Rex recruiting coming to a town near you!

[aircraft]

2p!ssed2drive,

What did I say that you don't agree with?

[KRUSTY 34]

2P2D,

Check out some of aircraft's previous posts.

He is a wind-up master extrordinair!

[27/09]

Aircraft

If you consider that commercial aviation has been on a 50 year quest to make air travel ever more affordable to the people of the world, you should expect pilot salaries, in real terms, to be slowly decreasing.
And slowly decreasing, they have been. And slowly decrease, they will continue to do - but rest assured, they cannot decrease to zero!

So if this drive to make air travel more affordable is dependant on pilots salaries, why is it not also depandant on other salaries being paid in the airline industry. How come CEOs and the like are earning packages that are vastly increased on previous years and continue to get increases that far outweight any that pilots or any other workers get?

Commercial aviation is not the only industry that hase been on a quest to make it products more affordable. The car you drive today is much better equipped than one of 50 years ago and accordingly is relatively cheaper, are the workers are Broadmeadows or Fishermans Bend having their conditions squeezed in the manner that is happening to pilots? I think not.

Your argument that making airline travel more affordable is the reason for driving down pilots salaries is bumkum. It's all about making a profit, and a profit has to be made otherwise the whole exercise is a bit pointless. It's the way it is achieved sometimes that concerns me.

For many managers today, if reducing prices by what ever means available, (fair or foul), can get enough people on your aircraft to make more money then that's what happens.

[The Kavorka]

Aircraft...you need to find a hobby..golf/fishing..something...

Your attempts to wind people up are pathetic....

[Justin Grogan]

Happy reading boys and girls!

Rex earnings take off

Regional Express posted a 50.4 per cent rise in annual net profit and predicted earnings would rise another 10per cent this year.

Australia's biggest independent regional airline group glided through 2006-07 with a $23.6 million profit and a 29 per cent increase in revenue to $225 million.

The strength of the market was underscored by an 18 per cent rise in passenger numbers, to 1.4million, and the fact that load factors rose 1.4 points to 68.5 per cent, despite a 14 per cent increase in capacity.

Rex's 14.7 per cent revenue margin edged out Virgin Blue's solid 14.2 per cent, as it produced a 23.1 per cent return on equity.

Management expects the arrival of new aircraft and growth opportunities to be the foundation for another 10 per cent rise in earnings this financial year.

It has also boosted activity in South Australia, Tasmania and NSW and is the sole operator on 31 of its 39 routes.

It has also completed a switch to a single fleet of 34-seat Saab aircraft, transferring four smaller Metros to its Pel-Air unit to be used in freight and charter work.

Rex executive chairman Lim Kim Hai said the airline's results were evidence of the group's focus on its growth strategy and reducing unit costs.

Rex's costs remained unchanged when an 18.6 per cent increase in fuel expenses was excluded.

Source and full article may be read online in The Australian at the url below
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22330529-23349,00.html

[KRUSTY 34]

REX Cancelled Syd-Ballina and Syd-Cooma return last night due lack of crew.

Both flights full on the busiest night of the week!

The Cooma flight would have been particulary gauling for PAX that have paid big bucks for their weekend in the snow.

36 new recruits currently under training. Better get them on line ASAP. No wait a minute that wont help, at least 40 odd expected to resign by the end of the year!

No problem, just hire some more, they grow on trees. What there's none left!!!!

How the F#@K did that happen?

How indeed.

[Naverick]

Mara,

Sorry mate, but you completely lost me. English is the first language generally used on this forum.

Krusty,

Despite the passion you, myself and others have displayed regarding Rex t&c's, nothing will change until action is taken. A lot of guys are still working their rdo's. Before the 'exodus', I'm sure that mangement had deliberately held off recruiting more pilots realising that paying for rdo's worked, is the cheaper option. Also maintaining the current salary levels has proved to be a major incentive to work those days.

As I suggested in a previous thread, work to rule! That will really hurt the B$#tards and may get your voice heard beyond this forum.

[Counter-rotation]

Naverick,

Yeah as you correctly say, it's tough to knock back a bit extra when you're on less than peanuts...

And refer to another thread in the forum re: AFAP and their lack of effectiveness etc.

My question is (and I don't work for Rex) regarding the training bond. Now it seems to me that some who've signed would jump, but for the thought of the bond looming over them...

What if I said:
"if Rex aren't holding up their end of the contract, ie. giving days off and weekends etc. as stated, that you could walk, and tell them that the contract is invalid based on their own actions"..."

Would anyone with more of a legal understanding please give me your thoughts on that?

Also, I understand that this concept has been tested in the courts already, with the company losing. Is this correct, or are there differences between that case and this?

Love to be able to light up a loophole for those who want out to get through, without having to sell their firstborn - considering where 3 months of this caper in Sydney would leave you.

I'm not in favour of shafting anyone in general, but I firmly believe in karma, and you reap what you sow.

(P*** off aircraft I'm not interested in you or yours. D**KHEA*)

CR.

[Bendo]

Hi CR

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that someone will do something, or forego the doing of something, in return for a 'consideration'.

We are talking about contract law here and a contract must have four essential parts:
1). A meeting of the minds, which is to say; you have both agreed on the same thing, not a mistaken understanding; and
2). an offer (for example, "I will give you this bag of peanuts in exchange for your firstborn"); and
3). consideration, meaning not "Ummmm..... OK" but that I will give you a sufficient consideration for your firstborn; and
4). Acceptance, which is to say that yes we both agree to the respective offerings and consideration made, or offered, in return.

When you sign up to Rex and sign the EBA you are entering into a contract with the employer.

Part of that contract, and it is stated explicitly in the EBA, is that you might be called on to work your rostered days off. The consideration for foregoing your day off is (I seem to recall) either $50 cash, or 1 bag of peanuts.

If Rex breaches their contract with you in some other way there are legal remediesfor that. I am not up to speed on the legalities of training bonds (they look like a simple contract on the face of it) but if you shirk your responsibilities under a contract and then try to use the other parties' breach as justification, I am sorry to say it is YOU in the wrong and YOU that has shown bad faith

Good Luck

[wethereyet]

It is seriously disturbing to see people who contemplate trying to get out of a bond arrangement to which they have entered.

It is people like that who are responsible for BYO training. Rex need to improve T&C's for the amount of flying they are getting out of us, no question... but not wanting to payout your bond (this is one thing Rex is doing right) - have some integrity!

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Employent law

CR

I've studied a bit of employment law in the past and find it quite fascinating. What you are talking about is called 'constructive dismissal'. A very good text on the topic is "Law of Employment" by Macken, O'Grady, Sappideen and Warburton (2002). Can be found at most university law bookshops, and I would encourage all pilots to become familiar with this (although it is written in a fair amount of legal-ese and it helps if you have at least had some exposure to the law beyond reading the CAOs etc').

In it they quote a passage by Lord Dunning from a case in 1978 which establishes the basis of constructive dismissal:

If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer's conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or ... he may give notice and say he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct must in either case be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. Moreover, he must make up his mind soon after the conduct of which he complains: for, if he continues for any length of time without leaving, he will lose his right to treat himself as discharged. He will be regarded as having elected to affirm the contract.

I have a list of cases that generally affirm this view of constructive dismissal cases within Australia if you are interested. You can also do a search for "constructive dismissal" on www.austlii.edu.au and see what you come up with (I haven't checked this out myself).

In terms of remedies, the first basic question is one of whether or not a statutory and/or common law breach has occurred. The sort of thing we are talking about here is a common law issue, but there would be instances, such as discrimination, in which a statuory breach may be found. It is my understanding that as a plaintiff you cannot press for damages in both arenas. Either you are seeking to be awarded damages under statute or under common law but not both. No double dipping in other words.

There are a few important things to consider when taking action for damages for breach of contract:

1. Readiness and willingness: If an employee undertakes to strike then they will not be able to demonstrate willingness to work and therefore no action for damages will be available to recover moneys not paid during the strike period.
2. Remoteness of damage and measure of damages: Where a party sustains a loss due to breach of contract of the other party, the damages that the party should receive ought to be such as may fairly and reasonably considered either arising naturally or as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract. (This is an abridged quote taken from a judgement in Hadley v Baxendale (1854), which is still considered relevant in today's context). Additionally, where a party sustains a loss he should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
3. Liquidated damages. Unlikely to be an issue in this environment. Sometimes you see in contracts a clause which stipulates a sum to be payable upon breach of the contract. If this clause exists then the court will not be called upon to assess damages.

I've probably gone into too much detail already but hopefully that gives you some idea. It's hard to really get all of the thinking into a few paragraphs here but it gives some sense of how the courts look at this stuff...

[The Kavorka]

Gen An..

If a pilot chose not to pay his/her bond out even if its only a couple of grand, what type of action can the company take?

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Training bonds

K

For a simple answer I would say that the risk/reward payoff for an employer is too risky to come chasing someone for $2000 or even $15,000. The legal waters on this matter are such that the scales tend to be tipped in the employee’s favour, although every case is of course different. It is not a clear-cut case of “the pilot has every right to walk away” unfortunately.

Basically though, if an employer decided to go down that path then the action would be pursued in the Magistrate's court of whatever state you're in. Expensive no matter how you look at, both for employer and pilot, regardless of the outcome. I imagine the process would involve several letters from solicitors, then failing any resolution from that, preparation of court proceedings. Not fun.

For a slightly more involved answer that gives some idea of what can happen, there are two relatively recent cases to consider, both of them involving aviation operators:
• Rex v Clarke [2007] FCA 957 (can be found here)
• McLennan v Surveillance Oz [2005] FCAFC 46 (can be found here)

Both of these are cases where a pilot attempted to avoid the payment of their bond obligation, and in both cases the pilot won, although in McLennan v SA it was on appeal to the Federal Court (the first round went to SA). Note that in Rex v Clarke, Rex was the initiator of the action and appealed once they lost the first round. In both cases the reason for the finding in favour of the pilot was basically that the bond agreement was inconsistent with the terms of the Certified Agreement (CA) or AWA (respectively). Since both of these (CA’s and AWA’s) are statutory instruments under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) a contract cannot act in such a way as to avoid the obligations of such statutory instruments. In other words, you can’t contract out of an obligation that has been legislated.

