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 30th Aug 2020, 09:42
  #1701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 115
Telfer, let me get this right:

You won’t even pick up the phone over a decision that in your mind could cost you “seven figures”. I am shaking my head in bewilderment.

There actually was a CR in QF before your time. Those pilots were subsequently employed back. I don’t know what pay scale they were employed back on, but I bet AIPA would.

I’m sorry I can’t answer your specific question, but if you refuse to utilise the resources available to you, what kind of pilot are you? You are missing the “G” in GRADE.
Derfred is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 10:54
  #1702 (permalink)  
34R
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 49
Posts: 230
Assuming the current surplus is covered by VR, ERP and LWOP, does that mean any future surplus will need to be announced and managed in accordance with the redundancy provisions just as this current surplus has been, or does the company just start chopping?

196 was the most recently announced number. If the above levers are enough to cover it then under the current circumstances, technically there is no longer a surplus.

Fast forward 6 months and all international and domestic borders are still closed. Another surplus is announced. Is the company still not bound to minimise the need for CR by continuing to consider all reasonable alternatives?
34R is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 12:52
  #1703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 78
Thank you for your response not so sure why you would be "shaking your head" in bewilderment

As I had previously stated why would a person use the AIPA as a reference authority ? They don't make the decisions and they don't sign the paychecks

When I last heard AIPA were rambling on about pilotkeeper & the Fed Govt making pilots some kind of special category, in my view wasting time on a looser

People should read 23.10 it specifically states years of pay status for people returning from medical terminations , the very brief CR para says nothing so the only
reasonable conclusion is that when you re-join you would be year 1 (as that is what happens when you join a company) on old scale if lucky, A350s ordered go direct to C scale .

You will probably get back at best 3 years after the lwop people & on half SO pay , not gonna take long to bust a seven figure loss

23.10 A pilot re-employed under this clause 23 will be paid the rate of pay appropriate to the
category in which he or she operates and the years of service as a pilot with the
Company (which will include the years of service accrued as a pilot with the Company
prior to medical termination). Upon re-employment, the applicable year of service under
clause 32 will be the year of service for which the pilot was paid prior to termination for
the purpose of the total hourly rate of pay for all purposes of this Agreement.
Telfer86 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 13:42
  #1704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 115
Telfer,

So, you distrust AIPA because you believe their political lobbying is either futile or embarrassing? Perhaps it is, but we can discuss that on another thread if you like. But AIPA’s political lobbying has nothing to do with their ability to assist you with LHEA questions. I’m pretty sure they have enough staff to conduct futile and embarrassing lobbying while still retaining the capability to assist their members’ career enquires.

If you prefer to be your own bush-lawyer, that’s fine. But I note you are seeking legal advice on PPRuNe. So maybe, deep down inside, you have some doubts as to your legal interpretation of how the LHEA is applied.

You also feel that AIPA’s advice is worthless because at the end of the day, it won’t be them interpreting it, it will be Qantas. But here you are seeking advice here! So did you call Qantas? What did they say? Did you ask for it in writing?

Me shaking my head in bewilderment was about you seeking legal advice from an anonymous rumour forum, when there are lawyers at your disposal who are have qualifications and experience to help you with this, on the end of a telephone.

Unless, of course, you aren’t a member. Based on your last post, I suspect you are not.

That’s fine, you are not required to be, and it would be illegal for me or anyone else to pressure you to join.

But I am allowed to shake my head in bewilderment, and also caution you about taking anonymous advice from this forum. Not that any such advice has been forthcoming, I have noted. Maybe there is a reason for that.

I wish you the best in your deliberations. I hope I don’t come across as combative, I actually want to help you, and for you to make the best decision in your circumstances.

Regards, Fred
Derfred is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 13:59
  #1705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Not sure why you're banging on about it Telfer, either take LWOP if it suits you're situation or stay stood down. The vast majority of those at risk of CR (if it eventuates) would have barely gotten deep into the years of pay scales anyway. Not to mention I'm sure they'd rather be back on year one sunrise pay than woollies payroll. Counting the cash you hypothetically would have earned will just drive you nuts.
Give it the herbs is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 23:05
  #1706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 85
For what it's worth I was advised by one who's among the group, that 47 pilots commenced with Qantas between the end of August last year and March 2020 (ie: now have 12 months service) and further 80 had commenced in the 6 months prior to August 2019. Thus a total of 130-odd pilots commenced in the 12 months prior to stand-down.
A little over 200 pilots have 2 years service to the end of August 2020.
C441 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 23:28
  #1707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 82
either take LWOP if it suits you're situation or stay stood down
+1

What I don't understand about the aggression from certain posters here is that an individual's decision to take or not take LWOP is not dependent on anyone else's choice. So as per the quote above.

