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

So you need a new fleet Leigh?

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

So you need a new fleet Leigh?

Old 21st May 2019, 05:16
  #921 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had a group general manager boast to me that he was going to pay 1/3rd less for his NZ Turboprop operation prior to startup. I don't believe they had a single application once they put it to the market. As I said, there are no shortcuts in aviation. Airlines have milked there once off screw-over of the industry, now they are paying the price with a big shortage. Qantas mainline is insulated only while it has better T&C with some semblance of delayed career progression. Remove either of those, things will change.
Which is why as yet, the much publicised 'academy' has yet to see the 'Stream Lead' turn the first clod of earth while struggling with a shovel.

Jetstar has a role, for a long time, the economics were ignored, bastardised in favour of IR leverage. As the shortage is patently obvious to the entire industry, economics become more important, after all very quickly grounded aircraft generate no operating revenue.

Qantas need focused capital expenditure, vision and strategy.
With Fort Fumble they get plenty of strategy from IR, which is of declining relevance.
Rated De is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 05:18
  #922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.”

I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!!

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.
ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 05:32
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 9 Posts
There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs
With respect, where did you get that from?
To state that time frame sounds a little desperate.
Chad Gates is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 05:40
  #924 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.
Perhaps the accelerated path given JQ pilots was at the expense of the mainline pilots. As you quite rightly assert, there are entities flying Qantas colours too, beyond those routes gifted to JQ.
Nothing to stop QF management pursuing such a policy with contractors flying JQ aircraft, all in search of lower unit cost.

Of course though, that distracts from the present reality that the Qantas group finds itself.
An incessant internal focus, at war with various groups of staff yet the market continues to move beyond them.
Their fleet metrics are horrible.
Their Capital Expenditure requirements, will, in all likelihood, exceed at least six times what they spent buying their own shares back. Additionally, they still have to pay for the $9.5 billion JQ order. Instead, they focus internally, setting work forces all against each other, hoping to save a penny. Picking up a penny in front of a steam roller is not good long term strategy.
Rated De is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 05:43
  #925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.”

I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!!

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.
Yes, I have absolutely no issue with that choice, it is fortunate, that, at least there is a choice. If being an SO for 15 years isn't attractive, the 737 RHS 4 leg days are on offer in every East Coast base at better than JQ pay, yours to be had. Yet mysteriously, even 6 month new joiners are able to get these positions at any base they choose, but don't seem to want to take them in the required numbers. The market decides!

The point I was trying to make, is there is a tradeoff, quick promotion, or better T&C, but you can't have both. In order to attract pilots to take the delayed promotional career risk something else has to be on offer. At the moment, that is exactly what is happening, mainline has sufficient applications of experienced pilots. However, If career prospects disappears, they will just be like everyone else scratching for crew.

CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 05:59
  #926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey Chad, I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across. The numbers and just general chat with my colleagues leads me with that conclusion that most don’t have the desire to go across.

The 15 years was stated by an earlier poster (curtain twitcher). I understand that 737 F/O is available to the guys that want to take it substantially earlier than this and with retirements and more aircraft orders on the way this time frame will continue to decrease.

The beautiful thing about the current landscape for QF group pilots at the moment is that if they want to go to mainline, that opportunity is available to them, and if they want to stay at their respective subsidiary for faster upgrade times or whatever their motivation may be, then they can obviously do that as well.

ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 06:32
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NDB
Age: 53
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across.
That's 5% more JQ crew applying to QF than QF crew applying to JQ.

Doesn't that tell you something?
OnceBitten is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 06:36
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OnceBitten
That's 5% more JQ crew applying to QF than QF crew applying to JQ.

Doesn't that tell you something?
plenty of MOU captains have resigned from QF and are staying at JQ. And the 95% of pilots who didn’t apply tells a story too.
ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 06:47
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across.
Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.
Vindiesel is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 06:57
  #930 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vindiesel
Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.
And the trickle down continues...

What is the probability that the DHC operations in more expensive cities are struggling to attract sufficient 'talent'?

Qantas has made a lot out of tying aircraft to pilot concessions.
Fundamentally, as Curtain Twitcher surprisingly pointed out, 737 jobs are in plentiful supply with limited uptake. One might posit has IR been so successful that the pilots have in fact accepted the lower terms and conditions achieved to be worth the effort?

The fleet problem is symptomatic of the broader malaise: Lack of strategic vision.
Fleet and strategy are hand in glove. Qantas lost the hand picking up pennies in front of the steam roller.


Rated De is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:00
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vindiesel
Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.
Perhaps! I haven’t gone through the seniority list and counted them. More of an educated estimate.

All I am trying to do is balance the discussion that there are many of us at JQ who have looked at our lifestyle, remuneration and career progression and decided that were happy where we are. Many of my colleagues who have gone across to QF that I have spoken to are happy with their move but have realised that working at QF has its fair share of issues too.


ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:07
  #932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 9 Posts
That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from.

Chad Gates is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:17
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 83 Likes on 31 Posts
plenty of MOU captains have resigned from QF and are staying at JQ
I’m curious of when those decisions were made, and if the same decision would be made today. Other than the the bloke from Qrewroom who stated once, he’d like to be able to roll back the clock, are there any others?
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:19
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from.







Just to be clear, that is 15 years as an SO to a widebody FO position. Narrowbody FO, 6 months to any base. Of course there are many that choose to do a combination of the 15 years between SO and 737 FO.

They tell me you haven't really lived until you have done 3 or 4 days in a row of 11:00+ hours, consisting of multiple aircraft changes & 4 legs on the East Coast. Once someone takes a 737 slot, they cannot go back to being an SO, so the reality is new joiners who take this option will do 15 years of these days in the RHS.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:23
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SandyPalms


I’m curious of when those decisions were made, and if the same decision would be made today. Other than the the bloke from Qrewroom who stated once, he’d like to be able to roll back the clock, are there any others?
Yep, talked to one on the weekend who probably wished he had not resigned to stay at JQ. He sees the prospect of a widebody command receding for him. He also viewed with trepidation the new software optimiser that is coming that will start to throw aircraft changes into the mix for his days.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:50
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.
Don Diego is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 07:57
  #937 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Diego
Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.
Thanks Don.
The situation is beginning to model the European experience.
The operators of lower tiered equipment in more expensive cities were the first to notice the shortage.
Suffice to say the demographic time-bomb has no short term solution.
IR were dragged up this way kicking and screaming to reality.
Reliable information suggests Network aviation, Jetconnect et al have little interest.
Sources suggest Stream Lead may well be using an 'internal survey' of pilots to strengthen the case to allow further foreign pilot entry. Parachuting the said individual into lead negotiator for IR is just part of the former AIPA President's brief.


The only way really to address the shortage is improvements to, rather than, reductions in terms and conditions.
Rated De is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 22:33
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: The street
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Section 311

It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.

There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!

Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.

In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.

Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.

Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.



FightDeck is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 22:54
  #939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FightDeck


if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
Are you qualified to give this legal advice?
Vindiesel is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 22:55
  #940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,615
Received 599 Likes on 169 Posts
Originally Posted by FightDeck
It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.

There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!

Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.

In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.

Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.

Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.



In other words I think you are saying pilots are their own worst enemy and I whole heartedly agree.
dragon man 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.