QF Group Ground Handling Cuts

[seventy-seven]

Its Over Red Rover

AJ is simply cutting out the rot he doesnt want and replacing it with the cheapest he can find. I am sure the QF board agree with his actions given the current climate. Ground handling over the years has always been an issue with stop work meetings and strikes with no notice .
No one dared question their TWU Gods or else. Baggage loaders are honestly overpaid for what they do. I should know as my relative is one with QF and he bludges his way through. The airline industry is changing rapidly every day now across the globe for better or worse.
This is for many at QF and VA the end of the road unfortunately and there is vrtually no stopping management from continuing the cutting.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

It's interesting how many people are quick to kick the boots in to ramp staff for being over paid, when pilots from the same airline are easily the highest paid for the least work in the Aussie market ($250,000 S/Os and the like).

What will be said if the Qantas IR cross hairs are turned towards pilot T&Cs?

Glass houses gentlemen.

[Buttscratcher]

Yeah sure, ECAM, but it's a Pilot's forum......what did you expect?

[C441]

Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE

What will be said be said if the Qantas IR cross hairs are turned towards pilot T&Cs?

They have been. That's what the last two EA ultimatums were about.

[krismiler]

There are two schools of thought:

1. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, there is less pressure for reductions in other areas.

2. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, continue the momentum across all departments. Restructure and break union control.

Baggage handlers were grossly overpaid and only got what they did because of their ability to ground the airline, they can easily be replaced. This has been demonstrated many times as other airlines outsourced.

Pilots are a different matter, safety critical and expensive to train, the company has a considerable investment in each one that they employ. Overall a relatively small percentage of operating costs so less reward for cost reduction but plenty of potential for disruption, and not so easy to replace given lengthy training and lead in requirements.

Possibly a few concessions needed during the current situation but T&Cs can be restored once profitability returns.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Originally Posted by krismiler

There are two schools of thought:

1. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, there is less pressure for reductions in other areas.

2. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, continue the momentum across all departments. Restructure and break union control.

Baggage handlers were grossly overpaid and only got what they did because of their ability to ground the airline, they can easily be replaced. This has been demonstrated many times as other airlines outsourced.

Pilots are a different matter, safety critical and expensive to train, the company has a considerable investment in each one that they employ. Overall a relatively small percentage of operating costs so less reward for cost reduction but plenty of potential for disruption, and not so easy to replace given lengthy training and lead in requirements.

Possibly a few concessions needed during the current situation but T&Cs can be restored once profitability returns.

My point wasn't so much that qantas will be looking to replace its entire pilot workforce but rather the lack of empathy towards your fellow workers because they were paid above market rates, when it would be difficult to argue that QF pilots arent in a similar position (I recall a thread about a year ago of QF 737 drivers gloating about how much they were earning).

.

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

That’s a fair point ECAM, however somebody needs to be on top, and I’d bet you’d tell us all about it if you were. Whether that is cause for gloating, not really sure. I’ve been here long enough to know that those who are paid the most, are always the target. Always, always, always pray that someone in your line of work gets paid more than you. You never want to be the target.

[krismiler]

Passengers have alternatives to QF, if after having considered their options they decide (usually) to pay a premium in order to travel QF and the airline is making profits then crew should be appropriately rewarded.

It would be unusual if pay and conditions at a country’s main airline didn’t set the standard, so QF Pilots will be the best paid in Australia and set the benchmark for everyone else.

I don’t need to explain what we go through to get onto the flight deck of an airliner and stay there, we deserve what we earn. Why should an unskilled baggage handler earn close to what a junior pilot makes ?

QF pilot pay should compare with other national airlines such as BA, AF, CX etc

Baggage handler pay should compare with similar jobs in the area. Obviously SYD is more expensive to like in and Kalgoorlie has to compete with what’s on offer in the mines.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE

(I recall a thread about a year ago of QF 737 drivers gloating about how much they were earning)

I don’t recall such a thread.

And I seriously doubt it. Can you refresh our memories?

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Originally Posted by Derfred

I don’t recall such a thread.

And I seriously doubt it. Can you refresh our memories?

Qantas Short Haul 2019 EA Negotiations (EA 8)

Page 4. Guys were posting screen shots of their payslips, quite strange.

But the point of my original post wasn't to bash QF pilots for their salaries, just to point out the irony of inferring that the ramp staff's time is up because they're the best paid in the industry when QF pilots are in the same boat.

I agree with Fat Guy, I think that its healthy for us (JQ) to have the QF guys get paid what they get paid as it prevents downwards pressure on our wages (pre covid of course, who knows what will happen now).

[patty50]

Originally Posted by krismiler

QF pilot pay should compare with other national airlines such as BA, AF, CX etc

Be careful what you wish for. In the luxurious days of 2019 BA pilots were starting on £26000. CX D scale isn’t much either.

717s all over the east coast. Maybe Sunrise will be done by labour hire anyway. The sim centre gets canned but the pilot academy is an investment in the future. There are more job losses coming as Alan said they need execs stood up for the “major projects”. Everyone knows management have a plethora of ways to screw you.

The pineapple is certainly coming for pilots too. But yeah f*ck those overpaid baggage handlers.

[dr dre]

Those salaries could only happen if flying was close to maximum (1000hrs pa, unsustainable in the long term) and the incentive payment was paid at full rate. Base salary (which is what it’ll be for the foreseeable future) is closer to industry standard.

[krismiler]

The pineapple is certainly coming for pilots too. But yeah f*ck those overpaid baggage handlers.

QANTAS can't be everyone's personal cash cow, it already has to compete with the ME3 on routes to Europe and Virgin on the domestic front. None of these are grossly overpaying their ground staff or have powerful unions squeezing their nuts, they don't live with the threat of some bolshie shop steward calling a work stoppage during the morning peak.

The cruise ship operators restructured long ago as it was impossible for them to remain in business while paying union rates to American staff. Was this inevitable or did the unions drive the shipping lines to register under a flag of convenience and employ third world nationals, because of excessive pay demands ? Either way the result was that only the Captain and a few senior officers are US citizens, the rest of the crew are from India, China, Philippines, Vietnam etc.

Of course this has already been going on with airline cabin crew for a while.

Remember the "glorified bus drivers" didn't get much support from the union movement back in 1989.

[wheels_down]

That’s pretty much how the Jetstar 787 operation runs. Norwegian also. The Cruise liner model. The Cabin Crew via an agency in Indonesia or Thailand. All ground functions via a third party. The only people on the airlines payroll outside of HQ are the two or three pilots up the front. We even saw one carrier in this country go as far as outsourcing its Safety Department to another country.

Some even go as far as recruiting FOs via an agency and bound them to a multi year slave contract, before dangling the carrot for a potential contract as a senior FO before a Command course.

The only people probably not outsourced in the future is Senior FO’s and Captains.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by non_state_actor

From what I have witnessed outsourcing ground staff never really works and results in many unintended problems as a result. I am sure it's cheaper on paper though.

I'm often surprised that people see this as not being inevitable. When 'cheaper' GH organisations were allowed to set up independently, many airlines jumped ship from Qantas ground handling and even Ansett ground handling at the time because while they preferred to be handled by another airline, they couldn't not do it because of the price reduction. Qantas (and even Ansett back when...) ground handling was if not profitable, very lucrative because it allowed economies of scale and for airlines like Qantas to basically largely offset their cost of their own workforce by having it subsidised by handling fees, often with the opportunity to utilise those airline's services at locations where Qantas operated (like Singapore for example or London) and obtain some sort of special rate.

Once the likes of Aerocare (Swissport), Menzies, Skystar and others emerged, the ground handling business for airlines died and has been on life support ever since. In the past, the $100M that is needed to be spent wasn't a problem because a fraction of the ground handling fees were based on equipment wear and tear, in lots of cases, the customer airlines handled were in gaps where QF had no activity, which made it worthwhile employing a FTE instead of PTE because the shift was largely paid for by the client airlines that took up the remainder of the shift time.

It surprises me that this hasn't happened earlier. Why wouldn't ANY business do this, remembering that Qantas doesn't do its own handling ANYWHERE else in the world and in many locations around Australia - the possible exception being the USA where it owns 49% of Hallmark Aviation Services.

If they were trying to destroy the product (I know no-one has said that) then they'd contract out Customer Services as well. Customer Services doesn't require hundreds of millions to be spent on GSE that is only used for Qantas and a few other airlines... one of the reasons that the independent ground handlers can do it cheaper (not just wages) is that they amortise the cost of the GSE across many clients, just like Qantas and Ansett used to do when providing ground handling and even TAA before the merger, who also handled many international carriers.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by blubak

labour pricing pressure & workforce flexibility really works so well!!,lets take the aged care sector as an example,what can go wrong.

I think it's a bit different, how could Q Catering possibly compete on sourcing stores and large purchase items when they were effectively only negotiating with suppliers for the stocking of 3 catering centres, whereas DNATA has probably a hundred catering centres and can achieve much greater economies of scale. Q Catering would make sense if it had had centres in the USA, Europe, Asia, etc. but it didn't.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by lc_461

Sure there are a few full time rampies pulling big bucks, but the vast majority of new hires for at least the last 5-10 years were already employed by a subsidiary, Qantas Ground Services.
This led to a workforce predominantly guaranteed 20h/week and salary generally equal to or in some cases, less than the ground handling companies they compete with.
Trying to break free from these conditions was an aim of the last EBA negotiations.
So i'm not sure how much $$ they will save on staff, but perhaps capital expenses.. if they have to buy 50 new tugs over the next few years I think they can easily get to $250K each.

Back when I was involved, an FMC30 was about $300-400K and you need two to service any widebody aircraft. I know Ansett refurbished many for $100s K before the Olympics and Qantas, in SYD, bought 8 brand new FMC30s... that's ENORMOUS money basically for 6 or 7 ports and that's just the 'scissor-lift' loaders.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by flyingfrenchman

Maybe they are factoring in the saving from reduced worker’s compensation claims, it’s rumoured the costs of this alone are huge.

And Qantas self-insures.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

........and the predictable result will be a massive increase in lost, stolen damaged and late baggage. That will produce enough reputational damage to offset any savings. However since the reputation bit isn’t quantified in accounts, it will look like a saving.

Not in my experience, Skystar (now part of Menzies) is a great example... run by ex airline people, won many awards from carriers like Singapore Airlines, Emirates and others for the excellence of their ground services. It was owned by a Mining Company (Monadel)... not sure what it's like now but it's definitely possible to provide quality ground services at a lesser cost than the airline and maintain quality.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by plainmaker

I think this is AJ's way of getting rid of the TWU - who are a PITA as far as management are concerned. I assume that this also means the demise of the old Qantas Transport team - those who used to do the crew transfers QCC to airside and return, plus tech crew home transport? (Showing my age now).

Used to be that Ground handling was a very profitable part of the Qantas Airports 'division' - recall many times costing up bids for other airlines handling at SYD International. Critical issue was when you had an AOG close to the curfew, you had your own staff to handle the pax to hotels exercise (and return). TWU used to be rostered until 0100, so the staff was on hand. A certain accountant put paid to that and it only took several weeks before the late LAX departure went tech. So due to Flight time limitations, new crew to be called out and the service was a no-go. The pax had to shuffled off to hotels etc, but the TWU pulled the 'sorry no overtime' and shot through when the shift was due to finish. Took an eternity for the pax to get to their hotels, only to be waken up for a 0600 departure. Would like to have been a fly on the wall as the (few) management did the bags, organised the transfers and hotels, Plus did all the rebookings for the displaced pax. And our American brethren were SO accommodating and flexible in their requests! Heard through the grapevine the overall 'impact' was in excess of $100k and that was in the early 90's.

Seems they never learn about the full outsource model - no 'ownership', no loyalty, and in the end it hurts your business. Ask PanAm and TWA.

Pan Am until the day they stopped operating to Australia had their own staff on their counters... that was the case with PA just about everywhere, one of the reasons their costs were so high.