Qantas A330 crewing decision
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qantas A330 crewing decision
Since the Board of Review handed down its decision as to the crewing of the A330 I'm surprised by the lack of comment here.
Plenty of action on Qrewroom. It should ensure a few punchups in bar rooms around the traps. "Q" pilots are taking it hard I see.
How about sharing it with all of us. Tell us what you really feel.
Plenty of action on Qrewroom. It should ensure a few punchups in bar rooms around the traps. "Q" pilots are taking it hard I see.
How about sharing it with all of us. Tell us what you really feel.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was expected that the Q listers would get done over. Q listers have been getting done over by A list pilots since Adam was a boy.
Really, accommodating scabs has been a company specialty since they came into the organisation. AIPA is even happy to have them on the COM. They should be banned from being members for crimes against unionism IMO.
Lest face it, our goose is cooked in QF. The company successfully marginalises us at every opportunity. What do we do......nothing.
Really, accommodating scabs has been a company specialty since they came into the organisation. AIPA is even happy to have them on the COM. They should be banned from being members for crimes against unionism IMO.
Lest face it, our goose is cooked in QF. The company successfully marginalises us at every opportunity. What do we do......nothing.
Bonvol,
AIPA should be banned from being a union for crimes against unionism IMO.
'A' pilots are not the enemy and it's simply petty and distracting to continue to attack them whilst we are having our conditions erroded by the like of JetStar etc.
AIPA has not done a dam@ thing whilst hundreds of pilot positions/promotions have been taken away from it's original members. Indeed it could be speculated that a number of those benefiting in JetStar, Jetconnect etc, are indeed refugees from Ansett and would most likely be the equivalent to the 'A' pilot you love to attack, except these ones have now help to undercut pilots conditions once again.
It's time to get over the whole 'A' pilot thing, it's not constructive and indeed has recently caused a serious drop in pay on the 330 because of the bigoted attitude it contues to fester. Lets drop it and see if we can focus on leaving something behind for future Mainline pilots.
Q pilot
AIPA should be banned from being a union for crimes against unionism IMO.
'A' pilots are not the enemy and it's simply petty and distracting to continue to attack them whilst we are having our conditions erroded by the like of JetStar etc.
AIPA has not done a dam@ thing whilst hundreds of pilot positions/promotions have been taken away from it's original members. Indeed it could be speculated that a number of those benefiting in JetStar, Jetconnect etc, are indeed refugees from Ansett and would most likely be the equivalent to the 'A' pilot you love to attack, except these ones have now help to undercut pilots conditions once again.
It's time to get over the whole 'A' pilot thing, it's not constructive and indeed has recently caused a serious drop in pay on the 330 because of the bigoted attitude it contues to fester. Lets drop it and see if we can focus on leaving something behind for future Mainline pilots.
Q pilot
I don't have a problem with "A" pilots in general as the majority have normal career aspirations and are considerate of their peers but I do have a problem with the very senior ones who were "SC@BS" in 1989 and who continue to further their careers at the expence of their peers. The "A" pilots who have positions on the A330 are very senior.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, good points.
It just gets up my nose when well known A list blowins tell everyone how hard done they are. They are lucky to have a job let alone aspirations.
Nevertheless, Mud Skipper has a point...its a petty issue compared to the others on the table, like will we have any sort of future once AIPA and the company finishes doing us over.
It just gets up my nose when well known A list blowins tell everyone how hard done they are. They are lucky to have a job let alone aspirations.
Nevertheless, Mud Skipper has a point...its a petty issue compared to the others on the table, like will we have any sort of future once AIPA and the company finishes doing us over.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a QF Regional, many of us have approached AIPA for representation due to the totally inept performance of the AFAP.
From what I am hearing here I am wondering whether this other mob are going to be any better.Which ever way one looks at it, it appears Q do what ever they want regardless of any "negotiations"
Our EBA expired 11(ELEVEN) months ago and the ongoing protracted discussions are just a joke!!!!!!!!!
