PDA

View Full Version : VA Short/Medium haul EBA voted down


Bugsmasha
17th Sep 2012, 05:21
Today the EBA votes were released. 63% NO. Great result which sends a message to the company that we won't be railroaded into a half arsed agreement. :=

spinoutofcontrol
17th Sep 2012, 05:34
Damn right! If they thought they were gonna get away with a S%*t contract like that.... Not even a gold bar at sign on or a bag of silver for meal allowances...

headwires
17th Sep 2012, 05:46
Listen Spin, some of us have been flying long before you knew the meaning of sarcasm. If you bothered to read the contract you wouldn't start with the silly comments. I see you are from NZ, Im guessing you're still there and hence the attitude. I don't mean to be blunt but many issues still haven't been resolved in this contract and hence it got voted, or should I say shot, down.:D

spinoutofcontrol
17th Sep 2012, 05:56
Head wires.. crossed I think. Don't worry your mama read me every last word of that EBA. Wasn't bad... the contact either. ;) Lets just hope the boys back in NZ have the cahunas to throw theirs back. The kiwi contact was just missing the centre cardboard roll... ahhh bless my little cottonsofts.

j3pipercub
17th Sep 2012, 05:58
Nice work guys and girls.

headwires
17th Sep 2012, 06:02
Listen Spin, learn how to spell contract and then you might know what one is when you get the chance to sign it :ugh:

Good luck with the kiwi thing.

So boys and girls, where to from here?

PammyAnderson
17th Sep 2012, 06:12
One of the biggest things to come out of this is the AFAP endorsing (yes they recommended a yes vote) a company document that the pilot body rejected! :ugh:
Alarm bells should be ringing to the AFAP members.

The facts of the results don't lie! and the facts indisputably say that the AFAP is NOT in tune with the pilot body.

slice
17th Sep 2012, 06:26
One of the big problems has been that with the last EBA whenever there were clauses that could be open to creative interpretation the company always managed to twist them to their advantage even when clearly the spirit of the clause wasn't being adhered to. Without knowing the company's operational plans for the life of the new agreement ( re: bases, A/C types and fleet numbers, new routes, distribution of flying etc) there was just too much that could be open to such interpretation. However it seems that generally the reasons for voting no were many and varied (money, forced leave provisions etc. etc.) I am guessing that most of the Ejet fleet would have been for it but the bulk of the 73 and 330 guys would have been no. Let's wait for the final final final final offer!:}

6100
17th Sep 2012, 06:27
It is irrelevant whether the Feds are in touch with their members or not. Clearly they did a deal with the Company to endorse the document. Just seems that in their haste to ingratiate themselves with the Company they forgot to create the illusion that they weren't expecting what the document contained.

In my view they clearly had prior info on the late inserts to the doc, probably because they had suggested them in a futile (or maybe not) attempt to attract more F/O members. Unfortunately such an ill thought out tactic has probably cost them a shed load of members in Long Haul, and given existing members pause to think what the hell they are up to.

Whether you like VIPA or not, it is for this exact reason that it was started and if they do nothing else, at least they have exposed the Feds yet again for being driven by self interest rather than the interest of the Virgin pilots.

grrowler
17th Sep 2012, 06:39
Well either way, this will be an opportunity (critical I would say) for the two unions to actually work together. The feds can prove they listen to their members before the company, and vipa can prove they are more than hot air.

I live in hope, although history has me concerned...

What The
17th Sep 2012, 09:21
Then the union has failed to properly sell the benefits of the deal. It is up to them to sell it if they have recommended it and answer any issues honestly.

Home Brew
17th Sep 2012, 10:48
Zippa bombarding their members every day for a week with texts saying vote no is not going to be liked by FWA

neville_nobody
17th Sep 2012, 22:42
What was the Ejet pay offer Dragon? About $180,000 to operate a 100 seater by the end of the agreement. Not sure of any other operator that pays that much.

Yep the one thing you don't want to do is give management an incentive to look elsewhere for labour. With no scope there is no reason why they can't just start farming out flying to Alliance and/or Skywest.

Remember as far as ticketing goes a QF ticket = Qantaslink/National Jet/JetConnect/Mainline.

campdoag
18th Sep 2012, 02:36
It amazes me that you morons need to come on here and sprout about the problems of the eba when we have our own private forum within in which we have constructive discussion......

There is no need to throw your toys in public like 14 year old school girls

DirectAnywhere
18th Sep 2012, 03:12
No, don't stop! Please keep coming on here and throwing your toys in public.

It makes a nice change for us QANTAS guys to see we're not the only ones!:E

gobbledock
18th Sep 2012, 05:48
Naughty naughty VA. Imagine that, trying to shaft the pilots on their salaries! Where is the fun in that? That lacks flair don't you think?

S70IP
18th Sep 2012, 08:17
Gobble, it wasn't about the salaries.

Shed Dog Tosser
18th Sep 2012, 08:45
Well it is great to see the democratic process at work.

It will be interesting to see how many pilots have the stones to follow through with what comes next........

If history teaches us anything, pilots are generally self centered and lack conviction when the metal meets the meat. I guess we will see.

As far as AIPA/VIPA, I didn't know VA Pilots were Qantas Mainline / International Pilots.

The The
18th Sep 2012, 21:46
It will be interesting to see how many pilots have the stones to follow through with what comes next........

I think there are quite a few red ties floating about if needed.

Josh Cox
18th Sep 2012, 23:00
Ahhh, there it is, the modern managers achilles heel, the red tie. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

mince
19th Sep 2012, 22:52
What about fleet pay?

What happened with that?

"Il Douche" was supposedly all for it, just because he is a top bloke......

leakyboats
21st Sep 2012, 09:09
Gobble, it wasn't about the salaries.


You sure about that? VIPA Executive Director Simon OíHara says differently, from the murdoch press:

"What we're saying essentially is that Virgin Australia's bank statement is back in the black in good part because of the effort of the loyal workforce and that loyal workforce needs to be paid accordingly," Mr O'Hara said.

He said the union was unhappy with the remuneration offered and the way in which the EBA negotiations had concluded with the addition of last-minute amendments.

He would not quantify the difference between the union and company on pay, but said the pilots were not necessarily looking for parity with Qantas.

"If the main competition in the market domestically is Qantas, then it's time that the pilots who are driving the reforms and bringing forward greater competition get a share of those profits and get paid accordingly."

Just to recap.

Current Base Pay
EMB $152,710
B737 $190,889
A330 $199,369

Proposed Base Pay

EMB July 2012 $164,927, July 2015 $185,504
B737 July 2012 $198,525, July 2015 $217,986
A330 July 2012 $217,312, July 2015 $256,146

FOís on 65%/60%/55%

I never bet my left one, but Iíll put money on the above wages not getting any better overall. Some may go up, but it will be at the expense of someone else. :ok:

Spotlight
22nd Sep 2012, 06:07
Stunned silence gives the Company the upper hand!

Where too from here?

Dehavillanddriver
22nd Sep 2012, 08:17
Why does it have to be a case of either having the upper hand?

Surely the employees are there to make a buck as is the company. Wouldn't it be better if there was a mutually acceptable position where each group got some of what they wanted?

AirborneSoon
22nd Sep 2012, 11:10
Because a corporations desire for cost cutting is eternal and insatiable. The utopian ideal of win\win is a fairytale for the adult world.

Roger Greendeck
22nd Sep 2012, 21:02
My understanding is that the pilot group did not want fleet pay.

Keg
22nd Sep 2012, 22:03
Then the 'pilot group' hasn't thought the issue all the way through. More rightly, no one has taken the time to explain the issue to them.

Fleet pay is a way of keeping your internal cost pressures down (recuces cross training costs) and reduces most of ithe major inequity between fleets. You should be avoiding at all costs things that promote disunity within the pilot group and nothing will do that more than something that will distort pay, whether or not to take promotion, etc. You only have to see the self serving behaviour of people in other airlines who believe that S/Os being paid more than wide body F/Os is a fair and just outcome to see where this road can take you.

BTDT1963
22nd Sep 2012, 22:05
You mean like the EBA that was knocked back!!!!;)

psycho joe
23rd Sep 2012, 00:00
The Pilot group don't want fleet pay and the CEO doesn't want fleet pay. The CEO has even made public statements about pilots being payed based on the size of the aircraft they fly.

Fleet pay was discussed, discussed, discussed then shot down, cremated, buried and exorcised. It's gone. Please let's not go there again lest that poltergeist gets back out.

virginexcess
23rd Sep 2012, 07:26
For all the reasons keg mentioned, tiered fleet pay that recognises length of service is without doubt the best system in my view. Trouble is, either a pilot somewhere will have to take a pay cut, or the Company will have to pay extra to get it in.

Neither of those things are going to happen, so Fleet Pay is, and will remain, a pipe dream.

grrowler
23rd Sep 2012, 09:31
The Pilot group don't want fleet pay. Maybe not the 73 drivers, but I'm pretty certain the ejet guys would like it. Anyway as you say, the majority of the group don't want it and it's not gonna happen.

atlas12
23rd Sep 2012, 11:02
So what happens now? Back to the drawing board? I find it interesting that AFAP endorsed it, yet the result was pretty negative :eek:

mcgrath50
23rd Sep 2012, 11:30
So what happens now? Back to the drawing board? I find it interesting that AFAP endorsed it, yet the result was pretty negative

VIPA didn't endorse it though as I understand it. Are many people members of both unions?

If not, is the vote outcome in line with the split of pilots between AFAP and VIPA?

Trying to work out if everyone voted along 'party lines' or on their own.

greenslopes
23rd Sep 2012, 23:44
Lets not forget the Union is there to represent the members.
A certain Union endorsed the EBA doc without canvassing the members opinion. Yet another EBA where the long established Union endorses a Doc the majority thinks is less than optimal.
Why endorse something that the majority of union members thinks shouldn't see the light of day???

piston broke again
24th Sep 2012, 03:05
Well my take is we pay our union fees so that they do that all that hard work for us. They can pick it apart and view the good from the bad, come to a decision and let us know. Why would they need to ask every member and say what do you think?? Thats what we're paying them for!!

greenslopes
24th Sep 2012, 06:05
I pay my union fees therefore I no longer need to think.......... Great.

piston broke again
24th Sep 2012, 06:10
Maybe a bad choice of words...they give their recommendation - they are representative pilots after all.

grrowler
24th Sep 2012, 06:26
I pay my union fees and they also want me to do their job (ie disseminate an EBA without a legal background and give it a thumbs up or down before they can state their professional opinion)...Great.

leakyboats
24th Sep 2012, 12:34
Missed this bit

The pilot negotiations are muddied at Virgin because of the rivalry between the AFAP and VIPA, a group associated with the Qantas-based Australian and International Pilots Association.

VAIPA. Now I understand. After seeing first hand how things get out of control with AIPA trying to represent Jetstar pilots, hardly suprising to see this getting out of control at VA. Iíve got good mates doing this :ugh::ugh::ugh::mad::mad::mad: Locking in $256,146 for A330 skippers and $166,495 for A330 FOís would have been smart.

Oh well, lets see VAIPA pull a rabbit out of the hat.

The Bunglerat
24th Sep 2012, 23:13
The grumblings of Virgin Australiaís pilots over pay and conditions are the tip of the iceberg

It's not all about money (well maybe it is for some), but that's not why this thing didn't get voted up. Too many open-ended clauses - leaving too much open to interpretation - had a lot more of us unhappy than because of the remuneration offer.

As also suggested, I don't think the industrial landscape at VA is anything like QF; I, for one, still think it's a good place to go to work, & whilst the honeymoon period may be well & truly over, I'd still rather have Borghetti at the helm instead of our predecessor or anyone else. What he has achieved in his time here thus far is remarkable, & deserving of the recognition.

As Campdoag said in an earlier post, it is unfortunate that so many morons (of which I suppose I'm now included) have decided to air their grievances on this forum when we've got our own private one in which to do so. The increasing media attention will not help our cause, & on that note, many of us are becoming increasingly annoyed at how VIPA is pitching it in the aftermath. :ugh:

Keith Nash
25th Sep 2012, 00:28
many of us are becoming increasingly annoyed at how VIPA is pitching it in the aftermath.

Has anyone considered that perhaps the spin in the press is not driven by the unions. I'm no i industrial expert, but why would a union be pushing the comparison with Q. Like most of you, i can't see any benefit in it.

Is it possible that the Company has planted the seed in the mind of the journo's? After all journalists in this country are not known for letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Journalist: Mr O'Hara, do Qantas pilots get paid more than Virgin Pilots?

O'Hara: Yes they do.

Journalist: Are Virgin Pilots satisfied with the Company remuneration offer in the latest EBA?

O'Hara: No they are not.

Newspaper Article: VIPA executive director Simon O'Hara states Virgin Pilots demand to be paid the same as Qantas pilots.

That seems far more likely to me than the unions suggesting pilots want to be paid as much as Q pilots.

Remember the Company has an army of PR spin doctors with the whole playbook on how to get pilots to crucify each other, and lets face it, it isn't that hard to do. Just look how badly we reacted to the seniority list issue. Divide and conquer has never failed to work in our industry in this country.

I think I'll wait until i get some communication from the union on what their position is before i get concerned about what direction they are headed, rather than make assumptions based on press reports.

Josh Cox
25th Sep 2012, 03:57
I must say, the stupidity shown by many here is breath taking.

There are two unions involved in this process, one has had a crack at putting up an EBA to the vote, perhaps good, perhaps not good, that is totally up to the pilots who bothered to vote.

One Union is running a no campaign in the previously voted down EBA, that's OK, but what are they offering as an alternative ?, you know, a proposed EBA perhaps ?.

Running a "no campaign" is not effective representation.

Having more than one representative body in the workplace allows the company to divide and weaken the pilot group, why would you lot allow this to happen ?.

Its great to see nothing changes in the bigger companies, very few pilots put up their hands to be involved in the process, whilst many in the rest of the group then choose to be critical of the process and outcome without any real insight into what the actual negotiation process entails.

You will never get everything you want, neither will the company. Pure and simply put, its about compromise.

No pilot council member gets paid in any way, shape or form, they do it for the benefit of the pilot body, and in return have some pretty horrible things said about them on forums like this, you know who you are, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

As to the members of the other union, who I bear no ill will, don't be puppets in an attempt of one union to buy their way into a new workforce without ensuring only your interests will be represented, read into that what you like.

Transition Layer
25th Sep 2012, 04:21
Josh Cox....any relation to Lawrie?

Josh Cox
25th Sep 2012, 04:53
No relation ( well not that my mother admits ).

The Bunglerat
25th Sep 2012, 07:55
Has anyone considered that perhaps the spin in the press is not driven by the unions.

Yes, Keith, I have. Nevertheless Simon O'Hara does not represent the company, he represents VIPA. You can argue that the company may be planting the seeds in the minds of the journo's. But... Regardless of how the journo's frame the question, it's the answer that dictates the tone & what direction it all goes.

Keith Nash
25th Sep 2012, 09:40
Given all that we know about how notoriously inaccurate aviation journalism is in australia and combine that with statements in said media that do not seem to make sense, why is it that our first conclusion is the unions are clueless and taking huge risks with their strategy, or could it be that there is an anti VIPA agenda in the background?

I constantly disappoint myself by being surprised by the speed at which pilots jump to crucify their own.

Di_Vosh
25th Sep 2012, 11:33
The AFAP has a history of instant YES recommendations on EBA first offers

Really?

I've been part of an EA negotiating team (assisted by the AFAP :ok:) and that wasn't the case with us. Happy to be corrected, but didn't the REX team recommended a 'No' vote in the recent REX EBA?

DIVOSH!

BTDT1963
25th Sep 2012, 13:14
Di Vosh,

That fact doesn't really suit Psycho's argument. You know what they say, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!!!:ok:

Josh Cox
26th Sep 2012, 00:37
The AFAP has a history of instant YES recommendations on EBA first offers

Joe, your/their last agreement expired 30NOV11, it is now 26SEP12, some 10 months later.

Infact the process appears to have started with EBA update number 1, on the 23JUN11.

This instant process you write of appears to have thus far taken some 15 months.............

Di_Vosh
26th Sep 2012, 00:45
psycho joe

So eloquently put I could be forgiven for thinking that you're not a pilot. :}

But you'll need some actual substance in your post if you want a better reply from me.

DIVOSH!

Josh Cox
26th Sep 2012, 01:06
One union gave a yes endorsement within 24 hrs of an EBA draught being published.

Is it possible that they gave their yes endorsement after having been negotiating the contents of the document with the company over the previous12 odd months ?.

I am wondering Joe, if you understand the process, companies generally do not just print out an EBA that they've written without any input from the pilots councils etc etc.

I am also wondering if you really understand what the AFAP/AIPA ( read: pilot union / council or federation ) is and does.

The pilots are represented by their own pilot council, elected member from within your pilot group.

The union/federation/association is the support services to this council.

The Union is not the sword, the pilot body and pilot councils are the sword, the Union/federation/association is the shield and dagger.

Josh Cox
26th Sep 2012, 01:28
That's exactly what happened.

The 34 EBA 2011 updates, I say again, thirty four, would IMHO be evidence to the contrary.

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (http://www.afap.org.au/html/s02_article/article_view.asp?id=402&nav_cat_id=211&nav_top_id=117)

If you are unable to view the 34 updates by logging onto the AFAP website, email me and I will download them and email them to you.

[email protected]

Home Brew
26th Sep 2012, 04:15
After 10 months of negotiations, I would expect that the negotiators concerned would have very in-depth knowledge of what and where the negotiations were heading. In the last two weeks before the document was released, the company made considerable concessions compared, to the document they released to all us in early August. I know for a fact that parts of the EBA were sent to the union reps, before its final release to the pilot group. The AFAP team worked through this document all weekend, before its release, and when compared with the surveys taken last year, were happy that it filled most demands.
So Jo, where were the vaipa team? Sleeping!
For all the updates from the team: Virgin Pilot Federation EBA 2011 (http://www.vflight.net/eba2011.html)

CTOT ON
26th Sep 2012, 05:34
Josh,

Who the hell are you? What right do you have to be posting/providing access to confidential and private correspondence from any union onto a public forum.

It is not public record nor is it appropriate for the details of private negotiations from either union to be discussed on a public forum.

If anyone has issues with the negotiations, concerns about the process discuss it with either of the unions or on the private internal forums, which if you were actually an employee of Virgin, or indeed directly involved in these negotiations you would be aware of and have access to.

Incidently, the D*!khead who started this forum has rocks in his/her head.

Have a nice day.

Josh Cox
26th Sep 2012, 05:51
CTOT ON,

Who the hell are you? What right do you have to be posting/providing access to confidential and private correspondence from any union onto a public forum.

I post using my real name, who the hell are you ?.

Have not posted anything private or confidential, I believe joe is a VA pilot and already has access to the updates, I was politely calling his, what I saw as a bluff.

Incidently, any AFAP member can see all the updates, so no secrets there.

If anyone has issues with the negotiations, concerns about the process discuss it with either of the unions or on the private internal forums, which if you were actually an employee of Virgin, or indeed directly involved in these negotiations you would be aware of and have access to.

Well this discussion in well and truly in the public forum ( and not due to me ), I do not like seeing lies spread about the VA Pilot Council or the AFAP, there is a great deal of damaging BS being spread on this thread, which is why a couple of us have responded.

If a non union member was to read this thread and believe it, they would probably not see any benefit in joining, which benefits who ?.

CTOT ON
26th Sep 2012, 06:16
Josh,

Good on you for using your name but I dont care what your name is. My question was rather who do you think you are. Do you really think you have the right to provide access or forward documents from the AFAP? No, if either of the unions have something to say to the public or media they will. If a pilot at virgin has something to say about the negotiation process one would hope they have the sense and professionalism to discuss it with their union or the company.

If your not a virgin pilot or involved in the negotiation.... mind your business.

Has either union authorised you to publish or email their negotiation discussions. I dont think so. And thats my point. By all means as an individual who obviously has an interest in the goings on at Virgin, watch from a distance.... but keep your nose out of it!

Josh Cox
26th Sep 2012, 06:47
CTOT,

Post / spread confidential info, really ?, did you actually read my last couple of posts ?.

I will happily keep my nose out, if, and only if, there is no misinformation and lies spread.

Damaging lies that damage the credibility of the AFAP or the VA Pilot Council, you know, the guys that, for free, and mostly in their own time are trying to negotiate a good deal for all VA pilots.

unseen
26th Sep 2012, 07:05
The 34 updates are in the public domain already aren't they?

http://www.vflight.net/eba2011.html

Di_Vosh
27th Sep 2012, 06:38
psycho joe removed his posts.

What Josh Cox and Home Brew said :ok:

That is,

... they gave their yes endorsement after having been negotiating the contents of the document with the company over the previous12 odd months...

and

After 10 months of negotiations, I would expect that the negotiators concerned would have very in-depth knowledge of what and where the negotiations were heading.



DIVOSH!

Utradar
27th Sep 2012, 13:07
"that is totally up to the pilots who bothered to vote."

Umm yessss Josh, it was 97% of pilots who voted! Quite a few bothered to vote.

"I must say, the stupidity shown by many here is breath taking."

Yes Agreed!

"Running a "no campaign" is not effective representation."

Why? VIPA exposed flaws in the 'agreement' and the haste at which this was being pushed through and the conservative pilot group voted NO by majority. The majority saw through the company rhetoric to sell this EBA mainly on their own terms and decided that the first draft was too open-ended (clauses open to interpretation). Some were not happy with renumeration.

"Is it possible that they gave their yes endorsement after having been negotiating the contents of the document with the company over the previous12 odd months"

No.....not entirely. The company was pushing hard to introduce clauses that would impact heavily on lifestyle (conditions like airport reserve and others), quite natural for a corporate company to desire this as cabin crew do already. It seemed the company were steadfast for quite sometime and not willing to budge on certain items. They then reneged on some at the 11th hour to try and get the EBA over the line after a revolt by the pilot group. There were a few sweeteners as well during this time by the company.

"Having more than one representative body in the workplace allows the company to divide and weaken the pilot group, why would you lot allow this to happen"

Unfortunately.....that's life! It just proves that pilots need an alternative to one union. It's really a confidence vote isn't it. In an ideal world...............:}

cynphil
27th Sep 2012, 22:42
In the U.S. after a "No" vote on a contract that the negotiating team recommended, the team steps down and makes way for a new negotiating team. Maybe it is time that the AFAP step aside and let the VIPA negotiate the next offer!!

maggot
28th Sep 2012, 00:07
Well let's just hope they take note that the majority of the pilot group voted NO to the document they endorsed. Even if they personally thought it was good enough, they obviously got the mood of their members and the pilot group very wrong. That is the big failure here for the Feds. Stop blaming Vipa, and listen to what the pilots have said.! It was the pilots that voted no, not Vipa.


I'm having flashbacks to the QF EBA8 vote down

Josh Cox
28th Sep 2012, 00:49
Spoilher,

A vote of 60% against does not mean the other union got it right.

It means a combination of atleast two things:

1) many pilots were not happy with the EBA ( and that is their right ),
2) many pilots fell for the doomsday scenarios presented by the other union ( most of which has been dressed up as "flaws in the proposed EBA" ).

A no campaign is not a solution, offering an EBA up for the vote is a solution.

A no vote means exactly that, no, we will not accept this offer, i.e. company sharpen your pencil, why don't you put your name up as a pilot rep and help.

Just remember, those guys are on the end of the phone for when you have an incident at work, they give their time freely, holding your hand through CASA interviews, ATSB interviews, company interview, answering rostering practices and EBA questions at all hours, all free, and you still think these guys are corrupt ?. Whatever you are smoking, I want some.

How exactly do you suggest your council members would be advantaged by spending twelve odd months negotiating an EBA, then to endorse one they think is inferior ?.

If you are wondering why the terms and conditions in our industry are so rapidly declining with respect to the cost of living, you need only look in the mirror.

Josh Cox
28th Sep 2012, 00:52
Spoilher, the last half of my post was not directed at you.

psycho joe
28th Sep 2012, 01:30
God, why us this thread still going?

Its clear that only Spoilher and a couple of others have any first hand knowledge, the rest are just acting as pro AFAP mouthpeices.

2) many pilots fell for the doomsday scenarios presented by the other union ( most of which has been dressed up as "flaws in the proposed EBA" ).


Josh. Posting this sort of utterly ridiculous drivel without any first hand knowledge just makes you look foolish; and quite frankly, if the AFAP team members have alluded to this then it just serves to srengthen the belief that the AFAP has lost the plot and should stand aside.

Just remember, those guys are on the end of the phone for when you have an incident at work, they give their time freely, holding your hand through CASA interviews, ATSB interviews, company interview, answering rostering practices and EBA questions at all hours, all free...

The level of pay or the lack of is irrelevant in this case. Volunteering doesn't automatically make people right. There are volunteers in all unions.

For once i'd like to see the AFAP display some inward reflection. Admit they got it wrong, not blame anyone else, and resolve to work in a collaborative nature with the other union.

grrowler
28th Sep 2012, 02:27
psycho, I have to say I'm losing track of your drift with most of your posts disappearing - is it that it's ok for you to bash the feds and extoll the virtues of vipa, and not ok for the opposite?

I personally couldn't give a rats which union apparently got it wrong or right, in fact I would say until we have a signed document it is far too early to tell. Just because you happened to back the winning side in a no vote by a group of largely cynical, suspicious and self-interested pilots (myself included) does not mean you are a winner.

leffe
28th Sep 2012, 04:32
Time to close this thread Mods!! It's run it's course:ugh:

Don Diego
28th Sep 2012, 06:29
Next step is usually pia,can't wait to see that s?!t fight in such a divided group!!

Dragun
28th Sep 2012, 07:11
You're making a judgement that the pilot group is divided based on a few posts on a rumour network?

Are you acting alone or do you work for Today Tonight or some other sort of outfit with view points based on a ridiculous interpretations and zero facts?

:ugh:

Don Diego
28th Sep 2012, 21:34
Dragun it is no and no!!

dirty deeds
30th Sep 2012, 05:25
If you get peoples hopes up, they tend to expect a result.

What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.

One Union has a realistic approach, the other a "give me, give me" approach.

The other major question that needs to be asked is where to from here? The silence was deafening, no updates to members yet two media articles. And now more surveys with questions designed to sway the data.

The Karma bus is around the corner and its about to toot its horn.

virginexcess
30th Sep 2012, 10:25
What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.

Really? It's "that simple" is it?

I wasn't aware that the result is judged by which unions log of claims most closely resembled the outcome. I thought it was about getting the best result for the pilots, whilst maintaining sustainable employment costs for the company.

The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for. So you can bang on all you like about being "realistic" but that isn't how it works. You ask for the unbelievable and negotiate back to common ground, the same way as the company starts with "you're not getting anything"" and negotiates up from that.

Its called ambit claims and negotiation.

If pilots get their hopes up and expect a result based on a Log of Claims, then they are as dumb as management think they are.

I work from the premise that most pilots will have read the document, and their respective unions advice, then formed their own opinion, with the union recommendation validating their view. I would be disappointed if there were enough pilots voting along party lines to affect the outcome. So, working on my premise, VIPA got it right because the pilots validated the union position.

Verification, or otherwise, of this will come when the final agreement is in place. If the final document is better than the one that has just been rejected then VIPA, and the pilots, will have got it right. If the final document is worse than the rejected offer, then the Feds will have got it right.

dirty deeds
30th Sep 2012, 11:41
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for.

You might want to go and check this fact!

I will also be suggesting to my Union and the Company at the next EBA to publish an offer very early on to get the NO vote out of the way so we can all move forward.

I have asked many drivers at VB why did you vote no, the answer has been the "wording". When I produce the document and ask which wording in specific, they cannot show me or even discuss which clauses they are concerned with. Funny stuff!

VB has gained 400 drivers since the last EBA, and sorry to say, they are easily led and industrially immature.

I agree with you Virginexcess, its all about whats best for the Pilot Group, but when the information being fed to them is factually incorrect at times and also misunderstood by certain factions, your bound to get yourself in a pickle.

This theory of asking for the unreasonable to then meet half way is great in theory, but when what were asking for is either industrially defunct (Leave Loading) or Super contributions above the tax threshold etc etc, one has to wonder WTF is going on.

Certain factions are Teflon at the moment, we are not aloud to point out any faults in their direction, yet it's ok for them to sling mud and innuendo.

The Karma Bus is around the corner and its about to honk its horn!

"TOOT TOOT, HONK HONK"

virginexcess
30th Sep 2012, 11:51
but when the information being fed to them is factually incorrect

Care to elaborate?

dirty deeds
30th Sep 2012, 12:24
Virgnexcess, sorry for taking so long to respond, had to re-read your post which has been retrospectively edited, like a certain website that has had their media release retrospectively edited. I think this may fit into an example you are looking for.

Also, a certain update to members regarding RSV48 was factually incorrect in its substance.

Shall I keep going?

virginexcess
30th Sep 2012, 12:31
Saying something is factually incorrect does not mean it is. Retrospectively editing a website or a forum post does not render it factually incorrect either.

I am not suggesting your are wrong in your assertions, you just haven't provided any facts.

dirty deeds
30th Sep 2012, 13:06
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for.

