Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

AIPA or AFAP FOR JETSTAR

Old 29th Aug 2019, 03:43
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
QPA? Are they a secret society?

The only place I've heard of them is on here!
ruprecht is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2019, 10:01
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by Capt Colonial View Post
Allegedly QPA has met with Qantas over the LH EA and Project Sunrise. Not sure if AFAP has a hand in this, however maybe there is a representative alternative of sorts?
Sounds like wishful thinking.

The Fair Work Act states that a bargaining agent can be an employee organisation that represents someone working under an agreement, a person designated by an employee covered by an agreement, or an employee covered by an agreement that has nominate themselves as a bargaining agent. QPA is not registered under the Registered Organisations Act and the AFAP do not have coverage of mainline pilots (yet), so neither of these organisations can represent Qantas longhaul pilots in the current negotiations.

Last edited by theheadmaster; 30th Aug 2019 at 23:56.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 10:54
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 59
Time will tell!

Headmaster, with respect, not the way I read the Fair Work Act 2009 in regards to Bargaining Agents!
From my quick appraisal, I understand that for employees who are members of a trade union (I guess that means the AIPA), the default bargaining representative is their trade union (AIPA) unless the employees appoint another person or persons.
  • Employees, however, can generally appoint whoever they wish as their bargaining representatives.
  • Persons so appointed are specified in writing, as bargaining representatives, by the employees who would be covered by the E.A. agreement.
Thus, it would appear that the QPA members etc have appointed their Bargaining Agents and have apparently already had meetings with Qantas regarding the Longhaul E.A and Project Sunrise meetings.

Having found a copy of the E.A the following sections 1. (1.2.3) Parties Bound, 9. (9.3) Consultation, and 10. (10.1.1) I.F.A’s, would tend to underline to some degree the Fair Work Act scope and intention in this area?

You may be correct regarding the AFAP I am not sure if they could be involved at all at this time? Of course time will tell!
Capt Colonial is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 15:13
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 304
I still stand by what I stated Captain Colonial, and in your latest post you change what you stated previously to agree with what I said. That is, the only organisation that can be a bargaining agent is a registered organisation that covers employees under the agreement. The QPA is not a registered organisation under the Act, so it can't represent anyone. What you are now saying (and this is different from what you stated above) is that either pilots covered by the agreement have nominated a bargaining agent, or individuals have nominated themselves as individual bargaining agents. This is entirely consistent with what I stated above. There is a difference between the QPA representing pilots, and individuals representing themselves or someone else.

However, there does appear to be one plausible situation in which both of your apparently inconsistent statements may be true. As the Act states that nominated bargaining agents (and self nominated bargaining agents) have to be a person, if the QPA was an organisation consisting of one person, then if one of the independent bargaining agents was the sole member of the QPA, both statements could be true.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 22:53
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 59
Please Read the Fact Sheet!

Yes, Headmaster, I note you stand by what you wrote.

Even though you are blatantly wrong!

The nominated Bargaining Agents do not need to be a registered organisation other than notifying the employer of who the nominated agents are and whom they represent.

Go Here: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-w...ise-bargaining and read the synopsis of facts, please!

Regardless apparently the QPA has done so late last year and had meetings already with Qantas over the;

a) B-747 RIN and

b) The L.H. E.A and

c) Project Sunrise

According to your “Strawman Argument”, this cannot happen! However, Headmaster, it has!

Sorry, however, I think you are in denial.

Also noted when speaking to a QPA member late last night that a very succinct and separate group of some Twenty Pilot members of the AIPA are standing as a separate group in the elections against the incumbent AIPA Executive. Notably, an Ex-AIPA President, Ex- AIPA Vice President and Ex- AIPA Secretary are part of that group too!

I checked that out on QREWROOM as well!

Would appear in observation of these apparent facts, that if we have separate entities (QPA) and a challenge mounted by twenty or more individuals at the AIPA against the incumbent AIPA regime all must not be so comfortable for the general membership with the incumbent AIPA management.

Time will tell!

I won’t comment on my personal thoughts other than highlight as BLUESKYMINE elegantly suggested... that perhaps greater competition will produce better outcomes!

Last edited by Capt Colonial; 1st Sep 2019 at 23:42.
Capt Colonial is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 23:19
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 989
All the above is correct , the AIPA elections will be fascinating to watch as a lot of members aren’t happy and are doing something about it, I think a changing of the guard is underway. As for the EBA negotiations after talking to other people in Qantas it would appear that the company has gone from 3% no offsets to wanting offsets now and dragging the chain. Anecdotal evidence to me would indicate that loads internationally especially to the US are deteriorating and unlike domestic you can’t just cancel them , so I hint there is some financial pressure on. We live in interesting times.
dragon man is online now  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 23:36
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,647
And right on time.
The ever reliable SMH runs a puff piece to pressure the pilot body. Folks, don't worry it isn't the 20 year service life of aircraft, the intricacies of fleet economics and indeed the $200 million per jet price tag, it is the pilot (more particularly the cost) that determines whether a project lives or dies.

The Australian and International Pilots Association's president Mark Sedgwick said Qantas' self-imposed deadline would not influence their members' bargaining position.“Sunrise is a decision for Qantas management to make," he said. "The timeline at this point is very ambitious."
Kudos where kudos is due, Mr Sedgwick ought simply offer the binary; buy it or don't, pilot cost is not the defining input cost.
The former AIPA President enjoys First class travel and other perks, while taking orders from IR, his reward for selling the 787.

Pilot costs are at the margin and not usually any influence on the capital expense/purchase decision. It is though, after all, contract season.


https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...01-p52ms5.html

Last edited by Rated De; 1st Sep 2019 at 23:53.
Rated De is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2019, 23:51
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 989
What does Qantas want, it’s not hard to figure out, TOD over 20 hours with a four man crew plus no overtime. With pilot costs at 5% of operating costs a 20% increase for doing this would equate to only 1% in operating costs. Then you have to offset the savings from not having crews overnighting on the way to JFK and London but they won’t mention that all they will do is dangle the shiny new jets and more promotions. F##k them and the horse they rode in on.
dragon man is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 01:42
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by Capt Colonial View Post
Yes, Headmaster, I note you stand by what you wrote.

Even though you are blatantly wrong!

The nominated Bargaining Agents do not need to be a registered organisation other than notifying the employer of who the nominated agents are and whom they represent.

Go Here: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-w...ise-bargaining and read the synopsis of facts, please!

You have not shown how I am wrong. Both the fact sheet you linked to and the sections of the Fair Work Act that deal with this confirm what I stated. Either the bargaining agent is an organisation, or they are a person. If they are an organisation, they must be registered under the Act. The QPA is not. The path that you have taken is nominating yourself, or someone else has nominated you. The only organisation that can represent Qantas pilots at this stage is AIPA. You can beat your chest about the QPA, but at this stage, we are just talking about independent bargaining agents.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 04:00
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 59
Please Read the Fact Sheet Again!

Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
You have not shown how I am wrong.
Headmaster! Really? I can only give you the link. You have to be able to read and comprehend the information therein!

Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
Both the fact sheet you linked to and the sections of the Fair Work Act that deal with this confirm what I stated. .
Incorrect. The bargaining agents are nominated by individuals. Please read the detail in the Act! Alas, you are wrong once again!

Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
The path that you have taken is nominating yourself, or someone else has nominated you.
I have not nominated myself for anything. That emotional assertion is totally incorrect. You seem very frustrated even angered by this discussion and the existence of the QPA! I wonder why?

Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
The only organisation that can represent Qantas pilots at this stage is AIPA. .
That once again is incorrect! Please read the Act and the current L.H. E.A. on who may participate in Bargaining. It's all their in black and white you just have to read it and understand what is written.

Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
You can beat your chest about the QPA, but at this stage, we are just talking about independent bargaining agents.
Wow! I am sorry this upsets You! I am not beating my chest over anything. It's just a discussion!
I was just highlighting and discussing the existence of the QPA and its relevance in this thread.
At least I took the time to research some facts and spoke with some Pilots who are in the QPA and they confirmed my previous post.

Regretfully therein you are ignoring these facts, as I am advised, that Qantas has already met with the QPA Bargaining Representatives on no less than three occasions discussing;
a) The B-747 Rin
b) The LH E.A
c) Project Sunrise

As this upsets you so much I'll leave the discussion here. What I think of AIPA, AFAP or the QPA is irrelevant. I just highlighted as a point of interest on this thread the reality that the QPA exist!

The reality is that the QPA has allegedly met with Qantas and it represents a percentage of Qantas Long Haul pilots and is in negotiation with Qantas.

If you wish to ignore these facts thats your position.
Capt Colonial is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 05:02
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Capt Colonial,

You say “ The reality is that the QPA has allegedly met with Qantas”, I would have thought you can’t have both ie. the reality and allegedly ?

If QPA exist they’re not doing a great job of recruiting members, I’ve not heard of them !
benttrees is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 05:09
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by benttrees View Post
Capt Colonial,

You say “ The reality is that the QPA has allegedly met with Qantas”, I would have thought you can’t have both ie. the reality and allegedly ?

If QPA exist they’re not doing a great job of recruiting members, I’ve not heard of them !
Who said anything about them wanting to recruit members?
dragon man is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 05:15
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
I made an assumption, I’m happy to take it back.

