QF loses Tasman Flights to Jetconnect

[Sonny Hammond]

Well, everyone here makes a valid point.
Are we going to read post after post of the same stuff?

The real question is "What can we do about it?"

I feel we need cohesion amongst the groups. While everyone is worrying about everyone else, the management play us off.


I am not sure of the answer.

Firstly, we need the ball back in our court for a while and that might take a little while whilst the industry recovers from the recent events. Once that happens we have some weight in negotiation.

But we must start thinking as a group now.

How do we do that? Dunno, but we have to if we want a decent career in the future.

[stillalbatross]

Qantas management's approach is nothing new. Problem is that the mainline pilots see this happening but it doesn't affect them initially and to some extent they don't seriously believe anyone would take a job that pays so little. So they do nothing to prevent the erosion and the Jetconnnect guys take the jobs because they need to put food on the table. At the end of the day it is up to qantas mainline guys to fight to stop this happening but why bother when they have nothing to gain. An erosion of conditions in 10 or 20 years doesn't seem worth it to many people.

[Going Boeing]

Three Bars - You've hit the nail on the head with your post.

As far as stopping QF management from using their Jet Connect operation against pilots on Australian salaries, the only way that I can think of (without resorting to illegal strikes) is to persue QF in court for illegal transmission of business. If memory serves me correctly a call centre in Tasmania successfully did this to prevent their jobs going offshore.

Any other ideas would be very welcome.

GB

[Pimp Daddy]

Interesting approach GB.

Wasn't the call centre one against contracting out though?

In the Jetconnect case it is a wholly owned subsidiary business so would the illegal transmission of business still apply then?

[Capt.XXXX]

Well said Three Bars!
Sadly we are competing with an airline (DJ) who has the audacity to expect its pilots to pay for their own training, and there are enough of the plucky hopefuls holding up their hand to accept it. I understand their need to work, but if they were a little more cohesive in their stand, their conditions would improve, their training would be paid for, the competition gradient between QF and DJ (and soon Jetconnect) would reduce, we wouldn't be clawing eachothers eyes out, and we'd all be better off as a body of professionals.

[elektra]

Here's an idea..

Lets pool our resources to build a time machine. Then we can go back in history to the time many years ago when the QF pilots left the AFAP because: "shock horror", it was involved in grubby issues like wages and conditions. And horrible things like Scope Clauses.

Maybe with what they now know the QF elites might have taken a better decision and not divided the pilot group in the belief that nasty things would never happen to them. Like workers everywhere we either have solidarity and unity of purpose or we have nothing but what we're given.

And a unified pilot body with the whole hearted support of "ordinary" QF pilots would be a great start to rebuilding safety and operational standards in the industry as a whole.

Decent conditions, salaries and industry safety standards are in everyone's interest. They are not "anti-management". Doing things properly is the best form of company loyalty you can get. One of the lessons that we've all learned over the years is that good standards pay for themselves.

So let?s not blame VB drivers or other similar groups for a process that started on its nasty way quite a few years back with the same people who are now starting to feel the pain. The events of 1989 had their genesis years before in the naivety of a group of pilots who should have known better.

[bitter balance]

Elektra, that's one of the best rationalisations I've ever read. I was wondering where you were going until I read the first line of your last paragraph. I think there is sufficient evidence (ie its bloody obvious) that QF's push to reduce its cost base is directly related to VB.

[Three Bars]

I agree with you GB - there would appear to be very few options available at the moment.

The trouble with the current industrial situation is that it is the Company who makes all the moves and the unions then have to react. The Company knows the game in advance and can work out counter strategies upfront, while the unions are always catching up. I'm sure that the legal counsels (three I think at AIPA) must have been working overtime for the last year or so.

Combined with this, a succession of governments (of both pursuasions) have made industrial action more and more difficult to sanction. Even to the point that CPI increases are not an automatic entitlement under the enterprise bargaining process.

The most alarming development of recent times, in my opinion, was the findings of the high court (I think) at the conclusion of the MWU dock strikes of several years ago. While on the surface, it appeared that the wharfies had won again, the courts upheld a company's right to reorganise its work force.

To put it practically, and if I remember the court's ruling correctly, QF could reorganise itself so that its pilots were employed by the Qantas Crewing Co. Pty Ltd. If this company then started to lose money, theoretically it could declare its employees contracts invalid and open for renegotiation.

I believe that, in this climate, AIPA has little choice but to avoid militant industrial action and continue to explore the limited legal avenues that are open to us. The Company knows that if we were to go on strike, they could find a cheaper replacement workforce very easily - many people on this forum tell us so. We also know that we would not get much backing from other sectors of the industry and that we would be protrayed as silvertails by the press.

With regard to Jetconnect - the trans-Tasman situation is very volatile at the moment and maybe all party's intentions will become a little clearer when the final decision regarding the AirNZ-QF tie-up is announced.

[Ralph the Bong]

Ya know I am just PIS SING myself laughing at the utter, abject arrogance contained in some of these posts, but in a way, it’s just so sad. Look, I mean this in the nicest way, but don’t you guys see how divisive your own comments are? From Huan Hung lo: "You are spot on when you talk about the various wannabes out there who are the real threat to the pay and conditions of all airline pilots.

They just dont get it do they? " So, who are ‘they’ Huan? Experienced people who would like to come back and live in Oz or NZ and be with their families instead of languishing in some 3rd world hotel? Speak here of the ex-AN and AN new Zealand guys who have essentially become career path refugees thru no fault of their own. Or younger Pilots who are self improvers and have the commitment to push themselves and put their own finances on the line for a job they love? From Stillalbertross: "So they do nothing to prevent the erosion and the Jetconnnect guys take the jobs because they need to put food on the table." True. Food needs to be put on the table, people have a career that they have worked so hard to attain and maintain. Those at Jetconnect who I know are decent individuals worthy of remaining in the industry. And Capt.XXXX: " ..if they were a little more cohesive in their stand, their conditions would improve, their training would be paid for, the competition gradient between QF and DJ (and soon Jetconnect) would reduce, we wouldn't be clawing eachothers eyes out, and we'd all be better off as a body of professionals." Sadly, these are part of the market forces at work in the airline industry today. But in reality, how do you expect such individuals to be “cohesive in their stand”? give us all a suggestion. The prevailing industrial situation has been quite correctly defined by several postings; Australian corporate law allows the establishment of offshoots and subsidiaries and the Workplace Relations Act limits the coverage of union representation. The demise of Ansett has allowed the QF pilot body unprecedented promotional opportunities and please bear in mind that this has occurred at the personal expense of many, many competent and professional people. With this in mind, I find the bleating of some posters to be sickening. It is futile to suggest that pilots who are candidates for the discount airlines somehow group together to flex some industrial muscle and deny themselves a job unless training is payed for and salaries increased by DJ and the like. I mean, really..these companies will just sent a job offer to the next punter. And anyway what did AIPA do to help those at NJS; what are they doing now? Nothing! Did AIPA do anything for Eastern Pilots in regards to a career path?-No. Impulse drivers-No. Some Impulse pilots remained effectively furloughed whilst QF was recruiting. Did they help AWOPS Pilots get jobs at QF?-No. Jetconnect?- See post by Clive above. It is only fair to suggest that those who aspire to employment at DJ and the like refuse to accept the conditions on offer if YOU are prepared to help them. After all, it’s now YOUR problem. To even contemplate that such individuals deny themselves a career because you find it personally inconvenient smacks of outrageous arrogance.

[Capt.XXXX]

Ralph, I appreciate the points you have raised, and I completely sympathise with those trying to get back home etc. ( I was one of them!). My point simply is that if we keep seeing our conditions eroded away by greedy management and shareholders, what will we be left with? I think an ideal that has been lost over time is that we are actually needed, and if we keep accepting lower conditions through the fear that someone else will take our jobs, this weakness will be played upon, and things will get progressively worse. If the VB drivers had all refused to pay for their training, would they have scrapped the idea all together? Not on your life, but sadly the only place where such a scheme would have been acceptable was good old Oz (and suprise suprise now Easyjet in the UK!)

