QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
The Federal Court adjudicated this in the Engineers stand down case. The reasons given for stand downs were:
(i) the collapse in passenger travel;
(ii) measures implemented domestically and internationally to restrict movement;
(iii) the increasing concern that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic would be sustained; and
(iv) uncertainty as to how long the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic would last
As reasons beyond company control. One could say that until those conditions have ceased then stand downs can occur. Until passenger travel numbers justify the use of larger aircraft. Until the pandemic ceases. Even if borders are open I think there’ll still be government mandated restrictions here and abroad on entry, quarantines, vaccinations and testing that will justify the “measures implemented to restrict movement” condition.
(i) the collapse in passenger travel;
(ii) measures implemented domestically and internationally to restrict movement;
(iii) the increasing concern that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic would be sustained; and
(iv) uncertainty as to how long the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic would last
As reasons beyond company control. One could say that until those conditions have ceased then stand downs can occur. Until passenger travel numbers justify the use of larger aircraft. Until the pandemic ceases. Even if borders are open I think there’ll still be government mandated restrictions here and abroad on entry, quarantines, vaccinations and testing that will justify the “measures implemented to restrict movement” condition.
Once a 787 operates an old A380 route then stand down cannot be justified because the conditions, set by the Federal Court, have been met.
Nunc est bibendum
Until that occurs we’ll likely see some (potentially very) limited 787/ A330 ops on previous A380/ 747 routes prior to the pandemic being declared over. If this occurs I suspect that any argument put to a court that because the 787 or A330 is operating (say) 2-3 times per week on a route that was previously a daily A380/ 747 route, that it’s now a ‘commercial decision’, and as a result stand downs on the A380 must cease, will end up with the same result as the ALAEA received. It’s too easy to point out what we were doing before, compare it to what we are doing now, and point to the ‘pandemic beyond the control of Qantas’ as the reason. Even a daily 787/330 service once the pandemic is declared over may struggle to avoid being caught up in the ‘as a result of Covid’ reasoning.
As I’ve said before, perhaps a judge will decide. Maybe we’d be smarter to negotiate an outcome in the best interests of all pilots rather than roll the dice with the legal system. Our record in the legal arena is not fantastic.
Oh great; some lawyers are going to get richer arguing over the definition of “collapse”. 
It does raise some interesting questions. During future economic downturns, can an airline stand down an entire fleet due to “events beyond the company’s control”?
It does raise some interesting questions. During future economic downturns, can an airline stand down an entire fleet due to “events beyond the company’s control”?
Last edited by ruprecht; 29th Oct 2020 at 10:41.
Precisely.
Could Qantas have stood us down during the GFC because the collapse in bookings was outside of their control? Can they use that excuse every time there is a recession?
At some point the effect of the recession needs to be separated from the effect of the pandemic, even if one lead to the other.
I don’t believe you can stand down employees simply due to a lack of demand. However it will almost certainly be decided in court one day.
Could Qantas have stood us down during the GFC because the collapse in bookings was outside of their control? Can they use that excuse every time there is a recession?
At some point the effect of the recession needs to be separated from the effect of the pandemic, even if one lead to the other.
I don’t believe you can stand down employees simply due to a lack of demand. However it will almost certainly be decided in court one day.
This is the whole point!
The Federal Court has defined the issue.
Satisfy those points, at some stage, and I would suggest you have demonstrated stand down is no longer justified.
I agree Doc, that was definitive but caveat, Keg pointed out I agree a pandemic needs to be over. See points 3&4.
The Federal Court has defined the issue.
Satisfy those points, at some stage, and I would suggest you have demonstrated stand down is no longer justified.
I agree Doc, that was definitive but caveat, Keg pointed out I agree a pandemic needs to be over. See points 3&4.
Last edited by Wingspar; 29th Oct 2020 at 10:08.
Precisely.
Could Qantas have stood us down during the GFC because the collapse in bookings was outside of their control? Can they use that excuse every time there is a recession?
At some point the effect of the recession needs to be separated from the effect of the pandemic, even if one lead to the other.
I don’t believe you can stand down employees simply due to a lack of demand. However it will almost certainly be decided in court one day.
Could Qantas have stood us down during the GFC because the collapse in bookings was outside of their control? Can they use that excuse every time there is a recession?
At some point the effect of the recession needs to be separated from the effect of the pandemic, even if one lead to the other.
I don’t believe you can stand down employees simply due to a lack of demand. However it will almost certainly be decided in court one day.
When it suits,the customers are wrong,their employees are wrong,the unions are wrong,the govt is wrong & on it goes.
They are right fighters,doesnt matter how much it costs to prove it,they have to be right.
So glad im no longer in the industry.
This is the whole point!
The Federal Court has defined the issue.
Satisfy those points, at some stage, and I would suggest you have demonstrated stand down is no longer justified.
I agree Doc, that was definitive but caveat, Keg pointed out I agree a pandemic needs to be over. See points 3&4.
The Federal Court has defined the issue.
Satisfy those points, at some stage, and I would suggest you have demonstrated stand down is no longer justified.
I agree Doc, that was definitive but caveat, Keg pointed out I agree a pandemic needs to be over. See points 3&4.
You could also point to domestic borders, they’ll be open within a few months but an ending of stand downs is not being considered in short haul until all short haul crew are expected to working full time.
Similar are regional crew who only fly within a state but have also been stood down at times.
I basically wouldn’t be counting on any legal case to overturn stand down provisions. If they were then I suppose a mass RIN and potentially CR would occur, which would be at considerable cost for the company, especially with additional retraining required for pilots who’ve not been current for a considerable time. FWA has indicated they’ll be doing all they can to give businesses flexibility to thrive during this period of economic decline. I don’t think they’ll be too concerned about matters of seniority.
So that’s my Bush lawyering opinion, could be totally wrong, who knows. I would still predict the time for any legal challenge would be post international border re-opening, but even then it wouldn’t be flung wide open as it was in 2019, there’ll still be varying levels of restrictions, health checks, quarantines etc for years ahead.
I totally agree Doc but I can’t see the guys ‘n’ gals sitting back for three years sucking this. They are letting this run ATM because it’s painfully obvious why there are being stood down.
Fast forward January 2022 and allow me some flexibility here. 330 back to some Asian ports. 787 doing some LHR and LA runs. Would the 380 crew still suck on the QF sherbet? What if we get to three years and QF bin the 380 return? How would 380 crew feel having passed on VR and sat out three years of stand down then be told we are not bringing them back?
I don’t know? I can’t see them sitting back and doing nothing either. I wouldn’t blame them.
As Keg pointed out, a negotiation of sorts would be the most logical outcome.
Fast forward January 2022 and allow me some flexibility here. 330 back to some Asian ports. 787 doing some LHR and LA runs. Would the 380 crew still suck on the QF sherbet? What if we get to three years and QF bin the 380 return? How would 380 crew feel having passed on VR and sat out three years of stand down then be told we are not bringing them back?
I don’t know? I can’t see them sitting back and doing nothing either. I wouldn’t blame them.
As Keg pointed out, a negotiation of sorts would be the most logical outcome.
How would they feel? Not sure, it could be a range of emotions but most likely regret I would think. I wonder if there’s a lot of crew, especially senior SOs, who regret not taking up an upgrade, especially to the 737, about now? Most probably. We all make our career choices based on what we believe is best at the time of the decision, Maybe some if they had their time over wished they sought a stable career like medicine, but you don’t get to go back in life and have do overs. Resilience is key here. The pre Covid career will not be returning.
As far as negotiations go possibly 380 pilots could be dual endorsed to the 330? Although that would flood the 330 fleet with un-needed pilots, so their eventual return to full time work would be delayed, or their divisors would have to be lowered even further. It would give the advantage of bringing the 380 pilots into a fleet that has been somewhat current and has a current C&T system, but would existing 330 pilots be happy?
747 crews could be endorsed to the 787, but it’ll be a longer time for the 787 to come back flying substantially. Again will existing 787 crews be happy with this?
Plan on the A380 not returning, offer VR on generous terms to those that want it. Most of the pilots would be reasonably senior and qualify for a decent package.
Try and absorb the remainder back onto other fleets or ground jobs. Those in flying positions would remain current and could be bought back onto the A380 relatively easily IF it ever comes back.
Realistically, it will be 3 - 4 years before it would be a reasonable proposition to return the aircraft to service at all, let alone expect a decent amount of profit.
The ME 3 have a huge worldwide network and can slot an A380 onto a route as soon as the traffic justifies it, QF have a handful of A380 routes most of which are still badly affected by COVID with no end in sight. Even with possible travel bubbles to SIN and HKG, you’d struggle to fill a B787/A330 at the start.
Try and absorb the remainder back onto other fleets or ground jobs. Those in flying positions would remain current and could be bought back onto the A380 relatively easily IF it ever comes back.
Realistically, it will be 3 - 4 years before it would be a reasonable proposition to return the aircraft to service at all, let alone expect a decent amount of profit.
The ME 3 have a huge worldwide network and can slot an A380 onto a route as soon as the traffic justifies it, QF have a handful of A380 routes most of which are still badly affected by COVID with no end in sight. Even with possible travel bubbles to SIN and HKG, you’d struggle to fill a B787/A330 at the start.
offer VR on generous terms to those that want it. Most of the pilots would be reasonably senior and qualify for a decent package.
Seniority had little to do with the package as those who were most likely to accept the package were all offered the same thing; 9 months pay and 3 months severance. The Longhaul agreement does not have a specific years-of-service related VR package, unlike other agreements within the company, simply that AIPA and Qantas will negotiate a position.
Last edited by C441; 29th Oct 2020 at 23:48.
The A380 is a fat, fuel-guzzling lump of plastic that would only make money when it was close to full so it’s no surprise that it won’t fly for a while.
However it owes Qantas little financially unlike the 787s. Why else would they have kept the 744s for so long? At the end of the day it will or won't be returned to service on a total cost basis, not just how much fuel it burns or how costly it is to maintain. If it's overall cost is a dollar greater than any other fleet on any given sector, it will continue to gather dust in VCV.
A months pay for every year of service is fairly standard when making people redundant and would be much more attractive to senior pilots with 25 years in the company.
If I’m correct, the A380 flew to only six destinations from Australia:
1. Dubai
2. Dallas
For transferring onto flights operated by other airlines. EKs long haul transfer business has been devastated and the US can’t get COVID under control.
3. Singapore
4. Hong Kong
A mix of transfers, stopovers and origin/destination. Almost COVID free with travel bubbles commencing soon between countries with similar COVID rates.
5. London
6. Los Angeles
Primarily O&D, COVID situation worsening with parts of the UK going back into lockdown.
When travel bubbles start opening up, only two of the A380s destinations are likely to be on the list. SQ and CX are lucky to make three digit pax numbers on most of the flights they currently operate to Australia, and neither place is likely to be able to support an A380 without connecting traffic.
The A380 will only be considered once the rest of the fleet is being fully utilised and more aircraft are needed. Once this stage is reached the capacity offered by the type still won’t be needed but if it would be a cheaper option then the alternatives, it could return.
If I’m correct, the A380 flew to only six destinations from Australia:
1. Dubai
2. Dallas
For transferring onto flights operated by other airlines. EKs long haul transfer business has been devastated and the US can’t get COVID under control.
3. Singapore
4. Hong Kong
A mix of transfers, stopovers and origin/destination. Almost COVID free with travel bubbles commencing soon between countries with similar COVID rates.
5. London
6. Los Angeles
Primarily O&D, COVID situation worsening with parts of the UK going back into lockdown.
When travel bubbles start opening up, only two of the A380s destinations are likely to be on the list. SQ and CX are lucky to make three digit pax numbers on most of the flights they currently operate to Australia, and neither place is likely to be able to support an A380 without connecting traffic.
The A380 will only be considered once the rest of the fleet is being fully utilised and more aircraft are needed. Once this stage is reached the capacity offered by the type still won’t be needed but if it would be a cheaper option then the alternatives, it could return.
Prior to COVID, the plan was to replace the A380 on the Dallas route, in 2021, with a QF B787-9 SYD-DFW-SYD and an AA B787-9 DFW-BNE-DFW which would have resulted in more seats able to be occupied out of DFW and lower costs despite there being two aircraft and crews invovled. If, against all predictions, some of the QF A380's are brought back into service some time in the future, it would be very unlikely that they would be going back to DFW.
AA would have preferred that QF operate both flights but the US Government required AA to do their share of flying that occurs under the JSA so they elected to operate the service to BNE.
AA would have preferred that QF operate both flights but the US Government required AA to do their share of flying that occurs under the JSA so they elected to operate the service to BNE.
