Pilots ready to fight Jetstar in court
Nunc est bibendum
Actually, I agree Tim. I don't think our guys should drop pay to go to J*. If it's a new QF S/O in their first 18 months to two years then they will probably go across on equivalent conditions but anything beyond that is a poor choice by our guys. I'd say the same thing to them as I have to the J* pilots who said 'yes' to the EBA deal. It's a short sighted view that ultimately brings us all undone.
How about this for an idea though. One of our members on Qrewroom talked about taking a pay freeze to guarantee the J* positions on something close to our pay rates. We can extend that thought by taking a smaller pay freeze to pay for those who go across and ensure that they get a 'rate' that we (AIPA) think is reasonable. IE, we 'top up' the conditions to be what they should be. That way, we get to utilise the 7:20, our members get promotions (IE pay rises), we get a number of AIPA members across there (and perhaps get some seats on the JPC (
) etc, etc. I'm spit balling here so happy to hear contrary points of view.
How about this for an idea though. One of our members on Qrewroom talked about taking a pay freeze to guarantee the J* positions on something close to our pay rates. We can extend that thought by taking a smaller pay freeze to pay for those who go across and ensure that they get a 'rate' that we (AIPA) think is reasonable. IE, we 'top up' the conditions to be what they should be. That way, we get to utilise the 7:20, our members get promotions (IE pay rises), we get a number of AIPA members across there (and perhaps get some seats on the JPC (
) etc, etc. I'm spit balling here so happy to hear contrary points of view.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really - a lot of this to and fro is like Condaleeza Rice answering questions about Betty from Parramatta's water bill. Some connection with the big picture helps with perspective.
Qantas will never go under. This is certainly not a bean counter observation but rather a political one. The Dixon boogie man will come and go in the same way as successive governments flow past the public servants in Canberra. Those lucky enough to be card carrying Qantas pilots will, largely, survive the machinations of those trying to cash in on the legacy.
This is not to say that the Qantas chaps have any special skills - I'm referring to two characteristics of the Airline which can't be assailed by those who are financially inclined.
1. Qantas as Australian Icon
As long as there is a place for Bradman, Anzac and Vegemite, Qantas will exist. Just as British Airways, Thai, Air New Zealand and South African will survive. Do not underestimate the power of the average, ignorant aussie voter when it comes to supporting such tribal concepts as 'old, no crashes, Made in Australia and, increasingly, Peter Allen. Can you picture John Howard commenting on the 7:30 Report that Qantas' collapse was 'just business'.
2. Qantas as Strategic Asset
The Australian Government will always require an Australian controlled operator of aircraft to be on call (or commandeerable) for contingencies. This doesn't have to be Qantas of course but I'm not talking about tendering for defence contracts here. Some time in its future the airline will probably pass in and out of government hands - say when oil hits US$200 a barrel. Oh well life goes on, and the Masons of the Australian aviation industry will still be there.
So Qantas guys, when you start feeling pressure to operate for less - remember that you are part of a strategic asset which is supported by the majority of the Australian people. In the mean time you don't need to be messing about with Betty from Parramatta's plumbing.
Qantas will never go under. This is certainly not a bean counter observation but rather a political one. The Dixon boogie man will come and go in the same way as successive governments flow past the public servants in Canberra. Those lucky enough to be card carrying Qantas pilots will, largely, survive the machinations of those trying to cash in on the legacy.
This is not to say that the Qantas chaps have any special skills - I'm referring to two characteristics of the Airline which can't be assailed by those who are financially inclined.
1. Qantas as Australian Icon
As long as there is a place for Bradman, Anzac and Vegemite, Qantas will exist. Just as British Airways, Thai, Air New Zealand and South African will survive. Do not underestimate the power of the average, ignorant aussie voter when it comes to supporting such tribal concepts as 'old, no crashes, Made in Australia and, increasingly, Peter Allen. Can you picture John Howard commenting on the 7:30 Report that Qantas' collapse was 'just business'.
2. Qantas as Strategic Asset
The Australian Government will always require an Australian controlled operator of aircraft to be on call (or commandeerable) for contingencies. This doesn't have to be Qantas of course but I'm not talking about tendering for defence contracts here. Some time in its future the airline will probably pass in and out of government hands - say when oil hits US$200 a barrel. Oh well life goes on, and the Masons of the Australian aviation industry will still be there.
So Qantas guys, when you start feeling pressure to operate for less - remember that you are part of a strategic asset which is supported by the majority of the Australian people. In the mean time you don't need to be messing about with Betty from Parramatta's plumbing.
Selec is spot on. Unfortunately there is one point you missed.
Qantas maintenance capability is also a strategic asset. By this I mean the complex network of workshops and capabilities needed to maintain an aircraft - including military aircraft. Once you lose that, you are effectively a client state like Iran or Iraq.
Australia found this out the hard way in World War Two. Try and overhaul aircraft landing gear without an aircraft quality plating shop.
Qantas maintenance capability is also a strategic asset. By this I mean the complex network of workshops and capabilities needed to maintain an aircraft - including military aircraft. Once you lose that, you are effectively a client state like Iran or Iraq.
Australia found this out the hard way in World War Two. Try and overhaul aircraft landing gear without an aircraft quality plating shop.
Mr Packer
"AIPA pilots care to comment?" I'll comment for you.
I reckon most expect that all pilots should be able to evaluate each and every career opportunity on its merits. J* pilots have done just that recently so you'll have to let go a little (you're holdin' on too tight) and allow others to do the same now.
