QF Pilots PIA
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....Qantas claims that the union job security demand would mean Jetstar pilots would end up being paid Qantas rates...
Jetstar pilots get Jetstar pay. Qantas pilots get Qantas pay. Plummet Airways Asia (or whatever the wholly owned Qantas Group subsidiary will be called) pilots will get Plummet Airways Asia pay (5 pesos/stick hour, 50 pesos in the slot to use the inflight loo). That has always been the case with the longhaul pilot claims. What longhaul pilots want is the equivalent of food labelling laws. You can't legally claim a burger pattie is 100% Aussie beef, sell it as such, and then put 100% processed Kazakhstan mutton offcuts in it. The same should apply to flying planes.
I think a lot of the media are gradually wising up to the Qantas corporate spin, but of course it's pretty competitive getting airtime and column space with everything else going on these days.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
job security clause
All they have to do is remove all the QF flight numbers (codeshare) from all Jetstar, EFA, Jetconnect and Qantaslink 717 flights and they won't have to pay those pilots QF rates - easy!
Nunc est bibendum
As at Wednesday this week, Jetconnect flights were still doing the John Travolta video. Anyone confirm whether they're still doing it? Now THAT would be ironic if they still are.
Interesting that qf cadet advertising material from not 5 years ago says that qantas captains expect to earn 200k+ to now average 350 - 400k is exceptional, i dont see why with those huge payrises you want to strike! 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any of you saw the show on CH9 this afternoon called "Stranded-All flights cancelled" you will see what lengths QF management will go to. It was basically their propaganda machine at full thrust using the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland as an excuse to pedal their message. The only thing missing was JT spruiking his safety message. Just be aware that this is what you're up against. To anyone in the know it was comical at best.
Clotted, I'm happy to answer what I can.
"Are you Jetsbest suggesting that your employer should put on extra services so that you don't have to layover so long (NO) or are you suggesting that your airline shouldn't go to that destination because you have to layover so long (NO) or are you saying that they should bring you home and fly someone else in to replace you?" (NO)
What I am saying though is that:
- Qantas and AIPA both signed the document that introduced MDC because it was a compromise they evidently found workable,
- Qantas may, and indeed should, roster the workforce in the most efficient way it sees fit,
- Qantas can use its fleet in any way is sees fit, but
- now that Qantas seems to be shrinking/gifting its network they're blaming the agreement for being inefficient,
- were it not for the type of route structure and airframe utilisation described in my previous post QF pilots could be a whole lot more efficient, and
- every QF pilot I know would like to be efficient!
- If QF had the flight frequencies & route structure of CX, SQ or EK its pilots could be similarly efficient,
"..., does Singapore Airlines, Cathay, Emirates, Etihad have MDC and if not, do the pilots get any pay recognition for the long layover as detailed in Jetsbest post?"
I don't know, but efficient rostering under an MDC-type clause is achievable and could largely make the clause moot because, every time a pilot went to work, the company should utilise him/her for more than 5:30 stick hours/day on average.
The Jeppesen "Carmen" rostering at QF has done a lot to improve "density" compared to 'mandraulic' roster crunching, and thus contributed somewhat to surpluses. Qantas has also historically had periods when pilots couldn't be spared for annual leave, and those accumulated 'banks' of leave are now being 'assigned' to pilots whether they want a break or not! Now, no-one is arguing that assigning leave is not a valid strategy in a crisis (SARS, 9/11 etc) but the low flying rates and the skewed pilots-to-hours-flown ratios are being used now to "demonstrate" QF pilot inefficiency.
Into the mix one must add peripheral factors like:
- pilots extending flying beyond 65,
- new aircraft delays,
- natural disasters,
- QF's apparent disinterest in facilitating pilot transfers within 'the Group' where shortages really do exist.
And what of the memos hinting at dire outcomes which encouraged many pilots to accept reduced flying and reduced pay to 'help out' and/or avoid redundancy? Qantas used that goodwill to assert that 'no QF pilot has been made redundant for forty years'.
Interestingly, 5:30 at a pilot's rank-rate also covers a 12 hour standby, a 7+hour day of emergency procedure training or a 5:30 simulator; do those duty periods sound fair & reasonable to you for 5:30 pay?
So, back to my final point again: it rankles that QF, in effect, has played the major role in creating/exacerbating the inefficiencies since the GFC and now seems intent on using them as a weapon against its own.
What I am saying though is that:
- Qantas and AIPA both signed the document that introduced MDC because it was a compromise they evidently found workable,
- Qantas may, and indeed should, roster the workforce in the most efficient way it sees fit,
- Qantas can use its fleet in any way is sees fit, but
- now that Qantas seems to be shrinking/gifting its network they're blaming the agreement for being inefficient,
- were it not for the type of route structure and airframe utilisation described in my previous post QF pilots could be a whole lot more efficient, and
- every QF pilot I know would like to be efficient!
- If QF had the flight frequencies & route structure of CX, SQ or EK its pilots could be similarly efficient,
"..., does Singapore Airlines, Cathay, Emirates, Etihad have MDC and if not, do the pilots get any pay recognition for the long layover as detailed in Jetsbest post?"
I don't know, but efficient rostering under an MDC-type clause is achievable and could largely make the clause moot because, every time a pilot went to work, the company should utilise him/her for more than 5:30 stick hours/day on average.
The Jeppesen "Carmen" rostering at QF has done a lot to improve "density" compared to 'mandraulic' roster crunching, and thus contributed somewhat to surpluses. Qantas has also historically had periods when pilots couldn't be spared for annual leave, and those accumulated 'banks' of leave are now being 'assigned' to pilots whether they want a break or not! Now, no-one is arguing that assigning leave is not a valid strategy in a crisis (SARS, 9/11 etc) but the low flying rates and the skewed pilots-to-hours-flown ratios are being used now to "demonstrate" QF pilot inefficiency.
Into the mix one must add peripheral factors like:
- pilots extending flying beyond 65,
- new aircraft delays,
- natural disasters,
- QF's apparent disinterest in facilitating pilot transfers within 'the Group' where shortages really do exist.
And what of the memos hinting at dire outcomes which encouraged many pilots to accept reduced flying and reduced pay to 'help out' and/or avoid redundancy? Qantas used that goodwill to assert that 'no QF pilot has been made redundant for forty years'.
Interestingly, 5:30 at a pilot's rank-rate also covers a 12 hour standby, a 7+hour day of emergency procedure training or a 5:30 simulator; do those duty periods sound fair & reasonable to you for 5:30 pay?
So, back to my final point again: it rankles that QF, in effect, has played the major role in creating/exacerbating the inefficiencies since the GFC and now seems intent on using them as a weapon against its own.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know which flying school Joe Hildebrand got the chop from before reaching solo?
It's odd though. Hildebrand has had an opinion column in the Daily Tele for quite a while which gets almost no comments, often tries to be funny and fails virtually 100% of the time, and I would assume gets very little readership.
Hardly surprising that he's trying to arc up some controversy to convince the editor to keep him on. He has to be careful though. This one isn't an "opinion" column, so he can't hide behind that excuse like other columnists do. He's presenting this as "fact", and bits of it are obviously false and deliberately misleading. I think he's treading a fine line there.
It's odd though. Hildebrand has had an opinion column in the Daily Tele for quite a while which gets almost no comments, often tries to be funny and fails virtually 100% of the time, and I would assume gets very little readership.
Hardly surprising that he's trying to arc up some controversy to convince the editor to keep him on. He has to be careful though. This one isn't an "opinion" column, so he can't hide behind that excuse like other columnists do. He's presenting this as "fact", and bits of it are obviously false and deliberately misleading. I think he's treading a fine line there.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not even a QF pilot but my blood boils reading not only that article but most of the comments. If that's representative of what most Australian's think, you're kidding yourselves if you think you've got the public onside.
