Network EBA
Do you think Chris Ellison became a billionaire because he is stupid with money? Go for a drive near Perth Airport and you’ll see MinRes’ training facility. Google the design of their new camps.
Finally someone who recognises there are long term investment costs to running a major business. They’ve obviously run their sums and realised it is advantageous to bring their FIFO transport in house - because losing $5M on their private airline outweighs losing $15M on the various cancellations and delays caused by an operator they are held hostage to, who cannot crew their flights appropriately any more.
Finally someone who recognises there are long term investment costs to running a major business. They’ve obviously run their sums and realised it is advantageous to bring their FIFO transport in house - because losing $5M on their private airline outweighs losing $15M on the various cancellations and delays caused by an operator they are held hostage to, who cannot crew their flights appropriately any more.
Hopefully they get towelled up big time in fair work.
The following 3 users liked this post by Bigredsky:
In what world would a massive corporation earning billions in profit willingly walk into the unknown without being aware of the outcome?
Has it been confirmed that a full bench will make a declaration?
If it is to be a declaration then my bet is that it comes out very close to the average Australian narrow body base salary, allowances, days off, annual leave, and overtime rates. It kind of has to to prevent companies, or alternatively employee groups, from engineering IB conditions.
Average conditions would be a win for the Network pilots I would have thought.
If it is to be a declaration then my bet is that it comes out very close to the average Australian narrow body base salary, allowances, days off, annual leave, and overtime rates. It kind of has to to prevent companies, or alternatively employee groups, from engineering IB conditions.
Average conditions would be a win for the Network pilots I would have thought.
Either way, not sure what FWC provides a ruling ASAP means though. I am guessing it will not be months
Network pilots literally can’t go backwards on any condition. Not one. That’s a big part of the determination structure.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
Last edited by Gas Chamber; 29th Mar 2024 at 02:14.
The following users liked this post:
Network pilots literally can’t go backwards on any condition. Not one. That’s a big part of the determination structure.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
Network pilots literally can’t go backwards on any condition. Not one. That’s a big part of the determination structure.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
Same job same pay could be a big cherry on top.
QF losing the entire operation as explained above is a massive downside for QF management.
I think they played their usual bluff and got owned.
I was so disappointed to hear some network guys were still flying during the strike period. Screw everyone’s conditions for a small personal gain. Sounds like Nathan Safe. Hopefully it comes back to screw them down the track. Pathetic behaviour.
Stay strong.
- improvements made to salary tables (including the new Year 7 and 10 salaries)
- DHA
- Backpay
- Improvements to the Additional Hourly Payment rate and structure
- RDO provisions – definition of an RDO and restrictions around an RDO
So all those items can go backward as far as the Award.
As for going backward from the current (expired) EA, well FWC is required to try and improve productivity. So they may want offsets from the pilots for any improvements in the EA. This could (theoretically) mean losing some
conditions already in place.
The truth is, no one (not even Qantas), know how this will turn out. But it is certainly the case that either side could suffer some losses they would not have accepted in a negotiated settlement.
Fingers crossed there are far more wins on the pilots side of the ledger.
Sure, we can't go backwards in pay and conditions following an IB Determination. But to call it a 'win', it will have to be better than the 'crap' deal we knocked back.
ie. Y10 A320 Capt 246k + DHA + Productivity bonus beyond 58 Hrs.
I think that's achievable.....but it's no longer in our control.
Grab a seat and watch what happens.
ie. Y10 A320 Capt 246k + DHA + Productivity bonus beyond 58 Hrs.
I think that's achievable.....but it's no longer in our control.
Grab a seat and watch what happens.
Could take months. I’d bet fair work take their time with this as it’s the first aviation ruling under the new legislation. I still don’t envisage a scenario where Qantas come out the other end losing. In what world would a massive corporation earning billions in profit willingly walk into the unknown without being aware of the outcome? There’s definitely deals being done under the table though - after all, this is the corrupt government we are talking about.
I personally don’t think it’s going to be a free kick to the employer. They’ve done some sh*tty things, like taking all the agreed terms off the table the day before applying for IB to manipulate the IB process. That stuff won’t be looked on kindly by FWC.
Also, anything seen as a “win” for the employer will open the flood gates for employers to use IB on a whim for strike breaking. In what is essentially a test case, FWC will not want to encourage employers to seek out IB.
Also, perhaps moreso than most other cases that might end up at Fairwork, the NAA workplace has an incredibly comparable dynamic to mainline shorthaul, Jetstar etc. If IB provides a solution vastly different to mainline shorthaul or Jetstar, the FWC will essentially be sh*tting on the federal government’s own “Same Job Same Pay” principle.
The Federal government will be wary of handing a win to a company bereft of integrity after the COVID cash grab, blatant refusal to pay any of it back, all while posting multi billion dollar profits.
The Chairman’s lounge effect is being overstated. I think the publicity over Albanese’s son’s membership and also the Qatar rights stoush means those in high public office will be very careful in the future to both declare those interests and not allow themselves to be manipulated.
Lastly, the whole argument of “Qantas wouldn’t go to IB if they didn’t already know the outcome” is not my opinion. I actually think they were happy to go to IB because they needed a test case before the shorthaul and long haul eba come up later this year. At 250 pilots (and dwindling fast), the NAA eba is a low risk test case for them to see where the chips will fall.
