PDA

View Full Version : AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES - Beware the Trojan Horse


Al E. Vator
25th Feb 2003, 12:51
The latest I hear from Australian Airlines is as follows:

Sydney Airport welcomes Australian Airlines

The decision by Australia’s newest international carrier, Australian Airlines, to schedule international flights out of Sydney has been welcomed by Sydney Airport as a move that will contribute to promoting Australia as a tourist destination within the wider Asia-Pacific region.

Sydney Airport Chief Executive, Max Moore-Wilton, said the decision by Australian Airlines would enable international visitors flying with the carrier from Asian destinations to access flights to other Australian holiday destinations once they had arrived at Sydney.


Australian Airlines announced today that by the end of July the new international carrier would be operating three services a week from Sydney to Bali. In addition, Australian Airlines will also commence return services six times a week between Sydney and Cairns, offering seamless transits for inbound passengers travelling from Asia and Japan. (isn't Japan in Asia?)


Sydney Airport accounts for approximately half of all international passengers arriving in Australia, and around one third of all domestic air traffic. As such, it provides an ideal hub for any destination within the country, providing access to a number of domestic and regional airlines.

Mr Moore-Wilton said that the additional traffic to be generated from the Australian Airlines Sydney schedule would further add to a trend that has seen improvement over the past months. He said the Australian Airlines concept of a full service international leisure carrier would also contribute to broadening customer choice.

Australian Airlines decision to extend its schedule to include direct flights to and from Sydney Airport follows the decision last year to locate its head office in Sydney in close proximity to the airport precinct.

News Sydney Airport welcomes Australian Airlines
Date February 25th, 2003
Source Sydney Airport Corporation and 'Oz Flight'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I do remember suggesting that Australian Airlines was going to be used as a trojan horse to secretly bring in very cheap labour on whichever routes Geoff Dixon wanted. But NO, Mr. Dixon assured all that Australian Airlines would only ever operate on routes not deemed viable by Qantas. AA would not take over Qantas routes.

So given the following from the Qantas schedule:

QF029 SYD 1105 DPS 1410 0/763 6h05min
QF 030 DPS 2255 SYD 0740 + 1 Day 0/763 5h45min

How does this equate?

Again I would stand by my assertation that Qantas crew need to be wary of Australian Airlines. Qantas simply need to 'pull out' of a route one day and Australian could take over the next. What control do you have? All of a sudden a great slab of your flying & promotional prospects is being shunted of to AA and bingo you have no control over your destiny.

This may sound melodramatic but suggest you heed this now before it is too late. Where will the offloading of flying stop?
---
Just as an addendum, have flown on AA and it is absolute rubbish. Still costs a Sh1tload to fly with them but for less service. Thay claim they are not a low-cost airline (and their airfares prove that) but the inflight service is bare-bones basic. Trying to be a Virgin but without the low airfares. No ice in drinks unless requested - please!

The formula is inappropriate. If you get low service you should pay low fares. The minute a Virgin Blue International operates on these routes, I'm switching, provided they are cheaper (should be easy enough). Not whinging, just stating the case as I see it. C'mon Dennis and Andrea, you can do better.

Wirraway
25th Feb 2003, 16:44
Wed "The Australian" 26/2/03

Airline spreads wings
By Alan Wood
February 26, 2003

QANTAS Airways Ltd plans to expand its low-cost Queensland-based subsidiary Australian Airlines in the Asia Pacific, despite increased tension in the region driving the airline's share price lower.

Chief executive Geoff Dixon said Qantas planned to increase the number of routes serviced by Australian Airlines to destinations including Bali.

The airline was also considering adding Australian Airlines routes to Shanghai, China and Sabah, Malaysia, later in the year.

Shaw Stockbroking head dealer James Spiteri said the Qantas share price was hurt yesterday on reports of increased tension in North Korea, with a missile being fired into the Sea of Japan.

Qantas shares closed 16¢, or almost 5 per cent, weaker at $3.23 on high volume of 16 million. Last Thursday Qantas shares slumped more than 10 per cent on concerns the airline's 2002-03 profit might be hurt by a fall-off in bookings amid war tension.

Mr Dixon said yesterday the first definite low-cost route to Bali would start from the end of July, as well as the introduction of Australian Airlines services between Cairns and Sydney from mid-year.

By the end of July Australian Airlines would operate three services a week from Sydney to Bali and one a week from Melbourne, with more possible in 2004.

The number of aircraft in the Australian Airlines fleet, operating since October, would increase to six from four by the end of 2003, with the aircraft being leased from the Qantas parent.

However, Mr Dixon said despite the increasing influence of no-frills carriers in a rationalising world airline industry, Qantas had no plans to become a total low cost operator.

"Qantas – a fully commercial, full service airline confronts both the non-frills players and the Government subsidised airlines," he told a trans-Tasman business circle lunch. " . . . While we will never operate in the same fashion as the no-frills carriers, they have none the less created a paradigm shift in aviation.

"We need to scrutinise every thing we do to reduce process complexity and costs."

Mr Dixon also said the airline intended to have further talks with the Federal Government regarding the limits on foreign investment in Qantas.

The current 49 per cent limit helped drive up costs, he said.

"We are talking to the Government again because it adds about two percentage points to our cost of capital . . . it makes it very hard for us to compete," he said.

Mr Dixon said changes to airline alliance groupings were very likely in the future, given the turbulent climate for world airlines.

The main alliance groupings comprise the Star Alliance with members including United, Air NZ, Thai Airways and SIA; and an opposing Oneworld group including Qantas.

"(We) will probably see the overall alliance issue, involving the likes of Oneworld, Star . . . start to, not break up but, certainly there will be some movement around," he said.

Mr Dixon would not comment directly about Air New Zealand leaving the Star Alliance, given that Qantas proposes to take a 22.5 per cent, $NZ550 million ($515 million) stake in the New Zealand carrier.

==========================================
Wed " Australian Financial Review"

Qantas to use low-cost subsidiary on new routes
Feb 26
Jane Boyle

Qantas Airways plans to use its low-cost subsidiary Australian Airlines to restore flights to Bali and launch new routes to Shanghai and East Malaysia, despite comments last week that forward bookings had dropped markedly on some major international routes.

Qantas shares fell to a 16-month low yesterday - closing down 16¢ at $3.23 - amid fears full-year earnings will be hit by war fallout and weak tourism numbers.

The airline said last week that bookings on routes to Japan and UK were down by up to 20 per cent and an overall 6 to 8 per cent decline in international bookings over the next 16 weeks could deteriorate sharply if war breaks out in Iraq.

Qantas plans to use Australian Airlines as a way of expanding while keeping a lid on costs.

Australian Airlines chief executive Denis Adams said that instead of Qantas adding two flights between Sydney and Denpasar in April as previously planned, the lower cost Australian Airlines will use a fifth plane to be added in July to begin four return services a week between Denpasar and Sydney and Melbourne. Australian will also begin six-weekly Cairns-Sydney services mid-year and plans a new weekly service between Cairns and Kota Kinabalu in East Malaysia.

When a sixth plane is delivered in November, Australian plans three new weekly services between Cairns and Shanghai - Qantas's first direct flights to China since it abandoned the route two years ago.

Australian Airlines also plans additional flights into Singapore, in a move expected to rattle Singapore Airlines.

Australian Airlines, with seat costs around 25 per cent less than Qantas's main operations, will fly at least daily and possibly more frequently to Singapore, with ambitions to expand it as a hub from which to tap new leisure markets.

Meanwhile, Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon told a Trans-Tasman Business Circle Function the airline was still talking to the federal government about getting its foreign ownership caps lifted.


On the industrial front, Qantas faces more strife after the Flight Attendants Association of Australia threatened further action after a stopwork yesterday over a pay dispute.

It will also meet today with the Australian Services Union, which is demanding an explanation of plans for cuts to staffing levels. About 65 Air New Zealand staff in Australia also went on strike yesterday over a pay dispute.

Capt Coconut
25th Feb 2003, 23:25
It was also said that AO would not compete on routes operated by Qantas.Now Cairns - Sydney is a major route for QF. How do they explain this. The tip of the iceberg is getting bigger!

James Evans BNE
25th Feb 2003, 23:42
Well at the moment there is only 1 flight that AO does between CNS-OOL-CNS each day if this is the case its probably will be the same with SYD-CNS-SYD or maybe 2 each day.
so i don't think qantas is going to cancle there 4-5 flights a day to CNS out of SYD

especially if pax have to go through international airport procedures
it quicker for domestic pax to go domestic

(unlike us who will do the international domestic thing)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards, James Evans (BNE)

Check out My Pics


http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=803

ditzyboy
25th Feb 2003, 23:42
And operating SYD-DPS along side QF! What is that about? What happened to the "not competing against QF" thing?! Did they think everyone would forget they said that? :D

Capt Claret
25th Feb 2003, 23:49
Perhaps the coming hostilities in the Mid East and the subsequent downturn in International travel will make some more of QF's mainline routes unprofitable.

Lucky they've got Australian waiting in the wings to pick up the slack. ;)

bigenchilada
26th Feb 2003, 01:13
People,

So much emotion about the inevitable. Did you honestly believe the HO propoganda about not eroding the QF market or competing with QF routes???? Oh to be so naieve.

