Qantas SH EBA Latest Propaganda

[The Full Monty]

Just a short exit note, as I'm off to work.

Nemisis, I spoke to the two rep's. I know what they said, and as such I doubt they wrote the material you have quoted. But, I'm not interested in defending AIPA Insights, because at the end of the day, AIPA can write what it likes, because they are not accountable for anything in any material way, whilst that is not the case with the Company.

Keg my friend, nice try but I don't buy it because I firmly believe that this entire "problem" has no other basis than "we" want to cut someone else's lunch. I repeat that there is no human outcry about getting left hand seats on the Q400! And, I clearly remember my first type after pilots course being given to the Army...

The pilot utopia being sought would be a wonderful thing, but we work for a business. The only place I know where you can have access to everything on the airfield, in any scheme, is at ETPS! Has anyone actually thought through what AIPA utopia would mean? At the very least one could expect to kiss good bye to Qantas paying for type conversions...

Cowabunga dude, I'm not sure which Qantas you work for, but my Qantas has 6 more B744's, 14 A330's (yes, 4 are temporarily leaving) and 19 more B737's than the day I joined, with 6 B762's retired in that time and 1 B743 and 1 B742 retired. I had an "amazing" ride from S/O to F/O because of this growth. With more aircraft to come.

And just to finish up, the author of the letter that started this thread joined the Company in 1994 and became a Captain in 2003. 9 years! Well done that man. I wonder if I might be with him today.... off to ring Prakash in Scheduling again.

Retired from thread.

[B A Lert]

Monty,

Well said, and please don't retire as your words are indeed wise and even a tad challenging for many of your colleagues.

How refreshing. Encore. Bravo.

[longjohn]

A good post Monty, however, you may like to check your facts Re: the aircraft numbers, me thinks more retirements( 4 747 - 200's plus SP's 737 - 300s /400's and 1 747 - 400. and only 13 A330's (pre Jetstar). In nett terms I think you will find that the number of total mainline hulls have barely increased.

Also, your mate who made command in 9 years joined at perhaps the best possible time (1994 - 1997). His Seniority would be about 1150 ish out of 2400 odd. Shame about the quarter of the group (600 - 700) odd pilots who joined after 1998 (only 3 years later) and are looking at more like 20 years to command. I suppose it is all from whose perspective you look from.

[Jetsbest]

longjohn

I disagree with Monty but for the sake of accuracy QF's A330s are as follows:
- A330-200s VH-EBA/B/C/D = four all going to Jetstar, and
- A330-300s VH-QPA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J = ten staying in QF, so
- total = 14.

[N2O]

Originally Posted by longjohn

Shame about the quarter of the group (600 - 700) odd pilots who joined after 1998 (only 3 years later) and are looking at more like 20 years to command. I suppose it is all from whose perspective you look from.

And what guarantee will waiting 20 years provide?

[speeeedy]

Monty,

Your mate, lets call him Roger Clinton (Black Sheep Brother of the ex president), was just lucky to get his command when he did, at that time the 73 was on the nose with the 400 F/O's and it went very junior, but that changed just after Roger got his command because of the vertical promotion ban. Ask the guy just 2 numbers behind, he is still an F/O on the 737 apparently.

9 years for Roger, but 12 years and counting for the other guy just 2 numbers away - best estimate for when a 73 will get back to those seniority numbers is about 3 years but could easily be 5 or more.

That will make 15 to 17 years for a '94 joiner to get a 73 command - good luck for the rest......

[cowabunga438]

Originally Posted by The Full Monty

Just a short exit note, as
Cowabunga dude, I'm not sure which Qantas you work for, but my Qantas has 6 more B744's, 14 A330's (yes, 4 are temporarily leaving) and 19 more B737's than the day I joined, with 6 B762's retired in that time and 1 B743 and 1 B742 retired. I had an "amazing" ride from S/O to F/O because of this growth. With more aircraft to come.
And just to finish up, the author of the letter that started this thread joined the Company in 1994 and became a Captain in 2003. 9 years! Well done that man. I wonder if I might be with him today.... off to ring Prakash in Scheduling again.
Retired from thread.

A quick look at the books shows that most people who joined in 1994 are not within coooeee of a command. I think I know who the author is from your remarks, and I wouldn't be bringing up his rise to cammand as a talking point if I was you. He was bloody lucky. It had nothing to do with expansion.

