Seniority in the Qantas Group
This submission is a tactic by AIPA in relation to the very significant redundancies that will occur after the new contract is arbitrated next year - it has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of the group seniority list.
How about Qantas and subsidiary pilots won’t agree to AIPA’s LWOP proposal because it is obtuse. You can cling to your ridiculous theory of looking through prisims or the bottom of beer bottles for all I care.
The LWOP proposal is the height of arrogance. AIPA and a number of their so called leadership, believe that they should have their seniority recognised at the expense of other pilots. This has nothing to do with a so called reasonable proposal, and everything to do with protecting ones own hide at the expense of subsidiary pilots.
If you were serious about looking after your junior pilots, you would have facilitated a system for them to go to the subsidiary companies at the bottom of the list, not create a system that will hinder their movement.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith.
You haven't read the first part of my post properly.
Qantas has been very clear that it wants its surplus mainline pilots gone, not only out of the company, but also out of the industry.
Therefore it wouldn't matter what system they proposed - even your suggestion (bottom of seniority lists ect), which I personally believe would be fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
In the words of one senior QF IR manager "you blokes are a cancer that needs to be cut out".
As much as AIPA doesn't want mass redundancies to happen it is trying to get the best deal it can for those affected.
Like all industrial negotiations this involves making ambit claims. Google the definition of what that means if you dont understand.
You haven't read the first part of my post properly.
Qantas has been very clear that it wants its surplus mainline pilots gone, not only out of the company, but also out of the industry.
Therefore it wouldn't matter what system they proposed - even your suggestion (bottom of seniority lists ect), which I personally believe would be fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
In the words of one senior QF IR manager "you blokes are a cancer that needs to be cut out".
As much as AIPA doesn't want mass redundancies to happen it is trying to get the best deal it can for those affected.
Like all industrial negotiations this involves making ambit claims. Google the definition of what that means if you dont understand.
Last edited by mohikan; 18th Nov 2012 at 23:11.
Maybe you should get the crayons out and I’ll understand – although you have now edited your post. Presently, Qantas and Jetstar have facilitated 30 odd Qantas pilots to go to Jetstar at the bottom of the list on LWOP with endorsements paid. That is achievable today under the current arrangements. I’d call that fair if you are interested in keeping your job. Your so called ambit claim is nothing but arrogance of your leadership thinking you deserve to be senior to Jetstar and Qlink pilots. You can dress it up however you like, but it does nothing to help you get more pilots onto LWOP. Interestingly, AIPA only wanted to change the LWOP provisions for pilots going to subsidiary companies. If you want more pilots on LWOP, you shouldn't put more barriers in the way to facilitate it.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Southern was wound up and AIPA was approached for support they pissed on us from a great height . Now international is going the same way the favor will be returned .
Nunc est bibendum
When Southern was wound up and AIPA was approached for support they pissed on us from a great height
Of course, if you know the situation then you know that's the case. If you don't or if you have ulterior motives then you articulate the point that AIPA 'pissed on ' Southern at that time.
Keg,
You are wrong.
When QF sent down their Flight Safety people from Sydney to assist in the closure, a proposal was put forward to see if some pilots could be absorbed into mainline.
The response 'AIPA will not support this proposal.' They also bought in Capt. D. Wiltshire who believed something along the lines of the Australian Airlines integration could work for the 146 pilots. But it was put to rest by your beloved AIPA!
You are wrong.
When QF sent down their Flight Safety people from Sydney to assist in the closure, a proposal was put forward to see if some pilots could be absorbed into mainline.
The response 'AIPA will not support this proposal.' They also bought in Capt. D. Wiltshire who believed something along the lines of the Australian Airlines integration could work for the 146 pilots. But it was put to rest by your beloved AIPA!
Nunc est bibendum
So let me understand this correctly KABOY. When Qantas management pilots went down to talk to Souther, the management pilots stated that AIPA would not support another Y seniority list?!?!
So you'll excuse me if this sounds like a lot of people saying that AIPA knocked it on the head but in reality no one never actually got around to asking AIPA directly or got a direct answer. Direct correspondence or specific references to meetings with AIPA reps will suffice.
Just humour me though, what was the proposal that was put forward? Was it a genuine Y seniority whereby the Southern crew maintained seniority in their side of things but were junior to every QF driver as at a particular date if they went after a QF job (and then every QF driver was subsequently junior to the Southern crew after that date)? Or did they want date of joining moving across into mainline? Again, specific proposals or references to them would be handy.
In terms of the former then they could have achieved the same aim by just joining QF and it was up to Qantas management to employ them in those circumstances, not AIPA.
So would love to hear some of the blanks filled in. Preferably you can fill them in before you tell me I'm 'wrong' again. I'm more than happy to admit that AIPA has on occasion dropped the ball but I prefer to operate with all the facts out that paint the full picture rather than just the selective ones that paint AIPA as the bad boys here.
So you'll excuse me if this sounds like a lot of people saying that AIPA knocked it on the head but in reality no one never actually got around to asking AIPA directly or got a direct answer. Direct correspondence or specific references to meetings with AIPA reps will suffice.
Just humour me though, what was the proposal that was put forward? Was it a genuine Y seniority whereby the Southern crew maintained seniority in their side of things but were junior to every QF driver as at a particular date if they went after a QF job (and then every QF driver was subsequently junior to the Southern crew after that date)? Or did they want date of joining moving across into mainline? Again, specific proposals or references to them would be handy.
In terms of the former then they could have achieved the same aim by just joining QF and it was up to Qantas management to employ them in those circumstances, not AIPA.
So would love to hear some of the blanks filled in. Preferably you can fill them in before you tell me I'm 'wrong' again. I'm more than happy to admit that AIPA has on occasion dropped the ball but I prefer to operate with all the facts out that paint the full picture rather than just the selective ones that paint AIPA as the bad boys here.
Last edited by Keg; 20th Nov 2012 at 03:41.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a fair bit of history to this one going back as far as the Qantas \ Australian Airlines merger when the regionals got shafted IMHO.
The regionals had arranged group progression with Australian Airlines and this was reneged on when the merger happened.
Later it was attempted again; however there was a significant push in the regionals for datal seniority to apply. This position never had a hope in getting multi party support and the deal fell through although some regional pilots were accepted into mainline with a seniority of sometime in 1995.
Keg, saying that something should be done and then attempting to hold some high moral ground because of those words is not good darts. What we wish, and what is able to be achieved are sometimes entirely different. If you think that people on COM did not listen and believe that combining pilot groups and covering all pilots was a desired outcome you are also wrong. The problem is that Oldmeadow’s playbook is stuck on a divide and conquer page and he is incapable of turning the page.
In the meantime, our fellow pilots assist him in his job by being smartarses about their colleagues within the profession. Why people must always seek to drag others down in this industry has always confused me. Think what we would achieve if we all really worked together.
What would be interesting is seeing who would challenge the amalgamation process in Fair Work.
The regionals had arranged group progression with Australian Airlines and this was reneged on when the merger happened.
Later it was attempted again; however there was a significant push in the regionals for datal seniority to apply. This position never had a hope in getting multi party support and the deal fell through although some regional pilots were accepted into mainline with a seniority of sometime in 1995.
Keg, saying that something should be done and then attempting to hold some high moral ground because of those words is not good darts. What we wish, and what is able to be achieved are sometimes entirely different. If you think that people on COM did not listen and believe that combining pilot groups and covering all pilots was a desired outcome you are also wrong. The problem is that Oldmeadow’s playbook is stuck on a divide and conquer page and he is incapable of turning the page.
In the meantime, our fellow pilots assist him in his job by being smartarses about their colleagues within the profession. Why people must always seek to drag others down in this industry has always confused me. Think what we would achieve if we all really worked together.
What would be interesting is seeing who would challenge the amalgamation process in Fair Work.
What The, I know for a fact that it was Qantas management who were against the progression of QF "regional" pilots into mainline due to a perception of significantly increased training costs. Members of AIPA COM made representations to management on behalf of regional pilots but were firmly told that it was not an option that management would look at.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am of the understanding that seniority lists are "owned" by the affected pilot group/s.
A question to those that are wiser than myself, how would a merged seniority list between, what some refer to as the contracting mainline operation and the expanding regional or LCC operation, be in the best interests of the regional or LCC pilot group ?.
Perhaps it might have been when all operations were expanding, or all stagnate, but not now.
Wasn't it attempted many years ago, but at least one group felt as though they were less than equal in the proposed deal, is this a fair appraisal ?.
A question to those that are wiser than myself, how would a merged seniority list between, what some refer to as the contracting mainline operation and the expanding regional or LCC operation, be in the best interests of the regional or LCC pilot group ?.
Perhaps it might have been when all operations were expanding, or all stagnate, but not now.
Wasn't it attempted many years ago, but at least one group felt as though they were less than equal in the proposed deal, is this a fair appraisal ?.
Last edited by Josh Cox; 20th Nov 2012 at 09:15.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just to clarify, AIPA want a system that basically reserves seniority for mainline pilots at all subsidiary companies!?
I am dumbfounded.
Shame on the architects of this proposal - I will personally be printing out this clause and posting it in every crewroom I can so the reality of the "our" in AIPA's "protect our flying" is made clear.
I am dumbfounded.
Shame on the architects of this proposal - I will personally be printing out this clause and posting it in every crewroom I can so the reality of the "our" in AIPA's "protect our flying" is made clear.
