PDA

View Full Version : Jetconnect Case / Jetstar Ramifications


WB Bach
1st Aug 2010, 04:10
I am interested if any success by AIPA, in Jetconnect case, would really have any ramifications for Jetstar NZ.

I have my doubts, for a number of reasons:
- J* management have consistently increased the numbers in these expansion outposts of Asia, NZ and Singapore - without any real resistance whatsoever
- slowly, but surely more and more of these 'outposts' are operating into and out of Oz
- there is a bottomless pit of pilots that will take positions in these companies for their own personal reasons (understandably)
- pilots are reluctant to join unions and unions in these areas have bigger fish to fry (eg NZALPA membership is predominantly Air NZ)
- J* management are attracting J* EBA guys to take positions in these outposts (on LWOP)

Any thoughts ???

blow.n.gasket
1st Aug 2010, 10:34
I was talking with one of the AIPA reps recently and they had an interesting slant on this JetConnect case.
If one looks at the Kiwi Industrial Laws, they are basically a version of WorkChoices, pure and simple.
What Qantas and no doubt other "Aussie Big Business" that can, will do, is use NZ as a backdoor way of securing a WorkChoices inspired industrial nirvana.

WORKCHOICE BY STEALTH! :eek:

Wheeliebin
2nd Aug 2010, 08:52
I would have thought that were AIPA to win the case, then the ramifications for Jetstar were obvious.:confused:

pipkin
5th Aug 2010, 07:54
The case wont go though, I think we all know that. For example, why should an ANZ bank teller in AKL be paid the same salary as one in SYD with a totally different cost of living?:=.

Transition Layer
5th Aug 2010, 08:08
pipkin,

You almost seem proud that workers in NZ earn less than their Aussie counterparts.

The ANZ bank comparison is a good one, but isn't their full name "Australia and New Zealand Banking Group" (or something similar).

They're aren't pretending to be an Australian bank (or airline), unlike Jetconnect with "Spirit of Australia" emblazoned across the side of a brand new 737-800s.

:sad:

saabsforever
5th Aug 2010, 08:23
Maybe a good compromise is to have the same pay scale as the Aussie Pilots, but in NZ dollars. That would account for any difference in cost of living. But unless you are living in Sydney I am not sure there is much difference. Compromise does not seem to be part of the debate anyway, but it would be a good half way point if the above were to occur.

Going Boeing
5th Aug 2010, 08:54
Reading these posts makes me realise that most of the NZ based pilots do not understand what this court case is about. I won't reiterate what has already been posted on other threads but NZ pilots can rest easy - they are not going to be adversely affected if AIPA wins. AIPA should have the support of all Australasian pilots with this case (as well as many other workers in Oz).

GENKI
5th Aug 2010, 09:10
would you suggest then that an australian company that sets up a factory in China should pay their workers the Australian Wages or conversely a chinese company that opens a factory in Australia can pay Chinese wages?

Shark Patrol
5th Aug 2010, 09:46
GENKI,

Let me spell it our for you in terms of your scenario.

Say Chinese wages were higher than Australian wages. Say there was a Chinese company called Great Wall that employed Chinese people who were required to wear Great Wall uniforms. The Directors of Great Wall discover that they can set up a company in Australia called ChinaConnect and then import Australian workers (who are paid less) into China for short periods of time, dress them in Great Wall uniforms and get the same work done for a lower wage bill than that of their Chinese workers.

That is what the Jetconnect case is about. The aircraft are painted to look like Qantas aircraft, they are crewed by pilots who wear Qantas uniforms, they are sold as Qantas flights, they operate using Qantas callsigns and fly routes across the Tasman that used to be flown by mainline Qantas pilots. However, these pilots are paid significantly less than Qantas pilots and are on inferior conditions.

Get it now?

Going Boeing
5th Aug 2010, 09:52
Genki, I suggest you read the other threads. You think it's fair to set up offshore companies to employ workers to work in Australia & thus take work from Australian citizens - there has been legislation in effect for many years preventing Oz registered merchant ships operating between Oz ports bringing in cheap offshore labour to crew these ships. This is a very similar situation.

