Project Sunrise
Hmmmm,
Adhoc leave for A380 advertised!
May be right Dragon Man.
I think QF have to keep HND due allocated slots.
Same could be said for slots anywhere just downsizing.
Adhoc leave for A380 advertised!
May be right Dragon Man.
I think QF have to keep HND due allocated slots.
Same could be said for slots anywhere just downsizing.
No doubt the future looks better for those on the 2 engine aircraft over the 4 engine ones. A lack of flying, allowances and overtime payments will cut into 380 pay significantly.
The dream run wasn't going to continue forever.
The dream run wasn't going to continue forever.
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Which part of the offer are you referring to as a “**** deal”? There are some gains and some losses, as per any EBA. It certainly won’t stop me bidding onto it when my number comes up
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Can you explain which parts are a ‘dogsh!t deal’, if the 350 stuff is taken out because they don’t show up/are transferred to a new entity?
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
So if you vote Yes, get your 3% and backpay, and if you don't like what the 350 flying and T&C's will entail, don't bid to fly it. Simple. Then you carry on as normal.
Most of those who bid to fly it will almost certainly get a payrise from their current position.
Could it eventually be contracted out in the case of a yes vote? Legally yes. But voting no will have no effect on that decision. That's the case in which it has been clearly stated that the flying WILL be transferred to a new entity.
There are only minor changes for existing fleets, the major change being a 3% payrise.
So if you vote Yes, get your 3% and backpay, and if you don't like what the 350 flying and T&C's will entail, don't bid to fly it. Simple. Then you carry on as normal.
Most of those who bid to fly it will almost certainly get a payrise from their current position.
Could it eventually be contracted out in the case of a yes vote? Legally yes. But voting no will have no effect on that decision. That's the case in which it has been clearly stated that the flying WILL be transferred to a new entity.
So if you vote Yes, get your 3% and backpay, and if you don't like what the 350 flying and T&C's will entail, don't bid to fly it. Simple. Then you carry on as normal.
Most of those who bid to fly it will almost certainly get a payrise from their current position.
Could it eventually be contracted out in the case of a yes vote? Legally yes. But voting no will have no effect on that decision. That's the case in which it has been clearly stated that the flying WILL be transferred to a new entity.
Also the company could start new routes tomorrow with a new entity if it wanted to.
Nothing including this EA has or will change that.
Would be a damn shame if Chicago suffered from a second false start. I believe the original planned service on the Jumbo got pulled at the last minute as well (due to 9/11 I think?). Hopefully it doesn’t take another 19 years!
As for network changes, I’d expect to see further frequency drop, aircraft downsized where possible, maybe schedules rejigged, but most destinations retained. If only we had more 787s sitting around...the aircraft utilisation is through the roof already.
As for network changes, I’d expect to see further frequency drop, aircraft downsized where possible, maybe schedules rejigged, but most destinations retained. If only we had more 787s sitting around...the aircraft utilisation is through the roof already.
Yes Meatbomb I can see the plan. We get them to sign off on a deal for the 350 that we want, then spend several hundred million in set up costs to start up an new entity whilst screwing our share price. It’s a classic plan. The 350 is about a lot more than sunrise and is much more cost effective for the company if it is within the LH award.
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Your argument is flawed. Sure they can do that, but what happens to EBA 10 when it gets voted up and the 350's aren't ordered?
What conditions come into play, which ones never eventuate, and what we do gain, and what does the company gain? Have a good think about it my friend. Feel free to enlighten us with your findings.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normanton and other yes voters:
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
Explain why when you vote yes and ‘secure’ the flying for a dogsh!t deal, QF don’t just turn around and transfer the flying to a new entity anyway? As long as it’s on new routes, there’s nothing illegal about it? So QF get you suckers to sign a **** deal, and the flying still goes elsewhere. How short sighted can you be?
The arrival of the 350, as Captain MW and co. are well aware, means lots of new jobs, expansion and promotions on an overall package that isn’t too bad. A yes vote would keep all this in house which hardly seems short sighted to me.
The rest of the deal is good, especially in the current environment eg. 3% pay rises.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The **** parts of the deal are actually associated with the arrival of the 350 (SO pay, MVF, 4 man crew, 20 hr+ duties). So if the 350 doesn’t arrive, these ****ty parts of the deal don’t arrive either. So there’s the hole in your assumption. It’s obvious you are on the outside looking in otherwise you would have known that.
The arrival of the 350, as Captain MW and co. are well aware, means lots of new jobs, expansion and promotions on an overall package that isn’t too bad. A yes vote would keep all this in house which hardly seems short sighted to me.
The rest of the deal is good, especially in the current environment eg. 3% pay rises.
The arrival of the 350, as Captain MW and co. are well aware, means lots of new jobs, expansion and promotions on an overall package that isn’t too bad. A yes vote would keep all this in house which hardly seems short sighted to me.
The rest of the deal is good, especially in the current environment eg. 3% pay rises.
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is Captain MW the CSA captain who wrote to AJ? If so, I think I know who he is and am gobsmacked at his audacity! Someone should write to his CSA boss and let them know he is preparing a plan to move all of the CSA Aussie pilots to Qantas. No doubt the Chinese wouldn’t be impressed when the time comes to recall those guys only to find they have been hijacked by MW.
And expect them (and other Airbus and experienced pilots) to form the bulk of the new entity. Even if, and it’s a big if, mainline pilots are eventually allowed to fly at the new entity there’ll be no guarantees they’ll go in as DECs or DEFOs. Those who get there first will write the contract to suit them, any transfers will be a long way out of the comfort zone of what mainline pilots are used to.
Basically kiss goodbye to mainline careers for the majority if that happens.
Very easy to put a stop to, just vote Yes.
Another thing I’ve noticed.
At the moment top two threads on Aus and Nz are:
Project Sunrise, and
VA pilots worried about employment.
One airline is looking to invest a lot of money a create a lot of jobs, the other’s pilots are getting concerned about employment.
Don’t think there’ll isn’t another alternative workforce to crew this new contract waiting right next door if mainline pilots knock back $400k a year jobs?
At the moment top two threads on Aus and Nz are:
Project Sunrise, and
VA pilots worried about employment.
One airline is looking to invest a lot of money a create a lot of jobs, the other’s pilots are getting concerned about employment.
Don’t think there’ll isn’t another alternative workforce to crew this new contract waiting right next door if mainline pilots knock back $400k a year jobs?
Another thing I’ve noticed.
At the moment top two threads on Aus and Nz are:
Project Sunrise, and
VA pilots worried about employment.
One airline is looking to invest a lot of money a create a lot of jobs, the other’s pilots are getting concerned about employment.
Don’t think there’ll isn’t another alternative workforce to crew this new contract waiting right next door if mainline pilots knock back $400k a year jobs?
At the moment top two threads on Aus and Nz are:
Project Sunrise, and
VA pilots worried about employment.
One airline is looking to invest a lot of money a create a lot of jobs, the other’s pilots are getting concerned about employment.
Don’t think there’ll isn’t another alternative workforce to crew this new contract waiting right next door if mainline pilots knock back $400k a year jobs?
Meanwhile all the recently agreed provisions will be fully utilised with the remnants of QF
Vote yes, it’ll secure the flying! Yeah right...
JQ MkII will start as QF sees an opportunity thanks to Coronavirus and pilots seeking to secure their own futures due to uncertainty overseas.
Mainline pilots then have no recourse for PIA because negotiations are over.
MoUs will be signed and waivers for transfer of business provisions to allow surplus mainline crew to take LWOP for opportunities as SOs with the new entity.
JQ MkII will start as QF sees an opportunity thanks to Coronavirus and pilots seeking to secure their own futures due to uncertainty overseas.
Mainline pilots then have no recourse for PIA because negotiations are over.
MoUs will be signed and waivers for transfer of business provisions to allow surplus mainline crew to take LWOP for opportunities as SOs with the new entity.
A no vote would give the company the perfect excuse to outsource however. I don’t think TS would be at webinar #142 right now if the real plan all along was to outsource. It’s obvious management want this deal to go through, but I’m pretty sure they don’t want another 2011 so the offer will be one time only.
Last edited by dr dre; 9th Mar 2020 at 12:30.