The simple fact is commands are well over the 15 year mark for the majority (all but 1 or 2) of 1994 joiners, and more for later arrivals.

You a/c figures seem wrong to me. Unless you joined at a funny time (after some a/c went but before some others arrived). In my time there has been an increase in a/c numbers by only a couple.

So unprecedented expansion is bugger all increase in a/c numbers and 17 years to command.

If you think that is good you are insane.

[OneDotLow]

"A Time Of Unprecendented Growth"

FACT :

The latest promotional training slots showed that the most junior command was awarded on the B767 to a pilot who joined QF 19 years ago.

Posted without emotion, so you can make your own minds up...

[Nemisis]

Originally Posted by The Full Monty

Nemisis, I spoke to the two rep's. I know what they said, and as such I doubt they wrote the material you have quoted. But, I'm not interested in defending AIPA Insights, because at the end of the day, AIPA can write what it likes, because they are not accountable for anything in any material way, whilst that is not the case with the Company

I too have now made my enquiries and it can be taken as FACT that the Short Haul EBA Team have autonomy over the AIPA Insights Short Haul EBA byline and that the team wrote the material.

This weeks AIPA Insights is quite thought provoking, it sounds very familiar to me. Its time to see through the illusion.

From AIPA Insights 8th November 2006
Union Busting
Pursuing that line a little further, one of our members provided me with the following excerpt from a book he has been reading:

“Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is a war without honour. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. Each “union prevention” campaign, as the wars are called, turns on a combined strategy of disinformation and personal assaults.

When a chief executive hires a labour relations consultant to battle a union, he gives the consultant run of the company and closes his eyes. The consultant, backed by attorneys, installs himself in the corporate offices and goes to work creating a climate of terror that is inevitably blamed on the union.”

These words are from “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Martin Jay Levitt. Levitt was one of the most successful union busters in recent history in the USA. He successfully destroyed unions in over 200 companies in his career. If the tactics described above sound familiar then I suspect it could be because just such an entity is being used by the company in its attacks on the unions, including AIPA. Interestingly, Levitt reveals that the busters usually number only a handful of people who set the strategies. The real work is done by managers and supervisors, basically a pyramid scheme of destruction.

[Agent Mulder]

Do you believe in the Boogie Man?

Why is it that sensible individuals believe everything that is written in that populist magazine (insights)?

You are being misled!

[Nemisis]

If only, it was just that Mulder, it would be an easy fix.

My view, I believe its the oracle from the old forrest in consultation with his mates from the east coast and Martin Jay Levitt's book is a detailed and true story of what goes on in a union busting situation.

[Nemisis]

FYI GD on CEO Forum here :

http:www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6292

[Keg]

There is some possibility of that, although I have found, at least in my role, the urgent often is the important! We do long-term planning, but, inevitably, you are doing a lot of fire fighting as well. I think this would be the same for a lot of CEOs.

Intersesting that one of the lessons espoused in management forums (including QF CRM as recently as last year) is that what is 'urgent' isn't always important. There are times that it is but more often then not it is just what is in front of your face at the time. Perhaps as the CEO he has different experiences to the vast nature of the remainder of management......then again given his next comment nothing suprises me when GD goes 'counter' to established thinking and practise when it comes to leadership and management.

I sometimes get criticised for this, but I have always seen shareholders as our most important stakeholders. I know some CEOs say look after your customers, look after your employees, and the returns for shareholders will follow. I do the exact opposite. We wouldn’t have staff or customers unless we had shareholders who were willing to invest in what is not the most attractive industry at present....

One hundred years of leadership research, theory and practise shows that if you focus on the task to the exclusion of all the 'team' and the 'individuals' who make up the team then you're eventually going to come a cropper. I'm guessing the directors of companies who have had significant success with a team first approach are being negligent in GDs eyes. Without the success of those people there would be no company for the shareholders to invest in. It's a circular argument and not a very bright one- especially if you get to the stage where your workers are crap because you've neglected them for too long. See how well looked after your shareholders feel then!

ceoforum.com.au: Now you have two very different businesses, do you move managers a lot between the two entities, so they can acquire different operating skills?

GD: No we don’t, although we would like to do more of this in the future.

But we couldn't possibly move pilots who are doing bugger all flying in one part of the group because we're claim to be worried about 'polluting' the culture. In reality we're just p'd off that they voted in a union leadership who aren't quite as compliant as the old mob.