Project Sunrise
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And from all readings, there was no clear vision given at the COM meeting yesterday in regards to a NO vote.
But just confirming you're not interested in laying the bricks for the 350?
But just confirming you're not interested in laying the bricks for the 350?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a reformed no voter.
With both Tino’s emails, I was an automatic no vote. Why? Because “f#ck you, that’s why.” The audacity to circumvent AIPA was what put me offside. I hate the tactics used, and the fact that a former president of AIPA is involved pisses me off no end.
BUT, I am under no illusions with what and who I am dealing with here. It comes down to risk and reward. If we vote no, there will be a separate entity created. It’s that simple. Tino has stated it to be the case and I cannot imagine anyone in QF management making a threat like that without having done a lot of research beforehand, and they will do it REGARDLESS of the cost. We will not have business or public support in any fight with QF over this. We need to gather up what remains of our unit, stay united and fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.
Remember, you should only gamble with what you are prepared to lose... and for that reason I will be voting yes.
Normanton is correct, there is no clear path forward for the no camp.
ruprecht
With both Tino’s emails, I was an automatic no vote. Why? Because “f#ck you, that’s why.” The audacity to circumvent AIPA was what put me offside. I hate the tactics used, and the fact that a former president of AIPA is involved pisses me off no end.
BUT, I am under no illusions with what and who I am dealing with here. It comes down to risk and reward. If we vote no, there will be a separate entity created. It’s that simple. Tino has stated it to be the case and I cannot imagine anyone in QF management making a threat like that without having done a lot of research beforehand, and they will do it REGARDLESS of the cost. We will not have business or public support in any fight with QF over this. We need to gather up what remains of our unit, stay united and fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.
Remember, you should only gamble with what you are prepared to lose... and for that reason I will be voting yes.
Normanton is correct, there is no clear path forward for the no camp.
ruprecht
I’ve experienced the same change in sentiment. It’s taken a while to get to this point and will of course will be subject to a thorough read of the final document. But as more and more information has come to light, I’m comfortable with my decision now.
I’d simply urge everyone who’s entitled to a vote, gather as much information as you can. Go to an aipa roadshow or meeting, read the detailed proposal and very seriously measure up the risks vs rewards to satisfy yourself. Keep the emotion at bay to enable clear thinking as this could be one of the most important decisions in your career.
I am a reformed no voter.
With both Tino’s emails, I was an automatic no vote. Why? Because “f#ck you, that’s why.” The audacity to circumvent AIPA was what put me offside. I hate the tactics used, and the fact that a former president of AIPA is involved pisses me off no end.
BUT, I am under no illusions with what and who I am dealing with here. It comes down to risk and reward. If we vote no, there will be a separate entity created. It’s that simple. Tino has stated it to be the case and I cannot imagine anyone in QF management making a threat like that without having done a lot of research beforehand, and they will do it REGARDLESS of the cost. We will not have business or public support in any fight with QF over this. We need to gather up what remains of our unit, stay united and fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.
Remember, you should only gamble with what you are prepared to lose... and for that reason I will be voting yes.
Normanton is correct, there is no clear path forward for the no camp.
ruprecht
With both Tino’s emails, I was an automatic no vote. Why? Because “f#ck you, that’s why.” The audacity to circumvent AIPA was what put me offside. I hate the tactics used, and the fact that a former president of AIPA is involved pisses me off no end.
BUT, I am under no illusions with what and who I am dealing with here. It comes down to risk and reward. If we vote no, there will be a separate entity created. It’s that simple. Tino has stated it to be the case and I cannot imagine anyone in QF management making a threat like that without having done a lot of research beforehand, and they will do it REGARDLESS of the cost. We will not have business or public support in any fight with QF over this. We need to gather up what remains of our unit, stay united and fight another day. This is not the hill to die on.
Remember, you should only gamble with what you are prepared to lose... and for that reason I will be voting yes.
Normanton is correct, there is no clear path forward for the no camp.
ruprecht
Nunc est bibendum
If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny. A group who campaigned for COM last September/ October on the platform of ‘transparency’ seeking a secret ballot yesterday as to what they recommend for the LHEA. Don’t have the courage of their convictions? Cowards.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The President and VP emails showed true character and leadership. I know who I’ll be listening to.
And where will this new entity fly them to?
I alluded before that international flying (the capacity agreements etc) are between QAL and the destination authority. Qantas Airways Limited does NOT have the ability to novate those agreements to another entity, nor can they have the ability to give their slots to another operating entity. They would have to sell their slots and the new entity bid for them. (AirNZ have just been through the same issue and we have airlines now flying empty aircraft to keep their slots 'current'.
And my peers are of the same opinion. Mr Joyce would have done the 'transfer' eons ago if he was able.
Plainmaker
I alluded before that international flying (the capacity agreements etc) are between QAL and the destination authority. Qantas Airways Limited does NOT have the ability to novate those agreements to another entity, nor can they have the ability to give their slots to another operating entity. They would have to sell their slots and the new entity bid for them. (AirNZ have just been through the same issue and we have airlines now flying empty aircraft to keep their slots 'current'.
And my peers are of the same opinion. Mr Joyce would have done the 'transfer' eons ago if he was able.
Plainmaker
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And where will this new entity fly them to?
I alluded before that international flying (the capacity agreements etc) are between QAL and the destination authority. Qantas Airways Limited does NOT have the ability to novate those agreements to another entity, nor can they have the ability to give their slots to another operating entity. They would have to sell their slots and the new entity bid for them. (AirNZ have just been through the same issue and we have airlines now flying empty aircraft to keep their slots 'current'.
And my peers are of the same opinion. Mr Joyce would have done the 'transfer' eons ago if he was able.
Plainmaker
I alluded before that international flying (the capacity agreements etc) are between QAL and the destination authority. Qantas Airways Limited does NOT have the ability to novate those agreements to another entity, nor can they have the ability to give their slots to another operating entity. They would have to sell their slots and the new entity bid for them. (AirNZ have just been through the same issue and we have airlines now flying empty aircraft to keep their slots 'current'.
And my peers are of the same opinion. Mr Joyce would have done the 'transfer' eons ago if he was able.
Plainmaker
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You’re clasping at straws here mate. Thats got nothing to do with it.
They are foreign crew, undercutting Australian workers, flying Qantas aircraft, on Qantas routes, wearing Qantas uniform.
Everything about them is Qantas. Except the crew.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Qantas from doing it for Sunrise. It’s even been confirmed from the union.....
Not sure what your trying to get at here...
They are foreign crew, undercutting Australian workers, flying Qantas aircraft, on Qantas routes, wearing Qantas uniform.
Everything about them is Qantas. Except the crew.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Qantas from doing it for Sunrise. It’s even been confirmed from the union.....
Not sure what your trying to get at here...
If it externalises the aircraft, Qantas would be vulnerable to an adverse advertising campaign: “You think you are flying with the worlds safest airline? Think again.”
I’m sure Qantas is shaking in their boots about that.
“......think again.
You’ve heard of fake news, fake products, now meet a fake airline....
....Think your getting the pilots that made qantas the safest airline in the world? Sorry, you get fakes.
...think the aircraft is maintained by those reliable Australian engineers?
.....think you are getting Aussie cabin crew?”
No. all you get is the painted on name..... Because safety is too expensive.
‘’happy flying.”
Some subtly racist images to accompany and the damage is done.
You’ve heard of fake news, fake products, now meet a fake airline....
....Think your getting the pilots that made qantas the safest airline in the world? Sorry, you get fakes.
...think the aircraft is maintained by those reliable Australian engineers?
.....think you are getting Aussie cabin crew?”
No. all you get is the painted on name..... Because safety is too expensive.
‘’happy flying.”
Some subtly racist images to accompany and the damage is done.
Why hasn’t that happened yet then with Jetconnect? They used to have their own aircraft on their own AOC and it was never mentioned. People don’t give a sh*t, they fly with whoever is convenient or cheapest, if you fly American or Delta internally in the USA you are highly unlikely to be flying with American or Delta, I doubt that anyone researches who they are flying with.
There are a few of us who recall Australia-Asia airlines, with a specially titled 747SP. That required some specific changes which, if I recall also required an amended ASLA to be allocated between the countries.
If you need confirmation that it cannot be done, read the trans-pacific air services licencing agreements. And ask LHR if they will be happy to have the slots gifted / granted to another operator.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They already do. Ever flown with Jetstar recently?
Please stop posting false and inaccurate statements. The advice AIPA has received from lawyers is that the company is well within it's right to start a new external company to crew project sunrise.
What don't you understand? It will be a Qantas aircraft flying into LHR.
I think you need to go have a good hard look about just how Jetconnect operate.
Your lack of IR knowledge, and how mainline operates is very questionable.
Please stop posting false and inaccurate statements. The advice AIPA has received from lawyers is that the company is well within it's right to start a new external company to crew project sunrise.
I think you need to go have a good hard look about just how Jetconnect operate.
Your lack of IR knowledge, and how mainline operates is very questionable.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That some are still considering a No vote in the current circumstances just shows how completely out of touch with reality they are. To vote No now is just plainly ridiculous.
"Dont use your army to fight a losing battle"
"Dont use your army to fight a losing battle"
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the COM hasn't endorsed the deal, and they haven't said no to the deal. They want us to think about the risk of the external entity threat, and the current circumstances.
The threat to outsource is credible as indicated by the president. The current circumstances are a deteriorating industry. We have an option to lock in the 350, backpay and 3% pay rises.
If you are seriously thinking of voting NO on this package you will regret it. The follow up from the company will be no 350s, and no 3% pay rises considering management bonus is now set at 0.
Use your head. Vote YES! Secure our future.
The threat to outsource is credible as indicated by the president. The current circumstances are a deteriorating industry. We have an option to lock in the 350, backpay and 3% pay rises.
If you are seriously thinking of voting NO on this package you will regret it. The follow up from the company will be no 350s, and no 3% pay rises considering management bonus is now set at 0.
Use your head. Vote YES! Secure our future.
Well the COM hasn't endorsed the deal, and they haven't said no to the deal. They want us to think about the risk of the external entity threat, and the current circumstances.
The threat to outsource is credible as indicated by the president. The current circumstances are a deteriorating industry. We have an option to lock in the 350, backpay and 3% pay rises.
If you are seriously thinking of voting NO on this package you will regret it. The follow up from the company will be no 350s, and no 3% pay rises considering management bonus is now set at 0.
Use your head. Vote YES! Secure our future.
The threat to outsource is credible as indicated by the president. The current circumstances are a deteriorating industry. We have an option to lock in the 350, backpay and 3% pay rises.
If you are seriously thinking of voting NO on this package you will regret it. The follow up from the company will be no 350s, and no 3% pay rises considering management bonus is now set at 0.
Use your head. Vote YES! Secure our future.
1) If a yes vote occurs the 350 will be flown under the LH EBA (no outsourcing, it’s basically a scope clause, what mainline pilots have always wanted)
2) some of the offsets (like training freezes) planned will only come into effect if the 350 arrives.
I can’t believe anyone would consider a No vote in this climate tbh.
