Glitch in the wet leasing concept?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glitch in the wet leasing concept?
Rumour has it that the wet leasing concept may have a few practical problems not yet thought out by the genius's attempting to destroy the profession in OZ.
An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan. No problem. Lets get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight. "Hold on," says the captain, "isn't this a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures? Sorry can't do it."
The resulting ramifications went all the way to Dixon apparently.
An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan. No problem. Lets get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight. "Hold on," says the captain, "isn't this a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures? Sorry can't do it."
The resulting ramifications went all the way to Dixon apparently.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to make sense to me wrt to topic. AO wet leased to QF now. QF coloured planes (wet leased) flown on some services by AO pilots (really QF pilots on lower wages and conditions) and CC. PAssenegers think they are on QF (unless the read fine print on ticket)
Poor Geoff. That will not help him. Some poor bean counter will get the chop.
Poor Geoff. That will not help him. Some poor bean counter will get the chop.
Weasil
I'll try to be brief (it'll be hard) and accurate (but am open to correction),
AO was the IATA code for Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) way back when... Qantas bought/merged with/became subservient to (depending on one's perspective) Australian Airlines 1993? and all domestic and international red-tails became QF... BUT, the AO Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) was placed in 'the bottom drawer' for a rainy day. The use of 'AO' was re-established when QF set up.. you guessed it... Australian Airlines, a wholly-owned yet seperately managed subsidiary based in Cairns, with a lower cost-base to service the leisure market with higher margins than QF itself could achieve on those routes. AO was given QF767s repaintd in the Ochre/White scheme and advantaged particularly from the Ansett collapse to recruit staff who needed to maintain a job.
AIPA (ie QF) pilots secured the 'right of first refusal' for the flying under a 'simplified' (ie cheaper) structure of pay and conditions. It was considered to be a 'win-win' for QF and its pilots and continues to be well-subscribed by those QF pilots with a penchant for earlier promotion, simplified rostering, FNQ residency or all of the above. AO reserves the right to direct-recruit, at even lower pay etc, if it can't get enough pilots sourced through the agreement from the QF/AIPA pool but that hasn't happened yet.
Recently, QF decided that AO was no longer viable and closed 'the brand', but decided to rename the company 'AO Wet Leasing' or some-such, thereby keeping the economies of its labour arrangements while reissuing QF uniforms etc to all its staff, who now provide QF ground services and crew QF flights to QF destinations on lower pay (that discussion's for another time!) but still under the AO AOC. Which leads to the next complication...
A 'slipping' person in QF is someone undertaking a layover or rest period between duty periods on company time. Hence, when;
"An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan...."
and Ops tried to;
"get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight......"
only to find that AO is in fact:
"a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures"
then:
"Sorry can't do it." is the only correct response from said Captain, and the pooh really hits the fan.
Now, I can't verify this particular story but there is a strong body of opinion out there that says that, apart from what at first appears to be a 'cut & dried' cost issue, the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions.
I believe Borg's lateral question, which btw I whole-heartedly endorse, is "How much, after all the spin and 'tricky' tactics to keep the pay & conditions of an otherwise non-viable AO business model in place in an attempt to undercut QF mainline, has the inability to substitute crew already cost the QF group?" This leads to the next question of "How often could this failure happen before real savings are consumed by the inefficiencies of having QF services non-interchangeably crewed by pilots actually working for different companies and under different AOCs?"
Notwithstanding the deplorable levels of respect QF staff have toward management over precisely these types of tactics and false economies, I'm with blueloo. Perhaps it is time some poor (I mean greedy, smarmy & opportunistic) bean-counter got the chop!
AO was the IATA code for Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) way back when... Qantas bought/merged with/became subservient to (depending on one's perspective) Australian Airlines 1993? and all domestic and international red-tails became QF... BUT, the AO Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) was placed in 'the bottom drawer' for a rainy day. The use of 'AO' was re-established when QF set up.. you guessed it... Australian Airlines, a wholly-owned yet seperately managed subsidiary based in Cairns, with a lower cost-base to service the leisure market with higher margins than QF itself could achieve on those routes. AO was given QF767s repaintd in the Ochre/White scheme and advantaged particularly from the Ansett collapse to recruit staff who needed to maintain a job.
AIPA (ie QF) pilots secured the 'right of first refusal' for the flying under a 'simplified' (ie cheaper) structure of pay and conditions. It was considered to be a 'win-win' for QF and its pilots and continues to be well-subscribed by those QF pilots with a penchant for earlier promotion, simplified rostering, FNQ residency or all of the above. AO reserves the right to direct-recruit, at even lower pay etc, if it can't get enough pilots sourced through the agreement from the QF/AIPA pool but that hasn't happened yet.
Recently, QF decided that AO was no longer viable and closed 'the brand', but decided to rename the company 'AO Wet Leasing' or some-such, thereby keeping the economies of its labour arrangements while reissuing QF uniforms etc to all its staff, who now provide QF ground services and crew QF flights to QF destinations on lower pay (that discussion's for another time!) but still under the AO AOC. Which leads to the next complication...
A 'slipping' person in QF is someone undertaking a layover or rest period between duty periods on company time. Hence, when;
"An AO pilot recently went sick somewhere in Japan...."
and Ops tried to;
"get a slipping QF captain to crew the flight......"
only to find that AO is in fact:
"a different airline, flown under a different AOC, using different manuals and different procedures"
then:
"Sorry can't do it." is the only correct response from said Captain, and the pooh really hits the fan.
Now, I can't verify this particular story but there is a strong body of opinion out there that says that, apart from what at first appears to be a 'cut & dried' cost issue, the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions.
