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 7th Mar 2020, 22:52
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 9 Posts
Name calling. Terrific. Can we get any lower? I’m disgusted in the blokes I used to see as hero’s.
Chad Gates is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 23:02
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
Name calling. Terrific. Can we get any lower? I’m disgusted in the blokes I used to see as hero’s.
It's pretty bad. When they can't offer a solid argument they try and distract and weave their way out of it.

I'm going to add his reasoning to the list for voting NO:

So far I have got:

1) Wait for the 2nd and 3rd offers.
2) The company won’t make a seperate entity, they are bluffing.
3) The 350s won’t come even with a YES vote.
4) Stick it to the company.
5) Anything not endorsed by AIPA is a NO vote.
6) **** you Nathan

7) The 350 contract (which is OPT in only) will destroy your health.
8) Millennials who are gay, use grinder, and love eating tofu, wheatgrass, and lotus.
normanton is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 23:22
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
You lot of Sanctimonious , pontificating , millennial keyboard ,schoolgirls must be an absolute hoot to fly with !
I would cringe just thinking about having to spend 1 hour , let alone 20+ hours on a flight deck listening to your lecturing ,superior than thou diatribe on how everybody else should be more like you and your vegan tofu toasting ,lotus eating ,wheatgrass swilling , Marxist Millennial crap!
Will be interesting listening to your ilk in a decade or two when you have a few life skill ground into you with this ULR crap.
The most interesting part I found when I flew was the meeting down in the lobby at 5 having a few beers, heading out for a meal and actually getting to know your fellow crew members . There is a novel concept , getting a measure of the person sitting beside you for the next 16 hours .
I must admit I probably learned more through this type of personal interaction both professionally and personally than I would have if all I did was look at myself in the mirror at the gym whilst swiping through grinder that you lot appear to fit the profile for !
Good luck , you’re going to need it .
Thanks for the good laugh blowbag!😂😂😂

The only sanctimonious, pontificating came from the Captain every overnight after meeting in the lobby at 6!
Having to listen about the rules of life, not just aviation, for hours on end was a real hoot as you put it.
The others couldn’t wait for him to call it quits so we could chase the girls and have some fun!
Ah, you’ve made me laugh!😂
Wingspar is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 23:35
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Equal rank

So based on this sneaky clause they’re throwing in, does this mean all current 787 FOs cannot bid to the 350 until eligible for promotion?? And all current 787 captains are ineligible to bid over??
stillcallozhome is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 23:40
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,298
Received 356 Likes on 195 Posts
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
I would cringe just thinking about having to spend 1 hour , let alone 20+ hours on a flight deck listening to you.
So that’s confirmation you are happy with the conditions and you are planning to go to the 350 blow.n.gasket?
dr dre is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 23:42
  #1726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by stillcallozhome
So based on this sneaky clause they’re throwing in, does this mean all current 787 FOs cannot bid to the 350 until eligible for promotion?? And all current 787 captains are ineligible to bid over??
It's by far a sneaky clause. It's been said multiple times in the webinars by the company.

Yes they are looking to make 787 and 330/350 an equal category. Which means the only way to move across is with an upgrade. However I believe the company agreed to AIPAs recommendation to allow you to use your one bid back to move sideways to 330/350 if required.

What I wasn't sure about is if you were a 787 FO, can you then bid across to 330 FO category? It would involve a training freeze, but I'm not sure if it would count as your sideways/one bid back move.
normanton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:04
  #1727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by normanton
It's by far a sneaky clause. It's been said multiple times in the webinars by the company.

Yes they are looking to make 787 and 330/350 an equal category. Which means the only way to move across is with an upgrade. However I believe the company agreed to AIPAs recommendation to allow you to use your one bid back to move sideways to 330/350 if required.

What I wasn't sure about is if you were a 787 FO, can you then bid across to 330 FO category? It would involve a training freeze, but I'm not sure if it would count as your sideways/one bid back move.
Im not sure what you mean by “its by far a sneaky clause”?

it doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s discussions on here but it’s going to be a huge QOL changer. If it’s 10-20 years before a command, that’s a long time on the one a/c and a lot can change in your circumstances in that time. There might also be changes in the rosters and types of flying on a particular fleet which would give someone the desire to switch fleets. Aside from SH, once the 380 is gone, you’ll be stuck.
stillcallozhome is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:05
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pot to kettle , pot to kettle , come in please , over !
Listen to your skinny insipid whining selves , the very thing which I did and you accused me of , your cadre responded in kind with exactly the same. Where does that put your self serving over bloated sense of super salesman superiority ?
Mate (that’s an angel collective address) I have no skin in the game any longer.
As for a step by step post NO vote exit plan ,which you collectively harp on about as proof of your super superior moral pontificating for a YES vote that’s what your union should have put forward .
Get AIPA to use your collective wealth and expertise to task a response for both outcomes .
Something that really hasn’t been done , except in a half arsed , half hearted way .
One can only wonder why ?
What I would be waiting for is the final document to paw over before making a definitive decision .
I would also be demanding unequivocal industrial/legal opinion on what a NO vs a YES vote could produce .
As for your precious YES vote , nothing is written in blood and a sure thing with Qantas except Alan’s bonus ,good luck with what you think you’re going to get with your precious YES vote too , ‘cos Qantas have a habit of being nasty , something you lot might learn eventually , no doubt the hard way .
Can only imagine the sanctimonious whining then !
So until there is unequivocal learned legal opinions presented , for and against , unlike your super hard ,scare tactics YES sell ,then a vote ,any vote is questionable !
Thanks for all your concerns , me and the missus are off to golf , will have a nice lunch , washed down with a good wine and then plan what else we are going to do in our leisure , good luck catching up on your sleep deprivation !

Last edited by blow.n.gasket; 8th Mar 2020 at 00:20.
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:16
  #1729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by stillcallozhome
Im not sure what you mean by “its by far a sneaky clause”?
Well when you said sneaky, I assumed you thought the company was trying to be sneaky and put it on the contract without having an open dialogue of it.

I'm just saying that hasn't happened at all. They have been very open about it.

If it’s 10-20 years before a command, that’s a long time on the one a/c and a lot can change in your circumstances in that time. There might also be changes in the rosters and types of flying on a particular fleet which would give someone the desire to switch fleets. Aside from SH, once the 380 is gone, you’ll be stuck.
Well I would argue if it's 10-20 years before command, it will be even longer if the 350 doesn't come to mainline.

Yes I agree rosters could change / fleets could change / RINs will happen / destinations will change. There is just so much hypotheticals at play here. You need to vote with facts.

For me personally, I think we will be better off as a group with more variety of flying available, and so far I haven't been convinced that a NO vote is better for the the mainline pilots. Remember, the 350 flying is opt in only. If you don't want to do it you don't have to.
normanton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:18
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Normanton, you’ve called someone a muppet and then, 8 posts later, sympathised with Chad’s complaints about name-calling. Seems to me that the name-calling is going both ways, and I can’t see how it helps anyone. It’d be great if we could discuss this rationally without getting personal.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:20
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
Pot to kettle , pot to kettle , come in please , over !
Listen to your skinny insipid whining selves , the very thing which I did and you accused me of , your cadre responded in kind with exactly the same. Where does that put your self serving over bloated sense of super salesman superiority ?
Mate (that’s an angel collective address) I have no skin in the game any longer.
As for a step by step post NO vote exit plan ,which you collectively harp on about as proof of your super superior moral pontificating for a YES vote that’s what your union should have put forward .
Get AIPA to use your collective wealth and expertise to task a response for both outcomes .
Something that really hasn’t been done , except in a half arsed , half hearted way .
One can only wonder why ?
What I would be waiting for is the final document to paw over before making a definitive decision .
I would also be demanding unequivocal industrial/legal opinion on what a NO vs a YES vote could produce .
As for your precious YES vote , nothing is written in blood and a sure thing with Qantas except Alan’s bonus ,good luck with what you think you’re going to get with your precious YES vote too , ‘cos Qantas have a habit of being nasty , something you lot might learn eventually , no doubt the hard way .
Can only imagine the sanctimonious whining then !
So until there is unequivocal learned legal opinions presented , for and against , unlike your super hard ,scare tactics YES sell ,then a vote ,any vote is questionable !
Thanks for all your concerns , me and the missus are off to golf , will have a nice lunch , washed down with a good wine and then plan what else we are going to do in our leisure , good luck catching up on your sleep deprivation !
Well thank christ for everyone with a career at play here that you don't get a vote.

Let me clear something up for you.

Both the AIPA President, and Vice President have recommended a YES vote.

We are still waiting for the COM.

The AIPA president has confirmed that everything the company is doing is legal. He has also stated that should a NO vote get up, the union will NOT be pursuing legal action under his leadership.

