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

Project Sunrise

Old 29th Feb 2020, 23:12
  #1421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,038
Received 676 Likes on 188 Posts
Originally Posted by V-Jet
The major cost to Qantas is fuel, NOT pilots, crew or engineers.

The fuel savings are the winning ingredient in this equation.

And what has everyone been telling them for the last 20 years about that?

Theyve dictated the argument around nonsense principles. It’s like buying a half million dollar car and complaining about the heated seats being a $5k option....
This 👆👆👆

We sell ourselves short for no good reason.
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 23:14
  #1422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Normanton, your argument boils down to: “If you vote NO, we are going to torture you with red hot irons. If you vote YES, we might not.”

Bullwinkle:
I’ve never understood this QANTAS management mentality (il dolce brought it to Virgin with him as well) of bullying and threatening your staff, and then turn around and expect them to be loyal willing obedient servants.
The Qantas management mentality is simple: “The value of the brand is in our stellar management coupled with superlative marketing and the lobbying power of our Chairman’s lounge. We own both political parties, CASA, Airservices and a huge mindshare of the Australian public. We are also experts in manipulating the fears of our staff because there is effectively no other Australian airline. We can act like a monopoly as an employer.”

I have seen first hand how contracting out works in the maritime area. The objective is to utterly subjugate employees and make unionisation or mass bargaining impossible. Staff are employed on rolling two year contracts that are deliberately unsynchronised so there is constant labor turnover. Staff are deliberately recruited from diverse national and cultural backgrounds. The cultural barriers make union type organisation difficult. In fact, no long term trust relationships between staff are formed.

The net effect is that up to half the staff can be replaced each year if necessary by the simple act of not renewing their contracts. This threat prevents any resistance to management demands and attempts at unionisation can be nipped in the bud by removing ringleaders.



Sunfish is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 23:31
  #1423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gordon, your demand for 'facts' in a negotiation comes across as a bit juvenile. It's a negotiation. Qantas, AIPA and pilots all get to make claims about the state of their world, and what will happen if they don't get what they/we want. Some of those things will be 'facts', such as current pay scales or the current number of planes in the fleet. Most of them are about their future intentions, such as whether QF will set up a separate entity, or whether AIPA will recommend PIA. Trying to pretend that statements about QF's future intentions don't matter because they're not 'facts' doesn't make sense - the entire point of the negotiation and the vote is that we're making judgments about what will likely happen.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
Fact: QF threatened their staff, via the media no less.
Ok, that's a fact. But I'm not sure what turns on it. QF has set out its side of the negotiation in the press. It's also made the same points directly to AIPA and us.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 1: The A350 will be outsourced with a no vote.
Yes, that is an assumption a lot of us are making. QF have stated to us, and publicly, that they will do that. They have prior form doing that. As a result, a lot of us think this is a credible assumption. Do you? Do you have any reasons to think this assumption is not credible?

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 2: The A350 won’t be outsourced with a yes vote.
That's as close to a fact as you'll get in a negotiation. If the A350 is on the EA for LH or ULH operations, it'd be next to impossible for QF to outsource it. If you can think of a way that QF gets past the EA conditions on outsourcing on this, please let us know.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
Assumption 3: QANTAS must reduce these (so called) legacy conditions in order to survive.
Assumption 4: That another entity will be a success. (The success to failure rate of this sort of thing does not suggest it will be)
I'm not sure whose assumptions these are? I haven't seen anyone making them in this thread. Comes across as a bit of a strawman, to be honest. From my point of view, all that really matters is that I think it's credible that QF would set up the new entity if they don't get an agreement. I'm not making any assumptions about their reasons for wanting to do so.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
Are you saying the A350s aren’t coming anyway?
That's pretty clearly not what he's saying. QF have said they'll order the A350 and launch PS if we vote no; it just won't be QF pilots flying the A350 for Sunrise, or for the eventual A380 replacement.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
To be clear, I’m saying don’t fall for the threat, a yes vote merely gives them what they want at a lower cost. Whatever happens to the fleet will happen, we’re now haggling over the price and guys who are being spooked are haggling our value down.
What Norman and a stack of others are asking for, is for people who want to vote no to explain what they think happens next, if the no vote wins? Do you think QF keeps negotiating for a second, third or fourth round vote? Why do you think QF won't carry through on its threat/promise to set up a new entity, when it's made that statement publicly and to investors?
SecretAngel is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 23:51
  #1424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,038
Received 676 Likes on 188 Posts
Ok, that's a fact. But I'm not sure what turns on it. QF has set out its side of the negotiation in the press. It's also made the same points directly to AIPA and us.
Lets not confuse a threat with a log of claims, and lets also not confuse a refusal to budge on a predetermined pilot price point with negotiations.
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:18
  #1425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SecretAngel
What Norman and a stack of others are asking for, is for people who want to vote no to explain what they think happens next, if the no vote wins? Do you think QF keeps negotiating for a second, third or fourth round vote? Why do you think QF won't carry through on its threat/promise to set up a new entity, when it's made that statement publicly and to investors?
Thanks. Can you let me know when one of them actually answers the question?

