Express Freighters Australia (EFA) thread
EFAFO, I think you're missing the point
Rather than use crews who are already trained and that are currently on forced leave, Qantas freight dept. is apparently on a recruitment drive in the Middle East for 747 freighter pilots.
If in fact it is, why would any executive want to employ more pilots when they have a surplus of trained pilots that can do the work immediately?
It would appear that only an industrial agenda could explain why trained and surplus pilots are not afforded this work, even for a short period.
This says a lot about how Qantas pilots are actually valued by senior management.
Rather than use crews who are already trained and that are currently on forced leave, Qantas freight dept. is apparently on a recruitment drive in the Middle East for 747 freighter pilots.
If in fact it is, why would any executive want to employ more pilots when they have a surplus of trained pilots that can do the work immediately?
It would appear that only an industrial agenda could explain why trained and surplus pilots are not afforded this work, even for a short period.
This says a lot about how Qantas pilots are actually valued by senior management.
Bottums Up
Whilst not privy to any inside information it wouldn't be a huge leap of faith to presume there's a considerable disconnect between the pay scales of QF Mainline 744 crew and what EFA pay scales are.
So the real question is not why doesn't QF use their own already employed pilots, but, would their already employed pilots be prepared to do the job for what EFA is prepared to pay?
So the real question is not why doesn't QF use their own already employed pilots, but, would their already employed pilots be prepared to do the job for what EFA is prepared to pay?
Last edited by Capt Claret; 15th May 2013 at 21:26.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or maybe the real question should be "why on earth would QF subject themselves to the extremely high cost of mainline labor costs when they can obtain crew at a considerable savings....."
There are VERY FEW if any cargo planes out there being flown by crew on legacy wages.
QF must compete!
There are VERY FEW if any cargo planes out there being flown by crew on legacy wages.
QF must compete!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet connect, EFA, and to a lesser extent EAA/SSA, Cobham, Altas and Alliance all operating under a QF call sign. Outsourcing is certainly nothing new for qantas and clearly very cost effective. It's just such a shame they spend so much time trying to dismantle their workforce - which one could argue paradoxically diminishes the brand, rather than focusing on ideas that actually enhance it
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you guys harping on about pay rates are missing the point that Qantas is paying their mainline 744 crews anyway!
At min hours at the moment they could probably fly the freighter for free.
At min hours at the moment they could probably fly the freighter for free.
All you guys harping on about pay rates are missing the point that Qantas is paying their mainline 744 crews anyway!
At min hours at the moment they could probably fly the freighter for free.
At min hours at the moment they could probably fly the freighter for free.
Couldn't agree more. The geniuses here, including The Professor, fail to see that with so much enforced leave at the moment and the crews who are flying are on the minimum divisor, I'm sure that a Letter of Agreement could be thrashed out between AIPA and the Company to crew these aircraft very quickly at minimum cost.
It might even result in some reduction in the assignment of leave, some extra flying for those who aren't doing much now and some increased Engagement levels.
But what am I thinking?? This is Qantas - who hold their pilots in such high regard!
Whilst I disagree with recruiting pilots to fly these aircraft, whilst there are underutilised type rated pilots within the group, the idea that it could be "flown for free" is not entirely correct.
Once QF have no more leave left to assign in those ranks, and are paying pilots min guarantee to fly a divisor less than min guarantee, only then will it be "for free". QF are currently reducing a future cost from the liability side of the balance sheet by forcing pilots onto leave. It's the same reason that they have not, and in the forseeable future, will not be offering redundancies.
Once QF have no more leave left to assign in those ranks, and are paying pilots min guarantee to fly a divisor less than min guarantee, only then will it be "for free". QF are currently reducing a future cost from the liability side of the balance sheet by forcing pilots onto leave. It's the same reason that they have not, and in the forseeable future, will not be offering redundancies.
Once QF have no more leave left to assign in those ranks
Last edited by hotnhigh; 16th May 2013 at 03:26.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem of rates of pay for the B747 freighter is a complex one.
Just because the Qantas crews are paid a different scale is not necessarily relevant.The final cost of crews is a result of many things including actual rate of pay,efficient utilisation of crew and aircraft,accomodation costs, allowances and duty travel (pay and costs).
At this stage there appears to be only one B747 being discussed here. If it is an "orphan" project then there will be a lot of long slip times in international ports with the resulting hotels,meals and allowances or there will be a lot of downtime on the aircraft. Neither option is very efficient unless costs are very low for either option or both options. So if it is possible to integrate the freighter crews into the QF B747 pax ops, then the end cost may be actually less, even if the crews may be full QF award pay and conditions.
Similarly using the QF hotels etc may be cheaper because of the bulk purchasing that results even thoughthe standard of hotels is higher than the normal for freighter crews.
However if there is a plan for more aircraft and from the work I did on this in the late 90s, that would be at least 3 for efficient ops, then this matrix changes substantially towards favouring a self sufficient lower cost operation.
The other unknown is what happens to the US CRAF wet lease outfits when the Afghanistan withdrawal is completed. Will they go back to their old ways with cheap charters or will they go away quietly. Again a lot of that is unknown as their low rates in the past have depended on endorsed crews being out of work/furloughed from the majors and continued behind the scenes support from a now financially challenged US Government.
And finally, not all freighter crews are on low pay. Fedex, UPS etc seem to do pretty well when stacked up against US pax ops. They pay high wages but manage the entire operation very efficiently so the end result is financially acceptable to all parties.
Wunwing
Just because the Qantas crews are paid a different scale is not necessarily relevant.The final cost of crews is a result of many things including actual rate of pay,efficient utilisation of crew and aircraft,accomodation costs, allowances and duty travel (pay and costs).
At this stage there appears to be only one B747 being discussed here. If it is an "orphan" project then there will be a lot of long slip times in international ports with the resulting hotels,meals and allowances or there will be a lot of downtime on the aircraft. Neither option is very efficient unless costs are very low for either option or both options. So if it is possible to integrate the freighter crews into the QF B747 pax ops, then the end cost may be actually less, even if the crews may be full QF award pay and conditions.
Similarly using the QF hotels etc may be cheaper because of the bulk purchasing that results even thoughthe standard of hotels is higher than the normal for freighter crews.
However if there is a plan for more aircraft and from the work I did on this in the late 90s, that would be at least 3 for efficient ops, then this matrix changes substantially towards favouring a self sufficient lower cost operation.
The other unknown is what happens to the US CRAF wet lease outfits when the Afghanistan withdrawal is completed. Will they go back to their old ways with cheap charters or will they go away quietly. Again a lot of that is unknown as their low rates in the past have depended on endorsed crews being out of work/furloughed from the majors and continued behind the scenes support from a now financially challenged US Government.
And finally, not all freighter crews are on low pay. Fedex, UPS etc seem to do pretty well when stacked up against US pax ops. They pay high wages but manage the entire operation very efficiently so the end result is financially acceptable to all parties.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 16th May 2013 at 10:30.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fedex, UPS etc seem to do pretty well when stacked up against US pax ops"
They do, but they are in a very different business than QF Cargo will be. Small package freight is a network competing with traditional postal services. QF cargo 744's will be competing with Kalitta, Evergreen, Southern Air etc.
These companies have radically different cost structures than legacy pax carriers such as QF.
They do, but they are in a very different business than QF Cargo will be. Small package freight is a network competing with traditional postal services. QF cargo 744's will be competing with Kalitta, Evergreen, Southern Air etc.
These companies have radically different cost structures than legacy pax carriers such as QF.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industrial Agenda ?
I agree with Tankengine, this (these) freighter(s) could be crewed for free.......free at least in comparison to EFA employing their own 747 crews.......how ? unless I'm missing the obvious there is a very large number of mainline 747 crews who are surplus to requirements....and this number is only going to grow. Currently they are being paid divisor pay at 160 credit hours for NOT flying. There are enough of them to crew 5 or more freighters. If they were to crew this gig , EFA would not need to employ a single 747 pilot....so in that respect EFA would get their crews for free.
From a 'group' perspective employing any additional 747
pilots seems .........strange, how does the 'group' benefit ?
From a 'group' perspective employing any additional 747
pilots seems .........strange, how does the 'group' benefit ?
Last edited by Jackneville; 16th May 2013 at 22:41.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only explanation for the whole project is long term.So if the B747F ops is to survive it will have to be at least 3 aircraft.The problem in using underutilised QF crews for the current 1 off is precedent. When/if the business becomes sustainable industrially, the work will be seen by Fairwork as QF mainline. Something that is possibly not in the QF overall plan.
As I said earlier, the whole project hinges on how the US wet lease outfits and the US Govt react when Afghanistan is finished.For those who doubt this google the names of some of the well known secondary carriers who worked into and out of Australia up to recently.Some have very interesting histories.
There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of these outfits prevented QF from operating its own freighters since the 80s and they may do so again and negate any advantage that QF may get by operating their own aircraft.
If any of you are AIPA members, ask to look at the airfreight files from the mid 90s.If they still exist they should be very educational.
Wunwing
As I said earlier, the whole project hinges on how the US wet lease outfits and the US Govt react when Afghanistan is finished.For those who doubt this google the names of some of the well known secondary carriers who worked into and out of Australia up to recently.Some have very interesting histories.
There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of these outfits prevented QF from operating its own freighters since the 80s and they may do so again and negate any advantage that QF may get by operating their own aircraft.
If any of you are AIPA members, ask to look at the airfreight files from the mid 90s.If they still exist they should be very educational.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 18th May 2013 at 08:27.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFA has some 8 Captains with long-haul / 747 experience, that's just about enough to crew one aircraft.
How should existing EFA Captains be looked after if surplus QF 747 crews are to be utilised?
How should existing EFA Captains be looked after if surplus QF 747 crews are to be utilised?
Nunc est bibendum
How should existing EFA Captains be looked after if surplus QF 747 crews are to be utilised?
The reality is that EFA employing crew coststhe group in the short to medium term because they're employing more pilots (and therefore more $$$ onto the bottom line) when they don't need to. From the group perspective, it would be cheaper for QF to take the money off EFA that they were going to pay their 744 drivers and simply 'top up' the difference to the QF rates. That's a much cheaper option than paying QF pilots to not fly (or fly less than optimal hours) whilst employing more people from outside the group.
Sure they'll be able to assign less leave in the short term but imagine what it could do for engagement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnQrKa.
How about quoting the rest of the para as well?The whole para says that to survive long term they will need at least 3 aircraft. Therefore there is some sense in not exposing the operation to a claim of "ownership " from the QF long haul pilots. I'm not saying that I agree with the concept but I can see where they may be coming from.
I doubt if anyone even in QF fully knows how this will play out unless they have a pretty good informer in the inner ranks of the US Government.
Wunwing
How about quoting the rest of the para as well?The whole para says that to survive long term they will need at least 3 aircraft. Therefore there is some sense in not exposing the operation to a claim of "ownership " from the QF long haul pilots. I'm not saying that I agree with the concept but I can see where they may be coming from.
I doubt if anyone even in QF fully knows how this will play out unless they have a pretty good informer in the inner ranks of the US Government.
Wunwing
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I know this is a very old thread, but could anyone provide a recent example of a roster and realistic idea of progression prospects at EFA? They are currently hiring and I have found minimal information elsewhere.
Blanikman
I know this is a very old thread, but could anyone provide a recent example of a roster and realistic idea of progression prospects at EFA? They are currently hiring and I have found minimal information elsewhere.
Blanikman
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts