Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Network Aviation PIA

Old 5th Jan 2024, 09:27
  #1541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,060
Received 730 Likes on 197 Posts
Originally Posted by I Need Of A Change
This isnít fear, itís people making a choice to accept the unknown and all that may or may not come with it or accept the know of the deal on offer inclusive of the known downsides to the deal against the unknown downsides of the IB path.
Sometimes you just need to grow a big ole pair and fight for whatís fair and to put an end to the kind of asymmetric industrial bull**** airlines have been enjoying for decades. In fact, you currently enjoy the right to freedom of speech because others before you put their own needs second.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 09:30
  #1542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,307
Received 340 Likes on 131 Posts
Originally Posted by I Need Of A Change
The potential cost of zero back pay and the impact that would have for lost income over that period in addition to the current back pay period is a significant one and the compound interest on a mortgage and lack or super contributions over that period add up.
Surely you recognise that threatening the loss of back pay is simply another bargaining tactic. The reality is that any new EA should come into effect when the old one expires. When a company draws out negotiations and then withdraws backpay if pilots don't sign, it allows them to get away with running the old EA for an extra two years or more. Over a decade, they are laughing all the way to the bank.

What is the RDO call out offer?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2024, 09:30
  #1543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by walesregent
At the moment my lifestyle is ok, and until the last week or so have kept a lot of reserves and had a lot of reserves on my roster. I feel like I could be Ďoptimisedí quite a bit by the addition of 4 sector days and travel patterns. I agree that with the bulk of our work falling on the mornings of three weekdays there are a few limitations for maximising crew productivity but there is plenty of time outside of that for the company to have a red hot go at it- VARA seemed to manage it with red centre patterns.
Perhaps but if youíre used for all those duties then the reserve/standby coverage wonít exist to protect those precious charter clients that have large penalty clauses in them. The reserve coverage will still need to exist. Sure we all ride the ups and downs of utilisation off them and the current state of play certainly doesnít help for an engaged workforce who choose not to self adjust their rosters more than in more stable times.
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 09:32
  #1544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,060
Received 730 Likes on 197 Posts
A random questionÖ..

Does anyone know what, if anything would happen to management if they donít get this voted up? Are IR likely to have threatened their jobs? Could trying to influence a yes vote by all means available be something a desperate manager might do?

Not suggesting anything, just a question.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 09:48
  #1545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,307
Received 340 Likes on 131 Posts
Originally Posted by plotplot
Your fear of IB is unwarranted, and is congruent with political fear-mongering. You've absolutely nothing to lose by going into IB since you're on such a sh!ite deal currently, as any deal at goes through still has to pass the BOOT test.
The better off overall test requires the identification of agreement terms which are more beneficial, and the terms which are less beneficial, and then an overall assessment is made as to whether employees would be better off under the agreement than under the relevant award.
The question posed by the better off overall test is not whether each employee is better off under the Agreement compared to their particular existing working arrangements but whether they are better off overall if the Agreement applied rather than the relevant modern award.
Are you sure about that? I see plenty of room for interpretation and understand the hesitancy surrounding IB. That said, I have yet to see a test case and I don't believe that IB should be used as a threat to good faith bargaining. I don't believe that is what was intended with its introduction.

BOOT
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:05
  #1546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
I thought you said in a previous post that Jetstar was reopening the Perth base. Or are they no longer a threat to us now?
Canít say I really follow the comment. The base is opening in Perth yes, thatís not a rumor but has been announced by Jetstar.

Having that base open provides Qantas with the ability to shift the work around so are you suggesting NWK will start doing BOC east coat flying and then JQ will cover those high yield mining charters?
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:08
  #1547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Location
Posts: 67
Received 34 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
Are you sure about that? I see plenty of room for interpretation and understand the hesitancy surrounding IB. That said, I have yet to see a test case and I don't believe that IB should be used as a threat to good faith bargaining. I don't believe that is what was intended with its introduction.

BOOT
See #1536.
plotplot is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:20
  #1548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 323
Received 371 Likes on 115 Posts
However if I’m doing those duties who is flying the ones I’m currently operating?
You will be. Because your hours will go up. Everyone’s will. Everyone flies an extra 30% more. And that’s without reserve call outs.

That is how they dampen the pilot shortage.

​​​​​​​The potential cost of zero back pay and the impact that would have for lost income over that period in addition to the current back pay period is a significant one and the compound interest on a mortgage and lack or super contributions over that period add up.
Just how much back pay are they hanging over your head as a captain?
soseg is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:25
  #1549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by soseg
You will be. Because your hours will go up. Everyoneís will. Everyone flies an extra 30% more. And thatís without reserve call outs.

That is how they dampen the pilot shortage.



Just how much back pay are they hanging over your head as a captain?
Not a large sum at the moment but 12 months of continuing on the expired deal plus what the current back pay vs what I could be earning if the deal is voted up is about 100K so not nothing.

That doesnít cover the extra interest on my mortgage or lost super earnings for the period either. It also doesnít cover the lack of protections for that same period.
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:27
  #1550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by soseg
You will be. Because your hours will go up. Everyoneís will. Everyone flies an extra 30% more. And thatís without reserve call outs.

That is how they dampen the pilot shortage.



Just how much back pay are they hanging over your head as a captain?
So then if itís so easy to cover those flights why have flights been canceled and work turned down because it could not be achieved on the current deal with the current crew where less protections exist?
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:29
  #1551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,307
Received 340 Likes on 131 Posts
Originally Posted by plotplot
See #1536.
Yes, I was commenting on the 'nothing to lose by going to IB' remark. Unagreed terms will be subject to a determination, negotiations are over. The BOOT may not provide the safety net some believe because the Award is well, the Award.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:38
  #1552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,060
Received 730 Likes on 197 Posts
Originally Posted by I Need Of A Change
Why not give it to JQÖ.
The Perth base is opening again and they did many a mine flight on the past.
INOAC, this was back in post 1403 where you said JQ could cover the flying. Now youíre asking
they are BOC duties then again who will be flying the ones during the day that I currently am doing?
Just helping you stay in your lane.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:45
  #1553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 323
Received 371 Likes on 115 Posts
Originally Posted by I Need Of A Change
Not a large sum at the moment but 12 months of continuing on the expired deal plus what the current back pay vs what I could be earning if the deal is voted up is about 100K so not nothing.

That doesnít cover the extra interest on my mortgage or lost super earnings for the period either. It also doesnít cover the lack of protections for that same period.
Having at least a 1:1 OT rate from 59 to 75 would gross you an extra $32,000/year, if itís every roster.

Here is an ideaÖ stand your ground and if it drags out another year make sure back pay is included. They have nothing to stand on. Refer to previous posts on how desperate Q Group are for pilots.

Logic is not strong with you, is it? You worry here in this post about mortgage repayments yet youíll earn per hour $70 less than a 737 FO. Arguing back pay in the grand scheme of things over the next four years, let alone decade or two, is important is a management tactic. Think long term. You will not get this opportunity again once the 300hr cadets flow in.

only management asks pilots to consider back pay incentives to get a **** deal over the line.

soseg is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:55
  #1554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
INOAC, this was back in post 1403 where you said JQ could cover the flying. Now youíre asking

Just helping you stay in your lane.
Yes Iím saying they are a resource that can be used to cover the flying for things like PIA once the base is reopened.

If QF group choose to split the flying and award one contract to JQ and the BOC RPT to NWK then sure thatíll work but my position is that with the current crew itís not really possible to do both and the fact that flights are consistently canceled due to flight crew would support that whilst overtime can be forced and rostered, the current very loose EA does not practically allow it to occur.
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:59
  #1555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by soseg
Having at least a 1:1 OT rate from 59 to 75 would gross you an extra $32,000/year, if itís every roster.

Here is an ideaÖ stand your ground and if it drags out another year make sure back pay is included. They have nothing to stand on. Refer to previous posts on how desperate Q Group are for pilots.

Logic is not strong with you, is it? You worry here in this post about mortgage repayments yet youíll earn per hour $70 less than a 737 FO. Arguing back pay in the grand scheme of things over the next four years, let alone decade or two, is important is a management tactic. Think long term. You will not get this opportunity again once the 300hr cadets flow in.

only management asks pilots to consider back pay incentives to get a **** deal over the line.
Ok so Iíll stand my ground and then when an IB outcome is determined how do I and the other pilots enforce back pay? We donít get any say or choice to reject what the IB path determines and will be forced to accept it for a minimum of 4 years.

Of the current state of play continues and limited overtime exists then the rate is mute and guaranteed earning potential zero.
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 10:59
  #1556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Location
Posts: 67
Received 34 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
Yes, I was commenting on the 'nothing to lose by going to IB' remark. Unagreed terms will be subject to a determination, negotiations are over. The BOOT may not provide the safety net some believe because the Award is well, the Award.
Yes, and it will be a cold day in hell before the FWC sets a precedent that it is ok to pay your staff in OT at 0.5.

The point I was trying to make that it is not the entire agreement that is up for dispute, as many would have been led to believe.

And negotiations are not over until they're over. Before it even makes it to IB, a mediator will be brought in to see if they can't get the parties to compromise on the disagreed terms.
plotplot is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 11:05
  #1557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 506
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
INOAC, this was back in post 1403 where you said JQ could cover the flying. Now youíre asking

Just helping you stay in your lane.
To reinforce this point, JQís brief mining charter experiment ended when the client got fed up with the high cancellation rate. Allegedly, they prioritised their core operation at the expense of the mining charters and were told not come back. The idea that JQ would get a look in when they canít cover their existing flying, not to mention the compatibility issues of the aircraft with mine site ops, is laughable.
StudentInDebt is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2024, 11:05
  #1558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by plotplot
Yes, and it will be a cold day in hell before the FWC sets a precedent that it is ok to pay your staff in OT at 0.5.

The point I was trying to make that it is not the entire agreement that is up for dispute, as many would have been led to believe.

And negotiations are not over until they're over. Before it even makes it to IB, a mediator will be brought in to see if they can't get the parties to compromise on the disagreed terms.
So howís that playing out in Victoria with the only case heading towards IB where after 6 months a date has been set to determine what is to be arbitrated and what is not as itís agreed? Despite what both sides say neither is in agreement and as such the first step is to determine what needs IB and what does not.
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 11:10
  #1559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Can I ask for those pushing the no vote, why they think their elected reps are for the first time at the AFAP recommending a yes vote?
I Need Of A Change is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2024, 12:04
  #1560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,307
Received 340 Likes on 131 Posts
Originally Posted by plotplot
And negotiations are not over until they're over. Before it even makes it to IB, a mediator will be brought in to see if they can't get the parties to compromise on the disagreed terms.
Have they not already had mediation under s240?

I read back through the thread and remember now there were a couple of test cases.

https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers...0230721-p5dq53
https://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...bbab69787a971b

Chevron argues the union wants terms ďsignificantly aboveĒ market conditions.
It is understood platform workers earn between $230,000 to $370,000 a year, including base salary, allowances and superannuation, and work no more than 26 weeks a year.
Tradies on a good wicket.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.