So you need a new fleet Leigh?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The $350,000 I quoted includes allowances and super of approx $40,000, so min guarantee on the 747 is higher. However as we know there is overtime on the 747 and 380 which has been about 30 hours a bid period on the 747 and 50 hours on the 380. The 787 does the same overtime but is not paid for it.
Also not sure about your 30 hours per BP for the 747... maybe for those doing SFO flying but that's finished in a month or so. After that, JNB and SCL will be the only real overtime trips and they're a lot lower in OT.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s a phishing email is it not? Pretending to be the CP?
So Boeing and Airbus both have held Qantas slots for sunrise, and thus have special Sunrise teams working around the clock on it. You know in case we go either way.
So it is all down to a pilot EA? Has to be signed ASAP or the teams are forced to down tools with only days left they can work on the deal. But the science hasn’t been proven. However it will be with 3 flights in total that are half patterns.
And some data swept up from a sector that is totally irrelevant and way shorter flown at better times of the day.
So the last 787 EA was sold as a growth type but now is just a replacement. But trust us the new type will be growth. Even though Joyce has said it’s a 380 replacement from 2023.
In summary. Crap deal. Science not complete. Not Accurate. Only pilots have to sacrifice. Both manufacturers won’t keep working on it unless pilots capitulate. If they don’t they are going to put the money into car insurance or pickle fork maintenance.
Reported as Phishing email. Actually can it be without anything on the hook?
So Boeing and Airbus both have held Qantas slots for sunrise, and thus have special Sunrise teams working around the clock on it. You know in case we go either way.
So it is all down to a pilot EA? Has to be signed ASAP or the teams are forced to down tools with only days left they can work on the deal. But the science hasn’t been proven. However it will be with 3 flights in total that are half patterns.
And some data swept up from a sector that is totally irrelevant and way shorter flown at better times of the day.
So the last 787 EA was sold as a growth type but now is just a replacement. But trust us the new type will be growth. Even though Joyce has said it’s a 380 replacement from 2023.
In summary. Crap deal. Science not complete. Not Accurate. Only pilots have to sacrifice. Both manufacturers won’t keep working on it unless pilots capitulate. If they don’t they are going to put the money into car insurance or pickle fork maintenance.
Reported as Phishing email. Actually can it be without anything on the hook?
Why include allowances?
The 787 flies almost exclusively to Band 5 overseas ports (USA/UK/HKG) which pay 295 AUD per day tax free - the 747 flies to many more countries not in band 5.
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.
Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.
) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that relevant? The allowance rates paid are dependent on:
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.
Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.
) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.
- I would also have a guess that if QANTAS are now calling Meal Allowances Income then the Tax Implications might change as well.
- In the B-747 RIN Fact Sheet (Uncontrolled released document to all Qantas International Flight Crew) on page 9 of section 32 clearly confirms the Pay Rates for comparison (B-747 to B787 to A330). The document (Dec 2018) states the MGH income for a Captain B-787 is $338K (145 Hrs) and $361 (155 Hrs) Note Includes STACR!
- So, this Claim/Response summary release by the Chief Pilot is riddled with inaccuracies and false information.
short flights long nights
I see the letter has been ‘leaked’ to the media . It says Captains will average $445000. The PR war has begun, it seems.
The Chief Pilot based the pay on 175 hours, max allowances and super.
Dont forget that as the fleet size is small the 787 crews are currently doing long slips in many places. Once the full 14 arrive and replace the last jumbos it will reduce.
London used to be 78 hours and now it’s 50 odd. Still plenty of our 787 crew getting 80 hour LA slips.The JFKs get 3 LAX and 2 JFK as well.
As 787 crews will know the hours have dropped now. But Sunrise won’t be flying to Asia like the 787 or doing MDC patterns.
All that to one side. 3 flights of only one sector as “Research” is utter un scientific bollocks.
No one I know wants to do 3 back to back 23+ hour TOD for multiple rosters. Massive jet lag and you’ll be missing out on plenty of allowances and rest if you skip layovers in LAX or SIN. Max jet lag and rest on your time not the company. If it’s bumpy or noisy or you get a ****ty sleep you’ll be completely f&$#ed.
Pay is one issue. Your not going to do the most horrible Ultra long haul flying and get paid 787 money to do it.Most junior Be getting assigned if it crap.
Must also be safe and sustainable. Too many blokes keeling over even with a decent contact. I don’t plan dying to help out Alan or Tino. Dick won’t be doing 20 trips a year I can tell you. His email obituaries are nice though when it kills you.
Looks like they are in a desperate rush. If they move onto investing in car insurance then let them.
As the Chief Pilot has admitted The 787 is just a 747 replacement type. Last EA Qantas said the 787 would be a growth type.
They lied back then so I have lost any trust. They will blame Pilots for anything anyway so unless it’s decent in pay and sustainable working conditions they can stick it.
I did hear HR/IR want to get us distracted on pay issues so we don’t discuss the glaring holes in the data collection and proper research.
I don’t think AIPA and the pilots are going to fall for this a second time. Not with CEO pulling close to 100 million total by next year. Profits are up. Spineless Latinos insulting email has backfired too.
Dont forget that as the fleet size is small the 787 crews are currently doing long slips in many places. Once the full 14 arrive and replace the last jumbos it will reduce.
London used to be 78 hours and now it’s 50 odd. Still plenty of our 787 crew getting 80 hour LA slips.The JFKs get 3 LAX and 2 JFK as well.
As 787 crews will know the hours have dropped now. But Sunrise won’t be flying to Asia like the 787 or doing MDC patterns.
All that to one side. 3 flights of only one sector as “Research” is utter un scientific bollocks.
No one I know wants to do 3 back to back 23+ hour TOD for multiple rosters. Massive jet lag and you’ll be missing out on plenty of allowances and rest if you skip layovers in LAX or SIN. Max jet lag and rest on your time not the company. If it’s bumpy or noisy or you get a ****ty sleep you’ll be completely f&$#ed.
Pay is one issue. Your not going to do the most horrible Ultra long haul flying and get paid 787 money to do it.Most junior Be getting assigned if it crap.
Must also be safe and sustainable. Too many blokes keeling over even with a decent contact. I don’t plan dying to help out Alan or Tino. Dick won’t be doing 20 trips a year I can tell you. His email obituaries are nice though when it kills you.
Looks like they are in a desperate rush. If they move onto investing in car insurance then let them.
As the Chief Pilot has admitted The 787 is just a 747 replacement type. Last EA Qantas said the 787 would be a growth type.
They lied back then so I have lost any trust. They will blame Pilots for anything anyway so unless it’s decent in pay and sustainable working conditions they can stick it.
I did hear HR/IR want to get us distracted on pay issues so we don’t discuss the glaring holes in the data collection and proper research.
I don’t think AIPA and the pilots are going to fall for this a second time. Not with CEO pulling close to 100 million total by next year. Profits are up. Spineless Latinos insulting email has backfired too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have an actual quote from Joyce or QF where they have said the business case will live or die on the pilot EA? In all of the quotes I've seen, I haven't seen him make that link. And, he's generally also mentioned pricing, performance guarantees and delivery slots from Airbus and Boeing, as a part of most statements in the business case.
Any business case requiring concessions from flight/cabin crew to "stack up" is by definition marginal.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know some will disagree with me, but I don't think that pickle fork cracks are an argument for a new fleet. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here.
Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.
If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.
Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.
If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.
The issues you mentioned, except for the max, are common for EIS of a new type... and you get compensated through higher discounts. You don't “dodge bullets” by paying 2x what others have paid in the past.
Re fleet replacement, I know I do ****e stir a little at times...
However serious question in regards to the group A320/21 order, the PStar announced it would be getting the 321XLR’s, where will the rest go? QF NB replacement?
I read somewhere Southwest even looking at AB???
However serious question in regards to the group A320/21 order, the PStar announced it would be getting the 321XLR’s, where will the rest go? QF NB replacement?
I read somewhere Southwest even looking at AB???
I had to go searching for this article. There are actually 2. One has the dollar figures and one doesn’t. Not one comment made (there were hundreds about the obscene amount AJ made though, very very few were complimentary). I’m not sure the public could care less. It’s not like it’s a strike, or a grounding. Nobody’s plans will be disrupted if Sunrise gets shelved. So I’d have to guess, nobody cares. Not sure what PR they expect out of this anyway. I’ve not spoken to one colleague who cares if the pilots get blamed.
Why is that relevant? The allowance rates paid are dependent on:
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.
Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.
) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.
HEAR HEAR
I am very disturbed when people refer to allowances as part of their salary. FFS, allowances are there to cover COSTS associated with the job.
Salary is there to reward one for doing the work.
2 totally different things.
Do you have an actual quote from Joyce or QF where they have said the business case will live or die on the pilot EA?
As I and others have mentioned before, if Project Sunrise balances so finely on the acceptance or otherwise of a percentage productivity increase through a Pilot EA, then the project should not go ahead purely on financial grounds. So many other variable costs (fuel, a Global crisis, dollar devaluation, even an inconveniently erupting volcano to name just a few) would render it unviable if the margins are that tight.
I had to go searching for this article. There are actually 2. One has the dollar figures and one doesn’t. Not one comment made (there were hundreds about the obscene amount AJ made though, very very few were complimentary). I’m not sure the public could care less. It’s not like it’s a strike, or a grounding. Nobody’s plans will be disrupted if Sunrise gets shelved. So I’d have to guess, nobody cares. Not sure what PR they expect out of this anyway. I’ve not spoken to one colleague who cares if the pilots get blamed.
The pilot costs are a small percentage. They are not the make or break. Joyce was going on about the massive premium he could charge because the flight was so long and saved so much time. Over $2000 per business seat.
Well he can pay the pilots adequately that have to sit in the ruddy aircraft for 23 hours and do that S$#@ over and over. He will have long gone with his 100 million. His pay is out of line with any global airline remuneration so the media won’t give two f&$# what we do if we are not in a dispute.
It’s our pilots that will have to fly those missions back to back for many years.
The pilots do more arduous work, with less stopover time to refresh and sleep not to mention the loss of allowance.
Let him blame us. I couldn’t care. I’m not interested in flying that unless it acknowledges the fatigue risk, is compensated for that accordingly and The remuneration at least equals the severity of the flying.
Where is the adequate science to say it’s safe long term anyway? CP getting ahead of himself.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have an actual quote from Joyce or QF where they have said the business case will live or die on the pilot EA? In all of the quotes I've seen, I haven't seen him make that link. And, he's generally also mentioned pricing, performance guarantees and delivery slots from Airbus and Boeing, as a part of most statements in the business case.
Clearly, in reality, the pilot EA is only one part of the equation. But it is a part of the equation. And I'm not sure that Joyce has suggested otherwise.
Clearly, in reality, the pilot EA is only one part of the equation. But it is a part of the equation. And I'm not sure that Joyce has suggested otherwise.
Why is that relevant? The allowance rates paid are dependent on:
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.
Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.
) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.
your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free.
the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.
Thanks Rockarpee!
JM,
What I assert is more the way now than it ever was.
I have heard rare stories of everything from mortgage trauma to alimony defaults caused by reliance on flawed assumptions and a reliance on ‘surplus’ allowances being brought home as ‘income’;.... a LONG time ago & well before the banking inquiry.🙄 Those few who used the ploy you’ve described found that, when the allowances stopped (injury, illness, retirement, reduced flying after SARS & 9/11 etc) the financial commitment was beyond reach.... & ruinous.
I would be very surprised these days if anyone could convince a bank to consider allowances as income for the purpose of a mortgage or investment loan. The real “major problem” seems to be that some think allowances are just money for nothing and should be considered as income, quoted to disingenuously inflate remuneration figures, despite agreements which quantify what are the reasonable amounts for their purpose.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.😉
What I assert is more the way now than it ever was.
I have heard rare stories of everything from mortgage trauma to alimony defaults caused by reliance on flawed assumptions and a reliance on ‘surplus’ allowances being brought home as ‘income’;.... a LONG time ago & well before the banking inquiry.🙄 Those few who used the ploy you’ve described found that, when the allowances stopped (injury, illness, retirement, reduced flying after SARS & 9/11 etc) the financial commitment was beyond reach.... & ruinous.
I would be very surprised these days if anyone could convince a bank to consider allowances as income for the purpose of a mortgage or investment loan. The real “major problem” seems to be that some think allowances are just money for nothing and should be considered as income, quoted to disingenuously inflate remuneration figures, despite agreements which quantify what are the reasonable amounts for their purpose.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.😉