As for the whole NAA agreement, I’m pretty sure there would be some high level meetings going at the street, asking why they screwed it up so badly. They had them at 47/53, and now it’s descended into a bin fire.
The fundamental problem is still one of moving goalposts. The employment environment post COVID and particularly demand/supply for pilots has moved massively in four years. Qantas have failed to recognise that and are sticking to the only way they know how to do business - the big stick.
Plus, they have a blanket rule of wanting to punish PIA. As soon as any group goes to PIA, no matter how reasonable their claims, the default position is to burn them to the ground. They believe that any gains provided post-PIA is rewarding it, and so they are almost violent in their response to it.
Look at what happened in the lockout. That shutdown cost the airline circa $300m, when the cost of continuing to negotiate to a solution would have been a mere fraction. The shareholders should have been livid that $300m of their money was pissed away.
Wanting to save face is never a good business tactic. Supply/demand sets prices - for housing, for commodities, for food - and for pilots.
The sooner they wake-up to that and shelve their “must-win” ego, the sooner everyone can get back to making profits together.
The following 8 users liked this post by Slippery_Pete:
I can almost guarantee what will happen is FWC will determine that the offer on the table was fair and reasonable and they will just use that. Saves them having to form a new deal, it is an easy way out and Qantas will put that down as a big win.
The following 3 users liked this post by Ollie Onion:
Remember, Qantas in their usual conniving way, “un-agreed” to loads of the wins for the pilots, including:
- improvements made to salary tables (including the new Year 7 and 10 salaries)
- DHA
- Backpay
- Improvements to the Additional Hourly Payment rate and structure
- RDO provisions – definition of an RDO and restrictions around an RDO
It was obvious to most what the eleventh hour retraction was designed to do, it was more checkers than chess and it is debatable if the manoeuvre was consistent with good faith bargaining.
Qantas has been caught out in recent times by leaning on the letter of the law and may find that their ‘bundle of contractual rights’ is indeed open to interpretation at the FWC level.
We will soon see if the reciprocity bias that the Chairman’s Lounge activates is more powerful than the moral compass of our bureaucrats.
“Pilots ignoring course set by union: FWC”
An "ineluctable finding" that the AFAP could not persuade pilot members at a Qantas subsidiary to vote up a new deal supported by the union has helped convince the FWC that it should make an intractable bargaining declaration sought by the airline.
If there’s already been two agreements between the two parties then that will be the path of least resistance out of the situation.
It took the FWC 15 months to decide the outcome of the AIPA/mainline situation post October 2011 so I don’t see this current case being wrapped up soon.
Last edited by dr dre; 29th Mar 2024 at 05:31.
I can almost guarantee what will happen is FWC will determine that the offer on the table was fair and reasonable and they will just use that.
“Pilots ignoring course set by union: FWC”
I agree with the gist of what you’re saying BeerBaron but…..would you agree that a full bench might determine that Qantas, having once agreed to those five specific provisions, was ‘engaging in conduct that undermines collective bargaining’ when they ‘un-agreed’ to them? Ie they were not bargaining in good faith?
It was obvious to most what the eleventh hour retraction was designed to do, it was more checkers than chess and it is debatable if the manoeuvre was consistent with good faith bargaining.
It was obvious to most what the eleventh hour retraction was designed to do, it was more checkers than chess and it is debatable if the manoeuvre was consistent with good faith bargaining.
I am sure the FWC will look at the full history though, but this goes both ways. How will the commission look at AFAP’s addition 7 claims given they had agreed to the terms of the 2nd and 3rd EA’s put to vote? Adding extra claims or deleting agreed terms, after a in-principal agreement, looks bad for all parties.
While Qantas IR’s tactic is cynical and transparent, it is in accordance with the letter of the law.
Unfortunately the definition of good faith bargaining is incredibly narrow and does not rule out their conduct.
It could be thought of this way;
24 hours before the application for IB, the process of collective bargaining was underway and ongoing….. at that moment, while the pilots were bargaining in good faith, were Qantas bargaining in good faith when they were setting themselves up for success in the Fair Work process by retracting provisions? Or were they no longer playing their part ( their required by law part) in the good faith bargaining process? Some on the bench may consider that Qantas had in fact finished negotiating at that point and was concentrating on positioning themselves for something else. That is not in good faith.
So at this point, the incredibly narrow definition of good faith bargaining becomes nothing more than ….an opinion.
Thoughts?
The following 2 users liked this post by framer:
nothing stopping qantas handing out afew chairman lounge memberships to key fwc people, totally unrelated to any industrial action of course and as there free passes noneed to declare
The following users liked this post:
If there is one man who could run an airline, it would be Chris Ellison, and it would be great if he expanded and tried to take down Qantas. As I said earlier, if there is a problem at Minres he will get it sorted asap. He doesn't give a **** and tells it how it is, and listens to staff on the ground generally. I will not name particular situations, but I will give you an idea. If Qantas had no engines avaliable and had 1 or 2 aircraft parked loosing money, he would go and buy 30 engines and 5 spare aircraft. When his mines started turning to ****, thats how he turned them around, he seems to be the only ceo out there that realises if machines or aircraft arent running they arent making money.
