QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
For goodness sake Telfer, Normanton, et al, please stop your dribble and just go read the award in it’s entirety. There is no going back to year 1 pay scale, it is covered by paragraph 32.1 32.2 32.3 and 32.5 what constitutes your pay scale. The only thing that resets when returning from CR is the years of service when calculating a future redundancy payment. That seems fair enough as if they have already paid you out a redundancy once it would be unreasonable to be paid a second time for those years of service.
BTW, once you finish reading the award, a read of this may also be worthwhile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny
BTW, once you finish reading the award, a read of this may also be worthwhile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny
Call AIPA ffs telfy
they'll set you right
they'll set you right
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I appreciate the references but I am not convinced that years of service are credited upon re-employment after a redundancy
, I was looking at 35.2 & thought the company would simply say - well this means we count years of service from SO ctl after this stint of
employment - not when you were employed years ago
I just don't think it is clear.
There is still the issue of the new Airbus pay scales for SOs if the A350 is ordered - they are unavoidable & substantially lower
, I was looking at 35.2 & thought the company would simply say - well this means we count years of service from SO ctl after this stint of
employment - not when you were employed years ago
I just don't think it is clear.
There is still the issue of the new Airbus pay scales for SOs if the A350 is ordered - they are unavoidable & substantially lower
Last edited by Telfer86; 29th Aug 2020 at 13:18.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingspar you do know what's been happening around the world with company's that don't have stand down options? Let me fill you in - mass pilot redundancy.
Be careful what you wish for, I don't know a single SO who hasn't taken LWOP with the contract clearly outlining bypass for redundancy.
Be careful what you wish for, I don't know a single SO who hasn't taken LWOP with the contract clearly outlining bypass for redundancy.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingspar you do know what's been happening around the world with company's that don't have stand down options? Let me fill you in - mass pilot redundancy.
Be careful what you wish for, I don't know a single SO who hasn't taken LWOP with the contract clearly outlining bypass for redundancy.
Be careful what you wish for, I don't know a single SO who hasn't taken LWOP with the contract clearly outlining bypass for redundancy.
Last few days I have been refraining on posting on here since most of our individual opinions are unchanged and this is going around in circles.
Since 31st Aug is tomorrow, let’s just leave all the speculation and see what happens. I think that’s what 95% of employees are probably doing.
Here’s hoping Spring holds some hope for us all, that includes our collegues in all the other companies too...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More info please.
Normie, I’m glad you are going to take one for the company. I’m just stating the facts. It’s not the local flying club, this is a business and I’ve seen too many times QF screwing employees.
Insist on what you are entitled to. Do you think TLS is taking one for you? Nah! He will get looked after.
The fact is, as AJ alluded to in the Bloomberg interview, Domestic is the profit driver and that is where the attention is in the short term.
International on the other hand has always been marginal even more so now. Especially since they’ve segmented the business over the years and now International is just a flying business. As he stated they will shut it down and stand everyone down for at least a year to save the International cash burn.
Their decision!
If he gets domestic running up to anywhere near precovid levels by June 30 next year that will be not just be cost neutral but most probably profitable especially with VA against the ropes.
International though as he said will only be profitable if all the jets are flying. So keep it shut down, in his words, for at least a year to reduce cash burn.
Are you happy to be stood down indefinitely while loyalty and freight are making money? Domestic hopefully will be making money in the medium term? While extra jets and jobs are going to Network?
Why are they wanting to reduce MGH when no ones flying? Because they know they can’t keep everyone stood down indefinitely.
Insist on what you are entitled to. Do you think TLS is taking one for you? Nah! He will get looked after.
The fact is, as AJ alluded to in the Bloomberg interview, Domestic is the profit driver and that is where the attention is in the short term.
International on the other hand has always been marginal even more so now. Especially since they’ve segmented the business over the years and now International is just a flying business. As he stated they will shut it down and stand everyone down for at least a year to save the International cash burn.
Their decision!
If he gets domestic running up to anywhere near precovid levels by June 30 next year that will be not just be cost neutral but most probably profitable especially with VA against the ropes.
International though as he said will only be profitable if all the jets are flying. So keep it shut down, in his words, for at least a year to reduce cash burn.
