Tiger bonding
Thread Starter
Hey Snakey, I reckon you have this wrong.
6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016
This statement shows the rise and fall of the CPI, ie CPI last year may have been 5.2%, and a fall of 0.2%, mean CPI this year is 5% - a whole lot more than a set 2-3%.
6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016
This statement shows the rise and fall of the CPI, ie CPI last year may have been 5.2%, and a fall of 0.2%, mean CPI this year is 5% - a whole lot more than a set 2-3%.
Ah Rodney
I think it is you who has it wrong.
From the ABS dated 27 July 2016
The rises and falls are not rises and falls from a set base number as you suggest, I.e. 5% +/- the rise and fall.
The CPI is a basket of good and services which they measure cost variations in order to determine a number which is just a number. It doesn't accurately reflect the cost of living changes as not everyone buys everything in the basket.
People hang their hat on CPI as the holy grail upon which cost of living payrise should be based,however in times of low inflation the make up of the basket of goods which goes into calculating the CPI can actually show a reduction in the cost of living. If you go with CPI you could well be selling yourself short.
It is swings and roundabouts of course and in times of high inflation CPI usually delivers a better payrise than the company is prepared to offer.
I think it is you who has it wrong.
From the ABS dated 27 July 2016
The CPI rose 1.0 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2016. This is the weakest annual rise since the June quarter 1999.
The CPI is a basket of good and services which they measure cost variations in order to determine a number which is just a number. It doesn't accurately reflect the cost of living changes as not everyone buys everything in the basket.
People hang their hat on CPI as the holy grail upon which cost of living payrise should be based,however in times of low inflation the make up of the basket of goods which goes into calculating the CPI can actually show a reduction in the cost of living. If you go with CPI you could well be selling yourself short.
It is swings and roundabouts of course and in times of high inflation CPI usually delivers a better payrise than the company is prepared to offer.
Change in CPI is what CPI is, when referred to colloquially by us pilots. When it says CPI rose by 1.0% in the year June 2015 to June 2016 then it means you would get a 1% pay rise if you wanted to tie your pay to CPI.
^^^
In response to Rodney, not Snakecharma.
Note also that the things putting downward pressure on the CPI are "luxury" items such as travel and accommodation costs. So if you are a low income earner who mainly spends their money on the necessities then you may find the rise in your personal cost of living is far outstripping the CPI.
^^^
In response to Rodney, not Snakecharma.
Note also that the things putting downward pressure on the CPI are "luxury" items such as travel and accommodation costs. So if you are a low income earner who mainly spends their money on the necessities then you may find the rise in your personal cost of living is far outstripping the CPI.
Thread drift! This is. It about the definition or application of CPI, nor even bonds for turboprop drivers joining Tiger, but existing employees being bonded to keep their jobs as they experience compulsory type change. Not cool. Very not cool.
What happens if you object to the Bond and refuse to leave the A320? Do you then get retrenched?
Could make for an interesting IR situation if everybody refused to change types.
Could make for an interesting IR situation if everybody refused to change types.
I would think, and this is without looking at their EBA, that you MIGHT be entitled to a redundancy of some form BUT the caveat is that many agreements have a redundancy clause that provides for the company to find "alternative" employment of a substantially similar nature and if you don't accept that then the redundancy comes off the table.
As I say I don't know the specifics, but it is an interesting area.
As I also previously said I don't believe in bonds being applied to forced transfers but at the end of the day if you have been overseas and come home to a job at tiger then you are likely to have come home because you want to be in oz and the job is secondary. Note the number of 777 and A380 captains coming back from EK to turboprop and F100 jobs.
So if that is the case then the bond, whilst a pain and unpalatable, may not be a big issue as they wouldn't necessarily be looking to leave anyway.
The guys who don't want to trade their nice 320's for Stone Age 737's (and I can't say I blame them!) then they are going to bail before the type rating and again the bond isn't an issue.
As I say I don't know the specifics, but it is an interesting area.
As I also previously said I don't believe in bonds being applied to forced transfers but at the end of the day if you have been overseas and come home to a job at tiger then you are likely to have come home because you want to be in oz and the job is secondary. Note the number of 777 and A380 captains coming back from EK to turboprop and F100 jobs.
So if that is the case then the bond, whilst a pain and unpalatable, may not be a big issue as they wouldn't necessarily be looking to leave anyway.
The guys who don't want to trade their nice 320's for Stone Age 737's (and I can't say I blame them!) then they are going to bail before the type rating and again the bond isn't an issue.
I don't really see the issue, if you aren't planning on leaving in the next two years then who cares how big the bond is, if you are thinking of going then you have a choice to make. Perhaps that is exactly why the airline is doing it, I know from my current and previous airlines that they all retained the right to bond for change of equipment and or upgrade training and the EBA had a clause like 'the pilot won't unreasonably withhold agreement to any such agreement'. So check you EBA, if you are planning on departing in the next two years then try and go sooner rather than later, if you are planning on staying then don't worry about it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would advise to refuse to sign as a group.
What are they going to do , sack you?
Will they outsource the whole 737 fleet with people paying to fly?
I can imagine that they will get some people out of GA or the corners of the world who will pay but, will CASA approve it and, with Tiger's record?
Who is going to run the fleet, a guy with a bare endorsement with no heavy time, management experience or check approval and a Permit to fly on a foreign licence?
That would be a right good way along the road to being shut down again.
Why is it that these Lowcosts make decisions based on less than the best processes and then want to cover the possibility of having their incompetence been exposed by getting the little people to pay ( or take up some risk)?
Probably better chance of getting job somewhere with an Airbus 330 Rating than a 737.
What are they going to do , sack you?
Will they outsource the whole 737 fleet with people paying to fly?
I can imagine that they will get some people out of GA or the corners of the world who will pay but, will CASA approve it and, with Tiger's record?
Who is going to run the fleet, a guy with a bare endorsement with no heavy time, management experience or check approval and a Permit to fly on a foreign licence?
That would be a right good way along the road to being shut down again.
Why is it that these Lowcosts make decisions based on less than the best processes and then want to cover the possibility of having their incompetence been exposed by getting the little people to pay ( or take up some risk)?
Probably better chance of getting job somewhere with an Airbus 330 Rating than a 737.
The problem is International Trader, is that organising pilots is like trying to 'herd cats', not impossible but not likely to work. There will always be an element who will talk the talk but when push comes to shove they will look after number one and sign the bond to get ahead.
That may well be true.
Explain to me why it's is a pilots responsibility to compensate his employer for a decision made by his employer to change aircraft types.
If Tiger wish to change types it is their responsibility to cover the cost of that change.
What about the income loss the pilot has to forego during the time off line for training?
What's next? Expect the pilot is to kick in for the cost of buying the aircraft?
If you think this won't influence anyone's decision to leave then you're kidding yourself. You can only kick a dog for so long until it decides to bite your leg off.
Explain to me why it's is a pilots responsibility to compensate his employer for a decision made by his employer to change aircraft types.
If Tiger wish to change types it is their responsibility to cover the cost of that change.
What about the income loss the pilot has to forego during the time off line for training?
What's next? Expect the pilot is to kick in for the cost of buying the aircraft?
If you think this won't influence anyone's decision to leave then you're kidding yourself. You can only kick a dog for so long until it decides to bite your leg off.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really see the issue, if you aren't planning on leaving in the next two years then who cares how big the bond is, if you are thinking of going then you have a choice to make. Perhaps that is exactly why the airline is doing it, I know from my current and previous airlines that they all retained the right to bond for change of equipment and or upgrade training and the EBA had a clause like 'the pilot won't unreasonably withhold agreement to any such agreement'. So check you EBA, if you are planning on departing in the next two years then try and go sooner rather than later, if you are planning on staying then don't worry about it.
I remember joining Qantas the bond was about $2K for two years, been there 28 so no issue.
T.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IsDon,
All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.
All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IsDon,
All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.
All true what you write, but who is hiring outside of Australia isn't really that relevant for most people around here. You don't see many pilots leaving VA or TT to go fly at EK and there is a reason for that. I used to be that person wanting to fly for EK before they dropped their mins to nothing, but now that they have I don't want to anymore. I'd rather wait out my spot in OZ and sit in the right seat of a 73 for $141k. Nice and cushy, 11+ ddos per roster and a nice safe environment. Maybe QF or AJX being some of the few jobs I would consider leaving for.
Qantas hasn't recruited externally since 2009. It's just about to crank it up. Our first tranch of guys started this week, and good luck to them.
Once Qantas makes its way through the QLink guys it will open the floodgates. That will happen soon.
Tiger, Rex, DJ and the military have clearly forgotten the impact Qantas recruitment has on the whole landscape in Australia. They are still living in their cosy little Utopia where they can get pilots to buy their ratings for the privilege of working for less than they're worth. It's been an employers market for so long.
Tiger attempting to change aircraft types, while they are already struggling to crew flights with one type, while Qantas is about to steal many pilots from them is a perfect example of atrocious timing. Add to that the attempt to extort a bond out of those considering whether they will stay or leave is just pig ignorant corporate stupidity which will bite them on the arse, big time.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mabye Virgin wants pilots to leave?
They are about to cut the E190 fleet and multiple props...leaving excess pilots.
What better way to sort out over crewing by people leaving?
They are about to cut the E190 fleet and multiple props...leaving excess pilots.
What better way to sort out over crewing by people leaving?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had a chat from a very well placed bloke involved in the recruitment process.
He's been told QF will be recruiting 10 pilots a month for the foreseeable future. The 170 that has been bandied about is a very conservative stab in the dark from the very early stages after the 789 purchase was a very rough estimate of how many we'll need, but it's apparent this will be nowhere near enough.
The guy I spoke with expects the first external applicants to be starting courses in April/May next year which would mean recruitment processes starting in November.
Rumour has it though that QLink and JQ are so short already they are very reluctant to release those that have been successful in the QF recruitment process. I suspect there may be some deal done to keep these guys doing what they're doing until they can be released to QF, ghost seniority numbers have been mentioned by one manager recently.
The lesson to learn here is that there is obviously commercial realities that may come in to play here. Keeping those successful candidates in the regionals until they can be released without it affecting their operations. NO SUCH REASONS EXIST FOR EMBARGOING GUYS FROM TIGER OR VIRGIN. If QF need them, they'll take them. Cutting the throat of your competitor at the same time will just be a fortunate byproduct of that process.
He's been told QF will be recruiting 10 pilots a month for the foreseeable future. The 170 that has been bandied about is a very conservative stab in the dark from the very early stages after the 789 purchase was a very rough estimate of how many we'll need, but it's apparent this will be nowhere near enough.
The guy I spoke with expects the first external applicants to be starting courses in April/May next year which would mean recruitment processes starting in November.
Rumour has it though that QLink and JQ are so short already they are very reluctant to release those that have been successful in the QF recruitment process. I suspect there may be some deal done to keep these guys doing what they're doing until they can be released to QF, ghost seniority numbers have been mentioned by one manager recently.
The lesson to learn here is that there is obviously commercial realities that may come in to play here. Keeping those successful candidates in the regionals until they can be released without it affecting their operations. NO SUCH REASONS EXIST FOR EMBARGOING GUYS FROM TIGER OR VIRGIN. If QF need them, they'll take them. Cutting the throat of your competitor at the same time will just be a fortunate byproduct of that process.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure there will be a lot of interest among VA crews to head to QF, but let's not forget that QF still have a pretty stringent recruitment process to negotiate, and it's not just a case of draining one company's resource group to expand another.
People will apply, some will succeed and some will not. So i don't think it will be quite as simple as Tiger pilots, or VA for that matter, telling their company to shove it cause they're off to QF....they have to get in first!
I am intrigued at the prospect of QF potentially not having enough interest among its SO ranks to fill required vacancies on the 737 when people start moving around. Is that a possibility and does anybody have any idea what the company approach is in that example? Can they force people onto the 737 in reverse order of seniority?
People will apply, some will succeed and some will not. So i don't think it will be quite as simple as Tiger pilots, or VA for that matter, telling their company to shove it cause they're off to QF....they have to get in first!
I am intrigued at the prospect of QF potentially not having enough interest among its SO ranks to fill required vacancies on the 737 when people start moving around. Is that a possibility and does anybody have any idea what the company approach is in that example? Can they force people onto the 737 in reverse order of seniority?