into CAO48 hassles. When you do that 5 days in a row, you're stuffed. One or two nights off, and it all starts again. When it's late at night, it's worse, as we found out at midnight in MEL a little while ago after smacking the aeroplane into the runway, both of us having toothpicks propping open our eyelids. AIPA have mitigated the effects of some of the patterns, but there's only so much they can do.

The 744 is a different kind of fatigue. Jetlag/body clock style. But you get bucketloads of time off in compensation (as well as being paid significantly more), and personally, my bid to go back there cannot come soon enough! Just a personal perspective.

[Sonny Hammond]

ding ding ding......round 2

AIPA's in the corner copping some body blows, the short haul EBA's completely dead in the water...

What is its next move?????

[The Mr Fixit]

Your Association has joined forces with the other QF unions at ACTU level (something very new and scary to pilots) and one of them perhaps the most powerful is about to go into an EBA period, you wanna slap them upside the head, talk to the men who certify the airworthiness of your A/C

[Charlie Murdoch]

Ha Ha Haaa Ha Ha ho ho ho ho ha ha hha ha ! Ah Haa Haa Haa ho ho ho ho ho`Aha Ha haa hee hee hee hee ahha aah ahaa hhaa !!!!!!!
Oh Dear Sorry!

You Guys! :D

[regitaekilthgiwt]

And as if all this wasn't enough, there is now a $10 charge per paper ticket on QF staff travel. He is really trying to piss people off, as if staff travel isn't expensive enough. I'll tell you I would like to leave when a new international carrier opens its doors in Australia where much less of this **** goes on and they actually treat their staff as an asset, however I don't think I would get there as I would be killed in the rush.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Any of you worked it out yet?

Piss of all the expensive senior staff and they leave to be replaced with cheaper junior staff...who do the same job. A major UK airline, Brittania, offered it's most senior long serving captains in the vicinity of GBP100k years ago to resign so they could be replaced with junior captains on 2/3rds their wage...a ploy that paid handsome dividends in just a few short years.

LJH's 'Work Choices' is all about lowering the bar as skills shortages loom large on the horizon as does upwards pressure on wages.

If the upswing starts at a lower point the final outcomes will be lower too...which is good for shareholders and executive bonuses. Of course removing the average person's ability to negotiate employment terms and conditions meaningfully is just icing on the cake.

When the govt pubishes CPI increases in the sub 4% range they are just lieing through heir teeth...20+% is more like it.

It has been thus for many a year...and that is why the average worker's pay packet goes no-where near is far as it did 30 years ago.

Smoke and mirrors and grotesque deception.:ugh:

[hotnhigh]

And to think what I could have been earning now at BY instead of QF! Anyway just blowing the dust off the old licence now.

[rammel]

I too was p!ssed when I saw they were charging $10 for a paper ticket. But if you look closely it is only for domestic tickets booked over the phone. They want you to do everything for Domestic travel online. I'm still not happy about this, but I'm more p!ssed about the fuel levy on staff tickets.

[DutchRoll]

Absolutely. The fuel levy on staff tickets is complete BS. It's a very overt way of saying "we really want to get rid of staff travel, but if we can't do it easily, we're gonna gouge the crap out of ya".

Stupid thing is, if they get rid of it, that the seats go empty and they get diddly-squat for them. But I'm guessing the fact they could axe some admin jobs overrides that.

[regitaekilthgiwt]

Didn’t realise it is just for domestic, but this is a start. However I too am even more p!ssed about the fuel levy too. It is such BS. They must already make a killing on the staff tickets anyhow. As you said, empty seat anyway! As I said before, when the chance comes here in Aust., there will be a lot of people wanting to move to airlines where this BS doesn’t go on. Charging staff for the extra fuel it will take to carry them and also for getting a paper ticket domestically, on top of the already inflated staff travel ticket prices - please :yuk: :yuk: :ugh: :ugh: :*

[Not My Shout]

Now that so many crew are using Virgin Blue instead of Staff Travel, wouldn't it be fun to see an 'Oral-B' style ad. You know the one where there is a back shot of a dentist, with the voice-over "this is Rob, he's a dentist so we can't show you his face". Something like a shot of a row of pilots in uniform from the back with the voice-over "these guys are Qantas pilots so we can't show you their faces, however they all prefer to travel on Virgin Blue". Wonder if Richard would be interested?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

PAF - you are so right. I am sure you will agree that the employees should be arguing this in favour of their working entitlements and remuneration as well.

So, should they do this as individuals or collectively? Hmmm - which way will get taken seriously do you think?

[assasin8]

"Let them eat cake..." Now who was it that said that ? I'm sure GD is laughing all the way to the bank... Oil price has come down, share price has gone up... Unions are effectively being squeezed courtesy of 'C'oward's industrial reform... Wow, Geoff's bonus is going to be HUGE !!!

[Taildragger67]

I've been wondering about the tax treatment of the 'fuel levy'... does it just go into general revenue (and so contribute to profit and therefore get taxed as such) or to some special account which has some beneficial tax treatment?

Wonder if the boys and girls from the ATO have a reason to take a closer look??

[crank]

as if staff travel isn't expensive enough.

omg. you are kidding aren't you? get out in the real world and pay for a commercial ticket.

take it from someone who does - it makes me sick to the stomach to hear you gripe about the fares when you pay, what, 10% of the commercial fare?

just shows how distanced from reality you are.

maybe qantas should just give the tickets away to charity rather than let staff buy them for cheaper prices if all they are gonna do is whinge about it.

[Fliegenmong]

Crank makes a very valid point there insofar as a quip like that makes us all look like extremely spoilt brats, the media pick up on one like that, just remember who was recently appointed to the board, and our credibility in the public eye evaporates faster than the average Australians working conditions.

[404 Titan]

crank

What a jealous little person you are. Sounds like you missed out on your dream aviation job and are bitter at those that made it. All jobs have there staff benefits. I’ve worked in a number of industries totally unrelated to aviation and they all had some form of staff benefits so get off your high horse. For the record staff tickets at most airlines are 10% of the “FULL” undiscounted airfare “PLUS” all the taxes and fuel surcharges which are quite frankly out of control and are in many of the cases more than the ticket itself. They are not as some think 10% of the fares you see advertised in the paper or the window of Flight Centre as you walk buy. Most of these airfares are about 30-50% of the full airfare. And while you, with your 30-50% discounted ticket have a confirmed seat we are on standby which at times can be bl**dy stressful. Airlines today consider staff travel as a profit centre and have gradually reduced the benefits to staff to the point that in some cases it is cheaper to buy a full fare ticket than use an ID ticket. And all this while airline staff have seen considerable erosion in their terms and conditions. So the next time you want to open your mouth about airline staff travel, think about what you want to say before hand or don’t say anything at all because it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.:yuk:

Fliegenmong

Do you have any idea how airline staff travel works? If you don't then I suggest you re-read the above. It's not all it seems.

[Jetsbest]

If you think 'Staff travel' is really 10% then your reality is somewhat distant too.

These days, it's often the case that Jetstar or Virgin are cheaper than the staff travel cost (depending on route and, yes, from first-hand experience) so airline people do buy commercial tickets for their travel needs. But therein lies the joke. QF keeps saying that staff travel, where you travel ONLY if there's a vacant seat anyway, is not covering costs!?! Staff travel NEVER displaces a 'commercial ticket', yet now sometimes costs more than that ticket. And as for the FBT argument thrown about: another joke.

Now, I don't gripe about bankers getting cheap loans, builders getting houses built for cheap, car salespeople getting discounts on their vehicles etc. The list goes on.

You could afford to chill a bit. Enjoy your journey.

[Fliegenmong]

404 - Been flying around on ID90 tickets for many years, and know all to well the standing around waiting for your name to be called. Have been bounced many many times, back to a hotel try again next day damn near more expensive than full fare after you've been bounced a few times. You are correct that staff travel is nowadays viewed as a revenue soutrce. There was a time when there was a possibilty of contacting rostering to determine who was to operate the flight and try to organise a jump seat if I was travelling alone - yes mate I am very familiar with staff travel, and the associated stresses, the public however are not, and if you would kindly re read my post and pick up on the point that I have made and the detrimant on pubic opinion that it would have I would be most appreciative. I believe Crank was simply expressing what the public sentiment would be to such careless throw away line as that
Thanking you in advance :)

[Victor India]

404 - Well said.

I was going to be a little more humble about it however. Staff travel, whilst becoming an ever increasing profit centre for airlines, is still usually cheaper.

Having said that, almost all the people I speak to outside the industry cannot believe it when I tell them that my employer charges such a high price for staff travel tickets, especially when employees may be using them to get to and from work.

It seems to me it is only certain people within the (aviation) industry that are unhappy with the concept of airline staff getting cheap fares. To the wider community (in my experience), cheap fares for airline employees seems reasonable. The concept of an airline jacking up staff travel prices to make profit from its own employees makes most reasonable people want to vomit :yuk:

How little it actually costs to carry an employee, compared to what a great employee engagement tool staff travel can be.

I have worked for other operators that charge nix for a free seat. Of course I don't expect a seat for free, especially when the airline is incurring taxes etc for my carriage. I do, however, take offence at paying a crappy fuel levy which pays for the extra fuel burn many times over in most cases, then getting to work and being asked to delay starting the APU or shut down an engine during taxy in.

Give and take. What's that? :rolleyes:

Ah bugger - we have hijacked the thread haven't we? We were talking about Dixon crossing a line in the sand...

