300 Qantas pilots to get the chop ???
There is nothing wrong with QF staff pay and conditions, as long as their passengers are prepared to pay the air fares necessary to provide that level of income.
If the company is profitable and doesn't expect government handouts of tax payer money then they have a winning business model and can set the standard for industry renumeration.
Why shouldn't the Australian government subsidise every other business in the country that can't keep it's head above water ?
If the company is profitable and doesn't expect government handouts of tax payer money then they have a winning business model and can set the standard for industry renumeration.
Why shouldn't the Australian government subsidise every other business in the country that can't keep it's head above water ?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“when the union puts a good deal on the table like has been quoted numerous times on this thread by the former head of AIPA”
So what exactly do you think is a “good deal”? Salary and benefits benchmarked against regional competitors? Lets hear it!
“Like 45 years without industrial action?”
The lack of industrial action merely highlights my point that Qantas has been held to ransom by its highly unionized staff and the short sighted management have simply kicked the can down the road. Qantas, like most legacy carriers, could afford the high labor costs in the past, especially as a Government airline in a market with little effective competition in a world with few skilled labor alternatives. For a long time it has been a fight not worth persuing with too much vigour. This has changed but Qantas labor practices have not yet adapted to the new world.
“I think its fair to say that the opinion of air and ground crews re the management is largely unanimous.”
A perfect example of group think and a recipe for disaster.
“Where are comparisons for completely screwed up aircraft choices, massive fuel burn losses and stacked management on unbelievable salaries and parking new aircraft around the place?”
These comparisons are being made over on the website called Professional Airline Managers Rumour Network. I assume your argument is that labor should be left alone until all other facets of the business are tip top? This is not a reasonable expectation of how business works.
“Why this fixation with salaries . . . .”
Because its where management can reduce costs and its one of the few places an airline can gain comparative advantage.
“ . . . which are 100% line ball with what you will get around the world. And I include Easy/Ryan etc in that group.”
No, they are not in line with competitors within the same labor market. They are significantly higher with greater inefficiencies. Try explaining pattern protection to a pilot from CA. Try explaining consequential training costs to a pilot from SQ.
“Who are we going to pick on then? Those Tiger pilots have it so good?”
Again, labor costs at Tiger are not the issue.
“Its not just the pilots.”
Very true indeed, it’s the labor costs of the company, top to bottom.
The sad thing about the debate on this thread is that most of those denying the need for labor reform at Qantas think they are arguing against opinion when they are actually arguing against reality. Qantas management and staff are fighting the same labor reform battle that every legacy carrier has fought or will fight, except for those many legacy carriers that have gone out of business.
So what exactly do you think is a “good deal”? Salary and benefits benchmarked against regional competitors? Lets hear it!
“Like 45 years without industrial action?”
The lack of industrial action merely highlights my point that Qantas has been held to ransom by its highly unionized staff and the short sighted management have simply kicked the can down the road. Qantas, like most legacy carriers, could afford the high labor costs in the past, especially as a Government airline in a market with little effective competition in a world with few skilled labor alternatives. For a long time it has been a fight not worth persuing with too much vigour. This has changed but Qantas labor practices have not yet adapted to the new world.
“I think its fair to say that the opinion of air and ground crews re the management is largely unanimous.”
A perfect example of group think and a recipe for disaster.
“Where are comparisons for completely screwed up aircraft choices, massive fuel burn losses and stacked management on unbelievable salaries and parking new aircraft around the place?”
These comparisons are being made over on the website called Professional Airline Managers Rumour Network. I assume your argument is that labor should be left alone until all other facets of the business are tip top? This is not a reasonable expectation of how business works.
“Why this fixation with salaries . . . .”
Because its where management can reduce costs and its one of the few places an airline can gain comparative advantage.
“ . . . which are 100% line ball with what you will get around the world. And I include Easy/Ryan etc in that group.”
No, they are not in line with competitors within the same labor market. They are significantly higher with greater inefficiencies. Try explaining pattern protection to a pilot from CA. Try explaining consequential training costs to a pilot from SQ.
“Who are we going to pick on then? Those Tiger pilots have it so good?”
Again, labor costs at Tiger are not the issue.
“Its not just the pilots.”
Very true indeed, it’s the labor costs of the company, top to bottom.