A quick look at the current world aviation market reveals the best performers in these turbulent times are all based on the low cost model (including DJ which is currently showing a considerably better ROI than QF). To think that Mssrs Dixon and Adams are not going to make the most of their own variant defies belief. Of course they are.

QF's ROI averaged over any period is, despite being better than other full service carriers, pitiful. To succeed over the next decade QF will have to do everything possible to reduce operating costs to levels achieved by other low cost airlines, or they will simply perish and guess what, NOONE will have a job (can't happen ? Remember AN).

QF has evolved over the years into a bloated, inflexible, bureaucratic juggernaut which is now plagued by gratuitous industrial action from an employee group with greatly inflated opinions of their worth.

All said and done the airline industry is allegedly a service industry. In any service industry the customer dictates the level of service to be provided. If low cost, no frills (cheap and nasty) is what they want, then so be it. At the same time the management have a performance obligation to the share holders, which is why the likes of DJ and AO will prosper at the expense of the former more traditional full service airlines.

If I were in the QF camp, I would strongly suggest looking back on the previous halcyon days with fond memories, as that is all they will be within 5 years.

If one is an astute observer, one will realise that serious cost cutting is nigh on impossible to achieve under the QF model and can only be achieved by shrinking QF whilst expanding AO.

So get with the program kids, all the emotional rhetoric in this or any other forum is not going to prevent the inevitable. Jump aboard and participate in the latest evolution of the industry rather than sitting on the sideline slinging s**t at it.

BigE

Lodown
26th Feb 2003, 01:42
Well said. And that was the whole enchilada.

go_dj
26th Feb 2003, 01:47
bigenchilada

I think your right on the money, as for domestic Dixon will
most likely keep 'CityFlyer' as mainline and farm out the rest
to Impulse-AO-Qantaslink where up to 20-30% in costs can
be saved, the same as Delta and United are trying in the U.S.

Al E. Vator
26th Feb 2003, 03:18
So what you're saying is clearly that Geoff Dixon and Dennis Adams are outright Liars? Not ever to be trusted?

Rather sad if that is the case even if it is naieve.

But yes bigenchilada I think you are right it was inevitable as my earlier posts indicated.

There is however one major defect with Australian Airlines...it is CrAp. Complete CrAp. What they are doing is charging 'Qantas' type airfares but providing DJ type service and that is not a product anybody wants. It simply will not succeed on its own merits long-term. It has at the moment a little inertia because of its QF backing but the product cannot succeed survive long term.

Either you charge less and provide low service (DJ) or you charge a fortune (as they do) and give full service. There is absolutely nothing 'full-service' about ther Australian Airlines product.

However once the service/cost issue is rectified I think you are right. Australian Airlines is here for the long term. I think QF will be confined to LAX, LHR, HKG and some Japanese sectors, Australian will operate all the NZ, Bali type tourist-based flights and QantasLink will do the domestic stuff for all of the reasons you mentioned.

The tragedy is that by world standards Australian aircrew are paid very poorly and penalised further by a punitive tax system.

rescue 1
26th Feb 2003, 05:12
Australian, National Jet, Airconnex, Jetconnect... it may be too late. These little guys are moving along nicely.

nickmelb
26th Feb 2003, 05:42
are AO actually selling seats to pax on CNS/OOl flights? or are they just for international connecting pax only? i would've thought that it was for international pax connecting?

doesn anyone know? cheers

Anti Skid On
26th Feb 2003, 06:53
Can anyone explain this route - is it a tourist route, do the folks in Cairns head to Kota Kinabalu for their hols?

I would have thought the likes of Langkawi and Penang would have been suitable routes, but from SYD or MEL

SeldomFixit
26th Feb 2003, 09:37
Australian Airlines represents pragmatism at it's best. After years of conducting mostly futile battles with the unions, QF management were left with precious little to show, other than one of the world's finest sheltered workshops. Even the best " anti personnel" operatives came up short against the outdated and extremely restrictive work practices that epitomise QF. Along comes Australian Airlines - the completely new model for QF, but instead of beating the unions with a stick, as per past practice, management simply adopted the view that the best course of action was to let the "old" company grow out, just like a bad haircut. Anyone sitting in QF nowadays, fat, dumb and happy should be very concerned. It is only the largese of the newly pragmatic management, that prevents the clippers being taken to QF wholesale. Bald is certainly an option as opposed to waiting for the bad cut to grow out fully.

stormywx
26th Feb 2003, 10:45
nickmelb,

As of late last week, AO opened up the sale of CNS-OOL-CNS seats to the domestic market as well.

stormy

jakethemuss
26th Feb 2003, 11:29
Anybody actually know what an Australian Airlines pilot earns, and what the potential earnings are when the bonus scheme is developed?
Anyone spoken to an AO pilot and asked how they like it? Anyone here actually work for AO or QF and know what they are talking about?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller
Bueller

Air Mike 957
27th Feb 2003, 00:13
What are the chances of Australian Airlines employing there own pilots in the future ie not Qantas pilots.

Kaptin M
27th Feb 2003, 03:54
London to a brick that that is one of the next moves, Air Mike 957.

Unless AIPA takes strong action now (something they didn`t do back in AA`s formative stage), contractual degradation and promotions are just a couple of moves away.

After all, Geoff and Margaret NEED those multi-million dollar bonuses!

Air Mike 957
27th Feb 2003, 15:27
Was that a yes,no or nobody really knows yet?

ftrplt
28th Feb 2003, 00:34
Air Mike,

as long as AO can get enough Qantas mainline guys to go across then that is the way they will go. As of yet they have not had to face the situation of not having enough guys interested in AO, however a lot of the interested parties do require conversion or upgrade training from mainline. No major problems with FO interest, some problems with Captains. I would suspect that FO to CAPT upgrades would happen in the future with ex QF mainline before external direct entry.


Jake,

for junior pilots it can be summed up as paid more and work a lot less. The lifestyle is significantly improved which adds to the appeal.

For middle ground pilots paid slightly less and still work less.

Probably not many senior guys interested.

lambsie
28th Feb 2003, 01:26
Every second sector: all-nighter, two crew... yuck!:yuk:

jakethemuss
28th Feb 2003, 13:04
So for 2/3 of the pilots it is a win.

Can't be too bad then

ftrplt
28th Feb 2003, 19:52
there are actually quite a lot of junior Captains interested, however for most its either kids in school, the wife doesnt want to go or they dont want to leave the Sydney R/E market that stops them.

Kaptin M
28th Feb 2003, 21:47
IMO, the title of this thread is very apt..Australian Airlines.......BEWARE THE TROJAN HORSE.

for junior pilots it can be summed up as paid more and work a lot less. The lifestyle is significantly improved which adds to the appeal.

For middle ground pilots paid slightly less and still work less.

...the sweetner, that is being played to make this initially acceptable.
Be assured, that once firmly established, the work is going to increase significantly.

AIPA needs to get off their collective asses right now, open their eyes, and look AHEAD! Ensure that overtime and days off guarantee that pilots are going to have quality time with their family between trips, based on the WORST scheduling that can be built around the current off days.

Again, IMO, Australian Airlines is - in the medium term - going to mean LESS pilots in the QANTAS system.
At the moment you are seeing short term gain, as the Trojan Horse is moved into play.

CaptCloudbuster
1st Mar 2003, 00:01
Be assured, that once firmly established, the work is going to increase significantly

Im sorry KaptM but you are plain wrong... last year as a junior pilot with QF I was regularly flying 80 sectors per roster doing mostly 4 per day between Syd - Mel.

Now with AO (since the start up) I do 20 over the same period. Except these sectors are more efficient being around 7 hrs flying time each.

The result - recently we had to plan at CI250 in order for me not to run into flight and duty maximums- and yet I dont feel like I am working harder as Im not doing all the associated extra turnarounds combined with more quality time at home.:D

ftrplt
1st Mar 2003, 00:34
Kaptin M, you may be right, you may be wrong. However, you have no idea what AIPA has or hasnt done, and you have no idea about the working relationship between management and crews regarding rostering and future plans.

Having spoken to a majority of the crews and management, and based on FACTS I am satisified the intent is to make the airline a great place to work and one that is devoid of the crap that goes on in mainline. If future practices reduce the appeal then people will vote with their feet. This may or may not be an acceptable risk to management.

I dont need to 'be assured' by you, and AIPA does not need you to tell them to 'get off their asses and look ahead'. They are dealing with a lot of other issues more significant that AO at the moment.

You say 'Again, IMO, Australian Airlines is - in the medium term - going to mean LESS pilots in the QANTAS system.
At the moment you are seeing short term gain, as the Trojan Horse is moved into play.'

If AIPA says no we wont crew the airline, then doesnt that mean even less pilots within QANTAS?

Finally, dont be so arrogant as to tell those who have gone there that they are 'only seeing short term gain'; you are in no position to make that judgement.

