Project Sunrise
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...27-p544y5.html
From the article:-
I would have thought that stretching pilot duty periods to lengths that we have never seen before should involve some input from pilots but apparently CASA doesn’t think so!
Just another example of CASA being “owned” by the major airlines. They really should remove the “S” from their name and go back to being the CAA.
From the article:-
”This is a clear breach of the regulator's legal and safety responsibilities, according to advice from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which states that pilots must be involved at all stages of an FRMS implementation," Mr Sedgwick said.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the regulator responded to AIPA's concerns and considered that it needed only to consult with the union when making decisions that had "broad aviation industry application", and not in decisions in "relation to one individual operator and its personnel".
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pretty clear that this wont be the case.
If this gets voted down and the flying goes to another entity - everything in mainline stops but this time it will be a lot longer than 10 years. What happens when the 380 retires? No new aircraft coming - fleet reduction. This is not a difficult concept to understand.
A no vote will absolutely end the careers of those in mainline. A yes vote will give those in mainline a career, promotional opportunities and with that pay rises.
You're not voting against AJ or Tino...they will be gone in a few years....you are voting for your future. Sure, be angry.....but be smart and objective when you vote.
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0184; 28th Feb 2020 at 19:59.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next EOI for internals has been put on hold because of the virus, however word is that it’s release is now being held pending an outcome from sunrise.
If you’re genuinely worried about protecting future SOs the worst thing you can do is dig in and see the flying go outside. There won’t be any new SOs to protect for a long while.
If you’re genuinely worried about protecting future SOs the worst thing you can do is dig in and see the flying go outside. There won’t be any new SOs to protect for a long while.
If this gets voted down and the flying goes to another entity - everything in mainline stops but this time it will be a lot longer than 10 years. What happens when the 380 retires? No new aircraft coming - fleet reduction. This is not a difficult concept to understand.
A no vote will absolutely end the careers of those in mainline. A yes vote will give those in mainline a career, promotional opportunities and with that pay rises.
A no vote will absolutely end the careers of those in mainline. A yes vote will give those in mainline a career, promotional opportunities and with that pay rises.
Which part of the spin / threat / drivel you choose to believe will dictate how you vote.
By all means if the proposal is acceptable vote yes, but don’t do it cowering in fear.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For everyone worried that the 350 will replace the 380. You are damn right to be worried. Wait till the new entity is setup, and the 380s are replaced by 350s under the new entity. 767 retirement anyone? A complete loss of fleet flying.
Since you believe what the company tells you - there will still be plenty of promotion with plenty of the original options (50+ wasn’t it?) of 787s still to arrive.
Which part of the spin / threat / drivel you choose to believe will dictate how you vote.
By all means if the proposal is acceptable vote yes, but don’t do it cowering in fear.
Which part of the spin / threat / drivel you choose to believe will dictate how you vote.
By all means if the proposal is acceptable vote yes, but don’t do it cowering in fear.
Back in the day the number was over 100 787s to be ordered. Do you know what happened since then? Are you familiar with JETSTAR?
Jetstar was a new entity. A new entity that took jobs from mainline. Lets not let that happen again.
A YES vote is not cowering in fear. A YES vote is a smart decision for your future.
Last edited by normanton; 28th Feb 2020 at 20:23.
A YES vote is not cowering in fear. A YES vote is a smart decision for your future
Amazing. If you’ve totally given up on ever having a say in your own future, then I guess the response is justified.
The 787 was a 30% pay cut. Delivered by the simple process of Alan asking for it.
Sunrise is what? a 26%(++) pay cut. I am at a loss to understand why anyone is keen to accept that because it’s been asked for.
The problem I have is that it’s worse than ‘just’ a pay cut (60% with so far 14 aircraft of 100 promised) which I don’t think anyone thinking this is a good idea really understands.
You are voting for a pay cut combined with the absolute worst of both ULH and 2 crew overnight flying. It is an appalling mix. For longevity and personal well being I can’t believe anyone is contemplating thinking this is a good idea.
Then the fact S/O’s are thrown under a bus.
Having secured a near 60% pay cut by the simple expedient of asking for it, does it not occur to anyone that this highly successful strategy might not be tried again?
I hope anyone voting for this DOES understand that the pay cut you are asking for WILL be paid - just not to you.
I am completely flabbergasted. It almost defies belief.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Then the fact S/O’s are thrown under a bus.
Having secured a near 60% pay cut by the simple expedient of asking for it, does it not occur to anyone that this highly successful strategy might not be tried again?
I hope anyone voting for this DOES understand that the pay cut you are asking for WILL be paid - just not to you.
I am completely flabbergasted. It almost defies belief.
Then the fact S/O’s are thrown under a bus.
Having secured a near 60% pay cut by the simple expedient of asking for it, does it not occur to anyone that this highly successful strategy might not be tried again?
I hope anyone voting for this DOES understand that the pay cut you are asking for WILL be paid - just not to you.
I am completely flabbergasted. It almost defies belief.
A NO vote ensures this.
There wont be a second offer. There wont be a better deal. Vote for the bigger picture - having aircraft to fly is probably a reasonably significant requirement in a future EBA.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then the fact S/O’s are thrown under a bus.
I am completely flabbergasted. It almost defies belief.
New entity takes on the 12 x 350's
Company sees how good new entity it is doing, orders more.
LH EBA renewal time. Company wants to order more 350s. Puts mainline up against new entity. Cheaper option wins.
Company orders more 350's for new entity.
Company looks to replace ageing 330 fleet. Decides on more 787's vs 350's.
Company puts mainline LH EBA up against new entity. Cheaper option wins.
Company orders more 350's to replace 330's. Sends them to new entity.
Mainline 330's pilots RIND to senior fleet (probably 380/787)
737 fleet renewal comes up. Again company looks at cheaper option. Company decides to setup SH EBA for the new entity for A320/321.
SH mainline fleet slowly retired. 737 pilots RIND to god knows where. Many jump ship to new entity on probably worse conditions.
380's come up for retirement around 2030.
Company orders 350's to replace 380's.
Company sends new 350's to new entity to replace 380 flying.
Mainline 380 pilots RIND to most senior fleet (probably 787).
It's a very realistic reality if you think about it. Don't think they wont do it, because they will.
Last edited by normanton; 28th Feb 2020 at 20:46.
From someone who has done the figures and if you don’t believe me do them yourself it’s 15% more flying for 13% less pay than the current 330 pay.
And yet still no one has provided an insight to what happens after a No vote. More negotiation...but not for the 350. Is it legal? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. Look at FRMS etc. what QF want QF get. I know of at least 2 cases AIPA had the written evidence for, and even through the judge agreed, he still found for QF. The system is completely broken. You assume we are working in a system that places obligations on both parties. Everything is geared towards those with the deepest pockets, ie, big business. We lost this time. Take the hit, learn the lesson, be better prepared next time. I’d probably have a different view if the market wasn’t about to be flooded with Airbus rated aussies looking for a way home. The timing sucks.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Tino has said, negotiations will continue. Sunrise will be off the table.
At that point the LH EBA will be renewed with a 3% payrise for everyone. Pats on the back, well done.
You’re getting your timelines mixed up.
Jetstar was alive and kicking when the 787 order was touted as being 50+ options - the first 11 or so going to Jetstar and the rest to QF. Not a 767 replacement though...just growth we promise....
We agreed to the conditions proposed as it was to be THE growth aircraft, offering promotions and the extra pay associated. Sound familiar?
Those haven’t eventuated - yet? Ever?
Im glad you’re off the Dash now and being rewarded appropriately for your time and skills- let’s not throw away decades of hard FOUGHT for conditions because it’s better than what you had previously.
I’m going to bow out of this “back and forth” - differences in opinion are good and healthy for the debate.
Safe flying.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Say NO!
Yep 15% more flying for 13% Less pay (A330) if you run the numbers.
ULH flying takes it toll, not just on the Pilot however the Pilots Family (Wife + Children) more time away and under the New CASA Approved FRMS far more work.
4 Pilot Operation to 23.5 Hours.
An agreement that will set the nexus for all future flying and will result in less not more Pilots employed over time.
Anyone who thinks this is a good deal fails to understand anything about ULH flying and its full ramifications.
ULH flying takes it toll, not just on the Pilot however the Pilots Family (Wife + Children) more time away and under the New CASA Approved FRMS far more work.
4 Pilot Operation to 23.5 Hours.
An agreement that will set the nexus for all future flying and will result in less not more Pilots employed over time.
Anyone who thinks this is a good deal fails to understand anything about ULH flying and its full ramifications.
A ‘No’ vote means nothing changes.
If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.
A ‘Yes’ vote means the pilot body have once again agreed to massive concessions because they were asked for and also opened the door to multiple threats on multiple fronts. The floodgates will well and truly be opened on new entities being developed ‘de rigueur’ and anything new being only offered with multiple percentage paycuts.
For those living with their heads in the sand on the money front, if Qantas want this so much, why might that be?
No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.
I cannot for the life of me understand people here blaming ‘senior’ pilots for not caring because they have their Super! If you give away 60% of your earning capacity (and likely 20+ years of your life from truly horrific body clock issues) you will NEVER have any retirement much beyond a pension! But if that’s what you believe in, then go for it. It’s just very sad seeing future careers being sold down the river for a few pieces of (promised but never delivered) silver jets....
If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.
A ‘Yes’ vote means the pilot body have once again agreed to massive concessions because they were asked for and also opened the door to multiple threats on multiple fronts. The floodgates will well and truly be opened on new entities being developed ‘de rigueur’ and anything new being only offered with multiple percentage paycuts.
For those living with their heads in the sand on the money front, if Qantas want this so much, why might that be?
No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.
I cannot for the life of me understand people here blaming ‘senior’ pilots for not caring because they have their Super! If you give away 60% of your earning capacity (and likely 20+ years of your life from truly horrific body clock issues) you will NEVER have any retirement much beyond a pension! But if that’s what you believe in, then go for it. It’s just very sad seeing future careers being sold down the river for a few pieces of (promised but never delivered) silver jets....
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't want to do the flying, you don't have to. Its opt in only.
A ‘No’ vote means nothing changes.
If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.
A ‘Yes’ vote means the pilot body have once again agreed to massive concessions because they were asked for and also opened the door to multiple threats on multiple fronts. The floodgates will well and truly be opened on new entities being developed ‘de rigueur’ and anything new being only offered with multiple percentage paycuts.
For those living with their heads in the sand on the money front, if Qantas want this so much, why might that be?
No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.
I cannot for the life of me understand people here blaming ‘senior’ pilots for not caring because they have their Super! If you give away 60% of your earning capacity (and likely 20+ years of your life from truly horrific body clock issues) you will NEVER have any retirement much beyond a pension! But if that’s what you believe in, then go for it. It’s just very sad seeing future careers being sold down the river for a few pieces of (promised but never delivered) silver jets....
If AIPA is smart it will end up in PIA - that cost Qf a couple of hundred million last time, and then the FRMS issue can be sorted out properly.
A ‘Yes’ vote means the pilot body have once again agreed to massive concessions because they were asked for and also opened the door to multiple threats on multiple fronts. The floodgates will well and truly be opened on new entities being developed ‘de rigueur’ and anything new being only offered with multiple percentage paycuts.
For those living with their heads in the sand on the money front, if Qantas want this so much, why might that be?
No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.
I cannot for the life of me understand people here blaming ‘senior’ pilots for not caring because they have their Super! If you give away 60% of your earning capacity (and likely 20+ years of your life from truly horrific body clock issues) you will NEVER have any retirement much beyond a pension! But if that’s what you believe in, then go for it. It’s just very sad seeing future careers being sold down the river for a few pieces of (promised but never delivered) silver jets....
The comment regarding Super was made by one person. Perhaps you could tell me why I've had people in the LHS say they are voting NO so they can "stick it to the company"? Thats nothing more than short term ridiculous view. Again, an easy thing to do when you are sitting comfortably in the LHS and your career isn't at play here.
The 350 flying is opt in. 60%? Where did you get that number from? My god, at least provide numbers with some context.
Do people honestly believe Qantas will be rushing to place a multi billion dollar order for A350’s given Carona, the world economy, the mass reduction in schedules with no end in sight, staff taking heaps of leave...I’m calling BS on this.
I’d be very concerned about playing into their hands at a time that has never been so ripe for management.
I’d be very concerned about playing into their hands at a time that has never been so ripe for management.
No one with ANY understanding of long term jet lag and back of clock flying could possibly think this is a good idea.