Meanwhile people like birdie have been posting actual FACTUAL numbers here which proves the offer shown at the webinars is in fact a pay rise for a little more work. Yet the NO voters keep wanting to compare them to the beloved 380 conditions on a soon retired fleet.

Lets not forget ladies and gents, not to long ago the majority of you votes YES in EBA 9. EBA10 is a pay rise for current pilots, with the introduction of a new aircraft type (if you wish to fly it).

You can drop the argument that revolves around "a YES vote doesn't guarantee the 350 won't come". It's nothing more than a scaremongering moot point.

Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
To be clear, I’m saying don’t fall for the threat, a yes vote merely gives them what they want at a lower cost. Whatever happens to the fleet will happen, we’re now haggling over the price and guys who are being spooked are haggling our value down.
And how much do you think our value will go down when a new entity is established and directly competing during EBA negotiations in the future?
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:21
  #1426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,068
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
Why do you think QF won't carry through on its threat/promise to set up a new entity, when it's made that statement publicly and to investors?

Because everything else they have promised hasn't come true. Red Q, 787 order, SIN based SOs, The whole dream of the A380, Building a world airline with Emirates..... need I go on.

So with their past performance in mind what chance do you reckon there is of a complete restructure of their operation along with the loss of mixed fleet flying? There is a lot of corporate risk associated with just starting up a new entity and doing something that has never been done before.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:27
  #1427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
I’m wondering about 10 years down the track when both the A380 and A330 are likely to be gone. If this deal is voted up, then presumably more A350s/B787s are eventually brought in as replacements. No more A380 hourly rate or legacy overtime, which is a win for the company, and the pilots have to consider whether the resulting T&Cs are still acceptable.

Or, the deal is voted down, and the 350 flying is outsourced (personally I have no doubt that they’d do it, regardless of the cost and potential inefficiency, simply because of the egos in play). To replace the 330/380, the company could get more 787s, which would be a win for the pilots for 330-style flying but not the 380 stuff. Or it could get 350s for mainline, in which case the pilots would maybe have a better chance of retaining something like the current conditions than they would for a radically new proposal like Sunrise. (As a bonus, you get the 350 without the 23-hour sectors). Or maybe a combination of 350/787. But: the other option would be for them not to bother replacing the 330 and 380 in mainline. Most of that flying, and any additional 350s necessary, would end up with their new entity, and mainline would wither to a small boutique 787 outfit. Call this scaremongering if you like, but you can’t tell me it wouldn’t be attractive to Alan & co, nor that their lawyers wouldn’t laugh off any transmission of business case.

I don’t have any answers as to how this will likely play out, nor am I advocating a vote either way. I do reckon it’s worth thinking about, though.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:28
  #1428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
Because everything else they have promised hasn't come true. Red Q, 787 order, SIN based SOs, The whole dream of the A380, Building a world airline with Emirates..... need I go on.

So with their past performance in mind what chance do you reckon there is of a complete restructure of their operation along with the loss of mixed fleet flying? There is a lot of corporate risk associated with just starting up a new entity and doing something that has never been done before.
Jetstar, Jetstar Singapore, Jetstar Asia, Jetconnect, Network, Cobham, Sunstate, Eastern all disagree with you.

Have I missed anyone?

To answer your question directly, a VERY high chance. And a very LIKLEY reality with a NO vote.
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:32
  #1429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
But: the other option would be for them not to bother replacing the 330 and 380 in mainline. Most of that flying, and any additional 350s necessary, would end up with their new entity, and mainline would wither to a small boutique 787 outfit. Call this scaremongering if you like, but you can’t tell me it wouldn’t be attractive to Alan & co, nor that their lawyers wouldn’t laugh off any transmission of business case.

I don’t have any answers as to how this will likely play out, nor am I advocating a vote either way. I do reckon it’s worth thinking about, though.
A very wise and smart way to think about it. But so far, I am yet to receive an answer from anyone in the NO vote corner about that.

A lot of them have a very short term outlook, and fail to see the bigger picture at play here.
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:46
  #1430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by normanton
Jetstar, Jetstar Singapore, Jetstar Asia, Jetconnect, Network, Cobham, Sunstate, Eastern all disagree with you.

