Australian Airline Pilot: Respected Profession or 'Noose around your Neck'

[RealSatoshi]

Originally Posted by dragon man

The word I would use is blackmail...

No legal expert, but in layman's terms, could there be grounds for a Test Case at the next 'event'?

Blackmail

Blackmail is an offence under section 87 of The Crimes Act 1958. There are five elements that the prosecution must prove to find a person guilty of blackmail.
These are:

1. A demand was made;
2. The demand was made with a view to bring about a gain for the accused or another, or with intent to cause a loss to another;
3. The demand was made with menace;
4. The accused intended the recipient of the demand to fear that the threat would be carried out unless the recipient complied with the demand;
5. The demand was unwarranted.

Blackmail can attract a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment.

[Chronic Snoozer]

"The accused intended the recipient of the demand to fear that the threat would be carried out unless the recipient complied with the demand"

Has the 'threat' to withdraw backpay or not allocate new aircraft to mainline ever been put in writing or presented to the bargaining representatives officially? Or has it simply been a series of rumours and innuendo, implications and suggestions not sustained by correspondence? (he said, she said)

[RealSatoshi]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Has the 'threat' to withdraw backpay or not allocate new aircraft to mainline ever been put in writing or presented to the bargaining representatives officially? Or has it simply been a series of rumours and innuendo, implications and suggestions not sustained by correspondence? (he said, she said)

If not, that implies that the union(s) responded to and members voted on...a series of rumours and innuendo, implications and suggestions not sustained by correspondence?

There is a strong case that in the very near future, authorisation is sought (read insisted), for all union interactions with a company to be officially recorded (audio) so as to prevent veiled threats and innuendos from going unchecked

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Holding the pilots to ransom by threatening to either withdraw backpay or refusing to allocate new types to the workforce if agreement is not reached doesn't sound like good faith bargaining. Has this ever been raised at the FWC? Might be time to call the bluff.

When that concept was suggested to the unions during the “Strategic Imperatives” “negotiation” both unions involved said they were powerless against it, refused to query it at the FWC and barely stopped short of condoning the act. Apparently it’s ok to run your negotiations drug cartel style in Australia.

[theheadmaster]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Holding the pilots to ransom by threatening to either withdraw backpay or refusing to allocate new types to the workforce if agreement is not reached doesn't sound like good faith bargaining. Has this ever been raised at the FWC? Might be time to call the bluff.

Yes, the requirements for good faith bargaining have been tested. The threshold is extremely low. Pretty much all you have to do is 'to genuinely give consideration to the proposals put by a bargaining representative'. You do not have to agree to anything.

[Prop_Like_Pay]

The pilot profession is also one of the most heavily unionised, and pilot groups have a lot of power to put pressure for increased pay. It’s just about rediscovering that fizz and getting behind it as a cohesive, organised group.

[Beer Baron]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Has the 'threat' to withdraw backpay or not allocate new aircraft to mainline ever been put in writing or presented to the bargaining representatives officially? Or has it simply been a series of rumours and innuendo, implications and suggestions not sustained by correspondence? (he said, she said)

This was sent to all pilots by the Qantas International CEO:

We have informed AIPA (and are now informing you) that if we are unable to secure a new long-haul EBA10 with our pilots that meets the Sunrise investment case within Airbus’ timeframe, we will be left with no viable alternative but to have Sunrise flying performed by a new employment entity that can provide the cost base we need for this important business opportunity.

(His bold, not mine)
This was followed by at least 6 FAQ’s that explicitly outlined their intention to give the flying to another entity and that we would never get another crack at it. Statement such as this one:

​​​​​​​we will be left with no viable alternative but to have Sunrise flying performed by a new employment entity that can. Any future Long Haul EBA will not include provision for Sunrise flying.

So yeah, we were directly and very clearly threatened. No rumours or innuendo required.

Another interesting tidbit from that email is the following excerpt, which shows that the S/O B-scale was fiercely resisted by AIPA and future pilots were not willingly “thrown under the bus” as some have asserted. Qantas had to invoke the nuclear option to get that over the line.

​​​​​​​The biggest stumbling block for AIPA appears to be our proposed pay rates for futureSecond Officers. This is a major contributor to making the Sunrise business case stack up and relates to jobs that would only exist if the project goes ahead. The remuneration for these future Second Officers is still highly competitive compared with the rest of the market and is significantly above what both Jetstar and Virgin Australia offer new hire Second Officers. It won’t affect any current pilots. But AIPA is implacably opposed to this component in particular

[Duck Pilot]

Reality is that pilots in general (there are a few exceptions) are treated like commodities in the Australian arena at the moment. I won’t elaborate on my opinion why, however apart from stating that pilots were treated a lot better when I joined the industry in the mid 80’s, then we had the 89 dispute that happened for a very good reason not that I’m a supporter of strike action.

One only needs to observe the reoccurring job advertisements by certain operators, to get an indication of what’s going on with the individual organisations, most of which are places with revolving doors as far as pilot retention is concerned. In some isolated cases I’m sure it’s a specific skills shortage that’s understandable in this climate, however when certain operators are advertising continuously for years for the same roles, it clearly indicates retention issues that’s directly attributed to salary, culture issues or certain individuals in positions of influence within the organisation.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by theheadmaster

Yes, the requirements for good faith bargaining have been tested. The threshold is extremely low. Pretty much all you have to do is 'to genuinely give consideration to the proposals put by a bargaining representative'. You do not have to agree to anything.

Nor does either side have to make concessions. There is however, the matter of capricious or unfair conduct.

[theheadmaster]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Nor does either side have to make concessions. There is however, the matter of capricious or unfair conduct.

The Fair Work website has some good information on bargaining requirements. Here is a link: https://www.fwc.gov.au/good-faith-ba...representative

Here is what it says regarding refraining from capricious or unfair conduct:

The requirement in section 228(1)(e) ('refraining from capricious or unfair conduct ...') is intended to cover a broad range of conduct. For example, conduct may be capricious or unfair if an employer:

• fails to recognise a bargaining representative
• does not permit an employee who is a bargaining representative to attend meetings or discuss matters relating to the terms of the proposed agreement with fellow employees
• dismisses or engages in detrimental conduct towards an employee because the employee is a bargaining representative or is participating in bargaining, or
• prevents an employee from appointing his or her own representative.[8]

Whether conduct is capricious or unfair can only be ascertained by an examination of all of the circumstances in a particular case.[9]

Capricious is defined as 'guided by caprice; readily swayed by whim or fancy; inconstant' and caprice as 'an unaccountable change of mind or conduct…' in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as cited in Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Foster's Australia Ltd.[10]

[soseg]

Beer Baron put it accurately.

Don't let facts on pprune get in the way of a good story. Mainline pilots had no choice.

Anyway. Can someone here show me one good EBA that AFAP have secured for it's members?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Originally Posted by soseg

Beer Baron put it accurately.

Don't let facts on pprune get in the way of a good story. Mainline pilots had no choice.

Anyway. Can someone here show me one good EBA that AFAP have secured for its members?

Meanwhile over on another thread, a bunch of QF group employees, who also had no viable choice during their negotiation, are being accused of undermining the whole industry. Isn’t it time we became a cohesive pilot body and took the fight to the IR thugs? There is no time like right now!

[megan]

Can someone here show me one good EBA that AFAP have secured for it's members

Our group had a good one back in the seventies, though the AFAP was just the rubber stamp to have what the company and pilots had agreed ratified. We later kicked the AFAP to the curb after threats were made.

[soseg]

Originally Posted by megan

Our group had a good one back in the seventies, though the AFAP was just the rubber stamp to have what the company and pilots had agreed ratified. We later kicked the AFAP to the curb after threats were made.

How old are you?

[megan]

80........

[framer]

How old is soseg?

[soseg]

Originally Posted by framer

How old is soseg?

I'm 10. Congratulations to anyone who has argued with me the last few months. You've been arguing with a kid who plays minecraft and worships tiktok reels. You boomers look like idiots.

Mum is disconnecting my internet now. Goodnight

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by RealSatoshi

Something like this

American Airlines pilots will vote on new contract with 41.5% in pay raises

The contract is effective for four years and will be amendable on 1 August 2027 - Pilots would be back paid, based on eligible earnings:
2020 ---> 4%
2021 ---> 4%
2022 ---> 14%
2023 ---> 21%
2024 ---> 5%
2025 ---> 4%
2026 ---> 4%
2027 ---> 3%

In 2024, pilots would receive a 17% 401(k) contribution, and in 2026, the contribution would increase to 18%

That is a 41.5% real earnings boost from 2023 to 2027 or, considering the back pay, a 74.5% real earnings boost from 2020 to 2027 - not accounting for the boost in company 401(k) contributions

This website might offer some more info on US airline pilot pay if it's germane to discussions in this thread:

https://www.pilotpaycompare.com/

[cxflog]

Originally Posted by bafanguy

This website might offer some more info on US airline pilot pay if it's germane to discussions in this thread:

https://www.pilotpaycompare.com/

A shame there’s not more US airline options to compare between but a great outlook nonetheless.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by cxflog

A shame there’s not more US airline options to compare between but a great outlook nonetheless.

You can select other airlines in the window down the page a bit.