QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
With the current PC climate that we find ourselves in, you're highly optimistic if you don't think there will be a 50/50 gender "equality" quota installed when all this turns around..
Let's hope no one needs to be made redundant on the list. Re your earlier post, suggesting taking LWOP (or some variation of) to be recalled in seniority would be a disadvantage to males only is drawing a longbow. However, I do agree 50/50 gender targets will be back on HR's menu once the hiring wave begins down the track, as it was pre CV19.
Love all this pie in the sky BS you guys are going on about.
Redundancy and re-employment are all VERY well covered in the EBA. As is LWOP, stand down, and all the good things that go with it.
As fun as it is to poke fun at QF - the pilots EBA spells out what can and can not happen.
Deep breath and relax folks - the sky isn’t falling.
Redundancy and re-employment are all VERY well covered in the EBA. As is LWOP, stand down, and all the good things that go with it.
As fun as it is to poke fun at QF - the pilots EBA spells out what can and can not happen.
Deep breath and relax folks - the sky isn’t falling.
In other words, what stops a company coming out and saying "in line with gender equality criteria, we will be employing at 50/50"?
Nunc est bibendum
The EA has pretty comprehensive guidance around re-employment. If a pilot has complied with the EA requirements it’d take a pretty significant argument by the company to suggest that re-employment should be by different means.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be too worried about any gender targets re: hiring because the QF group won't be hiring for a long long time
Remember mainline didn't hire for 8 years post GFC , & this is a tad worse , international business now at zero and will stay there for
the foreseeable future
Wouldn't the only hiring be reshuffling those already within the group ?
Agree with Keg that CR is clear how re-employment occurs . On that point why would any ML person take a VR ? , the payout will be lesser than CR and there
is no right of return, and no other flying jobs out there
The return to work following a stand down is clear as mud , no details , nothing prescriptive at all , ie" by seniority , by type , by base , by % of normal workload
No details there
You should just unite as a group and make QF make you CR if that is what it comes to , payouts maximised & a guaranteed right of return first
The only other element you might be able to add is preference for employment with other group airlines , in Australia & OS while you wait , or other employment
in the group
Remember mainline didn't hire for 8 years post GFC , & this is a tad worse , international business now at zero and will stay there for
the foreseeable future
Wouldn't the only hiring be reshuffling those already within the group ?
Agree with Keg that CR is clear how re-employment occurs . On that point why would any ML person take a VR ? , the payout will be lesser than CR and there
is no right of return, and no other flying jobs out there
The return to work following a stand down is clear as mud , no details , nothing prescriptive at all , ie" by seniority , by type , by base , by % of normal workload
No details there
You should just unite as a group and make QF make you CR if that is what it comes to , payouts maximised & a guaranteed right of return first
The only other element you might be able to add is preference for employment with other group airlines , in Australia & OS while you wait , or other employment
in the group
Nunc est bibendum
I think it’s also worth looking at this from the company’s perspective- isn’t that a Sun Tzu thing to consider your predicament from the opposition’s view point?
Do you think they’d prefer to pay 6 months to someone at the start of their career and run the risk of not getting them back or find the ‘sweet spot’ amount of money (perhaps a similar amount of money or perhaps less depending on who they’re offering) to get people to leave at the end of their careers and still retain the investment on those newer crew.
If the A380 is a chance to remain stood down beyond March next year and/ or reduced capacity when it comes back, would an A380 Captain consider taking a package worth (say) $150K in March next year or potentially work 50% (or less) divisors for the next 12 months until they get to retirement?
I’m also pretty confident that the company can put an individual offer to specific crew so I’m sure there would be a bit of a ‘sliding scale’ as to how much a particular pilot may be offered depending on their time to retirement.
Anyway, it’s going to be a rough couple of years. Very few winners anywhere.
Last edited by Keg; 15th Jun 2020 at 10:11.
What I admittedly don't understand is how someone can be assured that they are covered by an agreement if they are not employed by the company.
In other words, what stops a company coming out and saying "in line with gender equality criteria, we will be employing at 50/50"?
In other words, what stops a company coming out and saying "in line with gender equality criteria, we will be employing at 50/50"?
But it is amusing watching pilots soil their strides at the thought of losing almost exclusivity in the workplace.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why would you accept a VR ?
The money will be less than CR and you forfeit guaranteed right of return
Think Keg is incorrect in thinking that a sliding scale can be offered which targets those who are older
Don't VRs just apply for years of service , not years remaining , why for example would a 55 year old leave - they will not get another job
Just stick together and maximize the payout to any who get CR , make AJ pay the full amount as prescribed by EA
"If" there is a CR it would have to be done in seniority , so a % of those at the bottom go & are all reemployed within 5 years - all works out
The Kiwis acted promptly and set the example - just follow it and try to get provisions in any deal for those made redundant to have preference for employment at other QF group airlines (obviously after their own for example
Qlink come back)
The only variable is if you have to CR across each division of mainline - are SH FOs who have been around for short time protected by the fact they went to SH
The money will be less than CR and you forfeit guaranteed right of return
Think Keg is incorrect in thinking that a sliding scale can be offered which targets those who are older
Don't VRs just apply for years of service , not years remaining , why for example would a 55 year old leave - they will not get another job
Just stick together and maximize the payout to any who get CR , make AJ pay the full amount as prescribed by EA
"If" there is a CR it would have to be done in seniority , so a % of those at the bottom go & are all reemployed within 5 years - all works out
The Kiwis acted promptly and set the example - just follow it and try to get provisions in any deal for those made redundant to have preference for employment at other QF group airlines (obviously after their own for example
Qlink come back)
The only variable is if you have to CR across each division of mainline - are SH FOs who have been around for short time protected by the fact they went to SH
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a low life comment.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts