QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+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.
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 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.
” 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.
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.
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.
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 04:37.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Government mandated closures / restrictions to trade is what makes the stand down provisions kosher. Nothing else.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
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.
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 12:51.
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?
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?
Whilst on LWOP you are still covered by EA10 and therefore vote on any changes. Your understanding is 100% INCORRECT, you are still employed during your LWOP period.
Last edited by Fujiroll76; 1st Sep 2020 at 07:09. Reason: addition
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.
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.
The trigger event was the border closure.