Project Sunrise
Sorry I didn’t mean regulatory approval as such.
I mean you shouldn’t go blabbing through the media about starting an airline before seeking approval from the locals first!
Sound familiar?
I mean you shouldn’t go blabbing through the media about starting an airline before seeking approval from the locals first!
Sound familiar?
Last edited by Wingspar; 1st Dec 2019 at 21:50.
I’m hearing 8 employees of HR were shown the door yesterday, some very high up, the food chain. I wonder if the slow or no progress on Sunrise had anything to do with it.
Probably Christmas is coming and QF wanted to save on the Compnay Christmas card list
Just the pre Christmas purge. Nightshift at AKL call centre is being abolished in favour of outsourcing to CPT and MNL
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A CASA spokeswoman said the agency was in the process of "transforming the way we operate to provide more consistent and standardised safety oversight", and was developing a new "oversight model" that would identify staff roles and capabilities.One CASA inspector, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to talk about the organisation publicly, said the staff shortage was forcing inspectors to cut corners and adopt “box ticking” approach to safety checks.
Quick Little Napoleon, order an aircraft and gain a regulatory exemption at the same time.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/work...03-p53gg0.html
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope AIPA have an appropriate response for the inevitable QF press release!
I’m very keen to see the magnitude of the ‘petty’ factor QF will attribute to the pilots for this failed project.
AIPA please be prepared!!
I’m very keen to see the magnitude of the ‘petty’ factor QF will attribute to the pilots for this failed project.
AIPA please be prepared!!
"according to the Australian & International Pilots Association weekly newsletter, Insights, while the Project Sunrise business case will be put to the board this week “it remains subject to pilot acceptance of a new EA and further Board review in February 2020.”
It adds that “depending on the outcome of Qantas Board meetings, a package of terms and conditions may be put with a ballot to Long Haul pilots early next year. This could be irrespective of AIPA’s position on the package.”
It adds that “depending on the outcome of Qantas Board meetings, a package of terms and conditions may be put with a ballot to Long Haul pilots early next year. This could be irrespective of AIPA’s position on the package.”
It adds that “depending on the outcome of Qantas Board meetings, a package of terms and conditions may be put with a ballot to Long Haul pilots early next year. This could be irrespective of AIPA’s position on the package.”
As Humphrey would say,” Very courageous move Prime Minister”.
That would introduce a higher degree of risk for the business case. No matter how much they dislike the pilots they would still follow good business sense and not introduce more risk by bypassing AIPA.
That move would only isolate the company more.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You heard it Here First - Don't Say You were not Told - Others said it could/would happen!
Allegedly the incumbent AIPA LH Negotiating Team has done a deal with Qantas and it is being lodged with the unsuspecting AIPA COM as I write!
Watch this space....
Allegedly the incumbent AIPA LH Negotiating Team has done a deal with Qantas and it is being lodged with the unsuspecting AIPA COM as I write!
Watch this space....
If the company bypassed the association and put out an agreement without their support, it’d be a no vote on principle. Even if the agreement wasn’t half bad.
I suspect the company is planning on putting out an agreement and saying these are the T&Cs, it’s opt in for existing pilots, and will be offered to new applicants as SOs.
Interesting times.
I suspect the company is planning on putting out an agreement and saying these are the T&Cs, it’s opt in for existing pilots, and will be offered to new applicants as SOs.
Interesting times.
What do you mean by “done a deal”?
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have they actually bought an aircraft?
If so the regulator might be a little surprised, as their entire narrative has been to claim the "pilot contract" was the restriction...
Tsk tsk, is Mr Shipton watching?
If so the regulator might be a little surprised, as their entire narrative has been to claim the "pilot contract" was the restriction...
Tsk tsk, is Mr Shipton watching?
The sensible way to create a 'new' venture is not advertise it all - lest you end up having to make embarrassingly triumphant announcements along the lines of JQ HKG (etc).
The aircraft aren't built, or even designed as yet.
Can Qantas actually get enough of these unplanned, unbuilt aircraft?
Are there enough crews?
The various regulatory approvals (Flt time Lims etc) have not been (that I'm aware of) granted.
Have overflight approvals been sought or approved?
Union issues vis a vis hours etc seem a long way down that list, but they are by no means solved either.
I'm sure there are more good questions to add to those. Blaming Tech Crew might seem like a good idea, but looks preposterous when you consider there isn't a jet yet to do the job - let alone legally!
The aircraft aren't built, or even designed as yet.
Can Qantas actually get enough of these unplanned, unbuilt aircraft?
Are there enough crews?
The various regulatory approvals (Flt time Lims etc) have not been (that I'm aware of) granted.
Have overflight approvals been sought or approved?
Union issues vis a vis hours etc seem a long way down that list, but they are by no means solved either.
I'm sure there are more good questions to add to those. Blaming Tech Crew might seem like a good idea, but looks preposterous when you consider there isn't a jet yet to do the job - let alone legally!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my take on it:
The Company's position is that they will not order aircraft unless they have locked in the crewing cost. That makes some sense from a business perspective, and it's not difficult to understand.
The Company's further position is that the crewing cost they seek needs to be even more efficient than the existing 787, and that if AIPA and the pilots do not agree to this, right now, then the aircraft will not be ordered. This is a significant stick/carrot/bluff negotiating tactic that is not impressing too many pilots. It is basically up to AIPA today to make a decision on whether to agree to put a negotiated agreement to the pilots and recommend a yes vote. According to the spin, if they don't, the project is dead.
In the last communication a few days ago, there was still no agreement. Perhaps today there is, and it is being considered by the COM. We will see.
The Company's position is that they will not order aircraft unless they have locked in the crewing cost. That makes some sense from a business perspective, and it's not difficult to understand.
The Company's further position is that the crewing cost they seek needs to be even more efficient than the existing 787, and that if AIPA and the pilots do not agree to this, right now, then the aircraft will not be ordered. This is a significant stick/carrot/bluff negotiating tactic that is not impressing too many pilots. It is basically up to AIPA today to make a decision on whether to agree to put a negotiated agreement to the pilots and recommend a yes vote. According to the spin, if they don't, the project is dead.
In the last communication a few days ago, there was still no agreement. Perhaps today there is, and it is being considered by the COM. We will see.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my take on it:
The Company's position is that they will not order aircraft unless they have locked in the crewing cost. That makes some sense from a business perspective, and it's not difficult to understand.
The Company's further position is that the crewing cost they seek needs to be even more efficient than the existing 787, and that if AIPA and the pilots do not agree to this, right now, then the aircraft will not be ordered. This is a significant stick/carrot/bluff negotiating tactic that is not impressing too many pilots. It is basically up to AIPA today to make a decision on whether to agree to put a negotiated agreement to the pilots and recommend a yes vote. According to the spin, if they don't, the project is dead.
In the last communication a few days ago, there was still no agreement. Perhaps today there is, and it is being considered by the COM. We will see.
The Company's position is that they will not order aircraft unless they have locked in the crewing cost. That makes some sense from a business perspective, and it's not difficult to understand.
The Company's further position is that the crewing cost they seek needs to be even more efficient than the existing 787, and that if AIPA and the pilots do not agree to this, right now, then the aircraft will not be ordered. This is a significant stick/carrot/bluff negotiating tactic that is not impressing too many pilots. It is basically up to AIPA today to make a decision on whether to agree to put a negotiated agreement to the pilots and recommend a yes vote. According to the spin, if they don't, the project is dead.
In the last communication a few days ago, there was still no agreement. Perhaps today there is, and it is being considered by the COM. We will see.
Having constructed a flimsy narrative around pilot costs, Little Napoleon convinces a dopey board the pilots are in his pocket.
The board signs off and purchases aircraft. The union make- up changes and a "deal" is no longer assured.
The board is in a tough place, they have compliance obligations under the Corporations Act and the ASX.
It is not beyond the realms of the ridiculous, that a panicked Little Napoleon pushes a deal in order to protect an exposed board...
Friday's board meeting might be fascinating...
Nothing like a little corporate oversight...
With a regulator of substance this might be popcorn time...
Just listened to a GT interview on the radio today. He stated "the emails I am getting" seems to indicate they have shelved the idea. The Aircraft can't do it, and the pilots won't do it, was the gist of it.
The only gap to be closed is with the pilots apparently. As predicted on here, it appears as though the company are manoeuvring to paint the pilots as the reason for project sunrise failing or going ahead.
One of the main requests to the pilots is to bring in a B-scale pay for new recruits. This would create huge savings apparently. Current pilots are reassured this won’t affect current pilot pay, “so nothing to lose, much to gain”. This is offensive to current pilots. This assumes current pilots are selfish, greedy and narcissistic. The problem is, even if they were all narcissistic and willing to throw the next generation of pilots under the bus, current pilots are well aware that letting in a B-scale brings huge risks for themselves. Look what happened at Cathay.
They say that if a B-scale isn’t approved for future pilots, they will have to find savings elsewhere. Why not limit pay for future CEOs? Im not saying reduce the current CEOs pay from 24mil but maybe cap the next CEOs pay to say 10mil a year. This would be inline with industry average, create a large saving, not impact current CEO pay and close lots of gaps all over the business.
One of the main requests to the pilots is to bring in a B-scale pay for new recruits. This would create huge savings apparently. Current pilots are reassured this won’t affect current pilot pay, “so nothing to lose, much to gain”. This is offensive to current pilots. This assumes current pilots are selfish, greedy and narcissistic. The problem is, even if they were all narcissistic and willing to throw the next generation of pilots under the bus, current pilots are well aware that letting in a B-scale brings huge risks for themselves. Look what happened at Cathay.
They say that if a B-scale isn’t approved for future pilots, they will have to find savings elsewhere. Why not limit pay for future CEOs? Im not saying reduce the current CEOs pay from 24mil but maybe cap the next CEOs pay to say 10mil a year. This would be inline with industry average, create a large saving, not impact current CEO pay and close lots of gaps all over the business.
One thing though both KA first and then CX later had B scale imposed upon them, no input from the existing pilot group. It was unbelievably divisive which the company gladly promoted. Next of course comes C scale.