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

QANTAS long haul EBA

Old 14th Aug 2018, 11:42
  #21 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post

Just because they stuffed the last RIN does not mean we should accept it again.


The idiocy/ stuff up was not offering redeployment positions on the A330 in anticipation of the churn that would occur with the introduction of the 787. Once the decision not to redeploy had been made (allegedly by the level above Flight Ops influenced by IR) the 767 RIN was always going to go down exactly the way it did- completely in accordance with the award. I don’t think 767 crew have ever thought the actual process was stuffed up, just the underlying decision making of choosing that particular pathway.

Circumstances this time are vastly different and the available pathways aren’t yet clear because the final decisions regarding disposition of the 744 fleet and how it’ll overlap the 787 fleet haven’t yet been made. Hence my suggestion that the angst is premature.

That doesn’t mean it still won’t be stuffed up (from a strategic point of view in terms of best benefit for both crew and airline) but we’re 12 months or so from a) knowing what pathways are available, and, b) which pathway may produce the best win/ win.

Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post
Now is certainly the time to point out to both sets of negotiators to get this right and not get into a confrontational situation.
No need for confrontation. The EA covers the process. Pretty cut and dried.

Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post
QF managers have differing opinions as to what the EBA RIN process means. One manager is hoping pilots will do reduced lines (at reduced pay) until the end to stop multiple RINs - pigs arse!! 160hrs min thank you.
I do get the sense that many line pilots haven’t actually read the relevant section of the agreement nor looked at the numbers and how the scenarios could play out. If a manager has a ‘differing opinion’ of how a RIN works then they haven’t read the agreement either. A manager can ‘hope’ until they’re blue in the face but reduced value lines can only be offered. They don’t appear as part of the RIN process. So the company may offer them but no one has to take one.

Of course a pilot may choose to take one to be able to retire when the 744 finishes instead of being RIN’d and taking a 787 redeployment position earlier. Again, pathways to be mapped out when there is greater information about specific 744 retirements and 787 arrivals. Future 787 orders for delivery from early 2021 may also play into the process as well and those won’t be announced until about this time next year.








Keg is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 11:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by Tuner 2 View Post
If the ‘bargaining representative’ mentioned in the opening post is the QLD 747 pilot I’m led to believe it is, then I’m more than happy to to stick with AIPA doing the talking.
you can bet that he will be looking to advantage numero uno under the pretext that he is looking after the greater majority’s interest. EBA 8 comes to mind!

wombat watcher is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 11:51
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post

Just because they stuffed the last RIN does not mean we should accept it again.
The EBA negotiations for the timespan of any 747 RIN has already begun. (Negotiated by the same team, more or less, who negotiated the 787 contract)
Now is certainly the time to point out to both sets of negotiators to get this right and not get into a confrontational situation.
QF managers have differing opinions as to what the EBA RIN process means. One manager is hoping pilots will do reduced lines (at reduced pay) until the end to stop multiple RINs - pigs arse!! 160hrs min thank you.
The company will do anything to reduce the costs of the 747 fleet reduction, (and secure thrir bonuses)’ our job is to ensure that AIPA suck the very best deal out of them and not accept what has happened before!
What exactly was stuffed up last time and by whom?
As for reduced lines, don’t do one if you don’t want to.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 11:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,545
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated!
That is the reason to be concerned.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 12:09
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated!
That is the reason to be concerned.
Exactly, and the purpose of the thread.👍👍
dragon man is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 13:19
  #26 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,177
And so far there’s nothing to report on that front. Just a lot of angst looking for a place to go.

Sometimes I think we sow more FUD amongst ourselves than the airline ever does.
Keg is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 15:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post
Most of your last post is correct Keg.
Re knowing the agreement : it depends if you are talking about the current one or the one currently being negotiated!
That is the reason to be concerned.
The RIN process was improved in EA9 by a similar AIPA negotiating group by inserting the ability to RIN into base as opposed to the most junior. In the 767 RIN, the PER 330 base was delayed so there were more junior pilots in SYD to aid the RIN process. So why would this negotiating group go and destroy what they just spent time improving? Doesn’t make sense! I’m calling FAKE NEWS and a bunch of pilots jumping at shadows. Have we not learnt anything from history?

As someone who was part of the recent RIN, I value the RIN process and at risk of speaking on behalf of the rest of the RINed pilots, I would see no appetite to change the RIN process. Even if AIPA negotiated this, there is a process, they would end up with a strong NO vote and end up out on their ass like GD did. Some of you need to take a chill pill and stop doing the companies dirty work.
angryrat is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 20:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 867
Since this has morphed into a discussion about a potential RIN, I would urge 747 pilots, particularly FOs and SOs whose plan for any future RIN is to displace more junior pilots on more senior types, to read Clause 18.1.2 (e)(iii) VERY carefully. Think about what "higher status" positions the company may "offer" to avoid you being demoted to a "lower status", thereby removing your right to displace. The company could even argue that types not included in the LH EA, that include a promotion, would not be "lower status".

Interpretations of this clause could vary wildly. The company will take a certain view that could save them millions in retraining costs and, because of that, will probably be willing to die in a ditch, up to and including FWC and the Federal Court to defend it. I don't think AIPA would have the stomach for a fight on this issue so it would be unlikely to get that far.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 21:11
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere View Post
Since this has morphed into a discussion about a potential RIN, I would urge 747 pilots, particularly FOs and SOs whose plan for any future RIN is to displace more junior pilots on more senior types, to read Clause 18.1.2 (e)(iii) VERY carefully. Think about what "higher status" positions the company may "offer" to avoid you being demoted to a "lower status", thereby removing your right to displace. The company could even argue that types not included in the LH EA, that include a promotion, would not be "lower status".

Interpretations of this clause could vary wildly. The company will take a certain view that could save them millions in retraining costs and, because of that, will probably be willing to die in a ditch, up to and including FWC and the Federal Court to defend it. I don't think AIPA would have the stomach for a fight on this issue so it would be unlikely to get that far.
The very same rumours came up in the 767 RIN and the company acknowledged publicly that they couldn’t RIN to the 737, but only once they had RIN meetings. In fact rumours were started that 767 pilots were going to be made redundant. What the company wants to do and what they can do are two different things. You fellas have way too much time on dark flight decks across the Pacific.

As far as AIPA not having the stomach to fight... you are AIPA.
angryrat is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 21:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 867
This clause wasn't in operation during the 767 RIN. It was added in EA9. The last 767 left in Dec 2014. The EA is dated 19/8/2015.

The company doesn't have to force a move to the 737, merely offer what they interpret to be a "higher status" position. If a named pilot fails to take said "higher status" position then, under this clause, they lose the ability to displace more junior pilots in a higher status.

What is a higher status position? You and I may have one view, the company may well have another. Will AIPA take it to FWC if a pilot's interpretation differs from the company's? I doubt it very much. The point is, this clause is very grey, in spite of what many people are confidently stating in relation to their personal plan and the expected outcome of said plan in a RIN. The only consistent outcome I've seen in several RINs is the outcomes are often unexpected.

Truth be told, I don't really care one way or the other. It doesn't affect me. I also may well be wrong. I'm just suggesting it's worth reading it closely and, in any future personal planning, seeking advice from AIPA and the Company about the application of said clause to ensure all relevant information is to hand before deciding when and how to shuffle those bids above and below the line.

Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 14th Aug 2018 at 22:31.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 867
I think you may be thinking of a different QLD 747 Capt.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:23
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere View Post
I think you may be thinking of a different QLD 747 Capt.
You are correct.
dragon man is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:33
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 969




123456
maggot is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:44
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Status is defined in 17.3 of the EBA. Doesn’t look too hard to work out what higher status means to me.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 04:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 969
Someone would be better off studying for a 737 course than running a fake news scare campaign
maggot is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 04:56
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by angryrat View Post
What the company wants to do and what they can do are two different things.
Yes, and I wouldn’t see this as anything other than sound industrial planning by a group of astute Pilots. As should matters not follow a prescribed industrial course an approach to the FWC could come quickly from a well-organised group. Kind of makes sense to me!
Capt Colonial is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 05:33
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Surely it would be easier to ask these questions on qrewroom...
ruprecht is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 07:46
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by ruprecht View Post
Surely it would be easier to ask these questions on qrewroom...

if these questions were asked on Qrewroom, everyone would know who is asking them, wouldn’t they?
They would then be shown up for their paranoia.
anonymous paranoia doesn’t make them look so ridiculous.

wombat watcher is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 11:48
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 949
Just wondering - B737 is short haul and B744 is long haul. Are they not on different EBAs and hence not part of the discussion for a long haul RIN? Not saying that it may not be offered but that's all.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 13:25
  #40 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,177
Devil

Originally Posted by Capt Colonial View Post
Yes, and I wouldn’t see this as anything other than sound industrial planning by a group of astute Pilots.
‘Sound industrial planning’ and the rumoured name of the 744 driver seems an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere View Post
The only consistent outcome I've seen in several RINs is the outcomes are often unexpected.
Really? The outcome I’ve seen from the multiple RINs I was named in, the one I was demoted in, and the one I gained a redeployment position in, was that the outcome was completely as expected. Similarly for every other RIN I’ve seen since 2011. Some individuals within them had unexpected outcomes when those senior to them took an option that they didn’t expect. An example would be when a named 767 F/O (F/O B) displaced an A330 F/O when the named 767 F/O one number senior to him (F/O A) elected to take the demotion. That the A330 F/O was going to be displaced by one of the 12 767 F/Os named that were senior to him was never in doubt though.



Last edited by Keg; 15th Aug 2018 at 13:37.
Keg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.