Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN

Old 4th Jul 2015, 08:59
  #101 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 952
Post How badly dudded are Sunstate pilots?

During May, the word was that the company was “very close” to signing off both EBA’s. But Oldmeadow isn’t an idiot; he may have suggested having one last crack.

So after a long and fruitless day of negotiating, where nothing was being conceded by either side, a deal was done in the last few minutes.

One of the oldest negotiating tricks in the book: make a deal with only a few minutes to go after a long and frustrating day. Play on their egos (in this case: “You’ll get your EBA signed off before Eastern”).

And it worked.

The soft underbelly (that was the Sunstate rep(s)) was breached. TEN YEARS work by both pilot councils of trying to get over what happened with the Q400 introduction thrown out the window. All trust between the EAA and SSA pilot groups gone.

Just like that.

And how’s that working out for the Sunstate pilots? Well, according to the 5th of June update, they’re happy with the FINANCIAL side of the EBA.

But should they be?

The Eastern EBA reps did a comprehensive costing of their EBA proposal. They found that under the Eastern EBA proposal the company was basically cost neutral with a slight benefit to the company.

That’s right folks, by wanting:
  • $10.00/$6.50 per hour DHA to come in on agreement
  • 9 days off per roster
  • FO’s getting 55/60% of Q400 Captains pay for years one and two and 65% of “fleet” Captains pay for year three and beyond
The COMPANY would benefit slightly financially. So a pretty good result for both sides. Pilots get extra time off and more money, and basically cost neutral for the company.

Poor old Sunnies pilots. Their EBA reps hadn’t done any costings. So think of how much more money the company is going to make with:
  • $9.30/$6.00 per hour DHA to come in on 01 Jan 2016
  • 8 1/2 days off per roster
  • FO’s getting 55% of “fleet” Captains pay for all first three years.
If you can’t work it out, by delaying the DHA, current Sunstate pilots are giving up 4.5% of your yearly income.

So you should be happy to see the extent of how YOUR REPS have benefitted the company at YOUR EXPENSE.

All because they desperately wanted to sign off before Eastern, and because they couldn’t be bothered using a calculator.


Of course, as most people have realized by now, the “In-Principal” agreement wasn’t quite as “in-principal” as it was on the 15th of May, nor even the 25th of May. As seen on the 5th of June update, there are 13 or so items that are “issues” and are all about rostering and day of operations.

But hang on, how are these suddenly issues? Eastern has had an on-going rostering dispute with the company almost since the introduction of Optimiser. We’ve been going it alone. We asked Sunstate if they were going to join us in this dispute with the company but they said no. Why?

Because Sunstate doesn’t have rostering issues, according to the head of the Sunstate pilot council. Not sure if you Sunstate pilots realized that you didn’t have any rostering issues until the 5th of June this year! Or at least you didn’t until the Sunnies EBA reps had this crazy idea and decided to listen to what their pilots were saying to them.

Curiously enough, the 13 items are almost a cut-and-paste of the issues surrounding the Eastern Rostering dispute. (Is this yet another example of Sunnies copying what the Eastern guys are doing?)

At least they’re (finally) on the right track. The 19th of June update has everything rosy again!

Nothing to worry about!

But if the conditions are “all fixed” as you guys say, why didn’t you publish what changes you’ve managed to effect? Surely if they’re that good, you can put them up for public consumption? No?

I’m guessing (and I don’t think I’m going that far out on a limb here, considering the piss-poor performance of your negotiators so far) that the reality of the accepted lifestyle and rostering changes will just be some weasel words in the EBA like “where possible” and “if practicable” and “if the Tea Leaves fall the right way”.

Seriously, with the crew complement in Cairns vs the number of aircraft based there, there has to be some major changes to lifestyle protection. I’m just not seeing it.

Any changes to lifestyle only be cost neutral (i.e. minimal), as your reps have already signed off an “in-principal” agreement!

So I hope you guys trust your pilot council and EBA reps to have done their job properly. I hope your lesser wage increase and zero lifestyle changes are worth it because the damage done by your reps will last for at least the next ten years, and certainly for as long as you keep the same people in your Pilot Council.

