Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Old 12th Jul 2020, 09:05
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
Thanks for your response Troo, but this doesnít speak to my initial query regarding Fujirollís post #678.
Once again, Iím possibly not asking the right question.

In his post of #678 he said,

60 to 61 - 65
61 to 62 - 59
62 to 63 - 50

Gives you approximately - 170 who would be considering the package very closely. Now I don't have the data on LHvSH age split, but for arguments sake lets assume 20% are SH pilots who are ineligible - Left with around 140 give or take.
Rather than me asking the wrong question (again); could you or Give it the herbs or Fuji himself explain what this sentence (in bold) means.
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 09:09
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.

If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can.
Once Again I Point out the Last on First Off policy wrt redundancy in the IA. Their is no other Industrial instrument we have signed up to to circumvent that. The protection is not there for poops and giggles
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 10:06
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: SE QLD
Posts: 186
If the company end up making anyone CR, it will be via the master seniority list as the IA has precedence.

Sure, those in SH wish it werenít so, and those in LH do, but IR law doesnít really bother with opinions - just the agreements as signed by the interested parties. Whether youíre LH or SH - we have one seniority list.

I donít believe anyone will be made CR.
ScepticalOptomist is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 10:51
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy View Post
Thanks for your response Troo, but this doesnít speak to my initial query regarding Fujirollís post #678.
Once again, Iím possibly not asking the right question.

In his post of #678 he said,

"60 to 61 - 65
61 to 62 - 59
62 to 63 - 50

Gives you approximately - 170 who would be considering the package very closely. Now I don't have the data on LHvSH age split, but for arguments sake lets assume 20% are SH pilots who are ineligible - Left with around 140 give or take."

Rather than me asking the wrong question (again); could you or Give it the herbs or Fuji himself explain what this sentence (in bold) means.
He is saying the number of pilots in those age brackets listed is inclusive of both SH and LH pilots. So, to find a way to roughly rule out how many of those 170 pilots are in SH (who as you know are not eligible for VR), he is assuming it's approx. 20% of them. Given the way our seniority lists are written, it would be an absolute nightmare to work out the exact numbers without knowing each of those pilots by name and what fleet they are on.
Give it the herbs is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 10:52
  #705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.

If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can.

The A380 is effectively redundant. It ainít coming back. Itís finished so those stood down pilots are basically unemployed until the company comes clean and decides on the future of the A380, but that decision wonít come soon. So A380 crew are screwed for now. The IA will first model all Q and all A pilots going back to their original hauls. Then it will determine where the surplus is. We already know itís in LH. Then it should start chopping from the bottom of the Q list, below the Y of course. Aí Pilots will be the last ones sacked in the case of a LH surplus. Hopefully those over 60 will just leave. I know they are whinging to AIPA because they cannot arrange their final flights! Man, if thatís their biggest problem, they have lost the plot.
Ruvap is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 11:45
  #706 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,339
Originally Posted by LTBC View Post
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.

This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
As others have pointed out, you could get rid of 100 SH pilots and it won’t create a vacancy in the current flying program.

Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist View Post
I don’t believe anyone will be made CR.
Agreed.

Last edited by Keg; 12th Jul 2020 at 11:55.
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 13:36
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
He is saying the number of pilots in those age brackets listed is inclusive of both SH and LH pilots.
The above doesn’t make sense; there are no short haul pilots in long haul.

Except for that cohort of pilots who fall into the “early retirement” category, every other pilot in long haul is eligible for VR. Says so in the HoBO’s email last Friday.
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 13:43
  #708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 296
Emmit, there is a graph showing the number of pilots in QF who turn 65, year by year. Its all of us, not SH or LH, but everyone employed in QF mainline. Doesn't matter if you're in SH or LH you can still turn 65. That is the chart he is referring to. So he is taking 20% out of the numbers to try and reflect an accurate number that may be in SH who will turn 65, as SH pilots are not eligible to take thus round of VR.

Last edited by SandyPalms; 12th Jul 2020 at 13:58.
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 14:00
  #709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
This isn’t about that group who will turn 65 on or before 01/07/2022. I’m happy to disregard the quoted 20%, Fujiroll’s premise that there’s short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul.
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 14:12
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy View Post
This isnít about that group who will turn 65 on or before 01/07/2022. Iím happy to disregard the quoted 20%, Fujirollís premise that thereís short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul.
I thought you were responding to Troo?
Nobody is suggesting SH pilots are in LH. I think you've missed the point. Are you in QF and a member of AIPA? Have you seen the chart?
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 15:08
  #711 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,339
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy View Post
Fujirollís premise that thereís short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul.
No. His premise was that 20% of the numbers he was quoting may be in SH and are therefore ineligible for VR.
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 22:51
  #712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 44
Posts: 104
That was exactly the road I was going down.

Emmit - Please donít get the two confused. Iím not saying there are SH pilots in LH at all. The age graph includes both and therefore to get somewhat accurate figures I used an assumption that there would be approx 20% SH in the above 60 category.

Again itís not perfect as you canít know exactly BUT 20 seems reasonable and gives us all a ballpark to work towards.


Fujiroll76 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 23:57
  #713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 82
Looking ahead, let's say there is a solid uptake of ER and VR. Also likely is that every LH SO hired since late 2016 "volunteers" for LWOP out of fear of CR, not wanting the "pass-over" plague to rise to their number.
Company is going to be pretty happy with the result.
Koizi is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 00:09
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Koizi View Post
Looking ahead, let's say there is a solid uptake of ER and VR. Also likely is that every LH SO hired since late 2016 "volunteers" for LWOP out of fear of CR, not wanting the "pass-over" plague to rise to their number.
Company is going to be pretty happy with the result.
Then QF will be short if they want to reactivate the 380ís.
Then the cascade affect with training people up.
Sound silly?
Last VR they were recruiting well within two years!
Wingspar is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 00:21
  #715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 82
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
Koizi is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 00:26
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Koizi View Post
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
How many LWOPs equal 1 CR?

Thats the question, I think. The company is trying to save money. If enough take LWOP then I feel CR will not be necessary.
ruprecht is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 00:40
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by ruprecht View Post
How many LWOPs equal 1 CR?

Thats the question, I think. The company is trying to save money. If enough take LWOP then I feel CR will not be necessary.
Why run CR? If they don't get enough numbers for VR and LWOP, just run another EOI for LWOP. The company approves LWOP, so they can just ask for another round of LWOP with a new deadline, if they really wanted to avoid CR and having the redundancy by haul or straight seniority case tested.
thec172man is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 01:34
  #718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Oztralia
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Koizi View Post
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
Iím sure they would take up every LWOP application they are given. Itís only a 4 week activation to get them back, isnít it? Plus they could heavy crew long sectors if they got caught with their pants down
SixDemonBag is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 02:39
  #719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 73
Surely if enough pilots were to take LWOP there’d be no need for VR or CR as effectively the LWOP pilots aren’t a cash drain to the business anymore? Or am I missing something?
Variable Incidence is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2020, 02:52
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Iím sure they would take up every LWOP application they are given. Itís only a 4 week activation to get them back, isnít it? Plus they could heavy crew long sectors if they got caught with their pants down
Itís only on special lwop that they can recall you with 4 weeks notice. I donít know who will actually take that up considering youíre still on the chopping block whereas youíre not on normal lwop.
Fonz121 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.