Qantas and the 787-900
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: SydKnee
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve read the integration award, so I won’t be accepting a “B” scale for the 787 in what any moron can see will replace my current fleet through endless RIN’s. Beware the ides of March, while we may be late, the night of the long knives isn’t far away for any D#*khead who wants to ram a B scale down my throat. While you’ve signed your confidentiality agreement, any CoM member who supports a LH award with a B scale is finished. We are getting 787s and the rate needs to be commensurate with the current types flown under the LH award.
Originally Posted by wasi wasamadroota
s and the rate needs to be commensurate with the current types flown under the LH award.
So, being of 767ish size... 767ish rates?
The 787-9 is slightly shorter than an A330-300 and longer than an A330-200.
The 787-9 has a wider fuselage than an A330 allowing an extra seat per row.
Fuselage cabin area is about 5% larger than an A330-300.
Payload capability is close to a 747.
Range: Perth-London.
The 797-9 is no 767 size aircraft by any metric.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 16th Mar 2015 at 22:15.
What the company wants will equate to a cut of about 30% from the present pay of a 747 pilot with average overtime. Personally I think there are bigger problems than worrying about a squirrel cage.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at "Fuel burn & operating performance of the 787-8, 787-9 & competitors" recently, Aircraft Commerce bracketed the 787-8 with the 767-300ER and A330-200, and bracketed the 787-9 with the A330-300 and A340-300.
I don't think pay rates are the issue.
The real issue is the overtime.
If QF use the 789 to its full capability then current overtime rules would mean substantial increased gross payments.
Pity the poor sods who are junior and get domestic, eventually!
I don't think they'll sell it a 'B' scale.
You'll get a commensurate hourly pay rate but changes to overtime.
Are you happy with that?
I don't think any negotiators over the years envisaged duty periods extending to twenty hours. The company would never have agreed to the overtime component.
I don't think they are prepared to do it now.
No news really...makes sense what their trying to do.
Having said that QF pilots have paid for these overtime provisions.
Silly to agree to give them up. A slap in the face to those who worked hard to get them in the first place.
The real issue is the overtime.
If QF use the 789 to its full capability then current overtime rules would mean substantial increased gross payments.
Pity the poor sods who are junior and get domestic, eventually!
I don't think they'll sell it a 'B' scale.
You'll get a commensurate hourly pay rate but changes to overtime.
Are you happy with that?
I don't think any negotiators over the years envisaged duty periods extending to twenty hours. The company would never have agreed to the overtime component.
I don't think they are prepared to do it now.
No news really...makes sense what their trying to do.
Having said that QF pilots have paid for these overtime provisions.
Silly to agree to give them up. A slap in the face to those who worked hard to get them in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The other side of that coin is that these sorts of ULH TODs are done by other airlines using two captains and two FOs.
Seems to rarely rate a mention these days.
That said I think you are correct Wingspar
Seems to rarely rate a mention these days.
That said I think you are correct Wingspar
In any case, it is pretty sad that we are all left guessing about this, with a newspaper article being our only real source of information.
It is also sad that the Company willingly dragged the SH negotiations out for more than two years, used back pay as a threat and bargaining tool yet suddenly want to push this through in half a year.
It is also sad that the Company willingly dragged the SH negotiations out for more than two years, used back pay as a threat and bargaining tool yet suddenly want to push this through in half a year.
IMO what we need to realise is that in ten years Qantas international will probably have 12/20 A380s and the 330s and 747s will be gone replaced by 787/777x/A350s. The present wage bill for pilots is approx $800 million per year. If 20% of the pilots remain on current wages and conditions (A380) but the other 80% go on to a different system with no overtime or night credits (a pay cut of approx 30%) then the wage bill of $800 million is reduced by approx $180 million per year. A huge win for management if it gets up.
If you have a look at the fleet it's old, old and old.
DM has a point that either way you look at it the fleet in ten years times will be completely different.
Smarts would negotiate an outcome that would cover that and not what we have now.
CK is right in the saving QF have with the use of S/O's as well even though I know some will argue their pay. Again this is something QF pilots have paid for.
If the company is looking for cheap offsets then they should consider fixing up the staff travel for a start.
The lads would like it but won't pay for it..nor should they.
DM has a point that either way you look at it the fleet in ten years times will be completely different.
Smarts would negotiate an outcome that would cover that and not what we have now.
CK is right in the saving QF have with the use of S/O's as well even though I know some will argue their pay. Again this is something QF pilots have paid for.
If the company is looking for cheap offsets then they should consider fixing up the staff travel for a start.
The lads would like it but won't pay for it..nor should they.
Nunc est bibendum
In any case, it is pretty sad that we are all left guessing about this, with a newspaper article being our only real source of information.
Funny though how in the past we've (rightfully) complained about negotiations dragging on and taking forever and now that we're negotiating regularly and consistently (with the company deferring the training of one of the AIPA negotiators so he can be available) there are concerns being voiced of it being rushed.
If the company is looking for cheap offsets then they should consider fixing up the staff travel for a start.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragon Man, no-one has seen what the offer is yet apart from the AIPA negotiators. It is a bit early to be jumping at shadows.
If the new type deal includes a realistic hourly rate (commensurate with other types )and a more linear OT regime, then I believe that with fixes to some of the festering sores such as staff travel, sick leave and home transport, that the majority of pilots would support it.
As far as it being a replacement for other types:
A380: Can't see this in the short/medium term. Qantas needs a high capacity aircraft.
