Geoff Dixon Writes To 2600 Pilots, Threatens Union Payment Cuts

[Datum]

This is an overt attack on all QF Pilots...

GD has no respect for any of the workforce responsible for the Airline's success, be they pilots, engineers, cabin crew or ground staff.... He may be the CEO...however, he is NOT QANTAS..

It is time that all the UNIONS and employees start to play hardball...

The company is far bigger than one man.... Why let him destroy our organisation... He will move on soon - leaving behind an employee culture I would not wish on anyone!

[VC9]

If the Captain Ian Woods is the same Ian Woods that I knew when I was in my early twenty's, I think I would put my money on GD.

[B A Lert]

FOOL'S PARADISE

Originally Posted by Datum

.....The company is far bigger than one man.... Why let him destroy our organisation...

Datum, dear boy, it's time to get real. Qantas exists for three reasons as most reasonable people see it

1. to serve the public with a viable air service
2. employ its people (including pilots) fairly and justly in line with what society thinks is fair and reasonable, and to provide as bext it can security and continuity of employment.
3. return its shareholders/investors (you know Datum, those who put their money up front to make it all possible) a fair and adequate return on the capital invested - now and in the future.

Since when did the pilot group 'own' Qantas. Have we missed an important announcement to the ASX???

Many of the attitudes expressed here starkly show just how out of touch are many or most of Qantas's pilots. Ive said it before and I'll say it again: this is about pay negotiations at a 'legacy carriers'. of which Qantas is one. Pilots conditions at these carriers were negotiated when not a lot thought was put into what was agreed as airlines then could charge what they wanted, fuel was just another small cost and so on. With hindsight, they lived in a fool's paradise as evidenced by the demise and/or bankruptcy of several of these legacy carriers and the economic basket cases that several remaining carriers are: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, Sabena, Alitalia, Air France and so on. Even Delta, a paragon of best practice a few years ago, has been driven to the wall, by amongst other factors, high wage costs and pressures that are inappropriate in today's world of commercial aviation. The world has now changed and like it or not, a lot of the world's pilots - chiefly those employed by the legacy carriers - are still living in that antediluvian world. Before their eyes, the world is literally passing them by.

Can anyone tell us with a straight face and hand on heart exactly why the president of a wealthy trade union and his side-kick should have their salaries paid by their employer? Ever heard of conflict of interest and wondered why past presidents of AIPA have been so ready to roll over? How could anyone take on the enemy when his salary is paid by the enemy. Give me a bloody break.

Simply put, the sooner Qantas is able to break the AIPA grip, the better off everyone will be except for, so they think, the self serving members of that organisation. And no, I am not a disaffected wannabe who didn't make the grade.

[WangFunk]

...and AGAIN B A LERT

So Geoff wants to save a few dollars. Think i could find a few here:


Geoff Dixon, 2005 Total remuneration $6,482,673
Peter Gregg, 2005 Total remuneration $3,630,999

I think this speaks for itself, and those are just two!!

[Keg]

Originally Posted by B A Lert

Datum,
Can anyone tell us with a straight face and hand on heart exactly why the president of a wealthy trade union and his side-kick should have their salaries paid by their employer? Ever heard of conflict of interest and wondered why past presidents of AIPA have been so ready to roll over?

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

'Wealthy' trade union? Not compared to some!

Salaries paid by employer? They are still pilots and still flying the line so deserved to be paid for that flying.

Conflict of interest? It's been pointed out before (and I tend to agree that it is a conflict) BUT, the payment for our AIPA executive is something that we negotiated in previous EBAs. We did away with a percentage of a pay rise in order to see those situation as it is now. All that is conveniently forgotten now that the company doesn't want to sign an MOU that was negotiated at the same time as the EBA to go hand in hand with the EBA. So, far enough to stop the payment of those positions, give us the percentage of a pay rise back again!

Again, the salient lesson above could also apply to J*. QF have moved the goal posts despite what had been 'agreed to'. They are now applying the 'letter of the law' and any previous intent is null and void.

[flyagain1day]

I look forward to watching this one with great interest.
B A Lert, you do make a couple of very good points.
To all the QF drivers, There is a few long days coming up.
Have fun and good luck.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by B A Lert

Datum, dear boy, it's time to get real. Qantas exists for three reasons as most reasonable people see it
1. to serve the public with a viable air service
2. employ its people (including pilots) fairly and justly in line with what society thinks is fair and reasonable, and to provide as bext it can security and continuity of employment.
3. return its shareholders/investors (you know Datum, those who put their money up front to make it all possible) a fair and adequate return on the capital invested - now and in the future.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that making several thousand employees who conduct your primary business (this includes more than just pilots/AIPA members) really pissed off is not conducive to productivity and therefore shareholder returns.

Oh, BTW, I'm both a QF pilot and a shareholder (and one who can see the CEO making a complete hash of this through his arrogance). Where does that leave me?

[B A Lert]

Originally Posted by Keg

... 'Wealthy' trade union? Not compared to some!
Salaries paid by employer? They are still pilots and still flying the line so deserved to be paid for that flying.....

Who is comparing the wealth of AIPA with other trade unions? Your comment is a red herring. The fact is AIPA IS WEALTHY.

As for salaries of AIPA officials, are you not gilding the lily? Yes, they do some flying each Bid Period but regardless of how much or how little they fly, they are still paid credited hours way in excess of what they actually fly for which Qantas pays double; firstly to the AIPA head-kickers for time spent in YSSY (or elsehwere) and secondly to the pilots who operate the balance of the flying that would have beeen operated by the AIPA officials were they to fly a full line for which they are being paid. Qantas effectively have to keep two more pilots (probably captains) on its establishment to allow this rort to continue. I know the agreement was made in better terms but the times and world has changed. Was the agreement made under duress?

Dutch Roll, you may well be a pilot and a shareholder but do you have more shares than those allocated gratis by the Company? In other words, did you buy any Qantas shares on the market as did shareholders who really expect an ROI on their funds going forward?

Also, for every browned off Qantas employee there are probably a hundred happy and contented souls, and thousands willing to take the place of the disaffected were they brave enough to follow their instincts, tell GD and others what to do with their job and the airline and resign.. As many have said before, if you don't like it, go elsewhere and see what the real world is all about. You may then change your tune but can you walk and whistle or hum at the same time?

[LTBC]

I think everyone needs to get down to the beach and cool off like smarter pilots before us.

Keg, given the size of AIPA's membership it is relatively wealthy to other trade unions. BA Lert has summarised the financial arrangement accurately in that Qantas has provided flying relief for certain AIPA reps. That is at direct cost to the company. To argue otherwise exemplifies a lack of understanding. It has been explained elsewhere how the provisions crept into the EBA over time, but at the end of the day it is illogicial and unethical for the arrangement to exist at all.

Perhaps if there had not been such a proactive campaign against EBA7 and a subsequent challenge of its legitimate certification, Geoff would have been more inclined to sign off on the MOU.

I have very, very serious concerns with AIPA choosing to politicise this into an issue that cannot be won through fighting, especially given the imminent change to the industrial landscape. The thunderous sound of members beating the president's proverbial drum is drowning out some balanced views.

The pilots may be discontent, but there are many ways to positively progress the issues without resorting to 'chest-beating' (on both sides).

[relax737]

BALert you make some valid points, but I'mnot about to wade into that argument/discussion.
It seems to me that Dixon is just poking the cat to see what it does; if it doesn't do much he'llpoke somemore and watch.

If I was a Qantas pilot I wouldn't like what was happ ening. Good luck guys and girls.. Get yourselves organized and ready for a stoush.

Don't fallinto the sametrap that a couple of other airlines fell in to many years ago inthinking that nobody elsecould do their jobs. and never let yourselves become complacent.

[relax737]

Bad medicine QFcainer. Dixon is doing exactly as you say, and I recall friends who worked for acouple of other airlines getting similar
letters many years ago.
He's looking for a brawl.

[QFinsider]

He can beat his chest all he wants...

This is a battle that will be fought on our terms. I will never walk into a kill zone. IR laws make a very dangerous place to be.
We can fight him without engaging on his terms..

It is a premise as old as war itself. If you are not evenly matched irritate...
He won't have anything to aim at, no vocal minority nothing to aim at..
It will cost them more to run the company that is for sure..It is this which will be the way. Just coz Dixon wants a fight NOW, doesn't mean we are ready. He has to have it now he is way too yesterday's man

[Ronnie Honker]

He's looking for a brawl.

How else would he want it to look.
He wants to appear in control of the situation, and to do that he's talking tough and mean.
(Your mates will remember the old P.M. and his two airline cronies who did the same thing, "It's war if you go out this time boys". Well it became a war - a war for which they were NOT prepared, and the airlines paid the ultimate price. Extinction.)

Darth Dixon is counting on taking on ONLY the pilots, and that if a scrap does develop, no other employees are going to feel threatened to the point that for their OWN benefit might also decide on a course of action - it is of course, illegal for them to go out in sympathy with the pilots.

Dixon, as an individual, has far more to lose out of this than the pilots.
He's backing himself into a corner - which may well explain his haggard, worn out appearance on the last few Sunday programmes he's appeared on.

[Truckster]

QFinsider is correct. One only has to look around the world to see the intelligent use, and effect of assymetric warfare techniques.

