Qantas Short Haul EBA 2014
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I'm confused.
80% No vote, couple of minor tweaks and all of a sudden people are falling all over themselves to sign up.
One wonders why some voted no in the first place.
Or are we simply threatened and retreating?
80% No vote, couple of minor tweaks and all of a sudden people are falling all over themselves to sign up.
One wonders why some voted no in the first place.
Or are we simply threatened and retreating?
Nunc est bibendum
Lets not forget many took demotions simply because they couldn't bear to leave Sydney.....Then whinged about being demoted.....
Last edited by Keg; 12th Dec 2014 at 10:10.
Not to mention for 16 year FOs, in their 40s, kids in high school who are nigh on impossible to uproot (family comes first), the only option to remain in Sydney was to become a SO again. RINed pilots were unable to displace across hauls.
Sure, they may be able to get an FO slot in SYD on the 73 in future but, as part of the RIN, for some the only option was to lose a stripe and their hard-earned window seat.
Name another airline where 16 year pilots, who have been in the 'Group' longer than pilots for any subsidiary (except a few ex-impulse guys), have been FOs for maybe 14 years are back to cruse relief jobs. Didn't think so.
Any real airline those guys and girls would have been Captains years ago.
Sure, they may be able to get an FO slot in SYD on the 73 in future but, as part of the RIN, for some the only option was to lose a stripe and their hard-earned window seat.
Name another airline where 16 year pilots, who have been in the 'Group' longer than pilots for any subsidiary (except a few ex-impulse guys), have been FOs for maybe 14 years are back to cruse relief jobs. Didn't think so.
Any real airline those guys and girls would have been Captains years ago.
Sure, pilots will always find something to whinge about - and being demoted is probably a legitimate gripe. However, whinging about demotion to a fleet where many will be paid substantially more and have greater control over their roster is not as big a whinge as losing your job.
As bad as the RIN was, people at least had an opportunity to prioritise what was important - location, rank, pay.
Is any of this, however, related to the options available to short haul pilots with the upcoming vote?
As bad as the RIN was, people at least had an opportunity to prioritise what was important - location, rank, pay.
Is any of this, however, related to the options available to short haul pilots with the upcoming vote?
Nunc est bibendum
Sure headmaster. Completely agree with the general principle. I'm not saying that my lot in life is terrible. As a 2nd prize it's still pretty good. My comments are directed to Ozsync regarding his perception that perhaps I shouldn't have a whinge at all.
A couple of technical points. Most of the F/Os getting demoted get a pay rise and more control over their lives. However they all could have had that years ago. They forwent that to love their job of being an F/O. Again, as 2nd prizes go it's pretty good but most of them would give it up on a blink to stay an F/O in Sydney.
Further, I'd be very surprised if any of the demoted Captains are going to be better off financially. I've crunched the numbers a bunch of times and I'm not in front. I will be better off lifestyle wise but I could have held that lifestyle years ago anyway. I'd give up that lifestyle in a moment to keep flying the 767.
None of the crew on the 767 being demoted want to be demoted. Almost universally we'd give up whatever 'benefit' any of us may achieve on the 380 to keep doing exactly what we're doing now on the coin we're getting now.
The answer to your final question though is 'probably not'.
A couple of technical points. Most of the F/Os getting demoted get a pay rise and more control over their lives. However they all could have had that years ago. They forwent that to love their job of being an F/O. Again, as 2nd prizes go it's pretty good but most of them would give it up on a blink to stay an F/O in Sydney.
Further, I'd be very surprised if any of the demoted Captains are going to be better off financially. I've crunched the numbers a bunch of times and I'm not in front. I will be better off lifestyle wise but I could have held that lifestyle years ago anyway. I'd give up that lifestyle in a moment to keep flying the 767.
None of the crew on the 767 being demoted want to be demoted. Almost universally we'd give up whatever 'benefit' any of us may achieve on the 380 to keep doing exactly what we're doing now on the coin we're getting now.
The answer to your final question though is 'probably not'.
It is distasteful that an airline pilots discussion forum has got to the point of arguing about dollars and cents. They've reduced the most professional and company minded people in the world to the 'what's in it for me?' mindset.
I don't blame you but it is disgraceful what's happened...
I don't blame you but it is disgraceful what's happened...
Hi Keg my comments aren't really directed at you, I do sympathise with those who have chosen to drop rank because of personal reasons, you are entitled to a whinge, I was directing my comment more at those who are whinging to anyone who does or doesn't ask about their predicament.
Aviation life really is still pretty good for any pilot involved in this RIN.
Aviation life really is still pretty good for any pilot involved in this RIN.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas breakthrough with short-haul pilots
Gee that slipped through quietly!
What was different in the new deal?
Gee that slipped through quietly!
What was different in the new deal?
The new deal provided the back pay they previously said they wouldn't pay. Approximately 7 million dollars worth across the all the SH pilots.
Probably more importantly it enshrines the provisions of the Integration Award within the new EBA. This was essential because changes to legislation would have rendered it unenforceable if the company did not participate in its modernisation. Currently the IA is the closest thing we have to a scope clause and contains important redundancy provisions.
Probably more importantly it enshrines the provisions of the Integration Award within the new EBA. This was essential because changes to legislation would have rendered it unenforceable if the company did not participate in its modernisation. Currently the IA is the closest thing we have to a scope clause and contains important redundancy provisions.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Strayer
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why were they entitled to it? As for setting an example, I think you'll find another five or more employee groups took pay freezes first. And don't give me that crap about the engineers getting their mates' jobs back. I guess now you'll tell us the AFAP or TWU is here to save the day and get jetstar pilots millions?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing.
After all the chest beating prior to 14th it suddenly goes quiet and then ka-pow....YES.
Not one single comment on the new proposal before it was resoundingly voted in.
After all the chest beating prior to 14th it suddenly goes quiet and then ka-pow....YES.
Not one single comment on the new proposal before it was resoundingly voted in.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a disappointing result. This was an opportunity to fix some issues which will now fester for another 4 years.
"Never get between a pilot and a bag of money."
Quote from WFK, never more true.
"Never get between a pilot and a bag of money."
Quote from WFK, never more true.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tropical Paradise
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBA
It seems from the outside that Q deliberately delays negotiations until well after the current EBA has expired. Then, after a significant period of no negotiation due to "other negotiations", Q's first offer is an obvious reject. This leads to the next offer which, invariably, contains a clause stating there will be no back pay up to the date of the new agreement being settled. Q then settles into a long, drawn-out period of "negotiation" during which the "no back pay" clause remains included. Years can pass, all benefitting Q's financial position.
My point is: if this can be proved as an across-the-board tactic employed by Q, could it be determined to be an illegal move by the company?
Thoughts?
My point is: if this can be proved as an across-the-board tactic employed by Q, could it be determined to be an illegal move by the company?
Thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
The word is everyone will go sick on reserves once the new contract starts, so beat that, you won the battle but it's pretty simple to win the war...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
There is no penalty for going sick on a reserve day so from the beginning of the new contract that's what's gonna happen.....why should be accept it, let's reject it! Cancel services and let the idiots fix the mess...
Not being party to this particular EBA, do I understand you that you can go sick on an R day and have no penalty? If so I would just re-record my voice mail message to that effect. And follow that up with a "no volunteer" movement for open time.
You deal the cards, you play out the hand.
You deal the cards, you play out the hand.