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 Aug 2020, 11:59
  #1321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by Fujiroll76 View Post
Undersubscribed..really?? spare me your negative sh*t
We/I don't mean to be negative we are not employees, who was the target audience, how many were in the target audience. Then I'll decide whether I agree with you or not.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:07
  #1322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 44
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
We/I don't mean to be negative we are not employees, who was the target audience, how many were in the target audience. Then I'll decide whether I agree with you or not.
who was the target audience?....196 pilots
how many were in the target audience?.....196 pilots

END
Fujiroll76 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:10
  #1323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
On that basis, a very good result, but still under subscribed
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:22
  #1324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 114
They have said they will exercise bypass on CR to those who take lwop

Hundreds of witnesses on various webinars etc

Are you seriously suggesting QF would attempt to renege on this ? , that would sort of be a bit silly & it wouldn't be so successful

There is a reason QF always win in legal hearings re: employee matters (or AIPA who they always roll) , they play by the book

So you actually believe they will renege on those who take lwop ?

Or perhaps you are just trying to scare people
Telfer86 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:30
  #1325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 44
Posts: 133
The question still stands...are any CR’s now necessary??

QF won’t run a CR program for 8 pilots - TLS is on the record stating this.

Have all avenues been explored as per the EA to avoid CR? No....SH hello 👋 any volunteers? Hundreds.
Fujiroll76 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:34
  #1326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by Telfer86 View Post
So you actually believe they will renege on those who take lwop ?
What is there to renege, if your on LWOP, you can be asked if you can return early or, at the cessation of your LWOP returned to service or, asked if you are willing to extend your LWOP or, made redundant.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:51
  #1327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 38
Posts: 483
ConfigFull is just spreading fearmongering lies to try and convince people not to take LWOP. He wants a nice big fat cushin of pilots below him to take the hit. Lambs to the slaughter.

The reality is that the LWOP contract specifically indicates you will be bypassed in the event of a CR program.
normanton is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 12:55
  #1328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,425
normanton (Mr. Immunity),

Probably worth considering that every Capt and FO on the 787 is qualified to do your job with no extra training (above whatever recency would be needed). Can you do theirs? Every Capt and FO would also have a CR pay out $X00,000 larger than yours.

So, which one would they choose to CR? Honest question, and just wondering if you've played that scenario out when you decided to help the company out.

And yes, I know quite a few SOs who have neglected to fall for the LWOP trick.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 13:01
  #1329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 114
Well if you wish to think that your job is safe because you have 8% of your cohorts leaving & you are safe from CR
now , well the best of luck to you
Truly delusional stuff
Sure there isn't a lot of case law on stand downs but they aren't meant to be for years & AJ won't allow guys to
sit around for years accruing entitlements for doing nothing , it isn't going to happen
The game has changed unfortunately from a few months ago with domestic now looking at coming back in the time
frames that would have seemed reasonable for international back then. & international well that is just an abyss
So a new plan will be drawn up with new numbers
Telfer86 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 13:04
  #1330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,306
Given we now know that almost all the surplus will be taken care of via VR, is it possible we could reduce the amount of CR related talk? It’s caused quite a few people a considerable amount of undue stress, and any further discussion whilst it’s not in the cards is unnecessary.
dr dre is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 13:07
  #1331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Ok normo, I'll say it for the third or fourth time: take LWOP if you want.

But if I'm looking for a cushion, then what are you looking for trying to convince people LWOP is a good decision? Self-absolution?

LWOP is an individual decision, you don't have to try and convince people to vote with you. Are you going to be going on like this about any EA variations where you do actually need a majority vote? Preaching from the outside looking in, even though you willingly signed a bit of paper putting you in that position?

Strongly agree with dr dre, what a reminder that most of our problems are just in our head (or planted there by skittish amateurs).
ConfigFull is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 13:08
  #1332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
The reality is that the LWOP contract specifically indicates you will be bypassed in the event of a CR program.
What difference does it make norm. Surely you would be better off being made redundant. i don't see the benefit of being on LWOP over redundancy
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 13:45
  #1333 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,466
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
Really, where did he pull this one from?:

Where did that come from? And interesting use of “your” there.

188/196. 96% achieved. On the 2nd of August you posted there “hasn’t been much interest in the VR package”. You call 96% “not much interest”?
Add on the early retirements (up to 60) and you’ve more than taken care of the 196 surplus. The surplus wasn’t 196 VR and then add on the ER as well. It was 196.

So actually the VR was over subscribed.
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 14:06
  #1334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by Keg View Post
So actually the VR was over subscribed.
Does it matter, it's still a very small number
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 18:54
  #1335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 114
LH flying - you don't actually have a business atm & won't even get to start to rebuild it for a couple of years

But quite sure there is no surplus & CR - well that just doesn't happen to QF pilots

Interesting thinking
Telfer86 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 20:41
  #1336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
ConfigFull is just spreading fearmongering lies to try and convince people not to take LWOP.
You are doing the exact same thing while trying to convince people to do the opposite.

I can see why Qantas would want to trick the pilots into forgoing tens of thousands of dollars in leave entitlements but I struggle to see why a pilot colleague would be the loudest cheerleader of such action.

Telfer’s repeated doom and gloom rants are not based on reality. Almost no serious forecast has zero international flying for 2 more years.

The reality is, you can’t just sack all your pilots and then bring them back when demand picks up. When Qantas got a whopping 6 new 787’s it completely overwhelmed the training system for over 2 years. If you sacked 1000 pilots it would take a decade to get up to speed again when demand returned and Qantas would be left in the dust.

So they have to keep pilots on the books for the inevitable ramp up. They just want to pay as little as possible for them in the interim, hence the ploy that is working so convincingly on normanton.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 20:50
  #1337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
International and Domestic flying will not be back until there is a vaccine, how long can QF hold on to their current staff?! they will be hunting for more than 196 now as everything has changed and thats the reality.
Ragnor is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 21:20
  #1338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by Beer Baron View Post
The reality is, you can’t just sack all your pilots and then bring them back when demand picks up. When Qantas got a whopping 6 new 787’s it completely overwhelmed the training system for over 2 years. If you sacked 1000 pilots it would take a decade to get up to speed again when demand returned and Qantas would be left in the dust
Reality is, if you're stood down you're not likely to fly again for at least the next 12 months.What difference does it make to be stood down or made redundant for 12 months. You don't think you can get at least 500 of them back in 18 months time. Where are they going. What difference does it make to the training system when your going back to the same aircraft beyond 45 days anyway.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 21:33
  #1339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 105
For goodness sakes the company has you all running around with your heads cut off. Just like they want.

The threat of CR is a bluff, at this early stage anyway. They don't want to pay for CR. They are expensive and the chances are they will have to put you back on, whether in 3 months or 3 years thus incurring a second cost. They are scaring everyone and especially the junior to take LWOP {with the threat of CR if they don't} to do one thing and that is to remove the obligation to pay leave entitlements whilst on stand down. No other reason but to save money. They have people believing all of this. They do not want CR, it costs too much.

If this virus runs for another couple of years then sure things are different and none of us may survive but the company will have to follow the EA and CR from bottom up. But at the moment they can keep us on stand down. Going on LWOP only robs you of your entitlements under the EA, sold to you by a company who is threatening CR.
Autobrakes4 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 21:48
  #1340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 577
CR is not a threat, it's a requirement. Of course it is to be avoided and yes it will be expensive, that's why you won't get paid in full straight away, it'll be over a few years, no different to an insolvency and arguably that's what it is. Of course they will want as many as possible to take LWOP it's a better option for the company but not really an option for you personally.
When push comes to shove and they have no choice, CR is all that's left and seniority will play no part in it. Being junior won't automatically mean being redundant.
Xeptu 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.