IR Scare Tactics Plan SH EBA/LH EBA
This is entertaining.
Justin, my mate, the more you post the bigger hole you’re digging. If you represent management then you should be embarrassed. Most of us listening to your diatribe have been around a lot longer than you. We’ve heard it all before. Same old blah blah. “If you don’t behave we’ll take away your toys”. Yes go ahead, don’t order any new aircraft. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Seriously stupid tactics. All it’s done is stiffen our resolve so trot along now and text Elaine what all the bad, naughty pilots have said. I’m really enjoying this.
Justin, my mate, the more you post the bigger hole you’re digging. If you represent management then you should be embarrassed. Most of us listening to your diatribe have been around a lot longer than you. We’ve heard it all before. Same old blah blah. “If you don’t behave we’ll take away your toys”. Yes go ahead, don’t order any new aircraft. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Seriously stupid tactics. All it’s done is stiffen our resolve so trot along now and text Elaine what all the bad, naughty pilots have said. I’m really enjoying this.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the “5:30hrs Min Guarentee “ , every Friday arvo for a month, beers with all the boys at the Kogarah Golf clubhouse , watching the 767’s not moving again !
Ok Beaver, given you’re such a deep thinker, perhaps you can answer me this.
Given Qantas are apparently basing billion dollar capital investment decisions on whether their pilots are disgruntled or not, then why not give them the one thing that they require to keep them happy but will not cost Qantas one cent?
For instance, what’s wrong with giving an assurance about limiting the expansion of Jet Connect beyond the Tasman?
They state over and over that there are absolutely no plans for them to do any other flying and we have nothing to worry about. So why not put it in writing?
“Because we need flexibility” they say. Well the only constraint on their “flexibility” is that they couldn’t have Jet Connect fly beyond the Tasman. But they state that will NEVER happen and we are irrational to even worry about such things. So it's a bit of a circular argument.
The reality is, the only reason not to make such an assurance is because you want the ability to use one entity to undercut the other one some time down the track. This is why Qantas pilots should be very, very worried and “moving on from this” would be a bad career move.
Given Qantas are apparently basing billion dollar capital investment decisions on whether their pilots are disgruntled or not, then why not give them the one thing that they require to keep them happy but will not cost Qantas one cent?
For instance, what’s wrong with giving an assurance about limiting the expansion of Jet Connect beyond the Tasman?
They state over and over that there are absolutely no plans for them to do any other flying and we have nothing to worry about. So why not put it in writing?
“Because we need flexibility” they say. Well the only constraint on their “flexibility” is that they couldn’t have Jet Connect fly beyond the Tasman. But they state that will NEVER happen and we are irrational to even worry about such things. So it's a bit of a circular argument.
The reality is, the only reason not to make such an assurance is because you want the ability to use one entity to undercut the other one some time down the track. This is why Qantas pilots should be very, very worried and “moving on from this” would be a bad career move.
Ok Beaver, given you’re such a deep thinker, perhaps you can answer me this.
Given Qantas are apparently basing billion dollar capital investment decisions on whether their pilots are disgruntled or not, then why not give them the one thing that they require to keep them happy but will not cost Qantas one cent?
For instance, what’s wrong with giving an assurance about limiting the expansion of Jet Connect beyond the Tasman?
They state over and over that there are absolutely no plans for them to do any other flying and we have nothing to worry about. So why not put it in writing?
“Because we need flexibility” they say. Well the only constraint on their “flexibility” is that they couldn’t have Jet Connect fly beyond the Tasman. But they state that will NEVER happen and we are irrational to even worry about such things. So it's a bit of a circular argument.
The reality is, the only reason not to make such an assurance is because you want the ability to use one entity to undercut the other one some time down the track. This is why Qantas pilots should be very, very worried and “moving on from this” would be a bad career move.
Given Qantas are apparently basing billion dollar capital investment decisions on whether their pilots are disgruntled or not, then why not give them the one thing that they require to keep them happy but will not cost Qantas one cent?
For instance, what’s wrong with giving an assurance about limiting the expansion of Jet Connect beyond the Tasman?
They state over and over that there are absolutely no plans for them to do any other flying and we have nothing to worry about. So why not put it in writing?
“Because we need flexibility” they say. Well the only constraint on their “flexibility” is that they couldn’t have Jet Connect fly beyond the Tasman. But they state that will NEVER happen and we are irrational to even worry about such things. So it's a bit of a circular argument.
The reality is, the only reason not to make such an assurance is because you want the ability to use one entity to undercut the other one some time down the track. This is why Qantas pilots should be very, very worried and “moving on from this” would be a bad career move.
They created this problem. It is up for them to fix it if they do not want to continue up the path they are pushing us.
Otherwise we are just waiting to hear some time down the track. “Due to the competitive nature of the Tasman (/insert route here) we now need to base x amount of A330s (/insert aircraft here) in Auckland (or whatever city) and as we are competing with other NZ (/insert country of choice) operators we require the pilots to be on Jetconnect (/insert sham company name here) terms and conditions but we are leaving the aircraft VH (Australian registered just like we do with our 737s)...oh and these pilots will continue on through the main capital cities to other destinations with those aircraft as this has been a huge success with our Jetconnect cabin crew.
This needs to be addressed and fast. And if we don’t get the protections and nothing can be done and it is the future I would rather know now so I can plan my career accordingly.
Funnily I do listen to and hear what the current Qantas (not group but Qf) management are saying and it makes sense how current redesignation to VH and networks 320s came about and I take them at their word as to how and why it has happened. The problem is no matter how loyal or trustworthy their intentions are they can/may leave/change their positions at any time and the replacement can change their mind at a whim and once the precedent of operating vh registered aircraft with overseas crews is ‘accepted’ it will be even harder to argue against.
Last edited by regitaekilthgiwt; 19th Feb 2018 at 10:16. Reason: Double quote
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor Justin,
If the board are going to cancel 787s because of one meeting that executives were invited too, and a “potential” threat, then the board and your good self should be committed into a mental asylum.
There was no talk of any PIA. Your argument only goes to highlight the desperate position you find yourself in because pilots won’t fall for a scare campaign for the second time.
As others have said your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Everyone sees it for the empty threat that it is.
Qantas have promised both the sharemarket and the travelling public the game changing, fuel saving, no maintenance, highly discounted and cheap to crew new Jet. That you expect anyone to believe that a meeting or a potential AIPA threat is what is cancelling or deferring orders is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. So Qantas won’t be concerned about a future SARS,economic crisis, rising rates in the USA, North Korea, the Middle East? No a dastardly pilot meeting.
Your aspersions carry such a level of low respect, and that is why it has backfired so spectacularly.
And even if you do take away the new toys no one cares because Qantas pays the fuel and the maintenance and the pilots on the older types retained get paid More. Think of a deferral as a bonus to us.
We’ve all had careers stall, Been locked out, pay and conditions cut whilst record executive bonuses have been paid dwarfing any comparative airline or ASX company.
Your pathetic and desperate attempts have now ensured that you’ve lost the last of even the thirstiest kool-aid drinkers. But do go on and tell us one more time how the board might cancel more orders.
But perhaps disclose the information to the ASX and your shareholders. To date this hasn’t been made public.
But Justin you have made it public knowledge now and have mentioned it on a public forum. Perhaps you can enlighten us with the ASX statement that says board defer orders due to pilot meeting or what may happen? Or maybe remind your masters about continuous disclosure rules under section 3.1
Do they teach you that in Angels school?
Bravo sir. Bravo.
If the board are going to cancel 787s because of one meeting that executives were invited too, and a “potential” threat, then the board and your good self should be committed into a mental asylum.
There was no talk of any PIA. Your argument only goes to highlight the desperate position you find yourself in because pilots won’t fall for a scare campaign for the second time.
As others have said your just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Everyone sees it for the empty threat that it is.
Qantas have promised both the sharemarket and the travelling public the game changing, fuel saving, no maintenance, highly discounted and cheap to crew new Jet. That you expect anyone to believe that a meeting or a potential AIPA threat is what is cancelling or deferring orders is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. So Qantas won’t be concerned about a future SARS,economic crisis, rising rates in the USA, North Korea, the Middle East? No a dastardly pilot meeting.
Your aspersions carry such a level of low respect, and that is why it has backfired so spectacularly.
And even if you do take away the new toys no one cares because Qantas pays the fuel and the maintenance and the pilots on the older types retained get paid More. Think of a deferral as a bonus to us.
We’ve all had careers stall, Been locked out, pay and conditions cut whilst record executive bonuses have been paid dwarfing any comparative airline or ASX company.
Your pathetic and desperate attempts have now ensured that you’ve lost the last of even the thirstiest kool-aid drinkers. But do go on and tell us one more time how the board might cancel more orders.
But perhaps disclose the information to the ASX and your shareholders. To date this hasn’t been made public.
But Justin you have made it public knowledge now and have mentioned it on a public forum. Perhaps you can enlighten us with the ASX statement that says board defer orders due to pilot meeting or what may happen? Or maybe remind your masters about continuous disclosure rules under section 3.1
Do they teach you that in Angels school?
Bravo sir. Bravo.
Nunc est bibendum
Further, the contract for the 787 is fixed. The rates of pay are known. The operation of the aircraft is on the LH Award. The ordering (or not) of 787s under those circumstances has zero to do with a bunch of pilots having a meeting to discuss Jetconnect and Network. There is no legal action being discussed, considered or even mentioned (except by you Justin Beaver) that has one iota to do with the 787 operation. It’s already set in stone.
So which is it? Are they incompetent or was this a deliberate IR strategy?
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great company to work for. Still, in a weeks time, this will all be forgotten about and pilots will help the company out when crewing call, fuel will be saved and the BS accepted by a small minority of company men, undoing the hard work of the majority of us that have simply had enough.
For those of us actually unable to attend, thanks for that post. Sadly, as it seems from what you wrote, as most anticipated.
Can anyone imagine what the airline would be like now if they had actually made an effort to capitalise on what Qantas was and hadn’t deliberately set out to destroy/rape the place?
I do think you’re being a bit hard on the CP though. Credit where credit is due, he has given us some great showings on video over the years!
“Flexible and fast to the market” haha I heard that was said at one one of the Dial-ins... so fast to market that 13 odd years after placing a 787 order they are still stuffing around. Spare me!
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Reality
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe we have to stop being so predictable! Don't engage that clown and start thinking on OUR terms. They're trying to frame the narrative - stop meeting them head on. Flank them. We know everything that has been said by the vast majority above is correct, so given that fact, I'll ask some questions? What pay rate do we want? (5%). How about super paid for real time earnings? What about pay for working on a day off and one in lieu? Well?
When the large super companies and others start divesting quietly in the future (the ones that had the "special briefings" and benefit of the upside), expect another surprise raising of capital by issuing more shares. They couldn't gut the place from the outside so now they're doing it from the inside. They will still get they're large cut and meanwhile the small retail investors will be sold the shares that will go down as expenditure and fuel prices go up. Grubs..
When the large super companies and others start divesting quietly in the future (the ones that had the "special briefings" and benefit of the upside), expect another surprise raising of capital by issuing more shares. They couldn't gut the place from the outside so now they're doing it from the inside. They will still get they're large cut and meanwhile the small retail investors will be sold the shares that will go down as expenditure and fuel prices go up. Grubs..
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Cavill
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Customer passed on via crew there is now a 'business case' for accelerated 747 retirement ... crewing have no pilots , retirements.
Stick together
Edit : https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...a/ae423670.pdf
Network EBA
Stick together
Edit : https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...a/ae423670.pdf
Network EBA
Last edited by GoldCoastTobacconist; 20th Feb 2018 at 01:25. Reason: ..
Accelerated 744 retirement was what Tino, insinuated, if they get certainty (what more do they want with EBA still current?) and feels less angst.
I think that Tino was playing bad cop. Andrew David good Cop, Sonia and Dick statues. (I wasn't there for all of it)
I think one of the best points from the pilot side was, that we are happy to work with you to find solutions to your problems and have demonstrated that (Lower cost, Australian Airlines, SOs on flexi lines to sav $8mill, 787 to give certainty, need extra pilot when Ansett failed, bring in the Ansett pilots outside of seniority until the immediate crisis is over etc) but pilots want a career as well (very long term employees.) Anxious because for the most part mainline pilots have been excluded from areas getting growth (JQ, JC, Network etc) for whatever reason. We have not been taken on along whilst the group has expanded. (apporx 20 years to east coast 737 command.)
Giving all group pilots a path would allow them to see a long term future and help retention. Andrew David rightly hinted at the extreme cost of all the training musical chairs that goes on in mainline and if a group opportunity list was in place, but that is a system and it is open for negotiation to change and limits as was proposed (voted down at the time) in an EBA some years ago.
Also the point that JL made about QF saying they are worried about us wanting an assurance and having a SGM and angst, so QF won't order jets because of that, whilst saying with support of Alan they they cannot give an assurance. So in fact they have certainty, in that there will be no assurance, so why can't they order them.
I think that something that was missed that Tino said (paraphrased) that there is no way they would give up flexibility, because it was his responsibility to guard against future down turns and flexible cheaper workforce was part of that puzzle.
Now that is what a CFO should do but it also does nothing to allay the fear about whilst currently they have no plans for JC or network to expand influence in the market at the expense of mainline or JQ, those plans could change in the event of a downturn or the wind changes.
Most people at meeting where polite if forceful, some maybe a little bit too passionate. (at least in my eyes)
I truly believe that senior management don't truly understand why the pilot group is anxious. They can't fathom the level of distrust and the history of why distrust is there because they weren't in it and probably can't relate to it from a job sense. I wonder whether Dick has been able to give them an insight or perhaps he has spend most of the last 15 years in the office can't fathom it either. (That is not a direct criticism, just a reality of not being on the line)
I think that Tino was playing bad cop. Andrew David good Cop, Sonia and Dick statues. (I wasn't there for all of it)
I think one of the best points from the pilot side was, that we are happy to work with you to find solutions to your problems and have demonstrated that (Lower cost, Australian Airlines, SOs on flexi lines to sav $8mill, 787 to give certainty, need extra pilot when Ansett failed, bring in the Ansett pilots outside of seniority until the immediate crisis is over etc) but pilots want a career as well (very long term employees.) Anxious because for the most part mainline pilots have been excluded from areas getting growth (JQ, JC, Network etc) for whatever reason. We have not been taken on along whilst the group has expanded. (apporx 20 years to east coast 737 command.)
Giving all group pilots a path would allow them to see a long term future and help retention. Andrew David rightly hinted at the extreme cost of all the training musical chairs that goes on in mainline and if a group opportunity list was in place, but that is a system and it is open for negotiation to change and limits as was proposed (voted down at the time) in an EBA some years ago.
Also the point that JL made about QF saying they are worried about us wanting an assurance and having a SGM and angst, so QF won't order jets because of that, whilst saying with support of Alan they they cannot give an assurance. So in fact they have certainty, in that there will be no assurance, so why can't they order them.
I think that something that was missed that Tino said (paraphrased) that there is no way they would give up flexibility, because it was his responsibility to guard against future down turns and flexible cheaper workforce was part of that puzzle.
Now that is what a CFO should do but it also does nothing to allay the fear about whilst currently they have no plans for JC or network to expand influence in the market at the expense of mainline or JQ, those plans could change in the event of a downturn or the wind changes.
Most people at meeting where polite if forceful, some maybe a little bit too passionate. (at least in my eyes)
I truly believe that senior management don't truly understand why the pilot group is anxious. They can't fathom the level of distrust and the history of why distrust is there because they weren't in it and probably can't relate to it from a job sense. I wonder whether Dick has been able to give them an insight or perhaps he has spend most of the last 15 years in the office can't fathom it either. (That is not a direct criticism, just a reality of not being on the line)
Last edited by Capt_SNAFU; 20th Feb 2018 at 01:09.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Sharkcity
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourite comment from Andrew David yesterday was “no decision from Qantas management in the last 15 years has affected mainline pilots”...
They just don’t get it...they are totally detached from reality.
They just don’t get it...they are totally detached from reality.
Not being there it’s hard to tell, but are/were they actually intimidated because they know they don’t have credible answers?
Angel JB’s amusing missives on this thread actually seem to be all the answers they have. It’s almost like they’ve got issues understanding why everyone isn’t clamouring for more Korporate Kampus Kool Aid.
Out of real money and looking for someone else to blame.
Pilots/engineers etc are NOT 21yo Hipster/HR drones with no clue. Perhaps the one trick, cost cutting ponies with zero vision nor real understanding of the actual business they are involved in are coming home to their boxes with stuff all to show for the last 20+ years. More importantly, possibly it is finally dawning on them there is nothing left. They must realise they have reduced what was once one of the top recognised brands in the world (#2 or 3 from memory in the ‘80’s??) to a company with a local monopoly between SYD-BNE-ADL-MEL, but only handful of big routes, a couple of dozen heavy jets but which (get this!) they are REPLACING with 8+6 787’s??? And if that’s actually true (having said it, it quite possibly isn’t!) why are they complaining about the massively expensive but warned about in advance and totally self inflicted training costs when they appear to be training far more crew than necessary for a fleet of 14 (767-like) Gamechangers?
Webjet and it’s cohorts are great business models, unfortunately that idea has already been done. And even then, it took vision to build those brands - not simple cost cutting. What is it actually that Qf is trying to achieve? The best answer I got from a fairly senior manager was ‘many things’. I stared at them and then realised they were serious. I just laughed!
Angel JB’s amusing missives on this thread actually seem to be all the answers they have. It’s almost like they’ve got issues understanding why everyone isn’t clamouring for more Korporate Kampus Kool Aid.
Out of real money and looking for someone else to blame.
Pilots/engineers etc are NOT 21yo Hipster/HR drones with no clue. Perhaps the one trick, cost cutting ponies with zero vision nor real understanding of the actual business they are involved in are coming home to their boxes with stuff all to show for the last 20+ years. More importantly, possibly it is finally dawning on them there is nothing left. They must realise they have reduced what was once one of the top recognised brands in the world (#2 or 3 from memory in the ‘80’s??) to a company with a local monopoly between SYD-BNE-ADL-MEL, but only handful of big routes, a couple of dozen heavy jets but which (get this!) they are REPLACING with 8+6 787’s??? And if that’s actually true (having said it, it quite possibly isn’t!) why are they complaining about the massively expensive but warned about in advance and totally self inflicted training costs when they appear to be training far more crew than necessary for a fleet of 14 (767-like) Gamechangers?
Webjet and it’s cohorts are great business models, unfortunately that idea has already been done. And even then, it took vision to build those brands - not simple cost cutting. What is it actually that Qf is trying to achieve? The best answer I got from a fairly senior manager was ‘many things’. I stared at them and then realised they were serious. I just laughed!
Last edited by V-Jet; 20th Feb 2018 at 01:58.
Neither LH or SH pilots are currently actively bargaining. Therefore there is no PIA that an be undertaken.
Further, the contract for the 787 is fixed. The rates of pay are known. The operation of the aircraft is on the LH Award. The ordering (or not) of 787s under those circumstances has zero to do with a bunch of pilots having a meeting to discuss Jetconnect and Network. There is no legal action being discussed, considered or even mentioned (except by you Justin Beaver) that has one iota to do with the 787 operation. It’s already set in stone.
If this is actually the case then we have much to fear because it would demonstrate that our management are completely incompetent morons. I’ve already addressed the point about uncertainty regarding the 787 operation so that can’t be it. Now maybe you are actually correct and they actually are incompetent and are making ill advised and ignorant decisions off the back of fundamentally flawed decision making processes.
So which is it? Are they incompetent or was this a deliberate IR strategy?
Further, the contract for the 787 is fixed. The rates of pay are known. The operation of the aircraft is on the LH Award. The ordering (or not) of 787s under those circumstances has zero to do with a bunch of pilots having a meeting to discuss Jetconnect and Network. There is no legal action being discussed, considered or even mentioned (except by you Justin Beaver) that has one iota to do with the 787 operation. It’s already set in stone.
If this is actually the case then we have much to fear because it would demonstrate that our management are completely incompetent morons. I’ve already addressed the point about uncertainty regarding the 787 operation so that can’t be it. Now maybe you are actually correct and they actually are incompetent and are making ill advised and ignorant decisions off the back of fundamentally flawed decision making processes.
So which is it? Are they incompetent or was this a deliberate IR strategy?
How inept would these executives look if AIPA were able to get some good press coverage on this.
"Qantas executives have cancelled orders and ruled out ordering any more "game changing" B787's over an industrial dispute that doesn't exist with it's pilots. The 787's are the most fuel efficient commercial aircraft flying today, with over 500 in service with Airlines around the world. Qantas have up to 45 more purchase options on the jets, which it already has in service with Qantas and Jetstar and are being used to replace its aging gas guzzling B747's.
Pilots are concerned about the Qantas move to have foreign pilots fly its mainly domestic B737's, but this has nothing to do with the 787 or the pay and conditions of pilots who fly the 787. Company Executives have briefed pilots that the latest 787 option was cancelled due to disharmony over the use of foreign pilots on the domestic fleet. "Are they incompetent" asks one pilot? Others agree that it makes no sense at all to be cancelling their long haul fleet renewal program over the non-existent dispute.
Shorthaul B737 pilots fear a Trojan Horse maneuver by the Company that has employed foreign pilots to fly its domestic fleet across the Tasman. However, their options are very limited as they are not in an EBA negotiating period and cannot take any kind of legal industrial action. The pilots say, they simply want an assurance from the Company that foreign pilots will not be used to fly the domestic fleet. They are not suggesting Industrial Action now or in the future. However, Company Executives appear to be jumping at shadows already in an action that could only be described as cutting of your nose to spite your face. "Insane action" suggests one Analyst. "It's unbelievable to think Qantas would even consider halting it's much needed fleet renewal as some kind of a threat to pilots who don't even fly the B787. The fact that they are actually doing it? Madness".
And for what it’s worth, Jetstar and QantasLink should be just as concerned as mainline, 2 A320’s is now 6...
Andrew David rightly hinted at the extreme cost of all the training musical chairs that goes on in mainline
If only there was a solution to this expense... gee I don’t know, maybe there could be an aircraft type that might be able to replace the 747s AND internationally flying A330s as well? Maybe there’s a potential aircraft that could replace the upper end of the 747 capacity AND the A 380s, AND have common crew training requirements to the aforementioned replacement for the 747s and A330s?
If only...
Last edited by ExtraShot; 20th Feb 2018 at 04:01.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They simply don’t understand what many of us see because they have not been here for 20, 30 or more years.
AD’s quip that he has been in six airlines was interesting - they have just about all gone broke!
He didn’t understand that the A330-200 was the long range version when I had a discussion with him a few years ago, had to tell him straight when he argued the point that it had an extra fuel tank!
I understand they are going to reconfigure some to longhaul, again.
Tony perhaps should stay in a closed room with his spreadsheets, since talking to pilots is so scary!
Dick as useless as usual, a great disapointment.
Since they don’t care beyond their next bonus, I don’t need to much either - just trying to suck them dry over the next few years!
AD’s quip that he has been in six airlines was interesting - they have just about all gone broke!
He didn’t understand that the A330-200 was the long range version when I had a discussion with him a few years ago, had to tell him straight when he argued the point that it had an extra fuel tank!
I understand they are going to reconfigure some to longhaul, again.
Tony perhaps should stay in a closed room with his spreadsheets, since talking to pilots is so scary!
Dick as useless as usual, a great disapointment.
Since they don’t care beyond their next bonus, I don’t need to much either - just trying to suck them dry over the next few years!