Project Sunrise
A lot of talk about voting no and PIA as an option.
What would be the reason for PIA? You can’t take PIA based on sunrise because it’s not in negotiation after a NO vote. So what would it be? Some will say take your pick... pay, conditions. I’m saying the company will “roll over” on status quo plus 3%.
I actually don’t consider it doomsday vote yes or no.
Vote No and the opportunity to do that flying will eventuate.
Vote Yes and the opportunity to do that flying will eventuate.
Conditions may be different.
Irrespective of the vote, engagement is totally shot due to the ‘gun to the head’ discussions and that cost is yet to be calculated. Time is better spent managing what is within your control. FRMS is quite a threat to Qantas over the next 5 years.
What would be the reason for PIA? You can’t take PIA based on sunrise because it’s not in negotiation after a NO vote. So what would it be? Some will say take your pick... pay, conditions. I’m saying the company will “roll over” on status quo plus 3%.
I actually don’t consider it doomsday vote yes or no.
Vote No and the opportunity to do that flying will eventuate.
Vote Yes and the opportunity to do that flying will eventuate.
Conditions may be different.
Irrespective of the vote, engagement is totally shot due to the ‘gun to the head’ discussions and that cost is yet to be calculated. Time is better spent managing what is within your control. FRMS is quite a threat to Qantas over the next 5 years.
Do you really believe these guys will bet their personal and professional reputations on a bluff such as this? Let’s assume they have and their bluff is called, how do you thing the Power of the Qantas IR machine is now looking? They have now left themselves open to every Union with in Qantas. Hard to believe they would set themselves up like this. These guys have form, and as has been proven in the past they will not blink at spending a fortune to get their way industrially.
This.
If they backflip on this threat, then every other Unionised worker in Qantas has no reason to believe any of their threats ever again.
I dont like it, but the ball is largely in Their court.
The ones that caved recently were British Airways. They had their ‘Normantons’, cringing and whining - and their pay rates are an embarrassment, and they fly two crew to Chicago from LHR. Delta and Southwest voted down managements offer and produced decent contracts. EBAs that dwarf the Qantas contract, with 20% and 12% profit sharing in 2019. And you want to give up pay and conditions?
If Alan Joyce thought he would make more money by outsourcing ULH at Qantas, he would have already done it. He seems to understand the game. And you don’t.
Normanton et al. dont seem to understand the ultimate joke of this game - These are replacement aircraft. They'll still be stuck as a S.O. With stagnated promotion. Even after they’ve doomed themselves to a low pay contract, and responsible for the new B Scale (sound familiar Normanton ?) of new S.O.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joyce and Tino are both on the public result stating to all who will listen that if the EBA does not get up then they will set up a new entity to do the sunrise flying. Tino has even written formally to Qantas pilots saying such. There are some who think they are bluffing. Do you really believe these guys will bet their personal and professional reputations on a bluff such as this? Let’s assume they have and their bluff is called, how do you thing the Power of the Qantas IR machine is now looking? They have now left themselves open to every Union with in Qantas. Hard to believe they would set themselves up like this. These guys have form, and as has been proven in the past they will not blink at spending a fortune to get their way industrially. Backing down on their word is not a trait they have previously displayed.
No one likes the game they have played, it stinks, but they have painted the pilots into a difficult position. Risk vs Reward has been mentioned a few times, this is ultimately what it is coming down to. Do your own personal risk assessment, and be sure you can live with the consequences.
No one likes the game they have played, it stinks, but they have painted the pilots into a difficult position. Risk vs Reward has been mentioned a few times, this is ultimately what it is coming down to. Do your own personal risk assessment, and be sure you can live with the consequences.
Employees have an ability to take Protected Industrial Action and are protected by the Fair Work Act 2009 whilst conducting negotiations. The legislation is quite clear and very descriptive.
Qantas Airways and it’s Corporate Management are attempting to remove this process and some industrial processes and protections by bypassing the legislation to a degree and avoiding bargaining in “ Good Faith” with pilot representatives from representative enterprises and organisations.
