Project Sunrise
Morno - in brief.
1) Because it saves double crewing, but the same goes for AJ’s $24m and the gigantic bonus pool. I don’t know what the figure is now, but did you know a few years ago Neil Perry was getting $1.5m kpa from Qf? More importantly why and how have pilots been convinced they AREN’T worth their pay? Especially at $USD 0.64
2) 23.5 hours TOD and it burns some 8,000kgs an hour less fuel.
3) Because flying big jets over 24 hours doesn’t relate to flying Avro 504’s Winton- Longreach.
4) They won’t be buying aircraft right now unless I’m very much mistaken - look at the QAN.AX share price! AJ has only ever borrowed money before to boost the share price to increase his income! Giving AJ another 30% just because he asked for it keeps painting this picture that pilots simply don’t value their own contribution. I despise what AJ has done to Qantas, but I can’t blame him for asking for huge pay cuts when everyone seems so happy to give them as soon as he asks!
Acquiescing to such enormous workload increases without even hesitating is disingenuous at best. At worst it’s going to kill the Australian GA industry as well. Who would bother flying? $200kpa is achievable at various flying outfits from biz jets to LCC’s around the world - especially in $AUD after tax terms. You can always offer to do something for less, but that’s an extremely unusual position to take! Qantas has said their 1st, 2nd and 3rd position is to have current crews fly it. Surely the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position of crews is that at the VERY least they don’t give in immediately? Respect yourself - if you don’t, no one else will!
The vast majority of the money you give away will be paid in wages. It just won’t be paid to you. That’s absolute fact, because it’s always happened!! Do you think for ONE second that AJ (along with everyone else) won’t be giving themselves a massive bonus out of the money you’ve declined to take?
Sunfish (particularly in #1944) is 100% correct!
1) Because it saves double crewing, but the same goes for AJ’s $24m and the gigantic bonus pool. I don’t know what the figure is now, but did you know a few years ago Neil Perry was getting $1.5m kpa from Qf? More importantly why and how have pilots been convinced they AREN’T worth their pay? Especially at $USD 0.64
2) 23.5 hours TOD and it burns some 8,000kgs an hour less fuel.
3) Because flying big jets over 24 hours doesn’t relate to flying Avro 504’s Winton- Longreach.
4) They won’t be buying aircraft right now unless I’m very much mistaken - look at the QAN.AX share price! AJ has only ever borrowed money before to boost the share price to increase his income! Giving AJ another 30% just because he asked for it keeps painting this picture that pilots simply don’t value their own contribution. I despise what AJ has done to Qantas, but I can’t blame him for asking for huge pay cuts when everyone seems so happy to give them as soon as he asks!
Acquiescing to such enormous workload increases without even hesitating is disingenuous at best. At worst it’s going to kill the Australian GA industry as well. Who would bother flying? $200kpa is achievable at various flying outfits from biz jets to LCC’s around the world - especially in $AUD after tax terms. You can always offer to do something for less, but that’s an extremely unusual position to take! Qantas has said their 1st, 2nd and 3rd position is to have current crews fly it. Surely the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position of crews is that at the VERY least they don’t give in immediately? Respect yourself - if you don’t, no one else will!
The vast majority of the money you give away will be paid in wages. It just won’t be paid to you. That’s absolute fact, because it’s always happened!! Do you think for ONE second that AJ (along with everyone else) won’t be giving themselves a massive bonus out of the money you’ve declined to take?
Sunfish (particularly in #1944) is 100% correct!
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No person of sound mind could contemplate voting no in light of the arguments put forward by the President, VP and ones own common sense. When the emotional aspects are removed (boo hoo Tino and AJ spoke to me badly) it’s a pretty simple, obvious and sensible idea to vote yes.
“Because it saves double crewing”
The salary level of second officers does not save double crewing, the mere presence of them does, the salary is irrelevant.
“Acquiescing to such enormous workload increases without even hesitating is disingenuous at best.”
Interesting, has CASA removed flight time limitations down under? Surely the workload can only increase to the legal maximum, which is something you cant critisizing the company for expecting.
And are we not talking about going from 17 hour sectors in the 787 to 20 hour sectors in the 350, several times per month? Does that really constitute an “enormous” increase?
“At worst it’s going to kill the Australian GA industry as well.”
Do you think the investors in Qantas should really care about salary levels in their airline influencing GA?
Qantas pilots are on a fantastic wicket by world standards and the 350 offer continues the trend.
The salary level of second officers does not save double crewing, the mere presence of them does, the salary is irrelevant.
“Acquiescing to such enormous workload increases without even hesitating is disingenuous at best.”
Interesting, has CASA removed flight time limitations down under? Surely the workload can only increase to the legal maximum, which is something you cant critisizing the company for expecting.
And are we not talking about going from 17 hour sectors in the 787 to 20 hour sectors in the 350, several times per month? Does that really constitute an “enormous” increase?
“At worst it’s going to kill the Australian GA industry as well.”
Do you think the investors in Qantas should really care about salary levels in their airline influencing GA?
