PDA

View Full Version : Ethics in Union Representation


Rated De
20th Feb 2019, 08:43
A former pilot union President appointed lead IR negotiator sitting opposite the pilots he once purported to represent seems largely to have gone without comment. Despite protests to the contrary, it was foretold that the ‘stream lead’ was actively involved in IR. Far from the traditional path of supervisory and training positions, this shifts the bar on acceptable conduct. If Little Napoleon’s outbursts are to be believed the ‘deal’ for the 787 saved the company up to 30%. It seems there is actually a payoff, this individual enjoys a leisure travel category that relegates very long serving senior pilots to inferior classes of travel. What other inducements will be forthcoming don't seem to matter either. 30 pieces of silver has a far more tangible value these days. “Notwithstanding the moral and ethical obligations of being representatives of fellow workers, the AIPA Committee which includes the Executive are required by the Fair Work Act to act with proper purpose in the interests of members……. Whilst the incumbent may see little problem with it, perhaps he too seeks a similar trajectory? In times of moral decay, leadership is hard to find. Perhaps it is time that representatives not only claim to act in good faith, but attest to do so in full view of their peers?

knobbycobby
20th Feb 2019, 10:06
Yes Indeed.
Seems the former AIPA president and now stream lead (is that into the face of his collegues?) enjoys executive first class staff travel privileges. Yes that’s staff travel.
Told he recently bumped a senior Captain back to economy on holidays. Not bad for a junior FO. Guess if you sell out your colleagues and morals it comes with benefits.
Makes you wonder what else he will receive for the upcoming negotiations also. Might already have it.
Interesting to note the objections from current AIPA executives about not wanting a conflict of interest agreement signed.
Regardless of its legality it makes you wonder that at the very least it has some moral benefit.
Terrible look to switch sides directly to negotiating against the very people you pretended to represent. Geez you’d want to be s*&$ hot on the line and in the simulator.No one likes a turn coat.

Centaurus
20th Feb 2019, 12:01
Geez you’d want to be s*&$ hot on the line and in the simulator.No one likes a turn coat.
Are you seriously suggesting that check pilots or simulator instructors would deliberately turn up the heat on someone they didn't like by crucifying him in the simulator or in flight simply because of internal politics? Maybe in some overseas cultures but surely not in Australia?

knobbycobby
20th Feb 2019, 20:20
Heard this also.
If it wasnít already a big enough f&$# you to switch teams negotiating against your fellow pilots.
Moral compass must be broken.

ruprecht
20th Feb 2019, 20:46
Are you seriously suggesting that check pilots or simulator instructors would deliberately turn up the heat on someone they didn't like by crucifying him in the simulator or in flight simply because of internal politics? Maybe in some overseas cultures but surely not in Australia?

I doubt that there is anyone in QF who would do that.

dragon man
20th Feb 2019, 21:17
I doubt that there is anyone in QF who would do that.

I agree , I think itís more likely that one would find themselves drinking on their own on over nights. I believe that AIPA also top up the salary of the incumbent president which IMO makes it even more morally bankrupt to change sides after such a short time. The bottom line is that AIPA has just become another arm of Qantas management.

LeadSled
20th Feb 2019, 21:58
Folks,
President of the union to a senior executive of Qantas is a well worn path, going right back to Bert Ritchie, who was GM when I first got a job with QF.

But even I must admit this one is "interesting", all the others have already been Captains. However, it isn't war, if the person is ambitious, what's wrong with that --- the members can always vote any deal down, or, indeed, being a current pilot may be an advantage in minimizing the historically adversarial approach of whatever the QF industrial relations office is now called,has always taken to pilot T&Cs.

And by "historical" I mean right back to the early history of the company -- by the 1960s there were textbooks citing QF and BHP as examples of how not to manage staff.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Two of us, one domestic and one AFAP/OSB started working with DCA on a revision of ANO 48 in 1968 ---- and it still ain't done ---- does this qualify for the Guinness Book Of Records. 50 years??

Justin. Beaver
20th Feb 2019, 22:32
CM went from Aipa President to chief pilot in a matter of days didnít he? I donít remember a single mention on pprune of that. Chief pilot is a much more senior position than whatever NS is doing.

WK went from aipa president to management in a few months if I recall correctly?

Many current and former management pilots pilots were either aipa execs or on the aipa com. The reality is that peopleís interests can also change over time.

NS has been out of aipa fot 2-3 years now. He was there when the LH EBA received 82% approval. If a majority of pilots hasnít voted yes then that deal wouldnít have happened. At the end of the day, donít vote for whatever EBA proposal comes your way if you donít like it.

Capt Colonial
21st Feb 2019, 01:04
Folks,
But even I must admit this one is "interesting", all the others have already been Captains. However, it isn't war, if the person is ambitious, what's wrong with that --- the members can always vote any deal down, or, indeed, being a current pilot may be an advantage in minimizing the historically adversarial approach of whatever the QF industrial relations office is now called,has always taken to pilot T&Cs.


Thatís Brilliant LeadSled.

Let the company know. From now and into the future, if an ex-AIPA Executive member is in league with Qantas, to any EA, then it will be a No Vote on ethical industrial principles. That should keep the alleged low life turn-coats away from the corridors of Power Ö and maybe some on the AIPA Executive from allegedly selling out their fellow Pilots! An interesting concept?

Justin Beaver. NS may well be out of AIPA, however many of us ask, was NS also out of AIPA and/or acting in a more alleged self-interest manner when he pushed the deal for Pilots to lose Night Credits, Bidding Rights and Overtime on the B-787? The industrial lines become very blurred with such events!

Simply stated, if one desires to run for AIPA Office, one should also be willing to sign a Disclosure Agreement (DA) that one will not accept any office in Qantas Flight Management or an opposing Industrial Position or Employment for a specified time limit (7 years). There can be No Argument otherwise! Standard business practice nowadays!

However, it will take the long haul Pilots to have a unified consensus on such DA's and focus on future Ethical Outcomes if this is to be achieved.

ruprecht
21st Feb 2019, 01:12
I’m already voting no.

Justin. Beaver
21st Feb 2019, 01:22
Colonial,

Let’s recap the EBA process.

1. The aipa eba team that does not include the President is endorsed by the aipa committee, which itself was elected by the aipa membership. Looks pretty democratic to me so far.

2. That same eba team that does not include NS reached an in principle deal Qantas that gets presented to the aipa com. The that deal doesn’t change terms and conditions on exisiting fleets aside from signifantly improved allowances and some small improvements to home transport and lounge access. Yes it also contained an 18 month wage freeze but so did the dozens of other EBAs across the the Qantas group. It included terms and conditions for the 787 that met a business case. The 787 is currently a much more popular choice than the A330 and it doesn’t even have a Sydney base yet. All the Capts and FOs on the 787 seem pretty happy so far from discussions with them. Your comment about the ‘loss of bidding rights’ is interesting. You clearly prefer super seniority for rosters over the 787’s PSN - so while that might be a loss to you, I’d say many people see it as a win. Yes the 787 terms removed 4 pilot night credits and kept some for 2 and 3 pilot ops. The 787 also has a higher hourly rate than the 380. This was all presented upfront to everyone who endorsed and voted on this eba.

3. This deal was put to the elected aipa com which endorsed it on from what I understand was something like a 90% basis. Where in this process so far has there been no democracy or some unilateral act by NS?

4. The proposed deal was then voted up by 82% of the long haul pilots. Short haul pilots were ineligible to vote. If they were, I would guess it would have been closer to 90%.

That’s democracy. If you don’t like it then run fot aipa office on your platform. At what point in this process for NS unilaterally Impose anything on the pilots? Every stage of the process involved a significant majority of the com and the pilots approving the deal.

If NS has the super powers of being able to impose his will on other people then I’m not surprised Qantas offered him a job!!!

Not everyone shares Rafed De’s BLF-style militant union views on who should be able to take on new roles. Borghetti went from Qantas to Virgin. The head of the AFL players association has gone into management at the AFL. FAAA officials have gone to work tor Qantas management. This kind of thing happens all the time in life.

Rated De
21st Feb 2019, 02:56
Not everyone shares Rafed De’s BLF-style militant union views on who should be able to take on new roles.

Nobody has suggested that a BLF or even a militant solution be adopted.
Candidly if the individual concerned had proceeded to do to the BLF what has transpired here, then the 'solution' might be a little more akin to what you are alleging. Be careful Justin.

This kind of thing happens all the time in life.

This thing has not happened before. A well worn goat path from union representative to training or other management is a frequent outcome, but a lead IR negotiator is new ground. Piggy Howe's didn't do it, despite Olivia opening a few doors at KPMG, other than connections and inside knowledge what would he offer a top 4 four accounting firm? He didn't complete high school, but clearly KPMG wanted to lever something.....

As Capt Colonial eloquently posited:

Justin Beaver. NS may well be out of AIPA, however many of us ask, was NS also out of AIPA and/or acting in a more alleged self-interest manner when he pushed the deal for Pilots to lose Night Credits, Bidding Rights and Overtime on the B-787? The industrial lines become very blurred with such events! Simply stated, if one desires to run for AIPA Office, one should also be willing to sign a Disclosure Agreement (DA) that one will not accept any office in Qantas Flight Management or an opposing Industrial Position or Employment for a specified time limit (7 years). There can be No Argument otherwise! Standard business practice nowadays!


'Contra bonos mores' is the societal norm, where anything goes, self interest rules. When this individual abandoned the pilots he claimed to represent and sought allowed ego and self satisfaction to drive his decision, recommendations and use of privileged information cannot be ascertained, however nor can it be ruled out that he did not act in his own interest whilst pretending to do other.

Will the incumbent President be so inclined to show leadership and ethics and require a statement of good faith. starting with his own?
Morals and ethics matter. The representative body could easily simply decline to discuss any pertinent matters with that individual.

Perhaps the absence of leadership from a representative body is recognition that the good faith to act in member's interests, is just on paper..

Justin. Beaver
21st Feb 2019, 03:02
Rated, i think it’s you and knobbycobby who need to be careful. Especially any suggestion that training and checking pilots at Qantas should be failing people for industrial reasons (see knobby’s post above). Such behaviour would be illegal and would expose someone to serious repercussions.

Your suggestions that he somehow didn’t do a good job aren’t supported by the evidence - the most important piece being the overwhelming support for the main eba negotiated during his tenure and subsequent popularity of the 787.

And such things absolutely have happened before. Going from aipa President to chief pilot is a far more powerful position. The chief pilot has much more sway over negotiations than any company negotiator.

Dark Knight
21st Feb 2019, 04:06
and, I with others took over in 1974 with a comprehensive study, etc plus at that time thee was the ~Bader' report from the UK.

That report is still relevant today and reports from the intervening period substantiated all it found.

Agreed, Book of Records though it took 50 years to duplicate highway between Mel-Syd, 60 years Bne-Syd; started talking about a second airport for Sydney about then and about 50 plus years later it may, repeat may be finished in another 9 plus years.

HKG demolished an island and built a new airport with bridges, railways and highways in around 6 years.

Tuner 2
21st Feb 2019, 04:23
Geez youíd want to be s*&$ hot on the line and in the simulator.No one likes a turn coat.


Easy to talk big and tough anonymously on the internet. Go and write this on Qrewroom using your real name.

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 04:49
The part Nathan took pushing the night credit issue is not insignificant. This is, however, one thing I do not blame that incompetent CEO bully boy for. QF pilots DID vote for it. I can't for the life of me understand why, the one person who I have spoken to who admitted to voting for it, sheeted the blame down to Nathan and a couple of notable others pushing a company line saying the 787 would not go to Qf if Pilots didn't take the 787 flying on that offer. So they likely lied. Not like Qf have never done that before. Regardless, and I suspect mainly due to the atrocious conditions on the 737 - it got up. People will despise it in time, lives WILL be shortened because of it (like mesothelioma it will take decades to damage) but it did get voted in so with only a very few caveats, Pilots have themselves to blame.

Where Mr 'I Want A Job In Canberra' Safe's behaviour is unconscionable on ANY level is that his newest little stunt (gee I had to watch that spelling) is also aimed squarely at destroying the entire GA sector in Australia. He's actively attempting to destroy QF Pilot careers but arguably, he's done that before. Setting about destroying the careers of every future Australian pilot is a VERY new development.

Nathan would likely argue that if not him then someone else. In a dog eat dog world the Nuremberg Defence might just legally squeak through, but I hope he enjoys eating with equally popular Capt Discrepancy wherever he goes. In Nathan's world, ten pieces of silver is obviously an awful lot of money.

CaptCloudbuster
21st Feb 2019, 04:50
NS may well be out of AIPA, however many of us ask, was NS also out of AIPA and/or acting in a more alleged self-interest manner when he pushed the deal for Pilots to lose Night Credits, Bidding Rights and Overtime on the B-787? The industrial lines become very blurred with such events.

And yet NS took the 1st available opportunity for upgrade to B787 FO on the very conditions he Championed and an overwhelming majority voted YES for.:rolleyes:

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 04:54
.And yet NS took the 1st available opportunity for upgrade to B787 FO on the very conditions he Championed and an overwhelming majority voted YES for.https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's likely because he knew he wouldn't be doing much 'real' flying and saw some benefit in a 787 endorsement. I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest he couldn't wait to get a 30% pay cut and work 20+ hour sectors!

FightDeck
21st Feb 2019, 05:08
The thread was about an ex AIPA President And FO who now has F11 staff travel that trumps a Captain.
Heís not a Captain. Be drinking alone Iíd agree.
Most pilots donít consider this good form to put it mildly. Itís embarrasing trying to argue itís ok.

Yes Wayne Kearns went on to work for Qantas but it wasnít to become the lead company negotiatior right away. Wayne spent a lot of the time in various manager roles before becoming deputy Chief Pilot. Wayne and those before him won and protected a lot of conditions whilst at AIPA.

Manning achieved a lot for pilots also. Under his leadership AIPA achieved 5:30 MDC and a lot of improved conditions for commuters, a lot of improvements to MGH too. Dixon lured him to Chief Pilot as he would have been too effective as AIPA leader when he needed to start Jetstar.
Good deal for the A330 at classic plus 5% for a smaller airplane. Presidents Duggan and Jackson also achieving big improvements to MGH and also pay for the A380. Strong EA teams under their leadership.
Cant recall them falling for a lesser EA that was needed to secure airplanes.

Safe won no extra conditions during his leadership. Traded away protections of night credits and overtime. The biggest trades in the contract.
Yes the hourly rate may be higher but those with a year two understanding of mathematics can work out it doesnít compensate for the loss of overtime.if your take home pay is less, the hourly rate is just a number. Whilst heís not entirely responsible, the negotiating team under his leadership traded away the most in AIPAs history. It may have been voted up 80% but that doesnt mean it was a good outcome nor or a good deal. Maybe a very good sell granted. The rosters shown were best case scenario showing very little long range flying. Working harder for less. The Ex President did sell the EA for Qantas extremely hard so perhaps he has earned the first class ticket.

For all their flaws Wayne Kearns and Chris Manning were great AIPA leaders who won and protected conditions for pilots.
They were earmarked by Qantas because they presided over EAs that won big improvements. They were formidable opponents and better on the company side.
Credit must also go to the negotiating teams they lead.

NS is not in the same league as a Kearns or Manning. Great salesman for the Qantas agenda as AIPA President and rewarded accordingly.
Nothing more.

Rated De
21st Feb 2019, 05:09
That's likely because he knew he wouldn't be doing much 'real' flying and saw some benefit in a 787 endorsement. I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest he couldn't wait to get a 30% pay cut and work 20+ hour sectors!

Given his leisure travel category, it is probable his 'package' does not resemble a pilot 'package'.
Given Qantas is headquartered in Sydney Australia, will the individual be 'allocated' a Sydney position?

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 05:29
Easy typo you should edit while you still have time.

will the individual I'm sure you meant to write, 'the individual WILL be allocated a Sydney position'.
2+2= whatever the party says it does, you know that!

He's got F11. Out of seniority, out of category awarding of a SYD base would be a walk in the park.

Rated De
21st Feb 2019, 05:41
Easy typo you should edit while you still have time.

I'm sure you meant to write, 'the individual WILL be allocated a Sydney position'.
2+2= whatever the party says it does, you know that!

He's got F11. Out of seniority, out of category awarding of a SYD base would be a walk in the park.


Is that equivalent to 30 bits of silver?

Great salesman for the Qantas agenda as AIPA President and rewarded accordingly.
Nothing more.


Disappointingly accurate.

Capt Colonial
21st Feb 2019, 06:01
The part Nathan took pushing the night credit issue is not insignificant. This is, however, one thing I do not blame that incompetent CEO bully boy for. QF pilots DID vote for it. I can't for the life of me understand why, the one person who I have spoken to who admitted to voting for it, sheeted the blame down to Nathan and a couple of notable others pushing a company line saying the 787 would not go to Qf if Pilots didn't take the 787 flying on that offer. So they likely lied. Not like Qf have never done that before. Regardless, and I suspect mainly due to the atrocious conditions on the 737 - it got up. People will despise it in time, lives WILL be shortened because of it (like mesothelioma it will take decades to damage) but it did get voted in so with only a very few caveats, Pilots have themselves to blame.

Where Mr 'I Want A Job In Canberra' Safe's behaviour is unconscionable on ANY level is that his newest little stunt (gee I had to watch that spelling) is also aimed squarely at destroying the entire GA sector in Australia. He's actively attempting to destroy QF Pilot careers but arguably, he's done that before. Setting about destroying the careers of every future Australian pilot is a VERY new development.

Nathan would likely argue that if not him then someone else. In a dog eat dog world the Nuremberg Defence might just legally squeak through, but I hope he enjoys eating with equally popular Capt Discrepancy wherever he goes. In Nathan's world, ten pieces of silver is obviously an awful lot of money.

Eloquently accurate description of events...!

Justin. Beaver
21st Feb 2019, 06:17
The thread was about an ex AIPA President And FO who now has F11 staff travel that trumps a Captain.
Heís not a Captain. Be drinking alone Iíd agree.
Most pilots donít consider this good form to put it mildly. Itís embarrasing trying to argue itís ok.

Yes Wayne Kearns went on to work for Qantas but it wasnít to become the lead company negotiatior right away. Wayne spent a lot of the time in various manager roles before becoming deputy Chief Pilot. Wayne and those before him won and protected a lot of conditions whilst at AIPA.

Manning achieved a lot for pilots also. Under his leadership AIPA achieved 5:30 MDC and a lot of improved conditions for commuters, a lot of improvements to MGH too. Dixon lured him to Chief Pilot as he would have been too effective as AIPA leader when he needed to start Jetstar.
Good deal for the A330 at classic plus 5% for a smaller airplane. Presidents Duggan and Jackson also achieving big improvements to MGH and also pay for the A380. Strong EA teams under their leadership.
Cant recall them falling for a lesser EA that was needed to secure airplanes.

Safe won no extra conditions during his leadership. Traded away protections of night credits and overtime. The biggest trades in the contract.
Yes the hourly rate may be higher but those with a year two understanding of mathematics can work out it doesnít compensate for the loss of overtime.if your take home pay is less, the hourly rate is just a number. Whilst heís not entirely responsible, the negotiating team under his leadership traded away the most in AIPAs history. It may have been voted up 80% but that doesnt mean it was a good outcome nor or a good deal. Maybe a very good sell granted. The rosters shown were best case scenario showing very little long range flying. Working harder for less. The Ex President did sell the EA for Qantas extremely hard so perhaps he has earned the first class ticket.

For all their flaws Wayne Kearns and Chris Manning were great AIPA leaders who won and protected conditions for pilots.
They were earmarked by Qantas because they presided over EAs that won big improvements. They were formidable opponents and better on the company side.
Credit must also go to the negotiating teams they lead.

NS is not in the same league as a Kearns or Manning. Great salesman for the Qantas agenda as AIPA President and rewarded accordingly.
Nothing more.






These comments are completely ignorant of the economic and industrial context in which WK and CM were aipa presidents.

During WKís tenure the airline was government owned with no public shareholders and did not need to compete for public capital and shareholder returns. There was no jetstar, cobham did not exist and LCCs were virtually non-existent around the world. The airline was effectively a public service employing public servants.

CM presided over a pre-jetstar, pre-GFC and pre-Joyce period with significantly less international competitions for Qantas. There was no huge increase in Emirates, Qatar and other capacity into Australia that wold eventually make life much harder for QF international.

Criticise the EBA as much as you like, but it opened the door to the promotions we are seeing now and it was approved by an overwhelming majority of long haul pilots. If you seriously think Joyce was going to publicly set a business case requirement for the 787 and then back down from that you are naive.

Have a look at todayís results for international. EBIT down massively and an operating margin of 2%. Such things didnít matter in the WK era and mattered much less in the CM era.

Iíve no issue with you criticising the deal but at least be fair about the very different environments in which they were negotiated.

Tuner 2
21st Feb 2019, 07:08
Where Mr 'I Want A Job In Canberra' Safe's behaviour is unconscionable on ANY level is that his newest little stunt (gee I had to watch that spelling) is also aimed squarely at destroying the entire GA sector in Australia. He's actively attempting to destroy QF Pilot careers but arguably, he's done that before. Setting about destroying the careers of every future Australian pilot is a VERY new development.


What on earth are you talking about?

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 09:49
I’ve no issue with you criticising the deal but at least be fair about the very different environments in which they were negotiated.

Indeed! Jimmy Bow-Tie from memory was on around $500kpa. Napoleon would spend that on a daily breakfast, and the money has to come from somewhere. What is an understatured, over ego’d young CEO about the Street to do? Rape the Company of course, he really has little choice.

Now to something a little more relevant in relation to Nathan’s precious F11+++.

In the book of Exodus thirty pieces of silver was the cost of a slave who was killed. That I find quite significant in QF terms.

If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus21:32)


Logically, therefore 1 slave = 30 pieces of silver at current exchange rates.

At least you could then invest your 30 pieces, unlike a seat on an aircraft which is gone forever. But maybe we shouldn’t be too keen to judge young Nathan merely on his staff travel triumph. There may well be the opportunity to appear on the Napoleonic Balcony on a future dated Street Appearance with the Great Man as well - we just don’t know the extent of his negotiating powers.

Nice one Nathan.

Tuner2: Cut Qf out of aspirational pilots in Oz and I see big problems for (want of a better word) The Outback. Very concerning IMHO.

fearcampaign
21st Feb 2019, 10:01
“If you seriously think Joyce was going to publicly set a business case requirement for the 787 and then back down from that you are naive.”

Absolute Rubbish Beaver. The issue is you’ll just fall for anything Alan Says. Cause he’s been right about Red Q, Jetstar HKG etc etc. What other work groups had to meet the business case for the 787?
Manning faced a recessionary environment post 9/11, albeit Australia narrowly avoided it.
A lot of airlines went to the wall. Ansett included.
Manning and AIPA were faced with Ansett 767 rated pilots out of work offering Dixon to do the work for Half the pay.
No fair work protections back then either. Dixon even threatened Manning with it but he didn’t flinch. Lucky it wasn’t you back then as President. You would of panicked and we would be on 50% less with no Min Daily Credit.
In that environment Manning and his negotiating team got 5:30 Min Daily Credit, a higher MGH and improvements to the contract.
AIPAs own economist said pilot costs are only 1-2% of the operation at the recent roadshow. If you seriously believe the whole deal hinged on a pilot EBA your a gullible fool.
Majority of pilots voted yes to many SH EBAs, according to your simplistic logic this infers that SH pilots have a good deal.

Re the Ex AIPA president switching teams and getting F11 First class travel as an FO. Good luck to him however
Crew are talking about it everywhere. Does not pass the pub test IMHO. 99% of pilots would agree.
You seem awfully defensive of him Beaver. Bit close to home?

Rated De
21st Feb 2019, 10:42
Criticise the EBA as much as you like, but it opened the door to the promotions we are seeing now and it was approved by an overwhelming majority of long haul pilots. If you seriously think Joyce was going to publicly set a business case requirement for the 787 and then back down from that you are naive.

Careful Justin your confirmation bias is showing.
It is to quote Donald Rumsfeld, an 'unknown-unknown'
The EBA of which you speak may or may not have been the reason that there were promotions. It is impossible to test the veracity of that statement.
It is also impossible to assess whether Little Napoleon would have backed down, it is naive, possibly serving your confirmation bias to believe this, but it is an unknown unknown: You don't know what you don't know.
Sources inside QF and public record attest there was no recruitment for years, very little promotion, a net reduction in air frames, routes and ASK. There were also demotions. That Qantas has an aging demographic like all airlines is accepted.These are established facts and are equally as likely to be the reason for 'promotion.' That the 'Stream Lead' has been actively involved in securing pilot supply for his new masters, indicates demographics, particularly increased retirement rates could be the reason for 'promotion'. That pilot costs are the carrying argument in any aircraft selection process may serve your pilot central view of the world and reinforce your personal conformation bias, but what you may be told and what actually occurs are two completely different things.


Further it is established fact, that despite howls of protest the 'Stream Lead,' a person of substantial influence, now occupies a sensitive position. He sits alone and opposite the very pilots he claimed to represent.
Whether others have occupied training, supervisory or indeed DFO/ Deputy CFO positions arguing a regulatory role is akin to an IR leadership role is naive.
Being rewarded with 30 bits of silver is commonplace, the leisure travel category a modern addition to the parable. What relationship does he actually have with IR? From whom does he take direction?

That the current union executive has no particular concern ought concern those pilots subject to 'newly negotiated best ever contracts' It is perhaps time that a new model of union representation is considered as the well worn goat path is collapsing under the steady stream of the disingenuous

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 10:55
Relationship with IR? Ostensibly he is IR - at the very least he is instrumental in framing the terms of reference for the 'stream'.

LeadSled
21st Feb 2019, 13:24
What on earth are you talking about?Tuner 2

I was wondering that, thinking what did I miss ---- what has this guy's activities got to do with the lamentable state of GA??
Tootle pip!!

V-Jet
21st Feb 2019, 20:49
Answered above but in a nutshell Qf has at the very least helped with dreams/aspirations/promotional opportunities of pilots throughout Australia since Qf was actually dreaming of expanding beyond Winton/Longreach. Import pilots from overseas and that comes to a crashing halt.

LeadSled
21st Feb 2019, 22:04
Answered above but in a nutshell Qf has at the very least helped with dreams/aspirations/promotional opportunities of pilots throughout Australia since Qf was actually dreaming of expanding beyond Winton/Longreach. Import pilots from overseas and that comes to a crashing halt.

V-Jet.
Thanks, I think I get the picture, everything old is new again!!
Back in the 1960s, the QF answer to pilot shortages: hire offshore, particularly in UK and Canada.
There was one quite hilarious view in the staff department (as it was then) that hiring "British Officers and Gentlemen" would have an additional bonus, they would not become bloody minded union militants who wanted seniority, a North American style contract and more money, not the "basic wage plus a margin for skills".
They got that one badly wrong.
Some of the Canadians hired had little more than a CPL, indeed there was two way traffic between AU and CA, airlines on both sides of the Pacific had this odd idea that "imported pilots" had more experience --- presumably you accumulated more standard experiences per hour in CA, compared to AU.
The most infamous part of the program was the "Instant Captains" ---- by any measure that was an abject failure.
Enough thread drift.
Tootle pip!!

crosscutter
22nd Feb 2019, 00:33
Both the company and pilots want the various EBAís agreed upon. However, as good a negotiator as NS may or may not be, his presence and this thread highlights the unintended consequence of his involvement.

My crystal ball tells me no EBA is going to get up. I feel for the numerous people doing the hard work. The company simply doesnít want to respect and acknowledge the shifted attitude. The company wonít recognise the costs already occurring because the industrial war on all employee groups is considered more important.

Of note the VIC metro firefighters have only now had their certified agreement stamped by fair work and guess what...it expires again in 6 months. The new frontier is a ďslow bakeĒ strategy. PIA is yesterdayís game plan because as individuals the people have the true power. The only question left is whether the pilots are willing.

gordonfvckingramsay
22nd Feb 2019, 01:21
​​The ďslow bakeĒ is also underpinned by baseless implied inducements. Whether they be carrots or sticks, the company will try to get inside the heads of their staff and make them second guess their resolve. Unions have their work cut out for them, I hope they have the stomach for a fight.

S0L0
22nd Feb 2019, 03:16
...People will despise it in time, lives WILL be shortened because of it (like mesothelioma it will take decades to damage) but it did get voted in so with only a very few caveats, Pilots have themselves to

.

...and overtime plus night credits would have saved us all?
What are you smoking?:rolleyes:

Tankengine
22nd Feb 2019, 05:57
...and overtime plus night credits would have saved us all?
What are you smoking?:rolleyes:

Overtime gives you the pay, night credits reduces the pain!
It is the extra flying due to no night credits that will affect you. :(

Beer Baron
22nd Feb 2019, 09:31
Overtime gives you the pay, night credits reduces the pain!
It is the extra flying due to no night credits that will affect you. :(
The same aircraft, flying the same routes at the same time would have just as many night hours regardless of the contract. Itís only the pay that changes.

The only real restriction is 900 hours a year. The company choose what the divisor will be and they can make you do just as many night time LAís on the 744 or the 789.

Night credits are about pay not health.

dragon man
22nd Feb 2019, 11:10
The same aircraft, flying the same routes at the same time would have just as many night hours regardless of the contract. It’s only the pay that changes.

The only real restriction is 900 hours a year. The company choose what the divisor will be and they can make you do just as many night time LA’s on the 744 or the 789.

Night credits are about pay not health.



Beg to differ. Night credits reduce the numberr of stick hours required to be flown when on a 4 person crewed flight. Example, with a 170 hour divisor on the 787 that w will be 170 stick hours , on the 747 on Syd/lax/Syd it’s 146.

Tuner 2
22nd Feb 2019, 11:23
Isn’t that why the 787 plannng divisor is 155 instead of 170 on other fleets?

Tankengine
22nd Feb 2019, 11:36
Isnít that why the 787 plannng divisor is 155 instead of 170 on other fleets?

Yeah, and divisor is 175 on the 787 right now!

dragon man
22nd Feb 2019, 11:40
Isnít that why the 787 plannng divisor is 155 instead of 170 on other fleets?

Planning divisor is exactly that itís to try and get the numbers correct. In my time in Qantas that has rarely happened.

Tuner 2
22nd Feb 2019, 11:52
But you can’t do more than about 165 hours a bid period averaged over a year of 4 pilot flying - assuming your statement that 170 divisor on the 787 is 170 stick is correct (hint; you’re wrong). Have you heard of MDC? What about the night credits on 3 pilot HKG flying? 170 divisor on the 787 is clearly not 170 stick.

950 stick per year divided by 5.75 bid periods allows for 165 stick per 56 day BP, not 170.

This assumes that rosters are built to a max of 950/365 days stick.

Rated De
23rd Feb 2019, 05:34
Of note the VIC metro firefighters have only now had their certified agreement stamped by fair work and guess what...it expires again in 6 months. The new frontier is a “slow bake” strategy. PIA is yesterday’s game plan because as individuals the people have the true power. The only question left is whether the pilots are willing.

Given that cost of living rises anyway, despite the theatre of 'negotiation' people fall further behind. Naturally the employer can engineer say a 'fleet impairment' declare a huge loss and then freeze the pay 'until things improve'.
A QF pilot on a domestic contract in 2000 would, in standard of living terms be a long way in front. An interesting exercise. A kabuki theatre of Fair Work, employers and diligent unions all playing their part so real wages continue their ever slow spiral.

The real power always belonged to the individual.
The individuals first have to realise they have been played.
The 'stream lead' 'promotion' to lead negotiator is breath taking for QF pilots.
That the company is now so blatant as to parachute a very recent union president into a high profile IR role shows just how confident the company are that pilots are yet to catch on.

gordonfvckingramsay
23rd Feb 2019, 09:51
That the company is now so blatant as to parachute a very recent union president into a high profile IR role shows just how confident the company are that pilots are yet to catch on. and how confident they are of being able to control the FWC.

Rated De
23rd Feb 2019, 10:06
and how confident they are of being able to control the FWC.



Precisely.
All theatre.

After all soft corruption is 'money well spent'
Court judges, senior public servants, both sides of parliament and of course most of the senior regulators are members.
Of course with no list published and no requirement to do so, tacit approval of corruption goes all the way to the top...

Wonder whether the new lead IR negotiator gets access to the Chairman's lounge or will he have to keep delivering for his new masters?

dragon man
23rd Feb 2019, 17:31
Precisely.
All theatre.

After all soft corruption is 'money well spent'
Court judges, senior public servants, both sides of parliament and of course most of the senior regulators are members.
Of course with no list published and no requirement to do so, tacit approval of corruption goes all the way to the top...

Wonder whether the new lead IR negotiator gets access to the Chairman's lounge or will he have to keep delivering for his new masters?


Not quite, but pretty close I believe. The first class lounge is not a bad place to slum it.

Rated De
23rd Feb 2019, 20:03
Not quite, but pretty close I believe. The first class lounge is not a bad place to slum it.

Seems the Gospel had it right all those years ago...
Although by modern standards, the 30 bits of silver needs an inflationary element.

FightDeck
26th Feb 2019, 05:47
From Union President to lead Company negotiator against pilots.
This doesnít pass the pub test as remotely ethical.
There are no excuses it is poor ethics and repugnant.
Certainly a management TRE that flies less than half a line on SCC pay is going to say itís ok.
Easy to be biased when you hold a position outside of seniority. Also easy when you also have access to an executive F11 category above the unwashed masses.
Can tell everybody how easy their staff travel access is to First Class. Whatís all the drama?
No Credibility of a turn coat whom one day is selling a company EA as an AIPA President and very soon after working against pilots and being rewarded for it. Itís a discrace.

LeadSled
26th Feb 2019, 06:06
Folks,
As somebody who started out as a member of the AFAP/NSW branch, and was a continuous member of AFAP or AIPA for almost 40 years, and having held executive committee positions, I think most of these objections are a bit overdone.

As I said in my first post, there is nothing wrong with ambition, and at least in this case, all the "facts and circumstances" are on public view.

As I could (but I won't) detail some pretty iffy things over those 40 years in industrial representation, ( both AFAP and AIPA) up to and including "unknown" payments, or promoting political ambitions riding on our backs, the usual run of mendacity has been present in "pilot" matters, just as it has in so many other industrial fields.

Ain't human nature just grand!!

Tootle pip!!

The Pirate
26th Feb 2019, 06:26
As I am sure you know Airline Management deliberately target people in the Union that they think are vulnerable and ripe for changing sides. Although I have not, and never would be, a part of this appalling behaviour I have watched it happen. To my own shame I did not speak up. " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Rated De
26th Feb 2019, 18:56
As I am sure you know Airline Management deliberately target people in the Union that they think are vulnerable and ripe for changing sides. Although I have not, and never would be, a part of this appalling behaviour I have watched it happen. To my own shame I did not speak up. " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

That corporations have many of the same 'rights' as humans and in the case of Qantas Little Napoleon used the Corporation to express an opinion on societal equality, it is worthwhile remembering the chasm of difference between words and deed.
Preaching equality and offering social discourse on one hand, quietly acting like this on the other.

As posters have lamented, it fails the pub test.

knobbycobby
1st Mar 2019, 20:02
Interesting response from the ex president turned Qantas IR spokesman and now head stooge against the pilots. What a lovely hooker with a heart of gold story though.
When your paid by Qantas, including F11 staff travel to f&$#@ your mates.
Thatís business but your still f*&$ing over your mates and getting paid for it.
Anything he says is IR and Qantas view to take as much from you as possible. Suppose youíd have to come out to defend yourself when your actions look as bad as they are.
Still doesnít pass the pub test.

Rated De
1st Mar 2019, 22:26
Anything he says is IR and Qantas view to take as much from you as possible

Thanks to the Qantas people that provided the statement from the Stream Lead.
Rather unsurprising, numbers to which he refers only tell the part of the picture his IR overlords wants Qantas pilots to focus on.Wonder why that is?

I see these negotiations as an opportunity for both pilots and for the business. The fact is that the international aviation market is ruthless and incredibly tough. While the Group as a whole is generating a ROIC of just over 19%, the half-yearly results showed the 60% EBIT decline for international and an operating margin of just 2.4%. These numbers make capital investment into long haul flying subject to highly detailed costings, revenue modelling and scrutiny – including flight ops’ cost base.

Whilst Stream Lead may be talking his book, after all handsome rewards await him if a cheap deal is signed. Leave his personal interest aside let us digest these rather interesting figures.

EBIT- Is Earnings Before Interest and Taxes, perhaps one of the least worst international comparisons.

Ignoring Qantas 'preferred' non-legal measures of 'profit' and focusing on statutory numbers is very difficult. Qantas neither provide segment breakdowns of expense and revenue, selectively choosing what to tell investors. Corporate Governance and the lack of disclosures is another conversation.

So Stream Lead selectively tells 'colleagues' about an EBIT decline. This is on the surface true. The EBIT did decline but why?
Little Napoleon provides the answer...Fuel expense rose.
Why does Qantas International suffer from a large impact from a rising fuel price? Fleet metrics.

Singapore Airlines generated as a company, not a group in FY17 an operating margin of 7.2% FY18 Operating Margin was 5.2%
Fuel represents (as a percentage of the revenue it generates) 31%

Qantas on the other hand, according to Stream lead only generate 2.4%, in 1H19.
Little Napoleon actually explains why.

Internationally our performance was heavily impacted by higher fuel costs, mostly because of the long haul nature of our network and the effect that has on fuel burn.....with an increase in fuel expense of $219 million.

Rather axiomatically Qantas International burn more fuel per RPK. Qantas spend 39% for Qantas International on fuel to generate their HY revenue.
It is after all the biggest operating cost by a country mile. That his master have the wrong fleet is ignored.

Were Qantas to have accelerated the fleet replacement, their Operating Margin would not be subject to swings because they would simply burn and pay less money for fuel to generate their revenue.
In the interests of balance, Stream Lead selectively cherry picking numbers to support yet another IR war on his colleagues adds nothing to his credibility. He is not in a position of objectivity to provide any sort of financial commentary of balance, when he sits opposite the pilots he allegedly once represented.

By the way, it might be interesting to ask what Operating Margin Jetstar International delivers?

LeadSled
1st Mar 2019, 22:33
Rated De,
There you go, quoting "facts" again, don't you know this is the post-deconstructionist era, facts are so yesterday.
Tootle pip!!

Tuner 2
1st Mar 2019, 22:36
RD,
What your analysis and oft-repeated slogan of Qantas need a new fleet completely ignores is that new aircraft need to be paid for.and new jets are not exactly cheap Much of the current fleet is paid for and unencumbered. It is true that a new fleet would have less fuel burn, but the real question is would a new fleet have a higher operating margin and make a sufficient ROIC once you allow for the purchase price using forecast revenue over the 20 odd year life cycle of the aircraft taking into account revenue predictions in an ever-increasing competitive market? The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s.

Lezzeno
1st Mar 2019, 23:54
The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s.

Or up to $305 million in share buy backs

Rated De
2nd Mar 2019, 01:10
RD,
What your analysis and oft-repeated slogan of Qantas need a new fleet completely ignores is that new aircraft need to be paid for.and new jets are not exactly cheap Much of the current fleet is paid for and unencumbered. It is true that a new fleet would have less fuel burn, but the real question is would a new fleet have a higher operating margin and make a sufficient ROIC once you allow for the purchase price using forecast revenue over the 20 odd year life cycle of the aircraft taking into account revenue predictions in an ever-increasing competitive market? The total after tax profit reported last week is about enough to buy 2 787s.

As Lezzeno stated, share buy backs are preferred use of net cash flow.
Share buy backs benefit certain insiders, usually those with a lot of stock in the company. An amazing coincidence that management have been rewarded millions of share options
Isn't Little Napoleon a substantial shareholder?

With over $2.3 billion spent on concentrating the EPS, via share buybacks (yet another KPI management performance metric, amazing coincidence) could that capital have been better spent reducing the fuel included CASK and preserving the Net Operating Margin and be put to purchasing a new fleet?
Then again the Stream Lead would have to selectively chose some other metric to convince his 'colleagues' that the business is in trouble again...

Tuner 2
2nd Mar 2019, 01:36
Nice job of dodging the question.

We get that you donít like share buybacks. The decision to buy back is made by the board, the members of which donít have KPIs linked to EPS but are elected by the owners of the company.

They obviously believe that a lot of the profits are better used for shareholder returns than new aircraft.

Letís see your analysis that shows the capital cost of new aircraft, revenue modelling for the life of those aircraft, cost base modelling for the life and your cost of capital workings and hurdle rate. Excel format is ok. Standing by.

dragon man
2nd Mar 2019, 02:01
Nice job of dodging the question.

We get that you donít like share buybacks. The decision to buy back is made by the board, the members of which donít have KPIs linked to EPS but are elected by the owners of the company.

They obviously believe that a lot of the profits are better used for shareholder returns than new aircraft.

Letís see your analysis that shows the capital cost of new aircraft, revenue modelling for the life of those aircraft, cost base modelling for the life and your cost of capital workings and hurdle rate. Excel format is ok. Standing by.

And if he canít provide them can I assume you will to back up share buybacks over aircraft purchases?

fearcampaign
2nd Mar 2019, 02:53
A billion dollars worth of buybacks I think youíll find. And 3 787s to replace 3 747s.
And a few hundred million to pay Executive bonuses.

hotnhigh
2nd Mar 2019, 04:02
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/22/17144870/stock-buybacks-republican-tax-cuts

Buybacks may not be the end of the world, but they do result in corporations giving billions of dollars to their shareholders instead of investing in something more productive and broadly beneficial to the economy.

Tuner 2
2nd Mar 2019, 05:57
And if he can’t provide them can I assume you will to back up share buybacks over aircraft purchases?




No you can't assume that. Share buy-backs, all approved by the shareholder appointed board, don't affect the question of whether the capital investment decision in new aircraft stacks up. I think you could safely use the cancellation of the remaining A380s as evidence that capital investment in such aircraft and their associated cost-base (purchase and ongoing) clearly does not stack up.

What you can safely assume, if Rated can't provide these numbers, is that he has no quantitative basis on which to base his claims. If he can produce a fully developed and accurate 20+ financial year investment proposition then I'll happily look at it. It will have to include revenue modelling, capital purchase costs, cost of capital modelling, a network by financial year, labour cost assumptions, maintenance assumptions, FX, tax and depreciation schedule assumptions. All of this will have to clear an appropriately set commercial hurdle rate for the economic cycle of the aircraft. Why? Because that is how investment decisions in the real (non-pprune) world are made.

Anyone can point out that higher EBIT and margin would've been made with a newer fleet if you ignore acquisition cost of such a fleet. That's axiomatic and my primary school kid could probably tell you that. But that isn't 'analysis' anywhere near the required level to be passed off as meaningful.

Lezzeno
2nd Mar 2019, 07:05
If he can produce a fully developed and accurate 20+ financial year investment proposition then I'll happily look at it. It will have to include revenue modelling, capital purchase costs, cost of capital modelling, a network by financial year, labour cost assumptions, maintenance assumptions, FX, tax and depreciation schedule assumptions. All of this will have to clear an appropriately set commercial hurdle rate for the economic cycle of the aircraft. Why? Because that is how investment decisions in the real (non-pprune) world are made.

Why not just use the same figures JQ International provide?

coaldemon
2nd Mar 2019, 07:14
Anyone that thinks they can do a 20 year projection for network and revenue for an Airline put it on paper and think it has any relevance are crazy. 5 year micro and 10 year macro is about as good as you will get and it will be obsolete within 12 months of writing.

Rated De
2nd Mar 2019, 09:06
Anyone can point out that higher EBIT and margin would've been made with a newer fleet if you ignore acquisition cost of such a fleet.

Acquisition cost?

With over $2.0 billion spent on pumping the EPS, perhaps share buy-backs could have been a better use for surplus capital.
Then again the Board themselves might benefit from share buy backs too, nothing like self interest to carry the argument.

Why would corporate executives lavish more of this new money on stockholders, instead of investing it in the future of their companies? Thatís easy: The rewards of buying in investorsí shares are immediately gratifying. And itís not only the investors that are happy about unloading their stock at a premium. Executives like to do a buyback because it pushes up earnings per share. Fewer shares spread over the same earnings equals higher EPS. Some executive bonus programs are keyed to EPS growth. Meanwhile, the payoff from capex takes time to show results, and may never pan out if a company is putting money in the wrong places. After the Great Recession, capital spending shriveled. Many executives didnít think extra capex was warranted amid the sluggish recovery.

$2.0 billion would be a substantial component of the re-fleeting decision even at list prices.

You are right Tuner, it is too complicated and requires a team of spreadsheet wielding accountants to take projections out to 20 years. Given Qantas declines forward earnings guidance commentary, for the next six months, the 'projection' would be as irrelevant as Coaldemon asserts. Meanwhile in the 'real world, not pprune, other airline managers just get on with it.
Not only do they spend less per RPK than Qantas, they produce less pollution, spend less on fuel and still manage an operating margin that Qantas only gets close to with low fuel prices.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/30/singapore-airlines-orders-airbus-boeing

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/air-new-zealand/boeing-and-air-new-zealand-welcome-first-777-300er-into-fleet.page

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-25/thai-airways-plans-to-buy-almost-30-planes-to-replace-older-jets

Tuner 2
2nd Mar 2019, 09:19
What a lacklustre response from a self appointed aviation expert.

We get that you would rather the money spent on dividends and buy backs was spent on new aircraft. However, by your own admission you are unable to demonstrate a sound investment case for doing so. Probably best you stick to anonymous Internet forums where the laughable level of your ‘analysis’ belongs. Coal demon is way off the mark. Airlines absolutely model capital investments over the life of aircraft, but I’m happy to take a 5 or 10 year model if you’ve got one....

fearcampaign
2nd Mar 2019, 11:40
Tuner 2

The thread is about ethics or lack thereof in recent union representation. Sympathetic to the view of many crew what a bad look it is jumping from President to negotiating against your own. Donít envy that poison chalice.
Understand the first company job may have been as a very junior assistant to the managers of the pilot program.
I get it that he was only asked to be a negotiatior when Roly left and many others subsequently turned down the job. But even if They struggled to find anyone, and he was their last choice, would you really fail to see how it would be perceived?
Maybe it was the only office job left on offer?
Joyce has announced for years the last 8 A380s were not getting ordered. That decision was made long ago. Digging up old news. Alan said in about 1000 articles going back for years they wouldnít take anymore A380s.
Must say I was impressed with the new AIPA presidents insights today.
I think he will be very effective.Seems to have the pilots interests as his primary focus. Hope he can return some ethics back to the role of President.

Tuner 2
2nd Mar 2019, 11:47
Fill your boots on that topic. It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.

By the way, how much has Qantas spent on 14 new 789s in the last few years versus buy backs and dividends ?

busdriver007
2nd Mar 2019, 12:24
Fill your boots on that topic. It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.

By the way, how much has Qantas spent on 14 new 789s in the last few years versus buy backs and dividends ?

$1.8 billion on 14 B787s and $2.8 billion on share buybacks to date. The first 45 787s were locked in at US$92 million each. Makes sense to me(not!). Talk about Banks behaving badly! As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever. Mind you the Company have lit a bonfire. No yes votes no matter how good the deal is.

Rated De
2nd Mar 2019, 18:47
$1.8 billion on 14 B787s and $2.8 billion on share buybacks to date. The first 45 787s were locked in at US$92 million each. Makes sense to me(not!). Talk about Banks behaving badly! As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever. Mind you the Company have lit a bonfire. No yes votes no matter how good the deal is.

Precisely.

Stream Lead's parents would be incredibly proud of their boy.

Reminds one of Paul Howes. A family man and union stalwart.
Abandoned both.

ddrwk
2nd Mar 2019, 19:19
As far as the topic of discussion NS has done more damage than any other former AIPA office bearer ever.

Whilst taking on the role he has is not something I would contemplate doing, what damage has he done? Any actual damage that has occurred that you can point to or is it all based on fear of what might happen? What would that damage look like?

Stream Lead's parents would be incredibly proud of their boy.

Thatsís a bit too personal now. While not necessarily agreeing with you, up until this point you have stuck to relatively reasond arguement. Keep it that way.

busdriver007
2nd Mar 2019, 20:50
Whilst taking on the role he has is not something I would contemplate doing, what damage has he done? Any actual damage that has occurred that you can point to or is it all based on fear of what might happen? What would that damage look like?

If you have to ask that question then that is the problem. The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is. I am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.

ddrwk
2nd Mar 2019, 20:56
If you have to ask that question then that is the problem. The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is. I am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.

So no? You canít point to anything?

First Iíve heard that about the new president. Any facts to back up that little gem also?

Beer Baron
2nd Mar 2019, 21:15
The new incumbent has already stated he wants to go beyond where NS is.
What is that supposed to refer to?

Tuner 2
2nd Mar 2019, 21:18
14 789s for $1.8b Australian dollars, or about 128m each, when they have a current list price of $400m Australian each? Source?

Rated is just getting really personal now as a diversion from him being unable to produce any good arguments that Qantas should be buying more aircraft than the 14 789s ordered in the last few years.

ruprecht
2nd Mar 2019, 22:09
Rated is just getting really personal now as a diversion from him being unable to produce any good arguments that Qantas should be buying more aircraft than the 14 789s ordered in the last few years.

Ordered?

Dont make me laugh.

FightDeck
3rd Mar 2019, 00:44
ďI am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.Ē

Exactly right.
The previous President or rather his EA team that he presided over traded away many protections. The joke is the 787s were ordered long before an EA.
Qantas chose the 787 to replace the 747 and only announced it as a replacement type after the EA being shoukd be telling.
There is no proof that the aircraft were not going to arrive regardless of an EA. It suits Qantas position to say that it was purely cause of a pilot EA because they won a lot of consessions by that strategy.
But the IR narrative and negotiating stategy was that to get pilot conditions lessened, we will threaten the already ordered aircraft arriving unless you sign this agreement in its first version.
Not soon after that NS went to work for the company. Interesting timing.
What NS said as president doesnít sound any different to what heís now saying as a company negotiator.
Difference this time is that Qantas are paying his bonus and he enjoys first class travel.
Nice deal but Same scare strategy.

Tuner 2
3rd Mar 2019, 00:55
ďI am sure the pilots do not want to give up any more conditions that have been fought for over the years to advance someone else's career.Ē

Exactly right.
The previous President or rather his EA team that he presided over traded away many protections. The joke is the 787s were ordered long before an EA.
Qantas chose the 787 to replace the 747 and only announced it as a replacement type after the EA being shoukd be telling.
There is no proof that the aircraft were not going to arrive regardless of an EA. It suits Qantas position to say that it was purely cause of a pilot EA because they won a lot of consessions by that strategy.
But the IR narrative and negotiating stategy was that to get pilot conditions lessened, we will threaten the already ordered aircraft arriving unless you sign this agreement in its first version.
Not soon after that NS went to work for the company. Interesting timing.
What NS said as president doesnít sound any different to what heís now saying as a company negotiator.
Difference this time is that Qantas are paying his bonus and he enjoys first class travel.
Nice deal but Same scare strategy.

While the 787s were ordered originally by Dixon (as were the A380s) they were then deferred. So they were absolutely not guaranteed to arrive anyway. How do I know? Because this is exactly what has just happened with the A380s - ordered and then deferred and then finally cancelled because the investment case for more no longer stacked up.

knobbycobby
3rd Mar 2019, 01:52
The Qantas A380 order was announced in November 2000.
They didn’t arrive until 2008 after long delays. In the ensuing 19years. Yes 19 years since the order was announced more efficient aircraft came along.
The orders were cancelled because more efficient and more suitable aircraft now exist to replace the A380.
Thats exactly what the Qantas CEO has said. The A380 is no longer the preferred option for any airline now the 777X or A350 is available. Half the engines, less maintenance cost, almost half the fuel burn. Not that many less pax carried.
The A380 as an aircraft hasn’t made a viable business case for a long time with better alternatives available. Your overinflating the significance of a business case study when its f&$$ing obvious the A380 has better alternatives and has had for many years. Market for used A380s is non existent too.
Qantas are not doing anything differently to any other airline. A collective team of chimps are capable of working out there wasn’t an investment case for an A380 in 2019.

CurtainTwitcher
3rd Mar 2019, 02:28
Let's face it, if there isn't a business case for further 787's / 777X / A350, there isn't a business case for the airline.

Rumour has it, managers have been boasting QF has half the B787 tech crew costs of a direct competitor across the Pacific on the same equipment.

LeadSled
3rd Mar 2019, 06:12
Let's face it, ---------- there isn't a business case for the airline.
.

Curtains,
So, You believe the international operation is not justified, or the whole outfit?? Curtains for Qantas??
Perhaps you believe that all airlines in Australia should be foreign operated ??
Do tell us more --- with a compelling business case, of course ---- not just expressions of blind prejudice.
Tootle pip!!

patty50
3rd Mar 2019, 06:41
How is it something to brag about saying they have lower crew costs than United, who donít have second officers.




Surely youíre pulling his leg? No one can be this obtuse?

the international operation is not justified ó Curtains for Qantas ó all airlines in Australia should be foreign operated óof course noóblind prejudice.


Oh look anyone can do it.

CurtainTwitcher
3rd Mar 2019, 09:36
I suspect my rhetorical sarcasm, a play on the usual management mantra that the entire future of the operation hinges on continuous reductions in T&C was missed.

angryrat
3rd Mar 2019, 11:04
While the 787s were ordered originally by Dixon (as were the A380s) they were then deferred. So they were absolutely not guaranteed to arrive anyway. How do I know? Because this is exactly what has just happened with the A380s - ordered and then deferred and then finally cancelled because the investment case for more no longer stacked up.For accuracy the 787ís werenít deferred they were cancelled. Initially 15 787ís were understandably cancelled after the GFC by AJ. Fast forward to 2012 and AJ cancelled the remaining 35 firm orders for the 787-9ís.

The initial order was for 50 firm(all cancelled) and 65 options. Jetstar took 14 787ís and cancelled 1 option which left Qantas with 50 options. AJ has taken up 14 options for Qantas.

Beer Baron
3rd Mar 2019, 21:10
For accuracy the 787’s weren’t deferred they were cancelled. Initially 15 787’s were understandably cancelled after the GFC by AJ. Fast forward to 2012 and AJ cancelled the remaining 35 firm orders for the 787-9’s.

The initial order was for 50 firm(all cancelled)
This is why I can’t understand why people believe that not ordering the 787 was all an industrial bluff and the plane was always going to come.

Look at the proven history of what had occurred:
- Every single firm order was cancelled.
- Aircraft we had on fleet were being taken away and given to Jetstar.
- The only new long haul aircraft being ordered were for Jetstar.
- We were cancelling routes and reducing frequencies across the network.
- Pilots were being actively encouraged to go and find employment elsewhere or take voluntary redundancy.

These were not threats, this was the daily reality.

How one could stand by and say, “they won’t wind down international, it’s all a bluff”, while they were doing it right in front of your eyes baffles me.

Lezzeno
3rd Mar 2019, 21:59
This is why I canít understand why people believe that not ordering the 787 was all an industrial bluff and the plane was always going to come.

Look at the proven history of what had occurred:
- Every single firm order was cancelled.
- Aircraft we had on fleet were being taken away and given to Jetstar.
- The only new long haul aircraft being ordered were for Jetstar.
- We were cancelling routes and reducing frequencies across the network.
- Pilots were being actively encouraged to go and find employment elsewhere or take voluntary redundancy.

These were not threats, this was the daily reality.

How one could stand by and say, ďthey wonít wind down international, itís all a bluffĒ, while they were doing it right in front of your eyes baffles me.








What changed Beer Baron? Why was International saved?

Tankengine
3rd Mar 2019, 22:19
What changed Beer Baron? Why was International saved?
I would say because despite managementís best endeavours the travelling public to a degree hates Jetstar and is loyal to the Qantas brand. If you canít beat them - join them!

Australopithecus
3rd Mar 2019, 22:29
What changed Beer Baron? Why was International saved?


Because frequent flyer is valueless without the lure of a free trip overseas.
Because with the right equipment you can actually make money with international ops.
Because people donít really like transiting through the Middle East.
Because they have to hide Jetstar's operating losses somewhere.
Because its says right there on the side of the (domestic) plane: Australiaís Overseas Airline

dragon man
3rd Mar 2019, 22:37
Because frequent flyer is valueless without the lure of a free trip overseas.
Because with the right equipment you can actually make money with international ops.
Because people donít really like transiting through the Middle East.
Because they have to hide Jetstar's operating losses somewhere.
Because its says right there on the side of the (domestic) plane: Australiaís Overseas Airline

Pretty simple and correct.👍👍👍👍

Beer Baron
4th Mar 2019, 04:25
What changed Beer Baron? Why was International saved?
The cost vs revenue of a new fleet got to a point where the board decided it was worth investing money into. The numbers had clearly not stacked up previously hence why the first 50 were cancelled.

Let’s not forget, they had plenty of other options of where to put the money, options they had preferenced many times over the previous decade. Qantas is no longer just an international airline and the Qantas Group can and has spent their money on all sorts of different projects with various levels of success and failure. (Australian Airlines, Impulse, JQ domestic, JQ International, Network, JQ Asia, Australian Air Express, Red Q, JQ Pacific, JQ Hong Kong, Health Insurance, JQ Japan, Credit Cards, Jets Road Shipping, Alliance, etc.)

Investing in longhaul aircraft is hardly a certainty anymore. There will be return hurdles they need to achieve or the money will go to another entity. Just today Andrew David stated that the next tranch of 787 orders may well go to Jetstar as they have a compelling business case.

I hate that this is our new reality but that’s the way things are now.

Or you can believe the grand conspiracy theory that some posters on here love to (repeatedly) espouse. But how a CEO, that we are told is basically incompetent, could orchestrate and pull off a decade long plan involving numerous department heads, a union president, a shutdown, billions of dollars in losses, no dividends for nearly a decade, a bailout request and a fuel price crash, is a bit hard for me to swallow.

Rated De
4th Mar 2019, 04:30
“It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.”


It is the fleet composition that is responsible for the declining EBIT and Operating Margin, something that the Stream lead neglected to mention. Delivering the HY19 results, Little Napoleon noted that the International business spent more on fuel, flying the longer distances.That the Operating margin declined to 2.4% is not at issue, what is challenged is why did it drop: Qantas spend more on fuel for their fleet than other airlines, as they lack sufficient widebody twin engine aircraft.

That the company is the more than the sum of the parts is intuitive.

On first principles this is the reason why corporates tend to look for synergies horizontally and vertically integrating things like supply chains.

The value of the Frequent Flyer business without an international flight redemption option is marginal. Qantas now know this. A frequent flyer business doesn't do so well converting points for groceries. The analysts recognise this too. . Little Napoleon previously stated that International had shrunk as far as it effectively could. (paraphrase) In part the reasoning may well be this reality: Cut anymore and a rush of redemption of points may follow.

Simply put, International needs domestic, domestic needs international. Were Qantas to choose to provide more clarity, there is likely a co-dependence between some Jetstar and Qantas intersegment sales.
The business as a whole is better than each individually.

Thus to focus on one segment at the expense of the other is disingenuous, although it is a well tested IR strategy.

After all, JQ International isn't even reported as a segment..Wonder why?

Yet IR hope that pilots forget all this
They and the new Manager of Pilot Performance, hope also that pilots have forgotten that the ‘terminal decline’ of Qantas International took everybody by surprise.
Terminal itself is an interesting word, suggestive there is only one outcome., Yet amazingly after a grounding and a big write down of fleet, Qantas was transformed. Coincident was the fear and uncertainty that this series of events engendered in staff and customers alike. IR like this as it is where they wedge people; drive fear and concessions follow.

That the staff signed up for pay freezes, as did their managers, is to be applauded. Qantas had its 'biggest loss' in FY14. One might posit though that the loss was on paper.That the business was 'transformed' a year later shades a rather important point: Whilst pay freezes were served by the staff they did not benefit from the huge amounts of share options with 'curious' vesting dates. The managers did.

Mr Oldmeadow made his fortune changing sides and has for decades directed IR at Qantas, he still does, although these days he remains behind the curtain. There are new faces.


That the Stream Lead sits opposite the pilots he once purported to represent, claiming that Qantas International is in trouble again (as the Operating Margin has declined) is designed, right on cue to drive another fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign.
Precisely on message, right on time it emerges, just as he is selected to lead an IR negotiation. Is this a surprise?

With leisure travel perks ranking with those of the most senior flight operations officer like the DFO, it is rather obvious that there is a new paymaster:IR.

Ethically, perhaps it is time an open and transparent dialogue about personal conflict and motivation is needed. That way the relative merit of any financial commentary offered by the new IR manager can be weighed against his discretionary personal benefit (bonus), which like his leisure travel category, will likely eclipse most, if not all the Flight Operations senior managers.

Tuner 2
4th Mar 2019, 04:45
You might just be the most repetitive person in the history of the internet...

Why is JQ international not reported separately? Because the capital invested in it is minuscule compared to the many billions invested in the 380s, 747s, 787s and 330s in mainline international. Simple. JQ wa supposed to get 14 788s. That was reduced to 11 because the market changed. The board didn’t just blindly put the last 3 airframes in to JQ despite your silly conspiracy theories.

ruprecht
4th Mar 2019, 04:55
Why is JQ international not reported separately?

Because the capital invested in it is muiniscule

Just because you put a statement after a question doesn’t make it an answer. :rolleyes:

Tuner 2
4th Mar 2019, 04:58
It also doesn’t make it not an answer :ok:

Vindiesel
4th Mar 2019, 06:25
Hey RatdeDe

Pretty sure that we all get the following:

1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.

I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.

What I want to know from you is - so what?

Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?

Thanks in advance.

ruprecht
4th Mar 2019, 07:23
Hey Vindiesel, let me know when you're selling your house.

I'll expect you to accept my first offer. :)

Rated De
4th Mar 2019, 08:18
Hey RatdeDe

Pretty sure that we all get the following:

1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.

I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.

What I want to know from you is - so what?

Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the question.
Central to understand what happened it to first admit to yourself you were being manipulated. Is there a Qantas staff member who believes that the grounding was not orchestrated?
If you answer yes, ask yourself to what purpose would Qantas want to lever the events of 29 October 2011.
That the 'terminal' (death) of Qantas was averted is a relief, but we ask was it ever terminal? If not why do what they did?
The 'transformation' was on the back of lower fuel prices and a depreciation adjustment. The latter an audit and management timing issue. The former luck.
That Qantas now seems to be using (at least from the Stream lead's comments) the decline again would suggest, given Little Napoleon's comments about fuel impact long haul to be both premature and incorrect.

With respect to Jetstar we believe the business to be over scale . Emirates have announced a pivot away from the A380, preferring the big twins. The data suggests a similar scale issue. To what extent is a judgement that varies from firm to firm.

Whilst the veiled personal criticism seems a little wasted, we ask you practically to consider why Qantas would choose not to report JQ in operating segments? The reason is that they choose not to.
That it forms part of a broader company strategic narrative may be true, but it isn't an economic one. What other purpose could they hope it serves?

With respect to Fair Work and Arbitration, it would appear that being forced to binding arbitration, had little downside, it appeared that the commission failed to cut where the company wanted to cut.
The 787 deal is not our purview. We think that on a cost basis, Little Napoleon is right the savings are substantial.
That a former Union President now is an IR negotiator and simultaneously espouses 'operating margin' declines whilst comfortably enjoying high level leisure travel and other 'incentives' to negotiate a deal bought us to this thread.

Ethics and morality.

Qantas is not in terminal decline, the International business is not in decline, yet someone with a vested interests speak of a -win-win, when patently declining to outline just what financial inducements he secure from such a deal.
We believe that to be both dishonest and disingenuous.

With respect to your legislative remedy, as is the case in most western economies it is much harder to withdraw labour. Even when the pilots tried with small non-monetary measures, the government backed the company.
The Hon Paul Keating suggested a different strategy that would have sorted the day.

As a former DFO said to a former CEO , and we paraphrase, who was going to outsource flying to (insert subsidiary) 'you can do that but in the interim every flight will divert and in two weeks you have no airline so go ahead'
The reason why IR focus on pilots is that as a collective pilots can bleed an airline rapidly. Cash flow is a fickle beast.
Ask any analyst who covers airlines, it is a fair bet that they ask in the first two questions, "what is the relationship with pilots?"

Thus they spend huge time and indeed money, even parachute a former Union President in to convey the message of woe.
Whether one believes it when in every Qantas' pilot's memory your airline has been terminal and transformed.
Now on schedule up pops a lead IR negotiator with selective quotes saying yet again the business is in trouble...

We leave it to the readership, but it is worth quoting the orator of note, George W Bush.

“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.”









.

ALAEA Fed Sec
4th Mar 2019, 08:32
Interesting thread guys and I have watched all this unfold from the inside....both your former President's path and former Federal Secretaries of my union who have done the dog on us and crossed directly over.

I say that only 2% of workers want to be union Reps/delegates be it for Pilots, LAMEs or any other profession, most people just want to work without worrying about the hassles. Of those who want to get involved in their union, only half are doing it for the correct reason with the other half in it for themselves. I think I can pick a good Rep early on, even when I was a young LAME I knew my leaders were trying to sell lemons on behalf of the company. You know this because they are always encouraging yes votes at EA time.

The ALAEA has since 2006 when I was elected to my role had a fixed position on all EBA votes. We never recommend one way or another. The offer itself is what is being considered and it should sell itself. This way you will also get better deals. You should not have been sold your last EA offer by AIPA. Members do listen to advice from the likes of NS on which way to go with a proposal and he should never have intervened.

Nobody should rise to union leadership with a view to seeking internal promotion within that company. I consider it a low act that undermines the trust people put into their representatives. My predecessor jumped ship as did most of them and it gave our Association a bad name. They all took inside knowledge to the other side and airlines will pay big money to get that info. You need to be very careful who your comm elects to the role of AIPA President and although I haven't met the new boss yet, I hope he is better than NS and as good as Woodsy and Barry.

cheers
Steve Purvinas

Tuner 2
4th Mar 2019, 08:45
“ it would appear that being forced to binding arbitration, had little downside,”

Apart from:
1. Arbitrated change from CAO48 to CAO48E industry exemption as the new Flight and Duty limits and insertion of clause 11 requiring Aipa to agree to FRMS without ‘unreasonable’ disaproval. Good luck with interpreting that one.
2. Introduction of SBLs that are now totally broken and dysfunctional such that they are easily avoided.
3. Standard pay rises that were available without millions in legal fees and red ties.
4. Introduction of redeployment - a subversion of seniority
5. Introduction of postings to replace the security/rewards of bases/localised lines.
6. Most critically: confirmation for AJ that fair work will never arbitrate a pay scale for a new type.

The wins for pilots were.........?

dragon man
4th Mar 2019, 08:50
Wasn’t the 787 pay scales a win for the pilots?

Tuner 2
4th Mar 2019, 08:54
Wasnít the 787 pay scales a win for the pilots?

Which 787 pay scales are you referring to? The ones that were specifically NOT put into the determination (and therefore not binding on anyone) or the ones voted up by 82%?

sled
9th Mar 2019, 03:43
Where can one find this statement from NS?