My main point was that it was said “the reality” and “allegedly”, which one was it ?
benttrees is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 06:13
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 193
Considering what has been offered in the SH EBA, it is little wonder that AIPA membership are pretty pissed off (all I going to say is that the Company is stonewalling, that the deal that is to be voted on was not endorsed by the Comm says it all...)
The understanding from AIPA was that LH negotiations were not going to start until SH was signed-off on- and considering the sentiment on the line, my best estimate is probably a 80% no vote next week...
QPA is just another effort to get LH EBA 8 over the line by the same suspects..
Street garbage is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 06:14
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 304
Headmaster! Really? I can only give you the link. You have to be able to read and comprehend the information therein!
Providing a link does not prove an argument.

Incorrect. The bargaining agents are nominated by individuals. Please read the detail in the Act! Alas, you are wrong once again!
The Act states that the bargaining agent in this specific circumstance is a 'person'. The Act also makes specific reference to employee organisations representing employees. As I have stated, only employee organisations that are registered under the RO Act that cover an employee under the agreement can represent someone as a bargaining agent. As I said on my first post on this matter, there are three possibilities under the Act:

1. A bargaining representative is a registered organisation that covers employees working under the specific agreement (s176(1)(b)). Note also that s176(3)(b) specifically states that an official of an employee organisation cannot be the bargaining representative of an employee if that organisation is not entitled to represent that employee. As stated previously, to have that entitlement, the organisation has to be registered. The QPA is not registered, therefore cannot be a bargaining representative under s176(1)(b).

2. A bargaining representative is a person who is nominated by an employee working under the agreement (s176(1)(c). If you have read the Act, you will note that there is the word 'or' between s176(1)(b) and (c). This means that you can either be an organisation acting as a bargaining representative (and we have shown why this does not apply to QPA) or a bargaining representative that is a person nominated by an employee. As mentioned at point 1, that person cannot be an official of an organisation that is not entitled to represent the employees, to do so would be in breach of the Act.

3. Section 176(1)(4) clarifies that a nomination under s176(1)(c) can be someone nominating themselves. This section also gives an 'out' for someone who may otherwise not be able to represent themselves under s 176(3).

So, as I have previously stated, and as you have confirmed, people can nominate their own bargaining representative, but those representatives are individuals, not the QPA.

Wow! I am sorry this upsets You!
It does not upset me. I know that regardless of what I post, I will probably not convince you. However, I can at least separate the fact from the fiction for other people who happen to be interested in the discussion.

Last edited by theheadmaster; 2nd Sep 2019 at 06:50.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 06:55
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
Capt Colonial: a QF capt who uses 50 words where 20 would do.

I wonder who that could be...
ruprecht is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 08:23
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by Street garbage View Post
Considering what has been offered in the SH EBA, it is little wonder that AIPA membership are pretty pissed off (all I going to say is that the Company is stonewalling, that the deal that is to be voted on was not endorsed by the Comm says it all...)
The understanding from AIPA was that LH negotiations were not going to start until SH was signed-off on- and considering the sentiment on the line, my best estimate is probably a 80% no vote next week...
QPA is just another effort to get LH EBA 8 over the line by the same suspects..
You couldn’t be more wrong, and the reason I think the company and current negotiating team are rushing this is they also believe that come December there will be a new AIPA president, executive and negotiating team.
dragon man is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 12:50
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
You couldn’t be more wrong, and the reason I think the company and current negotiating team are rushing this is they also believe that come December there will be a new AIPA president, executive and negotiating team.
“Rushing it” really?
Long Haul EA9 chapter 5
The parties agree to commence negotiations on an enterprise agreement no later than twelve (12) months prior to the expiry date of this Agreement (or such lesser period as agreed between the parties). The parties will use their best endeavours to complete negotiations for a new agreement prior to the nominal expiry date of this Agreement.
So given the EA expired 2 months ago, AIPA is contractually bound to have started negotiations 14 months ago. We are told substantive discussions only really commenced in the last 2 weeks. This doesn’t seem like rushing to me, it looks like it’s 13+ months overdue.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 13:26
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by Beer Baron View Post

“Rushing it” really?
Long Haul EA9 chapter 5

So given the EA expired 2 months ago, AIPA is contractually bound to have started negotiations 14 months ago. We are told substantive discussions only really commenced in the last 2 weeks. This doesn’t seem like rushing to me, it looks like it’s 13+ months overdue.
The rush is to have it to a vote within 8 weeks with nothing presented or surveyed to the long haul pilots prior to the vote. I call that rushing in fact it smells awfully like the last one to me where even the current president now admits we gave up 30% to get some shiny new jets.
dragon man is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2019, 13:49
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 412
The rush is to have it to a vote within 8 weeks
Sorry if I missed an announcement but I certainly hadn’t heard AIPA say they were working to that sort of a deadline.
In fact, the President has said on numerous occasions that a resolution by the end of the year would be “extremely ambitious”. I think that is a delicate way of saying “there is fu#k all chance of that happening.”
Beer Baron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.