PDA

View Full Version : AIPA V QF Jetconnect


Capt Kremin
27th Jul 2010, 10:14
AIPA's case in Fair Work Australia cleared a major hurdle this afternoon with the Full Bench rejecting QF's claim to have the case dismissed on the basis on jurisdiction.

Fair Work Australia ruled AIPA did have a right to bring the case.

This is very interesting as it was always considered to be the major method that QF would have the application dismissed.

Somehow QF is now going to have to convince the FWA that QF painted pilots in QF painted aeroplanes don't deserve to be paid in genuine amigo money just because they are employed in NZ.

The ramifications for Jetstar are also obvious.

Well done to AIPA's legal team. :ok:

Mstr Caution
27th Jul 2010, 10:27
Mister, you want buy copy watch! I mean copy airline. :8

Taildragger67
27th Jul 2010, 11:06
QF painted aeroplanes

One could be forgiven for thinking more than just 'painted'. Boeing clearly thinks so as it delivered them as -838s.

It'd be interesting to see if any sort of argument is advanced with respect to the registration holder of the aircraft not being 'Qantas'; a quick check of the register shows that the registrations of at least 17 of the 30 747s on the Australian register are not held by the same entity as operates them.

rescue 1
29th Jul 2010, 08:21
A very interesting case - the wider ramifications for all Australian business is huge. What about the Telstra call centre in India, VB in the Philippines etc??? If it was to be awarded to AIPA I expect an amendment to the legislation immediately - no matter who wins the election.

Nonetheless, with Jetstar announcing MEL/AKL and AKL/CNS I can't see Jetconnect (and the QF brand) being round for much longer on the Tasman, and unfortunately experiments such as these will only accelerate such decisions.

breakfastburrito
29th Jul 2010, 09:17
A very interesting case - the wider ramifications for all Australian business is huge. What about the Telstra call centre in India, VB in the Philippines etc???
The difference is these workers are not entering Australia, they are employed offshore & remain offshore.
However, this case will be of interest to those business seeking to fly in labour to do work within Australia, particularly NZ residents.
Should AIPA lose the case, it gives the green light to fly in fly out labour hire operations, hence the interest from the ACTU.
I beleive the political pressure will then be to legislate against this practice.

hotnhigh
29th Jul 2010, 20:16
See todays australian article for Alan Joyces thoughts............
Virgin Blue Group pilots step up battle as jobs go overseas | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/virgin-blue-group-pilots-step-up-battle-as-jobs-go-overseas/story-e6frg95x-1225898599439?from=public_rss)

Wondering if all of the qf board and their function could be ot sourced to say Bangladesh, in the hope to save a buck. You know, in the true spirit of australia.
Why do we need them here?

What The
29th Jul 2010, 22:13
DAVID EPSTEIN: It's really quite simple. We have New Zealand staff operating New Zealand-originated aircraft, operated by a New Zealand company on aircraft that are registered in New Zealand. It couldn't be much more simple than that.

Source: AM - Pilots take legal action against Qantas 21/12/2009 (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2777100.htm)

And painted on the side is Spirit of Australia.

How about we reflect what this is truly about.

Spirit of Executive Bonuses
Spirit of Corporate Greed
Spirit of Disengagement Strategies
Spirit of Industrial Ideologies

scon
29th Jul 2010, 23:29
Didn't those titles read in the past "The Australian Airline"? One wonders why that was changed :}

Capt Kremin
30th Jul 2010, 00:55
AIPA had also taken more than 12 cases against Qantas through either federal courts or workplace bodies and had yet to win. "So they have history of taking spurious cases against us and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members' money on them," Mr Joyce said.
"That's also one of the reasons why we're feeling confident."


"yet to win" is an interesting choice of words. Cases get withdrawn due to EBA negotiations, negotiated to a conclusion without going to trial, dropped due to changes in legislation.... it doesn't mean that the cases were spurious when they began.

The same argument can be turned around to Qantas... how many of those cases did they "win"? Answer: none.

What is really interesting is that AIPA now seems to have the undivided attention of management with this one... for good reason.

Taildragger67
30th Jul 2010, 10:02
And painted on the side is Spirit of Australia

In other words, it's Australian in spirit only; or, it's only the ghost of an Australian airline. :hmm:

I have often wondered how Kiwis must feel on a domestic run, when they board something with "Spirit of your mortal enemy" daubed on the side... Might it be better to just leave it blank?

Wondering if all of the qf board and their function could be ot sourced to say Bangladesh, in the hope to save a buck. You know, in the true spirit of australia.
Why do we need them here?

Because the Qantas Sale Act says they have to be in Aus.

KABOY
30th Jul 2010, 10:52
AIPA had also taken more than 12 cases against Qantas through either federal courts or workplace bodies and had yet to win. "So they have history of taking spurious cases against us and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members' money on them," Mr Joyce said.

"That's also one of the reasons why we're feeling confident."


I suggest AIPA take heed of what Mr.Joyce has said, I think it's time for a change of tack.:ugh:

Dash1
30th Jul 2010, 23:47
"So they have history of taking spurious cases against us and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members' money on them," Mr Joyce said.
"That's also one of the reasons why we're feeling confident."

Change tack yes,

How about
'So Qantas management have a history of spending tens of millions of dollars of their shareholders money on paying freight price fixing fines'

Maybe the public needs to be informed.

puku
30th Jul 2010, 23:51
I spoke with my cousin who works for a Great Motor car
maker re the AIPA action and I mentioned how all my Q
friends own beamers, me-cs and ow- dies. In her words
many on the Qteam sent jobs off shore to make their
cars but rant and rave when their employer do same.

The support and sympathy the workers at her plant give
AIPA etc; - ZERO

Discuss

Fonz121
31st Jul 2010, 00:37
I spoke with my cousin who works for a Great Motor car
maker re the AIPA action and I mentioned how all my Q
friends own beamers, me-cs and ow- dies. In her words
many on the Qteam sent jobs off shore to make their
cars but rant and rave when their employer do same.

That's a stupid comparison. Are beamers, mercs or Audi's Australian owned companies?

OneDotLow
31st Jul 2010, 03:04
That's a stupid comparison

x2! No one is arguing that passengers HAVE to spend their money with an Australian airline - in fact it is quite the opposite! We HAVE to be good enough to make them want to spend their money with us.

If your friends employer started building Falcons/Commodores overseas for the Australian market, then she would know what we are talking about.

schlong hauler
31st Jul 2010, 07:49
Joyce is sounding a little like his despised predecessor. If the QF pilots read AIPA see this latest action as a watershed that is long over due then about time. The rot started in the nineties with Airlink servicing Rocky and Mackay. AIPA never listened then. Along came Impulse which morphed into Jetstar. We were told they will never operate on the primary trunk routes, all lies. The management can not be trusted. Then Jetconnict in our -838 737s wearing our uniforms. False and misleading representation which is against the trade practices act and yet ASIC didn't want to know when I raised it with them 5 years ago. Too hard to legislate across the pond I was told. Politically difficult to prosecute. They have disdain for the history and pride of Qantas. I have another 15 years here and like most will do 35-40 years with QF. If they want my engagement they had better learn quickly to stop eroding the very essence of Qantas and the culture that I was once so proud of. Trying to save fuel and improve punctuality are 2 areas I have absolute control over. watch your Kpi' s KABOY. It will be very interesting to see how far this matter gets and how political it becomes.

breakfastburrito
31st Jul 2010, 08:44
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!

AAL_Silverbird, 2002 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/55755-i-am-army-one-merged.html#post519561).

Continue the divide an conquer strategy at your shareholder's peril Alan.

Tij2
31st Jul 2010, 09:11
I, like many others joined Jetconnect cause we need to feed our kids. Our boss's say do this, we do as we are told and next thing we're being slagged off by the Mainline guys. Now our lively hood is under threat by AIPA action, all with the support of our own representative NZALPA. Hope NZALPA. and AIPA make sure I get reemployed by Mainline. Or at least I get my 20 plus years of contributions back when I need it.

Fruet Mich
31st Jul 2010, 10:09
I just hope all those guys out there in mainline are aware that Jetconnect was once a NZ domestic airline which was once mostly crewed by Aussies who eventually shifted back home. That airline endured years of uncertainty and hats off to the guys that stuck in there and made it the success it is now. The Jetconnect guys were quite happy doing domestic NZ until Jetstar full of Aussie crew took over NZ domestic and Qantas management moved Jetconnect onto the Tasman. I do hope the mainline guys do have some spine and stick up for the guys from NZ in Jetconnect who are just as passionate about the qantas product as they are. It would be good to see them on better terms and conditions. Maybe it is better to bring these guys into the mainline seniority and fight the management in numbers.

KABOY
31st Jul 2010, 11:04
Maybe it is better to bring these guys into the mainline seniority and fight the management in numbers.

A moment of clarity!!!

schlong hauler
31st Jul 2010, 11:10
Yeah we all have to feed our family. Jetconnect may get a large pay rise or be made redundant. There are F/Os in QF with 10 years plus time on 737 and still can't get a command because there career and aspirations have been sold to lower bidders. They also deserve just and fair treatment. Its not about the money but about what's right ethical and fair. Its very interesting to note that now the sub groups of pilots within the Qantas group are now being screwed by management and everybody feels threatened about what the future may bring. Nothing like threatening your livelihood to distract you from operating safely. How far QF pushes this is probably a calculated guess. I have seen these distractions on the flight deck first hand and its definitely not an optimum environment for safety. So if I am flying with somebody who has a major gripe about how their career has been sold out from underneath them, why am I going to question a few hundred extra kilos of fuel or if they want to stop by for a coffee before preflight. I want to do the right thing by our profession but only when we are treated with respect. So the next time some middle management tosser wants a jumpseat then asks inane questions about the operation whilst simultaneously boasting about their manipulated staff travel category, Piss Off. You distract me and my mate from doing our jobs safely.

rescue 1
1st Aug 2010, 20:09
going to question a few hundred extra kilos of fuel or if they want to stop by for a coffee before preflight. I want to do the right thing by our profession but only when we are treated with respect.

That's a good way to engender respect - helping to run the company into the ground.

The debate around the rise and rise of low cost carriers is an interesting one. The number of jobs within the industry that have been driven from this growth is quite credible. What equivalent number would have been generated if we were still to be operating within the legacy system?

What's the answer? Management are just trying to shaw up the company. Belief that Joyce is trying to screw everyone (I think) is unfounded. He needs a job just as we all do, and if QF was to go broke on his watch (and it always could), then he would be lucky to get a job in the mail room.

Lets put aside the traditional adversarial relationships and identify and work through the issues as professionals - lets use our lateral thinking caps or GRADE even, to develop a workable solution for everyone.

pointyendforward
1st Aug 2010, 22:36
rescue1; you hit the nail right on the head.

hotnhigh
2nd Aug 2010, 22:07
Fair point oxidant.
I suppose what it does highlight is the continual impact on careers that the qantas management strategy has. Unfortunately, how do we stop the continual slide to oblivion? And I don't believe this is just directed at mainline, it's directed at every pilot group. Because once one group is buried they will move onto the next one. They already have wrt the way the jetstar operation is unfolding. Everyone has mouths to feed and the ramifications of an AIPA victory on this issue and the impact on the jetconnect guys and girls is another important point to consider. We simply cannot be just happy with a win in the courts if that then leads to trouble for the people in jetconnect.
Otherwise the qantas management group will simply find another way to screw the segmented pilot groups.

Going Boeing
3rd Aug 2010, 01:18
This court action is against the actions of Qantas management - not against the JitConnect crews. If AIPA is successful and QF is forced to pay JitConnect crews the same salary (and T's & C's) as its mainline B737 crews, then it will still be cheaper for Qantas to crew most of the trans Tasman flying with NZ based crews (due to no accomodation and allowances required with the daily flying program originating just after 6am NZ time). Therefore, I don't see any cause for alarm from any NZ based crews, they should be behind AIPA on this as they may get a substantial payrise. The effect of an AIPA win would be to stop Qantas, Jetstar and many other corporations from setting up offshore labour companies to employ workers performing jobs in Oz. This is why the ACTU is fully behind AIPA in the conduct of the court case.

An AIPA win would place some restrictions on QF management efforts to marginalise the existing mainline pilot group and thus allow some career progression.

The Jetstar pilots based in NZ & flying trans Tasman routes would also get a payrise up to Jetstar Oz rates. This is a very important case which should have the support of all pilots in the Australasian region.

Going Boeing
3rd Aug 2010, 01:23
Posted by Rescue 1
Lets put aside the traditional adversarial relationships and identify and work through the issues as professionals - lets use our lateral thinking caps or GRADE even, to develop a workable solution for everyone.

I agree with most of your post but unfortunately our managers (under Dixon's stewardship) got used to there only being one-way flow of information (from the top down) and Joyce hasn't yet been able to restore two-way flow. My recent attempts to pass on what is really happened resulted in my :ugh:

ANCDU
3rd Aug 2010, 01:39
The best result here would be the the Jetconnect pilots wages to be on par with their mainline counterparts, then see how this result could help Jetstar. & Virgin pilots.

It is frustrating to hear Jetconnect pilots complaining about this action. AIPA is using funds from its members who have lost flying and promotional opportunities to pay for this action. I understand Jetconnect pilots are frustrated about J* taking thier NZ domestic flying, but Jetconnect has done the exactly same thing to Qantas mainline. You guys really have nothing to complain about here!

Like many people have said, this action is something that should bring pilots together, it not only affects Qantas but in a big way Virgin as well. It may finally be a barrier to stop the race to the bottom that is ruining our industry and careers. As pilots we can't stop others doing our flying for less, so we may as well use some legislation to do it for us.

It would be good to finally get a win on the board! Its about time.

Goat Whisperer
3rd Aug 2010, 04:17
Is it impolitic to observe that it's not the NZ based pilots (JetConnect, Pacific Blue and Jetstar NZ alike) who are attempting to bring their pay and conditions up to the majority standard but rather it's the Australian based unions who are attempting to stop our cheaper colleagues tangibly eroding our work conditions?

Yousef Breckenheimer
22nd Jun 2011, 21:13
Has there been a decision on this yet?

Spinner69
23rd Jun 2011, 08:13
What are the implications of an AIAP win? Or a Qantas win?

Auzzie pay still within the Jetconnect Brand? The closure of the Jetconnect with 100 odd pilots out of work? An Auckland base within the Mainline brand? No change at all? Jetstar takeover?

Lets think about the consequences people...

maggot
23rd Jun 2011, 08:27
What are the implications of an AIAP win? Or a Qantas win?

Auzzie pay still within the Jetconnect Brand? The closure of the Jetconnect with 100 odd pilots out of work? An Auckland base within the Mainline brand? No change at all? Jetstar takeover?

Lets think about the consequences people...

...if no action was taken? yep, the off-shoring would continue unabated and 2400 odd pilots out of work, you know, the ones who were doing the jetconnect flying originally...

that said, I don't believe there is a desire to see these guys out of work, just to stop the rot - maybe a payrise for the boys or you never know - maybe another branch to the Y

But you could be right about the jetstar takeover

Hempy
24th Jun 2011, 15:36
Probably been shown before, but appropriate..


kji8arr7l0U

Wideglider
25th Jun 2011, 00:21
Probably been shown before, but appropriate..

Actually Hempy, I think not!

Ladies and Gentlemen I am a Jetconnect pilot and proud of it!

When I was flying with Talair nigh on 30 years ago, the composition of the airline was about 45% Aussies, 45% Kiwis with the rest made up of a mixture of PNG Nationals, Canadians, South Africians and a few other Nationality's as well. We all got on extremely well and I don't have a bad word to say about any of them! Easily some of the best years of my life. You knew you were alive and actually flew your aircraft!
I have found that pilot's generally are a great group with a common interest/love that crosses most boundary's like no other.

When the " Hungry Beast" first came out and I viewed it, I got a laugh out of it like most others. "Hungry Beast" was made to highlight a situation in a humourous way, which it does well!

The problem I have now, is that it is being used as a personal affront to all the good people at Jetconnect who are just doing their jobs! This along with the deliberate misspelling of Jetconnect, the unnecessary comments on the RT which only other pilots can hear, the innuendo that we are less professional/safe than Mainline are some other examples!

This Ladies and Gentleman, is truly unprofessional behaviour!

Jetconnect staff are just doing their jobs to the best of their ability, just as you are or were before you were alienated by the current situation!

I attended a meeting a couple of days ago with the heads of AIPA and AFAP. After discussions I left with the feeling that we had much common ground and that working together was the way to go!

Paraphrasing some key points already made here and on other forums,

Jetconnect pilots understand what you are going through as it has happened to them!
I think most, if not all, are quitely supportive of your cause!
This has been evident by a mostly dignified silence in the face of the above mentioned occurrances! Those that have spoken out are passionate people, just as many of you are!
Jetconnect has employed Mainline staff in the past and would probably do so again!
Whilst Jetconnect is a New Zealand company any Austrailian pilot can work for it if they so desire, with at least half a dozen doing so at the moment! New Zealand and Austrailia are unique in the fact that licence and lifestyle along with ability to cross each other borders to work are a right! Quite a different situation to heading off too Asia or wherever!
We most certainly are not your "Mortal enemy" as has been alluded to else where, {except on the sports field where the is no greater thrill than watching our teams do battle!} We are infact your closest friends/nieghbours!
We {Jetconnect } are just one of the Puppets being used by the Puppetmaster in this ongoing battle!

So to summarise,

We are all professionals doing our jobs! Please keep it this way!
Unity is and always will be the best way forward in these situations!
By all means have at the Puppetmaster but bashing the puppet gets you nowhere and is a waste of energy and resources!

I will continue, as always, to say hello to my fellow aviators!

Best Regards

Wideglider.

Tankengine
25th Jun 2011, 01:09
Wideglider,
If you were flying an aircraft in Jetconnect livery not on previously mainline routes there would be no problem. If you were to be integrated into Qantas mainline as a new branch of the "Y" that may be a solution. While you [as a company] are undercutting our jobs then there is a problem.:=
There are fine people and idiots in all these companies.;)

Sunfish
25th Jun 2011, 01:41
Wideglider:



This Ladies and Gentleman, is truly unprofessional behaviour!

......


We are all professionals doing our jobs! Please keep it this way!




With the greatest of respect Wideglider, you are either a troll or sadly disillusioned with your plea to "be professional".

The most common management ploy in attacking pilots is to appeal to their sense of professionalism which, considering pilot Egos, is an extremely effective tactic against someone who aspires to wear a uniform.

I say, as a former professional engineer in an airline, that we consistently got trodden on by management using this mantra at a time when LAME and other unions were behaving like junkyard dogs in wages negotiations to the point where we ended up paid little more than baggage handlers.

To put it another way, take "professionalism" and stick it up your backside. Management sniggers at you when you bite on this argument! You want to take a leaf out of the CFMEU negotiating handbook, and I mean it.

To put it yet another way; Surgeons and Barristers are also "Professional" do you see them taking pay cuts? Do you see little twenty something Asians who can't speak English and purchased their university degree operating on patients? You are supposed to operate to standards, demand the same pay for operating to them as others.

Don't be fooled, when push comes to shove, use your industrial muscle to the fullest of your ability and don't hold back one little bit. You are fighting for your family future, ot some fart arsed concept of "professionalism". As was said in the movie Jerry Mcguire; "show me the money"! All else is BS.

framer
25th Jun 2011, 04:37
do you see them taking pay cuts?

To be fair to the Jetconnect guys, I don't see them taking paycuts either.
A mate who I used to fly charter with in WA is a year one F/O with them and his starting salary is 10k more than the NZ average household salary and nearly double the NZ average salary.
The pay rates look quite low if you're in Ausi, on Ausi conditions, but if you are a Kiwi living in NZ they don't ook so bad. They are in the same ballpark as Pac Blue and Air NZ.
Also, You are supposed to operate to standards, demand the same pay for operating to them as others.

I'm sure they do operate to standards.... what else would they operate to? and as alluded to above, they do demand the same pay as others.....just not the same pay as Australians (because the economy is different).

If you were flying an aircraft in Jetconnect livery not on previously mainline routes there would be no problem.
I agree. But the thing is, these guys have been doing this for ten years or more, it is, for a Kiwi, a good job, a legitimate job. The problem is not individual pilots who may never have even been to Ausi before getting employed with jetconnect, it is with OUR Australian management.
Imagine if AirNZ offered a base in Sydney on money a few grand less PA than QF mainline,and anyone could apply, Kiwis or Ausis, and operated on the Tasman. AirNZ guys would get upset at the loss of flying, but Ausi's flying Metros in the wee hours would crawl all over themselves for the job. It would seem much better than Jetstar (as it does for the Jetconnect guys). Now you might say "ahhh but only the spineless [email protected]", well I put it to you that it's very easy not to be one of those if you were fortunate enough to be employed with QF mainline, and that if you hadn't been accepted you too might join the Sydney AirNZ base and enjoy a legitimate job in your home town that pays industry standard.
The fight is with legislation and Management, not pilots.

