QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages
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.
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With that in mind, maybe 260 taking LWOP is enough (for now) and VR will be withdrawn or allowed to lapse on Nov 7th, possibly to be reviewed at a later date.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.
Which particular cohort may that be? 330 t&cs at a guess....
how does that hold things up
how does that hold things up
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
^^^^^^. +1 
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
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
There’s no costs to the company in us sitting at home getting $1500. If we were kept recent, there would be a cost to the company and yet we would still be paid $1500. Therefore Qantas has a relative win by having us do nothing.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During a period of low revenue, it can be wise to delay expenditure. Even if that means it will cost more later.
Surely many of us on on Jobkeeper would be making similar decisions in our personal finances.
Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?
Surely many of us on on Jobkeeper would be making similar decisions in our personal finances.
Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is not that special - there may not BE a "later".
If there is a later then the management of QF may have to decimate QF (and yes, "never waste a good crisis" mentality from management) to survive until "later"; that will include the pilot group.
Scoot, AirJapan have just laid off their expats...after 6 months or so of this crap, they are international carriers and have finally come to the conclusion there is no clear path regards international travel returning...so time to hunker down, layoff and downsize.
The ramifications of CV19 on air travel are ongoing, unknown and is perilous particularly to international carriers, domestic ops around the world arguably will return faster.
Crossover areas (EU requirements/controls Vs individual states preferences) - anyones guess how to satisfy (or not) everyone.
I DO believe QF will survive - but the next couple of years may see a bloodbath to achieve their survival.
For individuals to automatically assume no hassles for QF when so much ongoing carnage in aviation around the world - gutsy call, hope you're proven correct.
Cheers.