Joint Airline Industrial Action

[Packvalve]

It seems clear that QF/JQ and VA/VB have serious IR issues pending.

Any ideas so we, and more importantly the unions could get together to organise some legal co-ordinated industrial action?

I don't necessarily vote for Labour, but it's never going to get any easier especially if we eventually get a government with harder IR policies.

A bit hopeful for PPRUNE but I hope that we could generate some positive discussion and ideas.

[another superlame]

Wow just like 1989 all over again. I am sure a few thousand pilots would love to be out of a job. Legal or not I think it is dangerous.

[Packvalve]

Dangerous - I agree. But what can we do to stop our T&C's fall apart.

[Tankengine]

Packvalve,
Protected Industrial Action is only possible during EA negotiations at the permission of Fair Work Australia so joint action probably not possible.:(
That said, if you were to help out by not flying on days off etc on extra flights to help out that would be appreciated.:E

another superlame,
read above, this will be "PROTECTED" industrial action like your brothers a few years ago.:ok:

THIS IS NOT 1989!:ugh:

[Packvalve]

Yea, I already prescribe to the "not working on days off" philosophy but apparently not everybody in my company does.

[another superlame]

I understood it as protected when I wrote. But protected or not you can never trust the greedy single minded ignoramus' they call managers.

[Krumlov]

and VA/VB have serious IR issues pending.

Woah don't drag us into this. We are overall happy!

[ampclamp]

I understand John Borghetti has been admitted to hospital.Surgeons have unsuccessfully tried to chisel the grin off his face for a few weeks now without success.
He must be just lapping it up.:E

[Mr. Hat]

Krumlov, are the V Australia guys "happy" are they? You must be speaking to a different bunch than I am. I'll assume you support the introduction of B scales also.

What's the word on the business class meals mate?

Great work on the direction rebranding etc. I'm yet to be conviced of any improvement in conditions. Shiny badges and uniforms don't impress me. My jury is still out.

I tend to call a spade a spade.

[Krumlov]

Firstly, the OP said VA/VB and since VB is 950 pilots vs some considerably smaller number at VA my statement of OVERALL (ie not everyone) holds.

As for the meals...who cares? And as for the conditions I think they are fantastic.

You're editing faster than I can keep up! :-) B scales what is it, what are the details? The reality is there is currently no "B scale" proposal so there is nothing to support or oppose!

[kimir]

Krumlov you must have iron guts and a tolerance for above normal preservative use. I care about the meals, not being given business seats when paxing duty travel, what are the 330 fellas being paid again? It has improved a lot but don't get sucked in by the shiny lures. We still have a long way to go.

[Mr. Hat]

Apologies, I try to avoid the multiple posts where I can.

Vaus mates tell me a nice B scale is to come for you and I for ANY seat changes. You will see it in your union notes.

I think it's a fantastic job, possibly the best in Australia and I'm the first to cheer the company on or help out.

However, I don't get star struck or caught up in waves of teenage euphoria. I think business class seating when empty and business class meals as raised by the leader when he started isn't too bad a deal for the unlimited extra free pilot goodwill I see around the place. Fair go.

[Krumlov]

We still have a long way to go.

The question is of course "to what?" The reality for ME is that I have around 50% of the year not working, a 737 captain gets paid $200k with allowances (which is over triple the average Australian wage if you can't get by on that you need to have another look at what you are doing), noone hassles me, the crews I work with are generally great, and I have a job in Australia. Look some people are going to care about meals and where you sit, but for me that is so minor I am not going to get worked up and prefer to focus on the good and keep it in perspective.

P.S. As for the A330 I have no opinion. I will wait for the next EBA.

[Krumlov]

I think business class seating when empty and business class meals as raised by the leader when he started isn't too bad a deal for the unlimited extra free pilot goodwill I see around the place.

True and I'm not going to knock it back. See previous post for my overall thoughts.

You will see it in your union notes.

I read them all and I have not seen this. The last I saw about VAUS was that the proposed pay from the company (which was not much improvement over current) was rejected by the union. No B scale though. As for VB we haven't even started yet!