Qantas pilots are on a fantastic wicket by world standards and the 350 offer continues the trend.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morno, as an A380 SO, I'm still inclined to vote yes (although I'd listen if AIPA told us that the delay in ordering the A350 gave us an opportunity to push harder - but I'm not hearing anyone suggesting that's the case). I'll probably stay where I am for a while, as they pay is much better. But, clearly, the A380's days are numbered, and I want to be sure there is a job (including an FO and command, in time) in Qantas for me when this one is done. A fair few of the SOs I talk to feel the same, even if the new conditions aren't as good. Gotta take the long view on this one.
No person of sound mind could contemplate voting no in light of the arguments put forward by the President, VP and ones own common sense. When the emotional aspects are removed (boo hoo Tino and AJ spoke to me badly) it’s a pretty simple, obvious and sensible idea to vote yes.
Being forced to make a decision under current conditions speaks volumes about the company we work for.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that we have a new CEO who is dead set on his timelines. With or without Coronavirus the vote was occurring.
The deal hasn’t changed. In fact there has been some minor improvements.
Backpay and pay rises for the next 3 years is still going ahead while the board and CEO are taking pay freezes and pay cuts. Tell me another time at Qantas when that’s happened.
There has been discussions on Qrewroom with people in the YES camp asking for a step by step process if the NO vote gets up. The question is constantly ignored by very loud NO voters. There is no plan B. The 350s will be gone. There will be no PIA. There will be no legal action taken by AIPA. I would be embarrassed if AIPA tried legal action in the current world climate. The company would slaughter us in the media. You can guarantee they won’t be offering back pay or pay rises either.
AIPA president has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA COM hasn’t recommend either a YES or NO vote. They want you to look at the threat of the external entity and vote accordingly.
The AIPA president has confirmed the threat is real, and they can legally do it.
Use your vote wisely, look towards the future, and vote YES!
The deal hasn’t changed. In fact there has been some minor improvements.
Backpay and pay rises for the next 3 years is still going ahead while the board and CEO are taking pay freezes and pay cuts. Tell me another time at Qantas when that’s happened.
There has been discussions on Qrewroom with people in the YES camp asking for a step by step process if the NO vote gets up. The question is constantly ignored by very loud NO voters. There is no plan B. The 350s will be gone. There will be no PIA. There will be no legal action taken by AIPA. I would be embarrassed if AIPA tried legal action in the current world climate. The company would slaughter us in the media. You can guarantee they won’t be offering back pay or pay rises either.
AIPA president has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA COM hasn’t recommend either a YES or NO vote. They want you to look at the threat of the external entity and vote accordingly.
The AIPA president has confirmed the threat is real, and they can legally do it.
Use your vote wisely, look towards the future, and vote YES!
I’m an A380 SO and I’m voting yes. See below:
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
The reality is that we have a new CEO who is dead set on his timelines. With or without Coronavirus the vote was occurring.
The deal hasn’t changed. In fact there has been some minor improvements.
Backpay and pay rises for the next 3 years is still going ahead while the board and CEO are taking pay freezes and pay cuts. Tell me another time at Qantas when that’s happened.
There has been discussions on Qrewroom with people in the YES camp asking for a step by step process if the NO vote gets up. The question is constantly ignored by very loud NO voters. There is no plan B. The 350s will be gone. There will be no PIA. There will be no legal action taken by AIPA. I would be embarrassed if AIPA tried legal action in the current world climate. The company would slaughter us in the media. You can guarantee they won’t be offering back pay or pay rises either.
AIPA president has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA COM hasn’t recommend either a YES or NO vote. They want you to look at the threat of the external entity and vote accordingly.
The AIPA president has confirmed the threat is real, and they can legally do it.
Use your vote wisely, look towards the future, and vote YES!
The deal hasn’t changed. In fact there has been some minor improvements.
Backpay and pay rises for the next 3 years is still going ahead while the board and CEO are taking pay freezes and pay cuts. Tell me another time at Qantas when that’s happened.
There has been discussions on Qrewroom with people in the YES camp asking for a step by step process if the NO vote gets up. The question is constantly ignored by very loud NO voters. There is no plan B. The 350s will be gone. There will be no PIA. There will be no legal action taken by AIPA. I would be embarrassed if AIPA tried legal action in the current world climate. The company would slaughter us in the media. You can guarantee they won’t be offering back pay or pay rises either.
AIPA president has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA COM hasn’t recommend either a YES or NO vote. They want you to look at the threat of the external entity and vote accordingly.
The AIPA president has confirmed the threat is real, and they can legally do it.
Use your vote wisely, look towards the future, and vote YES!
To hold a gun to the head of an employee group and say accept this or the job goes to someone else is unconscionable.
Some sort of message/vote today at the SGM would be the very least that could be done.
Forget about inter AIPA politics.
Be united and send a vote of no confidence in the CEO, Chief Pilot et al.
It’s not much but at least it sends a message that workplace bulllying is not acceptable!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t disagree with you wingspar.
But the vote is still going ahead. Take emotion out of your vote.
As the AIPA president said, let’s secure the flying and look to fight another day. Wise words.
Vote YES!
But the vote is still going ahead. Take emotion out of your vote.