747: This is going anyway and these pilots would be most affected. Perhaps some transitional pay deal for RIN pilots can be worked out although that hasn't happened in the RIN achieved so far.
A330: Would eventually be replaced by 787. More in the medium term I would suggest. This is where the realistic hourly rate comes in. A330 drivers don't score much in OT and will see any extra as a win.
If the new type deal includes a realistic hourly rate (commensurate with other types )and a more linear OT regime, then I believe that with fixes to some of the festering sores such as staff travel, sick leave and home transport, that the majority of pilots would support it.
As far as it being a replacement for other types:
A380: Can't see this in the short/medium term. Qantas needs a high capacity aircraft.
747: This is going anyway and these pilots would be most affected. Perhaps some transitional pay deal for RIN pilots can be worked out although that hasn't happened in the RIN achieved so far.
A330: Would eventually be replaced by 787. More in the medium term I would suggest. This is where the realistic hourly rate comes in. A330 drivers don't score much in OT and will see any extra as a win.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragonman,
Everyone will have their own measure on what's important.
For me having rotating seniority and a fair way of crewing the aircraft is as equally important as the money paid to fly it.
Everyone will have their own measure on what's important.
For me having rotating seniority and a fair way of crewing the aircraft is as equally important as the money paid to fly it.
The offer is the present 330 hourly rate no night credits no overtime. If we don't like it Jetstar or Freighters Australia will do it.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The offer is the present 330 hourly rate no night credits no overtime. If we don't like it Jetstar or Freighters Australia will do it.
Jetstar can fly them, but not branded as Qantas. Same with EFA.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the thought of increased efficiency for the senior crew who may already be on four engined fleets at the expense of income and lifestyle may seem quite unpalatable.
The thoughts of some sort of future for those more junior, who may have needed to move to less appealing regions of the planet on LWOP, or faced a future of stagnation or demotion or worse, makes accepting a deal that may not be as gold plated seem a lot more palatable.
I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bath water, however I do believe we need to try a different tactic as the current award has done nothing for career protection for those more junior.
I am reminded of a colleague from the 737 who a couple of years ago, was thanked by an A380 Captain for keeping him comfortable in the lifestyle he had become accustomed to after another result where domestic had kept international afloat.
If those more senior find a more efficient award unpalatable, there are plenty of offshore 'opportunities' available, as experienced recently by many junior QF crew.
The thoughts of some sort of future for those more junior, who may have needed to move to less appealing regions of the planet on LWOP, or faced a future of stagnation or demotion or worse, makes accepting a deal that may not be as gold plated seem a lot more palatable.
I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bath water, however I do believe we need to try a different tactic as the current award has done nothing for career protection for those more junior.
I am reminded of a colleague from the 737 who a couple of years ago, was thanked by an A380 Captain for keeping him comfortable in the lifestyle he had become accustomed to after another result where domestic had kept international afloat.
If those more senior find a more efficient award unpalatable, there are plenty of offshore 'opportunities' available, as experienced recently by many junior QF crew.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
for keeping him comfortable in the lifestyle he had become accustomed to after another result where domestic had kept international afloat.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt K, I think you missed the point of my anecdote, it could have been just as relevant if A380 pilot had said to a B767 pilot.
I am not saying we should dismiss the long haul award, I think we should aim for some sensible efficiencies that will help secure the future of mainline and the QF employees.
However, the talk of efficiency for a 787 award appears, reading between the lines, to be focusing on overtime & night credits. Of which not a lot is earned on domestic ops.
I am also fully aware that pilot salaries are relatively insignificant when it comes to profitability of various parts of the business. Much of the forthcoming discussion will be for the purpose of outside perceptions and how management can espouse their transformation program and the efficiencies they have created.
In saying the above, if we lose some hard earned conditions for any new 787 award, I believe they should be somewhat offset by returning some incentive in the form of share rights/executive bonus scheme, in good years as a result.
Just my opinion.
I am not saying we should dismiss the long haul award, I think we should aim for some sensible efficiencies that will help secure the future of mainline and the QF employees.
However, the talk of efficiency for a 787 award appears, reading between the lines, to be focusing on overtime & night credits. Of which not a lot is earned on domestic ops.
I am also fully aware that pilot salaries are relatively insignificant when it comes to profitability of various parts of the business. Much of the forthcoming discussion will be for the purpose of outside perceptions and how management can espouse their transformation program and the efficiencies they have created.
In saying the above, if we lose some hard earned conditions for any new 787 award, I believe they should be somewhat offset by returning some incentive in the form of share rights/executive bonus scheme, in good years as a result.
Just my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The offer is the present 330 hourly rate no night credits no overtime. If we don't like it Jetstar or Freighters Australia will do it.
I've been advised personally, and very recently, from someone in a position to know that there are numerous scenarios being looked at. Your scenario may be one of them, but wasn't specifically mentioned. What was mentioned was the inclusion of the 787 on the long haul award just like any other aircraft currently in the fleet, complete with night credits, overtime and every other add on untouched. Only the hourly rate had to be decided upon.
Others options being considered by both parties weren't elaborated upon. What was indicated very strongly is that there are MANY different options being considered by both parties. Suffice to say we are still a long way from nailing down a short listed option.
To come out and portray a take it or leave it rate is not only far from the truth, it is portraying a particularly confrontationist negotiation process which, I'm told, is not the case. There is no implied threat to send the flying to another entity, even if it were possible.
So please keep your scare mongering to yourself.