[Short_Circuit]

I understand John Borghetti has been admitted to hospital.Surgeons have unsuccessfully tried to chisel the grin off his face for a few weeks now without success.
AJ was at the hangars a few months ago and said with a grin, JB will never be invited back??? :confused::confused::confused:
What is this about?

[Krumlov]

Hmmm... My previous post disappeared!

you must have iron guts

Pretty much!

I care about...

Fair enough. The reality for me is I get around 50% of the year off, a 737 captain gets 200k a year with allowances (which is over triple the average australian wage so if you can't do something with that you need to look at what you are doing), I work with generally great people, and I work in Australia. I prefer to focus on these big things and not worry too much about the "nice to haves". Sure I would like them but I am not going to lose sleep over not having them.

[Arnold E]

I understood it as protected when I wrote. But protected or not you can never trust the greedy single minded ignoramus' they call managers.
Hmmm, that's true, what would you suggest.:confused::confused:

[Mr. Hat]

which is over triple the average australian wage ..and probably slightly more than triple the average responsibility.

I didn't say anything about the current B737 Captains wage. You've coincidentally picked the very top earner for your comparison with the average Aussie wage. The average Aussie doesn't fork out 100k and decades of an apprenticeship in the scrub for a career/life that could end with one error or two bad sim rides. The average Aussie will just go down the road and get a new job if the current one closes. The average Aussie doesn't turn up to work 15-30 minutes early year on year out...need I go on. I'm wasting bandwidth and my own time.

I read them but haven't seen anything about this.

Suggest reading again.

I prefer to focus on these big things and not worry too much about the "nice to haves".

Is Seniority a "nice to have"?

No mention of B scale. At VB we haven't even started yet!

You are in for a bit of a shock. See you in a few months.

Being keen and positive is great, I'm the same and you'll find many a post to prove that. I suggest however looking at all sides of the argument. I to am in a great position but I don't ignore there are many in my company that are not.

[Arnold E]

..and probably slightly more than triple the average responsibility.
Every job has its own responsibilities, that is a bad comparison, take for instance, the nurse at the trauma centre, see what I mean? dont compare, Just state your case.:ok:

[Krumlov]

Suggest reading again.

I don't suppose you can post a summary or link?

...there are many in my company that are not.

True the EMB guys could do with a boost. I also think fleet pay for FOs might work (again to help out the EMB).

Seniority

Yeah I'll stick my head up on this. Sure for some things seniority probably should be the decider (eg base transfers). However, I firmly believe that command upgrade opportunity should have a merit component. I see no reason to give someone a "go" if all their reports suggest they will not pass or are slack or have a bad attitude. A lot of this comes down to "what has been done in the past". Many are opposed to my previous sentences, yet would probably say that upgrade to training or check captain should be merit based, because thats the way it has always been done. Helmet on!

[Mr. Hat]

No I won't post a link as I do not want to potentially offend any of the people involved. As a famous prune poster says: it's all there to be seen if you are a union member. It also happens to be in one of the unions latest updates freely available in all crew rooms.

Don't see a problem with your seniority rationale but could you direct me to the criteria for 'bad attitude'.

No need for a helmet, just a mature debate that's all.

[Krumlov]

I just went to the AFAP website and the latest VAUS briefing just said the company was examining the AFAPs submission of a four level scale. This was in response to the companies 10 level scale. I assume this is what people are talking about. The problem I have here is people must be speculating on the specific content which is still subject to negotiation. Not much point in that when these are effectively suggestions from each side and there is no detail on the AFAPs counter proposal.

Ultimately though there will be give and take. Interestingly I had a quick squiz at some websites (I will list below accuracy not known) for B777 pay and assuming 1000 hours year in (rough) AUD BA top level $221000 AA $205000 Delta $208000 VB last company offer was in this ballpark at the upper end. I don't know how apples for apples this but is an interesting starting point. I deliberately didn't include carriers from less inviting countries which would have a "hardship" component!

British Airways jobs, payscales and entry requirements. (http://www.pilotjobsnetwork.com/jobs/British_Airways)
Airline Pilot Salary and Pay Rates (http://www.willflyforfood.com/airline-pilot-salary/)

I agree "bad attitude" is difficult to quantify but is important as the person is a leader of the crew and the front face of the airline on the aircraft. I guess I would wrap it into the "command potential" box on the sim/command development forms. If enough training/check captains say this guy rolls up with no study/treats the crew or ground staff poorly/looks like he crawled out of the bush then it is reasonable to overlook that person. However!, this should always be clearly articulated so that said person knows what they need to do to fix said problem/issue. I think this is one area where we do poorly.

I would also add that all things being equal then seniority should be the decider.

[ozbiggles]

Arnold
As much as I love nurses.....
They, like doctors can only kill one at a time.
An airline pilot can do 3,4, now 500 plus on a bad day.
Having said that I would pay a lot for a good nurse.

[ejectx3]

Yeah I'll stick my head up on this. Sure for some things seniority probably should be the decider (eg base transfers). However, I firmly believe that command upgrade opportunity should have a merit component. I see no reason to give someone a "go" if all their reports suggest they will not pass or are slack or have a bad attitudeSeniority does not guarantee a 'go'.

You are first assesed as being up to having a 'go'.Based on all your results from your career sims and route checks. If you are borderline you must be put through a series of sims to asses you further.

Only then are you allowed to have a 'go'.If not you wait another cycle until your marks improve.

So it is merit based, after a fashion.

[HF3000]

Ignoring seniority takes us right back to the pre-60's era where if you want a promotion you have to play at the appropriate golf clubs. Or be the son/daughter of the right family. It was never merit based.

Ignore seniority promtotion ideas and enter corruption.

[Mr. Hat]

Krumlov, using overseas airlines as a gauge is always going to be overly simplistic. You would need a forensic accountant or two to be able to accurately compare the rates. Or do you want me to pull out some figures on house prices in the Sydney base? The only possible comparison is Qantas Long Haul and Jetstar Long Haul take home pay.

Anyway I think we started a thread drift here, I was just trying to convey that some of the spin is starting to wear thin on some of my colleagues. Full service ticket prices low cost conditions (have cake and eat it). I'm happy where I am. Apologies to the thread starter.

[virginexcess]

The current "offer" from the Company for salaries has new Captains (after 1July 2012) starting on $186k. That is level one of a 10 step salary scale. All the steps are 3%, so probably not keeping up with CPI and less than the 190k VB Captains will be on as of 1 July 2011. So what that would translate to is that a new 777 Captain will never get paid as much as a current 737 Captain. I would suggest that meets most criteria for a B Scale.

You are quite correct in stating that this is still under negotiation, and additionally the pilots, as well as the unions, have made it clear to the company that such an offer will be voted down.

Nevertheless, the company is currently offering a "B Scale" for want of a better term.

If we were to hypothesise and take the worst case that it got voted up, because CRFO's have been offered a reasonable increase, and they make up 50% of the voting pilots, then the next step by the Co will be to waive that under the noses of VB pilots and say 777 Captains are on 186k, therefore a new 737 Captain will have to be less than that. And so the downward pressure would continue.

The good news is that it appears most of the CRFO's can see that short term gain will be a serious long term loss for them, and everyone else. So I don't have any real concerns about the current offer being voted up by anyone.

[Anthill]

I really cant see any prospects of a 'joint' effort industrially with collusion between theQF and Virgin groups. My understanding of this is that it would be illegal as a secondary boycot to give industrial support to employees at another company or even under a different EBA.



(As a side note regarding datal seniority vs meritorious: both systems are capabile of being corrupted by dysfunctional managment. Seniority does not ensure 'fairness' eg:

Company A operates 2 types. A pilot who is not liked by managment because he/she has spoken up on safety issues is next in line for a command on the smaller type. He/she is called by a manager and told that his/her command bid is going to be trumped by more datally senior FOs on the larger type and it is suggested that he/she bids for an FO slot on the larger type otherwise they will be stuck on the smaller type as FO "for years". Pilot does this and 2 days into the ground school for the larger type new commands are announced on the smaller type with all positions being awarded to FOs current on the smaller type who are all datally junior to said pilot. No senior FOs on the larger type had bid for commands at all.
Company B has 2 commands coming up and the Most Senior Guy(MSG) is not in the 'beer and BBQ' mate's list of the Fleet Manager(FM). FM has a really good mate who is 3rd in line. The FM decrees that a new "Command Upgrade Check" is to be used. MSG fails his check when the FM changes the assigned altitude indicator when MSG is doing some thing on the overhead panel-result: altitude bust on a check. This means that BBQ mate gets the command. MSG told "don't worry, you'll get the next one" (which he did).
Is it "fair" when a pilot who has been retrenched and has 15 years airline experience applies for a job and is made the most junior pilot in the company? This pilot's company then promotes an FO who has 2 1/2 years in that company-his first airline job-and just scrapes through his checks? Is it fair that the 15 year pilot then has to hold the hand of the neophte captain whenever the going gets tough? Is it "fair" that experienced pilots must always re-build their careers from 'the bottom of the list' whenever an airline goes broke?

Not to mention that Datal Seniority has the effect of reducing or T&C's. Pilots cannot vote with their feet and easily get screwed down by the company. How else do you think that industry conditions have become what they are during 10 years of explosive growth and demand for our skills? Our T & Cs should have boomed if subject to market forces, but Datal Seniority has distorted the demand equasion to our great and profound detriment.

A proper promotions system should select the best, most experienced, qualified and suitable candidate by way of a properly selected promotions commitee that has input from the C & T group and representation from the union, HR and management. Guidelines for promotion established the the pilot body during their EBA ).

[Krumlov]

A proper promotions system should...

I couldn't agree more with this.

On the other points:
therefore a new 737 Captain will have to be less than that
Your argument falls down here because this is not true. The VB group just wouldn't vote for a pay cut. Currently these are still two separate businesses as far as EBAs are concerned and neither have any influence over the other.

using overseas airlines as a gauge is always going to be overly simplistic

Whilst I agree with this in principle I do also believe that it is important to note because these other airlines are the competition. If they have a lower cost base due to lower wages then IF you want to compete you can't be asking for wages too dissimilar. I think this is where QANTAS is going wrong. Their wages are extremely high in comparison. Look at the BA rates I posted, whilst Sydney is expensive so is England! However, you did say to compare Jetstar and Q. Jetstar widebody pay currently around $190000, I think Q are above $300k (correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm not trying to argue for lower pay I am just trying to formulate a tight argument for justifying a particular pay scale.
A lot of the arguments don't hold water for example the debt at the end of training easily compares with a uni degree per the following "A members survey by the Australian Scholarships Group found that the average total education costs for a three year degree was $39,466 for a HECS student and $51,034 for a full fee student. Students in six year courses faced average education costs of $82,602 for HECS students, and $106,717 for full fee students."

In the end I want to be on the maximum sustainable pay. That is, I want my company to grow and be profitable. The best argument I can think of at the moment and I dont have any figures is to show the revenue you generate by carrying the passengers and use that to justify more cash. Using intangible reasons for higher pay can only be a small part of the overall argument I think.

This is way OT and I am musing more than anything.

[virginexcess]

Your argument falls down here because this is not true. The VB group just wouldn't vote for a pay cut. Currently these are still two separate businesses as far as EBAs are concerned and neither have any influence over the other.

Sadly, I believe you are incorrect in your reading of the landscape on both counts

Firstly, VB have already voted for a pay cut. When VB pilots accepted lower conditions for Ejet crew, they cast the mould for the future. We are all now fighting a rear guard action to regain that lost ground.

Secondly, to think that it is as simple as two different companies is naive in the extreme. VB negotiators will be sitting across the table from the same individuals as the VA negotiators are. To think that those individuals, who are representing the Virgin Group, are not working to a Group strategy is folly.

The company strategy is now in the open for all to see, and make no mistake, it is to lower the cost of pilots over the long term. They have already been very successful in achieving that with the Ejet conditions and V Australia's current contracts. Clearly they are working toward locking that into the EBA with lower salaries for new Captains at V. There is no doubt that if they are successful in doing so, they will be putting forward a proposal to VB that gives modest increases to current pilots in return for lower salaries for new pilots.

I am quietly confident that we are reaching the end of the era where pilots sell out the next generation for their own gain. The market is turning in our favour, so hopefully some strong leadership from the unions will put the steel into the boys to stand firm on not selling out the next generation.

[Mr. Hat]

I hope you are right virginexcess.

Krumlov again I don't see any point in applying broad brushstrokes when making these comparisons. Forensic accountants are the people for this job not pilots.

Assuming that QF's problems are because of pilots salaries is a bit strange. Lets not forget one of those "overpaid" individuals saved 400 odd lives only a few months ago. Can you put a dollar figure on that? Would you prefer that guy to be working in the middle east for Emirates? I'd like that guy on my team infusing his skills and imparting knowledge to myself and other future captains. Its a bit like the English Premier league. If you want to attract and retain the top players you've got to fork out the cash! Its worth it though, they collect all the trophies and sell the tickets and merchandise.

Yes QF pilots are paid well but there are also numerous costs to the business; other legacy systems/structures, maintenance, aircraft types, fuel, the economy etc. You seem to link high pilot salary with poor financial performance. Last year they made 500 million and a billion not long ago and have been doing so year in year out for decades. You might want to factor into your calculations their zero turnover and thus not only retention but the growth of experience. This leads to further safety, expertise and efficiency on their various types. Sure you can attract experienced people but they don't tend to stick around if the conditions aren't good enough and why would they?If you want the best team you've got to be willing to invest in skilled people. The opposite will just cost you money in the long term.

Good solid conditions=stable work force=zero turnover=experience=safety=profits

When you have the best conditions you can pick and choose from a very large pool of applicants, collecting all the cream on the way. The opposite is also true. Don't get lured into exciting graphs and spreadsheets my friend, if you think pilot conditions are expensive try having an accident or try getting them seriously offside. This hip era of cutting costs in areas of skill is a cancer of common sense. It makes me immediately question iq levels, eduction, agendas and or mental stability/maturity. I immediately know that they are the wrong person for the job as they are putting their short term goals ahead of the company's long term plan. They are either out of their depth or very calculating and cunning.

AIPA and the ALAEA are trying to protect the shareholders, myself included, from these blow-in ego driven executives (The Joyce's and Buchanan's of the world). They come and go collect their golden handshake and when they've left we all sit up and say "well that was expensive wasn't it?". What do you reckon an accident will do to the share price? How about grounding a fleet or worse the whole company? Don't worry about those last two (won't happen in Oz ;)).

You have to keep an eye out for these types or you end up with mishaps like; no QF777's, VB17/190's, Live2air, not buying Ansett real estate, Premium economy where you buy meals, VA 777's with Cessna 210 cargo doors and finally take overs that line peoples pockets. Here's a refresher from the telegraph in 07:

..The result is also a slap in the face for private equity barons and their investment banking partners who have recently been attempting to carve up some of Australia's finest corporate assets.

The Qantas board will meet this morning to discuss the result, with question marks now hanging over the head of chairman Margaret Jackson – who enthusiastically endorsed the takeover offer when it was launched in December last year...

Anyway thats my take on it.

[Krumlov]

Time will tell how it pans out for QF. Whilst I agree in general with what you are saying I think there is probably a point somewhere between Jetstar and QF conditions that is sustainable. Your English football example only holds because the team makes money. QF International is losing money, so something has to give eventually. Perhaps it is getting rid of management and starting again although I think that is also overly simplistic. You can have the best conditions but if that means you run at a loss then that is a problem. I would also say I am not singling out pilots here, I think they have a problem across their workforce which is probably a problem for all old carriers. Plenty of bankruptices across the world:
U.S. Airline Bankruptcies and Service Cessations (http://www.airlines.org/Economics/DataAnalysis/Pages/USAirlineBankruptciesServiceCessations.aspx)
Bankrupt Airlines from around the World and the most recent Chapter 11 filings from US Airline Companies (http://www.aviationexplorer.com/defunct_airlines_worldwide.htm)

To add to that your equation doesn't hold. Just because an airline is safe doesn't mean it makes a profit. It is certainly an enabler because if you are not safe then you likely will not make a profit. Also experience alone doesn't make you safe, plenty of experienced pilots have speared in.

P.S. Because I don't know what are the pilots and engineers offering to give in return for pay rises, ancillary perks, and job security?