Network EBA
Yes absolutely. However her response will be it comes with my position and not issued to me personally. That's the excuse judges and politicians have been using.
The ‘Yes’ bit would be evidence enough that the decision is about to be of a preordained nature. A bad look for her.
it comes with my position and not issued to me personally.
Also, nobody can force you to accept a membership to the Chairman’s lounge, most Australians would see it for what it is and publicly acknowledging that she is quite literally part of the old boys club would force her to consider her declaration in light of that. That and the Australian public deserve to know how their country is run.
That said, she might be a woman of strong character and declined to accept the membership offer, who knows?
So be it. I do care what happens to Network and what working conditions I will be on, so the EA impacts me significantly. While I might not share the view of everyone on here (the last 2 votes were very close to an even split so me accepting the EA is hardly radically off what almost half of the pilots also decided) I have posted challenges to some of the views and expressed my own.
No declared interest in chairman’s lounge
https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/repo...efits-register
There is also an ABC article on the subject here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-...content=safari
DT
There is also an ABC article on the subject here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-...content=safari
DT
I would expect the commission to look at mainline shorthaul (closest similarity to network) and perhaps Jetstar etc. and declare a solution of similar ilk to those agreements.
From the article DashTrash posted;
None of that lets me know if Abbey has been a member of the Chairman’s Lounge. Just that it hasn’t been declared. A couple of years ago virtually nobody was declaring it. I still think someone needs to ask if she has ever been a member. It’s all too opaque for me.
A Fair Work Commission spokesperson did not confirm whether any of their representatives were Chairman's Lounge members, stating: "Any such memberships are a matter between the airline and the member personally."
The Australian Public Service Commission requires agency heads to publicly disclose any gifts or benefits valued at more than $100 received by organisation staff in the performance of their duties. The Fair Work Commission's register does not list any gifts or benefits since 2019.
"Fair Work Commission Members are independent statutory appointments and not APS employees. Accordingly, the Australian Public Services Commissioner's directions on the disclosure of gifts and benefits only applies to commission staff, not Members," the Commission spokesperson said.
The Australian Public Service Commission requires agency heads to publicly disclose any gifts or benefits valued at more than $100 received by organisation staff in the performance of their duties. The Fair Work Commission's register does not list any gifts or benefits since 2019.
"Fair Work Commission Members are independent statutory appointments and not APS employees. Accordingly, the Australian Public Services Commissioner's directions on the disclosure of gifts and benefits only applies to commission staff, not Members," the Commission spokesperson said.
I wonder if supply and demand (in the pilot labour context) matters to Qantas who has almost an effective monopoly.
if there are not enough pilots there are less flights which means they charge more for the available seats. Revenue is probably largely unchanged.
in a situation where you had strong competition (ie the US) you need to maintain services and you can’t increase fares or a competitor will take your revenue so you are forced to attract labour by increasing wages.
I’m not sure a ‘pilot shortage’ in Australia will ever drive wages until there is stronger competition in the industry.
if there are not enough pilots there are less flights which means they charge more for the available seats. Revenue is probably largely unchanged.
in a situation where you had strong competition (ie the US) you need to maintain services and you can’t increase fares or a competitor will take your revenue so you are forced to attract labour by increasing wages.
I’m not sure a ‘pilot shortage’ in Australia will ever drive wages until there is stronger competition in the industry.
The following users liked this post:
So be it. I do care what happens to Network and what working conditions I will be on, so the EA impacts me significantly. While I might not share the view of everyone on here (the last 2 votes were very close to an even split so me accepting the EA is hardly radically off what almost half of the pilots also decided) I have posted challenges to some of the views and expressed my own.
Your back peddling over the last few pages is laughable, entertaining but laughable.
Potentially, however when the 73 is doing the exact runs that NAA are, it leaves it very wide open for "same job same pay", even though the legislation wasn't specifically targeted at the pilot base in general, i would assume its will be very hard to argue away.
Despite Deputy President Beaumont’s previous employment, it seems she may well be very open to Network pilot’s arguments in a determination. She found against her previous employer and made these statements:
Full article Here
Deputy president Beaumont agreed.“On any objective level affording employees who are performing the same work different terms and conditions of employment will inevitably give rise to discontent where one employee realises she or he has been attributed with lesser fiscal value than other,” she said.
“It is not unforeseeable that the impact of this dynamic on productivity may likely be profound, and, in short, would be simply unfair.”
“It is not unforeseeable that the impact of this dynamic on productivity may likely be profound, and, in short, would be simply unfair.”
SYD-CBR was once a common 737 route, now it’s almost all Dash 8. Should they get a top up when flying this route?
I mean in the aviation context the SJSP principle would never mean the most highest paid award that has ever flown that particular route would be the minimum salary for all pilots flying it.
Once upon a time the airline had 747-300s flying trans continental between SYD/MEL to PER. Now it’s mostly 737. Should that be justification for 737 pilots to get paid 747 salaries?
SYD-CBR was once a common 737 route, now it’s almost all Dash 8. Should they get a top up when flying this route?
I mean in the aviation context the SJSP principle would never mean the most highest paid award that has ever flown that particular route would be the minimum salary for all pilots flying it.
SYD-CBR was once a common 737 route, now it’s almost all Dash 8. Should they get a top up when flying this route?
I mean in the aviation context the SJSP principle would never mean the most highest paid award that has ever flown that particular route would be the minimum salary for all pilots flying it.
What about a Qantas (QantasLink) A320 flying PER-MEL compared to a B737 flying PER-MEL?
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes
on
33 Posts
Once upon a time the airline had 747-300s flying trans continental between SYD/MEL to PER. Now it’s mostly 737. Should that be justification for 737 pilots to get paid 747 salaries?
SYD-CBR was once a common 737 route, now it’s almost all Dash 8. Should they get a top up when flying this route?
I mean in the aviation context the SJSP principle would never mean the most highest paid award that has ever flown that particular route would be the minimum salary for all pilots flying it.
SYD-CBR was once a common 737 route, now it’s almost all Dash 8. Should they get a top up when flying this route?
I mean in the aviation context the SJSP principle would never mean the most highest paid award that has ever flown that particular route would be the minimum salary for all pilots flying it.
The following 2 users liked this post by SandyPalms:
So be it. I do care what happens to Network and what working conditions I will be on, so the EA impacts me significantly. While I might not share the view of everyone on here (the last 2 votes were very close to an even split so me accepting the EA is hardly radically off what almost half of the pilots also decided) I have posted challenges to some of the views and expressed my own.
So go on, point out the negative aspects of it.
The following 2 users liked this post by morno:
Thats how I’d read it - I’m not certain because this legislation is very new, untested in court and is subject to interpretation in a series of test cases, of which the NAA case may be one of the first. Not even IR lawyers and businesses are sure of this legislation and how it will apply in these situations so I hardly think a bunch of pilots will know.
So far Deputy Beaumont is only assigned to hear the intractable bargaining claim, I’m not sure if she’d be taking a determination in the case if it goes that far.
If you want to see FWC approach to an” arbitration” look at the QF Longhaul CWD ( compulsory workplace determination) in 2013.
Both sides got a few tidbits but both sides suffered big losses.
Both sides would have been better off had the CWD not taken place.
I think the pilots lost more than Qf lost, overall.
Both sides got a few tidbits but both sides suffered big losses.
Both sides would have been better off had the CWD not taken place.
I think the pilots lost more than Qf lost, overall.