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

[RealSatoshi]

Originally Posted by MickG0105

Anyone with even a passing understanding of contract law would understand this.

Originally Posted by MickG0105

Anyone familiar with contract law knows the three decisions relevant to the concept of agreeing to consult or negotiate...

We get it...We get it...we don't understand contract law - thís after all, is a Professional Pilots Rumour Network not a Professional Lawyers Rumour Network

What we also get though, is that as a professional cohort in Australia, most have had enough of this continuous 'Kick-them-to-the-curb' mantra and therefore we should continuously seek and expand our search for alternative ways to do things better in order to get better results.

Originally Posted by MickG0105

...no amount of handwaving or "anything is possible if you put your mind to it" pie-in-the-sky thinking will change that

It is the Act, we get it...but it is also not the Constitution so it can be challenged, although probably in the 'Too Hard' quadrant.

However, accepting defeat just because something seems too hard is not the best strategy - not implying we must change the Act - but rather keep testing until we find alternative ways to reach a more balanced outcome.

In 2008 there was a fair 'amount of handwaving' by Elon Musk, yet Warren Buffet decided not to invest in Tesla at a U$200 Million valuation - Today Tesla's Market Cap = U$758 Billion versus Berkshire Hathaways's Market Cap = U$775.7 Billion.

In 2017 there was a fair 'amount of handwaving' by Elon Must, yet this time it was Tim Cook who decided not to invest in Tesla at a U$40.8 Billion valuation - Today Tesla's Market Cap = U$758 Billion versus Apple's Market Cap = U$2.817 Trillion.

The point is, if we accept everything to be in the 'Too Hard' quadrant, then innovation and progress stops - similar to what has happened to pilot conditions here in Australia...

Originally Posted by theheadmaster

The timelines for when bargaining must start are stated in the Fair Work Act. For the process to begin before the expiry date, the employer must initiate bargaining. Employees can only begin the process after the expiry date.

As prescribed by the Act yes, but there are ways to get them to the table earlier...it will take some out of the box thinking and efficient negotiation tactics, but not impossible, as nothing ever is given a long enough timeline.

Originally Posted by Lapon

I'd say the most effective method to cover the 'must be concluded by' clause could be a 'on expiry all payment scales shall be increased annually by cpi+x'

This here is an example of an offside opinion that could potentially bring us closer to the desired objective.

Let's assume through sheer brilliance we get the above statement included in the EBA. Do we still think that when, for example CPI = 7% (or whatever number you choose), the company would not be interested in initiating negotiations before EBA expiry, considering their wage increase 'Strategic Imperative' is always CPI minus Y. Now let's consider a scenario where CPI = -2%, now the company would have no incentive to start negotiations before EBA expiry, except if they were planning on offering even less.

Even a negative CPI scenario, something that has only happened three times since the index was started in 1948, would not put us in a different scenario from current, where according to the Act, we can only initiate negotiations after EBA expiry

I'm in no way claiming that the above is the solution...I am no Expert...but rather trying to point out that an exercise of discovery can lead to more favourable outcomes in the end.

Finding ways and means to prevent companies from slow-walking negotiations should be very high on our collective priority list - Case in Point:
QF FY23 Salaries, Wages & Other Benefits Expenditure = $4 261 000 000.00
Lets' assume 50% of this is covered by 'Slow-Walked' EBA's = $2 130 500 000.00
Let's assume a 3% Increase is finally agreed upon = $63 915 000.00
Lat's assume a 5% High Interest Savings rate on the 3% Increase Due = $3 195 750.00 per year or $8 749.49 per day (7 days a week)

Per Example:
$8 749.49 per day is the QF Interest earned on money due to employees while 'slow-walking' negotiations - Surely QF can afford the best delaying tactics at half of that rate and still profit $4 374.75 per day on money owed to employees, this on every day negotiations are delayed or protracted, except if they pay the money back with interest...

Prediction:

• QF Shorthaul EA (EBA9) will not be signed off by 1 March 2024 (▲ 6 Months)
• QF Shorthaul EA (EBA9) will not include 100% Backpay
• QF Shorthaul EA (EBA9) will not include an interest portion on the backpay, if backpay is even paid at all

Achieve ALL three and I'll say it right here, right now: Job Well Done

[RealSatoshi]

After the week that was, it is prudent to circle back and consider where we are as a 'Respected Profession' in the greater Scheme-of-Things (Pun Intended)

Let's first consider the QF Group's 0-0-3-3% Wages Policy and the impact it has already had on the entire pilot body as a whole, but with specific reference to the poor souls as referenced by AFAP below.

AFAP Update for Qantas Group Pilots

Sunstate and Eastern Pilot Councils
...junior FOs receiving less remuneration than they would receive under the safety-net Award.

Network Aviation
In 2022, approximately 62 pilots were paid below the minimum Award equivalent, with the majority experiencing a shortfall of around $7,200. This number increases every year a new enterprise agreement is delayed.

Express Freighters Australia
As time went on more and more EFA pilots started to receive less remuneration than they would be entitled to under the Award.

In contrast to the above, here are some real beaut's extracted from the Qantas Group FY23 Appendix 4E and Preliminary Final Report as well as the Qantas Group FY23 Investor Presentation.

Fact #1
Contrary to popular belief, Qantas did not buy back $400 Million in shares as was initially reported:
Qantas shares soar on surprise buyback as demand returns - 25 August 2022
Is the $400m buyback a good thing for Qantas shares? - 29 August 2022
‘Reckless’: Analyst slams Qantas buyback - 7 September 2022

In fact, during FY23 the Qantas Group bought back $1 Billion (yes $1 000 Million) of its own shares with another $500 Million planned for 1H24.

Qantas Group FY23 Appendix 4E and Preliminary Final Report
During the year, the Group completed $1 billion of share buy-backs at an average price of $6.19 per share. With all pillars of the Group’s Financial Framework met, the Board resolved to distribute further surplus capital to shareholders, announcing a further on-market share buy- back of up to $500 million.

Fact #2
Net Debt was reduced to be significantly below the Net Debt Target Range to the extend of ▲21.9% or ▲37.2% depending on whether you measure against to upper or lower band of the Net Debt Target Range.

Qantas Group FY23 Investor Presentation
Balance Sheet Strength: Net Debt at $2.89 Billion, materially below the Net Debt Target Range of $3.7 Billion to $4.6 Billion with Net Debt/EBITDA of 0.6x

Fact #3
FY23 Domestic Operating Margin is 42.2% higher than FY19 (pre-COVID) while FY23 International Operating Margin is 165.9% higher than FY19 (pre-COVID).

Qantas Group FY23 Appendix 4E and Preliminary Final Report
Qantas Domestic Operating Margin: FY23 18.2% versus FY19 12.8%
Qantas International Operating Margin: FY23 11.7% versus FY19 4.4%

Fact #4

​​​Qantas Group FY23 Investor Presentation
Top quartile TSR performance across ASX100 and ranked 1st amongst global listed airline peer group through post-COVID recovery FY21-FY23​​​​

Fact #5

​​​​Qantas Group FY23 Investor Presentation
$340 Millionof benefits in recovery boost payments and RRP shares across 21 100 employees plus > $20 Million in staff travel credits​​​.
Benefits based on 30 June 2023 closing share price of $6.20

Considering that at best, every employee received the fabled $5 000 bonus plus 1 000 Shares at $6.20 per share = $11 200 per employee.
$340 Million divided by 21 100 employees = $16 113.74 per employee
Where did the ▲$4 913.74 per employee go...?

Similarly, considering that every employee received the $500 Staff Travel Credit:
$20 Million divided by 21 100 employees = $947.87 per employee
Where did the ▲$447.87 per employee go...?

So what is the purpose of this all - Well, while the CEO and others were able to defer their Share Bonus allocations until the company turned a profit, the individuals in a so-called 'Respected Profession' were left with no choice but to accept a 0-0-3-3% Wages Policy that will amortise these wage losses over the length of their careers, as well as those that follow in their footsteps via future EBA's.

Not a good look for a company that received record taxpayer support, made record profits and distributed record bonuses to but a select few

[A320 Flyer]

If I include the shares (cashed in last week), the sign on bonus (not yet) and SH performance bonus for 2022 and 2023 FYs (waiting this month) I’ve worked mine out to be just shy of 65k for a 737 FO. Having said that I would give up the sugar hit (shares and sign on bonus) to avoid the 0/0/3/3 bullsh*t policy.

[RealSatoshi]

Respected Profession...who knows...maybe we stand corrected, or not.

7News Australia [Time Stamp 2:42]

"We can confirm that Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson is headed to Perth tonight to meet with the hundreds of pilots there."

You Tube

[RealSatoshi]

Some indication on where we could (should) be going as a profession here in Australia.

For context, the Purchasing Power Parity (Total National Currency Units per US Dollar)(OECD Data 2022), currently sits at 1.419 AUD per US Dollar. In simple terms, the figures below should be multiplied by PPP (1.419) to get to the projected AUD value which will buy the same amount of Goods and Services as our counterparts earning US Dollars.

[Lead Balloon]

I've asked questions like this before, as an act purest optimism:

Why don't lawyers, for example, engage in these public wailings and gnashings of teeth about, for example, comparisons between how much lawyers in the US get paid compared to lawyers in Australia, or why lawyers in firm X get paid more compared to lawyers in firm Y or why the head of firm Q gets paid millions and the employed solicitors don't?

Does anyone doubt that lawyers are 'adequately' remunerated (whatever the meaningless modifier 'adequately' means, which is kinda the point) even though they are not 'up there' on the respect scale?

What is the mechanism through which lawyers end up getting paid more than pilots?

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

What is the mechanism through which lawyers end up getting paid more than pilots?

Lawyers aren’t paid more than pilots, $130k vs $160k average salary:

Here's the income for hundreds of Australian occupations

For every high profile SC charging $20k per day for their services there’s 200 lawyers doing Legal Aid and serving less wealthy members of society - just like how every employed pilot isn’t on an A380 Captain’s wage.

[neville_nobody]

or why lawyers in firm X get paid more compared to lawyers in firm Y or why the head of firm Q gets paid millions and the employed solicitors don't?

Law is a different beast with the barriers to entry being relatively low for a profession. And yes you don’t even need a degree to practice law. It is also a relatively cheap degree to study with just about every uni offering a law school. This results with an oversupply of less experienced lawyers with the big money being earned by those more experienced or specialised lawyers.

Lawyers also get poached by firms with whole teams moving firms if the money is right. One problem for Australian pilots is there is no real competition for our labour in this country. I wouldn’t even be surprised if there is market collusion on this front to keep salaries down.

The real killer profession IMHO is engineering which is a hard degree, takes 4 years and once experienced you just get whited anted by contract foreigners who work for money that won’t even keep the lights on in Australia.

[RealSatoshi]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I've asked questions like this before, as an act purest optimism:

Why don't lawyers, for example, engage in these public wailings and gnashings of teeth about, for example, comparisons between how much lawyers in the US get paid compared to lawyers in Australia, or why lawyers in firm X get paid more compared to lawyers in firm Y or why the head of firm Q gets paid millions and the employed solicitors don't?

Does anyone doubt that lawyers are 'adequately' remunerated (whatever the meaningless modifier 'adequately' means, which is kinda the point) even though they are not 'up there' on the respect scale?

What is the mechanism through which lawyers end up getting paid more than pilots?

My guess would be that they (lawyers per example), are not continually belittled and bullied into doing more for less while experiencing wage SHRINKFLATION at the highest rate.

Simply comparing Lawyer #1 with Lawyer #2 is not all that easy, but in aviation a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain...get my point

This why aviation management has no choice but to cut all and sundry at the knees and hope they all bleed out...

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks for all that. The professions clearly have much to learn from their pilot colleagues when it comes to making the big bucks.

[ddrwk]

Originally Posted by RealSatoshi

My guess would be that they (lawyers per example), are not continually belittled and bullied into doing more for less while experiencing wage SHRINKFLATION at the highest rate.

You need to get out more. And IF that is not happening, ask yourself why.

Originally Posted by RealSatoshi

Simply comparing Lawyer #1 with Lawyer #2 is not all that easy, but in aviation a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain is a 787 Captain...get my point

That’s the seniority system working exactly as it is supposed to. Remove seniority and you’d have a vastly different process in place.

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, it is a very curious question, ddrwk: Why would it be that the members of some professions are not continually belittled and bullied into doing more for less while experiencing wage shrinkflation at the highest rate, and others are? What is it about the profession of pilot that results in pilots being prone to and tolerating that kind of treatment?

If the answer is that pilots have no choice, that’s the problem. It’s the absence of options.

I’ve previously posted this little pearl of wisdom I was given decades ago:

There is no security in being employed. There is only security in being employable.

Translation to pilot-talk: You always need an executable alternate to your current ‘career destination’. If you don’t, you’ve no choice but to cop whatever bad weather, headwinds, fuel burn and lack of aids and runway options arise from a destination to which you’re committed. (Hopefully you see the analogy with being continually belittled and bullied into doing more for less while experiencing wage shrinkflation at the highest rate.)

At the moment, it seems that a random combination of events has given pilots more choices and, therefore, more leverage. It’s severe CAVOK, you have tailwinds and enough fuel to get lost twice and still find a friendly runway to land with reserves intact. But that outcome is the product of ‘good luck’ rather than ‘good management’ by pilots. The weather will change, as it always does.

Good management would mean having an executable alternate for next time the 'industrial weather' turns ugly. The availability to you of that executable alternate would, paradoxically, result in pilots not being prone to being “continually belittled and bullied into doing more for less while experiencing wage shrinkflation”, because you’d be able to say goodbye and get stuffed to the people who would like to treat you that way to fill their pockets off your work, and they’d know it.

[RealSatoshi]

Back to the topic of EA's, as this is the season - Any EA currently being negotiated, should not be signed without a clause indicating that negotiations for the next EA will commence at minimum 6 Months before expiry of said EA.

For those who are tired of protracted EA negotiations that can sometimes span year(s), not months - Intractable Bargaining legislation addresses this.

For those (either party) seeking Intractable Bargaining, note that you are only eligible to file for Intractable Bargaining after the Minimum Bargaining Period has elapsed:
Minimum Bargaining Period - Nine months elapse since commencement of bargaining/nominal expiry of previous agreement (whichever is later)

If the Co (or Union) is dragging their feet, such an EA clause will allow either party to file for Intractable Bargaining a mere 3 months after expiry of the original EA - if the party that is dragging their feet is not keen on Intractable Bargaining, this will either force them back to the table with more realistic proposals or force them into Intractable Bargaining. In effect, it will also remove the 'We'll cancel your backpay if you don't agree' blunt weapon from their arsenal, as such backpay (under threat) will, at best, only cover 3 months of lost earnings, not 12-18 months as is often the case.

[Check_Thrust]

For those (either party) seeking Intractable Bargaining, note that you are only eligible to file for Intractable Bargaining after the Minimum Bargaining Period has elapsed:Minimum Bargaining Period - Nine months elapse since commencement of bargaining/nominal expiry of previous agreement (whichever is later) If the Co (or Union) is dragging their feet, such an EA clause will allow either party to file for Intractable Bargaining a mere 3 months after expiry of the original EA

I understand where you are coming from but it would be a minimum of 9 months not 3 (which is a lot better than some situations that are getting around).

Without trawling through various agreements I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that a lot of agreements already have a clause stating negotiations to commence 6 months prior to expiry, the hassle being getting both company and union to adhere to it.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by RealSatoshi

...
For those (either party) seeking Intractable Bargaining, note that you are only eligible to file for Intractable Bargaining after the Minimum Bargaining Period has elapsed:
Minimum Bargaining Period - Nine months elapse since commencement of bargaining/nominal expiry of previous agreement (whichever is later)

If the Co (or Union) is dragging their feet, such an EA clause will allow either party to file for Intractable Bargaining a mere 3 months after expiry of the original EA - ...

That's not correct.

What effect do you think the phrase "whichever is later" has on the determination of when the Minimum Bargaining Period ends?

[RealSatoshi]

Originally Posted by MickG0105

That's not correct.

What effect do you think the phrase "whichever is later" has on the determination of when the Minimum Bargaining Period ends?

Well tracked MickG0105

Had to go read that again and realised it was there all along - my confirmation bias got the better of me. Note to self: STOP posting in the middle of the night

As for starting negotiations/bargaining 6 months before EA expiry, there is a myriad of benefits to be had and word on the street is that some EA's are already having this drafted in.