The other point of interest is the statement that LWOP saves you from CR. I does if you are still on LWOP at the time. So how much LWOP are you prepared to take to try and avoid CR? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years?
A lot to consider if you are on a fleet that has work (ie A330) or one that will likely have some soon (787). How many years of work and currency do you sacrifice to avoid the possibility of CR? Where is the break even point?

If it was as simple as taking 12 months LWOP to avoid any future CR, then I suspect there would be no discussion at all.
Koizi is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 23:41
  #1708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Koizi View Post
+1
The other point of interest is the statement that LWOP saves you from CR. I does if you are still on LWOP at the time. So how much LWOP are you prepared to take to try and avoid CR? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years?
A lot to consider if you are on a fleet that has work (ie A330) or one that will likely have some soon (787). How many years of work and currency do you sacrifice to avoid the possibility of CR? Where is the break even point?

If it was as simple as taking 12 months LWOP to avoid any future CR, then I suspect there would be no discussion at all.
It's a very good point. I suspect people taking 13 months to simply avoid CR will be making a big mistake. But that's just my crystal balling opinion.
normanton is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 04:00
  #1709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 993
Originally Posted by Wingspar View Post
It’s interesting in a recent interview with Bloomberg (20/08/20), AJ said the following;

It’s a sensible decision to assume the 380’s and 777’s(787’s) need to be parked for at least a year and so we can save the costs associated with those aircraft and help reduce the cash burn for our international business.”

I think AJ contradicted himself there and let the cat out of the bag by declaring it was a ‘decision’ to ground the 380 and 787 fleet purely to reduce long term cash burn. In regards to labor, it might satisfy stand down provisions now but would appear the long term grounding of these fleets is a commercial decision by QF and based on that, won’t satisfy stand down provisions post restrictions being lifted.
One could say as there are state backed international carriers flying near empty aircraft into Australia doing some repatriation now then it is a purely commercial decision for Qantas to have international fleets grounded at the moment, so therefore there’s no reason for stand downs currently. Of course no one believes this is the case.

The initial reasoning for stand downs was not closing of borders anyway, it was the massive and almost immediate drop off in passenger demand due pandemic fears. It could be argued that stand downs can be enacted until passengers numbers return to similar pre Covid levels. Fair Work has made comments indicating they’ll be giving employers flexibility as needed to ensure they stay in business, and that’s what the government will surely want.

Here’s an interesting quote from an employment law firm:

A force majeure clause will almost certainly have a list of specific triggering events, and may also contain a catch-all provision such as ‘and any causes beyond the reasonable control of the party’.

Triggering events include acts of God (earthquakes, storms, flood, and lightning strikes), war, terrorism, riot, insurrection and (sometimes) industrial action. Pandemic is unlikely to be listed in an existing clause although case law does support the inclusion. More about that later.

Force majeure events are required to be outside the reasonable control of a party claiming the event has occurred.

Once invoked, the clause will provide that the parties’ obligations under the contract will be suspended until the force majeure event (and its direct effects) have ceased to prevent performance of the contract.
Could that possibly give weight to the pandemic being the key event that triggered the stand down, not border restrictions, and the ending of the pandemic is the point where the triggering event is considered “over”?

Even if the status of the border is the key point I doubt whether the border will be open to the point where it was in December 2019. It will come back incrementally over a few years and I’d expect by the time that happens passengers numbers should have returned close to normal.

Last edited by dr dre; 31st Aug 2020 at 05:37.
dr dre is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 04:42
  #1710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
One could say as there are state backed international carriers flying near empty aircraft into Australia doing some repatriation now then it is a purely commercial decision for Qantas to have international fleets grounded at the moment, so therefore there’s no reason for stand downs currently. Of course no one believes this is the case.

The initial reasoning for stand downs was not closing of borders anyway, it was the massive and almost immediate drop off in passenger demand due pandemic fears. It could be argued that stand downs can be enacted until passengers numbers return to similar pre Covid levels. Fair Work has made comments indicating they’ll be giving employers flexibility as needed to ensure they stay in business, and that’s what the government will surely want.

Here’s an interesting quote form an employment law firm:



Could that possibly give weight to the pandemic being the key event that triggered the stand down, not border restrictions, and the ending of the pandemic is the point where the triggering event is considered “over”?

