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

Project Sunrise

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17th Feb 2020, 21:44
  #1141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
If they want to setup another company - they will anyway - regardless of how we vote.

A yes vote will DEFINITELY reduce our conditions across the board. A no vote MAY reduce our conditions..let’s see what transpires. Don’t just give it away at the first threat!

Their track record of being honest about these things is as bad as can be.
I don't think it's that simple. Absolutely, a yes vote will definitely reduce our conditions - but we will have some capacity to influence what conditions get reduced, and by how much.

A no vote will almost certainly reduce our conditions (I don't think they're bluffing - but that's a judgement call, and people can disagree), but we'll have no ability to influence that process. They'll just set whatever terms and conditions they want for the new entity, and then hire people who are willing to fly for Qantas, from Australia, under those conditions.

Short version - there is a real risk we lose more conditions if we vote no.
SecretAngel is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2020, 22:24
  #1142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: East of Westralia
Posts: 682
Received 109 Likes on 32 Posts
Originally Posted by SecretAngel
I don't think it's that simple. Absolutely, a yes vote will definitely reduce our conditions - but we will have some capacity to influence what conditions get reduced, and by how much.
...
Short version - there is a real risk we lose more conditions if we vote no.
With all respect I disagree. I see it as “possibly losing conditions” if we vote NO vs “definitely losing conditions” if we vote YES.

However - it’s early days and once AIPA have had a good look at the threat and give guidance on how to vote it will come down to WHO we believe / trust and our tolerance to risk.

Personally - if AIPA are “bypassed” it’s a NO vote - sometimes you have to draw a line in what you believe is right. You always have to live with your own choices.

Being a “glass half full” kind of person, I think we can afford to let the emotions settle and see through the excellent use of fear as a tactic. The company IR team is in overdrive - let’s be smart and see it for what it is.

ScepticalOptomist is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2020, 23:44
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 282
Received 33 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by A little birdie
What if AIPA says ‘It’s an ordinary deal, it doesn’t deliver what pilots said they wanted, but we recommend a ‘yes’ anyway due to the strategic issues at play’. Happy with that as an outcome? Well, maybe not ‘happy’, but prepared to vote ‘yes’ under that sort of AIPA recommendation?
Actually yes.

I believe in the same way that bypassing AIPA should be an automatic NO vote, if AIPA were to recommend a Yes (or a No) then that’s how I’d vote.

This isn’t always the case, but since there has now been a threat to bypass the association (a blatant attempt to neuter their future effectiveness), it is important to show their value to the pilot body.

Ensuring AIPAs recommendations carry weight should ensure they are effectively involved in discussions and negotiations into the future.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 00:01
  #1144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Two Issues to Vote On

The first, and by far the most important, is whether you want a unionised pilot workforce. Individually engaging with the company will take you down a well trodden path. It’s been well explored and there is nothing there if you want a secure, stable work environment for you and yours.

The second is whether to vote yes or no to whatever is negotiated through AIPA. You can then live with the democratically determined outcome.

Two. Seperate. Issues.
Predator Jock is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 00:54
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
So everyone votes no and they do it anyway. Fail to see how this benefits anyone apart from the company.
There is no guarantee that their little experiment will even work. Email Andrew David and ask him how well running wet lease operations internationally worked at Virgin. (and that was with their own employees and AOCs!!)
Just because it is legal in one country doesn't mean that every other country will agree. There was a big deal made in the USA over Norwegian using flag of convenience operations and sub contracted labour. (in fact the Unions, Airlines and politicians were united against it) So QF will have to be very careful on how they actually run a wet leased operation. Just because the executive say something doesn't mean it is true or even legal.
non_state_actor is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 01:00
  #1146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vote yes - secure the flying, and have new hire SOs on reduced rates.

Vote no - loose the flying, and Qantas still hires those SOs into a new entity on probably worse conditions, wedging yet another pilot group under mainline.

Not much we can do about this one. I know which way I'll be voting.

normanton is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 01:41
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by angryrat
An ordinary deal is still an ordinary deal. I would vote no.
Also. Blindly following a recommendation from AIPA (without doing your own calculations and double checking everything) is a recipe for disaster. Nathan sends his regards.
ConfigFull is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 02:29
  #1148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,048
Received 694 Likes on 190 Posts
ConfigFull, what is/will there be to calculate?

QF want a backwards step in t&c’s and have threatened Armageddon if there is a NO vote.

Pilots have some self respect and value their contribution to the company.

It’s a pretty easy formula as far as I’m concerned.
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 02:35
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 397
Received 107 Likes on 50 Posts
Vote yes - secure the flying, and have new hire SOs on reduced rates.
Does a yes vote even guarantee a separate crewing entity wont be set up anyway?
If the threat is anything other than idle, then surely some ground work is already underway which may just be continued with regardless.

Who said anything about good faith negotiations
Lapon is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 03:03
  #1150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...dream-machine/

“Insiders suggest a fleet of 30 A350s could be expected within 10 years.