I hope you guys feel happy that management can manipulate your reps so easily.

You can guarantee that come next EBA the Eastern EBA team will be strung along for a year. Management will wait until the Sunnies team come to the table and offer them about 80% of what Eastern are asking for and they know they’ll take it.

Management are confident of this because:
1: You keep on voting the same reps in; and
2: These SAME REPS have caved twice now!
I hope you guys are happy that there is NO TRUST AT ALL from any Eastern Pilot about the Sunnies pilot council. It wasn’t so much of an issue ten years ago when crew didn’t mix, but today there is common crewing and crew operating out of other company bases. You’ll be working alongside people who despise the actions of your reps, knowing that their lifestyle has suffered because of their ego.

I’ve had conversations with some Sunstate pilots recently and some of the commentary is concerning:

Some of the reps are saying that they’ve not undercut Eastern pilots at all! Amazing! It’s as if them agreeing to LESS isn’t undercutting! Perhaps I’ll send a dictionary up north.

I’ve also spoken with pilots who tell me that some of the Sunnies guys are looking to join AIPA because they don’t think that the AFAP is acting in the best interests of the pilot group.

Pity that the Sunnies EBA reps didn’t listen to their pilots earlier. Perhaps they wouldn’t have been so quick to come to an agreement if they’d have actually based some of their EBA claims on what their pilots wanted instead of what their egos demanded.

DIVOSH!

Last edited by Di_Vosh; 4th Jul 2015 at 09:51.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 04:43
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Unhappy Its scary

Reading all these posts im a little bit worried. I wasnt around in 2010 and i dont know the way things happened then, but i think i can say that we dont live in the same world today as we did in any of the past EBAs.

If you look at what Qantas managed to do to the 2500 strong QF pilots, what do you think they will do to the 200 eastern pilots who are causing problems. We are like that little yappy dog chewing on an elephants ankle.

Regardless of the sunstate outcome the flexability that they have with 717s, 737s, network and charter companies like alliance, they can easily keep the network operating without the turbo prop operations, (very very easily keep the operation going without eastern airlines).

We live in a very different world now and we dont have the power we once did. Now im not aware of all the fine details of the sunstate EBA, but what i know is that i want to make sure i have a job next year.

It would suck living on 54K (plus o/n allowances and dha) a year in sydney or melbourne, but i lived on less as an instructor, and living on $0 per year is much more difficult.

Disclaimer: im a worried eastern FO and not associated with the pilot council.
hotsauce15 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 09:00
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 10'S 100'E
Age: 42
Posts: 103
What's the latest re PIA?
noclue is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 12:08
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: FL250 or below
Posts: 11
Coming to Sydney, that's nothing compared to what they'll loose voting up their current financial proposal.

Word on the street is the sunnies proposal is full of those useless side letters, instead of being included in the EBA.

I really hope the Sunnies guys and gals see Easterns PIA as an opportunity to say no and move to improve T&C's for us all.
Crash8 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2015, 12:49
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 157
What are the advantage or disadvantages of things being included in these side letters? Why does the company want things done like that, and why should the pilots be against it? Never quite understood the purpose of them.
muffman is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2015, 01:34
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
The union or indeed any pilot can nominate anyone to act as their bargaining representative - they don't need to be elected. In other unions/workplaces much of the negotiation can be carried out by hired negotiators.

There is nothing "legally binding" about a deal made in the room - it just determines what gets put out to be voted upon by the pilots. The negotiators cannot "make an agreement" - they just come to an agreement "in principle". The agreement is made when a vote is completed in favour of the proposal. The company can choose to put a deal out for vote even if the negotiators do not agree/support the proposal.

I'm not going to say anything here to push the SSA pilots to a certain view - as has been said by others you should properly consider the document that will be put before you. But also realise that no EBA exists in a vacuum - what happens in QLD will affect the industry as a whole and vice versa. There is a lot of information around EAA circles at the moment which examines the financial impact of various proposals - I would want to know that any agreement put before me for my vote was supported by bargaining reps who had a high level of understanding of what they were negotiating. All I would say to my SSA friends is that they should read and understand the document they vote on, and take the opportunity to question their reps on how they determined its worth.

Nuff said from me.
Icarus53 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 10:54
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: FL250 or below
Posts: 11
muffman,

My understanding is the side letters favour the company as there is no avenue for arbitration as it doesn't form part of the EBA, therefore out of Fair Works jurisdiction. So I guess unless someone wants to sue the company (good luck with that!) for not following a "letter", they're not worth the paper they are written on.

If they held as much weight as being in the EBA, then why aren't they?
Crash8 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 12:37
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN

Yeah, get those letters thrown in the EBA first. Oh, and lose the B scale.
Average Joe is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 01:04
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
What a negotiating team we have. Problem: lifestyle being destroyed. Solution: unenforceable side letters. Bravo two guys and girl, bravo
Lowly FO is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 21:55
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 77
Lowly FO and others,

Rather than vent your frustrations here I suggest you go to a roadshow and express your dismay and concern or better still approach these VERY approachable people in one of our crew rooms and ask them directly.

Side letters etc are done for a reason. Previous management have had no problem adhering to letters of agreement, our new management have taken a while and pushed the point but they are now playing the game.

My strong advice, having been through this Eastern VS Sunstate BULL5HIT many times, is ignore the lies and exaggerations on this forum and get the correct facts from your negotiating team.

I am sure they will talk to you even if your not a union member!
Captain Stoobing is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 00:59
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 628
"Just vote no..."

What about "read the document or 'EBA package' as it's being termed, and if you like it or think that it's a reasonable outcome, then vote for it. If you don't like it, then vote it down."

If you have questions, ask them. The EBA negotiators WANT you to ask questions. They want you to make an INFORMED decision, based on FACTS not HEARSAY which is all that is on here lately.

Don't vote ignorantly thinking that the negotiators don't care or only look out for themselves.

Vote based on what YOU think, not what others are telling you to think...

Flame suit On...
Going Nowhere is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 02:45
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 220
Grrr

The hysterical ramblings from DIVOSH remind me that of an old uncle at the far end of the dinner table who is still adjusting to his meds.

The main crux of DIVOSH et al's argument against the Sunnie's EBA is based purely on a FIVE BULLET POINT MEMO from the Feds. I seriously question how someone (or anyone for that matter) as learned as he proposes to be, is so well versed in a document THAT HASN'T BEEN DRAWN UP YET (until last week - but not released for review until today).

I am now calling for calm amongst BOTH pilot groups. The 'Scabstate' honorifics that have been flying around lately are just plain juvenile.
I've been talking to a fair few drivers about this situation and most agree that further investigation needs to be had to make a fact-based decision. As Going Nowhere has put, just turn up to the roadshows and ask the tough questions to the reps. Vote on YOUR circumstances.

Fuel-Off
Fuel-Off is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 09:40
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 318
Nope

Ok so it's out and there isn't really anything in it that hasn't been mentioned previously.

Still nothing to discourage the rostering of crew away from home base for long periods of time. Still nothing to discourage the rostering of crew sitting in hotel rooms all day twiddling their thumbs.

No overtime. No DTA - both of which would go some way in helping with lifestyle and both of which feature (either alone or together) in the EBAs of QF Mainline, VARA, Tiger, Jetstar and I think (but not entirely sure) Virgin.

If it's good enough for everyone else, then why not us as well?

*WARNING - PERSONAL RANT* I'm getting a bit over busting out 145 hour months while other guys are doing a third of that for more or less the same coin. It was only meant to be temporary but it's not getting any better. Sure people are getting trained but people are also leaving at the same rate.

IMO, the only way to make it fairer is to bring in O/T so the guys who are working hard are fairly compensated compared to the guys who aren't. With DHA, the difference in pay will be minute compared to the extra work being done.

DTA should be a bare minimum to compensate for having our 'time off' spent in hotels away from our families. Something that never used to happen.

I feel sorry for any guys in GA with an ATPL and 2000hrs as their chances of getting a job with Qlink (Sunstate at least) just got a whole lot worse. It will be like Maccas hiring an 18 year old instead of a 15 year old. Will cost the company more so why do it?

It was a pretty good move by the company to get rid of bonds for new hire FO's and having it transferred to the Captains. New hires are likely to be too inexperienced (on account of them being 10% cheaper) to move on anywhere else so why bother bonding them? Now the current FO's who have already been bonded for 3 years will be bonded for another 2 years. I'm not sure what I gained in exchange for the pleasure of being bonded for 5 years.

Side letters- really, what's the point?


If you value time at home, or at least value being paid to be away from home then I don't know how you will benefit from this.
Fonz121 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:30
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 46
Posts: 286
My Summary of the proposed EBA, July 2015. Do not believe anything I’ve written below, check it for yourself, this is all my opinion:

Purely based on the treatment of new First Officers, I will be voting “NO”.

Additionally the increases in total package are IMHO severely lacking.

I see no protections to our lifestyle, within our proposed EBA or in the “Un-enforceable Letters”, I see no mechanism by which we will be returning to sustainable crewing levels or reasonable rostering practices.

It was claimed in recent EBA updates that “clear and concrete under takings” were sought, I do not see them in the proposed EBA or side letters.

IMHO this EBA offers poor increases in pay and conditions.

IMHO this proposed EBA throws new “inexperienced First Officers” under the bus.

Perhaps “experienced First Officers” being paid 75% and “inexperienced First Officers” being paid 65% would be more appropriate for highly qualified individuals that are needed to crew these High Capacity RPT aircraft.

I couldn’t imagine living in a capital city on such a small salary.

The work rules, as previously seen in our EBA appear mostly intact ( CAO 48 )

Our previous EBA, July 2011 through June 2014, our last pay rise was July 2013.

The proposed EBA expires December 2018, that covers a period of 4.5 years.

By my calculations:

A five year Q300 Captains entire package, based on 100% PIP and Retention at the end of June 2014 was $115,332.12

A five year Q300 Captains entire package, based on 100% PIP and 1,000 hours of DHA at the end of December 2018 is proposed to be $129,497.98, that is a circa 12.3% increase over 4.5 years. Circa 2.7% P/A

The Side Letters

Release from Training Bond :
No opinion....

Check and Training Captain Numbers:

Don’t we already have a side letter, for exactly this purpose, dated 03NOV2011, signed by Captains DXXXX and MXXXXXX, penned during our last EBA negotiation, why do we need another one ?, unless of course they haven’t honoured it, which leads to the undeniable question, why do we want another “Un-enforceable Letter” ?

Executive Motor Vehicle Scheme for all Captains:

I talked to an accountant and quickly saw that this offers no benefit to me, the Australian Tax Office always get their pound of flesh. All money or benefits the company bestow upon us ( excepting our approved allowances ) are either taxed as PAYE or under the FBT scheme.

Lounge Access:

Clause 49.5 in the proposed EBA already gives Captains Club access.

This latest “Un-enforceable Letter”, gives:

Captains: Club access ( which they already have under 49.5 ) and Business Lounge access ( both for duty travel purpose only ),

First Officers: Club access ( for duty travel purposes only ).

Whilst this is nice to have, it won’t help you buy a house or feed the family.

Reserve utilisation and rostering issues:

This “Un-enforceable Letter”, other than stating two designated days free of all duties before and after recreational leave, is IMHO lots of fluff, I can not see any “concrete” commitment by the company to fixing base establishment numbers, rostering, day of operations etc etc.

I can’t see how any of the lack of lifestyle issues we presently have due to the changes that have been forced upon us with the introduction of the optomiser have been fixed or remedied.

Rostering Request Book:

Firstly, I thought it was a “Requested Day Off book ( RDO)”, in this “Un-enforceable Letter”, we see the company agree to keep it and not consider late start and early finishes as requests.

The base EBA:

The eighteen month “Pay Freeze”, I do not accept the necessity of an eighteen month pay freeze.

If all it took for a CEO to force his/her workers to accept an eighteen months pay freeze, was to publicly state it as a fact and canonise it in internal policy, I bet every CEO on the face of the planet would do exactly that, imagine, reducing the cost of their wage bill by 5% FOREVER.

New FO’s low wages, terrible. Experienced FO’s should be paid more, not the other way around.

Training Salary gone, a good thing for new pilots ?, so what do they get paid until they are endorsed ?.

Command Bond, well that is a personal issue. I personally do not have a problem with this.

Optimiser, our work practices were dramatically changed without what I consider any form of meaningful consultation or incentive for increase in work load, increase in length of trips etc etc.

IMHO present crew levels are unsustainably low.

IMHO allowance increases are too low:

The ATO meal allowances appears to have increased approximately 9.6% from the last EBA.

The company specific allowances appears to have increased 5.9%.

Please let me know if any of my calculations are incorrect, as I am happy to amend.

Last edited by Josh Cox; 14th Jul 2015 at 08:37. Reason: small correction regarding new pilots wages, what do they get paid before they are "endorsed" ?.
Josh Cox is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:13
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by Josh Cox View Post
My Summary of the proposed EBA, July 2015. Do not believe anything I’ve written below, check it for yourself, this is all my opinion:

Purely based on the treatment of new First Officers, I will be voting “NO”.

Additionally the increases in total package are IMHO severely lacking.

I see no protections to our lifestyle, within our proposed EBA or in the “Un-enforceable Letters”, I see no mechanism by which we will be returning to sustainable crewing levels or reasonable rostering practices.

It was claimed in recent EBA updates that “clear and concrete under takings” were sought, I do not see them in the proposed EBA or side letters.

IMHO this EBA offers poor increases in pay and conditions.

IMHO this proposed EBA throws new “inexperienced First Officers” under the bus.

Perhaps “experienced First Officers” being paid 75% and “inexperienced First Officers” being paid 65% would be more appropriate for highly qualified individuals that are needed to crew these High Capacity RPT aircraft.

I couldn’t imagine living in a capital city on such a small salary.

The work rules, as previously seen in our EBA appear mostly intact ( CAO 48 )

Our previous EBA, July 2011 through June 2014, our last pay rise was July 2013.

The proposed EBA expires December 2018, that covers a period of 4.5 years.

By my calculations:

A five year Q300 Captains entire package, based on 100% PIP and Retention at the end of June 2014 was $115,332.12

A five year Q300 Captains entire package, based on 100% PIP and 1,000 hours of DHA at the end of December 2018 is proposed to be $129,497.98, that is a circa 12.3% increase over 4.5 years. Circa 2.7% P/A

The Side Letters

Release from Training Bond :
No opinion....

Check and Training Captain Numbers:

Don’t we already have a side letter, for exactly this purpose, dated 03NOV2011, signed by Captains DXXXX and MXXXXXX, penned during our last EBA negotiation, why do we need another one ?, unless of course they haven’t honoured it, which leads to the undeniable question, why do we want another “Un-enforceable Letter” ?

Executive Motor Vehicle Scheme for all Captains:

I talked to an accountant and quickly saw that this offers no benefit to me, the Australian Tax Office always get their pound of flesh. All money or benefits the company bestow upon us ( excepting our approved allowances ) are either taxed as PAYE or under the FBT scheme.

Lounge Access:

Clause 49.5 in the proposed EBA already gives Captains Club access.

This latest “Un-enforceable Letter”, gives:

Captains: Club access ( which they already have under 49.5 ) and Business Lounge access ( both for duty travel purpose only ),

First Officers: Club access ( for duty travel purposes only ).

Whilst this is nice to have, it won’t help you buy a house or feed the family.

Reserve utilisation and rostering issues:

This “Un-enforceable Letter”, other than stating two designated days free of all duties before and after recreational leave, is IMHO lots of fluff, I can not see any “concrete” commitment by the company to fixing base establishment numbers, rostering, day of operations etc etc.

I can’t see how any of the lack of lifestyle issues we presently have due to the changes that have been forced upon us with the introduction of the optomiser have been fixed or remedied.

Rostering Request Book:

Firstly, I thought it was a “Requested Day Off book ( RDO)”, in this “Un-enforceable Letter”, we see the company agree to keep it and not consider late start and early finishes as requests.

The base EBA:

The eighteen month “Pay Freeze”, I do not accept the necessity of an eighteen month pay freeze.

If all it took for a CEO to force his/her workers to accept an eighteen months pay freeze, was to publicly state it as a fact and canonise it in internal policy, I bet every CEO on the face of the planet would do exactly that, imagine, reducing the cost of their wage bill by 5% FOREVER.

New FO’s low wages, terrible. Experienced FO’s should be paid more, not the other way around.

Training Salary gone, a good thing for new pilots. But insignificant in the grand scheme.

Command Bond, well that is a personal issue. I personally do not have a problem with this.

Optimiser, our work practices were dramatically changed without what I consider any form of meaningful consultation or incentive for increase in work load, increase in length of trips etc etc.

IMHO present crew levels are unsustainably low.

IMHO allowance increases are too low:

The ATO meal allowances appears to have increased approximately 9.6% from the last EBA.

The company specific allowances appears to have increased 5.9%.

Please let me know if any of my calculations are incorrect, as I am happy to amend.
Regarding your calculation on q300 salary. Why have you not included the retention in the 2018 calculation. Additionaly wouldnt the year 5 captain be on a year 8 salary bracket by 2018?

Cheers hb
HappyBandit is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:25
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 46
Posts: 286
Hi HB,

I believe comparing a five year with five year is a truer representation of gauging the changes.

Every year you increase one year increment ( up until 10 years ), this is a reward for staying with the company.

By sliding from five years of service to nine or ten years of service skews the linear comparison of wages.

The same outcome would be achieved if I compared a ten year Captain with a fifteen year Captain....

Why have you not included the retention in the 2018 calculation.
Read 29.1.

Cheers,

Josh
Josh Cox is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:31
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by Josh Cox View Post
Hi HB,

I believe comparing a five year with five year is a truer representation of gauging the changes.

Every year you increase one year increment ( up until 10 years ), this is a reward for staying with the company.

By sliding from five years of service to nine or ten years of service skews the linear comparison of wages.

The same outcome would be achieved if I compared a ten year Captain with a fifteen year Captain....

Cheers,

Josh
I understand what youre saying but you what you see on your pay slip wouldnt match your percentage. You would see the year 8 or 9 salary. Im no maths whizz (although i was dux &#128522 but you are calculating the increase non longitudinaly which doesnt match real world. As for your comparison with drivers that arent working as much isnt this where dha is of benefit? On my way to roadshow so I can make an informed decision. Might see you there
HappyBandit is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:32
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 27
Cool

Hi Josh,

How are the side letters un-enforceable? My understanding is that they are written undertakings by the by company in agreement with the company. Therefore a legally binding document?

If they happen to by un-enforceable then could the FO's who have left the company in the past, whilst under a bond, simply not paid the bond because that appeared under a LOA??

Cheers bloke.
In the Soup is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:39
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 46
Posts: 286
Hi ITS,

The Bond is in the old EBA, Clause 54.8.

Call the AFAP, but my understanding is that a "bond", to be binding, must be in the legislative instrument (EBA), which it has been.

Call the AFAP.

Fuel-Off:

The 'Scabstate' honorifics that have been flying around lately are just plain juvenile.
I have not seen or heard any of this kind of attitude, relations between the actual Pilots seems to be quite respectful, in fact many pilots from both groups are having very open, frank and friendly dialogue over this topic out of public view.

Last edited by Josh Cox; 14th Jul 2015 at 03:03.
Josh Cox is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 05:20
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 220
Angry

Not from what I've experienced first hand and witnessed, Josh (and others who have told me of their experiences). Utter disgrace!

Fuel-Off
Fuel-Off is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.