Qantas Fleet Order Speculation
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuner,
Come bonus time, I might re visit my options. Good idea.
Alan has been largely saved by the fall in the AUD and the fall in the fuel price. Some staff cuts in line with a fleet reduction has assisted, however the macroeconomic climate has done the heavy lifting.
Still Qantas fortunes have reversed and international can now do some heavy lifting for the group as the AUD falls, yields go up, and the foreign visitors increase.
Interestingly when the 4 year B scale, sorry "Future Captain" pay was introduced in the 2005 SH EBA, SH tech crew got access to the executive remuneration program as an offset for a B scale.
Sorry done it again, "future Captain" rate.
Come bonus time, I might re visit my options. Good idea.
Alan has been largely saved by the fall in the AUD and the fall in the fuel price. Some staff cuts in line with a fleet reduction has assisted, however the macroeconomic climate has done the heavy lifting.
Still Qantas fortunes have reversed and international can now do some heavy lifting for the group as the AUD falls, yields go up, and the foreign visitors increase.
Interestingly when the 4 year B scale, sorry "Future Captain" pay was introduced in the 2005 SH EBA, SH tech crew got access to the executive remuneration program as an offset for a B scale.
Sorry done it again, "future Captain" rate.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Come bonus time, I might re visit my options. Good idea. "
Doesn't work that way. You cherry pick exec terms and conditions once again just because they will make a good profit this year. What about for the next 10 years? Would you have signed up to a bonus at risk scheme in 2009 in hindsight? Didn't think so...
Doesn't work that way. You cherry pick exec terms and conditions once again just because they will make a good profit this year. What about for the next 10 years? Would you have signed up to a bonus at risk scheme in 2009 in hindsight? Didn't think so...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tuner,
Yes I see your point.
If the tech crew costs savings are a MAXIMUM of 1.6% then the fuel savings of 25% are insignificant compared to the imperative to obtain a B scale for pilots flying it.
So the question therefore, is that if the margin is that thin, then what are other groups such as the executive doing with such a burden?
Or does ideology dictate savings can only come from pilots?
I.E it is good enough for one group but not another?
What grants them immunity from this margin you profess to know to the %
Yes I see your point.
If the tech crew costs savings are a MAXIMUM of 1.6% then the fuel savings of 25% are insignificant compared to the imperative to obtain a B scale for pilots flying it.
So the question therefore, is that if the margin is that thin, then what are other groups such as the executive doing with such a burden?
Or does ideology dictate savings can only come from pilots?
I.E it is good enough for one group but not another?
What grants them immunity from this margin you profess to know to the %
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be clear.
I'm not against sensible efficiencies being made to the entire Long Haul award. I'm not advocating zero change. I just don't believe in making it ok for one group of pilots to carry the burden, dividing and conquering the pilot group.
B scales have caused a mess in any airline when introduced.
The point I'd like to emphasise is that the company spin machine has been adamant that a decision to purchase is based largely on pilot cost and the zeal for new conditions.
The figures prove that is total rubbish. The savings come from the efficiencies of the new type.
I'm not against sensible efficiencies being made to the entire Long Haul award. I'm not advocating zero change. I just don't believe in making it ok for one group of pilots to carry the burden, dividing and conquering the pilot group.
B scales have caused a mess in any airline when introduced.
The point I'd like to emphasise is that the company spin machine has been adamant that a decision to purchase is based largely on pilot cost and the zeal for new conditions.
The figures prove that is total rubbish. The savings come from the efficiencies of the new type.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The savings come from the efficiencies of the new type.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The point I'd like to emphasise is that the company spin machine has been adamant that a decision to purchase is based largely on pilot cost and the zeal for new conditions."
No, they have out forward 3 or 4 criteria. Pilot EBA is one. They already have QCCA on bugger all money to crew the cabin. Wait and see what the deal is before you call it a 'B scale'.
No, they have out forward 3 or 4 criteria. Pilot EBA is one. They already have QCCA on bugger all money to crew the cabin. Wait and see what the deal is before you call it a 'B scale'.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest respect to our cabin crew, we should not bench mark ourselves to cabin crew pay/conditions/B scales. That its been accepted there should not make it acceptable for the pilot group.
Think pilots hold more chips as higher skilled labour.
Last time I checked no flight attendant spent $100-150k on training and 5-10 years flying in the bush to get a job as a flight attendant.
To give the FAAA credit however, QAL flight attendants that get RINed to the A380 or QCCA do get top up pay so they are not disadvantaged should they get forced onto the B scale.
Think pilots hold more chips as higher skilled labour.
Last time I checked no flight attendant spent $100-150k on training and 5-10 years flying in the bush to get a job as a flight attendant.
To give the FAAA credit however, QAL flight attendants that get RINed to the A380 or QCCA do get top up pay so they are not disadvantaged should they get forced onto the B scale.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So on one hand you want to uphold the pay scales of our profession and on the other you applaud the FAAA for flushing the future people of their 'profession' down the toilet with a 50% or 60% or whatever it is pay cut. Should AIPA have done that? Current pilots on the full black book and all new hires on the jetstar eba minus 20%?
