Dixon on ABC 10am Sunday
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the interviewer trying to get at with the pilots wages?
A) that Jetstar are paid to little
B) Qantas are paid to much
C) all flight crews wage are under attack
D) if we can pay Jetstar 80000 less, why should we pay QF the difference when flying the plane is the same ?
Didnt Dixon look ill..............
A) that Jetstar are paid to little
B) Qantas are paid to much
C) all flight crews wage are under attack
D) if we can pay Jetstar 80000 less, why should we pay QF the difference when flying the plane is the same ?
Didnt Dixon look ill..............
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have listened to Allan Kohler talk about pilots previously and he wasn't terribly complimentary. I think he was trying to get to the point that Dixon cut him off with...
Of course they pay $80,000 less. You know "take off,climb" and what Kohler would have said all that "pilot stuff" Always is nothing to it Allan at least to the uninformed....And should J* international replicate mainline, they will push us much harder...But Dixon doesn't want us panicking just yet! We still control the flying....Which is why he sort of defended mainline pilot conditions in my opinion
I too think he looks very gaunt and drawn, maybe he almost is yesterday's man
Of course they pay $80,000 less. You know "take off,climb" and what Kohler would have said all that "pilot stuff" Always is nothing to it Allan at least to the uninformed....And should J* international replicate mainline, they will push us much harder...But Dixon doesn't want us panicking just yet! We still control the flying....Which is why he sort of defended mainline pilot conditions in my opinion
I too think he looks very gaunt and drawn, maybe he almost is yesterday's man
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Group, one Union, one stand, Let him use all the Work Choises S@#T all he likes, if we are all one, who is going to stop us from maintaining our conditions, we become the market force, not the airlines. I'll keep saying this till Iam blue in the face, its our only hope.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC Transcript
Sun 'Inside Business' Transcript
Qantas chief defends job cuts
Date : 12/03/2006
Reporter: Alan Kohler
ALAN KOHLER: After months of speculation, Qantas boss Geoff Dixon announced this week that he won't be shifting 2,500 maintenance jobs offshore. Instead, he will be closing the Sydney workshop and moving the work to Melbourne and Brisbane at a net cost of 340 jobs. In the immediate aftermath, the gnashing of teeth by unions was tempered with relief -- presumably as Qantas intended. But the plan falls well short of the savings Qantas still needs. I spoke to Geoff Dixon about what else needs to be done.
Geoff Dixon, I suppose you could hardly have shifted the 747 maintenance offshore having persuaded the government to knock back Singapore Airlines' application to fly between Sydney and Los Angeles, could you?
GEOFF DIXON: That's a cynical view of it, I think.
ALAN KOHLER: Well, it wouldn't have been a good look.
GEOFF DIXON: It wouldn't be a good look whether we had success with the policy settings with the government at any rate. I mean, we do not want to send jobs offshore. That's not our idea. Our idea would be to keep as many jobs - and we've got more than 90 per cent of our people in Australia at any rate - onshore. But the way the industry's changing, Alan, it just makes it necessary for us to either get the efficiency gains that we need onshore or indeed to look occasionally offshore.
ALAN KOHLER: Do you know how much you would save if you moved the 747 maintenance to an offshore facility?
GEOFF DIXON: Well it's not just the 747 maintenance, it would be all our wide body - yes, about $120 million profit before tax year on year.
ALAN KOHLER: Versus what sort of savings keeping them here?
GEOFF DIXON: We're hoping for something around about $90 million to $100 million provided we get it right over the next 18 months.
ALAN KOHLER: So that's a $20 million to $30 million compromise?
GEOFF DIXON: It is a compromise but then you've got a brand issue here. You've also got the fact that I think we have, along with every major corporation in Australia, responsibilities to the community. Certainly this is a huge work force that has got major skills, and our view would be to try and keep those skills here. We're one of the biggest trainer of apprentices; we've got a record on this.