From what I am hearing here I am wondering whether this other mob are going to be any better.Which ever way one looks at it, it appears Q do what ever they want regardless of any "negotiations"
Our EBA expired 11(ELEVEN) months ago and the ongoing protracted discussions are just a joke!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's no different in AIPA. Whilst one would like to believe they are interested in looking after you blokes in real life they are not.
What they are interested in is getting in to bed with management so that when the music stops they have a seat to sit on. If they can control you blokes then this assists the cause.
Additionally one needs to look at the motivation of the leaders of AIPA. IMO it is all about the wrong thing. Rather than taking on senior postions in AIPA for the purpose of furthering the T & C's of their fellow pilots they are more interested in power.
If past history is any guide and if they do a good enough "job" then they will be rewarded with more power by being given a management position.
What they are interested in is getting in to bed with management so that when the music stops they have a seat to sit on. If they can control you blokes then this assists the cause.
Additionally one needs to look at the motivation of the leaders of AIPA. IMO it is all about the wrong thing. Rather than taking on senior postions in AIPA for the purpose of furthering the T & C's of their fellow pilots they are more interested in power.
If past history is any guide and if they do a good enough "job" then they will be rewarded with more power by being given a management position.
Last edited by bonvol; 13th May 2005 at 05:50.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonvol,
Well done how you noticed that King Oath was tring to wind us all up and not falling for it.............DUH.
You keep bagging AIPA even when you are told that regionals are experiencing the same treatment from the company during their EBA talks as is mainline.
Why do you think that is.....?
Maybe its because QF is to blame. They are trying to save every little cent. The Union seems to be doing its best to stop this from happening otherwise the deal would have been done long ago.
It's people like you that play right into the hands of employers who are trying to divide the pilot group. Maybe thats your plan!!Unless we are united we are DEAD.
Normasars
Don't listen to the rants of a bitter and twisted individual. We need to stick together to maintain our conditions in the future.......give AIPA a chance. There will a change of guard soon.
Well done how you noticed that King Oath was tring to wind us all up and not falling for it.............DUH.
You keep bagging AIPA even when you are told that regionals are experiencing the same treatment from the company during their EBA talks as is mainline.
Why do you think that is.....?
Maybe its because QF is to blame. They are trying to save every little cent. The Union seems to be doing its best to stop this from happening otherwise the deal would have been done long ago.
It's people like you that play right into the hands of employers who are trying to divide the pilot group. Maybe thats your plan!!Unless we are united we are DEAD.
Normasars
Don't listen to the rants of a bitter and twisted individual. We need to stick together to maintain our conditions in the future.......give AIPA a chance. There will a change of guard soon.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shrags, pilots hardly ever stick together. 89 showed how quickly we shaft each other. In QF the factions are too many for me to list and thats just in one company. The beatings will continue.
Mud-skipper,
I've been on the 'Bus in QF for S/H and L/H flying. I must disagree on the pay front.
It sounds like the 'checkers & trainers' have taken a hit because of the generous provisions of the S/H training loadings they got when the rest of us were flying around minimum guarantee; I can understand their frustration that a change of award from S/H to L/H has cost them. I was told by a 'trainer' that therre might be redress; good luck to them, and I'm sure that as long as someone is prepared to do the job for the money/prestige, it will keep getting done.
However, for the rest of us, I've found that any pay drop is attributable NOT the award, but to the nature of the flying the A330 is now doing. Our trips now, unlike high-density-domestic-day flying, are inefficient because the company is using the 'Bus on selected sectors internationally only three times per week. (eg Perth-Tokyo, Perth-Singapore, SYD-Shanghai) On occasion I've done four sectors in a nine day trip!!!That's a commercial/corporate/marketing decision and pilots have to live with that. But I have done the sums and have proven to my satisfaction, and in great detail that, while the flying remains inefficient it is the L/H award which offers me greater recompense FOR THE SAME PATTERNS OF FLYING because of it's minimum daily credit provisions. The only thing we've lost by the transition to the L/H award is the SYD-PER-SYD-in-a-day exemption to the CAOs (ie high pay day), but what we've gained is a better safety net to '17 stick hours in 7 days' type flying... oh.. and, as an aside, remember you can't pick up extra flying from the unassigned open time when you're sitting on your a@$e in Tokyo for 82hours waiting for the next A330 to come in!
Then there's the old chestnut of blank-liners (the standby pilots at the bottom of the heap). I agree that a better (fairer?) system could be devised and support that, but I also know several pilots in that group who have flown more than I in a roster and scored overtime! They're happy with the pay too!
Another point, apparently often overlooked, is the fact that these days pilots converting to the A330 are doing so from 767/747 L/H all ranks, and for most of THEM the A330 is a definite pay rise!
In summary, I have found that when comparing my actual flying against S/H and L/H pay possibilities, I am earning more overall under the L/H award.
I stand to be corrected, while hoping for a more egalitarian world where I can go the aircraft of my choice when I want, for the money I want, never have to be junior, never have to consider all the possible outcomes in nasty 'award' legal documents, never have to plan ahead for possibilities, and have everyone pander to my commuting needs.
I've been on the 'Bus in QF for S/H and L/H flying. I must disagree on the pay front.
It sounds like the 'checkers & trainers' have taken a hit because of the generous provisions of the S/H training loadings they got when the rest of us were flying around minimum guarantee; I can understand their frustration that a change of award from S/H to L/H has cost them. I was told by a 'trainer' that therre might be redress; good luck to them, and I'm sure that as long as someone is prepared to do the job for the money/prestige, it will keep getting done.
However, for the rest of us, I've found that any pay drop is attributable NOT the award, but to the nature of the flying the A330 is now doing. Our trips now, unlike high-density-domestic-day flying, are inefficient because the company is using the 'Bus on selected sectors internationally only three times per week. (eg Perth-Tokyo, Perth-Singapore, SYD-Shanghai) On occasion I've done four sectors in a nine day trip!!!That's a commercial/corporate/marketing decision and pilots have to live with that. But I have done the sums and have proven to my satisfaction, and in great detail that, while the flying remains inefficient it is the L/H award which offers me greater recompense FOR THE SAME PATTERNS OF FLYING because of it's minimum daily credit provisions. The only thing we've lost by the transition to the L/H award is the SYD-PER-SYD-in-a-day exemption to the CAOs (ie high pay day), but what we've gained is a better safety net to '17 stick hours in 7 days' type flying... oh.. and, as an aside, remember you can't pick up extra flying from the unassigned open time when you're sitting on your a@$e in Tokyo for 82hours waiting for the next A330 to come in!
Then there's the old chestnut of blank-liners (the standby pilots at the bottom of the heap). I agree that a better (fairer?) system could be devised and support that, but I also know several pilots in that group who have flown more than I in a roster and scored overtime! They're happy with the pay too!
Another point, apparently often overlooked, is the fact that these days pilots converting to the A330 are doing so from 767/747 L/H all ranks, and for most of THEM the A330 is a definite pay rise!
In summary, I have found that when comparing my actual flying against S/H and L/H pay possibilities, I am earning more overall under the L/H award.
I stand to be corrected, while hoping for a more egalitarian world where I can go the aircraft of my choice when I want, for the money I want, never have to be junior, never have to consider all the possible outcomes in nasty 'award' legal documents, never have to plan ahead for possibilities, and have everyone pander to my commuting needs.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the piss weak QF poofters had stood by there domestic brothers in 1989 you idiots would not be in this position.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetsbest, I don’t know what drugs you are on, but in my experience the pay drop is not only what certain others suggested it would be, but worse! And no, I’m not a trainer.
Maybe compared to minimum guarantee of the old award a full divisor on Longhaul is better, but then you are assuming you were always going to do min on SH forever, that was never going to happen. In fact the reason the hours were so low was because of the upcoming switch to LH requiring more pilots, therefore less hours. So for you the reason the SH award wasn’t so rewarding was because of the LH award trigger.
Of course Blank Liners are in an even worse position, I was with a guy the other day who cleared less on his blank line then he got on the 737, 8 years ago, I saw the payslips.
The point that Mudskipper made, and it is important, is that things like this can’t be investigated properly because the bigoted attitudes are so entrenched that people from one side can’t even be bothered looking at anything that comes from the other.
The most amazing thing is that the biggest push for a close look at the awards didn’t come from ‘A’ pilots at all, it was from 2 ‘Y’ listers, yet the blinkers still stayed firmly ON.
Maybe compared to minimum guarantee of the old award a full divisor on Longhaul is better, but then you are assuming you were always going to do min on SH forever, that was never going to happen. In fact the reason the hours were so low was because of the upcoming switch to LH requiring more pilots, therefore less hours. So for you the reason the SH award wasn’t so rewarding was because of the LH award trigger.
Of course Blank Liners are in an even worse position, I was with a guy the other day who cleared less on his blank line then he got on the 737, 8 years ago, I saw the payslips.
The point that Mudskipper made, and it is important, is that things like this can’t be investigated properly because the bigoted attitudes are so entrenched that people from one side can’t even be bothered looking at anything that comes from the other.
The most amazing thing is that the biggest push for a close look at the awards didn’t come from ‘A’ pilots at all, it was from 2 ‘Y’ listers, yet the blinkers still stayed firmly ON.
Speeeedy
The reason that more pilots are required for long haul is that a much higher utilisation of the aircraft is achieved when they are used internationally. Approx 80% of domestic aircraft sit on the ground at night (which is why the maintenance schedules are designed around this availability) whereas international aircxraft operate through the night. There is also a factor where some destinations don't have a high service frequency which results in inefficient utilisation of crews.
The Short Haul award has provision for pilots to bid for additional hours (ie additional pay) to the point that the available hours can be flown by less pilots than would be required if everyone flew the planning divisor hours. This is at the expense of their peers gaining promotion to First Officer or Captain. The Long Haul award has financial penalties in place that forces the company to man the aircraft correctly and won't give pilots excessive additional hours (unless absolutely necessary) because of those penalties. This is a much farer system as it takes away the greed factor.
Everybody knew that as Qantas had bought the highest Max BRW version of the A330 then the aircraft would end up doing Long Haul flying under the protections of the Long Haul award. For anybody to complain about a perceived pay drop because they expected the aircraft to remain on the Short Haul award displays a certain amount of naievity. The original rate of pay for the A330 was established as "B747 Classic + 3%" - a Long Haul credit hour rate which was converted to a Short Haul stick hour rate. Consequently, there can be no valid argument over the conversion from Short Haul to Long Haul as the rate has simply reverted to the agreed rate.
The reason that more pilots are required for long haul is that a much higher utilisation of the aircraft is achieved when they are used internationally. Approx 80% of domestic aircraft sit on the ground at night (which is why the maintenance schedules are designed around this availability) whereas international aircxraft operate through the night. There is also a factor where some destinations don't have a high service frequency which results in inefficient utilisation of crews.
The Short Haul award has provision for pilots to bid for additional hours (ie additional pay) to the point that the available hours can be flown by less pilots than would be required if everyone flew the planning divisor hours. This is at the expense of their peers gaining promotion to First Officer or Captain. The Long Haul award has financial penalties in place that forces the company to man the aircraft correctly and won't give pilots excessive additional hours (unless absolutely necessary) because of those penalties. This is a much farer system as it takes away the greed factor.
Everybody knew that as Qantas had bought the highest Max BRW version of the A330 then the aircraft would end up doing Long Haul flying under the protections of the Long Haul award. For anybody to complain about a perceived pay drop because they expected the aircraft to remain on the Short Haul award displays a certain amount of naievity. The original rate of pay for the A330 was established as "B747 Classic + 3%" - a Long Haul credit hour rate which was converted to a Short Haul stick hour rate. Consequently, there can be no valid argument over the conversion from Short Haul to Long Haul as the rate has simply reverted to the agreed rate.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB, Spoken like someone who didn't take a pay cut.
Utilisation- WTFAYTA! The aircraft were doing the same flying before and after the change over. Fairness- tell the Blankliners about this so called fairer system.
Yes, you are right that the triggers to switch to LH were there for all to see, but they were at AIPA's discretion. My only point is that because of the bigoted attitude towards anything that comes from short haul, the trigger was pulled without proper consideration, and I have the pay cut to prove it (no perception necessary).
I have seen extensive numbers and reasoning from those that wanted to stay on SH (albeit, a modified SH) but sweet F@$% all from AIPA to prove them wrong. Needless to say, I don’t need any proof now, I have that for myself, thanks again AIPA.
Utilisation- WTFAYTA! The aircraft were doing the same flying before and after the change over. Fairness- tell the Blankliners about this so called fairer system.
Yes, you are right that the triggers to switch to LH were there for all to see, but they were at AIPA's discretion. My only point is that because of the bigoted attitude towards anything that comes from short haul, the trigger was pulled without proper consideration, and I have the pay cut to prove it (no perception necessary).
I have seen extensive numbers and reasoning from those that wanted to stay on SH (albeit, a modified SH) but sweet F@$% all from AIPA to prove them wrong. Needless to say, I don’t need any proof now, I have that for myself, thanks again AIPA.
Speeeedy
From your post, I can only conclude that the greed factor is alive and well. From the facts that I explained in my previous post, the only way you would have suffered a pay drop was because you were previously flying additional hours at the expence of your peers obtaining a slot on the aircraft.
From your post, I can only conclude that the greed factor is alive and well. From the facts that I explained in my previous post, the only way you would have suffered a pay drop was because you were previously flying additional hours at the expence of your peers obtaining a slot on the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 89 returnees came back to work under conditions dictated by the company, take it or leave it and these conditions morphed into what we know today as the SH award. Companies would generally rather have less numbers of employees to do the work and pay overtime, if necessary, rather than employ more people and reduce or eliminate overtime. Payroll oncosts are significant.
Brought up under this system the SH pilots have become wedded to the cash and have built their lifestyles and financial commitments around it so I can understand Speedy wanting to hang onto the good old days.
It is however at the expense of extra slots as GB says. One conclusion you can safely draw is that unity is still some way off in QF.
Brought up under this system the SH pilots have become wedded to the cash and have built their lifestyles and financial commitments around it so I can understand Speedy wanting to hang onto the good old days.
It is however at the expense of extra slots as GB says. One conclusion you can safely draw is that unity is still some way off in QF.
Speedy, I said I stand to be correctred, not abused! No drugs involved.
I did not say you were wrong; you obviously feel strongly about it. I understood Mud-skipper's point. I merely offered a counter-point, based on thorough personal assessment and first-hand conversations with other A330 pilots, to the sweeping generalisations made by some that we're 'ALL worse off' under the L/H award. The facts, as they apply to me & others I've spoken to, do not support such a blanket hypothesis.
So, to add to my previous comments, I too believe that the initiative shown by the two Y-listers (I'm a Y-lister too) is great. Their 'proposal' would have benefited me on a couple of occasions and I agree it has merit. I have even spoken to one of them at length about my figures and he didn't disagree that, under the current inefficient flying, L/H pay is often better. For whatever reasons 'the proposal' has not (yet) been found to be suitable, but I know that DB & KW's powers of persuasion and persistence will make people take the idea seriously some time. I don't believe it's just AIPA; the company has also acted, shall we say, with caution.
As for your ex-737 pal. Are we comparing apples with apples? I imagine it would not be hard for a 90+ hour 737 roster to beat any L/H pay, but 8 years ago there was no Jetstar, Jetconnect or Virgin Blue. Aren't current 737 pilots being assigned annual leave? Just asking because, in my view, the goal-posts are always moving and such a comparison is of dubious relevance to the here and now; especially since we all had the opportunity to consider all the likely outcomes and take the calculated risk of coming to the A330 fully aware.
