Project Sunrise
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Lot of turnover and new hires in short haul Conductor so I guess that partly explains it, don’t forget the Self Interest option with lots of crew about to leave to Longhaul and wanting to get backpay. Anyone that has been in short haul more than a heart beat definitely knows not to vote YES on the first ballot, they caused it and we will continue it, hell they could have offered 10% per year pay rise but it still would have struggled because of their past track record of immediately offering a better deal after a NO vote. Somehow I reckon they pre planned this one though because the initial offer was pretty much worse than the same EBA with 3%.
Current SHEA was voted down by a greater margin at the first attempt, 79/21% if my memory is correct. In fact the last few SHEA have also been voted down at the first attempt. Some with an agenda to pursue will try and make more of this result than should be made!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only needs 50% + 1 vote.
BA pilots are 90% plus.
That a third of pilots accepted the deal means finding the 18% is not insurmountable for a well resourced, nefarious and skilled IR team.
No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.
- Remuneration: Yes...?
- Conditions: Not Necessarily So!
Around 80% of current short-haul members completed the survey along with 200 long haul members who have previously spent time on the 737.
This survey informed the AIPA negotiating team of the issues that pilots wanted addressing.
The survey results showed pilots wanted improvements to three key areas:
• Personal leave – (Conditions)
• Work/life balance – (Conditions)
• Risk v reward
Perhaps another good example was Flexi Lines.
Interestingly both Qantas and AIPA saw the introduction of Flexi lines being beneficial to pilots.
The AIPA sought the inclusion of a minimum quota in the number of Flexi lines that pilots could access. Qantas refused this.
So, my friends in SH see the rejection in that the Work-Life Balance has not been achieved at the specific required points.
- Younger members are seeking time to facilitate a home life and
- Older members needing to scale back flying by use of Flexi Lines or Mo/Mo and
- Efficient and Effective General Rostering and Stability to achieve the two points above.
Last edited by Capt Colonial; 13th Sep 2019 at 23:32.
No. It’s actually because QFSH pilots already have the best remuneration and conditions of any domestic narrow body pilots in Australia. A few tweaks will probably see the SHEA get voted up. Yes you only get what you negotiate, but the market can’t be ignored completely.
I’m not sure about that. A friend of mine in JQ tells me we are about the same in remuneration and my understanding is he has far better conditions. The only downside on his side is he can’t bid. I suppose it could be lies, but according to him, we are on similar coin.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
…..And now back to Project Sunrise…..or maybe that's the link in this thread.
Sunrise to be operated on the "short"haul award!
It could probably be done as a 6 day trip!
Sunrise to be operated on the "short"haul award!
It could probably be done as a 6 day trip!
Anyway, back to Project Sunrise.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparrows, does your extremely simple model account for the difference in the rate of promotion between the two? What is the expected time to Capt at JQ, what is the time at QF?
I would suggest that JQ would provide a better short term outcome cash income, with a lower total remuneration over a full working career. However a JQ Captain has gained a very valuable commodity - experience through rapid promotion, is able to tap the extremely lucrative tax free contracts not available to First Officers. Which seat would you rather be sitting if a major slowdown occurred?
Historically he pilots who have always come out on top during crises are those that are most valuable to an airlines, Captains, checkers and trainers.
Truth is opportunity cost is very expensive. Quick promotion and valuable experience that can command a large premium on the open market or better pay in the longer term is the tradeoff between the two groups within QF. The point is there is no "better" option, just different ones with differing market employability profiles.
This general feature of opportunity cost of training and experience was first identified more that 240 years ago by Adam Smith in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations.
I would suggest that JQ would provide a better short term outcome cash income, with a lower total remuneration over a full working career. However a JQ Captain has gained a very valuable commodity - experience through rapid promotion, is able to tap the extremely lucrative tax free contracts not available to First Officers. Which seat would you rather be sitting if a major slowdown occurred?
Historically he pilots who have always come out on top during crises are those that are most valuable to an airlines, Captains, checkers and trainers.
Truth is opportunity cost is very expensive. Quick promotion and valuable experience that can command a large premium on the open market or better pay in the longer term is the tradeoff between the two groups within QF. The point is there is no "better" option, just different ones with differing market employability profiles.
This general feature of opportunity cost of training and experience was first identified more that 240 years ago by Adam Smith in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations.
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
10.1.25 The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for
the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations.
In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very
uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker,
there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him
to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency
as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those
who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks.
In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to
gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The
counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to
make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only
of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than
twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.
How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes
appear, their real retribution is never equal to this.
Compute in any particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely
to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that
of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed
the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students
of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a
very small proportion to their annual expence, even though you rate the former as high,
and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far
from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable
professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompenced.
the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations.
In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very
uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker,
there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him
to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency
as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those
who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks.
In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to
gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The
counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to
make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only
of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than
twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.
How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes
appear, their real retribution is never equal to this.
Compute in any particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely
to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that
of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed
the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students
of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a
very small proportion to their annual expence, even though you rate the former as high,
and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far
from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable
professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompenced.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to the earlier post, total unit cost of labour requires more than a simple remuneration comparison based on hourly rate.
That is the reason why those IR types focus your attention on "hourly rate"
As Curtain Twitcher highlighted a simple remuneration comparison ignores many permutations like time in rank.
With respect to Project Bananarama, didn't Tino La Spiv, in a thinly veiled threat to Qantas pilots, suggest that more "investment" in JQ might result unless pilot provide more concessions were forthcoming?
If so Tino, probably best to ignore the landed (total cost) of pilot in seat as that sure isn't what it is claimed to be...
I've saved a copy of those tables... I 'll take them out in 20 years time as people will never believe that QF pilots thought they'd be on $A400,000 - $A 500,000 a year ...........
IF the airline survives it won't be paying those rates -.......................
IF the airline survives it won't be paying those rates -.......................
The airline will still be here, and there are some on those figures today...
I'm not so sure - in my travelling life-time QF have declined to become a niche international player - I can't see how they can compete with the Asian airlines long term
Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up
Domestic you can protect ....... until Ryanair Australia turn-up
And since this thread is about Project Sunrise, how many Asian carriers will they have to compete with on direct London or New York flights???
As for the threat of a new low cost entrant into the domestic market, well we have seen what happened to the last few, why would Ryanair be any different?