Angle of Attack
5th Aug 2010, 09:56
For example, why should an ANZ bank teller in AKL be paid the same salary as one in SYD with a totally different cost of living?.

They should'nt because the ANZ teller in AKL does not come over to Sydney to work, they stay in NZ, The jetconnecters work in AUS so they should be paid the same as mainline. simple really.

KABOY
5th Aug 2010, 10:05
Say Chinese wages were higher than Australian wages. Say there was a Chinese company called Great Wall that employed Chinese people who were required to wear Great Wall uniforms. The Directors of Great Wall discover that they can set up a company in Australia called ChinaConnect and then import Australian workers (who are paid less) into China for short periods of time, dress them in Great Wall uniforms and get the same work done for a lower wage bill than that of their Chinese workers.

Little bit of misinformation there I'm afraid. The employees are not necessarily Australian, they are recruited in NZ. They have the right of abode so they are not on Visa's and they are not exported to fill these positions!

No different to companies around the world that MAY employ expats as well as their own countrymen.:ugh:

Going Boeing
5th Aug 2010, 10:14
Wake-up Kaboy - When your job is taken by a foreign based F/A (operating on domestic sectors in Oz as well as Intl sectors to get to & from their base), then you'll finally get the message. This court action is in the interests of all Oz workers - why don't you get on board?

Shark Patrol
5th Aug 2010, 10:30
KABOY why don't you just say upfront that you support Jetconnect!

Personally I don't understand anybody who wants to see Australian conditions eroded or Australian jobs lost because of Qantas's industrial strategy.

The Green Goblin
5th Aug 2010, 10:45
So kaboy, what if AirNZ started up connuctjut in Tonga, and started flying to and from NZ in AirNZ aeroplanes, wearing ANZ uniforms, were paid half the AirNZ wage and started doing domestic sectors while they were there.

You'd all be up in arms.

GENKI
5th Aug 2010, 12:47
the reality is that we all buy cheap plasma's from china, and the car industry and most manufacturing has left Australia.

Qantas competes on a global scale and the only thing that the public are interested in is cheap airfares or similarly cheap plasmas.

The majority of flight attendant, pilot and engineering work in the Qantas group is still Australian based. if the unions are smart they will strike a balance. If AIPA is successful (which it wont be) the only outcome would be for Qantas to become even more unprofitable.

It cant be winner takes all there has to be a balance. You need to negotiate a cap on overseas work not try to destroy it. The Australian people say they want Aussie jobs etc but buy cheap imports and want cheaper airfares. Qantas is merely responding to that market.

As far as i am concerned as long as the majority of Qantas jobs are onshore then thats a better outcome than the alternative like the other Australian industries that have just disappeared

dodgybrothers
5th Aug 2010, 14:39
even more unprofitable?

The airline is one of the only airlines since 9/11 to continuously turn a profit. It enjoys the status of the national carrier, it enjoys using the motto, 'the spirit of Australia', it enjoys favourable operating conditions and route protection, so why should it be allowed to offshore employment positions when it trades on the good name of this country and its people and has prospered only because of govt protection and being gifted feeder networks such as Australian Airlines.

Of course it is profitable, but without the support is has received it would not be profitable. Let it offshore, let it move its entire operation to Mumbai but stop it from using such phrases as "spirit of australia', because it wont be. Stop it from using the kangaroo on its tail because that belongs to Australia and its people and stop it from getting the support of the Australian govt because then it may be unprofitable because it will trade in the 'new world' against carriers such as Emirates as Sing.

But no, they dont want that, they want the protection but use third world labour.

hadenuff
6th Aug 2010, 02:55
So kaboy, what if AirNZ started up connuctjut in Tonga, and started flying to and from NZ in AirNZ aeroplanes, wearing ANZ uniforms, were paid half the AirNZ wage and started doing domestic sectors while they were there.

You'd all be up in arms.

Correct. Not to suck up to you Ozzie fella's, but that is a fine point. If the above every happened we'd all be furious and this is no different. While there was some legitimacy to the operation when Jetconnect ran NZ domestic, that has evaporated with the advent of Jet*NZ (another whole topic) and the unfortunate reality is (for kiwis) Jetconnect is just outsourced cheap labour for Qantas.

