Network EBA
Did they run a NO campaign? Or did they do their usual and meekly sit by while a genuine B scale was introduced?
You can call it what you will but I’ll call it what it actually is – TACIT agreement.
A few peanuts on here need to educate themselves on what an actual B scale is.
Firstly what it isn’t. It isn’t a pay rate for inexperienced new hire pilots, because those pilots can progress through the pay scales as they gain experience / time in the company. So EVERYONE can end up on the same pay rates for the same role.
What it actually is is neatly defined by clause 32.7 of the Qantas Longhaul agreement. It’s a pay rate that is significantly below what existing pilots doing the same role with the same experience with the same time on type get paid, all because an arbitrary date has passed.
Any pilot joining Qantas now as a SO (A380/A350/A330) will top out at 6 years $122.95 / hour, where existing pilots will earn far superior rates for 6 years $171.22 (A380) or $155.28 (A350/A330). Those existing pilots can progress onto year 12 scales $194.13 (A380) or $176.06 (A350/A330) while new hire pilots can’t -their limited to year 6.
B scale pilots in Qantas will be limited to $122.95, while A scale pilots can earn as much as $194.13 or $176.06 for the same role.
That is a B scale, and that was brought in while AIPA meekly sat by and didn’t offer a whimper of objection. So AIPA CoM members on here sniping from the sidelines should reflect on their own performance.
Contrast that with what is happening at Network. The AFAP have negotiated hard, reaching agreement with the company on the last agreement which the pilots rejected, so they have respected their members wishes and are now using PIA in an attempt to improve the offer. The jury is still out on the success or otherwise of this approach, but in the absence of alternative propositions then this is the path they are on. AIPA have had months to get onboard and support the PIA by filing the same actions that have been running for months, yet still they sit idly by.
It shouldn’t be surprising, since AIPA split from the AFAP in the early 80’s they have in their 40 plus year history only taken PIA once.
You can call it what you will but I’ll call it what it actually is – TACIT agreement.
A few peanuts on here need to educate themselves on what an actual B scale is.
Firstly what it isn’t. It isn’t a pay rate for inexperienced new hire pilots, because those pilots can progress through the pay scales as they gain experience / time in the company. So EVERYONE can end up on the same pay rates for the same role.
What it actually is is neatly defined by clause 32.7 of the Qantas Longhaul agreement. It’s a pay rate that is significantly below what existing pilots doing the same role with the same experience with the same time on type get paid, all because an arbitrary date has passed.
Any pilot joining Qantas now as a SO (A380/A350/A330) will top out at 6 years $122.95 / hour, where existing pilots will earn far superior rates for 6 years $171.22 (A380) or $155.28 (A350/A330). Those existing pilots can progress onto year 12 scales $194.13 (A380) or $176.06 (A350/A330) while new hire pilots can’t -their limited to year 6.
B scale pilots in Qantas will be limited to $122.95, while A scale pilots can earn as much as $194.13 or $176.06 for the same role.
That is a B scale, and that was brought in while AIPA meekly sat by and didn’t offer a whimper of objection. So AIPA CoM members on here sniping from the sidelines should reflect on their own performance.
Contrast that with what is happening at Network. The AFAP have negotiated hard, reaching agreement with the company on the last agreement which the pilots rejected, so they have respected their members wishes and are now using PIA in an attempt to improve the offer. The jury is still out on the success or otherwise of this approach, but in the absence of alternative propositions then this is the path they are on. AIPA have had months to get onboard and support the PIA by filing the same actions that have been running for months, yet still they sit idly by.
It shouldn’t be surprising, since AIPA split from the AFAP in the early 80’s they have in their 40 plus year history only taken PIA once.
At the meeting in Brighton Le Sands in the early 80s where Qantas pilots voted to split from the AFAP the then President of the AFAP Tony Fitzsimmons said if you blokes split from us you will just become an arm of management.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes
on
33 Posts
What is a fact is that many are allowing their anger to make emotional decisions and are happy to roll the dice, thinking that they are "sticking it to the man". FWC don't give a toss about what you think is "fair"; they care for what applies under the relevant legislation, nothing more. Some need to get their head around this fact.
There may be determinations made on work rules, but as long as the bare minimums of the pilot's Award are applied then the FWC will be satisfied.
For reference here's the criteria the FWC use when deciding a determination:
- the merits of the case
- the interests of the employers and employees who will be covered by the determination
- the significance of any arrangements or benefits in an enterprise agreement that applies to the employees and employers immediately before the determination is made
- the public interest
- how productivity in the relevant enterprise(s) might be improved
- the reasonableness of the conduct of the bargaining representatives during bargaining
- the extent that bargaining representatives have complied with good faith bargaining requirements, and
- incentives to continue bargaining at a later time.
IB is not a circuit breaker for upward pressure on wages due to supply and demand. Let’s hope the FWC isn’t too naive to recognise that. I’m sure the mooted bumper profit Q is about to announce will remind them.
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 21st Feb 2024 at 05:32. Reason: Typo
I'd be surprised if the award & BOOT test was the primary determinant against the back drop of same job same pay. Yes, I know thats not what the argument is but it does influence the environment the determination is being made in.
Did they run a NO campaign? Or did they do their usual and meekly sit by while a genuine B scale was introduced?
You can call it what you will but I’ll call it what it actually is – TACIT agreement.
A few peanuts on here need to educate themselves on what an actual B scale is.
Firstly what it isn’t. It isn’t a pay rate for inexperienced new hire pilots, because those pilots can progress through the pay scales as they gain experience / time in the company. So EVERYONE can end up on the same pay rates for the same role.
What it actually is is neatly defined by clause 32.7 of the Qantas Longhaul agreement. It’s a pay rate that is significantly below what existing pilots doing the same role with the same experience with the same time on type get paid, all because an arbitrary date has passed.
Any pilot joining Qantas now as a SO (A380/A350/A330) will top out at 6 years $122.95 / hour, where existing pilots will earn far superior rates for 6 years $171.22 (A380) or $155.28 (A350/A330). Those existing pilots can progress onto year 12 scales $194.13 (A380) or $176.06 (A350/A330) while new hire pilots can’t -their limited to year 6.
B scale pilots in Qantas will be limited to $122.95, while A scale pilots can earn as much as $194.13 or $176.06 for the same role.
That is a B scale, and that was brought in while AIPA meekly sat by and didn’t offer a whimper of objection. So AIPA CoM members on here sniping from the sidelines should reflect on their own performance.
Contrast that with what is happening at Network. The AFAP have negotiated hard, reaching agreement with the company on the last agreement which the pilots rejected, so they have respected their members wishes and are now using PIA in an attempt to improve the offer. The jury is still out on the success or otherwise of this approach, but in the absence of alternative propositions then this is the path they are on. AIPA have had months to get onboard and support the PIA by filing the same actions that have been running for months, yet still they sit idly by.
It shouldn’t be surprising, since AIPA split from the AFAP in the early 80’s they have in their 40 plus year history only taken PIA once.
You can call it what you will but I’ll call it what it actually is – TACIT agreement.
A few peanuts on here need to educate themselves on what an actual B scale is.
Firstly what it isn’t. It isn’t a pay rate for inexperienced new hire pilots, because those pilots can progress through the pay scales as they gain experience / time in the company. So EVERYONE can end up on the same pay rates for the same role.
What it actually is is neatly defined by clause 32.7 of the Qantas Longhaul agreement. It’s a pay rate that is significantly below what existing pilots doing the same role with the same experience with the same time on type get paid, all because an arbitrary date has passed.
Any pilot joining Qantas now as a SO (A380/A350/A330) will top out at 6 years $122.95 / hour, where existing pilots will earn far superior rates for 6 years $171.22 (A380) or $155.28 (A350/A330). Those existing pilots can progress onto year 12 scales $194.13 (A380) or $176.06 (A350/A330) while new hire pilots can’t -their limited to year 6.
B scale pilots in Qantas will be limited to $122.95, while A scale pilots can earn as much as $194.13 or $176.06 for the same role.
That is a B scale, and that was brought in while AIPA meekly sat by and didn’t offer a whimper of objection. So AIPA CoM members on here sniping from the sidelines should reflect on their own performance.
Contrast that with what is happening at Network. The AFAP have negotiated hard, reaching agreement with the company on the last agreement which the pilots rejected, so they have respected their members wishes and are now using PIA in an attempt to improve the offer. The jury is still out on the success or otherwise of this approach, but in the absence of alternative propositions then this is the path they are on. AIPA have had months to get onboard and support the PIA by filing the same actions that have been running for months, yet still they sit idly by.
It shouldn’t be surprising, since AIPA split from the AFAP in the early 80’s they have in their 40 plus year history only taken PIA once.
Well that PIA worked out well, not!
Not to derail the thread, but would the same job same pay legislation come into effect if a 330 or 350 is flying different scales of SOs? It's disgusting.
The last agreement between the company and the union brought wages up to 2024 Award levels so would pass the BOOT test the FWC uses. I really can't see how the FWC will give NAA pilots anymore than this, mainline rates would be out of the question.
There may be determinations made on work rules, but as long as the bare minimums of the pilot's Award are applied then the FWC will be satisfied.
For reference here's the criteria the FWC use when deciding a determination:
There may be determinations made on work rules, but as long as the bare minimums of the pilot's Award are applied then the FWC will be satisfied.
For reference here's the criteria the FWC use when deciding a determination:
- the merits of the case
- the interests of the employers and employees who will be covered by the determination
- the significance of any arrangements or benefits in an enterprise agreement that applies to the employees and employers immediately before the determination is made
- the public interest
- how productivity in the relevant enterprise(s) might be improved
- the reasonableness of the conduct of the bargaining representatives during bargaining
- the extent that bargaining representatives have complied with good faith bargaining requirements, and
- incentives to continue bargaining at a later time.
that third last dot point will be a big factor me thinks. I hope the aims are achieved. If they are, I’ll happily congratulate the AFAP. Well played. If not….be interesting to read the feedback on the process.
The last agreement between the company and the union brought wages up to 2024 Award levels so would pass the BOOT test the FWC uses. I really can't see how the FWC will give NAA pilots anymore than this, mainline rates would be out of the question.
For reference here's the criteria the FWC use when deciding a determination:
For reference here's the criteria the FWC use when deciding a determination:
- the merits of the case
- the interests of the employers and employees who will be covered by the determination
- the significance of any arrangements or benefits in an enterprise agreement that applies to the employees and employers immediately before the determination is made
- the public interest
- how productivity in the relevant enterprise(s) might be improved
- the reasonableness of the conduct of the bargaining representatives during bargaining
- the extent that bargaining representatives have complied with good faith bargaining requirements, and
- incentives to continue bargaining at a later time.
The following 3 users liked this post by neville_nobody:
Ultimately pay is determined by labour supply and if there is no supply the pay has to increase. Companies forever have argued over supply in pilot labour as a reason for low ball pay but funnily enough it doesn’t work the other way
That's just plain wrong and a common misconception. Same job, Same pay does NOT apply to this situation.
No mention of lack of labour supply interestingly. What happens in the scenario that the FWC endorses a below par EA which results in a lack of labour supply? Or mass resignation? Does the company just sit there and blame the FWC? Ultimately pay is determined by labour supply and if there is no supply the pay has to increase. Companies forever have argued over supply in pilot labour as a reason for low ball pay but funnily enough it doesn’t work the other way
The clauses in general seem to allow for a pretty broad scope. Somewhere in the back of the mind of the commissioners will have to be how they avoid too much work for themselves. If they set the precedent that either side does especially well out of the process they’ll open the floodgates. That, at least, provides some incentive for them to make arbitrations which actually pay attention to the state of the market.
Edit. Again, pure speculation, sometimes it’s hard not to give into the itch though
Last edited by walesregent; 21st Feb 2024 at 06:42.
The public interest clause might apply here. Both sides will make arguments on that front and I’d say the ever dropping minimum requirements would lend support to the case the unions make.
The clauses in general seem to allow for a pretty broad scope. Somewhere in the back of the mind of the commissioners will have to be how they avoid too much work for themselves. If they set the precedent that either side does especially well out of the process they’ll open the floodgates. That, at least, provides some incentive for them to make arbitrations which actually pay attention to the state of the market.
Edit. Again, pure speculation, sometimes it’s hard to give into the itch though
The clauses in general seem to allow for a pretty broad scope. Somewhere in the back of the mind of the commissioners will have to be how they avoid too much work for themselves. If they set the precedent that either side does especially well out of the process they’ll open the floodgates. That, at least, provides some incentive for them to make arbitrations which actually pay attention to the state of the market.
Edit. Again, pure speculation, sometimes it’s hard to give into the itch though
The public interest clause might apply here. Both sides will make arguments on that front and I’d say the ever dropping minimum requirements would lend support to the case the unions make.
The clauses in general seem to allow for a pretty broad scope. Somewhere in the back of the mind of the commissioners will have to be how they avoid too much work for themselves. If they set the precedent that either side does especially well out of the process they’ll open the floodgates. That, at least, provides some incentive for them to make arbitrations which actually pay attention to the state of the market.
Edit. Again, pure speculation, sometimes it’s hard to give into the itch though
The clauses in general seem to allow for a pretty broad scope. Somewhere in the back of the mind of the commissioners will have to be how they avoid too much work for themselves. If they set the precedent that either side does especially well out of the process they’ll open the floodgates. That, at least, provides some incentive for them to make arbitrations which actually pay attention to the state of the market.
Edit. Again, pure speculation, sometimes it’s hard to give into the itch though
PS $24500 raised for Network Pilots. An industry turning point!
Last edited by gordonfvckingramsay; 21st Feb 2024 at 06:52.
The following 9 users liked this post by gordonfvckingramsay: