QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
They could save on cost by reducing the number of CEO’s for a start. Then offshore the ones left to NZ, jobkeeper and all.
it’s a remarkable state of affairs if Qantas deems it appropriate to receive government funding whilst individual workers that could work and currently subsidised by jobkeeper, remain idle.
The current environment aviation finds itself in, isn’t one of profitability, it’s one of survivability. And I thought Qantas was supposed to be Australian.
yeah I know, we’ve been here before....
it’s a remarkable state of affairs if Qantas deems it appropriate to receive government funding whilst individual workers that could work and currently subsidised by jobkeeper, remain idle.
The current environment aviation finds itself in, isn’t one of profitability, it’s one of survivability. And I thought Qantas was supposed to be Australian.
yeah I know, we’ve been here before....
Mick, once again you are wrong and dare I say F.O.S.
it is people like you that give the internet a bad name. Do 30 seconds worth of research and correct your post so those less inclined to check the facts Don’t believe the crap you post.
it is people like you that give the internet a bad name. Do 30 seconds worth of research and correct your post so those less inclined to check the facts Don’t believe the crap you post.
They could save on cost by reducing the number of CEO’s for a start. Then offshore the ones left to NZ, jobkeeper and all.
it’s a remarkable state of affairs if Qantas deems it appropriate to receive government funding whilst individual workers that could work and currently subsidised by jobkeeper, remain idle.
The current environment aviation finds itself in, isn’t one of profitability, it’s one of survivability. And I thought Qantas was supposed to be Australian.
yeah I know, we’ve been here before....
it’s a remarkable state of affairs if Qantas deems it appropriate to receive government funding whilst individual workers that could work and currently subsidised by jobkeeper, remain idle.
The current environment aviation finds itself in, isn’t one of profitability, it’s one of survivability. And I thought Qantas was supposed to be Australian.
yeah I know, we’ve been here before....
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they run the 74 RIN why would they need to heavy crew? Any training positions allocated would be kicked down the road until there’s flying available to facilitate so those crews stay stood down for a while.
Therefore any 787 or 330 Captains that are demoted can’t be FO trained and stay stood down anyway.
The FOs demoted to SO is easily achievable. A few Sims and the line training is only 1 observation sector so that’s not hard to find.
The 330 and 787 SOs are all at the bottom of the list so are obviously the ones who get made redundant. That would normally be an expensive exercise given the requirement for the period of notice and redundancy entitlement to be not less than 26 weeks but given we’re all stood down on no pay does that mean they only have to worry about purely the redundancy payout? Relatively inexpensive if that’s the case.
As for the cost of recruitment on the other side, doesn’t the ‘redundancy list’ kind of take care of that? It states a pilot on the list will be offered a position when available based on seniority
Therefore any 787 or 330 Captains that are demoted can’t be FO trained and stay stood down anyway.
The FOs demoted to SO is easily achievable. A few Sims and the line training is only 1 observation sector so that’s not hard to find.
The 330 and 787 SOs are all at the bottom of the list so are obviously the ones who get made redundant. That would normally be an expensive exercise given the requirement for the period of notice and redundancy entitlement to be not less than 26 weeks but given we’re all stood down on no pay does that mean they only have to worry about purely the redundancy payout? Relatively inexpensive if that’s the case.
As for the cost of recruitment on the other side, doesn’t the ‘redundancy list’ kind of take care of that? It states a pilot on the list will be offered a position when available based on seniority
I have a good source in Air NZ training that said the way they are tackling it is deciding where the shortage of crew may be as the result of the redundancies, working out a down training schedule which resulted in 48 months of training required and then selecting the 40% of pilots who are required in the short term. Everyone else will have their training delayed until demand warrants them coming back on line, so 60% of the pilot moves are on hold for the medium term. I would think Qantas would be the same, carry out the training that is required to keep the operation going and leave everyone else on LWOP until needed regardless of seniority.
Nunc est bibendum
The two issues are separate. The RIN should be run regardless given the previously articulated time frame for the 747 farewell. If there is ‘useful flying’ on any of the other LH fleets (even if it’s 1/2 or 1/3 of the normal hours) then a RIN’d 747 crew member electing to go to that fleet should be stood up and trained. Deal with any surplus on that fleet once that is complete.
