Have airline pilots been shortchanged on sick leave entitlements?

[Rated De]

WW, you are deducted DUTY from your 76hrs, and paid CREDIT. It’s rort of the highest order, and if possible, I’ll think you’ll find any pilot who has ever been on SH will be going for compensation!

It is a rort and with the FWC commission providing the framework the question remains whether the pilot union will actually do anything?
Our source on this one repeatedly stated neither the company nor the union had any desire to address it.
What the FWC ruling does is set up the framework for a finding against Qantas.

The amount of compensation due pilots at least one Australian carrier will be substantial and Qantas IR will be petrified if anyone actually pursues it.

And while we are at it,

Go sick on that trip, 20:10 is deducted from your 76 hour DUTY hours of sick leave per annum. So in this case, it only takes 3.5 of these style of trip (7 days total) and you are out of sick leave for the year.

As the calculations provided by FYSTI confirm, the deductions we postulated where annual sick leave totalled 6.9 days was very close to correct.

Apology not required, but please do some research.

[Keg]

On the subject of research..

You need better sources....

Originally Posted by Rated De

Our source on this one repeatedly stated neither the company nor the union had any desire to address it.
.

.... because this one is full of crap.

Day 1of SHEA negotiations included AIPA representation on SH sick leave. Discussions I’ve had with QF Flight Ops management would indicate that they too know it needs to be sorted out.

Perhaps instead you consider the trustworthiness of your ‘sources’ because so far they’ve steered you wrong on multiple occasions.

What i I don’t get is why you are always on PPRUNE sowing FUD. If you’re the analyst or advisor to some investment firm as you’ve previously made out to be why do you give two hoots what SH sick leave or whether it’s being addressed? Or maybe you’re not who you purport to be and just being a massive dill.

[maggot]

Oh management have known it's a problem for a long time. Doesn't mean they care nor are motivated to fix it.

[morno]

I used to work for a budget carrier in Oz, and if you went sick for a trip, you simply got 1 day (or the appropriate days you required) deducted from your sick leave bank. You then might have been put on standby or another duty that covers the pilot who has since covered your duties.

Why any company would take the entire lot in hours that you were going to do is beyond me

[FYSTI]

Originally Posted by morno

Why any company would take the entire lot in hours that you were going to do is beyond me

Because they could! Would you believe me if I said the current system is actually an improvement compared the old system? Because it is. Under the old system if you were sick on a trip you got equivalent of base pay. If you wanted to get paid for being sick you could simply come in and work on your days off, if you could beg, borrow or steal a suitable trip. In other words, no fly, base pay.

That is still the system for loss of flying. If you are taken off a trip due cancellation, training etc, no trip pay, just base. You are quite welcome to put yourself forward, and you do get priority for unallocated trips (opentime).

That folks is why the forecast is for a near 100% turnover on the fleet in the next two years. The training load is going to be crippling to the system for the foreseeable future. As an aside, a LAME commented to me yesterday that their General Manager has been around the network. The suggestion is that they are not going to make the same mistake that Flight Ops have with demographics and getting behind the training curve. At least one department looks like being proactive about the future.

"Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
Hal Holbrook

[Keg]

Originally Posted by maggot

Oh management have known it's a problem for a long time. Doesn't mean they care nor are motivated to fix it.

I don't expect the SHEA will give voted up if it's not! I get the impression that Flight Ops management is well aware of that. Well maybe it could get voted up but that just means it's 'cost' to the company in other ways.

[Rated De]

"Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
Hal Holbrook

Corporations do not reflect, they are not required to. It gives the 'office holders' the plausible defence of following procedure.
It is incredible to think that maybe the unions do not seize on the opportunity to leverage a rare moment where the system provides more symmetry for labour.

I wish I shared your optimism Keg. Management might know it, but if it costs money to fix it then they’re not interested!

Which is precisely why QF IR will attempt to nobble this in the Federal Court.

[Beer Baron]

Our source on this one repeatedly stated neither the company nor the union had any desire to address it.

Your source is either woefully uninformed or an intentional ****-stirrer.
I’ve spoken directly to the company pilot negotiators and the AIPA negotiators and both of them have told me the complete opposite of that statement.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Beer Baron

Your source is either woefully uninformed or an intentional ****-stirrer.
I’ve spoken directly to the company pilot negotiators and the AIPA negotiators and both of them have told me the complete opposite of that statement.

The individual concerned was at the table when the change occurred.
If there is an appetite to change it then surely the FWC ruling provides considerable leverage.

From the point of view of affected pilots, then one would hope the appetite for change includes recompense for pilots wrongly deducted sick leave.
A change without compensation is hardly an admission that the company is incorrect and right now they will be planning the court case to ensure that the status quo is maintained.
The pilot negotiators won't be part of that discussion.

For all affected, hope you are right and they change it for the betterment of all

[ddrwk]

Originally Posted by Rated De

The individual concerned was at the table when the change occurred.

How is that relevant to the current negotiations and your assertion that no one is interested in moving away from the existing system?

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by ddrwk

How is that relevant to the current negotiations and your assertion that no one is interested in moving away from the existing system?

Welcome ddrwk.
Would it be that they are now 'interested in moving away from the current system' because they knew the umpire would rule this way?
Can't imagine any modern airline management volunteering to address a problem that costs them millions of dollars? If they have an 'interest' in fixing it, the FWC is likely the reason why. Qantas would already have legal opinion.

What ought happen is that any person wrongly credited the 76 hours and then being debited duty time, have a valid claim to compensation and without any further 'spin' be compensated. That won't happen. One would hope the union representing the pilots is right now preparing the motion to get the Federal court to rule. You can bet Qantas is preparing the groundwork, if it hasn't already.
Short changing the pilots by simply abandoning the current system and replacing it without compensation is not a legal redress for what the industrial umpire found.
As FYSTI demonstrated the abuse has been systematic and likely affects many hundreds of workers and indeed Qantas pilots..

[ddrwk]

My point was that, as others have stated, your source appears significantly out of touch especially if the best qualification for their position is that they were once involved in this area 11+!years ago.

I’d get a new source.