Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Project Sunrise

Old 28th Feb 2020, 22:52
  #1401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Flava Saver View Post
Do people honestly believe Qantas will be rushing to place a multi billion dollar order for A350ís given Carona, the world economy, the mass reduction in schedules with no end in sight, staff taking heaps of leave...Iím calling BS on this.

Iíd be very concerned about playing into their hands at a time that has never been so ripe for management.
Not even sure where to start with this one.

How long has Sunrise been on the cards for? Well before the coronavirus came along. You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
normanton is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 22:54
  #1402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by V-Jet View Post
A ĎNoí vote means nothing changes.

If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.

A ĎYesí vote means the pilot body have once again agreed to massive concessions because they were asked for and also opened the door to multiple threats on multiple fronts. The floodgates will well and truly be opened on new entities being developed Ďde rigueurí and anything new being only offered with multiple percentage paycuts.

For those living with their heads in the sand on the money front, if Qantas want this so much, why might that be?

No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.

I cannot for the life of me understand people here blaming Ďseniorí pilots for not caring because they have their Super! If you give away 60% of your earning capacity (and likely 20+ years of your life from truly horrific body clock issues) you will NEVER have any retirement much beyond a pension! But if thatís what you believe in, then go for it. Itís just very sad seeing future careers being sold down the river for a few pieces of (promised but never delivered) silver jets....
FFS $400k a year hardly puts you on the pension. 🤦🏼‍♂️
If Mainline gets bypassed that will be Ďthe floodgates openingí for new entities.
as happened last time PIA will achieve sweet FA
Poto is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 23:01
  #1403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by V-Jet View Post
A ĎNoí vote means nothing changes.

If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.
Staggering. So you're hedging your future on doing PIA? How did that work out last time?

If this gets voted down there is no way I will be doing any form of PIA.
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 23:10
  #1404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
Who thinks that...?!

The mind control ray works much better...
ruprecht is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 23:12
  #1405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 192
I disagree with Flava Savers view. The deadline was set pre-Corona virus. In fact with possible cancellations Qantas may see this as an opportunity to get hands on aircraft sooner rather than later, or some at a cheaper price. When people want to avoid Asia, offering non stop flights may become more attractive. Of course nobody might want to travel full stop.

in regards to all this other Yes/No talk we need to see a finished deal and what it proposes. A straw poll of people I have flown with are all (though begrudgingly) is in the yes camp. AJ will happily set up a new entity to operate it and those saying it is a bluff are misguided. A yes vote keeps the 350 in house, and the Union can try and improve conditions from there. Hopefully now Qantas has forced us into an undesirable position regards the FRMS we can work out how to use it to our advantage, fill in those fatigue reports people.

The only certainty in a NO vote is negotiations will continue, most likely not involving the 350. I saw a suggestion for PIA but if the company are still negotiating I’m not sure there are any grounds. I personally think the way the FWA is stacked in favour of the employer that arguing they want to set up a new business to start flights we currently can’t do would see us laughed out of court. Qantas have much better lawyers, connections and will also win in the court of public opinion.

It really has been check mate to Qantas for some time.
engine out is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 23:34
  #1406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Cuckoos nest
Age: 1
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by V-Jet View Post
.

... with so far 14 aircraft of 100 promised) which I don’t think anyone thinking this is a good idea really understands.
Qantas ordered 115 787s in 2004. It cancelled 15 of them in 2009 and another 35 of them in 2012.

Jetstar has 11 delivered from 2013- 2015.

At the time of signing off on EBA9, Qantas had roughly 54 787s on order. It’s taken 14 so far.

100 787s have never been ‘promised’ as part of an EA negotiation.


Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
From someone who has done the figures and if you don’t believe me do them yourself it’s 15% more flying for 13% less pay than the current 330 pay.
That is complete and utter rubbish. It’s just a complete falsehood.
A little birdie is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2020, 23:46
  #1407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 71
Posts: 903
One can only fantasise about the wonderful staff travel upgrade category that Nathan’s Angels are going to have bestowed once their FUD campaign succeeds !
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 00:19
  #1408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 350
Wanting to vote yes to a substandard deal to avoid the perceived threat of outsourcing is one thing;

But coming onto a public forum and declaring to the company how keen you are to vote yes while negotiations are (were) still in play is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in my working life.

Let me know if you ever want to play some poker.



Fonz121 is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 00:39
  #1409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
A falsehood is it a little birdie maybe you should call yourself a little brain. 40 stick hours of credits with 50% at night leaves 20 hours with a 1/3 night credit call it 7 hours means 47 credited hours instead of 40 .That’s actually more than 15% to start. At the moment a 160 hour divisor equates to approx 135 stick, you do 160 with no night credits 25 hours more and actually greater than 15%. Let me know if you want the overtime payments as well.



dragon man is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 01:22
  #1410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Cuckoos nest
Age: 1
Posts: 67
So when you say ‘pay cut’ you don’t mean from what crew are currently paid, you mean from the non existent pay that you wish crew to be paid under the legacy award; conditions that aren’t being offered, will never be offered, and likely see these sorts of ULH routes unprofitable so that they won’t exist. I agree that what is being offered is less than the legacy terms and conditions but legacy conditions were never designed with this sort of flying in mind.

Based on a full roster, an A330/A350 pilot looks to be paid 15% more than they are currently for an extra 3-5% more stick hours. They also avoid an external entity under mining them for ever more.

Calling that a ‘pay cut’ is the sort of logic that Labor uses when they call any LNP education spending less than theirs as a ‘cut’. It’s propaganda when Labor does it and it’s propaganda when you do it.

Oh and the name calling is a nice touch. Always know someone is on solid ground when they resort to that sort of thing.

(Oh and your night credit calculation depends on the schedule. It may be as much as 8 credit hours, it may be as little as 5:20. The company offer for a LHR trip will be worth 42.5)
A little birdie is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 01:27
  #1411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
A falsehood is it a little birdie maybe you should call yourself a little brain. 40 stick hours of credits with 50% at night leaves 20 hours with a 1/3 night credit call it 7 hours means 47 credited hours instead of 40 .Thatís actually more than 15% to start. At the moment a 160 hour divisor equates to approx 135 stick, you do 160 with no night credits 25 hours more and actually greater than 15%. Let me know if you want the overtime payments as well.
if Pilots vote comparing the offer to the Black Book on an aircraft that canít actually ever do this sort of flying being proposed then we are stuffed.
Poto is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 01:36
  #1412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
2 ULR trips is 80 hours the night credits are 20 more . 3/5% more stick hours of 135 is 6.5 for 141.5 not 160. Give me the figures not your bullshit. 4 ULR sectors of 40 hours equates roughly under the current award to to 12 hours overtime per sector under the deal proposed the overtime would be about 5 hours. A difference of 28 hours per bid period. Take 5% higher pay for the 747 over the 330 equates to 8 hours on a 160 hour divisor that leaves the current award 20 hours per bid period of 160 hours better off.
dragon man is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 02:05
  #1413 (permalink)  
34R
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 49
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by A little birdie View Post
This statement as it stands alone is simply not true.

The Qantas offer on the table and the AIPA offer would see any current A330 pilot take a pay rise that would exceed any increase in stick hours. $50K more for 40 hours extra stick in the year in the same number of days away is the rough number. Thatís a LOT more than the hourly pay rate for those stick hours.

Is it as good as the black book numbers for an A330 rate? No. That would be $100K additional and three less days of flying per BP. But thatís not on offer and never will be.

Is what the company is offering Ďadequateí? It seems to be a similar deal to the 787. Despite the voices to the contrary Iíve not yet come across a 787 pilot who claims theyíre under paid for what they do.
The 330 pilot may be taking a pay rise, but the 350 isnít replacing the 330 is it? Itís ultimately replacing the 380!
So compared to the type it will ultimately be replacing, itís 20-30K down (depending on rank) with 2 days extra work and 9 stick hrs extra a bid period, not to mention the fact itís operating MVF under flight and duty rule set that is far less restrictive than we operate under presently.

And if you want to compare apples with apples, letís compare it to the 787 then.
Company figures suggest, and I assume thatís where you got your figures from, itís anywhere from 5-13% (Year 4-Year1 rates) above the 787 on a divisor of 170 for the 350/330 and 155 for the 787.
Thats roughly 3 extra days and 4 more stick hours over and above the 787 a bid period. That works out to nearly 3 weeks at home more on the 787 than the 350/330 over the course of a year on those presumed divisors, and yes I understand those can fluctuate.
More days at work, and when youíre at work youíre working more hours, doing horrendously long TODís under an FRMS that the company will use as limits not guide lines, (granted, this will occur across all fleets now)

This needs to be taken into account when comparing it to any financial gain.

Do those gains compensate for what we are being asked to do on the shiny new jet under an a set of work rules the company are salivating over the prospect of implementing? Not to mention the draconian actions the company are using to get this over the line!








34R is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 02:07
  #1414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Cuckoos nest
Age: 1
Posts: 67
What you’re talking about isn’t on offer is it. It won’t ever be on offer. It doesn’t exist. It won’t ever exist.

Now, if you can let go of that and compare what is being asked for with what we currently do, the deal is 15% more money for 5% more stick. Yes it’s more stick. Yet it’s more money. No, it’s not a pay cut.

Is it less than the fantasy world you’re describing where crew get 45-48 credit for a LHR trip and circa 28 hours overtime? Yep.

The question is whether what is being offered is reasonable or adequate based on what crew fly now and particularly in the context of an external crewing arrangements. Your mind is clearly made up dragon man. You want the non existent fantasy and push the propaganda to support it. Good luck. Let’s see how that plays out over the next 5+ years.
A little birdie is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 02:09
  #1415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
Not even sure where to start with this one.

How long has Sunrise been on the cards for? Well before the coronavirus came along. You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
Nah mate. No conspiracy theorists here. I just choose not to drink the Kool Aide like a lot are. But cheers to you lot.
Flava Saver is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 02:14
  #1416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Vote No? No worries, but you better tell us what your plan B is first.

The company have stayed their Plan B.
Jimothy is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 03:01
  #1417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by A little birdie View Post
They also avoid an external entity under mining them for ever more.
And you know this because???
Do you honestly believe that if they are successful this time they won't try it on again under a new guise next time?
They reaped a great productivity reward in EA9, but still come looking for further significant gains this time because the group believed in the threat that 787 flying would go elsewhere. Given the same adversarial industrial relations environment, this will be their ploy for as long as they see a saving to be made and a bonus to secure.

In the meantime, your flying will never be secure until Qantas industrial relations change their approach to valuing the contribution their staff currently make and what they could do if genuinely supported, not used as a simple resource.

Strangely, motivated staff could perhaps even drive the share price and thus executive bonuses even higher; but that would take hard work not soft options like cost cutting and share buy-backs.

Unfortunately I see a Yes vote being recorded and many looking back in a few years and whispering "Why did we accept that without exploring all of the options?"


C441 is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 03:08
  #1418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Cuckoos nest
Age: 1
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by 34R View Post
The 330 pilot may be taking a pay rise, but the 350 isn’t replacing the 330 is it? It’s ultimately replacing the 380!
So compared to the type it will ultimately be replacing, it’s 20-30K down (depending on rank) with 2 days extra work and 9 stick hrs extra a bid period, not to mention the fact it’s operating MVF under flight and duty rule set that is far less restrictive than we operate under presently.
It’s irrelevant comparing the A350 to the A380. One carries nearly 500 pax. The other will carry less than 300 on Sunrise flying. It’ll likely carry 350 on non Sunrise flying. Getting within 30K of the A380 is probably not bad. I haven’t done those numbers so can’t confirm if they’re accurate but I’ll take your word for it.

Originally Posted by 34R View Post
Company figures suggest, and I assume that’s where you got your figures from, it’s anywhere from 5-13% (Year 4-Year1 rates) above the 787 on a divisor of 170 for the 350/330 and 155 for the 787.
Thats roughly 3 extra days and 4 more stick hours over and above the 787 a bid period.
It’s likely closer to two days per BP given the 33% ULR credit for ToD greater than 18 hours. There is also the issue that many A330 trips are MDC and that is the cause of additional days away in a roster. Note that this occurs now anyway with A330 crew away more days than other types that fly more efficient patterns. It’s been that way since the 767 was introduced in the ‘80s.

But let’s compare the pair on (say) PER-LHR- PER (2018 pay rates)

787
Divisor: 155
LHR credit: 34.4
O/Time per trip: Nil.
Days per trip: 5
Trips per BP: 4.5
Stick per BP: 155
Days worked per BP: 22.5
Pay: 155
Total per BP: $54719
Total per annum: $355,677

MVF
Divisor: 170
LHR credit: 34.7 (slight increase with the .33 beyond tod 18+)
O/time per trip: 6:40
Days per trip: 5
Trips per BP: 4.9
Stick per BP: 169
Days worked per BP: 24.5
Pay: 202.8 (170 divisor plus (4.9 trips x 6:40 overtime))
Total per BP: $62,979
Total per annum: $404,271 (I’ve even left off the overtime for half a bid period of holidays in this number).

So the numbers are an extra 12 days per annum, an extra 84 stick, for an extra $49K.

Lots of different ways you can view those numbers.
An equivalent rate for that additional stick of $583/ hour.
8% more flying hours than the 787, 15% more money.

Of course it’s unlikely that the MVF pilot is going to be able to fly those 5 trips in a BP and will likely end up with some less efficient A330 flying on their line. That will add to the days away. Were a 787 also flying less efficient flying like the A330 it’d have extra days away too.

Would I prefer to do less stick and get paid a bit less? Yep. However there’s no disputing those numbers.

Originally Posted by 34R View Post
Do those gains compensate for what we are being asked to do on the shiny new jet under an a set of work rules the company are salivating over the prospect of implementing? Not to mention the draconian actions the company are using to get this over the line!
That’s the question each pilot will need to ask themselves come the vote. Voting ‘no’ because the company negotiating tactics are appalling is cutting off your nose to spite your face. How we got here is irrelevant. Look at the deal and decide whether they are acceptable or not. Decide if you can live with them to avoid an external entity, or roll the dice and see what happens.

Originally Posted by C441 View Post
And you know this because???
And you know they won’t because?

They’ve been pretty clear on this point for a month now. What’s their past form on carrying out their IR agenda? JQ in 2003? Lockout in 2011? JQ now in 2020? Want to gamble?

Sure they may try it on again in 2025 but given we’ve negotiated a rate that they’re happy with on the A350, if they’re then looking to replace the A380 with higher capacity A350 I suspect Qantas pilots are in a pretty strong position on both counts. Certainly stronger than if there an external entity operating the A350.
A little birdie is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 03:25
  #1419 (permalink)  
34R
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 49
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by A little birdie View Post
Now, if you can let go of that and compare what is being asked for with what we currently do .

The question is whether what is being offered is reasonable or adequate based on what crew fly now.

You keep asking to compare the offer with what we do now. If I do that then it’s a pay cut.

Just because it’s not on offer doesn’t mean that it’s not a relevant point. It’s a very significant point and based on that it’s going to be rejected by a very large portion of those voting because at the end of the day we measure how the offer is going to affect us. That’s very individual I know, but if I ask myself when I consider what’s on offer:
How much will I earn?
How many days in a roster will I it take me to earn it?
When I go to work, how much time will I spend there?
When I get home, how long will I spend there and how long will it take me to get over what I just did?
Is what I’m doing sustainable?
Am I better off professionally and what impact will it have on me personally?
After all of that, if it’s superior to what I’m doing now then great. If it’s not then I don’t see it as a step forward.

If you’re going to cherry pick the parts of our current agreement that it is better than, then I suppose you can easily support your argument.
I still put it to you that holistically, it’s a massive step backwards not to mention an appalling capitulation to a disgraceful display of threats and intimidation from a few who stand to very well from this thing getting over the line.

anyhoo... we clearly differ on this and that’s ok, we are all different.
whatever happens will show itself in due course and we will deal with it as best we can
34R is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 03:51
  #1420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Cuckoos nest
Age: 1
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by 34R View Post
You keep asking to compare the offer with what we do now. If I do that then it’s a pay cut.
No. It's not. You won't earn less money than what you do now. THAT is a pay cut. You'll earn more than you do now.


Originally Posted by 34R View Post
How much will I earn?
How many days in a roster will I it take me to earn it?
When I go to work, how much time will I spend there?
When I get home, how long will I spend there and how long will it take me to get over what I just did?
Is what I’m doing sustainable?
Am I better off professionally and what impact will it have on me personally?
These are all good questions. If you want to tell me what fleet you're on currently, what MVF base you're looking at, and whether you intend on doing MVF or 787 flying I can do the numbers more accurately.

In a nutshell, an MVF pilot will work the same number of days as an A330 pilot and earn 15% more and fly 3-5% more stick.
An MVF pilot will work 12-18 days more per annum than a 787 pilot and earn anywhere between 5 and 15% more depending on base and type of flying.
An MVF pilot will fly between 3 and 8% more stick hours than the 787 pilot. The more stick they fly beyond the 787, the more they earn beyond the 787 pilot.

All these change a bit depending on how dense the flying the MVF pilot does external to the Sunrise flying and the route structure between the fleets. The flying the 787 and MVF are proposed to do are not at the moment easily comparable. It’s a bit like comparing A330 flying with the A380. They’re not the same beast and do different things.


Originally Posted by 34R View Post
If you’re going to cherry pick the parts of our current agreement that it is better than, then I suppose you can easily support your argument.
What parts am I cherry picking? I'm looking at what is on offer and how it compares to what crew currently operate. I'm certainly aware that getting 10 hours of overtime instead of 28 on a LHR trip is a 'loss' but given SYD-LHR-SYD not something we currently do, and it's not on offer, it's not something that I'm going to waste too much energy on.

How does this deal compare with the flying the A330 currently does?
How does this deal compare with the flying the 787 currently does?
Is this reasonable?
Is it acceptable given the spectre of an external crewing arrangement?

Originally Posted by 34R View Post

anyhoo... we clearly differ on this and that’s ok, we are all different.
whatever happens will show itself in due course and we will deal with it as best we can
Agreed.

Last edited by A little birdie; 29th Feb 2020 at 04:15.
A little birdie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.