Why aren't these claims being countered? Sure, theres some obscure attempts by the qantaspilots website, but people need to go out of their way to see these.
Surely AIPA can step up its media campaign, especially in the mainstream media. Full page newspaper advertisements, radio ads, TV ads, things that are in people's face and they can't ignore. Surely the cost of doing these things outweigh's the cost of not doing it!!
Why aren't these claims being countered? Sure, theres some obscure attempts by the qantaspilots website, but people need to go out of their way to see these.
Surely AIPA can step up its media campaign, especially in the mainstream media. Full page newspaper advertisements, radio ads, TV ads, things that are in people's face and they can't ignore. Surely the cost of doing these things outweigh's the cost of not doing it!!
He added in a later statement that the arrangement with wholly-owned Qantas subsidiary Jetconnect, whose staff are employed under the New Zealand award, was "entirely appropriate" given that all Jetconnect services either departed or landed in New Zealand.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon he may have overstepped the mark here. I work on the same floor as the media union and they have a strict code of ethics that all journo's must follow. I think I will take a walk.
Interesting news article rewrite...
Qantas pilots want spas, massages, facials included in work entitlements | Herald Sun
Looks like Neil Wilson has added his name to the article and now it provides a little more balanced view...
Looks like Neil Wilson has added his name to the article and now it provides a little more balanced view...
Joe Hildebrand Qantas
But its not just Qantas he has a fetish with in being economical with the truth
Joe Hildebrand: right-wing spambot « Overland literary journal
Media Watch: Locked, Loaded and Wrong (01/03/2010)
He is the epitome of what is wrong with todays journalists. He's been caught out before more then once lying as per above and simply doesn't care. But news and infotainment has been blurred these days hence the reason he is rewarded with keeping his job.
Maybe he is going for a subtle dig at the Qantas PR spokesman position ?
Qantas pilots want spas, massages, facials included in work entitlements
QANTAS pilots are demanding they get a seat for their wives, ... Qantas pilots' bid for family flights. Joe Hildebrand
26 May 2011 – QANTAS pilots stand to pocket almost $200000 each on average if the ... Qantas pilots want free flights. Joe Hildebrand;
Union heavies ride Qantas gravy plane
- Exclusive by Joe Hildebrand
Joe Hildebrand: right-wing spambot « Overland literary journal
Back in the day, it was considered desirable to offer arguments about people you had political disagreements with. You know, factually grounded premises, logically sound conclusions, that type of thing. However, if you produce content for Murdoch, there’s a much easier way to win arguments. Fabrication.
Take the case of Joe Hildebrand. He’s a hilarious columnist for the Daily Telegraph. I swear, when you read his articles, you’ll find it hard to stop laughing. You’ll laugh until it hurts. Really.
Take the case of Joe Hildebrand. He’s a hilarious columnist for the Daily Telegraph. I swear, when you read his articles, you’ll find it hard to stop laughing. You’ll laugh until it hurts. Really.
Joe Hildebrand hasn't enlightened us.
He's told Media Watch:
There will be no further comment.
— Response from, Joe Hildebrand (Reporter, The Daily Telegraph) to Media Watch, 27th February, 2010
He's told Media Watch:
There will be no further comment.
— Response from, Joe Hildebrand (Reporter, The Daily Telegraph) to Media Watch, 27th February, 2010
Maybe he is going for a subtle dig at the Qantas PR spokesman position ?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as has been stated many times, someone better counter this spin which continues to go largely unchallenged and keeps building the perception.
Judging by the comments either the PR department is busy with all their own comments or there is a large number of the public who believe it.
How long you guys going to keep the powder dry, the game will be over if you keep the current approach up.
Judging by the comments either the PR department is busy with all their own comments or there is a large number of the public who believe it.
How long you guys going to keep the powder dry, the game will be over if you keep the current approach up.
Well as another bit of digging turns out, I'd say with almost complete certainty that Qantas engages social media firm
thinktank media | Australia's first full service Social Media Agency
as on the Qantas twitter feed, their 'followers', after subsidiaries, the first people following are
thinktank media | Australia's first full service Social Media Agency | Qantas Gets Its Twitter Wings
So it's pretty obvious Qantas has engaged a social media organisation to be their online presence.
How hard would it be to suggest that the 'comments' section on any news article posted which relates to their current wars isn't slanted by supposed public opinion which isn't really ?
Just remember the battlefield isn't transparent this time around, any and all tools are being engaged.
thinktank media | Australia's first full service Social Media Agency
as on the Qantas twitter feed, their 'followers', after subsidiaries, the first people following are
Follow
sammutimer Sam Mutimer ENERGETIC! Director of Social Media and Speaker at Thinktank Media, I'm exploring it all! Channel 7 Social Media Resident & Mad Melbourne Demons Supporter!
Follow
thinktankmedia Ben Acott founder & director of thinktank media & Mischief Agency : full service social media agency & ad agency in Melb. DJ & Producer, Passionate about wine & fitness.
sammutimer Sam Mutimer ENERGETIC! Director of Social Media and Speaker at Thinktank Media, I'm exploring it all! Channel 7 Social Media Resident & Mad Melbourne Demons Supporter!
Followthinktankmedia Ben Acott founder & director of thinktank media & Mischief Agency : full service social media agency & ad agency in Melb. DJ & Producer, Passionate about wine & fitness.
So it's pretty obvious Qantas has engaged a social media organisation to be their online presence.
How hard would it be to suggest that the 'comments' section on any news article posted which relates to their current wars isn't slanted by supposed public opinion which isn't really ?
Just remember the battlefield isn't transparent this time around, any and all tools are being engaged.
Here is an example of someone very close to Qantas, I'd say he works for them, possibly one of their spokesmen who has the same first name.
Presenting 'Tom of Melbourne"
There's plenty more out there of him
Presenting 'Tom of Melbourne"
Tom of Melbourne Posted at 2:59 AM Today
Give me $350,000 a year and i'll sleep on the foot path between flights, this is totally wrong, people pay for those benefits, I don't get the benefits my customers get just because I work there, that would send my company broke. Why can't they just be happy with what they have, and if you think and can do better go work for another airline. Thats what Qantas should be saying, stick to your guns, tell them to leave if they think they can get that else where you watch how quick they back off and stay, the grass isn't always greener and some should be forced out to prove that what they think they deserve they really don't, they are paid to do a Job, and are given a lot for that work including family benefits, when will it end!
Comment 3 of 28
Tom of Melbourne permalink
May 10, 2011 10:20 am
It’s all happy news under the new “Fair Work” system.
The aircraft engineers probably represent about 1000 of the 30,000 Qantas employees, but they’ll stop the airline anyway.
How is it that these splinter groups can undermine the viability of a business?
May 10, 2011 10:20 am
It’s all happy news under the new “Fair Work” system.
The aircraft engineers probably represent about 1000 of the 30,000 Qantas employees, but they’ll stop the airline anyway.
How is it that these splinter groups can undermine the viability of a business?
Tom of Melbourne permalink
May 10, 2011 1:11 pm
I just can’t see how it can be called “collective bargaining” when –
• About 3% of the Qantas workforce is involved in the dispute
• The 3% can undermine the immediate employment security of the other 97% of the workforce.
• The 3% can disrupt the travel plans of many thousands of people.
• They undermine the viability of Australia’s only full service airline, which employs hundreds of apprentices and graduates every year.
The aircraft engineers involved in this dispute live in a cocoon, it’s about time they experienced life in the real world.
May 10, 2011 1:11 pm
I just can’t see how it can be called “collective bargaining” when –
• About 3% of the Qantas workforce is involved in the dispute
• The 3% can undermine the immediate employment security of the other 97% of the workforce.
• The 3% can disrupt the travel plans of many thousands of people.
• They undermine the viability of Australia’s only full service airline, which employs hundreds of apprentices and graduates every year.
The aircraft engineers involved in this dispute live in a cocoon, it’s about time they experienced life in the real world.
Tom of Melbourne, on February 16, 2009 at 1:19 pm said: Well perhaps the cabin crew are a little up themselves, but Qantas is a great airline.
We should be proud of it and support it.
We should be proud of it and support it.
Tom of Melbourne, on November 16, 2008 at 10:20 pm said: Reb – “slashing local jobs”..
Now please let us know exactly how many jobs Dixon has “slashed”.
I think if you examine the employment levels of Qantas over the past decade or so you will find that there it is a bigger employer now.
TB – Perhaps before directing the criticism towards Dixon, we should have a look at that other stalwart of Australian aviation industry, Sir Rod Eddington. Sir Rod is now a trusted advisor to the ALP government, practically running the infrastructure investment.
In the past he has overseen the decline of Ansett, British Airways and was a director of Allco, the company that made the bid for Qantas. Allco has failed.
Now a director of numerous public companies, including Rio Tinto, and set to become the chairman of ANZ Bank. We can only hope that his future is more successful than his past.
In this perspective your criticism of Dixon is fairly misdirected.
Perhaps a post on the appointment of Eddington as a trusted advisor to our government would have a little more to do with public policy.
Now please let us know exactly how many jobs Dixon has “slashed”.
I think if you examine the employment levels of Qantas over the past decade or so you will find that there it is a bigger employer now.
TB – Perhaps before directing the criticism towards Dixon, we should have a look at that other stalwart of Australian aviation industry, Sir Rod Eddington. Sir Rod is now a trusted advisor to the ALP government, practically running the infrastructure investment.
In the past he has overseen the decline of Ansett, British Airways and was a director of Allco, the company that made the bid for Qantas. Allco has failed.
Now a director of numerous public companies, including Rio Tinto, and set to become the chairman of ANZ Bank. We can only hope that his future is more successful than his past.
In this perspective your criticism of Dixon is fairly misdirected.
Perhaps a post on the appointment of Eddington as a trusted advisor to our government would have a little more to do with public policy.
Tom of Melbourne permalink
September 26, 2009 10:46 am
I see TB, I bet Qantas shareholders now wish they’d taken the advice of Dixon.
Hindsight proves that he was acting in their interests in recommending the takeover offer.
Hardly the actions of a “robber baron”.
September 26, 2009 10:46 am
I see TB, I bet Qantas shareholders now wish they’d taken the advice of Dixon.
Hindsight proves that he was acting in their interests in recommending the takeover offer.
Hardly the actions of a “robber baron”.
Tom of Melbourne, on December 3, 2008 at 2:25 pm said: Qantas is a great airline; everyone that works for this Australian icon should feel great pride.
Airlines are capital intensive, the equipment is expensive. Unless the aircraft are utilised to about 110%, the airline looses money. Rationalisation of the airline industry has occurred worldwide. Qantas has courted several suitors, but BA looks the most compatible.
I think it is a great opportunity for Qantas to be one of the senior partners in a great worldwide airline.
Good luck to them
Airlines are capital intensive, the equipment is expensive. Unless the aircraft are utilised to about 110%, the airline looses money. Rationalisation of the airline industry has occurred worldwide. Qantas has courted several suitors, but BA looks the most compatible.
I think it is a great opportunity for Qantas to be one of the senior partners in a great worldwide airline.
Good luck to them
Tom of Melbourne writes…
Qantas is always one of the favourite punching bags for many of the politically correct.
Today the airline reported a profit of less than $120m, down 88% on last year.