Capt Fathom
1st Mar 2003, 02:35
Is it possible the crews with AO may not be able to readily get back into the mainlaine operation? (If they want to that is).
That could have longterm financial repercussions whilst waiting to return.

ftrplt
1st Mar 2003, 03:53
CAPT Fathom,

the current agreement guarantees you a return to QF (in your rank last held at AO) at the end of your contract period, or earlier if you are no longer required by AO.

fartsock
1st Mar 2003, 04:30
AO will have direct entry pilots in the next 12 months.

AO has been given flying that was once done by mainline.

For those of you so quick to support AO, have a think about what this means for your future prospects in mainline.

FS

jakethemuss
1st Mar 2003, 05:31
Fartsock,

It's no wonder you have so much time to post on pprune. You are such a miserable B****** that slip ports open no social doors for you.

You have no idea what you are talking about and doing a search on your previous posts shows a distinct lack of credibility. You, champ, put the Rumour in pprune.

Smile, misery guts.:O

fartsock
1st Mar 2003, 06:14
I am a QF B767 capt JTM. I reckon that qualifies me to comment on my own airline and my own fleet.

Been in the company 15 odd years.

Now, my friend give me some clues as to your basis of credibility and I will consider your point of view as informed or otherwise.

ftrplt
1st Mar 2003, 10:39
Fartsock,

you may be right, I think you are wrong however; my read of the situation only.

Whether AIPA supports AO or not, its still going to be there so why not get our crews in there instead. Management are not going to stop the growth of AO just because QF techies dont like it. Plenty of others out there who will jump at it.

By AIPA supporting AO, it actually keeps a future in mainline for QF crews, exactly the question you asked.

slice
1st Mar 2003, 12:25
ftrplt - What is crap at mainline that you speak of? Is it something that would get your morale down or can one ignore it if they so wish? Just interested in the atmosphere there.

funbags
1st Mar 2003, 20:49
Fartsock - you are not making too many friends amongst the AO pilots especially with a past post calling them s$#bs. They know who you are and watch your posts.

P.S What else was AIPA to do when AO was proposed regards crewing ?

bonvol
1st Mar 2003, 22:12
In other words...

Be a good boy FS, shut your mouth and toe the company line. Management are watching...know who you are..and will take a knife to your nether regions if you persist. AIPA will delight in your demise.

If anything take heart FS. You are far from alone in your views. Its just that no one other than you is game enough to voice them.

frank Borman
2nd Mar 2003, 23:23
I love it, keep slashing and burning guys for the inevitable SQ arrival via DJ. I'm going to laugh when you arrogant QF dickheads see the Airbus and 737 series jets at T2.

I love the asian way, let the competitior think they have the edge, then bring the sword in with a cost base thats really low and see whom lasts the longest in fare wars.

Boy, it's good being in Singapore, seeing how an airline should operate to keep profits rolling in. They really are coming. WHEN, not if..................can you feel it?

boofta
3rd Mar 2003, 02:06
Dear fellow aviators, including extremely knowledable and very
qualified QF captains who everyone knows, loves and respects.
The world alliances, OW and Star are in the process of a great
conspiracy to screw all pilots.
What you do by attacking each other is make it easier for their
earlier success.
US airlines use Chapter 11 to destroy our contracts and very
lives. OZ airlines have AO, CX has a B scale airline within itself.
It's all a process of lowered conditions and has been going on
for at least the length of Fartsocks career.
Think about how to STOP it or at least SLOW it down instead
of point scoring and threatening each other for expressing
yourselves. Know your real enemies! It's the beancounting
bonus earners who are destroying our careers. FOOLS.

thumpa
3rd Mar 2003, 03:11
Franky

Do you have many friends?

Being in Singapore? Stop pretending you work in the industry.

Al E. Vator
3rd Mar 2003, 04:12
Bofta: good points.
thumpa: you demonstrate exactly the point boofta is making.

As I said when I started this thread, beware the Trojan Horse. Don't attack your peers (even if you don't like them much). The likes of Geoff Dixon etc have ONLY THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST at heart, not the airline they work for, not the passengers and certainly not their staff.

Qantas pilots may well be arrogant but so what, that is not the issue. The likes of Geoff Dixon etc are out there to screw you all, arrogant or otherwise. AO is simply one incarnation of how to do that and their are many others.

Seeing you bitch at each other simply makes his job easier. Work constructively and cohesively:rolleyes: and you will assist your situation. Bitching at each other on PPRUNE won't help your own cause one bit.

frank Borman
3rd Mar 2003, 05:06
Thumpa, go back to your whisperjet mate. Stop pretending I work in the industry? What, I havent made you laugh on this occasion? Why don't YOU come to Singapore? you may actually have the luxury of seeing a first class airline operate, though having come from a stable of monkeys, who had to buy a 1900 rating as every other airline rejected you, well, what do you expect

Like I said, your holier than thou attitude doesn't cut it with me pal, you are there but by the grace of god, you better not forget it.

The comment I made about you having a two stroke rating is apt, you sit back and patronise others that you have absolutely no idea where they work and for whom.

ftrplt
3rd Mar 2003, 05:50
Al E vator, Boofta and Frank;

just more examples of those pretending they have all the answers and preaching to all that will listen that they are all knowledgable;

Some realities:

1) Airline management will do their best to minimise the cost base as much as they see as reasonable and fair - I would be disappointed if they didnt. Its a sign of the times worldwide and is not restricted to pilots. Pilots are employees and have no god given special rights to cosy conditions of employment, they must justify their benefits and conditions just like everyone else. Almost every industry in the world has either gone through these changes, going through these changes, or will go through these changes. Its up to pilot unions to minimise the impact as best they can be but there is no magic formula. I know in who's favour the cards lie at the moment and its not the employees.

2) Using throwaway phrases like 'work constructively and cohesively and you will assist your situation' and Kaptin M telling 'us to be assured' is very easy to say but you are missing the point. Aside from being arrogant (i.e that you alone can see the real situation and AIPA cant) its unrealistic; in the example of AO, there was absolutely NO POWER WITHIN AIPA TO STOP MANAGEMENT INTRODUCING A LOW COST OFFSHOOT - they will do it if they want it. AIPA has a responsibility to work within these changes to minimise the impact. They have done this with AO, for JUNIOR CREW ITS AN IMPROVEMENT TO CONDITIONS. People like Fartsock moan that AO is taking away flying from QF; yes it is but again THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AIPA COULD DO TO STOP IT. QF crews manning AO is a better situation than AO hiring from outside the QF ranks.

3) Management can reduce conditions as much as they like until the supply and demand monster bites them in the proverbial; to not acknowledge this FACT and work within this reality is ignorant
If you arent in AIPA, you have no idea of what is really happening so you are not in a position to to tell AIPA what they should and should not be doing. Instead of using warm and cuddly throwaway statements; what are your suggested courses of action if you believe AIPA is heading in the wrong direction?


Boofta, saying there is a conspiracy to screw pilots sounds like Shane Warne complaining that he is a victim - its a function of the change in times; people wanted deregulation, competition and low fares and they got it; you cant have it both ways. QF management's no 1 priority is to the shareholder. To not expect a push for cost cutting is just plain stupid. If you consider management as your enemies then you are bound to lose. They are the ones dealing from the pack.


Al E Vator; thumpa was doing nothing more that saying he thinks Frank Borman is an idiot; a fairly reasonable assessment. Boofta said nothing that isnt known by everyone in the industry, no new revelations here. What is sad about his and Frank Bormans posts are the obvious chips that they carry on their shoulders.

If you think Geoff Dixon lies awake at night thinking how can he 'next screw the pilots' then you are not giving him the professional respect he deserves. Im also quite sure he doesnt read PPRUNE thinking that the 'bitching at each other' is making his job easier, I suspect he has bigger issues on his plate.

littlefishbigshit
3rd Mar 2003, 06:34
Ftrplt
Finally someone who knows what the real world is all about.
Its time most of you realised that this is no longer a boys club.
This is a BUSINESS.
You know money to be made.
Get into the real world....You are no longer assured a job for life.
Have a think about where the 767 is heading in Qf.....no-where.
I think the A330 may take over most of the routes.

sirjfp
3rd Mar 2003, 07:06
Frank,

Again I think you are right on the pulse of things. When all these dickheads are arguing the merits of Q.F over A.O and worrying about relative pay scales and trojan horses infiltrating their base camps , S.Q just quietly announce an expansion program for their wholly owned subsidiary, SILKAIR, with an all A320 fleet expanding it's wings throughout the Asia / Pacific region.
The BBC Business Channel on Foxtel had this news last Thursday night. It said that S.Q had decided on this expansion due to the success of airlines such as Virgin Blue Australia , who have been extremely profitable as a discount carrier downunder.
All it would take is an equity deal in exchange for D.J terminal space and they would be off and running here ! Wouldn't that give Mr Dixon something to think about , particularly if Silkair just happened to offer Business class on Australian domestic routes!

I look forward to working with you one day ,in the not to distant future Frank,. .......... And thumpa you can park my car for me if you like........ It might pay better than the dole !

ftrplt
3rd Mar 2003, 10:44
That would be SILKAIR, a low cost base wholly owned subsidiary; sounds remarkably like what QF is doing with AO.