And blank-lines... As I said, I've met several (Capt's AND F/Os, SYD AND MEL) who have gained WAY more than the minimum guarantee on blank lines. Some even got substantial overtime for the assignment of flying above Divisor+5; they found it very handy! It's just a different way for the company to get all the flying done and the inevitable divergence of opinion does not change the fact that we're NOT all worse off.
And as for your assertion that 'The aircraft were doing the same flying before and after the change over'. I'm sorry, but when I was doing the S/H flying between SYD/MEL/CNS/BNE/PER I must have fallen asleep for the Singapore/Shanghai/Hong Kong/Narita bits, not to mention the 10-hour all-night sectors. And those 72 hour PVG and 82 hour NRT slips just fly by don't they! (maybe it's those drugs you mentioned?). It's easy to latch onto the cases, like MEL-PER-MEL in one day, where the pay has dropped, but in all honesty I say that the L/H award suits the L/H flying.
Finally, my original post merely expresssed an opinion. This post goes further in offering some rebuttal but my intention is not to offend. My views are formed by the balance of job, family, remuneration & long-term well-being. In the words of some of our benevolent leaders; 'I can live with that'.
I did not say you were wrong; you obviously feel strongly about it. I understood Mud-skipper's point. I merely offered a counter-point, based on thorough personal assessment and first-hand conversations with other A330 pilots, to the sweeping generalisations made by some that we're 'ALL worse off' under the L/H award. The facts, as they apply to me & others I've spoken to, do not support such a blanket hypothesis.
So, to add to my previous comments, I too believe that the initiative shown by the two Y-listers (I'm a Y-lister too) is great. Their 'proposal' would have benefited me on a couple of occasions and I agree it has merit. I have even spoken to one of them at length about my figures and he didn't disagree that, under the current inefficient flying, L/H pay is often better. For whatever reasons 'the proposal' has not (yet) been found to be suitable, but I know that DB & KW's powers of persuasion and persistence will make people take the idea seriously some time. I don't believe it's just AIPA; the company has also acted, shall we say, with caution.
As for your ex-737 pal. Are we comparing apples with apples? I imagine it would not be hard for a 90+ hour 737 roster to beat any L/H pay, but 8 years ago there was no Jetstar, Jetconnect or Virgin Blue. Aren't current 737 pilots being assigned annual leave? Just asking because, in my view, the goal-posts are always moving and such a comparison is of dubious relevance to the here and now; especially since we all had the opportunity to consider all the likely outcomes and take the calculated risk of coming to the A330 fully aware.
And blank-lines... As I said, I've met several (Capt's AND F/Os, SYD AND MEL) who have gained WAY more than the minimum guarantee on blank lines. Some even got substantial overtime for the assignment of flying above Divisor+5; they found it very handy! It's just a different way for the company to get all the flying done and the inevitable divergence of opinion does not change the fact that we're NOT all worse off.
And as for your assertion that 'The aircraft were doing the same flying before and after the change over'. I'm sorry, but when I was doing the S/H flying between SYD/MEL/CNS/BNE/PER I must have fallen asleep for the Singapore/Shanghai/Hong Kong/Narita bits, not to mention the 10-hour all-night sectors. And those 72 hour PVG and 82 hour NRT slips just fly by don't they! (maybe it's those drugs you mentioned?). It's easy to latch onto the cases, like MEL-PER-MEL in one day, where the pay has dropped, but in all honesty I say that the L/H award suits the L/H flying.
Finally, my original post merely expresssed an opinion. This post goes further in offering some rebuttal but my intention is not to offend. My views are formed by the balance of job, family, remuneration & long-term well-being. In the words of some of our benevolent leaders; 'I can live with that'.
Last edited by Jetsbest; 17th May 2005 at 01:47.