Jetstar to start recruiting
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
The Animal Farm reference highlights that you are treated differently if you come from QF. I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out for you. If you are a GA or Regional pilot joining Jetstar you will be forced onto flexiline. If you come from Qantas you wont. There are about 30 QF LWOP pilots on the bottom of the JQ list and they are all full time. IF they were flexiline like all other new joiners then about 20 senior JQ flexiline guys would be full time.
The contradiction from some of you guys is astounding. Your all crapping on how the JQ contract is a B scale and the flexiline is a C scale. Then to preserve your own T’s and C’s you tell anyone who will listen that they shouldn’t accept it. No, you turboprop pilots should hold out for a better deal, don’t undercut us, if you hold out it will get better etc etc. All the while there is an avalanche of Qantas guys signing or attempting to sign up to those ****ty JQ B scale conditions. Keep telling the proletariat to reject advancement while you take those jobs. You’ll make a great leader.
Read the flexi line agreement and ask yourself 2 questions.
1. If the agreement doesn’t have a cap on flexiline does it comply with the EBA?
2. Would the flexi-line agreement be enforceable if it complied with the EBA and the parties didn’t agree to it?
You are kidding if you think without negotiation the base pay wouldn’t have changed.
The contradiction from some of you guys is astounding. Your all crapping on how the JQ contract is a B scale and the flexiline is a C scale. Then to preserve your own T’s and C’s you tell anyone who will listen that they shouldn’t accept it. No, you turboprop pilots should hold out for a better deal, don’t undercut us, if you hold out it will get better etc etc. All the while there is an avalanche of Qantas guys signing or attempting to sign up to those ****ty JQ B scale conditions. Keep telling the proletariat to reject advancement while you take those jobs. You’ll make a great leader.
Keith
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
I think you are wrong.
The part time policy in the EBA simply states a defn of a part time pilot (employed ongoing but for less rostered duty time than a full time pilot).
No mention of pro-rata pay therefore if not negotiated it would have to be the base pay.
only pro- rata is for leave and redundancy
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
Read the flexi line agreement and ask yourself 2 questions.
1. If the agreement doesn’t have a cap on flexiline does it comply with the EBA?
2. Would the flexi-line agreement be enforceable if it complied with the EBA and the parties didn’t agree to it?
You are kidding if you think without negotiation the base pay wouldn’t have changed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Animal Farm reference highlights that you are treated differently if you come from QF. I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out for you.
The contradiction from some of you guys is astounding. Your all crapping on how the JQ contract is a B scale and the flexiline is a C scale. Then to preserve your own T’s and C’s you tell anyone who will listen that they shouldn’t accept it. No, you turboprop pilots should hold out for a better deal, don’t undercut us, if you hold out it will get better etc etc. All the while there is an avalanche of Qantas guys signing or attempting to sign up to those ****ty JQ B scale conditions. Keep telling the proletariat to reject advancement while you take those jobs. You’ll make a great leader.
Lets just get a few facts straight here - the QF guys aren't "creating an avalanche" in going to Jetstar because they like the T & C's, the flying or the people over there. They are going there because their career in mainline is going down the sh1tter. They have NO choice! They are ten year F/O's with no comand in sight - EVER! And we all know why that is.
Secondly, the "proletariat" (my thats a big word for you - read Orwell recently then, or did you just google him?) aren't being told anything of the sort that you imply. In fact, how dare you suggest that! That is just the sort of ignorance your ilk (read Jetstar) is capable of and has contributed significantly to management's evil plans!
Thirdly, your remarks seem to justify "undercutting". Are you seriously suggesting that a race to the bottom is acceptable?
You are a fool Keith, and you reap what you sow.
Last edited by balance; 8th Jul 2012 at 08:50.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the while there is an avalanche of Qantas guys signing or attempting to sign up to those ****ty JQ B scale conditions.
Your PC signed the MOU, perhaps before you joined the company so you have no right to complain.
The guys jumping to onestar, in my opinion, are the ones that are jumping at shadows thinking the QF international and domestic sky is going to fall in and they will lose their jobs.
One thing to remember about the share price being where it is, around $1.00 mark,,,,,,,, onestar is also a part of the QF group, so if the price of QF is sickly, that reflects on all parts of the "group"
toolish:
I would take that I will work 30, 50 60 hrs and get the base salary that is based on 75hrs.
which is pretty much an insult to most Qantas mainline pilots
They are going there because their career in mainline is going down the sh1tter. They have NO choice!
