Project Sunrise
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
How long has Sunrise been on the cards for? Well before the coronavirus came along. You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
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....
If Mainline gets bypassed that will be ‘the floodgates opening’ for new entities.
as happened last time PIA will achieve sweet FA
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this gets voted down there is no way I will be doing any form of PIA.
I disagree with Flava Savers view. The deadline was set pre-Corona virus. In fact with possible cancellations Qantas may see this as an opportunity to get hands on aircraft sooner rather than later, or some at a cheaper price. When people want to avoid Asia, offering non stop flights may become more attractive. Of course nobody might want to travel full stop.
in regards to all this other Yes/No talk we need to see a finished deal and what it proposes. A straw poll of people I have flown with are all (though begrudgingly) is in the yes camp. AJ will happily set up a new entity to operate it and those saying it is a bluff are misguided. A yes vote keeps the 350 in house, and the Union can try and improve conditions from there. Hopefully now Qantas has forced us into an undesirable position regards the FRMS we can work out how to use it to our advantage, fill in those fatigue reports people.
The only certainty in a NO vote is negotiations will continue, most likely not involving the 350. I saw a suggestion for PIA but if the company are still negotiating I’m not sure there are any grounds. I personally think the way the FWA is stacked in favour of the employer that arguing they want to set up a new business to start flights we currently can’t do would see us laughed out of court. Qantas have much better lawyers, connections and will also win in the court of public opinion.
It really has been check mate to Qantas for some time.
in regards to all this other Yes/No talk we need to see a finished deal and what it proposes. A straw poll of people I have flown with are all (though begrudgingly) is in the yes camp. AJ will happily set up a new entity to operate it and those saying it is a bluff are misguided. A yes vote keeps the 350 in house, and the Union can try and improve conditions from there. Hopefully now Qantas has forced us into an undesirable position regards the FRMS we can work out how to use it to our advantage, fill in those fatigue reports people.
The only certainty in a NO vote is negotiations will continue, most likely not involving the 350. I saw a suggestion for PIA but if the company are still negotiating I’m not sure there are any grounds. I personally think the way the FWA is stacked in favour of the employer that arguing they want to set up a new business to start flights we currently can’t do would see us laughed out of court. Qantas have much better lawyers, connections and will also win in the court of public opinion.
It really has been check mate to Qantas for some time.
Jetstar has 11 delivered from 2013- 2015.
At the time of signing off on EBA9, Qantas had roughly 54 787s on order. It’s taken 14 so far.
100 787s have never been ‘promised’ as part of an EA negotiation.
That is complete and utter rubbish. It’s just a complete falsehood.
Wanting to vote yes to a substandard deal to avoid the perceived threat of outsourcing is one thing;
But coming onto a public forum and declaring to the company how keen you are to vote yes while negotiations are (were) still in play is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in my working life.
Let me know if you ever want to play some poker.
But coming onto a public forum and declaring to the company how keen you are to vote yes while negotiations are (were) still in play is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in my working life.
Let me know if you ever want to play some poker.
A falsehood is it a little birdie maybe you should call yourself a little brain. 40 stick hours of credits with 50% at night leaves 20 hours with a 1/3 night credit call it 7 hours means 47 credited hours instead of 40 .That’s actually more than 15% to start. At the moment a 160 hour divisor equates to approx 135 stick, you do 160 with no night credits 25 hours more and actually greater than 15%. Let me know if you want the overtime payments as well.
So when you say ‘pay cut’ you don’t mean from what crew are currently paid, you mean from the non existent pay that you wish crew to be paid under the legacy award; conditions that aren’t being offered, will never be offered, and likely see these sorts of ULH routes unprofitable so that they won’t exist. I agree that what is being offered is less than the legacy terms and conditions but legacy conditions were never designed with this sort of flying in mind.
Based on a full roster, an A330/A350 pilot looks to be paid 15% more than they are currently for an extra 3-5% more stick hours. They also avoid an external entity under mining them for ever more.
Calling that a ‘pay cut’ is the sort of logic that Labor uses when they call any LNP education spending less than theirs as a ‘cut’. It’s propaganda when Labor does it and it’s propaganda when you do it.
Oh and the name calling is a nice touch. Always know someone is on solid ground when they resort to that sort of thing.
(Oh and your night credit calculation depends on the schedule. It may be as much as 8 credit hours, it may be as little as 5:20. The company offer for a LHR trip will be worth 42.5)
Based on a full roster, an A330/A350 pilot looks to be paid 15% more than they are currently for an extra 3-5% more stick hours. They also avoid an external entity under mining them for ever more.
Calling that a ‘pay cut’ is the sort of logic that Labor uses when they call any LNP education spending less than theirs as a ‘cut’. It’s propaganda when Labor does it and it’s propaganda when you do it.
Oh and the name calling is a nice touch. Always know someone is on solid ground when they resort to that sort of thing.
(Oh and your night credit calculation depends on the schedule. It may be as much as 8 credit hours, it may be as little as 5:20. The company offer for a LHR trip will be worth 42.5)
A falsehood is it a little birdie maybe you should call yourself a little brain. 40 stick hours of credits with 50% at night leaves 20 hours with a 1/3 night credit call it 7 hours means 47 credited hours instead of 40 .That’s actually more than 15% to start. At the moment a 160 hour divisor equates to approx 135 stick, you do 160 with no night credits 25 hours more and actually greater than 15%. Let me know if you want the overtime payments as well.