I don't envisage such choices will “include volunteering for a 30% paycut (and several other worse conditions) to fly in the right seat of a JQ A320?" but here's an example for you:
QF is about to close its Melbourne S/O base. These pilots already live there, all are fairly new to QF, all are junior and hence perhaps earning less than a J* F/O. The 'relocation offer' for transfer to Sydney has been made and some may view that it's not great when extrapolated to infnity. So, what to do? Those with the requisite experience may find it attractive to transfer, at least temporarily, to J* because they can then avoid relocating the family, avoid commuting to Sydney, get to the right seat for similar or better money, and maybe even get promotion faster. Factor into that what one pilot told me was about $10k per year in commuting expenses if they don't relocate (tickets, accommodation & extra time away from home) and any adverse gap narrows substantially for their circumstances. The 30% I referred to was the pay rise which J* pilots stand to make if the transfer of business case wins. Will anyone thank AIPA if that happens?
As for "Not aware of a JQ pilot ever gone as low as a QF pilot in accepting a +30% paycut", hooray for the J* pilots. Once again the comment is mis-directed but, hey, there seems a high likelihood that J* pilots have taken one on everyone else's behalf for the future.
In the end the same defence applies as has been recently expressed about the choices made by another group; It's not a great deal, but it's the best on offer for some. They should be allowed to take it if it works for them. Chill.
I reckon most expect that all pilots should be able to evaluate each and every career opportunity on its merits. J* pilots have done just that recently so you'll have to let go a little (you're holdin' on too tight) and allow others to do the same now.
I don't envisage such choices will “include volunteering for a 30% paycut (and several other worse conditions) to fly in the right seat of a JQ A320?" but here's an example for you:
QF is about to close its Melbourne S/O base. These pilots already live there, all are fairly new to QF, all are junior and hence perhaps earning less than a J* F/O. The 'relocation offer' for transfer to Sydney has been made and some may view that it's not great when extrapolated to infnity. So, what to do? Those with the requisite experience may find it attractive to transfer, at least temporarily, to J* because they can then avoid relocating the family, avoid commuting to Sydney, get to the right seat for similar or better money, and maybe even get promotion faster. Factor into that what one pilot told me was about $10k per year in commuting expenses if they don't relocate (tickets, accommodation & extra time away from home) and any adverse gap narrows substantially for their circumstances. The 30% I referred to was the pay rise which J* pilots stand to make if the transfer of business case wins. Will anyone thank AIPA if that happens?
As for "Not aware of a JQ pilot ever gone as low as a QF pilot in accepting a +30% paycut", hooray for the J* pilots. Once again the comment is mis-directed but, hey, there seems a high likelihood that J* pilots have taken one on everyone else's behalf for the future.
In the end the same defence applies as has been recently expressed about the choices made by another group; It's not a great deal, but it's the best on offer for some. They should be allowed to take it if it works for them. Chill.
Last edited by Jetsbest; 23rd Mar 2006 at 04:49.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Selac66
......2. Qantas as Strategic Asset
The Australian Government will always require an Australian controlled operator of aircraft to be on call (or commandeerable) for contingencies.....
The Australian Government will always require an Australian controlled operator of aircraft to be on call (or commandeerable) for contingencies.....
)If the Aust Govt did consider Qantas to be a strategic asset, why did it flog Qantas to the highest bidder? Not only that, why is the Govt idly standing by as Qantas busily sheds a lot of irreplaceble skills?
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B A Lert,
The emphasis is on strategic. When things are good you can use whomever you like to tote your stuff around, but a responsible government will have up its sleeve a contingency for those tough or sensitive times (or at least the impression of providing this).
You don't see it so much elsewhere in the West due to the circumstances of individual countries e.g. US - no need for civilian back up; European countries - part of NATO. Canada - see NATO, South African - Government airline; Air New Zealand - bailed out by government; UAE - don't need a strategic asset.
The cap on foreign ownership of Qantas sums it up.
Sunfish,
Time will tell with the heavy maintenace offshore agenda. A few hard phone calls from Canberra perhaps?. With the military civilianising their heavy maintenance the Australian government will be ensuring there is a homegrown stopgap. I think the loss of some jobs plus the threat of offshoring is the limit to GDs arsenal with heavy maintenance.
The boys can blink if they want but...
The emphasis is on strategic. When things are good you can use whomever you like to tote your stuff around, but a responsible government will have up its sleeve a contingency for those tough or sensitive times (or at least the impression of providing this).
You don't see it so much elsewhere in the West due to the circumstances of individual countries e.g. US - no need for civilian back up; European countries - part of NATO. Canada - see NATO, South African - Government airline; Air New Zealand - bailed out by government; UAE - don't need a strategic asset.
The cap on foreign ownership of Qantas sums it up.
Sunfish,
Time will tell with the heavy maintenace offshore agenda. A few hard phone calls from Canberra perhaps?. With the military civilianising their heavy maintenance the Australian government will be ensuring there is a homegrown stopgap. I think the loss of some jobs plus the threat of offshoring is the limit to GDs arsenal with heavy maintenance.
The boys can blink if they want but...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UR2, what did happen with the legal action. I haven't heard anyting of it.
Anybody know anything or is it that nobody wants to know anything....perhaps a loss for the union??
Hopefully not.
Anybody know anything or is it that nobody wants to know anything....perhaps a loss for the union??
Hopefully not.
