Project Sunrise
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austraila
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current A330 fleet has 210 Captains. Under the proposed A350 deal the expanded fleet needs about 320 or so. Reckon there aren’t at least 100 737 Captains that won’t jump at the chance to move to the A330/350 even if they have to do a couple of these trips per bid period? Keeping in mind that Qantas won’t need all 100 additional captains straight up. So maybe you’re talking about 50 or so for the first year.
F/O numbers are more interesting given the planned 1+2+1. If they need 50 Captains in the first year they’re going to need 100 F/Os. I still reckon they’ll get takers either from those currently on the fleet or from 737 F/Os looking for more money and less time away than they currently do on the 737.
F/O numbers are more interesting given the planned 1+2+1. If they need 50 Captains in the first year they’re going to need 100 F/Os. I still reckon they’ll get takers either from those currently on the fleet or from 737 F/Os looking for more money and less time away than they currently do on the 737.
I’d be guessing a gain of circa zero!
Get “expansion” out of your head. 1/2/1 just means that the FOs for aircraft 3-5 will be ready to go in year 2.
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.
Just like the engagement surveys they run,if you participate you are assumed to be engaged,doesnt matter what boxes you tick or what comments you make.
As i have said before,there are obviously a lot of slow learners out there & just dont get it.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
It’s like teaching calculus to a goat, you waste your time, and annoy the goat.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advice to ignore the new entity bluff is hardly decent advice. More like a gamble. And I'm not a gambling person, and I especially wont be gambling on my (or others pilots) future on the advice given to "call his bluff" from senior pilots with laughable reasoning.
They have been quite clear communicating through emails, webinars and the press that this is the final deal. Take it or leave it.
I'm glad you got out of your Perth base. Maybe take a second to think about your colleagues below you who will be stuck there when you vote NO. Stuck there for a very long time when the 350 goes to the new entity. Stuck there even longer when the 380 and 330 is retired, and replaced by 350s under the entity. Perhaps you will even be RINd backwards to your Perth base. Have a long hard think about that one before you make yet another useless, content lacking, worthless discussion post to the topic at hand.
They have been quite clear communicating through emails, webinars and the press that this is the final deal. Take it or leave it.
I'm glad you got out of your Perth base. Maybe take a second to think about your colleagues below you who will be stuck there when you vote NO. Stuck there for a very long time when the 350 goes to the new entity. Stuck there even longer when the 380 and 330 is retired, and replaced by 350s under the entity. Perhaps you will even be RINd backwards to your Perth base. Have a long hard think about that one before you make yet another useless, content lacking, worthless discussion post to the topic at hand.
So Qantas usurp ICAO requirements for 2 Captains and after 1 year go back to one Captain and FO with one of them been on duty for 3/5 hours prior to TOD. Which ever one it is I’m sure they will feel just great and be on top of the game.
Not true. There are, in fact, none so blind as those that cannot see. 
I’m with you on the lose/loose thing, though. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that anyone who can’t use them correctly should be banned not only from professional aviation but also all forms of social media.
I’m with you on the lose/loose thing, though. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that anyone who can’t use them correctly should be banned not only from professional aviation but also all forms of social media.
RIN
Glad I’m watching with interest from the LH seat in SH. No RIN between hauls, learned that gem last time.
Looks like a catch 22 situation. Best of luck to all fellow Crew involved.
Looks like a catch 22 situation. Best of luck to all fellow Crew involved.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s no mistake that QANTAS have made the decision to take pilots away from the recruiting process.
Over the last few years there has been a concerted effort by HR to employ only those they consider to be industrially compliant. That being that they are naive enough to believe everything that is told to them by the company is the gospel truth. Normanton is clearly the product of that.
It’s not his fault that he was bought up during the “every child gets a prize” generation, where when you’re bullied you just run to the teacher and have a little sook, or get your parents to fight your battles for you. When I went to school, the only way to defeat a bully was to fight back. That’s the situation we have here.
Now, since you mentioned it, there have been a grand total of 7 RIN processes within QANTAS that I have personally been involved in. One of those saw me demoted from F/O to S/O when the 767 was retired. That was 2014. I have still not returned to the position I held before that date. That being a wide body, Sydney based F/O. Don’t you dare presume to lecture me on the RIN process. I am far more aware of that than you will ever be.
Over the last few years there has been a concerted effort by HR to employ only those they consider to be industrially compliant. That being that they are naive enough to believe everything that is told to them by the company is the gospel truth. Normanton is clearly the product of that.
It’s not his fault that he was bought up during the “every child gets a prize” generation, where when you’re bullied you just run to the teacher and have a little sook, or get your parents to fight your battles for you. When I went to school, the only way to defeat a bully was to fight back. That’s the situation we have here.
Now, since you mentioned it, there have been a grand total of 7 RIN processes within QANTAS that I have personally been involved in. One of those saw me demoted from F/O to S/O when the 767 was retired. That was 2014. I have still not returned to the position I held before that date. That being a wide body, Sydney based F/O. Don’t you dare presume to lecture me on the RIN process. I am far more aware of that than you will ever be.
Some impediments
I have been following the arguments here with some interest. No I am not a Tech crew member, but do have a fair bit of experience on the other side.
The implied threat that the flying will be done by another entity does not stack up. Applying the figures quoted here against the total cost of operation of the aircraft (assuming lease costs, fuel, route service costs and direct labour), the margin that Mr Joyce seems to be driving is a nominal increase of 6% on a labour content that is less than 3% of the total cost of operation. That margin is in fact tiny in the overall scheme of things, and if, as has often been stated, the economics of the Sunrise flights would have to be extremely marginal at best. Board members would need to be VERY diligent about approving such a risky enterprise. But then again we have seen some decisions that would cause me to wonder about the obligations under the Corporations Law.
A statement that I have seen several times is that it is 'new' flying. I do not accept that. The city pairs that are contemplated are already served by QF. The method by which they connect those pairs (route) is the only change. In fact the 'slots' at each of those airports are 'owned' by Qantas (as are the capacity agreements) and they cannot be assigned / novated to other related entities. They can be sold, yes, but if Qantas Airways Limited were to divest themselves of those assets (sold by inter company transfer) then that triggers the phoenixing fundamental that would bring it to the attention of various regulators.
I would suspect that the 'take it or leave it' message is smoke and mirrors. There is a far greater agenda here in terms of future employment terms and conditions. If they were able to have created a new lower cost (Australian based) entity, they would have done it eons ago.
The implied threat that the flying will be done by another entity does not stack up. Applying the figures quoted here against the total cost of operation of the aircraft (assuming lease costs, fuel, route service costs and direct labour), the margin that Mr Joyce seems to be driving is a nominal increase of 6% on a labour content that is less than 3% of the total cost of operation. That margin is in fact tiny in the overall scheme of things, and if, as has often been stated, the economics of the Sunrise flights would have to be extremely marginal at best. Board members would need to be VERY diligent about approving such a risky enterprise. But then again we have seen some decisions that would cause me to wonder about the obligations under the Corporations Law.
A statement that I have seen several times is that it is 'new' flying. I do not accept that. The city pairs that are contemplated are already served by QF. The method by which they connect those pairs (route) is the only change. In fact the 'slots' at each of those airports are 'owned' by Qantas (as are the capacity agreements) and they cannot be assigned / novated to other related entities. They can be sold, yes, but if Qantas Airways Limited were to divest themselves of those assets (sold by inter company transfer) then that triggers the phoenixing fundamental that would bring it to the attention of various regulators.
I would suspect that the 'take it or leave it' message is smoke and mirrors. There is a far greater agenda here in terms of future employment terms and conditions. If they were able to have created a new lower cost (Australian based) entity, they would have done it eons ago.
Apart from the fact you have made some grossly generalised comments about your ‘esteemed’ colleagues on the 4 engine fleets (funny, I thought we were all on the same team), I have to agree with one of your previous posts that mentioned individuals may vote no to stick it to the company as being ridiculous. Totally agree.
But from what I’ve read, other reasons include the continued dilution of conditions, agreeing to a rule set that is untried, has involved little consultation from those who will operate under it and has many PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects, a desire to retain current conditions (what’s wrong with that?), a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language, a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions, in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions blah blah blah and trying something else that may or may not involve another ‘entity’........ just to name a few.
You view this logic with dismay and criticise those who are prepared to take a stand and fight for something because it risks too much.
That dismay is probably returned in the manner that you so eagerly believe every word uttered in a webinar and a perceived willingness to roll over because of the risk.
Regardless of whose concerns these are, they are concerns to people and it would seem, pending the actual release of the document we are all squabbling about, are big enough concerns to consider a NO vote, just as they are big enough to you to vote YES.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll be going through a few more RINs in the not to distant future when you let the 350 go to a new entity.
Just wait until the accountants work out just how efficient it will be. Mainline 380's and 330's replaced by 350's under the new setup entity. We all know it will happen. A new entity setup because you decided to vote NO.
Let us know how RIN #8 works out for you.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve been through it, yet I’m the clueless one. Right.
Now, what you just said would actually be illegal.
Replacing current fleet with a new entity, and then making the crew of the old fleet redundant would be a clear case for transfer of business.
Before your time, but when Jetstar was expanding, and QANTAS stagnating, an MOU had to be negotiated to allow QANTAS pilots to take leave without pay to fly for JQ. One of the main reasons for this MOU was to avoid any potential for AIPA taking action on that front. Closer to your time, a comfort letter was provided to the company by AIPA to remove the legal threat to allow the Network A320 operation in PER.
QANTAS knows it’s sailing perilously close to the transfer of business rocks. What you’re seeing in your crystal ball would be so far into the transfer of business abyss they’d be tied up in court for years.
Now, what you just said would actually be illegal.
Replacing current fleet with a new entity, and then making the crew of the old fleet redundant would be a clear case for transfer of business.
Before your time, but when Jetstar was expanding, and QANTAS stagnating, an MOU had to be negotiated to allow QANTAS pilots to take leave without pay to fly for JQ. One of the main reasons for this MOU was to avoid any potential for AIPA taking action on that front. Closer to your time, a comfort letter was provided to the company by AIPA to remove the legal threat to allow the Network A320 operation in PER.
QANTAS knows it’s sailing perilously close to the transfer of business rocks. What you’re seeing in your crystal ball would be so far into the transfer of business abyss they’d be tied up in court for years.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following the arguments here with some interest. No I am not a Tech crew member, but do have a fair bit of experience on the other side.
The implied threat that the flying will be done by another entity does not stack up. Applying the figures quoted here against the total cost of operation of the aircraft (assuming lease costs, fuel, route service costs and direct labour), the margin that Mr Joyce seems to be driving is a nominal increase of 6% on a labour content that is less than 3% of the total cost of operation. That margin is in fact tiny in the overall scheme of things, and if, as has often been stated, the economics of the Sunrise flights would have to be extremely marginal at best. Board members would need to be VERY diligent about approving such a risky enterprise. But then again we have seen some decisions that would cause me to wonder about the obligations under the Corporations Law.
A statement that I have seen several times is that it is 'new' flying. I do not accept that. The city pairs that are contemplated are already served by QF. The method by which they connect those pairs (route) is the only change. In fact the 'slots' at each of those airports are 'owned' by Qantas (as are the capacity agreements) and they cannot be assigned / novated to other related entities. They can be sold, yes, but if Qantas Airways Limited were to divest themselves of those assets (sold by inter company transfer) then that triggers the phoenixing fundamental that would bring it to the attention of various regulators.
I would suspect that the 'take it or leave it' message is smoke and mirrors. There is a far greater agenda here in terms of future employment terms and conditions. If they were able to have created a new lower cost (Australian based) entity, they would have done it eons ago.
The implied threat that the flying will be done by another entity does not stack up. Applying the figures quoted here against the total cost of operation of the aircraft (assuming lease costs, fuel, route service costs and direct labour), the margin that Mr Joyce seems to be driving is a nominal increase of 6% on a labour content that is less than 3% of the total cost of operation. That margin is in fact tiny in the overall scheme of things, and if, as has often been stated, the economics of the Sunrise flights would have to be extremely marginal at best. Board members would need to be VERY diligent about approving such a risky enterprise. But then again we have seen some decisions that would cause me to wonder about the obligations under the Corporations Law.
A statement that I have seen several times is that it is 'new' flying. I do not accept that. The city pairs that are contemplated are already served by QF. The method by which they connect those pairs (route) is the only change. In fact the 'slots' at each of those airports are 'owned' by Qantas (as are the capacity agreements) and they cannot be assigned / novated to other related entities. They can be sold, yes, but if Qantas Airways Limited were to divest themselves of those assets (sold by inter company transfer) then that triggers the phoenixing fundamental that would bring it to the attention of various regulators.
I would suspect that the 'take it or leave it' message is smoke and mirrors. There is a far greater agenda here in terms of future employment terms and conditions. If they were able to have created a new lower cost (Australian based) entity, they would have done it eons ago.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People have given plenty of reasons as to why they would vote no..... just because it differs from your logic doesn’t make it any less valid.
Apart from the fact you have made some grossly generalised comments about your ‘esteemed’ colleagues on the 4 engine fleets (funny, I thought we were all on the same team), I have to agree with one of your previous posts that mentioned individuals may vote no to stick it to the company as being ridiculous. Totally agree.
But from what I’ve read, other reasons include the continued dilution of conditions, agreeing to a rule set that is untried, has involved little consultation from those who will operate under it and has many PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects, a desire to retain current conditions (what’s wrong with that?), a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language, a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions, in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions blah blah blah and trying something else that may or may not involve another ‘entity’........ just to name a few.
You view this logic with dismay and criticise those who are prepared to take a stand and fight for something because it risks too much.
That dismay is probably returned in the manner that you so eagerly believe every word uttered in a webinar and a perceived willingness to roll over because of the risk.
Regardless of whose concerns these are, they are concerns to people and it would seem, pending the actual release of the document we are all squabbling about, are big enough concerns to consider a NO vote, just as they are big enough to you to vote YES.
Apart from the fact you have made some grossly generalised comments about your ‘esteemed’ colleagues on the 4 engine fleets (funny, I thought we were all on the same team), I have to agree with one of your previous posts that mentioned individuals may vote no to stick it to the company as being ridiculous. Totally agree.
But from what I’ve read, other reasons include the continued dilution of conditions, agreeing to a rule set that is untried, has involved little consultation from those who will operate under it and has many PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects, a desire to retain current conditions (what’s wrong with that?), a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language, a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions, in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions blah blah blah and trying something else that may or may not involve another ‘entity’........ just to name a few.
You view this logic with dismay and criticise those who are prepared to take a stand and fight for something because it risks too much.
That dismay is probably returned in the manner that you so eagerly believe every word uttered in a webinar and a perceived willingness to roll over because of the risk.
Regardless of whose concerns these are, they are concerns to people and it would seem, pending the actual release of the document we are all squabbling about, are big enough concerns to consider a NO vote, just as they are big enough to you to vote YES.
PERCEIVED long term adverse health affects
How do you find out the health affects on a new venture like this? It takes time. It takes reports. It takes feedback.
In order for that to happen, you need to do the flying. Is it worth passing up the opportunity for a new entity, on the basis we don't know the health affects?
It will be an extra 3-4 hours on top of a PER-LHR.
a desire to retain current conditions
Any insider knowledge of the final document?
a pseudo negotiating process high in threats and intimidatory language
a track record of not delivering on statements made subject to voting yes, condemning all new hires to a C scale to help fund Sunrise and highlighting a ridiculous scenario of a business case being used as an excuse to wind back working conditions
I'm not buying into the C scale argument. They either come into mainline on C scale, or they come into the new entity on a D scale. Pick one. The company will do it.
The 350 will replace the 380, I have no doubt. Management said it in the webinar. The pilots all believe it. If you think we will be paid a 380 wage to fly a 350, its unrealistic and selfish. It's never going to happen.
in the event of a YES there being nothing to prevent Qantas changing its mind in the three years leading into the operation due to a revised business case under prevailing conditions
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IBefore your time, but when Jetstar was expanding, and QANTAS stagnating, an MOU had to be negotiated to allow QANTAS pilots to take leave without pay to fly for JQ. One of the main reasons for this MOU was to avoid any potential for AIPA taking action on that front. Closer to your time, a comfort letter was provided to the company by AIPA to remove the legal threat to allow the Network A320 operation in PER.
Why don't you just walk into Tino's office and hand him the silver platter.