Pilot shortage
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe someone questioned me when I said management 
en hate pilots 
en hate pilots
Did anyone really expect some written assurance scope clause?
The majority of pilots hoped the long war of attrition was over as Qantas was 'transformed'. The mistake made was they assumed the other side did to.
It has whole floors of people who have a sole focus: Lower labour unit cost, by fair means or foul.
As I repeatedly stated, the structure is adversarial, it will not be unwound. Ryan air has not changed, it merely paused.
The model will only change when change is forced. With industrial options limited it is really up to pilots themselves: Understand this shortage is structural it is demographic and if understood, any implied threats carry little weight.
Qantas can ill afford another fight after handsomely rewarding themselves for 'transforming' the company.
Pull back the curtain, Network Aviation, Jetconnect et al are likely attracting very few applicants.
Announcing 457 visas in the Christmas hiatus is old school political management. The scary part is that AIPA and the other unions didn't know it was coming, despite a lobbying presence?
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of pilots hoped the long war of attrition was over as Qantas was 'transformed'. The mistake made was they assumed the other side did to.
It has whole floors of people who have a sole focus: Lower labour unit cost, by fair means or foul.
As I repeatedly stated, the structure is adversarial, it will not be unwound. Ryan air has not changed, it merely paused.
The model will only change when change is forced. With industrial options limited it is really up to pilots themselves: Understand this shortage is structural it is demographic and if understood, any implied threats carry little weight.
Qantas can ill afford another fight after handsomely rewarding themselves for 'transforming' the company.
Pull back the curtain, Network Aviation, Jetconnect et al are likely attracting very few applicants.
Announcing 457 visas in the Christmas hiatus is old school political management. The scary part is that AIPA and the other unions didn't know it was coming, despite a lobbying presence?
It has whole floors of people who have a sole focus: Lower labour unit cost, by fair means or foul.
As I repeatedly stated, the structure is adversarial, it will not be unwound. Ryan air has not changed, it merely paused.
The model will only change when change is forced. With industrial options limited it is really up to pilots themselves: Understand this shortage is structural it is demographic and if understood, any implied threats carry little weight.
Qantas can ill afford another fight after handsomely rewarding themselves for 'transforming' the company.
Pull back the curtain, Network Aviation, Jetconnect et al are likely attracting very few applicants.
Announcing 457 visas in the Christmas hiatus is old school political management. The scary part is that AIPA and the other unions didn't know it was coming, despite a lobbying presence?
Seems to me that people are being whipped into a frenzy over something that has neither increased nor decreased Qantas' options. Why? Because someone supposedly said something misleading? Still waiting to hear what AD apparently said - or what people have chosen to think he said.
What does moving ZK registered airframes on to the VH register have to do with any supposed 'war of attrition' ? Their ability to use these planes domestically in AUS with NZ jetconnect crew was already there and still is there
Seems to me that people are being whipped into a frenzy over something that has neither increased nor decreased Qantas' options. Why? Because someone supposedly said something misleading? Still waiting to hear what AD apparently said - or what people have chosen to think he said.
Seems to me that people are being whipped into a frenzy over something that has neither increased nor decreased Qantas' options. Why? Because someone supposedly said something misleading? Still waiting to hear what AD apparently said - or what people have chosen to think he said.
What does moving ZK registered airframes on to the VH register have to do with any supposed 'war of attrition' ? Their ability to use these planes domestically in AUS with NZ jetconnect crew was already there and still is there
Seems to me that people are being whipped into a frenzy over something that has neither increased nor decreased Qantas' options. Why? Because someone supposedly said something misleading? Still waiting to hear what AD apparently said - or what people have chosen to think he said.
Seems to me that people are being whipped into a frenzy over something that has neither increased nor decreased Qantas' options. Why? Because someone supposedly said something misleading? Still waiting to hear what AD apparently said - or what people have chosen to think he said.
Management have no integrity and haven’t for years. Say one thing and do the opposite.
We don’t trust you or your ulterior nefarious motives. This latest move will only stiffen the resolve of the pilot cohort. Any remaining goodwill is now lost. How foolish. With acute shortages and significant day to day crewing problems you now decide to insult us with this diatribe. Once again you’ve gone back on your word and it will be reciprocated.
Once bitten twice shy.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I believe there’s something in the Australian Fair work act that prevents it. No doubt someone more in the know can weigh in, but I’ve always been under the impression that QANTAS cannot use Jetconnect on Domestic services."
You might need to look into that.... Qantas cannot use Jetconnect domestically in Australia on Qantas services (theoretically this could be done if provided for in the relevant AUS EBA) - but they can on Jetconnect-operated services. See the difference?
"Company stooge.?
Management have no integrity and haven’t for years. Say one thing and do the opposite.
We don’t trust you or your ulterior nefarious motives. This latest move will only stiffen the resolve of the pilot cohort. Any remaining goodwill is now lost. How foolish. With acute shortages and significant day to day crewing problems you now decide to insult us with this diatribe. Once again you’ve gone back on your word and it will be reciprocated.
Once bitten twice shy. "
Still waiting to hear what was said and what opposite of that was done. I find it hard to believe that AD told AIPA he was authorised to give them a scope clause style assurance. Even if he did, I find it even harder to think that would've been believed. Such a thing would be 180 degrees off the way they have always operated. Any why was some assurance suddenly so necessary after a rego change that is basically meaningless from an industrial perspective? Sorry for being confused.
I'm not a company stooge, whatever that is. I'm just trying to understand why the hysteria when I see nothing of any practical effect has changed. You might say I'm trying to work out why I'm supposed to suddenly be so angry.
You might need to look into that.... Qantas cannot use Jetconnect domestically in Australia on Qantas services (theoretically this could be done if provided for in the relevant AUS EBA) - but they can on Jetconnect-operated services. See the difference?
"Company stooge.?
Management have no integrity and haven’t for years. Say one thing and do the opposite.
We don’t trust you or your ulterior nefarious motives. This latest move will only stiffen the resolve of the pilot cohort. Any remaining goodwill is now lost. How foolish. With acute shortages and significant day to day crewing problems you now decide to insult us with this diatribe. Once again you’ve gone back on your word and it will be reciprocated.
Once bitten twice shy. "
Still waiting to hear what was said and what opposite of that was done. I find it hard to believe that AD told AIPA he was authorised to give them a scope clause style assurance. Even if he did, I find it even harder to think that would've been believed. Such a thing would be 180 degrees off the way they have always operated. Any why was some assurance suddenly so necessary after a rego change that is basically meaningless from an industrial perspective? Sorry for being confused.
I'm not a company stooge, whatever that is. I'm just trying to understand why the hysteria when I see nothing of any practical effect has changed. You might say I'm trying to work out why I'm supposed to suddenly be so angry.
"I believe there’s something in the Australian Fair work act that prevents it. No doubt someone more in the know can weigh in, but I’ve always been under the impression that QANTAS cannot use Jetconnect on Domestic services."
You might need to look into that.... Qantas cannot use Jetconnect domestically in Australia on Qantas services - but they can on Jetconnect-operated services. See the difference?
You might need to look into that.... Qantas cannot use Jetconnect domestically in Australia on Qantas services - but they can on Jetconnect-operated services. See the difference?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think FWA is going to protect you? There is already precedent with the Qantas group for domestic work by overseas based crew. They have a plan to circumvent inconvenient legislation. Note also that a NZ resident is entitled to work within Australia, unlike Thai or Singaporeans so they won't even have to use the fig leaf of an international tag.
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
04/11/2011
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
04/11/2011
Senator XENOPHON: The complaint that has been put to me from overseas based flight attendants and from those who work for Jetstar here in Australia is that these flight attendants, whilst they're nominally based in Thailand or Singapore or another base, for example, actually spend most of their time within Australia flying either around Australia or in and out of Australia. What is your knowledge of those practices?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : My knowledge of those practices is that they are definitely flying within our domestic network. They are doing accommodations of four Melbourne returns six days in a row.
Senator XENOPHON: Are they tagged as international flights?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : They are tagged in that the aircraft starts in the domestic area. I will give you an example. The aircraft might start in Sydney and go to Darwin, where the cabin crew will get off. That aircraft, however, will continue on to Singapore, Manila or Denpasar. The foreign cabin crew get off, overnight in a hotel, and complete domestic sectors back and forth.
Senator XENOPHON: So they are effectively on domestic flights?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : Correct.
Senator XENOPHON: They leave from a domestic terminal?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : Correct.
Senator XENOPHON: You do not have to go through Customs?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : No.
Senator XENOPHON: Years ago I went on an internationally tagged flight but you had to clear through Customs even though it was a domestic flight. There is none of that?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : No.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : My knowledge of those practices is that they are definitely flying within our domestic network. They are doing accommodations of four Melbourne returns six days in a row.
Senator XENOPHON: Are they tagged as international flights?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : They are tagged in that the aircraft starts in the domestic area. I will give you an example. The aircraft might start in Sydney and go to Darwin, where the cabin crew will get off. That aircraft, however, will continue on to Singapore, Manila or Denpasar. The foreign cabin crew get off, overnight in a hotel, and complete domestic sectors back and forth.
Senator XENOPHON: So they are effectively on domestic flights?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : Correct.
Senator XENOPHON: They leave from a domestic terminal?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : Correct.
Senator XENOPHON: You do not have to go through Customs?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : No.
Senator XENOPHON: Years ago I went on an internationally tagged flight but you had to clear through Customs even though it was a domestic flight. There is none of that?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes : No.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I'm just really stupid ?
I'm supposed to be really angry that they're putting ZK planes on the VH register to increase utilization and can still do industrially what they could already do beforehand? Right....
I'm supposed to be really angry that they're putting ZK planes on the VH register to increase utilization and can still do industrially what they could already do beforehand? Right....
Czech, the issue isn’t what the company can or can’t legally do with its crews. Nor is it the previously-offered written assurance, because we all knew that was never going to be worth the toilet paper it was printed on.
The issue is that once again, the company has shamelessly reneged on a previous undertaking, and thrown in some fairly unsubtle threats about EBAs and future aircraft acquisitions into the bargain. Personally, I’m not that angry, because I really didn’t expect any better.
The issue is that once again, the company has shamelessly reneged on a previous undertaking, and thrown in some fairly unsubtle threats about EBAs and future aircraft acquisitions into the bargain. Personally, I’m not that angry, because I really didn’t expect any better.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
itsnotthatbloodyhard, Thanks for an answer that isn't name calling or irrelevant labels.
For mine, the Network A320 setup is infinitely more concerning than Jetconnect, but all the noise and fury is being directed at JC for some reason.
When you say they have shamelessly reneged on a previous undertaking - what undertaking have they reneged on? What undertaking was actually made? I can't see any undertaking in the Qantas emails about it, nor in the AIPA email, apart from the very vague mention in the AIPA emails of wanting assurances and having meetings about assurances.
My guess is that AD promised to go away and see what undertakings (if any) he could get and this has somehow been interpreted as some sort of scope clause undertaking was likely or was in the bag. I hope I'm wrong.
There's a big difference between undertaking to go away and see what additional undertakings can be made versus giving the actual desired undertaking straight up.
For mine, the Network A320 setup is infinitely more concerning than Jetconnect, but all the noise and fury is being directed at JC for some reason.
When you say they have shamelessly reneged on a previous undertaking - what undertaking have they reneged on? What undertaking was actually made? I can't see any undertaking in the Qantas emails about it, nor in the AIPA email, apart from the very vague mention in the AIPA emails of wanting assurances and having meetings about assurances.
My guess is that AD promised to go away and see what undertakings (if any) he could get and this has somehow been interpreted as some sort of scope clause undertaking was likely or was in the bag. I hope I'm wrong.