The sad thing about the debate on this thread is that most of those denying the need for labor reform at Qantas think they are arguing against opinion when they are actually arguing against reality. Qantas management and staff are fighting the same labor reform battle that every legacy carrier has fought or will fight, except for those many legacy carriers that have gone out of business.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salary and benefits benchmarked against regional competitors?
What has changed that has negatively impacted Qantas' profitability is the direction and management of the company. Not pay rates. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your reality.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professor, your arguments would be empirically verifiable if the Qantas Group operated a straight forward transparent airline business. It does not.
It is a complex multi-jurisdictional aviation franchise conglomerate. Its accounts are not transparent. It is able to shield its offshore entities and legally allocate costs & revenues as it see fit under Australian Accounting Standards Segment reporting.
Employee costs are NOT one of the few controllable costs in the Qantas business, unlike most other airline businesses. Other controllable costs are the other offshore businesses themselves. These are very large. How big is not quantifiable due to the lack of transparent, but they are a massive burden to the business.
From a pilots point of view, there is a problem with pilot labor costs. The longhaul award has accreted many inefficiencies over time, through a process of negotiation. These inefficiencies are magnified with fleet reductions. Qantas was offered a genuine opportunity in 2010/11 to negotiate, it chose not to. I also note you have scrupulously avoided this topic in your arguments
The rise in the AUD has also caused a massive increase in $US dollar denominated salary benchmarks.
There has been a sustained media campaign to paint the root cause of the Qantas financial problems as the workers. If it were a simple airline business in this position, I would agree with these arguments. It is not.
There has been a decade of offshore business growth, with two years of profits, SIN $2.5 (2014) and $2.1 million (2013) for Jetstar Asia, that's it. Losses in Vietnam, Hong Kong & Japan. How much? There are no accounts produced to allow us to see.
What would the Qantas financial position look like without the massive offshore expansion over the decade? You haven't mentioned this case.
There is simply no way to compare Qantas to other airlines, it is not a simple airline business, it is a complex piece of opaque financial engineering.
Anyone reading through this thread would note your continued avoidance of such topics and wonder why. Your arguments could be seen as cherry picking data to suit a particular ideology, rather than seeking to ascertain the truth. Are you a truth seeker or an ideologue? The longer you dance around the issue, the more you look like the latter.
It is a complex multi-jurisdictional aviation franchise conglomerate. Its accounts are not transparent. It is able to shield its offshore entities and legally allocate costs & revenues as it see fit under Australian Accounting Standards Segment reporting.
Employee costs are NOT one of the few controllable costs in the Qantas business, unlike most other airline businesses. Other controllable costs are the other offshore businesses themselves. These are very large. How big is not quantifiable due to the lack of transparent, but they are a massive burden to the business.
From a pilots point of view, there is a problem with pilot labor costs. The longhaul award has accreted many inefficiencies over time, through a process of negotiation. These inefficiencies are magnified with fleet reductions. Qantas was offered a genuine opportunity in 2010/11 to negotiate, it chose not to. I also note you have scrupulously avoided this topic in your arguments
The rise in the AUD has also caused a massive increase in $US dollar denominated salary benchmarks.
There has been a sustained media campaign to paint the root cause of the Qantas financial problems as the workers. If it were a simple airline business in this position, I would agree with these arguments. It is not.
There has been a decade of offshore business growth, with two years of profits, SIN $2.5 (2014) and $2.1 million (2013) for Jetstar Asia, that's it. Losses in Vietnam, Hong Kong & Japan. How much? There are no accounts produced to allow us to see.
What would the Qantas financial position look like without the massive offshore expansion over the decade? You haven't mentioned this case.
There is simply no way to compare Qantas to other airlines, it is not a simple airline business, it is a complex piece of opaque financial engineering.
Anyone reading through this thread would note your continued avoidance of such topics and wonder why. Your arguments could be seen as cherry picking data to suit a particular ideology, rather than seeking to ascertain the truth. Are you a truth seeker or an ideologue? The longer you dance around the issue, the more you look like the latter.
“Like 45 years without industrial action?”
The lack of industrial action merely highlights my point that Qantas has been held to ransom by its highly unionized staff and the short sighted management have simply kicked the can down the road.
I'd suggest that there was a remarkable lack of belligerence for a very long time, to the point where Dixon reportedly described AIPA and its membership as 'softcocks'.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Professor, in 2008 Qantas Group made a profit of 1.4 billion dollars, largely on the back of the mainline international operation.
