Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Enforcement of QF Long Haul (Pilot) award for up coming redundancies

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

Enforcement of QF Long Haul (Pilot) award for up coming redundancies

Old 13th Jun 2009, 21:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Enforcement of QF Long Haul (Pilot) award for up coming redundancies

One of the fleet managers was talking the other day about the need for 130-140 redundancies. My understanding is that most of these redundancies will occur on the B767

This ties in with the chief pilots recent letter.

It also indicates that Ian Oldmeadow still has almost complete control of Qantas IR policy.

As we all know, redundancies are a fact of life in aviation. Most of us have been laid off at some time or another.

However, this situation has been DIRECTLY caused by aircraft and routes being gifted to entities outside of Qantas mainline, with mainline pilots not being given the opportunity to bid or negotiate for the work.

Jetstar, Jetconnect and the new trans tasman freight operation.

So, when it comes to redundancies, AIPA must provide no relief from the provisions of the award.

This situation is a test case for the B787, where, given that it is likely Qantas will farm the 'red tail' flying out to an 'new' company designed to lower T's & C's even further, there will be up to 600-700 further redundancies.
mohikan is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 21:42
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Over the Pacific
Posts: 348
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Whilst I do not want to see ANY one made redundant, I was wondering why some Pilots and Cabin Crew where not been made redundant while most other areas of the company are unfortunately being made so. Surely there must be an excess of both at present.
farrari is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 21:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 642
Received 19 Likes on 5 Posts
Does anyone know whether redundancies are based on seniority or date of appointment?

If you think LOA 161 is contentious now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

ruprecht
ruprecht is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 22:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,615
Received 599 Likes on 169 Posts
Based on seniority. However the most junior SOs are on the 380 therefore they will be required to be made redundant first with SOs off other aircraft crossed trained. I am told there is a discussion paper in Qantas looking at training costs versus offering a flat one year salary payment (same as BA) to try and entice some pilots to retire/ resign. We live in interesting and difficult times.
dragon man is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 23:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Expect some 'Oldies' would seriously consider hanging up their goggles for 1 yrs pay in lieu, if it also included a once only option of reinstatement to be exercise after pilots made redundannt have been reinstated, but before new hires were taken on board.

Mind you, IMHO, the introduction of the GOAL would cost less and probably do away with the deed to make anyone redundant.
Gingerbread is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 23:30
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
If you think LOA 161 is contentious now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
My thoughts exactly...makes my guts churn just thinking about it.

How many over 60 pilots are left in the company? Surely they've had enough by now! I can hear the cries of "But I'm on my third wife" and "I lost $1million in super last year" already!
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2009, 23:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You might also want to think about the qantaslink jet operation that is contracted out to national jet...
newsensation is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2009, 00:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 72
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Transition Layer

I hope you hold the same feelings when you reach their age and hopefully still married to your first wife with your super still intact.
Offchocks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2009, 00:43
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here & There
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fat Chance Ginger.
  • Qantas B737s put into service in Jet Connect,
  • Increased Jet Connect Trans Tasman services effective 10 June 09, and
  • New B737-800’s to Jet Connect so it can provide greater frequency on the Trans-Tasman.
Were actually endorsed by ‘Team Bazza’. Have seen the document that Bazza and the boys accepted and included in EBA7 rollover documentation acknowledging the role of Jet Connect.

Thank the all mighty for politics! At least we can vote Team Bazza out of the house come August if they continue to rollover in the clover.
struggling is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2009, 02:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst I do not want to see ANY one made redundant, I was wondering why some Pilots and Cabin Crew where not been made redundant while most other areas of the company are unfortunately being made so. Surely there must be an excess of both at present.
Farrari - Do you seriously expect logic to prevail here?

The fact that thousands of surplus non operational staff will be made redundant is a shame, but the business must prevail if the remaining staff are to enjoy secure employment.

That there are surplus pilots is irrelevant. Should the business choose to go down the irresponsible and short sighted path of making tech crew redundant, then it will be made to pay, either through huge redundancy payouts, or the debilitating cost of training and retraining in order of strict seniority.

The real tragedy here is that the pilot group are so myopic they cannot see that their intransigence in this financial crisis leads Senior Management with no choice BUT to look for other alternatives.

Imagine if there were no subsiduary businesses and ALL group pilots were on one straight line seniority list. Pilots alone could conceivably threaten the viability of the entire group. Now that would be an own GOAL.

This is a classic 'legacy' issue and one which senior management must resolve if the mainline business is to prosper in the long term.
longjohn is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2009, 03:17
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Totally Wrong.

LJ has missed the essential point here.

Whilst I don't care one way or another about a 'GOAL', the reality is if QF magically decided to implement such a measure it would NOT result in terms and conditions changing BUT would allow a more efficient distribution of labour ,via an agreed system, throughout the QF group. This includes QF link I might add.

