Qantas Pilots, You Are Losing The Battle.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wages & Conditions - Never Go Backwards
I suspect the flying public have varying views on airline pilot salaries, mostly it depends upon were you interview them at sealevel on the couch or in seat 23a at FL350.
So let me be very clear.
As a society we pay specialist doctors & surgeons at the peak of their profession $500k+ a year, and no one would deny those professionals that level of income as we the public put our lives in the hands of those highly skilled professionals.
An ATPL qualified pilot flying 744 or A380 on international routes has the lives of hundreds in his/her hands with every decision they make, often under great pressure.
This does not mean that a first officer flying YSSY to YMML sector gets $500k a year, nothing like it.
If Qantas wants to save money, then it should look at the perks and income of the senior non-pilot executives.
"Passengers that fly with an airline in the Qantas Group of airlines can be assured that the pilots and flight crews have the skills, training and commitment to make their journey safely and smoothly.
These pilots are selected by the respective airline in the Qantas Group for their experience, talent and ability to handle any situation. They are rewarded for their performance, skills and dedication
through active career progression backed by excellent training, facilities and ongoing support from their respective airline
."
So let me be very clear.
As a society we pay specialist doctors & surgeons at the peak of their profession $500k+ a year, and no one would deny those professionals that level of income as we the public put our lives in the hands of those highly skilled professionals.
An ATPL qualified pilot flying 744 or A380 on international routes has the lives of hundreds in his/her hands with every decision they make, often under great pressure.
This does not mean that a first officer flying YSSY to YMML sector gets $500k a year, nothing like it.
If Qantas wants to save money, then it should look at the perks and income of the senior non-pilot executives.
"Passengers that fly with an airline in the Qantas Group of airlines can be assured that the pilots and flight crews have the skills, training and commitment to make their journey safely and smoothly.
These pilots are selected by the respective airline in the Qantas Group for their experience, talent and ability to handle any situation. They are rewarded for their performance, skills and dedication
through active career progression backed by excellent training, facilities and ongoing support from their respective airline."
Whispering "T" Jet
An ATPL qualified pilot flying 744 or A380 on international routes has the lives of hundreds in his/her hands with every decision they make, often under great pressure.
Secondly, you will not secure public support or justify pilot wage increases by comparing them with Doctors and Surgeons or executive management perks etc,.
Keep the apples and oranges in their respective baskets.
Thanks Keg, I've decided to remove my post. Not because we now earn about the same but because I'll get flack from others at CX for releasing my pay level!!
I still haven't heard about this fixed exchange rate thing though?
but because I'll get flack from others at CX for releasing my pay level!! I still haven't heard about this fixed exchange rate thing though?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to share a space occasionally during the week with the AIPA types.
Suffice to say......if this is the lot leading you blokes into negotiations.....get the TWU in now.
You drivers don't need another 89 situation and yet thats the way it seems to be going.
For once I agree with Sunfish.
Suffice to say......if this is the lot leading you blokes into negotiations.....get the TWU in now.
You drivers don't need another 89 situation and yet thats the way it seems to be going.
For once I agree with Sunfish.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX HKG LHR. Same day. 744 vs 773. Same route (B330) and time ( I asked the planners for a comparison). Almost identical pax loads. In other words apples v apples
A CX 744 carries 80 more pax than a CX 773ER.
So if you want to carry the same number of pax you'll have to put a 5th daily service on. The 777 is obviously the better machine but when they need bums on seats CX has no choice but the 744.
So it's more like 'apple -80 vs apple'.
What are the figures for the A340 v the 773ER?
Last edited by SMOC; 23rd May 2011 at 10:37.
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
SMOC - The object of the exercise was to ascertain the A380 vs 744 vs 777 fuel CASK's. My contention was the the QF A380, in its current pax configuration is no more efficient than the 744, and probably significantly worse than the 777 on a fuel burn per seat basis. We need actual data to prove or disprove that theory.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burrito, Sky's comparison is not apples because the 744 is designed to carry more than the 773. The comparison is like comparing a minibus to a sedan both carrying 4 Pax. Sure the minibus will burn more fuel, but things will even out per pax if you fill the available seats.
Now possibly the full 744 will still burn more fuel per ASK than the full 773, because it's an older design. But that's not everything, does the 744 have more premium seats? Do they have premium passengers in them? It's about profit not fuel per ASK. What about freight? What about landing slots? You'd need to run more hulls using 773s. More parking bays, more staff, more airways charges. What about purchase/lease/ownership costs?
The same argument applies to the A380. QF A380s have low seat count because they are a 4-class configuration with a large number of premium seats. ASKs are not applicable here either. Now, if the premium passengers ain't buying tickets then we have a problem. And that has been a big problem with the QF A380s during the GFC. But I think a fully booked (with premium pax) A380 would generate profits a 777 could only dream of.
Not saying QF shouldn't have 777s, they unquestionably should. The fact they don't is a serious management screwup.
Now possibly the full 744 will still burn more fuel per ASK than the full 773, because it's an older design. But that's not everything, does the 744 have more premium seats? Do they have premium passengers in them? It's about profit not fuel per ASK. What about freight? What about landing slots? You'd need to run more hulls using 773s. More parking bays, more staff, more airways charges. What about purchase/lease/ownership costs?
The same argument applies to the A380. QF A380s have low seat count because they are a 4-class configuration with a large number of premium seats. ASKs are not applicable here either. Now, if the premium passengers ain't buying tickets then we have a problem. And that has been a big problem with the QF A380s during the GFC. But I think a fully booked (with premium pax) A380 would generate profits a 777 could only dream of.
Not saying QF shouldn't have 777s, they unquestionably should. The fact they don't is a serious management screwup.
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
HF3000 & SMOC, all the points you make are vaild, I was perhaps a little rushed in making the apple-for-apples comparison based solely on SkyScanners data, here's what I originally posted in post #79:
My point still remains, that management thought they were buying something with a much lower fuel burn per seat & the original purchasing decision was deeply flawed. If my contention is correct, it is an example of the Sunfish theory of a deep lack of understanding of the business & it risks.
If you have any data, please post or PM me.
He had been asked directly by senior management why the A380 was not using 30% less fuel per seat compared to the -400. He went on to explain that the A380 was indeed performing close to spec WRT fuel burn. But management kept saying that it wasn't the 30% reduction that Airbus had sold it to be. He then asked about the QF seating config vs the Airbus configuration for the fuel burn figures (QF's 450 vs 650 airbus).
If you have any data, please post or PM me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should have asked Airbus for performance guarantees, then. Most savvy aircraft purchasers do (especially for new aircraft). And of course with financial penalties if the guarantee is breached.
Nunc est bibendum
I agree that there will be a lot of false things said. I will not sink to Qantas level and respond in kind. Those pilots who engage in this process in an appropriate fashion will have my unwavering support.
I will not support a pilot- or my association- who turns to unethical behaviour or plays the man instead of the ball such as you've done on this thread. I will not compromise my values or my faith by supporting anyone who takes that road.
I will not support a pilot- or my association- who turns to unethical behaviour or plays the man instead of the ball such as you've done on this thread. I will not compromise my values or my faith by supporting anyone who takes that road.
Moderator
Wot Keg said!
Any more posts like the deleted post and the user will be banned and thread locked.
The thread title is: Qantas Pilots, You Are Losing The Battle.
Stray from that topic at your peril!
Any more posts like the deleted post and the user will be banned and thread locked.
The thread title is: Qantas Pilots, You Are Losing The Battle.
Stray from that topic at your peril!
Nunc est bibendum
Actually you mentioned God mohikan. I mentioned values and faith. Nice to know my comments pique your interest though. Given how it went last time you took a swipe at me do you really want to go there again? 
There is only ONE message AIPA need to take to the public, over and over again!
"Alan Joyce is destroying an Australian Icon"
There are enough "facts" to support the argument, Jetconnect, offshore maintenance, "Qantas Malaysia" or whatever, there are a myriad or supporting statements. Every statement MUST headline that Joyce (a foreigner) is destroying an Australian Icon. It's the way of political spin.
Focus on this one individual, the CEO, and it will become a house of cards. No body knows Clifford or anyone else, focus, focus, focus!!!!!! Trash Joyce in the public arena time and time again.
"Alan Joyce is destroying an Australian Icon"
There are enough "facts" to support the argument, Jetconnect, offshore maintenance, "Qantas Malaysia" or whatever, there are a myriad or supporting statements. Every statement MUST headline that Joyce (a foreigner) is destroying an Australian Icon. It's the way of political spin.
Focus on this one individual, the CEO, and it will become a house of cards. No body knows Clifford or anyone else, focus, focus, focus!!!!!! Trash Joyce in the public arena time and time again.