For those who think we are uncompetitive due to lack of flying hours:

How do you explain that a decade ago I was bouncing on the yearly 900 hours per year limit for three straight years on the 747?!:ugh:

The uncompetitiveness of long haul pilots is totally caused by management.
(Or lack of it!):mad:

No doubt you were on 900/yr Tanker, but the majority (rotators doing blanks and others on LSL, the 330 and 767 boys and gals etc) weren't. FACT.

Try going to a retirement dinner and ask the retirees. Why do so many long termers end up with an average of 650/yr for their careers?

Because the Long Haul Contract makes them do reserve and pays them for flying not done. I'm not saying that the people don't deserve to be paid what they are paid, just that all the featherbedding incorporated in the LHC makes it a very expensive business relatively speaking.

I agree that pilot pay is not the issue currently, but it is relevant in the longer term if the group is to become influential again.

PS I'm not Wayne and I'm not Raj, although I agree with both on many things.

COSGROVE REPLACEMENT.
 

So who should be the replacement for General Cosgrove ??
There is surely only one suitable person - the self proclaimed "aviation expert", the inimitable Jeffrey Thomas .
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Role on.........

Gold! :D:D:D

Hot and Heavy,
Yep, various types and ranks work hard or not according to the MANAGEMENT decisions of the era!:hmm:
The contract is not all to blame, we have ways of being quite efficient, way more so than 20-40 years ago ( retirees when I joined probably averaged 350-450 hours per year!). :eek:
Even though I was on the 900 year limit for a few years my average including numerous courses, leave ( and most of my long service at half pay) is a little under 650 per year over 26 years.
There is little to stop us doing close to maximums allowing for reserve, leave etc.
The company does not do this for any number of reasons - it is not the PILOT's fault!:uhoh:
If other managers had made different decisions you may have seen a good fleet mix going to a larger mix of cities flown by engaged pilots flying more hours than now and everyone making money!:ok::(

True - but only because there are other CAO limits than 900/yr. Back then I would average about 750/yr on the 767, and it would've been hard to do much more, no matter how efficient you wanted to be. Once you factored in lots of 1.5 hr sectors, 45-60 minute turnarounds, and the various 2-pilot CAO limits, 900/yr would never be achievable for that type of operation.

Doing one's share
 

Hi Tanker,

Of course it is not the individual pilots fault if they are used inefficiently. The company and pilot groups are subject to the agreements as they have evolved over the years and can only work with what they have.

That evolution has been the result of lazy management practices and pilots rightfully bargaining and doing their best, and doing pretty well over the years I must say! Can anyone name a better set of working conditions than the agreement (for the senior)? I can't.

So here we are, airline going down the tubes, pilot pay not the issue but relevant to future growth (if there is to be any).

All I would like is for people to accept that this is not 1992, there is competition everywhere, and it is not logical to expect everyone else to compete on work practices but not pilots. Anything that prevents people from doing their share should be removed.

PS Let's not forget QF flight training. The amount of time wasted over peoples careers by inefficient training when totalled would be enormous.

You guys are arguing over relative peanuts. The inefficiencies in various companies awards are almost universal. Qf is 'in the ball park' with everything. Some better, some worse.

Don't fall into the trap of fighting over efficiency and 900per year and how it is arrived at when the GROSS waste is in using wrong aircraft on wrong routes, giving away everything you can and rewarding yourself and your many company departments (and lets not forget how many more we can make!) with MASSIVE pay and bonus structures. Limiting CEO pay to $2m???? Whats wrong with $500k? Doesn't the CEO of United get something $600? I don't know - just asking/saying. I reckon you could get a GREAT CEO for $500k - especially with the perks on top. The airline is going down the tubes for gross waste & incompetence and once again someone starts this nickel and dime argument about which award is better.

HnH...
 

Management claim to be able to predict the future with billions in Asian strategies which will, one day, be hugely profitable and influential to the QF group. We all wait with baited breath because, so far, the results have been stunningly short of the spin at the time. (HUGE credibility and integrity gap right there!)

On the other hand, the same people seem incapable of framing a believable plan for QF mainline because they can't seem to verifiably quantify "the problem". Evidently, new and efficient equipment stored around the world pending its utilisation is good sense for a LCC, but QF mainline can't expect new/efficient equipment until it gets more profitable with the old gear!

I believe "they" would gain huge support if they could simply use a bit more quid pro quo and define:
a. what they seek to achieve in terms of efficiencies, and
b. what resultant career/equipment/route structure would then become viable and expected for mainline in the years ahead.

"They" have created such an atmosphere of mistrust through part-truths and questionable financial engineering that no employee is disposed to volunteering for blind compromise if the result is accelerated career-slowing through further siphoning of the Qantas treasury for speculative ventures with absolutely NIL benefit to Australian employee.

At some point, there must be more than just "trust us". Some might call it a sadly lacking factor of the last few years; leadership. :hmm:

And don't forget the last time QF asked it's pilots for a favour, ie divisor at below min-guarantee.........saved about 8 million that year, and what did Dixon take out of the company that year.....oh, about 8 or so million....:ugh:

Apparently the Emirates tie up is not performing as expected which is why Alan had to go up there recently.

Alan to announce the result and his resignation is the tip.

Let's not forget in all these 'amazing' Asian strategies, Qf is supposedly only a part investor with capital light investment. So if by some miracle the ventures' returned a reasonable profit, by Qf's definition, it would only ever receive a minor percentage of that profit.

107/108 is a 744 - no first class

And why is anyone surprised if the Emirates relationship did not perform as expected (presumably by QF Exec) because why would Emirates give them anything when they go to the table with nothing to offer except free routes.

Time for the night of the long sharp knives.

I notice that Ben Sandilands has been quiet recently too.

Been bought off perhaps?

Ever airline has crew on standby and leave, whether sick or vacation. The terms and conditions will vary but ever airline has the same basic requirements. What you don't have is a management response to a crisis, that has now been going for 7 years, that involves the compulsory use of accrued leave to balance their books. This " efficiency" is of the same nature as parking brand new aircraft for " operational flexibility". It is rubbish and has been pointed out to the culprits on many occasions. But as they are the "sharpest tools in the shed" they know better. Crew want to work and the majority are quite happy to work to the limit of the requirements. To place them on compulsory leave doesn't mean being efficient. The management have to accept their responsibility in this mess and make the airline efficient - even if this involves making people redundant.

Seebee

"PS I'm not Wayne and I'm not Raj, although I agree with both on many things."

So that makes you DD then:)

I doubt that, Ben has been pretty fearless and a consistent lead critic of Qantas management for those who have followed him for the long haul.... I guess he's waiting for the next crisis to "emerge" a well overused media word.

I think Ben is quiet because it is quiet in general. As Timax said, no "crisis" has popped up in a while, so there is nothing to talk about.

Having said that, things are very quiet on the Qantas front, I wonder what is coming.

I suspect Ben was geared up for a big article on Jetstar Asia result after Tiger's loss-making quarter and bad year.

Unfortunately Jetstar Asia made a profit.
Jetstar Asia records second profit

And this is with outsourced pretty much everything and leased planes. Take this back to a Qantas mainline structure with owned assets and part-owned fleet (yes additional investment) and it would be a substantial profit