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 16th Sep 2020, 00:56
  #1821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 535
So normanton, how much LWOP did you take?
ruprecht is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 01:10
  #1822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster View Post
The narrative is changing



Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
The 180 day training issue is a cost to the company so needs approval from higher up. I believe Flt Ops are putting a very strong case to do this training bearing in mind the potential bottle neck if they don’t when demand ramps up. It’s not a one way street. If QF wants LH pilots to vote the EA variations up then they must give something back in return, whatever it is. I would suggest that LH pilots do have some negotiating power and the very least is to keep post 180 day training going.
Wingspar is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 01:35
  #1823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 370
No just a LH issue. Some in SH in MEL are looking at 180 day recency too. I take on board your comments however. My view is as the border shutdowns continue unabated and we continue to see 15-20% Domestic rather than 70% Flight Ops won’t have a say in the matter.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 04:43
  #1824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster View Post
The narrative is changing



Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
If I were the Northern Territory Government I'd offer $500m conditional on the operation based at Tennant Creek!
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 05:29
  #1825 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 10,904
Clearly, the real estate review is not the most important matter at hand. What about those beards eh?
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 07:48
  #1826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 952
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster View Post
No just a LH issue. Some in SH in MEL are looking at 180 day recency too. I take on board your comments however. My view is as the border shutdowns continue unabated and we continue to see 15-20% Domestic rather than 70% Flight Ops won’t have a say in the matter.
I don't really care about 180 day recency. If QF decide to save money short term, it will cost them time and money in the longer term. It's up to them to assess and balance the risks. If there is a sudden upswing in flying out of Melbourne and Sydney (unlikely, I reckon) then they MIGHT get caught with their pants down - meh, their call. I've got enough to worry about without wondering whether my 180 day recency will lapse and if QF will have the time, money and training resources to fix the problem expeditiously on the other side.
DirectAnywhere is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 08:33
  #1827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by normanton View Post
Is 260 on LWOP enough?………..
…………..The VR/ER lawsuit appears to be a problem.
Second quote first.
A close colleague spoke with a manager in the last few days. It seems the hold-up in processing the VR is not with the older cohort's claim but with a particular group who applied for VR but can't be replaced in the short term.

With that in mind, maybe 260 taking LWOP is enough (for now) and VR will be withdrawn or allowed to lapse on Nov 7th, possibly to be reviewed at a later date. The CP did mention a number of times yesterday that retaining cash is the imperative whilst domestic borders remain closed.
C441 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 09:27
  #1828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,121
Which particular cohort may that be? 330 t&cs at a guess....
how does that hold things up
maggot is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 22:56
  #1829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Even the 400 crew who realise that they’ve had their last flight can’t leave.
’Hotel California’ again!
Wingspar is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 00:45
  #1830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Wingspar View Post
Even the 400 crew who realise that they’ve had their last flight can’t leave.
’Hotel California’ again!
Can’t” leave? As far as I know indentured servitude is illegal in Australia, any pilot employed by any company can leave at any time with the minimum notice period.
dr dre is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 02:07
  #1831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Oztralia
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
Can’t” leave? As far as I know indentured servitude is illegal in Australia, any pilot employed by any company can leave at any time with the minimum notice period.



SixDemonBag is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 02:18
  #1832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by C441 View Post
Second quote first.
A close colleague spoke with a manager in the last few days. It seems the hold-up in processing the VR is not with the older cohort's claim but with a particular group who applied for VR but can't be replaced in the short term.
bc

That doesn’t stack up. The Entire airline is in surplus.
Being a targeted program, the B744 applicants should have been out the door immediately.
Poto is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 02:42
  #1833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
A cynic (what!, on PPRuNe?) might suggest that the company has followed the requirements of EA10 15.10.1:

Subject to this Agreement, the Company will manage all necessary pilot reductions in a manner aimed at minimising the need for compulsory redundancies by considering all reasonable alternatives, including natural attrition, LWOP, voluntary redeployment, voluntary secondment and voluntary redundancies.

They've considered VR, even sought EoIs, decided it's not for them, and will now move on to CRs………Let's hope not.

Personally, I'm not that cynical and suspect VRs will go ahead eventually but there is some (probably financial) advantage in lumping all 188 applicants together.

Last edited by C441; 17th Sep 2020 at 07:35.
C441 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 02:49
  #1834 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,448
I too wondered about the timing and figured that they could have let go of the 747 crew who had EOI’d the VR about a week after the applications closed. For whatever reason they’ve decided to do them all together.

I still reckon they’ll accept most/ all of those who have EOI’d. Even those in categories they’re possibly worried about replacing in the short term are likely to still be accepted though the timing for their departure may vary from everyone else.

Having offered VR, I reckon they’d get absolutely nailed if they said ‘no’ some of it and then went down the road of CR instead.
Keg is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 04:23
  #1835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Prison Island (WA)
Posts: 1,417
Re: 180 day recency issues

Consider this quote from treasury.gov.au about the purpose of JobKeeper:

The JobKeeper Payment will support employers to maintain their connection to their employees.
These connections will enable business to reactivate their operations quickly — without having to rehire staff — when the crisis is over.
Has Qantas been using JobKeeper for its intended purpose, or have they been pocketing the cash to help prop up the bottom line? Should the money have been used instead to keep everyone current?
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 04:44
  #1836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Transition Layer View Post
Re: 180 day recency issues

Consider this quote from treasury.gov.au about the purpose of JobKeeper:



Has Qantas been using JobKeeper for its intended purpose, or have they been pocketing the cash to help prop up the bottom line? Should the money have been used instead to keep everyone current?
Very good point!
Wingspar is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 05:46
  #1837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 370
^^^^^^. +1
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 06:13
  #1838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by Transition Layer View Post
Re: 180 day recency issues

Consider this quote from treasury.gov.au about the purpose of JobKeeper:



Has Qantas been using JobKeeper for its intended purpose, or have they been pocketing the cash to help prop up the bottom line? Should the money have been used instead to keep everyone current?
Pocketing it how?
The money we receive each fortnight wouldn't be paid without JobKeeper, unless I'm missing something?
Koizi is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 06:48
  #1839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Transition Layer View Post
Re: 180 day recency issues

Consider this quote from treasury.gov.au about the purpose of JobKeeper:



Has Qantas been using JobKeeper for its intended purpose, or have they been pocketing the cash to help prop up the bottom line? Should the money have been used instead to keep everyone current?
​​​​​​
Mmmmm......Qantas get $1500 per fortnight from Scomo on my behalf. Qantas then pay me $1500 per fortnight whilst I am stood down.

Pretty pedestrian stuff at this point in the game.
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 06:52
  #1840 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,448
I think the point being made that perhaps QF should have been rostering crew for a sim every 4 weeks and for the jobkeeper to contribute towards paying for that sim.

Jobkeeper would certainly cover the costs for any F/O to do 1 sim a fortnight. It wouldn’t quite cover the cost for a Captain. Of course it definitely wouldn’t cover the costs of the TREs, TRIs and sim instructors required to keep everyone doing a sim every month.

I suspect too there may have been some IR issues around whether a sim a month constitutes ‘useful work’. Personally I reckon it does but I’m not the legal beagle making the decision. Of course many crew may have also not been thrilled to be rostered for a sim every four weeks if they have other work and so on.
Keg 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.