Is Geoffrey writing under an alias now? This should be an internal matter, but some "senior" member of the politic bureau has released it to the media... This stinks of the same dirty campaign they ran during the PIA!!!

What if they are Sydney based, but commute? I know that's their decision, and accommodation etc in SYD is their problem, but technically their address could be more than 200km from SYD.

What wouldn't suppose me is, if the pilots involved, come from somewhere which is 1.5 to 2 hour drive away but is still <200km away by distance and there has been some miscommunication between the pilots and management. Keep in mind there are quite a few pilots who come from areas south of Wollongong and commuting to Sydney everyday for a course would take a solid 1.5 to 2 hour drive each way in peak hour but is still less than 200km away.

Lets wait and see everyone! Reprehensible to leak this to the media yes but if the pilot's concerned have done the wrong thing knowingly then we shouldn't be blindly defending them. No-one is above the law if this is the case!

All airlines have an address on file for each of their pilots, as well as contact phone numbers. The only way I can see that this could have developed, is if the pilots in question have a 'crash pad' close to the airport for reserve duties & the like.

If that is the case, it would appear that the company has suddenly taken exception to a situation that has been going on for years & decided to take the stance that the crash pad is the pilots actual address.

It would appear that it is either a zealous management type trying to earn brownie points or, as has been suggested, a shot across the bows to signal the commencement of a new, hard line industrial policy from management.

Or, these pilots have lied about their address and are commiting a crime, for which they rightly should be punished!
I am concerened that people are more wortied that the media know about this than they are that the alleged crime took place.

Crime what crime?? It is not a crime to give an address which you can be contacted at which is not your residence!!

If you move house alot it is often easier to leave your address at a relatives or a PO Box.

Same with phones you don't have to give a company your phone number, just a number to be contacted on.

There would also be pilots who for legal and security reason QANTAS can never know their real addresses.

My money is on this being a political stunt where the outcome is never reported but the initial investigation is.

Neville, you jest surely?

Of course it is not a crime to give an address for contact reasons etc, but to willingly receive monies that you are not entitled to is a crime, it is called fraud.
If the pilots had received the money that they were not entitled to, and make no effort to correct the situation, they are committing a crime.

I am not saying these pilots did that, as no actual detailed facts have been given.

I agree, it does appear to be "media" driven, but if the allegations are true, then these guys/girls deserve everything they get.

Fraud is fraud, not matter how you spin it.

Whether you receive money or not would depend on the contract and the interpretation of it. It is all a matter of opinion.

I agree with you if it is a straight open and shut case, however I doubt it would be that.

For example if you owned two houses one in the country and one in the city and you lived in both where is your address?

Or better still you are domiciled in Melbourne but commute from Sydney is that still fraud?

Surely if you have a house in Sydney even if it is not your main residence then it is still a little bit dodgy to them claim your allowances for being away from home.

I think it is disgusting that this has been leaked to the media, but if what has been said is true then the pilots have to take responsibility for their actions.

Probably because you're really just stating the obvious - if someone deliberately did something bad, then they should get in trouble for it. I don't think many people would argue with that. In this case, there are an awful lot of details and potential grey areas that we know nothing about, so it's hardly appropriate to be working ourselves into a lather over it. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to be wondering why 'senior sources' have leaked this to the press during what they themselves describe as 'the early stages of the investigation'.

(I'd quite like to see an article comparing this alleged rort to the APA bid, where Dixon would've got $60m, Joyce $20m, and the airline would've gone under. Not holding my breath for that one, though, especially not from News Ltd.)

"Or better still you are domiciled in Melbourne but commute from Sydney is that still fraud?"

Yes. You will find it is.

Be wary of he who points the finger.

The first mistake was leaking this to the media. In a non-dysfuntional management environment this issue would have been dealt with internally with minimal damage to the brand, however there is another agenda at play obviously.

To paraphrase a famous John Lennon song: "All we are saying, is give us a management that can run an airline".

............who should know better - his father was an airline pilot.

1) If the Company was defrauded they have MULTIPLE ways of getting anything back. Doesn't make it correct of course, but staff travel, wages garnishee, seniority, etc etc all the way up to summary dismissal with loss of super. And yes they have done that.

2) Just imagine for a second if said Company brought in a Captain for some indiscretion. I'll pick sexual harassment but it could easily be fraud or whatever. Point is this. As per every Company manual, we are in no uncertain terms told point blank that we speak out of turn we are dismissed. No if or buts. So Capt A is hauled in for a WK1 pattern to discuss 'alleged behaviour' and rather than walk out with his tail between his legs he has good legals behind him he goes to the media about his 'interview' over alleged sexual misconduct.

How do you think the Company would treat him?

The rights or wrongs of this are irrelevant. The QF media machine is now against an 'alleged' fraud - for which they 110% KNOW will cost them nothing. It's not even a legal matter - it's an internal issue!!!!

This probably an old rort that has been going on for many decades and a" left over" from when QF was government owned. There was probably never a system to check the claims and nobody has bothered to create one or, they have just looked the other way.

Present any possibility to defraud and there will be those who will find a way to take advantage of it.

A similar thing happened just a few years ago at Dragon Air in Hong Kong.

I was told that pilots were presenting false receipts for inflated rental rates to the company for reimbursement over many years . When Cathay took over, a quick check of the books exposed the fraud.
Certainly ,retribution if not restitution was swift and caused a few Dragon Air pilots to return to Australia to look for work.
I believe that it went on for so long because some management types were among those doing the defrauding.

In any case, a crime is a crime and by making a false claim, the crime has been committed.

They had better just not look too far back. It would be an interesting exercise from the stories that I have been told over the years.

It could end up being a new income stream for QF!

That statement needs an explanation.

Of course the reverse happened for years. Pilots received a slot in another port where the training was to be conducted, therefore no allowances payable. In some cases, before training was even completed, or in most cases very soon after, hey presto a slot back in their original base. All costs of associated with being in another city for the duration of the training being borne by the pilot. Quite a scam, saved the company a fortune for more than a decade. Bet that one won't be leaked to the newspapers.

It is not a 'left over' from when QF was owned by the Government. When Qf was owned by the Government everybody was Sydney based, there were way less managers than Tech Crew and the GM earned about two and a half times what a Senior Captain earned...........these days there are
a sh*t load more managers than pilots and the CEO takes out about 15 times what a Senior Captain does.............:ugh:

Alleged fraud is not a legal matter, V-Jet?

Thanks for the giggle anyway.