[404 Titan]

Fliegenmong

My apologies to you. I wasn’t trying to imply the same tone to your comment as Cranky’s. I do understand where you are coming from but what I have found in reality is most people don’t have a problem with airline staff getting cheap tickets. As has been said some are amazed that my staff ticket is sometimes only a little bit cheaper than there confirmed ticket and are even more amazed when there ticket is cheaper.

If we all become too bogged down in what the general public think we may win the fight but in the end loose the battle because we weren’t focused.

[Fliegenmong]

No worries mate.:)

[regitaekilthgiwt]

404 Titan, Jetsbest, VI and others, thanks for saving me the time to respond to crank. I agree with VI, when (normal (whatever that is!)) people hear how much it is staff travel (domestic especially) and the said 'surcharges' they can't believe it. It stinks that the company charges its employees as much as it does for the said service, so therefore, I stand by my comment from the previous post. I perhaps wouldn't be so angry if we didn't constantly have people from other parts of the company staff travelling around for free! Anyhow I digress.


Fliegenmong, I hear what you say, but again, what 404 Titan said above!! Also, I don't think we are being unreasonable. I don't expect the ticket for free, just the cost of tax and offsetting other things such as staff travel employee’s cost, baggage handling etc. At the moment, IMHO, the price of the tickets are way above these costs and such we are being thoroughly ripped off! For what reason? To further p!ss us off? Why?


Ill also tell you VI, people get even more disgusted when you tell them you have to pay $80 to go to your own Christmas party and that doesn't even include drinks!


Anyhow I do love my job, I do want our company to do well and continue to be the best as well as continue our proud history. However with the clowns that are running the show at the moment and some of the decisions they are making towards attacking their staff, the future looks bleak:

If you want good customer relations, you must first have good employee relations...Walt Disney


ps I don't think this is too bigger thread drift, its all about the fact we have had enough from our hypocritical leader(s)...

[DutchRoll]

No, upon re-reading, I think Crank was actually expressing a strong personal opinion, not just what public sentiment might be! But just like the public often does, he expresses a view on something he doesn't really understand the finer details of.

Chill out Crank. People, including the paying public, gripe about everything. There are legitimate 'issues' developing with QF staff travel and what the company is doing with it. Dixon does not want his employees enjoying any benefits of any description - period.

[Fliegenmong]

Where's aricraft when ya need him? :E :E

[Sunfish]

Crank, you simply don't understand the difference between a staff ticket and a publicly available ticket. Staff tickets are generally "sub load" which means that you get a seat only if there is no ordinary fare paying passenger who wants it. That applies on multi sector flights as well. There is thus considerable risk that your holiday plans may not end up being what you signed up for.

I've been offloaded in Karachi and spent several days there waiting for an onward flight to London that had an empty seat. Also the last four or five days of a holiday can be hell as you keep having to ring to see what the loadings are, and furthermore in my day at least being stuck in a foriegn port waiting for a flight home was NOT sufficient excuse for being absent from work.

If you want final proof, the ATO looked at staff tickets to see if they came under the fringe benefits tax umbrella and concluded it wasnt worth it.

Having said that, I had a great time in Karachi (Thank you Lufthansa!).

[Jetsbest]

QF people still get an FBT assessment on their group certificates and I believe any staff travel undertaken contributes to the amount (as does sal/sac for car/computer etc). Can anyone confirm? I'm not a regular staff traveller.

[capt.cynical]

You all may think you are being hard done-by with staff travel as current employee's. Just try it as a retiree, every year you go back in subload catergry after current employee's. I retired 3 years ago after 30 yrs my start date now equates to 27 years service as well as the disadvantage of retiree status.
My last 2 trips domestically have been on Virgin not QF even after Jetstar was a few dollars cheaper, I did that on principle.
I will use my remaing LSL trips on QF with commercial backups on other carriers.
After that its the caravan around Australia bugger QF and others.
:{ :mad: :yuk: :ugh:

[UPPERLOBE]

capt cynical, same same and could not agree more.

I started using Virgin well before I retired and the peace of mind gained from being full fare at near staff travel prices was a revelation. If I was planning an o/s trip I would shop around for full fare deals as I am fed up with the onload and offload hassles, who needs the stress. :D

[twiggs]

I only ever fly on QF using staff travel these days if it's a last minute thing.
Virgin is great if you look out for the daily domestic happy hour specials.
You can usually get a confirmed seat for a similar price or even slightly less than the QF staff travel price.
Internationally the only reason to buy a QF staff ticket is if you want an upgradeable ticket.
Other than that, most other carriers offer ZED fares now (through staff stravel), which in a lot of cases are cheaper than the QEA fare and the tickets incur no fuel surcharge.

On the FBT, I used to get an FBT amount on my group cert, but it was zero this year as well.