FACT:

Direct from AFAP Log Of Claims:

Captain Year 1 $234685
Captain Year 2 $241725
Captain Year 3 $248977
Captain Year 4 $256446
Captain Year 5 $264140
Captain Year 6 $272064

Direct from LH Agreement:

Captain Year 1 $199541
Captain Year 2 $207339
Captain Year 3 $215596
Captain Year 4 $224312
Captain Year 5 $233486
Captain Year 6 $242661
Captain Year 7 $252294
Captain Year 8 $262395

People saying that the end result at LH was more than what the AFAP were asking for is complete garbage.

virginexcess
30th Sep 2012, 13:29
Agreed, however my point related to the final submissions prior to the vote.

I don't have the same access to the documents you have, but the last doc put forward by the AFAP at the negotiations was for 217k for a year 4 Captain, which ended up being 224 in the final company doc, because VIPA held out.

Capt Basil Brush
30th Sep 2012, 21:57
dirty deeds says;

I have asked many drivers at VB why did you vote no, the answer has been the "wording". When I produce the document and ask which wording in specific, they cannot show me or even discuss which clauses they are concerned with. Funny stuff!

VB has gained 400 drivers since the last EBA, and sorry to say, they are easily led and industrially immature.

Gee you must be an absolute pleasure to fly with! No wonder they don't want to talk to you.

It looks like the AFAP have planted 'defenders' on this website as well as the VB Pilots website, immediately putting down anyone who dares to criticise their actions - whether right or wrong.

Fortunately most people are smart enough to see through it.

dirty deeds
30th Sep 2012, 23:01
Capt Brush

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Snakecharma
30th Sep 2012, 23:19
What no one can tell me from the company, Feds or VIPA, is what is going to happen now.

If it is a quick tweak of the words and a revote (which is what I am hearing is coming the VIPA corner) then that doesn't seem to indicate that the document was too far off the mark. In which case was it worth throwing back pay and pay rises away in order to tweak the words?

If it is longer what are the FO's who can't move from the Ejet to the 737 think if the company applies the current EBA as written?

My guess is with 3 other EBA and the res system changeover it will be the middle of next year before it gets up for another vote.

If it is business class travel I have sat in on JB's roadshows where he said no - I am not sure who is saying they want business class travel but won't it mean a fight with the CEO?

If it is more money then how much? With only a profit of 22 odd million you could turn that whole 22 million into a Pay increase for domestic pilots and still only achieve a 22 grand increase for each pilot (22000000/1000) which I would think the shareholders would want to see either reinvested into the business or eventually paid as a dividend.

I thought the pay rises in the document that was rejected were not unreasonable, can't remember the numbers but they were not along the lines of the 3% that fair work paid the QF guys.

But as a line pilot I get bombarded by all these mixed messages. I wish I knew where the real information is

Keg
1st Oct 2012, 00:53
In which case was it worth throwing back pay and pay rises away in order to tweak the words?

I always love this threat from the various companies at EBA vote time. QF tries it on as well. If you don't vote for this we're not going to give you back pay. In every case I've seen they've paid the back pay as part of a renegotiated deal. :ok:

I thought the pay rises in the document that was rejected were not unreasonable, can't remember the numbers but they were not along the lines of the 3% that fair work paid the QF guys.


You mean QF ground staff? Long haul pilots still haven't had final submissions. They're scheduled for later in October. We'll be lucky to see a decision by Christmas. I suspect it'll be minimal changes (and those that occur will probably have been 'agreed' anyway) but your 3% mark will probably end up being close ot the mark.

Normasars
1st Oct 2012, 12:00
KEG,

FYI in "lower echelons" of the "Group", I can categorically confirm that the "Company" did indeed hold back the backpay after the first offer was unanimously voted down.

The @rseholes still owe me over 16 months of backpay from FY 05/06 IIRC.

Just clarifying a point :ok:

Keg
1st Oct 2012, 12:49
Fair enough. Didn't know that. Should have voted 'no' the second time until they put back pay in! :ok:

Just for my own benefit, which work group did this affect?

Don Diego
1st Oct 2012, 21:24
Keg,"lower echelons" should be enough to figure out who Sars is referring to. Should be a no brainer as to who was lurking in the shadows "advising" the so called independent group in that debacle.

Snakecharma
1st Oct 2012, 22:34
Does any one know if the fair work act or whatever it is called these days requires the company to make the second offer a better one or can they actually go backwards?

Normasars
1st Oct 2012, 23:02
EAA. That was it for me, totally lost any respect for them from that point.

Exit strategy was devised from then.:ok: