QLINK to get a new Manager Standards and Development (CAR 217 leadership)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Keg, Admittedly it was fifth or twenty-fifth hand information but as you can understand, I can only react to the information that was given to me.
Sickening is a tad left field, yes. However, there is a degree of precedent set with the JQ MoU (that is a completely different topic all together and being discussed to death) and we don't want that here at either SSA or EAA.
I'm not wanting to turn this thread into another debate about T&Cs.
Back to the CAR217 management, a change is good as anything, especially when it's a departure from the dogmatic ****e that was being dished out by our previous leader, EB.
The COO and CP have returned from a stint in Canada and the US, firstly to discuss some quality assurance issues with the Q400s. Secondly to observe other Q400 operators, including Bombardier themselves (they ferry staff factory to factory with their own Q4) and Horizon. Mostly to turn the operation around from the previous management scheme which was quite frankly, a complete abortion (references to the space shuttle are not far off.)
Going back in my box...
Fuel-Off
Sickening is a tad left field, yes. However, there is a degree of precedent set with the JQ MoU (that is a completely different topic all together and being discussed to death) and we don't want that here at either SSA or EAA.
I'm not wanting to turn this thread into another debate about T&Cs.
Back to the CAR217 management, a change is good as anything, especially when it's a departure from the dogmatic ****e that was being dished out by our previous leader, EB.
The COO and CP have returned from a stint in Canada and the US, firstly to discuss some quality assurance issues with the Q400s. Secondly to observe other Q400 operators, including Bombardier themselves (they ferry staff factory to factory with their own Q4) and Horizon. Mostly to turn the operation around from the previous management scheme which was quite frankly, a complete abortion (references to the space shuttle are not far off.)
Going back in my box...
Fuel-Off
Nunc est bibendum
Fuel Off, no problem. I always suspected it was third hand. Take it from me, no QF pilot I've spoken to is wanting to take a promotion off a QLink driver.
Do you know how the MoU works? If it started tomorrow, every QF number would be junior to every current QLink driver. I'd be 900+ numbers junior to the most junior QLink F/O currently employed. Of course, every person who joined QLink the day after tomorrow is going to be junior to me but I reckon they're pretty safe from me bidding for a command on the Q400 in a few years time.
Of course, what should have happened years ago was a group list. That way we wouldn't be having these sorts of discussions. People like Hugh Jarse would have gotten a seniority number for mainline and wouldn't have had to go to the opposition to see his career advance. If we bring it in now we still face the prospects of years of 'integration' and of course QF management are doing their best to sow FUD amongst the disparate pilot groups- which is why you're hearing 32nd hand nonsense about QF drivers wanting to take over Qlink.
However, there is a degree of precedent set with the JQ MoU...
Of course, what should have happened years ago was a group list. That way we wouldn't be having these sorts of discussions. People like Hugh Jarse would have gotten a seniority number for mainline and wouldn't have had to go to the opposition to see his career advance. If we bring it in now we still face the prospects of years of 'integration' and of course QF management are doing their best to sow FUD amongst the disparate pilot groups- which is why you're hearing 32nd hand nonsense about QF drivers wanting to take over Qlink.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Ghandi was once asked what he thought of Western democracy. He replied 'I think it would be a great idea!'. Whilst the concept of group integration would be any pilot's wet dream, it's a flight of fancy.
This was proven when both EAA and SSA groups agreed to terms for integration. It was stupid to have drivers based in CNS wanting to transfer to MEL and having to resign from SSA then go to MEL on the bottom of the EAA seniority where you are effectively working for the same company!
Company snuffed it citing 'HR issues'. Divide and conquer is the management mantra...and it's here to stay.
Whilst a bit off topic - but more or less pertinent to the general theme. Clearly with the prospect of integration, there's going to be pain and hurt for some. Are we our own worst enemies with the concept of the seniority list here in Australia? Back in the days of old, you could start with an airline on an F27 for example, then a 737, so on and so on and still retain a number within the same company. Nowadays we have to resign from one company, then move on to another and start the whole process again. What went wrong? How can we resolve this so that the next generation of budding young aviators don't have to bicker at eachother...much like we are now!
Not trying to hijack the thread mods, just asking a general question...be gentle
Fuel-Off
This was proven when both EAA and SSA groups agreed to terms for integration. It was stupid to have drivers based in CNS wanting to transfer to MEL and having to resign from SSA then go to MEL on the bottom of the EAA seniority where you are effectively working for the same company!
Company snuffed it citing 'HR issues'. Divide and conquer is the management mantra...and it's here to stay.
Whilst a bit off topic - but more or less pertinent to the general theme. Clearly with the prospect of integration, there's going to be pain and hurt for some. Are we our own worst enemies with the concept of the seniority list here in Australia? Back in the days of old, you could start with an airline on an F27 for example, then a 737, so on and so on and still retain a number within the same company. Nowadays we have to resign from one company, then move on to another and start the whole process again. What went wrong? How can we resolve this so that the next generation of budding young aviators don't have to bicker at eachother...much like we are now!
Not trying to hijack the thread mods, just asking a general question...be gentle
Fuel-Off
Last edited by Fuel-Off; 15th Nov 2012 at 10:03.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not while there are only Q400's anyway. It'll be interesting to see how attitudes change when new equipment arrives. Hopefully Qantas will still around then for this debate to reignite!
Haven't you guys heard, AIPA in their infinite wisdom were working on a little chest nut. GROUP SENIORITY IN FWA!!!
Cut and paste from AIPA Workplace Determination (Jan 2012)
40.2 Leave without pay to take up a position with a member of the Qantas Group
In addition to clause 40.1, and without limiting any other rights that pilots covered by his Determination who joined the Company prior to 31 November 2004,where a pilot takes leave without pay to take up a position with another member of the Qantas Group, the following will apply:
40.2.6 Unless otherwise agreed, where seniority is applicable in the Qantas Group Company a pilot at the time of application will assume a seniority in the Qantas Group Company consistent with his/her date of employment as a pilot within the Qantas Group.
Granted this was just their position for 9 months (Jan 2012 till Sept 2012) prior to the CWD and the GMS, thank god this BS has gone to arbitration.
Jets in Qlink?? Every one make way for the Q (main line) pilot!
Cut and paste from AIPA Workplace Determination (Jan 2012)
40.2 Leave without pay to take up a position with a member of the Qantas Group
In addition to clause 40.1, and without limiting any other rights that pilots covered by his Determination who joined the Company prior to 31 November 2004,where a pilot takes leave without pay to take up a position with another member of the Qantas Group, the following will apply:
40.2.6 Unless otherwise agreed, where seniority is applicable in the Qantas Group Company a pilot at the time of application will assume a seniority in the Qantas Group Company consistent with his/her date of employment as a pilot within the Qantas Group.
Granted this was just their position for 9 months (Jan 2012 till Sept 2012) prior to the CWD and the GMS, thank god this BS has gone to arbitration.
Jets in Qlink?? Every one make way for the Q (main line) pilot!
Last edited by Ratherbefishintoday; 15th Nov 2012 at 10:25.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Group seniority in the QF group would be a wonderful thing for almost everyone. I refuse to believe that the divide and conquer mentality actually pays dividends when you consider the number of pilots who have left the QF group to advance their careers elsewhere.
The first step with QLink is for AFAP to get management back to the table and sort out common seniority for SSA and EAA. It is a ludicrous arrangement that is now inhibiting the airline's growth with commands in CNS going unfilled for months on end despite there being plenty of willing, qualified and suitably experienced EAA FOs. Who can blame them not wanting to give up all their seniority to get a command in CNS, and have no prospect of ever getting back to where they would like to be based because it's on the EAA network?
The first step with QLink is for AFAP to get management back to the table and sort out common seniority for SSA and EAA. It is a ludicrous arrangement that is now inhibiting the airline's growth with commands in CNS going unfilled for months on end despite there being plenty of willing, qualified and suitably experienced EAA FOs. Who can blame them not wanting to give up all their seniority to get a command in CNS, and have no prospect of ever getting back to where they would like to be based because it's on the EAA network?
Nunc est bibendum
Determination yet to be handed down Rob. Final submissions have been made though. Unlikely it'll be back before Christmas although it'd be nice if it was. The quote from ratherbefishintoday is from the AIPA submission to FWA. I didn't realise it was there.
The good news though is that if we'd had a group list years ago you'd be senior enough to be a 737 F/O.... or perhaps close to a JQ A320 command.
The good news though is that if we'd had a group list years ago you'd be senior enough to be a 737 F/O.... or perhaps close to a JQ A320 command.
Last edited by Keg; 16th Nov 2012 at 00:59.
Nunc est bibendum
I think so? There were a couple of versions post January 2012 so not sure if that was in their final submission or not. To be honest I haven't read it that closely. The general concept though was that group numbers would be allocated (not sure of the process) and be used if transferring between divisions (if that ever occurs). More likely they were to be used when redundancies were being planned on one side or the other. At least that's vaguely how I recall it operating.
Last edited by Keg; 16th Nov 2012 at 02:29.
