Ans is simple.

Some ****head with a calculator is sitting in some dark corner with no windows. He inputs 15,000 x $1/hr = $15000. Then he multiplies 15000 x 8 = 120,000....
etc etc.

Re

Quote:

---

Inflight Qantas words a turn-off | News.com.au

---

Check the author, the one and only , Joe Hildebrand, so what do you expect...

No its not!

Word for word reprinted in Adelaide Advertiser.:yuk:

Regarding the propaganda piece from Joe H.... I was farewelling pax a couple of days ago and received the following raucous feedback from a disembarking customer

Stick that in your pipe and print it Joey:}

Dutchroll,
My contact in the airline tells me that is not what your claim is about. It should be but it's not. He tells me your claim covers Jetstar, Jetconnect, EFA, Network the FIFO in WA, Cobham and the american B747 freighters.
Maybe that's why you're getting very little traction.

Why do people who should know better continue to refer to 'RED' kangaroos?

Last time I looked, QANTAS aircraft were adorned with 'WHITE' kangaroos. Sure, the tail is red, but...:ugh:

clotted,

Unsurprisingly, your Qantas source is wrong. AIPA is not demanding Qantas terms and conditions for all other pilots. The 'exclusion' clause is there for this reason.

I have checked with my Qantas source who is an AIPA member and he says that those entities named in my post above are not on the exclusions list. He also says that means that pilots employed by those entities must be employed under the Qantas pilots EBA or terms no less favourable.
In my view that doesn't equal or even with white kangaroos on the tail.

clotted, you can check with your source as many times as you like but it is still wrong.
The 'Exclusions List' is to remove aircraft operations that carry QF flight numbers and aircraft painted in the QF paint scheme, from the claim. (Dash 8 services etc)
The airlines you name will not be subject to our claim if they operate under their own name, use aircraft that aren't painted in Qantas colours, not use QANTAS flight numbers and callsigns.
Your source has it Bass Ackwards.
We are asking for Qantas Pilots for Qantas Flights!
If you fly aeroplanes that DON'T PRETEND to be QANTAS flights then we have no claim to that.

clotted,

The exclusion list is open to negotiation. That is what the two parties are supposed to be doing right now. Unless, of course, Qantas aren't genuinely interested in negotiating around that clause?

That is exactly what my source is telling me.
BUT that is not:
That is my point and that is not the point of the advertisements around the roads and on the backs of the buses in a simple reading of the ads.

The catch phrase used on the posters is simply
When you board a Qantas flight, you expect a Qantas pilot
in big bold letters. Quite simple and to the point, really. If you still find the message confusing, then perhaps you might consider removing the last three letters from your handle. :sad:

BSD, you are very aggressive for a BSD.Qantas is in overdrive on spin. There is no need for you and AIPA to follow them.
How can a Joe Public such as myself come to grips with the fact that you reckon that if you have a white aircraft with a red tail and a white rat that you reckon it should be a Qantas pilot (which I fully support) but on the other hand you also reckon that the pilot of a silver and orange aircraft should be a Qantas pilot and the pilot of a red/green/blue/yellow 747 freighter registered in the US should be a Qantas pilot as should the pilot of a B717 flying in WA should be a Qantas pilot as should the pilot of a Network aircraft (whatever their colour scheme is)?
I know that you and others say that adjustments can be made by Qantas to get around this but how does that promote your cause if Qantas plays your game and makes those adjustments to get around your parameters? My questions are, why should they have to and how does it guarantee your job security if they do as you suggest to get around your demands? Surely that gets you back to where you are today? Meaning that Qantas continues to use all legal means available to it to run its business the way it sees fit which in turn means that your ability to move to higher ranks and on to bigger aircraft which means more money for you is not in the same time frame as you saw it or see it. Welcome to the world. Names like Pacific Dunlop/Bluescope/Oz Mitsubishi/Vegemite/Edgells/Fletcher Jones/Streets/Kelloggs/BHP/Arnotts/Greece/Ireland/Portugal/Spain are just a few to come to mind where employees or residents have had their career dreams shattered by corporate decisions.

And if someone has weighed it all up, and decided that they are quite grateful to be earning three times the national wage to sit in the third seat, and that with a wife and two young kids they'd rather keep their head down and take a chunk off the mortgage than strike..... you hold that against them and exclude them from social gatherings? That is pathetic.
I support the QF pilots, and if I worked for QF I'd wear one of the ties, but I would be ashamed of myself and any colleagues who ostracised someone for having a different opinion. Thats just playground stuff.

I support the QF pilots, and if I worked for QF I'd wear one of the ties, but I would be ashamed of myself and any colleagues who ostracised someone for having a different opinion. Thats just playground stuff.

That is all fine Framer as healthy debate is good for everyone, however if people don't want to support a collective bargaining process than they should be prepared to negotiate their own terms and conditions and not just accept what others have given their time and efforts to achieving.

I am fairly sure that if people negotiated for themselves as individuals then they would no longer be earning three times the national wage to sit in the third seat

Red tails. White tails. Mea Culpa. Now let's move on........

Yes. Yes they should.
Now what does that have to do with how we, as supporters of the collective bargaining process, conduct ourselves in their presence?

Joining the pack and ostricising people who are thinking differently to us doesn't help the situation, it does make us look bad.

The only possible reasons I can see for that sort of behaviour are
1/ An attempt to bully them onside.
2/ An attempt to make yourself feel better by directing frustration and anger at someone in the absence of a management representative.

What is going on in this context is a mirror of the debate that we should be having as a Nation. Apart from digging holes and drilling pipes inthe ground, what employment do we intend to have in the near future for our citizens?

I find (again) TBM comments astounding. TBM,you have kids and you are not interested in what they will do in the future?I suspect that this debate is far more important than a child missing a flight.

The fact is that Australia, the Nation, not the airlines, own the international traffic rights and these rights should be used for maximum benefit to the Nation, not just to the benefit of a small group of self interested parties.It is hard to see a better benefit than employment, taxation, defence, local investment and a well managed and profitable Australian airline industry where employees work hard and are remunerated accordingly. This has certainly benefited Australia up to recent times. Now we only see benefit in going for the cheapest and that means offshoring.However Executives are never offshored are they?

All this was tried with our shipping industry and now it barley exists.Are we now heading to a transport industry, including domestic, that totally relies on overseas assets and labour? If its OK for domestic airlines why not buses or trucks? Why can't we use 247 visas to drive our trains?

The problem with Qantas is the when it was privatised the sale included the Qantas Sale Act.It was there to stop exactly what now seems to be happening.The Govt as whole (all parties) need to examinine what is going on and act now or repeal the sale act altogether in an act of honesty.

As a shareholder in Qantas I am disgusted with Qantas management.The share price is at an all time low and their solution seems to be pay themselves more, propose wild schemes and pick arguments with every employee in sight.

Government,where are you?

Wunwing

And Wunwing has very neatly and eloquently hit the nail very squarely on the head. Well said, Sir.