But we also need, and I was surprised when people asked me this yesterday, "Why are we putting profits before people?". We are not putting profits before people. At the end of the day we've put on 7,000 new jobs net in the last six years and we're doing that by reinvesting in the company.
ALAN KOHLER: I suppose the other way to look at it is you've got a duty to maximise the cost savings to your shareholders?
GEOFF DIXON: You certainly have to do that.
ALAN KOHLER: Possibly your shareholders might look at it and say you wimped it this time around?
GEOFF DIXON: No - well obviously people can say that we wimped it. They say everything about us when they want to, but I don't think so. I think it's our duty to make sure we run the company in the best interests of all the shareholders, and that obviously includes our employees.
ALAN KOHLER: You've said that overall you're 15 to 20 per cent behind world's best practice in this area. Do you believe that Australian based maintenance can actually achieve world's best practice?
GEOFF DIXON: Yes we do as a matter of fact - and there is a limit to how far you can chase this by the way, and I'm the first to admit this. When I was discussing with the unions on Thursday this issue came up. Things change so quickly in the industry. The benchmark's changed, we've have to get to that new benchmark. But we're not going to keep going down. If we can get a very, very good operation over the next two years we'll commit long term here and really just get the efficiency. But we also know the work is very good here too, so that's an important element of the equation with costs and efficiencies.
ALAN KOHLER: How far do you think you can go on costs and achieving world's best practice without having a blue with unions in general?
GEOFF DIXON: I would hope that they would see the benefits of what we've achieved so far. I mean, people dismiss it but we have grown this company when most other airlines have downsized.
ALAN KOHLER: You've said you need $500 million roughly per year…
GEOFF DIXON: in efficiency savings, not cost cuts.
ALAN KOHLER: …in efficiency savings, that's right. Are you on track for this year's $500 million?
GEOFF DIXON: Yes, we are, but someone should look at the bottom line of this company at the moment. We are getting close to 58-60 per cent of our costs are either people or fuel. The biggest issue we're facing now and why all these issues now become so paramount is that two or three years ago we were dealing with a cost of oil that was basically half of what it is today.
ALAN KOHLER: This year seems to be maintenance year - at least you're focusing…
GEOFF DIXON: No. not really.
ALAN KOHLER: …on maintenance at the moment.
GEOFF DIXON: We are at the moment.
ALAN KOHLER: And then you've got the review of the narrow body maintenance, when's it the turn of the flight crew to be looked at?
GEOFF DIXON: Well we negotiate, we have an enterprise bargaining agreement under way as a matter of fact with our short haul pilots. We have an enterprise bargaining agreement under way - it's being voted on, I understand - with our short haul flight attendants. The enterprise bargaining agreement with our long haul pilots comes up at the end of the year and for the long haul flight attendants at the end of 2007.
ALAN KOHLER: How much more on average do the Qantas mainline pilots get in salary than the Jetstar pilots?
GEOFF DIXON: Well the Jetstar, these are just rough figures - I'd say that flying a similar type aircraft, it's certainly between $70,000 to $80,000 difference.
ALAN KOHLER: Can you achieve in the time frame that you've set down the efficiency savings that you've set yourself, paying the Qantas mainline pilots that much more?
GEOFF DIXON: You've got to understand, the Qantas mainline operations also earns a much bigger margin than the Jetstar. Jetstar is a low cost airline and a low fare airline, and that's quite different. Qantas is a medium cost airline. Obviously we have a different product, we put more money into that product but we get quite much larger fares for business and first class travelling.
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but flying the plane's the same, you sit behind the cockpit, take off, land …
GEOFF DIXON: I couldn't agree more, and we obviously will be talking with all our people about efficiencies. But we're not suggesting we're going to be paying Qantas mainline pilots the same money that we're paying Jetstar pilots. We're not suggesting that - and by the way there's lots to do with productivity and efficiencies and things like that as well.
