300 Qantas pilots to get the chop ???

[Me Myself]

Hi from the other side of the ball

Just read today an article in the SMH stating 300 QF pilots would get the chop, mainly on the 767 and 744 fleets.
Very bad news....to say the least.
How does this go with seniority as I suppose between the 2 fleets, there must be very big differences in seniority numbers.
8 380 delayed.....indefinitly ??!!! who would have thought this in 2008 !!

[KRUSTY 34]

This issue is already running on some other threads, but frankly I'm surprised that AIPA didn't move on it when Joyce first announced the cuts. Ostrich, grim resignation, NFI, who knows? Hell, I even brought it up on the 330 replacement thread. Lots of discussion followed, but no real consensus.

As far as I can tell, the seeds for this situation were sown 20 years ago with the incorporation of Australian Airlines. That was the time to push for a company wide scope clause WRT overall seniority. This would have made pilot redundancies (all pilot redundancies) simply financially impossible. The result would more than likely been a freeze on recruitment and natural attrition. Within five years, they probably would be looking for more drivers! The been counters usually don't look past the next financial years spreadsheet, so its not surprising they are keen for the current course of action. The failure to appreciate the future ramifications of this are now coming to pass.

I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Jesus wept, Airline Management are nothing if not predictable.

I hope something can be done, but it seems to me this train is heading for the end of the line.

[Toruk Macto]

20 years ago a group list was suggested .

[KRUSTY 34]

I know TM.

Unfortunately, that was the time for union "Leadership".

[Roj approved]

Might have saved the situation if the retirement age stayed at 60:ugh:

[Australopithecus]

I made a vow to retire the day I turn sixty, plus one day for every post/complaint/whinge about over-60s. So now I have to stay until I am 78. Happy?:cool:

[Beer Baron]

Krusty, admittedly I could be wrong, but I believe that everything you say should have been done in the past has in fact been done.

By that I mean, the Integration Award has coverage across both LH and SH in respect to redundancies in reverse seniority order. As you quite rightly point out this has made it financially unpalatable to undertake redundancies to date. This is a big reason why AIPA is keen to keep the Integration Award in place, despite the wishes of some to throw it out as part of the required award modernisation.

Furthermore, recruitment did stop about 5 years ago and natural attrition (plus assigned leave and LWOP) have been slowly dealing with the surplus. Sadly the downward spiral continues and leave balances have dried up so more dramatic options are being rolled out.

I don't think there is a hell of a lot more AIPA could have done to ward off this situation. AIPA are there to protect the interests of the pilots but the shareholders and board need to step in to stop the current management from driving this company into the ground.

[capt wisdom]

I'm with Australopithecus. Was it not the over 60 pilots who faced redundancy last time as young pilots? Now our young pilots are suggesting they should face redundancy for a second time? := Me thinks this new generation of self absorbed precious youngsters need to realise that the world in fact does not revolve around them!

[BNEA320]

how many of those 300 are on $500.000.00 a year or close to it, or is that only for A380 captains ? (no wonder QF INT r going broke)

[Australopithecus]

None. And no line captain is on anything like that. If QF had abandoned its idealogical purity (Pol Pot, anyone) they would have diverted surplus pilots into JQ long ago. And then we wouldn't have to read your foolishness.

[V-Jet]

how many of those 300 are on $500.000.00 a year or close to it, or is that only for A380 captains ? (no wonder QF INT r going broke)

Answer with NO fear of being contradicted = NONE.

PS: I find that deeply upsetting. There is apparently substantiation for that figure, but let me assure you it is NOT many and I would suspect very, very few (1?) and absolutely NOT any of the targeted 'few'. Nor, let me add, is that anything to do with the fact QF is going broke. I am sick of saying that, but I will say it till my last dying breath. Every Captain on EVERY QF service could take off with max fuel and STILL not come close to the waste that gross mismanagement has and is causing.

[DirectAnywhere]

I made a vow to retire the day I turn sixty, plus one day for every post/complaint/whinge about over-60s. So now I have to stay until I am 78. Happy?

At that rate mate retirement should be in about 3014. You'll die in the seat.:}

[goodonyamate]

By that I mean, the Integration Award has coverage across both LH and SH in respect to redundancies in reverse seniority order.

does it? which part specifically. not asking to be a smartarse, genuinely want to know. I can guarantee you the company does not see it this way.

I know the integration award states that new hires go before a or q pilots, but where does it specifically state that it will be in reverse seniority regardless of which haul you're on? there is a strong argument t that it would be in reverse seniority but only on the haul that is making redundancies...

[2Plus]

Spot on Goodonya. Whether you agree or not, the pain will be felt most in the haul where the surplus lies. Works both ways.

[bigwatch]

Section 16 REDUNDANCY
Paragraph C. In the retrenchment of pilots on account of redundancy, before any A pilot or Q pilot is retrenched, new-hire pilots will be retrenched. New-hire pilots will be retrenched in accordance with the pilots agreement.

Definitions in integration agreement:
New hire pilot = after the Y
Pilots agreement = long haul award (now determination)

In long haul award - section 16.4 : promotion and demotion will be in accordance with seniority if redundancies occur.

There are more details and words in the agreements, so if you want a full idea, go read them.

Any other questions?

[Stalins ugly Brother]

BNEA320
how many of those 300 are on $500.000.00 a year or close to it, or is that only for A380 captains ? (no wonder QF INT r going broke)

Where is the ignore button for this High School dropout???? :rolleyes:

[FlareArmed]

Is the situation that occurred at Kendell with the CRJ an issue here? There was no waterfall of training after a court judgement – the high cost of retraining trumped seniority in the end.

[The The]

I can guarantee you the company does not see it this way.

I can guarantee that it will not be the Company, AIPA, nor the pilots who determine the outcome!

[goodonyamate]

Section 16 REDUNDANCY
Paragraph C. In the retrenchment of pilots on account of redundancy, before any A pilot or Q pilot is retrenched, new-hire pilots will be retrenched. New-hire pilots will be retrenched in accordance with the pilots agreement.

Definitions in integration agreement:
New hire pilot = after the Y
Pilots agreement = long haul award (now determination)

In long haul award - section 16.4 : promotion and demotion will be in accordance with seniority if redundancies occur.


My bold.

Also from the Long Haul WD.

20.2 Application of Short Haul Workplace Agreement
Subject to clause 20.4, upon being cleared to the line on the B737 aircraft, the Short Haul Workplace Agreement will apply.

20.4 Specific provisions continue to apply
Notwithstanding clause 20.2, the following provisions in this Determination will continue to apply to pilots transferred to short haul operations:
Clause 23: Re-employment after medical termination
Clause 24: Leave Bank, preferential bidding and relief from flying
Clause 35.11: Personal leave - Medical Termination
Clause 43: Insurance cover in warlike circumstances
Clause 44: Internment


So the LH WD provides for redundancy in seniority, as does the SH award. The LH award also states that as soon as one checks to line, they are covered by the SH award. No where does it say that if the company is making redundancies in Long Haul, that a SH pilot will be made redundant.

Same goes if redundancies occur in SH.

[Potsie Weber]

I wonder how long before AIPA splits; longhaul v shorthaul? Looks like getting nasty!

[Angle of Attack]

Well for the last few years Shorthaul has been known as the "Bunker" for good reason, its just like a fallout shelter for the Nuclear Winter which will beset Longhaul. For the short term anyway, once a replacement aircraft is chosen for Shorthaul then the same $hit different day will occur once more to Shorthaul crew.

[Berealgetreal]

I made a vow to retire the day I turn sixty, plus one day for every post/complaint/whinge about over-60s. So now I have to stay until I am 78. Happy?

Must be an amazing job and somewhat different to today's reality of four sector days and 3am get ups. Personally I hope to be retired at 50. I'd rather be at home with my wife and son. Worlds apart.

Seriously this industry is well past it's expiry date. I'm going to spend the next few years educating my boy on a real career.

[waren9]

zackly what i've been thinking potsie

[Nigel Osborn]

Qantas made me redundant in March 1967 with 2 days notice! When I complained the answer was simple " sue us, we're the government, see who wins"!

Sounds like nothing much has changed!

[aussie027]

Reports I saw said approx 100 pilots and with 50-60/yr leaving at mandatory 65yo anyway the rest would be from volunteers leaving maybe a few yrs early and taking the package once its determined.

Is that not correct?? Where did this 300 number come from and over what time period is this supposed to all happen??

[Offchocks]

ballsdeep = Troll

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Or a Comedian, or AJ. :oh:

[SeeBee]

Please go away - you ask the wrong questions again and again. Your information is inaccurate and you phrase the question to antagonise and inflame. Through no fault of their own pilots are being retrenched, please shut up or go away.

[bigwatch]

Both the shorthaul and long haul awards have paragraphs in them that state that they come under the integration agreement, and that where there is a disparity between either award and the integration agreement, that the integration agreement will prevail.

In the instance of redundancies, that paragraphs I quoted above would apply, irrespective of what it says in the short haul or long haul award. If you are beneath the y and retrenchments occur, they are to be done as per the pilots award, defined in the integration agreement as the old 1989 long haul award, or whatever it turns into, in this case the 2013 WD.

In that case, it is your seniority in the Qantas system that will determine whether you are promoted or demoted, as per clause 16.4. The question is, what is retrenchment?

There is even a legal argument that in the case of redundancies that paragraph 16.4 would apply over the RIN process for demotions and promotion, the trigger being that a redundancy has occurred.

One thing is sure, this is happening and it will end in tears for a lot of people, and cost the company a motza.

[Angle of Attack]

Balls and BNEA320 ,
I would be more worried about the financial viability of the whole group IMO, Plane talking just had another article with a pic of lined up Jetstar Japan aircraft parked at Narita. The whole joint could go tits up very soon and it is closer than a lot of people think, treading water with 3billion dollars worth of gold attached, the whole lot is at risk of going under in the short to medium term... I wouldn't throw stones when the risk of a ricochet is extremely likely, and that would be a fatal richochet.

[nitpicker330]

It seems the "race to the bottom" is alive and well.

Idiot

[Nunc]

So Balls by getting with the times we are supposed to now work for !!!! all like the peanuts who will now fly for !!!! all. Whatever you reckon but I think I'll head OS get paid more pay less tax and work less like many mates have done already. Don't want too but the whole country is going down the crapper, big business wants more for less while paying their management mega bucks. The market is now OS (pilots can earn more in China than in Oz) so supply and demand will call the shots as it always does. JMHO which you know doubt will bag.

[Beer Baron]

Look I'm all for getting the best deal for pilots, and lets unite and all that bull ****

Stated in the same post as deriding pilots who are on a good deal and inflaming divisions between different pilot bodies.

nitpicker330 put it quite succinctly:

Idiot.

[charlie uniform mike]

Beer baron are you saying we all should be paid as well as qantas pilots? I think so, but in the end we should all be on the same pay in the qantas group somewhere between qantas and virgin rates. Hell most jetstar guys r happy to b on tiger rates and most qantas guys would just like to be employed. In the end we can all agree mis management has put us here and it's not the pilots fault but we are paying the price. This arguing between the pilot groups is only making us weaker :ugh:

[PPRuNeUser0161]

Balls
Couldn't agree more, the greed has to stop. QF needs a culture change and that will only come by getting rid of the dead wood!
SN

[Berealgetreal]

Interestingly enough I don't hear of enormous amounts of cancelled flights due Jetstar pilots leaving. Actually you don't hear of any. When it really gets bad a 100 flights a day go.

[Angle of Attack]

I can say with 100% reliability that the only QF pilots on 350k would be about 75% of A380 Captains, a few dozen 747 Captains and several 737 Captains that do 1000 stick hours per year. In all about 150 of 2000 pilots. I can also say with 100% reliability that dozens of A330 S/O's are struggling to top 80k after 6 years service. QF mainline is a scrambled egg and only the top earners generally get attention. I however agree that the Long haul award is cumbersome and expensive, thus the reason for the company to phase it out. You need your pilots doing 800-1000 stick hours per year and its almost impossible under the Long haul award to do it. But as a final note I don't believe the Long haul award is a major reason why QF is losing it, its management and government policy mainly.

[Denied Justice]

BD - you are an absolute tosser.

Every pilot who has joined any big airline did so with the understanding that the EBA agreement or equivalent determined who got promoted, demoted and retrenched.

This applies whether you are 6 (your mental age) or 60.

To single out pilots on the basis of age is simply not on.

PS - I have been retrenched from 2 large airlines at age 38 and 52. Well over 60 now and still flying with just as much right as any other pilot within the constraints of the workplace agreement.

[SilverSleuth]

Strict seniority in any company EBA is Not a guarantee in this day of age. ,!!

I don't work for qantas but feel very sorry for the stress you guys/girls must be going through. (I have gone through it myself both in aviation and prior).

I will say however, no agreement / EBA these days of guaranteed last on - first off / strict seniority etc, means much these days. Companies can easily go to FWA (particularly when in hardship and losing hundreds of millions) and if they can show those agreements cost more than than the proposed redundancies (and hence even more company hardship and even further redundancies), can argue and will probably win, exclusion from those previous agreements.

I kid you not, do not take those clauses for granted and think your safe. Work together to do anything for a deal that is remotely acceptable to the most, otherwise the company will win in FWA. Good luck!

[Blueskymine]

I just hope everyone pulls their weight and gets through this quickly and cleanly.

Qantas long haul terms and conditions are gone. Guys are living in la la land if they think it's sustainable. If you want to continue earning north of 300k, go overseas. They've got to pay that rate as not many locals have the skills, and no expat would go unless there was something lucrative in it for them. It's not just the pilots though. The bloated salaries go right through the company from flight ops to ramp, engineering to management. I mean Qantas have a whole floor of people devoted to load sheets. Jetstar have an iPad app and the pilots do it on a 25 min turn. Qantas is still run internally like a government department. It's heavily unionised and resistant to change.

The market rate in Australia will settle somewhere between Jetstar and virgin. For everybody, not just pilots.

I see Qantas international as we know it gone very soon. Jetstar flying to leisure destinations internationally with a token 787 fleet and Qantas pilots operating 330s and 737s domestically under the short haul agreement.

The 380s will be flipped to Emirates or purely fly the pacific under a restructured eba closer to the pilot award.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

I can also say with 100% reliability that dozens of A330 S/O's are struggling to top 80k after 6 years service

Sorry, I don't mean to detract from the aim of your post (the over exaggeration of
QF t's and C's), of which I agree, but a deliberate bending of the truth only weakens the argument.

A 6 year 330 S/O on MGH should be on a base of around 120k unless they are on a flex line.

[Blueskymine]

My best mate is a 330 SO.

172k last year.

He said why would he go to Jetstar when he earns almost what a Jetstar captain earns.

I hope his gamble pays off.

[dr dre]

To divert this thread back to the original question:

On the internal QF pilot message board, the AIPA president implied that the 300 figure was incorrect and not to place any weight on that article.

That number (300) seems to have not appeared in any other media articles since then

[flyingfrenchman]

I know everyone loves to bang on about how employee wages are breaking the bank etc but seriously have you considered the company line (repeated continuously) has sucked you in? Conservative tech crew cost for an airline is 4%, everyone could take a 50% pay cut and in this case QF would still be making a loss. Maybe everyone should acknowledge the real reasons for the loss and stop taking it out on other pilot groups. Complaints blaming one group for a pay freeze are a joke, SH made a profit (substantially more than j* or any other group airline) and are also included in the freeze. It could also be argued that different investment strategies (possibly less orange ones) could have lead to a better financial position and possible pay increases for all. Management needs to be the focus.

[Australopithecus]

Ballsdeep, I am shocked! Shocked, I say, to discover that someone actually gave an immature tw*t like you a job flying a jet. I shudder to think of what our many non-pilot members think when they read your A: username. And your B: location. Followed by your C: idiotic invective based on wanting others to fail in order to make your own sorry path seem less miserable.

Why don't you ask your mum what she thinks of your nom-de-plume?

There is a reason employers like QF have a psych test for applicants. That would likely be the same reason you spent eight years in GA/regional

Kindly tell us who employs you so that I may ensure that my loved ones never set foot on one of your planes.

[RENURPP]

Or, the top 300 have been there the longest and help to made the QF reputation what it is today, ( management have recently trashed that reputation, BUT QF is STILL regarded as extremely safe by just about everyone), they deserve the right to complete their careers as they see fit.

The younger ones have the rest of their lives left to make their mark and should get off their computers and attempt to make the world a better place not rely on the legacy of their fathers, but do something themselves.

To a degree its the "ballsdeep" of the world's race to the left seat of a shiny jet and accepting any terms on offer thats creating the issue we are faced with. No i'm not 60 or even close!

I feel very comfortable sitting behind a Captain that has a few grey hairs and hope they stay as long as they chose. I don't feel comfortable leaving the flight deck with some of the young F/O's that are coming along.

[KRUSTY 34]

"Officially" 100 to go, some quoting up to 300. Here's a few questions.

How many pilots are employed on the 744/767 fleets?

What expansion across other fleets will there be to take up the slack left from these type retirements?

If there is an expansion of sorts, how many additional drivers (above those on type at the moment) will be required?

How many pilots left over when the dust settles?

Seems like simple arithmetic to me. Assuming the clowns running the show persist with their ultimate plan.

[wobblepump]

ballsdeep
Your "path has been far from sorry" so why don't you practice what you preach, give a young GA pilot a start and retire...or ain't you ready to retire yet.

[Jackneville]

Krusty, there certainly will be no expansion of the 380 fleet.
There are 12 380's with a crew compliment for 14 due to Alan's
amazing last minute idea to can numbers 13 & 14.

The life boats are full.

[Keg]

Kristy, about 150 767 pilots and 260 747 Captains and F/Os. The 744 is about 150 crew over stocked for when they end pup at 9 aeroplanes in mid 2016.

There are still 7-9 A330s to come and a few (4-5) 737s.

As for ballsdeep and BNEA320..... :rolleyes:

[XPT]

boy oh boy, how many people here are in denial ?


The country is worse than broke, most state are worse than broke & so is QF INT.


QF has far too many staff & they are all paid way over the odds, with fare too many benefits, which is why QF INT is stuffed.


Not competitive at all, on the world stage.


The whole travel industry is just waiting for the day that QF INT stops flying.


Most of the public believe the media as well.

[dragon man]

Keg, you forgot to add in the approx I think 200 on LWOP. Also nearly all ranks on all aircraft are operating to a 160 hour divisor meaning that another 10% of the pilots are really surplus to requirements as we can work to 175 and occasionally 180 hour divisor. If the company is serious about reducing and hiding staff that would mean theoretically another 200 surplus. Very ugly. On another note I see in the March traffic figures that frequent flyer redemptions increased year on year by 10%. I wonder if that's why Joyce has pulled his head in as it was panicking people to redeem points thereby costing the company more money.

[V-Jet]

QF has far too many staff & they are all paid way over the odds, with fare too many benefits, which is why QF INT is stuffed.

Not competitive at all, on the world stage.

The whole travel industry is just waiting for the day that QF INT stops flying.


QF has far too many staff because it doesn't have any aircraft left because of totally insane and incompetent 'management'.

QF was competitive but it doesn't have any routes left because of totally insane and incompetent 'management'.

The whole travel industry doesn't care about QF (or any airline) but QF particularly because it doesn't fly anywhere because of totally insane and incompetent 'management'.

Most of the public believe the media as well.

The media are simply reprinting the rubbish fed to them by the most incompetent and totally insane 'management team' since ENRON declared they were the smartest guys in the room. The public know no better, but I would expect most people reading this forum to have a basic understanding of business and airlines. Qantas, in a brilliant strategic move, essentially just gave their international business to Emirates, and Emirates are 'very pleased' with the results. I would hope the idiot Irishman Elaine has a big fat Obeid sized payoff from the Arabs sitting in an offshore account somewhere for that generous gift, because if he doesn't, he is even more stupid (and I am struggling with this) than I already thought he was.

An airline is a business that moves passengers from A-B using aircraft. If you don't have any aircraft you are no longer an airline but a travel agent.

To quote Mr Gekko: 'If these guys ran a funeral parlour, no one would die!'

[Ollie Onion]

The thing is that the VR will be targeted at getting the top 100 seniority pilots off the 747 / 767 fleets. The balance that the company has to strike now is a package that is financially good enough to encourage them to leave. When British Airways called for VR in 2009 the package they put on the table was one months pay for each year of service capped at 24 months (2 years). They also allowed you to keep staff travel for the same amount of time you had been in the company, so if you were a 25 year veteran you would get staff travel for 25 years :ok:

BA wanted 150 pilots to take VR and opened it up to EVERY pilot, most guys thought the top 150 would jump at this offer especially since they had expected to retire at 55 and only the year before were allowed to work until 65. When all was said and done ONLY 78 pilots accepted VR and some 10% of those were 'junior' pilots. The lesson learned was that there is much more at play with these decisions than pure money. Has anyone thought that the top guys may just actually really enjoy their work and no amount of money would convince them to give it up?

A call for the older guys/girls to move aside for the younger generation is 'not on' in my opinion. Everyone joined knowing that seniority is king. The opportunity for VR may actually be attractive for say a junior FO on the 767 or 747 fleet who may have something else in the pipe line and will gladly take the money and run.

[Pimp Daddy]

I will say however, no agreement / EBA these days of guaranteed last on - first off / strict seniority etc, means much these days. Companies can easily go to FWA (particularly when in hardship and losing hundreds of millions)

This worries me too - we have already seen Qantas ground the airline and go to the FWC to have totally legal protected industrial action set aside.

I'm just wondering if the VR isn't subscribed to their satisfaction that their next step isn't to the FWC.

[Keg]

Sure dragon man. Krusty asked for current numbers, those are the current numbers. Of those on LWOP outside if the QF group, I can't see many coming back. That's about half of them.

[flyingfrenchman]

"The opportunity for VR may actually be attractive for say a junior FO on the 767 or 747 fleet who may have something else in the pipe line and will gladly take the money and run."

Well said Ollie Onion, I would even go a step further and say that this may actually be the group targeted for VR. It's a pretty good windfall if you were already thinking about EQ for example and now could go with a wad of cash in your skyrocket.

Something for the older generation to think about is the VR process. From other areas in the company, just because you express interest in VR doesn't mean you get offered it. From the companies perspective I am sure it is cheaper to pay VR to a junior member and just wait for the 64yo to retire. Two numbers down with one payout.

[V-Jet]

Ollie - great post and thanks for the BA VR background.

I agree 100%, THAT VR package would probably get results, much below that and I think the attitude will be 'I don't give a toss, you've wrecked my job and airline, I'll enjoy what I can until I have to turn out the lights.'

[Nunc]

From the trolls on this forum like small balls through to the QF experts like Keg, no one knows what VR will be on offer and how many may be forced to go with CR ( none hopefully). The company will allocate a pool of money for VR and it will be divided up so as to try and attract the most takers (not 2 years pay and not 6 months, somewhere around a year is my guess). Personal circumstances will decide whether VR is acceptable or not to an individual.

Keg may correct me but the number of airframes remain about the same as now if all the A330s return and the 73s on order arrive. This will mean a shuffling of the deck chairs as some learn French and others move to the maggot, unfortunately there will be demotions along the way which is a great pity as there are very good people in QF who are affected
by all this uncertainty and who are great operators despite what the trolls on this forum have to say. JMHO

[Conductor]

I would like to address one of the views emerging on this thread about relief from LOFO requirements of the workplace determination (ie: redundancy on type). This is of course IMHO but heres the thing: to seek such relief Joyce et al would need to approach FWA for such a ruling. AFAIK, FWA is made of of the same people now that were there when Joyce and Co grounded the airline and forced determination. The results of that (the current WD) demonstrate pretty clearly that FWA was not of the thinking that they would do Joyce's dirty work for him. Now, if Joyce goes back to FWA with this request for relief from a provision of the WD that he essentially forced FWA to do, I don't think his chances are that high. If he were to try it a year or two down the track, perhaps with more Abbot appointees on FWA then yes I think it's a real possibility but not as much right now. Again, just IMHO.

[spelling_nazi]

Dear Gen Y (aka Ballsdeep),
It's bloody "lose" not "loose" for the love of God. Please learn to spell. It drives me insane and makes you look stupid.

[Australopithecus]

Good point, Conductor. And I'd wager that FWA would take a considered approach to the submission...say four or five months.

I am aaaamaaaaazed that the flying programme is still a couple of weeks away from being published. It seems to me that Virgin is driving the domestic agenda, and the company is waiting for signs that Joyce's Folly (65% market share) can be wound back.

We need an emoticon to convey "shuffling away, dejected"

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Conductor,

I think that might be wishful thinking. The FWC is there to provide, amongst other things:
a) providing workplace relations laws that are fair to working Australians, are flexible for businesses, promote productivity and economic growth for Australia’s future economic prosperity and take into account Australia’s international labour obligations;

The FWC is meant to be impartial, and trying to guess future outcomes from previous determinations is not easy.

I truly doubt the Commission ruled the way they did previously to 'show Joyce up' or send a message. They examined the facts and ruled accordingly.

WRT the LOFO section of the award, it would be very difficult to argue that the immense costs of retraining are in the companies best interests, rather than targeted CR. The FWC would be looking at the viability of retraining vs CR and rule on that aspect accordingly.

Those claiming that the LOFO will definitely be adhered to, are, in my opinion, engaging in wishful thinking.

The Commission might not like Joyce (or they might) but that is irrelevant, they will endeavour to be as impartial as possible.

If Qantas can successfully claim that the retaining costs will be prohibitively expensive and possibly cause the demise of LH, then it would be in the best interest of the company AND employees to target CR.

[Dark Knight]

Krusty; Toruk Macto

In 1974 when we were all members of the AFAP it was proposed that there should be a common TAA/Australian/Qantas Seniority List to cover the event of a then foreseen eventual merger even though it may have been a long time in the future.

It was envisaged the list would have been a datal list taking into to account any who were not in datal seniority (there were not very many here) and from the date of implementation all (of either company) new hires would have been on the common list in datal order.

Unfortunately this was never achieved being fought in the AFAP convention tooth and nail by the Overseas Branch (Qantas) strongly assisted by the NSW branch who had a vested interest in Seniority battles needing O’seas branch support for their cause. Datal seniority was not in the NSW branch interest at the time.

The rule of last on/first off should never been allowed to be overruled nor should separate seniority lists for Qantas Long Haul, Domestic and Jetstar have ever been contemplated. All are part of or are the Qantas Group.


There was foresight in the past but self-interest overruled common sense and the common goal.


The airline operator has achieved a goal of having the employees fighting amongst themselves instead of being united fighting the airline operator where the losers will always be the employees. How Qantas Group pilots and APIA have allowed this to happen is beyond me however, a review of the history certainly reveals why.

Qantas management is on a path of self-destruction; how in the world can you give away all your routes and operation to others and expect to survive?

[White and Fluffy]

Not sure if the timing of these adds for Chinese contracts are coincidence, but might be of interest to some:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots - Pilot Jobs in Asia Pacific Region (http://www.afap.org.au/Jobs/Latest-Jobs/AFAP-Pilot-Jobs-.asp)

[The The]

It is not just the LHWD regarding LOFO. It is the Integration Agreement and the Shorthaul Agreement that must be taken into account by FWA.

Whilst I think LOFO would be adhered to within the LHWD, particularly when it reduces to just Airbus to Airbus training, I really cannot see that in the worst case where QF withdraws completely from International Ops, that 80% or so of 737 pilots would be made redundant to accommodate redundant senior longhaul pilots.

[Toruk Macto]

Dark Knight , agree . It's taken 20 years but the most expensive guys have isolated themselves nicely while trying to protect their patch . A Qantas group list would have come in handy right about now . Well played Qantas !

[Derfred]

Guys, for the sake of your own credibility, can you please refer to the various documents correctly?

The LHWD is not an award. It is not an agreement. It is a determination.
The SHWA is not an award. It is an agreement.
The Integration Award is an award.

Cheers...:)

[Flyboat North]

Where could one actually find a copy of the Long Haul Agreement.

People say FWA and other various Govt websites but when you put in generic search terms seems v hard to find.

Perhaps the document is classified ?

[Sonny Hammond]

With absolutely zero cohesion amongst Australian airline pilots industrially, a disenfranchised group who have happily allowed T&C to be lowered and seem to actually gain pleasure seeing their colleagues suffer, our profession has no hope in Australia.
Ultimately the whole industry will suffer locally as foreign interests seize the day.

Look at the way the fairfax staff rallied when their company announced cuts and you see the failing of the ultimately ego driven pilot group.

Pretty pathetic.:confused:

[noip]

Flyboat,

Google is your friend ... a 10 sec search and I had a nicely formatted copy of the determination.

N

[Capt Kremin]

The discussion could probably use some diversion from the slavering imbeciles whose base monkey instincts have been set free and now can't seem to wait for some fellow pilots and human beings to finally "get theirs". If they do "get theirs" I hope you feel better. Your own situation won't be improved one iota but schadenfreude can last some time so perhaps you won't notice.

Anyway... For some discussion I have a link to the Kendall decision which people should read in order to avoid making a few errant assumptions.

The use of this decision by Qantas is neither assured, nor is the outcome that some may be hoping for.

http://www.stuartwood.com.au/upload_files/2002/Australiawide%20airlines%20Decision%2023.7.02.pdf

[DirectAnywhere]

Search "QANTAS Longhaul Workplace Determination".

[noip]

Direct ..

Spoilsport ..

:)

N

[Mstr Caution]

Has anyone asked Flt Ops to peak over the other side of the fence?

A Longhaul CSM told me last week he's been offered a VR which after tax implications is equivalent to a 3 years of service payment.

He's leaving the joint by years end.

[Nunc]

Thanks for that link Capt K. All the trolls and many others should have a read, personally I have been very concerned about redundancy out of seniority but it has alayed those fears somewhat. The Kendall case makes interesting reading and is a very different to scenario to QF at the moment. Thats not to say QANTAS could end up mounting a case as per the Kendall decision but it would just take a lot more incompetent management to get there which from first hand experience is possible.

[Capt Kremin]

Nunc... Exactly!:ok:

[DirectAnywhere]

Sorry noip but the suspense was killing me...:rolleyes:

[Centaurus]

•Command Instrument Rating with 8 renewals – multi-engine.


What's all this nonsense about the number of CIR renewals as a qualification for a job in Australia? Is it something peculiar about Australian weather? These requirements seem only to apply to some general aviation jobs and never to applicants into Australian domestic or international operations and certainly one never see this faintly ridiculous limitation in overseas jobs :ugh:

[indamiddle]

Mstr caution,
Don't believe everything CSMs or other flight attendants tell you about their package for VR. To get anywhere near that $300,000 the crew member would be flying for 50 years, been a cabin manager the whole time and the total figure would include all unused LSL and annual leave. I don't think anyone has been flying 50 years, we just look like it. Maybe someone will reach $200,000 but it will be as rare as rocking horse $51t.

[neville_nobody]

The rule of last on/first off should never been allowed to be overruled nor should separate seniority lists for Qantas Long Haul, Domestic and Jetstar have ever been contemplated. All are part of or are the Qantas Group.

Except that the law has changed and even if you had one in your contract I doubt you would be able to enforce it in today's legal climate.

[theheadmaster]

You appear to have some knowledge in this area of the law neville. Could you please point me in the direction of the relevant sections of the statutes and the supporting case law?

[KRUSTY 34]

Personally I believe in the CRJ case the commission was bluffed by an aggressive CEO hell bent on firing the first shot in his war against seniority. Ultimately the cost of any redeployment and retraining would have been met by the Ansett administrators. So IMHO the sale was going through regardless. Once that little job was settled Micheal Jones then proceeded to tell the pilot group that seniority was GONE. I know because I was in the room when he said it.

Fortunately the Hazelton pilots stuck together and denied him the endgame WRT abolishing seniority, albeit it's not as robust as it once was!

The point is, one can never underestimate the lengths (and truth stretching) some managements will go to in the commission, or any other court for that matter (see Joyce and Buchanan's performance in the first Senate inquiry), in an effort to have their own way.