[stillalbatross]

I agree with you Ralph, the sad thing is that some will be looking back upon all this 10 years from now and wondering how they let it happen and those already in Qantas will still be saying "I can't believe management snuck up and did this" Do they expect some new or potential employee at Jetconnect to say to management "I'll only take the job with better conditions?" It is up to Qantas mainline to take a stand IF they think it's worth fighting for......................

[Chad's Funk Blaster]

Ralph,
Right on brother. About time someone jumped into this thread with a dose of reality.

Cap xxxx,
Many pilots applying to VB refused to pay for training - me included. Guess what. I was almost knocked over in the rush of people with cash in hand.

Elektra,
“Decent conditions, salaries and industry safety standards…”. Why do lump standards in with salaries. VB haven’t parked an aeroplane on a golf course.

Going Boeing,

Do you think maybe the QF legal folk have thought of that before obtaining aircraft and employing crew?

All the “thin edge of the wedge” comments do little for the debate. A competitor with a lower cost base has entered the market. Clearly, this will inflict damage on QF as previously its only domestic competitor had a higher cost base.

What proactive steps did AIPA take to fend off the challenge from VB?

[Capn Laptop]

Capt XXXX,

Hate to tell you this but the pay for your rating idea is actually a very old one, and one used by Southwest - the mother of all low cost airlines.

It isn't unique to VB or to Australia.

What it does do, apart from cost about 25 grand, is get guys that are genuine.

If you have to stump up the cash you have to want to do it.

The reality that a rating on a 737 and time on type will stand you in good stead around the world if you so desire - so it isn't wasted dollars as such.

I think that most people would like to have the company pay for training, and the reality of the VB situation is that the classic course is only part of the equation, the company pays for your NG rating.

But it has worked well so far - and having worked well thus far- it is probably here to stay.

[sirjfp]

I know why Dixon is acting to get jet connect to crew the trans tasman flghts. I know of a few people who are working with j/c in n.z and ,when you hear that a F/O with Jet Connect earns less than a a cabin Manager with Q.F , the economies are obvious.
All that he has to do is give Qantas link a few 737's and configure a few aus airlines 767's to J/C and operate them on a few " key " domestic runs and he has a low cost airline and F**K everyone else. The prospect is downright scary . Beleive me , that desk thumping megalomaniac T.J will screw everyone to feather his own nest and with Dixon in his earhole anything is possible.

Forget any public sympathyif you kick up. All the punters want is cheap travel on a safe airline. Come to think of it Q/F's immaculate and well deserved safety record may be the point worth arguing !

Fly safe, Fly happy

[Three Bars]

Chad, Ralph, Capt Laptop and stillalbatross,

What do you guys expect AIPA to do about these things? Ralph you mention all of these other offshoots and franchises - what do you expect AIPA (and therefore all mainline pilots) to do about it??

In my last post I pointed out that with the current industrial situation (not to mention the effects of SARS and the Iraq war etc) that any form of industrial action at the moment would be tantamount to suicide, let alone gross stupidity. You CANNOT hold QF mainline pilots responsible for what MANAGEMENT are doing - probably with extensive legal advice about the possible ramifications before they act. They must laugh their heads off when they see that they can offer crap conditions (and get pilots who will accept them) and then see these other pilot groups blaming AIPA for not waging industrial war on their behalf!!

Also, at the end of your posts, you say that if you don't take the jobs with the lowered conditions, then someone else will. THAT's EXACTLY MY POINT!!! If there was no-one to take the jobs, they might have to look at increasing the conditions. I have already said that I realise that this is not realistic either, and that people need to put food on the table. QF employed many ex-AN employees after the meltdown, but we were also aware that another contingent of ex-AN crew went to QF management and made an offer to do our flying for less. Do you think that this went over particularly well??

So I will ask the question again - what do you guys seriously expect AIPA to do in the current climate. People cannot expect to join a low cost operation on s&*t conditions and then expect AIPA to use industrial action to improve their conditions or, when the bottom falls out of their company or they are bought out, expect to be fast tracked into QF mainline.

I can see that push will eventually come to shove and industrial action will eventually happen - but for goodness sake, let's pick a time when there is a SLIGHT chance of success.

[Lazarus]

With this sort of bitching it appears the screening process is not all that perfect sometimes.

