.... so when the aus peso returns to its norm, pre mining boom, how does the salary look then? The aud makes us loom expensive and you can't compare things too simply, unless it suits your agenda... :suspect:

Problem is we have to survive until it resets. Given certain analysts are talking about AUD1 reaching USD1.25 that's a serious world of pain where everything gets destroyed in a capital flight overseas to purchase goods whilst destroying industry in country.

I like cheap overseas goods as much as the next person but unless we can get the Aus$ back down to US70c or so we're in for a very tough near future...

Could he be talking about management salaries?

Highest airline executive salaries in the world? Highest paid Board of Directors of any airline in the world? Highest management to employee/airframe ratio of any airline in the world? More CEO's than any airline in the world? More management consultants than any best practice company in the world?

How about management practices?

The only airline to actively pursue a strategy of a low margin subsidiary canibalising the high margin parent? Poor fleet choice? Ageing fleet? Complex fleet mix? One of the worst employee engagement performance records ever, no probably THE worst? Employee underutilisation, woeful employee productivity management? Dismal industrial relations performance? Utter contempt towards passengers, woeful public appearance skills, poor marketing? Declining safety record, declining earnings, declining route network, decline service rankings, declining brand management/reputation, historical low share price.........

I have never read it in such a succinct paragraph...

Oh yes you have! = "it's stuffed". :uhoh:

I saw interesting parallels with this story:

7.30 - ABC

FWIW.

Not sure the actual story posted, it's 'Hastie Group (collapse)'. Classic story of a business expanding by chasing low yield work and telling itself only good news. Maybe a bit of a long bow to draw but I thought it told a similar story to the leprechaun's fabled gold stealing actiivities:)

Angle of Attack said :
What a ill informed statement! The QF Long Haul Agreement is based on a stick hours formula, hence a B767 driver gets paid ~5:30hrs for a 10:30hr day.

The reality is that is was a negotiated agreement until last Thursday. Qantas decided they were not happy with what they had previously signed off on at the same time as AIPA Pilots were frustrated about their job security and consequently QF thought they could get FWA to do their dirty work.

Last time I checked with my mates o/s, as an 11yr QF pilot (10 as an FO) I'm on similar money to them after tax, so your statement about other airlines doesn't hold water.

A little unnecessary. The vast majority of pilots at QF realise that there are productivity gains which should be negotiated. But that's just it... if QF want it, they'll need to actually negotiate next time.

And there lies the problem, the company has not really wanted to negotiate but only dictate. I can't see them changing, if they did they might be surprised with the results!

I don't disagree with you, however, my point is far more simple. When doing a direct comparison with other (overseas) airlines pay, relative to the 'normal' dollar mark, we 'look' expensive - I know there's more to it but that's not how a newspaper looks at it, they'd just compare an apple with an orange. Just in the last 5 years our salary has (looked as though) gone up 50% in a direct apple/orange comparison. Doesn't reflect reality but looks bad and can/is used as PR against us.

There are no valid comparisons...
 

...because each country is different in fundamental ways. Our cost of living in Australia is grossly higher than in most other countries, as is our income tax rate, hence the need for high wages.

When the AUD was .50 USD we looked like a third world bargain. Now we don't. Swings and roundabouts and other cliches describing ebb and flow.

You will not have missed last week's news that Australia is now the most expensive tourist destination in the world. High wages, high exchange rates will be with us for a very long time.

Foreign governments (Euro, Japan, USA) are engaged in a currency war. As long as they keep printing money under the guise of quantitive easing our AUD will continue to increase in relative value. We are already repeating the Dutch disease of the sixties. Soon most aspects of Australia (exports, tourism, etc) will be too expensive for the rest of the world.

But given the price of everything that I buy is much higher here than elsewhere I must insist on retaining a higher than average salary to pay for it.

that's kinda my point...
how it 'looks', not a complex assessment of the economics of it

Geez, you blokes would never make airline CEOs.

When the $AUD is 1.05, staff wages aren't competitive - staff need to take a pay cut.

When the $AUD is 0.50, whilst staff wages are competitive the price of fuel is killing us - staff need to take a pay cut. On the other hand, due to the low AUD we need to increase the CEO remuneration package to make sure we attract the best possible candidates in the global market. You wouldn't want to end up with any dunces running the company.:rolleyes:

Then if the AUD goes back up to 1.05 CEOs can take a 'pay cut' by making part of their package a 'performance' bonus ie performance = waking up with a pulse.

C'mon guys, it's not rocket science.

PS when I said "you would never make an airline CEO" it was a compliment

Liv,
The CEO is an idiot. He (term used advisedly) has never run so much as a school raffle off his own bat. QANTAS has suffered under a standard of management that I could confidently expect a London Bus Driver to comfortably exceed. Currency games are played by mugs. What any employee expects (and I would suggest the market 'should' require) is actual leadership, intelligence and above all some basic skills in the job they are paid millions to do. And if you think they have any skills in that area 'whatsoever' then clearly you are as clueless as they. Currency has a part to play (and I thought it particularly important when the clown shut the doors talking about pay rates) but it is a symptom of a much larger malaise. The Emporer has no clothes. I doubt he even knows what a sewing machine is, let alone an aircraft galley...

:)



.........

What a ill informed statement! The QF Long Haul Agreement is based on a stick hours formula, hence a B767 driver gets paid ~5:30hrs for a 10:30hr day.

Yes i agree but if the longhaul pilot does a 4 hour duty SYD-CBR return do they get stick hours or 5.30 credit? There in itself is the problem. They should get 1.50 credit as every other airline does. No point going on about a 10.30 duty for 5.30 credit, that is an extreme example , if you factor in the higher hourly rate you actually make more in shorthaul compared to the 767. The company needs some flexibility 5.30 minimum pay is not one of them.

Incentive for the company to ensure they plan us efficiently is important

MDC is an essential element of an award not written for short haul flying in order to protect lifestyle. If it stops the company building 4 hour duties then so be it. It also stops them leaving you sitting around at airports for hours on pseudo reserve.

Anyone who thinks it should go does not understand why it exists. If the short haul award (i.e. stick hours) is the answer why is the company gearing up another subsidiary to replace it?

The company has a major win with 5:30, they are just inept at cashing in on it.

You tell me any other group of airline employees in the world that have a contract that says they can be potentially rostered two man crew, every day of being at work, to a max of 11 hours duty and 8 hours of stick for only 5:30min pay per day?

The companies inability to run an efficient business is what makes the pilot body look expensive and inefficient. :ugh:

Was just about to point that out as well. :sad:

A colleague of mine crunched the numbers and 68 stick on the SH award equals the pay for 80 credit hours. Then I looked at my stick hours for the bid period and was shocked to see them at 71 for my 80 credit hours. So I did 3 hours more flying time carrying 1/3 more pax than a 737 for the same money and you're calling me inefficient?

There are very, very few one day trips these days where you have a win with MDC. There are ultiple times in the last few months where I've exceeded MDC by a considerable margin- at least by 767 standards. Five day trips worth 30+ hours and 29:45 stick in some cases. Before 5:30 we used to do 10:45 tours of duty for 4 hours stick pay and lots of time on 'airport reserve'.

Quite the contrary to Stalin's Brother, I think the company is starting to do a very bloody good job at cashing in on it. The company has become much more efficient these days at getting the flying done with the least amount of crew, trips, etc.

Angle of Attack said :
The vast majority of 767 duties fall in the range of 9-10:30hrs. I know they happen VERY occasionally, usually as a result of B737 unseevicability, but I have never flown SYD CBR SYD in 10 yrs on the 767. So who is using the extreme example now?

In addition, the company have the full length of the trip to average out the days to achieve 5:30, and generally do. As an example, I have 4 trips on my roster this month and 3 of those exceed 5:30 credits/day average.

5:30 MDC was a negotiated win for Long Haul Pilots, in particular those on the B767 at the time, which involved significant trade offs. Most 737 pilots who swing through the bottom of the squirrel cage and do actually fly SYD CBR returns for the month would agree that some form of MDC is desirable on the B737.

So no, I don't agree with your assertion that QF need to do away with 5:30 MDC, and funnily enough nor did they in the last round of negotiations.