Geoff''s love letter.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think we all got the nastygram. I tell you it improved my engagement!
wow, lets make the staff feel better by whipping them till they bleed, all the while telling them how good it is for them....
yup, makes sense to me!
wow, lets make the staff feel better by whipping them till they bleed, all the while telling them how good it is for them....
yup, makes sense to me!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was full of misinformation, half truths, 'Yes Minister'-type lingo and downright LIES. Pure unadulterated propaganda !!!
PLUS.... it cost the Company about $1,300 in postage.
It was an absolute insult to the QF pilot body. I can't post a copy of the text here, as I shredded the one-page piece of merde !!
PLUS.... it cost the Company about $1,300 in postage.
It was an absolute insult to the QF pilot body. I can't post a copy of the text here, as I shredded the one-page piece of merde !!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All right, I'll bite.
I appreciated the letter. We need to hear the other side directly from the top. I don't believe the course the current AIPA is setting is leading us in the right direction. We are completely obstinate. Fair enough the previous mob were too close to the Company, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I reckon if the CP stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, AIPA would send us all an email arguing that it was too soon to tell and we'd see them in court to argue the matter! What has been accomplished by this administration? Now, put yourself in the Company's shoes, what WILL be accomplished? An AIPA that can't work with the Company is doomed. We don't have to be floor mats but we do have to be reasonable. Right now we're not reasonable and, until that changes, things will not improve. edit spelling
I appreciated the letter. We need to hear the other side directly from the top. I don't believe the course the current AIPA is setting is leading us in the right direction. We are completely obstinate. Fair enough the previous mob were too close to the Company, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I reckon if the CP stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, AIPA would send us all an email arguing that it was too soon to tell and we'd see them in court to argue the matter! What has been accomplished by this administration? Now, put yourself in the Company's shoes, what WILL be accomplished? An AIPA that can't work with the Company is doomed. We don't have to be floor mats but we do have to be reasonable. Right now we're not reasonable and, until that changes, things will not improve. edit spelling
Last edited by TineeTim; 5th Jun 2006 at 23:29.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AU
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too agree that AIPA and the Company must work together, however it is worth considering a couple of issues.
AIPA from its earliest days has been very close to management. Most management pilots over the past twenty years have had some involvement or other with AIPA, be it President, Secretary, Treasurer or committeman. This is the first time they have stood up to GD. It is like SIA and the pacific. GD cannot stand any form of competition.
The letter we have received is very bully-boy. What is GD's real agenda? Is he going to transfer more flying to J*? If we flop back while he scratches out bellies, we will be playing into his hand. The playing field has to be level. Up to now, it has always been tilted to the company's advantage.
There has to be responsible debate with the Company. This means we can ask tough questions and we should expect to have honest answers.
The Qantas is at the cross road. Unless major cost reductions occur the company will not be able to meet the cost of capital. The only solution is outsourcing of mainline work to J*. That is the only quick way available to Geoff.
In asking (or bullying) AIPA to engage, Qantas has to also accept that their management must also engage.
AIPA from its earliest days has been very close to management. Most management pilots over the past twenty years have had some involvement or other with AIPA, be it President, Secretary, Treasurer or committeman. This is the first time they have stood up to GD. It is like SIA and the pacific. GD cannot stand any form of competition.
The letter we have received is very bully-boy. What is GD's real agenda? Is he going to transfer more flying to J*? If we flop back while he scratches out bellies, we will be playing into his hand. The playing field has to be level. Up to now, it has always been tilted to the company's advantage.
There has to be responsible debate with the Company. This means we can ask tough questions and we should expect to have honest answers.
The Qantas is at the cross road. Unless major cost reductions occur the company will not be able to meet the cost of capital. The only solution is outsourcing of mainline work to J*. That is the only quick way available to Geoff.
In asking (or bullying) AIPA to engage, Qantas has to also accept that their management must also engage.
"Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often
possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so
inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death
as soon as they are nicked by the real world."
possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so
inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death
as soon as they are nicked by the real world."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started as an S/O I can remember a skipper telling me that if a crewmember has needed to RAISE something to the "I am concerned" stage, he considered it a personal failure as a Captain. Indicating concern is a powerful thing that should not be dismissed.
I suspect that too many of us have been satisfied reading and talking about what has been going on from a distance, rather than adequately finding out the truth for ourselves. If we are unable to effectively listen to, and act on the information that is being provided now, when Geoff moves onto 'emergency language' we won't have any influence over the outcome. IR is on his side. As are the shareholders, the board, and the public.
Isn't it about time more of us were proactive about our future careers, and moved on from the bar-talk before its too late? Apart from the antagonising, what has 'new AIPA' actually achieved apart from making us feel slightly more hopeful? There is another side to every wednesday update!