Have I missed anyone?
Jetstar Pacific and Jetstar Japan. And Jetstar Hong Kong’s failure wasn’t for want of trying.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this EA, I have little doubt that they’ll try to go ahead with their new entity in the event of a ‘no’ vote. Alan is a small man, and hates the idea of backing down or losing face.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:46
  #1431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Normanton, your argument boils down to: “If you vote NO, we are going to torture you with red hot irons. If you vote YES, we might not.”
Well thats an interesting way to look at it.

Lets get some facts going here. A NO vote means LHE BA 10 discussions will continue. Sunrise will be off the table. It's been said multiple times, including in the media. If you don't think it will happen you are delusional. Remind yourself who you work for here.

So once again your saying a YES vote doesn't guarantee the 350's will come. Ok, your point is already on the list.

So far the reasons for a NO vote include:

1) Wait for the 2nd and 3rd offers.
2) The company won’t make a seperate entity, they are bluffing.
3) The 350s won’t come even with a YES vote.
4) Stick it to the company.
5) Anything not endorsed by AIPA is a NO vote.

Anything else you want me to add? As I have said, I'm still not decided on my vote. But so far none of you, or your fellow NO voters have made a convincing argument for voting NO.

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
Jetstar Pacific and Jetstar Japan. And Jetstar Hong Kong’s failure wasn’t for want of trying.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this EA, I have little doubt that they’ll try to go ahead with their new entity in the event of a ‘no’ vote. Alan is a small man, and hates the idea of backing down or losing face.
Ok so we can agree they are stupid enough to make a new entity. I'm not saying it will be a success, but they will still try it.

Now that we can agree on that, answer me this question. Is it worth the gamble to vote NO?
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:54
  #1432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TIBA
Posts: 460
Received 129 Likes on 37 Posts
Originally Posted by A little birdie
You’ve now asked am I a Senior Check Captain. No I am not.
Semantics are a valuable tool to provide wiggle room. QF don’t have SCC’s.

CAT D Training Captain?😉👨‍✈️👋
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:57
  #1433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by normanton

Now that we can agree on that, answer me this question. Is it worth the gamble to vote NO?
I don’t know yet. Despite the countless emails and webinars, not to mention the 74 pages of this thread, I’m yet to see a definitive proposal that I can analyse and vote on.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 00:57
  #1434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
This has not been a negotiation. This is parents telling the children how it’s going to be. Engagement levels continue to take a flogging.

Energy is better spent managing and adjusting behaviour with what is within our control. Tell me I’m dreaming, but fatigue reports must be completed. Pilots must call up unfit for duty if no sleep before call on relevant duties. It’s your licence on the line. It’ll be you in the stand...not FRMS creators or CASA.

AIPA have been asking for reports for years now. The response has demonstrated apathy and now it’s too late. Obviously pay has compensated for fatigue because the absence of reports has shown the Dallas operation to be unproblematic. Fill out the ******* form!

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
But: the other option would be for them not to bother replacing the 330 and 380 in mainline. Most of that flying, and any additional 350s necessary, would end up with their new entity, and mainline would wither to a small boutique 787 outfit.
Where does the integration award (replacement a/c types) become relevant then? Is it not worth the paper it’s written on?
crosscutter is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 01:05
  #1435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 616
Received 151 Likes on 47 Posts
What happens after a No vote.

Let’s say the vote goes down 45% Yes to 55% No. Qantas has a decision to make. The deadline is utterly irrelevant as they have now stated the aircraft will be ordered regardless so April 1 is no barrier to continued negotiations.

Qantas can:
a) Pull the A350 off the table.
This invites almost certain PIA. All the cost savings they are chasing in S/O pay, training freezes and multi-variant flying evaporate. Court cases as to the legality of this external entity (and others) will drag on for years and there is a slim chance AIPA could win which carries great risk. Costs associated with this option can mount for 3 years before any savings are realised from the external entity.

b) They can continue negotiating knowing they only need to sway 6% of the pilot body with an improved offer to get it through with all of the benefits and none of the risks above. They can trim just one of the unpalatable elements of the offer and roll on with industrial harmony and a much easier entry into service. The business case can clearly sustain it as they acknowledge it could handle a change to the crew complement. A new vote could be knocked over in 3 weeks. The company starts saving money on training and new hires immediately.

Now some will say that it must be a) because that’s what Tino said would happen. But Tino and Alan also said that their “1st, 2nd and 3rd preference was to deal with the pilots.” So you either believe one statement or the other but they can’t both be true.

I’ll go with option b) because that makes business sense. AIPA have not taken industrial action and are not chasing greater than 3% so there is no negative precedent set for other Group EA’s. It is the least risk and most economically sound option.
Beer Baron is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 01:22
  #1436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Can somebody tell me how Qantas can operate with outsourced pilots, outsourced engineering and outsourced cabin crew and still be regarded as a “brand” at all?

The brand is regarded already as expensive crap by discerning pax compared to overseas airlines because the staff are disengaged and it shows and the food is crap and it shows.

The only unique selling proposition QF now has is a grip on Australian aviation infrastructure and the local media and it has both political parties and CASA by the balls.*

If QF continues this line of just referring to employees as a cost, it is going to bite them one day.

......And considering what we can don’t know about Coronavirus, that day could be sooner than they think.

* The Qantas USP back in the 1970’s was superlative pilots and cabin crew delivering premium quality Australian service in aircraft maintained by dedicated and highly skilled Australian engineers.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:14
  #1437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
* The Qantas USP back in the 1970’s was superlative pilots and cabin crew delivering premium quality Australian service in aircraft maintained by dedicated and highly skilled Australian engineers.[/QUOTE]

Slight thread drift but in the context of QF’s safety record and prior reputation for excellence and the manner in which the management class in QF now control change, it is amazing to see the scale of the change that is now accepted.

I’m reading a great book called Destination Disaster that analyses the accident and the lead up to the first jumbo crash in history (a DC10). Unsurprisingly a lot of the weaknesses in the accident chain have been repeated in accidents that follow including the Max.

In in the book there is an analysis of all airlines’ safety records and the Australian airlines of the time are impressive, but QANTAS stands out. It notes that Flight International’s investigation revealed that its impressive record was because its management team ‘is not prepared to narrow safety margins in the cause of economic expediency’.

Times have changed a bit since the 70s but seeing the implementation of the Sunrise idea and Joyce recently trading on the QF safety record really illustrates what’s has become of a great airline.
ernestkgann is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:16
  #1438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Where does the integration award (replacement a/c types) become relevant then? Is it not worth the paper it’s written on?
Good question. I’m not a lawyer, but I expect Qantas would simply argue that these are new aircraft for a new outfit, doing new flying that Qantas has never done - thus not a replacement for anything, and the integration award doesn’t apply.

Qantas can:
a) Pull the A350 off the table.
This invites almost certain PIA. All the cost savings they are chasing in S/O pay, training freezes and multi-variant flying evaporate. Court cases as to the legality of this external entity (and others) will drag on for years and there is a slim chance AIPA could win which carries great risk. Costs associated with this option can mount for 3 years before any savings are realised from the external entity.

b) They can continue negotiating knowing they only need to sway 6% of the pilot body with an improved offer to get it through with all of the benefits and none of the risks above. They can trim just one of the unpalatable elements of the offer and roll on with industrial harmony and a much easier entry into service. The business case can clearly sustain it as they acknowledge it could handle a change to the crew complement. A new vote could be knocked over in 3 weeks. The company starts saving money on training and new hires immediately.

Now some will say that it must be a) because that’s what Tino said would happen. But Tino and Alan also said that their “1st, 2nd and 3rd preference was to deal with the pilots.” So you either believe one statement or the other but they can’t both be true.

Some good points to consider there. As far as court cases go, I suspect that’s a bet Qantas would be willing to take, based on recent history and the way the system’s stacked. Having it drag on for years would be a bonus since the company’s pockets are deeper than AIPA’s, and it would let their new entity become well-entrenched. Still, I don’t know the law, and it may well be a good path for AIPA to go down.

As for whether (a) or (b) is true. Saying ‘Sunrise will be off the table” is pretty unambiguous and hard to weasel out of without losing face, whereas “our 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference is to deal with the pilots” can and will be twisted to mean whatever they want it to.


Can somebody tell me how Qantas can operate with outsourced pilots, outsourced engineering and outsourced cabin crew and still be regarded as a “brand” at all?
Dunno, but they’ve had lots of practice at it by now and seem to be getting good at it.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:24
  #1439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beer Baron

Now some will say that it must be a) because that’s what Tino said would happen. But Tino and Alan also said that their “1st, 2nd and 3rd preference was to deal with the pilots.” So you either believe one statement or the other but they can’t both be true.
This is the 3rd time the date has been extended. They appear very firm and are quite vocal on this date. Maybe we are on the 3rd preference? Is it REALLY worth the gamble?

Regarding the legalities of the whole situation, lets hope AIPA have done their due diligance. None of us are lawyers. Lets wait and see what the AIPA recommendation is regarding the vote.
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:27
  #1440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 616
Received 151 Likes on 47 Posts
The project timeline means we have until the end of this year to reach an in-principle agreement with AIPA as part of a new EBA for long haul, which would then go to vote. If we can’t reach agreement by year’s end, we need to rule a line under Sunrise and turn our attention to alternative fleet investments in Qantas Domestic or Jetstar.
Those are some more “unambiguous” words from Tino. Remind me how that deadline went?
Beer Baron is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.