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
Normanton, you’ve called someone a muppet and then, 8 posts later, sympathised with Chad’s complaints about name-calling. Seems to me that the name-calling is going both ways, and I can’t see how it helps anyone. It’d be great if we could discuss this rationally without getting personal.
Apologies.
normanton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:24
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by normanton
Well when you said sneaky, I assumed you thought the company was trying to be sneaky and put it on the contract without having an open dialogue of it.

I'm just saying that hasn't happened at all. They have been very open about it.



Well I would argue if it's 10-20 years before command, it will be even longer if the 350 doesn't come to mainline.

Yes I agree rosters could change / fleets could change / RINs will happen / destinations will change. There is just so much hypotheticals at play here. You need to vote with facts.

For me personally, I think we will be better off as a group with more variety of flying available, and so far I haven't been convinced that a NO vote is better for the the mainline pilots. Remember, the 350 flying is opt in only. If you don't want to do it you don't have to.
I understand and appreciate your opinion on which way to vote. I guess I am more about bringing awareness to this clause which I think will have one of the biggest effects on our careers over the next 20 years. It’s something that is very valuable and we are giving it up with no questions asked. We will go down to two a/c types in the near future yet we have no leverage with this clause. It’s very frustrating how valuable this is yet it’s not getting much traction. I know there is nothing we can do about it now (except vote no but that seems extreme for just one clause) but I see this as being the longest lasting negative from this proposal.

I can also see the company using this as leverage in future negotiations.
stillcallozhome is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:30
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes thats true.

The other thing to consider, which was also mentioned in the webinars was that one of the fleet had a higher take home pay and lower super contributions. The other had a smaller take home pay but higher super contributions. I can't remember off the top of my head which option belonged to which fleet. Suffice to say that was another option to consider when picking a fleet.

If anyone could confirm the following that would be great. 787 FO to 330 FO under the proposed new training requirements. Is this allowed? I know you can't go from 787 FO to 330/350 FO.
normanton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:33
  #1734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NORM
I still keep my finger on the pulse , whilst I still have one .
AIPA isn’t just the President and the Executive ,it’s CoM too.
There are plenty of CoM members seething at the bias showing from this Executive.
I’ve read his and Brad’s “personal “opinions !

The AIPA president has confirmed that everything the company is doing his(sic) legal. He has also stated that should a NO vote get up, the union will NOT be pursuing legal action under his leadership.
Isn’t there an SGM on Friday coming up ,on the 13th , might get unlucky for some ? Beware the Ides of March ?
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:34
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I’m sure we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the consequences of a vote either way at the SGM on Friday. I for one will be seated in a low key area with a family sized popcorn if anyone is keen on joining me.
bythenumbers is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:45
  #1736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
NORM
I still keep my finger on the pulse , whilst I still have one .
AIPA isn’t just the President and the Executive ,it’s CoM too.
There are plenty of CoM members seething at the bias showing from this Executive.
I’ve read his and Brad’s “personal “opinions !
Just in case you can't read, I did say we are still waiting for the COM.

Enjoy the lunch with your wife. Make sure you don't order any tofu.
normanton is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 01:02
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
NORM
I still keep my finger on the pulse , whilst I still have one .
AIPA isn’t just the President and the Executive ,it’s CoM too.
There are plenty of CoM members seething at the bias showing from this Executive.
I’ve read his and Brad’s “personal “opinions !



Isn’t there an SGM on Friday coming up ,on the 13th , might get unlucky for some ? Beware the Ides of March ?
I think the CP should be a candidate?
Allowing this ‘gun to the head’ behaviour on his watch is unacceptable.
Vote of no confidence from the pilot group?
Wingspar is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 01:02
  #1738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 309
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
[QUOTEIf anyone could confirm the following that would be great. 787 FO to 330 FO under the proposed new training requirements. Is this allowed? I know you can't go from 787 FO to 330/350 FO.[/QUOTE]
No change to current rules. It’s a back bid and therefore the company have to agree to it.
Poto is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 01:58
  #1739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: vegas, not 'las', or 'bris', but the other one
Posts: 112
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
If the ULR is opt in only, why not everyone vote NO, let Joycey set up his new operation, then if you want to fly the 350 move across to the new entity.

then everyone is happy
mince is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 03:10
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
Received 75 Likes on 30 Posts
Originally Posted by Wingspar
I think the CP should be a candidate?
Allowing this ‘gun to the head’ behaviour on his watch is unacceptable.
Vote of no confidence from the pilot group?
THIS. Be good if it could make it to the news.
cloudsurfng is offline  


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.