There's a big difference between undertaking to go away and see what additional undertakings can be made versus giving the actual desired undertaking straight up.
Last edited by RealityCzech; 29th Jan 2018 at 23:58.
I would suggest that they could probably crew a subcontracted international airline in the short term despite what Rated-De says. Which is why they are trying it on. They know there are enough Australian citizens working overseas who could easily come home. Additional to to cheaper labour for QF they also put alot of pressure on EK,EY and CX.
When you say they have shamelessly reneged on a previous undertaking - what undertaking have they reneged on? What undertaking was actually made? I can't see any undertaking in the Qantas emails about it, nor in the AIPA email, apart from the very vague mention in the AIPA emails of wanting assurances and having meetings about assurances.
My guess is that AD promised to go away and see what undertakings (if any) he could get and this has somehow been interpreted as some sort of scope clause undertaking was likely or was in the bag. I hope I'm wrong.
My guess is that AD promised to go away and see what undertakings (if any) he could get and this has somehow been interpreted as some sort of scope clause undertaking was likely or was in the bag. I hope I'm wrong.
“Qantas has offered to provide letters of assurance to address AIPA concerns.” (AIPA President, November 2017)
“Qantas stated they were prepared to offer assurances around confining these operations to what they were purported to be.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
and then
“Andrew David advised discussions with Group management had resulted in a decision that, in the interests of the Group, NO assurance would be offered around the Jetconnect or Network Aviation Plans.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
Nowhere did I see that these assurances were ever sought by AIPA - rather, they were offered by QANTAS (and from the tone of AIPA’s emails, regarded with low expectations). The disappointing thing, for anyone who’s still surprised by any of this, is that once again the company appears to have acted with a lack of good faith and integrity.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it’s fair to say you are wrong.
“Qantas has offered to provide letters of assurance to address AIPA concerns.” (AIPA President, November 2017)
“Qantas stated they were prepared to offer assurances around confining these operations to what they were purported to be.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
and then
“Andrew David advised discussions with Group management had resulted in a decision that, in the interests of the Group, NO assurance would be offered around the Jetconnect or Network Aviation Plans.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
Nowhere did I see that these assurances were ever sought by AIPA - rather, they were offered by QANTAS (and from the tone of AIPA’s emails, regarded with low expectations). The disappointing thing, for anyone who’s still surprised by any of this, is that once again the company appears to have acted with a lack of good faith and integrity.
“Qantas has offered to provide letters of assurance to address AIPA concerns.” (AIPA President, November 2017)
“Qantas stated they were prepared to offer assurances around confining these operations to what they were purported to be.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
and then
“Andrew David advised discussions with Group management had resulted in a decision that, in the interests of the Group, NO assurance would be offered around the Jetconnect or Network Aviation Plans.” (AIPA President, yesterday)
Nowhere did I see that these assurances were ever sought by AIPA - rather, they were offered by QANTAS (and from the tone of AIPA’s emails, regarded with low expectations). The disappointing thing, for anyone who’s still surprised by any of this, is that once again the company appears to have acted with a lack of good faith and integrity.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Directly from the Chief Pilot email 15/12/2017
WA operations
In terms of finding the required B737 capacity, the first thing to do is look at where we have any room to move. In WA we can free up two B737s by moving them from low utilisation intra WA day trips, and redeploying them on higher density, premium routes such as Perth-East Coast. To enable this, Network Aviation is looking to acquire two of Jetstar’s older A320s to supplement their fleet of F100s, which works well as the large corporate clients are asking for single class aircraft of this size to operate into their mine sites. Importantly, this type of operation is much more suited to the Network business model, as opposed to the Qantas model, which is designed around high value assets, being highly utilised on markets that are attractive to our corporate and premium leisure customers.
