Network EBA
Yet most are not rostered into productivity at Network, it simply isn’t practicable to provide what the mining companies want and the stick hours to achieve productivity.
If they could do it, why aren’t they to achieve the profit margin they are rumoured to be falling short of. We are currently on an expired deal with very limited restrictions outside of 7 days and the company can basically assign what they want and yet they don’t (as in long 4 sectors days for all) and the published rostered have but a small few in productivity which is over 65 stick hours on the expired deal.
If they could do it, why aren’t they to achieve the profit margin they are rumoured to be falling short of. We are currently on an expired deal with very limited restrictions outside of 7 days and the company can basically assign what they want and yet they don’t (as in long 4 sectors days for all) and the published rostered have but a small few in productivity which is over 65 stick hours on the expired deal.
Why is it assumed that IB is an advantage for QF? I don't understand that.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
I hope so, but given it’s rather untested legislation there isn’t a whole heap of test cases to see how it will play out.
The more reasonable explanation is multiple EAs are open or about to be open at the same time (including all mainline pilots, 10x the NAA pilot numbers and a much higher slice of the wages pie).
Last edited by dr dre; 20th Mar 2024 at 22:58.
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
Last edited by gordonfvckingramsay; 21st Mar 2024 at 00:45.
The following users liked this post:
Not strictly correct. Long duties with long waits, 6 days weeks, ‘all dayers’ in a camp donga etc, are conveniently overlooked in your assertion that the operation is short of crew. Guys are doing big duties and merely not being rostered into productivity doesn’t paint an accurate picture, cherry pick away though.
I am not overlooking those. They are have been a reality for a long time at Network. What I’m challenging are those who suggest that the flying and rosters will significantly change. People have numerous times flagged the productivity rate as a massive issue when all the extra flying hours become reality yet despite the current climate and lack of crew as many have pointed out the flying and stick hours remain rather stable and void of regular productivity for the vast majority.
The following 2 users liked this post by Oriana:
If what was on offer was voted up I’d be on over 300K for around 45 hours a month. Y
Long duties with long waits, 6 days weeks, ‘all dayers’ in a camp donga etc, are conveniently overlooked in your assertion
It’s classic propaganda when dealing with pilot negotiations. Staff from almost any other profession read that and immediately think the pilots are on a good wicket. They imagine 45 hours a month engaged in work and have no visibility of, or way of imagining the other 100 hours spent away from family, in a donga, or an airport check in area etc.
I was on the fence about whether you were a Network Captain or someone in an office trying to influence this conversation. I’m still on the fence but after seeing you summarise a flying roster in such a naive way I’m teetering, arms flailing.
As a non- Network pilot that statement raises my eyebrows, until I read
It’s a good example of how numbers can be spun to tell a story that doesn’t reflect reality.
It’s classic propaganda when dealing with pilot negotiations. Staff from almost any other profession read that and immediately think the pilots are on a good wicket. They imagine 45 hours a month engaged in work and have no visibility of, or way of imagining the other 100 hours spent away from family, in a donga, or an airport check in area etc.
I was on the fence about whether you were a Network Captain or someone in an office trying to influence this conversation. I’m still on the fence but after seeing you summarise a flying roster in such a naive way I’m teetering, arms flailing.
It’s a good example of how numbers can be spun to tell a story that doesn’t reflect reality.
It’s classic propaganda when dealing with pilot negotiations. Staff from almost any other profession read that and immediately think the pilots are on a good wicket. They imagine 45 hours a month engaged in work and have no visibility of, or way of imagining the other 100 hours spent away from family, in a donga, or an airport check in area etc.
I was on the fence about whether you were a Network Captain or someone in an office trying to influence this conversation. I’m still on the fence but after seeing you summarise a flying roster in such a naive way I’m teetering, arms flailing.
I am not overlooking those. They are have been a reality for a long time at Network. What I’m challenging are those who suggest that the flying and rosters will significantly change. People have numerous times flagged the productivity rate as a massive issue when all the extra flying hours become reality yet despite the current climate and lack of crew as many have pointed out the flying and stick hours remain rather stable and void of regular productivity for the vast majority.
Cherry two: flying and stick hours remain rather stable and void of regular productivity for the vast majority. Doesn’t mean you’re not at work. Flying as a metric is of little to no use. Using it to justify the argument is simply deceptive.
Captain my Captain
Spoke to a few mates at NAA and apparently the GMFO hasn’t flown a jet. Failed at most posts he held and is generally hated in the industry. To add salt to the wound at the FW hearing he wanted to be addressed as Captain whilst those that actually were Captains were only Mister. What a tool! How can someone like that walk around and be taken seriously.
The following 3 users liked this post by ActiveLooker:
Thread Starter
Isn't that great INOC.
I asked a mate (very very close friend) and he's doing 65hrs a month stick with 95hrs duty but 185hrs away from base. That's the what he calls The Network Effect. There is also no doubt the NJS and Bravo Effect also. So much love.
I hope you don't own pets INOC. Cause geez you flog a dead 'orse a lot.
I asked a mate (very very close friend) and he's doing 65hrs a month stick with 95hrs duty but 185hrs away from base. That's the what he calls The Network Effect. There is also no doubt the NJS and Bravo Effect also. So much love.
I hope you don't own pets INOC. Cause geez you flog a dead 'orse a lot.
I do too, but that comes down the company’s baffling interpretation that standby doesn’t count as duty. I did just shy of 90 hours duty last time I had a normal roster and had to be available to the company for an additional 90 of standby. They can go fvck themselves if they think that doesn’t count as work because what I can plan to do with that time is extremely limited.
The following users liked this post:
I think it is viewed as a win for Qantas as they tend to come out with a result in their favour. If the pilots are directed to take the deal on offer then Qantas will view this as a massive win. Of course pilots will leave but Qantas doesn’t seem to care about that, we all hope that the determination gives Qantas a bit of a bloody nose but there is a risk it won’t.
I agree that stick time alone is a poor indicator of workload
Combine it with duty time and an understanding of the rosters and you get a much better picture of what it is like.
How many hours a month are you in uniform or in a donga, or on call?
The following 2 users liked this post by CaptCloudbuster: