PDA

View Full Version : Qantas AIPA FWA Ruling Thurs 17th Jan


crosscutter
16th Jan 2013, 05:30
Can't say I'm excited. Good luck to all involved.

Keg
16th Jan 2013, 05:44
It does explain why the 'revised flying program' due out in mid December hasn't yet been promulgated or filtered down just yet. Waiting to see what FWA has done.

Capt Kremin
16th Jan 2013, 05:47
Invest in Ansell shares!

Keg
16th Jan 2013, 06:02
My fearless predictions:

1. Term will be for the next three years until end of 2015. We may see end of 2014 but i doubt it.
2. QF will get the CAO48 exemption or at least a version of it. There may be some 'humanising' rules in it that will prevent SYD-PER-SYD back of the clock (or QF's risk assessment will prevent that anyway) but the general principle applies.
3. AIPA will get probably get back pay to 1 July 2011. 3+3+3+3+3 will be my bet.
4. No significant changes beyond that due to complexity of award. Rest will be playing at the edges. Swings and roundabouts for both sides.

mcgrath50
16th Jan 2013, 06:15
Swings and roundabouts for both sides.

Win for both sides, loss for both or a victory for one side or the other?

Forgetting the fact that the Qantas brand is the big loser of the grounding and a proper negotiation would have probably meant more of a victory for both sides.

Shark Patrol
16th Jan 2013, 06:22
Shared blank lines perhaps?

And undoubtedly the Company will have been "given the right to manage"! Can't wait to see Wirthless front and centre some time tomorrow!

Conductor
16th Jan 2013, 06:32
Hope you are right about the back pay Keg, there's a few less palatable possibilities in that area....

Keg
16th Jan 2013, 07:51
Oh yes. Forgot about the SBL. I've got no doubt they'll be in given that both sides indicated 'no objection' to that one. Not a big deal to my thinking but then I've been advocating those since I first joined Qrewroom in the late '90s.

It'll be interesting to see what credence FWA give to the 'compromise' solutions put forward by AIPA on a number of occasions (and comprehensively rejected by Qantas each time). If FWA see that AIPA made a lot of effort to reach a compromise deal and QF just stonewalled then maybe AIPA may get a few unexpected victories. Or alternatively they may simply not give a stuff and go with QF's 'commercial imperative'.

I guess we'll know shortly after 1630hrs tomorrow.

OneDotLow
16th Jan 2013, 08:08
My concern with the compromise position is that it then became the AIPA Position in the eyes of FWA, thereby bringing the determined position closer to that put forward by QF.

I hope you are correct, Keg, re AIPA bring handed a few victories for being the 'good guys' wrt compromise.

Angle of Attack
16th Jan 2013, 08:12
I cant really see any big surprises in the FWA judgement, a few exemptions to CAO48 but everyone else has them, dont worry, be happy. :oh:

Jackneville
17th Jan 2013, 01:27
SBL, yes about time.

CAO48 variations, 3 crew DBX and LAX will make almost 50% of 380/744
s/o's redundant.........I hope this does not happen.

Conductor
17th Jan 2013, 03:39
Qantas has been carrying a surplus of several hundred pilots for a couple of years now and during that time has been managing it by burning annual leave and long service leave. One can only speculate as to what their next step is. Like the pilots, I suspect management is waiting to see where the lines are drawn for the next couple of years and then (unlike the pilots) will deploy the appropriate pre-prepared strategy. It won't carry the surplus forever.

Stalins ugly Brother
17th Jan 2013, 03:41
CAO48 variations, 3 crew DBX and LAX will make almost 50% of 380/744
s/o's redundant.........I hope this does not happen.

Won't happen, the variation doesn't provide that much scope. Emirates operate two Capt, two F/o's to Australia from Dxb and back under the equivalent of the JAA regs FTLs which are less restrictive than the CAO48 variation.
Reduction in s/o numbers will occur mainly by the aircraft operating dxb-Lhr-dxb two man crew, 30 in 7 won't be a problem until the dxb-syd(mel) sector home but that will have two s/o's so no problems.

With the amount of retirements forecast over the next 10 years in both SH and LH I think management will continue to manage surpluses with lwop instead of redundancies. :ok:

Disclaimer though is Joyce is unpredictable. :ugh:

Shark Patrol
17th Jan 2013, 03:48
"Unpredictable" is a very generous descriptor in my opinion (I can think of others), but I agree with your views on the SYD-DXB crewing requirements.

Looking at distance calculators online, the distance SYD-DXB is almost identical to the distance LAX-SYD, so I don't think even CAO48E could reduce the crew complement to less than four pilots.

maggot
17th Jan 2013, 03:54
Stalin, afaik, the 30/7 reprieve is only available if it's all heavy crewed. Spreading it over 8 day's may work tho

aveng
17th Jan 2013, 04:16
If FWA see that AIPA made a lot of effort to reach a compromise deal and QF just stonewalled then maybe AIPA may get a few unexpected victories.

Sorry Keg - but I think you've been sniffing fumes. FWA does not act fairly for employees.

I really do hope people dont lose their jobs. But... you have to look to what happened to engineering just after our eba was sorted, to get a pointer as to what is going to happen to you.

Stalins ugly Brother
17th Jan 2013, 04:34
I really do hope people dont lose their jobs. But... you have to look to what happened to engineering just after our eba was sorted, to get a pointer as to what is going to happen to you.

Probably the one major difference from the pilots situation and the engineers is the company keeps on harping on about less maintenance for these pretty new planes, hence less jobs. However, these planes still require two guys up the front no matter how advanced the planes are.

Taildragger67
17th Jan 2013, 04:46
FWA Decision (http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/pr533193.docx) - all 125 pages!

600ft-lb
17th Jan 2013, 05:03
We think that an appropriate balance is achieved through including in the workplace determination, three wage increases:

1. From the first pay period on or after 1 January 2012: 4.5%;

2. From the first pay period on or after 1 January 2013: 3.0%; and

3. From the first pay period on or after 1 January 2014: 3.0%.

No wage increase for all of 2011 ??

Ear Muffs
17th Jan 2013, 05:28
Shared Blank Lines?

dragon man
17th Jan 2013, 05:45
I think so but current PPL holders to get element 3A average overtime when they do one. Stand to be corrected very hard to work it out.

Capt Kremin
17th Jan 2013, 06:08
Yeah that is going to be a minefield.

Pilots didn't get much at all and the Company scored a 15 month pay freeze followed by a 4.5% initial pay rise. Apart from that their Honours didn't really seem to want to change the status quo in any meaningful way.

First read.. No CAO48E, but changes that AIPA already agreed to will be implemented such as SYD-PER returns.

FRMS will not over-ride agreed flight time arrangements. Pilots can be paxed on "Group aircraft" in preference to paying a competitor. No real changes to redundancy provisions.

Nothing really earth shattering. One wonders how both AIPA and the Company will now view this process.

OneDotLow
17th Jan 2013, 06:13
Qantas stonewalled negotiations for 2 years, in order to achieve that?!

Alan and his camp of merry men must be feeling a little deflated.

Well done to AIPA negotiators for having a significant number of the CWD positions accepted into the determination.

Keg
17th Jan 2013, 06:54
Stalin, afaik, the 30/7 reprieve is only available if it's all heavy crewed.

Didn't we cover this a couple of weeks back? You can go to 40/7 if the last flight is heavy crewed. None of the first 30 hours need be. You can go unlimited/7 if they're all heavy crewed. We'll be easily able to do four man to DXB. Then two man to LHR, slip, two man to DXB, then four man home.... particularly if it's an 8 day trip.

I agree ODL. A whole lot of argey bargey from QF for SFA. Playing around the edges in most respects.

Earmuffs, my reading is SBL are in. The element 3A for permanent PLHs is going to be a dog to administer! Of course, won't affect the 767 in a big way. It's probably a win for the junior A380 and 744 crew. They'll do less BL and therefore get more O/T (though none on their BL). The seniors will get average O/T on their blank line. I wonder how long it will be before one of them works out they can now bid BL, still get the element 3A, and do bugger all work. Lol. :D

maggot
17th Jan 2013, 07:17
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130117/pdf/42ch0kp7142hcl.pdf


thanks keg, wasn't aware that's how it worked. :ok:

Capt_SNAFU
17th Jan 2013, 07:18
* Pay changes with backpay as advised by earlier posters.
* No change to the current planning divisors used by the Company.
* The Company's request for 112 day Pattern Protection recovery denied - assignment capability increased from 2 to 3 as a compromise (if I read it correctly).
* Shared Blank Lines to be adopted with payment of average overtime to current permanent patter line holders.
* Open time priorities to be in accordance with the AIPA CWD.
* Flight Time Limitations to be in accordance with the AIPA CWD.
* The Company's B Scale claim deferred for future consultation.
* The B787 pay scale deferred for future consultation.
* Allowances in Australian ports to be paid via payroll retrospectively.
* "Scope" clause ("Livery Clause") rejected.
* AIPA's proposed "Group Mobility Scheme" rejected.
* Redundancy provisions to be in accordance with the CWD.
* Duty travel acceptable in Group aircraft before being required to book with other carriers.
* First class duty travel requirements remain unchanged.
* AIPA's staff travel claims rejected - staff travel remains as is.
* Little change to the currnet obligations for consultation between AIPA and the Company.

maggotdriver
17th Jan 2013, 07:21
Ouch! QANTAS has seriously missed in their strategic planning! They have been measured, they have been weighed and the judges (the REAL smartest guys in the room) have found them wanting! Oh! What a web we do weave , when we first practise to deceive!:ok:

dragon man
17th Jan 2013, 07:23
I actually think you will find that junior PPL holders who dont get much if any otime will now bid for a BL and get a pay rise. Does a present FO who is permanent today who becomes a rotating Captain therfore keep his status of element 3A on a blank line. My reading is yes. Its a dogs breakfast and i think will cost QF big money. Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of pr*ks. Redundancy notification reduced i think to 3 months and no more city transport. Not much to worry about i think.

Capt_SNAFU
17th Jan 2013, 08:03
No scope clause is the biggest win for the company. It is a big one at that.

Tuner 2
17th Jan 2013, 08:17
And AJ paid how much to avoid negotiating one? 100 million+? Because he apparently thought the PIA would be ordered to cease within a few hours instead of 2 days? It will take a many years of 'savings' of not having a scope clause to make up for the cost of the grounding and threatended lock out. The folly of it all.

Jetsbest
17th Jan 2013, 09:04
I view the "no scope" as more of a "non-loss" for QF; AIPA has never had a scope clause so it was theirs to win if possible, but alas....

Qantas has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to resist even commonsense and 'future-proof' pilot undertakings tied to other start-up companies. Just ask anyone who was on AIPA's committee when James Strong was CEO and S/H (ie 737 pilots) were facing comparisons with the new airline, Virgin Blue. A type of scope was proposed, which would tie AIPA's 737 pay rates to that of any future competitor.... AS LONG AS QF pilots got the future QF-tailed flying. Qantas declined. :rolleyes: It matters that much to them. Jetconnect followed within a few years.

I don't know the answer, but I'm still nonplussed by the incredible closed-mindedness; pilots are not their enemy!

BaronB
17th Jan 2013, 09:25
Not so sure about a strategic loss: Qantas shutdown: CEO Alan Joyce's statement in full - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-shutdown-ceo-alan-joyce-s-statement-in-full)

Stalins ugly Brother
17th Jan 2013, 09:26
All in all, no real significant change. Well done AIPA negotiators.

Oh, I guess there is one small change, Qantas is now $200mill lighter in the pocket due to the Irish lunatics small man tantrum, well done Alan! :ugh:

I'm sure the cost for your poor judgement will be deducted from your bonus. :{

Angle of Attack
17th Jan 2013, 10:46
As I said a couple of days ago, no real surprises, in fact I am slightly surprised there were not more CAO48 exemptions, just a few fiddly ones. In general it keeps the status quo, although seems a tad expensive for QF management to basically not change anything, oh well they have been financially inept for quite a few years anyway, nothing changes...

DirectAnywhere
17th Jan 2013, 17:56
For mine the only real win out of this for management is the certainty to go ahead and implement whatever their plans are from this point forward in the knowledge that the LHPs can't engage in industrial action for at least the next two years.

The pay freeze is equivalent to about 6 months - the 4.5% being payable from Jan 2012. (EBA7v expired December 2010).

FWC has basically said to both parties - go away and talk again before December 2014 and try and get your s:mad:t together.

They have avoided any real nasties as it seems unlikely they wanted to really touch FTLs etc. - perhaps because they were worried about imposing fatiguing requirements on pilots and any subsequent coronial inquest pointing the finger.

Therefore, the question that must be asked by shareholders (yoo hoo you lot - time to wake up), is whether this determination was worth its publically declared $200 million plus cost.

The following paragraph, although somewhat lengthy, sums up the conservative approach taken by FWC in their determination and provides context for their expectations of both parties as they approach negotiations in about 18 months.

Given the extensive range of matters at issue, their complexity and breadth and the context of a history of terms and conditions agreed between Qantas and AIPA, we have taken a cautious and measured approach to imposing changed terms and conditions within the workplace determination, particularly where changes proposed will not have an immediate effect or relevant circumstances might change in the immediate future. The nature of the matters at issue and the common challenges posed by the commercial environment in which Qantas and its pilots operate also commend themselves to negotiated agreement, consistent with the emphasis upon enterprise-level collective bargaining in the Act and the requirement, in s.275(h) of the Act, to take into account “incentives to continue collective bargaining at a later time” in making a workplace determination.

Hot n Heavy
17th Jan 2013, 20:11
What? A victory for the pilots? Hardly. Anyone remember why we wore the red ties? Not to get this. We could have negotiated better than this. This total repudiation of AIPA is a further step towards LH irrelevance and a victory as JW says for the QF strategy.

PS. And anyone who thinks element 3A will be transferable and still be here in five years is dreamin!:zzz:

maggotdriver
17th Jan 2013, 21:27
Considering the cost of the tantrum to try and get their own way, only to be told to grow up, sit down and sort it in good faith, I for one, think there is major egg on their collective faces. I would call that a win.:D

A Comfy Chair
17th Jan 2013, 21:59
Very important direction taken by FWA here - and one workers in most industries can be relieved about.

If FWA had accepted much of Qantas' argument, there would have been a wholesale change in industrial tactics from managements in many companies. Don't even bother to negotiate, FWA will be prepared to make changes for us.

Fortunately FWA have sent the message that they will make small changes to streamline things, but won't make large fundamental changes to contracts. They'll simply give them a contract to work with until they can negotiate another one.

Well done FWA - a logical, calm decision that will discourage the dreadful tactics used by Joyce from being used again in other industries.

Shark Patrol
17th Jan 2013, 22:07
Federal election due later this year. Wonder how long the FWC will last under a Federal Coalition government? Could well be a VERY different bargaining environment next time around (only around 18 months away)!

Capt Kremin
17th Jan 2013, 23:47
This ruling confirms my private belief that FWA would not touch FTL's as they are far out of their area of expertise. The FRMS ruling has the same effect.

The message from FWA, as others have stated is clear, don't go down this route expecting far reaching changes. Sort it out yourselves.

Qantas management achieved it's aim of stopping the "slow burn". They must count that against the ongoing cost of the shutdown and lockout in terms of public cynicism and employee disengagement.

In the short term it is probably a win but, typical of that short-termism we see that it leaves them with no wiggle room for the looming next negotiation. By their actions they have cemented into the public consciousness that a threat of industrial action at Qantas means a shutdown. The Qantas unions would have taken note.

Going to FWA holds no terrors for the unions now; the judgements given are blancmange and fall remarkably short of the industrial Armageddon that was feared.

To my mind the message for Qantas is, you probably won this battle but the war will go on unless you learn to value your employees.

Just Relaxin
18th Jan 2013, 00:07
Sandy Palms

I hope you are not in charge of doing any maths on board an a/c.

A simple example:
A pilot on $100,000 pa gets a pay rise of 3% on 1/1/2011 with a further increase of 3% on 1/1/2012 with the back pay to be paid on 1/1/2013. Even ignoring compounding the back pay would be $9,000.

Now the same pilot gets a 4.5% pay rise on the 1/1/2012 to cover the same period from 1/1/2011 to 1/1/2013. The back pay on 1/1/2013 is $4,500.
Surprisingly Qantas has exactly halved their back pay liability by gaining a pay freeze of 12 months plus only then giving 4.5% not 6%. The flow on effects of this grow exponentially the longer the pilot has a career ie the younger he is. This is a financial catastrophe for the pilot(s) and an enormous win for Qantas.

They also got away with a 6 month pay freeze in EBA7 Rollover with the 2010 pay rise delayed to July of that year. I will let you do the maths if the $100,000 above is multiplied by some factor in the real world!

virginexcess
18th Jan 2013, 00:35
The sad message here is that we all need to hope that the labour government isreturned at the next election. There would not have been as good an outcome if the coalition were in power.

AnQrKa
18th Jan 2013, 00:51
"This is a financial catastrophe for the pilot(s)"

Get a grip!!!!

ALAEA Fed Sec
18th Jan 2013, 00:53
The Aviation expert has called it - Pilots lose to Qantas.

Pilots lose to Qantas - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15873034/pilots-lose-to-qantas/)


The backpay loss is correctly calculated by Just Relaxin when comparing it to a typical 3% outcome. If memory serves me correctly though the AIPA claim was only for 2.5% pa.

The sad message here is that we all need to hope that the labour government isreturned at the next election. There would not have been as good an outcome if the coalition were in power.

It was Labor who created the law that allowed them to ground the fleet and have the Govt intervene. It was Labor who decided to intervene. It was Labor who sought in their FWA application to have all pia stopped (as opposed to only having the Qantas lockout/grounding stopped). Labor worked hand in fist with Qantas to screw all of us by preventing us securing greater job security clauses.

The LAME 2008 dispute was run under Johnies laws and we never encountered such an issue. I will not be voting Labor.

caneworm
18th Jan 2013, 01:00
* Allowances in Australian ports to be paid via payroll retrospectively.

Don't think this will be received too well.
Would not allowances paid by EFT into a nominated a/c on day one of the trip be better?

The Full Monty
18th Jan 2013, 02:20
"The hard part about playing 'chicken' is knowing when to flinch" :ouch:

Quote from actor Scott Glenn (playing Captain Bart Mancuso) in The Hunt for Red October.

Hot and Heavy, your right about negotiating a better deal - the offer Qantas made to AIPA on the last day of the 21 day compulsory conciliation (which AIPA walked away from as our negotiators were instructed by COM not move from their "final position") was much better for pilots than this decision. :ugh:

That QF offer document was floating around some AIPA folk for a while (although that 21 day period was supposed to be confidential). I'm sure its confidential now!

theheadmaster
18th Jan 2013, 02:45
Monty, perhaps you can explain why you feel the QF offer was better? What did it contain?

Tuner 2
18th Jan 2013, 03:22
The Full Monty,

In what way was the offer better? A little more pay than this determination? I don't think pay was ever the big issue here.

Amazing how quickly some people turn into Monday morning quarterbacks :ugh:

Just Relaxin
18th Jan 2013, 03:32
rmcdonal


You’re worse at maths than Sandy Palms

Sloooowwwly:

$100,000 at 3% for all of 2011 is $3000. Then you also get another $3000 in 2012 as you still have the 3% increase. Total $6000. The 3% is not a one off it’s in your pay forever.

Then you get another $3000 in 2012 for the second 3% increase of 1/1/2012. Total $9000.

Where did you guys go to school?!

Transition Layer
18th Jan 2013, 03:33
Pilots lose to Qantas

Geoffrey Thomas you are a joke! The grounding of the airline cost far more than any "win" Qantas may have achieved.

Neither side "won" this battle, it will drag out some more and Qantas will stall negotiations again, just as they are now doing with the SH Agreement.

theheadmaster
18th Jan 2013, 03:35
3% off $100k is paid out over the year, so 2011-2102 =$3000 and 2012-2013 =$3000, total $6000 not $9000. You have included 2013-14 which hasn't happened yet.

$100K. 3%. at 1 Jan 2011.
1 Jan 2011 to 1 Jan 2012 = $3K
1 Jan 2012 to 1 Jan 2013 = $3K
= $6K backpay on first 3%
THEN 3% at 1 Jan 2012
1 Jan 2012 to 1 Jan 2013 = $3K on second 3% increase.

Total, not accounting for compounding effect = $9K.

What was determined, less compounding effect:
4.5% at 1 Jan 2012
Total backpay 1 Jan 2011 to 1 Jan 2013 = $4.5K

The simple addition (ie non-compounding) wage increase from 1 Jan 2011 to 1 Jan 2014 would be 12% under what was asked by AIPA (ie 3% from 1 Jan 2011), what was achieved was 10.5%.

Note that the last pay increase under the previous EBA was 3% at 1 Jul 2010, so another 3% 6 months later was not a realistic expectation. QF wanted no back pay at all. Overall, I don't think what was awarded was unreasonable. Neither party has been rewarded for not coming to a timely agreement.

The big winner (if Qantas ever hires again) is no B scale for new entrants.

Captain Gidday
18th Jan 2013, 04:09
The big winner (if Qantas ever hires again) is no B scale for new entrants.
Oh yeah, there's a B scale, all right. It's just that it's located in all the other constituent companies in the Qantas Group!

ruprecht
18th Jan 2013, 04:11
"This is a financial catastrophe for the pilot(s)"

Get a grip!!!!

+1

This may be a lot of things, but "catastrophe" is not one of them....:rolleyes:

Keg
18th Jan 2013, 05:23
WRT bacpay, our last pay rise was Jul 10. So whilst we may have liked to have received 3% from 1 Jan 11, that was always unlikely. I'd always worked on the probability of 3% from 1 Jul 11 and then another 3% 1 Jul 12. That would have lead to back pay of $6K using the figures above- 12 months of 3% and 6 months of 6%- and a pay rise due in Jul this year. Instead we've got $4.5K back pay but a pay rate now 1.5% higher than I expected but that won't change until Jan next year when it will be 10.5%.

So we've lost 6 months back pay I reckon and a 6 month pay freeze.

As with Ruprecht and AnQrka, this hardly constitutes a financial 'disaster' let alone a 'catastrophe'.

Keg
18th Jan 2013, 05:26
PS: Keep in mind the previous EBA had an additional pay rise hidden beind the 'headline rate' when the classic was retired. I think it was 3% or so. It's how we managed to get our pay rises set to mid year on the last EBA.

DirectAnywhere
18th Jan 2013, 06:26
Given annual CPI was 2% in the Sept quarter it's not a bad deal at the moment.

virginexcess
18th Jan 2013, 07:08
It was Labor who created the law that allowed them to ground the fleet and have the Govt intervene. It was Labor who decided to intervene. It was Labor who sought in their FWA application to have all pia stopped (as opposed to only having the Qantas lockout/grounding stopped). Labor worked hand in fist with Qantas to screw all of us by preventing us securing greater job security clauses.

Agreed, and I strongly suspect it would have been a lot worse under a coalition government.

Twin Beech
18th Jan 2013, 07:16
The cost of living has increased much more than that, especially in the tax brackets suffered to one degree or another by most pilots. Loss of the private health cover rebate, carbon tax, reduced super contribution, novated leases being kneecapped, etc.

Energy, school fees, psychological counseling after every Joyce pronouncment...these things all add up.

Mstr Caution
18th Jan 2013, 07:30
Don't forget pilots scored big time with the $100 travel voucher in August 2012 :yuk:


Haven't read the determination in full, but did pilots get a win on the facials & preflight massages. :E

Ken Borough
18th Jan 2013, 07:32
And some are banging on about 'loss' of back pay. Pity about the poor shareholders who've not only suffered a pay freeze but also a significant reduction in the value of their asset. At least you are being well paid: get a grip and be thankful.

Standing by for incoming!

nitpicker330
18th Jan 2013, 07:42
And who's fault is that Ken?

You're blaming the workers?????????

DH.:D

Twin Beech
18th Jan 2013, 07:43
The coalition was defeated in 07 on the back of the Work Choices fiasco; I doubt that they would have been eager to revisit draconian labour laws. Even the appearance of anti-worker legislation would have been electoral poison. The assertion that things would have been worse with a different government is not supported by fact or fear.

I consider myself an independent voter. The Liberals are the least smelly turd of the bunch, but still sewage.

Ken Borough
18th Jan 2013, 07:51
NP330

Sorry but please point me to where in my post did I blame 'The Workers' for the plight of QF shareholders.

Nunc
18th Jan 2013, 07:54
Hey Ken, are these the same shareholders who voted Joyce and the board massive pay rises and set a nice low bar for future bonus's etc. Maybe some others should get a grip (ie share holders especially the instituitions)about an outcome that has cost QANTAS (read share holders) hundreds of millions of dollars and through their IR policy achieved an outcome in FWA that was stuff all. :ugh:

angryrat
18th Jan 2013, 08:13
Shareholders got exactly what they voted for :E

Those of us who bought shares after the grounding got a 50% backpay :E

Angle of Attack
18th Jan 2013, 09:34
I agree the shareholders voted for this direction, and their own backing of Joyce has destroyed their own shares value, pretty simple really. Keep the workforce out of it this is management that has been endorsed by the shareholders, which has smashed the share price. Another reason never to put your money in airline shares....

Marcellus
18th Jan 2013, 10:08
Compare the pair:

Pilot A negotiates a 3% p/a increase inline with Qantas corporate policy.

Pilot B submits to an arbitration. Skips a pay rise in 2011 and is paid 4.5% in 2012 then 3% thereafter - effectively a 6 month pay freeze.

YR__ Pilot A Pay__Pilot B Pay__Difference___Compounding Difference

2010__$200,000___$200,000____$0__________$0
2011__$206,000___$200,000____$6,000______$6,000
2012__$212,180___$209,000____$3,180______$9,180
2013__$218,545___$215,270____$3,275______$12,455
2014__$225,102___$221,728____$3,374______$15,829
2015__$231,855___$228,380____$3,475______$19,304
2016__$238,810___$235,231____$3,579______$22,883
2017__$245,975___$242,288____$3,686______$26,570
2018__$253,354___$249,557____$3,797______$30,367
2019__$260,955___$257,044____$3,911______$34,278
2020__$268,783___$264,755____$4,028______$38,306
2021__$276,847___$272,698____$4,149______$42,455
2022__$285,152___$280,879____$4,274______$46,729
2023__$293,707___$289,305____$4,402______$51,131

From, little things, big things, grow.


Every year you are worse off, and that amount only compounds. That is the miracle or curse of compound interest – depending on which side of the equation you are on. Ten years from now, the average QF pilot is $51,131 worse off.

Derfred
18th Jan 2013, 10:36
Your figures don't take into account the timing of the payrises. From what I see, there has been no pay freeze at all compared to a 3% benchmark. The only thing missing is a little bit of backpay. That does not compound.

theheadmaster
18th Jan 2013, 10:50
Marcellus,

Your point of compounding interest is true, however, the assumption

Pilot A negotiates a 3% p/a increase inline with Qantas corporate policy is a very big IF. QF is well aware of the effects of compounding interest and has a track record of delaying pay increases and stalling negotiations.

What is also worth noting is what the cost would be if some of QF's bigger ticket asks had been agreed to.

I believe that the backpay determination was meant to say to both employers and employees that there is no advantage to stonewalling for a determination for backpay.

ALAEA Fed Sec
18th Jan 2013, 10:51
Marcellus - Thnx for the work you have put in to this. It is the real way to measure things. I was thinking the same way however something has been pointed out in the thread that you appear not to have taken in to account.

The 3% wage rise was not due until July 11. So if 4.5% is paid in Jan 12, it may have been paid a little later but it is not a wage freeze because the increase ultimately went in (the 1.5 for 6 months).

Be interesting if you added a mid point in the chart. I reckon the loss is bugger all. Certainly it wouldn't cover the 178mill the dispute cost them.

Bazzamundi
18th Jan 2013, 11:06
Big picture guys. What was the fight about to start with? The right to secure our flying as opposed to it being farmed out to the lowest bidders? As it had been under our contract for the last few years?

So the contract stays the same. The endless undercutting and rise of Jetstar, to be followed by QF link, and any other entity they dream will accelerate. Not to mention the big middle eastern shark looming with the scent of blood and our managers keenly feeding their own to it. Why? Because what can we do about it now? Repeat this dose in 2 years? Contract stays the same, and here people think they have had a big win when all they have done is ensure things continue down the same path.

I see it sadly as QF spending a couple of hundred million in order to break up the group and pit us all against each other. Will that be money well spent? Only time will tell.

I also think the next 6 months will reveal a lot. I wonder where QF international will be sitting in 12 months from now? It will get messy, and we are now bound by our contract to cop it royal, with nothing we can do.

As Fed Sec will point out, signing the deal does not end the pain. For some it is only the beginning.

ALAEA Fed Sec
18th Jan 2013, 11:19
Agreed, and I strongly suspect it would have been a lot worse under a coalition government.

I'm not sure if it could have been worse under them. They had no law to intervene the way Lance Gillard did. Maybe they could have used the "National interest" section. Either way it would have been off to FWA. The Govt. of the day can't really tell the Commissioners to order an EBA to be weighted either way. I reckon FWA got your one about right. They gave nothing to either party apart from what appears to be the normal 3% pa rises.

As Fed Sec will point out, signing the deal does not end the pain. For some it is only the beginning.

As I said, what we really had taken from us by the government was opportunity. Another one however will always arise.

Bazzamundi
18th Jan 2013, 11:31
Another opportunity will arise, for yourselves and us hopefully, but until that opportunity will come more pain.

After your deal was signed off, the pain has stepped up for some. Like it will for us unfortunately.

Let's hope the opportunity happens soon. For the shorthaul people, some of whom have been quite happy sitting on the side watching it all unfold thinking they are safe, what will come of your EBA now?

Ours lost some conditions, got a basic payrise, and has allowed those that want to continue to carve us up. At the same time as some here treat it as a win.

maggot
18th Jan 2013, 12:35
Bazza, I agree with your sentiment but think its not peeps celebrating a big win rather that given the gloom & doom kicked around by many makes it seem kinda positive compared to that...

Derfred
18th Jan 2013, 14:05
For the shorthaul people, some of whom have been quite happy sitting on the side watching it all unfold thinking they are safe, what will come of your EBA now?

Some of whom? Of whom are you speaking?

Beg Tibs
18th Jan 2013, 17:01
Is that the same short haul people who , when JQ arrived , tried to get the union involved only to be told that "it'll never happen don't worry about it ? " SH drivers are well versed in the undercuttings , maybe now they might get some help from the mother ship drivers !

Flugbegleiter
18th Jan 2013, 19:37
And some are banging on about 'loss' of back pay. Pity about the poor shareholders who've not only suffered a pay freeze but also a significant reduction in the value of their asset. At least you are being well paid: get a grip and be thankful.

Shareholders are simply gamblers. The whole stockmarket is a massive casino. DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!!

Nigel747
18th Jan 2013, 19:43
".......well versed in the undercuttings" you say.
Well I agree 100%. SH are, after all, the original under cutters.

Ultergra
18th Jan 2013, 22:02
What's with all these attacks on the SH crew all of a sudden?

Pull your head in guys, no one wants to hear your rambling. We know the SH EBA is due, lets all hope for a positive outcome (Bazza).

And as some have said, what's with all the focus on money? I thought the fight was about much more than that?!?!

Twin Beech
18th Jan 2013, 22:13
".......well versed in the undercuttings" you say.
Well I agree 100%. SH are, after all, the original under cutters.

Another sphincter heard from...

Conductor
18th Jan 2013, 22:14
Incredible! Let's stop knifing each other and focus on the next incoming salvo. :ugh:

LookinDown
19th Jan 2013, 09:35
The timing of certain posts is fascinating.
I'm not suggesting a troll at work but something more sinister.
Its worth asking yourself....what does a pilot poster have to gain by such a provocative statement? The answer of course is nothing.
The next obvious question then is who does have something to gain by trying to induce friction?
LD

theheadmaster
19th Jan 2013, 10:29
LookinDown, all you have to do is look at the airport body scanner thread to see that just because someone is a pilot, it does not necessarily follow that they will act rationally. ;)

Coppabella
19th Jan 2013, 20:07
FWA has taken the middle ground in its determination and there have been gains and losses for both Qantas and the AIPA.
Qantas LH pilots have remained the most expensive and inefficient in the our fair country.
In my view with the present management team:ugh: the LH pilots will be further marginalised.

Keg
19th Jan 2013, 22:38
Yes, that was one of the points of discussion at the moon bar last night. It still does nothing to address the underlying issues in our award. Perhaps Qantas don't care because it doesn't change their long term strategy.

The outcome of this particular battle is even but we may still lose the war.

dragon man
20th Jan 2013, 00:35
The only problem with the above is that in negotations prior to FWA Qantas were offered a 3 year wage freeze, plus just about anything else that they wanted , in return for job security/career promotion. So having sold our backsides to them they would then turn around and do us without the astroglide. They thought FWA would do the dirty work for them but it didnt happen that way, and yes the problem is that we are no further along in fixing the parts of the contract that i would hope most of us realise are long past there use by date.

ruprecht
20th Jan 2013, 02:15
SandyPalms,

That thread is still there if you care to look for it. Somewhere around April 2011 should suffice.

From where I sit, plenty of guys on the 380 are happy to vote for change. Bring on squirrel-caging -- that'll clear the decks of the ark somewhat...:E

ruprecht.

LeadSled
20th Jan 2013, 07:15
Folks,
The way I read the judgement, the way is open for Qantas to crew QF branded aircraft, that would otherwise have been flown by mainline crews, by contract pilots.
This is particularly relevant re. the B787, if Qantas actually ever get any with a red tail.
Tootle pip!!

maggot
20th Jan 2013, 09:00
How so, as opposed to before?

Tankengine
20th Jan 2013, 09:20
Sandy,
What exactly is the ARC?:confused:

I am a QF Pilot.:hmm:

Tankengine
20th Jan 2013, 09:58
Ahh, I thought it was some new form of ARG!:E

Wedcue
20th Jan 2013, 10:59
Qantas were trying for a 'B' scale in the EBA..

That's a pretty good indication of 'company intentions' if I have ever seen one. Why would they even remotely consider the idea if Qantas mainline was dead and buried.

B scale: it's under cutting in everyones books, but surely the introduction of a 'B' scale has to be a much better concept than being totally undercut buy a completely separate AOC (Qantaslink, Network, Jetstar). The seniority system at Qantas ensures they start at the bottom and it will keep all current pilots flying. You are in fact gaining this illusive 'job security' by having a B scale.

The good ole days are gone, it's time to start thinking like a business if you want to keep this dream alive. Who are we to stop someone signing up to a B scale rate. It's better that they are on our side and have AJ and co expand us, than some offshoot of QF and have them rebrand it, all because we wouldn't embrace change.

Vote 1, B Scale.

What The
20th Jan 2013, 12:21
My back would be very worried in a trench with you. What a load of crap.

Mstr Caution
20th Jan 2013, 12:26
Wedcue,

Why stop at a B scale?

Even if AIPA were to offer Joyce a C scale, he'll always be looking for a cheaper option.

theheadmaster
20th Jan 2013, 14:05
Qantas were trying for a 'B' scale in the EBA..

That's a pretty good indication of 'company intentions' if I have ever seen one. Why would they even remotely consider the idea if Qantas mainline was dead and buried.

B scale: it's under cutting in everyones books, but surely the introduction of a 'B' scale has to be a much better concept than being totally undercut buy a completely separate AOC (Qantaslink, Network, Jetstar). The seniority system at Qantas ensures they start at the bottom and it will keep all current pilots flying. You are in fact gaining this illusive 'job security' by having a B scale.

The good ole days are gone, it's time to start thinking like a business if you want to keep this dream alive. Who are we to stop someone signing up to a B scale rate. It's better that they are on our side and have AJ and co expand us, than some offshoot of QF and have them rebrand it, all because we wouldn't embrace change.

Vote 1, B Scale.

Reductio ad absurdum - the only way to guarantee job security is to work for free, or to go even further, pay to work... :ugh:

Keg
20th Jan 2013, 20:43
Not necessarily the case. There would be a $$$ amount that would be considered a win/ win and fit the business case for ongoing sustainability and expansion.

WorthWhat
20th Jan 2013, 20:58
time to start thinking like a business if you want to keep this dream alive
Actually, there is another way - it’s called Board Representation.

The Germans’ see having Employees on Boards as a way to build more capable companies and Gina Rinehart/Mark Carnegie are at it in Australia simple because they think they can do things better.

If the Qantas Workforce could everget its head around sacrificing salary for equity, they too, could exercise far reaching strategic influence, albeit not directly industrial.
Regretfully this kind of activity is not generally popular in Australia with the Union Movement, which is kind of strange, given that Unions wield significant influence in our Superannuation Arena.

The Yanks do it, the Brits do it, but not Down under.
Opportunity knocks!

Jack Ranga
20th Jan 2013, 21:02
Australia, worlds best practice mate, we do EVERYTHING better here mate. We've got the regulations, laws & redtape to prove it :ok:

Taildragger67
21st Jan 2013, 04:55
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-FWA-Fair-Work-Jetstar-Emirates-pd20130121-464M5?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot (Business Spectator)

Weren't "the pilots" (and Sen X?) seeking a forensic analysis of possible cost-shifting well before the Emirates alliance was announced?

It does, however, end the threat that the pilots could have extended the coverage of terms and conditions that are far more generous than most of Qantas’ competitors and worsened the already parlous position those operations are in. (emphasis added)

Are they?

hotnhigh
21st Jan 2013, 05:33
From the piece...

Any rational person looking at the competitive dynamics and cost relativities in international aviation and how they impact on Qantas could only conclude that without drastic change Qantas’ international business is unviable and the odds against a successful salvage operation are daunting.

It's a shame that people like Stephen Bartholomeusz don't have the rationale to ask the obvious questions of AIPA or the good senator if he is so concerned by their apparent line of questioning or tactics used.

Angle of Attack
21st Jan 2013, 07:51
Ill go out on a limb and say put the QF Long-haul award on Stick Hours not duty then they will match pretty much every single other international airline in the world. The dinosaurs wont accept it but its that or wither on the vine. Give a decent minimum keep the overtime, night credits etc then it will work. Its not fing rocket science. You will get a significant hourly pay rise for the change too, probably in the order of 20%, or die, simple mathematics really..

maggot
21st Jan 2013, 08:26
.... so when the aus peso returns to its norm, pre mining boom, how does the salary look then? The aud makes us loom expensive and you can't compare things too simply, unless it suits your agenda... :suspect:

Romulus
21st Jan 2013, 08:40
.... so when the aus peso returns to its norm, pre mining boom, how does the salary look then? The aud makes us loom expensive and you can't compare things too simply, unless it suits your agenda...

Problem is we have to survive until it resets. Given certain analysts are talking about AUD1 reaching USD1.25 that's a serious world of pain where everything gets destroyed in a capital flight overseas to purchase goods whilst destroying industry in country.

I like cheap overseas goods as much as the next person but unless we can get the Aus$ back down to US70c or so we're in for a very tough near future...

The The
21st Jan 2013, 08:52
Quote:
Any rational person looking at the competitive dynamics and cost relativities in international aviation and how they impact on Qantas could only conclude that without drastic change Qantas’ international business is unviable and the odds against a successful salvage operation are daunting.


Could he be talking about management salaries?

Highest airline executive salaries in the world? Highest paid Board of Directors of any airline in the world? Highest management to employee/airframe ratio of any airline in the world? More CEO's than any airline in the world? More management consultants than any best practice company in the world?

How about management practices?

The only airline to actively pursue a strategy of a low margin subsidiary canibalising the high margin parent? Poor fleet choice? Ageing fleet? Complex fleet mix? One of the worst employee engagement performance records ever, no probably THE worst? Employee underutilisation, woeful employee productivity management? Dismal industrial relations performance? Utter contempt towards passengers, woeful public appearance skills, poor marketing? Declining safety record, declining earnings, declining route network, decline service rankings, declining brand management/reputation, historical low share price.........

ejectx3
21st Jan 2013, 09:01
I have never read it in such a succinct paragraph...


The only airline to actively pursue a strategy of a low margin subsidiary canibalising the high margin parent? Poor fleet choice? Ageing fleet? Complex fleet mix? One of the worst employee engagement performance records ever, no probably THE worst? Employee underutilisation, woeful employee productivity management? Dismal industrial relations performance? Utter contempt towards passengers, woeful public appearance skills, poor marketing? Declining safety record, declining earnings, declining route network, decline service rankings, declining brand management/reputation, historical low share price.........

Captain Gidday
21st Jan 2013, 09:12
Oh yes you have! = "it's stuffed". :uhoh:

V-Jet
21st Jan 2013, 10:29
I saw interesting parallels with this story:

7.30 - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3673715.htm)

FWIW.

Not sure the actual story posted, it's 'Hastie Group (collapse)'. Classic story of a business expanding by chasing low yield work and telling itself only good news. Maybe a bit of a long bow to draw but I thought it told a similar story to the leprechaun's fabled gold stealing actiivities:)

OneDotLow
21st Jan 2013, 17:49
Angle of Attack said :
Ill go out on a limb and say put the QF Long-haul award on Stick Hours not duty then they will match pretty much every single other international airline in the world.

What a ill informed statement! The QF Long Haul Agreement is based on a stick hours formula, hence a B767 driver gets paid ~5:30hrs for a 10:30hr day.

The reality is that is was a negotiated agreement until last Thursday. Qantas decided they were not happy with what they had previously signed off on at the same time as AIPA Pilots were frustrated about their job security and consequently QF thought they could get FWA to do their dirty work.

Last time I checked with my mates o/s, as an 11yr QF pilot (10 as an FO) I'm on similar money to them after tax, so your statement about other airlines doesn't hold water.

The dinosaurs wont accept it but its that or wither on the vine.
A little unnecessary. The vast majority of pilots at QF realise that there are productivity gains which should be negotiated. But that's just it... if QF want it, they'll need to actually negotiate next time.

Offchocks
21st Jan 2013, 19:51
The vast majority of pilots at QF realise that there are productivity gains which should be negotiated. But that's just it... if QF want it, they'll need to actually negotiate next time.

And there lies the problem, the company has not really wanted to negotiate but only dictate. I can't see them changing, if they did they might be surprised with the results!

maggot
21st Jan 2013, 23:47
Problem is we have to survive until it resets. Given certain analysts are talking about AUD1 reaching USD1.25 that's a serious world of pain where everything gets destroyed in a capital flight overseas to purchase goods whilst destroying industry in country.

I like cheap overseas goods as much as the next person but unless we can get the Aus$ back down to US70c or so we're in for a very tough near future...

I don't disagree with you, however, my point is far more simple. When doing a direct comparison with other (overseas) airlines pay, relative to the 'normal' dollar mark, we 'look' expensive - I know there's more to it but that's not how a newspaper looks at it, they'd just compare an apple with an orange. Just in the last 5 years our salary has (looked as though) gone up 50% in a direct apple/orange comparison. Doesn't reflect reality but looks bad and can/is used as PR against us.

Twin Beech
22nd Jan 2013, 03:40
...because each country is different in fundamental ways. Our cost of living in Australia is grossly higher than in most other countries, as is our income tax rate, hence the need for high wages.

When the AUD was .50 USD we looked like a third world bargain. Now we don't. Swings and roundabouts and other cliches describing ebb and flow.

You will not have missed last week's news that Australia is now the most expensive tourist destination in the world. High wages, high exchange rates will be with us for a very long time.

Foreign governments (Euro, Japan, USA) are engaged in a currency war. As long as they keep printing money under the guise of quantitive easing our AUD will continue to increase in relative value. We are already repeating the Dutch disease of the sixties. Soon most aspects of Australia (exports, tourism, etc) will be too expensive for the rest of the world.

But given the price of everything that I buy is much higher here than elsewhere I must insist on retaining a higher than average salary to pay for it.

maggot
22nd Jan 2013, 03:46
Wen the AUD was .50 USD we looked like a third world bargain. Now we don't

that's kinda my point...
how it 'looks', not a complex assessment of the economics of it

Livs Hairdresser
22nd Jan 2013, 05:16
Geez, you blokes would never make airline CEOs.

When the $AUD is 1.05, staff wages aren't competitive - staff need to take a pay cut.

When the $AUD is 0.50, whilst staff wages are competitive the price of fuel is killing us - staff need to take a pay cut. On the other hand, due to the low AUD we need to increase the CEO remuneration package to make sure we attract the best possible candidates in the global market. You wouldn't want to end up with any dunces running the company.:rolleyes:

Then if the AUD goes back up to 1.05 CEOs can take a 'pay cut' by making part of their package a 'performance' bonus ie performance = waking up with a pulse.

C'mon guys, it's not rocket science.

PS when I said "you would never make an airline CEO" it was a compliment

V-Jet
22nd Jan 2013, 09:31
Liv,
The CEO is an idiot. He (term used advisedly) has never run so much as a school raffle off his own bat. QANTAS has suffered under a standard of management that I could confidently expect a London Bus Driver to comfortably exceed. Currency games are played by mugs. What any employee expects (and I would suggest the market 'should' require) is actual leadership, intelligence and above all some basic skills in the job they are paid millions to do. And if you think they have any skills in that area 'whatsoever' then clearly you are as clueless as they. Currency has a part to play (and I thought it particularly important when the clown shut the doors talking about pay rates) but it is a symptom of a much larger malaise. The Emporer has no clothes. I doubt he even knows what a sewing machine is, let alone an aircraft galley...

maggot
22nd Jan 2013, 09:51
:)



.........

Angle of Attack
22nd Jan 2013, 10:18
What a ill informed statement! The QF Long Haul Agreement is based on a stick hours formula, hence a B767 driver gets paid ~5:30hrs for a 10:30hr day.

Yes i agree but if the longhaul pilot does a 4 hour duty SYD-CBR return do they get stick hours or 5.30 credit? There in itself is the problem. They should get 1.50 credit as every other airline does. No point going on about a 10.30 duty for 5.30 credit, that is an extreme example , if you factor in the higher hourly rate you actually make more in shorthaul compared to the 767. The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

maggot
22nd Jan 2013, 10:21
Incentive for the company to ensure they plan us efficiently is important

What The
22nd Jan 2013, 11:09
MDC is an essential element of an award not written for short haul flying in order to protect lifestyle. If it stops the company building 4 hour duties then so be it. It also stops them leaving you sitting around at airports for hours on pseudo reserve.

Anyone who thinks it should go does not understand why it exists. If the short haul award (i.e. stick hours) is the answer why is the company gearing up another subsidiary to replace it?

Stalins ugly Brother
22nd Jan 2013, 11:31
The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

The company has a major win with 5:30, they are just inept at cashing in on it.

You tell me any other group of airline employees in the world that have a contract that says they can be potentially rostered two man crew, every day of being at work, to a max of 11 hours duty and 8 hours of stick for only 5:30min pay per day?

The companies inability to run an efficient business is what makes the pilot body look expensive and inefficient. :ugh:

If the short haul award (i.e. stick hours) is the answer why is the company gearing up another subsidiary to replace it?

Was just about to point that out as well. :sad:

Keg
22nd Jan 2013, 13:18
.... if you factor in the higher hourly rate you actually make more in shorthaul compared to the 767.

A colleague of mine crunched the numbers and 68 stick on the SH award equals the pay for 80 credit hours. Then I looked at my stick hours for the bid period and was shocked to see them at 71 for my 80 credit hours. So I did 3 hours more flying time carrying 1/3 more pax than a 737 for the same money and you're calling me inefficient?

There are very, very few one day trips these days where you have a win with MDC. There are ultiple times in the last few months where I've exceeded MDC by a considerable margin- at least by 767 standards. Five day trips worth 30+ hours and 29:45 stick in some cases. Before 5:30 we used to do 10:45 tours of duty for 4 hours stick pay and lots of time on 'airport reserve'.

Quite the contrary to Stalin's Brother, I think the company is starting to do a very bloody good job at cashing in on it. The company has become much more efficient these days at getting the flying done with the least amount of crew, trips, etc.

OneDotLow
22nd Jan 2013, 19:53
Angle of Attack said :
Yes i agree but if the longhaul pilot does a 4 hour duty SYD-CBR return do they get stick hours or 5.30 credit? There in itself is the problem. They should get 1.50 credit as every other airline does. No point going on about a 10.30 duty for 5.30 credit, that is an extreme example , if you factor in the higher hourly rate you actually make more in shorthaul compared to the 767. The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

The vast majority of 767 duties fall in the range of 9-10:30hrs. I know they happen VERY occasionally, usually as a result of B737 unseevicability, but I have never flown SYD CBR SYD in 10 yrs on the 767. So who is using the extreme example now?

In addition, the company have the full length of the trip to average out the days to achieve 5:30, and generally do. As an example, I have 4 trips on my roster this month and 3 of those exceed 5:30 credits/day average.

5:30 MDC was a negotiated win for Long Haul Pilots, in particular those on the B767 at the time, which involved significant trade offs. Most 737 pilots who swing through the bottom of the squirrel cage and do actually fly SYD CBR returns for the month would agree that some form of MDC is desirable on the B737.

So no, I don't agree with your assertion that QF need to do away with 5:30 MDC, and funnily enough nor did they in the last round of negotiations.

Nunc
22nd Jan 2013, 23:08
Prior to 5.30 daily credit many MEL returns were just 2 sectors for 3.03 hours pay from memory. 5.30 forced QF to be more efficient ie. 1 crew doing 4 sectors instead of 2 crew flying 2 sectors. if QF were given a free reign with how to crew they would still do it inefficiently, the IT and managers etc. responsible are hopeless. Getting 5.30 per day was a win win for both parties despite what management say. I agree that credited hours need to become more aligned with stick hours but a minimum daily credit at least would prevent going back to the bad old days.

unseen
22nd Jan 2013, 23:13
The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

The company has a major win with 5:30, they are just inept at cashing in on it.

You tell me any other group of airline employees in the world that have a contract that says they can be potentially rostered two man crew, every day of being at work, to a max of 11 hours duty and 8 hours of stick for only 5:30min pay per day?

The companies inability to run an efficient business is what makes the pilot body look expensive and inefficient. :ugh:

If the short haul award (i.e. stick hours) is the answer why is the company gearing up another subsidiary to replace it?

Was just about to point that out as well. :sad:

If you do 8 hours stick - don't you get paid 8 hours for it ?

maggot
22nd Jan 2013, 23:33
It's averaged over the trip length

Keg
23rd Jan 2013, 00:10
The 'premium' on the 767 (what pilots are paid compared to their flying hours) is at historical lows- less than 20%. The current 737 pay rate is greater than 20% more than a 767 pilot. That said, once once FWA finishes their determination and will be closer to 10%.

Either way, the 'issues' that are within the LH award aren't to do with 5:30 and it's impact on the 767 domestic flying, that's for sure. I have my thoughts on where they exist but we've done that to death previously.

unseen
23rd Jan 2013, 00:25
It's averaged over the trip length

Yes it is.

On a multi day trip you always get paid for at least the stick hours, and sometimes you get paid more than the stick hours.

It works for you as it increases your density which is great.

It doesn't mean that is efficient or lowest cost for the company even if they could plan so that there are no trips paid on MDC.

It is an artificial constraint on trip construction. If MDC produced lower cost patterns, then it would happen naturally through the pattern build process, without the award entitlement, therefore you would have to think that MDC may increase costs.

It was bargained for and agreed to by both sides at the time and one that has worked well for the pilots to increase density. It has probably worked well for the company in some regard as it gives pilots better density which in general makes them happier (relatively speaking...).

I hope it stays as long as it works for both sides and does not excessively
Increase costs compared to the benefits it provides to you guys and girls.

Twin Beech
23rd Jan 2013, 00:37
I think you'll find that the assertion that other airlines do not get a MDC is also false. Sure, the LCCs would likely not, but they try to schedule denisty anyway if they are smart.

It is not the fault of the long haul pilot that the company insists on serving many cities infrequently enough to dilute the average daily flying. Schedule inefficiencies can only be fixed by attaching a penalty for failure. On the domestic network it has mostly worked.

Also, and note this well, the cabin crew have enjoyed MDC for decades in both fleets. Yet S/H CSMs were being rostered for single sector flying on weekends recently just to satisfy some poorly conceived KPM. No one has ever entered into a discussion with the FAAA about min daily credits.

Keg
23rd Jan 2013, 01:36
As a note, I still remember when 5:10 came in. I suddenly started getting an extra day off per bid period however there was zero change to my stick hours. They just managed to shoehorn more flying into each day I was at work.

The same is occurring now. 5:30 isn't a problem.

Stalins ugly Brother
23rd Jan 2013, 06:53
It's averaged over the trip length

Correct, minor oversight! :E

Conductor
23rd Jan 2013, 08:39
Yes i agree but if the longhaul pilot does a 4 hour duty SYD-CBR return do they get stick hours or 5.30 credit? There in itself is the problem. They should get 1.50 credit as every other airline does. No point going on about a 10.30 duty for 5.30 credit, that is an extreme example , if you factor in the higher hourly rate you actually make more in shorthaul compared to the 767. The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

AoA,

As others have already mentioned, 9-10 hour duties on the 767 are the rule, not the exception. I fly a lot more days in excess of 5:30 duty than days less than that (almost none). You should really get the facts before going into print. As for your comment about pilots deserving 1:50 for SYD-CBR return because every other airline does, all I can say is :ugh::ugh::ugh:

ernestkgann
23rd Jan 2013, 09:14
I don't think the original post pertaining to duty, MDC or stick was concerned with what is essentially domestic short haul, even though it's contained within the long haul agreement and flown in a 767. More relevant is your alliance partners conditions (EK). The management of all Australian airlines believe they can no longer compete on international long haul.
EK may actually fly less but I believe that their current credit target is 92 hours stick. They factor long haul duty by 1.4 where crew is augmented in a four man crew. 1.3 for three man. That is if you flew 140 hours long haul, fully augmented, you would achieve 100 hours. There are no allowances for night flying.

Stalins ugly Brother
23rd Jan 2013, 11:09
EK may actually fly less but I believe that their current credit target is 92 hours stick. They factor long haul duty by 1.4 where crew is augmented in a four man crew. 1.3 for three man. That is if you flew 140 hours long haul, fully augmented, you would achieve 100 hours. There are no allowances for night flying.

Thats what happens when any sort of ability to negotiate is taken away from you! I'm suprised they contained themselves to factoring at 1.4, why not go the whole hogg and get a factor of 2. :rolleyes:

Just had an idea! Maybe if you suggest that to QF management first they will give you a bonus!! :E

hotnhigh
3rd May 2013, 02:10
Qantas’ business not yet back on track - Aviation News - etravelblackboard.com (http://www.etravelblackboard.com/article/142834/qantas-business-not-yet-back-on-track)
Qantas also has a one-off operating cost of AU$25 million associated with resolving enterprise agreement back pay issues with their long haul pilots.

WTF! The four hundred and fifty eight pillar strategy is not stable?
So Alan wasn't actually prepared for a pay rise related to an eba that has been expired for more than two years?
Standing by for Olivia's take on the "problem".

The full speech......
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/sites/default/files/QANTAS%20CEO%20SPEECH.pdf

Shark Patrol
3rd May 2013, 23:37
I'm sure that mentioning the $25 million for pilots back-pay is just another way at taking a back-handed swipe at "those greedy mainline pilots".

My engagement levels just keeps getting higher and higher.

Wonder how much the company has paid the trough-feeders in bonuses over the last three years!