QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster
The narrative is changing
Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster
The narrative is changing
Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
Additionally, chatter indicating 180 day recency issues and promised “stand up” in turn being re-evaluated highlighted on Qrewroom.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere on the Australian Coast
Posts: 952
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by normanton
Is 260 on LWOP enough?………..
…………..The VR/ER lawsuit appears to be a problem.
…………..The VR/ER lawsuit appears to be a problem.
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With that in mind, maybe 260 taking LWOP is enough (for now) and VR will be withdrawn or allowed to lapse on Nov 7th, possibly to be reviewed at a later date.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.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Wingspar
Even the 400 crew who realise that they’ve had their last flight can’t leave.
’Hotel California’ again!
’Hotel California’ again!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by C441
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
These connections will enable business to reactivate their operations quickly — without having to rehire staff — when the crisis is over.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
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?
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?
The money we receive each fortnight wouldn't be paid without JobKeeper, unless I'm missing something?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
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?
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.
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.
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.
