New move for Jestar pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New move for Jetstar pilots
Ok Woomera, I apologise for the inflamatory title of my last attempt at posting this information, so he goes again.
I have it on excellent authrority from a source in QF Industrial Relations that part of the QF boards considerations for the purchase of the A340-500 (to be decided at the may board meeting) is the use of the impulse / jetstar pilot body to fly both types (320 / 340) at rates 50% or more less than mainline.
thanks again to the impulse pilot body, what a top bunch of blokes
regards
FS
I have it on excellent authrority from a source in QF Industrial Relations that part of the QF boards considerations for the purchase of the A340-500 (to be decided at the may board meeting) is the use of the impulse / jetstar pilot body to fly both types (320 / 340) at rates 50% or more less than mainline.
thanks again to the impulse pilot body, what a top bunch of blokes
regards
FS
Last edited by fartsock; 4th Mar 2004 at 16:28.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you mean, thanks to the Qantas Pilots for not allowing them to join the IAPA in the first place !
Now it is all Impulse pilot's fault eh.
Oh I am sorry I mean AIPA , well whatever.
If the poor old Impulse guys were not good enough then. Why does all the Qantas p00fters what to join them now ?
Now it is all Impulse pilot's fault eh.
Oh I am sorry I mean AIPA , well whatever.
If the poor old Impulse guys were not good enough then. Why does all the Qantas p00fters what to join them now ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fartsock
Apology accepted.
'Tweren't the title that was found inflamatory, rather some of the adjectives used in the text.
Doesn't it feel good to write basically the same story without having to call people names?
Apology accepted.
'Tweren't the title that was found inflamatory, rather some of the adjectives used in the text.
Doesn't it feel good to write basically the same story without having to call people names?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A340 rumour has been doing the rounds since QF found out how difficult it was to secure more 744's on short notice.
Getting Impulse to fly them, whilst I personally view as unlikely, would have to be the straw that breaks the camels back.
I could only view such a move as some sort of Oldmeadow inspired tactic to force AIPA into industrial action.
There is a thread on Qrewroom now detailing the push for a scope clause in EBA 7. I believe it to be a high priority, and if QF baulks at it, one would have to wonder why.
Getting Impulse to fly them, whilst I personally view as unlikely, would have to be the straw that breaks the camels back.
I could only view such a move as some sort of Oldmeadow inspired tactic to force AIPA into industrial action.
There is a thread on Qrewroom now detailing the push for a scope clause in EBA 7. I believe it to be a high priority, and if QF baulks at it, one would have to wonder why.
Nunc est bibendum
I asked a forme AIPA pres why we had never sought a scope clause. He responded that 'the company wouldn't allow it'. I asked him since when what the company would or wouldn't allow had so much impact on what we ASKED for.
Besides that, the SH EBA had a clause in it about the company 'discussing' 'low cost' issues and they certainly didn't discuss Jetstar before going ahead. Why would they do differently with scope? Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely but getting the company to 'sign off' on it willingly is another story. Tread softly and carried an armoured tank division I say!
Besides that, the SH EBA had a clause in it about the company 'discussing' 'low cost' issues and they certainly didn't discuss Jetstar before going ahead. Why would they do differently with scope? Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely but getting the company to 'sign off' on it willingly is another story. Tread softly and carried an armoured tank division I say!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean that Pres, inow in a new management position, who sent out a flyer/memo in the last few weeks saying essentially we should wear lower accomodation standards due to commercial pressures and to help the profit/return to capital situation?
THe same pres who now will get a hefty bonus to screw us?
THe same pres who now will get a hefty bonus to screw us?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Aust
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SH EBA has a clause in it about the company 'discussing' 'low cost' issues, then any 'pres' who is actually representing the pilot interest should have had the company in the IR commision for not delivering. So should said previous 'pres' re a myriad of 767 issues that have been reneged upon. Instead we gave an offset.
Viva la revolution.
Viva la revolution.
Nunc est bibendum
Someone check my maths for me on this but hear is some food for thought.
