PDA

View Full Version : Qantas A320Neo


GoldCoastTobacconist
12th May 2017, 03:36
A320neo looks very likely to be joining QF Mainline - groups of engineers meeting terminating JQ frames in QLD, management groups observing turn arounds and the 2017 Investor Briefing refers ;

http://thumb.ibb.co/cCsD85/Full_Size_Render.jpg (http://ibb.co/cCsD85)

JQ delaying the introduction of the Neo and starting a fleet wide cabin renewal of current frames.

Expected announcement?

:ok:


https://ibb.co/cO3Wvk

Tuck Mach
13th May 2017, 01:06
As I commenced a thread a while ago...

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/594000-a320-qh-shorthaul.html

I think those pilots left at Qantas can expect this to be the next diversion..

Joyce committed to the A320 NEO...JQ is capacity saturated.
He wants mainline to be distracted...

Wash, rinse and repeat for QF shorthaul...
Insert subsidiary bidding war for the next downward move in terms and conditions..
Despite demographically driven short fall in supply of pilots, as always erosion of conditions is the union mantra..

OneDotLow
13th May 2017, 03:07
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe QF Shorthaul have a scope clause (of sorts) in their contract don't they?

It would be great to see some A320s in QF colours!

Tuck Mach
13th May 2017, 03:32
There is no scope clause.

The FWA would prohibit such a substitution, a transfer of business..For the same reason, Jetconnect will not be flying domestic sectors as if the union woke up it would be challenged. However am told the union folded quickly with an idle threat from the little fella that the 787 would go elsewhere if the agreed to, and FWA ratified, contract for the crew rest was not amended in Qantas' favour..The union didn't challenge, just folded.

However, the tried and trusted method of Oldmeadow (IR) is to send out messengers (think fleet managers, and wobbly pilots) to carry a message of a subsidiary flying the said aircraft, the pilots panic and fold...

Wash, rinse and repeat..:ugh:

Troo believer
13th May 2017, 04:12
Not correct.
The integration agreement protects both Q and A pilots. That is Qantas (Q) and Australian (A) airlines pilots in both airlines prior to the merger of 92'.It basically determines who will fly what for Qantas Airways Ltd whilst a Q or A pilot is employed by Qantas. If Qantas wanted to use contract pilots to fly the 787 then it would have to be Qlink or some other brand and a new AOC. Qantas, using Jetconnect, gets away with it in NZ because of the deal both governments did to allow access to each other's markets. If Qantas wanted to introduce the A320 into mainline under the Qantas AOC then it would be flown by Qantas A or Q pilots or new joins in Qantas after the merger of 92'. Thinking anything else is wishful dreaming. Besides, where would you suddenly find 700 qualified A320 pilots. Imagine trying to integrate the network with a type change? Too hard, too costly and too risky. Never happen.

Beer Baron
13th May 2017, 04:24
However am told the union folded quickly with an idle threat from the little fella that the 787 would go elsewhere if the agreed to, and FWA ratified, contract for the crew rest was not amended in Qantas' favour..The union didn't challenge, just folded.

You are wrong.

The union did not fold, nothing of the sort. The union negotiated for months to achieve an outcome that enshrines multiple fatigue mitigating rule sets, from maximum flight times, increased minimum based turnaround, home transport provisions and a premium seat in the cabin on most sectors on top of the overhead crew rest and HICAS seat.

Tuck Mach
13th May 2017, 04:25
Agree with the sentiment.
The integration between the two company seniority lists at the merge in 1992 protects the flying. The FWA strengthens that position.

Of course they won't actually do it, the redundancy costs alone, ignoring issues of demand and supply are prohibitive.

All they do, as they did with your 787 crew rest (the agreed to and ratified crew rest) is to sow a few seeds through fleet managers and the flock scatters...

That is the wash,rinse and repeat..

ExtraShot
13th May 2017, 04:55
Expected announcement?

"Something, Something, GAMECHANGER... blah blah blah".

Beer Baron
13th May 2017, 05:36
All they do, as they did with your 787 crew rest (the agreed to and ratified crew rest) is to sow a few seeds through fleet managers and the flock scatters.

Once again; You are wrong. See the post above your own.

Tuck Mach
13th May 2017, 06:23
The union negotiated for months to achieve an outcome that enshrines multiple fatigue mitigating rule sets, from maximum flight times, increased minimum based turnaround, home transport provisions and a premium seat in the cabin on most sectors on top of the overhead crew rest and HICAS seat. This is the point. the 'negotiation' period concluded a long time ago. The 'agreement' LH pilots voted on was subsequently ratified by FWA.When was it ratified by FWA?

Argue the strategy is different this time?

http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/07/qantas-long-haul-pilots-approve-new-wage-deal/

Accordingly, Australian Aviation reported that the deal was concluded in July 2015, that is two years ago. When did the new 'negotiation' occur?Why would AIPA consider it necessary to re-negotiate something already negotiated?

It is disingenuous to say the negotiation was anything other than a re-opening of the agreed position ratified by FWA to do something.

Why would AIPA do that? Sources tell me whispers were abundant; the aircraft would go somewhere else, likely to JQ. Always inadmissible, never in writing.

It is here that wash, rinse and repeat manifests itself again!

What happens and you well know it, is that threats, implied or otherwise suggest to parties unknown. that the whole deal (in this case the 787) will be cancelled, flown by subsidiary XXX, or JQ (insert group airline or contractor as required)

It will be exactly the same pattern for the A320 NEO. The pilots will scramble to 'negotiate' the deal moving backwards on terms and conditions from some newly perceived but entirely predictable, based upon history threat.

Beer Baron
13th May 2017, 06:32
Sources tell me whispers were abundant; the aircraft would go somewhere else, likely to JQ. Always inadmissible, never in writing.
Again and again you are wrong.

Qantas submitted an application to FWA to throw out the negotiated flight and duty, rest and crew rest requirements from the EA for the 787. It made a fairly explicit suggestion that FWA needed to decide on the matter ASAP as Qantas would otherwise have to look elsewhere for crew.

This was more than an idle threat and certainly WAS in writing. It would have been VERY easy for FWA to find on Qantas's side (as they always do) and the crew would have been left with nothing.

Instead the union negotiated a far better outcome with provisions that were never in the EA and a seat in the cabin. Now mainline pilots are training on the fleet thus negating a future threat to have others fly it.

You are wrong on this.

Fatguyinalittlecoat
13th May 2017, 07:56
The integration agreement protects both Q and A pilots. That is Qantas (Q) and Australian (A) airlines pilots in both airlines prior to the merger of 92'.It basically determines who will fly what for Qantas Airways Ltd whilst a Q or A pilot is employed by Qantas.

I believe that the provisions of the integration award that are relevant to this discussion were incorporated into the SH award in the last EA. So now, even if the integration award were to expire (as it's relevance with regard to seniority of A and Q pilots diminishes as the years pass), the relevant points regarding fleet and flying protections are incorporated into the Contract and can't just be disregarded.

angryrat
13th May 2017, 14:49
This is the point. the 'negotiation' period concluded a long time ago. The 'agreement' LH pilots voted on was subsequently ratified by FWA.When was it ratified by FWA?

Argue the strategy is different this time?

http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/07/qantas-long-haul-pilots-approve-new-wage-deal/

Accordingly, Australian Aviation reported that the deal was concluded in July 2015, that is two years ago. When did the new 'negotiation' occur?Why would AIPA consider it necessary to re-negotiate something already negotiated?

It is disingenuous to say the negotiation was anything other than a re-opening of the agreed position ratified by FWA to do something.

Why would AIPA do that? Sources tell me whispers were abundant; the aircraft would go somewhere else, likely to JQ. Always inadmissible, never in writing.

It is here that wash, rinse and repeat manifests itself again!

What happens and you well know it, is that threats, implied or otherwise suggest to parties unknown. that the whole deal (in this case the 787) will be cancelled, flown by subsidiary XXX, or JQ (insert group airline or contractor as required)

It will be exactly the same pattern for the A320 NEO. The pilots will scramble to 'negotiate' the deal moving backwards on terms and conditions from some newly perceived but entirely predictable, based upon history threat.
You are being disingenuous and stirring up crap where you have no right and no idea. You give false hope to 'groups' who would love to do our flying and try stir false emotions from the pilot group. Your false information is only doing harm to pilot T&C's.

FYI the problem was the Boeing designed crew rest was incompatible with our award and was not going to be redesigned for QF. The union did a great job and sorted the crap out. End of story and get back in your box.

Lezzeno
13th May 2017, 18:06
So is the most recently agreed to crew rest the same as the one in the 2015 negotiated agreement or not?

Iron Bar
13th May 2017, 19:32
I'm afraid your embarrassing yourself there TM'. The repetitive rinsing is becoming tedious.

321 paired with 330 for SY ML BN PH + regional international, would be a good fit. Expect 330 to start phase out in 2024 so the clock is ticking. Not that it makes a difference with this mob.

Gamechanger
13th May 2017, 22:50
I think what TM might be saying is that regardless of restrictions in EAs Qantas management will try to play the SH pilots off amongst themselves in order to get better terms and conditions for Qantas.