[For those reading who don't know what RAISE is: it's the formal process for managing upwards and drawing an oversight or problem to the attention of the PIC]
I suspect that too many of us have been satisfied reading and talking about what has been going on from a distance, rather than adequately finding out the truth for ourselves. If we are unable to effectively listen to, and act on the information that is being provided now, when Geoff moves onto 'emergency language' we won't have any influence over the outcome. IR is on his side. As are the shareholders, the board, and the public.
Isn't it about time more of us were proactive about our future careers, and moved on from the bar-talk before its too late? Apart from the antagonising, what has 'new AIPA' actually achieved apart from making us feel slightly more hopeful? There is another side to every wednesday update!
[For those reading who don't know what RAISE is: it's the formal process for managing upwards and drawing an oversight or problem to the attention of the PIC]
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And well said that Man!
Finally people are starting to see the All Rhetoric Group (ARG) for what it is, a group of ideologues stuck in 1960’s style unionist mode.
Read behind the words that they write and see if you can decipher the message. It is all smoke and mirrors and they are spending your money hand over fist in an attempt to feel good. They will win no fight in the Federal Court I will bet London to a brick, but will use a great deal of YOUR MONEY in the process feathering the retirement funds of external lawyers.
The time is here to open your eyes and look after YOUR future. The Senior Captain AIPA Club will be alright jack. Remember, it’s YOUR CAREER at stake, they’ve nearly finished theirs.
Finally people are starting to see the All Rhetoric Group (ARG) for what it is, a group of ideologues stuck in 1960’s style unionist mode.
Read behind the words that they write and see if you can decipher the message. It is all smoke and mirrors and they are spending your money hand over fist in an attempt to feel good. They will win no fight in the Federal Court I will bet London to a brick, but will use a great deal of YOUR MONEY in the process feathering the retirement funds of external lawyers.
The time is here to open your eyes and look after YOUR future. The Senior Captain AIPA Club will be alright jack. Remember, it’s YOUR CAREER at stake, they’ve nearly finished theirs.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you should also be asking yourself what the previous AIPA (ie, immediately before this current one) achieved. It is clear why the new one is going to the Federal Court: under the PM's brave-new-world of industrial relations, they have virtually no other option to resolve a dispute (especially when the company isn't interested)! The company have no interest whatsoever in 'negotiating' those cases and anyone who knows the details would understand why (by the way, you can actually find out a lot of the details by just asking, but they sensibly don't want to publicise them in print due to the court action).
Indeed, we don't have to be floor mats, but we were fast becoming floor mats under the previous administration. I haven't seen any evidence that the new reps are not prepared to negotiate and Eagleman makes a good point about cost reductions of one form or another being in the company's interest. I have, however, seen ample evidence that they will not tolerate bullying, underhanded, or strong-arm tactics against the pilots they now represent.
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?
EDIT: Jake, would you do us the courtesy of posting here for all to see, the amount of money that was spent on lawyers together with listing their achievements for the pilot group, by the previous administration? The numbers, I believe, are all on file. You can include overseas junkets if you wish. Don't forget to include the interesting action taken in the caretaker period before the new group took over. And please also provide a comparison with legal salaries for similar duties in the private sector.
Indeed, we don't have to be floor mats, but we were fast becoming floor mats under the previous administration. I haven't seen any evidence that the new reps are not prepared to negotiate and Eagleman makes a good point about cost reductions of one form or another being in the company's interest. I have, however, seen ample evidence that they will not tolerate bullying, underhanded, or strong-arm tactics against the pilots they now represent.
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?
EDIT: Jake, would you do us the courtesy of posting here for all to see, the amount of money that was spent on lawyers together with listing their achievements for the pilot group, by the previous administration? The numbers, I believe, are all on file. You can include overseas junkets if you wish. Don't forget to include the interesting action taken in the caretaker period before the new group took over. And please also provide a comparison with legal salaries for similar duties in the private sector.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 6th Jun 2006 at 06:04.
Assertions, perception management, politics, spin , posturing ...
Call it what you will, but:
- assertions are not necessarily truths,
- perceptions are subjective,
- politics is not personal (although this letter gets close),
- spin is always spin, and
- this is certainly posturing.
So, let's look at a few extracts. (a small take on the condensed views of perhaps many)
Re AIPA's "negative and confusing information". Confusing to whom? I get it, and I think a lot of AIPA members understand the negative feeling too.
Re the court cases and "...conciliation...concluded without any progress being made." AIPA newsletter of 31st May explained more hearings later this year; it's not over.