As the AIPA president said, let’s secure the flying and look to fight another day. Wise words.
Vote YES!
That’s the whole thing Normy!
I will be voting yes because there is no alternative as I see it.
The company have introduced fear and intimidation into this EA.
Many will be votIng yes because of this.
A no vote will ensure jobs go to others.
A vote of no confidence or the like will be a public statement that bullying in the workplace is unacceptable.
I will be voting yes because there is no alternative as I see it.
The company have introduced fear and intimidation into this EA.
Many will be votIng yes because of this.
A no vote will ensure jobs go to others.
A vote of no confidence or the like will be a public statement that bullying in the workplace is unacceptable.
Has anyone asked the AIPA Pres and VP if they can categorically and publicly deny they won’t be taking up a Management position in the next few years?
It’s been known to happen in the past....
It’s been known to happen in the past....
Every pilot voting has to make their decision not based on the career ambitions of others but their own careers as the facts are presented and in the current environment.
For one I’m glad to have union leaders who can look at the facts presented from an unemotional perspective and give their guidance on why they believe a Yes vote is the correct one.
Seen this a few times:
They would if it’s in their interest! The benefits to the company are enormous. The inducements will likely be significant. A relative pittance, but significant.
It’s a pretty simple question for someone to ask.
AIPA president has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
AIPA Vice President has recommend a YES vote.
It’s a pretty simple question for someone to ask.
To all the YES men: Normanton (a probable sufferer of RSI from typing by now); KZ Kiwi (a smug company man); morno (a disrespectful outsider who's probably not even a pilot); Orange Future (say no more) and the others.
Why don't you all just crack a bottle of red wine (or take a valium) and chill out for a while. In the present economic climate (like ... right now with Armageddon approaching) the "YES" vote will succeed comfortably. This result will not be reflective of love for the company or respect for its management, but purely as the result of fear from the threat of outsourcing by unprincipled industrial thugs who are paying themselves a fortune. It's hard to lose when you hold ALL the cards.
So unless you're being paid per post by the QF IR machine, why don't you all just give it a rest for a while and let the rest of us mourn in peace. Please????? .
Why don't you all just crack a bottle of red wine (or take a valium) and chill out for a while. In the present economic climate (like ... right now with Armageddon approaching) the "YES" vote will succeed comfortably. This result will not be reflective of love for the company or respect for its management, but purely as the result of fear from the threat of outsourcing by unprincipled industrial thugs who are paying themselves a fortune. It's hard to lose when you hold ALL the cards.
So unless you're being paid per post by the QF IR machine, why don't you all just give it a rest for a while and let the rest of us mourn in peace. Please????? .
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the YES men: Normanton (a probable sufferer of RSI from typing by now); KZ Kiwi (a smug company man); morno (a disrespectful outsider who's probably not even a pilot); Orange Future (say no more) and the others.
Why don't you all just crack a bottle of red wine (or take a valium) and chill out for a while. In the present economic climate (like ... right now with Armageddon approaching) the "YES" vote will succeed comfortably. This result will not be reflective of love for the company or respect for its management, but purely as the result of fear from the threat of outsourcing by unprincipled industrial thugs who are paying themselves a fortune. It's hard to lose when you hold ALL the cards.
So unless you're being paid per post by the QF IR machine, why don't you all just give it a rest for a while and let the rest of us mourn in peace. Please????? .
Why don't you all just crack a bottle of red wine (or take a valium) and chill out for a while. In the present economic climate (like ... right now with Armageddon approaching) the "YES" vote will succeed comfortably. This result will not be reflective of love for the company or respect for its management, but purely as the result of fear from the threat of outsourcing by unprincipled industrial thugs who are paying themselves a fortune. It's hard to lose when you hold ALL the cards.
So unless you're being paid per post by the QF IR machine, why don't you all just give it a rest for a while and let the rest of us mourn in peace. Please????? .
Will a YES vote end the pain and suffering?
Do you think a YES vote will solve all the problems, stop the anguish, stop the management bullying, intimidation and threats?
No, actually the reverse and it will not stop the pain. A YES vote will reward the management for their bully boy tactics and encourage them to come back again and again with the same methods in future and with all following EAs. You have been warned.
They will continue with these tactics forever more. That is exactly the Cathay Pacific management bully-boy tactics started in 1994 and they are still getting away with it to this day (in case of doubt, call your mates there to confirm).
Until you face up to management and say NO, they will treat you with contempt that you deserve for not protecting your conditions of service.
A NO vote now will go a long way to curtailing management threats to your Union in the future and provide some element of management respect.
Good luck.
No, actually the reverse and it will not stop the pain. A YES vote will reward the management for their bully boy tactics and encourage them to come back again and again with the same methods in future and with all following EAs. You have been warned.
They will continue with these tactics forever more. That is exactly the Cathay Pacific management bully-boy tactics started in 1994 and they are still getting away with it to this day (in case of doubt, call your mates there to confirm).
Until you face up to management and say NO, they will treat you with contempt that you deserve for not protecting your conditions of service.
A NO vote now will go a long way to curtailing management threats to your Union in the future and provide some element of management respect.
Good luck.