Are you happy to be stood down indefinitely while loyalty and freight are making money? Domestic hopefully will be making money in the medium term? While extra jets and jobs are going to Network?
Why are they wanting to reduce MGH when no ones flying? Because they know they can’t keep everyone stood down indefinitely.
Nunc est bibendum
Early 2008, post GFC and the airline struggling. Flight Ops told to save $8 million or redundancies likely. A number of crew took reduced hour Flexi lines or LWOP. The $8 million was saved.
In August it was announced that Geoff Dixon’s bonus was $8 million.
In August it was announced that Geoff Dixon’s bonus was $8 million.
plus the sars payfreeze that was banked
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 3
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
I don't know if lwop are "taking one for the company" , more just protecting themselves from CR & all that entails
Not sure how the view of AIPA is relevant , they aren't the ones who will be signing the paychecks and determining how the agreement will
be interpreted regarding years of service. My reading is that you would return on year 1 , and if A350 is ordered be subject to SO rates that max at $115 an hour
Why would you reference the AIPA they botched these components of the agreement, now guys are looking at the "unintended consequences" scenario where they come
back on year 1 and/or "new SO pay rates". If CR goes down to people who were hired before 2016 , you will come back on around half your current wage
No lwop , you accrue leave , stay on Jobkeeper , keep the years of service increments ticking over. But if CR does come, you will likely return years after lwop
people on year 1 pay rates , & quite likely C scale SO. Also no opportunities within the QF group once gone - just a return right to QF mainline if/when they hire externals
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"
Each to their own I just think that those who don't take lwop , well there is potentially (& quite high probability) of an enormous downside for the sake of continuing to accrue leave, years of service & remain on jobkeeper. The loss of wages for the extra time you are on the street (as compared to lwop) & then coming back at year 1 (& quite likely C scale) could easily be seven figures.
The lost wages have three potential components
1. No opportunities for other QF group flying jobs if you get CR
2. The "gap" between when a lwop Vs CR returns
3. The "unintended consequences" effect , return on year 1 & quite possibly on new SO scale
Placing a big bet there, can't see what the great upside is of not taking lwop , if you get it wrong it could be a very long time on the sidelines. Five years on the sidelines would be a dream result , remember after January 2009 , QF didn't hire for 7.5 years & we didn't feel the GFC so much here.
I don't understand how people can speak with such certainty about what happens on return from CR - it hasn't happened before
I don't know if lwop are "taking one for the company" , more just protecting themselves from CR & all that entails
Not sure how the view of AIPA is relevant , they aren't the ones who will be signing the paychecks and determining how the agreement will
be interpreted regarding years of service. My reading is that you would return on year 1 , and if A350 is ordered be subject to SO rates that max at $115 an hour
Why would you reference the AIPA they botched these components of the agreement, now guys are looking at the "unintended consequences" scenario where they come
back on year 1 and/or "new SO pay rates". If CR goes down to people who were hired before 2016 , you will come back on around half your current wage
No lwop , you accrue leave , stay on Jobkeeper , keep the years of service increments ticking over. But if CR does come, you will likely return years after lwop
people on year 1 pay rates , & quite likely C scale SO. Also no opportunities within the QF group once gone - just a return right to QF mainline if/when they hire externals
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"
Each to their own I just think that those who don't take lwop , well there is potentially (& quite high probability) of an enormous downside for the sake of continuing to accrue leave, years of service & remain on jobkeeper. The loss of wages for the extra time you are on the street (as compared to lwop) & then coming back at year 1 (& quite likely C scale) could easily be seven figures.
The lost wages have three potential components
1. No opportunities for other QF group flying jobs if you get CR
2. The "gap" between when a lwop Vs CR returns
3. The "unintended consequences" effect , return on year 1 & quite possibly on new SO scale
Placing a big bet there, can't see what the great upside is of not taking lwop , if you get it wrong it could be a very long time on the sidelines. Five years on the sidelines would be a dream result , remember after January 2009 , QF didn't hire for 7.5 years & we didn't feel the GFC so much here.
I don't understand how people can speak with such certainty about what happens on return from CR - it hasn't happened before
Last edited by Telfer86; 30th Aug 2020 at 08:28.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
A little over 200 pilots have 2 years service to the end of August 2020.
either take LWOP if it suits you're situation or stay stood down
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.