Jetstar EBA 2019
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Ballarat
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems I have angered the Troll. A thousand apologies...
Just like your mate Camel (who I suspect is probably the same person), you too have simply ignored any argument you can't answer. Still waiting for your answer to my post my dear "General Yamamato"...
Jetstar EBA 2019
As for your assertions that I'm wrong on points of fact, lets hear it. What precisely am I wrong about, that's angered you so.
Just like your mate Camel (who I suspect is probably the same person), you too have simply ignored any argument you can't answer. Still waiting for your answer to my post my dear "General Yamamato"...
Jetstar EBA 2019
As for your assertions that I'm wrong on points of fact, lets hear it. What precisely am I wrong about, that's angered you so.
Last edited by Paddleboat; 4th Jan 2020 at 04:03.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austrtalia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they mentioned the 3% policy has been in effect for 10 years (sorry cant remember the exact date of the GFC whether that was less than 10 years ago), so if any of these pay freezes came in within the last 10 years I think there should be a fair claim by all in order for the 3% policy to be maintained that it needs to be implimented into the appropriate base pays.
It's quite impossible to agree with your notion, the salary increase would be insignificant to the overheads at best, again I will say, There's no such thing as a budget pilot, equal pay for equal service, and that equal service is those two/three people flying the same class aircraft as the other three main carriers.
The fairytale that pilots can jump between companies easily and effortlessly is just that, Jetstar will be the career job for a lot of these pilots and the current stance that the company is taking is unsustainable.
"If you don't like it leave policy" is again, dated and quite impossible to defend.
The fairytale that pilots can jump between companies easily and effortlessly is just that, Jetstar will be the career job for a lot of these pilots and the current stance that the company is taking is unsustainable.
"If you don't like it leave policy" is again, dated and quite impossible to defend.
This is not a question of fairness or righteousness of your stand, both of which I agree with. If JQ/QF refuse to comply with your demands, there isn’t much you can do but vote with your feet. Those who can, should be exploring options elsewhere while the pickings are rich.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The origins of 3%
A quick bit of economic history.In the 1980’s a shadowy figure, a former Union thug presented as a lovable larrikin; Prime Minister. The head of the union movement at the time, Bill Kelty and he, along with Australia’s “industry associations (business unions) created The Accord. In exchange for “industrial harmony” wage outcomes would be held to CPI, thus, in theory, holding purchasing power.
CPI is politely a bastardised measure; many things are left out, substituted enhanced and otherwise manipulated. The REAL experienced inflation rate most live is far higher than the “reported CPI.
https://www.businessinsider.com/if-p...my-2016-8?IR=T
In real terms, purchasing power of the individual’s salary/wage/income is held “constant” if one uses the CPI.
Actual lived inflation is higher and so purchasing power has fallen: fallen real wages are a common theme in many western economies.
To maintain standards of living in most western economy required debt, lots of it. From a macro perspective, falling real wages, relative to another country increases competitiveness. For an airline, with wages/salary equating nearly 25% of operating expense, holding wages to this nominal CPI 3% makes sense, provided unions, workers and all actors accept CPI as "inflation" is a big transfer from employees to employer.
Assuming, say a real inflation rate of 7% with CPI (contract improvements at 3%) the difference, transferred to an employer is improved "efficiency" but over time the compounded impact on the individual is substantive.
After all, airlines don’t hold ticket prices to 3%, nor does fuel comply with CPI, but holding wages, provided everyone plays along, provides real benefit to senior management, companies and the economy.
CPI is politely a bastardised measure; many things are left out, substituted enhanced and otherwise manipulated. The REAL experienced inflation rate most live is far higher than the “reported CPI.
https://www.businessinsider.com/if-p...my-2016-8?IR=T
In real terms, purchasing power of the individual’s salary/wage/income is held “constant” if one uses the CPI.
Actual lived inflation is higher and so purchasing power has fallen: fallen real wages are a common theme in many western economies.
To maintain standards of living in most western economy required debt, lots of it. From a macro perspective, falling real wages, relative to another country increases competitiveness. For an airline, with wages/salary equating nearly 25% of operating expense, holding wages to this nominal CPI 3% makes sense, provided unions, workers and all actors accept CPI as "inflation" is a big transfer from employees to employer.
Assuming, say a real inflation rate of 7% with CPI (contract improvements at 3%) the difference, transferred to an employer is improved "efficiency" but over time the compounded impact on the individual is substantive.
After all, airlines don’t hold ticket prices to 3%, nor does fuel comply with CPI, but holding wages, provided everyone plays along, provides real benefit to senior management, companies and the economy.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets clear this up, what is the garbage I have been shoveling?
From your own words, the company has made it very clear that it considers your asking for something that it cannot give. So you have a very big problem. Expectations have been set by the Union for an outcome can be achieved that cannot be achieved. How are you going to solve this problem?
I understand your arguments about equity. But its an enterprise bargaining system and not an industry bargaining system.
the company has made it very clear that it considers your asking for something that it cannot give.
Quite simply, the Operational staff don’t believe Management.
So you have a very big problem. Expectations have been set by the Union for an outcome can be achieved that cannot be achieved. How are you going to solve this problem?
Let’s be quite clear Camelsquadron, you are a Qantas management troll identity or a PR contractor making comments for money. Your mission is to spread FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt among your target audience.
You have been identified as such by traffic analysis which shows you are a single issue poster who turns up during industrial disputes. My guess is that you may be in an Eastern Europe time zone. Your posts are almost always between midday and midnight local Australian time.
You just tried to provoke me into getting angry and banned. No luck.
FOI is another similar identity. It seems that Qantas management are such penny pinching arse clowns that they won’t even pay for their trolls time to develop a believable internet persona.
You have been identified as such by traffic analysis which shows you are a single issue poster who turns up during industrial disputes. My guess is that you may be in an Eastern Europe time zone. Your posts are almost always between midday and midnight local Australian time.
You just tried to provoke me into getting angry and banned. No luck.
FOI is another similar identity. It seems that Qantas management are such penny pinching arse clowns that they won’t even pay for their trolls time to develop a believable internet persona.
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Jan 2020 at 19:23.
It’s a convenient time to help rattle the troops though...
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Ballarat
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CamelSquadron post #427 : "Anyway lets stop playing the person here"
Brilliant.
"The real question is, how bad are the negotiators that they have allowed the situation to deteriorate to this level? It really is a damming for the Union negotiators. A good negotiator would have found the middle ground without the need for PIA. How bad are the negotiators that they have set the expectations of a deal on their side at a level that cannot be achieved?"
The idea that somehow the AFAP has failed at 'negotiations'. You have been challenged on this point so many times now I have lost count, up to and including my very last post. And as always, like clockwork, you just neatly step around it and pretend like it never even happened.
There. Is. No. Offer. Of. Negotiation. From. The. Company. Its 3%, that's it. Nothing else. Every material thing the AFAP has put forward has been simply dismissed out of hand by the company. The company has written to the pilots and the union and stated in the clearest possible terms that they will not even meet with AFAP unless they agree to the 3% policy and don't even ATTEMPT to bring up any bargaining point that they company rejects.
Your point is garbage because it relies on the false premise that the company has any interest in negotiation. They do not, and demonstrably so. The fact you haven't made a single criticism of the company or its 'negotiators' belies your position and intent in this thread.
Originally Posted by CamelSquadron
Get a 5% wage increase, then everyone else will be demanding a 5% increase instead of 3%.
You don't get to pick and choose which precedents suit you. One one hand you want us to believe that slipping beyond 3% would instantly make all other EBAs indefensible against the same demands. On the other you wish to declare that the precedent being set by our peers in competitor and group airlines are irrelevant, and we should all be happy with being the considerably lowest paid pilots in the category, whilst doing the most work and holding the most responsibility. Not to mention of course that you lot certainly DO use the precedent set by your management peers at other companies to improve your salaries, again picking and choosing the precedents that suit you.
It is a fallacious argument.
I could go on but for the sake of brevity, and the fact you'll almost certainly simply ignore this argument like you have all the others, lets move on.
Originally Posted by CamelSquadron
From your own words, the company has made it very clear that it considers your asking for something that it cannot give. So you have a very big problem. Expectations have been set by the Union for an outcome can be achieved that cannot be achieved. How are you going to solve this problem?
Garbage
So carmelsquadron,as pointed out you are happy to throw inaccurate info around in many of the forums but cant back any of them up.
Not long ago you posted that the actions of Steve Purvinas & the ALAEA had cost the jobs of 5000 engineering staff during the dispute when the $24m man shut down the airline.
I am still waiting for you to tell me where these 5000 came from.
So,where did they come from????
Not long ago you posted that the actions of Steve Purvinas & the ALAEA had cost the jobs of 5000 engineering staff during the dispute when the $24m man shut down the airline.
I am still waiting for you to tell me where these 5000 came from.
So,where did they come from????
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both sets of pilots undertaking industrial action could be very effective.
From QF IR's perspective having overplayed their hand, perhaps an acquiescent union will put a hasty "deal" to their pilots....
AIPA have still been in negotiations with JQ as well. The issue with this is that AIPA represent under 20% of the pilot group at JQ, so even if they reached a deal with JQ management and every one of their members voted YES to a subsequent agreement, in all likelihood the agreement would be voted down convincingly. Given this, JQ management’s decision to essentially not meet with the AFAP perhaps indicates how serious they are in trying to get an agreement up.
What is more difficult to understand is the thought process AIPA is going through at JQ. They are the clear minority union, yet are still actively meeting with the company (and taking a very adversarial approach towards the AFAP). Because they would not get involved in PIA (despite their negotiators at the time pushing for exactly that), they lost about 100 JQ members. After continuing to negotiate with JQ, if AIPA come to an agreement with the company, and the EA subsequently gets voted down, where does that leave AIPA as an organisation representing JQ pilots? I think it is important that unions have healthy relationships with employers, but this can’t be at the expense (or against the wishes) of the majority of the pilot group (the union’s members!).
A rare opportunity presents itself when you have QF SH, QF LH and JQ agreements all up for negotiation - now is the perfect opportunity for AIPA to show that they could be a very strong organisation industrially - however, they just seem to be missing the mark as they seem to not want to rock the boat.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s be quite clear Camelsquadron, you are a Qantas management troll identity or a PR contractor making comments for money. Your mission is to spread FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt among your target audience.
You have been identified as such by traffic analysis which shows you are a single issue poster who turns up during industrial disputes. My guess is that you may be in an Eastern Europe time zone. Your posts are almost always between midday and midnight local Australian time.
You have been identified as such by traffic analysis which shows you are a single issue poster who turns up during industrial disputes. My guess is that you may be in an Eastern Europe time zone. Your posts are almost always between midday and midnight local Australian time.