Re AIPA "objecting to the QF & AirNZ ... codeshare services...". Explained in AIPA newsletter of 24th May. A strong feeling is that the present threat to reduce services will actually happen anyway, and to an even greater extent if the codeshare goes ahead. I quote "The alternative to codesharing is a reduced Qantas presence on the Tasman, as reflected in our recent decision to reduce Qantas services between Sydney and Auckland from 5 to 4 flights per day, with effect from 1 September 2006". What does that sound like to you?
Re AIPA's "elusive dream of a Group Opportunity List..." and "The Group has absolutely no intention of agreeing to these things." followed by "[each of the QF group] pilots will continue to have their own separate agreements, tailored to the distinct features of each business." Why then is the Australian Airlines pilot contract still continuing if the 'distinct features' of that business are no longer viable?
Re "AIPA's prescription for the Qantas Jetstar relationship looks .. like the failed model..[tried by]... US legacy carriers with their discount arms, ...". How so? Please elaborate in light of AIPA's position that Jetstar is not unnecessary, but that AIPA would like to participate, not on management's opportunistic terms where apparently Jetstar pay is their 'line in the sand' for future growth, but rather one that acknowledges that reputations are not built on the cheapest bidder even though QF pilots are still not the most expensive among our competitors. (NO.. that's not a J*-pilot sledge...Ryanair and Southwest are very well remunerated!)
Re AIPA's view that the QF/JQ career opportunity MOU is 'all but a dead letter'... it certainly appeared to be until recently. The early QF-JQ transfers were mostly A320 endorsed people for quick promotions, some of whom went to Singapore. The subsequent and more recent honouring of the agreement seems to have come only once certain resolve was applied.
Re fuel costs, change, fundamentals, strategies, efficiencies etc... same old.
As was said somewhere else 'No wonder I have no faith in the credibility of any of the pronouncements made by QF management. That view might change if 'they' could start leading by example, telling me the truth without spin, getting serious about letting the staff help, and stop transferring costs from one part of the group to another for what appears to be more about industrial leverage and expediency than 'staff engagement'.
Tinee, AIPA is you and me among many. I know I can work with the company. I've floated proposals in bar chats and more official channels but huge inertia exists on the flight ops management side of the fence too. I'm inspired by the truth, the facts, leadership by example and a recognition that we shouldn't need to be in court to expect the company to honour its undertakings.
And Lancer, I'll raise your R.A.I.S.E... What would be your response to a captain (ie management) who has been R.A.I.S.E.d (ie through the AIPA election last year) and then tells his subordinates 'Get stuffed. Your input, expertise, reputation and our 'good working relationship' is now inconvenient so pull your head in'?
When QF executives demonstrably benchmark themselves against lesser-paid peers in more profitable competitor companies, when fuel is accepted as a cost for all airlines and not just QF staff and when 'the Jetstars' actually stand alone (ie without QF subsidies) I will STILL be there with bells on working for the success of the company and my career. It will just feel better to be doing it without patronising corredspondence such as we've just received.
The foregoing is merely one person's perception. Any resemblance to a substantial body of opinion is purely coincidental.
- assertions are not necessarily truths,
- perceptions are subjective,
- politics is not personal (although this letter gets close),
- spin is always spin, and
- this is certainly posturing.
So, let's look at a few extracts. (a small take on the condensed views of perhaps many)
Re AIPA's "negative and confusing information". Confusing to whom? I get it, and I think a lot of AIPA members understand the negative feeling too.
Re the court cases and "...conciliation...concluded without any progress being made." AIPA newsletter of 31st May explained more hearings later this year; it's not over.
Re AIPA "objecting to the QF & AirNZ ... codeshare services...". Explained in AIPA newsletter of 24th May. A strong feeling is that the present threat to reduce services will actually happen anyway, and to an even greater extent if the codeshare goes ahead. I quote "The alternative to codesharing is a reduced Qantas presence on the Tasman, as reflected in our recent decision to reduce Qantas services between Sydney and Auckland from 5 to 4 flights per day, with effect from 1 September 2006". What does that sound like to you?
Re AIPA's "elusive dream of a Group Opportunity List..." and "The Group has absolutely no intention of agreeing to these things." followed by "[each of the QF group] pilots will continue to have their own separate agreements, tailored to the distinct features of each business." Why then is the Australian Airlines pilot contract still continuing if the 'distinct features' of that business are no longer viable?
Re "AIPA's prescription for the Qantas Jetstar relationship looks .. like the failed model..[tried by]... US legacy carriers with their discount arms, ...". How so? Please elaborate in light of AIPA's position that Jetstar is not unnecessary, but that AIPA would like to participate, not on management's opportunistic terms where apparently Jetstar pay is their 'line in the sand' for future growth, but rather one that acknowledges that reputations are not built on the cheapest bidder even though QF pilots are still not the most expensive among our competitors. (NO.. that's not a J*-pilot sledge...Ryanair and Southwest are very well remunerated!)
Re AIPA's view that the QF/JQ career opportunity MOU is 'all but a dead letter'... it certainly appeared to be until recently. The early QF-JQ transfers were mostly A320 endorsed people for quick promotions, some of whom went to Singapore. The subsequent and more recent honouring of the agreement seems to have come only once certain resolve was applied.
Re fuel costs, change, fundamentals, strategies, efficiencies etc... same old.
As was said somewhere else 'No wonder I have no faith in the credibility of any of the pronouncements made by QF management. That view might change if 'they' could start leading by example, telling me the truth without spin, getting serious about letting the staff help, and stop transferring costs from one part of the group to another for what appears to be more about industrial leverage and expediency than 'staff engagement'.
Tinee, AIPA is you and me among many. I know I can work with the company. I've floated proposals in bar chats and more official channels but huge inertia exists on the flight ops management side of the fence too. I'm inspired by the truth, the facts, leadership by example and a recognition that we shouldn't need to be in court to expect the company to honour its undertakings.
And Lancer, I'll raise your R.A.I.S.E... What would be your response to a captain (ie management) who has been R.A.I.S.E.d (ie through the AIPA election last year) and then tells his subordinates 'Get stuffed. Your input, expertise, reputation and our 'good working relationship' is now inconvenient so pull your head in'?
When QF executives demonstrably benchmark themselves against lesser-paid peers in more profitable competitor companies, when fuel is accepted as a cost for all airlines and not just QF staff and when 'the Jetstars' actually stand alone (ie without QF subsidies) I will STILL be there with bells on working for the success of the company and my career. It will just feel better to be doing it without patronising corredspondence such as we've just received.
The foregoing is merely one person's perception. Any resemblance to a substantial body of opinion is purely coincidental.
Last edited by Jetsbest; 6th Jun 2006 at 08:31.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Qantas going to be "unprofitable" as in losing money or is it going to be "unprofitable" from the point of view of a falling share price. There is a difference you know.
"The sky is falling" may simply not be true. If QF is the worlds most profitable airline, then what does that say?
You cannot be laughing all the way to the bank one minute and crying poor the next.
I think someone is pulling your leg and perhaps trying the Ryanair bullying tactic.
"The sky is falling" may simply not be true. If QF is the worlds most profitable airline, then what does that say?
You cannot be laughing all the way to the bank one minute and crying poor the next.
I think someone is pulling your leg and perhaps trying the Ryanair bullying tactic.
Dutchroll, who gives a toss about the previous Committee? They're not there now, so its completely irrelevant what they did or did not do. Noone has EVER argued for reinstating the previous Committee or the so-called old ways, just pointed out that these new tactics of belligerence are so very much worse.
Speaking of fancy acronyms, how about this one: GRADE? How can you make a valid decision if you haven't resourced more than one side of the story?
Speaking of fancy acronyms, how about this one: GRADE? How can you make a valid decision if you haven't resourced more than one side of the story?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact that Qantas is addressing each individual pilot to union bash indicates to me that AIPA are starting to gain some traction.
The fact that it is the CEO Geoff Dixon and not the Chief Pilot who is the writer of said letter indicates to me that AIPA have already effectivley sidelined the Chief Pilot.
That Dixon chooses to use a Union bashing comminication to also flag further cuts to pilots terms and conditions speaks volumes of the extreme level of arrogance displayed by this man. Dixon is staying on for one reason IMHO, to screw the staff of Qantas. He will go out like Robert Ayling of BA, a very very unpopular man with great wealth. (rumour has it that by the end of his tenure at BA Ayling could not check luggage or eat Airline food for fear of staff retribution). Who knows, he may even get an AO.........
The amount they threaten and bleat will be directly proportional to the effect that AIPA is having on them.
Keep up the good work Woodeye.
The fact that it is the CEO Geoff Dixon and not the Chief Pilot who is the writer of said letter indicates to me that AIPA have already effectivley sidelined the Chief Pilot.
That Dixon chooses to use a Union bashing comminication to also flag further cuts to pilots terms and conditions speaks volumes of the extreme level of arrogance displayed by this man. Dixon is staying on for one reason IMHO, to screw the staff of Qantas. He will go out like Robert Ayling of BA, a very very unpopular man with great wealth. (rumour has it that by the end of his tenure at BA Ayling could not check luggage or eat Airline food for fear of staff retribution). Who knows, he may even get an AO.........
The amount they threaten and bleat will be directly proportional to the effect that AIPA is having on them.
Keep up the good work Woodeye.