Tasman operations
We then turn our attention to the ZK registered B737s, which are being significantly underutilised as a result of the Emirates changes across the Tasman. Therefore, to increase this, it has been decided to re-register them in Australia and move them onto our AOC. This allows us to make much better use of their down time by using our mainline crew to operate them on our domestic network. In other words, we’re using a regulatory framework to free up a fleet of underutilised aircraft. As a result, the Jetconnect pilots will operate under our AOC and continue to do what they currently do; which is fly the Tasman while giving us extra capacity that can be flown by our mainline pilots.
In terms of finding the required B737 capacity, the first thing to do is look at where we have any room to move. In WA we can free up two B737s by moving them from low utilisation intra WA day trips, and redeploying them on higher density, premium routes such as Perth-East Coast. To enable this, Network Aviation is looking to acquire two of Jetstar’s older A320s to supplement their fleet of F100s, which works well as the large corporate clients are asking for single class aircraft of this size to operate into their mine sites. Importantly, this type of operation is much more suited to the Network business model, as opposed to the Qantas model, which is designed around high value assets, being highly utilised on markets that are attractive to our corporate and premium leisure customers.
Tasman operations
We then turn our attention to the ZK registered B737s, which are being significantly underutilised as a result of the Emirates changes across the Tasman. Therefore, to increase this, it has been decided to re-register them in Australia and move them onto our AOC. This allows us to make much better use of their down time by using our mainline crew to operate them on our domestic network. In other words, we’re using a regulatory framework to free up a fleet of underutilised aircraft. As a result, the Jetconnect pilots will operate under our AOC and continue to do what they currently do; which is fly the Tasman while giving us extra capacity that can be flown by our mainline pilots.
Thanks for the quotes from the AIPA emails. I wonder if Qantas/AD would agree on the events in the first 2? Who is meant by ‘Qantas’ in the first 1? I’m very surprised AD would agree to given written scope undertakings when Qantas hasn’t done that for many years and when he would obviously know that he isn’t authorised to without permission from above. I do wonder whether there was some misunderstanding about the process and the content of the ;undertakings’ at some stage. Hopefully AD or whoever ain management addresses this at some point.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye787
I feel the captains are going to votes yes and the FO's with ambition to eventually work in Mainline will vote no naievely hoping the company will give them a QF seniority #. If ALPA AIPA QF and JC don't want it how can it happen?
Welcome.
RealityCzech,
You are quite right that Network is the bigger threat to us, however that does not mean that the Jet Connect changes are not extremely worrying.
AIPA took Qantas to court a few years back to try and get the Jet Connect flying covered by the Qantas Short Haul EBA. They lost that case 2-1, part of the reasoning of the commissioners was that it was a New Zealand operation, flying New Zealand registered aircraft using New Zealand AOC, hence it was outside the jurisdiction of FWA.
Under this new arrangement an operation that is entirely owned and controlled by an Australian company, flying Australian registered planes, into and out of Australia under an Australian AOC, will be using cheaper foreign labour to circumvent an approved local EA.
It dramatically changes the arrangement and has not been tested in court.
As to why it matters so much. Well where does it stop? Can they fly Aus to Bali, Noumea or Port Moresby? Can they fly the QF A330's? Why not have them operate any aircraft in the Qantas fleet?
When it was a small operation flying a dedicated fleet of just 7 aircraft only across the Tasman there was a natural limit to how much of a threat it could be to Qantas pilots. Now they will be flying up to 70 aircraft! And there is no need for it to necessarily stop there. There is no longer a natural limit to the possible expansion of cheaper offshore labour operating flights that were once crewed by Qantas pilots.
If you can't see the threat in that then you just don't want to.
You are quite right that Network is the bigger threat to us, however that does not mean that the Jet Connect changes are not extremely worrying.
AIPA took Qantas to court a few years back to try and get the Jet Connect flying covered by the Qantas Short Haul EBA. They lost that case 2-1, part of the reasoning of the commissioners was that it was a New Zealand operation, flying New Zealand registered aircraft using New Zealand AOC, hence it was outside the jurisdiction of FWA.
Under this new arrangement an operation that is entirely owned and controlled by an Australian company, flying Australian registered planes, into and out of Australia under an Australian AOC, will be using cheaper foreign labour to circumvent an approved local EA.
It dramatically changes the arrangement and has not been tested in court.
As to why it matters so much. Well where does it stop? Can they fly Aus to Bali, Noumea or Port Moresby? Can they fly the QF A330's? Why not have them operate any aircraft in the Qantas fleet?
When it was a small operation flying a dedicated fleet of just 7 aircraft only across the Tasman there was a natural limit to how much of a threat it could be to Qantas pilots. Now they will be flying up to 70 aircraft! And there is no need for it to necessarily stop there. There is no longer a natural limit to the possible expansion of cheaper offshore labour operating flights that were once crewed by Qantas pilots.
If you can't see the threat in that then you just don't want to.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lost and running
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RealityCzech,
You are quite right that Network is the bigger threat to us, however that does not mean that the Jet Connect changes are not extremely worrying.
AIPA took Qantas to court a few years back to try and get the Jet Connect flying covered by the Qantas Short Haul EBA. They lost that case 2-1, part of the reasoning of the commissioners was that it was a New Zealand operation, flying New Zealand registered aircraft using New Zealand AOC, hence it was outside the jurisdiction of FWA.
Under this new arrangement an operation that is entirely owned and controlled by an Australian company, flying Australian registered planes, into and out of Australia under an Australian AOC, will be using cheaper foreign labour to circumvent an approved local EA.
It dramatically changes the arrangement and has not been tested in court.
As to why it matters so much. Well where does it stop? Can they fly Aus to Bali, Noumea or Port Moresby? Can they fly the QF A330's? Why not have them operate any aircraft in the Qantas fleet?
When it was a small operation flying a dedicated fleet of just 7 aircraft only across the Tasman there was a natural limit to how much of a threat it could be to Qantas pilots. Now they will be flying up to 70 aircraft! And there is no need for it to necessarily stop there. There is no longer a natural limit to the possible expansion of cheaper offshore labour operating flights that were once crewed by Qantas pilots.
If you can't see the threat in that then you just don't want to.
You are quite right that Network is the bigger threat to us, however that does not mean that the Jet Connect changes are not extremely worrying.
AIPA took Qantas to court a few years back to try and get the Jet Connect flying covered by the Qantas Short Haul EBA. They lost that case 2-1, part of the reasoning of the commissioners was that it was a New Zealand operation, flying New Zealand registered aircraft using New Zealand AOC, hence it was outside the jurisdiction of FWA.
Under this new arrangement an operation that is entirely owned and controlled by an Australian company, flying Australian registered planes, into and out of Australia under an Australian AOC, will be using cheaper foreign labour to circumvent an approved local EA.
It dramatically changes the arrangement and has not been tested in court.
As to why it matters so much. Well where does it stop? Can they fly Aus to Bali, Noumea or Port Moresby? Can they fly the QF A330's? Why not have them operate any aircraft in the Qantas fleet?
When it was a small operation flying a dedicated fleet of just 7 aircraft only across the Tasman there was a natural limit to how much of a threat it could be to Qantas pilots. Now they will be flying up to 70 aircraft! And there is no need for it to necessarily stop there. There is no longer a natural limit to the possible expansion of cheaper offshore labour operating flights that were once crewed by Qantas pilots.
If you can't see the threat in that then you just don't want to.
“As to why it matters so much. Well where does it stop? Can they fly Aus to Bali, Noumea or Port Moresby? Can they fly the QF A330's? Why not have them operate any aircraft in the Qantas fleet”
They can already do those many of those things under the Open Skies agreement. Part of the problem is what they already can and can’t do is really poorly understood by almost everyone involved, so the shadow boxing begins.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Qantas chose to operate JC pilots domestically, as they legally have been able to do since JC started but have chosen not to, because mainline pilots took industrial action over the possibility of JC pilots operating domestically?