So you need a new fleet Leigh? [Archive] - Page 2

Derfred

1st May 2018, 11:04

1. Network A320s to be crewed by Jetstar pilots.

Maybe in the short term, on LWOP for training purposes, but there wouldn’t be any point in the long term. The whole point of Network is cheaper pilots.

2. 457 visa application for Qantas mainline pilots.

I would doubt it, because there is no point. They would never be able to prove a shortage of suitable applicants. Recruitment will only continue near current levels if Qantas actually order more aircraft.

3. Supposed new and indefinite training freeze applying to Qantas 737 pilots.

Well, that would be certainly high on their wish list (not indefinite, but to be able to restrict the movement). The training load through the 737 is said to be currently beyond manageable levels, causing some flight cancellations and idle aircraft. They would like to increase 737 utilisation but they can’t due lack of crew.

Unfortunately for them, the current industrial agreement prevents them from increasing freeze periods. There is a new EBA under negotiation. I have no doubt they will make some claim about freeze periods. But AIPA and the pilots will have to agree.

Just because Rated De is mates with Alan Joyce and Alan said to Rated over dinner “we are going to freeze all the 737 pilots” doesn’t make it so.

At least we’ve finally got something they want. Maybe AIPA will be able deliver a decent EBA this year.

SkyScanner

1st May 2018, 11:51

Qantas' labour cost base is higher than almost all of its competitors - especially those in Asia, Middle East, New Zealand and South America.
.
Qantas's non-front line staff cost base is certainly higher than most other airlines, in fact the executive remuneration is one of the highest in the world. But what we are really talking about here is flight deck costs...
Emirates - Higher
Etihad - Higher
Qatar - Higher
Cathay - Local pilots only are cheaper
BA - Higher
China - Local pilots only are paid less
What does South American airlines have to do with it? I'm sure the stream leader has all the appropriate figures for flight deck comparisons for your perusal...

A320 Flyer

1st May 2018, 16:03

Any truth to a rumour I heard that all JQ pilots have been offered 2 year LWOP arrangement at QF under short haul award for 737 FO positions in PER, ADL and MEL....? With the option to stay at QF at the end of the two year period?

Iron Bar

1st May 2018, 16:56

6 73 FO positions offered to eligible pilots under MOU. (Employed at JQ Nov 04 or earlier)

ANCDU

1st May 2018, 20:27

Can’t see a huge uptake of this from JQ pilots, most of that vintage are either 787 CP’s or senior 320 CP’s. Why come over and be flogged on the maggot for significantly less coin?
For the hope of staying at mainline?maybe, but at the seniority numbers they come in at they, like all new hire pilots getting quick slots on the 737 operation, will be waiting around 10 years before they see a wide body FO slot, and east coast command ????
With all that is going on here lately I’m beginning to appreciate why a number of pilots that left here to go to J* on LWOP stayed there!

and yes, Qantas does need a new fleet, but I’m starting to feel it’s not mainline pilots in the current form that will be doing the flying.

goodonyamate

1st May 2018, 21:18

Only pilots eligible for the MOU could go, and they could only fill the JQ MOU slots on the QF list. However, those 6 slots were withdrawn as the MOU only specified command positions. No FO. It’s entirely plausible that JQ FO’s have been offered what you said, but it would still mean going through the recruitment process, and the seniority number would be the next one available on the list (somewhere around 2300).

Currently the JQ MOU slots are at the level where you’d get a 737 FO anywhere, or a PER 330 FO. But as I said, MOU was intended for command only.

V-Jet

1st May 2018, 21:24

Anyone else see parallels with the banking RC?

Another day, another damning indictment. Commonwealth Bank’s culture has been found to be blinded by its own profitability, ruled by an incestuous mates club too chummy to challenge or escalate problems and too many snouts in the trough taking generous remuneration packages despite serious customer failings.

CBA is not, in my experience, the worst, but I could level almost all the same comments I’ve seen made in recent weeks at Qf’s atrocious ‘management’.

Beer Baron

1st May 2018, 22:50

Only pilots eligible for the MOU could go, and they could only fill the JQ MOU slots on the QF list. However, those 6 slots were withdrawn as the MOU only specified command positions. No FO.
I think you may be a bit off there.

Previously there were some JQ pilots awarded MOU positions as S/O but the contract only allowed for a move to F/O or Capt so the positions were revoked.

I don’t know about this latest offer but I’m pretty sure they are permitted to take F/O positions. Whether anyone would want to is a very different matter.

Airbus A320321

1st May 2018, 23:25

Just announced in ausbt additional 6 787-9s to be ordered for QF

Foxxster

1st May 2018, 23:50

Just announced in ausbt additional 6 787-9s to be ordered for QF

from the official Qantas announcement,

FLEET UPDATE

The Qantas Group has today announced an order for six additional Boeing 787-9s. This will take Qantas International’s Dreamliner fleet to 14 by end of calendar year 2020 and will enable the accelerated retirement of its last six 747s5. (See separate release.)

The 787-9 is around 20 per cent more fuel efficient than the 747 and has significantly lower maintenance costs6. Combined with the airline’s A380s, A330s and 737s, the additional 787s will allow for further utilisation improvements to the Qantas International network.

The first of these additional 787-9s is due to arrive in the first half of FY20. There is no change to capital expenditure guidance for FY18 and FY19.

Our strong performance allows us to invest in more Dreamliners, which are a lot more efficient than the 747s they replace and give our customers a better experience. They also open up new network options and will be an important part of our success moving forward,” Mr Joyce added

Tankengine

1st May 2018, 23:54

Just announced in ausbt additional 6 787-9s to be ordered for QF
Yep, 6 787s to replace the last 6 747s.
Anyone see a problem with this, pax numbers wise? ;)

ilikecheese

2nd May 2018, 00:03

Yep, 6 787s to replace the last 6 747s.
Anyone see a problem with this, pax numbers wise? ;)

From employee Q&As

What’s the impact on capacity of 236 seats on the 787 vs 364 seats on the 747?
The capacity reduction will be limited because our 787s have less down time for maintenance, so will be flying more. And with a fleet of 14 787s we’ll be able to pattern them a lot more efficiently.

:rolleyes:

Jeps

2nd May 2018, 00:19

This reduction in capacity is an absolute game changer!

Rated De

2nd May 2018, 00:25

Hypothetical questions are raised in my mind. Why can't the soon to be ex JQ A320's be sold on the second hand market instead of being rolled into Network? Is it likely there a difference between the book value & the achievable resale value? If there is a difference, could this be the the source of the capital issues?

Lots of assumptions in those thought bubbles, just musing.

Very good points.
There is a crossover where old versus new is considered necessary, a large input in the consideration is the fuel price.
Simply put if fuel is cheap enough, it makes sense to hold on to older aircraft, despite supposed higher maintenance and operating costs.
With the IATA required reductions in CO2 difficult to achieve with the current fleet metrics, fleet renewal was increasingly obvious.
The fact that the RPK costs 64% more to deliver across the Pacific is empirically relevant when considering the relative urgency of the renewal.
It may well be, contango in the fuel price and an increase in the cost of capital forced their hand.
We were prepared to consider the narrative of RealityCzech with the caveat that they 'didn't' need a fleet renewal if fuel price was low. We surmise that the narrative of Relaityczech is more an industrial theme that has been used many times before. Qantas has demonstrated a liking for fear and doubt. Scaring the staff is an airline management preoccupation. Effectively QED, Qantas needed a new fleet.

Effectively a book value of zero represents the accountant perception. Depreciation schedules vary enormously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Economic life in an asset is a different metric.

Given the current JQ fleet of A320 are older and may in most jurisdictional contexts have a close to zero book valu,e perhaps the only place they can go realistically is into yet another subsidiary?

V-Jet

2nd May 2018, 00:26

Jeps: When too much reduction is barely enough!

RD: Why ‘Aged’ A320’s ‘forced’ into another entity? Repeat the depreciation process? If they are ‘sold’ isn’t there a corresponding profit negating benefits? Sorry to seem obtuse...

Fundamentally I understand the need for accounting ‘practices’ (as my accountants bill attests, I use enough myself) but I have issues when companies devote more time to a ‘perfect’ accounting position than operating the business.

dragon man

2nd May 2018, 00:40

Yep, 6 787s to replace the last 6 747s.
Anyone see a problem with this, pax numbers wise? ;)

Its all about the yield , make the punters pay more for the same.

Tankengine

2nd May 2018, 00:45

From employee Q&As

What’s the impact on capacity of 236 seats on the 787 vs 364 seats on the 747?
The capacity reduction will be limited because our 787s have less down time for maintenance, so will be flying more. And with a fleet of 14 787s we’ll be able to pattern them a lot more efficiently.

:rolleyes:

beaaahaaahaaaaaaaaaaa! :);)

What is is about “daily services” that they don’t understand?! ;)

DirectAnywhere

2nd May 2018, 01:04

Anyone see a problem with this, pax numbers wise? ;)

According to the FAQs because the 787s require less maintenance they'll be able to fly more passengers. Not sure how that works given the 747s pretty much arrive everywhere and turnaround and depart immediately after (except for HND) but I'm no genius.

Reckon the training system's under pressure now? This announcement has just dropped AT LEAST 260 additional movements (minus a few inevitable retirements) in to the system in the next two and a half years. That's roughly 10 a month on average, more if the RIN results in displacements and further residuals. Not sure how the system will cope. Not well, would be my conclusion at this point.

mrdeux

2nd May 2018, 03:36

Be interesting to see how the RIN from this pans out. Obviously some will go to the 787, but a high percentage would have the numbers to displace from the 380.

redkite1

2nd May 2018, 03:51

What will happen to the Santiago and Joburg flights with no 747's? Also will this be a significant down gauge on the Pacific routes currently operated by 747's? Whatever new routes the additional 787's explore will surely be a reduction in existing routes operated by 747's. You can't have it both ways.

goodonyamate

2nd May 2018, 03:52

I think you may be a bit off there.

Previously there were some JQ pilots awarded MOU positions as S/O but the contract only allowed for a move to F/O or Capt so the positions were revoked.

I don’t know about this latest offer but I’m pretty sure they are permitted to take F/O positions. Whether anyone would want to is a very different matter.

Thanks BB, I knew it was something like that

Be interesting to see how the RIN from this pans out. Obviously some will go to the 787, but a high percentage would have the numbers to displace from the 380.

I dare say quite a few crew will disappear with the old girl.

OnceBitten

2nd May 2018, 03:57

My bet is zero chance of the ER's to be gone by 2020. Think back to the Classic and how long they hung around, so Zero chance.

But it looks good on paper to the market stating that they are getting rid of those expensive pesky gas guzzlers.
This morning Sky Business were talking oil to potentially spike through $100per barrel by years end so if this becomes reality QF have been smart pre-empting the market by this news. If the oil price doesn't come to fruition then they lose nothing and can potentially extend the ER's life expectancy.

Sometimes things aren't always black and white.:ok:

Rated De

2nd May 2018, 04:44

This morning Sky Business were talking oil to potentially spike through $100per barrel by years end so if this becomes reality QF have been smart pre-empting the market by this news.

Literally most of the 600 787 airliners flying have been protecting their operators from rising fuel included CASK for the last five years!
Sorry we politely disagree, pre-emptive it is not. Any oil industry analyst has been warning that contango is very much part of the term structure of crude oil pricing for the last 12 months. Qantas are forward hedging fuel, but they are hedging into a bigger headwind.
The point of this thread is that they have been way behind on this issue having only been spared because of the low fuel prices, which now is accepted are no longer so low.

Qantas need a new fleet.

goodonyamate

2nd May 2018, 05:10

Literally most of the 600 787 airliners flying have been protecting their operators from rising fuel included CASK for the last five years!
Sorry we politely disagree, pre-emptive it is not. Any oil industry analyst has been warning that contango is very much part of the term structure of crude oil pricing for the last 12 months. Qantas are forward hedging fuel, but they are hedging into a bigger headwind.
The point of this thread is that they have been way behind on this issue having only been spared because of the low fuel prices, which now is accepted are no longer so low.

Qantas need a new fleet.

Please....end the suspense. Who is 'we'?

V-Jet

2nd May 2018, 09:53

The ‘We’ could be almost any one of Qantas’ loyal employees. If ‘we’ can be discredited for asking questions with simple answers (because business IS simple and complex answers are rubbish - trust me on that) then so much the better.

It’s the questions that are important. The questioners should be welcomed. A transparent operator has a simple (and believable! Take note RC!!) answer to every question. Nor should the questioner be ridiculed.

It’s the lack of sensible and simple answers that have led to so many problems.

goodonyamate

2nd May 2018, 10:09

No ridicule here. Just curious. A lot of the questions I have are the same, just never seen questions and statements addressed as ‘we’. Keep it coming RD.

Tankengine

2nd May 2018, 10:14

Be interesting to see how the RIN from this pans out. Obviously some will go to the 787, but a high percentage would have the numbers to displace from the 380.
How about: EVERY 747 Captain has that seniority to displace if they wish - watch for this during the next EA!
It could get expensive!
Of course many would retire if there is a package. ;)

Beer Baron

2nd May 2018, 12:29

Hi Tankengine, what do you mean by;
How about: EVERY 747 Captain has that seniority to displace if they wish

Do you mean they can displace 380 Captains? How so? I thought it was a 1 for 1 equation so once the most junior 380 captains have been displaced the process would stop. Some will be able to but certainly not all. I’m not sure on it though.

dr dre

2nd May 2018, 14:05

Cabin Crew Management have already been advised that the Perth B737 base will be closing, to be replaced by Network A320's.

Of all the rumours on this thread that has to be the worst.

There’s no “Perth 737” cabin base.
Network barely has enough crew to keep their F100’s operating let alone add more for dozens of A320’s.
The 737 is doing more transcontinental flying than the 330.
They are still recruiting into Perth base for pilots and cabin crew as we speak.

Sometimes the purveyors of doom really need to have a reality check.

dragon man

2nd May 2018, 15:46

Some where in QCC or D or B or which ever building the wheels work in they are smoking some strong s##t. Take Santiago, Joburg and Haneda just for starters. These 3 ports would average on every flight 320 plus Paxs. Unless they go to 2 services a day they will not have the same number of seats available . Haneda they can’t get more slots except between 2200 and 0600. As for the 787s doing more hours than the 747s daily , yes you can when they are new however as time goes on without massive engineering and spares support it falls apart, Qantas have neither. 17 hours a day long term is unsustainable. Secondly to do this you end up with schedules that suites your utilisation not the paxs commercial want. They have pilots training on the 747 at the moment I wonder what will happen to them, more money wasted probably.

Tankengine

2nd May 2018, 21:49

Hi Tankengine, what do you mean by;

Do you mean they can displace 380 Captains? How so? I thought it was a 1 for 1 equation so once the most junior 380 captains have been displaced the process would stop. Some will be able to but certainly not all. I’m not sure on it though.

1:1 is correct, but remember the rin may come in a number of stages.
Look at the relative seniorities, I have more junior to me on 380 than 747 for example.
it could be a ****fight. Plus the most junior 380 Captains are checkies which they do not want to rin.

Tankengine

2nd May 2018, 21:52

Slippery_Pete

2nd May 2018, 22:33

Given the current JQ fleet of A320 are older and may in most jurisdictional contexts have a close to zero book valu,e perhaps the only place they can go realistically is into yet another subsidiary?

I’ve got it!

Announcing the latest group airline, Jetstar-Star!!

It will start out as a “limited” operation which AIPA will accept on “good faith” whatever the f that means. The pilots will do the same job as regular Jetstar pilots, but for 30% less.
They’ll employ only scabs who are prepared to pay for their endorsement to jump their mates in the queue. Pilots will be lining up to prostitute themselves. And in two years time, they’ll grow bigger than the parent Jetstar and AIPA will be left scratching their heads, wondering how it all went so wrong.

And arriving in 2025.... Jetstar-Star-Star!!

Meanwhile, less than 10 pilots will be employed on the QF LH EBA, or what’s left of it.

Gamechanging!

maggot

3rd May 2018, 00:02

almostthere!

3rd May 2018, 05:00

Plus the most junior 380 Captains are checkies which they do not want to rin.

Training department are exempt from RIN. check your AIPA case history.

Rated De

3rd May 2018, 05:08

Dear Leigh,

That fleet of 'six whole aircraft' you announced could easily have been covered by the Insider Self enrichment fund, or Share buy back campaign.
Instead go and borrow more money. We told you so, it wasn't the QSA stopping the re-equipment now was it?

Qantas still need a new fleet.

mrdeux

3rd May 2018, 06:13

How about: EVERY 747 Captain has that seniority to displace if they wish - watch for this during the next EA!
It could get expensive!
Of course many would retire if there is a package. ;)

That's not correct at all. They are all senior to the most junior 380 Captain, but that's only one slot. If the RINing process were to happen over time, and they all wanted 380, as it would be the most junior first, they'd end up displacing newly qualified ex 747 people continually.

Merging the two lists of bidders, and remembering that quite a few senior people are on 330/787 and even 737, means that you'd probably need a number of under 150 to end the dance on the 380...so that's about half of the 747 Captains.

Tankengine

3rd May 2018, 07:00

That's not correct at all. They are all senior to the most junior 380 Captain, but that's only one slot. If the RINing process were to happen over time, and they all wanted 380, as it would be the most junior first, they'd end up displacing newly qualified ex 747 people continually.

Merging the two lists of bidders, and remembering that quite a few senior people are on 330/787 and even 737, means that you'd probably need a number of under 150 to end the dance on the 380...so that's about half of the 747 Captains.

Well, you have a point : BUT. A bunch of junior 747 pilots may displace some 380 pilots and, as you say, then be displaced again, then displacing off the next fleet down? This would cause multiple courses which nobody, let alone the company, would want! Anyone over 62.5 may not be eligble for a type course on longhaul type? They are not normally for bidding onto type. (Not sure during a rin, could get interesting!)
Junior checkies’ seniority numbers were used last time (or the previous classic rin) but the company elected to keep them on type.
Don’t worry about senior people on 330, 787 or 737, they do not get a look-in during a Rin, otherwise I would have got to the 380 during either the classic rin or the 747/767 rin!!

Rated De

3rd May 2018, 07:40

Would it be fair comment to say that perhaps the Flight Operations department were not c.c the memo?

It sounds from a distance a complicated process. Perhaps well designed to protect pilots from furlough? Previous Qantas market guidance suggested despite the obvious necessity to refleet the International business the B747 fleet was to hang around a year or two longer than announced yesterday?

Reckon the training system's under pressure now? This announcement has just dropped AT LEAST 260 additional movements (minus a few inevitable retirements) in to the system in the next two and a half years. That's roughly 10 a month on average, more if the RIN results in displacements and further residuals. Not sure how the system will cope. Not well, would be my conclusion at this point.

From the tone here it would appear that Corporate tail wagging the Qantas dog?

A quick check of the fleet age of the Qantas A330 fleet shows 11.3 years.
It is plausible that the B787 fleet will replace the A330 fleet when mid next decade, the A380 approaches the zero book value!
(replaced with what?)

(Qantas still need a new fleet)

dragon man

3rd May 2018, 08:40

The thing that is not getting public exposure in this is what happens on the routes where by replacing 747s with 787s and no additional services there is a reduction in seats on the route and QF start charging more for those fewer seats. That is what they are going to do starting with JFK and has been confirmed to me by management. So, taking Joburg as an example will we see either EK or SIA push for 5th/6th freedom rights? Unless QF provides the same or more seats I think you will.

another superlame

3rd May 2018, 09:43

framer

3rd May 2018, 10:30

No problem , these new ones fix themselves.

ExtraShot

3rd May 2018, 11:21

.So, taking Joburg as an example will we see either EK or SIA push for 5th/6th freedom rights? Unless QF provides the same or more seats I think you will. .

I think this could be one of the reasons, if not THE reason, behind the proposal (or plan, thought bubble, etc etc, call it what you will) for Perth - Joburg.

6 747s a week replaced by, lets say 6 787s from Sydney and 4 (as per the current info) A330s per week from Perth. It could actually work out better for QF and their customers to South Africa, as a large number of connecting pax no longer have to potentially backtrack to Sydney, and the day when there’s no service from Sydney, passengers could still go though Perth (if there would be a service that day, I think it’s Wednesday’s?).

It also presents a net increase in capacity into Joburg from Australia.

Rated De

3rd May 2018, 22:20

You all seem worried about pilots to fly them, how about engineers to fix them? Qantas hasn't had a decent sized apprentice engineering intake in over 10 years. And your average LAME is in their late 50s. Perfect storm coming.

The problems inherent in Qantas supply chain issues are obvious when focus is directed on fleet metrics.
The more one looks, from aircraft to crewing to maintenance all of the support structures necessary to ensure the product delivery are fractured.
From a strategic management perspective it is testament to failure to insulate the business. A failure of the current management and the board oversight. As we said before 'managing' rocks is something far easier than the dynamic of airlines.

The inability of the training system to cope with an influx of a whole six aircraft is indicative of a systemic core issue of structure. That is a fiduciary responsibility of Executive management. Unfortunately with an ever compliant media this goes unnoticed.

Qantas need a new fleet. With that new fleet additional required Cap ex, must also be expended into the structures that support fleet. All long ago deferred.

Goddamnslacker

3rd May 2018, 23:19

If talking about gas gusslers why dont they get rid of the loss making A380, use too much fuel, fly way to slow and too expensive to maintain....a model QF Management Garth Evans recently stated wish he could trade them for something else like A350s

Keg

4th May 2018, 00:37

There's been no news of what has happened to our deposits of the 8 cancelled A380s. I always thought those A380 options may be converted to A320s but perhaps a few A350ULR's may be on the cards instead? :eek:

Certainly the ability to 'common fleet flying' (or whatever the current term is) between the A350 and the A330 is getting some attention.

-438

4th May 2018, 01:31

Reliable source suggests Jetstar Pacific’s new A320’s are not coming from the large Qantas order of 99 A320’s as they have been able to source better pricing.

IsDon

4th May 2018, 06:56

Certainly the ability to 'common fleet flying' (or whatever the current term is) between the A350 and the A330 is getting some attention.

I’m sure you meant B787/777 common fleet flying mate?

maggot

4th May 2018, 07:07

Nah probably meant 330neo/350 to keep the flt decks more similar

Keg

4th May 2018, 07:29

I’m sure you meant B787/777 common fleet flying mate?

Lol. Sadly I’m not up to speed on the Boeing fleet capabilities so much these days. Can you do common fleet flying between the 787 and the 777X? Is that on the table as an option from Boeing? I know they’re the same endorsement on the license but not sure beyond that.

i know the CX crew are flying the ‘classic’ A330 and the A350 as part of a common fleet. Not sure if they can do that in the same tour of duty though.

Either way, some interesting efficiencies for Qantas if they can CFF for both the 777X and the A350 with aircraft types already in their fleet.

Veruka Salt

4th May 2018, 08:38

[QUOTE]
i know the CX crew are flying the ‘classic’ A330 and the A350 as part of a common fleet. Not sure if they can do that in the same tour of duty though/QUOTE]

No restrictions on flying both types in a single duty. Rarely happens in practice though.

Maxmotor

4th May 2018, 08:55

maggot

4th May 2018, 09:33

Keg

4th May 2018, 09:57

Thanks Veruka. Had heard both versions so wasn’t sure.

romeocharlie

4th May 2018, 10:00

Air NZ cross-crew 777/787 currently, if the commonality is there, surely there wouldn't be much in a 787/777X common fleet?

IsDon

4th May 2018, 10:30

Lol. Sadly I’m not up to speed on the Boeing fleet capabilities so much these days. Can you do common fleet flying between the 787 and the 777X? Is that on the table as an option from Boeing? I know they’re the same endorsement on the license but not sure beyond that.

Yes same endorsement. I’ve been led to believe both can be flown, just like the Airbus types.

Although I’ve never flown a 777 they are procedurally identical, apparently. As an example, on the 787 the hydraulic pumps are turned on in a particular sequence. For the 787 it makes no difference and they could be turned on in any sequence, but the sequence is mandated to comply with the common endorsement as it matters in the 777 which order they’re switched on.

Roj approved

4th May 2018, 11:02

Yes same endorsement. I’ve been led to believe both can be flown, just like the Airbus types.

Although I’ve never flown a 777 they are procedurally identical, apparently. As an example, on the 787 the hydraulic pumps are turned on in a particular sequence. For the 787 it makes no difference and they could be turned on in any sequence, but the sequence is mandated to comply with the common endorsement as it matters in the 777 which order they’re switched on.

That’s not actually correct, it’s something that “became a thing” after someone in the check department, that hadn’t flown a 777, read the FCOM and decided the leave his mark.

Hydraulic pumps....R, C1,C2, L...All ON.

So then rather than start on the right and turn all pumps on in a Right to Left motion, the Atom was split and we had to go R, C1, C2 ,L. The logic of the system chose which Centre pump it wanted to use.

The reason given for this was that “it caused a fault on the 777”, but none of the 777 experienced pilots or the Boeing instructors that did our endorsement had ever heard of this.

Slezy9

4th May 2018, 11:41

Air NZ cross-crew 777/787 currently.

No they don't. 2 week course to transfer 787 to 777.

Roj approved

4th May 2018, 11:50

I believe Etihad pilots fly both, but only one type in a month.

IsDon

4th May 2018, 11:56

That’s not actually correct, it’s something that “became a thing” after someone in the check department, that hadn’t flown a 777, read the FCOM and decided the leave his mark.

Hydraulic pumps....R, C1,C2, L...All ON.

So then rather than start on the right and turn all pumps on in a Right to Left motion, the Atom was split and we had to go R, C1, C2 ,L. The logic of the system chose which Centre pump it wanted to use.

The reason given for this was that “it caused a fault on the 777”, but none of the 777 experienced pilots or the Boeing instructors that did our endorsement had ever heard of this.

OK. That doesn’t surprise me.

As I said I’d never flown the 777 and just going by what I was told during conversion by those that had probably not flown the 777 either.

Some of our colleagues like to make things more difficult than they need to be.

goodonyamate

4th May 2018, 22:07

2 week course to transfer 787 to 777.

once Qantas LH get their hands on it and ‘QANTAS-IFY it , more like 6 months. 🙄

bangbounceboeing

4th May 2018, 23:58

I believe Etihad pilots fly both, but only one type in a month.
what a load of bollocks!
im operating the 777 up to Manchester in the morning and the 787 back the following evening. Been this way since MFF was introduced.

Roj approved

5th May 2018, 00:29

what a load of bollocks!
im operating the 777 up to Manchester in the morning and the 787 back the following evening. Been this way since MFF was introduced.

Ok, I stand corrected, I was told that by a mate who is a 777/787 skipper there, but it was a long time ago, sorry.

Can you shed light on the Hydraulic pump thing? Is there a fault if you go R, C2, C1, L when turning on?

Roo

5th May 2018, 02:10

on the 767, if one does not turn the hyd pumps on in this specific order, there is a chance that hyd fluid is transferred from one hyd system to another. I think the 777 is the same, hence the specific order. The 787 hyd pumps (electric) are inhibited until after engine start, so the switch sequence is irrelevant.
Doubley irrelevant on the 78, because on the 76 the hyd fluid transfer occurred by way of he the antiskid shuttle valve between R and C HYD systems (normal and secondary brakes). As the 78 brakes are electric this possibility does not exist. The switching sequence is retained for commonality.

Street garbage

5th May 2018, 04:59

Another article from the SMH
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/economic-reckoning-is-on-its-way-and-we-will-all-have-to-pay-20180504-p4zdg0.html

I'll quote the important section, one that I think the QF board should consider:
"This report, commissioned by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, was quite separate and apart from the banking royal commission. It sheets home blame to the Commonwealth Bank's highest level - its board of directors.

They were guilty of "inadequate oversight" in an institution with a "widespread tendency towards complacency". APRA ruled that the bank must set aside $1 billion in extra capital to deal with contingencies arising from its findings.

Treasurer Scott Morrison seized on the report for its implications not just for the banks but for all of corporate Australia. It was "a wake-up call for every director", he said, "not just bank boards. There are boards sitting around the country who need to read it very closely and ask themselves the hard questions at the next meeting. I expect them to do so.""

CurtainTwitcher

5th May 2018, 07:21

Why we should blame incentive pay for bad behaviour in fin servicesThe incentive pay culture that is rampant across the financial services sector is the main cause of bad behaviour.
by Amanda WilsonThose outraged about the bad behaviour inside our financial institutions (http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/royal-commission-will-hit-loan-growth-anz-20180501-h0zi4z) have largely focused on individuals and paid scant attention to the real culprit plaguing our companies: a rampant incentive culture.

Having led the performance and reward function of a big four bank, and subsequently as CEO of an investment research and shareholder advocacy firm, I know there are voices in the investment and human resource communities who plead with companies to implement more sustainable approaches to remuneration and managing human capital generally.

Those voices are drowned out by the more vociferous and powerful – super funds, asset managers and their advisors, and the metrics-obsessives within companies – who want to see more pay "at risk" for senior executives because, in their left-brained view of the world, that is the only way those executives will "perform".

Once entrenched for senior executives, at-risk reward, by necessity, is cascaded throughout the organisation, with pre-ordained KPIs attracting a certain percentage of one's annual, or longer term, target incentive, supplemented by a plethora of bespoke sales-based plans at customer-facing levels. (It should be noted that incentives refer specifically to rewards linked to defined outcomes, in contrast to after-the-fact bonuses).

Following the GFC and various financial scandals, the backlash against excessive executive pay (even though the equity-based incentive plans endorsed by investors had often delivered those excesses), and the growth of the sustainable investment movement, executive performance metrics were changed. Long-term incentive performance periods were lengthened from 3 to 4 or 5 years (as if executive tenure and performance can neatly map to investment time horizons) and score cards gave increased weight to factors like customer satisfaction, employee engagement and workplace health and safety.

Some of us, although welcoming a more holistic view of performance, were sceptical about this approach. Firstly, financial thresholds usually had to be met before any incentives are payable, thus privileging the hard stuff over the soft. Secondly, we were starting to ask what the still-hefty base pay was for? Several of us went further and mused that the main incentive for keeping a company financially healthy, with satisfied customers and healthy staff, ought to be getting to keep your job – but we were dismissed as dinosaurs. Directors, most of whom have little expertise in human capital theory and psychology of incentives, remained convinced that incentives were critical in the so-called war for executive talent.

The ramifications of using incentives as the primary, if not only, tool in the management box, are blindingly clear. Here are six reasons why.

Firstly, they encourage an unrealistically linear view of the world, wherein it is possible to predict the impact an executive will have on corporate performance, with clumsy "after-the-fact" tweaks to account for unforeseen variables.

Secondly, they lead to a close-mindedness. New opportunities are ignored and risks downplayed because a reward that visibly marks you as a winner or a loser is at risk.

The third argument against an over-reliance on incentives is they encourage rent-seeking behaviour: uncertain pay outcomes are like fertiliser for rent-seeking. They nurture a sort of insecurity that encourages a tactical hoarding mentality - for example not taking long-term investment decisions - because you never know, really, how this nebulous thing called "performance" will pan out.

The fourth reason is one we are all aware of: incentives lead to the gaming of results. All the accounting tricks in the book are utilised to deliver the payload. This often provokes a nerdy numbers battle as proxy advisors and companies fight it out to make their macho financial – and severely limited - case.

My fifth point is that incentives lead to a "what I earn defines me" mentality. All the other benefits and challenges of leadership tend to be sublimated beneath a final, annual number. Factors like the pride in leading an iconic Australian institution, of providing a happy, productive workplace, of genuinely meeting or exceeding customers' needs (not manufactured wants) are in perennial support roles to the main act.

Finally, they encourage an almost deliberate blindness regarding overall pay quantum and the relativities therein – with even our regulators saying that quantum is not their focus.

And yet the incentive mindset is now so intractable a part of corporate leadership in Australia that its "rats in a lab" type philosophy has swamped HR practices. This has had a corrosive effect on corporate culture, as so clearly shown in the royal banking commission outcomes to date (and detailed in the APRA report into CBA released this week (http://www.afr.com/news/cba-heads-should-roll-says-scott-morrison-following-apra-report-20180430-h0zgs5)). There is voluminous and compelling research that demonstrates incentives actually diminish intrinsic motivation and frequently have unintended consequences.

None of this is to say there is no place for incentives in listed companies. They can be very effective for short-term, clearly defined objectives. And there is no doubt executives owning equity can provide alignment with at least the cohort of shareholders who own the stock for exactly the same time period. But to avoid future scandals in our financial services industry (and other sectors) the true impact of incentives at every level and function should be evaluated. They should be removed altogether from central/compliance functions so these can deliver frank and fearless advice without penalty.

And as for the "war for talent"? The executive labour market remains rife with artificial barriers to entry, as evidenced by the still-startling lack of diversity. Maybe if more leaders and staff were selected based on their demonstrated intrinsic motivation – and a lack of interest in incentives – we'd get sustainable growth in value rather than incentive-driven highs and their inevitable hangovers.

Amanda Wilson was CEO at the investment research and shareholder advocacy firm Regnan from 2010 -2017 and before that held various executive roles in the banking sector.

AFR Contributor

Why we should blame incentive pay for bad behaviour in fin services afr.com (http://www.afr.com/opinion/amanda-wilson-the-real-culprit-plaguing-our-companies-20180503-h0zmg9)

APRA CBA report (http://www.apra.gov.au/AboutAPRA/Documents/CBA-Prudential-Inquiry_Final-Report_30042018.pdf)

LeadSled

6th May 2018, 00:04

Folk,
Back to the fleet planning, you are all missing the big picture. The accountants and other Xperts have "done their numbers", and the answer is fly the 787 for 29.5 hours per day. QED, why haven't other airlines woken up??
If lawyers and accountants can bill 36 hours per day, what's the problem.
Tootle pip!!

abcdoremi

7th May 2018, 13:40

maggot

7th May 2018, 20:31

Oh if It were only so simple

Jetsbest

7th May 2018, 20:52

Oh if It were only so simple
True! But the thing that gets my goat every time this prospect arises is the ‘experts’ who opine about the inefficiencies in QF’s RIN process. (I know Maggot is not saying this!)

Such opinion overlooks the fact that the QF Longhaul EBA is an agreement between the parties. It is inappropriate that anyone should ‘cherry-pick’ what is no longer convenient in that agreement; every clause has been bought & paid for by one side or the other over a long period of time, and the typical blame game against the pilots seems to come from either the uninformed or the disingenuous.

What will be, will be. It’s not fun, but neither was it a ‘thought-bubble’ imposed on a poor helpless IR/HR team.

C441

7th May 2018, 22:47

Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets?
Only if it were somehow negotiated that ex 744 pilots would fly the 787 at 744 rates - and that ain't gunna happen.

A move from the 744 to the 787 would be a reasonable pay cut and thus most 744 pilots will be looking to minimise their pay hit when the move eventually has to be made.
The RIN process in some ways, allows this to happen; certainly for the more senior.

mrhooker

8th May 2018, 00:04

Keg

8th May 2018, 00:32

Sorry for the ignorance, but just curious as to why a reduction in numbers is being talked about, when there are supposed to be more aircraft and more pilots recruited at QF (going through the application process myself). Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets?

Many of the current 744 drivers are senior enough to be in their rank on the A380. They’ve chosen not to go to the A380 for any number of reasons. However once their current ride is retired, they have the right to bid to go where their seniority gets them. Thus they can ‘displace’ more junior pilots who are currently on a more ‘senior aeroplane’.

There are a number of nuances as to how this plays out as alluded to by both Jetsbest and maggot. Not least of these is that you need crew trained for when a 787 arrives but you still need crew flying the 744 until the day the 787 arrives. So those 744 crew can’t be released to fly that new aeroplane straight away. It’s a three to four month course to convert. One month ground School, one month sim, one to two months line training- takes a full 8 Weeks to clock up ten sectors when the sector length is north of 14 hours.

Hence maggot’s comment about it not being simple!

Street garbage

8th May 2018, 00:43

No excuses for ignorance needed. 747 pilots have only ever been for 747 pilots. They ignore the facts as you rightly point out that recruiting is going gangbusters. Many are wishing for RIN for the $$$. Many are worried about going to a new type and therefore moving out of their comfort zone and most are thinking about the loss of $$$ for overtime going to a smaller aircraft.
You only have to read the comments on Qrewroom to see how true these comments are. Even in their "the sky is falling" moment, they can still find room for disparaging comments about the 73. What a bunch of precious, self centred.....

dragon man

8th May 2018, 02:39

Rated De

8th May 2018, 02:58

So Leigh at your April board meeting what has been obvious for a decade to the industry finally hit home: Qantas need a new fleet.

Whilst of course 'commercial in confidence' is the standard line pitched to all, what would 6 787 aircraft cost?
Prudent management would have seen these aircraft purchased years ago, protecting fuel included CASK, growing operating profit margin, but self enrichment of insiders is a powerful drug. With share buy back and capital returns totaling AUD$2 billion, you could have paid for these aircraft out of cash flow surplus, such was the cheap fuel it was self interest all the way!

With WTI crude nudging USD$70.05 jet fuel forward hedging, given contango, becomes a lot more expensive. Maybe you need a few more?

Reality Czech whereabouts unknown. We await with interest the return from the Campus with a quantitative analysis as to the 'value of JQ'

abcdoremi

8th May 2018, 03:51

Cheers for the insights, but wouldn’t displacing more pilots when recruitment is going gang busters be very expensive (eg. a 747 captain could potentially displace 3 or 4 other captains and so on), and like Keg said, make a lot of pilots sit around in training courses not actually flying planes?
I totally understand about pilots wanting to go to a plane that keeps their pay drop to a minimum (I would too), however, wouldn’t QF just turn around and say there’s is an increase in pilots required hence no reductions of numbers? So they only need to convert the 747 guys? As it seems a very expensive and inefficient way of doing business.

blow.n.gasket

8th May 2018, 03:56

I wonder if around circa $64,000 a day could entice a decent CEO ?

dragon man

8th May 2018, 04:48

I wonder if around circa $64,000 a day could entice a descent CEO ?

You wont get a decent CEO until the board changes its collective mind I’m afraid, and at the moment there is no chance of that.

Average Joe

8th May 2018, 04:51

As once said to me when I was an SO your average Qantas pilot would eat his kids for $10. Don’t kid your self that 747 pilots are any different to pilots on other types in Qantas , they are all there to get what’s best for themselves.

Should they be there to get what’s best for somebody else? :bored:

cessnapete

8th May 2018, 06:28

What a complicated pay scheme QF seem to have which stifles Pilots movement and recruitment.
My airline pays by Company Seniority not by type.
ie A 2 year seniority F/O on an A 320 gets the same basic as a 2 year A380 F/O. A 20 year A320 Capt the same as a 20 year 787/744/777 (tel:787/744/777) etc. (We don’t do the S/O partially trained Cruise Pilot thing, all joiners on all fleets fully trained as P2 for 2 pilot Ops)
Flying pay and allowances tend to favour the LH fleets but not by much.
This scheme means guys who want the SH European lifestyle don’t have to go LH just for the money, and obviating the need for double conversions to replace him.
Also saves a bunch on Type Ratings and conversion courses for the Company as you can recruit direct onto the Fleets with the pilot requirements. Pilots recruited direct onto wide body types obviously need previous jet or large turbo prop experience, ex Military or previous airline.
Saves all the hassle and bickering on who goes where, with for instance B744 fleet retirement, which seems to happen in QF?

Lapon

8th May 2018, 08:01

Cessnapete,

The SO role is probably easier to justify in this part of the world than most. Other than a few exceptions on one fleet, every wide body is going to be operating with an augmented crew so why pay for a third or fourth FO when an SO will do.

I agree that seniority pay generally makes sence, I remeber the idea being mooted some years ago in the lower echelons of one carrier I was involved with, but the counter argument at the time was that all the large pay steps over the decades had a occured when new and larger types had arrived. Im sure that was party attributed to being the 'good old days' but there was little appetite for change going foward. Anecdotaly, most of the senior guys where happier with long haul life anyway and I doubt many would have embraced the multi sector short haul life even if the base pay was the same.

Im sure it would work for the company, but as inefficent as it is in its current form I think it still works for the majority of the current pilot group most of the time.

cessnapete

8th May 2018, 18:04

Thanks for the reply Lapon. I am surprised you get enough pilots recruits who will never fly the airplane! We had a short period on our last recruitment phase when due to lack of training route sectors some new F/Os on 380/777 etc had to wait a few months as Cruise Only, I think they could only sit up front above 20000ft. Thy hated it ,bored out of their tree after a month or two as a third pilot on a two crew airplane..
Still its better than no job.

DirectAnywhere

8th May 2018, 23:35

I reckon two of the company's claims for the LH EA this time around will be for fleet pay and longer type freezes post training. If the LH and SH EAs were negotiated together in some respects such that the SH contract was better in parts and the pay differential reduced between types, there are potential savings for the company in the tens of millions if not hundredish million p/a in reduced training costs.

mrdeux

9th May 2018, 05:34

I reckon two of the company's claims for the LH EA this time around will be for fleet pay and longer type freezes post training.

At the pay rate of the lowest aircraft of course.

Derfred

9th May 2018, 17:40

Well, of course they can claim whatever they like. I would like to think that after the considerable concessions in the last EBA’s, and the subsequent record profits and exhorbitant executive remuneration, the pilots would be unlikely to accept anything less than a good pay deal in the next negotiation. QF IR know that, of course, they aren’t stupid. Which is of course why they are currently attempting to muddy the negotiating waters with Jetconnect and and Network (and 787 orders, please save me).

DirectAnywhere

10th May 2018, 00:06

At the pay rate of the lowest aircraft of course.

That goes without saying! Derfred, I think the pilots have something they want, particularly given training forecasts over the next few years. To give it up and force longer type freezes and fleet pay, the rest of the package/s need to be good enough. There are potentially very big dollars at stake here fo the company. CCQ aircraft could complicate matters but there is still a huge churn between SH and LH as SH is the only place to get an upgrade and LH is the place for $$ and lifestyle.

Rated De

10th May 2018, 05:56

With WTI crude pipping USD$71.69, oil just topped AUD$96.00. Since the start of April oil prices (hence Jet fuel) is up in the order of 10%.
Geopolitical risk aside, China's recent foray into Yuan denominated oil contracts and clear patterns of increasing consumption suggest further contango in oil prices, Qantas may wish they were permitted more hedging latitude when fuel was considerably cheaper.

Qantas hedging into FY18-19 may be significantly more expensive, and hedging discretion is only 40% of forecast demand outside 12 months. Those 787 orders may be needed sooner than later...

Qantas need a new fleet

knobbycobby

11th May 2018, 04:30

The 787 EA is now being exposed for its many flaws.
The 787 had a very high chance of replacing the 747. So now a situation exists where 747 pilots could get sent to the 787 on far less pay/conditions regardless of going to year 4 pay. Quite possibly the mooted RIN will never happen and it's just another mind game to lessen conditions for the third time in a row.
AIPA and the Qantas projections showed lots of Asia flying which would of lessened the effects of losing overtime and night credits. The long tours of duty that the 787 is currently flying was not disclosed.
Simply put the 787 is a long haul 747 replacement type. Slim chance of a growth type.
The company very successfully played SH vs LH and in the end pilots simply took a knife to their own pay and conditions. Very sad to see especially when the full bench of FWA ruled the contract as fair and reasonable. The Short Haul award deserves to be better without question. Sabotaging something adequate because something else is inadequate is just another self imposed race to the bottom.Collective representation should resist collective stupidity. Collective stupidity, Stockholm syndrome and group think is now Collective representation.
Long Haul flying is different with very long trips away from family, a majority of fatiguing night flying and constant jet lag. The protections in the contract provided for these differences.Trade offs in pay in the past provided such. Instead of protecting them for when pilots eventually move to the various types, pilots self sabotaged. Early starts,multi sectors and long duty days are no less challenging. AIPA should be aiming to lift all boats given the shortage.Short Haul just like LH many years ago need to better working conditions. Those that attack their own by slagging off SH vs LH just show how easily manipulated they are by IR strategy.
Doing a 19.5 hour all night duty from Perth to London is not something I would wish on my worst enemy.
The cabin crew union were smart enough to provide protections if anyone had to move to a new fleet via top-up pay.
Let us hope in a time of record bonuses, profits and pilot shortages AIPA and therefore it's pilots show some intelligence and some backbone when the A380 goes and a new type does nothing but "double sunrise" duties of 24 hours from one side of the planet to another. Same for the SH EBA.
Concessions, panicking and comfort letters do not inspire confidence.
Whilst I have a dislike for IR, HR and the mind games they play on pilots, they have played pilots for scared fools and have outplayed AIPA too. If AIPA were to run a survey on their impressions of a comfort letter I'm sure they would not like what they would see.
Not many work groups that are in a global shortage have conceded so much time and time again.
If pilots continue to go backward in boom times then god help us all.
Or maybe Alan is worth his 30 million?

dragon man

11th May 2018, 04:55

The 787 EA is now being exposed for its many flaws.
The 787 had a very high chance of replacing the 747. So now a situation exists where 747 pilots could get sent to the 787 on far less pay/conditions regardless of going to year 4 pay. Quite possibly the mooted RIN will never happen and it's just another mind game to lessen conditions for the third time in a row.
AIPA and the Qantas projections showed lots of Asia flying which would of lessened the effects of losing overtime and night credits. The long tours of duty that the 787 is currently flying was not disclosed.
Simply put the 787 is a long haul 747 replacement type. Slim chance of a growth type.
The company very successfully played SH vs LH and in the end pilots simply took a knife to their own pay and conditions. Very sad to see especially when the full bench of FWA ruled the contract as fair and reasonable. The Short Haul award deserves to be better without question. Sabotaging something adequate because something else is inadequate is just another self imposed race to the bottom.Collective representation should resist collective stupidity. Collective stupidity, Stockholm syndrome and group think is now Collective representation.
Long Haul flying is different with very long trips away from family, a majority of fatiguing night flying and constant jet lag. The protections in the contract provided for these differences.Trade offs in pay in the past provided such. Instead of protecting them for when pilots eventually move to the various types, pilots self sabotaged. Early starts,multi sectors and long duty days are no less challenging. AIPA should be aiming to lift all boats given the shortage.Short Haul just like LH many years ago need to better working conditions. Those that attack their own by sproting off SH vs LH just show how easily manipulated they are by IR strategy.
Doing a 19.5 hour all night duty from Perth to London is not something I would wish on my worst enemy.
The cabin crew union were smart enough to provide protections if anyone had to move to a new fleet via top-up pay.
Let us hope in a time of record bonuses, profits and pilot shortages AIPA and therefore it's pilots show some intelligence and some backbone when the A380 goes and a new type does nothing but "double sunrise" duties of 24 hours from one side of the planet to another. Same for the SH EBA.
Concessions, panicking and comfort letters do not inspire confidence.
Whilst I have a dislike for IR, HR and the mind games they play on pilots, they have played pilots for scared fools and have outplayed AIPA too. If AIPA were to run a survey on their impressions of a comfort letter I'm sure they would not like what they would see.
Not many work groups that are in a global shortage have conceded so much time and time again.
If pilots continue to go backward in boom times then god help us all.
Or maybe Alan is worth his 30 million?

Well written post, if there is a RIN with no VR on the 747 it will be a blood bath. By my reckoning at least 30 A380 Captains will be bumped, followed by 787 Captains etc etc. The training system can’t even cope now it will go into melt down with a RIN. As only Qantas can do well the right hand wasn’t talking to the left foot.

Beer Baron

11th May 2018, 05:35

To put a slightly rosier picture out there.

It’s worth remembering that since the 787 EA was signed up to, of the 15 airframe orders that have come due, 14 have been taken up. (The one skipped is apparently still available)

There has been no indication that the next tranch will not be taken up next year.

I have also heard rumour (this is a rumour network right?) that the Project Sunrise order due in 2019 will include a some non-ULR models of the selected aircraft type for delivery closer to 2020. These aircraft will replace the outgoing 744’s on certain routes.

And finally, given most 787 patterns I have looked at are built on MDC, the lack of night credits is having very little effect at this early stage. This will be true of the upcoming BNE-LAX-JFK patterns also. Beyond that, who knows.

knobbycobby

11th May 2018, 06:39

Beer Baron.
The A380 Replacement will do nothing but Sydney London and Sydney New York and Sydney Rio or equivalent.
Alan Joyce was clear in a presentation to the ASX.Its a double sunrise 23-24 hour TOD machine.
The 787 Perth London patterns are not MDC, Nor are any of the Los Angeles patterns.
Also told 787 crews will NOT slip in JFK but fly LAX-JFK-LAX in one return 3-4 pilot so as to avoid MDC. AIPA did not include the 787 to have a two day slip requirement in JFK.
The trip length has to be at least over 7 days, really 8-9 for the MDC to be higher than the stick hours.
The loss of night credits is why the 787 loses on the majority of patterns, not to mention zero overtime. The hourly rate increase never equals the equivalent loss of overtime or night credit for pattern credit in the take home pay.Bigger number sounds good though.
If it did some Asia flying it may mitigate the loss somewhat but it does not.
I suspect due to to ETOPS restrictions the 747 will hang around longer. SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL won't be able to be flown by 787 as far as I can see currently. I don't think QF would have checked this with flight ops.Sure a bag of cash, some Chairmans lounge memberships and some First upgrades may change it in time.
As others have wisely commented, A RIN only functions properly in a slowdown.Even then it is a disaster. Training is at max, retirements are increasing so a RIN will be a nightmare for QF in that environment.Feel for the Allocations department and the training section.
747s owe nothing, are refurbished and the newest ERs are not that old.
As ex classic crews will tell you its not over till it is over.

Beer Baron

11th May 2018, 08:25

I find it a little amusing that you use Alan Joyce's statement to discredit the rumour I mentioned but in the same post you say that the future fleet plans he has announced almost certainly wont occur. So do we believe him or not??

The 787 Perth London patterns are not MDC, Nor are any of the Los Angeles patterns.
Have you looked at the patterns??
Many of the London patterns are crewed from the east coast and all of those attract MDC. Of the 49 LAX pattern codes all but 4 are built on MDC and all of the PER-MEL patterns are MDC. Some of these factors will change as more crew are trained and the fleet increases but these are the facts on the ground now. As you say, if 787 flying to Asia increases the EA proposition improves and given the 744 flies to Hong Kong and Tokyo it's a good chance that will happen.

Also told 787 crews will NOT slip in JFK but fly LAX-JFK-LAX in one return 3-4 pilot so as to avoid MDC. AIPA did not include the 787 to have a two day slip requirement in JFK.
There is nowhere in the EA that varies the slip pattern for JFK flights for the 787.

I do agree with you that the SCL and JNB flights are not best suited to the 787 and I think you will be proven right that the 744 will be here longer than announced. However, these route difficulties are the very reason a 777-8 or A350-800 (with 330 and 370 min ETOPS respectively) would be an ideal addition to the fleet around about 2020.

C441

11th May 2018, 22:36

fearcampaign

11th May 2018, 23:10

Once the initial line training requirements settle down the MEL-LAX patterns will return to a normal 36 hour transit of LAX - and flight time credits. It would not be surprising to see Melbourne crew doing at least some of the JFK’s too once they start in September; especially after Brisbane-Chicago starts.;)

The 78 hour transit in London will also probably be reduced to 54 once other European ports come online - more options to protect the operation in the event of diversions.

Most future options around daily services will trend towards flight time credits over time ( or no overtime whichever way you look at it! :rolleyes:)

Well said C441.
MDC is irrelevant on PER-LHR as the stick hours are greater than MDC anyway.
Night credits would have meant more hours for this pattern just as LAX/JNB/DFW on the 747/380/330 (tel:747/380/330) where Night credits make duty credit greater than BOTH stick or MDC.
The MEL/LHR 10 day patterns won’t hang around forever as PER base reaches establishment nor will 120 hour slips in LAX.
Its only the long slips that MDC comes into play and they are not a sustainable representation of long term flying.

So Beer Baron are 787 BNE/JFK patterns out? They will have a 2 day slip in JFK and therefore be a 9 day pattern?

maggot

12th May 2018, 03:16

Yes JFKs will be planned the same as they currently are on the jumbo. 48/48/48

blow.n.gasket

12th May 2018, 03:50

Think you will find that SJ , JFK patterns are 48/48/24 hr slips.

ExtraShot

12th May 2018, 05:16

. I do agree with you that the SCL and JNB flights are not best suited to the 787 and I think you will be proven right that the 744 will be here longer than announced

I don’t posses any performance charts / iPad app for the 787, but if anyone does, can it lift 236 bums plus crew and a maybe a bit of freight, fuel for a 11.5 odd hr sector (plus reserves obviously, and let’s add in 60 hold in sydney just because), out of JNB on a 35 degree evening with a light variable breeze ( say, 5 up the tail)?

Same out of SCL with relevant sector length considered?

Beer Baron

12th May 2018, 06:10

Once the initial line training requirements settle down the MEL-LAX patterns will return to a normal 36 hour transit of LAX - and flight time credits.

They can't do 36 hours slips because of the schedule. The QF95 gets in at 7pm and you need minimum 32 hours rest so the minimum slip becomes ~ 51 hours. Now consider that from September MEL-LAX will become only 2 days per week and MEL-SFO 4 days per week. That means that when you are ready to operate out in two days time there is no flight that day!
Looking at the schedules I can't see how most slips won't be around 3 days in both LAX and SFO, creating a 6 day pattern paid on MDC. If crew operate MEL-LAX-BNE-MEL (to avoid the long slip) the extra day in BNE pushes a 5 day trip out to 6 days anyway and then MDC exceeds stick hours.

It would not be surprising to see Melbourne crew doing at least some of the JFK’s too once they start in September; especially after Brisbane-Chicago starts.
The 78 hour transit in London will also probably be reduced to 54 once other European ports come online
If MEL crew do some JFK flying it will an 8 day pattern (or more) paid on MDC. And if we start flying to Chicago or additional European ports out of PER..... GREAT!!! That's what we want. Yes, we'll miss out on night credits on those flights but that is exactly the international expansion we have been crying out for. More routes, mean more pilots, mean more promotions and more money for most crew.

I'm just saying it can't hurt to be a little positive. We have all suffered huge damage to our careers at the hands of our current management team but if there are some green shoots appearing lets not be too quick to try and find a downside.

V-Jet

12th May 2018, 07:02

Same out of SCL with relevant sector length considered?
Mainly ETOPS issue. Also JNB is 5000' - can be an issue in summer.

ExtraShot

12th May 2018, 08:08

Sure, but I thought the (Genex powered) 787 is FAA approved 330min ETOPs, so no different to the 777-8, just no QF approval as yet by CASA (which would be the same for the 777 anyhow...) Shouldn’t be to hard to get sorted with enough experience operating the type.

Im well aware Joburg is 5000 plus feet, that’s why I asked the question re; performance, quoting your typical summer weather for the departure times (at least when I’ve operated there)
Otherwise, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be a good fit to replace the 747, reduced capacity notwithstanding.

Keg

12th May 2018, 14:33

fearcampaign

12th May 2018, 22:08

Any reason the Dugong can’t do SYD- JNB- SYD? In a couple of years time they’ll all be through the refit and we should have all 12 available at any one time as opposed to the 10-12 we have now depending on what is getting re-config’d, heavied, etc.

Could well do that Keg. On the 747 it’s a 4 day trip worth 32 Credit hours.It is only 25 Stick hours however with night credits it’s increased to 32 hours and got a great density of 7:50. 6 hours overtime too.
The rumour is spare A380s will do SYD-SFO and MEL-HKG. 747 Engineer told me that will become MEL-SIN-LHR soon so who knows. 😉😉
Melbourne premium pax dislike MEL-PER-LHR particularly P class however I can’t see them upsetting the game changer for now. Perhaps one day it switches to a PER to single European destination instead of LHR.

dragon man

12th May 2018, 23:28

Yes, the 380 is supposed to be going to Joburg which is to be the last 747 destination. On another note management believe that putting the 787 on JFK will stop all the delays on that service. Smoking something pretty strong me thinks.

ExtraShot

13th May 2018, 06:47

Yes, the 380 is supposed to be going to Joburg which is to be the last 747 destination

I have little doubt this was the plan back when the 380 was ordered, but do you reckon it still is?

I’m not sure I see it. The current direction for QF seems to be the pursuit of Yield premiums and the minimization of excess capacity (note the almost complete lack of excess capacity QF currently has from AUS to UK).

The A380 on the JNB route would have 100-150 excess seats every day, based on what I’ve heard the current loads are (happy to be corrected). That’s a very risky ~12 tonne an hour, especially in an environment where some analysts are expecting Oil to start rising toward US$100 a barrel in the next 18 months or so.

I wrote elsewhere what I thought the plan for JNB possibly might be... the 787s replacing the 6 weekly 747s out of Sydney, and the ‘proposed’ 4 weekly 330s out of Perth making up the lost capacity. This would have the added benefit of enabling the destination to be served 10 times a week rather than the current 6, whilst improving connections to/from around the country, where Sydney is a backtrack or inconvenient in comparison. It also allows for an easy reduction in services when the next downturn occurs, without necessarily sacrificing daily access in and out of JNB.

A couple of potential issues with this are sorting out the conflict with Perth Airport over Terminal use, and whether the 787 can reliably take a full load of punters back to Sydney year round (I’d be surprised if it couldn’t), but I think it might be more likely than the 380 taking it over.

blow.n.gasket

13th May 2018, 08:29

A380 to JNB , will be an interesting exercise considering the complete lack of suitable alternates, and how much DPD Contingency Fuel will have to be loaded for the more southern route ?

dragon man

13th May 2018, 09:19

I know it’s a very different route however both BA and AF operate 380s to Joburg. I think you will find that if it goes there they will just reduce the frequency further to balance the seat numbers.

blow.n.gasket

13th May 2018, 10:53

Yes dragon man , no one disputes the A380 can get into Johannesburg , but the unanswered question of how much DPD Contingency Fuel will need to be loaded to travel across the Southern Ocean on the SYD-JNB leg has yet to be answered.

The other unanswered question is what Second segment limits , if any , will there be on payload for the 787 on the SCL-SYD leg.

Capt Fathom

13th May 2018, 11:10

but the unanswered question of how much DPD Contingency Fuel will need to be loaded to travel across the Southern Ocean on the SYD-JNB leg has yet to be answered
Why would the A380 requirement be any different to the B747?

blow.n.gasket

13th May 2018, 23:26

A lot more drag / aerodynamic considerations? at FL140- A100 down low on the 380 compared to the Jumbo hence the quite large Contingency fuel uplifts required particularly on routes with no close suitable alternates, on the Sarah Jessica Parker.

( butt ugly, high maintenance, and likely to go to pieces when ever pushed too hard , if you have to ask !)

donpizmeov

14th May 2018, 04:55

He is certainly blow n something. But it's not uncommon for some people to be scared of modern technology

Rated De

19th May 2018, 02:34

With WTI crude finding resistance lines at USD $71.00 a barrel, hedging costs a lot more.

With a fuel inefficient fleet, consuming a lot more jet fuel per RPK, forward hedging costs face headwinds..

With US10Y Treasury at 3.04% yield, and oil term structure suggesting more upside than down...

Qantas need a new fleet

puff

19th May 2018, 03:36

Re the 787-9 - LATAM seem to manage to do SCL-MEL/AKL no worries, but then again they have 330min EDTO, which the A/C is capable of but the question is will CASA allow it?

I agree if they got 330 min JNB wouldn't be an issue but the T/O performance out of JNB could be, the twins don't like hot and high, which is one of the reasons why the A340 was a popular machine ex JNB. Not sure about the 787 performance, but the 777-300ER is v payload limited when it's hot/vs high, far more so than the A330, at least in 200 guise anyway.

From the airbus site looks like RUN and MRU are A380 capable - but as someone pointed out, vs a 747 thats a LOT more seats onto the market with a lot more fuel burn. Interesting times!

DirectAnywhere

19th May 2018, 04:37

It's a conundrum for sure. It's a similar flight time JNB-SYD as it is to Paris, London, Frankfurt etc. It's the only place I go where you see more quadjets than twins for those 10-11hr flight times. BA operate a mix of 747/380, Air France operate 380s, Lufthansa operate 748i, EK a 380 (but then again they operate 380s everywhere). You see very few 777/787s apart from African operators and various cargo operators who are presumably enroute to other African destinations. Don't know if it's purely for takeoff performance or perhaps those markets support the higher loads from premium carriers for larger aircraft. You would hope a twin capable of flying for 18 hours, only flying 11, would be able to uplift sufficient fuel for a full pax load and still achieve the required performance. It can be very marginal on the 747 in the summer, particularly if there is adverse weather forecast in Sydney. I'm sure the smartest guys in the room have considered all these factors though.

dragon man

19th May 2018, 07:39

Rated De

19th May 2018, 11:09

“I'm sure the smartest guys in the room have considered all these factors though.”

Yea for sure. Why would I be a cynic? Are these the same people who are going to give American Airlines 1100 customers a week from LAX,JFK,LAX by putting on the 787 that will then stop all the delays the 747 causes?

Not cynical. The data supports it.
An 'alliance' with EK cost Qantas 400,000 passengers in the first year. Incidentally EK gained a 1,000,000 (plus) for no Revenue gain to Qantas.
After five years, a return to Singapore confirms what the data already screamed: Passengers prefer going to Europe via Asia. A five year random walk for what exactly?

With all fleet growth directed at JQ, a replicated cost base, flying more air frames generates only 22% of the revenue Qantas does, yet it flies 48% of the ASK. This is likely a suggestion of over scale.

With headwinds indicating Qantas will hedge next FY into much higher WTI/Brent prices, the $597 million gain on fuel price falls in the 'transformation' FY15 profit is quickly at risk.
Fuel included CASK with the current fleet metrics deplete RASK CASK margin quickly at Qantas, far quicker than competitor airlines.
It is a delicate balance, a gamble that needn't have been taken if Qantas simply did what others prudently did years ago: Replaced four engines for two.

Qantas need a new fleet. Stat

dragon man

19th May 2018, 21:04

Rated De

20th May 2018, 04:09

Interesting, I wonder if the above helps explain staff travel ticket prices increasing about 20% and domestic freight prices to Darwin from Sydney by over 100% ( I suspect elsewhere as well, but I had one from 3 months ago to compare) . I think they are under the pump and are gouging where they can.

To understand how big an impact consider rough this rule of thumb:

For a US$10 rise in the price of a barrel of WTI/Brent crude, an airline can expect an increase of between USD$100m to $300m in their fuel expense, industry wide give or take.

For an airline with a predominantly four engine international fleet, that is a substantial exposure. As as the 'turn around' Qantas profit in FY15 details, of the $975 million PBT, $597 million was reduced fuel expense from falling oil prices. (Most of the the remaining amount was depreciation change; Qantas wrote off the fleet)

The order of magnitude fuel saving) was big on the way down and could whip saw expense on the way up.
A weakening terms of trade (falling AUD) and a rising USD could accelerate a down turn.
Yields are declining (consider rising fuel prices leading to taper off of demand)

Additionally with all the cheap debt sloshing around, Qantas like many other corporates used it to buy back shares. Such 'strategy' may sugar hit the company share price, but does not change fundamentals.That money could comfortably have covered a big chunk of the 787 purchase. Hopefully the term structure of the new debt is locked in as interest rates rise. Otherwise the tide may go out quicker than little Napoleon hoped. Seems self evident, given most of their competitors re-equipped years ago.

Qantas need a new fleet

Jeps

20th May 2018, 04:13

Regarding JNB and twins I think it’s normal(perhaps even standard?) for cathay to use the ‘thrust bump’out of there. The twins really seem to struggle don’t they?

On eyre

20th May 2018, 04:19

Rated De

20th May 2018, 04:46

Rated De - your comment re oil price in relation to airline fuel expense makes no sense. You quote USD $100 m to 300mill increase in fuel cost for USD $10 increase per barrel of crude. I would hazard a guess that the increase for some would be much less and for some much more - exactly what fleet size etc are you referring to ? And where does QF for example fit in this ?

Perhaps a percentage increase in fuel cost relative to a percentage increase in crude price might be more relevant as a rule of thumb.

And I do realise that level of fuel price hedging comes into the equation just to confuse the issue further.

valid question, responded by PM.
However, for clarification, the rule of thumb is rough and based upon International ASK for a sample of airlines.
Obviously the more exposure to a Qantas type fleet mix increases vulnerability.

Qantas, who have a treasury hedge (options mostly) on WTI/Brent crude at 80% for 12 months, Qantas would be at the upper bound of the rule of thumb.
The rising price means Jet fuel rises a bit above WTI spot (usually about $10). A falling AUD heightens their exposure.
The point of it being that a fleet decision is overdue.

dragon man

20th May 2018, 05:18

LeadSled

20th May 2018, 06:49

Folks,
What is the problem causing such a high failure rate on F/O training on the 330, and is it only on this type?
Looks more like the system failing to me??
Tootle pip!!

Street garbage

20th May 2018, 07:14

It is a system failure,unfortunately no movement for a decade and limited opportunities for Training in that time will put further pressure on the system.

Rated De

20th May 2018, 07:32

The fleet decision has been made we have the “game changer”. Not the correct aircraft to replace the 747 but been purchased none the less because the price is right. IMO the 787 now is second generation game changer the A350 and 777X when available are what Qantas should be focusing on, also the 787-10 would be a great fit for Asia and the Tasman. Training is in chaos since the decision to retire the 747 at short notice, more crew are to be trained on the 747 even thou they will be RINed early next year. If they can’t work something out (VR) then 380 Captains will be decimated by 747 Captains. Pass rate for FO upgrade on the 330 at the moment is 25%, yes 25%. FOs upgrading to command on the 737 been given 2 months off. I say again complete and utter chaos.

We maintain a few connections inside the 'empire'.

There was despair at the 'alliance' The lack of any tangible gain and a five year commitment caused much division
Whilst JQ was lavished with aircraft, QF International withered
Preoccupation with internal agendas, including staff at the expense of strategic considerations

Fish rot from the head.

In a decade a fleet decision was deferred, the industry moved on.

Add supply of qualified pilots to the system that generates the operating revenue as another abject example of poor executive management and importantly worse board governance.

dragon man

20th May 2018, 07:55

We maintain a few connections inside the 'empire'.

There was despair at the 'alliance' The lack of any tangible gain and a five year commitment caused much division
Whilst JQ was lavished with aircraft, QF International withered
Preoccupation with internal agendas, including staff at the expense of strategic considerations

Fish rot from the head.

In a decade a fleet decision was deferred, the industry moved on.

Add supply of qualified pilots to the system that generates the operating revenue as another abject example of poor executive management and importantly worse board governance.

you get it, I get it why don’t management get it?

CurtainTwitcher

20th May 2018, 08:20

you get it, I get it why don’t management get it?

"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"

-- Upton Sinclair (disputed (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/))

Keg

20th May 2018, 10:03

Pass rate for FO upgrade on the 330 at the moment is 25%, yes 25%.

Given the small numbers involved a raw statistic can be somewhat misleading. There are currently two F/Os in the training system upgrading from S/O. They alone represent 33% of the numbers of F/Os upgrading this year (so far).

framer

20th May 2018, 11:04

maggot

20th May 2018, 12:11

What, 75% course fail rate? Ie. Sent back to so?

Tankengine

21st May 2018, 00:04

If six of eight A330 F/O’s failed to upgrade after sitting as A330 F/O’s for many years, then it is definitely a systemic problem in my mind. Highly unlikely that 6 of 8 have had and maintained the technical skills required for many years but quietly lacked the non- tech elements necessary for command.
I think you will find the failure rate is on S/O to F/O, also with a change of type thrown in.
Difficult to keep a good eye for landings sitting in the back for so many years due to “the lost decade” without doing some sport aviation.
Perhaps Qantas needs some training jets doing freight work or the like for currency like in the 70s.

ruprecht

21st May 2018, 00:29

I think you will find the failure rate is on S/O to F/O, also with a change of type thrown in.

You go from SO 744 to SO 330, with the accompanying pay cut and a failed course thrown in for good measure...:ooh:

Beer Baron

21st May 2018, 01:27

Rated De, I’m curious to know what you actually expect or want Qantas to do from a fleet point of view beyond your oft repeated tag-line.

Qantas have now announced the retirement of their 747 fleet. The fleet will wind down as the cheaply hedged fuel runs out in ~18 months.

They are being replaced by a fuel efficient twin, the 787-9. Less capacity but higher yield and more profit.

The A330 fleet is not the latest generation but is still a competitive aircraft in all the markets it is flown to and the average age is 11 years old. The 787 is its natural replacement and Qantas have options and production slots for many more of them.

The A380 has an average age of 8 years old. As Malaysian Airlines and the Dr Peters Group (owners of Singapore’s initial A380’s) have found, there is virtually NO second hand market for used A380’s. Qantas are not about to just junk a multi billion dollar asset that has not been full depreciated. Not to mention, passengers love them and there are niche market routes for which the A380 is well suited in limited numbers, just ask Lufthansa, Air France, BA, Asiana, Singapore Airlines, Etihad, Qatar, Korean, ANA, Thai, etc. In time it will likely be replaced with whatever type is used for the Project Sunrise concept (A350 or 777X) but not for another 10 years.

The 737 has an average age of 10 years and Qantas have said that they are economic to keep in the fleet until the individual airframe is appx. 20-24 years old due to their impressive reliability. Fuel burn savings achieved by a MAX are not as relevant in the domestic sphere and importantly, at this stage, there is no domestic competitor operating a more fuel efficient fleet.

Qantas has also announced it is planning to order a new ultra long range twin aircraft in 2019 to perform its Project Sunrise mission and there are still dozens more 787-9’s options that can be converted to firm orders as and when progress payments fall due.

So what exactly do you expect to happen??

Like all Qantas pilots I wish we had ordered a whole stack of 777’s a decade ago, the airline and our careers would be in a lot better shape now if we had. I’d also like it if Qantas had bottomless pockets and could just order 100 next-gen widebody aircraft and rely on the state to pay the bill because it was good for nation building but that is not our reality.

The fleet plan is sometimes painfully slow, shrouded in secrecy and certainly not as ambitious as I would like, but it is there. In 2020 the fleet will compromise of A380’s, A330’s, 787’s and 738’s with options for more 787’s and orders for a 777X or A350. Where specifically do you see that a radical and realistic change is required?

ruprecht

21st May 2018, 03:16

Qantas has also announced it is planning to order...

Be still my beating heart.

I don’t know about you BB, but I’m growing tired of plans. I’d like to see some orders.

November is 10 years since Joyce become CEO.

ZERO orders for mainline in that time. Oh, but we have had Jetstar HK, RedQ, billion dollar losses, a grounding, terminal decline, AJ going cap-in-hand to the govt for a multi-billion unsecured loan, the splitting of the AOC’s, more CEO’s, less CEO’s and an amazing recovery that just so happened to deliver millions in LTIP benefits (it’s not share price manipulation, but I reckon you could see it from there...)

AND NOW! after faffing around for 10 years while the fleet got older and older, all of a sudden they’ve been caught with their pants down and are blaming pilots for the angst of the the board.

What a joke.

Keg

21st May 2018, 03:45

If six of eight A330 F/O’s failed to upgrade after sitting as A330 F/O’s for many years, then it is definitely a systemic problem in my mind. Highly unlikely that 6 of 8 have had and maintained the technical skills required for many years but quietly lacked the non- tech elements necessary for command.

As far as I can tell there were 8 initial command upgrades awarded last year and three additionals via the 787 promulgation earlier this year. Five of these eleven are still in the training system in various stages of ground school or sim. Of the remaining 6, I know for sure three have checked out (possibly four) so I’m not sure what numbers you’re looking at.

goodonyamate

21st May 2018, 03:57

LH SO to 330 FO Keg. 75% has been confirmed by various sources. Sorry, but it’s time SO’s were made to go to the 737 first.

ruprecht

21st May 2018, 04:11

Sorry, but it’s time SO’s were made to go to the 737 first.

Let’s not go nuts... ;)

Why would they pass 737 conversion if they can’t pass 330 conversion?

Keg

21st May 2018, 04:30

Goodonyamate, I’m pretty up to speed on the numbers and very aware of the sensitivities of the issue so I’m trying to be delicate and respectful of my colleagues whilst still trying to provide some input to the discussion.

There are at least two still in the training system. That takes the total numbers this year of A330 F/O upgrades who have commenced sim training to 6.

I’m not privy to why the stats are what they are for the first 4 and I suspect neither are most other PPRUNE contributors. I hope all involved in this discussion though are cognisant of that point and continue to show respect for our colleagues and their well-being.

There are multiple ways to solve the issue and knowing some of the personalities involved I’m sure they’re looking at a number of different strategies. I’d just hate to see a blunt tool such as ‘compulsory 737’ used to solve what can be a very nuanced and personal issue.

Beer Baron

21st May 2018, 05:44

I don’t know about you BB, but I’m growing tired of plans. I’d like to see some orders.

November is 10 years since Joyce become CEO.

ZERO orders for mainline in that time. Oh, but we have had Jetstar HK, RedQ, billion dollar losses, a grounding, terminal decline, AJ going cap-in-hand to the govt for a multi-billion unsecured loan, the splitting of the AOC’s, more CEO’s, less CEO’s and an amazing recovery that just so happened to deliver millions in LTIP benefits (it’s not share price manipulation, but I reckon you could see it from there...)
I totally agree with you. The last 10 years have been a disaster. Each time they canceled or deferred 787 orders was crushing, while at the same time watching them pour money into other entities or sometimes straight down the drain was almost unbearable.

But FINALLY some of those orders are becoming deliveries. Not as many as I’d like, I think we should be expanding the fleet not just maintaining current levels. Yet a fleet renewal is happening and the talk is about what new types and routes are next as opposed to all we used to hear was what route is to be cut next.

So the cry of “Qantas need a new fleet” has been entirely justified for the last 10 years but I’m just surprised it is reaching a crescendo just as it seems a new fleet is materialising.

Keg

21st May 2018, 07:51

framer

21st May 2018, 12:02

Sorry Keg and others, I misinterpreted Dragons post below to mean that F/O’s upgrading to Captain were at 25% pass rate. If I understand now it is SO’s upgrading to F/O who have the 25% pass rate and that is much easier to understand what with the lack of flying etc.

Pass rate for FO upgrade on the 330 at the moment is 25%, yes 25%. FOs upgrading to command on the 737 been given 2 months off.

Aussie Fo

21st May 2018, 13:03

Well we have actually expanded the fleet in terms of flying hours. Both the A330 and 737 have increased flying hours over the last few years in the vicinity of 20%. Therein is part of the issue of why we’ve only announced 6 additional 787s and not 8. We simply can’t push the crews through quick enough to maintain services. I’d bet money there are more 787s coming to possibly expand but we need to be able to crew the aeroplanes.

Those 787 orders, ( and I think we can assume there won’t be any coming sooner) Take the orders out to mid/perhaps 2020?

Qantas has shrunk to profitabliity. It’s now focused on yield, and putting 1000$ airfares on Emirates/China Eastern.

5 years ago most of us were not sure we’d even be around in 2020

MrWooby

21st May 2018, 16:14

The problem with SO to A330 FO Conversion is that Qantas give no consideration to the fact that SO’s haven’t effectively flown for many years. They do a bog standard A330 conversion, there is no extra sim sessions concentrating on normal operations in the circuit, really working on that last 1000 feet. When I did mine, there was also a high failure rate, probably same reasons. Thise who failed were sent to 330 SO, what use is that. All that is needed in 2-3 sessions working on approach technique.

ANCDU

21st May 2018, 21:49

[QUOTE][The problem with SO to A330 FO Conversion is that Qantas give no consideration to the fact that SO’s haven’t effectively flown for many years./QUOTE]
Not many years? you are looking around 15 odd years for some in the backseat of the 744 who are choosing to upgrade now.. You have new hires joining the company that are more qualified and recent for an upgrade.
There is a problem with the promotional system in Qantas when a pilot can wait this long before upgrading. I get the personal choice and circumstances argument, but sitting in the easy seat and riding the gravy train for that long you are setting yourself up for a difficult time. You would think an airline like Qantas would make allowances for this.
I realize things have been stagnant but pilots of this seniority could have had the opportunity to upgrade years ago as there has been opportunities (737, 767!, LWOP,Jetstar MOU) for pilots , admittedly maybe not a widebody FO but don’t we join an airline to fly?
I feel for the difficult time these pilots are going through, but they have been set up by the promotional and award system we work under. It’s something both the company and AIPA need to look into, because it’s going to happen a lot of training of SO’s with similar seniority increases.

oh and I’m happy we are starting to get a new fleet...slowly

maggot

21st May 2018, 22:05

Just to clarify; you don't get back to SO for failing one Sim. 999s are used prolifically to keep trainees on course

ruprecht

21st May 2018, 23:22

You have new hires joining the company that are more qualified and recent for an upgrade.

I would say that a vast majority of pilots are more qualified to be an FO on the day they join QF, than after any time spent as an SO.

SandyPalms

21st May 2018, 23:33

So what happens to them now? The rules used to be that if you had two shots and missed, you were sent to the sin bin for the duration. Is that still the case? I’d be curious to see if they were given another shot, but only on the 737. Good luck to those who try.

ruprecht
my thoughts about getting through training on the 737 as opposed to any long haul type is about the training system (it’s totally different to long haul, and everyone who comes is very impressed), the number of sectors available for the training, might be the relative simplicity of the 737 (dint be afraid of the overhead panel, seriously, it’s fine). Maybe they just try harder, I don’t know, but the results speak for themselves.

Keg

22nd May 2018, 00:17

I think that old ‘different training systems’ between LH and SH is virtually dead. I’ve flown with a number of former 737 pilots converting to the A330 and virtually all of them indicate that there is now very little difference in training vibe between the two fleets.

Just to back home maggot’s comments. Sure a long time S/O is going to find a A330 promotional upgrade challenging. Many people find a promotional upgrade challenging for any number of specific and personal reasons (yours truly included when I did F/O training). So every one starts with a ‘standard’ course but there are multiple opportunities given to identify and rectify road blocks to learning along the way. The reality is though that trainees have difficulties at different places in the program (or no difficulties at all) so there is no one ‘silver bullet’ solution for a long time S/O. I do know though that a number of very good people are looking at this issue and seeing if there are ‘systemic’ things that can be addressed. At the end of the day, none of us wants to see a colleague’s career curtailed.

maggot

22nd May 2018, 00:26

I'll agree with the LH/SH system comments until the end of the sim.

Capt_SNAFU

22nd May 2018, 01:03

The major issue with long term SOs is that it different sitting in the front seat, despite all the work that you can see from the back. Many diligent and high quality people will still probably struggle a little because of the lack of exposure to ops below 20k in the front seat for x number of years. It used to be when you would get the SO out at 5000 that if they could get you to 20 miles 250kts at 5000 then job done. (Add a few miles for 330) If they could do that consistently then FO training became about 5k down as opposed to know where it is about TOD down. The 20k limit does absolutely nothing to help advance or keep any semblance of skill. The SOs also lack any familiarity with domestic ops which makes up most of their training (small stuff that takes away brain space like co-ordinatior in Sydney, COBT and the different requirements for it in each port) I’m not sure about sector numbers compared to the 737 anymore but it used to be significantly different along with fact that 330 trainers seem to sing from sdifferent song sheets from each other more so than the 737.(less consistency of message than the 737 which is what trainees need more of)

Couple that with a few idiosyracies of the 330. Such as the fact that 330 is one of the slicker jets out there and an FMS decent path that pretty much guarantees you are high on the ideal profile (ie the FMS path is crap without work arounds such as lower than planned speed at GS intercept) Or the tendency if your aimpoint is at the end of 1000’ markers as many teach the chance of landing short is dramatically increased which the sim doesn’t adequately prepare you for. (Landing short is a big no no in training) it is probably little wonder why some struggle. Laziness on removal of the golden handcuffs also possibly plays a part. It also must be remembered that people generally do not fail for one reason. A pattern generally develops.

Keg

22nd May 2018, 02:01

It used to be when you would get the SO out at 5000 that if they could get you to 20 miles 250kts at 5000 then job done. (Add a few miles for 330) If they could do that consistently then FO training became about 5k down as opposed to know where it is about TOD down. The 20k limit does absolutely nothing to help advance or keep any semblance of skill.

When the increased heights came in I do recall discussing with a number of trainers whether we'd see a 'spike' in troubles with F/O trainees in the future due to lack of familiarity/ currency in getting the jet to 5000. It certainly places a lot more workload on the trainee if they've not had that exposure. Even with my own F/O training a couple of decades ago now, having previously had exposure to getting the aeroplane to 3,000' (as it was back then) on my previous aircraft type meant that I had a bit more spare brain space to concentrate on that last 3,000' on my new one- I certainly needed every bit of spare brain space I could get!

I’m not sure about sector numbers compared to the 737 anymore but it used to be significantly different.....

737 does 28 from Stage 2 including the check*. A330 does 22 including the check.

(*Presumes base training for both).

Or the tendency if your aimpoint is at the end of 1000’ markers as many teach the chance of landing short is dramatically increased which the sim doesn’t adequately prepare you for. (Landing short is a big no no in training) it is probably little wonder why some struggle.

I find that 737 pilots are far more likely to land short than a former LH pilot upgrading from S/O. The S/O has at least been looking at the longer aim point from the back seat and doesn't have an old mental picture to fall back on.

It also must be remembered that people generally do not fail for one reason. A pattern generally develops.

For sure!

JPJP

22nd May 2018, 06:05

Let’s not go nuts... ;)

Why would they pass 737 conversion if they can’t pass 330 conversion?

Lol. :) That was truly amusing. Kudos. On a more serious note - perhaps if the aforementioned SOs spent a long, long time in the back of the 74, and were then improperly introduced to the magic of Airbus ?

I have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the high failure rates. Any failure rate above ~ 10% is a systemic failure of the training department *

* that does not include dodgy cadet schemes, Euro MPL programs, and other scams to fill out pilot numbers.

Derfred

22nd May 2018, 10:35

Two comments, both purely speculative:

1. Demographics.

It’s conceivable that a pilot who sacrificies whatever salary and lifestyle for an earlier 737 promotion is more interested in the “real flying” that the job entails, and is thus more likely to pass from the outset, from an attitude and dedication point of view.

2. Training department.

I don’t know how it stands today, but for many years there was a general feeling that if a candidate fails a LH promotion, it is the candidate’s fault. But if a candidate fails a 737 promotion, it is the trainer’s (or the training department’s) fault.

Therefore the 737 trainers tended to take more personal interest in getting the trainees up to scratch prior to a check ride. The “system” had something to do with this too - on the 737 the line training generally had a dedicated trainer, who took responsibility, but in LH you could have a different trainer for every trip. It wasn’t that the aircraft is easier to fly (it isn’t), or that the required standard is lower (it isn’t), it was more the system and culture.

FightDeck

22nd May 2018, 12:35

The reality is that the training in Shorthaul for Command or First Officer is vastly superior. The contract sadly is not.

Shorthaul has had a long culture of training as opposed to checking in long haul. That is in the process of changing in Longhaul however cultural change is slow, as are modifying training paths. Shorthaul didn’t previously have the advantage of training from S/O to F/O. TAA and Australian Airlines candidates came directly from GA or airforce directly into the RHS of a high performance jet, so the training had to be good and practical.

What really impressed me was the accountability of each individual training or senior check captain in Short haul.

The onus was equal on trainer and trainee. In fact I would go as far as saying it’s greater on the trainer provided the student has prepared and has the right attitude. A failure rate that high from SO to FO in Shorthaul would not be acceptable.
My personal take was that a higher percentage of training pilots got selected on their ability to train in Shorthaul. Long haul has some extremely gifted trainers too but Shorthaul IMHO has the higher average. The system is also designed with the ethos that if you put in the work you will get through. The statistics back this up. Failures are rare in Shorthaul and it isn’t a talking point.

In both First Officer and Command training, candidates are taught to be commanders or co pilots and given the skill sets as opposed to just having it or not. If students need extra they are given it. Everyone can reach equal standard at different rates of learning.

Suspect the S/Os who failed have been in the backseat for some time. Now growth is increasing, the pressure is immense on the training section, so it’s as much a failure due to pressures on resources and a system in Longhaul where SOs were traditionally never that long in rank. Now with lots of retirements and pilot shortages this pressure will only increase. The training section will look at how they can improve the training and pathways so the failure rate is not so high. It will have to get better as the pressure isn’t going to back off. Agree with a Keg that it is disappointing that the system has let so many people down.

In an ideal world every candidate would move through Short Haul for upgrades. Certainly the failure rates would be lower.

That so many Short Haul TRIs and TREs were selected for the 787 speaks volumes about the quality of trainers.

If only the Short Haul contract was as good as the training!

Street garbage

22nd May 2018, 23:31

Great post fight deck.

Keg

23rd May 2018, 00:51

Good post FlightDeck. Just to pick up a couple of quick themes.

What really impressed me was the accountability of each individual training or senior check captain in Short haul.

The onus was equal on trainer and trainee. In fact I would go as far as saying it’s greater on the trainer provided the student has prepared and has the right attitude.

This is how it is in long haul.

A failure rate that high from SO to FO in Shorthaul would not be acceptable.

Suspect the S/Os who failed have been in the backseat for some time.

Upgrade from S/O to F/O on the A330 is currently 17 years so your ‘some time’ comment is accurate.

I’m not sure there is any direct comparison possible with SH in terms of 17 year S/O upgrading to 737 F/O but certainly the stats I’ve seen across the fleets and and across the years indicate the longer the time spent as a S/O, the more difficult the upgrade pathway. Sometimes exponentially so.

Training dynamics, preparation, training methodologies, engaging with different learning styles, etc, has long been a hobby of mine with tertiary studies and external experiences geared towards that also. There’s great discussion to be had about all of those subjects (and more). Sadly though I won’t be engaging on those discussions on PPRUNE given my closeness to some of the individuals being discussed. I’d hate for my comments to be construed as a direct comment on any individual circumstances.

Anyway, with a few more F/O trainees still in the system we’ll see how the numbers pan out.

Rated De

23rd May 2018, 02:01

WTI USD$72.9
Brent USD $80.11

There is now a lot of premium and a crowded space hedging...

Is the tide going out?

Keg

23rd May 2018, 06:50

Ah. My apologies. We were talking before about initial F/O training on the 330 so my comments were in response to that specific context. Of course some would probably consider my assessment somewhat biased. I’ve no experience of the A380 since 2015 but all the line trainers I came across in my short time were excellent. Two were outstanding.

Rated De

5th Jun 2018, 00:48

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-warns-higher-fares-on-the-way-as-oil-spike-hits-airlines-20180604-p4zjf2.html

$24.6 million for Captain Obvious.

What a compelling insight

V-Jet

5th Jun 2018, 03:16

Seems it took at least the three of them (more likely entire departments) to come up with that though. I don’t think just $24.6m would get such insightful clarity from Qf management.

AerialPerspective

6th Jun 2018, 23:00

QANTAS has a SMALLER 788 fleet than Jetstar (8 vs 11) IsDon...just saying ��
Qantas has a fleet of 8 x 789 - it has no 788s, they are all JQ.

ScepticalOptomist

7th Jun 2018, 03:26

Qantas has a fleet of 8 x 789 - it has no 788s, they are all JQ.

14 x 787-9 due by 2020 is the current order.

blow.n.gasket

7th Jun 2018, 06:26

$24.6 million for the year.
Now that would be $67,397 a day , would it not ?
Money well spent , or avarice personified ?
Remunerated more in one day than most Aussies earn in a year .

Rated De

7th Jun 2018, 06:56

$24.6 million for the year.
Now that would be $67,397 a day , would it not ?
Money well spent , or avarice personified ?
Remunerated more in one day than most Aussies earn in a year .

Yes.
In nearly 10 years a conga line of poorly executed strategy, from Hong Kong to the Middle East.
In nearly ten years Qantas group revenue declined in real terms by 5%.
JQ quadrupled in size, with a fleet bigger than the parent yet only 22% of the parent's revenue.

What is obvious that those junkets to Seattle with Neil Perry, booze and picking up a 'game changing' aircraft with LN 615 buy a lot of media 'myopia'.
Any journalists left asking any questions are taken care of with upgrades care of Ms Wirth.

We told you they needed a new fleet!

blow.n.gasket

7th Jun 2018, 08:08

Is this what the Irish Banker Wa@ker wannabe was inspired by when he birthed Jetstar ?
After 1 too many Bushmills , no doubt !

https://youtu.be/CoJEyW8hqrg

TBM-Legend

7th Jun 2018, 08:44

Geoff Dixon was the father of Jetstar when he bought Impulse and rebranded it Jetstar. Great move against the Pommie of the Caribbean

Rated De

7th Jun 2018, 09:49

Geoff Dixon was the father of Jetstar when he bought Impulse and rebranded it Jetstar. Great move against the Pommie of the Caribbean

Yes unfortunately for Mr Joyce the seed of JQ were discussions with certain US 'management consultants' who sold a pitch to airline management about the 'green fielding' of terms and conditions of a new entity leveraging existing contracts.
Mr Joyce in those days was a mid level wannabe at Ansett. He had ( credit where credit is due) impressed Mr Toomey with his numbers, something that also impressed the aviation lightweight Chair at Qantas Leigh Clifford.
It was from there, Mr Joyce got a start, Mr Dixon selected him to run JQ. Impulse had been acquired as Mr McGowan had run out of money. Mr Dixon acquired it for a rainy day...

Problematic for Mr Joyce is that the hero myth to which he clings has 'creation of JQ' as his centre piece.

Qantas need a new fleet

blow.n.gasket

7th Jun 2018, 11:16

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/323x267/553c247c_3942_4cef_b8a6_71c9ce1c99b2_acf2052e747d27009456d83 c361143aef4ed5227.gif

You mean the Boston Consulting Business Matrix , Rated De ?
Apparently , the rumour is , it was old Scrotes that came up with the Jetstar name soon after seeing this matrix.
He was after all , a supposed marketing guru ?
However in the cold hard light of day , was the Jetstar name well picked ?
Me thinks , Dogstar , may end up being the remembered epitaph !
New accounting rules and all !
As to the Leprachaun , bumped into an ex-Ansett colleague of his , awhile back .
They were , then , a CFO of a large legal Corporation .
Lets say , their words were , Joyce ain’t even a CEO’s bootlace !
I maybe paraphrasing there (not) !
Must admit Joyce may not be the paragon of CEOness but he has done a fair facsimile of a carpet bagger , is that a simile for Industry Leader ?
Noticed he can also smile now , that he got the snaggle teeth fixed !
Amazing what circa $68 Grand a day can do !
His dentist must be able to afford to ski on Mars now , with the work he must have done , to get those nashers looking half normal !
The Labrador chewing a caramel look , every time he speaks , is still annoying, though !

dragon man

8th Jun 2018, 00:46

I checked last years annual report and fuel costs were $3.08 billion, I’m hearing this years is heading to over $4 billion at current prices. Chickens and roost spring to mind.

dragon man

8th Jun 2018, 00:59

FFS they have just appointed a diversity manager to flight operations.

busdriver007

8th Jun 2018, 22:46

Rated De

9th Jun 2018, 01:38

It appears that Qantas have just enough cash to keep buying shares until just after June 30. I wonder why? Nothing to do with Bonuses that are based on the June 30 share price. So what happens after that? Code Share all flying? What will happen to the share price when the fuel price goes up 30%? I suspect there will be no floor. As one Manager said "Can someone tell me what has been transformed?" he lost his job within a year! Can't wait for the Royal Commission but that will be after the event. Speaking of Consultants Alan doesn't go to the toilet without a Consultant!

In FY15 the 'transformation year' fuel price falls saved Qantas $597 million.

The other component of the 'transformation' was the long overdue fleet write off in FY14 (CGU -International fleet) reduced depreciation in FY15 by $326 million.

A few odds and ends is the balance of the 'transformation' profit. The writing and vesting dates of the millions of executive options was curious..A regulator would in fact be interested in this. The previous occupant of ASIC and indeed the incumbent more of the empty suit variety.

Only an extremely poor executive management would beleive that they engineered a transformation, when in actuality they got lucky. One day luck runs out.

Qantas need a new fleet.

dragon man

9th Jun 2018, 02:17

They have a new fleet, all 6 is it of the game changing 787? Well that’s managements view anyway and what would you mere pilots know anyway. And yes you are correct Qantas needs a new fleet.

BogeyBoy

9th Jun 2018, 02:25

It appears that Qantas have just enough cash to keep buying shares until just after June 30. I wonder why? Nothing to do with Bonuses that are based on the June 30 share price. So what happens after that?

I predict a staff share issue "bonus" (of "vested" shares that can't be onsold for X years...) to distract the media and the sheep from the mega $ cash bonus for the exec ranks. In the absence of artificial propping up, the share price will subsequently crumble, leaving the staff "bonus" practically worthless, and execs with cash in the bank.

Australopithecus

9th Jun 2018, 03:35

I predict a staff share issue "bonus" (of "vested" shares that can't be onsold for X years...) to distract the media and the sheep from the mega $ cash bonus for the exec ranks. In the absence of artificial propping up, the share price will subsequently crumble, leaving the staff "bonus" practically worthless, and execs with cash in the bank.

Man. I thought I was cynical. The share price is going to dive after the market realises that oil price hikes can strip an airline's profits away in a blink. If they tried that frozen share bonus caper I'd counter for cash at a 50% discount.

dragon man

15th Jun 2018, 04:55

So today I’ve been told and to me this is just the final nail in the dud deal that AIPA did for the 787 that the company has put them over the barrel again and said we won’t order the 777X until we have finalised the pay for it and that will be the same as the 787. You want present day 747 money on the 787/777 you will do about 30% more stick hours for it. Future Qantas pilots IMO will have a life style pay balance a shadow of what we had in the past 40 years.

ExtraShot

15th Jun 2018, 05:26

... the company has put them over the barrel again and said we won’t order the 777X until we have finalised the pay for it and that will be the same as the 787.

That should come as absolutely no surprise. Fleet pay and simplification of the award was always the aim, and once it got over the line, every future aircraft was going to be flown in line with those conditions.

Also, if the future long haul fleet is 787/777, can’t both aircraft can be flown by the same crews, under the same ticket? In that case, aligning the pay scales would make sense, no matter how unpalatable in comparison to the past.

Street garbage

15th Jun 2018, 06:08

dragon man

15th Jun 2018, 06:14

That should come as absolutely no surprise. Fleet pay and simplification of the award was always the aim, and once it got over the line, every future aircraft was going to be flown in line with those conditions.

Also, if the future long haul fleet is 787/777, can’t both aircraft can be flown by the same crews, under the same ticket? In that case, aligning the pay scales would make sense, no matter how unpalatable in comparison to the past.

Thats why Qantas salaries were based on a speed weight formula to allow pilots to reap the rewards of scale that bigger aircraft give the operators. IMO you want to stay well away from fleet pay.

Beer Baron

15th Jun 2018, 06:22

Wow, that’s an incredibly defeatist attitude.
Firstly, LH negotiations haven’t even begun and it normally takes a while to get down to actual pay numbers.
Secondly, that could well be Qantas’ first offer but that’s where the negotiations start not finish.
Given Qantas have already gone out and told everyone who will listen about Project Sunrise and their desire to order an aircraft in 2019 for delivery in 2022, that puts AIPA in a strong negotiating position. (That and the fact we are making billion dollar plus profits, very different from 4 years ago).

dragon man

15th Jun 2018, 06:25

Not defeatist just realistic from years in Qantas. Nothing would make me happier to be made to eat my words but I reckon I’m safe.

Rated De

15th Jun 2018, 06:27

Well, we just need to vote no then. If they don't want to purchase them, then they can explain that to the Media as oil prices continue their upward trend, not the BS they hit us with at the SGM "you're angry, therefore...."

Mr Clifford sought to establish a narrative that the QSA limited 'Qantas flexibility' with fleet purchases.
Disingenuous at best, nefarious at worst.
The QSA adds precisely ZERO to the cost of capital.
What does impact the cost of capital is the borrowing capacity.
Leveraging Qantas' balance sheet has been a fruitful pastime for the incumbents.

Pick a metric and Qantas is well behind the pack, conveniently ignored by most is that the fact during the Laurel and Hardy tenure Qantas has gone backwards. Even doing nothing would have yielded 2.5% annual growth.

The fleet decision had nothing to do with the QSA, it is overdue.
They will position the pilots accordingly. It is no small feat of narrative management that against the ever more obvious backdrop of global pilot shortage, the union acquiescence to management narrative is disappointing. Almost by design.
They need a new fleet. They cannot unwind JQ and leveraging the balance sheet any further is a tricky proposition, hence the rubbish touted by aviation lightweight Mr Clifford.

Qantas need a new fleet.

knobbycobby

15th Jun 2018, 22:28

Well Said Beer Baron and others.
777/A350 is twice the size of a 787.
The deal done for the 787 was for a 767 replacement. It was sold as flying a mix of regional and smaller long haul routes.
At the time the company was also claiming nearly a two billion loss. Alan went begging to the government. Fast forward to now and it’s completely different.record profits, bonus, etc
Its not the same environment now. The Airline is making record profits and pilot shortages are increasing rapidly. Recruitment is at max.
AIPA itself has said in the media that even 737 pilots in Asia are making up to 700k.
Qantas will always attempt to start bargaining at the lowest point they can. If we were losing billions, pilots were getting demoted and it looked like QF was going broke then at worst 787 would be the start point.
The 380 replacement type is going to fly longer flights than any other airline globally. That will command a high premium. It will also be massively challenging fatigue and health wise for crews operating it.
Take a chill pill and let the negotiatiors do their job in good time.
If you believe that the whole board and exec decision on Types is all hinging on a pilot EBA then you have been played for a total fool.

Keg

15th Jun 2018, 23:55

When negotiating for the 787 the company quite happily told the AIPA negotiators they were looking at a fixed cost per ASK to determine an appropriate 787 rate of pay. I also heard them state on multiple occasions that this cost would also be a factor in future aircraft replacements. It shouldn’t be too hard to extrapolate that cost from an aeroplane with 236 seats to one with 350+ and determine the pay rate.

If it ends up being a ‘common fleet flying’ concept between the 787 /777X or A330/ A350ULR then that also provides significant efficiencies to the company.

So the company may be starting at 787 rates. That’s not where they’ll finish though.

SandyPalms

16th Jun 2018, 00:26

One thing is for certain this time round. They can no longer frighten us with story’s of impending doom if we vote NO. It’s gonna have to be pretty good.

If if you want evidence of the scale of the shortage. Have a look at 737 open time. It’s going to be impossible to Crew it all.

dragon man

16th Jun 2018, 00:55

framer

16th Jun 2018, 07:53

If if you want evidence of the scale of the shortage. Have a look at 737 open time. It’s going to be impossible to Crew it all.
What is open time? Is it simulator bookings? What drives/creates ‘open time’ ?

Tankengine

16th Jun 2018, 07:59

Open time is uncrewed trips available to add to your flying, or possibly swap one of your trips with a better one.
What drives it? - more flying than crew!

Rated De

16th Jun 2018, 09:34

One thing is for certain this time round. They can no longer frighten us with story’s (sic) of impending doom if we vote NO. It’s gonna have to be pretty good.

Qantas need a new fleet.
They are acutely aware of the global shortage, hence they have established a local 'stalking horse' in Western Australia.
They have quietly got their 'Skilled Shortage' visas. They have a 'stream lead' who is tasked with setting up the pilot academy and we are told the academy will send 'graduates' where the company wants. Caveat Emptor

That the union involved offered various 'assurances' to management (and not the other way around) and did not appear to be aware of the positioning in Canberra, would strongly suggest that the union does not understand how large the shortage is, its genesis and more importantly how to leverage it.

As we understand it, presently there is a Qantas Domestic pilot contract negotiation underway. The company expects to extract substantial savings to be extracted and is confident of achieving this.

Firstly, LH negotiations haven’t even begun and it normally takes a while to get down to actual pay numbers.
Secondly, that could well be Qantas’ first offer but that’s where the negotiations start not finish.
Given Qantas have already gone out and told everyone who will listen about Project Sunrise and their desire to order an aircraft in 2019 for delivery in 2022, that puts AIPA in a strong negotiating position. (That and the fact we are making billion dollar plus profits, very different from 4 years ago).

This is not a criticism of anybody, but rather perhaps it is better to wait and see how well your Domestic agreement is advanced, before assuming, DESPITE QANTAS NEEDING A NEW FLEET, that the union is in a strong position to lever a deal that values the skill set your Qantas pilots possess, and the increasing amount of remuneration that skill set is now attracting worldwide.

Arthur D

16th Jun 2018, 11:59

I’d add to that list some questions regarding what the former president is up to...... I understand he’s been a very busy boy whilst changing sides.

Redirection has always been the secret of the illusionist.

457 instructors are only just the start :eek:

FightDeck

16th Jun 2018, 12:42

It will be beneficial that for this set of negotiations Qantas has had a successful turnaround and is making record
profits. Can’t cry wolf now. Fell for it last time however that was then and this is now.
Current AIPA president unlikely to change teams post EA which also makes sure the deal is in the interest of the members as opposed to potentially being clouded by the Presidents ambitions.
Strong negotiating position for pilots finally.

Beer Baron

17th Jun 2018, 02:15

They have quietly got their 'Skilled Shortage' visas.
That is NOT true. Qantas have put in an application and AIPA have filed an objection. They have not been granted at this stage.

As we understand it, presently there is a Qantas Domestic pilot contract negotiation underway. The company expects to extract substantial savings to be extracted and is confident of achieving this.

The first sentence is correct and well known. The second statement is not true. I have personally spoken to the lead company negotiator and that is not his expectation at all.

Keg

17th Jun 2018, 02:27

I’d add to that list some questions regarding what the former president is up to...... I understand he’s been a very busy boy whilst changing sides.

Call him. I did. He was quite forthright about what he was working on. None of it in this thread is even close to accurate.

I have personally spoken to the lead company negotiator and that is not his expectation at all.

If the company had any sense at all they’d be working on making the SHEA more attractive to pilots rather than less. That way they’d decrease the churn of pilots wanting off it ASAP.

dragon man

17th Jun 2018, 05:14

If the company had any sense at all they’d be working on making the SHEA more attractive to pilots rather than less. That way they’d decrease the churn of pilots wanting off it ASAP.

[/QUOTE]

Spot on, however to do that will cost money and in an organisation that doesn’t have enough catering trucks that work or catering staff or cleaners, I could keep going but won’t IMO there is Buckley’s chance of the SHEA been improved.

Street garbage

17th Jun 2018, 07:20

MDC? Superannuation? Multiple a/c changes? Density? Sick leave?
Waiting, waiting...

dragon man

17th Jun 2018, 08:42

MDC? Superannuation? Multiple a/c changes? Density? Sick leave?
Waiting, waiting...

and will continue to do so while senior management keep their snouts collectively in the obscene bonus pool.

Angle of Attack

17th Jun 2018, 09:10

What’s the issue with voting No? It’s been that way the last decade in fact I’m thinking it will be a triple NO

Street garbage

17th Jun 2018, 09:27

What’s the issue with voting No? It’s been that way the last decade in fact I’m thinking it will be a triple NO
Unless some of the above issues are addressed, there will be a no vote.
If the Company chose to address Superannuation/ MDC alone, they would would save millions in reduced Training Costs alone , because most people with the seniority are doing their minimum time then moving on. Unfortunately, the Company is fixated on short term performance bonuses...

Arthur D

17th Jun 2018, 09:38

Call him. I did. He was quite forthright about what he was working on. None of it in this thread is even close to accurate.

I am well aware of what he is working on. No need to ask again.

Hence the post.

ruprecht

17th Jun 2018, 11:54

Unless some of the above issues are addressed, there will be a no vote.
If the Company chose to address Superannuation/ MDC alone, they would would save millions in reduced Training Costs alone , because most people with the seniority are doing their minimum time then moving on. Unfortunately, the Company is fixated on short term performance bonuses...

I’m already voting no.

Rated De

17th Jun 2018, 12:36

https://www.theland.com.au/story/5314314/qantaslink-asking-govt-to-ease-visa-laws-to-allow-more-foreign-pilots/

It would appear that visa category is approved and now Qantas seek extension to four years, or is this media outlet incorrect? (not uncommon)

The first sentence is correct and well known. The second statement is not true. I have personally spoken to the lead company negotiator and that is not his expectation at all.

For clarity, can you confirm that the 'lead negotiator' to whom you refer is actually the IR manager, or is it a 'pilot representative'? Unfortunately the structure of most 'negotiations' at least from a corporate perspective, have a support structure that makes the decisions. Discussions with union representatives, whilst certainly illuminating are rarely if ever binding. Long gone are the days where a hand shake with a pilot representative across the table constituted a deal, irrespective of what the appearance is!

Whatever dark strategy that percolates from the corridors of IR...

Qantas need a new fleet.

JPJP

17th Jun 2018, 23:12

777/A350 is twice the size of a 787. The deal done for the 787 was for a 767 replacement. It was sold as flying a mix of regional and smaller long haul routes. At the time the company was also claiming nearly a two billion loss. Alan went begging to the government. Fast forward to now and it’s completely different.record profits, bonus, etc
Its not the same environment now. The Airline is making record profits and pilot shortages are increasing rapidly. Recruitment is at max.

AIPA itself has said in the media that even 737 pilots in Asia are making up to 700k.
Qantas will always attempt to start bargaining at the lowest point they can. If we were losing billions, pilots were getting demoted and it looked like QF was going broke then at worst 787 would be the start point.

The 380 replacement type is going to fly longer flights than any other airline globally. That will command a high premium. It will also be massively challenging fatigue and health wise for crews operating it.
Take a chill pill and let the negotiatiors do their job in good time. If you believe that the whole board and exec decision on Types is all hinging on a pilot EBA then you have been played for a total fool.

Well said

I’m sure that the AIPA will be doing their homework and counducting contract comparisons prior to negotiations. Alan may be in for a rude shock considering his magical transformation, Qantas much touted success and his resultant remuneration. Apparently, he never learned to avoid flying into the proverbial square corner. The going rate in the U.S, (converted to the Australian dollar) is;

- A350 is $457.00 per credit hour.

- B737 is $366.00 per credit hour.

The cost of living in Oz is higher, and so are the taxes. Qantas pilots are based in two of the worlds most expensive cities. Hopefully the AIPA will grind that in the leprechauns pipe, and watch him smoke it.

dragon man

18th Jun 2018, 02:08

Well said

I’m sure that the AIPA will be doing their homework and counducting contract comparisons prior to negotiations. Alan may be in for a rude shock considering his magical transformation, Qantas much touted success and his resultant remuneration. Apparently, he never learned to avoid flying into the proverbial square corner. The going rate in the U.S, (converted to the Australian dollar) is;

- A350 is $457.00 per credit hour.

- B737 is $366.00 per credit hour.

The cost of living in Oz is higher, and so are the taxes. Qantas pilots are based in two of the worlds most expensive cities. Hopefully the AIPA will grind that in the leprechauns pipe, and watch him smoke it.

They won’t, the board has already set the wages rises for the next EBAs , it’s 2.5%. Should it be more, yes, without a doubt, but that’s what it will be.

Beer Baron

18th Jun 2018, 02:11

Rated De, this is an excerpt from your provided link: (my bold)
QANTASLINK says its pilot shortage is so bad, its lobbying the government to change visa laws to allow foreign pilots to stay in the country for longer than the current two years
The airline is seeking permission from the federal government to address an acute pilot shortage by temporarily bringing in a limited number of simulator instructors and experienced pilots from overseas.

The agreement would enable pilots to be admitted for a period beyond the existing two-year window permitted under the current skilled visa program. QantasLink says attempts to encourage experienced aviators to move to Australia for contracts shorter than five years have proven uncompetitive

So the current provisions of the Temporary Skills Shortage visa are not suitable to recruit pilots largely because of the 2 year limit and the lack of a pathway to permanent residency. Qantas are seeking a Labour Agreement covering QLink and Network which do not have those restrictions, they have applied but it has not been granted.

JPJP

18th Jun 2018, 03:03

They won’t, the board has already set the wages rises for the next EBAs , it’s 2.5%. Should it be more, yes, without a doubt, but that’s what it will be.

I know im preaching to the converted, however ;

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world for the Qantas board, if they were able to set pilot pay rates arbitrarily ? Fortunately, that’s not the case. Fortunately, they’re only able to vote in their own compensation packages with a click of the champagne glass, and a round of viagra for everyone.

The EBA will be decided by a vote - Based in part upon their competitors pay rates across the Pacific (higher than Qantas), their U.S. domestic 737 code share partners (American. Higher), and the health of the Qanta Group; which is simply a gamechangha. It’s amazing right ?

The board doesn’t set the rates. The AIPA sets the rates, in agreement with Qantas - after a vote by the pilots.

Beer Baron

18th Jun 2018, 03:48

the board has already set the wages rises for the next EBAs , it’s 2.5%.
Not sure where you got that information from.
This is from a transcript of an interview Alan Joyce gave to CNBC in March this year;
We have a pay and policy of 3% that we're implementing today; it's above the 2% inflation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/cnbc-transcript-alan-joyce-ceo-qantas-airways.html

JPJP

18th Jun 2018, 04:06

They can set the rates, doesn't mean we will vote yes to it though.
We had a pay freeze, they (Management) more than compensated themselves with their obscene bonuses last year,(circa $35mil for the top 2 alone), whilst retrenching 5000 frontline staff.
Quote" Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world for the Qantas board, if they were able to set pilot pay rates arbitrarily ?". Thank goodness they can't,we'd be on $2.50 an hour.

read my post again. Slowly this time.

Seagull201

2nd Jul 2018, 07:51

Saw a news article on the weekend, saying, QF will retire the B747/400 by 2020,
they are bringing forward 6 B787 orders, to replace the jumbos.

dragon man

2nd Jul 2018, 09:33

Saw a news article on the weekend, saying, QF will retire the B747/400 by 2020,
they are bringing forward 6 B787 orders, to replace the jumbos.

Rumours abound about picking up some cancelled orders early, would love a link to the article if you could provide a link.

Seagull201

2nd Jul 2018, 09:50

google the words "Qantas to retire B 747".
It will take you to the Australian Aviation.com.au website. (its a popular magazine).
There should be an article from july 1, in relation to QF retiring the B747, with additional info. Cheers.

Keg

2nd Jul 2018, 14:24

Saw a news article on the weekend, saying, QF will retire the B747/400 by 2020,
they are bringing forward 6 B787 orders, to replace the jumbos.

This is not new news. The decision was announced in early May.

There is no capability to train for aeroplanes to arrive earlier than the current plan. A sad reality of how badly things were stuffed up in 2014/ 2015.

wheels_down

8th Jul 2018, 02:45

When is the NEO arriving?

I thought it it was mid 2018?

Rated De

8th Jul 2018, 06:02

There is no capability to train for aeroplanes to arrive earlier than the current plan. A sad reality of how badly things were stuffed up in 2014/ 2015.

Given that most of the rest of the world's airline management saw the need to re-equip over a decade ago, the acumen in Fort Fumble is certainly not remunerated for being forward thinking. If they ignored the need for a new fleet while taking random walks through Asia with a badly flawed JQ model, instead,of recruiting, training and promoting (in favour of self serving KPI) one could say at least they are consistent in their negligence.

Street garbage

8th Jul 2018, 06:08

Mates who were supposed to start B737 training in July have been advised their courses are on hold indefinitely. Not happy Jan...

Blitzkrieger

8th Jul 2018, 09:41

They won’t, the board has already set the wages rises for the next EBAs , it’s 2.5%. Should it be more, yes, without a doubt, but that’s what it will be.

As others have said, they can’t do that. They can suggest that as a wish list target for wage increase, but they will ultimately have to accept the salary (and the conditions) the pilots are willing to accept. Think I’m wrong? Ask any Cobham pilot, they were offered a salary reduction and a watered down bunch of conditions but thanks to unprecedented unity, ended up with the exact opposite.

It’s a pilots market when Cobham pilots manage to advance the ball in such a big way.

Axiom Matic

8th Jul 2018, 13:11

If they ignored the need for a new fleet while taking random walks through Asia with a badly flawed JQ model, instead,of recruiting, training and promoting (in favour of self serving KPI) one could say at least they are consistent in their negligence.

How the Australian media cannot fathom that an airline that only recently got its 1st 787 (ignoring the 11 at Jetstar) now can't find enough pilots for a shortage that the refuse to acknowledge exists, is poorly run comes down to bribery. It would seem OBVIOUS that reducing fuel expense and making sure you had sufficient pilots to operate your flights are KPI metrics that actually matter.

Qantas need a new fleet and management

dragon man

8th Jul 2018, 22:31

It’s my belief it’s actually worse than everyone thinks, they don’t even have enough TREs next bid period on the 330 to do recurrent training for the available line pilots. Hence the same as the 737 they can’t do any promotional training. To think this problem will be resolved in one bid period is delusional, I would think one year minimum.

Keg

8th Jul 2018, 22:42

Qantas can find plenty of pilots... for the time being. There is no shortage of suitable applicants at mainline. There is a training pipeline issue and mis management dating back to 2014 in terms of gearing up for the arrival of new aeroplanes. This has been exacerbated as well by an increase of flying of the 737 fleet by 14% and the A330 fleet by 25%. That’s the equivalent of 9 extra 737s and 7 extra A330s. That is 65ish extra 737 crews and close to 60 extra A330 crews (plus S/Os). 250- 300 extra pilots in the pipeline before we start thinking about attrition (which is starting to increase as a result of the demographic) and expansion with the 787.

That the training bottleneck has happened is an indictment on somone but I cant work out who specifically. Who would know. Nice thing about bureaucracies I guess.

It’s my belief it’s actually worse than everyone thinks, they don’t even have enough TREs next bid period on the 330 to do recurrent training for the available line pilots. Hence the same as the 737 they can’t do any promotional training. To think this problem will be resolved in one bid period is delusional, I would think one year minimum.

Pretty sure the A330 TREs can manage the current recurrent load. They can’t handle the recurrent load, promotional load and training of new CAT Ds and TREs. Hence the training slowdown on both fleets to pump out more Cat Ds and TREs which will then enable a greater throughput of trainees. Agree on your time frame.

dragon man

8th Jul 2018, 22:50

If there’s one certainty in Qantas and that is you can never find anyone to except responsibility. They have in my opinion one opportunity to dig themselves out of this hole and that’s to keep the 747 as is until April 2020 when the additional 787s start arriving. Do I think they will? Nope, would require an admission of guilt and lateral thinking something that I think is beyond this lot.

V-Jet

9th Jul 2018, 03:05

On the contrary, I think they ALL ‘except’ responsibility:):)

DirectAnywhere

9th Jul 2018, 04:23

Rated De

9th Jul 2018, 05:44

This is what happens when "managers" get so excited by their promotion and F11 upgrade they lose sight of what they were put there to do in the first place after their more experienced colleagues (who know about resource planning) were made redundant four years ago. Babes in the wood with stars in their eyes.

This.

The whole point of the thread is that this fish rotted from the head down. Executive Management and Board failed to strategically position the company and shareholder funds from foreseeable threats. Fleet decisions are overdue and pilot training throughput foreseeable.

Executive management intent on re-writing social policy, random walks in Asia with JQ, and ineffective oversight from a board big in asset leasing and IR experience, but light on aviation experience, other than what First Class travel feels like and this is the result: A business struggling. Spending a lot on advertising, expensive junkets to Seattle so that the MSM don't notice...

With WTI at USD$74.11 and Brent higher, Jet fuel is rapidly approaching AUD$110 a barrel. Qantas face term structure pressure on fuel. They are hedging into higher forecast fuel prices.

With important geo -political developments driving forward premium, namely Venezuelan and Persian oil (if Trump exercises the 90 day clause) removing vital oil supply from the market and the Saudi Aramco IPO being predicated on at least USD$80 oil, the term structure suggests more contango in the oil market. This is not conducive to a 'transformation' narrative, nor is the QSA the problem. As Qantas benefited from the downwards leverage in the transformation year FY15 of a steeply falling fuel price, they are exposed on the way up. Far more exposed than their competitors.

Leigh Clifford may well be handing the new guy a hospital pass....

Qantas need a new fleet...Stat

Keg

9th Jul 2018, 06:02

Qantas may well need a new fleet stat but there is no way of training for it. Even if they were to dead stop the 744 fleet in 12 months and accelerate 10 787s in the same time frame there is zero capacity to transition the crew between fleets. Qantas is stuck with the time frame they have. Post the 744 retirement they may well have the capacity to accelerate 787 deliveries for a 12 month time frame but that’s ages away yet.

DirectAnywhere

9th Jul 2018, 06:10

Keg, as it stands they need to slow the 747 retirement plan.

They wouldn't be able to maintain anything like the domestic capacity they need without it. Who would have thought we'd see Sydney-Perth, crewed out of Brisbane no less, on the 747!

The patterns for next BP to Perth out of Brisbane were pax to SYD, day off, operate to PER, pax BNE. 3 day pattern. One operating sector. 16.30 pay. Crazy stuff. I understand part of this was having no surplus in the SYD base and a little bit in BNE so it was presumably the only way to do it. HKG and HND patterns have also been crewed out of BNE with additional days away credit, accom, allowances (and AFDP payable for the paxing sector back to BNE). I'm not sure what the determining factor is in A/C retirements (D-check?) but if they HAVE to start retiring 747s for any reason they're in serious trouble.

Rated De

9th Jul 2018, 06:15

dragon man

9th Jul 2018, 06:30

Im hearing that a number of second officers who failed their sim checks had it over ridden by HR so they could be employed. If correct what a laugh.

IsDon

9th Jul 2018, 07:14

Precisely.

A strategic failure. N'est ce-Pas? Entirely of Fort Fumble's making.

To make matters worse they were told, time and again, that they needed to start training/recruiting yesterday by AIPA and just about any pilot with a pulse. They ended up being about two years late.

Instead of taking this as a recommendation, it was taken by IR/HR as being a turf war. Out of spite, and in classic “don’t tell me, I know boats” moment they decided to do it all on their schedule, no doubt banking KPI bonuses as they did so.

When the 767 was retired, there was an initial intention to place all of the surplus crew from the 767 onto the A330 in rank. No demotions, conversions only to promote again two years later, another conversion. Hold a surplus on the 330 in the short term knowing the tsunami of training we’re seeing now was just around the corner. It was obvious to anyone with their eyes open. This simple act would have saved a vast percentage of the training problem. Did it happen? Of course not. All of the 767 crew myself included, have now been through a demotion, a conversion course (380 in my case), three years atrophied, a conversion (787) and subsequent promotion. It’s like an episode of Keystone Cops.

Make no mistake. This is all down to the arrogant, ignorant parasites that call themselves Human Resources. Their ignorance laid bare for all to see.

Who picks up the pieces? Us of course. Max divisors, no leave, riot clauses. I feel a headache coming on. Might even prevent my next pattern.

ConfigFull

9th Jul 2018, 07:29

Rated De

9th Jul 2018, 07:52

When the 767 was retired, there was an initial intention to place all of the surplus crew from the 767 onto the A330 in rank. No demotions, conversions only to promote again two years later, another conversion. Hold a surplus on the 330 in the short term knowing the tsunami of training we’re seeing now was just around the corner. It was obvious to anyone with their eyes open. This simple act would have saved a vast percentage of the training problem. Did it happen? Of course not. All of the 767 crew myself included, have now been through a demotion, a conversion course (380 in my case), three years atrophied, a conversion (787) and subsequent promotion. It’s like an episode of Keystone Cops.

Of course not.
The intent has been industrial. The attempt in 2011 to drive the pilot body to arbitration had upside risk for them that they would get what they wanted; a substantially watered down agreement The downside risk was the Bench left the agreement as it was.
Industrially the umpire chose more the latter (reading the summary findings) There were far more cost effective remedies to a short term pilot surplus than demotion. However the intent was to render control on unit cost and contain wage pressure.

All of their activity is predicated toward lowering unit cost. As admirable as that may be, they are the ignorant refuse you refer to. They did not notice a building demographic shortage, nor do they appear to notice the rising oil price. Qantas has shocking fleet metrics and this could also be exposed by rising fuel prices.

One may postulate though that having no pilots and cancelling a lot of flights might reduce the fuel bill by a lot! /sarc

I feel a headache coming on. Might even prevent my next pattern.

The apparatus of HR is well equipped to control a work force that transgresses, however it is ill equipped to deal with passive resistance.

Jokes aside, Qantas need a new fleet.

dragon man

9th Jul 2018, 10:19

If my memory serves me correctly is it not a requirement for the holding of an AOC to have adequate crew, aircraft and spares to run a scheduled airline operation?

dragon man

9th Jul 2018, 10:20

If my memory serves me correctly is it not a requirement for the holding of an AOC to have adequate crew, aircraft and spares to run a scheduled airline operation?

OneDotLow

9th Jul 2018, 10:33

Mates who were supposed to start B737 training in July have been advised their courses are on hold indefinitely. Not happy Jan...

Does anyone have any info/whispers on what this does to next year’s bumper training year on the 737? Is it just next BP that have been ‘put on hold indefinitely’? Or have they got a catch up plan? ie more trainers, etc?

IsDon

9th Jul 2018, 11:59

Does anyone have any info/whispers on what this does to next year’s bumper training year on the 737? Is it just next BP that have been ‘put on hold indefinitely’? Or have they got a catch up plan? ie more trainers, etc?

The only catch up plan this lot have is to catch up in the street for lunch.

Anything past afternoon smoko is waaaaaaaaaay too far into the future to even think about.

dragon man

9th Jul 2018, 12:01

The only catch up plan this lot have is to catch up in the street for lunch.

Anything past afternoon smoko is waaaaaaaaaay too far into the future to even think about.

Cynical, but soooo true.

Potsie Weber

9th Jul 2018, 15:28

To make matters worse they were told, time and again, that they needed to start training/recruiting yesterday by AIPA and just about any pilot with a pulse. They ended up being about two years late.

Instead of taking this as a recommendation, it was taken by IR/HR as being a turf war. Out of spite, and in classic “don’t tell me, I know boats” moment they decided to do it all on their schedule, no doubt banking KPI bonuses as they did so.

When the 767 was retired, there was an initial intention to place all of the surplus crew from the 767 onto the A330 in rank. No demotions, conversions only to promote again two years later, another conversion. Hold a surplus on the 330 in the short term knowing the tsunami of training we’re seeing now was just around the corner. It was obvious to anyone with their eyes open. This simple act would have saved a vast percentage of the training problem. Did it happen? Of course not. All of the 767 crew myself included, have now been through a demotion, a conversion course (380 in my case), three years atrophied, a conversion (787) and subsequent promotion. It’s like an episode of Keystone Cops.

Make no mistake. This is all down to the arrogant, ignorant parasites that call themselves Human Resources. Their ignorance laid bare for all to see.

Who picks up the pieces? Us of course. Max divisors, no leave, riot clauses. I feel a headache coming on. Might even prevent my next pattern.

Oh for F's sake, spare me the altruistic warped history!

Plenty of pilots on the 737 had seniority in excess of many 767 pilots for A330 slots/bases and had done so for eon's longer. So you think you should have been "extra specially" bumped up the seniority list to your favored rank/base just to save the company a few bucks? FFS! The fact is, the vast majority, if not all, of 767 pilots that were demoted, was via their own volition. They would not accept the same rank on 737 or worst case, a change in base and the 737. As I recall, there was one annual bid allocation after the 767 retirement was announced, where all but the very most junior, if not all, 767 pilots would have been able to keep their rank, albeit not base. Bit a few on the arse as it came to play! but as Anand Sheela would say, Tough Titties!

golfjet

9th Jul 2018, 21:33

Does anyone have any info/whispers on what this does to next year’s bumper training year on the 737? Is it just next BP that have been ‘put on hold indefinitely’? Or have they got a catch up plan? ie more trainers, etc?

The 1 month delay in 737 training is to free up the trainers to train trainers. New sim in Syd + more trainers = increased training capacity. Or does it just bring actual training capacity inline with planned? Regardless, it should relieve the current choke point of not enough 737 trainers.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

9th Jul 2018, 22:39

The fact is, the vast majority, if not all, of 767 pilots that were demoted, was via their own volition. They would not accept the same rank on 737 or worst case, a change in base and the 737. As I recall, there was one annual bid allocation after the 767 retirement was announced, where all but the very most junior, if not all, 767 pilots would have been able to keep their rank, albeit not base. Bit a few on the arse as it came to play! but as Anand Sheela would say, Tough Titties!

Not true (but very much in line with what a certain management pilot was saying). All but the most junior might’ve had the seniority for a 737 slot, but that’s not the same as everyone being able to get one. There simply weren’t that many slots, so plenty of people were always going to be demoted, whether of their own volition or not.

When the RIN actually happened, there were no Sydney 737 FO slots at all.

IsDon

9th Jul 2018, 23:44

Oh for F's sake, spare me the altruistic warped history!

Plenty of pilots on the 737 had seniority in excess of many 767 pilots for A330 slots/bases and had done so for eon's longer. So you think you should have been "extra specially" bumped up the seniority list to your favored rank/base just to save the company a few bucks? FFS! The fact is, the vast majority, if not all, of 767 pilots that were demoted, was via their own volition. They would not accept the same rank on 737 or worst case, a change in base and the 737. As I recall, there was one annual bid allocation after the 767 retirement was announced, where all but the very most junior, if not all, 767 pilots would have been able to keep their rank, albeit not base. Bit a few on the arse as it came to play! but as Anand Sheela would say, Tough Titties!

No warped history, aside from what you’re spruiking.

As has has already been pointed out to you, a large percentage of us didn’t have the option of keeping our rank. I didn’t have seniority for a 737 slot at the time. How things change.

There is facility within the agreement for pilots subject to a RIN to be placed wherever the company decides they need them, regardless of seniority. This has been used many times in the past with RINs I’ve personally been involved with on the 743 and 767. Named in the RIN but outbid for the assigned position by a 743/767 pilot senior to me. The clause is there for exactly the reason we’re seeing now. To minimise training load. The other reality is that, during a RIN if you bid for a slot you’re locked into a training freeze for however long that might be. Effectively stopping you from bidding for any slot, in seniority, that may pop up over the next few years. If you’re pushed somewhere, rather than bid, then you’re free to leave. Many 767 guys actually didn’t finish their 380 demotion course only to find themselves starting 330 course in their rightful rank within seniority. Such was the stupidity of what happened. If I had bid for a 737 slot, if I had the seniority for it, which I hadn’t, I would still be stuck there today under a training freeze, not sitting in a 787, bid for and awarded on seniority.

I don't deny I would have personally benefited from this process, but as you so eloquently put it, “tough titties” to those that would have been trumped.

Sometimes you win in a RIN, sometimes you lose. Putting 767 pilots on the 330 in rank was what was planned. Scuttled at the eleventh hour by the nudist. Another HR spanker who thought he knew better. To do so would have benefited 767 pilots, the company and current 330 pilots that have suffered too few numbers for years. Max divisors, no leave and riot clauses have been their reality for years. Just ask them. The alternative is the training black hole we’re now witnessing. Chickens, roost.

dragon man

10th Jul 2018, 01:29

exercise his or her seniority to displace the most junior pilot in any category and base provided the election to displace is
made at or before the promulgated date or dates specified in clause 18.1.12(c) and provided he or she will not displace a pilot in a higher status unless the pilot affected by the reduction would otherwise be demoted to a lower status or have his or her services terminated.

Isdon, would you be good enough to show me where it says the company can put them regardless of seniority as I am struggling with this. Thanks

IsDon

10th Jul 2018, 02:52

Isdon, would you be good enough to show me where it says the company can put them regardless of seniority as I am struggling with this. Thanks

Certainly DM.

(c) Subject to clauses 18.1.12(a) and 18.1.12(b), at least 30 days prior to a reduction in numbers at a base in accordance with clauses 18.1.12(d) and 18.1.12(e), the Company will promulgate the following information:

(i) the number and category of surplus pilots;

(ii) the date(s) from which reductions will become effective;

(iii) the names of pilots in the category at the base affected by the surplus;

(iv) bases where vacancies in the category are available or will become available; and/or

(v) if applicable to the circumstances, bases and categories where the Company is proposing to re-deploy surplus pilots.

The distinction is the last paragraph, should the company wish to use it. In the past it has been used to redeploy surplus pilots to positions out of seniority. When the 743 was wound up, many of those on it, who had been frozen and bypassed at company discretion for years, were basically given their first preference for where they wanted to go, within reason. There wasn’t that many of us left at the end so it really didn’t upset that many.

It was also used on the 767 about 10 years ago. The exact date isn’t important, but I can dig it out if you need it. I was named on that list to, having just checked out on the 767 after the 743 RIN I was also part of. At that time the company promulgated a RIN on the 767 F/Os and proposed deploying those named to the 380 as F/Os. Obviously out of seniority, but that’s where the company wanted F/Os at that time. Also obviously, those named, as the most junior in the surplus category, were outbid for those positions by other 767 F/Os in the surplus category more senior to those named. So 6 (if memory serves) of the more senior 767 F/Os were awarded those 380 F/O positions out of seniority.

Thats not how the last 767 RIN was conducted, which has obviously led to an exacerbation of the training pipeline blockages we see now. It was conducted more along the lines of strict seniority, which kept the rank and file happy. That said it could have been done differently, the facility to do it still exists to this day.

In case you’re wondering, I’ve been personally named on 7 RIN lists during my time in Qantas. Not all resulted in me moving somewhere obviously. That said I consider myself quite well experienced in the matter.

Keg

10th Jul 2018, 02:59

Redeployments also used on the A380 F/O RINs in 2015 and resulted in 4 A380 F/Os redeploying to A330 commands whilst there were 737 pilots senior to them wanting A330 commands

ExtraShot

10th Jul 2018, 03:16

S&P were the first in the Investment Community to ‘Break Rank’ and express a bit of dissatisfaction in public, now another indicates concerns about Fleet replacement requirements, among other things...

Roger Montgomery in The Australian. (https://rogermontgomery.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Australian_20180707_032_0.pdf)

Potsie Weber

10th Jul 2018, 03:20

Certainly DM.

The distinction is the last paragraph, should the company wish to use it. In the past it has been used to redeploy surplus pilots to positions out of seniority. When the 743 was wound up, many of those on it, who had been frozen and bypassed at company discretion for years, were basically given their first preference for where they wanted to go, within reason. There wasn’t that many of us left at the end so it really didn’t upset that many.

It was also used on the 767 about 10 years ago. The exact date isn’t important, but I can dig it out if you need it. I was named on that list to, having just checked out on the 767 after the 743 RIN I was also part of. At that time the company promulgated a RIN on the 767 F/Os and proposed deploying those named to the 380 as F/Os. Obviously out of seniority, but that’s where the company wanted F/Os at that time. Also obviously, those named, as the most junior in the surplus category, were outbid for those positions by other 767 F/Os in the surplus category more senior to those named. So 6 (if memory serves) of the more senior 767 F/Os were awarded those 380 F/O positions out of seniority.

Thats not how the last 767 RIN was conducted, which has obviously led to an exacerbation of the training pipeline blockages we see now. It was conducted more along the lines of strict seniority, which kept the rank and file happy. That said it could have been done differently, the facility to do it still exists to this day.

In case you’re wondering, I’ve been personally named on 7 RIN lists during my time in Qantas. Not all resulted in me moving somewhere obviously. That said I consider myself quite well experienced in the matter.

I think a big issue was the 737 "A" pilots. The move was initially to say the RIN was outside the relevance of the Integration Agreement and that 767 pilots could just be moved to the 330 . The 737 pilots were having none of that, arguing the Integration Award must be considered and any positions on the 330 as a result of 767 retirement, should go to "A" pilots first as there was to be an increase in domestic A330 flying. The 737 pilots were also worried about it being used to "park" surplus pilots, being the cheapest fleet to carry a surplus. This complicated the RIN like never before.

IsDon

10th Jul 2018, 03:23

Redeployments also used on the A380 F/O RINs in 2015 and resulted in 4 A380 F/Os redeploying to A330 commands whilst there were 737 pilots senior to them wanting A330 commands

Thanks Keg. Not being involved in that personally I had forgotten about that further, more recent, example.

Another important distiction is that as the 737 is on the short haul agreement there is no facility to RIN long haul pilots to the 737. To do so would be forcing someone to work under a different agreement. The company can certainly promulgate available 737 slots but the subject pilots can’t be pushed there. I’m not even sure if there is a RIN process on the short haul agreement.

DirectAnywhere

10th Jul 2018, 03:48

From ExtraShot's link:

You can call it a disciplined approach to capital spending or you could say the board might prefer to see the share price go up now, maximise share price-related incentives for current management and leave the reality of replacing planes to the next CEO. On that matter, having served as CEO for almost a decade, it’s time to wonder whether Alan Joyce will stick around through the next potentially more challenging period,

Pretty much says it all really. Sunrise? More like a train headlight at the end of a tunnel...

IsDon

10th Jul 2018, 04:58

I think a big issue was the 737 "A" pilots. The move was initially to say the RIN was outside the relevance of the Integration Agreement and that 767 pilots could just be moved to the 330 . The 737 pilots were having none of that, arguing the Integration Award must be considered and any positions on the 330 as a result of 767 retirement, should go to "A" pilots first as there was to be an increase in domestic A330 flying. The 737 pilots were also worried about it being used to "park" surplus pilots, being the cheapest fleet to carry a surplus. This complicated the RIN like never before.

I do recall that A list issue as a complicating factor and I’ll admit I’m no expert on the integration agreement. That said, the A list issue was never going to be a factor. Certainly all of the F/Os were below the Y so it was never going to come into play with us. Given most of the A pilots are in their own special squirrel cage group, permanently stuck at the apex of the 330 Captain seniority list then I suggest that any A lister who wanted a 330 Command was probably already there. Any promulgated 330 commands would have been junior to the special ones anyway.

No comment on the merit or otherwise of this arrangement intended as it never effected me.

The fact is it’s been done before the 767 RIN. It’s been done since. The facility exists. I’ll bet if the company could go back and do the RIN again it would. Differently. It would have solved a lot of problems.