According to Robert Gottliebsen at Business Spectator, and Etihad Airways CEO James Hogan, there is little or no truth in Rambo's claim:

Quote:

---

...they are different companies and if anyboby starts mixing the two then management from both sides will have a field day.

---

Quite the opposite it seems.

Quote:

---

RG: So, those legacy carriers that don’t change their work practices are likely to go out of business?

---

And that was before the tie up with Delta & Northwest.

IMHO, the future is Intergration - not Segmentation. :ok:

Kremin,
I think you're right about rabbit & rambo and by the tone of their posts, they are most likely the same person. I guess they're just mischief making to take their minds off their own T&C's being p1ssed up against the wall by the camel jocks. Misery loves company...

Teresa,
Agree with you about the master plan, quite deliciously (with apologies to Bruce McAveny) machiavellian really. It never made sense to me to have 320's & 787's in a LCC operation, I've always thought 320's & 330's was a better mix, maybe this is the start. Also heard that their project team had a 787 "wake party" last week, now I'm starting to believe my own rumours! :hmm:

The B787 was ordered by the QF group for many reasons - but one important one was the delivery timetable promised by Boeing. It was going to be ready several years before the A350.

Now that the B787 is going to be further delayed by 6 to 12 months (there was a Seattle newspaper article recently which detailed some of the technical issues), the difference in delivery times will be so much shorter.

So the B787 still makes sense for mainline, while the A350 would integrate into the JQ fleet so much better. And BB did tell some techies recently that he was in talks with Airbus for a substantial order. He just didn't say what types...

Different blokes, both liars.
 

View their previous posts. Both obviously ex-EK now with JQ.

NEITHER WITH QF.

Buchanan another tool. Rather naughty chap on a Qf flight if i remember! Boston consulting group with a sufficient knowledge of aviation to fit on the back of a postage stamp...

QFinsider,

Not that I'm a supporter of BB, or Executive managers generally, but let's face it, their lot aren't the only ones who qualify as tools - especially if misbehaving on a QF flight is the major qualifying factor; I seem to recall a particularly senior QF captain behaving like a major one on a QF flight southbound from SIN. Something to do with (a) too much Champers pre-departure, and (b) making a demand (which was duly refused) to see the tech log in-flight. (c) was going to be very nasty indeed, until a moment of clarity during his Champered blurr convinced him that a retreat was in everyone's best interest.

Especially his.

At least BB married the one he was misbehaving with.

The Townsville refueler's cousin recons 90 pilots to be made redundant :confused:

newsensation, seeing as you where at the AIPA meeting yesterday, please give us a précis.

6 months notice for redundancey. Maybe Qanats have hung in as long as they see viable. By giving notice now, from a business point of view, they are saying if things don't turn around after the busy holiday season, they will lay some pilots off. Kind of makes sense. As far as guys going to Jetstar, don't see how viable that would be either.
Reason is, they would have to be endorsed(if not already), inducted trained and checked to line. All of which could take a few months.
What happens, in 12 months time, when Qantas say, "we need you back". I'm sure there are plenty of guys who would run back in a heart beat without a second though of the cost or consequences of leaving Jetstar short staffed. These same guys that jump on here and whinge that Jetstar is so far beneath them.
I gaurantee if they are given positions at Jetstar, there will be a minimum R.O.S required.
My motivation, yes I currently have an application with Jetstar.

metrosmoker, if I follow your logic, J* should employ you while the "Qantas Group" guys & girls (who also had an application in, passed the psych, sim check, initial endorsement, cyclic's & possibly probation check) should be sacked & join the dole queue. Is this correct?

That's right breakfastburrito ... So if I follow your logic, you think mainline QF SOs should be given preferential placements into other qantas groups (J*/qantaslink) without conducting a recent skill & psych, sim or interview, while guys & gals who work for the qantas group who jumped through all the hoops where sittiing on LOIs for months and then told they'll have to do it all over again? Is this correct?

Well it seems fair enough, Qlink/ J* pilots can go to mainline without any of that nonsense... can't they?...

Of course, grrowler!
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOT!
Every Qantas employee is created equal. Some, more equal than others. :yuk:

For the record I do not agree with anyone from the "Qantas Group" being sacked, and a new joiner being employed elsewhere in the "Qantas Group". I have never advocated such a policy, nor do I support it.
Personally I support a GOAL type arrangement that allows pilots to follow the work within the group.
I have not agreed with previous AIPA's administrations actions regarding regional & Impulse coverage & support.
If the roles were reversed, I would support a J* pilot being employed by QF, rather than being sacked.
I was most pleased that ex-AN (the supposed corporate enemy) pilots were employed by QF, all of them have been a pleasure to fly with.
Management are the ones pushing this agenda, not the pilots.

Media campaign?

The story, if it ran, would last a day.

The continued employment of a group of pilots is not news.

Sorry, but you are laboring under mistaken ideas if you think otherwise.

I must be under the mistaken belief that the Government / Labor party would give a rats about a major Australian company seemingly openly flouting their policies.

Something about "Transfer of Business" and ducks?

I think it would last more than a day in the media ....... a lot more than a day.


N

Yes, That is what I am saying. If Qantas pilots go to Jetstar, then they should expect to be required to stay there for a reasonable period of time. What that time frame is, I don't. But why should another airline be dissadvantaged in 12 months time because of the current situation.

Most importantly, this is my view as is affects me at present.
Why should my plight be any less/more important than anyone else's. I doubt there is one guy in Qantas who would take a pay cut, demotion etc to save the job of another pilot in the company. Everyone will have an opinion dependig on how the situation will affect them. If you can't see that, than is it any wonder that pilot's have the industrial issues that we have.

polesmoker

You said :
Are you referring to "the company" as in the Qantas "Group" or simply the Mainline operation?

Because pay cuts/less hours are exactly what is being considered right now by the pilot group to avoid retrenchments and a huge majority of pilots are willing to do so in order to save jobs.

You clearly have no idea...good luck with your Jetstar career :yuk:

Many QF drivers are working reduced value rosters- effectively taking a pay cut- to save the job of other pilots in the company. If it comes to it I'm willing to vary the EBA to reduce min guarantee hours below what it is currently paid- effectively taking a pay cut- in order to save the job of another pilot in the company. (Hours to go back to normal when conditions improve and other standard 'return to normal operations' clauses are an obvious inclusion).

It appears that metro is somewhat ignorant as to what QF drivers are willing to do in order to help out others. Sadly it's that type of ignorance that keeps the J* and QF crew at arms length. Many of us are mature enough to not succumb to those sorts of confirmation biases.

Ah, I see Transition Layer beat me to the punch.

Keg is in love with the term "confirmation bias".

:)