Even if the status of the border is the key point I doubt whether the border will be open to the point where it was in December 2019. It will come back incrementally over a few years and I’d expect by the time that happens passengers numbers should have returned close to normal.
Very Good Post Doc!
Wingspar is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 08:14
  #1711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 993
Originally Posted by Gazza mate View Post
Will anyone pressured into unwanted LWOP by QF go and fly for its direct competitor?
Probably enough Tigerair, VA and other 737 endorsed pilots to take care of that small of an operation, assuming it ever gets in the air.
dr dre is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 09:07
  #1712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,086
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
It's a very good point. I suspect people taking 13 months to simply avoid CR will be making a big mistake. But that's just my crystal balling opinion.
so surplus can be managed with lwop now but not next year?
maggot is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 09:31
  #1713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by maggot View Post
so surplus can be managed with lwop now but not next year?
Depends if it's a long term or short term surplus.

If it's long term (like the 747) why would they offer LWOP? All they are doing is kicking the problem x years down the track. People come back from LWOP and again another surplus. Rinse repeat. At some point the redundancy hammer has to fall (if it happens).

Want protection from it? Take LWOP. You have less than 6 hours to apply.

Don't want protection from it? Remain stood down and accrue annual leave.

May the odds be ever in your favour.
normanton is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 09:51
  #1714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,086
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
Depends if it's a long term or short term surplus.

If it's long term (like the 747) why would they offer LWOP? All they are doing is kicking the problem x years down the track. People come back from LWOP and again another surplus. Rinse repeat. At some point the redundancy hammer has to fall (if it happens).

Want protection from it? Take LWOP. You have less than 6 hours to apply.

Don't want protection from it? Remain stood down and accrue annual leave.

May the odds be ever in your favour.
thats nonsensical
id suggest a surplus worth CRing over would be long term and the same consulting/mitigators would be in place for each occasion.
they dont manage a 747 surplus with CR. Its a RIN which may end up with the bottom needing CR or other appropriate measures.
maggot is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 09:59
  #1715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: SE QLD
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post

The initial reasoning for stand downs was not closing of borders anyway, it was the massive and almost immediate drop off in passenger demand due pandemic fears. It could be argued that stand downs can be enacted until passengers numbers return to similar pre Covid levels.
Incorrect Dr Dre. Stand downs were issued due to the border being shutdown - the first lot of stand downs came into effect to coincide with the closure.

Government mandated closures / restrictions to trade is what makes the stand down provisions kosher. Nothing else.
ScepticalOptomist is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 13:07
  #1716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 348
Originally Posted by Telfer86 View Post
Not sure how a claimed figure of former CEOs pay rate or bonus is relevant - more "deep state" conspiracy nonsense


Take lwop , no leave or years of service accrual, move to Jobseeker, but protected against CR , lwop is fixed term & has been well managed in the past. Opportunities at the
other 7 or 8 QF airlines in Australia. No need to worry about the "new SO rates"
The only 2 Qantas Group airlines that require more pilots are Network and EFA, and they both require type rated FOs and Captains who have flown that type within 12 months, not SOs.

JQ are talking about up to 2 years until they're back to pre covid levels, so don't expect any LWOP opportunities there, as some QF guys have taken in recent times.

ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 13:27
  #1717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 993
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist View Post
Incorrect Dr Dre. Stand downs were issued due to the border being shutdown - the first lot of stand downs came into effect to coincide with the closure.
Sure about that? Not what I’m reading from the sources I’ve looked at.

It looks like the first indications of the drawback of capacity was the 9th of March, then more substantial stand downs were announced late evening in the media on the 18th of March, and in press release early the next morning. The government didn’t announce the international border closure until the afternoon of the 19th. It was close but stand downs happened before the closure. Up until that point the federal government was just “discouraging” international travel.

Another article from a workplace relations law professor indicating stand downs can continue until the “trigger event” (the Coronavirus pandemic, from the article) is over:

And it can be for an indefinite period of time, according to Professor Forsyth, but only if the situation which has caused the stand-downs - in this case, potentially, the coronavirus pandemic - is still ongoing

Last edited by dr dre; 31st Aug 2020 at 13:51.
dr dre is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 21:49
  #1718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Straya
Posts: 27
So Normanton, did you take LWOP?
Gazza mate is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 01:30
  #1719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 44
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by Gazza mate View Post
So Normanton, did you take LWOP?

Ha!

We will know as soon as they published the next list of eligible flyers...

Did anyone else struggle to press the button??
Fujiroll76 is online now  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 03:54
  #1720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
If Normanton and others take LWOP, once on LWOP do they still get a vote on any future EBA matters?
If the company did put forward changes/alterations (which would most likely impact lower ranked pilots) would the lowest seniority pilots forced on LWOP still get a say on if the changes go ahead?
TimmyTee 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.