MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Ek change Dallas from the 777 to the 380 on 1st Oct. Wonder if this is a coincidence?
The don.
The don.
Rumour mill running hot today. 767 and 747 Captains to be offered VR package of one years pay.
So cabin crew and engineers who get more than one year are in the same parallel universe I assume?
G'day fellow posters,
I'm a bit confused with this DFW-SYD 380 flt. I'll be the first to admit that I'm top of the class for being a dumb****e in economics. My question is...
If a 747ER can fly chock-a-block full of punters, fuel and freight DFW-BNE then on to SYD, is this not making money? Whereas a 380 flying DFW-SYD with 100 less punters, freight and MORE fuel to burn, is this more economical? Just curious...
As the "Redheaded Ranga" said, please explain !!!
McHale.
.
I'm a bit confused with this DFW-SYD 380 flt. I'll be the first to admit that I'm top of the class for being a dumb****e in economics. My question is...
If a 747ER can fly chock-a-block full of punters, fuel and freight DFW-BNE then on to SYD, is this not making money? Whereas a 380 flying DFW-SYD with 100 less punters, freight and MORE fuel to burn, is this more economical? Just curious...
As the "Redheaded Ranga" said, please explain !!!
McHale.
.
Higher yield due to more P and J class seats.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quentin,
Unfortunately you have made some invalid assumptions in your post. I don't fly this sector so I'm having to make some assumptions as well, and I'd appreciate those who know correcting, however:
Whilst the details of the figures may be a bit rubbery, I think you get the general picture. Of course it is possible the 747 can take a bit more to BNE, however it has no First Class and would not enable the link-up.
N
Unfortunately you have made some invalid assumptions in your post. I don't fly this sector so I'm having to make some assumptions as well, and I'd appreciate those who know correcting, however:
- The 747ER can't fly chock-full of people and freight DFW-BNE. They fill it up with fuel, but they have a restricted takeoff weight simply to make the distance - it may well be that they can only take 300 pax + a small amount of freight (if any).
- The A380 will probably take 380 pax or so from DFW - SYD, maybe a bit more or less depending on the time of year and depart at MTOW. The seats that would be blocked off would be economy, and there would be a far greater number of premium seats being sold on the A380 than the 747. ( If we are doing like-for-like, certainly I'd say it would do 450 - 480 pax from DFW-BNE. )
- It looks very much like this is to link in with Emirates, so they need First Class and the upgraded Business class for this service.
Whilst the details of the figures may be a bit rubbery, I think you get the general picture. Of course it is possible the 747 can take a bit more to BNE, however it has no First Class and would not enable the link-up.
N
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must admit it is hard to see why the AIPA would, as is required by clause 15.10.3 of the WD, agree to VR terms and conditions fundamentally less than VR terms and conditions offered to Qantas flight attendants and ground engineers.
That Qantas executive and admin staff received 12 months VR, is probably a bonus for most, if not all, of those who’ve left, as the formula is 3 weeks pay for each of one’s first five tears and four weeks’ pay for each year in excess - capped at 95 weeks if one joined after October 96.
At the end of the day, the more generous the offer, the greater the acceptance and the less likely it is that young pilots will find themselves out on the street.
I for one would be extremely disappointed if any young pilot finds him/herself shown the door and the AIPA has agreed to lesser conditions than what has been negotiated by the FAAA and the ALAEA for their members.
That Qantas executive and admin staff received 12 months VR, is probably a bonus for most, if not all, of those who’ve left, as the formula is 3 weeks pay for each of one’s first five tears and four weeks’ pay for each year in excess - capped at 95 weeks if one joined after October 96.
At the end of the day, the more generous the offer, the greater the acceptance and the less likely it is that young pilots will find themselves out on the street.
I for one would be extremely disappointed if any young pilot finds him/herself shown the door and the AIPA has agreed to lesser conditions than what has been negotiated by the FAAA and the ALAEA for their members.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15.10.3 Voluntary redundancy
(a) The Company may, at its discretion, offer voluntary redundancies prior
to making pilots compulsorily redundant. Prior to final determination of
the package to be offered, the Company will meet, as a minimum, its
obligations pursuant to clause 9 to consult with the Association on
details of the package and, in addition, provide the Association the
opportunity to negotiate, in good faith, the package to be offered. The
Association acknowledges that the package to be offered in the case
of voluntary redundancies by the Company is ultimately at the
Company’s discretion.
(a) The Company may, at its discretion, offer voluntary redundancies prior
to making pilots compulsorily redundant. Prior to final determination of
the package to be offered, the Company will meet, as a minimum, its
obligations pursuant to clause 9 to consult with the Association on
details of the package and, in addition, provide the Association the
opportunity to negotiate, in good faith, the package to be offered. The
Association acknowledges that the package to be offered in the case
of voluntary redundancies by the Company is ultimately at the
Company’s discretion.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ Tuner.
The WD expressly ‘provides the Association with the opportunity to negotiate, in good faith, the package to be offered’.
Happy to be corrected, but can’t imagine that the relevant flight attendant, and/or engineers’ industrial agreement offers the FAAA or the ALAEA any more negotiating strength than the AIPA has.
Of course, the litmus test will come, should pilot VR packages to be offered, be less than what is prescribed in the WD for compulsory redundancy and thereafter young pilots are cut loose.
If any junior people do go out the door, and the AIPA has accepted lesser terms and conditions than FAAA and/or ALAEA, and have not also protected the jobs of the younger pilots, I say again, I for one will be most disappointed.
The WD expressly ‘provides the Association with the opportunity to negotiate, in good faith, the package to be offered’.
Happy to be corrected, but can’t imagine that the relevant flight attendant, and/or engineers’ industrial agreement offers the FAAA or the ALAEA any more negotiating strength than the AIPA has.
Of course, the litmus test will come, should pilot VR packages to be offered, be less than what is prescribed in the WD for compulsory redundancy and thereafter young pilots are cut loose.
If any junior people do go out the door, and the AIPA has accepted lesser terms and conditions than FAAA and/or ALAEA, and have not also protected the jobs of the younger pilots, I say again, I for one will be most disappointed.
Last edited by WorthWhat; 7th May 2014 at 08:48. Reason: clarity
A 12 month package would likely see maybe 50 max go off the top of the 400 - those over 60 within a couple of years of retirement for whom it's a bit of a bonus to maybe walk out 12 months earlier than planned.
That won't fix the issue for the other 400 or so surplus pilots. The Dallas to the 380 move is going to see another 747 retired early. More surplus pilots. Some may be demoted and redeployed to the 380 but it's a net negative outcome. And the Chief Pilot reckons we should be excited? Who's living in cloud cuckoo land now?
That won't fix the issue for the other 400 or so surplus pilots. The Dallas to the 380 move is going to see another 747 retired early. More surplus pilots. Some may be demoted and redeployed to the 380 but it's a net negative outcome. And the Chief Pilot reckons we should be excited? Who's living in cloud cuckoo land now?
.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Tuner is on the money with this one. At the end of the day it's the companies discretion of what they want to offer and who they want to offer it to when it comes down to VR's. Different story for CR's as it is spelt out in the WD.
I would appreciate some input from those with greater knowledge than me on the subject of utilisation . Some off the back of an envelope figures would seem to show the 380s flying approx 13 hours a day average for 2 Aust UK returns 2 Aust USA returns and 3 Hong Kong returns a week. By removing it from the Hong Kong services you free up approx 60 hours a week but against that 6 Dallas services a week will add approx 180 hours a week for a net fleet gain of 120 hours a week or 12 hours per airframe per week or approx 1.5 hours per day. This would seem to push the daily utilisation to approx 14.5 per day per airframe. Now, my question is that this seems extremely high. Qantas did this once before in the late 80s with the 747s and it was a disaster. You need huge engineering capacity to do it , it didn't work then and will it be any different now? Personally I doubt it, I'm not bashing the 380 I just can't see Qantas been able to support this sort of daily utilisation and feel that it will cause many delays and substitutions. Your thoughts will be appreciated.
From my conversations with engineers the A380 is a nightmare of cabin defects. I was told that it's very labour intensive compared with the Jumbo but then I could be wrong but the engineers on this forum could elaborate more?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short, Mohikan, less than ones’ CR entitlement and junior pilots shown the door, will not help Qantas and/or AIPA.
Straw polling of ‘ageing pilots’ confirms many are simply not interested in 12 months. They say they still like the job and have much more than 12 months sick leave in the bank. Why would they risk giving the Company a free kick.
If all concerned are truly interested in using VR to reduce the number of training courses arising out of RIN and avoiding CR - maximising any offer of VR is the obvious way to go.
At the end of the day, the results will speak for themselves and lingering resentment created by avoidable CR is certainly not going to help turn Qantas around.
Straw polling of ‘ageing pilots’ confirms many are simply not interested in 12 months. They say they still like the job and have much more than 12 months sick leave in the bank. Why would they risk giving the Company a free kick.
If all concerned are truly interested in using VR to reduce the number of training courses arising out of RIN and avoiding CR - maximising any offer of VR is the obvious way to go.
At the end of the day, the results will speak for themselves and lingering resentment created by avoidable CR is certainly not going to help turn Qantas around.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worthwhat, what is to say that Qantas will offer 12 months to our "aging" pilots?
Quite frankly they don't have too. These pilots may find they are offered $2 if Qantas so choses. To somehow think they are going to be offered 95 or 104 weeks just shows some are on a completely different planet.
Quite frankly they don't have too. These pilots may find they are offered $2 if Qantas so choses. To somehow think they are going to be offered 95 or 104 weeks just shows some are on a completely different planet.