PDA

View Full Version : QANTAS long haul EBA


dragon man
14th Aug 2018, 05:07
TWo of my favourite saying are chickens coming home to roost, and from Paul Keating ď remember when you build a nest of shit one day you might have to lie in itĒ.
Iím hearing that a number of 747 pilots feeling that AIPA and Qantas will sell them out in the RIN have authorised their own negotiationing representative to act on their behalf, add into that also the AFAP getting involved and I think this will not be the push over as the last one was. I think AIPA might be quite shocked by the pushback coming from their own and former members

ruprecht
14th Aug 2018, 05:15
The company hasn’t even said ‘boo’ and we have 744 captains wetting their pants.

Grow a spine.

dragon man
14th Aug 2018, 05:25
The company hasnít even said Ďbooí and we have 744 captains wetting their pants.

Grow a spine.

Already got one, Iím not wetting my pants Iím spoiling for a fight.

ruprecht
14th Aug 2018, 05:30
Iím spoiling for a fight.


Riiiight...

Who with?

TBM-Legend
14th Aug 2018, 05:42
Here we go.

You don't like your current employer...

​​​​​​The Chinese airlines Rishworth Aviation currently work with offer some operating bases outside China and also within China, which include Beijing, Guangzhou, Xiamen, Haikou, Shenzhen & Xi'An.

The glass is gleener!

morno
14th Aug 2018, 05:50
Sometimes I think weíd be better off without EBAís. Then people canít whinge if they donít like the offer and still choose to stay.

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 06:10
How do the 744 pilots feel they will be Ďsold outí in a RIN? Thereís an agreed process in the LHEA. If the company doesnít do the RIN IAW that agreement then any pilot can grieve it. It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

What isnt yet known is how the company may choose to approach the retirment of the 744. Will they RIN the S/Os first and heavy crew the 744 with Captains and F/Os until itís due to retire and then do one RIN in those categories? Will do they do a mini RIN first of Captains ans/ or F/Os and then another final one? A lot comes down to the numbers. A lot also comes down to the final fleet plan and time table for retirement. Something that probably yet isnít well known.

So perhaps the 744 drivers are spoiling for a fight but buggered if I can work out why theyíve got a bee in their bonnet unless they think the RIN process itself is likely to be significantly amended. Iíve heard nothing to suggest from either side that itís even on the table for discussion.

dragon man
14th Aug 2018, 06:32
You mightn’t have but I certainly have.

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 06:52
Really? So what’s on the table to change the RIN criteria? And by whom?

Keeping in mind that we’re likely to face an A380 RIN and an A330 RIN within the next 7-10 years or so I’m not sure any of the pilot group are going to be trading away any safeguards in the RIN process.

SandyPalms
14th Aug 2018, 07:15
Keg, Iíd say that by ďsold outĒ he means the company has no intention of paying entitled 744 Captains VR payments that they feel they deserve.

dragon man
14th Aug 2018, 07:22
Keg, Iíd say that by ďsold outĒ he means the company has no intention of paying entitled 744 Captains VR payments that they feel they deserve. Way to go dragon, youíve just put every other type and rank against you guys. I say we call him Neymar. Fool.

Iíd actually say you are the fool here, Iím entitled as is no one on the 747 to any VR. How long has it been now since the announcement of the 747s departure? One sentence from the company would put it all to bed and that is the company will abide by the provisions of the RIN process as per the long haul contract. The silence is deafening.

SandyPalms
14th Aug 2018, 07:45
So what are you suggesting dragon? What is the conspiracy?

forced to the 787 or something? Replacement type, no displacements etc....,

and pertantly, what is it that you want? If its in the contract, what do you have to be worried about?

ruprecht
14th Aug 2018, 07:47
“Siri, what is ‘ECAM’?” :p

Tuner 2
14th Aug 2018, 07:52
If the Ďbargaining representativeí mentioned in the opening post is the QLD 747 pilot Iím led to believe it is, then Iím more than happy to to stick with AIPA doing the talking.

Capt Colonial
14th Aug 2018, 08:01
Really? So whatís on the table to change the RIN criteria? And by whom?

Keeping in mind that weíre likely to face an A380 RIN and an A330 RIN within the next 7-10 years or so Iím not sure any of the pilot group are going to be trading away any safeguards in the RIN process.


I think thatís the point. The future looks like a RIN followed by a RIN followed by a RIN and Yes statistically within the next 7 to10 years or 4 to 5 Years after the last B-747 hull is forecast to leave.

So, any I.R department would be looking at options. The Pilot group may not want to trade away any safeguards in the RIN process, however, I am sure the Qantas accountants and shareholders would! Probably called an ďefficiencyĒ in any current/future negotiations.

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 08:17
How long has it been now since the announcement of the 747s departure?

I’d be stunned if there is yet a firm plan of what aircraft go when. In fact I know as at a week ago Flight Ops still didn’t know the longer term plan.



One sentence from the company would put it all to bed and that is the company will abide by the provisions of the RIN process as per the long haul contract. The silence is deafening.


You want the company to put out a statement to line crew saying they’ll adhere to an award that they’re already legally required to adhere to?

I get that there are a number of 744 crews wondering what will become of them. Heck, four years ago I was there myself. Like the 767 drivers did, it’s relatively easy for 744 Captains to read the award, look at the numbers, consider the previous pronouncements about the 787, and work out some of the options the company may use to deal with them.

Which one could the company use? Who knows. They don’t have enough information yet to make the call. Besides which, things can change between now and 18 months time when the trigger proabably first needs to be pulled.

Things are a bit more grey for the F/Os as the seniority band is much wider but even that should be relatively easy to determine for individual pilots. At least there are likely to be promotional opportunities available for them in the lead up to the RIN-so,thing that wasn’t available in 2014.



So, any I.R department would be looking at options. The Pilot group may not want to trade away any safeguards in the RIN process, however, I am sure the Qantas accountants and shareholders would! Probably called an “efficiency” in any current/future negotiations.

So there’s a level of angst prevalent that strikes me as premature and largely unwarranted- at least for the moment.

Capt Colonial
14th Aug 2018, 08:35
Qantas I.R management is well known for industrial kite-flying. Rumours of S/O displacements from the B-747 to the B-737 gave some insight into what lateral options HR were allegedly exploring recently. Right now, the B-747 is training its Captains to be RHS qualified to release F/Oís early, however, havenít explained that process to the F/Oís!

As Dragon rightly stated. Given the above actions, the stress and angst with all the collective uncertainty would probably disappear for individual B-747 Pilots if Qantas Management (and the Pilots Association) stated they will follow the RIN protocols in the future and at least made some form of communication regarding the prospects to a dedicated workforce that is eager for their managers to give them career insight and guidance.

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 09:05
767 pilots found out five months before the fleet dead stopped what was to be done with them. The final 744 retirement is still at least two years away. No one is likely to be demoted as a result of this RIN. People are getting wound up way too early.

Tankengine
14th Aug 2018, 10:02
767 pilots found out five months before the fleet dead stopped what was to be done with them. The final 744 retirement is still at least two years away. No one is likely to be demoted as a result of this RIN. People are getting wound up way too early.
Just because they stuffed the last RIN does not mean we should accept it again.
The EBA negotiations for the timespan of any 747 RIN has already begun. (Negotiated by the same team, more or less, who negotiated the 787 contract)
Now is certainly the time to point out to both sets of negotiators to get this right and not get into a confrontational situation.
QF managers have differing opinions as to what the EBA RIN process means. One manager is hoping pilots will do reduced lines (at reduced pay) until the end to stop multiple RINs - pigs arse!! 160hrs min thank you.
The company will do anything to reduce the costs of the 747 fleet reduction, (and secure thrir bonuses)í our job is to ensure that AIPA suck the very best deal out of them and not accept what has happened before!

Beer Baron
14th Aug 2018, 10:05
Iím hearing that a number of 747 pilots feeling that AIPA and Qantas will sell them out in the RIN have authorised their own negotiationing representative to act on their behalf, add into that also the AFAP getting involved and I think this will not be the push over as the last one was.
Remember during the last EA when the hero of EBA 8 - GD decided unilaterally he was going to put himself up as a negotiator seperate from AIPA with his own log of claims?? Remember how well that worked out?

And AFAPís rule change was struck off so it would be illegal for them to represent Qantas LH pilots in the negotiation.

If 744 pilots are worried about the RIN it would be a lot smarter to call their manager or the AIPA exec rather than put their faith in a party who Qantas wonít negotiate with or one they legally canít negotiate with.

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 10:42
Just because they stuffed the last RIN does not mean we should accept it again.

The idiocy/ stuff up was not offering redeployment positions on the A330 in anticipation of the churn that would occur with the introduction of the 787. Once the decision not to redeploy had been made (allegedly by the level above Flight Ops influenced by IR) the 767 RIN was always going to go down exactly the way it did- completely in accordance with the award. I don’t think 767 crew have ever thought the actual process was stuffed up, just the underlying decision making of choosing that particular pathway.

Circumstances this time are vastly different and the available pathways aren’t yet clear because the final decisions regarding disposition of the 744 fleet and how it’ll overlap the 787 fleet haven’t yet been made. Hence my suggestion that the angst is premature.

That doesn’t mean it still won’t be stuffed up (from a strategic point of view in terms of best benefit for both crew and airline) but we’re 12 months or so from a) knowing what pathways are available, and, b) which pathway may produce the best win/ win.


Now is certainly the time to point out to both sets of negotiators to get this right and not get into a confrontational situation.

No need for confrontation. The EA covers the process. Pretty cut and dried.


QF managers have differing opinions as to what the EBA RIN process means. One manager is hoping pilots will do reduced lines (at reduced pay) until the end to stop multiple RINs - pigs arse!! 160hrs min thank you.

I do get the sense that many line pilots haven’t actually read the relevant section of the agreement nor looked at the numbers and how the scenarios could play out. If a manager has a ‘differing opinion’ of how a RIN works then they haven’t read the agreement either. A manager can ‘hope’ until they’re blue in the face but reduced value lines can only be offered. They don’t appear as part of the RIN process. So the company may offer them but no one has to take one.

Of course a pilot may choose to take one to be able to retire when the 744 finishes instead of being RIN’d and taking a 787 redeployment position earlier. Again, pathways to be mapped out when there is greater information about specific 744 retirements and 787 arrivals. Future 787 orders for delivery from early 2021 may also play into the process as well and those won’t be announced until about this time next year.

wombat watcher
14th Aug 2018, 10:45
If the ‘bargaining representative’ mentioned in the opening post is the QLD 747 pilot I’m led to believe it is, then I’m more than happy to to stick with AIPA doing the talking.


you can bet that he will be looking to advantage numero uno under the pretext that he is looking after the greater majority’s interest. EBA 8 comes to mind!

Tuner 2
14th Aug 2018, 10:51
Just because they stuffed the last RIN does not mean we should accept it again.
The EBA negotiations for the timespan of any 747 RIN has already begun. (Negotiated by the same team, more or less, who negotiated the 787 contract)
Now is certainly the time to point out to both sets of negotiators to get this right and not get into a confrontational situation.
QF managers have differing opinions as to what the EBA RIN process means. One manager is hoping pilots will do reduced lines (at reduced pay) until the end to stop multiple RINs - pigs arse!! 160hrs min thank you.
The company will do anything to reduce the costs of the 747 fleet reduction, (and secure thrir bonuses)’ our job is to ensure that AIPA suck the very best deal out of them and not accept what has happened before!



What exactly was stuffed up last time and by whom?
As for reduced lines, don’t do one if you don’t want to.

Tankengine
14th Aug 2018, 10:52
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated! ;)
That is the reason to be concerned.

dragon man
14th Aug 2018, 11:09
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated! ;)
That is the reason to be concerned.

Exactly, and the purpose of the thread.👍👍

Keg
14th Aug 2018, 12:19
And so far there’s nothing to report on that front. Just a lot of angst looking for a place to go.

Sometimes I think we sow more FUD amongst ourselves than the airline ever does.

angryrat
14th Aug 2018, 14:14
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated! ;)
That is the reason to be concerned.
The RIN process was improved in EA9 by a similar AIPA negotiating group by inserting the ability to RIN into base as opposed to the most junior. In the 767 RIN, the PER 330 base was delayed so there were more junior pilots in SYD to aid the RIN process. So why would this negotiating group go and destroy what they just spent time improving? Doesnít make sense! Iím calling FAKE NEWS and a bunch of pilots jumping at shadows. Have we not learnt anything from history?

As someone who was part of the recent RIN, I value the RIN process and at risk of speaking on behalf of the rest of the RINed pilots, I would see no appetite to change the RIN process. Even if AIPA negotiated this, there is a process, they would end up with a strong NO vote and end up out on their ass like GD did. Some of you need to take a chill pill and stop doing the companies dirty work.

DirectAnywhere
14th Aug 2018, 19:45
Since this has morphed into a discussion about a potential RIN, I would urge 747 pilots, particularly FOs and SOs whose plan for any future RIN is to displace more junior pilots on more senior types, to read Clause 18.1.2 (e)(iii) VERY carefully. Think about what "higher status" positions the company may "offer" to avoid you being demoted to a "lower status", thereby removing your right to displace. The company could even argue that types not included in the LH EA, that include a promotion, would not be "lower status".

Interpretations of this clause could vary wildly. The company will take a certain view that could save them millions in retraining costs and, because of that, will probably be willing to die in a ditch, up to and including FWC and the Federal Court to defend it. I don't think AIPA would have the stomach for a fight on this issue so it would be unlikely to get that far.

angryrat
14th Aug 2018, 20:11
Since this has morphed into a discussion about a potential RIN, I would urge 747 pilots, particularly FOs and SOs whose plan for any future RIN is to displace more junior pilots on more senior types, to read Clause 18.1.2 (e)(iii) VERY carefully. Think about what "higher status" positions the company may "offer" to avoid you being demoted to a "lower status", thereby removing your right to displace. The company could even argue that types not included in the LH EA, that include a promotion, would not be "lower status".

Interpretations of this clause could vary wildly. The company will take a certain view that could save them millions in retraining costs and, because of that, will probably be willing to die in a ditch, up to and including FWC and the Federal Court to defend it. I don't think AIPA would have the stomach for a fight on this issue so it would be unlikely to get that far.The very same rumours came up in the 767 RIN and the company acknowledged publicly that they couldnít RIN to the 737, but only once they had RIN meetings. In fact rumours were started that 767 pilots were going to be made redundant. What the company wants to do and what they can do are two different things. You fellas have way too much time on dark flight decks across the Pacific.

As far as AIPA not having the stomach to fight... you are AIPA.

DirectAnywhere
14th Aug 2018, 20:20
This clause wasn't in operation during the 767 RIN. It was added in EA9. The last 767 left in Dec 2014. The EA is dated 19/8/2015.

The company doesn't have to force a move to the 737, merely offer what they interpret to be a "higher status" position. If a named pilot fails to take said "higher status" position then, under this clause, they lose the ability to displace more junior pilots in a higher status.

What is a higher status position? You and I may have one view, the company may well have another. Will AIPA take it to FWC if a pilot's interpretation differs from the company's? I doubt it very much. The point is, this clause is very grey, in spite of what many people are confidently stating in relation to their personal plan and the expected outcome of said plan in a RIN. The only consistent outcome I've seen in several RINs is the outcomes are often unexpected.

Truth be told, I don't really care one way or the other. It doesn't affect me. I also may well be wrong. I'm just suggesting it's worth reading it closely and, in any future personal planning, seeking advice from AIPA and the Company about the application of said clause to ensure all relevant information is to hand before deciding when and how to shuffle those bids above and below the line.

DirectAnywhere
15th Aug 2018, 01:13
I think you may be thinking of a different QLD 747 Capt.

dragon man
15th Aug 2018, 01:23
I think you may be thinking of a different QLD 747 Capt.

You are correct.

maggot
15th Aug 2018, 01:33
:hmm:



123456

Tuner 2
15th Aug 2018, 01:44
Status is defined in 17.3 of the EBA. Doesnít look too hard to work out what higher status means to me.

maggot
15th Aug 2018, 03:13
Someone would be better off studying for a 737 course than running a fake news scare campaign

Capt Colonial
15th Aug 2018, 03:56
What the company wants to do and what they can do are two different things.
Yes, and I wouldnít see this as anything other than sound industrial planning by a group of astute Pilots. As should matters not follow a prescribed industrial course an approach to the FWC could come quickly from a well-organised group. Kind of makes sense to me!

ruprecht
15th Aug 2018, 04:33
Surely it would be easier to ask these questions on qrewroom... :E

wombat watcher
15th Aug 2018, 06:46
Surely it would be easier to ask these questions on qrewroom... :E



if these questions were asked on Qrewroom, everyone would know who is asking them, wouldn’t they?
They would then be shown up for their paranoia.
anonymous paranoia doesn’t make them look so ridiculous.

mustafagander
15th Aug 2018, 10:48
Just wondering - B737 is short haul and B744 is long haul. Are they not on different EBAs and hence not part of the discussion for a long haul RIN? Not saying that it may not be offered but that's all.

Keg
15th Aug 2018, 12:25
Yes, and I wouldn’t see this as anything other than sound industrial planning by a group of astute Pilots.

‘Sound industrial planning’ and the rumoured name of the 744 driver seems an oxymoron.


The only consistent outcome I've seen in several RINs is the outcomes are often unexpected.



Really? The outcome I’ve seen from the multiple RINs I was named in, the one I was demoted in, and the one I gained a redeployment position in, was that the outcome was completely as expected. Similarly for every other RIN I’ve seen since 2011. Some individuals within them had unexpected outcomes when those senior to them took an option that they didn’t expect. An example would be when a named 767 F/O (F/O B) displaced an A330 F/O when the named 767 F/O one number senior to him (F/O A) elected to take the demotion. That the A330 F/O was going to be displaced by one of the 12 767 F/Os named that were senior to him was never in doubt though.

dragon man
9th Nov 2018, 03:36
Am I hearing correctly that a former AIPA president (FO) has now joined the companies negotiating team?

CaptCloudbuster
9th Nov 2018, 06:22
That news should have many LH Members happy seeing as they have complained long and loud about what a win for the Company the last EA was under his AIPA Leadership

dragon man
9th Nov 2018, 06:29
I’m also hearing there might well be a new AIPA president next week.

theheadmaster
10th Nov 2018, 22:02
To be fair, the AIPA President did not negotiate the last long haul EBA. He gave autonomy to the EBA negotiating team to work independently and come up with the best deal they could. Due process was for the prospective agreement to be endorsed by the AIPA Committee of Management, which it was, with only a handful of the 40 committee members not endorsing it. The agreement was then put to all long haul pilots by Qantas, where 0ver 80% agreed with the proposed agreement. Implying there was some kind of conspiracy or underhanded behaviour by the former AIPA president is misguided and false. I can understand that there may be some 'buyers remorse'. At the time the deal was negotiated, many long haul pilots were concerned about having a job. Now prospects have changed, with a growing pilot shortage and the company being profitable. Understandably, expectations for the next EBA will be different, but you can't confuse the environment we face now with what was in place during the last negotiation.

Scooter Rassmussin
10th Nov 2018, 23:13
Letís watch Network grow a domestic Network!

V-Jet
10th Nov 2018, 23:54
.0ver 80% agreed with the proposed agreement.

There it is in a nutshell. AJ laughing all the way to the bank (probably not far as she’s likely got a personal one installed in her office and bedroom at home) but we voted for it fair and square. Of course, I haven’t yet met one of the 80% who owned up to voting for it, but our stupidity is another story.

What dear Stream Lead is doing now is nothing to do with our past vote.

Rated De
11th Nov 2018, 00:24
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
― George W. Bush

Wasn't Qantas still 'terminal' last time?
Didn't all the unions accept the invertible 'job cuts' unless they signed up.
Didn't Qantas run to the government begging for AUD$ 3 billion and get an EK alliance with no tangible upside?

Didn't they, at the stroke of a pen, write off the international fleet and aided by plummeting fuel prices 'transform' the business?

Let's hope for all that George W is right and err you can't fool em again. Or something like that.

CurtainTwitcher
11th Nov 2018, 00:38
At the time the deal was negotiated, many long haul pilots were concerned about having a job.
but we voted for it fair and square.
Really, remember the T E R M I N A L D E C L I N E ? The reality was this was a highly manipulated, orchestrated campaign to plausibly convince the majority of the pilots they were going to lose their jobs unless they voted for the Long Haul EBA NG. The NG (B787 / 777 / ULH) sub-EBA is the only agreement the company were interested in, knowing the 747 & A380 were done. Every other aircraft that entered service would be on the NG conditions, where the nexus between flight time and overtime pay had been broken, along with the removal of night credits ensuring a very large productivity increase for the company.

This was an extraordinary outcome for the company, requiring extraordinary manipulation, and it worked. No wonder there are a lot of pilots with buyers remorse.

crosscutter
11th Nov 2018, 00:54
I really don’t think it is about being fooled.

The last EBA was just that...the last EBA... decided on under that time and conditions. It secured the 787 for mainline. At last check there is no shortage of pilots jumping across to the new conditions on the 787, including the stream lead.

EBA’s are not personal, they are business. My concern is the apathy, and lack of recognition that to change the status quo (read EBA) requires fight. It might require individual gain to be put to the side for the collective good. For months or years now SH pilots have been complaining about rosters, workload and work/life balance. Yet still there are pages and pages of pilots with their name in the book to help the company. Still pilots extend duty beyond what is required.

Pilots so often end up tilting the risk reward scale well into the personal risk zone under the guise of professional conduct or personal gain. This is taken advantage of by the company during negotiating time.

Pilots are either gutless, selfish or at best apathetic. Until this changes, proclaiming pilots were fooled is giving management far too much credit when the real answer stares you back in the mirror.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 01:12
I really donít think it is about being fooled.

The last EBA was just that...the last EBA... decided on under that time and conditions. It secured the 787 for mainline. At last check there is no shortage of pilots jumping across to the new conditions on the 787, including the stream lead.

EBAís are not personal, they are business. My concern is the apathy, and lack of recognition that to change the status quo (read EBA) requires fight. It might require individual gain to be put to the side for the collective good. For months or years now SH pilots have been complaining about rosters, workload and work/life balance. Yet still there are pages and pages of pilots with their name in the book to help the company. Still pilots extend duty beyond what is required.

Pilots so often end up tilting the risk reward scale well into the personal risk zone under the guise of professional conduct or personal gain. This is taken advantage of by the company during negotiating time.

Pilots are either gutless, selfish or at best apathetic. Until this changes, proclaiming pilots were fooled is giving management far too much credit when the real answer stares you back in the mirror.




I agree with you crosscutter.

Rated De
11th Nov 2018, 01:39
For months or years now SH pilots have been complaining about rosters, workload and work/life balance. Yet still there are pages and pages of pilots with their name in the book to help the company. Still pilots extend duty beyond what is required.

Pilots so often end up tilting the risk reward scale well into the personal risk zone under the guise of professional conduct or personal gain. This is taken advantage of by the company during negotiating time.


Very true.

However, with one small caveat, the company developed and maintained a narrative of 'terminality' which some how expired, with their incredible management skill, shortly thereafter.
Giving credit where credit due, Olivia kept that spin going a long time.

Pilots are either gutless, selfish or at best apathetic. Until this changes, proclaiming pilots were fooled is giving management far too much credit when the real answer stares you back in the mirror.


Rather like complaining about politicians; they are but a sad reflection of the society they 'represent' The union is the pilots. In Europe, the Ryanair model was at the apex of division and self interest. Dark as it is, what is defeating O' Leary et al is collecitve resolve. The stream lead's naked ambition was fulfilled by following a well worn path, from union executive to low level corporate.
Even Paul Piggy Howes is a partner at KPMG. Traded his family and checked his values in for a 'high mile' new bride. Nobody batters an eye at either. That either of them is given the time of day is more a reflection of the society where values matter little.

dragon man
11th Nov 2018, 02:28
The vote was like finding any one who voted for Gough Whitlam, he won twice but everyone denies having voted for him. As for pilots helping the company I see it differently, they are helping themselves as they consider AIPA useless. When Qantas pilots split from the AFAP the then president Barry Fitzsimmons said at a meeting if you leave the AFAP you will eventually just become another arm of Qantas management. He was 100% correct.

ruprecht
11th Nov 2018, 02:50
Now I kind of wish the last EBA was voted down. According to everyone who voted no, weíd all have a pay rise and a free pet unicorn.

dragon man
11th Nov 2018, 03:18
Now I kind of wish the last EBA was voted down. According to everyone who voted no, we’d all have a pay rise and a free pet unicorn.


Really? I missed that bit, would definitely have made me vote yes.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 03:33
The vote was like finding any one who voted for Gough Whitlam, he won twice but everyone denies having voted for him. As for pilots helping the company I see it differently, they are helping themselves as they consider AIPA useless. When Qantas pilots split from the AFAP the then president Barry Fitzsimmons said at a meeting if you leave the AFAP you will eventually just become another arm of Qantas management. He was 100% correct.
How so?

AIPA is only as strong as the collective membership and only as effective as allowed under legislation. As to being an arm of Qantas management, care to expand on that, as that is not my experience.

dragon man
11th Nov 2018, 04:38
How so?

AIPA is only as strong as the collective membership and only as effective as allowed under legislation. As to being an arm of Qantas management, care to expand on that, as that is not my experience.

Its mine and on here no, however the last EBA with the 787 deal pretty much says it all.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 05:08
Its mine and on here no, however the last EBA with the 787 deal pretty much says it all.

OK, so what exactly does the 787 deal say? AIPA negotiated a deal that was acceptable to over 80% of pilots. If they were an arm of management, then they massively underperformed on that metric.

Tuner 2
11th Nov 2018, 05:31
The approval wouldíve been closer to 90% if short haul pilots, all of whom have worked in or could work in long haul, had been eligible to vote.

There seems to be some sort of attempt to reframe history as the sole responsibility of one person here. And the 787 remains a popular destination for current Capts and F/Os on the 737 and 330.

dragon man
11th Nov 2018, 06:44
OK, so what exactly does the 787 deal say? AIPA negotiated a deal that was acceptable to over 80% of pilots. If they were an arm of management, then they massively underperformed on that metric.

Again and it is only my opinion a lot of long haul pilots believed that they would never to fly under what I call the B scale on the 787 so as they wanted the back pay they voted it up. The reality is however that IMO all present long haul aircraft except the 787 will be gone in under 10 years then everyone can operate under the new scale. It wonít be me and Iím very happy about that.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 07:50
Again and it is only my opinion a lot of long haul pilots believed that they would never to fly under what I call the B scale on the 787 so as they wanted the back pay they voted it up. The reality is however that IMO all present long haul aircraft except the 787 will be gone in under 10 years then everyone can operate under the new scale. It won’t be me and I’m very happy about that.

I agree with you. It is likely that whatever new aircraft is purchased under project sunrise will probably be on a pay system similar to that on the 787. What the hourly rate is will be an interesting question. I also agree that the 747 and most likely the A380 will not be in Qantas service in 10 years time. I don't agree that the 787 is on a B scale. In my view, a B scale is where there are pilots working for the same employer flying the same aircraft, but on different rates. That aside, I have no problem with you having a view that you don't like the structure of pay and conditions on the 787. What I am having difficulty with is working out how this equates to AIPA being useless or being an arm of Qantas. As has been stated, there are pilots bidding off the A330 and 737 to the 787. In terms of the seniority to get there, it sits between the A330 and the four engine types. If the conditions were considered poor by the majority of pilots, you would see that reflected in the seniority for the 787 going low. This has not happened.

dragon man
11th Nov 2018, 08:17
I agree with you. It is likely that whatever new aircraft is purchased under project sunrise will probably be on a pay system similar to that on the 787. What the hourly rate is will be an interesting question. I also agree that the 747 and most likely the A380 will not be in Qantas service in 10 years time. I don't agree that the 787 is on a B scale. In my view, a B scale is where there are pilots working for the same employer flying the same aircraft, but on different rates. That aside, I have no problem with you having a view that you don't like the structure of pay and conditions on the 787. What I am having difficulty with is working out how this equates to AIPA being useless or being an arm of Qantas. As has been stated, there are pilots bidding off the A330 and 737 to the 787. In terms of the seniority to get there, it sits between the A330 and the four engine types. If the conditions were considered poor by the majority of pilots, you would see that reflected in the seniority for the 787 going low. This has not happened.

Firstly I appreciate this debate been civil. My answer to that is I think many pilots are attracted to the ď glamourĒ of long haul aviation destinations, they are also sick of going to work so often and not having heavy crews. The reality will sink in, itís not glamorous. Back to back JFK patterns out of Bne very very hard work and many other sectors will soon lose their appeal. The health effects of flying these long term will not be known for years however IMO from my own experience and my contemporaries around me they will not be good.

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 09:06
I feel dragon man may be reflecting on areas of the long-haul T & C’s. Which took a hit with the introduction of the B-787.
Currently, there are some problems with scheduling and several comparative items on the B-787 fleet so it is timely to have the EA once again approaching. Certainly, we will see how much metal the collective long-haul group have if they wish to change some unpalatable areas in the current EA.

During the last EA, one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause for those that (will) be redeployed to the B-787 from the B-747. Notably, those pilots that may be redeployed are considering that Fleet (B-787) even though eligible to jump to the A380 as they don’t want to commit to the A380, to have to, once again, retrain in a few years time. Rumours of A380 Wing Cracks and alleged extended Interior Refurbishment times abound apparently over in the maintenance areas.

What I feel and see is that Pilots over on the B-747 Fleet are waiting for some positive leadership out of AIPA (information) re the Reduction In Numbers from the B-747 onto ‘other fleets’. Certainly, after the SIT Manager produced a basic handout of the B-747 fleet retirement dates (timescale) for the B-747 certainly a forward redeployment scale could be drawn out for those Pilots (even if it is the 'best guess' at this time!). Yet nothing from AIPA. Once again Qantas Management is running the full show, with NO guidance from the Association currently! IMO that makes people very frustrated and leaves them pondering why AIPA is not more pro-active to its affected members.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 11:29
I feel dragon man may be reflecting on areas of the long-haul T & Cís. Which took a hit with the introduction of the B-787.
Currently, there are some problems with scheduling and several comparative items on the B-787 fleet so it is timely to have the EA once again approaching. Certainly, we will see how much metal the collective long-haul group have if they wish to change some unpalatable areas in the current EA.

During the last EA, one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause for those that (will) be redeployed to the B-787 from the B-747. Notably, those pilots that may be redeployed are considering that Fleet (B-787) even though eligible to jump to the A380 as they donít want to commit to the A380, to have to, once again, retrain in a few years time. Rumours of A380 Wing Cracks and alleged extended Interior Refurbishment times abound apparently over in the maintenance areas.

What I feel and see is that Pilots over on the B-747 Fleet are waiting for some positive leadership out of AIPA (information) re the Reduction In Numbers from the B-747 onto Ďother fleetsí. Certainly, after the SIT Manager produced a basic handout of the B-747 fleet retirement dates (timescale) for the B-747 certainly a forward redeployment scale could be drawn out for those Pilots (even if it is the 'best guess' at this time!). Yet nothing from AIPA. Once again Qantas Management is running the full show, with NO guidance from the Association currently! IMO that makes people very frustrated and leaves them pondering why AIPA is not more pro-active to its affected members.
I can understand the uncertainty that an upcoming RIN will be stressful and those likely to be affected will want information. I think you need to wait to see what unfolds here before criticising AIPA.

Not sure how you have come to believe 'one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause'. The way you have worded that statement, it makes it look like without that input, there would be no such protection. If this is your proposition, it is incorrect.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 11:36
Firstly I appreciate this debate been civil. My answer to that is I think many pilots are attracted to the “ glamour” of long haul aviation destinations, they are also sick of going to work so often and not having heavy crews. The reality will sink in, it’s not glamorous. Back to back JFK patterns out of Bne very very hard work and many other sectors will soon lose their appeal. The health effects of flying these long term will not be known for years however IMO from my own experience and my contemporaries around me they will not be good.



I don't disagree. However, my point is that although I can respect your opinion that the 787 deal is not good, that does not equate to AIPA being useless or being an arm of the company. At the time of the EBA, and remember, EBA9 was conducted in the wake of the 2011 lockout and uncertainty about the viability of the business, the pilots showed an overwhelming level of support. I can understand that the sentiment now is different, and pilots might not support a similar deal today. Once again, remember, AIPA can only negotiate a deal that members have the mettle to fight for.

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 19:36
I can understand the uncertainty that an upcoming RIN will be stressful and those likely to be affected will want information. I think you need to wait to see what unfolds here before criticising AIPA.

Not sure how you have come to believe 'one of the B-747 AIPA Committee members astutely drove the Year 4 pay-deal clause'. The way you have worded that statement, it makes it look like without that input, there would be no such protection. If this is your proposition, it is incorrect.

I am glad that “you can understand the uncertainty” headmaster, as a lot of the B-747 Pilots are living with the uncertainty and the apprehension due lack of information. Alas, your reply appears aloof and condescending given the effect a RIN will have on all fleets and a significant number of Pilots.

As I pointed out previously, there exists enough base-line data for either the AIPA or the Company to generate a spreadsheet of a timed exodus. However, the company who want Pilots to Bid off the B-747 have no interest in producing such data for obvious fiscal and administrative reasons. The question is why AIPA has NOT shown such leadership and promulgated data to its financial members. Certainly, many members of AIPA, who will be affected by a RIN and who I have spoken with recently, ponder and deliberate what they are paying their dues for at AIPA given the lack of attention to the RIN matter at this time!

Correct: Without that policy being driven at the last EA there would be No Such Protection in place!! Thus, you are incorrect!

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 21:00
I am glad that ďyou can understand the uncertaintyĒ headmaster, as a lot of the B-747 Pilots are living with the uncertainty and the apprehension due lack of information. Alas, your reply appears aloof and condescending given the effect a RIN will have on all fleets and a significant number of Pilots.

As I pointed out previously, there exists enough base-line data for either the AIPA or the Company to generate a spreadsheet of a timed exodus. However, the company who want Pilots to Bid off the B-747 have no interest in producing such data for obvious fiscal and administrative reasons. The question is why AIPA has NOT shown such leadership and promulgated data to its financial members. Certainly, many members of AIPA, who will be affected by a RIN and who I have spoken with recently, ponder and deliberate what they are paying their dues for at AIPA given the lack of attention to the RIN matter at this time!

Correct: Without that policy being driven at the last EA there would be No Such Protection in place!! Thus, you are incorrect!
If it is so easy and there is enough base line data, why not produce this data yourself?

Regarding the protections mentioned, this was negotiated by the negotiating team based on the experience of the previous 747 and 767 RINs. It was not 'driven' by anyone on the committee and certainly not 'driven' by PM.

ruprecht
11th Nov 2018, 21:13
If it is so easy and there is enough base line data, why not produce this data yourself.

Precisely.

Capt Colonial, AIPA is dealing with the information given by the company and the company has no idea when the 744s are leaving. So what would you have AIPA do? Formulate a dozen contingency plans and brief the membership on each one, knowing that only one (or none) may come to pass?

The RIN is going to suck, no two ways about it, but heaping scorn on AIPA isn’t helping anyone.

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 22:23
If it is so easy and there is enough base line data, why not produce this data yourself?

Regarding the protections mentioned, this was negotiated by the negotiating team based on the experience of the previous 747 and 767 RINs. It was not 'driven' by anyone on the committee and certainly not 'driven' by PM.

Why would I or anyone else want to do AIPAís job? Or if you like why then have AIPA? AIPA have thousands of dollars in members monies a significant Staff Base and Resources. Yet nothing is being produced for the Pilots on the B-747. Thatís really pitiful management given the stress on Pilots and Families that a RIN induces. No need to criticise AIPA as that Poor-Performance just speaks for itself!

Not what I was told!! PM drove the policy hard and it was a concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots in an endeavour to push the EA for the B-787 towards the whole membership. I was informed that JB, AS and NS were not supportive, however, the CoM of the day came to support that policy (thank goodness!). It seems to me that that AIPA history is rapidly re-written by some who seek to protect their position, control the discussion and further themselves with the Membership and Management.

maggot
11th Nov 2018, 22:29
Why would I or anyone else want to do AIPAís job? Or if you like why then have AIPA? AIPA have thousands of dollars in members monies a significant Staff Base and Resources. Yet nothing is being produced for the Pilots on the B-747. Thatís really pitiful management given the stress on Pilots and Families that a RIN induces. No need to criticise AIPA as that Poor-Performance just speaks for itself!

Not what I was told!! PM drove the policy hard and it was a concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots in an endeavour to push the EA for the B-787 towards the whole membership. I was informed that JB, AS and NS were not supportive, however, the CoM of the day came to support that policy (thank goodness!). It seems to me that that AIPA history is rapidly re-written by some who seek to protect their position, control the discussion and further themselves with the Membership and Management.

I'm genuinely sorry that you're facing the prospect of a RIN soon. Imo the lack of info is a combination of the company not caring about you, a lack of actual plan and a desire to keep some of the plan secret to avoid you making your own plan and to drive you to a position that suits them, not you.

They won't commit to anything and beware of any casual assurances from those in place to placate (not help) you.

Good luck.

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 22:30
Precisely.

Capt Colonial, AIPA is dealing with the information given by the company and the company has no idea when the 744s are leaving. So what would you have AIPA do? Formulate a dozen contingency plans and brief the membership on each one, knowing that only one (or none) may come to pass?

The RIN is going to suck, no two ways about it, but heaping scorn on AIPA isnít helping anyone.



Total Rubbish! I was shown a brief by the SIT Manager stating the Targeted Retirement Dates. Thus Ruprecht, with respect, I think perhaps you write without authentication or fact or choose to ignore same for a hollow argument on this thread!

A number of us watching these events openly believe that the AIPA doesnít want to get involved because No one wins in a RIN. That understood, paid members should be given all the information (even if it is transitory) and forecasts in order to plan their lives and more importantly those of their families. Why wouldn't the AIPA be proactive rather than reactive? There is certainly something amiss (politically or from a leadership stance) here at the AIPA!

Academic and opinionated arguments on this thread aside there is a succinct human face to this matter and it should be dealt with by all parties far better than it is now!

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 22:34
I'm genuinely sorry that you're facing the prospect of a RIN soon. Imo the lack of info is a combination of the company not caring about you, a lack of actual plan and a desire to keep some of the plan secret to avoid you making your own plan and to drive you to a position that suits them, not you.

They won't commit to anything and beware of any casual assurances from those in place to placate (not help) you.

Good luck.

That is the most Honest and Totally Correct analogy I have seen on this thread to date. Thanks, Maggot. IMO you nailed the situation succinctly!

Fatguyinalittlecoat
11th Nov 2018, 22:35
With all due respect, you are not going to lose your jobs. You may have to do a type course and for some you may lose a bit of money, but it’s hardly the bleeding heart situation you are portraying. Get a grip.

Tankengine
11th Nov 2018, 22:49
Precisely.

Capt Colonial, AIPA is dealing with the information given by the company and the company has no idea when the 744s are leaving. So what would you have AIPA do? Formulate a dozen contingency plans and brief the membership on each one, knowing that only one (or none) may come to pass?

The RIN is going to suck, no two ways about it, but heaping scorn on AIPA isn’t helping anyone.







I think this is exactly the problem.
The company is unsure when each aircraft is leaving and pilot wise would love people to just bid progressively onto the 787s which will replace the 747. With year four pay only if RINned this won’t happen to any great degree.
The problems with multiple RIN displacements will mean one RIN at the end (in my opinion) leaving a bunch of crew to be trained all at the same time - this will create a training backlog worse than any seen to date, not to mention displacements and ongoing residual training.
The company doesn’t know, therefore AIPA cannot know!
The latest from the company basically says: “we don’t know, we don’t know when we will know, it will be done accordingly to the contract”
I suggest as a start that anyone concerned READ THE CONTRACT.

The latest list of retirements of 747 airframes is quite different to the earlier one only a few months ago!

Popgun
11th Nov 2018, 22:59
With all due respect, you are not going to lose your jobs. You may have to do a type course and for some you may lose a bit of money, but itís hardly the bleeding heart situation you are portraying. Get a grip.


Fatguy nails it!

PG

maggot
11th Nov 2018, 23:01
With all due respect, you are not going to lose your jobs. You may have to do a type course and for some you may lose a bit of money, but itís hardly the bleeding heart situation you are portraying. Get a grip.


Thats what I used to think.
It can be very disruptive.
We all have various financial commitments a 'bit of money' at the wrong time can force larges changes.

theheadmaster
11th Nov 2018, 23:05
Why would I or anyone else want to do AIPA’s job? Or if you like why then have AIPA? AIPA have thousands of dollars in members monies a significant Staff Base and Resources. Yet nothing is being produced for the Pilots on the B-747. That’s really pitiful management given the stress on Pilots and Families that a RIN induces. No need to criticise AIPA as that Poor-Performance just speaks for itself!

Not what I was told!! PM drove the policy hard and it was a concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots in an endeavour to push the EA for the B-787 towards the whole membership. I was informed that JB, AS and NS were not supportive, however, the CoM of the day came to support that policy (thank goodness!). It seems to me that that AIPA history is rapidly re-written by some who seek to protect their position, control the discussion and further themselves with the Membership and Management.
I don't know who told you this, it certainly was not anyone on the negotiating team. Regardless, it is simply not true. There was no 'concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots'. Saying that those on the negotiating team were not supportive is pure fantasy. They pursued the issue. Thinking PM drove anything is just wishful thinking. He was so confused by the process that he supported the EBA in the committee room, yet then argued against it during the vote.

Capt Colonial
11th Nov 2018, 23:42
I don't know who told you this, it certainly was not anyone on the negotiating team. Regardless, it is simply not true. There was no 'concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots'. Saying that those on the negotiating team were not supportive is pure fantasy. They pursued the issue. Thinking PM drove anything is just wishful thinking. He was so confused by the process that he supported the EBA in the committee room, yet then argued against it during the vote.

Oh, Headmaster you just break-me up!!
Several CoM members who served in that era actually!
I understand that PM supported the EA to Go To a Vote of the members (thatís called democracy by the way!). Not as you attempt to rearrange the facts! You really want to get your history straight!
Yes, he was a NO voter for sure and ran an unsuccessful awareness campaign to alert his colleagues of the EA limitations regarding the B-787.
Alas, all water under a tall bridge now of course!
Given 80% of Pilots voted for the EA. Yet no one will admit to it, probably vindicates his efforts today I might think!

ruprecht
11th Nov 2018, 23:45
Total Rubbish! I was shown a brief by the SIT Manager stating the Targeted Retirement Dates. Thus Ruprecht, with respect, I think perhaps you write without authentication or fact or choose to ignore same for a hollow argument on this thread!

Thanks for your input, I have filed it appropriately.

As others have pointed out, this Targeted Reirement Dates document seems remarkably fluid. I find it disconcerting that pilots who tell us that we canít believe anything that the company says, are now clinging to this document as gospel and using it as a club to attack AIPA.

Capt Colonial
12th Nov 2018, 00:31
With all due respect, you are not going to lose your jobs. You may have to do a type course and for some, you may lose a bit of money, but it’s hardly the bleeding heart situation you are portraying. Get a grip.

Fatguyinalittlecoat

History: A few months before the (rapid) closer announcements of the Brisbane B-747 posting apparently the BNE Manager reassured all the B-747 Pilots of the future of the B-747 operation (not his fault he was working on the information management feed to him) was assured and our colleagues worked with that information.

A lot of younger Pilots apparently purchased land to build on in SEQLD. Some purchased established homes. Wifes took contract Employment. Children were placed in Private Schools older Adolescent Children enrolled in Tertiary Education Institutions and Universities. Mortgages and Loans were arranged for Building homes and Education etc, etc!

Then the B-747 retirement announcement happened! Soon to be followed by a RIN within the next eighteen to twenty-four months.

It's not the pilots Fatguyinalittlecoat – it’s the families! We, Pilots, are used to dynamic change, however, Wifes, Partners and Children are not! This is where the devastation, disruption, anxiety, trauma occurs.

These pilots now have moved to a new Base. In many cases away from family or via an extensive commute. Some will move one or two more times with redeployment, retraining and the RIN. Wives are quitting employment (and the income to help pay the new mortgages) due to moving interstate and intrastate. Children will need to leave their schools and maybe in some instances their university? You can see the scenario unfold time and time again and for family units, it can be devasting fiscally, psychologically and emotionally.

And this is only the start. This is only one of the many scenarios. The Rin is yet to happen!

Thus all these pilots want (and their families) is some degree of certainty. They are looking to the Company and being fed total BS (for Administrative and Fiscal reasons)! They are looking to their Association and hear nothing but Silence from the AIPA!

I think you are either not a QF Pilot Fatguy or you have a total failure of understanding of the Human Cost of such scenarios in the real world. The Pilots must deal with these matters and issues usually whilst undertaking (or about to undertake) a Training course, a Base move, a Loss of income, finding New Accommodation and Homes for their Families and New Schools and dealing with disheartened and dismayed, wives children and adolescents.

IMO not quite as simple as you paint in your post perhaps?


That's what I used to think.
It can be very disruptive.
We all have various financial commitments a 'bit of money' at the wrong time can force larges changes.

Maggot: Absolutely Nailed it Again!

Fatguyinalittlecoat
12th Nov 2018, 00:39
Captain. I have moved bases away from family etc.... but I wasn’t silly enough to believe that the 744 Brisbane posting would last forever. That is the nature of a posting. There are 3 other aircraft types based in Brisbane. Bid for one. Yeah, it’ll be less money (depending on what you chose), but the fact that people bought property, wives took jobs etc..... Doesnt make your situation any more dire than anyone else’s. Everybody knew BNE 744 would eventually end. Good grief.

What certainty do they want? I’ve not had certainty for over 20 years, where do we find this? Oh, I see, AIPA has it and are just unwilling to dispence it? Is that right?

Tuner 2
12th Nov 2018, 00:47
Why would I or anyone else want to do AIPAís job? Or if you like why then have AIPA? AIPA have thousands of dollars in members monies a significant Staff Base and Resources. Yet nothing is being produced for the Pilots on the B-747. Thatís really pitiful management given the stress on Pilots and Families that a RIN induces. No need to criticise AIPA as that Poor-Performance just speaks for itself!

Not what I was told!! PM drove the policy hard and it was a concession acquiesced to appease the senior pilots in an endeavour to push the EA for the B-787 towards the whole membership. I was informed that JB, AS and NS were not supportive, however, the CoM of the day came to support that policy (thank goodness!). It seems to me that that AIPA history is rapidly re-written by some who seek to protect their position, control the discussion and further themselves with the Membership and Management.

This is laughable. Why would they have been unsupportive of RIN pilots going to year 4 rates? Iím told it was their idea (not PMís), which makes sense since it made the deal more palatable to 747 pilots who voted on the deal.

theheadmaster
12th Nov 2018, 00:48
Oh, Headmaster you just break-me up!!
Several CoM members who served in that era actually!
I understand that PM supported the EA to Go To a Vote of the members (thatís called democracy by the way!). Not as you attempt to rearrange the facts! You really want to get your history straight!
Yes, he was a NO voter for sure and ran an unsuccessful awareness campaign to alert his colleagues of the EA limitations regarding the B-787.
Alas, all water under a tall bridge now of course!
Given 80% of Pilots voted for the EA. Yet no one will admit to it, probably vindicates his efforts today I might think!
Looks like you are just as confused now as PM was at committee. The vote was that the AIPA Committee of Management 'endorses and supports' the proposed deal, not simply put it to the members for them to decide. Quite a difference to what you assert.

dragon man
12th Nov 2018, 01:05
We bicker and squabble but nothing changes, it will be a shambles. The assignment of leave is an option when the divisor reaches 160 hours however it is only 1 of the options and a RIN can take place without the assignment of leave. As the 747 has operated for the last 3 years on the good will of the crew the assignment of leave would be the ultimate spit in the face.

Capt Colonial
12th Nov 2018, 02:03
We bicker and squabble but nothing changes, it will be a shambles. The assignment of leave is an option when the divisor reaches 160 hours however it is only 1 of the options and a RIN can take place without the assignment of leave. As the 747 has operated for the last 3 years on the good will of the crew the assignment of leave would be the ultimate spit in the face.

Yes! Youíve nailed it dragon man and like Maggot you have a realistic view of what is happening.

The mendacious opinions of headmaster aside. Matters will progress and No help from AIPA can be expected (notably I was just informed of several allegedly seniority vested interests over there!) as if they were willing to assist their membership, they would certainly have some skin in the game by now!

I note that Keg has astutely highlighted the potential failure point for any hope of a reasonable outcome in the RIN is the individual allegedly in charge of the process!

God help us all!

ruprecht
12th Nov 2018, 02:14
So a few 744 pilots who thought they were going to fly the 744 until retirement have had their plans interrupted by the company and all of a sudden it’s the End of Days.:rolleyes:

Capt_SNAFU
12th Nov 2018, 02:15
Thus all these pilots want (and their families) is some degree of certainty. They are looking to the Company and being fed total BS (for Administrative and Fiscal reasons)! They are looking to their Association and hear nothing but Silence from the AIPA!

I'm interested Capt Colonial about what exactly it is that AIPA is meant to do? The company don't seem to know exactly when it is going and probably are required to tell the market when they do, so how given that can AIPA somehow ascertain this? I doubt Alan will just hand it over if AIPA demand it. Can you outline the Administrative and Fiscal reasons for the company BS? Do you actually believe that AIPA don't want certainty for the pilots?

The upcoming RIN will not be pleasant for those involved (some who will have been RIN ed more than once before) hopefully it can be navigated in the best way possible. (At least hopefully better by the company than the last few RINs we have gone through, AIPA where good when I was went through it)

Also I hope that both the company and AIPA follow up with those who are RINed 6/12 months down the track to see how they are going. I know I am still unhappy about how I was RINed and so no doubt are many who have gone through the process.

dragon man
12th Nov 2018, 02:27
So a few 744 pilots who thought they were going to fly the 744 until retirement have had their plans interrupted by the company and all of a sudden itís the End of Days.:rolleyes:

Really, il assume its sarcasm because thatís not what Iím hearing when I talk to 747 crews.👍👍

ruprecht
12th Nov 2018, 02:30
Really, il assume its sarcasm because thatís not what Iím hearing when I talk to 747 crews.👍👍

Yeah, there was a rolleye emoji and everything... :)

Rated De
12th Nov 2018, 02:32
The town crier hailed 'transformation'
The riches flowed to a few pockets and staff stopped holding their breath.
Now but a few years later, in the grips of a global pilot shortage, QF looks to be de-transforming'
When all around airlines are promoting QF demote!

The generation of pilots long since retired had the foresight to protect future generations for they knew precisely what airline management are.
The RIN process looks to be very complex, perhaps it is by design. It is the complexity of the design that likely stops Little Napoleon throwing pilots on the scrap heap when any head wind presents.

No doubt a complex process is also very costly, much better to try scatter the herd.

Beer Baron
12th Nov 2018, 02:51
Why would I or anyone else want to do AIPAís job?
It’s NOT AIPA’s job to run the RIN, it’s Qantas’s job.
As Keg illustrated, there are so many variable in how this could play out AIPA is in no position to second guess the companies moves and advise you what to do based on a guess.

AIPA put in place RIN rules in the EA and AIPA will ensure those rules are followed, THAT is their job, NOT running the company.

There is a whole flight ops team managing the RIN, cutely called Project Sunset. It has numerous people and it is taking months. If you bid for a training slot (or bought a house in SEQ) based on AIPA’s best guess at the outcome of this project that turned out to be incorrect you would be furious.

If if you want to know what Qantas are going to do, ask Qantas, don’t attack AIPA.

Keg
12th Nov 2018, 03:01
Also I hope that both the company and AIPA follow up with those who are RINed 6/12 months down the track to see how they are going. I know I am still unhappy about how I was RINed and so no doubt are many who have gone through the process.

The company considered the RIN done and dusted when all former 767 pilots were on their new fleet- about September 2015. In reality there are a very large number of crew for whom the 767 RIN is still not over. What the company didnít understand at the time (though I and a few others have explained since- with some success with some managers, less with others) is that for many crew the RIN isnít finished until theyíve attained their former rank in their former base on a comparative type.

Follow up? If past behaviour is predictive of future behaviour then donít hold your breath!

Keg
12th Nov 2018, 03:28
The RIN process looks to be very complex, perhaps it is by design. It is the complexity of the design that likely stops Little Napoleon throwing pilots on the scrap heap when any head wind presents..

The RIN process itself is actually very simple. When it’s enacted it’s pretty cut and dried.

What is complex is the variables and decision making process of the company in the lead up to the RIN. Things like retirement plans of one fleet, how that interacts with replacement aircraft, the demographic of those on the RIN aircraft type, etc.

dragon man
12th Nov 2018, 03:37
The RIN in this case is far more complex because of the year 4 money on the 787 , no overtime or night credits and a squirrel cage bidding system. If it had been like for like I would say the majority would have bid for the 787 not waited for the RIN.

Tankengine
12th Nov 2018, 04:37
The RIN in this case is far more complex because of the year 4 money on the 787 , no overtime or night credits and a squirrel cage bidding system. If it had been like for like I would say the majority would have bid for the 787 not waited for the RIN.
That doesnít make the RIN process any more complex!? ;)
It may make pilot decisions more complex but, hey, the 747 is going and a RIN will happen eventually.
It doesnít only affect 747 pilots, those who will be displaced wonít be happy either! :(
This thread started as an EBA thread, not 747 RIN. Think hard about how to get the best possible EBA in total, as well as the slowdown and exit of the 747. Last RIN was helped by VR, this time the company stubbornly refuses (apparently) entertaining that notion - maybe they can be made to reconsider! ;)

knobbycobby
12th Nov 2018, 05:07
The RIN in this case is far more complex because of the year 4 money on the 787 , no overtime or night credits and a squirrel cage bidding system. If it had been like for like I would say the majority would have bid for the 787 not waited for the RIN.

Couple of points.
Leading up to the last 767 RIN we had Alan Joyce begging the government for money and Qantas made a record loss.
A TERMINAL decline according to Joyce.
The company and AIPA both showed the 787 flying mostly to Asia and not anywhere near as long as PER-LHR so as to make the loss of overtime and night credits look far less than is now the reality.
145 Stick hours was sold as an acceptable workload. That is now 175.
Pilots falsely believed Qantas would order 787 numbers in the order of 50. They were also told to believe that Qantas would go broke. The reality is that today the 787 is simply a 747 replacement type and Qantas is not going broke but is making consecutive billion dollar profits.

Qantas has now made multiple yearly record profits. At the same time Executives have taken HUNDREDS of millions in dollars in BONUSES with Alan taking close to 100 MILLION personally.
There is also A lot of retirements due and there is a well documented global Pilot SHORTAGE.

If the 747 replacement was closely remunerated then this would be an non issue. The 747 pilots would simply re-train onto the 787.

The new type is going to replace the A380 and fly mostly 21 hour flights. No operator does this and no Qantas pilot has flown this kind of extreme flying.

AIPA and the pilot body better make damn sure itís a very good deal as that kind of flying will be a killer.
Maybe if your 20s or 30s you can be smug and say how easy it will be. But in your 50s and 60s ????????
Very soon pilots will have to work to 67 before retiring. Pilots better think long and hard about down the track In later years doing that kind of flying on a repetitive basis.

I would expect the company to cry wolf again and hope the pilots accept a crap deal out of fear.
The million dollar bonus question is how many times can they get away with it.
The SH EBA is curretly pathetic and the new LH agreement for the 380 replacement needs to be better than the 787 EA given what it will do.

MrWooby
12th Nov 2018, 05:38
Very soon pilots will have to work to 67 before retiring. Pilots better think long and hard about down the track In later years doing that kind of flying on a repetitive basis.

Knobbycobby there is no requirement to work to 67, you can retire at any age you want. I beileve the average age for retirement is around 62 for Qantas. As for extreme long haul flying, it mightn’t be so bad, it all depends on dep times, arrival times and what you do in port, ie staying on Sydney time.

dragon man
12th Nov 2018, 05:40
Couple of points.
Leading up to the last 767 RIN we had Alan Joyce begging the government for money and Qantas made a record loss.
A TERMINAL decline according to Joyce.
The company and AIPA both showed the 787 flying mostly to Asia and not anywhere near as long as PER-LHR so as to make the loss of overtime and night credits look far less than is now the reality.
145 Stick hours was sold as an acceptable workload. That is now 175.
Pilots falsely believed Qantas would order 787 numbers in the order of 50. They were also told to believe that Qantas would go broke. The reality is that today the 787 is simply a 747 replacement type and Qantas is not going broke but is making consecutive billion dollar profits.

Qantas has now made multiple yearly record profits. At the same time Executives have taken HUNDREDS of millions in dollars in BONUSES with Alan taking close to 100 MILLION personally.
There is also A lot of retirements due and there is a well documented global Pilot SHORTAGE.

If the 747 replacement was closely remunerated then this would be an non issue. The 747 pilots would simply re-train onto the 787.

The new type is going to replace the A380 and fly mostly 21 hour flights. No operator does this and no Qantas pilot has flown this kind of extreme flying.

AIPA and the pilot body better make damn sure itís a very good deal as that kind of flying will be a killer.
Maybe if your 20s or 30s you can be smug and say how easy it will be. But in your 50s and 60s ????????
Very soon pilots will have to work to 67 before retiring. Pilots better think long and hard about down the track In later years doing that kind of flying on a repetitive basis.

I would expect the company to cry wolf again and hope the pilots accept a crap deal out of fear.
The million dollar bonus question is how many times can they get away with it.
The SH EBA is curretly pathetic and the new LH agreement for the 380 replacement needs to be better than the 787 EA given what it will do.



Very well said and sums it all up.

engine out
13th Nov 2018, 08:06
And with the sitting AIPA president gone, will the new unknown (well haven’t heard anything from AIPA as to what is going on) president succeed in achieving what many on this thread seem to beleive is achievable? Or will they also discover that the company wants no part of mutually beneficial discussions and end up being criticised endlessly by the mob?

Nunc
13th Nov 2018, 08:37
And with the sitting AIPA president gone, will the new unknown (well haven’t heard anything from AIPA as to what is going on) president succeed in achieving what many on this thread seem to beleive is achievable? Or will they also discover that the company wants no part of mutually beneficial discussions and end up being criticised endlessly by the mob?

The spine in AIPAs gone.

Not a great start for the new regime that you read this info on other forums.

SOPS
13th Nov 2018, 11:46
Alan has 100 mill in bonuses....are you serious??

fearcampaign
13th Nov 2018, 19:12
His options, pay and bonuses would be close to that . Regardless is disgustingly high for an airline CEO
and grossly above comparative airlines.
At least now the airline has turned around they canít cry wolf for either EBA as others suggest.
They will try though.

CurtainTwitcher
13th Nov 2018, 19:23
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x902/34pavr6_1eadcf512b571cf228cd0c580969f96e98eb6471.png

Source: Time for a little 'perspective' Mr Joyce? post #2 (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/613071-time-little-perspective-mr-joyce.html#post10243166)


To which you need to add his earlier earnings as Jetstar CEO, sourced from 2005 ~ 2008 Qantas Annual Report
2008 2,395,414
2007 1,659,238
2006 1,423,530
2005 1,418,599
---------------------
Total $6,896,791

dragon man
13th Nov 2018, 19:56
Do the above figures include the increase in the Qantas shares he was vested at about 80c? If not then I think $100 million would be close to the mark.

V-Jet
13th Nov 2018, 20:33
And then we have share buybacks which created the bonuses. Look at GE for share buyback results. In 2016, GE heavily bought back ($20b?) stock at around $30. Today, it's now under $8. A 70% loss. That's wasted $15b worth of shareholder value AND left the debt they bought the shares with - which around the world is becoming more expensive to fund. Earnings are going to drop because people have less money to spend as those rates rise as well. Sooner or later we will also have a recession to compound (or because) of those problems. Doesn't matter if you have $100m in the bank of course, and can walk away from the wreckage blaming red ties and muffin sales.

theheadmaster
13th Nov 2018, 21:47
The spine in AIPAs gone.

Rather than the spine being gone, it looks like the AIPA Committee has decided to attach a brain to the top of it.

dragon man
14th Nov 2018, 19:35
Rather than the spine being gone, it looks like the AIPA Committee has decided to attach a brain to the top of it.

Well, only time will tell and you have certainly raised the bar with that comment.

Tankengine
15th Nov 2018, 00:20
Well, only time will tell and you have certainly raised the bar with that comment.
Very true statement !
No news at all from Aipa, pretty disappointing start.

Keg
15th Nov 2018, 00:58
My F/O had an email from AIPA yesterday morning. I’ve still not had it hit my inbox. Weird.

maggot
15th Nov 2018, 02:48
I received it
wasnt immediately after the spill not sure if it was sorted straight away or whatever

Keg
15th Nov 2018, 03:03
Mine finally came through about 15 minutes ago.

theheadmaster
15th Nov 2018, 10:35
Just to be clear, this was not a 'spill'. It was a regular vote that happens every two years for the Executive positions. There was a contested election for President and the incumbent could only muster a handful of votes. The remainder of the Executive positions were uncontested.

dragon man
15th Nov 2018, 15:17
Just to be clear, this was not a 'spill'. It was a regular vote that happens every two years for the Executive positions. There was a contested election for President and the incumbent could only muster a handful of votes. The remainder of the Executive positions were uncontested.

100% correct and with an EBA on the negotiating table it will be interesting to see what direction AIPA move in with a new president.

ExtraShot
15th Nov 2018, 22:48
100% correct and with an EBA on the negotiating table it will be interesting to see what direction AIPA move in with a new president.


AHEM!! With TWO EAs on the negotiating table!

Many Long Haul Pilots do seem to forget that there are fellow Qantas Mainline pilots flying Aircraft on a pretty inferior contract compared to theirs.

The new president is a Short Haul Pilot. Hereís hoping that what is by far the least favorable of the two agreements gets the attention it deserves FIRST, since it has been expired the longest, thank you very much!

dragon man
15th Nov 2018, 23:13
I won’t go into why their contract is inferior however I do hope that AIPA can successfully get it upgraded. The reality IMO with an austerity drive on in the airline that there is no hope of it happening, however if form is anything to go on I will say that I think AIPA will continue to drag the long haul contract backwards towards what you refer to as the inferior contract of shorthaul.

bazza stub
15th Nov 2018, 23:14
And the division airlines love so much begins.

ExtraShot
15th Nov 2018, 23:35
I wonít go into why their contract is inferior however I do hope that AIPA can successfully get it upgraded. The reality IMO with an austerity drive on in the airline that there is no hope of it happening, however if form is anything to go on I will say that I think AIPA will continue to drag the long haul contract backwards towards what you refer to as the inferior contract of shorthaul.


If the company is to try and drag Long Haul back to Short Haul terms Iím guessing itís not just me who thinks it is the lesser of the two (ergo, inferior). Ideally you get the worst of the contracts improved the most so that not going to be the case. For that reason, and the fact it has been expired the longest, Iíd like to see it sorted, and sorted properly, first.

As for the next comment, Baz if you think 2500 pilots with two separate contracts are going to be completely unified over every issue youíre bonkers. A little polite discourse is entirely appropriate, and necessary, to improve BOTH EAs. The company can love a bit of division if they like, but It shouldnít stop anyone from speaking up, because theyíd love that just as much.

hotnhigh
15th Nov 2018, 23:41
I think AIPA will continue to drag the long haul contract backwards towards what you refer to as the inferior contract of shorthaul.

Serious?
The membership get the final vote, yes or no. And if you haven't realised yet, those that frequent the street on most days hate the pilot group with absolute aplomb.
So the AIPA negotiators have the most difficult job of all. And its amazing to think there are still those in longhaul who have no concept of cobham and network, who are members of the comm!
The reality is the game is completely controlled by qantas and until there is a significant shift in their mindset, their approach won't change. They hate our guts and will do everything in their powers to diminish our worth.
Standup! everyone says......
sadly qantas has everyone in their back pocket, so its a very hard road to toil upon. Good luck to the AIPA negotiating reps. I think they do a great job, considering the challenges they face.

FightDeck
16th Nov 2018, 01:09
Qantas are losing billions. Terminal decline.
The CEO is begging the government for money.
No executive bonuses are being paid.
No pilots are retiring.
Pilots are getting demoted.
There is a pilot surplus.
We are all doomed.
OH WAIT ..........................

dragon man
16th Nov 2018, 02:51
Qantas are losing billions. Terminal decline.
The CEO is begging the government for money.
No executive bonuses are being paid.
No pilots are retiring.
Pilots are getting demoted.
There is a pilot surplus.
We are all doomed.
OH WAIT ..........................

We waited and guess what the solution was staring us in the face all the time. A new long haul EBA for the pilots saves the company a fortune in the long run. Donít need government money.

Street garbage
5th Dec 2018, 02:15
So, flying yesterday, one of the F/o's had been discussing with our esteemed ex AIPA President, who is now part of the Company negotiating "team". The Company's Position for bargaining for the Project Sunrise (makes me vomit just typing that) aircraft is 787 MINUS 10% on the same terms and conditions.

Street garbage
5th Dec 2018, 03:00
B77-9 can have 414 seats
Our B787-9 has..236?
Thanks Keg, the F/o laughed and walked away.

Rated De
5th Dec 2018, 03:05
So, flying yesterday, one of the F/o's had been discussing with our esteemed ex AIPA President, who is now part of the Company negotiating "team". The Company's Position for bargaining for the Project Sunrise (makes me vomit just typing that) aircraft is 787 MINUS 10% on the same terms and conditions.

Why that said individual isn't a sad and lonely 'stream lead' shunned by all and sundry is a mystery.

crosscutter
5th Dec 2018, 03:10
One can only imagine the gamesmanship that is involved....But,

Are pilots prepared to vote no this time under the same environment of subtle threats from say...the chief pilot?

Are pilots prepared to vote no even when various other entities supposedly have offered to make Project Sunrise fly?

I have my personal opinions, and Iíll reiterate what Iíve said before that negotiation is not personal. Pilots must be prepared to fight for the conditions they deserve. It is a game in many ways...with serious consequences. Individual pilots need to lift their industrial game to help AIPA achieve what is deserved. Unfortunately, history suggests as individuals, pilots are industrially dumb, blinded by everyday selfishness that is too hard to hide away. 787 minus 10% only emphasises this reality. Pilots should be ashamed that we have enabled such an offer...and equally outraged that the company feels tenacious enough to approach with such a starting point.

ExtraShot
5th Dec 2018, 03:57
The Company's Position for bargaining for the Project Sunrise (makes me vomit just typing that) aircraft is 787 MINUS 10% on the same terms and conditions

Probably because Fleet pay would be the ultimate aim, and even at that the cost per ASK improvements would be mouth watering for them. The initial Ďvery crapí offer is used to make the ultimate Ďjust crapí offer, more palatable.

dragon man
5th Dec 2018, 06:16
There is an alternative claim from a non AIPA group of pilots for all ops over 20 hours to be paid credited hours plus 25% . We wonít all roll over.

Rated De
5th Dec 2018, 06:30
There is an alternative claim from a non AIPA group of pilots for all ops over 20 hours to be paid credited hours plus 25% . We won’t all roll over.


From a purely strategic point of view a group of pilots breaking away is good strategy.
It appears that a few well placed 'opinion carriers', (think a stream lead type individual) and the herd is easy to panic.
The 'reliability' of your association is extremely pleasing to IR. Volunteer office holders (all employed by the company) budget transparency make for pleasing optics from an IR perspective. Nothing like knowing your enemy!

However from a regulatory point of view a TOD over 20 hours is not yet legal. Whilst Little Napoleon likes giving tips on Ultra Long Haul travel and even donates money to a university sector rampant with commercialism 'for a study into LH flying' that doesn't include the employees is ominous. Under Annex 6 ICAO permits contracting states flexibility with respect to local deviation of flight and duty limits, but limits at this point, are limits.
Little Napoleon's lobbying of a captured and impotent regulator will involve all aspect of rampant commercialism, yet a commissioned study (paid for by the benefactor) is not robust.

Before this 'break away group' considers the money, it may well be prudent to commission and consider the impact of ultra long haul flying on people's health. Particularly those poor souls having to do it repeatedly, given that there is zero science supporting the narrative that QF wish to establish.
A puff piece in the AFR with Little Napoleon talking of teddy bear PJs and eating light as well as 'adjusting one's bed time a few days before' may be fine for passengers, but for crew on minimum rest in some cheap dingy hotel an extra 25% may not be compensation for adverse health impacts.

After all limits are targets. Where the TOD limit is insufficient for 'commercial purpose' lobby the regulator for a bigger limit.

Just Relaxin
5th Dec 2018, 06:46
dragon man

I'm sure the company is taking the offer from the breaking away group alternative to AIPA very seriously as currently on the A380, B744 and A330 crew are paid credited hours plus 250% for all ops over 20 hours (in some cases plus 300%) and on the B787 credited hours plus 200% for all ops over 20 hours. The thinking in the breaking away group is of genius level. Try reading the contract before posting what seems like a great idea.

dragon man
5th Dec 2018, 06:57
Read the post. 25 % on the credited hours . A 42 hour credited trip would get 10.5 hours additional pay your great 787 award would get you 5 hours.

Lezzeno
5th Dec 2018, 07:49
our esteemed ex AIPA President, who is now part of the Company negotiating "team"

What?
Surely that is not true!!!

Capt Fathom
5th Dec 2018, 08:27
currently on the A380, B744 and A330 crew are paid credited hours plus 250% for all ops over 20 hours (in some cases plus 300%)
The legal limit is 20 hours, so you get paid an incentive to exceed it?

Capt Colonial
5th Dec 2018, 08:59
Most certainly there is a cross-section of New Personalities (on the Qantas side of the table) dealing with this next Long Haul EA.

Many (it has been asserted) apparently may want to make a name for themselves to streamline future corporate career prospects.

However, I suspect that the claim for 10% discount is a mischievous or ambient statement by the alleged perpetrator as divulging any such information at this time would easily have one removed from the company E.A team. Confidentiality is a two-way component in such negotiations.

Notably in other areas, the QPA meanwhile, has apparently had a very large influx of member applications due to the alleged lack of Transparency and Information over the B-747 RIN from that Qantas lead source!

Nonetheless Qantas Long Haul Pilots must realise that they are in a superlative bargaining position regarding the Long Haul E.A. provided that they (unilaterally) hold the line and bargain hard through their representatives. Whether that is AIPA or QPA (who have apparently lodged a log of claims with Qantas as indicated by dragon man) who encapsulate this position is yet to be seen.

Certainly interesting times ahead!

maggot
5th Dec 2018, 09:09
Yes the 747 Rin is special.

FFS

CSTGuy
5th Dec 2018, 11:22
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1362x1536/54ff20d6_8478_428b_ad6c_c03d5d449cb9_df92b4eb5b42319ed09aed0 ad2c4db0d7f55bbe0.jpeg
Yes the 747 Rin is special.

FFS

Transition Layer
5th Dec 2018, 11:34
QPA?

(Can anyone fill me in?)

WTF?

theheadmaster
5th Dec 2018, 12:16
Queensland Panjandrum Association

Capt Colonial
5th Dec 2018, 19:50
Queensland Panjandrum Association
I am informed the Largest base of members is in Sydney and has been for quite some time!

ruprecht
5th Dec 2018, 21:34
QPA?

Is this like QAnon? A bunch of nutjob conspiracy theorists who believe they have much more influence than they actually do?

Lezzeno
5th Dec 2018, 21:44
QPA?

Is this like QAnon? A bunch of nutjob conspiracy theorists who believe they have much more influence than they actually do?

Will the QPA President be leading the company negotiating team at the EA after this one or is it only former AIPA Presidents that do that?

Street garbage
5th Dec 2018, 21:55
Who is QPA President? GD? or PM?

SandyPalms
6th Dec 2018, 00:29
So, let me get this straight. There are a bunch of pilots in Qantas who have started a union called the Qantas Pilots Assosiation. They presumably are 747 and A380 captain unhappy with the 787 award and donít want to be redeployed to it, (Iím just spitballing here) and the lack of information from AIPA about a RIN that may or may not happen because of A380 wing problems. So they have decided to go to Qantas during an EA negotiation and undercut the 787 award? Iím completely confused.

dragon man
6th Dec 2018, 00:39
So, let me get this straight. There are a bunch of pilots in Qantas who have started a union called the Qantas Pilots Assosiation. They presumably are 747 and A380 captain unhappy with the 787 award and donít want to be redeployed to it, (Iím just spitballing here) and the lack of information from AIPA about a RIN that may or may not happen because of A380 wing problems. So they have decided to go to Qantas during an EA negotiation and undercut the 787 award? Iím completely confused.

Who said anything about under cutting the 787 award?

SandyPalms
6th Dec 2018, 00:45
Well then, what is your angle? Why would the company talk to you? We all know the traditional longhaul award is dead. What are you offering if itís not undercutting?

RealityCzech
6th Dec 2018, 00:50
So, let me get this straight. There are a bunch of pilots in Qantas who have started a union called the Qantas Pilots Assosiation. They presumably are 747 and A380 captain unhappy with the 787 award and don’t want to be redeployed to it, (I’m just spitballing here) and the lack of information from AIPA about a RIN that may or may not happen because of A380 wing problems. So they have decided to go to Qantas during an EA negotiation and undercut the 787 award? I’m completely confused.



I’d say you’re mostly correct. They will greatly exaggerate their size to make it seem like they have significant support and unlike AIPA, which is a properly registered association, will never be able to produce an audited member list. Instead, they will make claims like Capt Colonial above about their ‘largest member base’ in Sydney etc etc - all of which is either exggerated or simply made up by those who have chosen not to run for office at AIPA because, deep down, they know they wouldn’t have the required support.

I doubt they will try to undercut the 787 award. Insead they will make many empty promises about not rolling over and getting the 787 on better conditions. When they can’t achieve this because they both do not have the support and the company will not agree, they will target the AIPA elected leadership for being too soft.

All of this will play out mostly on anonymous online forums with no real names attached.

dragon man
6th Dec 2018, 02:35
If you think anyone can get the 787 on better terms you are smoking some strong sh#t. That ship has sailed or should I say flown. Under the legislation anyone under the award can be involved in the negotiations even you. If the best AIPA could do was the sell out on the 787 then good luck to them.

RealityCzech
6th Dec 2018, 02:48
The 787 terms were agreed to overwhelmingly by a majority of long haul pilots. If the ‘QPA” thinks it represents the majority of mainline pilots, then why don’t the QPA leadership contest for the AIPA leadership?

Chad Gates
6th Dec 2018, 03:09
They must be an exclusive union, Iíve never heard of it. Iím wondering what the legislation says about that.

neville_nobody
6th Dec 2018, 04:17
I have my personal opinions, and I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before that negotiation is not personal. Pilots must be prepared to fight for the conditions they deserve. It is a game in many ways...with serious consequences. Individual pilots need to lift their industrial game to help AIPA achieve what is deserved. Unfortunately, history suggests as individuals, pilots are industrially dumb, blinded by everyday selfishness that is too hard to hide away. 787 minus 10% only emphasises this reality. Pilots should be ashamed that we have enabled such an offer...and equally outraged that the company feels tenacious enough to approach with such a starting point

That begins with AIPA being prepared to walk away from negotiations if required, and not just put up to vote company friendly pay and conditions. You are 100% correct in that ultimately it's the pilots who have the final say, but AIPA need to stop caving in negotiations, and they also need to stem the flow of Presidents into Company Management. How many is it now?? 3?

dragon man
6th Dec 2018, 05:32
In 1981 the then president of the AFAP said to a meeting of Qantas pilots if you leave us and set up your own union you will just become another arm of management. He was 100% correct, at the time I didn’t agree with him.

GWhizz
6th Dec 2018, 06:37
The AFAP appear to be of exactly the same ilk.

Derfred
6th Dec 2018, 08:39
Concentrating negotiating efforts into penalty rates for long TODís is exactly what brought the LH contract to the point where something ďhad to be doneĒ due to TOD creep over the years.

It also created the despised ďsuper seniorityĒ situation that resulted in the squirrel cage on the B787.

Money does not cure fatigue, and ULR ops are not necessarily more fatiguing anyway.

It just doesnít make sense, and any suggestion of re-introducing it shows a lack of lessons learned.

Put your negotiating efforts into the hourly rate, folks.

Beer Baron
6th Dec 2018, 09:07
What utter garbage. AIPA is the reason you work under a LHEA that is better than every other EA for airline pilots in the country and better than many around the world.

You must be have an overwhelming sense of entitlement to believe;
a) I deserve to be paid more than every other airline pilot in the country, and
b) The people who negotiated these conditions for me are only worthy of scorn and derision.

Australopithecus
6th Dec 2018, 21:21
What utter garbage. AIPA is the reason you work under a LHEA that is better than every other EA for airline pilots in the country and better than many around the world.

You must be have an overwhelming sense of entitlement to believe;
a) I deserve to be paid more than every other airline pilot in the country, and
b) The people who negotiated these conditions for me are only worthy of scorn and derision.




How many long haul EAs are there in Australia? And saying that the EA is better than many in the world is saying not much...the world is a big place filled with lots of business psychopaths. There are lots of contracts and remuneration deals better than ours.

Qantas always likes to imply (if not outright claim) that they are the best airline in the world. Certainly they pay management that way. Goose:Gander.

Overwhelming sense of entitlement? Hardly. But you only ever get what you negotiate. Those other guys can sing for their own supper. What they get is their business, and should not set the bar, nor the expectation for anyone else.

On your point B, agree that negotiators often reap undue criticism as a reward for their efforts. I don’t personally object to individuals using AIPA office as an audition for a future petty admin role.

drshmoo
8th Dec 2018, 03:31
Dragonman

what do you actually want?
You havenít said - ďI want this!Ē Just tough rhetoric and rubbish! You actually are carrying on like an pompous [email protected] in the eyes of the majority of Qantas pilots.
The way I see it, you get paid a certain award for flying a large aircraft to a few destinations. You voted up the long haul EBA because of the backpay you would get but not caring about the B787 conditions because you would never set foot on that little aircraft with sub par conditions (in your eyes)! But still ticked yes anyway because of the backpay.

So should the company pay you Jumbo salary and conditions on an aircraft that will no longer exist? That is the same size as an A330! Size matters when you justify why you get paid more than a B737 driver. So surely it would be close to appropriate that the B787 conditions are at or better than the A330.

We all want the best pay and conditions for everyone at Qantas (and everywhere else) but it seems you want your cake and to eat it too.

Easy to cry foul on an award that plenty of you MRV pilots signed for the backpay thinking youíd never sully your hooves on it!

ps love the Jumbo pilots meme with the screaming kid. Must have been someone very clever to think up that one ☝️ 😂

Chocks Away
10th Dec 2018, 05:13
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the current long standing Promotional Arrangements just been scrapped immediately (B737/A330 f/o before CMD) and now Vertical promotion, all fleets is the rule?
Talk about changing the goal posts during EBA negotiations...
Happy landings:ok:

dragon man
10th Dec 2018, 06:29
Dragonman

what do you actually want?
You havenít said - ďI want this!Ē Just tough rhetoric and rubbish! You actually are carrying on like an pompous [email protected] in the eyes of the majority of Qantas pilots.
The way I see it, you get paid a certain award for flying a large aircraft to a few destinations. You voted up the long haul EBA because of the backpay you would get but not caring about the B787 conditions because you would never set foot on that little aircraft with sub par conditions (in your eyes)! But still ticked yes anyway because of the backpay.

So should the company pay you Jumbo salary and conditions on an aircraft that will no longer exist? That is the same size as an A330! Size matters when you justify why you get paid more than a B737 driver. So surely it would be close to appropriate that the B787 conditions are at or better than the A330.

We all want the best pay and conditions for everyone at Qantas (and everywhere else) but it seems you want your cake and to eat it too.

Easy to cry foul on an award that plenty of you MRV pilots signed for the backpay thinking youíd never sully your hooves on it!

ps love the Jumbo pilots meme with the screaming kid. Must have been someone very clever to think up that one ☝️ 😂


Il except your apology you pompous prick, I actually voted no to the EBA.

Capt Colonial
10th Dec 2018, 07:51
Defried: Super Seniority – Does not exist once you have limits and buckets placed on Long-Haul bidding!

However, don’t let facts get in the way of a good furphy! Noting that the bid to move to the Rotating Rat Cage was rejected on every other Fleet by Long Haul Pilots (that is a fact!) might give others reading these posts some (real) insight!

Composite Lines (trialled by Qantas) always appeared to be the fair solution to me. Everyone shared a little of the (Reserve) pain and Seniority was still served.

Drshmoo: Approximately 80% bid for the last E.A thus approximately 20% did not. I personally would be careful (respectful?) of making (unfounded) accusations of who Bid for what reason. Most of the people I talk to bid under the fear that was promulgated by Qantas Corporate Management that we may not get the B-787 Fleet! You might owe the dragon man an apology?

More importantly...there is a New E.A. on the industrial Horizon and Yes, this is the E.A. that will prove our metal and our unity as Qantas L-H pilots!

Merry Xmas!

SandyPalms
10th Dec 2018, 08:41
Thatís not quite true Capt. I think it was 1 rank on 1 aircraft that had less than 50%. It was the 60% threshold that stopped it. Bit untrue to say they didnít want it when most aircraft and ranks were above 50%. It may have been rejected but not by a majority.

, donít let facts get in the way of a good furphy! Noting that the bid to move to the Rotating Rat Cage was rejected on every other Fleet by Long Haul Pilots (that is a fact!) might give others reading these posts some (real) insight

crosscutter
10th Dec 2018, 09:11
Thatís not quite true Capt. I think it was 1 rank on 1 aircraft that had less than 50%. It was the 60% threshold that stopped it. Bit untrue to say they didnít want it when most aircraft and ranks were above 50%. It may have been rejected but not by a majority.



5 out of 9 categories didnít make it over 50%... I just looked at the result email. Only 330 Capt and FO, 380 FO and SO voted more than 50%.

SandyPalms
10th Dec 2018, 09:13
Thanks for the clarification crosscutter. Still not every one as the Capt suggests.

Capt Colonial
10th Dec 2018, 09:29
That’s not quite true Capt. I think it was 1 rank on 1 aircraft that had less than 50%. It was the 60% threshold that stopped it. Bit untrue to say they didn’t want it when most aircraft and ranks were above 50%. It may have been rejected but not by a majority.

Maybe the statement "not quite true" is a diplomatic approach I might think!

As reported on Qrewroom

Percentage Yes vote (for PSN)

1. A380 Captain = 36.6%
2. B747 Captain = 31.3%
3. A330 Captain = 51.7%
4. A380 F/O = 58.1%
5. B747 F/O = 42.6%
6. A330 F/O = 55.6%
7. A380 S/O = 57%
8. B747 S/O = 42.7%
9. A330 S/O = 50%

The movement to PSN was set at 60% (Defined Majority on each Type) by AIPA committees (i.e the Pilots!). Therein, the Question was then raised, given the full collective aircraft type No Vote of Pilots on the Long-Haul fleet - that the vast majority were not interested in the PSN.

In that case, the question was raised by Pilots why was PSN made mandatory on the 787?

It would be interesting to see what the Vote would be on the B-787 now if the NABS was offered against PSN.

Safe Flying.









One can only deal within the rules and statistics!

goodonyamate
10th Dec 2018, 09:32
Looking forward to another vote, this time one that is not set up to fail.

ruprecht
10th Dec 2018, 09:43
... by AIPA committees (i.e the Pilots!)

So if AIPA is representing you, why all this QPA nonsense? An association so secretive the only place I have heard anything about it is on here!

Rated De
10th Dec 2018, 10:03
It has been standard IR play that negotiations were conducted in secret, whereby legal sanction was forthcoming for the individual involved in an alleged 'leak'.
It might seem a little counter intuitive that a process where 'bargaining' and 'negotiating' by legally accepted 'representatives' is conducted in secret.

Ought not the information be available to all members? The European courts applied very strict parameters for what the employer considered 'in confidence'.
Are the current 'negotiations' subject to any sort of non disclose?

Capt Colonial
10th Dec 2018, 10:23
Well, it is my understanding that the Pilots set the clear majority target (60%) for the PSN Vote.

Apparently, this number was set to stop future debate (on either outcome) and ongoing revotes, which I for one can grasp! I accepted the logic and democratic outcome. Some today do not!

QPA and/or AIPA. IMO, I think it is healthy to have Qantas engaged in Industrial Bargaining with a cross-section of its Long Haul Pilots.

Of course, we all understand, at the end of the day, itís the Pilots who Vote Up or Do Not Vote Up an E.A.

SandyPalms
10th Dec 2018, 10:32
Capt. Iím not arguing against the merits of the 60% threshold, Iím just suggesting that a ďvast majorityĒ did not vote against it as you suggest. More than half of the polled pilots in various ranks on various aircraft types voted to Squirrel cage (and it was absolutely line ball on another) Just because it didnít get pat 60% does not indicate that a ďvast majorityĒ wanted the status quo.

I feel you may be a little 744 (or A380) centric in your arguments. Thatís fine, but you need to understand that Longhaul is bigger than that, and consider that, if your arguments are to get any traction.

Capt Colonial
10th Dec 2018, 11:22
Capt. Iím not arguing against the merits of the 60% threshold, Iím just suggesting that a ďvast majorityĒ did not vote against it as you suggest. More than half of the polled pilots in various ranks on various aircraft types voted to Squirrel cage (and it was absolutely line ball on another) Just because it didnít get pat 60% does not indicate that a ďvast majorityĒ wanted the status quo.

I feel you may be a little 744 (or A380) centric in your arguments. Thatís fine, but you need to understand that Longhaul is bigger than that, and consider that, if your arguments are to get any traction.

I am not arguing SandyPalms or seeking traction in the PSN debate as you wrongly suggest!

I am dealing with the facts as they happened! If you want to believe otherwise thatís your right of course!

SandyPalms
10th Dec 2018, 12:28
This is your quote Capt Colonial

However, don’t let facts get in the way of a good furphy! Noting that the bid to move to the Rotating Rat Cage was rejected on every other Fleet by Long Haul Pilots (that is a fact!) might give others reading these posts some (real) insight!

Alright captain. I’m not arguing either, just pointing out that I believe you’re intentionally not being entirely truthful. With regard to PSN vote, there was a majority in various places, so it wasn’t rejected, it just didn’t make the 60%. You are making it sound like is was rejected entirely, and I believe that you are doing that on purpose.
You’re telling half truths that you then dress up as facts which support your assertions (Isn’t that what you despise so much about our CEO?), and then use those half truths as evidence that people following this thread should now have “real insight”. That is all. The vote on the PSN specifically is irrelevant, you are using it as an example, so so am I. As you say I can disagree and I do (others can use the numbers you provided to make up there own minds), but that is what freedom affords me.


Good grief.

Capt Colonial
10th Dec 2018, 20:07
As reported on Qrewroom: Percentage Yes vote (for PSN)

1. A380 Captain = 36.6%
2. B747 Captain = 31.3%
3. A330 Captain = 51.7%
4. A380 F/O = 58.1%
5. B747 F/O = 42.6%
6. A330 F/O = 55.6%
7. A380 S/O = 57%
8. B747 S/O = 42.7%
9. A330 S/O = 50%

The movement to PSN was set at 60% by the AIPA.

This was to provide a defined Majority on each Type.

That Statistical number 60% Majority on Type and the Logic to that number was set by the AIPA committees (i.e. the Long-Haul Pilots themselves!).

This (or so I was told) was to stop whingers and statistical cherry pickers asserting that there was a majority if the overall clear 60% on Type was not achieved.

I and the vast majority of all Long-Haul Pilots accepted these Rules of the PSN Vote and the Logic of the 60% standard.

Therein, the Question was then raised to the Pilots and a No Vote of Pilots was carried in that the 60% majority on any Type was Not Achieved!

That means most Pilots on Type were not interested in the PSN.


Anything else is Fake News and Phoney presentation of actual events at the time - given the Rules and Standards of that PSN Vote.

I’ll stick with what the Rules were and the Historical facts! In this matter.

Safe Flying.

ruprecht
10th Dec 2018, 20:20
Still no closer to finding out what this mythical QPA are actually trying to achieve... :rolleyes:

Slippery_Pete
10th Dec 2018, 21:30
Reading this thread and the child like behaviour within does not bode well for a good deal on the new EBA.

The Company will win with EBA10 - not because of their masterful negotiating and business skills, but simply because you idiots would rather argue and swing your d***s over who is right on an internet forum than band together, get in contact with AIPA, and get the best deal for the LH group as a whole.

dragon man
10th Dec 2018, 23:00
Reading this thread and the child like behaviour within does not bode well for a good deal on the new EBA.

The Company will win with EBA10 - not because of their masterful negotiating and business skills, but simply because you idiots would rather argue and swing your d***s over who is right on an internet forum than band together, get in contact with AIPA, and get the best deal for the LH group as a whole.

Just like EBA 9?

FightDeck
11th Dec 2018, 00:15
So after all the Panic the company document only has 9 747 Captains to be subject to a RIN. All are too junior to displace A380. The one redeployment position created from an early retirement will go to someone senior and un name one Captain.
As I see it they can either go Year 4 787 in MEL/BNE or displace onto A330 and be super senior. The rostering and rotating seniority system on the 787 is seeing Captains get a Blankline at least every 4-6 months as training pilots don’t fly blank lines. Not ideal. SH system good in theory but SH don’t do Blanklines.

With large retirements due and lots of training slots coming up Qantas DO NOT expect a further RIN for FOs or SOs.
Talk is also of keeping the final 4 747 ERs to do SCL,JNB,HND past the December 2020 plan as fuel is dropping in price.

Might have been Keg that mentioned Thankfully its not 2012 with record losses and demotions. Alan’s stopped begging the Government too. That be hard with close to $100 million in pay since then.
It’s 2018 and we have a pilot shortage, large retirements due, promotions not demotions, billion dollar profits, multi
million bonuses and Qantas has turned around.

Great times ahead

crosscutter
11th Dec 2018, 00:38
I suspect both AIPA and the company realise this EBA is being negotiated under different circumstances, yet the company will bring a consistent message to the negotiating table...that of cost control.

Having agreed to a wage freeze...that is permanent cost control. I donít disagree with wage freezes when times are tough...I do disagree with EBA staff being tied to this mentality that the best you can hope for is 3%. It is rubbish.

I voted yes last time. I suspect if the company and AIPA follow the same path as last time, Iíll be voting no this time. Many others will too. The real question is what are YOU doing to help AIPA or QPU (whatever it is). The sentiment that people moan on a forum but are timid industrial mice is quite true. The Association is the President, we are the military and our p shooter with spitballs donít carry much sway. It doesnít matter your opinion of AIPA or their competency, we need to change.

The little puff piece on 60minutes should remind pilots that you donít win the media war. Industrial action is far less effective than individual work to rule. No willing to work...no duty extension...everything in the techlog..sign on 60min before..itís up to YOU and itís really simple stuff.

There might never be again a better time to negotiate from a pilots perspective...so itís up to YOU and ME...and maybe things might be different. Either way, Iím ready. RINs are happening, recruitment is full steam ahead. Letís give ourselves a shot by supporting AIPA with actions that reflect our hardened attitude. Or we can do nothing, blame AIPA, and eat the shit sandwich we helped create...and then still blame AIPA and fire the p shooter spitballs at them.

knobbycobby
11th Dec 2018, 01:09
Good Points Crosscutter.
AIPA negotiated the Last EA in very different circumstances. Point made earlier that Qantas lost billions. Captains got demoted.Nearly all those 767 Captains are now back on the A330 as CPTs or in training. Many FOs on or going to A330 or 787 or 737 CPT.
Talk is of 737 SYD CPTs next round going as junior as 1500. Times have improved and so has AIPAs position.
Around the time of the Last EA Alan was on TV telling Tony Abbott the airline was ruined and would die unless bailed out.
Alan now has his own 60 minutes segment championing himself, Qantas and it’s multi billion dollar success. 100 million even buys you a new set of white teeth and fancy black specs.
Company LH negotiators are now fuelling embarrassing scare campaigns on line for the A380 replacement. Most find it laughable.
Ex mangers and Pilots from defunct Low cost airlines that flew a maximum of 6 hours in a 767 from Cairns are not relevant to Qantas LH ops. Cairns is indeed lovely in winter but the market for 20 hour premium flights is dubious.
Qantas charge a premium to fly to global finance hubs of London and New York. Not bogans to Borneo from Cairns.
Confident AIPA reps know what their doing.

Tankengine
11th Dec 2018, 01:45
Flightdeck, check the seniority lists, there will be 380 displacements I would think. ;)

angryrat
11th Dec 2018, 02:10
Think a lot of people need to take a couple of deep breaths.

The last EA was done as many have mentioned in different times. We tightened the belt for an 18 month pay freeze because conditions at the time dictated.

Now that times have changed I think itís quite reasonable to ask the company to loosen the belt and offer up pay rises in excess of 3%. Itís time to discuss this in a logical way on the flight deck. The company hits us with constant propaganda but the best propaganda for us is the closed flight deck.

Discuss EA breaches such as constantly being planned above 170 hours and how we can turn that into a win for us. We need to change our mindset and stop being so passive. Itís not so much about being aggressive, but more about standing up for yourself and valuing yourself.

Crosscutter is on the money and that that army of 1 has grown. Time to put value in your own self worth.

fearcampaign
11th Dec 2018, 02:40
Very True Angry Rat.

Remember after the GFC Many people bought houses in the USA for $50k when the market was terrible.
Fast forward to today and the same houses are $200k plus.
For sure you can try and low ball and buy one at $50k. Youíd kindly find yourself told by any agent to get F#$&@ as itís a different market now and you need to pay more.

That was then. This is now.

dragon man
11th Dec 2018, 03:21
Like every one here I would love 3% plus pay rise however the reality is that all staff in Qantas get the same pay increases, it will be a maximum of 3% IMO.

crosscutter
11th Dec 2018, 04:59
Like every one here I would love 3% plus pay rise however the reality is that all staff in Qantas get the same pay increases, it will be a maximum of 3% IMO.

- Performance bonus like short haul.
- 12% super now so those not on defined benefit can see improvement on 787 and future type.
- 3% per year

angryrat
11th Dec 2018, 05:12
Like every one here I would love 3% plus pay rise however the reality is that all staff in Qantas get the same pay increases, it will be a maximum of 3% IMO.Why do you think this way? Is it because youíve had it conditioned into you? I bet if I go back and look into the bonus thread there are pilots upset that they get the same bonus as someone who is perceived to be in a less important or influential role.

So why is it different at EA time? Is it your own perceived worth within the company or should you be taking a global view of your role. The company is quick to knock that 3% down in tough times but never consider it going the other way. Why is that? You have been conditioned. Time to take the shackles off your brain.

Tankengine
11th Dec 2018, 05:22
Assuming 3% is locked in stone, (I am sure the company will fight hard on this), how about double time over 170hrs (155hrs 787)? ���� That would focus their minds on correct establishments. ��
There are many ways to skin a cat (apparently ��)

dragon man
11th Dec 2018, 05:32
Assuming 3% is locked in stone, (I am sure the company will fight hard on this), how about double time over 170hrs (155hrs 787)? ���� That would focus their minds on correct establishments. ��
There are many ways to skin a cat (apparently ��)

We already have a form of double time for over divisor plus 5. Iím a realist IMO they certainly will fight you hard if you want more than what everyone else is getting in fact il be so bold as to say if you took protected industrial action they would lock you out.

What The
11th Dec 2018, 07:21
Lock me out.
My give a shit factor sits just the other side of Uranus.

blow.n.gasket
11th Dec 2018, 10:40
Lock me out.
My give a shit factor sits just the other side of Uranus.



As a good mate relayed to me ,

“ Unfortunately Qantas Tech Crew are led by a Dick with no balls and for some of us , a ball with no dick , what hope have we got !
Hence the loading 4 to 5,000 + “Galvin’s” every sector ! “

The Green Goblin
11th Dec 2018, 11:19
All they have to do to crew the links is start all new hires there, before bidding out to the other divisions.

Yes thereís a training cost, but itís cheaper than not flying at all.

Iíd take a dash command in a base of my choice than a jet command in an undesirable one. Most would.

crosscutter
11th Dec 2018, 23:35
Iíd take a dash command in a base of my choice than a jet command in an undesirable one. Most would.

I guess that explains the stampede of people rushing to do their 737 commands in Syd and Mel

knobbycobby
11th Dec 2018, 23:50
Actually not afraid of getting locked out. This time around It would be unlikely to go to a
full bench determination either.
Even if it did the Fair Work Determination was a great one for pilots.
It was the Long Haul contract with some sensible efficiencies for the Company that were tolerable.
Fair Work make great negotiators. Judges Might actually take into account the hazardous nature of multiple 23 hour tours of duty from one side of the planet to the other.

theheadmaster
12th Dec 2018, 00:37
Is that the same Fair Work that has just been stacked by the liberal government with employer friendly Commissioners?

neville_nobody
12th Dec 2018, 02:25
The compay’s Biggest problem is ensuring that the pay rates remain good enough to attract the right kind of trainee into the industry. The QLinks and others are short of crew is because the reward simply isn’t worth the cost to join the industry. I wonder how many more years it will take the airlines to work this out.

Executives do not care one iota about pilot standards nor pilot career path. They care about executive salary and executive career paths and will always look after their proteges but will not take the same stance with pilots. They will get Acts of Parliament changed before they will give Australian Pilots anything resembling a career path within in an airline.

The reason for this is executives are petrified of being held to ransom by the pilot body. If there was one point of entry into an airline, in the case of QF being QantasLink and people moved around beyond that and had a career path, then that will give leverage to the pilot group. The pilots in one union could shutdown the airline. As a result they create a stream of sub contractors to play off each other and I would suggest that QANTAS Executive Management would rather go broke running that strategy than give Australian Pilots anything resembling a career path within the airline.

On saying that all the US Airlines have caved in on this strategy as the writing is on the wall over there, however since Australian politicians are really not interested in representing Australian Citizens, there will be plenty of foreign pilots working here before any sort of career path will be even considered by an airline.

hotnhigh
12th Dec 2018, 03:11
One only has to look at the stark contrast between the multi million dollar refurb of hq, with the latte sipping venues and big screens in the street on campus, to be filled with images of the grand leader, to that across the way to the sim building, where the only thing replaced in the last 10 years has been the dunny rolls.
And they are the glad wrap variants.
Pilots are the enemy.

Chocks Away
12th Dec 2018, 04:03
...the enemy yes BUT the core of the company's income generation!
Disgraceful how those in "The Art Gallery" dismiss that so readily.

dragon man
12th Dec 2018, 05:27
Be warned despite a vote and undertakings to not visit revisit this again AIPA are pushing the squirrel cage for all fleets and ranks. To those of you that don’t believe me ask the AIPA president to give you a written undertaking that it is not so.

blow.n.gasket
12th Dec 2018, 06:25
AIPA are pushing the squirrel cage for all fleets and ranks.



At least that will make it easier to absorb and not disadvantage the great unwashed from the amazing business entity when they have to be absorbed into the Mothership after the Great Deleverage occurs next year . ;)

Rated De
12th Dec 2018, 07:25
The reason for this is executives are petrified of being held to ransom by the pilot body. If there was one point of entry into an airline, in the case of QF being QantasLink and people moved around beyond that and had a career path, then that will give leverage to the pilot group. The pilots in one union could shutdown the airline. As a result they create a stream of sub contractors to play off each other and I would suggest that QANTAS Executive Management would rather go broke running that strategy than give Australian Pilots anything resembling a career path within the airline.

That is precisely correct.
With cult like fundamentalism seeping the corridors of Coward Street, Waterside and Cathay Pacific City, the last thing they would ever do is provide a career path.
For with industrial harmony, happy 'contributing' people, the floors of dark art practitioners would lose their raison d'etre

V-Jet
12th Dec 2018, 08:51
For with industrial harmony, happy 'contributing' people, the floors of dark art practitioners would lose their raison d'etre

Here spaketh The Aviation Lord of Piloting Voices.

Beer Baron
12th Dec 2018, 09:13
Despite undertakings to not visit revisit this again AIPA are pushing the squirrel cage for all fleets and ranks.
Where were these undertakings written or spoken or did you make them up?

dragon man
12th Dec 2018, 09:34
Where were these undertakings written or spoken or did you make them up?

No, I plucked them out of my ar#e

cloudsurfng
12th Dec 2018, 10:48
Outstanding. Good to see something for the many rather than the few. I hope itís true. Hopefully it will be included as part of a package that is acceptable, and the super senior idiots who think they have the right to f*&k everyone over in leave, trips, pay, whatever, can see how the rest of us live, or piss off to Victorville with one of the 747ís. You need less votes to run a country than to even dare rock the boat of the super entitled. There are enough new crew, and 737 crew that have gone across to LH to ensure any fair rostering systems gets the go ahead. About time.

Beer Baron
13th Dec 2018, 07:25
No, I plucked them out of my ar#e
Given the compelling evidence you have presented, it would appear so.

dragon man
13th Dec 2018, 07:39
It came from one committee member and was confirmed by a base manager. You will also find that it was discussed at Tuesday’s AIPAs committee meeting.

Beer Baron
13th Dec 2018, 09:09
I was on committee during the vote and no such assurance was discussed. Once the result came in there was a push from some quarters to do an immediate re-vote on certain fleets with a 50% hurdle. However, the majority view was that this would not be appropriate outside an EBA.
As I recall, there was no understanding that this was a one-time and one-time only vote.

Derfred
13th Dec 2018, 11:32
I was on committee during the vote and no such assurance was discussed. Once the result came in there was a push from some quarters to do an immediate re-vote on certain fleets with a 50% hurdle. However, the majority view was that this would not be appropriate outside an EBA.
As I recall, there was no understanding that this was a one-time and one-time only vote.

And it wouldnít be appropriate for a committee to make any assurance that would bind future committees, would it?

Capt Colonial
14th Dec 2018, 22:52
I was on committee during the vote and no such assurance was discussed. Once the result came in there was a push from some quarters to do an immediate re-vote on certain fleets with a 50% hurdle. However, the majority view was that this would not be appropriate outside an EBA.
As I recall, there was no understanding that this was a one-time and one-time only vote.

As with all Committees and Boards, if statements or assurances are not written down or recorded (in the minutes) then they donít exist in reality,regardless of personal reflection. Thus a check of the minutes (and Newsletters) of that AIPA meeting and the PSN outcome might/would clarify the matter, one way or another.

blow.n.gasket
18th Dec 2018, 07:17
Sounds a bit like the Brexit vote !
If you donít like the result , keep pushing for a new vote until you get the result that you want , simples !

Beer Baron
18th Dec 2018, 08:06
Sounds like most elections doesnít it? You vote the way you feel and then next time an election rolls around you can vote differently or the same. Between elections you are stuck with the elected outcome.

Pretty standard stuff.

Derfred
18th Dec 2018, 11:16
Or if you are not going to like the result, simply raise the threshold.

How anyone can argue that a majority of members (ie greater than 50%) can not achieve change has me completely bewildered.

And when an organisation behaves this way, it shouldnít be surprised if it loses membership support over the long term.

Danny104
19th Dec 2018, 01:37
Great start by the new president . Quoting the company line on fuel saving etc etc. I thought it was an email from flight ops Here go ago again .No wonder there is a break away group whom wants to sit in on negotiations to keep an eye on what’s going on.

ruprecht
19th Dec 2018, 02:07
Great start by the new president . Quoting the company line on fuel saving etc etc. I thought it was an email from flight ops Here go ago again .No wonder there is a break away group whom wants to sit in on negotiations to keep an eye on whatís going on.

Great start by Danny104. Creating a new login to make the QPA seem like it has more members... :hmm:

busdriver007
19th Dec 2018, 05:49
Word is he has higher ambitions than the previous Ex-President who is now working with the Company. I am sure Qantas Pilots are not keen to sacrifice Terms and Conditions(even more than EA9) in exchange for someone else's career.:ugh:

Justin. Beaver
19th Dec 2018, 06:01
Yeah bus driver, maybe they could embark on another futile job security campaign and spend millions of dollars on lawyers to get nowherre instead!

Rated De
19th Dec 2018, 07:03
Yeah bus driver, maybe they could embark on another futile job security campaign and spend millions of dollars on lawyers to get nowherre instead!

Quite right Justin, let his blind ambition be the guiding light.
If Qantas pilots cannot lever a sustained, demonstrated and growing pilot shortage then they ought ask why not?

Justin. Beaver
19th Dec 2018, 07:06
There is no shortage of mainline applicants. Including many from Cathay, virgin and other competitors.

While mainline attrition (non retirement) remains at less than 1 %, I donít see a whole lot of shortage leverage for mainline.

What The
19th Dec 2018, 07:57
There has never been a shortage of applicants.
Suitable applicants however......

Rated De
19th Dec 2018, 08:34
There is no shortage of mainline applicants. Including many from Cathay, virgin and other competitors.

While mainline attrition (non retirement) remains at less than 1 %, I don’t see a whole lot of shortage leverage for mainline.





As was stated repeatedly the shortage is being keenly felt all the way up the line, but QF 'mainline' will feel it last.Rest assured IR know there is a problem of supply at the prices they are used to offering.
As you state, Cathay and Virgin are losing pilots too. Where will they and at what price will they secure adequate supply?
Of course there is no shortage if one ignores the cacophony of noise from China, where a 737 Captain can lever themselves contracts at USD$600,000.
US Airline pilots are seeing sustained upwards movement in remuneration, ignoring that too, ignoring the globalised supply argument and perhaps viewing the world from Coward street in the myopic way management would hope, could lead one to believe there is no shortage. Can you confidently assume that 'attrition rates are less than 1%' By the way what is the source of that comment? HR?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/airlines-pilot-shortage-cancelled-routes-2018-8?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/airlines-pilot-shortage-cancelled-routes-2018-8?r=US&IR=T)
The US is facing a serious shortage of airline pilots (http://theconversation.com/the-us-is-facing-a-serious-shortage-of-airline-pilots-95699)


There has never been a shortage of applicants.
Suitable applicants however......

The intersection of demand and supply is perhaps the one 'law' of economics worth remembering: More supply is induced when price rises, thereby clearing a market. QF know this.
That is why they are desperate and will spend no expense to preserve a status quo. That status quo is simply not sustainable.

Ask around, many airline management are already re-thinking their relationship with the pilot workforce. A reasonable work life balance, remuneration commensurate with responsibility and the skill set are not foreign concepts.
Unfortunately, where the entire relationship with pilots of airlines like Qantas fails, is that their entire edifice is built on the underlying, albeit erroneous assumption of unlimited supply.

Ask yourself why would QF set up a 'cadet school' Ask why they are quietly establishing a narrative to expand the beach head for foreign pilots, ask yourself why they persist with expanding a business that at best is a poor substitute for what they dream of replacing. Their model is adversarial, it knows no other way. Operating revenue without operating crew is a very novel concept.

Smarter people in the room worked out that pilots are strategic assets.
QF will like everything else be late to yet another party, but like the first 787 for QF was heralded (pun intended) as some sort of world first when JQ operated 11 of them and the world over 500, QF will belatedly turn up to this party too.

Justin. Beaver
19th Dec 2018, 08:41
I donít believe any pilot shortage is being felt in mainline due to insufficient suitable applicants or that will be the case anytime in the foreseeable future. 500 or 600k China contracts have been on offer for a few years now and there has been virtually zero take up by mainline pilota. I heard of one 738 skipper returning early from such a contract. Until mainline attrition actually starts to rise and causes a shortage in mainline, there is no leverage possibility in respect to the mainline eba.

Rated De
19th Dec 2018, 09:01
I heard of one 738 skipper returning early from such a contract. Until mainline attrition actually starts to rise and causes a shortage in mainline, there is no leverage possibility in respect to the mainline eba.

A sample of one pilot?

Might need a bigger sample as Australian exceptionalism aside, pilots are a globalised commodity. Isn't the campus a place of knowledge?
Might want a more robust sample before generalising that Australia is somehow immune. Ask your masters at the subsidiaries how many qualified applicants they receive, ask about the other entities.
They will quietly confirm that there is not the supply there once was.

You may be right, pilots in Australia may choose to ignore the global demographic elements at play in the structural shortage.
Perhaps Elon Musk can deliver a driver less aircraft by 2020, when apparently living on Mars will be commonplace!

Justin. Beaver
19th Dec 2018, 09:06
I provided an example of one early returnee to illustrate that the 500-600k China contracts may not be all theyíre cracked up to be. If you have data to show a significant attrition of mainline pilots to these contracts then please provide it. As far as I know, it is insignificant from mainline.

As for other subsidiaries, from what I know jetstar pilot numbers are not short. I canít speak for the other subsidiaries but this thread is about mainline EBAs, not subsidiary EBAs. I donít see how an alleged shortage in Network or QLink is going to assist in leverage in the long haul eba that is not experiencing any supply shortage.

busdriver007
19th Dec 2018, 19:53
Justin,
I am sure the pilots would rather have FWA negotiate on their behalf than the current team. It was much better outcome. The Negotiating team is there for and behalf of the members not themselves! Simple! Chinese Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. I am glad I am retired.

dragon man
19th Dec 2018, 19:55
Justin,
I am sure the pilots would rather have FWA negotiate on their behalf than the current team. It was much better outcome. The Negotiating team is there for and behalf of the members not themselves! Simple! Chinese Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. I am glad I am retired.

Well said.

Lezzeno
19th Dec 2018, 21:39
from what I know jetstar pilot numbers are not short

Ba ha ha ha ha

Justin. Beaver
19th Dec 2018, 22:05
Justin,
I am sure the pilots would rather have FWA negotiate on their behalf than the current team. It was much better outcome. The Negotiating team is there for and behalf of the members not themselves! Simple! Chinese Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. I am glad I am retired.

The problem with this line of thinking is that FWC specifically declined to insert new type terms and conditions into the determination. I think itís safe to assume they would do so again for 777/A350. That leaves a negotiated outclme as the only option for new type terms and conditions.

theheadmaster
19th Dec 2018, 22:09
Justin,
I am sure the pilots would rather have FWA negotiate on their behalf than the current team. It was much better outcome. The Negotiating team is there for and behalf of the members not themselves! Simple! Chinese Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. I am glad I am retired.

The Fair Work Commission does not negotiate agreements.

busdriver007
20th Dec 2018, 00:49
Justin, they already did and it was between B767 and A330 rates on the LH agreement. Maybe some reading is in order.

Justin. Beaver
20th Dec 2018, 01:38
Justin, they already did and it was between B767 and A330 rates on the LH agreement. Maybe some reading is in order.

I think you need to do some reading.

Application by Australian and International Pilots Association [2013] FWCFB 317 (17 January 2013) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FWCFB/2013/317.html)

Paragraph 349: ďwe think it better to leave the matters relating to the B787 issue for Qantas and AIPA to address in negotiations for a replacement agreement, when the likelihood of the introduction of B787 aircraft into Qantasí operations is clearer.Ē

As I said, the FWC specifically declined to determine terms and conditions on an unordered aircraft. I doubt theyíd do differently on an unordered 777/350.

knobbycobby
20th Dec 2018, 10:06
Justin,

Qantas applied to FWA to have 787 terms and conditions not determined. AIPA wanted them to Artibrate. As suggested by others it would of been better for pilots.
A330 LH or should I say Fair work Determined rates would of been the minimum.

345] By claim AIPA14, AIPA seeks to have the workplace determination include rates of pay for crew operating the B787 aircraft, which might be introduced into the Qantas fleet. This claim also seeks to have the workplace determination set the status of the B787 (ranking it against other aircraft), which affects the status of pilots in categories and bidding rights for a position on the aircraft

Qantas were indeed fortunate that in the future they had such a willing salesman for their EBA in a new president whom now works for the company.

I note with interest the new President talking up the burden of Fuel prices for Qantas in his submissive Insights.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.

Justin. Beaver
20th Dec 2018, 10:17
Justin,

Qantas applied to FWA to have 787 terms and conditions not determined. AIPA wanted them to Artibrate. As suggested by others it would of been better for pilots.
A330 LH or should I say Fair work Determined rates would of been the minimum


You have just agreed with my point. Aipa wanted the 787 terms and conditions arbitrated and FWC refused to do so - just as they will almost certainly refuse to do so for any future types - especially unordered ones. You canít say the A330 terms ďwould of been the minimumĒ - how so? FWC flat out refused to decide the terms, therefore there is no ďminimumĒ.

The idea that FWC will determine better than negotiated terms for the 777/350 is therefore grossly misleading and is directly opposed by the evidence and precedent.

There is no way that they would commit to 777/350 orders without a finalised EBA.

.

Rated De
20th Dec 2018, 20:02
There is no way that they would commit to 777/350 orders without a finalised EBA

There for all and sundry is Qantas IR strategy laid bare.
From the bowels of QCA, the Campus or whatever buzzword infests them this week, that is their strategy: Use the threat of a new aircraft to lever contract concessions.

Of course having done it once, why not try it again.

Crew costs do not change strategic fleet considerations. Fleet decisions take in so many complex considerations of range and payload, network, performance considerations, airport considerations and indeed what is likely to be the case over the aircraft's operating life, that 'landed crew costs' are a simple entry on a spread sheet. For nearly every other airline, the investment of over $250 million and nearly twenty years worth of operations, what the crew is paid is at best a minor consideration. It might suit a pilot psyche to think they are the primary consideration they are not.

But a nice way to control the pilot body is to convince them that without 'concession' no new aircraft..

Beer Baron
20th Dec 2018, 20:50
Justin is quite correct. To believe that the FWC will deliver you a wonderful new EA is delusional.

Look at the background of the 6 (yes 6) new FW Commisioners the Liberal government just appointed. They are no friend of the working man and will be very sympathetic to Qantasís claims.

The attacks on the new AIPA president are utterly baseless. An appreciation of the business realities of an airline is an asset to a pilot union president not a liability. Pontificating about what we should be getting while being ignorant of the wider reality of the business environment does not make a good leader.

One can acknowledge the business environment and still fight to improve our terms and conditions.

And to the claim that he did not even mention the pilot shortage, well perhaps it needed to be written in simpler english for you.
It should also be stated that at some stage, perhaps inevitably, we will see the labour market effects of a relative decline in pilot supply filter through in Australia, although this may still take some time to materialise.

Justin. Beaver
20th Dec 2018, 21:11
The venom directed at aipa presidents current and past is misplaced. It is the pilots themselves who accept or reject terms and conditions.

Back in 2008 there was a long haul EBA8 that was heavily backed by the then President and lead negotiator. Much robust debate occurred and the eba was rejected by about 75%. EBA9 in 2015 was supported by the then President. Again much debate ensued and the EBA was supported by more than 80% of pilots.

This showe rhat it is the pilots who decide to accept or reject an eba, not Individuals.

I understand it is easier for unsatisfied pilots to target individuals and place all the responsibility on them, rather than accepting the reality that it was actually your colleagues who accepted the terms and conditions offered. You probably do so because you want to believe that your colleagues share your opinions on the eba and induatrial issues, even though you know a majority might not. if you think any aipa President has the sole power to introduce an eba unilaterally then you are either wrong or you are saying that a majority of your colleagues are incapable of making up their own minds.

knobbycobby
20th Dec 2018, 23:03
There is no way that they would commit to 777/350 orders without a finalised EBA.

.

Justin.
Totally incorrect.
The A380 arrived and was operated prior to EA agreed terms and conditions. The same was true of the 747-400.
The contract permits three months of operations too.

ď42.3 Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment when declared airworthy for a minimum period of three (3) months even if agreement not reached on pay and conditions
Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment on the Company's scheduled and non- scheduled operations at such time as the aircraft or equipment is declared airworthy by the aviation regulatory authority whether or not rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the aircraft or equipment have been agreed but this obligation will not continue if rates of pay, rules and working conditions have not been agreed upon within a period of three (3) months after the new aircraft or equipment has been placed in service by the Company.Ē

Your just pandering to the company line as it suits them to rush AIPA into a deal. Qantas may wish for a deal sewn up prior, however itís not essential. I suppose if you were a poor or weak negotiator youíd allow yourself to be rushed.
As Rated D suggests you just fell for the Companyís IR strategy.
If the A380 replacement deal is a superior one then fine, however if itís not then why be rushed by the company?
But then Qantas have many experienced professionals advising them and AIPA have pilots with little formal training.
AIPAs dismal legal record is not dissimilar.

It worries me greatly that you think itís acceptable for an AIPA president to talk down the pilots prospects prior to an EA.
He spoke only of the fuel price pressures facing Qantas(from very low levels) which have since reversed, and he made NO mention of a single bargaining strength such as a well documented global pilot shortage for experienced pilots. Nor did he make any mention of recurrent record profits or bonuses.

In the past good presidents and the AIPA executive lead by strength and formed a strong position.
This protected pilots from themselves on the back of company fed and spun rumours. That ensured strong EAs were put forward and didnít exacerbate a race to the bottom mentality.

Rated De
20th Dec 2018, 23:11
I note with interest the new President talking up the burden of Fuel prices for Qantas in his submissive Insights.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.


Can somebody explain to the readership whether there is a simple 'no compete' clause for senior union office holders?
Given the position held by the former President and some interesting posturing from the new fellow ascertaining precisely where their 'ambition' resides ought be high on the list of considerations for the membership.

The current position with many associations (unions) worldwide is that there is an embargo on assuming management/training positions, so that members know in what interest the executive works!

Is this the case at AIPA?

FightDeck
21st Dec 2018, 00:08
Good point Rated D.

This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.

Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.

ďYou have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hideĒ seems appropriate

Justin. Beaver
21st Dec 2018, 00:44
Justin.
Totally incorrect.
The A380 arrived and was operated prior to EA agreed terms and conditions. The same was true of the 747-400.
The contract permits three months of operations too.

ď42.3 Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment when declared airworthy for a minimum period of three (3) months even if agreement not reached on pay and conditions
Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment on the Company's scheduled and non- scheduled operations at such time as the aircraft or equipment is declared airworthy by the aviation regulatory authority whether or not rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the aircraft or equipment have been agreed but this obligation will not continue if rates of pay, rules and working conditions have not been agreed upon within a period of three (3) months after the new aircraft or equipment has been placed in service by the Company.Ē

Your just pandering to the company line as it suits them to rush AIPA into a deal. Qantas may wish for a deal sewn up prior, however itís not essential. I suppose if you were a poor or weak negotiator youíd allow yourself to be rushed.
As Rated D suggests you just fell for the Companyís IR strategy.
If the A380 replacement deal is a superior one then fine, however if itís not then why be rushed by the company?
But then Qantas have many experienced professionals advising them and AIPA have pilots with little formal training.
AIPAs dismal legal record is not dissimilar.

It worries me greatly that you think itís acceptable for an AIPA president to talk down the pilots prospects prior to an EA.
He spoke only of the fuel price pressures facing Qantas(from very low levels) which have since reversed, and he made NO mention of a single bargaining strength such as a well documented global pilot shortage for experienced pilots. Nor did he make any mention of recurrent record profits or bonuses.

In the past good presidents and the AIPA executive lead by strength and formed a strong position.
This protected pilots from themselves on the back of company fed and spun rumours. That ensured strong EAs were put forward and didnít exacerbate a race to the bottom mentality.






knobby

I never said that a new type cannot be introduced without agreed terms and conditions, Iíve said that the current management will not do so. There is a difference. You clearly misunderstand how the ceo thinks and operates if you think there is any chance of him locking in billons of dollars in new planes without agreed terms.

No one, neither the pilots of FWC, can force management to order new aircraft. And if management makes a business case including employee costs a pre condition of ordering new aircraft, then no ceo in their right mind would walk away from that pre condition.

theheadmaster
21st Dec 2018, 01:05
Good point Rated D.

This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.

Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.

“You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” seems appropriate






I think the point was how do you draft a non-compete that is enforceable if the person is already working for Qantas? Regarding the proposal that having someone sign something that only has a moral obligation as a way of preventing unethical and ambitious people from jumping ship, I think that is ludicrous. That type of person will just sign and do what they were going to do anyway, knowing it is unenforceable. The best defence is having a robust committee do their job to ensure they elect people who are suitably qualified and have the pilots' best interests at heart.

It is interesting that there all this attention about an ex-president that has moved to a management position after not being on Committee for several years, yet nobody has mentioned the person who went straight from being an EBA negotiator to an office position in networks without any intervening time away from AIPA.

Knobby. I find it interesting that you complain about AIPA not having professionals handling negotiations and other matters, yet when we elect a President that does have skills and qualifications, you misinterpret this as being a reflection of their ambition to use AIPA as some kind of stepping stone to a company position? The fact is we need to attract and retain talented people to fill these rolls in AIPA. Throwing rocks and making completely baseless and incorrect allegations about someone's motives is not the way to do this.

dragon man
21st Dec 2018, 02:07
Interview with Napoleon in yesterday’s Australian confirming 3% wage rise for staff.

Rated De
21st Dec 2018, 02:59
I think the point was how do you draft a non-compete that is enforceable if the person is already working for Qantas?

Presumably then there is case law to support this? How is a contract not enforceable?

When negotiations are entered into for contractual bargaining purposes, does QF IR require the appointed representatives sign a non-disclose (commonly referred to as a confidentiality arrangement)?
If so, it would appear, axiomatically, that the company take a wholly different view to 'office holders' of an association, performing their duties as union representatives, irrespective of presumably still working for Qantas. It would be of material interest to understand just how AIPA claims exclusion to what would otherwise seem obvious: The two entities are not the same and Qantas see the issue differently to the union.

Surely there must then be information gleaned from executives and other office holders during the performance of their 'union duties' that would, if disclosed to say something like Qantas IR, be damaging to the pilot body interests?
The case of the former union president 'Stream Lead' being a case, but clearly from the posts, not an isolated one.

Justin. Beaver
21st Dec 2018, 03:28
I doubt youíll find any restraints of trade in the business world that are much longer than 6-12 months. Didnít Borghetti, who knew the Qantas business intimately, go to VA after little more than a year?

At the end of the day the company agreed position wonít be decided by any pilot negotiators. It will need to be signed off by the ceo just as the pilot agreed position will be signed off by the pilots in the form of a vote. The job of the aipa negotiators is to come up with best deal possible for the pilots to vote on. In the case of eba8, it was unacceptable by a large majority and in the case of eba9, it was accepted by a large majority.

theheadmaster
21st Dec 2018, 04:47
Presumably then there is case law to support this? How is a contract not enforceable?

When negotiations are entered into for contractual bargaining purposes, does QF IR require the appointed representatives sign a non-disclose (commonly referred to as a confidentiality arrangement)?
If so, it would appear, axiomatically, that the company take a wholly different view to 'office holders' of an association, performing their duties as union representatives, irrespective of presumably still working for Qantas. It would be of material interest to understand just how AIPA claims exclusion to what would otherwise seem obvious: The two entities are not the same and Qantas see the issue differently to the union.

Surely there must then be information gleaned from executives and other office holders during the performance of their 'union duties' that would, if disclosed to say something like Qantas IR, be damaging to the pilot body interests?
The case of the former union president 'Stream Lead' being a case, but clearly from the posts, not an isolated one.

Non compete and confidentiality are two separate, but related, issues. Stopping someone from working in a competing business is separate to having an obligation not to disclose information. A non-compete clause is generally a part of of a contract of employment. Most AIPA committee and executive are not employees of AIPA. In fact, they are employees of Qantas and have pre-existing obligations to Qantas with respect to restraint of trade. To say that a subsequent arrangement with AIPA should limit that original employment contract and associated obligations would be difficult to argue.

With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).

fearcampaign
21st Dec 2018, 04:50
You canít compare the last EA to project sunrise or any EA today.
In the last EA Qantas lost 2.6 Billion dollars. Alan Joyce asked Canberra for money.
Pilots left for Emirates. Captains got demoted.

Today Qantas has successfully turned around. Consecutive record billion dollar profits. Record returns on equity.
Consecutive record executive bonuses. 70 Captains and 70 FOs have been promoted on the 737 alone this year.
Retirements are growing. Pilot shortages for experienced airline pilots is a global trend.

Project sunrise is for an A380 replacement, flying close to 24 hour tours of Duty. So extreme is the flying that itís illegal from a regulatory standpoint.

Im sure Alan will say he needs a deal signed off at 747 pay.
Given what aircraft itís a replacement for and given the extreme tours of duty Iím confident AIPA will negotiate accordingly.

Hardly tough times.

dragon man
21st Dec 2018, 05:16
Iím afraid I do not share your confidence.

Rated De
21st Dec 2018, 06:15
Non compete and confidentiality are two separate, but related, issues. Stopping someone from working in a competing business is separate to having an obligation not to disclose information. A non-compete clause is generally a part of of a contract of employment. Most AIPA committee and executive are not employees of AIPA. In fact, they are employees of Qantas and have pre-existing obligations to Qantas with respect to restraint of trade. To say that a subsequent arrangement with AIPA should limit that original employment contract and associated obligations would be difficult to argue.

With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).

The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.

dragon man
21st Dec 2018, 07:34
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.

Well said that man.

theheadmaster
21st Dec 2018, 08:00
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.

I agree, the issues are related and not mutually exclusive. I believe that is what I stated.

Regarding who does someone give account to, it depends on the nature of the obligation. Committee members have obligations to members as a result of them being on the committee, and they also have obligations as employees. Generally these do not conflict in a way that makes either role unworkable. There are also some protections that allow these roles to be separated to some degree. Where I do see a conflict of obligations and interest is if someone were to be both a committee member and in a management role at the same time.

Regarding your statements about other unions have 'negotiated this duality', it is difficult to give an opinion without you providing some specific examples.

What The
21st Dec 2018, 21:19
The goss around the traps is that the current Com leaks so much to Qantas it may as well move next door.

dragon man
22nd Dec 2018, 01:37
The goss around the traps is that the current Com leaks so much to Qantas it may as well move next door.

Well, they are only 100 meters away now.

Bug Smasher Smasher
22nd Dec 2018, 02:54
Given the amount of stuff posted on here and the various other pilot media I doubt the company really needs to hear from AIPA at all.