[Gingerbread]

Just imagine the angst if mainline was able to offer 767 pilots access to the 787 out of seniority.

Think it can’t happen - then think again.

Simply asking 767 pilots to choose between voluntary opportunities to fly 787’s in Qantas colours in order of seniority, but working for a Qantas owned crewing company, or personally accepting VR and then applying to the said crewing company to get on the end of the Q, has recently been confirmed by the courts as a legitimate strategy.

Nasty I know, but it does avoid transmission of business issues and would unleash further internal competition amongst group pilots. Not to mention fueling the angst between the AFAP and AIPA.

[Mstr Caution]

Indamiddle, the CSM told me that the VR payment is a tad over $240K in the hand.

Which they relate to the equivalent of a 3 years after tax payment.

The CSM has over 40 years service & Ive flown with the CSM a lot. So I have no doubt to the accuracy of his/her claims.

[Hempy]

Krusty,
The thoughts in the minds of those in high places at QFHQ at the moment would have nothing to do with the business, there would be nothing but arse covering going on. Don't ever fall for the belief that 'management' as a group are conspiring against employees, that is giving them too much credit. The fact is that they are all individuals interested only in their own ends and means.

[Australopithecus]

A quick look at the ATO website reveals the important information that leave owed cannot be included in a VR payment. Also, date of receiving a VR payment effects the resultant net payment. The first (approx) $125K income in that tax year is tax free, every incremental dollar is then taxed at a concessional rate.

Obviously the best outcome would be to get a VR payment on 01/07, and have the maximum allowable fraction of that payment made directly into the pilot's super account. Perhaps an agreed amount could be set aside for a subsequent super contribution 366 days later to sweeten the deal?

[Berealgetreal]

Gingerbread, spoken like a man that's been around the industry for a while. If you can think of it they can and will do it. Have a look at what the JQ 78 guys get paid. Woeful. They do seem to be parked a lot admittedly so I don't know if they are working that hard.

Question for those in the know. Would the most junior pilots (SOs bar a handful) be mainly on the 747 anyway? How many SOs are on the 747?

[Keg]

As far as I can tell, a JQ captain flying 800 hours a year earns about the same as I do flying 800 hours a year- they'll earn more if doing some of those hours on call outs. The problem has been that QF hasn't fostered me for 800 hours a year for the last 5 years due to assigned leave and reserve rosters. Under 'normal' circumstances though, 800- 850 hours a year should be what we're flying.

[dragon man]

That 800 to 900 hours was what we used to fly when we operated 30 747s , then along came the brilliant management with to many aircraft types, cancelled routes etc etc and now they blame the pilots for their own ineptitude. Can't wait to see the April traffic figures which are due out shortly.

[Australopithecus]

April will be spotty at best.

Anecdotaly, I flew eight international sectors in April, and polled my crews about their loads. I flew an average of 71%, with four less than half full and four at about 90%. All the crews I asked reported dreadful loads.

Yesterday's trip was 69% full, and we were getting outclimbed by company jets on adjacent routes.

I asked station staff in two out ports and SYD and BNE...their impression is that traffic is returning, Elaine's little Feb. tantrum fading from memory.

WRT to the 767 guys and gals getting the 787 out of seniority: who else would fly it? They are exactly the pilot group that should and would get it, so what's the problem? The aeroplane is slightly smaller than the 330, so the company would no doubt classify it as a bid down. Pay is a discussion for another day, and I hope that it gets tied to the total, audited and verified package provided to any and all executives, including staff travel. Ie: current 767 rates plus maybe 45%

(that last bit was facetious, but only slightly)

[dragon man]

The loads reported on the notams are appalling . Averaging about 64% international and 66% domestic. As an aside two employees who were made redundant are taking Qantas to FWA , first hearing was last week and guess what Qantas didn't even bother to turn up.

[Keg]

Quant as probably made the lawyers redundant too.

[Australopithecus]

Reading the missives recently posted by the idiotti like the genitalia-obsessed ballsdeep made me wonder what particular brand of drug it is that they take? Obviously it is not truth serum.

I asked a Seattle based Delta Airlines 330 captain about wages. He makes approximately $250,000/ year US. Parse that out, bitches: his take-home, exclusive of allowances, is $177,500 US. An average line captain on a QF330 makes circa $300,000. After tax that is around $173,500, which is around 163K US. The current purchasing power factor between our two countries is 1.5. (!)

(world bank data here): PPP conversion factor (GDP) to market exchange rate ratio | Data | Table (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPPC.RF)

So, the Delta pilot (and this is broadly the same for widebody twins in the US) makes 62% more fun tickets that I do.

The lesson is that high property prices, and high taxes, are wildly inflationary, and hence result in very high comparative wage demands.

(I do understand that Australia is a lot better place to live than the US, but it is not 62% better, compounding)

[FYSTI]

The lesson is that high property prices, and high taxes, are wildly inflationary, and hence result in very high comparative wage demands.
Bingo. The root causes of our uncompetitive. Any adjustment on the property price front would kill the banking system (near death experience in 1992), hence cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

[Offchocks]

Australopithecus

That's a pretty depressing table, compaired to the US we share the top position with Norway and Switzerland as being the most expensive country to live in!

[Australopithecus]

Depressing it certainly is. We are officially number four in the world, but the delta is pretty close between the top ten.

Life has a habit of driving the value of everything back to the mean. So do economies-especially now in the era of free trade and free information. Eventually there will be a levelling of prices. Guess who is going to lose in that little (OK...huge) adjustment.

In the meantime we live in just about the highest cost country in the universe* A lot of that is the overhead of a free medicine, free education, no guns, safety net up the wazoo country, but not all of it. Subtract F-35s, pink batts, NBN etc and the picture would be a bit better. But we do live in a Scandinavian country, only with sun. There is apparently a premium to live here. Too bad that my kids won't be able to, but that's their fault for not paying attention in Calculus.

*universe. I am practicing to become a QF spin meister. Since Earth=Universe, as far as we and the estate agents know, using the grand scale is a free kick towards more impressive rhetoric.

[V-Jet]

So, the Delta pilot (and this is broadly the same for widebody twins in the US) makes 62% more fun tickets that I do.

Cheaper housing, way cheaper property taxes etc and incredibly cheaper cars and other toys.

I don't like the US particularly, but when you can buy AUD$500k cars etc for USD$150k you do see more merit than you might on the surface!

[SOPS]

How do they manage to have such cheap cars, and I'm talking Porsche, Mercs and such in the States?

[Jetpipe2]

SOPS these are some of the reasons.

Market size 10x AUS, so far more sales to pay for the showroom etc.
No Luxury car tax (33% above $60Kish in AUS)
No 5% import car tariff.
Much shorter boat ride from the factory.
Average sales tax in USA 5.75% rather than the 10% GST.

All adds up to cheaper cars, food, living etc.

[Arnold E]

No Luxury car tax (33% above $60Kish in AUS)
No 5% import car tariff.
Much shorter boat ride from the factory.
Average sales tax in USA 5.75% rather than the 10% GS

And a, how many trillion dollar government debt?

[Ned Gerblansky]

Just so you get the picture, The USA printed 12 trillion dollars to extricate themselves from the GFC. Assuming an average house is worth half-a-million dollars, this amount is equal to a house sale every 2 seconds for the next 250,000 YEARS.

[V-Jet]

US Govt debt is destroying the place, but to a very large degree is caused by health care program's and the like. The growth in medical expenses and govt departments has been nothing short of spectacular and is exponential. It is one of the very first times in history that a world superpower is destroying itself through populace largesse rather than military weakness/failure.

And of course it's not that simple, but I think that's the problem the US is grappling with. Voters want more cash for their vote....

[noip]

Interesting Wikipedia page ..

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)

Gross Government Debt as % of GDP
Japan 237%
USA 106%

and .. way down the list we come to .

Australia 27%


N

[V-Jet]

And 6 years ago Australia's was 0.

[nitpicker330]

Yes that right, I have a good idea----why don't we keep borrowing and see if we can join the top of the debt list :D

Or do something about it NOW.:ok:

[V-Jet]

I could argue politics till the cows come home. It certainly affects us as crew but I am thankful Abbott didnt help that revolting twerp get a bigger swimming pool, but back on topic please guys/gals.. Its a good thread:)

Throwing GDP debt figures and tax at me is like waving a red rag to a bull - I apologise:)

[Jock p]

Now this is a surprise.........................not!:(



If You Eat, Drink, & Smoke, These Are The Worst Places To Live In The World | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/if-you-eat-drink-smoke-these-are-worst-places-live-world)

[indamiddle]

Eat? That is not exactly a vice unless we are talking about koalas and fairy penguins being on the menu

[Hempy]

Eat? That is not exactly a vice unless we are talking about koalas and fairy penguins being on the menu

Tastes like chicken

[Wally Mk2]

We are all now paying for our inept Govt system over the past 6 years or so but if we don't suffer some pain now we shall be so far down the track that what's left of this once great country will just be a broke rotting mess with no hope & no future.
What we once called some countries third world thinking we where above them we now stand embarrassed!
WE have done this & I am not proud leaving little to look forward for our children with aviation being one industry that's becoming a dead duck with now a very unstable future.


Wmk2

[The Professor]

“I asked a Seattle based Delta Airlines 330 captain . . . .”

Australopithecus,

Your worldview of the airline industry fits perfectly with your well-chosen pprune name.

A DAL captain is like you, a relic of the past fighting to maintain relevance and hardly an accurate yardstick of the US airline industry.

Also, your net figures for the DAL guy are not accurate. He would be paying a lot more tax than you imagine. You fall prey to the trap most Australians fall into. The cost of living is higher in the US than you think and housing is more expensive than you imagine. There are more hidden taxes than Australia too.

More importantly, salaries in the US are way lower for most people than they are in Australia. There are airline captains in the US flying jet aircraft for airlines classed as majors struggling to make 80k!

Why don’t you make a comparison between your apparently pitiful wage and a pilot employed by a newer unencumbered airline such as Spirit or Allegiant?

I have lived in the US for the past 15 years, worked here and Australia and it makes me sick to hear Australians who earn 300k complaining.

[The Banjo]

Professor,

Not to mention that they have probably lost their entire pension entitlements each time Chapter 11 was declared and been furloughed at short notice...how many times...?

[The Professor]

The Banjo,

Very true, I forgot to mention. The 401K's at the majors such as DAL (expecially for the ex NWA pilots on the 330 fleet)are nothing compared to similar programs at QF.

Again, its very sadening to see a QF pilot earning 300k complaining.

[Offchocks]

The Professor

In my experience, with the odd exception you don't see QF pilots these days complaining about their salaries.

[The Professor]

Offchocks,

Thats encouraging. Sounds like Australopithecus is an exception then.

[Australopithecus]

The Professor:

1. I have never had, nor do I wish to have relevance to anything but my own small sphere of family and friends. It is by nature transitory anyway, and I am happy to do that whole circle-of-life thing.

2. The Delta guy lives in Washington, and the tax figures I quoted are from the U.S. IRS. There are no state taxes in Washington. He would pay higher property taxes I imagine, as well of the host of extra sales taxes etc. i was speaking of net wages though, as I am sure you are aware.

3.that average wages in the US are broadly lower defeats my argument how? The DL guy is making a higher multiple of both the average salary and the average-industry wide standard. Good on him.

You will find that the majority of airline pilots still make these legacy wages. I don't compare my salary to a Spirit pilot because I would not fly for them. They are the most hated of all airlines in North America by both their customer pool and their staff.

Having lived for a time in the USA also I am cognisant of the different standards of living enjoyed by workers earning similar wages.

Which brings us to the balance of your ad hominem rant (even proto-hominids like me are sensitive to the nuances of argument):

I did not complain about my salary at all, just pointing out some realities to the sub-set of pilots who think my and by extension, their, wages are too high.

There is a vexing trait in some people that requires their happiness to hinge on other people's failure as much as their own successes. It is an ugly impulse.

Anyway Professor, thanks for your missive-it speaks volumes. Say "hi" to Ginger and Marry-Ann for me.

[Wan]

Dear Professor,

So that we can make some meaningful comparisons, perhaps you could add some detail to:

"He would be paying a lot more tax than you imagine. You fall prey to the trap most Australians fall into. The cost of living is higher in the US than you think and housing is more expensive than you imagine. There are more hidden taxes than Australia too."

We can work out Australian tax rates on income, we know what the GST is, we know we have to pay for medicare (as well as private health cover), but other than stamp duty, I cannot think of too many other Australian taxes (ignoring government charges for "user pays" things such as passports, pilot medicals etc).

So please let us know what these hidden taxes in the US are, and how the cost of living is higher than we might imagine. If you are prepared to educate us, we wont fall into the trap that you are alleging.

[Willie Nelson]

Let's be clear, we all wish we could have Q salaries, but as Dr. Phil says, how is that working out for you?

While salaries are clearly not the only impediment to the potential failure or success of Q, it seems that some Q pilots are starting to understand that salaries that pay a second officer more than a captain in most other Australian Airlines are playing their part in Q's difficulties. To ignore this is to live with a self justifying view of the world, we all do this sometimes.

Like the federal government, Qantas must run a budget, yet unlike the federal government, if they don't balance it, they go out of business. In the same way as everyone comes cap in hand to Joe Hockey asking that their policy area receive special treatment, everyone has to play a part in the overall success.

Like the majority of Australians, I don't like this budget. Yet I am happy to acknowledge that something has to give sooner or later.

I hope those guys that are given CR's are able to find work elsewhere sooner or later, I trust their training should give them a good standing do get back on with the career that they love. All the best.

[Oakape]

I hope those guys that are given CR's are able to find work elsewhere sooner or later

The only problem is that any job worth having, in a country worth living in, will see them at the bottom of the seniority list. Seniority is fine until you are 50+ & don't have a job anymore. Then it is a bitch! :sad:

[mypov]

What a mixed up bunch of garbage Willie.
All the major competitors of Qantas pay similar wages and in quite a few cases more.
Many don't carry second officers but instead 2 capts and 2 f/o's against 1 capt, 1 f/o and 2 s/o's for qantas on long range flying.

The myth of pilot wages being a problem has been done to death and those that bring it up usually do so because 1.they want to divert attention from the real problems at Qantas. 2.they have a chip on their shoulder because they didn't make the grade. 3.they are too lazy or dumb to gather the info and think for themselves or 4. it fits their ideology.

As for your point that Qantas has a budget therefore pilots are paid too much......well that makes as much sense as the rest of your post.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Let's be clear, we all wish we could have Q salaries, but as Dr. Phil says, how is that working out for you?

FFS I've said it before and I'll say it again, pilots salaries are a side show and a distraction of what is really going on here in Qantas. Each time management has the heat turned up on them they systematically divert the attention to their work force. Unfortunately, to the Average Jo and the narrow minded here, we are the obvious targets being the largest salary earning union group in the organisation, purely by offering a skill at a salary that for a long time was the standard of where the profession was, and globally still probably is.

So don't keep falling for the Sh#t that keeps on coming out from the QF spin doctors, it just makes the ones that jump on the bandwagon look stupid.

[Popgun]

Unfortunately the market theory of wage determination will likely see QF pilot wages fall in the future. (There will be significant productivity improvements as well).

I'm sure if you halved the salary you'd still get shiny-jet-syndrome afflicted kids signing up for the gig. (Probably even if you QUARTERED the salary LOL!)

Still many, many more applicants than positions available (as evidenced by the massive over-subscription for the "buy-yourself-a-job-with-Jetstar" Cadetship).

As identified by numerous posters, however, QF's main competitive problems are company-wide, cost-base and management related. Pilot salaries, even when much higher than average, are minimally significant to the company bottom line.

Anyway... back to the voluntary (and possibly compulsory) redundancy issue...

Any news?

PG

PS. No whinging here...and certainly no troll. I've been adding to the reasoned debate on these boards now for more than 15 years...look at my Join Date.

I am all for Aussie success stories...I sincerely hope QF can be one again.

[Blueskymine]

The myth of pilot wages being a problem has been done to death and those that bring it up usually do so because 1.they want to divert attention from the real problems at Qantas. 2.they have a chip on their shoulder because they didn't make the grade. 3.they are too lazy or dumb to gather the info and think for themselves or 4. it fits their ideology.

