QF Short Haul EBA
Perhaps you’re not privy to the instantaneous effect that another entity appearing to fold had on both the company’s state of mind and that of the pilots. Suffice it to say the company sensed a win over NJS when AIPA made that in-principle agreement. The division widened because one group protected themselves to the detriment of the other.
That is just false. You are trying to draw a connection where one does not exist.
I am very aware of the line Qantas had presented to the NJS negotiators from the very start of the negotiation. They were well aware that if agreement was not reached by a certain date then Qantas may choose to place the aircraft elsewhere in the Group. That date arrived and agreement had not been reached (I entirely blame Qantas as they were presenting a poor deal). Then Qantas did exactly what they said they would do and informed AFAP that they plan to take the aircraft elsewhere. They are not threatening to give the planes to SH and they didn’t say, “well SH reached an agreement and you didn’t so now you lose the jets”.
Qantas did what they said they would from the outset and a SH deal, or not, had no effect.
Even if the SH deal could somehow affected the NJS negotiations, could you imagine a union saying to its members; “Well we could have done a deal to protect your 700 jobs but we need to look out for pilots who fly for a different entity and are members of a different union, so we told Qantas to shove it”?
I am very aware of the line Qantas had presented to the NJS negotiators from the very start of the negotiation. They were well aware that if agreement was not reached by a certain date then Qantas may choose to place the aircraft elsewhere in the Group. That date arrived and agreement had not been reached (I entirely blame Qantas as they were presenting a poor deal). Then Qantas did exactly what they said they would do and informed AFAP that they plan to take the aircraft elsewhere. They are not threatening to give the planes to SH and they didn’t say, “well SH reached an agreement and you didn’t so now you lose the jets”.
Qantas did what they said they would from the outset and a SH deal, or not, had no effect.
Even if the SH deal could somehow affected the NJS negotiations, could you imagine a union saying to its members; “Well we could have done a deal to protect your 700 jobs but we need to look out for pilots who fly for a different entity and are members of a different union, so we told Qantas to shove it”?
What’s funny is the SH guys agreed to it in principal for only the initial 20x 321s and made zero effort to ensure they get future red tail 321s so they didn’t protect 700 jobs they agreed in principal to protect ~200
Precisely Clear_Left. Why would anyone have to spend 7+ hours debating a signed sealed and delivered in-principle agreement if it was worth agreeing to in the first place? The delay in the NJS guys reaching an in-principle agreement was due to the due diligence done by the reps, something the AIPA president failed to report when he declared the lack of (NJS) agreement. It seems AIPA departed without a flight plan, apparently to get some quick runs on the board but to what end?
Where in the proposal are the changes only limited to the first 20 aircraft?
Securing future A320 (and A220) aircraft, as well as additional A350s would form part of a new negotiation for the relevant BU’s. It’s hardly a revelation. If an entity were able to have a clause saying they would receive all future orders of a particular type I’d be impressed.
When new aircraft are forecast to arrive, you guessed it, it will coincide with EBA renewal. So this convo is all about nothing, and the CP emails are carefully constructed to emphasise it’s a deal for the initial tranche only. It’s not to say further orders won’t arrive.
Of interest, I wonder when QF (and AIPA) knew about the XLR delays. It turns out this recent process was probably not required, as with the delay, normal EBA negotiation would suffice but now QF get two bites at the cherry.
ps. If someone wanted to PM me with the material info added by the negotiators at the last minute…
When new aircraft are forecast to arrive, you guessed it, it will coincide with EBA renewal. So this convo is all about nothing, and the CP emails are carefully constructed to emphasise it’s a deal for the initial tranche only. It’s not to say further orders won’t arrive.
Of interest, I wonder when QF (and AIPA) knew about the XLR delays. It turns out this recent process was probably not required, as with the delay, normal EBA negotiation would suffice but now QF get two bites at the cherry.
ps. If someone wanted to PM me with the material info added by the negotiators at the last minute…
The delay in the NJS guys reaching an in-principle agreement was due to the due diligence done by the reps,
How on earth could the SH deal that was struck the following week possibly have tainted NJS negotiations that concluded the week prior?!?
The answer is clear, they didn’t, it had nothing to do with SH. Given Qantas mainline T&C’s are superior to NJS it is again impossible to see how a different pilot group agreeing to better conditions, a week later, could drag down another entity.
A deal wasn’t struck as Qantas IR made utterly unfair demands of the NJS pilots and the union couldn’t accept them. I applaud AFAP for standing up for their members under such pressure from Qantas.
However, I understand that the pilots themselves have now voiced a desire to vote on a deal that the negotiators deemed unacceptable.
Tbh it's fine by me to have scrutiny.
Beware the political hyperbole...
Can I ask how you know what the full details of the SH in-principle agreement are and what makes it a “**** sandwich” in your opinion? I’m just an average SH line pilot so apart from seeing a few headline dot points, I still have not seen the full details. Obviously I’ll reserve my opinion until I have all the information and will vote accordingly.
Was there any attempt to canvass the pilots? I didn’t see any.
As far as NJS, I refuse to be used as a wedge to undermine other group pilots. Disagree with that notion all you like but it is the outcome from this poorly conceived in-principle mess.
Good question! I don’t believe anyone has seen the full details of what the AIPA reps, agreed to in-principle. Other than the Strategic imperatives and some dot points issued in an AIPA communique. A small inner circle made the call, then some information somehow came to light that made the in-principle agreement seem unattractive. Someone jumped the gun without the support of the wider pilot group.
Was there any attempt to canvass the pilots? I didn’t see any.
As far as NJS, I refuse to be used as a wedge to undermine other group pilots. Disagree with that notion all you like but it is the outcome from this poorly conceived in-principle mess.
Was there any attempt to canvass the pilots? I didn’t see any.
As far as NJS, I refuse to be used as a wedge to undermine other group pilots. Disagree with that notion all you like but it is the outcome from this poorly conceived in-principle mess.
IF the negotiating team think an acceptable offer is on the table and IF the COM agree, then they need to inform of what the offer is and why they think we should accept it when it’s time to vote.
Until that happens let’s let them do their job.
Something pilots everywhere need to be clear about is that we aren’t all negotiating. That’s why we have a union. We vote for a COM, who in turn appoint a negotiating team. It’s their job to understand the wishes of the pilot group and negotiate in accordance with our intent. It’s not useful, realistic or helpful to expect them keep the wider group informed during the process.
IF the negotiating team think an acceptable offer is on the table and IF the COM agree, then they need to inform of what the offer is and why they think we should accept it when it’s time to vote.
Until that happens let’s let them do their job.
IF the negotiating team think an acceptable offer is on the table and IF the COM agree, then they need to inform of what the offer is and why they think we should accept it when it’s time to vote.
Until that happens let’s let them do their job.
"At 4.15pm, new information came to light which potentially had material impact on the motions that were being considered."
That information was threats by QF to cancel various letters of agreement if Project Winton failed to be endorsed.
The material question is WHY was the information withheld by the Project Winton team? If the CoM are to make a decision, key information cannot be withheld. Wile some may cave to threats, others don't respond too well.
Something pilots everywhere need to be clear about is that we aren’t all negotiating. That’s why we have a union. We vote for a COM, who in turn appoint a negotiating team. It’s their job to understand the wishes of the pilot group and negotiate in accordance with our intent. It’s not useful, realistic or helpful to expect them keep the wider group informed during the process.
IF the negotiating team think an acceptable offer is on the table and IF the COM agree, then they need to inform of what the offer is and why they think we should accept it when it’s time to vote.
Until that happens let’s let them do their job.
IF the negotiating team think an acceptable offer is on the table and IF the COM agree, then they need to inform of what the offer is and why they think we should accept it when it’s time to vote.
Until that happens let’s let them do their job.
Bingo! Did they?!
Good to see the spineless authors of text messages are at it again. Everyone always ‘got it from a mate who got it from a mate’, a bit like an STD. I’m sure the WhatsApp group of about 5 people who think they represent the views of the majority are high fiving thinking they’ve got some political runs on the board.
the last COM election spoke volumes as to what the majority actually think. Let them do their job.
the last COM election spoke volumes as to what the majority actually think. Let them do their job.
no idea. Might be more than 5, might be less. My point was those most vocal who seem intent on bringing down any COM that doesn’t align with their personal agendas should find another way. Anonymous personal attacks on hard working volunteer COM members, regardless of which side of the G20 fence they sit on, don’t do anyone any favours. How can we have any hope of achieving anything when everytime something happens that someone doesn’t agree with, COM are wasting time sending emails defending themselves and addressing social media/ texts rather than getting on with the job we elected them for. It’s been a pattern over the last 5-10, and frankly, it makes us all look like mugs.