Last edited by Tuner 2; 1st Jun 2015 at 07:10.
Only problem fearcampaign, is now those same guys who spend $100k on training and 5 years in the bush will go to VA or JQ to fly 330's, 777's or 787's. And those airlines have no trouble attracting suitable candidates to work under a more efficient contract. The world moved on from the LH benchmark a long time ago.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuner,
Not at all. I detest B scales. Ask any group about the nasty outcomes of one.
It was you who inferred that its was an inevitable outcome and compared new type conditions to what has afflicted the cabin crew.
The FAAA at least protected the QAL members from the QCCA conditions should they get sent there. Doubt it's 70% either.
Not at all. I detest B scales. Ask any group about the nasty outcomes of one.
It was you who inferred that its was an inevitable outcome and compared new type conditions to what has afflicted the cabin crew.
The FAAA at least protected the QAL members from the QCCA conditions should they get sent there. Doubt it's 70% either.
And if they are going to be an FO on a widebody, how can you justify S/O pay being higher under a less efficient contract?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I raised cabin crew because you earlier raised what other employee groups had done. Whether it's 30% or 70% for QCCA versus A scale, I seriously doubt that this pilots EBA (which we are still to see, yet you are already calling a B scale) will be anything like that. More likely it will be a model that pays more for shorter sectors and less for longer sectors with a break-even around 14 or 15 hours.
Judge it when you see it. That's what I'll be doing.
Judge it when you see it. That's what I'll be doing.
Last edited by Tuner 2; 1st Jun 2015 at 07:43.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its quite simple really.
If the aircraft has 280 seats, 50 of which are J class then the aircraft sells tickets at a premium both in Y and J class in QF.
It therefore can pay a higher price to its tech crew proportionate to the revenue/premium received.
Same goes for an A380 with 400 plus seats.
So you cannot compare LCC pay with Full service airlines. Just like you can not compare metro pilot pay to that of an A380.
It must be a like for like comparison.
If the aircraft has 280 seats, 50 of which are J class then the aircraft sells tickets at a premium both in Y and J class in QF.
It therefore can pay a higher price to its tech crew proportionate to the revenue/premium received.
Same goes for an A380 with 400 plus seats.
So you cannot compare LCC pay with Full service airlines. Just like you can not compare metro pilot pay to that of an A380.
It must be a like for like comparison.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We Agree on something Tuner.
I have no doubt it will not be as bad as some suggest.
Said earlier it is best to see what the deal is.
Qantas are not in a crisis anymore.
If the deal is good enough it will get voted up.
If not it will get voted down.
I have no doubt it will not be as bad as some suggest.
Said earlier it is best to see what the deal is.
Qantas are not in a crisis anymore.
If the deal is good enough it will get voted up.
If not it will get voted down.
Last edited by fearcampaign; 1st Jun 2015 at 09:28.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line
Why do some on this forum and Qrewroom continue to make the claim that pilots are an insignificant cost? And that these costs have no bearing on business decisions?
There is no point arguing over what percentage pilots make up of the total cost. You need to refer to the profits.... The bottom line.
Qantas recently made a $203 Mill half year result.... THAT is the bottom line.
The simplistic goal of management is to increase this number. It's done with a holistic view. Why should the pilot group be immune?
As an example if management can achieve a 25 mill saving from their pilots (Yes I know...number from thin air but I assume this figure would be very easily achieved and will more then likely achieved with the new agreement) then this would result in a 12% increase over the bottom line. Even with this very conservative and simplistic example PILOTS MAKE a difference to the business case.
So please people... stop referring pilot costs to the over all cost of an airline. A more accurate way of determining the impact of pilots costs make on the business is with reference to the bottom line.... Have I said this too many times already?
Having said that it's common knowledge the current LH award is way out of sink with the industry. The mind set of management in recent years is to silo every cost within the business into components and make sure it matches (or does better) then it's competitors. Whilst the cost of equipment fuel etc can't really be controlled, the cost of labour can. I believe management will achieve this with or without its current pilots. Get on the bus or get run over.
AJ defines what is an acceptable cost base..... Not the pilots... Not even by pilots who claim to have all the numbers that prove pilots costs are irrelevant. Further AJ will achieve the cost base he desires even if a bunch of long haul pilots don't like it.
If the pilot costs are not important to management or the decisions that they make.... Then it's seems they have gone to an awful lot trouble over the years in pursuit of reducing them for what reason? Just so that can get one over us? So they can give us the pineapple? So they can trick us into less? If this is the way you think then you are listening to your ego. Think instead like a businessman. Think about your are own career. What is on offer (here and else where). No point thinking about what was or should have been. But rather what the reality of the situation is.
We have an opportunity to be get involved.
From what I understand of the new deal.... ( especially when compared to what's on offer at other airlines) it's seems a very reasonable deal.
There is no point arguing over what percentage pilots make up of the total cost. You need to refer to the profits.... The bottom line.
Qantas recently made a $203 Mill half year result.... THAT is the bottom line.
The simplistic goal of management is to increase this number. It's done with a holistic view. Why should the pilot group be immune?