We fly about 800 hours per annum. Even J* may struggle to do more than that.
Based on an aircraft speed of (say) 480 knots, that's about 384,000 nautical miles per annum.
Change that to km and we're looking at about 711,168km.
Times that by the number of seats on an domestic 767 (which I think is about 30/220 but it's been about five months since I've flown one!) and you've got 177,792,000 ASKs per crew.
Now, this is where it get's interesting. Currently, a QF 767 crew (Captain and F/O combined) will earn about $150,000 per annum more than the equivalent J* crew. If we divide the $150,000 by the number of ASKs the crew fly, we'll get the price differential per ASK that we're talking about.
The answer..........................
Less than .1 of a cent per ASK. (.092 according to my calcualations!)
So, that's what all this angst is about. The company saving .09 of a cent per ASK! Note that just by switching from the B717 to the A320 they saved about .5 of a cent so the crew costs are pretty insignificant compared to cost saving elsewhere!
A couple of other little things. If we put total crew costs on a 767 at about $370,000 (that could be up to fifty grand high in my expectation but would equal a very senior F/O in the equation), then we are talking about .22 cents per ASK. So, to save less than .1 cent we are talking about 4%.
Anyway, I've created a little EXCEL program that can convert the figures for different seat numbers, crew costs and so on. Email or PM me if you'd like me to email you a copy.
Regards,
We fly about 800 hours per annum. Even J* may struggle to do more than that.
Based on an aircraft speed of (say) 480 knots, that's about 384,000 nautical miles per annum.
Change that to km and we're looking at about 711,168km.
Times that by the number of seats on an domestic 767 (which I think is about 30/220 but it's been about five months since I've flown one!) and you've got 177,792,000 ASKs per crew.
Now, this is where it get's interesting. Currently, a QF 767 crew (Captain and F/O combined) will earn about $150,000 per annum more than the equivalent J* crew. If we divide the $150,000 by the number of ASKs the crew fly, we'll get the price differential per ASK that we're talking about.
The answer..........................
Less than .1 of a cent per ASK. (.092 according to my calcualations!)
So, that's what all this angst is about. The company saving .09 of a cent per ASK! Note that just by switching from the B717 to the A320 they saved about .5 of a cent so the crew costs are pretty insignificant compared to cost saving elsewhere!
A couple of other little things. If we put total crew costs on a 767 at about $370,000 (that could be up to fifty grand high in my expectation but would equal a very senior F/O in the equation), then we are talking about .22 cents per ASK. So, to save less than .1 cent we are talking about 4%.
Anyway, I've created a little EXCEL program that can convert the figures for different seat numbers, crew costs and so on. Email or PM me if you'd like me to email you a copy.
Regards,
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, what you say is undoubtably true, however, the fact is that the company looks at the bottom line savings. ASK is a good measure of cost comparisons, but it is only when you multiply it out that the real savings are apparrent.
The fact that the company has come after such cost centres as transport and accomodation should indicate this. I am sure if we worked out how much per hour of rest the new London hotel would save, similar parrallels could be drawn. However, the overall saving in the order of $1.5 million per year is significant.
It may sound petty in the overall scheme of things, but this is how finely tuned the airline needs to be.
My issue is that the savings given by aircrew seem to be disproportionate.
What irritates me is that AIPA has not slammed the company for the deal it struck with the TWU over Jetstar. 5% less. Do we know what the average earnings of a bag snatcher in Sydney was last year? Would anyone believe $70k. I have reason to believe it to be more like $80 - $90k. For slinging bags.
The problem is we are not as industrially smart as these guys. They have just as much incentive to keep their work as we do (probably more), and I can guarantee if QF advertised for ramp staff tomorrow, fixed price $50ky they would get innundated. So why is it these guys keep their jobs and maintain their pay?
Quite simply because they play hard, their union does not constantly bow to management and its officials are not falling over one another to engratiate themselves with management.
