QANTAS long haul EBA
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
As for reduced lines, don’t do one if you don’t want to.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Nunc est bibendum
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.
Sometimes I think we sow more FUD amongst ourselves than the airline ever does.
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.
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.
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.
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 21:31.
Thread Starter
123456
Someone would be better off studying for a 737 course than running a fake news scare campaign
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Nunc est bibendum
Last edited by Keg; 15th Aug 2018 at 12:37.
Thread Starter
Am I hearing correctly that a former AIPA president (FO) has now joined the companies negotiating team?
That news should have many LH Members happy seeing as they have complained long and loud about what a win for the Company the last EA was under his AIPA Leadership