The A380 might be able to do SIN - LHR - SIN with other aircraft routing between the capital cities and Singapore. Possibly extend through to SYD if traffic justifies it. Basing a couple of aircraft there is quite feasible as it's a regular port already with the required maintenance available. SYD - LAX - SYD might be a goer if it takes all the Australia to North America traffic with pax connecting via these cities only
HKG won't be able to fill an A380, Dallas is purely a transfer hub which can be replaced by LAX, and DXB is only to connect with EK flights. Rather codeshare with EK and let them bear the losses.
This would be a realistic scenario for the A380 returning, however it's dependent on Australia opening its borders which may not happen until well into next year, and UK/USA would need to have COVID well under control, however the situation is getting worse rather than better in these countries. Initially the routes could be operated by B787s which could be replaced by the A380 when the volume of traffic is enough to make the larger type profitable.
HKG won't be able to fill an A380, Dallas is purely a transfer hub which can be replaced by LAX, and DXB is only to connect with EK flights. Rather codeshare with EK and let them bear the losses.
This would be a realistic scenario for the A380 returning, however it's dependent on Australia opening its borders which may not happen until well into next year, and UK/USA would need to have COVID well under control, however the situation is getting worse rather than better in these countries. Initially the routes could be operated by B787s which could be replaced by the A380 when the volume of traffic is enough to make the larger type profitable.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realistically, I can't see the A380 ever returning except for a small number in one or two airlines on a handful of routes. It's the modern equivalent of the Concorde. Airlines are pruning their fleets of older, inefficient and 4 engined types, even early A320s are being scrapped. Once air travel starts to return, B787s and A350s will be first out of the gate, CX have pushed the B777 - 9 back to beyond 2025 and even their current B777 fleet isn't looking good.
It would be very hard to make a case for bringing the aircraft back into service and operating it in comparison to newer twins, QF might not have the critical mass required to make it worthwhile if it could only be justified on a couple of runs. Even the few airlines which continue to operate it may have to look at reducing the size of the premium cabins.
It would be very hard to make a case for bringing the aircraft back into service and operating it in comparison to newer twins, QF might not have the critical mass required to make it worthwhile if it could only be justified on a couple of runs. Even the few airlines which continue to operate it may have to look at reducing the size of the premium cabins.
Joyce is just saying he is unsure so that he can argue A380 crew will remain stood down unpaid till at least 2023-2025.
Do feel sorry for those crew that will lose homes, marriages etc and won’t survive financially or mentally till then. Hopefully some can find other work. Many will not.
You would be better off financially being made redundant. If there was anything left you could return one day when re hiring commences rather than suffer the mental and financial anguish of 4-5 years of limbo on unpaid stand down. A 5 year unpaid standby where you can’t move on with certainty.
Raises the question of how long is it reasonable when at some point in time there is clearly no useful work for an employee?
Whatever is cheaper for Alan and QF. Got to pay for the all the executive share options. How long are the executive stood down for?
The A380s are gone.
Joyce is just saying he is unsure so that he can argue A380 crew will remain stood down unpaid till at least 2023-2025.
Do feel sorry for those crew that will lose homes, marriages etc and won’t survive financially or mentally till then. Hopefully some can find other work. Many will not.
You would be better off financially being made redundant. If there was anything left you could return one day when re hiring commences rather than suffer the mental and financial anguish of 4-5 years of limbo on unpaid stand down. A 5 year unpaid standby where you can’t move on with certainty.
Raises the question of how long is it reasonable when at some point in time there is clearly no useful work for an employee?
Whatever is cheaper for Alan and QF. Got to pay for the all the executive share options. How long are the executive stood down for?
Joyce is just saying he is unsure so that he can argue A380 crew will remain stood down unpaid till at least 2023-2025.
Do feel sorry for those crew that will lose homes, marriages etc and won’t survive financially or mentally till then. Hopefully some can find other work. Many will not.
You would be better off financially being made redundant. If there was anything left you could return one day when re hiring commences rather than suffer the mental and financial anguish of 4-5 years of limbo on unpaid stand down. A 5 year unpaid standby where you can’t move on with certainty.
Raises the question of how long is it reasonable when at some point in time there is clearly no useful work for an employee?
Whatever is cheaper for Alan and QF. Got to pay for the all the executive share options. How long are the executive stood down for?