As an example if management can achieve a 25 mill saving from their pilots (Yes I know...number from thin air but I assume this figure would be very easily achieved and will more then likely achieved with the new agreement) then this would result in a 12% increase over the bottom line. Even with this very conservative and simplistic example PILOTS MAKE a difference to the business case.
So please people... stop referring pilot costs to the over all cost of an airline. A more accurate way of determining the impact of pilots costs make on the business is with reference to the bottom line.... Have I said this too many times already?
Having said that it's common knowledge the current LH award is way out of sink with the industry. The mind set of management in recent years is to silo every cost within the business into components and make sure it matches (or does better) then it's competitors. Whilst the cost of equipment fuel etc can't really be controlled, the cost of labour can. I believe management will achieve this with or without its current pilots. Get on the bus or get run over.
AJ defines what is an acceptable cost base..... Not the pilots... Not even by pilots who claim to have all the numbers that prove pilots costs are irrelevant. Further AJ will achieve the cost base he desires even if a bunch of long haul pilots don't like it.
If the pilot costs are not important to management or the decisions that they make.... Then it's seems they have gone to an awful lot trouble over the years in pursuit of reducing them for what reason? Just so that can get one over us? So they can give us the pineapple? So they can trick us into less? If this is the way you think then you are listening to your ego. Think instead like a businessman. Think about your are own career. What is on offer (here and else where). No point thinking about what was or should have been. But rather what the reality of the situation is.
We have an opportunity to be get involved.
From what I understand of the new deal.... ( especially when compared to what's on offer at other airlines) it's seems a very reasonable deal.
Last edited by C207; 1st Jun 2015 at 12:43.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C207
Interesting that you have cherry picked the first half results which showed almost none of the fuel price drop that will be at least 500 million in the full year results.
People should be more interested in the August full year results that show the true effect of the fuel price drops.
Why do you think Qantas is desperately rushing a deal before the full year results are announced????
The first half profit you have chosen in isolation is outdated.
Analysts believe, as does the market, that that figure will be ONE Billion dollars profit FY15 and TWO billion in FY16.
If you had bothered to read my earlier posts I suggested changes were necessary. However that should involve ALL pilots and not selectively target new types or new groups in isolation.
The 5% pay premium is an issue for the A380 and I'm confident Pilots could sacrifice from the A380/747 to get the 787 within the LH award. More savings could be made group wide in this manner.
I stand by the claim that the aircraft provides the efficiencies. That's the over arching fact.
Would some efficiencies from pilots be a bonus, sure.
That can happen within the LH award for all types and all ranks!!
Surely this is a better outcome than just changing a few terms and conditions on one type/group only in isolation?
It makes a mockery of your argument.
However It's a mistruth that pilot costs are the central factor in getting or not getting the 787.
That's what has been communicated to flight crew bloody ad nauseam over and over. All it has done has made the pilot group rightfully suspicious.
Every other airline re equips its fleet for the efficiencies in fuel burn, maintenance and the new product it provides. I've never seen an airline hold back buying new aircraft because pilot terms and conditions held them back.
Qantas missed the boat replacing the 747s years ago with the 777 or ANOTHER fuel efficient twin. After missing a generation they are forced to finally replace the fleet. Hardly a surprise with D checks costing 30 million per aircraft.
Interesting that you have cherry picked the first half results which showed almost none of the fuel price drop that will be at least 500 million in the full year results.
People should be more interested in the August full year results that show the true effect of the fuel price drops.
Why do you think Qantas is desperately rushing a deal before the full year results are announced????
The first half profit you have chosen in isolation is outdated.
Analysts believe, as does the market, that that figure will be ONE Billion dollars profit FY15 and TWO billion in FY16.
If you had bothered to read my earlier posts I suggested changes were necessary. However that should involve ALL pilots and not selectively target new types or new groups in isolation.
The 5% pay premium is an issue for the A380 and I'm confident Pilots could sacrifice from the A380/747 to get the 787 within the LH award. More savings could be made group wide in this manner.
I stand by the claim that the aircraft provides the efficiencies. That's the over arching fact.
Would some efficiencies from pilots be a bonus, sure.
That can happen within the LH award for all types and all ranks!!
Surely this is a better outcome than just changing a few terms and conditions on one type/group only in isolation?
It makes a mockery of your argument.
However It's a mistruth that pilot costs are the central factor in getting or not getting the 787.
That's what has been communicated to flight crew bloody ad nauseam over and over. All it has done has made the pilot group rightfully suspicious.
Every other airline re equips its fleet for the efficiencies in fuel burn, maintenance and the new product it provides. I've never seen an airline hold back buying new aircraft because pilot terms and conditions held them back.
Qantas missed the boat replacing the 747s years ago with the 777 or ANOTHER fuel efficient twin. After missing a generation they are forced to finally replace the fleet. Hardly a surprise with D checks costing 30 million per aircraft.
Why do you think Qantas is desperately rushing a deal before the full year results are announced????
Pretty sure you'd want to walk in there with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Simple as that.
So what you are saying fear campaign is LH pilots should be more efficient and you detest a 'B' scale? Does that mean that ALL LH pilots should work under the same agreement as what's proposed for the 787? That sounds reasonable to me. 👍