Merged: Jetstar EBA 4
Just Relaxin
Did Westwood not marry the boss's daughter, and then hold senior office in the training and standards area?
Did Cant not subsequently hold senior office in the training and standards area?
Maui
Did Westwood not marry the boss's daughter, and then hold senior office in the training and standards area?
Did Cant not subsequently hold senior office in the training and standards area?
Maui
Last edited by maui; 1st Mar 2008 at 03:32.
Grandpa Aerotart
Perhaps for brevity's sake I didn't post the entire conversation
Interested in DEC?
Nope. In fact a No vote would be helpful to potential DECs and I have been advocating a Yes vote.
If you want no comment from without then why post a thread on a public BB...in fact if industry comment is unwelcome generally lets shut Pprune down all together.
Why am I interested?
Perhaps as an expat, with mates in CX,KA,EK, PX etc, as well as QF,VB and J*, I have a more global understanding of the current 'pilot shortage' than those of you who have never worked offshore?
Has anyone going to the AIPA road shows actually asked Woods what he thinks of EBA 4/JPC's efforts?
Anybody tried to extract a guarantee from Woods that AIPA can produce something better, or are you just sitting there inhaling his spiel?
If AIPA cannot deliver on their rhetoric what will be the effect on 'pilot unity' in that scenario?
Would answers to those questions be deemed useful before a vote was cast...would they influence how you voted?
If, hyperthetically speaking, Woods thought that EBA 4 was an impressive document and the JPC had done a great job how would that effect people's vote? If he was unable to guarantee AIPA could deliver a better outcome how would that effect peoples view of AIPA's motives, rightly or wrongly, and their subsequent vote?
Anyone want to answer those questions?
But in the end either Yes or NO doesn't effect me so I'll just sit back at a safe distance and watch it all unfold....again.
Interested in DEC?
Nope. In fact a No vote would be helpful to potential DECs and I have been advocating a Yes vote.
If you want no comment from without then why post a thread on a public BB...in fact if industry comment is unwelcome generally lets shut Pprune down all together.
Why am I interested?
Perhaps as an expat, with mates in CX,KA,EK, PX etc, as well as QF,VB and J*, I have a more global understanding of the current 'pilot shortage' than those of you who have never worked offshore?
Has anyone going to the AIPA road shows actually asked Woods what he thinks of EBA 4/JPC's efforts?
Anybody tried to extract a guarantee from Woods that AIPA can produce something better, or are you just sitting there inhaling his spiel?
If AIPA cannot deliver on their rhetoric what will be the effect on 'pilot unity' in that scenario?
Would answers to those questions be deemed useful before a vote was cast...would they influence how you voted?
If, hyperthetically speaking, Woods thought that EBA 4 was an impressive document and the JPC had done a great job how would that effect people's vote? If he was unable to guarantee AIPA could deliver a better outcome how would that effect peoples view of AIPA's motives, rightly or wrongly, and their subsequent vote?
Anyone want to answer those questions?
But in the end either Yes or NO doesn't effect me so I'll just sit back at a safe distance and watch it all unfold....again.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Ahhh I see the real agenda now. The AIPA naysayers here are expats not actually in the QF/J* sphere but eyeing off J* DEC's. A combined QF group works against that as the J* commands would go to J* FO's first then QF/ Qantaslink pilots second.
Finally the truth is told.
Finally the truth is told.
Grandpa Aerotart
Kremin how you get that out of my, or any other, like posts is bizarre
If J* pilots vote NO it will be open slather for DECs and Individual contracts...those left on EBAs will be marginalised...if they Vote yes and all are united on the same EBA, which enshrines seniority among other things, it will be very much harder for the company to bring in DECs...and AJ has said in the past he would not bring in pilots on AWAs, or whatever form individual contracts take post work choices, if the EBA was voted up. He also said if it was voted down he would do whatever it took to ensure J* was successful.
How about you answer my questions rather than attack me personally.