Dixon has the new IR laws on his side and has stated he will use them. Pilots would be foolish to go on strike as the PR battle would be lost on day one.

Fortunately there are another set of laws which can be used to good effect.

If Dixon really wants to piss-off the people who by LAW, control the amount of fuel loaded aboard an aircraft; who by LAW have the final say on whether a tour of duty is extended or whether 400 pax get put up in a hotel at company expense; who by LAW cannot be compelled to operate to company schedule to make the punctuality reports look good; who by LAW cannot be compelled to give away a sector to the FO, thereby bringing the airline to a halt as it struggles to fit in recency simulator rides on already crowded schedules, then so be it.

Striking? Who needs it?

[Keg]

Originally Posted by QFinsider

This is a battle that will be fought on our terms. I will never walk into a kill zone. IR laws make a very dangerous place to be.
We can fight him without engaging on his terms..

First sentance wrong, the rest is correct. It can be fought on our terms but that is no guarantee that it will! Of course, it's our own fault if we choose to fight it on his terms!

Whoever it was that talked about the pressure from the wife, you ain't half wrong. I mentioned some of this stuff in passing and got a lip full from her. Then againn, perhaps that's just me any day of the week!

[Torres]

"....cut off the A$500,000 a year it traditionally pays the Australian & International Pilots Association to cover the salaries of its executives..."

If that is not a conflict of interest, what is?????

How did AIPA get sucked into that?? GOD is now looking for Payola time - divide and rule?

Not that that has ever happened before in Australian airline industrial relations.....

[king oath]

The Bluffmeister is having a prod to see the reaction.

Truckster makes a good point. Any "savings" can be quickly eroded by pilots increasing costs if they chose to do so. Its in both sides interests to take a Bex, have a cup of tea and a good lie down.

Meanwhile the Bluffmeister may not like the President of AIPA but he bloody well better get used to him being there.

[Ronnie Honker]

If Dixon really wants to piss-off the people who by LAW, control the amount of fuel loaded aboard an aircraft; who by LAW have the final say on whether a tour of duty is extended or whether 400 pax get put up in a hotel at company expense; who by LAW cannot be compelled to operate to company schedule to make the punctuality reports look good; who by LAW cannot be compelled to give away a sector to the FO, thereby bringing the airline to a halt as it struggles to fit in recency simulator rides on already crowded schedules, then so be it.

That sort of action requires each set of crew to have the balls do it, on each of their flights, and to be ready to wear possible repercussions.
He'd pick us off, one-by-one, so you can count that out.
It's tough talk, but it doesn't work.

[Sunfish]

There is only one thing that will get Mr. Dixon's immediate attention, but I don't think you are capable of arranging it. Please note, I speak as an insignifigant bit of self loading freight, a member of the public with no particular love for Qantas, but I don't like seeing this style of management bullying.

Now Qantas's most precious possession is it's reputation in the marketplace as an Australian Icon. This is termed its "positioning" in the minds of consumers, both here and abroad. This "positioning" in peoples minds is a function of its advertising, actions and news over decades.

The position of Qantas an amalgam of "Spirit of Australia", "I still call Australia home", "Rain man - Qantas the worlds safest airline" and so on and so on.

The only thing that will get Qantas's to back off is to threaten their market positioning in the minds of the average joe public

To me this requires that the statement "Qantas - The Spirit of Australia" has to be threatened directly

The reason that Qantas gets away with what it does is because we still have a warm and fuzzy feeling about it - you have to change that feeling to one of surprise, disapointment and disapproval of the actions of Qantas Management.

This would require a really good media campaign organised by a professional who really knows how to spin this stuff - which I don't.

Furthermore, you will have to roll all the issues into one and say enough's enough.

That means no outsourcing of maintenance, the reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the world's safest airline is because its aircraft are maintained by Australians who have had infinitely more expereince than Asian johnny come lately organisations, and who put pride of workmanship and safety ahead of cost cutting.

That means no outsourcing of cabin crew. The reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the worlds safest airline is that its crewed by Australians who know how work as a team, speak the same language, and know that Qantas's reputation depends on them.

That means no cutting back on Pilots working conditions.The reason that Qantas is the Spirit of Australia and the worlds safest airline is that its Australian pilots are superbly trained and have worked their backsides of through a long apprenticeship to even get a chance to be selected by Qantas, and their long expereince is directly reflected in Qantas's safety record.

Why is Qantas "The Spirit of Australia? Its because of its Pilots, Cabin crew and Engineers made it that way. And now management is making Qantas the Spirit of Greed.

Anyway you get my drift, unless you can send this message, you are doomed.

[mrpaxing]

agree

but sunfish that would mean ALL qf unions have to work together to protect that image to the travelling public. yeah, pigs fly one day too!!!!!!!!