My ‘heavy crew’ comments were in relation to the alleged difficulty of getting rid of the bottom 300 crew (if that’s what was deemed surplus to requirements). I’m simply pointing out that resorting to heavy crewing makes it decidedly simple to still crew those aeroplanes on longer flights until the fleet flying hours get beyond about 2/3 of the previous flown hours. It’s certainly easier and cheaper than the domino effect of doing multiple RINs across multiple fleets as the crew all push downward. Redundancy payouts for 300 pilots is going to be circa $20 million.
The F/O demoted quickly and easily to S/O with a sim (it wouldn’t even take that realistically) isn’t quite as clear cut. That demoted F/O may choose to become a S/O on a different fleet- a massive training cost. Again, cheaper to heavy crew and not demote people.
I don’t think Qantas wants to go down the redundancy road though. They don’t want to spend $20 million only to re-employ those crew a year or two later. Much easier to come to an agreement with current crew as to how to manage our way through this.
20 Million? That’s isn’t even a years salary for Joyce.
I think Qantas wouldn’t blink at a $100 Million. What did the shutdown cost all those years ago? I’m sure Joyce’s accountants could make it look good in the books whilst also writing it off as a tax loss and justify it as a bonus to the CEO for improving efficiency.
I think Qantas wouldn’t blink at a $100 Million. What did the shutdown cost all those years ago? I’m sure Joyce’s accountants could make it look good in the books whilst also writing it off as a tax loss and justify it as a bonus to the CEO for improving efficiency.
Last edited by ozbiggles; 11th Jun 2020 at 09:01.
$20 million might cover 300 SOs it won’t go any where near covering 300 Capt/FOs on 26 weeks via a VR if that’s what they choose.
Nunc est bibendum
That’s why I’d be surprised if there were widespread offers of VR to A380 crew.
The EA allows the company to tailor their VR offer to individual crew members. One pilot may be offered something different to someone else depending on their specific circumstances.
The 747 crew you’re least likely to get a return from if they do a conversion course post March next year are those who turn 65 in the 18 months after that time. These are the ones most likely to get a targeted VR. There are less of them than you’d think.
The EA allows the company to tailor their VR offer to individual crew members. One pilot may be offered something different to someone else depending on their specific circumstances.
The 747 crew you’re least likely to get a return from if they do a conversion course post March next year are those who turn 65 in the 18 months after that time. These are the ones most likely to get a targeted VR. There are less of them than you’d think.
That’s why I’d be surprised if there were widespread offers of VR to A380 crew.
The EA allows the company to tailor their VR offer to individual crew members. One pilot may be offered something different to someone else depending on their specific circumstances.
The 747 crew you’re least likely to get a return from if they do a conversion course post March next year are those who turn 65 in the 18 months after that time. These are the ones most likely to get a targeted VR. There are less of them than you’d think.
The EA allows the company to tailor their VR offer to individual crew members. One pilot may be offered something different to someone else depending on their specific circumstances.
The 747 crew you’re least likely to get a return from if they do a conversion course post March next year are those who turn 65 in the 18 months after that time. These are the ones most likely to get a targeted VR. There are less of them than you’d think.
I disagree.
The nominal retirement date of the 747 fleet was March next year. The RIN process should be completed prior to 31 March (in fact prior to the end of February given the notice period required for new training courses).
When the 767 RIN occurred there were a number of pilots who waited 2-4 months for their new type course. They were not stood down due to ‘no useful work’ as the training bottleneck is not of their making. The same principle applies to 747 crew from 1 April next year onward. Now a senior 747 pilot may elect to displace to the A380. If there is no ‘useful flying’ (IE, any flying) on that fleet then I agree they remained stood down.
However, if they take redeployment (or displace) to a fleet that actually is doing some flying then they should NOT remain stood down. They’ve elected to displace under the rules in place to a fleet that actually has some ‘useful work’ so should be stood up to train and then fly. Once checked out they should rotate in with the rest of the crew who are doing whatever ‘useful work’ exists.
I’d hope AIPA would take a similar stance and argue as such as strenuously as possible.
The nominal retirement date of the 747 fleet was March next year. The RIN process should be completed prior to 31 March (in fact prior to the end of February given the notice period required for new training courses).
When the 767 RIN occurred there were a number of pilots who waited 2-4 months for their new type course. They were not stood down due to ‘no useful work’ as the training bottleneck is not of their making. The same principle applies to 747 crew from 1 April next year onward. Now a senior 747 pilot may elect to displace to the A380. If there is no ‘useful flying’ (IE, any flying) on that fleet then I agree they remained stood down.
However, if they take redeployment (or displace) to a fleet that actually is doing some flying then they should NOT remain stood down. They’ve elected to displace under the rules in place to a fleet that actually has some ‘useful work’ so should be stood up to train and then fly. Once checked out they should rotate in with the rest of the crew who are doing whatever ‘useful work’ exists.
I’d hope AIPA would take a similar stance and argue as such as strenuously as possible.
As you would know, the crew who were the last to be RIN’d off the 767 had no aircraft to fly for up to 4 months. They had training courses planned for a future date BUT they remained a 767 Capt’s or F/O’s until that course and received the pay and conditions applicable to that fleet despite the fact that there were no aircraft to fly.
By the same logic Qantas could easily determine that 744 crew were stood down before the RIN and will remain stood down after the RIN up until a training course is run. The allocation of a future training date need not interrupt one’s stand down.
I would certainly hope that is NOT the interpretation Qantas take but they have a long history of interpreting rules/laws to benefit the company and screw us. Let’s hope I’m proven wrong.
Nunc est bibendum
The fact that the RIN operated that way previously is no guarantee it will do so now. These are vastly different times.
As you would know, the crew who were the last to be RIN’d off the 767 had no aircraft to fly for up to 4 months. They had training courses planned for a future date BUT they remained a 767 Capt’s or F/O’s until that course and received the pay and conditions applicable to that fleet despite the fact that there were no aircraft to fly.
As you would know, the crew who were the last to be RIN’d off the 767 had no aircraft to fly for up to 4 months. They had training courses planned for a future date BUT they remained a 767 Capt’s or F/O’s until that course and received the pay and conditions applicable to that fleet despite the fact that there were no aircraft to fly.
If there is training capacity then again the courses should be started fairly promptly post March next year.
Telfer86, LHEA 15.10.3 under voluntary redundancy.
The Company may, at its discretion, offer voluntary redundancies prior to making pilots compulsorily redundant. Prior to final determination of the package to be offered, the Company will meet, as a minimum, its obligations pursuant to clause 9 to consult with the Association on details of the package and, in addition, provide the Association the opportunity to negotiate, in good faith, the package to be offered. The Association acknowledges that the package to be offered in the case of voluntary redundancies by the Company is ultimately at the Company's discretion.
(b) Additionally, the Company will have the right to identify which pilots or groups of pilots will be offered the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy and will have the final decision on which pilots are made voluntarily redundant.
(b) Additionally, the Company will have the right to identify which pilots or groups of pilots will be offered the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy and will have the final decision on which pilots are made voluntarily redundant.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NDB
Age: 53
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundancies would be as per the intergration agreement under the title Redundancy which is based on seniority, not long haul or short haul if it comes to this which I doubt.
So from me reading it a senior pilot in Longhaul can be made redundant over a junior pilot in shorthaul. Simply because you cannot displace someone under a different award.
It’d be like a Qantas pilot displacing a Jetstar pilot to CR.
Of course if guys want to complain about that, they were senior and could have gone to short haul.
Anyway it’s pie in the sky stuff. With stand down, jobkeeper and perhaps a few tweaks to entitlements during standown, I don’t think we will see a single Qantas pilot exit the business who doesn’t want to.
With 3 787’s waiting to be delivered, managing the RIN for the 747 will be made very easy. The A380 is a different story! As per the awards, LH and SH are completely seperate when it comes to RIN’s.
At some stage they’re going to have to address the numbers on the 380.
RIN for sure but there should be a sizeable number of retirements that will help.
RIN is problematic no matter what the fleet so VR must be a consideration.
Having said that the 65 club can’t rely on 737 slots because there won’t be any for some time.
RIN for sure but there should be a sizeable number of retirements that will help.
RIN is problematic no matter what the fleet so VR must be a consideration.
Having said that the 65 club can’t rely on 737 slots because there won’t be any for some time.