If J* pilots vote NO it will be open slather for DECs and Individual contracts...those left on EBAs will be marginalised...if they Vote yes and all are united on the same EBA, which enshrines seniority among other things, it will be very much harder for the company to bring in DECs...and AJ has said in the past he would not bring in pilots on AWAs, or whatever form individual contracts take post work choices, if the EBA was voted up. He also said if it was voted down he would do whatever it took to ensure J* was successful.
How about you answer my questions rather than attack me personally.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: West of The East
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu.
The labour governments new IR legislation states that if 50% of a group of employees wants an EBA, then that is what they shall have. AWA's will be dead next month. The Libs won't stand in the way. Your wrong. So very, very wrong.
No I get it, Led Zep hasn't left EK in the last 13 months. He's still there.
The labour governments new IR legislation states that if 50% of a group of employees wants an EBA, then that is what they shall have. AWA's will be dead next month. The Libs won't stand in the way. Your wrong. So very, very wrong.
No I get it, Led Zep hasn't left EK in the last 13 months. He's still there.
Just Relaxin,has anyone from AIPA actually told you how they intend to get GD and co. to agree to the GOAL as proposed?
Chimbu,at the AIPA forum in Sydney last Friday there was all of four regional pilots and the Brisbane show earlier in the week had a few more.Interest would appear to be minimal based on those numbers.
Chimbu,at the AIPA forum in Sydney last Friday there was all of four regional pilots and the Brisbane show earlier in the week had a few more.Interest would appear to be minimal based on those numbers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 99
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked in (non airline) management, dividing workers is an old (but questionable) technique. What you have to realise is that management of course, is trying to get the best deal possible. By having a divided workforce, this plays into their hands as people will start to worry and accept the lowest offer. However, on the other hand, if all Qantas group pilots were united, the better off those employee's will be. As AIPA now has the legal ability to represent all Qantas group pilots wouldn't it be logical to have them represent you? Ask yourself this. What does that AFAP offer you?
There would appear to be much self interest being espoused on this thread and it is very obvious that there is a lot of untruths being told. Personally it doesn't affect me, however, I would suggest that all Qantas group pilots get behind AIPA as they appear to have the best resources to represent your interests.
One further question. Do you want the money in your pockets or the exec's as in the form of bonus's? Because that is what is going to happen if you don't wake up to yourselves.
There would appear to be much self interest being espoused on this thread and it is very obvious that there is a lot of untruths being told. Personally it doesn't affect me, however, I would suggest that all Qantas group pilots get behind AIPA as they appear to have the best resources to represent your interests.
One further question. Do you want the money in your pockets or the exec's as in the form of bonus's? Because that is what is going to happen if you don't wake up to yourselves.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..." You obviously have absolutely no idea (or choose to ignore) how a GOAL as suggested by AIPA would work.
Read into it what you like but if pilots could willy nilly jump from one type to another and one position to another at their whim at the company's expense then there is no way management will ever agree to the GOAL. The AIPA president, I am sure, knows this and that is why his concept included the freezes. Ask him yourself.
The labour governments new IR legislation states that if 50% of a group of employees wants an EBA, then that is what they shall have. AWA's will be dead next month.
The J* pilots vote NO again. Management accepts that decision and continues to employ under AWAs while it can, offerring the terms and conditions of the failed EBA to all existing and future AWA employees as well as existing EBA employees willing to switch to the AWA on those T&Cs. J* ends up in the short term with 200 EBA and 200 AWA employees.
Assume a ballot is held regarding EBA choice and 50% Vote for an EBA. The Company negotiates and offers an EBA on lesser terms and conditions than the existing AWAs, will that be accepted by the EBA pilots? If so will the new legislation require all existing AWA pilots to transfer to the new EBA on lesser terms and conditions? I think NOT. The 50% that voted for a new EBA may get it but it will not guarantee all J* pilots are on the same deal. That is assuming the J* pilots could actually get themselves into a position to negotiate a new deal on behalf of the 50%. Of course AIPA and the AFAP wouild be both willing to do that on their behalf.
The danger in relying on the Labour Governments legislation to deliver a better deal is self evident. Don't forget who introduced individual agreements etc in the first place. The Labour Government will not outlaw individual common law contracts.
Now consider that the new EBA negotiated on behalf of the 50% is a better deal than the AWAs. Then all pilots could go onto it. So in short no detriment to the AWA contingent. But a very big risk to the EBA guys in the event of a NO vote on the current Ballot.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tool,
What I heard reference the GOAL List was that there would be, as you state, base/ type/ company freeze in place for the company to amortize their training cost over a period of time to be agreed upon. I'm led to believe that training cost/ period to be somewhere around 5 years. However so as not to disadvantage pilots nor the company if a pilot wishes to avail themselves of a promotional opportunity prior to the agreed freeze period finishing, they can still move, however there would be a prorata cost involved depending on how many years of the freeze had been served.
PS:
Another question, does this new EBA ,if ratified ,meet or exceed the requirements of the new interim Legislation?
If not ,why not? Aren't you selling youself short then ,by signing this? All you have to do is sit on your hands for a few months and the Management would be forced to offer better to satisfy the new legislation, would they not?.
What I heard reference the GOAL List was that there would be, as you state, base/ type/ company freeze in place for the company to amortize their training cost over a period of time to be agreed upon. I'm led to believe that training cost/ period to be somewhere around 5 years. However so as not to disadvantage pilots nor the company if a pilot wishes to avail themselves of a promotional opportunity prior to the agreed freeze period finishing, they can still move, however there would be a prorata cost involved depending on how many years of the freeze had been served.
PS:
Another question, does this new EBA ,if ratified ,meet or exceed the requirements of the new interim Legislation?
If not ,why not? Aren't you selling youself short then ,by signing this? All you have to do is sit on your hands for a few months and the Management would be forced to offer better to satisfy the new legislation, would they not?.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fokker,
You and your mates trying to give JQ pilots an economics 101 lesson on your company website are laughable in your naivety.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Fancy bringing that bull**** to an EBA vote. (You better vote yes because the WORLD is going to go into recession. )
Give me a break. Fly aeroplanes to the best of your ability because your Economics 101 skills let you down.
You and your mates trying to give JQ pilots an economics 101 lesson on your company website are laughable in your naivety.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Fancy bringing that bull**** to an EBA vote. (You better vote yes because the WORLD is going to go into recession. )
Give me a break. Fly aeroplanes to the best of your ability because your Economics 101 skills let you down.
Last edited by jakethemuss; 1st Mar 2008 at 19:08.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jake you are are gutless wonder !
You hide behind your non de plume here on pprune.
If you have anything to do with the Jetstar EBA you would be a Jetstar pilot and have access to the the Jetstar webgroup.If that is the case why don't you air your views where it matters and not on this public forum.
The guy you are denigrating at least has the balls to stand behind what he say's , unlike you.
Oh and by the way, this forum is not as anonymous as you or Pete Conrad thinks.
You hide behind your non de plume here on pprune.
If you have anything to do with the Jetstar EBA you would be a Jetstar pilot and have access to the the Jetstar webgroup.If that is the case why don't you air your views where it matters and not on this public forum.
The guy you are denigrating at least has the balls to stand behind what he say's , unlike you.
Oh and by the way, this forum is not as anonymous as you or Pete Conrad thinks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui,
Not sure what your getting at but I flew with both and neither Westwood or Cant held "senior office in the standards or training departments"
In the first case no way!
They were both Presidents of AIPA, Westwood the first [founding] president.
Not sure what your getting at but I flew with both and neither Westwood or Cant held "senior office in the standards or training departments"
In the first case no way!
They were both Presidents of AIPA, Westwood the first [founding] president.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so that there is no doubt as to AIPA’s history here, these are some extracts from transcripts during the AIRC hearings in 2007.
And on the Group Opportunity List......
Transcripts don't lie - It should be very clear to Jetstar pilots from the above history what the intentions of AIPA are, ie, to protect mainline flying at ANY cost.
We need to steer clear of this group and the demonstrated agenda it's following.
Voting YES for this EBA will send a message that we will manage our own future.
“.. The transfer of flying to Jetstar required a protection of the flying for mainline pilots.”
“147. Despite this, and the best efforts of Captain Woods in oral evidence to paint himself as more pragmatic than his predecessor, AIPA's actions have shown more hostility towards Jetstar under his stewardship. This is especially so in the context of Jetstar's emergence into international services. The following actions of AIPA under Captain Woods' leadership speak volumes for AIPA's hostility against Jetstar and its emergence into international RPTAS:
3 March 2006 – AIPA wrote a letter of demand requiring undertakings that would prevent anyone apart from Qantas Mainline pilots doing the flying on EBA7 rates, Q24. Note that at [51] of Captain Wheeler's statement he gave evidence that Jetstar cannot afford to pay its pilots the same salaries and conditions as Qantas mainline pilots. Captain Woods agreed with this (6273);
8 March 2006 – AIPA instituted Federal Court litigation (VI 251 of 2006), seeking various orders, including a permanent injunction to stop Jetstar having the use of the A330's (AFAP 51). The clear effect of that would be to prevent or seriously disrupt Jetstar's international services, as the A330's are an interim fleet pending future arrival of B787's (Qantas 3 para 32). Jetstar would have to try to find alternative aircraft from somewhere else in the meantime.
8 March 2006 – AIPA attempted to intervene in Commission proceedings before Raffaelli C to oppose Jetstar's application to vary the 2005 EBA (the 'wide bodied amendment') (Qantas 25). AIPA made serious allegations against Jetstar of coercing pilots into voting in favour of the amendments. (Qantas 25 PN9). AIPA has produced no evidence of this. The amendment had 73.1% support of Jetstar pilots (Qantas 3 para 110). Captain Woods acknowledged that this variation was 'an essential precondition' to Jetstar being able to engage in international RPTS (6177). Yet AIPA tried to stop it in its tracks!
27 April 2006 – Captain Woods sent an email to the Jetstar Pilots Council that AIPA had just been made aware of Jetstar being able to directly recruit captains to command the A330 International aircraft. He said that since he was at the IFALPA Conference in Istanbul, 'AIPA will do what it can to try and persuade IFALPA to support, if necessary, an international recruiting ban on Jetstar' (Qantas 26). Captain Woods sought to justify this ban by reference to AIPA 'upholding the legislation of this nation' (6024). When asked to elaborate he stated: 'I believe there is some legislative basis for that which would arguably – it's not clear, but as I understand it, an employer may seek government approval to hire, lets say pilots from – who are non Australian. For whatever reason, the government may choose to accept or reject that application, what AIPA was seeking to do was encourage the government to reject any such application' (6210).
In 2006, AIPA wrote to CASA with a view to slowing down any assessment process for Jetstar ETOP's permit application. Again, this permit was essential for it to be able to operate the Honolulu service in an efficient way. The permit was granted after two months. AIPA's position was that it should have been 12 months (PN6253 to 6264).”
3 March 2006 – AIPA wrote a letter of demand requiring undertakings that would prevent anyone apart from Qantas Mainline pilots doing the flying on EBA7 rates, Q24. Note that at [51] of Captain Wheeler's statement he gave evidence that Jetstar cannot afford to pay its pilots the same salaries and conditions as Qantas mainline pilots. Captain Woods agreed with this (6273);
8 March 2006 – AIPA instituted Federal Court litigation (VI 251 of 2006), seeking various orders, including a permanent injunction to stop Jetstar having the use of the A330's (AFAP 51). The clear effect of that would be to prevent or seriously disrupt Jetstar's international services, as the A330's are an interim fleet pending future arrival of B787's (Qantas 3 para 32). Jetstar would have to try to find alternative aircraft from somewhere else in the meantime.
8 March 2006 – AIPA attempted to intervene in Commission proceedings before Raffaelli C to oppose Jetstar's application to vary the 2005 EBA (the 'wide bodied amendment') (Qantas 25). AIPA made serious allegations against Jetstar of coercing pilots into voting in favour of the amendments. (Qantas 25 PN9). AIPA has produced no evidence of this. The amendment had 73.1% support of Jetstar pilots (Qantas 3 para 110). Captain Woods acknowledged that this variation was 'an essential precondition' to Jetstar being able to engage in international RPTS (6177). Yet AIPA tried to stop it in its tracks!
27 April 2006 – Captain Woods sent an email to the Jetstar Pilots Council that AIPA had just been made aware of Jetstar being able to directly recruit captains to command the A330 International aircraft. He said that since he was at the IFALPA Conference in Istanbul, 'AIPA will do what it can to try and persuade IFALPA to support, if necessary, an international recruiting ban on Jetstar' (Qantas 26). Captain Woods sought to justify this ban by reference to AIPA 'upholding the legislation of this nation' (6024). When asked to elaborate he stated: 'I believe there is some legislative basis for that which would arguably – it's not clear, but as I understand it, an employer may seek government approval to hire, lets say pilots from – who are non Australian. For whatever reason, the government may choose to accept or reject that application, what AIPA was seeking to do was encourage the government to reject any such application' (6210).
In 2006, AIPA wrote to CASA with a view to slowing down any assessment process for Jetstar ETOP's permit application. Again, this permit was essential for it to be able to operate the Honolulu service in an efficient way. The permit was granted after two months. AIPA's position was that it should have been 12 months (PN6253 to 6264).”
PN816
The so-called group opportunity list is a proposal that freezes the seniority of existing QAL pilots. This means that for many years no one from regional airlines has any realistic chance of successfully bidding for a vacancy within QAL. Today the Dash 8 captain who has 15 years of seniority at Eastern and wants to take up a first officer position with QAL in a B737, he has no chance. A second officer at QAL with two years' seniority there has bidding rights ahead of the Eastern captain. On the other hand QAL pilots would be able to access opportunity within the regional airlines, such as Jetstar, which are growing fast and therefore creating lots of new jobs.
The so-called group opportunity list is a proposal that freezes the seniority of existing QAL pilots. This means that for many years no one from regional airlines has any realistic chance of successfully bidding for a vacancy within QAL. Today the Dash 8 captain who has 15 years of seniority at Eastern and wants to take up a first officer position with QAL in a B737, he has no chance. A second officer at QAL with two years' seniority there has bidding rights ahead of the Eastern captain. On the other hand QAL pilots would be able to access opportunity within the regional airlines, such as Jetstar, which are growing fast and therefore creating lots of new jobs.
We need to steer clear of this group and the demonstrated agenda it's following.
Voting YES for this EBA will send a message that we will manage our own future.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Led,
You have done yourself and your credibility great damage.
Like a number of interested people, I too have a copy of the AIRC transcripts you refer to above and without exception the quotes you have pasted are answers to questions put to Captain Woods by the Lawyers of Qantas and AFAP.
Anyone familiar with judicial process will know that AIPA's Lawyers and/or the Judge will ask similar questions in the alternative to establish the full story.
That the Judge and subsequently the full bench of the AIRC decided to award AIPA constitutional coverage of Jetstar pilots means that the Commission was not persuaded by the attempts of the Qantas and AFAP lawyers to paint Woods and AIPA in a poor light.
Just the opposite I recall, the Judge said Woods would fight just as hard for Jetstar as he does for Qantas.
Unlike you my friend, it seems AIPA's President is an honest forthright man who calls it as it is. Shame you don’t have his ability to see the big picture and tell it without fear or favour.
Care for a piece of gingerbread?
You have done yourself and your credibility great damage.
Like a number of interested people, I too have a copy of the AIRC transcripts you refer to above and without exception the quotes you have pasted are answers to questions put to Captain Woods by the Lawyers of Qantas and AFAP.
Anyone familiar with judicial process will know that AIPA's Lawyers and/or the Judge will ask similar questions in the alternative to establish the full story.
That the Judge and subsequently the full bench of the AIRC decided to award AIPA constitutional coverage of Jetstar pilots means that the Commission was not persuaded by the attempts of the Qantas and AFAP lawyers to paint Woods and AIPA in a poor light.
Just the opposite I recall, the Judge said Woods would fight just as hard for Jetstar as he does for Qantas.
Unlike you my friend, it seems AIPA's President is an honest forthright man who calls it as it is. Shame you don’t have his ability to see the big picture and tell it without fear or favour.
Care for a piece of gingerbread?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: 1/12 Lord ST Botany ;)
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly,
The said eco's 101 lesson on webgroups/JPC is as spineless as it comes. Scaremongering fellow workers about doom and gloom to sway their vote is hardly having a set of balls. It is a cheap shot to the not so savvy economically minded. That is plain and simple. It cant be dressed up. Especially considering it is coming from one the first to run to AJ (and drum up support) for an AWA after the EBA4 went down the first time. Here's crossing fingers for a second time. Maybe they will hear properly this time.
The said eco's 101 lesson on webgroups/JPC is as spineless as it comes. Scaremongering fellow workers about doom and gloom to sway their vote is hardly having a set of balls. It is a cheap shot to the not so savvy economically minded. That is plain and simple. It cant be dressed up. Especially considering it is coming from one the first to run to AJ (and drum up support) for an AWA after the EBA4 went down the first time. Here's crossing fingers for a second time. Maybe they will hear properly this time.
Last edited by Rostov; 2nd Mar 2008 at 00:14.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well GB, you can't deny what was said in the AIRC - or are you saying the transcripts are wrong too. I believe the various letters, emails and comments refered to are absolutely correct.
By implication you are suggesting that I am not honest or forthright - stick to the argument, not the man.
By implication you are suggesting that I am not honest or forthright - stick to the argument, not the man.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And
GB is quite correct and he isn’t saying the transcripts are wrong, Led, just that they weren’t very convincing. Obviously the judge didn’t find the argument by QF/Jet* management very convincing at all by virtue of the fact that he found in favour of AIPA. Nor did the next judge who upheld the previous ruling under appeal from QF/Jet*.
Once again Led,
“What is this terrible history you have with AIPA that you speak of when it’s obvious from your previous posts that you have been at Jet* for a maximum of 13 months? (In your ‘previous post’ dated 21 Dec 2006 you discuss the lateness of your Emirates January 2007 roster.”If you can’t answer this I can only conclude YOU are not being up-front with your motives.
Nuf.
Once again Led,
“What is this terrible history you have with AIPA that you speak of when it’s obvious from your previous posts that you have been at Jet* for a maximum of 13 months? (In your ‘previous post’ dated 21 Dec 2006 you discuss the lateness of your Emirates January 2007 roster.”If you can’t answer this I can only conclude YOU are not being up-front with your motives.
Nuf.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Led,
If you print out the transcripts of the Ivan Milat trial you might find this little gem:
"There is no way Ivan killed those people, it is just not in him, he is a kind gentle, caring, person"
If that is in the transcript, it must be right because it is written, right? yes quick they have to set him free!!!!!
Never mind that the quote could be from his Mum
If you print out the transcripts of the Ivan Milat trial you might find this little gem:
"There is no way Ivan killed those people, it is just not in him, he is a kind gentle, caring, person"
If that is in the transcript, it must be right because it is written, right? yes quick they have to set him free!!!!!
Never mind that the quote could be from his Mum