Qantas...Post COVID

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Tucknroll

and everyone who is currently stood down would have a couple hundred grand redundancy payout in their pocket while they wait to be rehired.

Not necessarily.

If Strict Seniority CR was applied then everyone who started in the last few years would have no more than a few weeks pay. So for a lot it would be better to collect AL on stand down.

If you are redundant then you are outside of the system and any possible chances that come up in that time. Yes, you’ll be rehired but only when overall it’s deemed necessary and miss out on any opportunities until then. For example there was no recruitment between 2009-16 but plenty of promotions and transfers that occurred within the pilots who were employed. They managed those slots with the numbers they had at the time.

And it sounds great if redundancies were paid out to all crew but it would risk the overall financial position of the company and put a lot of other workers at risk. Income is still tight out there although there is hope on the horizon.

Yeah it sucks but there really isn’t a option which is going to satisfy everyone.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by John Citizen

I apologise if I am wrong but I always thought Qantas was an airline and their primary purpose was to provide an "airline service". Since when were they some type of investment company with return on capital to shareholders being their primary goal?

They are a publicly traded company - they may be an 'icon' in many people's minds but they are, legally and in fact, a publicly traded company with shareholders who consider their funds they've invested in shares not as a 'gift' or 'donation' but as an investment with the expectation of a return.

Qantas' activities happen to be providing air transportation to people and goods but it is ALL for the purpose of providing a return on capital invested. It's as simple as that. Effective 31st July, 1995.

[Keg]

Originally Posted by Tucknroll

and everyone who is currently stood down would have a couple hundred grand redundancy payout in their pocket while they wait to be rehired.

Nope. They’d still be stood down, and the company would be broke from multiple training courses both ways. We would have killed the goose that lays the golden egg each fortnight.

I’ve said a number of times that surviving Covid was about trying to find the ‘least crap’ outcome for the most number of people. So far I reckon we’ve gone pretty well to achieve that. I acknowledge that the ‘least crap’ outcome varies significantly between different segments of the mainline pilot group.

Originally Posted by beautiful_butterfly

EBA variation discussions ceased when Qantas realised the greatest benefit came from its unchallenged position on Stand Down.

Not even close to reality.

[SandyPalms]

Originally Posted by beautiful_butterfly

Where’s the proposed variation Keg?

There’s been plenty of time. If work has been done on an acceptable solution, what’s the solution and what work has been done. Enlighten me?.

As I hear it went nowhere because QF kept asking for things that wouldn’t get more people back to work sooner, like removing MDC from certain duties to go along with the reduction in MGH that they wouldn’t committ to undoing when the world got back to normal. Seems like it was a conditions grab, designed to look like they cared.

[Keg]

Originally Posted by SandyPalms

As I hear it went nowhere because QF kept asking for things that wouldn’t get more people back to work sooner, like removing MDC from certain duties to go along with the reduction in MGH that they wouldn’t committ to undoing when the world got back to normal. Seems like it was a conditions grab, designed to look like they cared.

That’s a long way from the version I’ve heard. It’s true that QF suggested some things that made their life easier during Covid such as reduced bidding timelines and other things like that. The things I heard discussed all had an end date though so it wasn’t a ‘conditions grab’ in the traditional sense that a line pilot might see it. I hadn’t heard about the ‘wouldn’t commit to undoing’ regarding reduced MDC but I’ll do some digging. Keep in mind that any variation still needed to be voted up so any ‘grab’ that jeopardised a ‘yes’ vote was short sighted in the extreme.

There are a few different reasons why EA variations are not being discussed in any depth any more. I’m happy to talk through them over the phone if people want to give me a call.

[Tucknroll]

Originally Posted by dr dre

Not necessarily.

If Strict Seniority CR was applied then everyone who started in the last few years would have no more than a few weeks pay. So for a lot it would be better to collect AL on stand down.

If you are redundant then you are outside of the system and any possible chances that come up in that time. Yes, you’ll be rehired but only when overall it’s deemed necessary and miss out on any opportunities until then. For example there was no recruitment between 2009-16 but plenty of promotions and transfers that occurred within the pilots who were employed. They managed those slots with the numbers they had at the time.

And it sounds great if redundancies were paid out to all crew but it would risk the overall financial position of the company and put a lot of other workers at risk. Income is still tight out there although there is hope on the horizon.

Yeah it sucks but there really isn’t a option which is going to satisfy everyone.

I get what you’re saying but you are forgetting that LWOP was taken up by the junior pilots who were told they would most likely be bypassed for CR if they did so.

So most of the people who would actually be CRed would be more senior and probably get a couple of hundred grand at least.

[Tucknroll]

Originally Posted by Keg

Nope. They’d still be stood down, and the company would be broke from multiple training courses both ways. We would have killed the goose that lays the golden egg each fortnight.

Like the ensuing bankruptcy from the 747 RIN training courses?

the CRed pilots would probably be SO’s. The most likely short term outcome from a mass CR would be a bit of heavy crewing, not bankruptcy from training courses. You know that, so does Qantas. Keeping us all stood down is really really cheap. That’s why they’re doing it.

[theheadmaster]

Can the company make someone compulsory redundant if there is a legal stand down trigger?

[Keg]

Originally Posted by Tucknroll

Like the ensuing bankruptcy from the 747 RIN training courses?

That’s 60 odd Captain/ F/O courses onto fleets that are likely to need those crew in the next six months (post VR/ER, it would have been a heap more prior to that process). It’s a very different set of circumstances to the RIN example Dre was talking about of doing a mass RIN at the beginning of Covid of everyone on the A380 (110 courses post VR), then everyone on the 747 (60 courses), then dealing with the surplus on the 787, then dealing with the resulting surplus on the A330. Conservatively I reckon we’re up to 400 training courses.

Oh, and now we’d be training in the reverse order again to re-promote people for the increased flying having probably not even got everyone into the correct seats to start off with.

[Australopithecus]

In a fair world perhaps some kind of “no worse off” could have applied. Given the 330 and 787 crews probably only had two or three months in the last 14 why not just pay the 747 and 380 guys the same. That way everyone would be in the same boat, and no training required.

[Transition Layer]

Will those training onto the 330/787 at present simply check to line and then get stood down?

Seems like QF might be jumping the gun a bit, but hopefully I’m wrong!

[Roj approved]

Thank you for your answers Keg👍

[turbantime]

It appears that international travel will take some time to recover:

A report this week by Barclays, “Travel, Interrupted”, is tipping a permanent reduction in global mobility arising from COVID-19. “We think it is very likely that mobility restrictions will remain even after the developed economies have achieved herd immunity. In other words, the risk of a ‘persistent pandemic’ is real.”

Even when borders open, travel is expected to remain a greater a hassle than before, requiring more paperwork and vaccinations against new strains of the virus. The result? Permanent scarring of the work prospects of employees in travel, hospitality and tourism and a widening gap in fortunes between the developed and developing world, the latter relying more on inbound tourism.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...26-p57vdq.html

[FightDeck]

Qantas can run a RIN, and move crew to where there is work without displacing anyone in a subsequent RIN.
The Bump that Keg assumes only happens after crew move and IF Qantas choose to then run a subsequent RIN.Nothing to stop QF carrying a surplus and avoiding the bump.TRE’s saying training is at max in SH and on some LH fleets from prior vacancies so cost of training can’t be an argument.
with the dismal failure of a government plan on vaccines Qantas may be in this position for many years to come.
A330s are flying domestically and to Asia(Freight).The 787s are flying a lot of repat flights and now domestic/freight.Most of which are paid by the government.
There is not a total “stoppage of work” so the “borders closed” argument is not stopping work entirely. LH crew have useful work and are flying now it is just limited.The argument many have is false as it assumes border closes=no useful work for anyone
Stand down will have a limited timeframe and Qantas shareholder responsibility doesn’t over ride law.

[theheadmaster]

Unfortunately, the Long Haul EA does not specify that a pilot can be only be stood down for a 'total' "stoppage of work". The words in clause 15.6 refer to a 'strike, stoppage or other limitation of work for which the company cannot be held responsible'. A 'limitation' does not require all work to cease. Moreover, the stand down can apply to individual pilots, it does not have to apply to all pilots, or an entire category of pilots; note the use of the words 'an Australian based pilot' and 'the pilot'. So a limitation that only affects the work for a handful of employees can result in partial stand downs of a group of pilots.

Regarding running a RIN and then Qantas carrying the surplus, this is an important point. While the RIN process is specified in the Agreement, it does not state that he Company has to conduct a RIN. The 'right thing' to do for pilots might be to RIN A380 pilots to other long haul types that are flying. However, if there is cost involved, there may be pressure from within the business to carry the surplus on the A380 and not RIN anyone. If you were a cynic, you might conclude that Qantas may be motivated to talk about A380s coming back into service as it affects the ability to stand down pilots on that type.

[Keg]

Originally Posted by FightDeck

Qantas can run a RIN, and move crew to where there is work without displacing anyone in a subsequent RIN.
The Bump that Keg assumes only happens after crew move and IF Qantas choose to then run a subsequent RIN.Nothing to stop QF carrying a surplus and avoiding the bump.

Qantas runs a RIN because a category is in surplus. With only 40 A380 Captains and plans for at least 6 A380s to return (and Joyce keeps talking about all 12) one needs to ask whether the A380 categories fit the definition of being in surplus. That’s an argument that can go either way depending on a bunch of legal definitions. That is a discussion that is well above my pay grade. I have an opinion on the matter but am often reminded that it’s just my opinion.

However let’s consider your justification for a RIN. You’re suggesting we do a RIN of the A380 category (presumably because you feel them in surplus), have them displace to the A330 and 787 (where there is only currently enough flying for about 50% of the crew) but then NOT do a subsequent RIN on the A330 and 787? It seems a little odd to push a barrow to RIN one fleet due not enough flying for those pilots but then not follow that principle through to it’s logical conclusion on other LH fleets?

Interestingly, toward the end of last year it seemed there were quite advanced discussions and some plans to move crew from the non flying fleets onto the 330 and 787. Those discussions seem not to have progressed this year. Perhaps the real question A380 pilots should be asking is what happened to those ideas that were being discussed in the back half of last year.

Originally Posted by FightDeck

Stand down will have a limited timeframe…..

This I agree with though I suspect we disagree on when that time frame comes around.

[Kaboobla]

Keg

You are meant to be one of the union reps these days and all I hear you do is defend the company. Maybe they need defending, I dont know. I do think that probably it would be better if you represented the interests of pilots stood down for over 18 months now.

The A380 pilots dont have to ask any questions - your on the AIPA COM. You have been elected to ask those questions on their behalf.

The 'redundancies will send the company broke' trope needs to end - seriously.

All of QF HR stood up the whole time since COVID kicked off - many of them on over 100K per year.

Network fully stood up. EFA full stood up without a day off. JQ now fully stood up including their 787 pilots.

Dont worry, QF is making plenty of money and its certain exec bonuses will be paid FY 22 / 23.... seriously come on.

[knobbycobby]

Your all off the mark.Qantas are going to have issues with extended stand down.

[FightDeck]

Qantas are running around 150 training courses from old vacancies.They should of cancelled the courses if they were in difficulty.
Why are they going ahead and training 150 pilots if they can’t afford it? You can’t have it both ways.
The argument doesn’t pass the pub test.

[geeup]

Not sure that’s correct.
Did they not have a 2/2 arrangement?

Originally Posted by Kaboobla

Network fully stood up.
.