Geoff''s love letter.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll ask the same question once again for the benefit of the detractors of the new AIPA which was voted in overwhelmingly by mainline pilots:
'For anyone who thinks the mainline pilot group, or more specifically, their elected reps are not being 'reasonable' about things, could you please post specific examples?'
......anyone?
No, I didn't think you could. Nor did I expect jake to justify his thoughts on legal costs compared to what was being frittered away by the previous illustrious leaders, as that would be a trifle embarrassing.
'For anyone who thinks the mainline pilot group, or more specifically, their elected reps are not being 'reasonable' about things, could you please post specific examples?'
......anyone?
No, I didn't think you could. Nor did I expect jake to justify his thoughts on legal costs compared to what was being frittered away by the previous illustrious leaders, as that would be a trifle embarrassing.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
La Grange,
Good stuff that. And if GD actually followed that type of path, as a group employee you would have to accept the reality of the situation and roll with it. Additionally, this would still result in lots of opportunity for many people.
Instead, GD chooses to wholly rely on cutting staff pay and conditions as the only attempt to really cut costs. Except his own of course.
And there in lies the lack of credability for the whole exercise.
Good stuff that. And if GD actually followed that type of path, as a group employee you would have to accept the reality of the situation and roll with it. Additionally, this would still result in lots of opportunity for many people.
Instead, GD chooses to wholly rely on cutting staff pay and conditions as the only attempt to really cut costs. Except his own of course.
And there in lies the lack of credability for the whole exercise.
Nunc est bibendum
Ejector, that hasn't been the case up until this point in time.
Dutchy, I'll give you one example. The letter to Canberra regarding the Tasman codeshare. I agree with QF moves on that one and think AIPA missed the mark. We've lost money on that route for a long, long time and either way, we'll be doing less flying on that route in the future. If we can tie up with ANZ, reduce the losses (or heaven forbid, turn a profit on it) and redeploy the asset to an expansion route then that is a good thing for mainline drivers- and something to be encouraged. There are other benefits to QF on top of that as well.
That said, there are a lot of things on which I agree with the current COM. Years of being 'flexible' with the airline led us to being locked out of getting a guernsey at the table to discuss Jetstar and we also got a crap MoU- with requirements attached that lock out many of the current QF crew anyway!
One definition of insanity (or stupidity) is to continue the same behaviour and expecting a different outcome. I think we proved that over a long period of time. If the company is going to continue to ignore it's crew despite our demonstrated flexibility in the past, why would we continue with that kind of behaviour? It ain't going to change the outcomes in the future- as Geoff showed in his recent letter.
In my opinion from the 'cheap seats', both sides have made mistakes over the last few years but no one can accuse the pilot body of not being willing to compromise or be open to discussion in that time. QF closed the door in the faces of the pilot body about a year after they bought Impulse. Now they get upset when they find the door shut on them in some instances!
Dutchy, I'll give you one example. The letter to Canberra regarding the Tasman codeshare. I agree with QF moves on that one and think AIPA missed the mark. We've lost money on that route for a long, long time and either way, we'll be doing less flying on that route in the future. If we can tie up with ANZ, reduce the losses (or heaven forbid, turn a profit on it) and redeploy the asset to an expansion route then that is a good thing for mainline drivers- and something to be encouraged. There are other benefits to QF on top of that as well.
That said, there are a lot of things on which I agree with the current COM. Years of being 'flexible' with the airline led us to being locked out of getting a guernsey at the table to discuss Jetstar and we also got a crap MoU- with requirements attached that lock out many of the current QF crew anyway!
One definition of insanity (or stupidity) is to continue the same behaviour and expecting a different outcome. I think we proved that over a long period of time. If the company is going to continue to ignore it's crew despite our demonstrated flexibility in the past, why would we continue with that kind of behaviour? It ain't going to change the outcomes in the future- as Geoff showed in his recent letter. In my opinion from the 'cheap seats', both sides have made mistakes over the last few years but no one can accuse the pilot body of not being willing to compromise or be open to discussion in that time. QF closed the door in the faces of the pilot body about a year after they bought Impulse. Now they get upset when they find the door shut on them in some instances!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kings Cross
Age: 59
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIPA has to get B
LLs.
Don't be intimidated by a two bit country reporter who has more ass and luck than anyone I've ever known.
Take him and Oldmeadow on. The fight is not about more money, it is about saving the company, saving our jobs. I for one don't want to have to up root my family and live in the Middle East because of GD incompetence.
Take on John Italianame. He is weak, a yesman. He doesn't understand operations.
Take on Peter the Money Counter. From what I'm told he is nothing more than a big fat bullyboy.
AIPA fight tem on saving the airline. When we have done that we will at least have job security. And that is something that does not appear to be a given at this time.
I am prepared to fight, I want my job, and I am not going to allow the current bunch of dropkicks to take it from me.
Instead of tossing stones at each other, lets unite
AIPA convene a meeting of the unions, FAAA, ALAEA, AWU, ASU form a united front. DEMAND DISMISSALS
LLs.Don't be intimidated by a two bit country reporter who has more ass and luck than anyone I've ever known.
Take him and Oldmeadow on. The fight is not about more money, it is about saving the company, saving our jobs. I for one don't want to have to up root my family and live in the Middle East because of GD incompetence.
Take on John Italianame. He is weak, a yesman. He doesn't understand operations.
Take on Peter the Money Counter. From what I'm told he is nothing more than a big fat bullyboy.
AIPA fight tem on saving the airline. When we have done that we will at least have job security. And that is something that does not appear to be a given at this time.
I am prepared to fight, I want my job, and I am not going to allow the current bunch of dropkicks to take it from me.
Instead of tossing stones at each other, lets unite
AIPA convene a meeting of the unions, FAAA, ALAEA, AWU, ASU form a united front. DEMAND DISMISSALS
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Reduce training costs by introducing direct entry Captain's (the same as SIA and other safe airlines do)
Direct entry Captain's I think not. That will be great for morale
Why are singapore so safe?
They have F/Os on the 744 with about 500 hours total time that not one year ago were struggling to meet the standards of an Australian CPL. They weren't even aloud to take the barons out on solos. The Direct entry Captains at SIA have their work cut out for them. (Not a stab at the staff at Singapore flying college in YPJT, they are hard working competent pilots that just dont have a lot to work with student wise)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Army of One document first appeared when Frank Lorenzo was in charge of Texas Air, namely Continental and Eastern Airlines. The author was a soldier in “Franks Army” when pilots were paid considerably less than industry standard, in some cases less than half. “Temporary” 20% wage concessions lasted for years only to be followed by permanent wage cuts of up to 40% and furloughs despite some profitable years. Aircraft were old and poorly maintained with both airlines were investigated for maintenance fraud. CO was heavily fined for illegally re cycling engine components.
The document was probably a valid commentary on the state of affairs within the Texas Air group when Lorenzo was in charge but to post the document in an attempt to compare CO/EA to QF is ridiculous.
The document was probably a valid commentary on the state of affairs within the Texas Air group when Lorenzo was in charge but to post the document in an attempt to compare CO/EA to QF is ridiculous.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What?
ZB you make an assertion ...thats all.Back it up with some cogent,logical argument.
QF is heading in the same direction as CO/EA.
The comparison is perhaps alittle premature but valid nonetheless.
The management mentality is certainly comparable.
Dixon and Lorenzo are both dysfunctional sociopaths
QF is heading in the same direction as CO/EA.
The comparison is perhaps alittle premature but valid nonetheless.
The management mentality is certainly comparable.
Dixon and Lorenzo are both dysfunctional sociopaths
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Keg, I know you are a great bloke,(I've had a few beers with you in the past) .Before you cane AIPA over the Trans Tasman Code Share Submission. What did AIPA write ?,what were the terms of reference they responded to ?,what was in Qantas' 100 page submission that AIPA responded to ?, no idea? Well how about asking someone at the AIPA office and see if your original accusation still sits comfortably, rather than swallowing Geoff's rhetoric. If you think Geoff had an apoplexy over that,
well lets just say the ride only gets better ,if my source in AIPA is correct.
odimus duces nostros improbos pravosque!
well lets just say the ride only gets better ,if my source in AIPA is correct.
odimus duces nostros improbos pravosque!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, have to agree with Max. Get on the phone and get the facts. My source tells me that the full implication of the agreement Dixon seeks is that NZ aircraft and crew would be able to fly not only across the pond but also on Oz domestic routes once here. In addition, it would allow Jetstar to operate most of the trans-Tasman flights. I'm sure you can see the ramifications of that for QF crew. AIPA is doing what it should by lodging an objection, looking after the jobs of you and your QF compatriots.
There is more than one number you can call to get the 'facts'. Its just a question of who you want to believe.
Noone wants to believe that Qantas is facing a critical impasse next financial year. Its much easier to write it all off as 'more of the same', or 'bad governance', or 'EBA softening up', or 'pigs at the trough'. We don't want the fuel price to be what it is, nor do we want competition protections to be threatened by airlines better positioned than our own. Unfortunately, life isn't fair, and sometimes we all need to confront reality. The Australian government is unlikely to allow the company to collapse, but the process of protecting Qantas for the future (which is already in action) will pay little attention to EBA caveats. Is it not better for AIPA to have an element of control over the significant changes that are coming, rather than persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything?
Qantas has admitted that it should not have excluded AIPA from the original Jetstar negotiations. Unfortunately, for all of us, that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today.
The victor in the coming battle will be the one backed by the board, the shareholders, and the public. You must accept this reality.
Noone wants to believe that Qantas is facing a critical impasse next financial year. Its much easier to write it all off as 'more of the same', or 'bad governance', or 'EBA softening up', or 'pigs at the trough'. We don't want the fuel price to be what it is, nor do we want competition protections to be threatened by airlines better positioned than our own. Unfortunately, life isn't fair, and sometimes we all need to confront reality. The Australian government is unlikely to allow the company to collapse, but the process of protecting Qantas for the future (which is already in action) will pay little attention to EBA caveats. Is it not better for AIPA to have an element of control over the significant changes that are coming, rather than persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything?
Qantas has admitted that it should not have excluded AIPA from the original Jetstar negotiations. Unfortunately, for all of us, that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today.
The victor in the coming battle will be the one backed by the board, the shareholders, and the public. You must accept this reality.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTBC,
you are spot on, except for one fatal flaw. Do not assume the government of the day will save the airline. 15,000 Ansett employees thought that, 43,000 Pan Am employees thought that. The Prime Minister's brother does not work for Qantas!
you are spot on, except for one fatal flaw. Do not assume the government of the day will save the airline. 15,000 Ansett employees thought that, 43,000 Pan Am employees thought that. The Prime Minister's brother does not work for Qantas!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about "honoring the protections of an antiquated EBA"
Qf can't even honour the agreements of an EBA agreed upon only months ago.
Fact is that QF can't be trusted at any level.
Qf can't even honour the agreements of an EBA agreed upon only months ago.
Fact is that QF can't be trusted at any level.
LTBC, not sure what you're getting at...but maybe we agree?
"Qantas has admitted that it should not have excluded AIPA from the original Jetstar negotiations." When? And if it did then I find such utterances to be highly disingenuous.
"... that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today." Perhaps, and I feel some QF pilots need to, at times, be reminded who started this again. I too wish the company had not acted in this way.
To my mind the managers are fully conversant with their powers and our obligations when they want to apply some leverage, but surprisingly lacking in the same fervour when they choose to overlook 'inconvenient' clauses agreed to during negotiations arising from 'the good working relationship' we once enjoyed.
I'm non-plussed by Mr Dixon's confusion over the current antipathy from AIPA. If Speedbird and others can make improving profits (as does QF) even with an oil crisis, and QF's total crewing costs for pilots are demonstrably lower than many of our competitors, with comparable productivity, then why are QF pilots apparently so actively circumvented? Management's 'sorry we forgot to include you when we had agreed we would' attitude was not the making of 'new AIPA'; it happened despite the conciliatory roll-over mindset of old AIPA. Even an accepted EBA, in compliance with the CEO's insistence about J*Int opportunities, did not get AIPA a geurnsey at the table. Hence, the change of tack. To me that's logical.
Also, I've not seen AIPA 'persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything'... Company spin would represent it as that; whether one buys it is another thing.
I know AIPA to be populated by motivated and innovative thinkers who will actively consider all potential efficiencies, but it does not serve the management agenda to have facts, truth, prior undertakings, integrity or loyalty disturb the con-jobs they've perpetrated on segments of the group in the name of profitability. Neither does it serve them to concede that nobody is always wrong (even AIPA), when they are evidently always right and their bonuses hinge on what others can be persuaded to believe as irrefutable.
The court actions may win or lose but, either way, we'll unambiguously know where we stand when it's all shaken out. At the least we may finally get the honest truth from someone upstairs. Better that than death by a thousand cuts I reckon.
"... that process started an undercurrent of distrust and antipathy, which led to the ARG landslide and the situation we face today." Perhaps, and I feel some QF pilots need to, at times, be reminded who started this again. I too wish the company had not acted in this way.
To my mind the managers are fully conversant with their powers and our obligations when they want to apply some leverage, but surprisingly lacking in the same fervour when they choose to overlook 'inconvenient' clauses agreed to during negotiations arising from 'the good working relationship' we once enjoyed.
I'm non-plussed by Mr Dixon's confusion over the current antipathy from AIPA. If Speedbird and others can make improving profits (as does QF) even with an oil crisis, and QF's total crewing costs for pilots are demonstrably lower than many of our competitors, with comparable productivity, then why are QF pilots apparently so actively circumvented? Management's 'sorry we forgot to include you when we had agreed we would' attitude was not the making of 'new AIPA'; it happened despite the conciliatory roll-over mindset of old AIPA. Even an accepted EBA, in compliance with the CEO's insistence about J*Int opportunities, did not get AIPA a geurnsey at the table. Hence, the change of tack. To me that's logical.
Also, I've not seen AIPA 'persist with a perceived attitude of resist everything'... Company spin would represent it as that; whether one buys it is another thing.
I know AIPA to be populated by motivated and innovative thinkers who will actively consider all potential efficiencies, but it does not serve the management agenda to have facts, truth, prior undertakings, integrity or loyalty disturb the con-jobs they've perpetrated on segments of the group in the name of profitability. Neither does it serve them to concede that nobody is always wrong (even AIPA), when they are evidently always right and their bonuses hinge on what others can be persuaded to believe as irrefutable.
The court actions may win or lose but, either way, we'll unambiguously know where we stand when it's all shaken out. At the least we may finally get the honest truth from someone upstairs. Better that than death by a thousand cuts I reckon.
I keep hearing about the "doom and gloom" caused by oil prices. Don't any of you understand that all airlines are going to be equally affected? (absent short term hedging) Qantas is not going to lose its competitive position unless other airlines decide to absorb the fuel cost increases themselves without raising ticket prices.
Translation: Read your poetry "We'll all by rooned said Hanrahan..............."
Mr. Dixon = Hanrahan and he has been reading you this same poem for years and you keep believing it. If it wasn't oil prices it would be something else to scare you with.
Translation: Read your poetry "We'll all by rooned said Hanrahan..............."
Mr. Dixon = Hanrahan and he has been reading you this same poem for years and you keep believing it. If it wasn't oil prices it would be something else to scare you with.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AU
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Sunfish. It is like the tide, smart mariners don't get beached.
The general poor management of QF by GD and his second rate Exco was relflected in an article by Fluer Leyden in this morning's paper. QF shares have fallen 21.9% since Jan 3 this year. Woolworths (James Stong's stable) rose 10.7%. Chalk and cheese, or metal and cheese, perhaps but my guess is James will replace Chairperson Marg shortly, he will the select a new CEO from the real world - i.e outside QF
The general poor management of QF by GD and his second rate Exco was relflected in an article by Fluer Leyden in this morning's paper. QF shares have fallen 21.9% since Jan 3 this year. Woolworths (James Stong's stable) rose 10.7%. Chalk and cheese, or metal and cheese, perhaps but my guess is James will replace Chairperson Marg shortly, he will the select a new CEO from the real world - i.e outside QF