Eastwest Loco
3rd Mar 2003, 12:09
I may be stating the bleeding obvious here, but let us all face it. in the face of huge airlines and the power and political clout they can and do wield through the beancounters, we are ALL passengers.

From the gentleman in the left hand seat to the lowly Travel Agent, if they want to do something there is not one single thing we can do collectively orindividually to stop them eventually getting their way.

EWL

Freek Flyer
3rd Mar 2003, 13:43
Frank Borman...

You are a small man! I've been reading many of your posts and I must say it is a shame you wish the demise of Qantas and hence the job losses of well over 30,000 Australians!

By the way, do you know me? Have we met somewhere, I didn't think so, why do you call me an 'arrogant ********', simply for trying to earn a living working for an airline that you don't like. Bag the airline if you must, but it really is pathetic of you to bag people you don't even know, not to mentioin small minded.

And before you reply with something like 'ohhhh FF don't take it personally...' or something along those lines, I don't really care, it's just a shame when any person wishes such things upon there kind, did you know anyone at Ansett?

thumpa
3rd Mar 2003, 20:43
Franky


Boy, it's good being in Singapore, seeing how an airline should operate to keep profits rolling in. They really are coming. WHEN, not if..................can you feel it?

What a pathetic statement along with your other baseless sweeping statements. and abuse.
You are a fraud and a fake. funnily enough you created an alter ego to agree with your crap. SIRJFP. You enjoy calling anyone at Q arrogant d1ckheads and wish for the demise of Q. I won't mention Impulse. You are not a professional nor are you connected to the aviation industry.

What are you? A disgruntled pax whom wants even cheaper airfares.

All this bottled up hatred and angar can't be good for you. Have you tried Yoga or Meditation? I hear its big in Asia.

Adios

Let it rip Franky.

Al E. Vator
3rd Mar 2003, 23:16
The above posts are a classic. You girls are putting so much energy into bitching at one another about who is best and who is a wan.ker. Ex AN pilots bagging arrogant Qantas pilots. QF pilots jealous of CX pilots paypackets. Alliance pilots bagging ex-workmates etc etc etc. Jeez does this ever stop. Yes, even I do this too but we must look like complete friggin' fools to outsiders.

No wonder the lot for professional pilots in Australia is so completely stuffed and still heading south.

Geoff Dixon and his ilk must be chuckling endlessly. He doesn't need to undermine us, we do it so well ourselves.

Lodown
4th Mar 2003, 00:21
Got that right Al E. Vator.

Kaptin M
4th Mar 2003, 03:06
Al E. V, I feel that the REAL options being floated here by the likes of yourself are too tough for AIPA, ftrplt and some of the other QF pilots who are apparently not capable of seeing the forest (for the trees).

Comments from ftrplt - who would seem to be "involved" with AIPA - such as,
Management can reduce conditions as much as they like until the supply and demand monster bites them in the proverbial; to not acknowledge this FACT and work within this reality is ignorant
...is naivete in the extreme!! In other words, he is WILLING to see QF pilots take up the clacker until the "supply and demand monster bites". That should be sometime in the next hundred years or so!!

Here's another of ftrplt's gems,
AIPA has a responsibility to work within these changes to minimise the impact. They have done this with AO, for JUNIOR CREW ITS AN IMPROVEMENT TO CONDITIONS.
Man are you ever SHORT-SIGHTED!
If you ARE a representaive of AIPA ftrplt, God help the pilots!

Fartsock - apparently a QANTAS pilot by his own admission, apparently has a FAR better grasp of what is going on in the REAL WORLD (as does Al E. Vator), than does ftrplt - perhaps better named ostrch...although even THEY only stick their heads in the sand.

Look outside QANTAS, to overseas airlines. The formation of Australian as a "low cost" subsidiary of the major, is a tactic being played out by anti-union management in several countries.
The steps are EXACTLY the same...
First spend hundreds of millions of dollars to set up this new "low cost" airline, using a new logo, at a station away from the HQ of the original.
Use one of the oldest fleet types (because no-one REALLY cares about losing that) - one that will later on be replaced with the LATEST type, on salaries at the OLD type scale.
Initially start with routes that the pilots are happy to see go, or with new routes that don't qualify the mainline as eligible for. Then, within a couple of years, start to "share" some of the flying with the mainline - eventually completely taking over some mainline flying, bit-by-bit.
But the "mainliners" are happy, as THEY are left with the (current) newest/biggest types, and the best routes. AND their conditions are protected.

Divide and CONQUER.

And you, ftrplt are too BLIND to see it! Because, as Al E. V has said in his last post, you are too busy believing guarding a bone that you think other envious pilots want to steal.
In the meantime, your Master is feeding a pack of wolves at the back door.

Wake up AIPA - and especially YOU, ftrplt!

All of the above IM(unqualified)HO, of course! :O

frank Borman
4th Mar 2003, 05:05
Freek Flyer, you ********, I was with an AN regional, note, was, so yes, you arrogant QF ********, I did know someone within the AN group!! In fact i know quite a few AN people, still some who don't have jobs, make you happy?

Sniff the flowers thumpa, and while you are there, take a long hard look at the 737NG, lovely aeroplane that. Hey, assuming you still live in Sydney, you may just see Airbus aeroplanes again.

I just pass on what I hear in another country, that being the one in which the so called baseless facts eminate. I'm sorry if my positive reporting of what SQ are doing offends you thumpa, does it not gell with the crap you read in the press in Australia? Then again, where you come from, you are all so clad in rose coloured glasses that you fail to see the true picture, that of SQ investment in DJ and the damage it will do to QF. But, hey, I tell you what, you just get that jar of Vaseline ready dude.

But what would I know, I'm just a passenger? hee hee heee............. Can you feel it thumpa?

I just love stirring you knobs up. You know that I sleep better when I know I've shitstirred you don't you thumpa?

Yeeehaaa launch that hussy as hi ho thumpa rides the dromaderry off into the desert packed with arab semen and sporting a tea shirt saying that the aeroplane was built by the Bin Laden group.......ooooooooohhh the spikey pineapple is better than 2 litres of draino anyday

Frankly I've had enough of this. W

elektra
4th Mar 2003, 05:06
I'll bet that if "Supply and Demand" were the only master of our destiny as employees then little children would still be crawling up chimneys and down coal mines for a living. At some point or another employees need to determine what is fair and what isn't and then, having drawn a line in the sand, defend their position. Just wander along to the 8 Hour Day memorial near the Trades Hall in Melbourne and reflect on what would have happened had the stonemasons NOT stood up for all workers.

I recall that the AFAP was told it would destroy the economics of the airline business if they forced airlines to take account of the line-up allowance. (That was at a time when the pilot union was listened to in Canberra). But the pilots were of course right and safety (and fair thinking) came first. There's been many similar events initiated by forward thinking, flexible and progressive pilot groups around Australia over the years, especially by AFAP members. And I'll bet Qantas pilots were happy for the AFAP to take the lead on the punitive superannuation taxes proposed in the 80's.

Labour must always be flexible and adapt to new ways of doing business and the changing regulatory and business world. (For example in 1989 AFAP negotiators were happy to begin deregulation talks with a ¡°clean sheet of paper¡± provided past salary losses (captured without constitutional authority by the Hawke junta) were returned). But labour has to speak its mind boisterously if necessary when the rot is setting in.

Sit and watch while the law of the jungle creeps in and we¡¯d all lose seniority, wear blue overalls and fight each other for the next promotion. Just what Bob and Sir Peter wanted. Cost them 4 airlines to learn that there might have been a better, cooperative way. Or maybe they never did learn.

flightfocus
4th Mar 2003, 05:46
As a Pilot currently undertaking an intergrated CPL course, dreaming of the day that I can apply for a position with an airline and fulfill my lifes dream, I am filled with disgust and sadness that reality of the job leads to forums such this. :mad: :mad:

You people are arrogant! You are conceited!! You have forgotten that there are hundreds of people like myself currently training towards a future doing something they love.

It would seem to an outsider like myself that you all have way TOO MUCH free time on your hands if this is how you end up. You guys are carrying on like an old wives club - except that you are even bitchier :yuk: :yuk:

I think a few of you should look into developing hobbies in your spare time and use this valuable tool - the internet forum you all hold so dear - to form a cohesive unit with mutually beneficial goals and ideas.

'Cause I tell you when I or one of my classmates fills one of your seats one day and all they can talk about is the "good old days" where going to be very shitty with the generation before us (ie: U guys!!:} :} ) for screwing things up with their petty infighting and shortsighted pointscoring.

Take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror some time soon - your not really that precious!!:=

Ozzy Osbourne
4th Mar 2003, 05:50
Ho Hum.... Don't you just love reading frank's insightful contributions. A never-ending stream of detritus from a rancorous, ill-informed cretin living in another country.:yuk:

Dale Harris
4th Mar 2003, 06:01
Might be a very good idea Flightfocus, to think of 2 things.... 1 If you were to realise that out of your precious "class" of what, may be 10 of you, that the odds are NONE of you will reach the lofty heights to which you aspire............ But I'm sure your flying school and instructors told you that......... 2. Much of what you think you know, you obviously do not. Many have gone before you my friend, many have lost jobs and gained jobs through hard work, luck and just plain circumstance. Are you the type that will work for the lowest common denominator just to get a job flying a shiny new jet? And thereby undercut your peers and the money and effort you put in to get there in the first place? Will you "work for free" to get those first hours after your brand new CPL is issued? Just to ensure you get there? Sounds a lot like it..........