I agree you need to flight for your rights... but keep the personal attacks down. We are meant to be professional.

The more people I see missing out the more I wonder how I got in.

live long & prosper

[ferris]

Three Bars; a very reasonable post. There has been a lot of rubbish about the 'new guys doing all the work' a la the CX recruitment ban (what a joke). The only guys with ANY clout are the experienced pilots, and it's difficult to see them putting their necks on the block for the sake of the future, when they will be way too retired to care.
IMHO purely market forces are at work at the moment. Remember that the market fluctuates. In the near term it looks bad, but think ahead a couple of years and the shoe may well be on the other foot. The only current demand is from the lost cost start-ups, and that will be the case until their growth halts. The supply side of the equation will always suffer from too many young low-timers ready to do anything (and when you think about it, it's taken a long time for that to be exploited by anyone other than GA), yet even that fluctuates. There must be a current drop in training, due to the state of the industry ie prospects? As usual, things improve in a couple of years when there is a shortage of those at the bottom.
I agree that it is a disgrace the way conditions are being subverted ie. using start-ups to usurp the routes. But it's going to take some unconventional thinking to beat it (maybe along the lines of wresting control of that labour market back from the airlines- form a labour hire company of your own, negotiate an exclusive deal with a major such as DJ to provide the pilots [managers love outsourcing], hire all the available prospectives for 6 months to put pressure on supply, hire out crew anywhere and everywhere until you are entrenched etc etc. I don't know, just rambling. It's certainly more viable than asking new-hires to demand better conditions at interview!).
Either way, the party is over (see thread Whatever Happened To The Good Old Days). And the reason I gave up flying.

[huan hung lo]

Ralph,

I accept that the industrial laws of the land are making it difficult for pilots and others to maintain their pay and conditions.

I also understand that an individual has the right to accept work under any conditions at any time anywhere. The fact that one can sympathise with the plight of such individuals does not however diminish the threat to pay and conditions that such action represents to established people in this industry. It simply adds to the problem which when viewed with all other factors at play has the potential to create a catch 22. Company beancounters know this!

This is not an attack on these people simply an observation and statement of what I believe is fact.

The various comments about AIPA and its perceived lack of initiative in finding real solutions to this problem ignore the inescapable truth that the traditional methods used by unions in their response to such situations are inaffective and antiquated with their roots firmly entrenched in an irrelevant industrial past.

I believe that the current industrial laws make it necessary that unions go through a paradigm shift of sorts, one that will hopefully provide them with the resources to tackle the problem using modern ideas and methods.

Maybe they should spend more time and money coming up with sound business proposals as alternatives to those put forward by company beancounters.This way, the traditional confrontational approach gives way to one of a more conciliatory nature.
Unions spend a lot of time and money on lawyers but then so do the corporations. To be realistic this is something that i doubt will ever change. It is however an approach which invariably promotes confrontation and typically results in an impasse.

Why not spend the time establishing a dialogue with the company as part of a fact finding mission to try and define the objectives of both sides of the fence and then work together to find solutions?

Wouldn't it be interesting if a union engaged the services of young bright talented and upwardly mobile business minds at competitive rates( ones that undercut company beancounter rates ofcourse) to come up with good business models for the shareholders perusal? I am sure that there are minds out there that can develop good so called "low cost" airline models that can preserve the pay and conditions of a group of pilots and deliver tangible benefits to the company bottom line.

I wonder how these smart arse beancounters would respond to a threat on their pay and conditions, I mean after all they are not the only ones that can do the job!!

[Lloyd Braun]

Didn't Eddington "streamline" BA by slashing management jobs and the associated high overheads ? I don't remember him trying to introduce B scale etc. Maybe Geoff should try this first.

[slice]

Pay for rating

Capn Laptop - never equate the ability of people to fork over a large sums of money with their ability to be 'genuine'. Many of those at VB who paid for a 73 rating would have had some sort of assistance that others simply don't have access to. Besides, are you telling us that those who have already paid 40-50k for the CPL/IR are not genuine? Or are you implying the more money you can produce the more genuine you must be! Plenty of halfwits with access to lots of money - just go down to any GAAP and look around.