Send the AIPA team back in to the negotiating room, if Jetstar pilots want to fly for less than the bag snatchers then thats their business, but AIPA should aim higher. Furthermore, for every 737 removed and replaced by an A320, QF pilots should be offerred 20/20 positions.
The fact that the company has come after such cost centres as transport and accomodation should indicate this. I am sure if we worked out how much per hour of rest the new London hotel would save, similar parrallels could be drawn. However, the overall saving in the order of $1.5 million per year is significant.
It may sound petty in the overall scheme of things, but this is how finely tuned the airline needs to be.
My issue is that the savings given by aircrew seem to be disproportionate.
What irritates me is that AIPA has not slammed the company for the deal it struck with the TWU over Jetstar. 5% less. Do we know what the average earnings of a bag snatcher in Sydney was last year? Would anyone believe $70k. I have reason to believe it to be more like $80 - $90k. For slinging bags.
The problem is we are not as industrially smart as these guys. They have just as much incentive to keep their work as we do (probably more), and I can guarantee if QF advertised for ramp staff tomorrow, fixed price $50ky they would get innundated. So why is it these guys keep their jobs and maintain their pay?
Quite simply because they play hard, their union does not constantly bow to management and its officials are not falling over one another to engratiate themselves with management.
Send the AIPA team back in to the negotiating room, if Jetstar pilots want to fly for less than the bag snatchers then thats their business, but AIPA should aim higher. Furthermore, for every 737 removed and replaced by an A320, QF pilots should be offerred 20/20 positions.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longjohn,
If a bag thrower in Sydney can earn a minimiun of $70k with no overtime then i will change job`s.I would have believed this figure if it was inclusive of overtime/nil 10 hr rest breaks ect considering that a check of wagenet shows that QF baggage handlers base wage is $700/week + shift loadings + overtime(no info on jet* or nopulse).I know many of the ex-ansett baggage handlers did earn around the $70k+ mark but they did live at the work place all day every day.
Fact remains that pilot wages have the most margin and therefore will be the biggest target to management,next on the hit list would be the flight attendants particularly on long haul and to a lessor extent short haul.
If a bag thrower in Sydney can earn a minimiun of $70k with no overtime then i will change job`s.I would have believed this figure if it was inclusive of overtime/nil 10 hr rest breaks ect considering that a check of wagenet shows that QF baggage handlers base wage is $700/week + shift loadings + overtime(no info on jet* or nopulse).I know many of the ex-ansett baggage handlers did earn around the $70k+ mark but they did live at the work place all day every day.
Fact remains that pilot wages have the most margin and therefore will be the biggest target to management,next on the hit list would be the flight attendants particularly on long haul and to a lessor extent short haul.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes QF longhaul Cabin Crew generally will get paid as much as a Jetstar F/O. How does that make you feel. Id rather get paid to be Cabin Crew on QF than have the responsibility of flying the jet at JetStar. makes you wonder why you accepted less $. Soon longhaul Cabin crew will be paid better than pilots, as pilots sacrifice themselves.
What a strange world we live in.
What a strange world we live in.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blueloo,
Good on anyone that earns a decent wage,i do not begrudge anyone that earns good money for what they do,in any position with in the industry.
Market forces and reality show that many of these current highly payed positions are under pressure for pay rates and conditions of employment due to changes with-in the industry weather we like any of the changes or not.
The hay days of the industry are over,unfortunately for all of those still with-in it.
Indeed it is a strange world
Good on anyone that earns a decent wage,i do not begrudge anyone that earns good money for what they do,in any position with in the industry.
Market forces and reality show that many of these current highly payed positions are under pressure for pay rates and conditions of employment due to changes with-in the industry weather we like any of the changes or not.
The hay days of the industry are over,unfortunately for all of those still with-in it.
Indeed it is a strange world
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think well done to QF cabin crew for getting paid that much too. My point is what a sell out Jetstar Techies have been - but as you say supply and demand seems to unfortunately have dicated their wage - only thing is that it appears they accepted such a low wage without much of an attempt at bargaining a better one - much to the detriment of the entire industry. 