I believe Borg's lateral question, which btw I whole-heartedly endorse, is "How much, after all the spin and 'tricky' tactics to keep the pay & conditions of an otherwise non-viable AO business model in place in an attempt to undercut QF mainline, has the inability to substitute crew already cost the QF group?" This leads to the next question of "How often could this failure happen before real savings are consumed by the inefficiencies of having QF services non-interchangeably crewed by pilots actually working for different companies and under different AOCs?"
Notwithstanding the deplorable levels of respect QF staff have toward management over precisely these types of tactics and false economies, I'm with blueloo. Perhaps it is time some poor (I mean greedy, smarmy & opportunistic) bean-counter got the chop!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB has summed it up nicely. One of the possible scenarios for the next few years is that J* returns the A330's to QF but keeps the J* crews flying them and wet-leases them back to QF. It sounds like a winner in theory to any beancounter until this sort of situation occurs.
QF could concievably have 10 A330's flown by QF pilots and eight flown by J* pilots. All of them non-interchangeable under the current system. Did anyone think of this in the rush to introduce the "B"Scale into Qantas?
If this situation is attempted to be circumvented by a regulation change, think of the legal ramifications as a Judge, (and it would go to court) tried to unravel the logic. "Lets see, you want two different groups of pilots flying the same equipment, on the same routes, in the same uniforms, using the same procedures under the same AOC, with half of the pilots being paid 40% less and under different scheduling rules and Terms and conditions?!?"
Of course I could be wrong and this may be fixed by a simple reg change. But if it cannot, then the grand design would be thrown into a state of flux, with possibly both pilot groups, QF and J* being the winners.
QF could concievably have 10 A330's flown by QF pilots and eight flown by J* pilots. All of them non-interchangeable under the current system. Did anyone think of this in the rush to introduce the "B"Scale into Qantas?
If this situation is attempted to be circumvented by a regulation change, think of the legal ramifications as a Judge, (and it would go to court) tried to unravel the logic. "Lets see, you want two different groups of pilots flying the same equipment, on the same routes, in the same uniforms, using the same procedures under the same AOC, with half of the pilots being paid 40% less and under different scheduling rules and Terms and conditions?!?"
Of course I could be wrong and this may be fixed by a simple reg change. But if it cannot, then the grand design would be thrown into a state of flux, with possibly both pilot groups, QF and J* being the winners.
Schlong...
Ah... Yes, quite correct. I amaze myself with the stuff I used to know but forgot. I was led to believe though, that it was still the same AOC modified for 767 Cairns or something. The truth is out there somewhere!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescue1, the only justification QF has for paying these pilots less than mainline rates is the fact that they work for "another airline".
If you throw out the AOC and use them under the Qantas AOC, then they become QF pilots and hence there should be no distinction regarding the contract they work under.
If you throw out the AOC and use them under the Qantas AOC, then they become QF pilots and hence there should be no distinction regarding the contract they work under.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Cutest, you have followed the line I was hoping most people would take. A Group of Pilots [QF] cannot have another Group of Pilots [AO] on secondment undercutting QF Pilots. Makes a real mockery. I know AIPA are working a few battle lines, but I'd be starting to send the troops in the AO direction and get it cleared up. That is the biggest trouble spot - not Jet*. Your thoughts Max?
Just an observation...
Consider if AO ops was closed I beleived the pilots would return to QF in their current rank. Sounds fair, perhaps, but then those pilots would be very junior BL holders for a loooong time, this is one reason perhaps why many senior F/O's did not jump at the early command.
X AO crew would have to be based out of Sydney as a BLH and increased cost of living or commuting costs. Little or no flying but they hang onto the early promotion...???????
Consider if AO ops was closed I beleived the pilots would return to QF in their current rank. Sounds fair, perhaps, but then those pilots would be very junior BL holders for a loooong time, this is one reason perhaps why many senior F/O's did not jump at the early command.
X AO crew would have to be based out of Sydney as a BLH and increased cost of living or commuting costs. Little or no flying but they hang onto the early promotion...???????
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Expat land
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Airlines
JB,
"Australian" is the same Company/business name as the old TN, which Qantas "kept in the bottom drawer". However AO is a completely new AOC, worked from scratch when they started the Cairns 767 operation.
I hear AIPA has proposed bringing the wet lease operation under the QF AOC, putting AO pilots on QF pay rates but maintainng current AO scheduling rules for the "Cairns base", as it would become. Cost savings from 1 less AOC and crewing flexibilities (as in this topic's example) would far outweigh the relatively modest salary increase. Up till now QF have been stone walling AIPA on the proposal (refusing to turn up to meetings) - wonder if they'll become more interested now??
"Australian" is the same Company/business name as the old TN, which Qantas "kept in the bottom drawer". However AO is a completely new AOC, worked from scratch when they started the Cairns 767 operation.
I hear AIPA has proposed bringing the wet lease operation under the QF AOC, putting AO pilots on QF pay rates but maintainng current AO scheduling rules for the "Cairns base", as it would become. Cost savings from 1 less AOC and crewing flexibilities (as in this topic's example) would far outweigh the relatively modest salary increase. Up till now QF have been stone walling AIPA on the proposal (refusing to turn up to meetings) - wonder if they'll become more interested now??
Avid
That sounds more sensible. My apologies to all re my earlier misconception. I have also heard the same about an AIPA proposal, which returns us to the other angle/viewpoint;
"the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions."
Time and common sense will tell.
"the AO situation is as much about AO management preserving their own positions."
Time and common sense will tell.