Be interesting to see how it develops.

MaxHelixAngle
6th Aug 2010, 03:36
Selling Plasma Televisions is not a service industry, aviation is,
The manufacture of plasma televisions has very little effect on the saftey of the user, having the right flight crew at the front of the aeroplane does,
Manufacturing televisions does not require worker to have years of experience, training and personal investment, becoming a pilot does,
Sony does not hide where there televisions are manufactured, Qantas/Jetconnect hides from the public the nationality of it's crew
Sony does not bring it's workers in and out of Australia, Qantas does, this is almost akin to importing labour (Australian airline, Australian route)
Workers at Sony are not attached to their jobs by a senority system making it prohibitive for them to leave to a competetor, Qantas pilots are
The television manufacturing industry drying up in Australia is not a massive nationalistic loss, aviation drying up would be
Sony and other televison brands don't market themselves as 'The Spirit of Australia', Qantas does.


I don't believe it unreasonable to expect that all Qantas pilot's should be paid under the Australian Qantas LH/SH award.

Hope this clears any television/airline ambiguity up.

Regards,
MHA

framer
6th Aug 2010, 04:56
The manufacture of plasma televisions has very little effect on the saftey of the user, having the right flight crew at the front of the aeroplane does
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha thats gold!! I'm an Ausi but after flying for Qantas and three other airlines it always cracks me up the way we think we are better pilots. Classic :ok:

MaxHelixAngle
6th Aug 2010, 06:45
I was referring to the need for airlines to keep the right people in the job, to do so there needs to be positive staff engagement / appropriately attractive pay and conditions (moving jobs offshore decreases both of these). I'm not referring to the superiority of one nations crew over another.

I am slightly concerned that this was the assertion you jumped to though.

By the way, I am not against off-shoring as such, I am however against undermining established pay and conditions by offshoring or setting up an overseas entity to 'compete' with the main entity for work. I happen to hold JC crew in a very high regard.

framer
6th Aug 2010, 10:41
Fair call. My mistake for reading it with a certain frame of mind, I was thinking of only JC and not of the bigger picture where terms and conditions may erode to an unacceptable level. I see what you're saying. Apologies.

WB Bach
6th Aug 2010, 22:42
As regards the 'bigger picture' and 'eroding terms and conditions'.

J* NZ and now J* Singapore now offer the highly trained crew the COMPLETE FULLY ERODED PACKAGE.

The bigger picture, fortunately, is that as Emirates and the like pump up their recruiting, those on the peanuts pay scales will leave in droves.

So, you can see it now - shiney new aircraft (787's and the like) parked up against the fence, with no experienced crew numbers, and only the new cadets left to fly them (lets not even think about the consequences).

Pity management don't pursue real "engagement" with their crews and look past the very short term savings !

Nuthinondaclock
6th Aug 2010, 23:31
Hmmmmm, now didn't that help the discussion...............

WoodenEye
7th Aug 2010, 00:55
Qantas’ successful prosecution of its two brand strategy is unique, but not universally loved by investors.

It can be divided and conquered, but not by industrial tactics.

Yep! Qantas international will ultimately cover off the main ports, ‘JetStar Global’ the rest and nothing on the radar is likely to change what is already afoot.

Taking Ownership can, but don’t think there will be the stomach for it unless the unengaged silent majority unexpectedly come to the conclusion that the alternatives of lumping it, or declaring industrial war are both too costly.

A bold new vision is required, but even if it emerges, it won’t go far unless AIPA & AFAP can get together under one umbrella.

Good luck! Trust my pessimism doesn’t prevail.

Wheeliebin
7th Aug 2010, 01:01
WB Bach

I think you have to look at it through management eyes.

Pay pilots less in NZ/Singa (no EBA, no union opposition, EASY!) - save money.

More pilots leave (than in OZ) - hire more - New Pilots pay for rating - NO COST to company !

Easy stuff this management :E

Manuel Reversion
8th Aug 2010, 00:10
Unfortunately the Chief Pilot of JQ has forgotten the he is a pilot and that his support of the current proposal will scar this industry forever.However it doesnt supprise me because there was bugger all support when AN went bust.:mad::mad::mad: