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

Project Sunrise

Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:34
  #1441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 1,086
Received 59 Likes on 29 Posts
It pains me to say this Sunfish, but successive groups of employees ‘doing the right thing’ (as historically the Company had done) has allowed debacles like this little effort to succeed.

There is no ‘brand’ anymore - as (I think it was you?) said recently you get people ‘just going through the motions’ while looking for another replace to work.

For at least the last 15 years, Qantas has been seen as a vessel to milk for personal gain. Credit where credit is due, they’ve milked it royally.

You would have hoped (well, I would have at least) that pilots would at least draw a serious line in the sand and say ‘No!’.

Those saying ‘that money isn’t on the table’ are totally missing the point. Qantas is being wrung dry. The family silver has been sold and there is stuff all left.

The twins that should have been purchased 20 years ago are STILL waiting in the wings.

Management is out of options so it’s down to bullying the last group with any nouse and ability to make a difference,

Joyce is trying to make up for the fact he’s invested in himself instead of jets that burn 4500kg/ph instead of 13,000kg/ph.

And he’s running out of scapegoats.

Vote ‘No’ and you’re at least doing something. Vote ‘Yes’ and your saying ‘please Alan, we can do it for even less next time’.



V-Jet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:51
  #1442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
Those are some more “unambiguous” words from Tino. Remind me how that deadline went?
If you didn't have the chance to listen in to some of the webinars, it went something like this:

We've decided to continue with Project sunrise with or without you. We lost our original delivery slots due to pushing back our voting timeline. They won't be pushed back again.

Originally Posted by V-Jet
You would have hoped (well, I would have at least) that pilots would at least draw a serious line in the sand and say ‘No!’.
A NO vote dilutes the brand even more. Hello new entity.
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:58
  #1443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 610
Received 137 Likes on 44 Posts
You are both quite correct. That concurs with what I said:
The deadline is utterly irrelevant as they have now stated the aircraft will be ordered regardless so April 1 is no barrier to continued negotiations.
The point is, they set a firm timeline and then weaselled out of it. This new deadline is irrelevant for the reasons you both lay out.

Since you are listening to the webinars normanton, can you explain the logical fallacy of saying;
a) You must vote yes by March 31st as Airbus won’t allow us to delay any further. And,
b) If you vote no we will order the aircraft anyway and someone else will fly it.
See the problem there??? Why not order the aircraft today? It’s happening with a yes OR a no vote.

The deadline is a pressure tactic!!! Nothing more.

Last edited by Beer Baron; 1st Mar 2020 at 03:18.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 03:13
  #1444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,022
Received 652 Likes on 181 Posts
We've decided to continue with Project sunrise with or without you. We lost our original delivery slots due to pushing back our voting timeline. They won't be pushed back again.
Yeah, typical of any abusive relationship, “if only you did what I wanted you to do I wouldn’t have had to beat you. If you’re good tomorrow I might not have to beat you again.” always the fault of the abused.

As somebody said above, Alan invested in himself and now he wants us to make up for it.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 04:08
  #1445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by crosscutter
This has not been a negotiation. This is parents telling the children how it’s going to be. Engagement levels continue to take a flogging.

Energy is better spent managing and adjusting behaviour with what is within our control. Tell me I’m dreaming, but fatigue reports must be completed. Pilots must call up unfit for duty if no sleep before call on relevant duties. It’s your licence on the line. It’ll be you in the stand...not FRMS creators or CASA.

AIPA have been asking for reports for years now. The response has demonstrated apathy and now it’s too late. Obviously pay has compensated for fatigue because the absence of reports has shown the Dallas operation to be unproblematic. Fill out the ******* form!



Where does the integration award (replacement a/c types) become relevant then? Is it not worth the paper it’s written on?
Question for lawyers, ultimately, but QF would absolutely be on stronger grounds to add another dozen frames to an entity that is already flying them to LHR, JFK, West Coast and Asia (let's call it QFiConnect) and label it an expansion of that entity's mixed Sunrise, LH and regional flying. Much harder to get around the integration award if QF mainline is the one flying the A350, as well as the retiring types.
SecretAngel is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 04:12
  #1446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
You are both quite correct. That concurs with what I said:

The point is, they set a firm timeline and then weaselled out of it. This new deadline is irrelevant for the reasons you both lay out.

Since you are listening to the webinars normanton, can you explain the logical fallacy of saying;
a) You must vote yes by March 31st as Airbus won’t allow us to delay any further. And,
b) If you vote no we will order the aircraft anyway and someone else will fly it.
See the problem there??? Why not order the aircraft today? It’s happening with a yes OR a no vote.

The deadline is a pressure tactic!!! Nothing more.
I don't disagree with what your saying. It makes sense. That exact question has been asked multiple times in the webinars.

No I don't see the problem here. They have given a March 30 deadline. It needs final board approval at the end of the month. Take the terms offered or leave it, they will happily setup a new entity to do OUR flying. It really can't be anymore clearer than that.

The new entity will be cheap labour. Do I dare say it again? Cheaper labour undercutting every EBA going forward. If you think the conditions in this EBA are unacceptable, wait till you see the next one.
normanton is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 04:17
  #1447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
What happens after a No vote.

Let’s say the vote goes down 45% Yes to 55% No. Qantas has a decision to make. The deadline is utterly irrelevant as they have now stated the aircraft will be ordered regardless so April 1 is no barrier to continued negotiations.

Qantas can:
a) Pull the A350 off the table.
This invites almost certain PIA. All the cost savings they are chasing in S/O pay, training freezes and multi-variant flying evaporate. Court cases as to the legality of this external entity (and others) will drag on for years and there is a slim chance AIPA could win which carries great risk. Costs associated with this option can mount for 3 years before any savings are realised from the external entity.

b) They can continue negotiating knowing they only need to sway 6% of the pilot body with an improved offer to get it through with all of the benefits and none of the risks above. They can trim just one of the unpalatable elements of the offer and roll on with industrial harmony and a much easier entry into service. The business case can clearly sustain it as they acknowledge it could handle a change to the crew complement. A new vote could be knocked over in 3 weeks. The company starts saving money on training and new hires immediately.

Now some will say that it must be a) because that’s what Tino said would happen. But Tino and Alan also said that their “1st, 2nd and 3rd preference was to deal with the pilots.” So you either believe one statement or the other but they can’t both be true.

I’ll go with option b) because that makes business sense. AIPA have not taken industrial action and are not chasing greater than 3% so there is no negative precedent set for other Group EA’s. It is the least risk and most economically sound option.
Ok, this makes sense to me, if it's a close vote and QF only needs to get a few of us over the line. The potential for AIPA to hold QF in court over the integration award is worth thinking about too, although you'd have to think that QF would be confident of ultimately winning that, yeah?

Do you think QF keeps negotiating if it's 40/60 or 30/70?
SecretAngel is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 06:04
  #1448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the NO argument is centred around “fight for legacy conditions while we still can?”

We’re currently negotiating the introduction of a new wide body twin jet. Sound familiar? You’re 4 years too late. You shouldn’t have voted up the 787 contract if you have a problem with losing legacy conditions. They were only ever going to offer up similar money for the 350 and that’s exactly what they’ve put on the table
Overspeed1 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 06:21
  #1449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 1,086
Received 59 Likes on 29 Posts
The new entity will be cheap labour. Do I dare say it again? Cheaper labour undercutting every EBA going forward. If you think the conditions in this EBA are unacceptable, wait till you see the next one.
Yes or No, that's the likely result. But why give it to them on a platter as we (and every other union) has done in the past. The flying they are asking for is going to be horrible. If 'senior' pilots can't explain that (long term jet lag) to 'junior' pilots then how can 'senior' pilots explain the debilitating tiredness to an office worker who travels once a year (and of course offloading you in First) who feels a little groggy for a few days.

The focus on money is rubbish. Qantas cannot afford to keep their current fleet. They have to have a fuel efficient fleet - it's 20 years past when it could/should have happened. This argument is window dressing. London to a brick Joyce has had it explained to him that something has to change or he is losing major financial support. He's a bully, there is no family silver left to sell and he's using this - he wants to blame someone. Can't be his fault, obviously!

It's impossible to put 40/50/60 year old minds into 20/30 year olds, but the perception seems to be that 'older' pilots don't care and don't see the big picture. Let me assure anyone reading this that they see a FAR bigger picture than they did when they were 20/30yo. These are extremely smart guys, the equivalent of top flight lawyers or high flying corporate types. And they've been lied to for decades

FWIW I think Beer Baron's posts speak a lot of truth and unbiased summation.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 08:09
  #1450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A little birdie
Feel free to point out the errors in what I’ve presented. The data I’m using is available to every Qantas pilot and has been posted at multiple webinars.



The numbers of days worked, the overtime, etc, changes depending on which base is considered. Overtime out of Perth will be less than overtime out of Sydney. Density out of PER for ULH flying is likely slightly higher than SYD. Density of non MVF (A330) flying for a PER MVF pilot is different to the density out of Sydney which is different to the density out of Melbourne. This is simply analysing the data. If you’re incapable of doing that yourself I’m not sure why you’re having a go at me when I can do it.



You previously asked was I an A380 senior check captain. No I am not. You’ve now asked am I a Senior Check Captain. No I am not. Do you intend now on going through every category demanding to know who I am?

You may think you know who I am. You may even be correct. It doesn’t make a difference. The data I present is either accurate or it’s not. So far no one has pointed out an error in what I’ve presented. Feel free to point out my mistakes.

Or keep shooting the messenger. What’s the saying about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?
Hi Little Birdie,

Sorry, my posts were a little ambiguous. The two points I'm trying to make are:

I'm aware of the conditions for the new LHEA. My point regarding your accuracy can probably best be shown by comparing credited hours (i.e pay per trip and therefore per days worked) for a SYD-LHR-SYD or SYD-JFK-SYD under EA9 (current conditions) vs EA10 (proposed conditions). There will be (depending on the night flying component) around 15-20% less credited hours under the new agreement. All the other components muddy the water, however the end result is the same.....less pay per trip or pay per day worked. If you really know the figures then you'd realise this. I never see you make this point.

The second point has to do with the extremely adversarial nature of these negotiations. Large adversarial companies (and countries!) have been known to manipulate social media in order to achieve their objectives (fake news etc). Companies that have lost engagement with their employees (which is well and truely the case here) often try to influence employee opinion by using trusted peers (people in respected roles) to disperse their message. Is this your role in these negotiations?

Hopefully this clears up the ambiguity. PS the original 380 was a typo, I meant 330.


brodle is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 08:25
  #1451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beautiful_butterfly
Does the deadline mean we’ll all know who the fool is on April 1st? Is it Normanton, Little Birdie, or Secret Angel?
Ha, fair call.

I'm not decided, and nor is Normanton it seems. Frankly, I'd love to wake up on 1 April after a no vote, with A350 flying on a better EA.

But, almost no one on here has shown any kind of pathway to that happening, except for Beer Baron this arvo (which I am very grateful for). Most people are coming across as angry and on tilt, wanting to stick it to QF at any cost.

That's not particularly encouraging for me, when the cost could be my future at Qantas. I'll think on Beer Baron's points a bit more.
SecretAngel is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 09:44
  #1452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 339
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Normanton, for a guy who at max has been at mainline for 3 years (and almost certainly still an SO still benefitting from the ‘A’ scale), you seem very opinionated and very upset with how others with vastly more experience with the company’s industrial tactics might vote differently to you.
That’s not to say you should be told how to vote, but your continual and constant defeatist negativity should be put in context for all other posters with the fact that you are relatively very new to all of this at QF.
TimmyTee is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 10:11
  #1453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,269
Received 322 Likes on 175 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
Normanton, for a guy who at max has been at mainline for 3 years (and almost certainly still an SO still benefitting from the ‘A’ scale), you seem very opinionated and very upset with how others with vastly more experience with the company’s industrial tactics might vote differently to you.
That’s not to say you should be told how to vote, but your continual and constant defeatist negativity should be put in context for all other posters with the fact that you are relatively very new to all of this at QF.
If Normanton is quite junior then he has more invested in the outcome of this EBA than most.

“Vastly more experienced with the company’s IR tactics” - When have they ever been as clear with their statement of what will occur if an EBA is voted down than now? Not in 2011 (not that it came to a vote) not in 2015, never.

This situation is unprecedented. It will require people to leave old ways of thinking behind.
dr dre is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 10:18
  #1454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 1,086
Received 59 Likes on 29 Posts
I’m obviously not who you think I am. I am not a Senior Check Captain in Qantas Airways
Thats an evasive answer. I know because I answer questions in a very similar way when ‘legally’ pushed

Brodle - you’ve clearly pushed certain buttons

Last edited by V-Jet; 1st Mar 2020 at 10:53.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 10:34
  #1455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TIBA
Posts: 460
Received 129 Likes on 37 Posts
Talking

Originally Posted by A little birdie
The answer provided from someone who listened in.
Was that someone- you?
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 10:41
  #1456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: oz
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are there any Captains that aren’t Seniors?
nefarious1 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 11:44
  #1457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I remember sitting around when Jetstar was set up and we complained that it wasn’t offered to Mainline pilots and we then realised the impact it would have on our careers. We then as a group then scrambled to get some access to this expanding entity as our opportunity’s in mainline evaporated. Many pilots took the limited opportunities offered. Many were upset that we weren’t given the chance to buy in at the initial stage that J* was set up.
We are now being given a chance to get onboard at the inception and guys are still complaining, mainly old school B744 and A380 guys seeking to stay on the teet until retirement. Some even quote that A380 pay is sacrosanct, even when flying a twin that carries far fewer people.
When in the past has the CEO Intl and the Group CEO so publicly stated, both in print and in various media interviews, that they would use a greenfields operation? PF on crew room sprouts his bull**** in terms of business knowledge that the cost of this would e prohibitive. Not so it would sit under the Qantas AOC like many existing companies.
AJ is about a year from retirement, he is protecting and enhancing his legacy. Given the very public pronouncements it is obvious that the major shareholders and the board have been briefed and are on board with his plans. Calling the bluff are MB and JK who led us into the last disaster 2011. These are the imbeciles who were blindsided when AJ shut the company down, don’t listen to them.
The_Equaliser is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 12:33
  #1458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This negotiation is now over. The offer has been made. It was negotiated but not agreed.

The “yes” or “no” vote is no longer about how good or bad the offer is, or how it compares to any other proposal or ideal. It’s now about the risk of the Company carrying out the threat of outsourcing after a “no” vote. That is all it is about.

Some have convinced themselves that the Company can’t or won’t outsource, or that it is illegal, or an idle threat, and will vote “no” accordingly.

Some have convinced themselves that the Company threat to outsource is real, and absolutely will happen in the event of a “no” vote, and will vote “yes” accordingly.

Many are uncertain, and are awaiting AIPA’s advice.

I don’t think AIPA have ever been put on a spot as serious as this.

My personal prediction is that if the AIPA committee recommend a “no” vote, they will get one. And if they recommend a “yes” vote, they will get one.

If that prediction is correct, then the vote becomes dependent on 40 elected COM members, many of whom campaigned in the recent election for the sole purpose of rejecting this EBA, and many of whom who have absolutely zero industrial experience, talked into the idea over a beer by a few wheelbarrow pushers who actually have nothing to lose.

If you are an S/O or an F/O and you have recently joined the Committee because an A380 or B747 Captain you had a beer with recently thought you were “like-minded” and put you on the ticket, think seriously. They have nothing to lose if the A350 goes external. You and most others do.

I really hope that all AIPA Committee members have very wise advice at hand when it comes to a decision, and I hope that they, our elected representatives, consider it carefully.

Thousands of pilots are relying on you to get this right, Your vote next meeting could be the most important vote of your or my life. Please consider carefully, we’re all counting on you.
Derfred is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 16:45
  #1459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,254
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
Awful lot of short time, one issue posters suddenly appearing here ... one might almost suspect an organised campaign..............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 17:11
  #1460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 76
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Back in 1978 Robert J Serling wrote a book called "Wings" about an airline boss who had the same egotistical problems that appear in the current holder of the position in the airline with the flying rat on the tail.

The airline in the book was saved because senior management stood up to the boss. I guess that will never happen in real life
Chris2303 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.