Tell us, what changes to pay and conditions of Staff since then have been responsible for the parlours state of the Company's finances now being experienced?
Or was it something else that occurred around that time? The GFC did hit, but that hit every airline. So what else happened around then that seems to have gutted this company?
Any clues?
Tell us, what changes to pay and conditions of Staff since then have been responsible for the parlours state of the Company's finances now being experienced?
Or was it something else that occurred around that time? The GFC did hit, but that hit every airline. So what else happened around then that seems to have gutted this company?
Any clues?
Virgin Australia's labour costs are 2/3 those of QF because they had the advantage of starting with a clean sheet of paper. As they transition into a legacy airline and their staff unionise alongside a growing management bureaucracy they will probably be in the same situation as QF in thirty years time.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unionisation" is simply a smoke screen thrown out by management to try and convince the shareholders that they aren't incompetent, regardless of any basis of fact. Anyone claiming that any aviation association in this country is 'militant' is simply telling lies to further their own agenda. It's so transparent it's crystal.
Evidence is clear
Professor et al
FYSTI and Kremin have just suscinctly, rationally and eloquently highlighted the root causes of the current Qantas disaster.
Others, including myself, have proven the right wing ideological intransigence demonstrated by QF Management regarding industrial relations.
Failure to acknowledge these inescapable truths exposes you at best as someone incapable of reasoned argument.
FYSTI and Kremin have just suscinctly, rationally and eloquently highlighted the root causes of the current Qantas disaster.
Others, including myself, have proven the right wing ideological intransigence demonstrated by QF Management regarding industrial relations.
Failure to acknowledge these inescapable truths exposes you at best as someone incapable of reasoned argument.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cesspool,
Re salaries - to the vast majority of joe public on an avg wage of $55k or something, those wages are over the top.
Looking solely at the Captains wages - there are not many companies in Australia that would have that many people earning $250k +
Now I appreciate that flying is totally different to most normal professions.
But 'most' employees do 48wks Mon-Fri of 9-5, 0.5hr lunch - which is 1800hrs /yr. Many high paid employees do substantially more in unpaid overtime.
Pilots capped at 900hrs (appreciate there is more prep time etc which should be counted) but there is definitely a difference.
Re salaries - to the vast majority of joe public on an avg wage of $55k or something, those wages are over the top.
Looking solely at the Captains wages - there are not many companies in Australia that would have that many people earning $250k +
Now I appreciate that flying is totally different to most normal professions.
But 'most' employees do 48wks Mon-Fri of 9-5, 0.5hr lunch - which is 1800hrs /yr. Many high paid employees do substantially more in unpaid overtime.
Pilots capped at 900hrs (appreciate there is more prep time etc which should be counted) but there is definitely a difference.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the vast majority of GA pilots on an award salary of around 33k - 40k annually, those vast majority of Joe Publics on 55k salary look to be over the top.
Where does it all end moa? The politics of envy.
ps if I do 15 x 10 day London trips a year, that is at least 3,100 hours a year away at work before Sims and other training days, but keep telling me I only work 900 hours a year maximum.
Where does it all end moa? The politics of envy.
ps if I do 15 x 10 day London trips a year, that is at least 3,100 hours a year away at work before Sims and other training days, but keep telling me I only work 900 hours a year maximum.
Licence on the line (and therefore your job) every 3 months likewise strict medicals every 12 months.
An extremely through knowledge of Australian and International Transport Law (every country you fly to or over) is more than mandatory.
No such thing as public holidays, public holiday penalty rates etc. 17 hour work days are the norm and its rare to work all day. Extreme tiredness is the result. Personally I found International flying on the 76 the worst, occasionally bad enough to throw up on the side of the road driving home. 'Stop Revive Survive' signs always humoured me!
You do not get home from work each day, generally 'going to work' means 7-10 days and nights away. Days away 'at work' are NOT considered hours at work.
13 years it took me before I had Christmas and New Year off in the same year....
You cannot compare it to 9-5 M-F.
An extremely through knowledge of Australian and International Transport Law (every country you fly to or over) is more than mandatory.
No such thing as public holidays, public holiday penalty rates etc. 17 hour work days are the norm and its rare to work all day. Extreme tiredness is the result. Personally I found International flying on the 76 the worst, occasionally bad enough to throw up on the side of the road driving home. 'Stop Revive Survive' signs always humoured me!
You do not get home from work each day, generally 'going to work' means 7-10 days and nights away. Days away 'at work' are NOT considered hours at work.