As the saying goes my friend, "Walk a mile in my shoes", then you can criticise others for their actions, or lack of....

ftrplt
4th Mar 2003, 06:34
Kaptin M,

you still dont get what I am trying to say.

Thanks for telling us what we all can see, none of us are stupid and can see whats happening. Action is happening within AIPA at the moment over some of these issues. We will have to wait and see how it pans out.

My point however in a nutshell is this; we can only achieve achievable outcomes. You go to great pains to tell us how management is conspiring to screw us, but you offer no solutions.

If you are so knowledgable, give us your suggested plan of attack. Work to rule, go on strike????

I say again, there is minimal power within AIPA to stop management introducing things such as AO, reduction of conditions etc etc; but I do expect them to fight to minimise the impact as best they can, including tradeoffs where appropriate.

No where have I said that I believe AO is a better option that QF doing the flying. I do agree however with the attempt to put a low cost airline on routes that QF find unprofitable. I am not naive however and expect that QF will shift QF flying to AO in the future (as already announced). Again however Kap, instead of preaching, what is the solution??

Now Kap, how you take my quote of:

Management can reduce conditions as much as they like until the supply and demand monster bites them in the proverbial; to not acknowledge this FACT and work within this reality is ignorant

and turn it into:

In other words, he is WILLING to see QF pilots take up the clacker until the "supply and demand monster bites". That should be sometime in the next hundred years or so!!

is crap. No where did I say I was willing to see it happen, all I said was it is managements RIGHT to set the conditions, it is the unions responsibility to understand this RIGHT when it comes to negotiating. To blindly expect that pilots should not have to justify or defend their conditions is STUPID, and setting yourself up to lose (who won in 89??).

You said:

Look outside QANTAS, to overseas airlines. The formation of Australian as a "low cost" subsidiary of the major, is a tactic being played out by anti-union management in several countries.

No shit sherlock. Thanks again for taking the time to tell us how smart you are, but I am well aware of the tactic. My statements of fact to you are that:

1) AIPA has no power to stop it

2) QF crews crewing AO is better than outside crews

3) The conditions negotiated by AIPA for AO are an improvement for junior crews

I am not saying that this makes it ideal, I am saying that within the situation faced by AIPA, they have achieved the best outcome achievable given the cards held by management.

Now instead of preaching to us, tell us how a better solution could have been achieved? Dont just make statements (i.e calling me short sighted), if you are unable to back it up with alternatives.


You also say:

Fartsock - apparently a QANTAS pilot by his own admission, apparently has a FAR better grasp of what is going on in the REAL WORLD (as does Al E. Vator), than does ftrplt - perhaps better named ostrch...although even THEY only stick their heads in the sand.

Just because FARTSOCK makes comments that agree with your stance, doesnt automatically mean he can see reality. Just because I take a different view to you doesnt automatically mean I have my head in the sand. You are very willing to make statements of fact as you see them, but offer no solutions or alternatives to back up your assessment of my stance. Instead you (and people like Al E vator and Frank Borman) resort to insults and childish comments; might make you feel good but adds no value or fact.

At the end of the day whether FARTSOCK has a better grasp of reality over my head in the sand views, doesnt stop it happening. Its how you negotiate your way through the minefield that counts.

Finally you say:

Wake up AIPA - and especially YOU, ftrplt!

Again, dont be so ARROGANT to believe that you are in a position to demand this. AIPA are well aware of reality and have a reasonable grasp on what is achievable and what isnt, for you to believe that they are not aware of the situation is ignorant. You are not in a position to see what is and isnt been done in the current situation.

Again, if you are so wise what are your suggested alternatives?? Why is it again that you are outside Australia offering all this wonderful advice to us in QF??

You started by saying:

Al E. V, I feel that the REAL options being floated here by the likes of yourself are too tough for AIPA, ftrplt and some of the other QF pilots who are apparently not capable of seeing the forest (for the trees).

Thats just it; none of you have presented any REAL options, all you have done is preached about how those within the organisation have no idea, and told us how all seeing you guys are.

And no Kap M, I am not a representative of AIPA, just a plain old member.


Al E Vator, if you believe that the discussion on this thread is making management drool then you need to wake up. The opinions of a few anonomous people on a chat site hardly represent the views of the majority, and to think that management formulate policy based on what is written here is just stupid. Give them some credit.

fartsock
4th Mar 2003, 11:48
Hey Frank,

You wouldnt be 'RT' would you?

Ex various regionals for Kenadells ect.

Always hated QF as you had been knocked backed on two occasions?


have a nice day now

FS

Kaptin M
4th Mar 2003, 16:24
FS, you've played your cards fairly close to your chest so far...no NEED to show your hand now!

frtrplt, riddle me this.
Had QF NOT formed their new "low cost" (and to whom is it low cost?....The pax still pay the same ticket price as QF was charging, but WITHOUT the newspapers, service, and FF points) airline, and the flight crew and ground staff had continued to be recruited into QF via the normal channel - what would that have meant for the airline?
It would have meant that ticket prices would have remained the SAME.

But isn't that STILL the case now??!!

It might also have meant that the number of "MANAGERS" stayed the same. In other words, the ESTABLISHED internal company structure remained status quo!

However, as with any long-established company, promotion starts to slow to a predictable trickle, after some time - and for new "young gun execs", looking for a rapid rise in managerial circles - unless they are PARTICULARLY outstanding - the opportunities just ain't there - unless another company is created, opening up new vacancies for empire builders.

Unlike the profession of pilot!!

Enter the "low cost" airline.

QF now decides that it will start a brand new company. :ok:
One that needs to be structured from the ground up.
The SAME people could have been employed by QANTAS - after all, the same pre-requisites are set!
But to do that, QANTAS can use the existing staff.

However, a NEW airline - initially based away from the parental HQ - will require a whole NEW gamut of "managers" and associated heirachy, thereby providing promotion and an opportunity for empire-building on another scale.

To take this scenario in the converse, what happens when two companies merge?
There is an immediate rationalistion of staff - ESPECIALLY the MANAGERIAL type.

In short, AA has been formed to provide ground staff - esp. the "managers" - with an opportunity to promote their OWN salaries and bonuses.
To "justify" their positions, salaries of other staff are reduced, and in Australian's case, so are passenger benefits!

If frtrplt REALLY had a CLUE as to where he (and AIPA) should be headed, he wouldn't need to ask the OBVIOUS here on PPRuNe. It would have been done when he and AIPA first got wind of the new QANTAS baby.

(I'm willing to offer advice - but at a price!! :D )

Australian Airlines has been set up for the benefit of ground-based "management", and before long I predict that there WILL be non-QF pilots brought in on LESSER conditions than the existing QF. Probably on contract, so as not to upset you boys too much. :eek:

Wake up, and smell the roses.

The Trojan Horse has been presented to you, QF pilots, and some of you (eg, ftrplt) appear to be dumb enough to believe that you should NOT be looking THIS "gift horse" in the mouth!! :rolleyes:

boofta
4th Mar 2003, 22:36
Wow! I have never read so much playing the man in my life.
US Airways is in court trying to halve its committment to its pilots
Super scheme. Or otherwise it threatens to bankrupt itself.
Do you people understand the level that ALL airline managements
are prepared to stoop too.
I admit I have no answers on stopping this rot, I admit I have a
chip on my shoulder about where this industry is going. But please think why the industry is failing itself.
The likes of SQ/VB/AO are the reason and manifestation of the rot not the solution.

elektra
5th Mar 2003, 00:03
Boofta,

I don't know much about SQ and as far as Australian goes I watch bemused at the concept.

It seems to me that VBis not "part of the reason for the rot" at all. It is staffed by 100% volunteers who joined on terms made clear at that time. What you see is what you get. No-one is starving, indeed all pilots earn salaries which while not QF standards are quite adequate. And down the road there's the possibility of a staff portion of the public float and the longer term upward moveof all salaraies as VB get an ever increasing slice of the market.

Just remember, VB (as with Compass and Impulse before them) created this market. Low fare travel was not ever a big priority at QF. So as these forums clearly show, jobs have been provided to people who would never have flown jets in Australia otherwise.

Qanats have had years and years to prepare for the final emergence of a well funded new carrier. They should have (forward thinking management?) positioned themselves (cost structure, fleet, strategies, labour contracts) so they would be a part of the boom, not trying desperately to outrun it. They have bet everything on the fact that they offer a product which people will, on average, pay more for, with all the bells and whistles. If they're right then VB will not ever cost one QF job.

VB has given a lot of good jobs to good people. I don't work for them but often fly with them and like their product. Can't quite see the "rot" there.