VERY INTERESTING....... Now when I joined JQ I had 2 applications in the system, QF and JQ.
QF said DCM, DJ weren't hiring and JQ were. So I took a job at JQ because if I wanted any career progression...... I had NO choice! Funny that..... Many of my colleagues (Not all) had waited in line for a gig at QF or DJ and the opportunity never came up. And when nothing else came up, what were we meant to do? Never apply to a QF subsidiary whilst the guys on great conditions sit back relax and just pick sh!t on all of us whilst doing little about it themselves? C'mon and get real!
If I could have joined the que at qf I, like many others would have, but it wasn't to be, so I (again, like many) picked up the pieces and moved on. To have a impass grudge because I took a job which has somehow years later indirectly affected you, shows just how bad the lack of solidarity really is.
The flexiline deal is actually quite good in my opinion, you need to have a read of it. Ask the line guys after you've read it, don't speculate.
Funnily enough most of the positions are filled for guys already within the company anyway. So that tells you how sh!t it ISN'T.
I think every pilot involved agreed it was unreasonable to force this on new recruits. I STRONGLY lobbied the JPC to undo this and several of the guys told me it was one of the only things the company refused to budge on. They agreed it was not desirable but there hands were tied on this 1 point. Considering what the initial flexiline 'deal' the company was offering, the final document is very good and I take my hat off the the JPC guys whom negotiated what we ended up with.
Have a beer for me bloke, there's too much energy being wasted on the small stuff.....
GIT out.
Last edited by Gear in transit; 9th Jul 2012 at 09:05.
Nunc est bibendum
Change of thread direction
Don't you find that interesting though? For an organisation that purports to uphold all of QF's safety standards they are quite happy to take the fish that John West rejects. Why is that? It's something I've never been able to fathom.
I understand the concept full well that just because you get knocked back from one organisation that it doesn't mean you're a loser. I'm sure we all know multitudes of examples of those who have missed out on one airline only to turn out to be great airlines at operator B. Conversely, I'm sure we all look at some people in our respective companies and scratch our heads as to how they ever got through the hoops. However, when J* markets itself as upholding all of QF's safety values, history, culture, etc, it's interesting that they're prepared to take on people that QF has deemed not suitable. What is it in J*'s recruitment process that makes a person suitable when they were previously unusable for Qantas? Are they looking at different criteria? Are they looking at the same results but in a different manner? Do they actually just have a lower benchmark? Are they looking for someone who is perhaps that tad more compliant and this will translate into an easier industrial environment?
I'm well aware of changing standards in J* recruiting from time to time- particularly a point a few years back where the psych screening benchmark was changed due to a lack of people meeting the required grade. I think that's a very different thing to what we're discussing now though.
So as to the pay issue and QF drivers. Many QF crew did in fact speak out about the poor terms and conditions at J* that existed when they first started up. Those terms and conditions have improved significantly since those times. Certainly the terms and conditions between QF and J* have narrowed considerably- certainly for those QF crew who are looking at demotion or multiple more years in their current rank. Perhaps that's also due to QF drivers' terms and conditions not having improved as we would have expected in normal times- 2+ years since a pay rise. Perhaps QF drivers are just starting to act like the mercenaries that QF has treated them like for the past 3-5 years.
Anyway, that's it from me for today.
I understand the concept full well that just because you get knocked back from one organisation that it doesn't mean you're a loser. I'm sure we all know multitudes of examples of those who have missed out on one airline only to turn out to be great airlines at operator B. Conversely, I'm sure we all look at some people in our respective companies and scratch our heads as to how they ever got through the hoops. However, when J* markets itself as upholding all of QF's safety values, history, culture, etc, it's interesting that they're prepared to take on people that QF has deemed not suitable. What is it in J*'s recruitment process that makes a person suitable when they were previously unusable for Qantas? Are they looking at different criteria? Are they looking at the same results but in a different manner? Do they actually just have a lower benchmark? Are they looking for someone who is perhaps that tad more compliant and this will translate into an easier industrial environment?
I'm well aware of changing standards in J* recruiting from time to time- particularly a point a few years back where the psych screening benchmark was changed due to a lack of people meeting the required grade. I think that's a very different thing to what we're discussing now though.
So as to the pay issue and QF drivers. Many QF crew did in fact speak out about the poor terms and conditions at J* that existed when they first started up. Those terms and conditions have improved significantly since those times. Certainly the terms and conditions between QF and J* have narrowed considerably- certainly for those QF crew who are looking at demotion or multiple more years in their current rank. Perhaps that's also due to QF drivers' terms and conditions not having improved as we would have expected in normal times- 2+ years since a pay rise. Perhaps QF drivers are just starting to act like the mercenaries that QF has treated them like for the past 3-5 years.
Anyway, that's it from me for today.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, maybe because Jetstar has realised that there is a lot more to a good operator than simply fitting a psych profile. Numerous Qantas guys however seem to believe that just because they have fitted this psych profile they are smarter and better operators than everyone else. I can assure you that this is certainly not the case from what I am hearing at JQ!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...particularly a point a few years back where the psych screening benchmark was changed due to a lack of people meeting the required grade."
There is no grade for a psych test, perhaps this is where QF are going wrong during the selection process. They dont know what the data is telling them.
Keg, have you considered that QF may not be looking for the best pilot so much as the best fit for long haul legacy culture? Not everyone can spend a decade sitting behind some crusty old ****** calling him sir!
There is no grade for a psych test, perhaps this is where QF are going wrong during the selection process. They dont know what the data is telling them.
Keg, have you considered that QF may not be looking for the best pilot so much as the best fit for long haul legacy culture? Not everyone can spend a decade sitting behind some crusty old ****** calling him sir!
Nunc est bibendum
Well apart from the fact that I've never called another Qantas pilot 'Sir', perhaps you make a good point AnQrKa. Perhaps there is a slight difference in what QF are looking for and the ability to be a S/O for a while does take a slightly different mind set. I wonder what that is that makes a person who is going to be a good S/O also a good Captain? More effective followership skills perhaps? I wonder what those skills entail?
As to the 'grading' of psych skills, do you dispute that Qantas and J* use a particular benchmark from which they draw a pool of people they will interview? I can assure you that Qantas won't look at applicants if they fall below that benchmark on the psych. Do you dispute that J* modified that benchmark a few years back due to lack of people making the grade?
Normasars, I never said QF drivers were 'smarter and better' so you can take that straw man and burn it to your heart's content. My point (and I'll make it again) is that there is an inconsistency between what J* state they do and their actions.
As to the 'grading' of psych skills, do you dispute that Qantas and J* use a particular benchmark from which they draw a pool of people they will interview? I can assure you that Qantas won't look at applicants if they fall below that benchmark on the psych. Do you dispute that J* modified that benchmark a few years back due to lack of people making the grade?
Normasars, I never said QF drivers were 'smarter and better' so you can take that straw man and burn it to your heart's content. My point (and I'll make it again) is that there is an inconsistency between what J* state they do and their actions.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KEG asked
“do you dispute that Qantas and J* use a particular benchmark”
Nope, not at all. I know for a fact that they do, or at least, they think they do. It’s a very common mistake made during assessment to “grade” an applicants “psych profile”. A person’s behavior cannot be quantified or “benchmarked”.
QF is old school so don’t expect cutting edge assessment to take place, skipper!
“do you dispute that Qantas and J* use a particular benchmark”
Nope, not at all. I know for a fact that they do, or at least, they think they do. It’s a very common mistake made during assessment to “grade” an applicants “psych profile”. A person’s behavior cannot be quantified or “benchmarked”.
QF is old school so don’t expect cutting edge assessment to take place, skipper!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg said,
Normasars, I never said QF drivers were 'smarter and better' so you can take that straw man and burn it to your heart's content. My point (and I'll make it again) is that there is an inconsistency between what J* state they do and their actions
Keg, can you please explain to me where I made that assumption or said those words. I was aiming that at QF Group pilots, not one particular segment. You may be confusing me with someone else.
Normasars, I never said QF drivers were 'smarter and better' so you can take that straw man and burn it to your heart's content. My point (and I'll make it again) is that there is an inconsistency between what J* state they do and their actions
Keg, can you please explain to me where I made that assumption or said those words. I was aiming that at QF Group pilots, not one particular segment. You may be confusing me with someone else.
Last edited by Normasars; 10th Jul 2012 at 03:42.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cuckooooooo Land
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
From a mate that was involved in recruitment, the reason they changed the assessment criteria was to keep the bad apples out. To test it, they fed the data from the pilots they were unhappy with into the new system and they all got rejected.
Not sure if they "lowered" anything......
From a mate that was involved in recruitment, the reason they changed the assessment criteria was to keep the bad apples out. To test it, they fed the data from the pilots they were unhappy with into the new system and they all got rejected.
Not sure if they "lowered" anything......
