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 1st Jun 2015, 03:23
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK - So we are now 5 pages in and I have not seen anything in writing.

Given the level of interest and now we are at character assasinations, would be great for those of us on the ouside to get the picture.

Could someone please post the proposal.
Part 121 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2015, 07:31
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The individual named in post #90 is not a member of the SSA council nor does he hold other elected positions within AFAP.
"As part of the drafting process, on Tuesday this week your Sunstate Pilot Representatives Rod Millroy, Russell Thompson and Richard Copland along with ..."

but he negotiates on behalf of...
NowThatsFunny is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 02:34
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

Not a regular visitor here but i've been alerted to this thread.

First Divosh u need to get your head read. How is trying to restart the Eastern V Sunstate war gonna help anyone? Fck talk about playing into the hands of management. Seems like your tactic is to hope that they will die from laughter.

Let's look at the big picture. Has anyone seen the final document? No that's right, it hasn't been drafted yet. Pretty hard to form an opinion without all the facts isn't it.

Here's how to go about it.

1. Ignore all the rumours and bullsh1t you might hear.
2. Wait until you receive the full document.
3. Read it and understand it.
4. Go to a road show and ask questions.
5. Form your OWN opinion based on FACT, not emotion, then vote yes or no.

We are our own worst enemies.

As far as the politics go, if you think you could do better, put your hand up and nominate for your pilot council. Otherwise shut the fck up.

Wake up people. We are professional pilots. Let's start acting like it.

Disclosure: Sunstate Pilot and AFAP member, not affiliated with the council or negotiators.

Last edited by Mr Whippy; 6th Jun 2015 at 03:09.
Mr Whippy is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 05:50
  #84 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Finally comes the cheer squad…

First Divosh u need to get your head read. How is trying to restart the Eastern V Sunstate war gonna help anyone? Fck talk about playing into the hands of management. Seems like your tactic is to hope that they will die from laughter.
Are you serious? Management were laughing the second your esteemed “negotiator” walked out of the room. They didn’t need any help from me.

And as for re-starting the “Eastern Vs Sunstate war”, I wasn’t the one who undercut the Eastern position. Eastern pilots don't need any Prune posts from me to realise that your negotiator(s) have seriously damaged our efforts to get what we wanted in our EBA over the line.

Let's look at the big picture. Has anyone seen the final document? No that's right, it hasn't been drafted yet. Pretty hard to form an opinion without all the facts isn't it.
Do you need to see the final document before you can form an opinion about the differences between the Eastern and Sunstate bids? It’s right there on the AFAP website.

As far as the politics go, if you think you could do better, put your hand up and nominate for your pilot council. Otherwise shut the fck up.
I've already stated that I was on the Eastern council. I was on it for over five years. I was one of the EBA negotiators for the 2010 EBA. You do know the Eastern 2010 EBA? It's the one that your negotiators (in essence) said "We'll have what they got, thanks" in 2011.

Seems to me like you should know this.

And since you've admitted that you're NOT on the Sunstate council, perhaps you could follow your own advice

DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 06:50
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And the saga continues.

According to the latest updates:

For the Eastern Pilots, management (not surprisingly) said that they’d give us “what Sunstate agreed to”. Thanks for nothing, Sunstate rep(s)!

The Sunstate 15th of May announcement was “All good, just needs to be drafted”. But there appears to be some back-pedalling, because yesterday’s announcement was “We’ve got some serious issues to resolve before we’re happy".

Word on the street is that the Sunstate rep who’s responsible for this debacle went back to his home base. While there, some of his compadres (i.e. Senior Q400 Captains) told him in no uncertain terms what they thought of the “In principal” agreement and that they’d be voting NO! Hence the change...

A big Thank you to the Sunstate PILOTS!

It appears (to me) that the majority of the Sunstate PILOTS have better vision than certain member(s) of the EBA team who are supposed to be representing them.

So well done to the Sunstate pilots who told the EBA team they’d better go back to the table.

And here’s the truth: NOBODY wants a “NO” result.

The pilots don't, the EBA teams don't, the union doesn't, nor does the company.

The pilots want a good result the first time, without threat to their back-pay, threats of PIA, etc.

The EBA teams want to get back to their normal lives after delivering a good EBA to the pilots.

Union membership could suffer: Pilots won’t see that the “in principal” agreement was made by their own reps; they’ll blame the union. It wouldn’t surprise me if AIPA got a round of interest from disillusioned Sunstate pilots due to this "in principal" agreement.

(And while we’re talking about AIPA: How often do we hear calls for the unions to work closer together? Why would AIPA even consider working closer with another union when one sub-committee within that union actively tries to undercut another one?)

Qantas has had two humiliating (for Qantas) NO votes in Pilot EBA’s recently; both of which got vastly improved results for pilot T’s and C’s. IMHO, it’s unlikely they’ll suffer a third such humiliation. Far more likely there’d be a Virgin type result where pilots were worse off after their “NO” vote.

The Eastern team has stated to management that they won’t leave the room until they have an agreement that they believe that the pilots will vote up.

Here’s my top tip for the Sunstate reps: Make your peace with the Eastern reps, and WORK WITH THEM to achieve an outcome that benefits ALL Qlink pilots!

DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 10:45
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sunstate Reps have not undercut the Eastern Reps.

OK, $9.30 DHA instead of $10 - so what! Sunstate troops get an extra 1% Super so Easterns will most likely still get $10 DHA.

"What, Eastern's get 1% less than us in Super, those mongrels, they have undercut us"

This is how ridiculous it has become. After the agreements, one side or the other will be $500/yr better than the other. The agreements can never be identical as this is collusion. If you really look at it, in some areas Sunnies is better off and in others, Easterns are. Gees, the Sunnies people wish they could actually bid for or against the "Sodomiser", I mean Optimiser.

One group of Reps has got to the line first. Doesn't really matter which one as long as they put in a good fight. Let's support whichever one has managed to get there first and if you leave the emotion of those mongrels have undercut us by $12.65/ week over the term of an agreement, then we might ALL get something we are reasonably happy with.

By the way, it is NOT a B Scale for unborns. It is 55% of an improved rate. Therefore, an unborn joining in 2016 will be on pretty much the same coin as FO's are currently getting paid.

FO's already employed will see at least an extra 8K a year in their pay packet.

Get the facts.
Boney is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 12:25
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 448
Received 37 Likes on 13 Posts
Will still be voting NO unless a few of these lifestyle terms get agreed to.
Fonz121 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 05:17
  #88 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boney, it’s all very well to say “Get the facts”, as long as you get ALL the facts.

Going on this years rostering, I think it’s fair to assume that a Qlink pilot will perform around 1300 hours duty per given year, based on 115 Duty per 28 day roster, 13 rosters per year, less 6 weeks annual leave, and one or two sick days.

So, yes, the difference in pay between the Sunstate “in principal” agreement and what the Eastern intent will be in the order of $900.00 pa.

But what you’ve (conveniently) left out is the fact that EAA are after guaranteed 9 days off per roster instead of 8 ½. That’s a difference of 5% guaranteed time at home.

Considering what the company is doing right now via Optimiser, and that you can expect to be flying between 16 and 20 days per 28, do you think that the extra time off is significant?

Big difference between the EAA and SSA reps on that one.

By the way, it is NOT a B Scale for unborns. It is 55% of an improved rate. Therefore, an unborn joining in 2016 will be on pretty much the same coin as FO's are currently getting paid.
Bizarre logic. Firstly, you're saying it's okay for Next Years FO's to be earning what This Years FO's are earning. Great forward thinking!

Second, the EAA proposed agreement would give a new-hire up to $18,000.00 more over their first three years of employment than the SSA “in principal” agreement.

Sounds kind of “B” ish to me. (But what do you care, as you’re already employed…)

One group of Reps has got to the line first. Doesn't really matter which one as long as they put in a good fight.
Well, that's the whole problem isn't it? It’s common knowledge that earlier this year certain members of the Sunnies pilot council were bragging that they’d get their agreement before the Eastern guys did.

Looks like they wanted it so badly they were happy to miss some of the "put in a good fight" part.

DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 07:09
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes DIVOSH, maybe you do raise some valid points.

A third of FO's that have joined the Company over the last 5 years have only been looking for a thousand hrs multi crew so their Resume looks good for Cathay/Virgin etc.

Do I care about these people - nope.

It would appear finally, the Company is starting to actually give a stuff about those that want to stick around for 20yrs. This proposal is for those that plan to be around for the long haul.
It is about time they actually cared about this as I believe they would be shocked at how many Senior Captains have been "sniffing around" elsewhere since Christmas due . . . . . .

A. Little faith in a fair EBA outcome before the next Ice Age

B. "Sodomiser" Optimiser program.

A driver that joins next year would be on the same coin (after DHA etc) that the current FO's are on. Yep, maybe a bit rude but if they stick around for the long term, they would break even after a year of Command and then ahead forever and a day until retirement.

55% should still be enough money to get a professional Resume done for Cathay and get ya suit pressed?
Boney is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 08:41
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The earth
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dutch_oven
With Virgin and Cathay hiring and murmurs getting louder that mainline might recruit (in a big way!), I feel sorry for the youngsters who are bonded (handcuffed) to Qlink.
I'd imagine if these said youngsters get a mainline gig, they wouldn't be too worried about the Dash bond. Think about a top earning potential of $300k+ vs $120k
thejeev is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 22:01
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alan's Handbag
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could they not just hire trainees as all new hires and bond them for some token level of training outside of the EBA? Effectivley getting new pilots on lower pay via the EBA, AND still having them bonded to the company via the outside agreement. I don't trust management nearly enough to believe they wouldn't give it a shot
sled is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 23:36
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 448
Received 37 Likes on 13 Posts
Could they not just hire trainees as all new hires and bond them for some token level of training outside of the EBA?
They don't even need to do that. Apart from maybe Cathay, new hire trainees generally can't go anywhere anyway. Look at Virgin just recently. Requirements for an SO were put up to 500 multi command. Half the current FO's can't even apply. That's why the company wouldn't need to worry about a financial bond for new hires. If they get trainees they'll be stuck there anyway.
Fonz121 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2015, 03:06
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many new trainees won't have an ATPL. It seems unlikely that Q will offer a free ATPL flight test to anyone except as part of a command upgrade. At this stage many long-haul jobs specify ATPL as a minimum requirement.

Therefore, at this point, the presence or absence of an FO training bond is largely meaningless. Market forces will keep FOs in place for a few years, until "ATPL" disappears from jet job requirement lists.

However, even if 100% of new hires intend to move on as soon as possible, I won't vote for reduced conditions for new hires. Rather than that, I'd abandon the union altogether and negotiate my own deal. It seems more honest, somehow.
Oktas8 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 06:55
  #94 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with a few of the above posters. A bond on a new hire FO is not really necessary with the new Part61 licensing. Very few new hires will already hold an ATPL. And with fewer job offerings for crew without an ATPL, new hires will have limited options.

Not so a recently upgraded Captain, hence the bonding for promotions.

AFAIK, Cathay are “working on” a process whereby Ausssie new hire SO’s won’t require an ATPL, but that may be some time away.

The problem is, is that many Captains share the attitude of BONEY. He’ll ignore the fact that many of the recent 40+ resignations (not all FO’s by any means) were triggered by the forced downgrades/demotions/relocations earlier this year.

He’ll admit that (in his opinion) only around 1/3 of FO’s are there as a stepping stone, and yet is more than happy to condemn ALL new hire FO’s to T’s & C’s that virtually guarantee they’ll consider Qlink to be a stepping stone.

Then attempts to justify it by saying something like:

Yep, maybe a bit rude but if they stick around for the long term, they would break even after a year of Command
That’s how it is now folks: join Australia’s largest regional airline and your wages will be “B” scale. But you’ll “break even” with others in the industry after a few years! Hurrah!

Of course, all of this is because the FO pay scale is getting BONEY (and others like him) HIS pay-rise. As I said on an earlier post, “Whatever lets you look yourself in the mirror…”

DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 09:02
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alan's Handbag
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why on earth would we trade lower pay for new employees for no bonding? Not exactly a great trade off considering the company effectively wins on both...
sled is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 16:57
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN

It's selling the unborn no matter which way you slice it.
Average Joe is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 07:42
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 235
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
So the EAA proposal would be a "B+ Scale"
maverick22 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 09:22
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the (rejected) Eastern EBA proposal I've seen, every pilot would see a pay rise. New Q400 FOs would see the smallest pay rise.

This is not a B scale in my understanding of the word. Be that as it may, it doesn't involve degrading the T&C of future colleagues, so I could support it.

(Actually, I could support an EBA even if it degraded T&C of future colleagues in one scenario: if the most highly paid current pilots also took the same degraded deal. It's hypocrisy I object to, not pay cuts as such.)
Oktas8 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 10:42
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oktas8


That's the way I see it too.

Current drivers (both seats) see a pay rise.

In effect, new joiners get close to current FO pay for the first 3 years (includiing 3+3+3). When you add in DHA, it would be the same or more coin than current FO's get.

Too grossly exaggerate the current pay scales to make a point!


Imagine if . . . . . . . (we all wish?)


Proposed new Dash8 EBA


New Capt Salary 300k a year

New FO Salary 200K a year

But FO's for the first 3 years, only a measly 150K.


"B SCALE ALERT, B SCALE ALERT"

Last edited by Boney; 14th Jun 2015 at 11:13. Reason: Spelling mistakes etc.
Boney is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2015, 02:29
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hobart
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's the way I see it too.

Current drivers (both seats) see a pay rise.

In effect, new joiners get close to current FO pay for the first 3 years (includiing 3+3+3). When you add in DHA, it would be the same or more coin than current FO's get.

Too grossly exaggerate the current pay scales to make a point!


Imagine if . . . . . . . (we all wish?)


Proposed new Dash8 EBA


New Capt Salary 300k a year

New FO Salary 200K a year

But FO's for the first 3 years, only a measly 150K.


"B SCALE ALERT, B SCALE ALERT"
Let's use your example for a moment with the reference "B SCALE ALERT, B SCALE ALERT"

Even in your example new hire FO's are worst off and this is setting a precedence for the company, it's not about the money, it is the principle.

In this EBA FO's get 55% for 3 years. In the next EBA they may get 50% for 4 years? Where does it stop? (look at American regional carriers, now i'm not saying this is anything like that but...) By allowing this to happen you're effecting telling the company we don't value new hires as much as someone who has been here for longer doing exactly the same job! The endorsement bond is much of a muchness because the company will make back the bond in the 3 years while the new FO is on a lower wage. As for the "more coin than current FO's" I doubt that is true. The latest vacancy note has come out, and I bet half of Adelaide base will probably bid back to their old base putting new hires in Adelaide on minimum duty hours. Great for lifestyle but I guarantee that new hires will be after more hours instead of sitting around on reserve

As for lifestyle, I can fully appreciate Eastern asking for 9 days off and I think it is crazy that Sunstate accepted 8 and a 1/2. The Sydney guys are working bloody hard as are the Brisbane Q400 guys and when you're doing maximum hours, every day off is appreciated.

Having said all of that, we need to wait for the document to be released so we can all have a good read before deciding.

Durandal
Durandal is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.