Interestingly, the mainline airline lost money – $77m, but thanks to group earnings, including a significant contribution by the low cost Jetstar, it remained in the black.
The actual profit would have been doubled that reported, but an industrial dispute cost the airline about $130m. Great work by a single maintenance union, particularly in the current nightmare that is the aviation industry. This after the wildcat action by the TWU, which remains before the courts.
Yes, Qantas remains one of the few airlines to employ its own aircraft maintenance workforce, thousands of tradespersons.
It maintains a significant commitment to apprenticeship, training and Australian based employment. But one of the maintenance unions cost the airline an amount equivalent to its entire profit.
It ought to be lauded as an example of an outstanding Australian business, instead unions squabble over coverage, and take action to damage its viability.
One would have to wonder how long Qantas can maintain this strong commitment to Australia.
Qantas is always one of the favourite punching bags for many of the politically correct.
Today the airline reported a profit of less than $120m, down 88% on last year.
Interestingly, the mainline airline lost money – $77m, but thanks to group earnings, including a significant contribution by the low cost Jetstar, it remained in the black.
The actual profit would have been doubled that reported, but an industrial dispute cost the airline about $130m. Great work by a single maintenance union, particularly in the current nightmare that is the aviation industry. This after the wildcat action by the TWU, which remains before the courts.
Yes, Qantas remains one of the few airlines to employ its own aircraft maintenance workforce, thousands of tradespersons.
It maintains a significant commitment to apprenticeship, training and Australian based employment. But one of the maintenance unions cost the airline an amount equivalent to its entire profit.
It ought to be lauded as an example of an outstanding Australian business, instead unions squabble over coverage, and take action to damage its viability.
One would have to wonder how long Qantas can maintain this strong commitment to Australia.
Tom of Melbourne, on November 18, 2008 at 11:41 am said: Hi Shane
I use Qantas quite a lot, and while I think that service can be a lot better, it is still a lot better than most of the airlines I’ve used here and overseas.
There are now far more people travelling than when it was government owned. I think Qantas itself has about 4 times as many aircraft now as 15 years ago. Airfares are much cheaper.
Overall, Qantas has done a pretty good job, in my opinion. The company deserves a lot more credit for this performance than it seems to get.
In terms of work practices, Qantas is loaded up with about a dozen unions. The one covering the engineers recently involved in the dispute is one of (probably) 8 to10 unions covering the work in the engineering and maintenance department!! About 10 unions all looking for their own role, all trying to find some relevance, all trying to define the work they cover. All sending out officials to pester management, all trying to prove exactly how relevant they are.
Then we have unions covering pilots, cabin crew, check in staff… and not forgetting the highly efficient baggage handlers that look after our luggage with such care.
Unions in Qantas are a handbrake on reform; they impose inefficient work practices only in their own interests, rather than in the interests of workers, shareholders or the travelling public.
I use Qantas quite a lot, and while I think that service can be a lot better, it is still a lot better than most of the airlines I’ve used here and overseas.
There are now far more people travelling than when it was government owned. I think Qantas itself has about 4 times as many aircraft now as 15 years ago. Airfares are much cheaper.
Overall, Qantas has done a pretty good job, in my opinion. The company deserves a lot more credit for this performance than it seems to get.
In terms of work practices, Qantas is loaded up with about a dozen unions. The one covering the engineers recently involved in the dispute is one of (probably) 8 to10 unions covering the work in the engineering and maintenance department!! About 10 unions all looking for their own role, all trying to find some relevance, all trying to define the work they cover. All sending out officials to pester management, all trying to prove exactly how relevant they are.
Then we have unions covering pilots, cabin crew, check in staff… and not forgetting the highly efficient baggage handlers that look after our luggage with such care.
Unions in Qantas are a handbrake on reform; they impose inefficient work practices only in their own interests, rather than in the interests of workers, shareholders or the travelling public.