Why wouldn't they try? Qantas would just be doing their job. They have professional negotiatiors and a CEO willing to threaten if you don't take X you'll lose the aircraft. Pilots will cave in like a Jenga block. Look at the Crew rest issue on the 787. It was not the EA stipulated standard. One threat from Qantas and the union accepted it despite everything that was traded away for the jets.
AIPA also have a poor record currently of standing firm. What if we missed out seems to be the negotiating theme. Just get the jets and worry bout everything after.

Qantas have already achieved it in Longhaul on the 787. There were a lot of false stories that were never verified, or came from a so called manager, but it had the desired effect.Who cares about pay and conditions because If we don't sign this ASAP and we miss out was ALL that you heard and still do.
It's fact that 8 787 will replace 5 747 so it's 63% a replacement type right now.No one in AIPA or QF ever said the 787 was a replacement type. It could well replace 100% of the 747s shortly.

Pay and conditions are less.

I put it to you that it doesn't matter if Jetconnect, Cobham,Network can't do the flying for the QF A320. From the pilots perspective Jetconnect already fly an identical aircraft, flying old QF routes, wearing a QF uniform for 40% less.
All Qantas have to do is leak "fake news" to a great number of SH pilots who will believe any scare story and you'll have people volunteering up T+Cs with fear of what might happen, fake or otherwise.

Your guaranteed to watch QF pilots self erosion of pay and conditions.
The QF negotiators will always hold the upper hand because the pilot body and AIPA don't have the stomach to hold firm against rumours that Group Entities will take it if pilots don't say yes. If you don't sign X then entity Y is chomping at the bit to do it.

Qantas will win as many concessions in SH as they did recently in LH.
Can AIPA or pilots really maintain the legacy conditions, compared to Jetconnect,Cobram,Jetstar to fly the same sized aircraft on the same routes?
Plenty of exhausted, poorly paid and type rated JQ A320 drivers willing to do it for less.

Beer Baron
13th May 2017, 23:53
So is the most recently agreed to crew rest the same as the one in the 2015 negotiated agreement or not?
As angryrat mentioned above, Boeing only offers one type of crew rest on the 787, this rest facility does not meet the requirements of the 2015 EA.
As such a negotiated outcome was required, or have FWA decide what sort of crew rest was appropriate.

WookieError
14th May 2017, 00:57
What a surprise to see Tuck Mach talking down the company and the Association! For someone who has supposedly 'moved on' he seems to spend a lot of time venting on this website!

For what it's worth, the investor presentation covered the 'Group', not just Mainline so the NEO reference was probably in relation to JQ airframes.

Having said that, I believe the NEO (specifically the 321) would be an excellent option for mainline either as a SH replacement or as a smallish fleet (e.g. 12 frames) to complement the existing fleet:

- Single narrow body type across the group (if used as SH replacement). Advantages in maintenance, handling, training and simulation.
- ULD loading improving turn times and reducing bag chucker injuries.
- Firm orders already in place. No issues with shareholder pushback.
- Possible solution to square the ledger on the 8 380s that are deferred.
- Ability to up/down gauge dependent on the mission (320/321). This would even extend to 318/319 to cover what is currently contracted to 717 via Cobham.
- 321 NEO LR (available early 2019) has range of 4000Nm in 2 class config with 208 pax. Ideal for regional international routes too skinny for 330.
- Use of the 321 in two-class for transcontinental routes would free up 330 to do more international. If anyone doubts the 321 would satisfy J pax coast to coast, take a look at what JetBlue is achieving with their 'Mint Class' product and look at the margins being achieved by JetBlue in recent years.
- BNE Heavy maintenance has sufficient licensed staff to support a line of 320/1 work. This may be to bid for JQ deep maintenance but paves the way for NEOs into mainline.
- Those who talk about the huge training liability form 737 to NEO are assuming rank to rank training. The training liability is much reduced if type training is only coincident with promotional training. i.e. SO 330/380 gets trained to FO 320, FO any type does command training on the NEO.

Just my thoughts and happy to be corrected on any of the above. I'm sure the decision on the 777/350 will influence the decision on the MAX/NEO (not necessarily to the same OEM) but the future of the JQ/QF fleet could well be simplified to 320/1 NEO + 787 + 777.

Cheers

Wookie

knobbycobby
14th May 2017, 01:14
Agree.

A320/A330 be a very short conversion.
A350 ULR only getting improved range and performance.
Lot of Airbus orders need to be converted from QF deferred A380s and the 90 odd neo firm orders.
Parts and Maintenance costs be lower with only one type being different(787)
Domestically QF and JQ would get economies of scale with common maintenance, spare parts inventory, loading, stairs etc.
A321 has a lot more capacity and range than a 737 too. Perfect for busy CityFlyer SYD-MEL-SYD. Almost 767 capacity.
A330 NEOs also very cheap and a possible A330 replacement in ten years or so too.
787 seems to be a point to point Ultra Long Haul aircraft on every route it's going to fly. PER-LHR PER-CDG MEL-LAX BNE-DFW?
Wouldn't be surprised if QF domestic/Jetconnect/Network/Cobram get the older A320s from JQ and JQ take the newest ala the A330s.

GoldCoastTobacconist
14th May 2017, 01:41
Good post and thoughts Wookie Error & knobbycobby :ok:

I understand the investor brief covers the group however it seems the relevant entities are separated - QF v JQ.

I would also expect Freight to benefit from the ULD loading system.

The key indication is the pushing back of the Neo's introduction to JQ - last quarter 17 to TBA and the committed investment in cabin renewal (albeit in the works for over a year).

Lezzeno
14th May 2017, 13:04
Boeing only offers one type of crew rest on the 787

Why did AIPA and QF agree on something that Boeing 'can't' offer and then allowed the pilots to vote on it?

EJECT EJECT
24th May 2017, 09:36
Spotted in the latest Qantas Kids Activity book. I think we can consider this rumour confirmed. http://i65.tinypic.com/317ic8k.jpg

Airbus A320321
24th May 2017, 09:49
Now we know what Joyce does in his office all day

Deano969
25th May 2017, 01:56
Pure gold
Forget going to meetings or what the board says
Just look in the kiddies pack if you need to confirm Qantas's fleet plans so you can plan your future......

I guess if Qantas is planning new routes, just go to the "join the dots" page

Bootstrap1
25th May 2017, 07:41
Well I guess the Townsville Refueler better start looking for a new gig.

Fatguyinalittlecoat
25th May 2017, 08:11
It must be the same as the Jetstar colouring book. They have changed the name but left the Jetstar colour stripe on the bottom.

I wouldn't buy those A320 cockpit posters just yet.

AerialPerspective
25th May 2017, 08:19
It must be the same as the Jetstar colouring book. They have changed the name but left the Jetstar colour stripe on the bottom.

I wouldn't buy those A320 cockpit posters just yet.
I agree. I wouldn't be assuming QF fleet planning based on a coloring book... it would however appear that VA plan their regional operation based on a coloring book that includes Alliance aircraft LOL

-JLS-
25th May 2017, 09:47
Nevermind the A320 (or how you colour in a white aircraft) - I think there should be greater focus on the prospects of the dashing yellow uniforms on offer on the page opposite.

EJECT EJECT
25th May 2017, 09:51
I would think the yellow uniforms would almost be welcome by most mainline crew by now, no?

Keg
25th May 2017, 11:14
Wish I could still wear the wings from the colouring book. :( :{ :(

-438
26th May 2017, 01:36
I've heard a different take on this rumour.
When the A321 NEO becomes available, JQ will receive them for routes to Bali, Phuket etc and JQ 787's will return to QF to be reconfigured replacing A330's on trunk domestic routes and Asia. International destinations currently served by both QF & JQ such as BKK, HNL, SIN and Japan will all go back to QF.
Jetstar becomes a single fleet airline again (as it always should have been as a LCC) and QF has the better Asian network we keep hearing about.

ampclamp
26th May 2017, 02:11
-438,

Your post does make sense, to me at least, but it does not suggest what will replace the 70 odd Qantas 738s, some of which are already about 15 years old. Still going strong and a wonderful aircraft, but sooner or later they need a replacement.

-438
26th May 2017, 02:21
Haha, makes sense therefore it probably won't happen!!

Like most of what you read, more than likely a rumour started based on wishful thinking.

maggot
26th May 2017, 02:52
A333 routes with a 788? Big capacity cut for what?

330s time will be up in 5 or so though?

Boe787
26th May 2017, 03:58
What Qantas need, to compete better on Asian Routes with say SIA and CX is frequency, so perhaps a current daily 333 route, could become 10 per week, similar capacity, but more frequency!

AerialPerspective
26th May 2017, 04:19
What Qantas need, to compete better on Asian Routes with say SIA and CX is frequency, so perhaps a current daily 333 route, could become 10 per week, similar capacity, but more frequency!
This and to operate as many direct services as possible to the Americas and Europe, by passing totally the hub ports... which their competitors can't bypass. That will give them a very good differentiation with direct services to/from without stops and then put that extra frequency you are talking about into Asia.

Not a fan of the 333... personally I think the 787-8/9/10 should do that so that they can (mainline) reduce to a core fleet of 737-MAX, 787 and A380 long term

(Although if they must have a 4 engine, 747-8i would be better).