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

QF 7879 routes

Old 21st Jan 2017, 20:41
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Doing an extra PER/LHR trip per roster without night credits and getting zero overtime for doing a 19 hour plus duty is a massive sacrifice without getting anything major for the trade off
The trade off is a future flying for Qantas.

As stated above, comparing A330 and B767 hourly rates against the 787 is not a valid comparison. These aircraft are not capable of flying the same sectors. A more valid commment is that if you insisted on maintaining the same pay rate as 767 or A330 and applying the same overtime and night credits the aircraft would not be flown by mainline pilots under the long haul EBA.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 22:06
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by theheadmaster
The trade off is a future flying for Qantas.

As stated above, comparing A330 and B767 hourly rates against the 787 is not a valid comparison. These aircraft are not capable of flying the same sectors. A more valid commment is that if you insisted on maintaining the same pay rate as 767 or A330 and applying the same overtime and night credits the aircraft would not be flown by mainline pilots under the long haul EBA.
Exactly.

The present LH EA for existing types is efficient, from the company's perspective, for shorter tours of duty below the overtime threshold.

Before the -400 ushered in long tours of duty that regularly attracted overtime there were few tours of duty that it applied to. I wasn't around when the thresholds for overtime were originally nutted out but the reasons they were put in is pretty obvious. There needed to be an incentive for crews to extend beyond there normal duty hours to cater for unforeseen events such as diversions. You only have to look at the newly minted 787 agreement for evidence of this. A little known fact is that the 787 attracts overtime if the planned duty hours are exceeded. The company insisted on this. They still want a carrot for crew to extend for unforeseen events.

We have certainly benefitted from more capable aircraft with longer ranges. The regular overtime makes up a very large part of our pay, no doubt about it. So much so leave is tarnished somewhat when you realise your pay will drop $3K/fortnight while you're on leave. The company, quite reasonably, wanted to be able to open up new long haul routes without being hamstrung by paying pilots double dollars. They needed a flatter and more predictable cost structure.

From the company's perspective, the ultra long routes meant this method of overtime was never going to work. If no other option were put forward I feel certain that it would not have been Qantas pilots flying the 787, it would have been Cobham/Jetconnect/(insert startup here) under vastly inferior terms than we will be flying the aircraft under. This opinion was arrived at after several personal discussions with those on both sides of the negotiating table. All are honourable people I have known personally and flown with for many years. I have zero doubt that the only options were to fly the aircraft on terms that were eventually agreed to, or not at all. The option to fly it under our present terms was never an option.

So as to the routes the aircraft will fly, which is the title of this thread, I agree that initially it will be doing the ultra long thin stuff. The A330s will have to be replaced in a few years and the logical replacement for them will be the 787. No brainer. The 330 will become the 767, doing less and less international and more domestic until it's finally pensioned off. The 380 will also possibly pick up some of this flying as the routes mature. But there will also be a need for the 787 on these routes.

Last edited by IsDon; 21st Jan 2017 at 22:16.
IsDon is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 23:28
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.
knobbycobby is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 00:26
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.
Then perhaps you should talk to the negotiators for EBA9. Circumstances were different for this negotiation.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 00:38
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
IsDon,

Just wondering why the A330 and then the A380 was negotiated into the Long Haul award?
Why didn't they use Cobam,Jetconnect etc etc and get a "flatter structure" or a "paycut".
Having flown with company negotiators I specifically asked them if such a threat was real/plausible.
The reply was a definite NO.
Good question.

The 330 was a bit of an aberration. The rate for this aircraft was based on the rate for the classic 747-300. Can't remember but it was something like classic plus 5%. Certainly above the classic. I remember thinking at the time, good on the negotiators getting that one agreed to. Fact is though the 330 was never going to do much overtime flying so it was always going to be a flat cost base, like the 767. That was why there was no intention to have it crewed outside the agreement I suspect.

The 380 pay rate came about, if you recall, straight after the vote down of the EBA8 debacle. This failed EBA is still quoted by some as the best EBA ever. Well the vast majority thought it was crap and for good reason. Anyway, I digress.

In the vacuum left after this no vote the company and AIPA agreed to a quick and dirty rollover of EBA7 with a rate for the 380 set at 747-400 + X%. We'd spent countless months wasting energy on EBA8, on both sides. I don't think there was any energy left to start with a clean sheet of paper and start that process all over again. Oldmeadow and co's modus operandi was always delay, delay, and when you can't think of what to do delay some more. Knowing that an effective pay freeze was in place for this whole delay, the back pay for which was another point of negotiation.

At the time, the rank and file were just over it, and I suspect the company were too. I suspect that's why it was added to the existing agreement as it was the path of least resistance.

Remember also, that the 380 was only doing what flying the 744 was doing at the time. Given that planned flying it's a reasonable position to say that the 380 carries X% more revenue, we want X% more to fly it. With the same overtime that was paid to the 400 crews between LAX and Oz that's probably reasonable in the light of the circumstances that existed at the time. Dallas hadn't been thought of. If Dallas were on the radar, I expect the 380 would not have been included as it was.
IsDon is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 01:26
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,192
Received 27 Likes on 15 Posts
Mel lax mel OT is about the same as a dfw pattern

So no
maggot is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 01:58
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by maggot
Mel lax mel OT is about the same as a dfw pattern

So no
Only because of a specific clause that applies only to the MEL-LAX route. Not because of the actual length of the duty.
IsDon is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2017, 06:23
  #88 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: MEL
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like another 787 route announcement is coming this week as Qantas has flown several journalists to Seattle including GT and the 'aviation editor' of News.
MelbourneFlyer is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2017, 13:08
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
I'd imagine if they're going all the way to Seattle it would be to announce more aircraft orders rather than new routes?
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2017, 00:25
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: WLG (FORMERLY PER)
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Please don't call GT a journalist, it's an insult to the profession...
topend3 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2017, 01:50
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by topend3
Please don't call GT a journalist, it's an insult to the profession...
I think it's called sarcasm.

By the way, I didn't think there was anything that insulted journalists. Whatever professionalism once existed with this occupation certainly doesn't exist any more. "Journalists" are merely a conduit from the corporate and government spin doctors to the great unwashed. Regurgitating press releases with a simple cut and paste. The driving imperative being the first to break the story, regardless of the actual content and the veracity thereof.
IsDon is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2017, 10:39
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,394
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I am told the visit is for a progress update on the first B787 for QF. Also new premium economy seat release. First a/c due in SYD in 36 weeks.
B772 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2017, 22:40
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 77
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Qantas do not have to announce more firm 787 orders until March/April 2018!! If they don't, they will lose a few orders...must be made firm by this date!! I am sure they will leave it to the last minute(commercial reasons) but will definitely announce more firm orders!! Can't do much with just 8 aircraft!! Despite all the smoke and mirrors!!! Either way , Qantas is still the incredible shrinking airline in a growing international market!!
cynphil is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2017, 23:08
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cynphil
Qantas do not have to announce more firm 787 orders until March/April 2018!! If they don't, they will lose a few orders...must be made firm by this date!! I am sure they will leave it to the last minute(commercial reasons) but will definitely announce more firm orders!! Can't do much with just 8 aircraft!! Despite all the smoke and mirrors!!! Either way , Qantas is still the incredible shrinking airline in a growing international market!!
If QANTAS are doing that, only ordering at last moment when deadline to act comes up, it just demonstrates QANTAS' problem - they have a reactive management, rather than a proactive one.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 01:20
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
they are announcing something apparently but its under a press embargo - no idea when that expires.
logansi is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 02:35
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
777X?...........
wishiwasupthere is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 02:38
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
Here's an article today from the News Ltd Aviation writer:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...8e6c1781c7cd62
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 03:20
  #98 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: MEL
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hahaha, Robyn Ironside, the same 'journalist' who a few years ago, just days before Qantas reported an expected billion-dollar loss, wrote a ludicrous front-page story saying that Qantas would announce it was handing over most of its international routes to Jetstar and withdrawing to becoming a mainly domestic airline. Totally bogus, unsourced, and of course turned out to be utter bullsh*t.
MelbourneFlyer is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 00:44
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Cavill
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Expected announcement from BNE today
GoldCoastTobacconist is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 02:42
  #100 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
I hope it's more than replacing a 350ish seat aeroplane on BNE-LAX-JFK with a 236 seat aeroplane on the same route. (Though that will be awesome for QF's bottom line given the significantly decreased costs of operating the 789 on that route!).

Let's hope there's some additional Asian stuff as well. We'll know in less than a couple of hours.
Keg 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.