Wake up to yourself.

[ruprecht]

2.they have a chip on their shoulder because they didn't make the grade.

That argument does you no favours.:hmm:

[Willie Nelson]

Stalins Ugly Brother, I didn't say that All Qantas Pilots pilot understood their very fortunate terms and conditions in a global context, however I do believe that many are starting too.

Stalins Ugly Brother Said:

"We are the obvious targets being the largest salary earning union group in the organisation, purely by offering a skill at a salary that for a long time was the standard of where the profession was"

I would agree with that statement more or less, I guess that's my point. To suggest however, that this is still the case globally is perhaps stretching a long bow, albeit, there will always be someone earning more and someone earning less.

In the mean time, where is the expansion and where are the promotions?

Trust me when I say I really wish that Qantas was still flourishing domestically and internationally. It will be difficult with the current management at the helm though, I would suggest most of us would agree on that much.

[WorthWhat]

Seems all that is necessary for those who want to have their Qantas VR Offer treated concessionally by the ATO is for the ATO Commissioner approve what Qantas is intending to offer accepted as an Approved Early Retirement Scheme.

FYI

Approved early retirement schemes

An approved early retirement scheme is a scheme that an employer puts into place to encourage certain groups or class of employees to retire early or resign.

Early retirement scheme payments are tax free, up to a limit based on the number of years the employee has worked for their employer. Any amount over the tax-free limit is treated as an employment termination payment. The tax-free limit is a flat dollar amount, plus an amount for each year of completed service with that employer. Indexation changes the tax-free limit on 1 July each year. For employees to be entitled to get the special concessional tax rates, the Commissioner of Taxation must approve the scheme before payments are made.

Payments that can be included:
• payment in lieu of notice
• severance payment of a number of weeks' pay for each year of service
• a gratuity or 'golden handshake'
• lump sum payments of unused long service leave paid on termination of employment, but not under a formal arrangement.

Payments that are not included:
• salary, wages or allowances owing to the employee, for work done or leave already taken for work completed
• lump sum payments of unused annual leave or leave loading paid on termination of employment
• lump sum payments of unused long service leave paid on termination of employment under a formal arrangement.

Conditions for payment:
• The payment is more than the amount the employer would have paid to you, if you voluntarily resigned or retired in other circumstances.
• The termination of employment is before you turn 65 and earlier than the date you would have left your employment anyway.
• Your employer does not have any agreement with another person to re-employ you.
• If you are related to the employer in some way, the payment is not more than it would have been if you were not related (known in tax law as dealing with each other at 'arm's length').
• The Commissioner of Taxation has approved the early retirement scheme.

Source: https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Working/Leaving-the-workforce/Approved-early-retirement-schemes/

Happy days for those intending to go.

[Keg]

Pilot salaries, even when much higher than average, are minimally significant to the company bottom line.

The longer we keep telling ourselves that the longer it will take to address the issue. Some of the figures I've heard of in the last few days for A380 crew- hard data- are simply unjustifiable. (As a aside some of the numbers for 744 are also on the high side but I've said that since my first pay as a 744 F/O way back in 2006). These days the pay- particularly on the dugong- is NOT on par with our competition. Not with EK, not with SQ, not with any of the other UAE carriers, not with US carriers flying similar metal, or Cathay with similar metal. It's not reflective of the work/ life balance, it's not reflective of the responsibility, it's not reflective of the work rate compared to other crew on other aircraft types within the same mainline group.

As for it making a difference to the bottom line, try $75-100 million dollars difference.

We nee to realise that it is these conditions that will result in some crew being demoted and other crew not seeing promotion for a long time. We have been part of creating this problem and we need to be part of the solution. Even things like having different pay rates between aircraft (and thus encouraging changing of types to maximise earning potential) is part of the problem.

The solutions and changes required are significant and will involve pain for all of us. A bit like the budget though, this had been a long time in the making and the longer we put off taking our medicine, the sicker we will be when we finally realise the drastic action that had to be taken.

I'm happy to expand further but that'll do after a long day. I do have a juicy rumour but I'll leave that for tomorrow when I'm not so buggered.

[goodonyamate]

oh come on Keg!! what is it? Alan and Leigh gone? JQI shut down and 787's to QF? JQ Asia gone? Don't tease us!!!!:p

[The Professor]

Australopithecus

“So, the Delta pilot makes 62% more fun tickets that I do.”

“I did not complain about my salary at all”

Really?

Wan

“If you are prepared to educate us”

No, that’s something each responsible person should do themselves. Don’t be so lazy on a topic so important.

Mypov

“All the major competitors of Qantas pay similar wages and in quite a few cases more.”

This is blatantly wrong and its rather disturbing that someone would buy into this propaganda. The truth is actually the opposite.

“Many don't carry second officers but instead 2 capts and 2 f/o's against 1 capt, 1 f/o and 2 s/o's for qantas on long range flying.”

True, and MANY forward facing pilots at your competitor airlines including captains make less than your second officers who cant even operate a sector.

“The myth of pilot wages being a problem has been done to death”

Simply not true. Anyone who can calculate a descent profile can also throw together some numbers to show how the wage differential between QF and CA/TG/MH etc would impact the bottom line. Employee compensation and benefits are vitally important to an airlines result and are one of the few things within the control of the business.

Gone fishin


“Unfortunately you cannot reason with these ridiculous people.”

You don’t need to. At some point the market will crash loudly down around the ears of QF staff especially pilots and the results will be there for all to see. There will be no need for reasoning.

[The Professor]

“A second officer at Qantas may earn similar to a first officer at an Australian competitor”

Would that be an Australian competitor that is also un profitable?

Your problem is NOT with other Australian carriers. Second Officers at Qantas in many cases earn MORE than Captains at airlines Qantas is trying to compete with. This is not the golden bullet that will determine the airlines future but you must understand that the business will not support the disparity for ever.

“….who would apply to work for Qantas?”

This bombshell indicates just how little you understand about employment and motivation. I will give you a hint; successful companies are often not the ones offering the highest salaries.

“If Qantas offered the lowest salaries in Australia would that satisfy you? Maybe. But then, who would be the top paid? And would they be getting paid too much?”

Who cares who pay the highest and lowest? The point is that labor costs at Qantas (and most legacy carriers) are considerably higher than competitors labor costs within similar markets. This will not last forever and the longer the can is kicked along the road, the harder the fall will be.

[Trevor the lover]

Fishin, my god u write rubbish. Your arguments are simplistic, naive and grossly inaccurate.

Just talk to an Emirates driver about what he actually takes home. AND, ask him about his workload (ie, productivity) at the same time. Then compare it to the pay and productivity of a QF S/O.

[The Professor]

“*Labor costs... and labour costs are two entirely different things. It's like debating with a two year old.”

Actually, from where I sit, there is only one way to spell labor.

[MrSnuggles]

Ok, bring it on - I am not from Australia, never been there even. But, as I see it you blabber over each other's salary like that's the end of the world.

Now, from a European (particularly Swedish) flying public point of view, Qantas is the safest airline there is. Many would prefer Qantas for long haul, just because of this reputation. Such a reputation isn't built overnight and to keep the tops on their toes, maybe salaries might be a bit higher than usual.

NOW, the problem is.... I can't book a single Qantas flight from Sweden. There are some from Frankfurt and some from London.

Use your reputation, please, Qantas, create some useful routes and fill your planes. Cutting pay isn't necessarily the only way to make money.

We have our fair share of low budget airlines in Europe. Truth be told, people are getting more and more fed up with having to pay for water or being charged for your boarding pass. No leg space, no luggage, no service and no security margins for staff and passengers.

Sure, low costs are good for a certain niche of people but the major infatuation seem to have faded, at least in Europe. Me thinks a respectable airline with an excellent reputation would be very welcomed by many.

Whatever Qantas decides to do, I really hope you pilots who have created this flawless reputation feel that the majority of the flying public wouldn't care about your salary when they know that you get them from A to B without risking anybody's life. And that is what it boils down to. You are the guys who saves peoples lives and they know it.

Here is to Qantas management and they making good decisions. **klonk**

[FYSTI]

Oh the irony Professor et al is significant pay increases (magnified on A380/B744 due to long sector lengths=overtime) and failure to improve productivity are a direct result of the QF failure to negotiate back in 2011.

Rather than negotiate, management chose to have FWA impose a determination. To go down this path entirely managements choice, even desire. They appear to have wanted FWA to do its dirty work for them, which was politely refused, even poking QF in the eye with significant pay increases & backpay, yet minimal productivity increases. To sheet the blame home to the pilots is completely disingenuous.

A quote from a former President of the Union, in writing to a major daily newspaper recently:


Qantas not unions' fault
In a meeting in February 2011, I offered Alan Joyce a two-year pay freeze and a commitment to rewrite our certified agreement.

This was rejected out of hand. It is an ideological war and Mr Joyce needed the pilots to be able to lock the staff out in 2011 at a cost of over $200 million. There is nothing wrong with industrial relations in Australia but there is a lot wrong with management.

..........................
Barry Jackson
Sydney, NSW

Australian Financial Review, page 35, Friday 7 March 2014
(my bold)In hindsight, perhaps management needed the crisis in negotiations to precipitate a even bigger crisis (lockout), for a larger agenda.

The bottom line is failure to negotiate pay & productivity improvements has been entirely due to management. Pilots have ready to negotiate for many years, but cannot if the other party is unwilling to negotiate, and you know it.

[V-Jet]

Dont let anyone forget that Crew have been the first to sacrifice with pay freezes and cuts in various forms in the past.

It was when those sacrifices were used to increase managememt bonuses and continue to make absolutely insane short sighted and plain stupid, idiotic decisions that support for these cretins EVENTUALLY evaporated.

Unless you have worked for Qf you wont understand, but trust me when I say how much it hurts when people who havent lived it criticise the most loyal workforce it was possible to have.

Im sorry, but if you are hiding the fact you have failed on so many fronts and can ignore $4m a month in thrown away miney STORING!!! Brand new jets tht ANY OTHER AIRLINE WOULD KILL TO USE then you deserve to fail and anyone 'negotiating' with such idiots should treat them with total contempt.

I woul not be capable of Nathan Safe's oh-so-measured approach. He should be a shoe in for the next Papal commission!

This disussion of 2c pay differences between pilot groups drives me up the wall. Especially when it would NOT be an issue if te airline was actually 'managed'. They have managed a market monopoliser into forcing VR on its staff for christs sake! I cannot believe that is possible - in a space of 10 years, let alone have people say 'its all about the staff needing to change'.

Give me strength!

[Keg]

OK, the rumour alluded to last night. First though, the qualifier. I don't know the source very well and it's a bit of a circumstantial case. It's also a bit third hand.

Jetstar recently changed their promotional criteria to 'merit based' rather than seniority based and sent a notice to crew that they'll be accepting DECs. With the RIN on the 767, there are some thoughts bubbling that QF 767 crew may get an offer to go and fly the JQ 787s on JQ terms and conditions. Timing depends on the number of VRs that are accepted, 767 drawdown, etc.

Like I said, don't know the source and it's not from inside Qantas. Personally I put this up there with the 777 rumours but time will tell.

[waren9]

this merit based thing is not new. seniority is still only a "major consideration". its trotted out to help justify the jobs for mates scheme.

[SteaminDivet]

For those living in the dark ages of omnipotence, I offer this piece of information.
For the end of financial year last year I was privy to one financial summary that showed a senior S/O that has never upgraded, (for vocal reasons of lifestyle) that has systematically reduced their roster to 25% of a line and grossed over 130k for that period.
A total of 4 days a month (read an LA return) work. Yes, that is 48 working days a year (not including EP's, sim etc) for $130,000 a year. (And NOT taking any leave)
Whilst I have no idea how integral wages are to profitability, there is not one person who could stand straight faced and say "yeah, that's fair".
This purely at face value can not be sustained long term from a simple economic viewpoint, and until this behaviour is modified it's a long draw of the bow pointing fingers saying managers have their nose in the trough and are pissing money against the wall. It may well be true, but it's embarrassing to think a group that has this behaviour expects to be taken seriously.
No offence to those doing the right thing, this post is not stereotyping, just pointing out a fact.

[V-Jet]

Well I wish I could manage that... I suspect it's an exaggeration - I don't think flex lines have got that low.

Don't forget he still has to maintain currency and study etc and......

THE BLOODY COMPANY CAUSED THE PROBLEM BY REDUCING THE FLYING!!!

That is a symptom of very poor management, nothing to do with someone thinking 'hmmmmm I wonder if I can make this lunacy work for me for once?'

[SteaminDivet]

I wish you were right V-jet, I really do. But actually, my post is based on fact, and not an exaggeration. That's the really sad part. But believe what you will, it matters not to me!
Oh, just to provide clarity the reduction in flying was at the crew members request, not due to a reduction in hours.

[Popgun]

Qantas is the safest airline there is. Many would prefer Qantas for long haul, just because of this reputation. Such a reputation isn't built overnight and to keep the tops on their toes, maybe salaries might be a bit higher than usual.

Not any more.

Qantas is no safer, and no less safe, than nearly every other airline in the developed world. Airlines in the developed world are all about as safe as each other.

The well deserved "safest airline in the world" reputation that Qantas forged over three-quarters of a century of operation is no longer a relevant point of difference as most competitor carriers just don't crash anymore.

I doubt many passengers would accept that QF salary costs should be higher beacause they are 'safer'.

For most travellers these days, its all about price, with safe travel being a well-founded assumption.

PG

[Australopithecus]

SteaminD...

You may have to fine tune your numbers there a bit. Without distracting from your entirely valid point, one LA return is probably closer to 40% of a line, no? (Excuse my ignorance, but would five trips in two months not be typical?)

Also, the guy in question has every right to bid lifestyle. What else is he going to do? The company has amply demonstrated that any career aspirations are a pipe dream.

All of that said...I did ask a 380 S/O what he made in 2013. He showed me his end of year number...it was eye popping. It was heavy on overtime, and probably 30% fatter than his junior peers. Still...slightly more than twice a Dash -8 captain.

I am not going to suggest for a second that these guys should not grab all they can with both hands. They have been amply instructed in this by the CEO, managers and the board. If we had adult leadership and a sober discussion I am sure all of the foregoing would change...but not under the current group of looters.

[AnQrKa]

gone fishin . . . .you sure have mate.

Credibility . . . now zero!

[SteaminDivet]

One BNE-LAX trip a month? That's two and a half trips a bid period? On a 165 divisor?
In addition, the S/O has had nearly 15 years to take an upgrade.
It's fine to go for lifestyle, power to them.
But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, unfortunately it appears to be coming now'ish.
I feel sorry for all the pilots on what's happening at the moment, it's all just plain terrible.
I edited my previous post for clarity to say that the reduction in hours was at the crew members request, not due to a reduction in flying.

[V-Jet]

I edited my previous post for clarity to say that the reduction in hours was at the crew members request, not due to a reduction in flying.

Misleading.

Flex Lines are ONLY available BECAUSE THERE IS REDUCED FLYING THROUGH LUNATIC MANAGEMENT!

Flex Lines are nothing more than a tool to provide an 'excuse' if you will for management screwups.

It also nicely allows anomalies such as the one you point out to be bandied about in the press and elsewhere. It is NOT pilots fault that they signed on to 850+ hours a year and the forward 'planning' (although I'm not sure if I can use that term and Qantas in the same post) was so screwed up that the only way to divide the flying is by doing exactly that.

You are totally missing the point and blaming the messenger.

Joyce and Clifford would love your argument.

[SteaminDivet]

Sorry V-Jet, you seem to be taking this personally, one can also reduce their hours citing a variety of reasons, especially if they are female.
It is not misleading, your just on the defence because you think I'm QF pilot bashing.
You are just jumping at assumptions. Some of those being 'male' and 'agenda' And I am sick of defending my factual statement at your attempts to make me out to be misleading.
Like I said, it matters not to me, I was just trying to join the debate with some experiences I had.
I will leave you to believe what you want. But I am right, and I'm not misleading. I have no care to mislead on this forum.
SteamingDivet 'out' to let people believe what they will!

[V-Jet]

Flex lines were introduced as a way to assist with 'reduced flying hours'.

If you hire pilots to fly aircraft and then decide to park them BY THE DOZEN around the world either to look pretty on tarmacs (the new ones) or cut them up (at VCV) then you are going to have too many pilots.

'Flex Lines' were the first step on the ladder to VR and (I have no doubt) CR.

Look at it another way.

If Qantas was expanding (i.e. being run properly) the way EK, ANZ, CK etc etc are and announcing near record profits with pilots and airframes flying flat out (as they mostly have been since, gee when was it? - Thats right, when Dixon arrived!) what do you think the response might be if Pilots requested to only fly one trip a month? I don't think I would be going all that far out on a limb in saying the response would be along the lines of 'Get Stuffed! Oh, and BTW, you are leaving on a BKK-LHR at 1400 this afternoon!'

[Popgun]

Rather than negotiate, management chose to have FWA impose a determination

And thats the truly bizarre management behaviour.

If I ran a business that was really, truly hurting and looked like collapsing the first thing I would do is sit down with my employees and say we need to strike a more affordable deal.

That would likely involve pay cuts and productivity increases.

If it really IS that dire, why hasn't there been any attempt to negotiate reforms with ALL key employee groups?

A longer term agenda at play me thinks...

[Mstr Caution]

What Leigh Clifford & Alan Joyce set out to do was smash the Qantas Unions.

What they actually did, was smash the airline business.

MC

[Blueskymine]

OK, the rumour alluded to last night. First though, the qualifier. I don't know the source very well and it's a bit of a circumstantial case. It's also a bit third hand.

Jetstar recently changed their promotional criteria to 'merit based' rather than seniority based and sent a notice to crew that they'll be accepting DECs. With the RIN on the 767, there are some thoughts bubbling that QF 767 crew may get an offer to go and fly the JQ 787s on JQ terms and conditions. Timing depends on the number of VRs that are accepted, 767 drawdown, etc.

Like I said, don't know the source and it's not from inside Qantas. Personally I put this up there with the 777 rumours but time will tell.

Great rumour, but no truth.

The FSO you are alluding to read that way due to there being a common OM suite across the entire business. Local workplace agreements overrule.

Yes seniority will be a major consideration, the other is suitability by appropriations committee. If you're not passing your sims, you won't get the upgrade.

However a recent court case involving a disgruntled FO who was passing sims at minimum standard and overlooked, ruled that he should be given the opportunity to undertake command training.

As for QF 767 pilots flying JQ 787s. Entirely possible. But they won't be based in Australia on the Australian EBA. The MOU numbers are almost at FO ranks so they'll be junior commands outside the major centres if they are offered. The existing MOU guys will have to QFR soon or go back to the sinking ship. Ones gone to CS. Two have QFR. How many will follow?

[Mstr Caution]

"there are some thoughts bubbling that QF 767 crew may get an offer to go and fly the 787s"

Ive trimmed the statement to fit the rumour thats been around for about a month.

Depends what entity is tasked with flying the 787?

JQ, QF or another entity.

Don't forget the company goal in a former QF mainline EBA was establish a Asian base with QF branded aircraft.

MC

[Offchocks]

SteaminDivet

Not commenting on pay costs and life style but I think someone has lead you astray, a BNE-LAX is only worth 42:10 including overtime, doing twelve a year at the the hourly rate for a 12+ year SO is no where near $130k. It is also currently a 6 day trip not a 4 day trip.
To work that little and get that pay, you would have to be close to an A330 captains rate.

[Toruk Macto]

Have a look back at history to get an idea of where this may be going . Chapter 11 or a few other airlines that where in a similar state as Qantas . Think Philippine airlines is a good example as any . Govt run and losing money , business man buys it for peanuts and tells the govt its broke , he is allowed to get rid of staff at no cost . 1 day later resigns contracts with companies to provide all services at %15 (?) of original costs , orders new aircraft and has a profitable airline worth billions .
Won't be same for Qantas as laws and courts are different but its got a similar feel to it .

[noip]

FYSTI #146
V-Jet #147


Thankyou.

The Trolls and Stupid people were starting to annoy me.

What is a Stupid person? One who is not prepared to GRADE ... as it were.
Of course we all know that ideology and group think are the way to make a decision ...... after all that is what the smartest guys in the room seem to think.


And lest he feels left out ... Sunfish .. thankyou as well. Your postitive contributions have been in the top percentile of value here.

N

And again for the really really stupid people ....
QF staff wages and conditions have ZERO to do with any perceived ..er .. problems......

sigh.

[V-Jet]

Would it be fair to say that QF employees get paid about 35% more then their stupid rivals…….? That equates to nearly 1 Billion dollars a year.

No it certainly wouldn't. It is swings and roundabouts, but basically the same. Virgin Engineers get 5% more than QF Engineers as a single example.

I am (and everyone else at QF who has half a brain) SICK OF REPEATING MYSELF!!! The wages are NOT the problem. Guys from my course are with airlines elsewhere and it is exactly that - swings and bloody roundabouts...

[Australopithecus]

I had an insulting reply for you there ballsdeep, but I am tired of this discussion.

Profits= revenue - costs.

The endless focus on staff costs while neglecting revenue ends one way only. The path to airline bankruptcy is a well-trodden one, yet our idiots insist on hiking it.

[Flyboat North]

QF longhaul pilots are likely overpaid to the tune of around $100K per year each , really quite a substantial saving that could be made , but it won't be so the business will either go bankrupt or be shut down at an ever increasing rate.

Second Officers earning between $170K to 220K, that is more than a BA Captain (which you achieve at 15 to 20 years) these days

Comparisons with US carriers are meaningless, yes their wages have come back over recent years , but they were merciless with redundancies after 9/11. And from 2002 through 2010 QF SOs would have been earning more than the average Capt Wage as most US Majors. Don't forget also most US major pilots lost if not all ,then a substantial portion of their retirement/pensions

Remember after Sept 11 , Gordon Bethune immediately fired 20% of Continental Staff (furloughed as they would say, we would say redundant), and then cut the wages by 20% of those who remained.

Wouldn't have happened at Qantas , the staff wouldn't accept it.

The former QF Chief Economist , states quite simply that he doesn't think QF International can be saved. He presents as a credible voice who has moved on since his QF days, and now among other things teaches MBAs at USyd/NSW

[busdriver007]

Ballsdeep...wow what a tosser and an IQ of an 3 year old...10 years time there will be no pilotless aircraft and guess what there will be twice the number of aircraft in the sky and many jobs for pilots albeit contract work but there will be jobs. This guy has the temerity to ridicule the situation, shows the mentality of his tiny mind. He is the dunderhead who will continue to undermine anyone that stands in his way. Obviously a relic on a bygone era when staff and management fight daily. Maybe he is related to the clowns running Qantas. The successful companies have ditched this and moved on to work with the staff and not against them. Don't give up Austral, he is just a stooge. By the way we can do their job but they can't do ours, simple, be patient.:ugh:

[Jetsbest]

... likely overpaid ...

So it's fact then? I'm so relieved to learn the abridged truth.

But really, I know Cathay and QF pilots on the A330 fleets. The QF pilot is flying more and earning less than the equivalent Cathay pilot for the last year.

I'm prepared to concede that it's a case of swings and roundabouts, but it's definitely not all types/all pilots/all the time earning more at Qantas. I am surprised that some enjoy 'the koolaid' so much that they seem to derive pleasure from watching what is a distressing situation for all in the firing line.

And if any chance of a QF recovery hinges entirely on pilots going to new global lows in remuneration.... well.... we're all toast :rolleyes:

[noip]

oh ...

tiny testicles and FN ..

Yes ..

You are both stupid .. I'm sorry this evolution thing didn't work out for you.

Love ..

N

[donpizmeov]

The only overpaid person at QF is the CEO. Any pilot that complains that other pilots are over paid is an idiot.

The don

[amos2]

Don't piss us off Don! ;)

[nitpicker330]

1/ QF Pilots on the 330 earn similar but slightly more than CX based Pilots
2/ A JQ friend training on the 330 boasted how he earned more than a CX based Pilot. ( me ) I said "maybe mate but you worked a **** load harder than me"

So based on that you could say that a JQ 330 Pilot must earn close to a QF 330 Pilot.?

This blaming the wages of QF Pilots for their companies woes is rubbish and a deliberate distraction to gain the publics support for yet another attack on Pilots T and C's Australia wide.

CX VA JQ NZ TT Managers all watch and compare notes with each other over a nice glass or two and I'm sure the grand plan continues.

[theheadmaster]

Remember after Sept 11 , Gordon Bethune immediately fired 20% of Continental Staff (furloughed as they would say, we would say redundant), and then cut the wages by 20% of those who remained.

Wouldn't have happened at Qantas , the staff wouldn't accept it.

5000 staff is about 15%.

Pay freeze over 3 years is close to 10% wage cut for all QF staff.

This may not be exactly the same numbers as you quote, but it is a significant proportion.

The former QF Chief Economist , states quite simply that he doesn't think QF International can be saved. He presents as a credible voice who has moved on since his QF days, and now among other things teaches MBAs at USyd/NSW

Yes, he does to other things, like provide advice to interested parties to this debate ;)

[ChickenHouse]

Interesting discussion, but sometimes a bit awkward. I do compare a captain on an airliner with a Minor Executive Officer on ground. Now, let's do the math: they fly 1.100 hours a year, say 750 flights. There are maybe 200 people on board, paying 500 dollar a flight. This makes a revenue per flight captain and year of around 75 Mio USD, where she/he is responsible for. There are about 10 people for which the captain is responsible as well. So, take the salary of a non-C Executive being responsible for 75 Mio and 10 people -> at least the captain in air is definitely not overpaid by means of ground salaries. My5cents.

[V-Jet]

What have Pilots/Staff done that has demonstrably damaged the finances and health of Qantas?

Why are we arguing about staff costs when staff have done nothing to damage the Company when the complete idiots at the top think spending $4m a month in parking fees is a smart option?

Why is it so few see the extraordinary wealth theft from the piggy bank that 95 years of loyal staff gave this collection of financial frauds, thieves and charlatans?

It is a f&@$):)ing joke that the argument has been skewed so much. I would expect people on this forum to at least be able to think for themselves rather than swallow the line, hook and sinker from such a completely incompetent group of tools.

They have created Enron from a National Icon that had favourable monopoly status in the hearts and minds of all Australians. It is a disgrace.

[MrSnuggles]

Popgun.

I see you are from/in Australia. Your point may very well be valid in an Australian aviation context. Of that I do not know a thing. Never been there, although I have understood from others that Australia is a great place overall.

What I wanted to state was that Qantas has a very good reputation in Europe - and here I can speak for Sweden in particular - for being safe and polite. These are "soft" values that I believe Qantas should be proud of and that goes back to how all Qantas pilots and staff have expressed themselves over the years.

So, fighting and turning amongst EACH OTHER when the blame lies elsewhere from the beginning is bad for business. I would like to emphazise that this reputation Qantas has at least in most European countries may very well be a result from paying properly to ensure keeping the best pilots within the company.

My belief is that a pilot who knows his/her income and knows he/she has a steady job will feel more secure. Job security means less stress to bring to the cockpit which leads to better decisions in the pointy end. Just take a look at those poor commuter codeshares in the US, they lost a planeload of people to stress and fatigue just a few years ago.

Yes, there are competition from low cost carriers. But, as I said, the first infatuation rush seem to have slowed down. Ryanair may never have crashed a plane but the sheer number of incidents are alarming. One night during stormy weather they had three fuel emergencies at the same airport. On at least two occasions flight crew have literally fallen off the plane - out of the door, down on the tarmac. I kid you not. One of these occasions was in Sweden - the FA was so stressed out she didn't notice the flight stairs were missing.

Now, people remember these things. And they remember that Qantas never made a fool of themselves - at least not in Europe. The trend is slowly turning around again. Sure, low costs are here to stay, for teenagers, students and people in crocs and sweatpants. But any reasonably intelligent person would not use low costs that I know of. As one person said to me "if it costs less it means they maintain less", comparing it to a well maintained car. It is a reasonable comparison, I think.

So bickering over who's earning the most and blaming senior pilots who helped build this great reputation is NOT the way to solve any airline crisis. Seeing low costs as a standard for future airline business is not necessarily the way to go either.

I would suggest you whiny people with or without "balls" take a step back and see the whole picture - what is the brand Qantas representing. Maybe not for you who are involved but for the general flying public. Fwiw I think Qantas reputation is a gold standard and I would hate to see it dwindle into some low cost wannabee just because pilots turn on eachother instead of coming together to fix the problem.

If the problem is bad management then just fix that. It is not that hard. Forcing out bad management has been done before. Just as long as you don't turn on each other. Caesar said something like "divide and conquer" and in this thread I see exactly how that is achieved. You dig out some questionable comparisons between Australian and US salaries and use that against each other when you could unite and do something to get rid of the management that is annoying in the first place.

The real questions are: who would you like to be in charge in the future? What would you like the future to look like? How will you achieve that?

[V-Jet]

If the problem is bad management then just fix that. It is not that hard.

It has eluded us for 15 years..... They even built a grassy knoll outside head office, but no one used it...

[Australopithecus]

That's because they also tied up the lease on the seventh floor of the book depository building accross the road. And there are too many Zapruders running around with their pesky iphones cameras and such.

[The Professor]

“QF staff wages and conditions have ZERO to do with any perceived ..er .. problems......”

No, they have a lot to do with the REAL problems.

“Virgin Engineers get 5% more than QF Engineers as a single example.”

As before, Virgin is NOT the airline you should be concerned about.

“The wages are NOT the problem”

There is not a business manager alive today in Australia today that would agree with this statement. Especially one from an industry saddled with bloated legacy labor costs and industrial fat.

“The QF pilot is flying more and earning less than the equivalent Cathay pilot for the last year.”

Awesome, fantastic. That’s a great example. But its just ONE example and CX is trying its best to curb labor costs also. Should we make the comparison between labor costs at Qantas and Thai/Malaysia/Singapore/Silkair/Philipines/Lan Chile/Vietnam/Air China/China Southern/China Eastern/Sichuan/Hainan/Garuda/Air Asia/Fiji/Air New Guinea/Air New Zealand/South African?

Qantas labor costs are higher than ALL of these airlines and in many cases significantly higher.

Wages represent about 20% of operating revenue of an airline such as Qantas. Crew wages (pilots about 6 and FA about 4) represent about 10% of operating revenue.

You would need to be insane to think that the business would not be focused on these costs that unlike fuel and exchange rates, can be controlled!

[ferris]

Awesome, fantastic. That’s a great example. But its just ONE example.... Easy to just gloss over CX, prof?
"Cathay Pacific Chairman Christopher Pratt said: “The operating environment remained challenging throughout 2013, for the Group and the aviation industry as a whole. It was encouraging to see an improvement in our overall performance, and the strength of the passenger business reflects our continuing investment in network development and providing superior service and world-beating products." " From the March 2014 announcement of their HK$2620million profit.
So, if most of the costs are fixed, as you say, and CX wages are the same or higher than QF pilots, the difference must be management strategy.....taken from the same report-
"Passenger revenue in 2013 increased by 2.4%..."
"capacity began to increase towards the end of the year as frequencies were restored and new routes were introduced."
"withdrawing older, less fuel-efficient aircraft from service and taking delivery of new, more fuel-efficient aircraft."
"In 2013 Cathay Pacific continued to upgrade its fleet.."
"in December 2013, the airline announced an order for 21 new Boeing 777-9X aircraft (for delivery after 2020), three new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft and one new Boeing 747-8F freighter, and to sell six existing Boeing 747-400F freighters..."
So, CX were upgrading their fleet, buying MORE B777s, increasing networks and routes (expanding), replacing old aircraft with new etc.
Qantas management were.....? Pretty f*****g obvious, even to those of us watching who are not professors. Even Alan's buddies at EK, made over a billion dollars while paying those exorbitant and bloated pilot salaries.
Please, continue to gloss over these facts as you spin, deflect and apologise.

[V-Jet]

The world economy is picking up and anecdotal evidence suggests 'most' airlines are doing better. No i dont have all the figures but I have that impression.

Qantas is not. Despite 'similar' working conditions and costs.

Qantas is cancelling aircraft orders, buying aircraft and parking them, betting the farm on ventureS across the globe that after 10+ years have failed to nett dollar one, had one failed venture nationalised by a foreign govt, had executives put in gaol for dodgy financial dealings, built expensive lounges (for millions - we arent talking a few chairs and a pie vending machine!) and then after 90 years stopping using the hub, handing on a gaudy platter our entire premium customer portfolio to an airline based at an airport that is grossly overcrowded undergoing repairs making the holding worse, cancelling 50 year destinations againg handing them to our biggest competitor, failing to replace in any meaningful sense the backbone of Longhaul operations after sending good aircraft to be destroyed, alienated the entire Eastern suburbs (wealthiest part of Australia) by forcing passengers onto a natioanal carrier with an avowed centuries old hatred of them (Arabs dont like Jews) gambled the airlines exceptional name in the press with an off the cuff and totally uneducated guess about a major airline incident (Qf32), made massive changes to the most respected centres of aircraft engineering in the world, tried to bully foreign govts into allowing them unfettered access to their own markets, ordered billions of dollars of aircraft for an airline that has a tiny chance (I would say none) of even getting a base, systematically removing the brands USP (unique selling point - Australia) from all its services and front line presentation, had customers willing to spend big money flying with them, but deliberately and systematically forced them onto a discount product by removing premium options for premium customers, consistently destroyed its relationships with political allies, demanded governmental support, attacked its only domestic competitor in corridors of power and publicly for its internal structuring and international relationships and then demands to copy them, says to staff that about 15% will be sacked if they dont get a taxpayer bailout of billions (when competitors are increasing profits) but makes the announcement before having any idea of who is leaving or where they are going from, has a Board and Senior management with NO actual experience in what the company they are paid to control actually does and openly admits to 'having learnt a lot as we only really knew about airlines through 1st Class Lounges' and overseen an 80ish % fall in the share price but pays an extraordinarily huge salary package to its 'managers' - totally ridiculous in comparison to their peers and these minor failures are just off the top of my head without any great thought.

Oh, and they shut down the company at a cost of $200m because staff violently protested against company management direction by wearing red ties and making PA's asking to keep an Australian Icon Australian.

I can totally understand why the problems are seen as staff being greedy by earning what they do in similar businesses, even though a 50% pay cut would make not a jot of difference to anything that deeply concern them...

[V-Jet]

And announcing an 'ultra premiun' carrier in Asia but launching a discount one - and while on the topic of bloated salaries that people seem obsessed with - why not talk about Neil Perry, a CHEF who announced his package as being circa $1.3m per year....

This is a Company that has totally and completely lost the plot and is blaming everything it possibly can (with its still massive media pull) for its total failure to make even the most basic decisions.

[FYSTI]

''I wonder,'' Prince Metternich is supposed to have said when an aide whispered into his ear at a royal ball that the czar of all the Russians was dead, ''I wonder what his motive could have been.''Professor, lets cut through the red herrings & emotional distractions, back to the core of the issue, the continued failure of management to negotiate on this back in 2010/11 Why? Answer that question. There has been more than sufficient time to do so, yet it has not happened. It is impossible to negotiate with a brick wall.

You appear to be happy to talk about everything else, except the central issue, the failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?

Refute the statement made by Capt Barry Jackson, in writing in a national newspaper. I am not aware of any Qantas media release or statement that has denied or challenged his statement.


As I wrote back in post #146 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/539814-300-qantas-pilots-get-chop-8.html#post8484606)
Qantas not unions' fault
In a meeting in February 2011, I offered Alan Joyce a two-year pay freeze and a commitment to rewrite our certified agreement.

This was rejected out of hand. It is an ideological war and Mr Joyce needed the pilots to be able to lock the staff out in 2011 at a cost of over $200 million. There is nothing wrong with industrial relations in Australia but there is a lot wrong with management.

..........................
Barry Jackson
Sydney, NSW

Australian Financial Review, page 35, Friday 7 March 2014
(my bold)

[Jetsbest]

If you apparently know all this, why have Executive Management (EM) been so coy with the facts? Wouldn't it be easy to unambiguously make their water-tight case if they simply produced all the evidence?

The truth is that EM's propensity for;
- evasive answers to everyone's questions from employees to Senate Inquiries,
- half truths and misleading inferences,
- inconsistent answers (new jets; good for JQ, bad for QF), and
- denial of obvious and exorbitant wastage (JQ jets in storage),
has created the climate where virtually nothing EM tries to assert is believed.

People are not that stupid. I believe employees could be trusted to understand the facts if given the chance to see the research and ask a few questions. EM's condescending "trust us" attitude is the height of arrogance when they fail to simply prove what they are saying and/or admit their own mistakes too. EM have claimed amaaaazing foresight for opportunities in the last ten years, but cannot enunciate a single "if this (eg new pay rate for pilots) could be achieved, then that (eg 50 x 787s) will be our plan" for Qantas mainline!!

Platitudes won't cut it. Neither will blanket 'no cost increases under any circumstances' policies. EM now has even the JQ people pissed off! Employees are effectively being told that, no matter what efficiencies might be offered, there are absolutely NO promises w.r.t. fleet, routes, expansion, the 'turn-around' etc.

The question being asked out there is; What is gained if employees 'sell their soul' in concessions only to give the company a cheaper compulsory redundancy payout so that the CEO and friends can gloat about their masterful HR outcomes?

I say "So much for leadership". :hmm:

[ferris]

Leadership?

FFS.

The day AJ gives back, say, $1million because the company made a loss proportionate to his net worth.....I'm sure he will have the staff onboard.

If AJ owned the company- so when it loses ....$300 million, he loses $300million, I am certain behaviours would be different.

However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?

If his nuts were on the block, I am certain things would be different. What do you think, professor- should executives be remunerated with millions of dollars when presiding over such large losses and underperformance/negative turn-arounds? Or should there be a similar fate as faced by the owners? i.e you make a large profit, we will pay you millions. Make a large loss, and we will remove limbs/appendages.

Or is there another agenda, which would make paying millions for such poor paper performance palatable?

Otherwise, let's pay an MBA from say, India/Philippines/China/Vietnam to be CEO at $250k, since such benchmarking seems to be a good idea.

[V-Jet]

However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?

Exactly. It's Heads we win, Tails you lose. You built the company over nearly 100 years, and we can gamble with it and wreck it in ten with no skin in the game.

[ferris]

Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"- he might point out the 'opportunity cost' of parking all those planes (let alone the 'opportunity cost' of using the 787s at J* instead of mainline....ooops).

[hotnhigh]

Hey Professor...
Have you seen the qantas pyramid?http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/2013_WGEA_Report.pdf

Board 9
Level 1 CEO 1
Level 2 Executive Committee 7
Level 3 Executive Manager 62
Level 4 Head of Department/Senior Manager 433
Level 5 Manager( manger of people or a function) 2054
Level 6 Coordinator/Supervisor (non management position) 8557
Level 7 Team member 23298

Any issues with the stack?
And where do you reckon pilots fit in?:ugh::ugh::ugh:
The document also lists the entities within the group.
I know, lets segment further!!!!

[Flyboat North]

QF Second Officers paid more than Etihad and Emirates Captains, and you guys don't think pilot salaries are a problem.

QF Second Officers paid the same or more than BA narrow body captains ( command takes at least 15 years in Company).

Truly in Disneyland without a ticket

QF "Engineers" - well they call themselves Engineers but they are tradesman who hold a TAFE qualification, they are not recognized by the professional engineers peak body Institute of Engineers. Because they do not hold engineering degrees , they are tradies who quite often have a year 10 education. In the US they proudly call themselves what they actually are aircraft mechanics. So the QF aircraft tradesman who fraudulently call themselves "engineers" almost all getting paid well over $100K (and often up to $150K) for a 38 hour week. Must be the highest paid (for hours worked) tradies in the Land (one exception might be offshore workers) , their wages would often exceed those who do actually have engineering degrees - great pay for a year 10 grad. Likely around twice what your American counterparts are getting

But it is all just the fault of "the management" , the fact that QF wage bill is 24% of costs has nothing to do with it.

[ramius315]

Flyboat North,

QF SOs don't earn more thank EK or EY Capts. Not even close.

You're the one in Disneyland. Without a brain for facts.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

QF Second Officers paid more than Etihad and Emirates Captains, and you guys don't think pilot salaries are a problem

Yes it's all the fault of Second Officers. They wrote the contract themselves. They created the position of Second Officer themselves, and NONE of them want upgrades to window seats. They are all lazy, over entitled, overcompensated Pilots who completely control every aspect of their current predicament.:hmm::hmm:

They even employed themselves en masse just 6 years ago in one of the biggest recruiting drives in the history of the company... (were they not already uncompetitive then…?):mad::mad:

No, Qantas Pilots have never ever offered to try and make themselves more competitive and negotiate with the management:

Again, for the mentally retarded:

Qantas not unions' fault
In a meeting in February 2011, I offered Alan Joyce a two-year pay freeze and a commitment to rewrite our certified agreement.

This was rejected out of hand. It is an ideological war and Mr Joyce needed the pilots to be able to lock the staff out in 2011 at a cost of over $200 million. There is nothing wrong with industrial relations in Australia but there is a lot wrong with management.

..........................
Barry Jackson
Sydney, NSW

Australian Financial Review, page 35, Friday 7 March 2014

Qantas is going broke because of Second Officers. You heard it here first.

No, not managements fault at all. Nothing to do with them.

[Flyboat North]

The SOs are all members of the AIPA , and the AIPA has negotiated the EBA , workplace contracts etc on their behalf.

The Long Haul Agreement is 300 pages of give me , give me, give me, and is frankly a bizarre document. It really represents some kind of 1970s Pilot Nirvana wonderland, and really demonstrates a disconnect with reality.

There is no other document that details anywhere near the endless reams of entitlements , allowances , allowances , allowances as are detailed in this document.

You see the QF crews strutting around airports in SEA , walking the " Qantas Strut" , always mightily over crewed & with Cabin crew looking five years out from a nursing home , no doubt all earning over $100K

If you asked the pilots , well see that SIA crew they have two pilots ,why do you guys have three. You would get an answer like "We are Qantas, we are special , we are a national icon , we are therefore icons and that's how we roll brother".

Barry is telling tall stories again is he , was going to rewrite the whole document - Bahhhhhhh, when he was Pres he was babbling about job security , job security , job securitiy - what a firm grasp of reality he had.

Kiwi - call yourself what you actually are , you are a tradesman - you are not an engineer (despite what might be on some "licence"), you guys need to stop fraudulently calling yourselves engineers, it is a trade a highly skilled one sure and all aircraft tradies should be proud of their trade, the Americans just call it like it is Aircraft Mechanic.

[Jenna Talia]

Guys, just ignore the trolls and don't bother responding to their asinine posts.

[Blueskymine]

It made me laugh, but the truth lies somewhere between the extremist views and the ones claiming Qantas t & cs are the norm. I've had some funny overnights with Qantas crew. There are certainly some eccentrics in the rank and file. Having said that, they are in every airline. Qantas just seem to have a few more.

If Qantas is so competitive you'd see it growing. It's not. It's not ideological warfare. It's plain and simple. If management can make a buck for the shareholders they'll make an buck extra for themselves. I can't see Elaine making a buck ever, in any company. He's just a bean counter at heart.

Jetstar Australia was/is a good idea. It's also a pretty good business naysayers beware. I can't see the Asian franchises doing to well. Ever. The only people who make money in Asia are Asians. Asia is littered with failed western enterprise and stolen intellectual property. That is how they do business.

[theheadmaster]

Flyboat, your definition of engineer is quite narrow. A professional that holds an engineering degree or similar qualification is just one form of engineer. Not sure how old you are, but aircraft used to have flight engineers. Old locomotives were operated by engineers. Members of the Royal Corps of Engineers - sappers - are engineers. Are you going to notify the Queen that she is wrong calling her soldiers engineers?

The term 'engineer' has a long history as a term to describe a technical trade. Stating that only someone with an engineering degree can call themselves an engineer is wrong.

[CaptCloudbuster]

Meanwhile over in Short Haul our EA expired back on 31 August 2012.

Just another example of the worlds best Airline Managers approach to their staff and lack of urgency.

Yet another delay due to QF management with this from AIPA today...

_ SHEA Update - May 2014 __


As you would be aware, your SHEA team was due to meet with Company negotiators on 7 May 2014. We expected to be provided with details of the proposed company-wide wage freeze policy at this meeting.

At the request of Qantas, the scheduled meeting was delayed and we have finally pencilled in our next meeting to occur on 27 May 2014.

Given this latest delay, we anticipate a complete policy regarding remuneration to be forthcoming, as it will have been 3 full months since the February announcement and we haven’t seen any progress on this issue.

Your SHEA team is cognisant of the fact that the patience of Short Haul pilots is being tested by continual delays outside of their control. Be assured that we are doing everything possible to ensure a swift conclusion to an already well overdue EA.

This disrespect shown despite the QF SH Pilots achieving the following accolades from QF Domestic CEO back in Jan 14 (http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-most-on-time-major-domestic-airline-for-2013)

QANTAS MOST ON-TIME MAJOR DOMESTIC AIRLINE FOR 2013

This is first time Qantas, or any other airline, has been the most on time airline for 12 out of 12 months and is the fifth year in a row Qantas has recorded the best results.

Qantas Domestic Chief Executive Officer Lyell Strambi said strong on-time performance results were a contributing factor to Qantas Domestic’s strong customer satisfaction levels.

“We know how important reliability and punctuality is to our customers so we are delighted to be consistently delivering on this year after year,” Mr Strambi said.

....

“All airlines operate in the same weather conditions and within the same airport environment, so the difference between our on-time performance and our competitors comes down to our dedicated people who work tirelessly to get our customers to their destinations on time.

[QF22]

Flyboat re Licenced Aircraft Engineers
Many Airlines including
QF,NZ,CX,SQ,MH,TG,EK,QR,EY,BA,AI,9W,BI,CI,BR,KZ, etc etc most of Europe, Africa, Asia etc etc all have them.
They may have only attended school until they were 16, but ever since then they lived, breathed and studied aircraft systems and maintenance,
I am sure when they have a busted jet, most pilots are happy to see a Licenced Aircraft Engineer walk into the aircraft,who knows how to either fix it, or get you going to where it can be fixed.
Degree engineers have their purpose, but a good LAE is worth every bit of $150K per year, especially when they work 3000hours a year, Xmas, New Year, Easter, Birthdays etc etc like me !
Rant over !

[Wunwing]

Flyboat.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel didn't have a degree either so since I was under the impression that he was one of the Worlds greatest ENGINEERS I must have been wrong . He wasn't an engineer at all, just a puffed up fitter?

And while we are on it,in the USA the mechanics and sparkies work for ENGINEERING companies even though I never saw any degreed ones amongst their ranks.

In the US they also had/have FLIGHT ENGINEERS who like Australia had licenses issued by their Government.

The typical airline LAME in Australia when I worked in the industry had a large team working under him and /or was the final person resposnsible for a very expensive asset.What do you think that the person who signs out an A380 should be paid? Maybe the same as the mechanic that services my car?
The typical GA LAME often does earn less than my mechanic.

I guess that you think that they should be paid peanuts?

Wunwing

[Hempy]

Don't feed the troll, he just cruises the forums looking for attention.

[Flyboat North]

Aircraft ares designed built and tested by degree qualified engineers not tradesmen but aero / mech / elec /electronic / materials engineers etc etc.

As I said earlier a lot a aircraft tradesmen at QF leave school after year 10 , engineers have at least six , and often seven years (if you do Eng @ UMelb) of full time education more than you , something you will simply never make up, so stop pretending you are part of this group.

The authority that recognizes & registers/licenses Engineers in Australia is the Institute of Engineers ; it is not CASA - they regulate aircraft tradies.

HM , all very interesting but we don't really have loco/flight engineers these days. Your thinking is a bit black and white brother , bellowing at me "you are wrong", not so nice perhaps a touch of schoolteacher syndrome.

Engineering Corps of Army the enlisted guys yes great job they do at Clearing and maintaining roads/airfields , operating barges ferries , clearing obstacles etc etc. But because a soldier drives a grader for the Eng Corp -that doesn't make him an engineer. Brilliant grader/bulldozer driver and all that he might be.

In the modern vernacular if someone describes themself as an "engineer" it means they have an engineering degree - simply concept really.

Kiwi, at sleep with Teddy bears. Well that is one way of looking at it another way would be that these guys had tons more drive , self discipline & toughness than you. Because they we able to push themselves through the endless hours of study , in late teens early twenties when it was pretty much party time for the Trade boys. They didn't want to be working the graveyard shift in their 40s and did something to ensure that didn't happen.

Notice Clifford who is Professional Eng is your Chairman don't see too many self called aircraft spanner men "engineers" gracing the boardrooms.

It is only a handful of former British Colonies who have adopted this quaint habit of bestowing the title "engineers" upon aircraft mechanics.

Got to love the Brits and their titles.

Actually looks like three Engineers on the QF board

You might have fooled CASA into calling you "Engineers" doesn't seem the Institute of Engineers , or others were so easily fooled.

[V-Jet]

Notice Clifford who is Professional Eng is your Chairman don't see too many self called aircraft spanner men "engineers" gracing the boardrooms.

And that, my cretinous friend, is precisely the reason the Company has been so totally f:&&):(/ed!

The key to any successful company is having people run it who actually know what the hell it is that the company does.

This is a bunch of cretins off the Richter scale of incompetence. The adjectives simply don't exist to properly explain their level of stupidity. They don't understand anything about aircraft:
- Maintenance
- Operations
- Customer Service
- Aerodynamics
- Public image
- Logistics
- Business
- International Relations
- Australia
- Weather

And the list is unending. It is embarrassing being associated with these complete titanic fools.

As I said in an Engagement Survey once when asked to explain how I felt about management I said something along the lines of:

' If I saw the Board and Executive Management Team on fire, and it were at all possible to do so, I would race to the nearest Petrol Station, fill up the largest tank I could and from a safe distance pump as much fuel on them as I possibly could. Their incompetence is quite simply indescribable and unless someone physically terminates them as a service to the Company, or they resign and suicide, then these surveys are a waste of time because the Company we all joined because we loved everything Qantas stood for, will, to all intents and purposes, cease to exist.'

I think I wrote that in about '05. It has taken them longer to kill it than I originally thought, but they may be doing a more thorough job....

[theheadmaster]

Flyboats,

You have fallen for a line of logical reasoning that is false. Take the statement 'all Boeing 737s are aircraft'. From this you cannot reverse the statement to get 'all aircraft are 737s'. Similarly, to be recognised by a professional organisation as an engineer does not mean that if you are not recognised by that body, you are not an engineer. So, more correctly 'in the modern vernacular', if you say you are an engineer, it may mean that you have an engineering degree, or it might mean that you are in one of the other recognised disciplines recognised as engineers.

Your statement that licenced aircraft engineers are trying to be something they are not is false. An engineer that has gone to university and obtained a tertiary qualification is a different species of engineer to a licenced engineer. The term 'engineer' predates the tertiary qualification. You brush off the reference to military engineers, when in fact, they were the 'first' engineers. The term 'civil engineer' was developed to differentiate the discipline from the established use of the term. The soldiers you describe are very much engineers. Sappers in the Royal Corps of Engineers are trained as military engineers, then have another specialty to do some of the tasks you mention.

'Got to love the Brits and their titles', well, they also invented the language we use (edit: yes, I know many of the words are borrowed or derived from other languages). There are plenty of words in the English language that have nuances and different meanings determined by context.

I note with interest that you to point out my thinking is 'black and white'. Perhaps you should reflect back on what your argument is: engineering degree equals engineer, no engineering degree means not an engineer. It is this argument that is black and white, and wrong.

Now, this web site is a professional pilots rumour network. I am a professional, are you? Interested in what your thoughts are regarding use of the word 'professional'

[Livs Hairdresser]

Congrats FBN, we have a new winner ... for the most amount of utter ****e in one post!

I am a degree qualified, professional engineer who worked in the industry prior to aviation. I have no problem calling LAMEs ''engineers" and if anyone should be offended by this it should be me. Your post demonstrates not only do you know nothing about LAMEs, you also know nothing about professional engineers.

Because they we able to push themselves through the endless hours of study , in late teens early twenties when it was pretty much party time for the Trade boys.
Yeah, 'cause those uni kids never party at all. Or maybe you didn't, sitting at your desk for endless hours of study, but didn't you wonder what all the noise was about?

I can tell you that working as a grade 1 engineer your daily workload involved hardly any actual 'engineering'. Not only that, you also relied very heavily on what were our equivalent of LAMEs (we called them Technical Officers and Assistant Technical Officers - no degree, generally trades background) for technical advice as they had the experience and knowledge of implementing work methods and practices. A good TO would make or break the job, much more so than a good engineer.

My classmates who ended up in various industries have all had fairly similar roles. And as they've progressed up through the ranks over the years to become project managers, compliance audit managers etc they do absolutely no engineering. They manage budgets, manpower, and other non-technical aspects of the job. Apparently it's ok to call them engineers.

Ask any LAME how many of their classmates still know which way to turn a spanner.

Notice Clifford who is Professional Eng is your Chairman don't see too many self called aircraft spanner men "engineers" gracing the boardrooms.
How long do you think it's been since LC has had his slide rule out? And unless you've been heavily drinking, why would you hold up anyone on the Qantas Board as a paragon of engineering virtue? At the moment they're having trouble tying up their own shoelaces.

[Capt Claret]

From the Australian Oxford English Dictionary...engineer ˌendʒə'nɪə
→ n.
1. a person qualified in a branch of engineering, especially as a professional.
2. = civil engineer.
3.
a person who makes or is in charge of engines.
a person who maintains machines; a mechanic; a technician.
4. (US) an engine driver.
5. a person who designs and constructs military works; a soldier trained for this purpose.
6. [foll. by of] a skilful or artful contriver (the engineer of our misfortunes).
→ v.
1. tr. arrange, contrive, or bring about, especially artfully.
2. intr. act as an engineer.
3. tr. construct or manage as an engineer.
Middle English via Old French engigneor from medieval Latin ingeniator -oris, from ingeniare (as engine)

[Blueskymine]

We can live without snide, elitist remarks that appear to be trying to create division.

It probably originates in a certain social media department.

As an airline pilot, I appreciate the advice and suffer no fools approach of licenced aircraft engineers. While the Qantas ones at time require patience, I'd rather have Qantas' worst sign me out than others best. Particularly overseas.

Cheers to all the professional aircraft engineers out there, licensed or not. :ok:

[Di_Vosh]

Flyboat North

Is a Troll.

He is Very well spoken, can come up with some seemingly solid arguments, will generally be polite, and will write pages upon pages of what could at the first glance appear to be a well founded argument.

But at the end of the day Flyboat North

IS. A. TROLL


DIVOSH!.

P.S. For those in any doubt, refer to his comments either here:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/538616-free-spirit-airlines-again-got-spare-147-000-plus.html

or here:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/515307-merged-jetstar-pilot-cadet-program.html

[theheadmaster]

Di Vosh, I agree with the 'troll' comments, however, he is not particularly well spoken. Maybe a wannabe who missed out?

[Kiwiconehead]

Ignore list feature works well

[The Professor]

“Easy to just gloss over CX, prof?”

No, CX is a reasonably well-managed and profitable airline. Your nice little post there was rather informative. Thank you. But you misunderstood the intent behind my CX comment.

I was merely suggesting that it is absurd for Qantas pilots to benchmark its pilot labor costs against ONE single airline in the region when the VAST majority of competitors are at the other end of the scale.

“….failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?”

Their motive is MUCH MORE significant change than your union has offered in the past several decades. Your union talks the talk but the company knows it will not walk the walk. Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?

“Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"”

Not sure what this comment is aimed at? I have not suggested the employment of a “low cost CEO”.

“Any issues with the stack?”

Yes, Qantas is run reasonably poorly, like most legacy airlines.

Most posters on here simplify the argument into “we are good and management is bad” when reality is far more complex. Qantas is in trouble; make no mistake however the BRAND is never going away. Qantas is a small player in a tiny country with a geographical disadvantage saddled with legacy costs and unfriendly government policy. AND REASONABLY POOR MANAGEMENT, particularly in the past decade.

BUT the slickest management team within the industry would still find it challenging to navigate Qantas back into health. It will be a continuing uphill battle for Qantas in its present form to fight off the Chinese airlines (and airlines from the ME) that now fly new fleets of moderate service on impressive global networks with significantly lower costs and huge Government backing. It may not be fair but it is what it is.

And with this in mind, the management at Qantas do what most management do in similar situations, they trim labor costs. And in Qantas, there is plenty to trim.

[Zapatas Blood]

I dont know enough about the QF business but I do know that as a widebody longhaul captain for a major airline I once worked for, I was being out paid by my QF drinking mates who were FO's at the time. And the numbers mentioned here, I was probably on par with a senior SO at QF. Thats nuts guys and I hope it lasts but be carefull.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?

Like 45 years without industrial action?

[Australopithecus]

I think he is referring to the menace implied by the confronting red ties.

[oicur12.again]

“It is impossible to negotiate with a brick wall.”

What exactly would the negotiation look like? What results would be acceptable to you guys?

[Capt Claret]

wild goose,

Me thinks you've been away for too long. One can no longer strike as you suggest. One must apply for Protected Industrial Action (PIA) through Fair Work Australia. Even if approved, I believe the relevant minister can veto PIA at any stage.

It's not that simple any more.

[LAME2]

I believe QANTAS won the right to manage the company in the courts. I also believe what you are asking for is called "unprotected industrial action" and incurs large fines on organisations or individuals who organise or participate in such actions. I personally can not afford the fine.

[Capt Claret]

wild goose,

In very broad terms what you've suggested is roughly what happened a couple of years ago. IIRC PIA had been approved but no action announced (under the legislation I think the industrial organisation must give three days notice of, and detail the type of action to be taken), the only action the pilots were taking, if it could be called action, was the wearing of red ties and some made PA announcements.

QF shut down for a day or so, stranded thousands of folk, at a cost said to be circa $200,000,000.

The days of industrial action that you probably recall, are long gone. In some ways this is good, as it takes the bastardry out of things. But it also severely limits employees flexing any muscle.

[Blueskymine]

And it was a labor government who gave us the poxy legislation. Go figure.

The legislation encourages a gridlock which ends in arbitration and justifies the existance of fair work Australia.

But we negotiated in 'good faith' shriek both parties.

[V-Jet]

WG: Your concern and appreciation of the issues are both greatly appreciated.

These idiots have, over the last ten years, done every single thing they possibly can do to a) Extract as much cash as they possibly can for themselves and b)Systematically destroy the business with every single decision they have made being indescribably bad for the Company - that is still paying their wages BTW.

There have been great minds trying to work out an approach that might achieve something, but when the CEO is legally protected when he decides 'waking up one morning' to shut an international airline and National Flag Carrier down completely to stop evil unionists wearing red ties instead of normal black ones and making legally approved 15 second PA's at Top of Descent it is very difficult to work out what you can do that might work.

The thing that throws people is that the board should be looking out for this type of thing, but it is a conspiracy and an enormously big one. The question is really: Is it a conspiracy of truly monumental stupidity and incompetence, or a conspiracy involving the greatest theft of money from a public company ever seen in Australia?

Putting my right wing hat on (which is usually stuck firmly on my head anyway) my argument in favour of the status quo is that it should NOT be the Govts 'job' to ensure public companies are operated in the best interests of the shareholders and national interest.

For some bizarre reason (it is Sunfish and others long held belief that NYC Hedge Funds want to have half the Domestic airline travel in their pocket) the major shareholders seem to be supporting this indescribably bizarre situation, so really what could the govt do? Shareholders, Board and Management are actually all in cahoots against the evil Unionist. Sure the Govt is a big shareholder, but it does have other issues to deal with than working out who is telling bigger fibs in the airline industry.

What I can tell you from the inside and from just on 30 years of working for them, that it is absolutely awful to witness something you work so hard for over so long, being totally destroyed by people who don't care about the Company at all. 'They' are gambling with 'our' beloved Company.

[Flyboat North]

That isn't why he shut the airline down, when not gatecrashing the Anzac Day Parade(because "we flew the troops" to Saigon) the Qantas Pilots were babbling about wanting "job security". Joyce knew they had a complete disconnect with reality but he could put up with them their red ties, although their verbal moaning to passengers about how tough they had it was becoming very tiresome.

He shut the airline down because the self proclaimed "engineers" (spe) had promised to do him slowly, and gradually escalate their industrial action. The spe had a lot of form in this area costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars in their various industrial actions on previous EBA actions notably 2005. The were happy to wreak complete economic vandalism on their own employer.

The shutdown brought finality to all of the industrial actions. What do you suggest Joyce should have actually done? , what were his choices ? Remember he was dealing with pilots who thought they had some entitlement to job security , and some who had deluded themselves into thinking they were some kind of combat veterans. Then he had spanner monkeys who thought they were engineers, and had form for costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars.

I would suggest to you that the man (Joyce) didn't really have a whole lot to work with

[V-Jet]

You are an idiot.

[Ken Borough]

V-jet

In the period before the shutdown, unions had taken well-orchestrated stoppages that created a lot of uncertainty with the travelling public. Forward bookings literally fell off the cliff. The only real option available to QF was to take the action that it did. The travelling public required and deserved certainty. It's interesting to note that it didn't take long after certainty was assured that the forwards started to look healthy. :ok:

Call me and others idiots if you wish should you have another point of view but doing so says more about you than others. :E :ugh:

[noip]

Sorry Ken,

I'm with V-Jet .. there is ample evidence that the shutdown and lockout were planned well in advance as a union-busting exercise. To say Management had no choice is completely incorrect.

It is just unfortunate for them that their plans did not come to fruition in FWA.

N

PS .. tinytesticles ... bit early for the red ink?

[Ken Borough]

NOIP

I'll play good and agree to disagree with you. :ok: I think M'ment was so frustrated and fed-up with intransigent behaviour, as were the customers, something drastic had to be done. The damage would have been far greater had they not acted as they did. .

[noip]

Ken, the only intransigent behaviour demonstrated was on the part of management .. the record demonstrates that quite clearly.

N

[GorillaInTheMist]

Again ken your facts are skewed. The engineers had been in negotiation for a new Eba for 18 months. Meaning the old Eba was expired for that period. The company refused to negotiate or even attempt to resolve the matter. Funny how these facts are never spoken about. The previous Eba was the same. So what would you have the employees do. Have no workplace agreement ? The matters you talk about seem beyond your grasp

[GaryGnu]

Flyboat North

The shutdown brought finality to all of the industrial actions. What do you suggest Joyce should have actually done? , what were his choices ?

Fair question.

He chose to lock out the parties taking protected industrial action (PIA) and grounded the airline until the lockout period commenced based on an internal safety department risk assessment. This forced the Government to apply to FWA to have the industrial action terminated under s 424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA 2009) on the basis that it caused significant damage to an important part of the Australian economy.

I think he had two other options:

1. Apply to the FWA under section 423 of FWA 2009 to terminate the PIA on the basis that it was causing significant economic harm to Qantas that it could not bear. This would have achieved the same outcome as the one he got but without adversely effecting all the paying passengers.

2. Negotiate with the unions to make a new workplace agreement.

You and he seemed to think that option 2 was not feasible.

I still have not seen any coherent reason given why option 1 was not attempted first.

[Offchocks]

Ballsdeep

Why do you sky gods insist on insulting others just because they have opinions that differ to yours?

I thought you were being derogatory in calling Qantas pilots "sky gods", from what you say you would not insult others so it would seem you hold them in high esteem!

But then:

you decrepit old fools

I realized my error and that you are still just a troll!

[Nunc]

Boatfly and small balls please stop posting, I know you are only doing what your masters want you to say but it is bad enough reading the headlines you clowns put out in the company comms email each day. Bitter ill informed comment on this forum that is just very upsetting for those at QF who are very vulnerable at the moment to the massive mis management of a once great company- no doubt this pleases you. Ignore the posts of these trolls.

[V-Jet]

Paul Keating said in discussions that had been PM he would have simply left Weeman out in the cold until the board came to reality and they shook the company up to solve its problems.

The options were either Weeman/Clifford went or the airline was stuffed.

The airline is now stuffed.

My suggestion was for everyone to simply go sick after the lockout until the incompetents had nothing left. And if it got to where I thought it should go I'm sure 'Management' would have missed their $200,000+ per fortnight more than I would have missed my $200k per year.

I've run companies and spoken to a large number of quite wealthy business owners about this and they, like me, cannot understand any company could behave the way QF did and is. It is nonsensical behaviour and was the final nail in the coffin for most of them as to why they wouldn't fly QF again unless they could help it. Which, being fair, these idiots are solving for everyone - QF simply doesn't fly anywhere anymore so all this argument is really wasted. They have killed the airline. Personally I would have preferred staff to kill it who in many cases been doing their best for 40+ years over some incompetent buffoon who had been there 3, but the game has just about played out now.

It's impressive that neither Hirohito nor Hitler could kill Qantas, but an odious and incompetent Irishman managed it, seemingly effortlessly.

And on the Jetstar disaster, what flying has the 78 been doing of late? It seems to be following on in the footsteps of Weemans triumphant Jetstar HKG fleet in Toulouse.

He could have saved a lot of time and simply sent them to Longreach to preserve in pristine condition for future generations. One day, they will be worth a lot of money I guess to archeologists or 22nd Century Aviation Tragics:)

[34R]

The Job Security clause was never about a guaranteed job for life.

As far I was aware, in very basic terms it referred to a mindset that if an aeroplane had a Qantas tail on it, then it was to be crewed by a Qantas crew.

[LAME2]

I think he had two other options:

I'm with this man. Always another option. I believe if he went to FWA and said stop or I'm shutting the place down. He could have timed it then for the Government to call and tell the unions to back off. He would have walked out with the airline intact and no disruption to the public. Legally he may have only made the decision when he got out of bed that fateful Saturday morning. But in practice and probably morally, it was made weeks if not months before and the day they ordered the purchasing of hotel rooms should have been the day the courts decided his actions were legally started.

But the worlds not always fair.

[Tuner 2]

Except they didn't get their 'throats slit' - they got a payrise and still have the best terms and conditions in the country (rightly or wrongly).

What have "stop work, work to rule, refusing MEL, increased fuel burn, duty extension bans" ever got any other pilot group - apart from terms and conditions still far inferior to mainline's?

[Cesspool182]

For those of you who think our salaries are over the top. A reality check.


QF BASE PAY

12 years of service with QF.

A380 CAPTAIN $310,236 FIRST OFFICER $204,790 SECOND OFFICER $159,380

B747 CAPTAIN $295,560 FIRST OFFICER $195,030 SECOND OFFICER $141,788

A330 CAPTAIN $281,486 FIRST OFFICER $185,736 SECOND OFFICER $144,539

B767 CAPTAIN $252,500 FIRST OFFICER $166,637 SECOND OFFICER $129,782

Many second officers don’t have 12 years in the company, but most have 6 years or more:



A380 SECOND OFFICER (6th year) $140,577

B747 SECOND OFFICER (6th year) $133,880

A330 SECOND OFFICER (6th year) $127,483

B767 SECOND OFFICER (6th year) $114,525

Here endith the lesson.

[V-Jet]

I'm only cherry picking and skimming responses, but:

You wonder why you had your throat slit.

Qantas had its throat slit, not the staff. And if it is anything more than incompetence then the Australian taxpayer has not only been fooled but held to ransom (Sunfish long standing thoughts) by Wall St. Either way, Weeman and his puppeteers are set for their Rassecasse seats in Monaco for life with the wreckage at least several jurisdictions away. Closer to home, GOOD staff (the junk in HQ remains, it's filtering lower and lower) are leaving or have left in droves. To whit, most of my course have left for greener (well, mostly sandier) pastures.

I would have got very medieval on their asses with some pipe swingin' gentlemen from the Land of Rand and several blowtorches if I could. The ties I saw only as an interesting museum piece. For me that lunatic stand down was the final straw. Aside from deep personal feelings I will not suffer a cent's loss when these clowns create ground zero out of a world beating Aussie Icon - which is the primary reason I feel 'free' to say what I suspect few will.

It is THE financial disaster of Australian business business for at least the last 50 years.

[The Banjo]

OK, I'll bite........

If you consider that those figures to be fair and reasonable BASE salaries then you have been living in a parallel universe, hugging your teddy bear and having your Mummy rub baby oil into your tum tum for too long......

Command salaries OK, The industry standard for an F/O around 60 percent of Captain. No wonder you are full of lifestyle leeches. The gravy chain is about to break.....

[Ollie Onion]

Banjo, I was thinking the same. That list is meant to show us that your salaries aren't over the top? :D

My goodness, those salaries are extremely good but I would think quite unsustainable. Starting to think some of you guys have lost touch with reality, when you think publishing those sorts of 'base' salaries will make us all realise your salaries are reasonable in today's climate.

[V-Jet]

God in heaven....

Of the 7out of 12 guys from my course that have left QF, ALL have had more take home pay and benefits (like being treated like people instead of the enemy) elsewhere. BUT, all would prefer to be working at their 'old jobs' back home - except they see no future in the airline they have worked 25+ years for.

Where are comparisons for completely screwed up aircraft choices, massive fuel burn losses and stacked management on unbelievable salaries and parking new aircraft around the place?

Why this fixation with salaries which are 100% line ball with what you will get around the world. And I include Easy/Ryan etc in that group.

I wouldn't care if the CEO earns $20m a year - IF they were doing a good job.

By what measure should any of them still be there???

For those 'arguing' against staff (who know the business) by what benchmark has the current management team been in any way successful? Except in dollar earnings of course, I accept their outstanding achievements in that field of endeavour....


PS: Still waiting on an answer for the 787 question... What ARE theses amazing money making machines actually doing?

[Angle of Attack]

Why does a S/O on the A330 get more than an S/O on the 744? Either way I doubt the accuracy of this list, but its probably not far off. You forgot to include the 737? That is a mainline fleet that is completely inline with industry standards...

[V-Jet]

Why does a S/O on the A330 get more than an S/O on the 744?

Just a guess - divisor differences? Ie: through the massive efficiencies achieved through fleet reductions and parking programs, many are doing less work than others..

Don't ever forget the S/O thing saves big bucks through not needing double crews - 2 x Capts, 2 x F/O's. It's a very cost effective solution for those that think its map folding. They are, for all intents and purposes, F/O's without the pay.

[ballsdeep]

U got balls publishing those figures…. i like it.:}

[Hempy]

Well to be honest, their actions lowered the conditions, so at least they are consistent by claiming those conditions were too high anyway. What happens when QFA pilots are on J* wages, where do you think the next J* EBA might go?

[Keg]

Why does a S/O on the A330 get more than an S/O on the 744?

They don't. I suspect typo.

Personally putting up 'base' pay is misleading. Given the overtime on the 380 and the 744 the reality is a long way north...... and most crew on other fleets and perhaps some on those fleets will agree re their sustainability.

I've already voiced my thoughts re the pay rates on various fleets. Given how contentious they were I'm surprised they didn't spark more angst. They're a couple of pages back now.

[Tankengine]

Basically S/Os make 50% of Captain's pay while F/Os make 65%.
You can argue whether this is the way it should be or not, it is the fact at the moment.:zzz:

[Blueskymine]

And we all know a pilots salary is at least 25-50% higher than the base salary with overtime, work day offs, meals (it's still income). The longhaul guys are always in overtime due to long sectors. A third of it is sleeping in the bunk. I mean the QF guys are getting 31000 yen for a Narita overnight. Then whinging they have to change the money back to AU because they can't spend it....

[ruprecht]

Given the overtime on the 380 and the 744 the reality is a long way north...... and most crew on other fleets and perhaps some on those fleets will agree re their sustainability.

Yup.

Gonna give yours back, Keg?:E

[neville_nobody]

Joyce is just lucky that Gillard was gutless. Keating said in his interview with Kerry O'Brian if he was PM he would have told him to sort it out himself.......then he would have been screwed.

[Potsie Weber]

QF 737 CPT 696hrs (base) $185,250.

From the pay thread:

TIGER A320 CPT 692hrs $195,700 Base ($171k)

Yes, QF pilots are way overpaid.:ugh:

Also remember that soon there will be no 767 and maybe even no 747 pay rates. Anyone else heard the rumour of trying to get some A330 rates under the shorthaul award? Wonder what that is about?

That might just leave a very small bunch of uber-wealthy skygods on the A380 (if that is still around). The rest may become some of the least paid pilots in Australia.

Who are we going to pick on then? Those Tiger pilots have it so good?

[Keg]

Gonna give yours back, Keg?

I ain't on the 380 or the 744 at the moment so nothing to give back for me.

Interesting point though that I'm on record when I was on the 744 as stating that it wasn't a fair rate given the wrokrate and effort and wondering if it was sustainable. I'm also on record stating that asking for (and getting) the extra 5% for the A380 above and beyond th 744 was continuing to shoot ourselves in the foot.

The irony that the rates of pay on the 380 and 744 which have contributed in part to my likely demotion will be coming my way with that dentin is not lost on me or the multitude of 767 F/Os who are going to get a pay rise and lifestyle improvement but will be frustrated with the job.

PS: That base pay quoted for a 767 driver will get you about 830 hours if fostered efficiently. Perhaps 800 if they do little flying on the reserve.

[Metro man]

There is nothing wrong with QF staff pay and conditions, as long as their passengers are prepared to pay the air fares necessary to provide that level of income.

If the company is profitable and doesn't expect government handouts of tax payer money then they have a winning business model and can set the standard for industry renumeration.

Why shouldn't the Australian government subsidise every other business in the country that can't keep it's head above water ?

[The Professor]

“when the union puts a good deal on the table like has been quoted numerous times on this thread by the former head of AIPA”

So what exactly do you think is a “good deal”? Salary and benefits benchmarked against regional competitors? Lets hear it!

“Like 45 years without industrial action?”

The lack of industrial action merely highlights my point that Qantas has been held to ransom by its highly unionized staff and the short sighted management have simply kicked the can down the road. Qantas, like most legacy carriers, could afford the high labor costs in the past, especially as a Government airline in a market with little effective competition in a world with few skilled labor alternatives. For a long time it has been a fight not worth persuing with too much vigour. This has changed but Qantas labor practices have not yet adapted to the new world.

“I think its fair to say that the opinion of air and ground crews re the management is largely unanimous.”

A perfect example of group think and a recipe for disaster.

“Where are comparisons for completely screwed up aircraft choices, massive fuel burn losses and stacked management on unbelievable salaries and parking new aircraft around the place?”

These comparisons are being made over on the website called Professional Airline Managers Rumour Network. I assume your argument is that labor should be left alone until all other facets of the business are tip top? This is not a reasonable expectation of how business works.

“Why this fixation with salaries . . . .”

Because its where management can reduce costs and its one of the few places an airline can gain comparative advantage.

“ . . . which are 100% line ball with what you will get around the world. And I include Easy/Ryan etc in that group.”

No, they are not in line with competitors within the same labor market. They are significantly higher with greater inefficiencies. Try explaining pattern protection to a pilot from CA. Try explaining consequential training costs to a pilot from SQ.

“Who are we going to pick on then? Those Tiger pilots have it so good?”

Again, labor costs at Tiger are not the issue.

“Its not just the pilots.”

Very true indeed, it’s the labor costs of the company, top to bottom.

The sad thing about the debate on this thread is that most of those denying the need for labor reform at Qantas think they are arguing against opinion when they are actually arguing against reality. Qantas management and staff are fighting the same labor reform battle that every legacy carrier has fought or will fight, except for those many legacy carriers that have gone out of business.

[ferris]

Salary and benefits benchmarked against regional competitors? You keep banging on about "regional" competitors. How about actual competitors. Let's say, CX and EK, just to pluck two. Two who do pay QF rates of pay for pilots, and who are making squillions. Just as Qantas did, whilst paying those salaries, until certain idealists tried to make the world fit their opinion/reality.

What has changed that has negatively impacted Qantas' profitability is the direction and management of the company. Not pay rates. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your reality.

[FYSTI]

Professor, your arguments would be empirically verifiable if the Qantas Group operated a straight forward transparent airline business. It does not.

It is a complex multi-jurisdictional aviation franchise conglomerate. Its accounts are not transparent. It is able to shield its offshore entities and legally allocate costs & revenues as it see fit under Australian Accounting Standards Segment reporting.

Employee costs are NOT one of the few controllable costs in the Qantas business, unlike most other airline businesses. Other controllable costs are the other offshore businesses themselves. These are very large. How big is not quantifiable due to the lack of transparent, but they are a massive burden to the business.

From a pilots point of view, there is a problem with pilot labor costs. The longhaul award has accreted many inefficiencies over time, through a process of negotiation. These inefficiencies are magnified with fleet reductions. Qantas was offered a genuine opportunity in 2010/11 to negotiate, it chose not to. I also note you have scrupulously avoided this topic in your arguments

The rise in the AUD has also caused a massive increase in $US dollar denominated salary benchmarks.

There has been a sustained media campaign to paint the root cause of the Qantas financial problems as the workers. If it were a simple airline business in this position, I would agree with these arguments. It is not.

There has been a decade of offshore business growth, with two years of profits, SIN $2.5 (2014) and $2.1 million (2013) (https://web.archive.org/web/20140422193035/http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/jetstar-asia-records-second-profit-20140127-31iw6.html) for Jetstar Asia, that's it. Losses in Vietnam, Hong Kong & Japan. How much? There are no accounts produced to allow us to see.

What would the Qantas financial position look like without the massive offshore expansion over the decade? You haven't mentioned this case.

There is simply no way to compare Qantas to other airlines, it is not a simple airline business, it is a complex piece of opaque financial engineering.

Anyone reading through this thread would note your continued avoidance of such topics and wonder why. Your arguments could be seen as cherry picking data to suit a particular ideology, rather than seeking to ascertain the truth. Are you a truth seeker or an ideologue? The longer you dance around the issue, the more you look like the latter.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

“Like 45 years without industrial action?”

The lack of industrial action merely highlights my point that Qantas has been held to ransom by its highly unionized staff and the short sighted management have simply kicked the can down the road.

Prof, you implied that Qantas pilots' salaries were the result of 'belligerent strong-arming' by the pilots' union. Now you're suggesting that a complete absence of industrial action for decades is proof of this? Of course, 45 years of strikes would also prove it - so in other words, no matter what happened, it would be evidence of union belligerence. Seems to me that you're starting with your conclusion and trying to mould the facts to suit.

I'd suggest that there was a remarkable lack of belligerence for a very long time, to the point where Dixon reportedly described AIPA and its membership as 'softcocks'.

[piston broke again]

I'm just going to say it anyway...

Labour = work
Labor = $hithouse political party

And now back to the thread...

[Capt Kremin]

Professor, in 2008 Qantas Group made a profit of 1.4 billion dollars, largely on the back of the mainline international operation.

Tell us, what changes to pay and conditions of Staff since then have been responsible for the parlours state of the Company's finances now being experienced?

Or was it something else that occurred around that time? The GFC did hit, but that hit every airline. So what else happened around then that seems to have gutted this company?

Any clues?

[Metro man]

Virgin Australia's labour costs are 2/3 those of QF because they had the advantage of starting with a clean sheet of paper. As they transition into a legacy airline and their staff unionise alongside a growing management bureaucracy they will probably be in the same situation as QF in thirty years time.

[Hempy]

"Unionisation" is simply a smoke screen thrown out by management to try and convince the shareholders that they aren't incompetent, regardless of any basis of fact. Anyone claiming that any aviation association in this country is 'militant' is simply telling lies to further their own agenda. It's so transparent it's crystal.

[CaptCloudbuster]

Professor et al

FYSTI and Kremin have just suscinctly, rationally and eloquently highlighted the root causes of the current Qantas disaster.

Others, including myself, have proven the right wing ideological intransigence demonstrated by QF Management regarding industrial relations.

Failure to acknowledge these inescapable truths exposes you at best as someone incapable of reasoned argument.