PDA

View Full Version : Seniority in the Qantas Group


Marcellus
16th Nov 2012, 02:59
This needs a thread of its own, not a hijacking of the Qlink thread. Below is the final submission to FWA.


Pursuant to the orders of the Full Bench, both Qantas and AIPA filed documents setting out proposed Workplace Determinations (the QWD and AWD respectively). The AWD and QWD are documents that contain each parties desired terms in settlement of the matters at issue. They reflect the claims made during bargaining. Each proposal reflects the “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach taken during the negotiations.

Leave without pay has been an important aspect of pilot employment arrangements for many years. It permits pilots to take time away from the company at times of surpluses without losing their relative seniority in the company. It further permits the maintenance of pilot regulatory requirements without additional expense to Qantas and provides opportunities for individuals to accommodate relevant experience which assists Qantas with their promotional criteria. Additionally, it also permits the company a mechanism of reducing pilot numbers at times of surpluses without having to make redundancy payments or losing the relationship with a pilot in whom significant investment has been made.

As discussed elsewhere, the nature of the employment relationship between Qantas and its pilots (like comparable other airlines) is of extraordinarily high levels of retention and employment stability notwithstanding a very cyclical business. Leave without pay has classically been one of the measures employed for this to occur.

An improvement to the leave without pay provisions provides the easiest way for the Full Bench to create savings for Qantas other than by reducing pay, entitlements or conditions for pilots. The company's resistance to such clauses is, ultimately, baffling.

The basis of leave without pay is that for the period of leave without pay the pilot is not paid by Qantas, and is not subject (other than as specifically provided for under the LH Agreement) to the benefits and obligations of the long haul agreement. The pilot is paid at whatever rate is negotiated or required for any employer he/she works for during the period of leave without pay. The pilot has a right to return at the end of the leave without pay period, and retains their relative seniority.

Long haul pilots may seek leave without pay for three reasons:

(a) to work as a pilot for a different employing entity in the Qantas Group;
(b) to work as a pilot for an employing entity that is not in the Qantas Group; or
(c) to not work as a pilot at all.

AIPA does not seek changes for the leave without pay arrangements described in (b) and (c). AIPA's claims concern leave without pay arrangements where the pilot undertakes leave without pay and remains within the Qantas Group.

At present, the only specific process relating to leave without pay for Qantas pilots is the 'Jetstar MOU'. The Jetstar MOU sets out a basis for some Qantas pilots to obtain leave without pay to work at Jetstar Australia on a preferential basis. However, this arrangement is limited as:

(a) it does not assist pilots employed after 03 November 2004;

(b) it is limited to terms of 3 years, with no capacity for shorter or longer periods as may be required by Qantas/Jetstar, and no capacity for extension;

(c) pilots have one opportunity only to work at Jetstar under the MOU.

(d) There is no obligation on Jetstar or on Qantas to advise LHP’s of opportunities for leave without pay vacancies.

The current arrangement is also deficient as:

(a) it only covers Jetstar Australia. There are no processes that facilitate leave without pay to any other Jetstar company, or to the range of other entities within the Qantas group that employ pilots such as Jetconnect, EFA or Qantaslink.

(b) the industrial instrument that gives effect to the Jetstar MOU for long haul pilots is in fact the Jetstar pilots agreement. The relevant provisions are vulnerable to change or removal pursuant to the arrangements between Jetstar and Jetstar pilots.

While limited and deficient, the Jetstar MOU has provided Qantas assistance in relieving the current surplus while avoiding retrenchment, and has provided long haul pilots new opportunities during a period of limited advancement within Qantas.

All of the Workplace Determinations contain provisions that continue the operation of the Jetstar MOU.

However, AIPA submits that the Full Bench should incorporate additional measures to facilitate and encourage the taking of leave without pay for Qantas pilots. This is because of the clear benefits that such arrangements have for both Qantas and pilots. Specifically:

(a) it saves Qantas significant amounts of money as they do not need to pay pilots for whom there is no work to be done;

(b) it buys Qantas time to ensure that the amount of flying is appropriate for the number of pilots employed, without having to go to the expense of retrenching pilots and then reemploying them a couple of years later;

(c) it avoids the need for retrenchments;

(d) by providing pilots opportunities to undertake new and different work without leaving the Qantas Group, it minimises the possibility of pilots in whom Qantas has
invested significant resources, resigning their employment to take up work elsewhere;

(e) it provides pilots new and different opportunities at times when there are limited opportunities within Qantas.

The key ways in which a provision may assist leave without pay is by assisting the identification of vacancies, assisting with obtaining endorsements (the licence to operate the aircraft), and providing a mechanism for pilots to access appropriate positions in the other entities. There has been very little leave without pay to entities in the Qantas Group (outside the Jetstar MOU) in part because Qantas pilots would need to enter those entities as the most junior pilots.


The AWD proposal

The AWD seeks to incorporate provisions facilitating leave without pay:

(a) by "requiring Qantas to "distribute, as soon as practicable, advertisements for pilot positions with other members of the Qantas Group."

(b) by ensuring other Qantas Group Members consider long haul pilots applications before considering applications from external applicants. No preference against applicants from other Qantas Group companies is sought.

(c) by requiring Qantas to "supply the subsidiary company with such relevant information on the pilot and the pilot's personnel file as the pilot directs."

(d) "grant any request for leave without pay provided that the request is for a period of 12 months or more, and the request would not create a shortage of pilots in Qantas."

(e) facilitate costs associated with the leave without pay. There would be very limited circumstances where the company would be required to pay such costs. In almost all cases the pilot would pay the cost. Qantas would be prevented from profiting from the endorsement process.

(f) ensure that the Qantas subsidiary company provide the pilot with the appropriate level of seniority commensurate with their service in Qantas. AIPA seeks to generalise and extend the practice that currently exists in the Jetstar MOU. As discussed below the MOU applies to Qantas pilots taking leave without pay to work for Jetstar Airways Pty Limited. The Association seeks to make QAL ensure that where LHPs obtain positions with other Qantas Group entities those pilots are provided seniority in the other group company commensurate with their seniority at QAL.

These proposed obligations would not create any significant additional financial burden on Qantas. It would only be obliged to provide leave without pay to the extent it could do so without causing a shortage of pilots within its own ranks. The endorsement costs (which Qantas may later benefit from) are met by the pilot, albeit at cost.

The current agreement contains a number of provisions that are expressed to continue to apply to pilots while on leave without pay to Jetstar. These provisions (which, for example permit a pilot to remain with their Qantas superannuation fund in the event they make up the difference in contributions) do not impose any cost other than administrative costs on Qantas. These provisions are extended in the AWD to also apply to incidences of leave without pay to other Qantas Group Companies.


Group seniority is great, as long as you are senior:ok:

leakyboats
16th Nov 2012, 05:10
[email protected] Me Rhonda, how many QF pilots are ther with seniority that predates 2007. I don't think that there is a single FO in Jetstar or QLINK that could outbid a QF pilot on LWOP under this idiocy.

(f) ensure that the Qantas subsidiary company provide the pilot with the appropriate level of seniority commensurate with their service in Qantas. AIPA seeks to generalise and extend the practice that currently exists in the Jetstar MOU. As discussed below the MOU applies to Qantas pilots taking leave without pay to work for Jetstar Airways Pty Limited. The Association seeks to make QAL ensure that where LHPs obtain positions with other Qantas Group entities those pilots are provided seniority in the other group company commensurate with their seniority at QAL.

When was this submission made?

waren9
16th Nov 2012, 05:59
i believe your reference is out of date.

proposed group seniority amongst those pilot groups that opt in.

Fonz121
16th Nov 2012, 06:13
So can a 20 year Qlink guy jump over to mainline in a position "commensurate with their seniority". :8

bddbism
16th Nov 2012, 06:55
However, AIPA submits that the Full Bench should incorporate additional measures to facilitate and encourage the taking of leave without pay for Qantas pilots. This is because of the clear benefits that such arrangements have for both Qantas and pilots.

Clear benefits. What was that about there not being a sense of entitlement?...

Ratherbefishintoday
16th Nov 2012, 07:21
2. Group Members and pilots covered by the GMS

2.1 The following pilots are covered by the GMS:

(a) pilots employed by New Qantas Group Members;

(b) pilots employed by a Current Qantas Group Member who are covered by a collective agreement that contains a term that facilitates the GMS;

(c) pilots employed by a Current Qantas Group Member who are not covered by a collective agreement.

2.2 The primary and secondary employer of pilots covered by the GMS are also covered by the GMS.

4.1 Pursuant to clause 2.1(b) of this framework document, a collective agreement will facilitate the GMS if it:

(a) provides that pilots covered by the collective agreement will be covered by the GMS; or

(b) contains no provision that would prevent pilots covered by the GMS but not covered by that collective agreement, accessing vacancies and/or assuming seniority in a secondary employer pursuant to the GMS.

This is out of the CWD (05/09/2012). Not agreeing to the GMS will not keep it out of your backyard. :ouch:

leakyboats
16th Nov 2012, 08:00
WTF is going on here. I have just had a very informative read of our own internal pilots’ website. It looks like AIPA were trying to pineapple us for 9 months. Either our AIPA subcommittee was asleep at the wheel, or they are incompetent and don’t what due diligence is, or BOTH.

What I find amazing is that AIPA tell us that the GMS is opt in. Then I read this:


2.1 The following pilots are covered by the GMS:

(b) pilots employed by a Current Qantas Group Member who are covered by a collective agreement that contains a term that facilitates the GMS;

4.1 Pursuant to clause 2.1(b) of this framework document, a collective agreement will facilitate the GMS if it:

(a) provides that pilots covered by the collective agreement will be covered by the GMS; or

(b) contains no provision that would prevent pilots covered by the GMS but not covered by that collective agreement, accessing vacancies and/or assuming seniority in a secondary employer pursuant to the GMS.

Well [email protected] Me Rhonda AGAIN. Our CURRENT agreement, the Jetstar 2008 EBA, contains no provision that would prevent pilots covered by the GMS (Qantas Pilots) accessing vacancies and/or assuming seniority in a secondary employer (Jetstar). SO IT LOOKS LIKE OUR AGREEMENT, BY ITS VERY NATURE OF NOT EXCLUDING A GMS, ACTUALLY FACILITATES IT!!!

Who drafts this sh*t.

I Just had a mate check, and the above from Marcellus is from AIPA’s FINAL SUBMISSION on October 29. He has said that both positions are in that submission, the desired position (aka Operation RODGER ALL SUBSIDIARY PILOTS) and the Julia Gillard BACKFLIP position – the GMS.

Keg
16th Nov 2012, 08:16
Never mind all that, Marcellus called it 'THE' Qantas group. Quick, someone call scam sniffer and let him know that yet again someone used 'THE' word in front of THE word Qantas. :E

What The
16th Nov 2012, 09:44
AFAP JPC et al.

How sad you are relegated to this having been shown to "Fire, Ready, Aim" on your own JQ Pilot website.

You are sad little men.

Stalins ugly Brother
16th Nov 2012, 09:45
Could AFAP organise a few MOU's for the Qlink boys to spend a bit of time at mainline?

Ha, the AFAP couldn't organise a p1zz up in a Brewery! :E

bubble.head
16th Nov 2012, 11:32
I guess Qantaslink pilots can start using the slogans of

"Secure our flying...from Qantas pilots"

"When you board a Qantaslink flight, you expect a Qantaslink pilot"

:mad:

Ratherbefishintoday
16th Nov 2012, 12:00
Ben Bollen et al.

How sad you are relegated to this having been shown to "Fire, Ready, Aim" on your own JQ Pilot website.

You are sad little men.

Can you explain your childish attack?:confused:

busdriver007
16th Nov 2012, 17:35
Qlink pilots....ask yourselves who is going to fly the A318s/A319s/A320s? Not you that's for sure.....Where would I get experienced Airbus pilots in Australia? Wake up to what is happening here and remember we are all in this together and it is not all about me. I afraid we will never change that attitude in pilots and Oldmeadow knows it.

waren9
16th Nov 2012, 19:26
Can you explain your childish attack?

After throwing a hand grenade in to aircrew.net bollen et al had their facts updated for them.

it didnt go down well and the conpsiracy theorists have obviously decided to come on here to continue the campaign against aipa

afap would rather throw grenades than pick up the phone.

LightItUp
16th Nov 2012, 20:46
You know it's arguments like Waren9 that truly amazes me.

No one cares that the facts are out of date or the proposal has been changed because it would have never gotten up in the first place.

What we do care about is that AIPA would try to slip in under the radar in the first place :=.

In reality thou no one should really be surprised as it's certainly not the first time they have gone out of their way to shaft a particular group for the benefit of mainline.

The only interests AIPA have is for mainline pilots. They can do their song and dance that their in it for everyone but at the end of the day the prove is in there actions.

Case in Point.

Holding at
16th Nov 2012, 20:56
Qlink pilots....ask yourselves who is going to fly the A318s/A319s/A320s? Not you that's for sure.....

You've just successfully revealed the future of regional jets at Qlink. At the end of the day if this doesn't get through then they will just start a new Qlink entity that operates 'The Jets'.

The reality is that if an Qlink driver wants to ever fly a Jet in Qlink colors then they will need to support such a clause, take the pineapple they are dealt and sit next to an MOU driver for the next 10 years.

Wobby
17th Nov 2012, 00:59
Regional pilots beware,anything AIPA does will be for the benefit of LH QF pilots,they will shaft you in an instant to save themselves. Stick with the 400's and they will leave you be.:ugh::ugh:

Toruk Macto
17th Nov 2012, 01:23
How about we start a thread on what AIPA have done for the group over the last 20 years and I think you may be able to draw your own conclusions as to what they may do for the group in future .

mohikan
17th Nov 2012, 03:39
This submission is a tactic by AIPA in relation to the very significant redundancies that will occur after the new contract is arbitrated next year - it has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of the group seniority list.

Such a list will never exist as Qantas is ideologically opposed to it. I will bet that no mainline pilot is ever able to join JQ or QLINK under such a mechanism, not now. Not ever.

Let me explain.

With airframe and flying program reductions the mainline pilot group will be somewhere between 500-700 pilots overmanned by the end of 2014. Wildcards are the 280 or so currently on leave of absence and the 280 or so over 60's.

In any other company such a surplus of personnel would be managed by redundancies, but Qantas is ideologically opposed to paying pilots out. This has been stated time and time again by senior company IR and management figures.

So Qantas has wedged itself - it won't pay for surplus employees to leave, and it also won't ever agree to a mechanism where said employees might be assigned elsewhere in the parts of the group that are still rapidly expanding.

I understand the "if you don't like it just resign from QF mainline and apply for JQ / QLINK ect ect like everyone else", but why should an existing mainline pilot make it easy for QF to get rid of them ?

If they want us gone they can pay like every other business has to.

The endgame with this is about redundancy payouts and nothing else. Its about AIPA being able to present an argument to FWA that it has proposed a fair and reasonable way of managing the surplus pilot numbers, and Qantas will not agree to this due to its pig-headedness.

Once you view this issue through that lens, then it takes the heat out of the lies and disinformation spread on other fora such as aircrew.net

theheadmaster
17th Nov 2012, 04:07
Or to put it in a nutshell:

Qantas does not want such a list as it will make it more difficult to screw pilots.

Pilots do not want such a list as it will make it more difficult to screw each other.

Keith Myath
18th Nov 2012, 22:28
This submission is a tactic by AIPA in relation to the very significant redundancies that will occur after the new contract is arbitrated next year - it has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of the group seniority list.

Riiiiight, so AIPA propose a LWOP system that is designed to fail from the outset. They put up a proposal so unreasonable that Qantas find it unpalatable, and AIPA have to keep it secret from subsidiary pilots as it is so wonderful. Great foresight on those fronts. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

How about Qantas and subsidiary pilots won’t agree to AIPA’s LWOP proposal because it is obtuse. You can cling to your ridiculous theory of looking through prisims or the bottom of beer bottles for all I care.

The LWOP proposal is the height of arrogance. AIPA and a number of their so called leadership, believe that they should have their seniority recognised at the expense of other pilots. This has nothing to do with a so called reasonable proposal, and everything to do with protecting ones own hide at the expense of subsidiary pilots.

If you were serious about looking after your junior pilots, you would have facilitated a system for them to go to the subsidiary companies at the bottom of the list, not create a system that will hinder their movement.

mohikan
18th Nov 2012, 23:08
Keith.

You haven't read the first part of my post properly.

Qantas has been very clear that it wants its surplus mainline pilots gone, not only out of the company, but also out of the industry.

Therefore it wouldn't matter what system they proposed - even your suggestion (bottom of seniority lists ect), which I personally believe would be fair and reasonable given the circumstances.

In the words of one senior QF IR manager "you blokes are a cancer that needs to be cut out".

As much as AIPA doesn't want mass redundancies to happen it is trying to get the best deal it can for those affected.

Like all industrial negotiations this involves making ambit claims. Google the definition of what that means if you dont understand.

Keith Myath
19th Nov 2012, 00:22
Maybe you should get the crayons out and I’ll understand – although you have now edited your post. Presently, Qantas and Jetstar have facilitated 30 odd Qantas pilots to go to Jetstar at the bottom of the list on LWOP with endorsements paid. That is achievable today under the current arrangements. I’d call that fair if you are interested in keeping your job. Your so called ambit claim is nothing but arrogance of your leadership thinking you deserve to be senior to Jetstar and Qlink pilots. You can dress it up however you like, but it does nothing to help you get more pilots onto LWOP. Interestingly, AIPA only wanted to change the LWOP provisions for pilots going to subsidiary companies. If you want more pilots on LWOP, you shouldn't put more barriers in the way to facilitate it.:rolleyes:

Toruk Macto
19th Nov 2012, 01:53
When Southern was wound up and AIPA was approached for support they pissed on us from a great height . Now international is going the same way the favor will be returned .

Keg
19th Nov 2012, 02:25
When Southern was wound up and AIPA was approached for support they pissed on us from a great height

Hang on, AFAP were your respondents to the award at the time. I also recall AIPA having been rebuffed on some occasions in there also. I don't deny AIPA's rules at the time prohibiting membership by regionals- rules that took too long to amend despite a number of mainline crew asking for them to be amended- but the situation is far more nuanced than what you indicate.

Of course, if you know the situation then you know that's the case. If you don't or if you have ulterior motives then you articulate the point that AIPA 'pissed on ' Southern at that time.

KABOY
20th Nov 2012, 02:09
Keg,

You are wrong.

When QF sent down their Flight Safety people from Sydney to assist in the closure, a proposal was put forward to see if some pilots could be absorbed into mainline.

The response 'AIPA will not support this proposal.' They also bought in Capt. D. Wiltshire who believed something along the lines of the Australian Airlines integration could work for the 146 pilots. But it was put to rest by your beloved AIPA!

Keg
20th Nov 2012, 03:38
So let me understand this correctly KABOY. When Qantas management pilots went down to talk to Souther, the management pilots stated that AIPA would not support another Y seniority list?!?!

So you'll excuse me if this sounds like a lot of people saying that AIPA knocked it on the head but in reality no one never actually got around to asking AIPA directly or got a direct answer. Direct correspondence or specific references to meetings with AIPA reps will suffice.

Just humour me though, what was the proposal that was put forward? Was it a genuine Y seniority whereby the Southern crew maintained seniority in their side of things but were junior to every QF driver as at a particular date if they went after a QF job (and then every QF driver was subsequently junior to the Southern crew after that date)? Or did they want date of joining moving across into mainline? Again, specific proposals or references to them would be handy.

In terms of the former then they could have achieved the same aim by just joining QF and it was up to Qantas management to employ them in those circumstances, not AIPA.

So would love to hear some of the blanks filled in. Preferably you can fill them in before you tell me I'm 'wrong' again. I'm more than happy to admit that AIPA has on occasion dropped the ball but I prefer to operate with all the facts out that paint the full picture rather than just the selective ones that paint AIPA as the bad boys here.

What The
20th Nov 2012, 04:06
There is a fair bit of history to this one going back as far as the Qantas \ Australian Airlines merger when the regionals got shafted IMHO.

The regionals had arranged group progression with Australian Airlines and this was reneged on when the merger happened.

Later it was attempted again; however there was a significant push in the regionals for datal seniority to apply. This position never had a hope in getting multi party support and the deal fell through although some regional pilots were accepted into mainline with a seniority of sometime in 1995.

Keg, saying that something should be done and then attempting to hold some high moral ground because of those words is not good darts. What we wish, and what is able to be achieved are sometimes entirely different. If you think that people on COM did not listen and believe that combining pilot groups and covering all pilots was a desired outcome you are also wrong. The problem is that Oldmeadow’s playbook is stuck on a divide and conquer page and he is incapable of turning the page.

In the meantime, our fellow pilots assist him in his job by being smartarses about their colleagues within the profession. Why people must always seek to drag others down in this industry has always confused me. Think what we would achieve if we all really worked together.

What would be interesting is seeing who would challenge the amalgamation process in Fair Work.

Going Boeing
20th Nov 2012, 07:38
What The, I know for a fact that it was Qantas management who were against the progression of QF "regional" pilots into mainline due to a perception of significantly increased training costs. Members of AIPA COM made representations to management on behalf of regional pilots but were firmly told that it was not an option that management would look at.

Josh Cox
20th Nov 2012, 09:01
I am of the understanding that seniority lists are "owned" by the affected pilot group/s.

A question to those that are wiser than myself, how would a merged seniority list between, what some refer to as the contracting mainline operation and the expanding regional or LCC operation, be in the best interests of the regional or LCC pilot group ?.

Perhaps it might have been when all operations were expanding, or all stagnate, but not now.

Wasn't it attempted many years ago, but at least one group felt as though they were less than equal in the proposed deal, is this a fair appraisal ?.

NZ777ER
25th Nov 2012, 22:46
So just to clarify, AIPA want a system that basically reserves seniority for mainline pilots at all subsidiary companies!?
I am dumbfounded.
Shame on the architects of this proposal - I will personally be printing out this clause and posting it in every crewroom I can so the reality of the "our" in AIPA's "protect our flying" is made clear.