Fruet Mich
25th Jun 2011, 08:31
If you were flying an aircraft in Jetconnect livery not on previously mainline routes there would be no problem. If you were to be integrated into Qantas mainline as a new branch of the "Y" that may be a solution. While you [as a company] are undercutting our jobs then there is a problem.So let me get this right? Fact: Qantas Mainline pilots came over to NZ in 2001 to help set up Jetconnect (Started by Geoffrey James Dixon in July 2001) and take over the flying previosly flown by Ansett NZ and Qantas NZ pilots, affectively start an Aussie airline in NZ not on Qantas mainline routes but hey, not a problem yeah? Then after it was all set up, a flood of redundant Aussies come over to continue the Jetconnect brand on substantially lower T&C's that the kiwis were originally used to when flying this route.

Now the Kiwis are taking over the Aussies flying on previous Q mainline routes at substantially lower rates than previously done by the mainline pilots?

This sounds like full circle type stuff to me? Or have I completely missed something here?

It seems Wideglider is bang on the money, we are all working together professionally in the industry........... to screw each other over! And the puppeteers are having a ball!

Isn't this a little ironic?

Wideglider
25th Jun 2011, 09:03
Sunfish, I most certainly am not a Troll so therefore by your reasoning I must be sadly disillusional! With respect I sincerely hope you are wrong!
My plea is not to be Professional. It is to not be Unprofessional! Semantics perhaps, but I see a difference!
My post was and is directed to my fellow pilots, one Professional to another.

Tankengine, I fully accept and acknowledge the problem as created by management, not the pilots. It is the personal attacks I have issue with!
I agree with your last statement,
"There are fine people and idiots in all these companies!"
I just hope there are a lot more "fine people" than "idiots"!

Framer, Thankyou for getting it!
Your final sentence sums up my entire argument and if I may just amend the ending in red!
The fight is with legislation and Management, not between the pilots.

May I just finish with the fact that in making my post I was not looking at get into a protracted arguement with anyone. You will either get it and agree, or you will not!
If there are any pertinent questions or points I will endeavour to answer them, otherwise I shall resume being a very interested observer!

Tankengine
25th Jun 2011, 10:36
Fruet,
You just don't get it do you? Qantas has been flying across the pond WAY more than the 10 years since 2001!:ugh:
I have only been flying for QF since 1988 but we were certainly doing it then!:ok:
The way I understand it Jetconnect was started for NZ domestic flying after the previous airline went tits up. Qantas mainline 737s did the flying on a temporary basis until Jetconnect set up [not stealing anybodies flying]

Jetconnect I would expect employed whoever applied! I know it has/had a mix of Aussies and Kiwis, some with lots of previous experience [some ex Ansetts, both Aust and NZ] and some new starters. :ok:

The issue is with QF management undercutting mainline with this airline which now DOES NOT OPERATE DOMESTICALLY IN NZ but simply flies across the pond on old mainline routes.:ugh:

The Jetconnect crews have been screwed by QF management closing them down domestically and starting Jetstar NZ.:mad:

And for those who say it is a NZ company "So There" just tell me who pays their salary and from whose bank account!:E

Ultergra
25th Jun 2011, 11:10
AJ, Cliff etc are selling off the Qantas reputation.

Qantas pilots and to a pretty large extent Qantas Engineers have over many many many years worked very hard to strive to achieve a standard that is recognised in the Aviation Industry as the benchmark of safety and benchmark of the "standard".

I am not saying that their current benchmarks are still up to scratch, but it's their reputation of this, that keeps people flying with the Q.

AJ, etc are about one thing. Putting the rat on the tail of all the 787's coming to Qantas, but basing everyone in Asia. That way, they pay less, charge the same, and deliver a product far below the safety standard that Qantas has become known to demonstrate day in day out.

They seem to think that by having that lick of red paint on the tail makes them immune to training standards, immune to experience and immune to fatalities.

Managements actions will disolve a 90 year build up history, only in the future to have the airline to be thought of as... just another airline. It wont have the history, it wont have the experience it currently has, it wont have anything to hang it's hat on with respect to safety standards once Bing Lee and Bok Choy get their hands on a new Qjet.

standard
25th Jun 2011, 16:54
wideglider - whilst i can appreciate your concern - please replace yourself in a position that Qantas or some other Airline were to come in and undercut your position with a) less experience b) not having to jump the same recruitment hurdles and c) undercut the shit out of you, take your jobs and work for half the price.

So whilst i can sympathise with your plea for professionalism, please understand the position of the people that you are daily shafting!

Going Boeing
25th Jun 2011, 21:20
wideglider, have another read of my post #25. This legal action is against QF management not against JetConnect pilots. The economic advantages of flying the Tasman from NZ bases means that even if JetConnect pilots are paid QF pilots T & C's, they will still do the flying.

Tempo
25th Jun 2011, 21:33
Wideglider,

You are flying a Qantas B737 for terms and conditions that are less favorable than those pilots in mainline Qantas.

This is a mechanism setup by Qantas to lower wages and conditions.

It has nothing to do with the individual.

That is a problem. It has set a precedent.

Surely you can see that.

framer
25th Jun 2011, 22:33
It has nothing to do with the individual.

That is a problem. It has set a precedent.

Surely you can see that.

He can see that, thats why he wrote things like;

I think most, if not all, are quitely supportive of your cause!


At the end of the day I think a lot of you guys are saying the same thing in a different way.
Some may think that the Jetconnect guys should have stayed flying their Dash 8s and B1900's on 55k a year instead of joining the domestic and Tasman QF branded operation on 100k PA 8, 9 or 10 years ago. Fair enough, that is your opinion and if you personally would have had the foresite back then (from your position in a Kiwi turbo prop job, not from a comfy QF 2nd officers position ) to turn the job down because guys in a different country get paid more, and even though it was industry standard pay for your country on offer, then good on you. You would have been railing against basic human nature to get ahead and it would have been difficult to turn down the opportunity to double the income, security etc of your family, so good on you for having that conviction.
Others, most, just took the job if they were offered it and enjoyed flying New Zealand domestic routes in QF branded aircraft while getting paid what they obviously thought was fair. If they were getting paid the same rates as QF mainline they would have been on a much nicer wicket than AirNZ domestic 73 pilots.
Sometimes when I am sitting in my hotel in Japan or Honalulu I wish I had joined them when I had the chance. Everyone makes their own choices, and in NZ Jetconnect is a good one. Not much makes me madder than when people talk about their right to a job. You won't here people say that they have a right to a job unless they were born into very fortunate circumstances. Where you are born is happenstance, I was lucky enough to be born in Australia and I'm making the most of all the opportunities that afforded me, but I know that I don't really have a right to anything.
PS I know nobody mentioned having a right to the flying on this thread, I just felt like having a rant :)

Wideglider
26th Jun 2011, 01:36
Funny how a little ash cloud free's up one time so turning to the computer I end up on Prune!!

standard, I had typed quite a long reply to you but flicking between web pages I inadvertaintly closed Prune losing everything. In reflection probably for the best, so here's my short reply!
I do understand, Jetstar NZ did this too us and indoing so closed the CHC base causing significant problems for many! I hold no grudge to the Jetstar NZ pilots, indeed some are friends!
Also 15 years ago, at a company I worked for, we were in contract negotiations. The inevitable stalemate ocurred! Strike action resulted!
The company replied by placing full page adds in the national papers say what overpaid [ yes they quoted highest paid rated, not the average, sound familiar.] underworked primma donna's we all were! Being in the top 5% of income earners, the public believed the company line. [again sound familiar.] This really p.ss.d many of us off!!! Unfortunately for the company there were jobs available in Europe, the desert and Hong Kong as well as others, so many of us, including myself, left!
This left the company with a critical manning shortage that took quite a while to sort out but they did get through it.
In saying this I am not recommending this to any Mainline pilots as I think you would possibly be playing right into mangement's hands and save them a fortune in redundancy
With regard to your points,
a, You are "Qantas", so you must be better, more experienced, than me as an individual or group for group! Whow, big call fellow! The whole world would be interested in that one!
b, When I joined Jetconnect the Qantas HR lady over from Syd told me during my interview that the assessment criteria I and the others went through was the same as that used for Mainline. Having never applied to Mainline or Air NZ for that matter due to my aversion to back of the clock and long haul flying after doing many years of night freight, I have no idea if this was true. All I can say is I have never, not got a job, I have applied for!
c, I know this is simplified but mangement set the rates, I just "fly's me aeroplane" where they tell me!

Tempo, Yes, This is the situation we have found ourselves in and we are all facing the problem to different degree's.

Going Boeing, I have re-read your post but I am a realist.
Chances are in several months, I may be paid more money, I may continue as I am today, I may have an Orange Star on my tail or I may be applying for a new job, hoping that my previous good luck with job hunting still holds true.

To summarise I DO understand, I DO sympathise, I WILL support in any way I can!

May I also say that in many posts there are pilots blaming other pilots for their problems when in many instances it is the manouvering of the mangement, present and past, that have created these situations!
Perhaps the time for understanding and forgiveness is upon us, so that mutual support and unity might just help everyone prevail!
Or perhaps Sunfish is right!

Back to my original posts theme, can we not be civil to each other?

framer, I would go fishing with you! Those that know me will understand this statement!

Wideglider.

Xcel
26th Jun 2011, 02:34
The fact of the matter is Qantas management have found a loophole in the current cabotage, IR and sales act legislation and are exploiting it to maximize their profits (read management bonuses not company profits). I don't agree with it on the grounds it is sold as a Qantas flight, not a codeshare or jetconnect flight. But then again we get the same thing with Jetstar, cobham, alliance. This is nothing against the actual pilots who are trying to make a living. It's the slimy management and marketing tactics on a march to degrade conditions by pitting us against each other. Jetconnect pilots are here to stay, as are Jetstar, cobham and alliance. Management need to acknowledge however that is they want to sell a Qantas flight then they either pay a Qantas fair wage OR they let the public know it is in fact a subsidiary they will be flying with at time of booking... I'm sure others don't see it that way it's simply my over simplified opinion on the current situation.

Australia has a unique relationship with our trans Tasman friends. The problem is now that this strategy has worked it will be the normal management pursuit to divide and conquer through loopholes, offshoring and cost cuttig. Instead of competing fairly and ethically on a superior product. Not everyone drives a scooter in Australia... This isn't Asia where cheapest is best. Pay a fair rate, engage your best assets, providing the best customer experience for a FAIR FARE. $29 fares and pissed of customers will not return dividends, will not increase wages, productivity, or efficiencies. A Qantas pilot on a Qantas plane flying a Qantas passenger... Pretty easy!!

Xcel
26th Jun 2011, 02:39
Better add network, Jetstar Asia, Vietnam and next qantasia to my above post...

OneDotLow
21st Jul 2011, 02:14
Anyone know when the outcome of the case will be known?

BGQ
22nd Jul 2011, 04:06
Hey Taildragger67 your post #10

Awe come on ..... we really love you we really do !!!!

Cpt Link Hog
24th Jul 2011, 00:40
Firsty thank you to our Oz kuzzys!! ALPA have no political teeth in NZ we have no EBA we need this help! thanks guys for taking a stand for which 99% of JC PB JQ pilots are all very much behind.

Hoping to come in with the big win and get the NZ and OZ industry back were it should be and a stop the race to the bottom

The small amout of people that are against this the bunch old farts dont care about the rest of us and want to protect themselfs.

Dare I say it alot of these OZ, NZ based companys are made up of rot.. our 89 friends who cant get back home and are not in the unions dont care about anyone but themselfs, ruining it for whole industry (history repeats?) and as it was back then these peoples attitude is still the same... just a shamefull existance in the airline industry

Big thanks from many "Kiwi" pilots looking forward to a great result

Groaner
24th Jul 2011, 13:10
Jetconnect was NOT set up by Geoff Dixon.

Not even by Qantas.

Just trying to correct the record...

Fruet Mich
25th Jul 2011, 21:11
Jetconnect was formed by Qantas in July 2001 by Geoffrey James Dixon from Mascot in Sydney. Well that was the chap that signed the legal documentation from the Qantas legal team in Mascot Sydney.

As per the NZ companies register online. Check it out, quite interesting reading. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Trent 972
25th Jul 2011, 22:46
Groaner is well aware that Qantas started JetConnect as discussed in the thread Qantas Earnings (Jetconnect). (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/452729-qantas-earnings-jetconnect.html#post6475584) (27 May 2011)When shown the proof (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1143116/11698985/entityFilingRequirement?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpa ges%2Fcompanies%2F1143116%2Fdocuments%3Fq%3D%26start%3D40%26 limit%3D20%26sf%3D%26sd%3D%26backurl%3D) / Proof (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1143116/11699645/entityFilingRequirement?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpa ges%2Fcompanies%2F1143116%2Fdocuments%3Fq%3D%26start%3D40%26 limit%3D20%26sf%3D%26sd%3D%26backurl%3D)he just ignores it and carries on with the fantasy.

ACT Crusader
25th Jul 2011, 22:48
Maybe Groaner needs a reminder....

Directors (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1143116/directors?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanie s%2Fsearch%3Fmode%3Dstandard%26type%3Dentities%26q%3Djetconn ect)

Dixon, Gregg and Johnson were the original 3 Directors.

Groaner
26th Jul 2011, 01:35
OK, I'll bite.

Jetconnect (the operation, I assume people are more interested in that than the shell company registrations?) was originally an AWAS wet-lease operation for Qantas (in other words, an AWAS AOC, AWAS tech crew, AWAS maintenance oversight etc, with Qantas as a customer).

Despite the first "A" in "AWAS" standing originally for "Ansett", it at that time had virtually nothing to do with the airline Ansett (especially as at that time - late 2001) was then collapsing/collapsed. Wholly-owned by Morgan Stanley, was an operating-lease lessor to perhaps a few dozen airlines with a fleet of maybe 200-odd aircraft.

The Jetconnect operation was initially 3-4 737-300s. There was also an AWAS 767-300 wet-lease operation at roughly the same time (post-Ansett collapse) domestic-Oz. I think they may have had another wet-lease somewhere in the world as well.

Wet-lease operation was effectively converted to dry-lease at the time AWAS was sold (2003?) - then Qantas became the operator (AOC etc).

Trent 972
26th Jul 2011, 02:16
AWAS or Ansett NZ?
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansett_New_Zealand)says in part...

In 2000, News Corporation sold Ansett New Zealand to a company called Tasman Pacific Airlines, formed by a group of New Zealand investors. Shortly afterwards, the company became a franchise of Qantas, operating under the Qantas New Zealand brand.
The following year, however, the airline went into liquidation.
Qantas's later involvement in the New Zealand domestic market was unrelated and not through a franchise agreement.

The problem is, you just can't deal with the facts, and I doubt you ever will.

Groaner
27th Jul 2011, 05:56
Ansett NZ had to get divested by Ansett Airlines because Ansett was being taken over by AirNZ, which would therefore have had a domestic monopoly. TPA bought it and ran it as an Ansett-Airlines franchised operation (i.e. it used the Ansett logo/colour scheme etc). Running 146s and Dash-8s if I recall correctly.

TPA then rebranded as a Qantas franchise (maybe they saw the Ansett writing on the wall, more likely they felt that the Ansett brand would be associated with AirNZ).

TPA then collapsed soon after at around the time Ansett Airlines collapsed (there was a lot going on, so I don't recall the exact timing). It was a completely different airline to Jetconnect and nothing to do with it.

Air NZ was looking a bit shaky at the time (you might recall it soon needed a nationalisation/bailout). Qantas wanted to maintain an operation domestic-NZ routes, but was trying to make hay by claiming market share off the ruins of the Ansett collapse in Oz. They therefore had a capacity shortage (one of the few airlines needing aircraft at that post-Sept-11 time), and little inclination to go through the AOC hoops etc as they were well and truly distracted.

AWAS had plenty of aircraft (I recall 2 of the initial 3 and maybe the fourth 737CG came from Brazil). And they had a wet-lease capability. AWAS set up the Jetconnect operation (via a wholly-owned subsidiary company - name similar to "Australian Wet-Leasing Operations Pty Ltd" or thereabouts - I'm sure you can search for it). I recall cabin-crew were provided by QF (possibly contract), maybe some tech crew seconded, but it was an AWAS operation from the start. Try and find the AOC and track the aircraft regos/serial numbers and you'll verify this.

Fast-forward a year or so and AWAS wanted to shut down their wet-leasing operation (the 2 x 767 operation had finished its contract by then), the wet-leases were converted to dry and extended, AWAS packed its bags and went home. I think the AOC holding company was sold (possibly to the Jetconnect shelf company) for a few dollars.

I was sort-of involved with a fair bit of this, so I think I know. Were you Trent 972? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just give a little background.

Of course, Qantas then saw other opportunities for Jetconnect, taking advantage of the more-flexible NZ regs to start trans-Tasman routes etc.

Anthill
27th Jul 2011, 07:18
I also worked for AWAS and can verify that what Groaner says is at least 99% correct.

ACT Crusader
6th Sep 2011, 06:28
Decision handed down

Link here - [2011] FWAFB 3706 (http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb3706.htm)

Many interesting observations made by FWA in their 2-1 decision.

The final 4 paragraphs from SDP Drake, are of note:



[130] I have concluded that Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) does not exercise “a very high degree of control” or “a considerable degree of control” in relation to Jetconnect. I have concluded that Qantas’ control over Jetconnect is total.


[131] There were a number of discretionary factors relied on by Jetconnect which Jetconnect submitted weighed against any amendment of the award. The certified agreement between Jetconnect and its pilots expired on 26 May 2011. Now is perhaps a good time to consider these issues. I do not believe it is this Tribunal’s role to consider such matters in an application such as this. The application of the award is not a matter which should be set aside for discretionary commercial considerations. Qantas has entered into commercial agency arrangements with Jetconnect. It may have to reconsider them.


[132] I am persuaded by AIPA’s submission that Jetconnect is a fully owned subsidiary of Qantas which is acting as the agent of Qantas for the operation of Qantas’ short haul operations and the employment of staff, including pilots.


[133] The award is binding upon Qantas, and on Jetconnect as its agent, in respect of pilots employed by Qantas and by Jetconnect, in Qantas short haul operations, which operations include trans Tasman flights operated by Jetconnect. There is no ambiguity. The award does not require amendment.

Tankengine
6th Sep 2011, 06:35
So it looks like a payrise for Jetconnect!:E

or

Not?:confused:

fatmike
6th Sep 2011, 06:38
FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA
DECISION
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Items 10 and 12 - Application to vary pre-reform or transitional award
Australian and International Pilots Association
v
Qantas Airways Limited and Jetconnect Limited
(C2009/11363)
JUSTICE BOULTON, SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON



DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH
[134] The Full Bench has decided not to make the variations to the Award sought by AIPA. Accordingly, and for the reasons given in the majority decision, the application is dismissed.

hotnhigh
6th Sep 2011, 06:53
Shame others weren't of the opinion of Drake.
[121] What Qantas has done in relation to conducting its trans Tasman flights and Jetconnect is to reverse the base from which flights are despatched and then comply with the consequential compulsory New Zealand regulatory outcomes, including those involving air safety. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

[122] Jetconnect has no control over its operations, its finances or its industrial relations. Mr Daff, Jetconnect’s Chief Executive Officer, decides nothing significant. He decides no business strategy. He consults and then is directed concerning all decisions except the most insignificant. His ignorance concerning Jetconnect’s financial affairs is staggering. Finances are in someone else’s hands and that someone is an employee of Qantas. Mr Daff and his financial manager handle operational and financial matters at a divisional level only. Jetconnect banks almost nothing. It is indemnified for all expenses. Jetconnect’s operational function is limited to the immediate shopfloor operational concerns not involving any strategy. All strategy, both financial and operational, is a matter for Qantas.

[123] Jetconnect’s industrial arrangements are a prime example. Its lawyers are eventually paid by Qantas and its industrial adviser is a person referred to Jetconnect by Qantas whose fees are also eventually paid by Qantas. Jetconnect has entered into individual contracts with pilots and had an industrial agreement with the New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc (NZALPA) which expired on 26 May 2011. In entering into these arrangements Qantas set the negotiating table and dictated what was on it. Jetconnect did what it was briefed to do.

ACT Crusader
6th Sep 2011, 07:19
AIPA Media Release



Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Jetconnect remains a sham, AIPA concerned by FWA ruling

The Australian and International Pilots Association has described today’s ruling by Fair Work Australia, regarding NZ-based Qantas subsidiary Jetconnect, as disappointing and concerning.

Jetconnect operates Qantas flights into and out of New Zealand. Although these flights appear to be regular Qantas flights – with flying kangaroo livery, QF flightcodes and Qantas crew uniforms – since 2010 they have actually been operated by the wholly-owned, NZ-based company.

Through this arrangement, Qantas Group is able to employ pilots and crew on New Zealand wages and conditions. Jetconnect also pays its tax in New Zealand instead of Australia.

Today, in a 2-1 split decision, the FWA bench ruled that it was unable to prevent Qantas Group from using the hollow company to employ pilots and crew flying into and out of Australia on lower New Zealand wages and conditions.

However Senior Deputy Drake did find that on the merits and evidence, Jetconnect is indeed a sham company and a mere agent of Qantas Group.

AIPA President Captain Barry Jackson said although he was disappointed by the overall ruling, it was gratifying to read Senior Deputy Drake’s assessment.

"AIPA has said from the start that Jetconnect is nothing short of a sham operation and Senior Deputy Drake’s assessment confirms that view," Capt. Jackson said.

"Qantas management have been cynically using this hollow shell of a company to avoid awarding employees Australian wages and conditions on what are ostensibly Qantas flights.

"The whole Jetconnect operation has been nothing short of a deception. When passengers purchase a Qantas ticket and then board a plane with a flying roo on the tail, they are entitled to expect that their pilots and crew and fully-fledged Qantas employees.

"That the Qantas Group can continue in this vein sends a worrying signal to Australian corporations around the country. Imagine if one of the big miners is able to establish a wholly-controlled labour-hire company in say, Indonesia, and use employees on Indonesian wages and conditions to undercut Australian workers.

"This ruling demonstrates the current limits of the Fair Work Act and legislative reform is now needed to enable Fair Work Australia to intervene in cases such as this to protect the rights of Australian workers. AIPA will now consider an appeal."

waren9
6th Sep 2011, 08:25
So. Where the f. did my post go? Careless editing? Explain it or ban me. Either way I dont especially care. Nothing offensive about it. Delete this and PM me if you prefer
:*

W9

Tidbinbilla
6th Sep 2011, 09:15
Funny as, Warren. You posted in an unrelated forum, and it was deleted over there because it was off-topic. :}

Perhaps a little more attention to detail is needed on your part :} We can ban you if you really want :)

TID.

waren9
6th Sep 2011, 09:19
It was posted directly under FatMikes post (which seems to have survived the move)

Yeah, funny as.

mohikan
6th Sep 2011, 09:46
Fatmike posted the same post in two threads.

Jees there will be some piss drunk tonight down at AJ's apartment in the Toaster.

Nothing can save the mainline pilot group now.

SilverSleuth
6th Sep 2011, 23:21
This is a big blow. I really hope they appeal and bring in every industrial lawyer they can. I really fear for the mail line cause now. aJ will be walking high today wi this decision.

mohikan
6th Sep 2011, 23:43
In a country that is fast becoming a plutocracy, it was probably too much to think that anyone in the government or the judiciary was going to stand up to big business.

Although the new IR laws are clearly better then work choices, practically they have no effect. Its business as usual for corporate Australia.

The loss of this court case has bigger implications then just Jetconnect of course. It is effectively a green light for all companies to outsource and offshore to the max. Precedent has now been set.

I anticipate a very aggressive move offshore of both QF and JQ operations now. JQA being the first vehicle in relation to JQ, and a massive expansion of Jetconnect as well.

QFinsider
7th Sep 2011, 00:02
As Captain Jackson said to the media, literally a mining company could bring in cheap employees from Indonesia to work in a mine and fly them out. The whole mantra of globalised labour was that low skilled jobs would be exported. It would seem that is no longer the case. The ramifications are massive.

Candidly there is much to play out..Yes a setback, but the union movement (all of them not AIPA) ought realise where this is headed. It is worth noting that the decision indicates that the jurisdiction is not correct to test the case. AIPA holds many interesting and pertinent facts about Jetconnect. I wouldn't be sending out resumes just yet!

Mr Leslie Chow
7th Sep 2011, 00:07
As for point 123, wonder if mainline foots all the bills?

Be curious to see which bucket of money services are paid from.

Funny that they couldn't find in the positive given that they acknowledge it is a sham.
:\

Ken Borough
7th Sep 2011, 00:15
As Captain Jackson said to the media, literally a mining company could bring in cheap employees from Indonesia to work in a mine and fly them out.

As usual, an incorrect assertion. There's a significant difference between a pilot based and living in New Zealand flying a Tasman service, and a miner based in Indonesia but living and working in Australia for prolonged periods.

Time for BJ to do a lot more flying?:ugh:

ga_trojan
7th Sep 2011, 00:21
As Captain Jackson said to the media, literally a mining company could bring in cheap employees from Indonesia to work in a mine and fly them out.

They already do. They just use a multi national labour hire company. Aviation could do the same.

What I suspect that the Airlines think they can do is get western crews to work as expats in Australia. The Achilles heal of this plan is if Australians and other Western crews withdraw their labour. If that happens and they are then force to hire and therefore train Asian pilots, which I don't think they are setup for. I can't see QF setting up flying schools to train Asians to fly their aircraft.
QF assume that they can just setup shop and put an ad out for pilots and everyone will come running.

Capt Kremin
7th Sep 2011, 00:25
To put this in perspective, AIPA always realized that the jurisdiction aspect always made this decision likely.

The handling of this case by Qantas lawyers, in allowing Daff to be put in a situation where he could be cross-examined, may still one day be recognized as the turning point, and an incredible tactical error.

ampclamp
7th Sep 2011, 00:32
Lost a battle not the war. Legislation is the key. Over to constituents and their reps in parliament.

DirectAnywhere
7th Sep 2011, 02:21
Already written to my MP, Senators Brown, Rhiannon and Evans and Adam Bandt.

Should probably include Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor.

Won't make any difference but at least I won't die wondering.

evilc
7th Sep 2011, 03:28
Way, way back when this operation was contracted to AWAS (to get it up and running) and QF then came in to "take it over", I personally called the then president of the AIPA to advise him of the changes to the AWAS contracts that were being made by QF (reductions in everything from allowances to wages). I regarded it at the time as the thin edge of the wedge and advised the AIPA that they would be wise to take action before precedent was set.

The response was "we're not interested because we don't classify that as our flying and therefore any of our concern". So the encumbants received no assistance and the degradation began. More Kiwi's werre employed and Aussies went home. Just a tad "rich" to now cry foul, in my view.

sfoxs
7th Sep 2011, 10:14
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with what you guys say about Jetconnect on the radio or about what you think of us as a safe airline but working at Jetconnect since the early days has had its interesting moments:
- A domestic operation with bitter Ansett Australia pilots then a little bit of Tasman flying thrown in a few years later, bases opening, closing, lots of Tasman flying.
- The arrival of the lovely Jetstar on Tasman services from Christchurch to the fully fledged arrival of Jetstar domestic in NZ (at lower wages than Jetconnect I might add) and their VH registered aeroplanes flying up and down NZ. This moved us sideways, at the direction of Qantas, into the Tasman operation we are today.
- 6 major changes to our SOPs to now sharing SOPs with the world's safest airline. - No fewer than 4 CEOs.
- 5 Flight Operations Managers - no - make that 4 and one disaster!
- An Air New Zealand takeover hanging over our head for about 2 years.
- An Australian court case (SHAM!) telling us at first that they are trying to get us better wages until the truth has really come out.

Yes it is always interesting working at Jetconnect part of an airline whose **** doesn't stink!

We do a good safe job under ever changing conditions in an uncertain environment, I will keep my $150k+ any day to have the pleasure of living in NZ.

There is one thing we are always sure of at Jetconnect - change!

ozbiggles
9th Sep 2011, 03:01
Is there also the little elephant in the room here of where the money comes from to foot the bill for Jetconnect running this operation?
The FWA decision seems to indicate that Qantas (international?) pays the bills. Does this contribute to the 'loss' that Qantas international made?
At least some people here seem happy to see Australian jobs off shored, it sets in stone however that any Australian company can do this now with the legal backing of FWA.
As Australian pilots I think we just have to make sure the consumer is aware of what is contained in this operation, just as by law companies are made to list the contents on anything you buy in a shop. Not a dig at the JC pilots, a dig at what used to be an icon of an Australian company pulling the wool over its customer base.

Fruet Mich
9th Sep 2011, 04:05
I guess that's why the put a large sticker on the side of the fuselage by the door at which Qantas customers enter which states "operated by Jetconnect on behalf of Qantas" I'm pretty sure the customers know they are not flying with Qantas mainline. All they care about is their frequent flyer points and on time performance! unfortunately I don't think the general public care who flies their aircraft these days, that's why they are leaving Qantas in droves for better frequency, on time performance on price point with other airlines other than Qantas. Welcome to the world of globalization.

aerostatic
9th Sep 2011, 04:55
Is there also the little elephant in the room here of where the money comes from to foot the bill for Jetconnect running this operation?

QF pay the bills but they also get the revenue from the ticket sales. Yes it's a 'shell' company but the people who work there are real and just trying to make a living like everyone else.

Mr Leslie Chow
10th Sep 2011, 05:23
Yes I have a thought jonny, how bout everyone stop chasing the shiny jet and selling our profession out to the lowest bidder!

These 'functionaries' that offer these term and conditions must know there will always be some sucker that will take it, and they must laugh.

When voz started up, a mate gets in, takes a job for $54k says it's all fine and he is happy for the pay cut, cause he is flying a jet. 6 months later is whinging and complaining about the pay and conditions and promotion chances.

Ask yourself - would you do that if it were nearly any other job? Plumber, mechanic, janitor???? Mates that are in the mining industry are absolutely astonished at what happens in our biz.

Management know the shiny jet syndrome is alive and well and we are the suckers that fall for it all the time.

We are our own worst enemy,and they know it.

Sand dune Sam
10th Sep 2011, 08:16
Well, no better bunch than the Kiwis to whinge about conditions, after all, they accept the low terms, then whinge about how much the Australians get paid more than them..If the Kiwis actually had the gumption to not scab work then they would have nothing to whinge about..and before some smart alec kiwi says that Australians work at Jetconnect too...spare a thought for thr fact that if Air NZ hadnt drilled the final nail into Ansett, then maybe Australians wouldnt have to have worked for AWOS/Jetconnect...

waren9
10th Sep 2011, 08:49
SDS. Mate I've spent a fair amount of time on here learning who is from where. Believe me when I say its not the Kiwis pissing and moaning. But if it makes you feel better.......

haughtney1
10th Sep 2011, 12:23
Sam, that's just about the most moronic post I've seen on PPrune this year. It's full of the same old dross that gets dragged up from time to time....a bit like the wife trying to win an argument really.
Aside from that, from where I sit, there are PLENTY of ozzies who would win a gold medal when it comes to having a whinge...you only need to visit a few places beyond your fair shores to see that.
The whole Jetconnect thing stinks I agree, but remember...who is pulling the strings? Is it a kiwi plot to lower your T's & C's? Or is it the shrewd and clever work of a company who clearly has no regard for it's employees?
Other than that, thanks for your comments....and on behalf of I'm sure many Kiwis on here..you can take them and insert them on your person where the sun doesn't shine :mad:

Fruet Mich
10th Sep 2011, 22:23
Hehe!! You're a cracka sand dune!! A bloody cracka!! When was the last time on pprune a kiwi was complaining about his T&C's! Especially at Jetconnect!!?? The guys I know are very happy and don't whinge at all. Very good bunch of guys and girls, just get on and do the best possible job for a great company they believe in. The "sham" they work for has been paying them salaries for 10 years now as a Qantas group airline and they have never complained. But I guess it's still a "Sham" hiring company ay, even back when it was running domestic NZ, even when it was pushed out when another "sham" company Jetstar NZ, who pushed them out of domestic to compete with another "sham" labour hire company Pac Blue. Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard any of the kiwis flying for any one of these "sham" outsourcing labour hire companies complaining about T&C's?

There is always the opportunity for Aussies to transfer to these companies, oh that's right, they do! Oh Sand Dune Sam, it's time you took your head out of the sand or where ever it's stuck.


Jesus, management do a fine job don't they.

27/09
11th Sep 2011, 11:33
SDSspare a thought for thr fact that if Air NZ hadnt drilled the final nail into Ansett, then maybe Australians wouldnt have to have worked for AWOS/Jetconnect..

Spare a thought for another fact. Who built the coffin and put Ansett inside it and drilled most of the nails to start with? I'll give you a hint, pretty well everyone else involved in Aussie aviation at that time, News Corp, Qantas, the Aussie government, CASA etc.

As I've said before Aussies screwing Aussies, it's still happening today with the way Qantas management is treating its staff.

slamer.
12th Sep 2011, 05:25
Sand dune sam ... Would that be the pre or post 89 ANSETT your talking about ?

KRUSTY 34
12th Sep 2011, 09:46
Don't waste your time slamer. Sam doesn't engage in debate. He just sneaks in for a quick kidney punch, and then zips out just as quickly.

Don't take my word for it, just do a search of his previous posts.

SHRAGS
15th Sep 2011, 01:20
I notice in the finding that no Jetconnect pilots supported this claim. Strategically not very smart.

There is no way Qantas would have given this flying to QF mainline pilots if they had lost. They will never give it back now just to spite AIPA .

The worst the Jetconnect crews would achieved is a pay rise and the profession as a whole would have moved forward for once.

Bad move not thought through!!

*Lancer*
15th Sep 2011, 02:38
"There is no way Qantas would have given this flying to mainline pilots if they had lost"

Indeed. And doesn't the same apply to every other part of the Qantas Group? I'm a little confused as to how exactly the AIPA "secure our flying" campaign is actually going to do that.

fatmike
15th Sep 2011, 03:24
I'm a little confused as to how exactly the AIPA "secure our flying" campaign is actually going to do that.
It's not. The very best it is going to achieve if for some reason AJ changes his mind and agrees to it, is that the Jetstar, EFA,Cobham, Jetconnect pilots will get no worse T & C's than the QF Longhaul EBA.
It does not guarantee one QF pilot a job anywhere.

SHRAGS
15th Sep 2011, 03:27
And that's bad because......???

fatmike
15th Sep 2011, 03:35
It seems a strange world where the QF pilots are the ones spending the money, exposing themselves to possible downside reaction by taking industrial action so that pilots in the other entities gain all of the benefits.

theheadmaster
15th Sep 2011, 03:35
Not quite fatmike. No worse than QF conditions if you are crewing a QF flight (number).

fatmike
15th Sep 2011, 03:46
No worse than QF conditions if you are crewing a QF flight (number).

or uses a flight number that contains a IATA airline designator assigned to Qantas
or display the word Qantas on its livery
or display the Qantas logo

theheadmaster
15th Sep 2011, 04:06
Bingo! :ok:

sfoxs
17th Sep 2011, 10:42
Shall we paint the tail purple and put a joey on it. Bingo:ok:

Mstr Caution
10th Oct 2011, 09:36
So the ALAEA Fed Security is advising passengers not to travel Qantas due the current industrial climate.

As a robust business, Qantas are fortunate that Jetconnect is operated as a totally separate business, wholly managed & operated in NZ.

Fortunately passengers can continue to book travel directly via Jetconnects website:

www (dot) jetconnect (dot) co (dot) nz

MC

Tankengine
10th Oct 2011, 11:57
So does`Jetconnect have it's own engineers in Sydney??:confused::E