Project Sunrise
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well to be honest, I was seeking further information on which way to vote. I reserve the right to change my mind pending AIPA's recommendation, and a fact check of the final document.
It became obvious very early on that the small minority with a short term interest in the result, enjoyed post scaremongering, false statements to further their self interests. Someone has to call them out for it, and I'm more than happy to be that person, and will continue to do so.
It's also worth mentioning there has been a few posts from the NO camp with very relevant points. At the end of the day, as Keg said, if the offer is acceptable to you, vote accordingly.
It became obvious very early on that the small minority with a short term interest in the result, enjoyed post scaremongering, false statements to further their self interests. Someone has to call them out for it, and I'm more than happy to be that person, and will continue to do so.
It's also worth mentioning there has been a few posts from the NO camp with very relevant points. At the end of the day, as Keg said, if the offer is acceptable to you, vote accordingly.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprising really, Their talent for lies notwithstanding, Angels can’t answer that one
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: I stap nambaut lo sampela hap
Posts: 12
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Remember this is a negotiation so negotiable tactics are at play here. I’d suggest try to keep your emotions under control and read the situation analytically. We haven’t seen the final document yet.
Regarding their threat, they probably have the capacity to pull it off, but I don’t think it will benefit the business long term.
1. The qantas business success is heavily reliant on their safety record. This is why passengers fly qantas. Their safety record is thanks to the current long serving loyal pilots. They’re a known quantity with a proven track record. For Qf to put their trust is a whole new group of unknown pilots is very risky for the business long term.
2. Who would they find to fly in the new entity? They’ve mentioned the flood of contract pilots from China. These guys are proven mercenaries. In three years time when the carona virus is history, the past boom in international will have returned plus the back log of delayed travellers. China will be offering eye watering contracts which these mercenaries will find impossible to resist, especially compared to the poor conditions offered by project sunrise.
Don’t focus on the threat. Yes they are capable of pulling the trigger, but it could kill the qantas business long term. It’s an even bigger risk for them in my opinion.
Regarding their threat, they probably have the capacity to pull it off, but I don’t think it will benefit the business long term.
1. The qantas business success is heavily reliant on their safety record. This is why passengers fly qantas. Their safety record is thanks to the current long serving loyal pilots. They’re a known quantity with a proven track record. For Qf to put their trust is a whole new group of unknown pilots is very risky for the business long term.
2. Who would they find to fly in the new entity? They’ve mentioned the flood of contract pilots from China. These guys are proven mercenaries. In three years time when the carona virus is history, the past boom in international will have returned plus the back log of delayed travellers. China will be offering eye watering contracts which these mercenaries will find impossible to resist, especially compared to the poor conditions offered by project sunrise.
Don’t focus on the threat. Yes they are capable of pulling the trigger, but it could kill the qantas business long term. It’s an even bigger risk for them in my opinion.
Well said Gazza, is the threat real? sure it has validity, but would they pull that trigger?
The latest 787 Safety video shows how much they want to market and advertise the pilot safety and experience factor.
The entities (that have prob already sent AJ a joint email saying they'll fly the deal) will be long gone once China realises they are short staffed again! Which will probs be early to mid next year, but by then EA10 is well secured forever...
Me? - 777 capt elsewhere with no skin in this game.
Well said Gazza, is the threat real? sure it has validity, but would they pull that trigger?
The latest 787 Safety video shows how much they want to market and advertise the pilot safety and experience factor.
The latest 787 Safety video shows how much they want to market and advertise the pilot safety and experience factor.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 SO
Look I’m more than willing to vote NO, even from my position way down here in the cheap seats, and just for the sake of clarity, those of us down the bottom third of the list have the most to lose here (not loose
).
No or Yes whatever I decide will be an informed vote.
Now there's plenty of chatter on here about transfer of business and so fourth but where is the actual information from AIPA on what if any legal avenues we may have to protect this flying being outsourced. In order to make an informed vote this is what we need. I personally feel information from AIPA has been very lacking. Maybe that will change after the meeting on the 10th but advice on the EA and what happens next are two different things.
Here’s the problem, evidence.
We now have Jetconnect operating on our AOC as of about 2 years ago, a pilot group based in a different country on a completely different industrial planet, yet the airline is “Qantas” because it’s our AOC. There’s no more operated by xxxx on the boarding passes because it’s operated by Qantas (from a regulatory perspective).
So what’s to stop the company doing the same thing again? This is a serious question if anyone has the answer. Because there are a lot of comments like “oh they will never be able to make it work” and “the public won’t accept it”.
The public already accept it. On the Tasman, they can sell it to the public as Qantas. Christ they can sell car insurance with a Qantas Brand.
So we would still end up with a 23.5 hour rule in our FRMS (although not in our EA) because of course CASA just signs whatever we want. Perhaps even our A330 TRE’s will be doing cyclic’s for these new generation of scabs, just as the 737 TRE’s and TRI’s do for the Jetconnect pilots. Jetconnect pilots sit on induction and initial ground training with our new hires. Same AOC, different contract.
This is what actually happens and it’s happening right now.
Perhaps I can speak on behalf of the some of my similarly junior colleagues that aren’t in fact hell bent on voting YES for the shiny jet at all costs. And that have been through a few rodeos before with other carriers.
Why can’t/ won’t they do it? And what if
anything can we do about it?
This is the part that we are perhaps struggling with the most. And this is how we make an informed decision.
If we can’t do anything about it, this vote really comes down to outsourcing or not outsourcing does it not?
Look I’m more than willing to vote NO, even from my position way down here in the cheap seats, and just for the sake of clarity, those of us down the bottom third of the list have the most to lose here (not loose
).No or Yes whatever I decide will be an informed vote.
Now there's plenty of chatter on here about transfer of business and so fourth but where is the actual information from AIPA on what if any legal avenues we may have to protect this flying being outsourced. In order to make an informed vote this is what we need. I personally feel information from AIPA has been very lacking. Maybe that will change after the meeting on the 10th but advice on the EA and what happens next are two different things.
Here’s the problem, evidence.
We now have Jetconnect operating on our AOC as of about 2 years ago, a pilot group based in a different country on a completely different industrial planet, yet the airline is “Qantas” because it’s our AOC. There’s no more operated by xxxx on the boarding passes because it’s operated by Qantas (from a regulatory perspective).
So what’s to stop the company doing the same thing again? This is a serious question if anyone has the answer. Because there are a lot of comments like “oh they will never be able to make it work” and “the public won’t accept it”.
The public already accept it. On the Tasman, they can sell it to the public as Qantas. Christ they can sell car insurance with a Qantas Brand.
So we would still end up with a 23.5 hour rule in our FRMS (although not in our EA) because of course CASA just signs whatever we want. Perhaps even our A330 TRE’s will be doing cyclic’s for these new generation of scabs, just as the 737 TRE’s and TRI’s do for the Jetconnect pilots. Jetconnect pilots sit on induction and initial ground training with our new hires. Same AOC, different contract.
This is what actually happens and it’s happening right now.
Perhaps I can speak on behalf of the some of my similarly junior colleagues that aren’t in fact hell bent on voting YES for the shiny jet at all costs. And that have been through a few rodeos before with other carriers.
Why can’t/ won’t they do it? And what if
anything can we do about it?
This is the part that we are perhaps struggling with the most. And this is how we make an informed decision.
If we can’t do anything about it, this vote really comes down to outsourcing or not outsourcing does it not?
So what’s to stop the company doing the same thing again? This is a serious question if anyone has the answer. Because there are a lot of comments like “oh they will never be able to make it work” and “the public won’t accept it”.
This is what actually happens and it’s happening right now.
Why can’t/ won’t they do it? And what if
anything can we do about it?
If we can’t do anything about it, this vote really comes down to outsourcing or not outsourcing does it not?
Well the company has said they are able to start a separate entity.
The Union (I assume right now) is getting professional advice put together on the legality/likelihood of the operation which should be used in order for them to make their decision as to what guidance they give by early next week.
It’d be best to wait until then, assuming clear guidance is given and not some attempt to wash their hands of this situation.
However the company is quite adamant they can start this operation. That any form of PIA won’t affect it. They surely won’t have a problem attracting Aussie expats back home. The public wouldn’t know/care that the pilot flying them isn’t on the mainline seniority list.
So yes, if the Union come back saying “there’s really nothing we can do”, the vote comes down to doing the flying or outsourcing it.
Bythenumbers, all good points and to be honest questions that I hope AIPA will supply answers to as well.
Jetconnect has been around a while, and in answer to some of your questions why didn’t Qantas transfer more flying to this entity previously? It could just as easily started them flying 787’s at a reduced rate but they haven’t. It isn’t out if the kindness of their hearts to current LH pilots. The same to an extent with Network.
The Joyce era has been one of constantly trying to destroy the LH award with threats of outsourcing, but it’s never eventuated. It’s a big bluff to call, especially in the current environment...and unfortunately they know that.
Jetconnect has been around a while, and in answer to some of your questions why didn’t Qantas transfer more flying to this entity previously? It could just as easily started them flying 787’s at a reduced rate but they haven’t. It isn’t out if the kindness of their hearts to current LH pilots. The same to an extent with Network.
The Joyce era has been one of constantly trying to destroy the LH award with threats of outsourcing, but it’s never eventuated. It’s a big bluff to call, especially in the current environment...and unfortunately they know that.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am broadly in agreement with you bythenumbers.
There are things I would like to see changed in the offer. I would like LRC to have a bigger value, I would like to see Element 3 stay, I’m not too happy about the increase in training freeze or the inability for me as a 787 FO to bid onto the A350 (which I would absolutely do).
However, none of these things are dire enough to have me gift the flying to another entity, if managements ultimatum were to stay true. Many of our pilots will bid onto the aircraft under the conditions on offer if/when it arrives. I would if I could.
Once again it comes down to the (I believe very real) risk of being sidelined just to have the possibility of these improvements.
I would need to see very strong leadership from AIPA, a unified and engaged Com and most of all, a very well planned, realistically achievable industrial strategy to justify the risk. So far, I don’t think we have this.
I also don’t buy the premise that if we don’t fight now, we will never fight. This is a fallacy. The option to fight or run always remains.
The question is, should we make a last stand and risk it all or should we consolidate now and fight when their is an achievable victory to be won?
There are things I would like to see changed in the offer. I would like LRC to have a bigger value, I would like to see Element 3 stay, I’m not too happy about the increase in training freeze or the inability for me as a 787 FO to bid onto the A350 (which I would absolutely do).
However, none of these things are dire enough to have me gift the flying to another entity, if managements ultimatum were to stay true. Many of our pilots will bid onto the aircraft under the conditions on offer if/when it arrives. I would if I could.
Once again it comes down to the (I believe very real) risk of being sidelined just to have the possibility of these improvements.
I would need to see very strong leadership from AIPA, a unified and engaged Com and most of all, a very well planned, realistically achievable industrial strategy to justify the risk. So far, I don’t think we have this.
I also don’t buy the premise that if we don’t fight now, we will never fight. This is a fallacy. The option to fight or run always remains.
The question is, should we make a last stand and risk it all or should we consolidate now and fight when their is an achievable victory to be won?
1. The qantas business success is heavily reliant on their safety record. This is why passengers fly qantas. Their safety record is thanks to the current long serving loyal pilots. They’re a known quantity with a proven track record. For Qf to put their trust is a whole new group of unknown pilots is very risky for the business long term.
2. Who would they find to fly in the new entity? They’ve mentioned the flood of contract pilots from China. These guys are proven mercenaries. In three years time when the carona virus is history, the past boom in international will have returned plus the back log of delayed travellers. China will be offering eye watering contracts which these mercenaries will find impossible to resist, especially compared to the poor conditions offered by project sunrise
Add to that the great number of Australian Airbus pilots both in and out of the group, plus all the regular sources of crew (regionals, GA, other airlines) who can be trained to fly it? Yeah there will be no problem in finding crew.
There’s very few pilots in the wider industry who would describe the proposed sunrise conditions as “poor”. Maybe compared to 380 legacy, but if anyone thinks every other capable airline pilot in the world would knock back sunrise because it’s slightly worse than the 380 then they’re living in a bubble.
“The A350 is a fantastic aircraft and the deal on the table with Airbus gives us the best possible combination of commercial terms, fuel efficiency, operating cost and customer experience,” Joyce said in a statement published by Qantas regarding the Project Sunrise selection.
The Australian airline announced that it is working with Airbus to prepare a contract for up to 12 A350-1000s. However, it is not certain that Qantas will actually begin the flights. In a press release, the airline said it will make a final decision in March 2020 on whether to operate the routes.
So Qantas management said that the A350 order was dependent on an EA being agreed with the pilots. Then they changed their mind and said if no EA signed, then Qantas would employ outside cheaper pilots to fly the Sunrise route (and presumably go ahead with the A350 order anyway).
That would mean Qantas flying their "feather in their cap" premium Qantas Sunrise route with the new premium aircraft operated by an El Cheapo subsidiary airline with a gaggle of low paid pilots scraped together from around the World? How does anyone think that will go down with the movers and shakers and other big-swinging-dicks of the Qantas Club? Seriously?
But Qantas also report they are drawing up a contract with Airbus for 12 x A350s. Are they planning 6 Sunrise departures every day? No, the extra aircraft will obviously be used on other current Qantas routes.
Two things are very clear from the Qantas statements. Firstly the Airbus A350 is a preferred aircraft over the Boeing B777X. Secondly, the commitment to Airbus as opposed to Boeing, is likely to lead to more Airbus orders rather than Boeing orders. That could include more A350s to eventually replace A330s and B787s. Looking further down the track, Airbus A320s and A220s would then be more likely to replace the B737s .
Based on events to date it is more likely than not, that current Qantas pilots will end up flying the Airbus A350. The A350 is the future for the Qantas fleet.
And that gentlemen is why Qantas management is falling all over themselves trying to tie down a EA on the A350 now (while pretending that it is only destined for the Sunrise route).
There are three issues. An EA to cover the A350. An EA to cover 20+ hours sectors. And eventually, the management coup de grâce, an EA to cover mixed fleet flying.
Their are two sets of experts in this stouch, the management and your union. Who do you think cares more about you, your health, wealth and well being?
Think carefully about the implications and consequences before deciding your vote if you go it solo.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canvassing the A330 and B787 the rest of this week.
So I would not bet your house on it just yet Troo Believer....
How does anyone think that will go down with the movers and shakers and other big-swinging-dicks of the Qantas Club? Seriously?
They’re flying an aircraft with the airline’s name on it, that’s the extent of how much they care I think.
Everyone else in society has bigger fish to fry than us.