Qantas are administrating the current industrial environment directly to pilots for a vote. They state they must do so to meet their timelines (Note their timelines)
When the boarder membership vote No to this proposal, negotiations will continue as is required by the the legislation (Yes go and read the legislation) and as agreed to by Qantas in their previous agreements and EA,s with their Long Haul Pilots.
This process can be facilitated by the FWC or between parties. It’s all in the legislation and certain authors commenting on ‘doom and gloom, if a Yes vote is not made are fabricating the facts or perhaps have an alternative motivation?
Not until an agreement is reached or in its failure to find an outcome does the process lead into Fair Work hearings.
Should anyone even suggest that Qantas will attempt a transfer of business or a green fields operation before this process is complete fail to understand the legislation.
Bluff, fear, fabrication of facts and mis-truths are part of the Industrial Game.
That very well may be true, but I’m pretty sure Sunrise doesn’t have to be part of those continued negotiations.
Others have already pontificated the significance of that for the future...
Others have already pontificated the significance of that for the future...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One needs to understand the facts surrounding Transfer of Buisness and Copywriter.
I would suggest the process is not as many paint here. There appears to be a lot of fear-mongering Why?.
True, I don’t know that.
But it am I willing to risk it? I want to see what the offer is, but can’t say I am willing to risk it this time around to be honest. In a genuine Pilot shortage and booming Economy, sure, but that’s likely gone for a while now. The timing of this has stuffed us and the company know it.
The Presidents latest email seems to indicate that negotiations including the A350 are now finished. The offer will be what it will be.
We all get one vote so I guess we’ll see.
But it am I willing to risk it? I want to see what the offer is, but can’t say I am willing to risk it this time around to be honest. In a genuine Pilot shortage and booming Economy, sure, but that’s likely gone for a while now. The timing of this has stuffed us and the company know it.
The Presidents latest email seems to indicate that negotiations including the A350 are now finished. The offer will be what it will be.
We all get one vote so I guess we’ll see.
You don’t know that. And logic would dictate that Qantas would attempt once again to make PS part of an EA.
One needs to understand the facts surrounding Transfer of Buisness and Copywriter.
I would suggest the process is not as many paint here. There appears to be a lot of fear-mongering Why?.
One needs to understand the facts surrounding Transfer of Buisness and Copywriter.
I would suggest the process is not as many paint here. There appears to be a lot of fear-mongering Why?.
Apologies if it’s been addressed already, but assuming that a deal is voted up by the pilots. Whilst a lot of people (myself included) have taken the view that we are dealing with a bunch of psychopaths who will send the company broke in order to protect their ego’s, and have considered a YES...what happens if, in 2022 when training starts, the company recruits new SO’s for MVF...but no current crew bid? I’m yet to see anyone who has openly said they want to do the flying. We just want the flying locked in to mainline. Is it assigned in reverse seniority? Is it assigned in reverse seniority to current 330 crew? Reverse seniority by base? Everyone has assumed there will be enough people who actually want to do the flying...what if there isn’t? I’m well aware of the current provisions for such a situation in the LHEA, but will the same be true for the 350? I’ve heard they expect roughly 180 in each of the Capt/fo ranks...that’s a lot of assignment!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The best thing anyone could have done would have been to avoid any and all webinars. That has allowed the company to gauge interest, assess possible stumbling blocks to a yes vote and has given them the info they need to bypass the union.
This is the start of a new IR playbook in QANTAS and perhaps more broadly in Australian IR.
This is about further weakening unions now and in to the future and will have far more significant long-term strategic consequences than a simple yes/no vote now.
My advice would be do NOT ever deal with company comms/ propaganda on your own time. Any of the hundreds who’ve ‘dialled in’ have done so on their own time - unpaid - either at home or upline. It’s pretty remarkable really and has played in to QANTAS’ hands.
It would have been far better to ignore the dial ins and simply allow YOUR appointed bargaining representatives to do their work. Zero people on a dial in and Dick, Nathan and Tino twiddling their thumbs in the office would have sent a far stronger statement than hundreds of salivating pilots with dreams of shiny big twins waiting on their every word.
This is the start of a new IR playbook in QANTAS and perhaps more broadly in Australian IR.
This is about further weakening unions now and in to the future and will have far more significant long-term strategic consequences than a simple yes/no vote now.
My advice would be do NOT ever deal with company comms/ propaganda on your own time. Any of the hundreds who’ve ‘dialled in’ have done so on their own time - unpaid - either at home or upline. It’s pretty remarkable really and has played in to QANTAS’ hands.
It would have been far better to ignore the dial ins and simply allow YOUR appointed bargaining representatives to do their work. Zero people on a dial in and Dick, Nathan and Tino twiddling their thumbs in the office would have sent a far stronger statement than hundreds of salivating pilots with dreams of shiny big twins waiting on their every word.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NDB
Age: 53
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if it’s been addressed already, but assuming that a deal is voted up by the pilots. Whilst a lot of people (myself included) have taken the view that we are dealing with a bunch of psychopaths who will send the company broke in order to protect their ego’s, and have considered a YES...what happens if, in 2022 when training starts, the company recruits new SO’s for MVF...but no current crew bid? I’m yet to see anyone who has openly said they want to do the flying. We just want the flying locked in to mainline. Is it assigned in reverse seniority? Is it assigned in reverse seniority to current 330 crew? Reverse seniority by base? Everyone has assumed there will be enough people who actually want to do the flying...what if there isn’t? I’m well aware of the current provisions for such a situation in the LHEA, but will the same be true for the 350? I’ve heard they expect roughly 180 in each of the Capt/fo ranks...that’s a lot of assignment![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
I think you dont need to worry about that, you will be killed in the rush to fly it.
[QUOTE]
I think you dont need to worry about that, you will be killed in the rush to fly it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... Announcements in the Federal Budget in 2018-2019 saw the Federal government continue their crackdown and broaden their focus on illegal phoenix activity in corporate Australia.
The reform package transforms corporations and tax laws in order to provide regulators with additional tools to disrupt “phoenixing”. Phoenixing is a recent and broad practice by Corporations and Managements.
As with Transfer of Business phoenixing can encompass both legitimate and fraudulent or unlawful activity and usually involves the broad range transfer of assets of a company to another company in circumstances where the company seeks to benefit at the cost to employees and shareholders or to bypass legislation and Australian tax laws
The transfer of business provisions under the Fair Work Act apply where a business is transferred from one national system employer to another system or entity and includes some insourcing and outsourcing arrangements transfer of assets and covers some changes of employer within corporate groups.
The transfer provisions under the Fair Work Act are based on the transferring of an activity and or an employee or employee going with that activity. Areas here would also be dealt with by the ACCC and possibly the Federal Court dependent on transgression and jurisdiction.
Copyright. In simple terms as in setting a new entity - refers to the statutes to the known right to avoid false attribution. Which can be argued one cannot start a new entity and call it Qantas. Maybe.... RedQ!
So to assert Qantas Management will start a new entity by transfer of business assets, personnel, employees, resources and routes structures, intellectual property and so forth is at the least a fabrication and at worst a transgression of legislation.
The whole Project Sunrise industrial debate has a long way to play out starting in the Fair Work Commission. A No vote simply restarts negotiation, then if an accord cannot be reached mediation, conciliation or arbitration.
To vote Yes to a extremely poor E.A. offer from Qantas based on the fear mongers on this site would be foolish when there are so many other industrial protections in place.
The reform package transforms corporations and tax laws in order to provide regulators with additional tools to disrupt “phoenixing”. Phoenixing is a recent and broad practice by Corporations and Managements.
As with Transfer of Business phoenixing can encompass both legitimate and fraudulent or unlawful activity and usually involves the broad range transfer of assets of a company to another company in circumstances where the company seeks to benefit at the cost to employees and shareholders or to bypass legislation and Australian tax laws
The transfer of business provisions under the Fair Work Act apply where a business is transferred from one national system employer to another system or entity and includes some insourcing and outsourcing arrangements transfer of assets and covers some changes of employer within corporate groups.
The transfer provisions under the Fair Work Act are based on the transferring of an activity and or an employee or employee going with that activity. Areas here would also be dealt with by the ACCC and possibly the Federal Court dependent on transgression and jurisdiction.
Copyright. In simple terms as in setting a new entity - refers to the statutes to the known right to avoid false attribution. Which can be argued one cannot start a new entity and call it Qantas. Maybe.... RedQ!
So to assert Qantas Management will start a new entity by transfer of business assets, personnel, employees, resources and routes structures, intellectual property and so forth is at the least a fabrication and at worst a transgression of legislation.
The whole Project Sunrise industrial debate has a long way to play out starting in the Fair Work Commission. A No vote simply restarts negotiation, then if an accord cannot be reached mediation, conciliation or arbitration.
To vote Yes to a extremely poor E.A. offer from Qantas based on the fear mongers on this site would be foolish when there are so many other industrial protections in place.
Firstly, please remember being the much celebrated 100th year anniversary of the airline, it was in fact two pilots who started the airline in 1920. A bit of food for thought for all you little angels.
My understanding is that the legal advice provided to AIPA COM last Friday was that there are few industrial protections in place to prevent what Qantas is proposing with this external crewing company should Qantas pilots vote 'no'. I also heard that AIPA is seeking urgent external opinion to more effectively inform the 10 March COM meeting.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negotiations will continue for the LH EBA 10. Sunrise flying is taken off the table.
A new entity is started for the 350 flying.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think this has never happened at any other airline ? Look around the world. This has all happened before; The time pressure, the ‘last but final vote’ - British Airways, Delta, United and Southwest Airlines and many more.
The ones that caved recently were British Airways. They had their ‘Normantons’, cringing and whining - and their pay rates are an embarrassment, and they fly two crew to Chicago from LHR. Delta and Southwest voted down managements offer and produced decent contracts. EBAs that dwarf the Qantas contract, with 20% and 12% profit sharing in 2019. And you want to give up pay and conditions?
If Alan Joyce thought he would make more money by outsourcing ULH at Qantas, he would have already done it. He seems to understand the game. And you don’t.
Normanton et al. dont seem to understand the ultimate joke of this game - These are replacement aircraft. They'll still be stuck as a S.O. With stagnated promotion. Even after they’ve doomed themselves to a low pay contract, and responsible for the new B Scale (sound familiar Normanton ?) of new S.O.
The ones that caved recently were British Airways. They had their ‘Normantons’, cringing and whining - and their pay rates are an embarrassment, and they fly two crew to Chicago from LHR. Delta and Southwest voted down managements offer and produced decent contracts. EBAs that dwarf the Qantas contract, with 20% and 12% profit sharing in 2019. And you want to give up pay and conditions?
If Alan Joyce thought he would make more money by outsourcing ULH at Qantas, he would have already done it. He seems to understand the game. And you don’t.
Normanton et al. dont seem to understand the ultimate joke of this game - These are replacement aircraft. They'll still be stuck as a S.O. With stagnated promotion. Even after they’ve doomed themselves to a low pay contract, and responsible for the new B Scale (sound familiar Normanton ?) of new S.O.
Wait till you vote NO, and a new entity is formed flying the 350. What happens when the 380/330 is retired, and replaced by 350s under the new entity? RIN's and redundancy's for all junior pilots. You familiar with what happened when the 767 was retired and replaced by nothing? Let that sink in to your sub-standard argument.
Pat yourself on the back though, because you did the right thing and tried to protect your legacy conditions for yourself.
Your logic is short sighed, flawed, mis-guided, and quite frankly embarrassing.
My understanding is that the legal advice provided to AIPA COM last Friday was that there are few industrial protections in place to prevent what Qantas is proposing with this external crewing company should Qantas pilots vote 'no'. I also heard that AIPA is seeking urgent external opinion to more effectively inform the 10 March COM meeting.
As a union member, I would expect them to fully explore all alternatives. Lets' hope they get it right. It would be very embarrassing to recommend a NO vote based on legal advice, only to loose the 350 flying, and the court case at the same time.
So 2% of total crew. And you could probably apply that to posters here as well. You aren’t getting a valid representation of overall opinion with those numbers.
Lots of differing opinion out there from lots of different voices, and no one who thinks, at this stage, that a Yes vote is the better option is a “management dupe”.