That said, in McLennan v SA the Magistrate in the original case made some very important points that need to be considered by anyone subject to a bond:

20 In summary, the Magistrate found that the bond agreement was enforceable on the basis that the bond agreement did not provide for payment of a penalty, was not executed under duress, was not unconscionable, was a reasonable and genuine pre-estimate of the losses the respondent would incur if the appellant left the respondent's employ before the expiration of the return of service and had not been made in contravention of the Act. As to the last matter, the Magistrate found that the parties had not intended the appellant's AWA to be an exhaustive statement of the rights and obligations of the appellant and respondent and that the appellant's AWA contemplated an agreement between the parties outside the provisions of the AWA.

All of the considerations listed in the above paragraph are important, in a general sense, in understanding whether or not the bond is enforceable or not, and I would suggest pilots consider these if ever they wish to look at avoiding a bond, notwithstanding the remaining discussion on bonds and their relationship to CA’s/AWA’s/EBA’s etc’.

The only difference between the Magistrate and the Federal Court’s judgments (in McLennan v SA) is that whereas the Magistrate didn’t consider the entrance into a bond arrangement a variation to the AWA, the Federal Court did, and accordingly approval of the Industrial Relations Commission was required. A small difference, but it made a world of difference to McLennan. This relates to the requirement for any variations to AWA’s/CA’s/EBA’s etc’ to pass the no disadvantage test. Unfortunately with the advent of Workchoices legislation the relevant sections of the Workplace Relations Act have since been deleted, thus making much of the above perhaps irrelevant, however in my quick reading of the changes, it would seem they have been put into different sections of the Act and are likely to still apply. I can’t yet see whether the changes are more or less restrictive on the employer but I would suspect the former. (Detail of the changes can be found here. Do a search within the page on “Variation” and see what comes up. Also some law firms have some excellent material on Workplace Relations stuff. Have a look here)

I think I’ll leave it there Kavorka. There is a lot more to consider in all of this, and in particular, if an employer has breached the employment contract then that changes the ball game quite considerably, but the employee needs to know how to play the game correctly. Also, one needs to consider things like harassment, intimidation, etc’ as forms of constructive dismissal. It's interesting to note that in Rex v Clarke, there was no assertion by Clarke that the contract had been breached. I imagine this was a conscious strategic decision by Clarke's legal counsel.

Disclaimer: This has been written after a glass of wine and I am not a lawyer, so use the advice carefully! (Goes without saying on prune).

Also, I should add that I am very committed to helping people stay educated, constructive, and positive in an environment where people seem to get quite frustrated. In other words I am not taking sides here; rather I am just trying to present my understanding of the facts so that reasonable and educated discussion can continue. In my mind it’s fair enough if people want to blow off some frustration, but really it’s all for nought if you can’t do something constructive to create better outcomes. When it comes to the law, knowledge is definitely power, and Australian law is actually fairly employee friendly; it’s the companies and employees that try to circumvent it that makes things messy sometimes!

If you want any more info just let me know. I’ll provide whatever knowledge time and brainpower can bring…

[pill]

Was I working for you at flightwest, Aircraft? Your greasy grip on accounting sounds familiar.

[The PM]

Very quick local news highlights on Prime TV just now, "Air Link cancels all flights to Dubbo"......will post more details if i get to see the news tonight....

[The Kavorka]

Gen An..

Excellent post once again......

I have recently paid my bond out...only a couple of grand, but have a few mates who are not going to pay and run the gauntlet..

Personally I hope they win, aviation companys such as rex have been shafting their employees for far too long and I hope they get a taste of their own medicine....

If all the people who are leaving rex at the moment don't pay their bonds rex will rack up a huge legal bill trying to get their coin back!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bendo]

Yeah Kav... that'll be great, then they can justify pay-for-endorsement, even if only on a partial basis.

Those who follow behind will all thank you for your help, I'm sure.

[The Kavorka]

Bendo....

Relax.... nobody will be paying for a stinkn' saab endorsment in the current climate!!

[Howard Hughes]

I think Bendo's point is, that's how we got pay for endorsements in the first place!

[Counter-rotation]

I'd like to say two things:

First and foremost, thank you Gen. Anaesthetic, I appreciate your time and effort. Excellent posts...

Secondly, as I said earlier, you reap what you sow, and it is probably a very smudged line between "pilot welches on training bond" and "screw 'em, they deserve everything they get" - but I know which side of that line Rex are on, IMHO. That's an opinion, my opinion, and everyone else is free to have theirs.

I take your point about "that's why we got BYO endorsement in the first place", and that is a hard thing to deny...

In this case I simply cannot defend Rex or feel any sympathy for them, and my question was simply to get some facts.

I don't work for them, but I know guys that do, and I know they're watching this thread, I thought it might be worth discussing. That's all.

Bendo, they can justify it all they want - the tree I'm barking up is getting them to pay the troops what they're worth. That is another angle on solving the problem - ie. people won't be looking for the door...

CR.