Project Sunrise
That’s not scaremongering in Qantas that’s a fact. In 20 years time we will see who is correct.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think will happen to the future mainline conditions when you have another entity directly competing and undercutting our work?
Make no mistake, the new entity flight crew and cabin crew will be significantly cheaper.
I agree 100%. The sunrise flying will NEVER be recovered. Then the 380s retire, replaced by more 350's under the entity. Then they retire the 330's, and replace them with xxx under the new entity. Catch the drift here?
They want us to vote this down. In the long run, flight crew will start becoming SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the situation either.
We differ in our beliefs, a rejection will IMO lead to a better offer, however it’s a democracy you vote your way I’ll vote mine. I can safely say you will not get night credits or overtime back.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gifting the company an excuse to start up a separate entity for future expansion is just madness and I don’t see how any logical person could vote and allow this to happen.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have been fairly clear that a NO outcome will be respected, and another vote will not be occurring.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who think we don’t have a B scale for new hires. It may not be within our contract, but what do you think Network, Cobham, Jetconnect etc are?
If these new hires aren’t employed in mainline, they will take positions and be employed in subsidiaries at lower terms and conditions than what is on offer as a B scale for new hires in mainline.
150k is not to be sneezed at, as for the rest of the offer, that’s up to the individual.
If these new hires aren’t employed in mainline, they will take positions and be employed in subsidiaries at lower terms and conditions than what is on offer as a B scale for new hires in mainline.
150k is not to be sneezed at, as for the rest of the offer, that’s up to the individual.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That really just shows your complete lack of information.
They have made it very clear. One vote for this to go through, or another entity gets it. No idea if that's legal, and if it fits withing the "fairness of bargaining". But that's the reality.
This didn't occur with the SH EBA.
I'm still waiting for a valid argument from your side. All I've heard so far is more scaremongering.
They have made it very clear. One vote for this to go through, or another entity gets it. No idea if that's legal, and if it fits withing the "fairness of bargaining". But that's the reality.
This didn't occur with the SH EBA.
I'm still waiting for a valid argument from your side. All I've heard so far is more scaremongering.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normanton & KD Kiwi it would appear you both have been indulging in the proffered shaudenfraud Company Koolaide !
Have a look in EBA9 at sections :15.9 Agreed steps for managing a surplus and
15.10 Redundancy
There is nothing stopping the Company to greenfield a new entity now.
Ever wondered why they haven’t yet , despite numerous threats ?
Those sections of the EBA might influence management’s bonus centric decision making processes.
Just make sure these sections are not fiddled with prior to voting for EBA10 !
Have a look in EBA9 at sections :15.9 Agreed steps for managing a surplus and
15.10 Redundancy
There is nothing stopping the Company to greenfield a new entity now.
Ever wondered why they haven’t yet , despite numerous threats ?
Those sections of the EBA might influence management’s bonus centric decision making processes.
Just make sure these sections are not fiddled with prior to voting for EBA10 !
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been drinking the koolaide? Are you sure your not drunk on it? How are 15.9 and 15.10 related to the questions at play here?
Your right. Jetstar. Jetconnect. Network. Cobham. Jetstar. Jetstar Hong Kong. Probably missed a few here.
But they have. See above. They will do it again to save a $.
But they have. See above. They will do it again to save a $.
I’m sorry normanton but that is just grossly misplaced optimism.
You will NEVER make up the conditions you trade away now.
Look at the SH EA. There are a million issues we want to fix with it but we have so little to trade away that it is near impossible to improve it. SH makes more money than every part of Qantas and has done for years and years but we hit a brick wall every time we try to improve the EA.
Look at Jetstar, they have the jets and the jobs but look how hard JQ are fighting the pilots attempts to “Go after improvements once the planes are [t]here”.
You are clearly spooked by the company’s threats. So how do you think things would play out at the following EA negotiations when they say;
“Ok, we ordered 12 A350’s under the Sunrise business case. Now we want 30 more to replace the A330’s and you need to give up X, Y and Z to make the business case or we will get external pilots to fly them.”
Your fear of their threat then will mean you have to call their bluff or give up MORE conditions. If you’re not prepared to call them out then you have ZERO chance to “Go after improvements once the planes are here”. In fact you will get ripped off again because you fell for it last time and they will pull this stunt for every subsequent EA.
Why wouldn’t they?
And giving in to Qantas doesn’t protect you from anything. SH and JQ both have bare bones contracts (relative to LH) yet they are giving A320’s to Network, JetConnect fly VH 737’s and they are threatening to sell JQ 787’s. This is how the Qantas group thanks you for signing a ****ty EA!
You will NEVER make up the conditions you trade away now.
Look at the SH EA. There are a million issues we want to fix with it but we have so little to trade away that it is near impossible to improve it. SH makes more money than every part of Qantas and has done for years and years but we hit a brick wall every time we try to improve the EA.
Look at Jetstar, they have the jets and the jobs but look how hard JQ are fighting the pilots attempts to “Go after improvements once the planes are [t]here”.
You are clearly spooked by the company’s threats. So how do you think things would play out at the following EA negotiations when they say;
“Ok, we ordered 12 A350’s under the Sunrise business case. Now we want 30 more to replace the A330’s and you need to give up X, Y and Z to make the business case or we will get external pilots to fly them.”
Your fear of their threat then will mean you have to call their bluff or give up MORE conditions. If you’re not prepared to call them out then you have ZERO chance to “Go after improvements once the planes are here”. In fact you will get ripped off again because you fell for it last time and they will pull this stunt for every subsequent EA.
Why wouldn’t they?
And giving in to Qantas doesn’t protect you from anything. SH and JQ both have bare bones contracts (relative to LH) yet they are giving A320’s to Network, JetConnect fly VH 737’s and they are threatening to sell JQ 787’s. This is how the Qantas group thanks you for signing a ****ty EA!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for actually providing another side of the argument.
I wouldn't say I' m spooked at all. More just a realist. They have the upper hand here, and are using it to the full advantage.
So what happens when you vote NO, and a separate entity comes in, which is now competing and undercutting mainline in every EBA renewal.
Do you think the future EBA negotiations will be better then voting YES now and securing the flying?
I wouldn't say I' m spooked at all. More just a realist. They have the upper hand here, and are using it to the full advantage.
So what happens when you vote NO, and a separate entity comes in, which is now competing and undercutting mainline in every EBA renewal.
Do you think the future EBA negotiations will be better then voting YES now and securing the flying?
If you are new then you could well have 30 years ahead of you at Qantas. They will ALWAYS have the upper hand. But this does not mean you have to willingly hand over vital pieces of the contract at the very first time of asking.
If you give in now then you will be giving things away every four years for the rest of your career until you wonder why this job you always dreamed of isn’t what you expected or hoped for.
This high stakes, threat laden negotiating tactic is Qantas’s standard playbook. Remember they said we had to agree by the end of 2019 or no Sunrise? Well it turned out to be just a bluff. They have upped the stakes but the game is the same.
Don’t believe that voting No only has one outcome. Joyce himself said his “first, second and third preference” is to do a deal with the current pilots. Negotiations can and will continue.
If you give in now then you will be giving things away every four years for the rest of your career until you wonder why this job you always dreamed of isn’t what you expected or hoped for.
This high stakes, threat laden negotiating tactic is Qantas’s standard playbook. Remember they said we had to agree by the end of 2019 or no Sunrise? Well it turned out to be just a bluff. They have upped the stakes but the game is the same.
Don’t believe that voting No only has one outcome. Joyce himself said his “first, second and third preference” is to do a deal with the current pilots. Negotiations can and will continue.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying it's worth the gamble to vote NO in the hopes of a second, and then third vote?
All after they have clearly said a NO vote will result in them going down the external entity path.
All after they have clearly said a NO vote will result in them going down the external entity path.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ll be voting yes to any offer whether it be a negotiated deal or a company only deal to secure the flying and secure a future for myself and my family. It’s just not worth the gamble. Legacy conditions are on the way out and I am completely comfortable with that.
For people intent on voting no, I hope you have had a good think about a plan B when the company does not offer the sunrise flying again.
For people intent on voting no, I hope you have had a good think about a plan B when the company does not offer the sunrise flying again.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy to vote no and stick it to the company, wait for a better offer etc. when you are sitting comfortably in the LHS. Not to sure the pilots still sitting in the RHS after the lost decade would agree with you.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh....and the new sunrise entity will probably end up getting the SH replacement fleet too.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can tell you the last two flights I have done, both FOs late 50s / early 60s. They will retire in the FO position. They will never get a widebody command at Qantas. All because of the lost decade. There is a chance of this occurring again with a NO vote.
I respect your opinion, but I still don’t think you understand how voting NO will actually result in worse conditions AND loss of flying for mainline in the future. Especially considering your only argument so far is that it’s worth the gamble for the 2nd and 3rd option.
So you’re happy to call the company’s bluff? Hell of a gamble in my opinion. The old “never vote yes to the first offer” does not apply here. The company absolutely have the upper hand.You can’t reasonably ignore the elephant in the room.
Gifting the company an excuse to start up a separate entity for future expansion is just madness and I don’t see how any logical person could vote and allow this to happen.
Gifting the company an excuse to start up a separate entity for future expansion is just madness and I don’t see how any logical person could vote and allow this to happen.
I don’t think it matters what hand QF have, the collective pilot body probably have a better one.