When JQI was set up, courtesy (again) of Oldmeadow, The QF mainline group was not approached to see if any of the pilots made surplus wanted to transfer to JQI on the terms and conditions as they were offered. In fact the previous CEO lied blind to Robin and Co about what was really going on. The then AIPA executive fell for said lies hook line and sinker.


The only reason we are looking at redundancies is because of the transfer of flying to other entities, and this includes the gifting of aircraft. In fact, the inability to transfer labour across the group, on terms and conditions of the companies choosing, is why the cascading seniority provisions of the LH award are about to come into play.

I have nothing against the Jetconnect or Jetstar pilots BTW, nor am I suggesting that anyone from those entities be displaced or disadvantaged in any way from this point on. Whats done is done.

QF engineered this situation, and now QF is going to have to pay to get rid of the excess mainline pilot "pollution".

The sad irony is that the cost of this enforcement to QF is going to far outweigh any savings made of crew hourly rates. This is even more the case that JQ and Jetconnect duplicate crewing and flight ops management functions to perform flying previously done by mainline.
mohikan is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2009, 04:36
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Team bazza will save the day, with a diplomatically worded statement to the press, released weeks after the event and read by no-one.
Lusty Blows is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 00:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As the founding sponsor of AIPA's GOAL, must say that I strongly endorse the logic tabled by Mohikan in his post above.

The GOAL will:
  • Help maintain flying standards accross the Qantas Group,
  • Save the Company money,
  • Improve Job Security & Career Progress for all Qantas Group Pilots, and
  • Is a prerequisite to One World Globalisation.
IMHO, AIPA members should do all necessary to make sure that the GOAL does not become yet another 'Victim of Politics'.

Regards to All
WoodenEye is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 01:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope you hold the same feelings when you reach their age and hopefully still married to your first wife with your super still intact.
While it may be a delicate subject for some, many of the problems falling into those categories I've observed over the years in this airline are very unsurprising. On the career and money front, some of them have managed to have their cake and eat it too, while also being determined to go back for one last slice.

Back on topic, I'm a little surprised at the "140 redundancies on the 767" mentioned. I was telephoned the other day by Allocations to discuss a leave assignment and I got the impression that while transfers/demotions were being looked at, the 767 excess wasn't as high as that. Especially as they are mindful of creating big problems when the economy turns around again.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 03:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
POSITIONS being made redundant is what happens when a surplus crew on type exists.

B747 classic crew POSITIONS were effectively made redundant "on type". Excluding the redundant FE's, those pilots concerned were not made redundant EMPLOYEES.

The Classic pilots were not made redundant employees with the reduction of flying on the Classic (read: zero flying) so what makes you believe the case would be handled any differently now?

However, this situation has been DIRECTLY caused by aircraft and routes being gifted to entities outside of Qantas mainline, with mainline pilots not being given the opportunity to bid or negotiate for the work.
Interesting situation, with every pilot on the B767 employed by Qantas years prior to the launch of Jetstar in May 2004.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 05:46
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Improve Job Security & Career Progress for all Qantas Group Pilots....
Interesting situation, with every pilot on the B767 employed by Qantas years prior to the launch of Jetstar in May 2004.
Maybe all those JQ pilots who were recently singing the praises of AIPA might now sit down and reflect VERY carefully on how spending a night with the devil may result in a lifetime of regret.

AIPA has clealy recognised the possibility of QF management wanting to effect fleet redundancies rather utilising reverse order of seniority.

Whether QF would succeed in such a situation is unknown, but every Jetstar pilot needs to be aware of just where this may lead.
Led Zeppelin is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 06:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LED Zepp, please remind us who created this divisive strategy, the pilots or management?
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 09:44
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: QLD
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mstr Caution, redundancy occurs from the bottom up. So, it will be the most junior 380 and 744 SOs that will be made redundant first. Not the 767 pilots. They can be moved around or demoted, not made redundant.
funbags is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 09:58
  #19 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Just as promotion creates a wave of residual training, so does demotion/ redundancy. In this respect our fore fathers were very wise in their design of the award. Of course whether QF can challenge this is another thing entirely.

So consider how many residuals are created for 140 vacant promotion slots. Now work that in reverse.....and then factor in the cost to promote everyone again when things turn around in 1-2 years time. Personally I think carrying the supposed excess is a mega cheap way of doing things.

As for the over 60s, I'd always thought that QF had to offer VR before they went for bottom up redundancy but it appears that is an urban myth. Shame because an offer of VR (and say 12 months pay) would certainly create some vacancies at the top. Heck, we'd probably end up with some promotions along the way! Even if they offered 20-30 on the affected fleets I still reckon we'd get a pretty good showing....particularly given how redundancy payments are treated tax wise.
Keg is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2009, 12:09
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keg, you will find there is no mention of VR in the long-haul nor short-haul award. Only forced redundancy, short-haul has a formula, long-haul doesn't.

As a side note, VR is far cheaper than forced.

Mohikan - which manager mentioned 140 redundancies?
SkyScanner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.