It is also highly likely say insiders that the airline’s 12 A380 will not last for another 10 years as stated by the airline being retired starting from 2025/6.”
crosscutter is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 03:04
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 449
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
One wonders if Joyce has thought carefully about the implications of a No vote - The subsequent years-long, world wide, very visible disruption of Qantas long haul.

The A350 won’t be arriving for at least three years. In those three years, Qantas LH pilots will in all likelihood be in protected industrial action. There will be no A350, no low pay pilots, but there will be Qantas pilots watching Allen set up an alter ego, fake Qantas. For no reason other than to outsource and undercut his own employees wages. All, whilst he’s being paid more than the worlds best airline leaders, and failing in every comparable airline metric.

Speaking of metrics - look at the pilot pay across the Pacific that Qantas is competing against; A Delta F.O. is making more than a QF Captain, and the highest single human cost at Qantas is the Joyce. While failing.

Has Joyce thought about the next three years of his legacy, if it’s spent in industrial meltdown ? Nope. He’s a tiny industrial bully. If QF Long Haul Is in PIA when he creates an alter ego, outsourced, fake company to fly the A350 - then pilots that choose to fly it are crossing a line.


JPJP is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 03:09
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Between a rock and a hard place.

Vote Yes and accept conditions some are not happy with.
Vote No and you play straight into Joyce's hands finally giving him the perfect opportunity to tackle pilot costs.

If ever there was a right time, this is it. Supportive government, depressed market conditions and new business venture with new aircraft.

The reason you may have been forewarned is not because they want to be nice to you. It is because it is what is going to happen and they can say that you knew the consequences of your decision. Its no bluff.

I would put my money on the No vote being Joyce's preferred outcome. He gets to start with a clean slate instead of being lumbered with legacy conditions.
CamelSquadron is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 03:15
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
He wants the deal done you fool.

He could set up a new entity without AIPA or the QF pilots.

A new entity will be a lose lose situation.
crosscutter is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 03:37
  #1154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lapon
Does a yes vote even guarantee a separate crewing entity wont be set up anyway?
If the threat is anything other than idle, then surely some ground work is already underway which may just be continued with regardless.

Who said anything about good faith negotiations
They already have it. Its called Jetconnect. A350 onto the Qantas AOC, just like Jetconnect operates now.
normanton is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 04:06
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: East of Westralia
Posts: 682
Received 109 Likes on 32 Posts
Originally Posted by CamelSquadron
Between a rock and a hard place.

Vote Yes and accept conditions some are not happy with.
Vote No and you play straight into Joyce's hands finally giving him the perfect opportunity to tackle pilot costs.

If ever there was a right time, this is it. Supportive government, depressed market conditions and new business venture with new aircraft.

The reason you may have been forewarned is not because they want to be nice to you. It is because it is what is going to happen and they can say that you knew the consequences of your decision. Its no bluff.

I would put my money on the No vote being Joyce's preferred outcome. He gets to start with a clean slate instead of being lumbered with legacy conditions.
Nice try Camel - we all see thru you..
ScepticalOptomist is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 04:32
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Cill
Posts: 148
Received 113 Likes on 37 Posts
And the word is that the first 12 to be delivered from late 2021 will be just the start of a major buy from Airbus.
Has GT made a slip of the keyboard with A350 entry in 2021 - perhaps this is why the Ti-NO deadlines.
ShandywithSugar is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 05:00
  #1157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Received 119 Likes on 35 Posts
Originally Posted by CamelSquadron
Between a rock and a hard place.

Vote Yes and accept conditions some are not happy with.
Vote No and you play straight into Joyce's hands finally giving him the perfect opportunity to tackle pilot costs.

If ever there was a right time, this is it. Supportive government, depressed market conditions and new business venture with new aircraft.

The reason you may have been forewarned is not because they want to be nice to you. It is because it is what is going to happen and they can say that you knew the consequences of your decision. Its no bluff.

I would put my money on the No vote being Joyce's preferred outcome. He gets to start with a clean slate instead of being lumbered with legacy conditions.
You have got to be kidding, every Qantas group thread this guy takes the management approach.. time to get a new username.
LostontheLOC is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 05:43
  #1158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Received 33 Likes on 13 Posts
What happened? I can’t see any news references.
Window heat is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 07:40
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If we vote yes for the company proposal, there is no way we will be better off. Why would they offer a package where pilots are better off overall, especially a package that they have negotiated with themselves!!?? But we can be 100% certain the company will be on a winner at the expense of pilots if YES gets up. Tino has already conceded his package is worth “300 million bucks” to the bottom line over the life of the project. The last webinar stated the project model is based over 20 years. 300 million will see them all high-fiving each other and popping champagne corks at ‘the street’ if we vote YES.
Pilots have not participated in these negotiations as they often say so let’s give ourselves a second chance at negotiation and vote NO!
Ruvap is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2020, 07:59
  #1160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,048
Received 694 Likes on 190 Posts
Remind me again why Alan wants us all to take what is effectively a pay cut?
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  


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.