Freek Flyer
5th Mar 2003, 01:54
Frank


I have to say it again but you really are a small minded person. You don't know me, so you have no idea what I am like. I too know many people that lost there jobs in ansett and kendells. A family member of mine had to sell his house, he now lives with his wife and two kids with his parents, still unable to find another job. So I have seen how much a big company (aviaiton or not) going down effects people, just like you've experienced, I feel for you, really. But wishing the same fate on others, no matter how much you hate the company they work for is cruel hearted and pathetic. I'm sure there are some arrogant ppl working for the said company, but name one company where EVERY employee is a perfect.

So this time try to think up a meaningful comeback franky rather than to keep calling me a ******** or bagging me out in some other way. - For that I call you small minded.

nzer
8th Mar 2003, 20:11
Isn't it possible the 'conspiracy" theories are a bit overdone here? Isn't it just possible that QF is fdoing the inteligent thing, and setting up a low cost structure arm (a la freedomair to ANZ) to block, premptively, a Virgin push into low cost Intl ops ex Australia - might this not in fact be GOOD for QF pilots and employees? An airline's management has a duty to maximise income and return on investmnent, pure and simple, it is not charged with providing one employee group with particular set of conditions of employment to the exclusion of all else. (Runs to bunker to hide)

Fat Ass
9th Mar 2003, 08:10
NZER,
Although we all hope to maintain our working conditions, I have to say well said. Franky you are a ********...end of story!:p

fistfokker
9th Mar 2003, 12:31
ftrplt

I have to say I agree with your well argued and reasoned response.

Analogies to children in mines and chimney sweeping show an ignorance of the financial realities facing the workforce today.

People who wish to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we are in industrial yesteryear need to have a good look at what is taking place around us.

It seems to me it is much better to work with the system than to constantly fight it and lose everything.

Keep it up.

Keg
9th Mar 2003, 14:36
I've been pretty quite on this one whilst considering my thoughts and I'm no closer to clarifying them in my own head so I thought I may as well vent them on the others.

If AO expands into areas not currently operated by QF then it will be a boon for QF pilots. Blind freddy knew (and I told the Chief Pilot of AO in April 2002 when I flew with him) that AO would be flying SYD or MEL- BLI within twelve months of start up so this is no surprise. QF has maintained for years that BLI, with it's high rate of frequent flyers rewards points and minimal business travel was losing money (or close to it) since QF first began flying there so in this case, their expansion to this port is not unexpected- at least not by any forward thinking QF pilot. If they spread their wings to Saigon (sorry, I can't spell the 'new' name), KL, Shanghai (which I think they've annouced), Seol, Bangkok (and beyond) then it will add to EXTRA commands for QF pilots. Sure, it won't be at the current rates but it beats the flying having gone to others completely. At least now we have the choice of going or not. I will admit that if they continue to take our international flying though it will be the very trojan horse with which people talk. Again though, at least QF pilots will still have jobs as opposed to just not being required. I'm a fair way up the list now so we are talking about halving the current list before the 'last on, first off' rule gets to me but that doesn't stop me from being concerned about future job propects.

As to the cost of the airline, I'm a little dissappointed in this area. They wanted a 20% reduction but on pay rates alone I reckon we've given them about 28%. QF pilots get about 1100 credit hours for about 800 stick. At the same pay rate, AO get 800 hours for 800 stick. 72% of their mainline bretheren. Tack on the savings made in 'other' areas of the LH pilot award (transport, leave, etc) then it starts to add toward a 30%+ saving for QF. I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on my figures there (especially considering my first command could well be a 'southern base' in a couple of years) but thats the way I read the agreement.

I'm not sure how much the 'duplication of managers' plays in this regard. I'd actually like to see the AO way of doing things slide across to QF. Less chiefs and more indians would be a good thing I'd think.

So overall where do I stand? Dunno. It may be a good thing for us, it may not. It may well be a bit each way. Time will tell. The only thing that ANYONE can be sure about is that NONE of us KNOW where this little ride is taking us- and that probably includes the powers that be!

Kaptin M
10th Mar 2003, 06:44
Even bigger savings will result WHEN Australian replace the 767`s and leave the crews on existing pay rates.

Not having a dig at you at all, Keg, however your statement, "Sure, it won't be at the current rates but it beats the flying having gone to others completely. At least now we have the choice of going or not. I will admit that if they continue to take our international flying though it will be the very trojan horse with which people talk." encapsulates your managements`hopes that this is the decision the QF pilots would be forced into, because of AIPA`s inability to resolve this issue from the outset.

My prediction is that, Australian Airlines is going to make SEVERE inroads into current QANTAS pilots` conditions and their numbers within the next 3 to 5 years.
Unless AIPA with the support of the pilots, make some HARD decisions now.

Eastwest Loco
10th Mar 2003, 08:24
Kaptin M

Isnt this just the continuation of what has been happening for the last 15 years?

The only one to say it out loud was the bow-tied weasel responsible for 2 major morale slumps at Australian and subsequently Qantas domestic.

Staff of any form are a liability, and if one can outsource or detach them from the core company, so much the better.

When Wally da *** knifed us in the back at TN WNY (and DPO ABX and NTL) it was the beginning of the end. Regionals and code share is the way they want it - feed the mainline with contract labour at substantially reduced labour costs.

The runs AO is being slid in on are the lower yield ops outbound, but excellent inbound yield such as HNL (a dog for a 743 in 2 class or a 744 in 3 class) - Japanese ports - all y class demand generally - DPS - low yield y - and so on.

Populate the ports and protect the runs from interlopers, but keep the costs down.

Interesting indeed - but certainly nothing new.

Best

EWL

Keg
11th Mar 2003, 01:18
Actually I agree Kap (but only if AO expands to take all the current 767 long haul flying) that it will indeed be the Trojan horse. I'm not sure what options were available to AIPA (IE, me and the rest of the QF pilot group) at the time to tell QF to 'rack off' and take thier low cost start up with them. QF would have pressed ahead and utilised former AN crew (some of whom actually offered to undercut the rates that AIPA and AO negotiated anyway) and we would have lost the flying anyway and any future opportunities that may have come with it.

Not sure what 'legal' avenues existed to avoid it. Sure, there are lots of 'other' means to pressure the company but there only has to be one email, one phone call to the wrong person, etc, etc and then the pilot group as a whole is liable for damages.

Not trying to be belligerent but what options did AIPA have but to negotiate the best deal possible for QF crew?

ftrplt
11th Mar 2003, 06:39
Keg,

have already tried that line with the good'ole Kap, but he seems to know all so dont bother trying to reason and use facts with him.

Evacuate
11th Mar 2003, 11:05
Kaptin M.
Maybe you need to go and buy a Sony Playstation or Xbox.They really are good fun,trust me.After 20 years in the airline industry I have never even come close to meeting someone like yourself.Ihope you and I stay at separate companies.Kaptin M,why are you so angry.:} :yuk: :* You should look like this:p :O I do..

WalterMitty
13th Mar 2003, 03:36
Dear Keg, I'm afraid that your own comments confirm Kaptin M's position. You're half way up the "list" so therefore 'I'm alright Jack'.This is the attitude that helps QF bosses. They know that the AIPA is a joke that they will always get past because it is dominated by long haul Captains. Let's take the recent fiasco of loss of licence insurance. The AIPA came up with a very good new plan that was sustainable and would save the pilots millions a year on premiums. It was all set to start but about 20 or so old long haul Captains had a bitch about it and the plan is scrapped.What a democracy !So now a bunch of old sick men can scam 5000 or more a month at everyone elses expense and the other 2200 pilots can go jump. Every thing the AIPA do only effects the junior crew when conditions deteriorate. You've got you eyes so keenly set on your pending command that it disturbs me when you talk of a "rule" of last on first off.No such rule exists.Discriminatory.The court cases will be interesting.

bonvol
13th Mar 2003, 08:01
Well of course it is a difficult situation now. As Walter says, there is not much sympathy for lesser mortals in the senior 744 crew. These guys by and large have had the Rolls Royce run of a career. No major dramas and if they were a cadet even had their training paid for by QF. They were in the right place at the right time. Half their luck.

Since 89 the strength and position of the professional pilot in Australia has been almost completely eroded to the level of beggar and the companies have been able to capitalise on this union weakness to get what they want.

Pre the magic year the Australian Airlines negotiation would probably have gone thus.

Company: We want to set up a low cost operation.

Union: Ok, we will tell you what we will accept.

Company: OK

Roll forward to now..

Company: We are setting up a low cost operation and this is the deal. Take it or leave it.

Union: OK, we'll take it.

So whats the answer? I don't know. We are our own worst enemy.The wannabes will work for zip, in the event of industrial action scabs breed like flies, the employers are the new militants and within each company the pilots are divided along party lines.

Time for a beer!

Johhny Utah
13th Mar 2003, 09:21
so what has to done by the current crews to stop this erosion of conditions? Please go ahead, as I'm all ears...

Kaptin M
13th Mar 2003, 09:37
Evacuate, if you feel that you want to get into a p!55!ng competiton ("After 20 years in the airline industry..") , then you've hit me in the right mood at the right time, son.
You'll have to be in the industry another 12 years before you equal my time here. :O

I'm not angry - puzzled, would probably be a more apt term, as to WHY the airline industry has been allowed to be steered in the direction it has.
In fact, the answer is obvious. Management greed.

I came from an era when management and unions worked hand in hand to achieve what was probably an ideal level for almost ALL employees. Eastwest Loco, The Night Owl, Tool Time, Amos and others - although at odds about 1989, will, I believe agree with me that when management were not so bonus performance oriented, each company ran like a well-oiled wheel.

Certainly 1989 was a "watershed" {James Strong) for the pilot workforce - but it also signalled a new era in the way upper management would mercilessly slice ANY areas that gave them a BIG bonus based on annual, or quarterly results, regardless of the long term health of the company! By "long term", I mean 15, 20, 30 years on.
Quite simply, these guys don't figure on being around then, and plan to retire on exhorbitant amounts - the sooner the better.

Unions (and their members), on the other hand, take a longer term view, imho.

And hence my interest in Australian Airlines. I have met Keg (in Christchurch) - he is a (relatively) young guy, who hopes to have a long future in QF, and (he) is quite company orientated and willing to help QF, to try to guarantee his (and his family's) future. I also know quite a number of QF Captains, including one now long retired, who recruited quite a few of you guys.

Australian Airlines is, in my opinion, another vehicle that has been set up (at enormous expense) to further screw the QF pilots ONLY for management gain.
IMO, it will do NOTHING to help grow QANTAS the airline.
Nothing that QANTAS could not have done itself.

AIPA need to "secure" ALL pilot positions now, and in the FUTURE - which may involve some "pain" before much longer, if the likes of Keg hope to realise their dreams.

Keg
13th Mar 2003, 10:12
Walter, you've been around this forum for a while now (according to your registration date anyway) so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My position is NOT 'I'm all right jack as 1300 of you guys will go before it gets to me'. My position is that 'I'm probably pretty safe in the short to medium term but ANY redundancy of QF pilots concerns me- not because I'm worried about my own job but because these guys are family'. I'm also concerned that others won't get to experience life as a QANTAS pilot into the future. It's a heritage that goes back a long way and to be employed by the company who counted so many esteemed airmen amongst the ranks is a humbling experience. I'd like every pilot possible to experience that. Now and well into the future.

So take a pot shot if you must. I'll admit that my comments can be read as though I'm concerned about my job and not fussed by the 1300 or so they have to go through to get to me. To clarify that once and for all, I'm concerned about the day that ANY QF driver gets 'furloughed' (to coin the US phrase!). Alas, I've stuck my head out of the trench so often that they probably wouldn't have me back! :eek:

I find it a source as constant irony that most on here (and a whole bunch of people in QF) consider me a 'company' man and yet I'd bet a kidney that certain aspects of 'the company' thinks I'm a rat bag troublemaker who cares nought for the company. It's the 'certain aspects' that I don't care too much for, the company I love and loathe at the same time.

Thanks for the gee up Kap. I haven't thought myself young for ages. Nice to know that some still think I am (even if it is 'relatively' so!) :D I think so far that AIPA has done pretty well 'securing' our futures. We may have different perceptions on what the word 'secure' means but I KNOW that I'm a lot better off at least having the opportunity of crewing Australian than had it gone to out of work Ansett pilots and have it decimate our futures from underneath.

permFO
13th Mar 2003, 11:05
The reality is that management can do what ever they want because the only weapon in the workers armoury is strike action. We all know that pilots striking is not going to happen. Whether we accept it or not pilots are just like any other wage and salary earner and they have slowly been hammered into submission across all areas of the workforce.

Kaptin M
13th Mar 2003, 12:40
"Whether we accept it or not pilots are just like any other wage and salary earner.."
Bzzzzzzzz.....WRONG.

Some people would like you to believe that - and that's the sword upon which Ansett, East-West, IPEC, and Australian (aka TAA) perished by espousing that.
The reality is that management can do what ever they want because the only weapon in the workers armoury is strike action.
Sorry to disagree again, pFO. As a matter of opinion, strike action is one of only many tactics available to a now more industrial-savvy pilot workforce.

"Safety first", and Health have never been more important than in today's fast moving world. :cool:

Three Bars
13th Mar 2003, 22:18
As a QF driver I also agree with Keg on this one!

IMO it is better to have QF drivers in the seats than run the risk of the work going outside mainline - even if the conditions are relatively reduced.

Kaptin M - the thing about picking a fight with QF management is that its all in the timing. While George W has all his hardware parked around Iraq, any industrial action is a lost cause. If we waged industrial war at a time when the airline industry could go badly pear-shaped as soon as the bombs fall, it would be suicide. We would be crucified in the press and it would all be over. I think that the media is where the '89 battle was lost. The public at large still feel that we are all on million-dollar salaries and would not understand why industrial action was being carried out at such a sensitive time.

So I feel that the EBA will be settled soon and Australian Airlines will go on. No denying that the pilot body are not really happy at the moment being offered 3% while management get a 50% bonus - I think the turnout at the Special AIPA meeting would have reinforced that point. Let's save the fight for a time when we might win!

WalterMitty
14th Mar 2003, 03:50
Keg, I shall return the favour.My real beef is the AIPA, not you. Your position is very reasonable.

A lot of people wonder what the AIPA should do about AO. Their biggest failing was to create a secondment agreement and not a new award and certified agreement. Management can at any time return the pilots to QF and still do whatever they want with AO. I may be wrong but the AIPA has no jurisdiction on employment and conditions at AO and only has a temporary arrangement. So the AIPA has far from secured AO. The AIPA should take a case to court to order that QF and AO be considered one workplace or at least gain respondency to two awards. This would casue a major legal battle that probably only the ACTU could fight. At present wholly owned subsidiaries are run by companies to create smaller and separate work groups that have a weeker bargaining position and cant do sympathy industrial action.
The weakness and 744 dominance of AIPA is demonstrated by the insurance issue and even more so by the issue of DPA which is a complete joke. Management can renege on major issues and the AIPA just will not use the courts. QF are clearly in breach of the workplace relations act and must surely be laughing all the way to the bottom line.

I do not share 3bars view on attacking the company. I recently was advised that the CP is no longer on bonus/performance pay. Unfortunately the DCP IS ON such a system and is in charge of negotiations. It begs the question.

When a company has a record profit it is time for a little of it to go around. The time is now. Dixon's doom and gloom comments are so staged it makes me sick.:yuk: . Always hear that rubbish around EBA time. Profit downgrade talks will come next and then next year when he announces results better than the dodgy revised figures he'll take all the credit and give none oof it to staff because they will have panicked and locked into a multi year EBA that gives them less than CPI and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. That gives me another idea. The AIPA should only talk on a one year EBA and use the Iraq thing as the reason.

farrari
14th Mar 2003, 05:14
I think the Australian newspaper 14/3/03, aviation section, sums up QF 'l o n g' term future.

EPIRB
14th Mar 2003, 05:37
For those of us with no access to The Australian, what did it say?

permFO
14th Mar 2003, 06:12
Kaptin M my understanding of a wage and salary earner is you go to work ,you do the job you are paid to do and every month or fortnight the company deposit an amount of money in your account. In Australia you are subject to the award and conditions covered by an EBA which requires you to agree to productivity gains in return for a small increase in your salary. Pilots might be well paid wage and salary earners but they are still wage and salry earners. The pilots who don't accept that are usually the ones who run foul of the Tax Office thinking they can get away without paying tax. In Australia if you take punitive industrial action which financially disadvantages the company the union can be held liable. The ball is firmly in the employers court.

Wirraway
14th Mar 2003, 06:50
Fri "The Australian"

War haunts travel sector
By Steve Creedy
March 14, 2003

AUSTRALIA stands to lose more than 36,000 jobs and endure a $3.5 billion decline in tourism and travel demand if there is a lengthy war with Iraq, a study has found.

The findings are part of a study of 161 countries commissioned by the World Travel and Tourism Council, which estimates a longer war could destroy three million tourism and travel jobs worldwide and cost $US30 billion ($50 billion).

It comes as the Air Transport Association this week warned that US airlines could lose an additional $US4 billion as they axed 2200 daily flights as well 70,000 jobs in the event of a war.

The tourism council study found Australian travel and tourism would grow by 2.5 per cent in 2003 if there was a "base case" of no war or a quickly ended conflict.

But it predicted this would turn in to a 0.4 per cent decline in a prolonged war, equating to a 2.9 per cent real loss for Australian travel and tourism.

This would mean 36,240 fewer people employed directly and indirectly through the travel and tourism industry.

"In nominal terms, the war scenario impact is expected to total $3.5 billion," the report said.

Hardest hit in Australia would be travel and tourism exports – expected to fall 14.2 per cent, or $2.7 billion, if fighting persisted.

A prolonged war would also see travel and tourism gross domestic product fall by $1.9 billion, or 4.8 per cent, the study by Oxford Economic Forecasting said. The WTTC based its worst-case scenario on an inconclusive or prolonged military engagement causing a disruption to oil supplies, an undermining of consumer confidence and equity markets for an extended period.

It assumed Iraqi attacks on oil facilities, Israel and US troops but not the use of weapons of mass destruction.

It also postulated low-level civil tensions and clashes in post-war Iraq as well as terrorist attacks on the US. "The analysis of recent history has shown that the travel and tourism industry is particularly vulnerable to severe business downturns during periods of terrorism, political uncertainty and military conflict," the report said.

"WTTC calls on government leaders around the world to recognise the severe economic and employment impact experienced by tourism and travel."

The local tourism industry did not have similar estimates but sources said a 10 per cent drop in the 4.8 million international visitors each year would cost the industry about about $1.7 billion.

Australian Tourism Commission managing director Ken Boundy said the situation was still too uncertain to make estimates.

"Travel will inevitably slow and we're already seeing this in forward bookings," Mr Boundy said. "We just don't know the extent of it."

But Mr Boundy predicted there would be a strong pent-up demand for travel to Australia once certainty returned.

The ATC has postponed some of its global campaigns and Mr Boundy said it would be in a position to return strongly to the market to support demand for Australia when the time was right.

Qantas and Sydney Airports Corporation have already announced crackdowns on costs – including leave, overtime and capital expenditure – as they prepare to face the downturn.

Both have warned staff there may be job cuts later in the year.

This week's ATA report painted an even grimmer picture for US carriers, with warnings that the world's biggest airline, American Airlines, is struggling to stay out of bankruptcy.

US Airways and United Airlines are already operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

United this week asked a US court for another six months to reorganise and US Airways is struggling to emerge by the end of the month.

The ATA's most likely outcome assumed a 90-day war and 2003 losses of $17.7 billion, $4 billion more than a no-war base case.

The worst-case scenario assumed a war would be accompanied by terrorist attacks and placed losses at $US13 billion with 98,000 jobs lost and 3800 daily flights axed.

The association said this would almost certainly lead to a total industry collapse and the possible nationalisation of US airlines.
==============================================

Low-cost domestic fares lure travellers to Air NZ
By Steve Creedy
March 14, 2003

THE jury may be out on falling yields but Air New Zealand's latest operating figures leave little doubt that its new low-cost domestic operations continue to stimulate traffic.

Statistics released this week show January load factors on the Kiwi carrier's domestic routes have jumped a healthy 11.5 points to 80.7 per cent.

Domestic passenger numbers were up 10.3 per cent and traffic measured in revenue passenger kilometres rose 11.2 per cent.

The airline said the stimulation was due to the introduction of more affordable airfares with its no-frills Express Class three months ago.

And the effect was even more pronounced when Freedom Air, which withdrew from the domestic market last September, was factored out.

"The growth in traffic increases by a further 12 percentage points to 23.2 per cent when the prior period comparatives are adjusted to exclude Freedom Air's operations,'' the airline said.

Air NZ's low-cost domestic operations, and moves to start similar services across the Tasman are part of wider moves by full-service airlines throughout the Asia-Pacific area to prepare for battle with low-cost competitors.

An analysis released this week by the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation predicts the expansion of low-cost carriers from domestic to intra-Asia routes will gather pace in the next 12 to 18 months with two or more new entrants.

The study concludes that some full-service airlines have had time to develop strategies and to restructure to cope with the arrival of low-cost carriers, including starting up their own low-cost subsidiaries.

The more financially able of these are likely to benefit from increased traffic generated by cheaper fares and more accessible services to tourism destinations.

But it warns others will be caught unawares as the comfortable balance of the intra-Asia market ceases to exist and pressure for liberalisation increases.

"The outcome for those airlines will be a loss of market share, a further dilution of yields and revenue, and an enforced rather than voluntary restructuring process,'' the analysis said.

=============================================

fartsock
14th Mar 2003, 10:23
Firstly, thanks to whoever passed my real name to the B767 fleet manager - I enjoyed the "chat" I had with him the other day over comments on this forum about AO...

Keg, your comments on this particular thread about AO have been balanced and moderate. But your posts on earlier threads on hear and Qrewroom have been rabidly pro-AO.

I have always assumed that this was because of your inherent trust in QF management and your pro-company views.

Fair enough.

However, I recently flew with a cadet contemporary of yours who whilst senior enough to go to AO, has been knocked back for command training, with no reason given.

When he tried to determine the reasons for this - he was told that it was not because of his standard of flying, but no other reason was given.

Unfortunately this leads me to think that your support is primarily designed to ensure your own command when a southern basing eventuates.

This means that QF has joined the ranks of many other carriers in SE Asia where the only way to become a Captain is to brown nose and tow the line to incompetent and morally bankrupt management.

A sad day indeed

Keg
14th Mar 2003, 12:08
FS, check your email.

I told you I thought it ironic that blokes think I'm 'pro company' and company thinks I'm 'anti'. Not sure what that does make me though. Devils advocate maybe!

As for the other comments, you should know by now that I say what I believe and that occaisionally gets me into trouble. I'm not sure that will serve me in the way that you think it may. See your email for clarification.

Sorry the boss got your name. There is probably a letter waiting for me at work as well then! :D

Capt Claret
14th Mar 2003, 16:00
is it possible that no one passed on your name, simply your style of writing and other 'slips' give you away?

Certainly happened to me. I enjoyed the chat too! :}

Kaptin M
14th Mar 2003, 22:14
Are you chaps saying that QANTAS pilots are not allowed to have an opinion?

"In the best interest of the company and your's...blah. blah, blah.." :rolleyes:

Australian Airlines is going to impact on more than just the current crop of QF pilots and other airline employees.

Ain't PPRuNe great as a facilitator for this type of discussion!!! :ok:

bonvol
14th Mar 2003, 22:20
Smiggins, put out a FSO to make these damn pilots stop posting their opinions on that accursed website..wotsitsname..proon.

We just can't have it anymore. Why it took me..the boss.. no less than a week to find out who the ****** was who criticised the company. He wont do that again!

Why can't they just post their worthless opinions on Qrewroom. Make them much easier to find and deal with. Bloody workers. Dont they know if they keep causing trouble it may affect bonuses.

Pity I couldn't sack the bastard though.

Theres a thought, make a note to include that in the next log.

fatboyslims
15th Mar 2003, 01:48
I would imagine that fartsock wasn't called into the office for expressing his opinions, but perhaps for referring to his QF colleagues who are now flying with AO as scabs.

Is this slur considered reasonable by other QF pilots? Surely not.

Ralph the Bong
15th Mar 2003, 02:50
Walter M , I have been following this thread for a while. The reason that AIPA may have been unable to ratify a certified agreement with QF management may well be that AO is a seperate company to QF. I cant imagine that Australian industrial relations law would allow a union to develop workplace agreements with a separate company; maybe someone should ask a Lawer versed in this area. Perhaps AIPA went for the best deal available to its members.

fartsock
15th Mar 2003, 03:09
Ralph - great name.

Claret - no the fleet manager informed me that there had been a complaint in writing from an AO pilot.

I agree the scabs comment was out of line - I have taken steps to rectify.

fatboyslims
15th Mar 2003, 07:51
what steps? Editing your post? Or an apology?
Is this a rectification of what you wrote, or a rectification of what you believe.

WalterMitty
15th Mar 2003, 08:12
Ralph- yeah maybe.I'm still investigating this one. Today I thought I had better do what people dont do on PP and actually wenrt in search of facts before typing anymore.I believe there may be an award and eba but I'm not yet sure of who wrote it and the union,if any, which has respondency.At present morally there are two companies but are owned by one(watch this space for investment partners in AO to help QF avoid foreign ownership rules). The law in Australia is so immoral that it allows them to be treated as separate.Why? The libs created the Workplace realations act to allow Corrigan to get the wharfies. In essence it prevents collectivism and sympathy strike action to effect change througout an industry.The follow on has been its use against many other groups of workers,namely us.It may be that no union has the workplace and it is still a "greenfields" site. Also my real point is that QF dont have to use QF pilots if they dont want to(I think).Again I admit not yet having the full picture and am investigating. Would appreciate any links to copies of the award/eba etc.

Ralph the Bong
15th Mar 2003, 10:03
Agreed Walt, absolutely immoral. I geuss what we can do on this point is write to the local MP and opposition candidate and tell them you think this type of legislation sucks (my intention to do so). Believe me, these bastards DO listen when they get this sort of mail. In a way,I am surprised that AO did not resort to using ex-AN or AWOPS pilots; They could have saved themselves a fortune in costs. That they didn't is perhaps a reflection on the effectivness of AIPA (i add this as a distant, dispassioate observer, before someone lauches into me....)

Kaptin M
15th Mar 2003, 21:47
Fatboy, there are scabs and non-scabs in QANDOM.

No apologies or rectifications needed for calling a spade a spade. :O

WalterMitty
16th Mar 2003, 02:27
I am AMAZED they didn't use other crew. Perhaps the AIPA had some effect but maybe the cost of retrenching hundreds at QF was too much trouble and not financially worth it. QF pilot management are a bit soft thankfully for QF pilots. To put it into perspective AN managment didnt tell a soul of the CRJ introduction to Kendall so that the AN pilots couldn't do anything in time. AO was so advertised in advance it gave a lot of time to plan. AN was also going to use non-AN pilots at ANInternational and later ANZ pilots so I guess most QF pilots should be quite happy (at the moment!) with the outcome. I still think that in the long term it will come unstuck.