13 years it took me before I had Christmas and New Year off in the same year....
You cannot compare it to 9-5 M-F.
And, according to today's paper, the average wage is now $73,000 and the average tax burden net $3,500.
...and by the way, last year I made 11 hours of overtime, and spent approximately 6% of my hours in crew rest. All in the long haul fleet, and I would be pretty average on my aeroplane.
...and by the way, last year I made 11 hours of overtime, and spent approximately 6% of my hours in crew rest. All in the long haul fleet, and I would be pretty average on my aeroplane.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking solely at the Captains wages - there are not many companies in Australia that would have that many people earning $250k +
Re salaries - to the vast majority of joe public on an avg wage of $55k or something, those wages are over the top.
I have often compared the airline pilot profession to that of anaesthetists. A family friend of mine is one. We have spoken of the remarkably similar physical and psychological skills required. There are quite a few similarities between his and my attitudes towards pre-op (flight planning), sedation (preflight), main event (cruise)((magazines/operational material perusal)) and the all important post op, bringing the patient to (approach and landing), often the most challenging time. There are the common dynamics of having to work with various personalities during vastly different procedures. Much like we are required to work with different crew almost every time we go to work, to destinations with varied procedures and degrees of difficulty, often at short notice. Obviously my friend has spent a hell of a lot more time training and of course there are other differences. Our aircraft generally perform pretty consistently, patients less so. He often has to prep and step up at shorter notice than I, with little patient details. However, I still think the jobs are quite similar. At the end of the day cool heads and wealth of experience (actually being able to call on that experience, not just paying lip service to a buzzword) will contribute to the best possible result.
So, what's he on? After around 20 years experience, well over $200,000, certainly less than $300,000. Pretty comparable i'd say.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-Jet:
"An extremely through knowledge of Australian and International Transport Law (every country you fly to or over) is more than mandatory."
Really? LMFAO!
"An extremely through knowledge of Australian and International Transport Law (every country you fly to or over) is more than mandatory."
Really? LMFAO!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Age: 48
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing yourself to Medical Specialists - you guys are truly delusional.
The anesthetist did a six year medical degree , and four or five years specialist training with extremely tough exam to both get even selected ,then pass.
The second officer did a 14 month course, at a vocational level , ie: TAFE level. The academic rigour of Aussie flight crew exams is low, all multi guess, and all exams from PPL thru ATPL could be easily completed in five months, - year 10 grads manage to get through
Then SO does a three month course to upgrade to FO , 3 to 6 month course (airline dependent) to upgrade to Capt.
If you think comparing yourselves to medical specialist is a valid comparison - God help you
The anesthetist did a six year medical degree , and four or five years specialist training with extremely tough exam to both get even selected ,then pass.
The second officer did a 14 month course, at a vocational level , ie: TAFE level. The academic rigour of Aussie flight crew exams is low, all multi guess, and all exams from PPL thru ATPL could be easily completed in five months, - year 10 grads manage to get through
Then SO does a three month course to upgrade to FO , 3 to 6 month course (airline dependent) to upgrade to Capt.
If you think comparing yourselves to medical specialist is a valid comparison - God help you
The Job Security clause was never about a guaranteed job for life.
As far I was aware, in very basic terms it referred to a mindset that if an aeroplane had a Qantas tail on it, then it was to be crewed by a Qantas crew.
As far I was aware, in very basic terms it referred to a mindset that if an aeroplane had a Qantas tail on it, then it was to be crewed by a Qantas crew.
It just goes to show how much you were ill-informed or perhaps misled.
The AIPA defined job security claim included : a new payscale based on aircraft max weight, new redundancy provisions, a restoration of relative staff travel categories for pilots, increased loss of licence amounts, a requirement that all Qantas associated and entity pilots have pay and conditions no less than the Longhaul EBA provisions, access to all facilities that a First class passenger has when deadheading.
Note there was no claim anyway related to "a mindset that if an aeroplane had a Qantas tail on it, then it was to be crewed by a Qantas crew."
I am reliably informed that Qantas was told at every opportunity there would be no settlement unless and until all items were satisfied.
8 years bush bashing in PNG, 6 months training Qantas, 5 years SO, 4 months training Qantas, 7 years FO, NOT a lifestyle choice, 4 months training Qantas then command.........do the math
you are right no uni at all.
you are right no uni at all.