ALAN KOHLER: I suppose what I'm getting to is …
GEOFF DIXON: I know what you're getting to.
ALAN KOHLER: there are next stages here. This is maintenance now. There are surely a list of things for you to deal with in the years ahead.
GEOFF DIXON: There is and there has been over past years. And we sit down and negotiate with our people on the basis of that particular enterprise bargaining agreement. But we are saying quite openly - and we mean this - Jetstar is one stream of flying, Qantas is one stream of flying. When Jetstar opened almost two years ago, everybody said, 'This is going to take over from Qantas.' It hasn't taken over from Qantas, Qantas itself has grown and been very successful. The margin becomes very important, and I can assure you the most successful part of our business at the moment is our full service domestic operations. So while Jetstar's done very well, we still do very well in that. We will be asking people for efficiencies, help in a way to get to places, not because we want profits to throw away but because we invest back in the business. It's very important.
ALAN KOHLER: The efficiencies that you've achieved so far have all been done in existing workplace relations legislation.
GEOFF DIXON: Yes they have, including what we announced this week.
ALAN KOHLER: That's right, so obviously the changes come into force soon. Will that enable you to do other things, to accelerate efficiencies? Will you be able to do more things under the new legislation than you can do under existing legislation?
GEOFF DIXON: We're expecting to be able to gain greater flexibilities but I'm not going to sit down and negotiate through the media on how we're going to deal with our people and how we may get any benefits out of Workchoice, the new legislation. What we do believe is it will give more flexibility. We do believe there's more flexibility needed and I think that's obvious to most people. We end up negotiating it through. We're quite happy to work in the way we're working now but, if there's other ways to work we'll take those opportunities, as of course the unions always have.
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but does Workchoice strengthen your hand?
GEOFF DIXON: I'm not saying it'll strengthen our hand but, once we get the legislation and once we see all the documents, we will sit down and say, "How can we best help Qantas and, I might add, help our people." No one wants to accept the fact that by us making Qantas more efficient, we're making our employees - we certainly give them more certainty of their employment.
ALAN KOHLER: We'll have to leave it there. Geoff Dixon, thanks very much.
GEOFF DIXON: Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: Transcripts on this website are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts.
Qantas chief defends job cuts
Date : 12/03/2006
Reporter: Alan Kohler
ALAN KOHLER: After months of speculation, Qantas boss Geoff Dixon announced this week that he won't be shifting 2,500 maintenance jobs offshore. Instead, he will be closing the Sydney workshop and moving the work to Melbourne and Brisbane at a net cost of 340 jobs. In the immediate aftermath, the gnashing of teeth by unions was tempered with relief -- presumably as Qantas intended. But the plan falls well short of the savings Qantas still needs. I spoke to Geoff Dixon about what else needs to be done.
Geoff Dixon, I suppose you could hardly have shifted the 747 maintenance offshore having persuaded the government to knock back Singapore Airlines' application to fly between Sydney and Los Angeles, could you?
GEOFF DIXON: That's a cynical view of it, I think.
ALAN KOHLER: Well, it wouldn't have been a good look.
GEOFF DIXON: It wouldn't be a good look whether we had success with the policy settings with the government at any rate. I mean, we do not want to send jobs offshore. That's not our idea. Our idea would be to keep as many jobs - and we've got more than 90 per cent of our people in Australia at any rate - onshore. But the way the industry's changing, Alan, it just makes it necessary for us to either get the efficiency gains that we need onshore or indeed to look occasionally offshore.
ALAN KOHLER: Do you know how much you would save if you moved the 747 maintenance to an offshore facility?
GEOFF DIXON: Well it's not just the 747 maintenance, it would be all our wide body - yes, about $120 million profit before tax year on year.
ALAN KOHLER: Versus what sort of savings keeping them here?
GEOFF DIXON: We're hoping for something around about $90 million to $100 million provided we get it right over the next 18 months.
ALAN KOHLER: So that's a $20 million to $30 million compromise?
GEOFF DIXON: It is a compromise but then you've got a brand issue here. You've also got the fact that I think we have, along with every major corporation in Australia, responsibilities to the community. Certainly this is a huge work force that has got major skills, and our view would be to try and keep those skills here. We're one of the biggest trainer of apprentices; we've got a record on this.
But we also need, and I was surprised when people asked me this yesterday, "Why are we putting profits before people?". We are not putting profits before people. At the end of the day we've put on 7,000 new jobs net in the last six years and we're doing that by reinvesting in the company.
ALAN KOHLER: I suppose the other way to look at it is you've got a duty to maximise the cost savings to your shareholders?
GEOFF DIXON: You certainly have to do that.
ALAN KOHLER: Possibly your shareholders might look at it and say you wimped it this time around?
GEOFF DIXON: No - well obviously people can say that we wimped it. They say everything about us when they want to, but I don't think so. I think it's our duty to make sure we run the company in the best interests of all the shareholders, and that obviously includes our employees.
ALAN KOHLER: You've said that overall you're 15 to 20 per cent behind world's best practice in this area. Do you believe that Australian based maintenance can actually achieve world's best practice?
GEOFF DIXON: Yes we do as a matter of fact - and there is a limit to how far you can chase this by the way, and I'm the first to admit this. When I was discussing with the unions on Thursday this issue came up. Things change so quickly in the industry. The benchmark's changed, we've have to get to that new benchmark. But we're not going to keep going down. If we can get a very, very good operation over the next two years we'll commit long term here and really just get the efficiency. But we also know the work is very good here too, so that's an important element of the equation with costs and efficiencies.
ALAN KOHLER: How far do you think you can go on costs and achieving world's best practice without having a blue with unions in general?
GEOFF DIXON: I would hope that they would see the benefits of what we've achieved so far. I mean, people dismiss it but we have grown this company when most other airlines have downsized.
ALAN KOHLER: You've said you need $500 million roughly per year…
GEOFF DIXON: in efficiency savings, not cost cuts.
ALAN KOHLER: …in efficiency savings, that's right. Are you on track for this year's $500 million?
GEOFF DIXON: Yes, we are, but someone should look at the bottom line of this company at the moment. We are getting close to 58-60 per cent of our costs are either people or fuel. The biggest issue we're facing now and why all these issues now become so paramount is that two or three years ago we were dealing with a cost of oil that was basically half of what it is today.
ALAN KOHLER: This year seems to be maintenance year - at least you're focusing…
GEOFF DIXON: No. not really.
ALAN KOHLER: …on maintenance at the moment.
GEOFF DIXON: We are at the moment.
ALAN KOHLER: And then you've got the review of the narrow body maintenance, when's it the turn of the flight crew to be looked at?
GEOFF DIXON: Well we negotiate, we have an enterprise bargaining agreement under way as a matter of fact with our short haul pilots. We have an enterprise bargaining agreement under way - it's being voted on, I understand - with our short haul flight attendants. The enterprise bargaining agreement with our long haul pilots comes up at the end of the year and for the long haul flight attendants at the end of 2007.
ALAN KOHLER: How much more on average do the Qantas mainline pilots get in salary than the Jetstar pilots?
GEOFF DIXON: Well the Jetstar, these are just rough figures - I'd say that flying a similar type aircraft, it's certainly between $70,000 to $80,000 difference.
ALAN KOHLER: Can you achieve in the time frame that you've set down the efficiency savings that you've set yourself, paying the Qantas mainline pilots that much more?
GEOFF DIXON: You've got to understand, the Qantas mainline operations also earns a much bigger margin than the Jetstar. Jetstar is a low cost airline and a low fare airline, and that's quite different. Qantas is a medium cost airline. Obviously we have a different product, we put more money into that product but we get quite much larger fares for business and first class travelling.
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but flying the plane's the same, you sit behind the cockpit, take off, land …
GEOFF DIXON: I couldn't agree more, and we obviously will be talking with all our people about efficiencies. But we're not suggesting we're going to be paying Qantas mainline pilots the same money that we're paying Jetstar pilots. We're not suggesting that - and by the way there's lots to do with productivity and efficiencies and things like that as well.
ALAN KOHLER: I suppose what I'm getting to is …
GEOFF DIXON: I know what you're getting to.
ALAN KOHLER: there are next stages here. This is maintenance now. There are surely a list of things for you to deal with in the years ahead.
GEOFF DIXON: There is and there has been over past years. And we sit down and negotiate with our people on the basis of that particular enterprise bargaining agreement. But we are saying quite openly - and we mean this - Jetstar is one stream of flying, Qantas is one stream of flying. When Jetstar opened almost two years ago, everybody said, 'This is going to take over from Qantas.' It hasn't taken over from Qantas, Qantas itself has grown and been very successful. The margin becomes very important, and I can assure you the most successful part of our business at the moment is our full service domestic operations. So while Jetstar's done very well, we still do very well in that. We will be asking people for efficiencies, help in a way to get to places, not because we want profits to throw away but because we invest back in the business. It's very important.
ALAN KOHLER: The efficiencies that you've achieved so far have all been done in existing workplace relations legislation.
GEOFF DIXON: Yes they have, including what we announced this week.
ALAN KOHLER: That's right, so obviously the changes come into force soon. Will that enable you to do other things, to accelerate efficiencies? Will you be able to do more things under the new legislation than you can do under existing legislation?
GEOFF DIXON: We're expecting to be able to gain greater flexibilities but I'm not going to sit down and negotiate through the media on how we're going to deal with our people and how we may get any benefits out of Workchoice, the new legislation. What we do believe is it will give more flexibility. We do believe there's more flexibility needed and I think that's obvious to most people. We end up negotiating it through. We're quite happy to work in the way we're working now but, if there's other ways to work we'll take those opportunities, as of course the unions always have.
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but does Workchoice strengthen your hand?
GEOFF DIXON: I'm not saying it'll strengthen our hand but, once we get the legislation and once we see all the documents, we will sit down and say, "How can we best help Qantas and, I might add, help our people." No one wants to accept the fact that by us making Qantas more efficient, we're making our employees - we certainly give them more certainty of their employment.
ALAN KOHLER: We'll have to leave it there. Geoff Dixon, thanks very much.
GEOFF DIXON: Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: Transcripts on this website are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts.
Last edited by Wirraway; 12th Mar 2006 at 11:02.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: living on top of the bat cave
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he never answered my question that i wanted answeredand that was
"when Avv can not handle the overflow work from sydney where will the work go ?"
because as it stands at the moment i can not see the last D-check for H/M syd going into the Hangar 271 when the last day for the aircraft is the last day of H/M syd is meant to be operating.
but there is going to be no work going off shore at this stage as Darth Dixson has said
good one darth Dixson and his off sider KC
"when Avv can not handle the overflow work from sydney where will the work go ?"
because as it stands at the moment i can not see the last D-check for H/M syd going into the Hangar 271 when the last day for the aircraft is the last day of H/M syd is meant to be operating.
but there is going to be no work going off shore at this stage as Darth Dixson has said
good one darth Dixson and his off sider KC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: somewhere
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's clever - it won't be excusable for the engineers to strike to make a difference until the maintenance is alredy off shore, and then it will be too late.......
Your all screwed - sorry people.
Your all screwed - sorry people.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me Mr Alan Kohler,
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but flying the plane's the same, you sit behind the cockpit, take off, land …
Sure, but journalism is the the same, when Aunty Maud reports the Tambar Springs bowls club results in a weekly newspaper, she should be paid the same as you? Is that how it works? Really?
ALAN KOHLER: Sure but flying the plane's the same, you sit behind the cockpit, take off, land …
Sure, but journalism is the the same, when Aunty Maud reports the Tambar Springs bowls club results in a weekly newspaper, she should be paid the same as you? Is that how it works? Really?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inthefluffystuff
Wha????
If you want my opinion, moving the heavy maintenance base out of Sydney was inevitable, allows expansion of the services = more work, but moving the work overseas is just disgraceful, especially as they "call Australia home"
.
For my money though working in a pleasant, calm, rural environment, where the kids can play and noone gets mugged, in say Parkes, Avalon or wherever has gotta be better than Sydney, ferry the aircraft in and out.
Gaunt, he should be drawn and quartered, and alas a lot of happy men.
Wha????If you want my opinion, moving the heavy maintenance base out of Sydney was inevitable, allows expansion of the services = more work, but moving the work overseas is just disgraceful, especially as they "call Australia home"
.For my money though working in a pleasant, calm, rural environment, where the kids can play and noone gets mugged, in say Parkes, Avalon or wherever has gotta be better than Sydney, ferry the aircraft in and out.
I don't know Elroy , some of what Mr Dixson said is seems right, is there that much difference in flying for Q or Jet *? If its the same routes, same/similar aircraft then the pay should surely be a tight fit. However it does sound as though they are trying to make out the Jet * pilots as a "Lower" level of pilot (Observation not statement of opinion). And im not saying that Q should take a pay cut, in fact the opposite I think Jet * needs a pay rise. 
I think of hellva lot of what Mr Dixon said in the Koheler interview is 'right.'
One of the mistakes in this debate that people are making is that they are assumming that QANTAS and JETSTAR piloting to be '"the same job." Well it is not the same job. The people flying the jets for QANTAS work for one of Australia's most recognisable brands (if not in the world) with a market reputation for safety and service. Entry to QANTAS is highly competitive and highly sought after.
JETSTAR on the other hand is a start-up company without a history and a brand recognition that says 'el cheapo'. Plus, it is a small outfit when compared to the might of QANTAS. I am talking in the 'airline exec speak' of ASK's here.
It has nothing to do with the so called 'piloting standards' or 'same routes, same aircraft' claim. JETSTAR pilots are more than capable of piloting a QANTAS mainline aircraft it is just that they didn't get the job in the first place.
What is the difference between the remuneration received by an accountant for say KPMG, and another accountant working for Smith, Smith and Sons? Is it not the same job? QANTAS can afford to pay more because it generates more (a fact acknowledged by G. Dixon).
Contrary to popular belief JETSTAR was not set up to attack pilot salaries and conditions it was set up to, firstly, to put the brakes on our domestic competitor and, secondly, to exploit an international market that QANTAS Mainline will never operate in. And in doing so it protects the QANTAS Mainline a.k.a. The Brand!
The JETSTAR Pilot Council negotitated for their members the best possible deal available from the company they work for. I don't see JETSTAR salaries coming much further north than what they presently are, nor do I see my QANTAS salary retreating south in an major way to line up with JETSTAR.
Oils and Oils, Sol. And that is way that AIPA should play it. Look after No 1 and not worry about JETSTAR. Because they are doing just fine without the help of AIPA.
One of the mistakes in this debate that people are making is that they are assumming that QANTAS and JETSTAR piloting to be '"the same job." Well it is not the same job. The people flying the jets for QANTAS work for one of Australia's most recognisable brands (if not in the world) with a market reputation for safety and service. Entry to QANTAS is highly competitive and highly sought after.
JETSTAR on the other hand is a start-up company without a history and a brand recognition that says 'el cheapo'. Plus, it is a small outfit when compared to the might of QANTAS. I am talking in the 'airline exec speak' of ASK's here.
It has nothing to do with the so called 'piloting standards' or 'same routes, same aircraft' claim. JETSTAR pilots are more than capable of piloting a QANTAS mainline aircraft it is just that they didn't get the job in the first place.
What is the difference between the remuneration received by an accountant for say KPMG, and another accountant working for Smith, Smith and Sons? Is it not the same job? QANTAS can afford to pay more because it generates more (a fact acknowledged by G. Dixon).
Contrary to popular belief JETSTAR was not set up to attack pilot salaries and conditions it was set up to, firstly, to put the brakes on our domestic competitor and, secondly, to exploit an international market that QANTAS Mainline will never operate in. And in doing so it protects the QANTAS Mainline a.k.a. The Brand!
The JETSTAR Pilot Council negotitated for their members the best possible deal available from the company they work for. I don't see JETSTAR salaries coming much further north than what they presently are, nor do I see my QANTAS salary retreating south in an major way to line up with JETSTAR.
Oils and Oils, Sol. And that is way that AIPA should play it. Look after No 1 and not worry about JETSTAR. Because they are doing just fine without the help of AIPA.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nice work OhSpareMe,
That is the most reasoned post to date on airline salaries in Oz. No paranoia, jealousy or malice, just good old fashioned common sense.
Cheers, HH.
That is the most reasoned post to date on airline salaries in Oz. No paranoia, jealousy or malice, just good old fashioned common sense.
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohspare me,
Whilst I too heard Dixon say at the J* AIPA meeting unably chaired by the stooge RH, that J* was designed to meet the challenge of VB, I don't share your optimism.
It was an absolute stroke of luck that IR reforms exist. My reading of the proposed legislation is that there exists a number of ways the company can lever downward our conditions. Unfortunately for Dixon he cannot use J* international to 'cover' our international flying. Presently the aircraft and route structure aren't in place. When it is they will keep the shooting match running, albeit at a reduced frequency. In other words when we have lost control of the flying equation, the company could limp along...
When the company has J* international where they want it, there will be a great swag of tricks they will use to put our conditions under the blowtorch. THEY JUST AREN'T READY YET!
Whilst I too heard Dixon say at the J* AIPA meeting unably chaired by the stooge RH, that J* was designed to meet the challenge of VB, I don't share your optimism.
It was an absolute stroke of luck that IR reforms exist. My reading of the proposed legislation is that there exists a number of ways the company can lever downward our conditions. Unfortunately for Dixon he cannot use J* international to 'cover' our international flying. Presently the aircraft and route structure aren't in place. When it is they will keep the shooting match running, albeit at a reduced frequency. In other words when we have lost control of the flying equation, the company could limp along...
When the company has J* international where they want it, there will be a great swag of tricks they will use to put our conditions under the blowtorch. THEY JUST AREN'T READY YET!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: House
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then get in there first and negotiate an acceptable outcome.
AIPA should approach Qantas to start EBA8 negotiations now. Tie them up with Australian Airlines and Short Haul. Throw all of the books out and come up with one way to do it all.
This does not mean less money. Increases in productivity usually mean increases in salary i.e. fly more, get more.
I agree with Spare Me by the way. I don't see the sky falling around QF Pilot salaries, but I do see a lot of the fat in the LHCA being trimmed away.
Up to AIPA and it's members as to the size of the knife and the pain of the cuts.
I say again, "take control of the agenda".
If Dixon and Oldmeadow won't talk to you seriously about reform, then at least you know where you stand and can start taking appropriate action to prepare for the fight. Try talking first.
AIPA should approach Qantas to start EBA8 negotiations now. Tie them up with Australian Airlines and Short Haul. Throw all of the books out and come up with one way to do it all.
This does not mean less money. Increases in productivity usually mean increases in salary i.e. fly more, get more.
I agree with Spare Me by the way. I don't see the sky falling around QF Pilot salaries, but I do see a lot of the fat in the LHCA being trimmed away.
Up to AIPA and it's members as to the size of the knife and the pain of the cuts.
I say again, "take control of the agenda".
If Dixon and Oldmeadow won't talk to you seriously about reform, then at least you know where you stand and can start taking appropriate action to prepare for the fight. Try talking first.