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

QF piot retrenchments

Old 14th Jul 2009, 06:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,122
QF piot retrenchments

At todays AIPA meeting the company has said that 65 SOs will be retrenched unless AIPA (the pilots) can come up with concessions. One idea been that the next pay increase will be halved from 4% to 2%.
dragon man is online now  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 07:04
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
At todays AIPA meeting the company has said that 65 SOs will be retrenched unless AIPA (the pilots) can come up with concessions. One idea been that the next pay increase will be halved from 4% to 2%.
Hey that's a great idea did Barry come up with it? The new comm are tops.

Here's an idea - why not enter discussions with Qantas and see if they can up the number of redundancies to 130 so the rise can be reduced to zero.
The masked goatrider is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 07:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,125
Do QF pilots across the board have a "return" clause in the EBA. I ask because at my company we are approx 30 pilots overstacked. The only thing stopping redundancies is that any retrenched pilot must be offered their old job back for a period of 5 years before any other newbie is hired. The only reason we haven't seen retrenchments over here is because it would decimate the cadetship. Something that the giant ego's at the top have invested millions in!

What affect would retrenchments at QF have on the QF cadetship? Or don't they care?

Ooops, probably answered my own question on that one!
KRUSTY 34 is online now  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 07:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
I really hope that if these redundancies are unavoidable AIPA can drag it out long enough so that all the SO's have finished probation....otherwise they dont get the 6 months notice...

Fingers crossed....
astroboy55 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 07:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Krusty, yes that was a clause in the last EBA.
Lusty Blows is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 08:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 38
Which AIPA meeting was that? Is that one of the roadshows AIPA were speaking of? Or was it an an internal AIPA / Company meeting?
BeerMan is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 08:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 255
Why don't Qantas offer transfers to the expanding Jet-star. Aust/NZ/Singas/Nam. even on contracts similar to the visa's offered to foreigners.
Then again if 737's didn't go across the Pond, 767 frieght contracts were kept and 330's were not sent elsewhere there might be jobs for everyone currently employed and no talk redundencies, pay cuts (which are actually back pays to level with the last five years inflation) or significantly reduced hours flying, assignment of all Annual leave and Long service leave.

Rocket science
Poto is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 09:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 669
Another concession. A bit like "a seat at the negotiating table." What a way to manage the surplus.
How about give more aircraft to Jetstar and the blokes being made redundant might have a chance at an opportunity there if they choose to pay for their training.
The thin edge of the jetstar wedge is slowly being driven deeper and deeper.
On a slightly brighter note, I see it was reported elsewhere, that Jetstar has seen real improvements in the Japan loads and yields. We all look forward to their continued growth and ultimate movement of the sectors back to qantas mainline services. Who would have thought Jetstar growing such routes so that the qantas product can expand. "I cannot believe it. It's all over."
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 10:18
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Bosses will have to walk a fine line

The ban on adverse actions is a significant part of the Fair Work Act, write Alex Manos and Nick Ruskin

Many aspects of the new industrial relations law have been hotly debated over the last 18 months but some “sleeping giants” have quietly escaped comment. The prohibition on adverse actions and the enforcement of the of the discrimination laws took effect on July 1 and are sure to influence the way decision making is conducted within businesses and organisations.

For employers, an adverse action occurs if an employee is dismissed, discriminated against or suffers from an alteration of position. The action must have occurred because of an employee's right under an industrial instrument, workplace law or because of an inquiry or complaint made about their employment. For a claim to be made out, there must be a link between the adverse action and the workplace right.

Consider this example. An employee is appointed as harassment officer under an enterprise agreement. The employee is later terminated and told her role has been made redundant. The employee believes one of the reasons for her termination is the appointment as harassment officer. The employee would be able to bring a claim in the Federal Court under the new adverse action laws and seek compensation and potentially, reinstatement.

The adverse action laws are broad in many ways. They enable employees to bring claims even where the alleged action has not yet occurred and is merely organised or being threatened. If the matter proceeds to a court hearing, the onus of proof is shifted to the employer to prove the reason for the claimed action was a lawful one.

Interim injunctions may be issued preventing the employer proceeding with its actions pending a full hearing of the claim.

Consider another example. An employee makes an inquiry to his or her employer about overtime rates. Several months later, the employer begins organising a transfer of the employee to an alterate location permitted under the employee's contract. The employee believes a reason for the transfer is because of the overtime enquiry If the employee is able to satisfy a court, among other things, that he or she has a serious case to be tried and the balance of conveniences favours the the orders sought then the court may issue and interim injunction preventing the transfer until the matter can be determined at a final hearing. The adverse action in this case would be a threat or organisation of the transfer to the alternative location and the workplace rights would be the inquiry about the terms of employment as they affect overtime.

This protection represents a drastic change to the scope of workplace protection and the type and timing of applications brought. Employers will need to ensure they can justify any decision even before it has been implemented, should this be required. Breaches of these provisions may result in reinstatement, uncapped compensation and penalties of up to $33,000 a breach. Any person, regardless of remuneration level, is eligible to use the protections.

Many businesses and organisations will be unaware that actions of discrimination under the Fair Work Act 2009 may now attract a civil penalty. While the prohibitions in the act closely reflect the equal opportunity laws in each state, preventing discrimination for prohibited reasons, they will allow the Fair Work Ombudsman to initiate prosecutions against those who engage in discrimination.

This will allow the Fair Work Ombudsman to initiate civil prosecution against an employer. A Finding of discrimination may require an employer to reinstate the employee, pay uncapped compensation and pay a civil penalty of up to $33,000 a contravention. The workplace Ombudsman (the Fair Work Ombudsman's predecessor) has demonstrated its capacity to enforce workplace laws effectively.

The new general protection have been overshadowed by public focus on other aspects of the act but they have not been lost on the unions, which have indicated a readiness to use these new rights with full effectiveness. The general protection are sure to leave their mark on the industrial landscape.

Alex Manon is a senior associate and Nick Ruskin a partner at DLA Philips Fox

Source: Australian Financial Review, July 8, 2009
Go to the roadshows, talk to AIPA. If you don't like what you hear, pool your money and the buy a good workplace lawyer.
freddyKrueger is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 11:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Dragon man,

It's a long way before any retrenchment ocurrs in mainline.

One departments intent (read forward planning) takes some time to filter thru to that of another.

What some departments forward planning contingencies shall be would also result from what concessions are available from AIPA at the present time.

Best explained as "what concessions we get will, determine the way forward".

Or, if we (read they) don't get the concessions we seek, we may just have to activate the the J* / Mainline MOU.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 21:11
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,122
Mstr Caution, those numbers were from Flight Ops to AIPA. They are not a figment of my imagination. It was discussed at yesterdays com meeting and will be further discussed at the road shows.
dragon man is online now  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 21:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mexico
Posts: 78
Before either of these draconian measures are even half considered, would management care to confirm that all exectutive bonuses will be eschewed until further notice.
Qanchor is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2009, 23:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 175
This entire affair reeks of Ian Oldmeadow yet again.

There have been many downturns in QF's history, why suddenly does this one require 160 S/O's to be sacked ?

I am wondering if this is the beginning of the process to thin out the ranks to prepare for the massive surplus that will occur when the B787 arrives and is not flown by mainline pilots
mohikan is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 01:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Dragon Man,

I am not questioning your statement. I have no doubt these figures were presented by managament.

However, the J* / Mainline MOU is "dormant". The company has not yet indicated activating the transfer of mainline to J*.

I would expect an activation of the MOU to J* whilst "they" continune to recruit prior to any redundancies in Mainline. There are redundancy protection clauses inserted in the MOU.

The most recent SO's to join mainline are not covered by the MOU as they were not employed at the time the MOU was signed. However those with more seniority in mainline could utilise the MOU transfer to protect those more junior.


Already highlighted in another thread is the fact "preserved" seniority positions in Jetstar would allow mainliners to transfer to A330 Captain positions.

So my statement, reduncies are a way off yet. Is with reference to contigencies such as MOU transfer, reduction to incremental pay increases or any other contingency yet to be announced or negotiated.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 02:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 257
Unfortunately, redundancies are an unfortunate fact of life in the economic cycle. Perhaps mainline is no longer the holy grail of aviation that some thought it once was.

Why not consider applying for a job (on your own merits) and stop trying to hide the skirt of an MOU. What makes you think that just because you are a QF pilot it automatically entitles you yo a seat with a separate organisation? Get on with it and leave the sheltered workshop.

That is how 90 percent of the general population live.
illusion is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 02:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 255
Why not consider applying for a job (on your own merits) and stop trying to hide the skirt of an MOU. What makes you think that just because you are a QF pilot it automatically entitles you yo a seat with a separate organisation? Get on with it and leave the sheltered workshop.
If 330's were not being gifted, If QF routes were not being gifted. If Mainline profit did not buy any Jet Star aircraft in Oz and O/S, If QF ground staff and facilities were not being used to support this false economy of Jet star then this statemnent might stick.

separate It's all an Illusion- Illusion
Poto is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 03:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dark side of the moon
Posts: 33
With your comments being so educated and detailed Illusion, could you enlighten us to how the remaining 10% of the general population live their lives?
bobhoover is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 04:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 131
I feel sorry fo the QF guys as a matter of fact illusion...the question as to whether QF is the last bastion of good pay and conditions is superflous to the underlying issue...that being flying is being given away and transferred to other flying cost centers in the QF business to the detriment of those jobs in the core business..

How is it fair that pilots in New Zealand ( Jetconnect and Jetstar NZ) reap the rewards at the expense of Australian Qantas jobs?

As for Jetstar..well there wouldn't be a Jetstar without QF. I dont wish to turn this into a QF versus Jetstar slanging match, however I'd be pretty p!ssed off if someone came in and undercut me by 40% and then I had to put up with management rubbing my nose in it....constantly....
Sand dune Sam is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 04:56
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Illusion -

The opposite is also true. Should redundancies ocurr at any time in J*, then the MOU affords transfer to mainline to the reserved seniority positions.

Persons with a little more foresight sought these protections when the MOU was formulated years ago in profitable times to protect the interests of those in times like these.

You obviously have no idea what conditions would cause mainline management to trigger the clause in the said MOU.

As for a "separate organisation", your joking right?
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2009, 04:58
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
How is it fair that pilots in New Zealand ( Jetconnect and Jetstar NZ) reap the rewards at the expense of Australian Qantas jobs?
This should not be a slanging match between pilots - it is management that make these decisions. Pilots, like anyone in the workforce, is entitled to apply for a job on the free market just like anyone else. Jetconnect, for example, has not had any expansion for years. It operates 6 lines of flying, and will continue to operate 6 lines of flying. 300s are being replaced by 800s and eventually the 400s will also be replaced. There are good business reasons (time zone, and yes cheaper wages) for operating these services from NZ. What all pilots in the group should be pushing for is a Group Opportunity List so that pilots can bid for positions across all businesses (subject to meeting seniority, experience, competency, and right of abode requirements). That would actually improve the efficiency of the pilot work force and give more flexibility during these difficult times. Qantas continues to fragment it's business units, but eventually it will pay a heavy price for this strategy (IMHO). In fact, you could argue they are already paying a high price with the Jetstar NZ operation going way off the rails! If they had pumped the same amount of money into the QF NZ (Jetconnect) domestic operation it would have been extremely competitive if you ask me. So why can't the unions that represent the pilots of the different business units get together and push for a GOL? I guess they are all too busy defending their own turf?

Last edited by aerostatic; 15th Jul 2009 at 05:11.
aerostatic 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.