2 ULR trips is 80 hours the night credits are 20 more . 3/5% more stick hours of 135 is 6.5 for 141.5 not 160. Give me the figures not your bull****. 4 ULR sectors of 40 hours equates roughly under the current award to to 12 hours overtime per sector under the deal proposed the overtime would be about 5 hours. A difference of 28 hours per bid period. Take 5% higher pay for the 747 over the 330 equates to 8 hours on a 160 hour divisor that leaves the current award 20 hours per bid period of 160 hours better off.
This statement as it stands alone is simply not true.
The Qantas offer on the table and the AIPA offer would see any current A330 pilot take a pay rise that would exceed any increase in stick hours. $50K more for 40 hours extra stick in the year in the same number of days away is the rough number. That’s a LOT more than the hourly pay rate for those stick hours.
Is it as good as the black book numbers for an A330 rate? No. That would be $100K additional and three less days of flying per BP. But that’s not on offer and never will be.
Is what the company is offering ‘adequate’? It seems to be a similar deal to the 787. Despite the voices to the contrary I’ve not yet come across a 787 pilot who claims they’re under paid for what they do.
The Qantas offer on the table and the AIPA offer would see any current A330 pilot take a pay rise that would exceed any increase in stick hours. $50K more for 40 hours extra stick in the year in the same number of days away is the rough number. That’s a LOT more than the hourly pay rate for those stick hours.
Is it as good as the black book numbers for an A330 rate? No. That would be $100K additional and three less days of flying per BP. But that’s not on offer and never will be.
Is what the company is offering ‘adequate’? It seems to be a similar deal to the 787. Despite the voices to the contrary I’ve not yet come across a 787 pilot who claims they’re under paid for what they do.
So compared to the type it will ultimately be replacing, it’s 20-30K down (depending on rank) with 2 days extra work and 9 stick hrs extra a bid period, not to mention the fact it’s operating MVF under flight and duty rule set that is far less restrictive than we operate under presently.
And if you want to compare apples with apples, let’s compare it to the 787 then.
Company figures suggest, and I assume that’s where you got your figures from, it’s anywhere from 5-13% (Year 4-Year1 rates) above the 787 on a divisor of 170 for the 350/330 and 155 for the 787.
Thats roughly 3 extra days and 4 more stick hours over and above the 787 a bid period. That works out to nearly 3 weeks at home more on the 787 than the 350/330 over the course of a year on those presumed divisors, and yes I understand those can fluctuate.
More days at work, and when you’re at work you’re working more hours, doing horrendously long TOD’s under an FRMS that the company will use as limits not guide lines, (granted, this will occur across all fleets now)
This needs to be taken into account when comparing it to any financial gain.
Do those gains compensate for what we are being asked to do on the shiny new jet under an a set of work rules the company are salivating over the prospect of implementing? Not to mention the draconian actions the company are using to get this over the line!
Not even sure where to start with this one.
How long has Sunrise been on the cards for? Well before the coronavirus came along. You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
How long has Sunrise been on the cards for? Well before the coronavirus came along. You sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who believe Qantas have an infectious disease department and decided to release it during EBA negotiations.
Do you honestly believe that if they are successful this time they won't try it on again under a new guise next time?
They reaped a great productivity reward in EA9, but still come looking for further significant gains this time because the group believed in the threat that 787 flying would go elsewhere. Given the same adversarial industrial relations environment, this will be their ploy for as long as they see a saving to be made and a bonus to secure.
In the meantime, your flying will never be secure until Qantas industrial relations change their approach to valuing the contribution their staff currently make and what they could do if genuinely supported, not used as a simple resource.
Strangely, motivated staff could perhaps even drive the share price and thus executive bonuses even higher; but that would take hard work not soft options like cost cutting and share buy-backs.
Unfortunately I see a Yes vote being recorded and many looking back in a few years and whispering "Why did we accept that without exploring all of the options?"
The question is whether what is being offered is reasonable or adequate based on what crew fly now.
You keep asking to compare the offer with what we do now. If I do that then it’s a pay cut.
Just because it’s not on offer doesn’t mean that it’s not a relevant point. It’s a very significant point and based on that it’s going to be rejected by a very large portion of those voting because at the end of the day we measure how the offer is going to affect us. That’s very individual I know, but if I ask myself when I consider what’s on offer:
How much will I earn?
How many days in a roster will I it take me to earn it?
When I go to work, how much time will I spend there?
When I get home, how long will I spend there and how long will it take me to get over what I just did?
Is what I’m doing sustainable?
Am I better off professionally and what impact will it have on me personally?
After all of that, if it’s superior to what I’m doing now then great. If it’s not then I don’t see it as a step forward.
If you’re going to cherry pick the parts of our current agreement that it is better than, then I suppose you can easily support your argument.
I still put it to you that holistically, it’s a massive step backwards not to mention an appalling capitulation to a disgraceful display of threats and intimidation from a few who stand to very well from this thing getting over the line.
anyhoo... we clearly differ on this and that’s ok, we are all different.
whatever happens will show itself in due course and we will deal with it as best we can
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]These are all good questions. If you want to tell me what fleet you're on currently, what MVF base you're looking at, and whether you intend on doing MVF or 787 flying I can do the numbers more accurately.[QUOTE]
Hi Little Birdie,
How is it that an A380 senior check Captain has access to these figures but regular line pilots do not. Have you been supplied company spreadsheets for these calculations?
Hi Little Birdie,
How is it that an A380 senior check Captain has access to these figures but regular line pilots do not. Have you been supplied company spreadsheets for these calculations?