I must admit, I'm confused.

80% No vote, couple of minor tweaks and all of a sudden people are falling all over themselves to sign up.

One wonders why some voted no in the first place.

Or are we simply threatened and retreating? :sad:

You know you're right. Six and a bit years after checking out in Sydney with a wide body command the best I can manage with the RIN was an A380 F/O slot or commute to Adelaide for a 737 command. Nothing to be disappointed or whinge about there at all! :rolleyes: :ugh: :(

Not to mention for 16 year FOs, in their 40s, kids in high school who are nigh on impossible to uproot (family comes first), the only option to remain in Sydney was to become a SO again. RINed pilots were unable to displace across hauls.

Sure, they may be able to get an FO slot in SYD on the 73 in future but, as part of the RIN, for some the only option was to lose a stripe and their hard-earned window seat.

Name another airline where 16 year pilots, who have been in the 'Group' longer than pilots for any subsidiary (except a few ex-impulse guys), have been FOs for maybe 14 years are back to cruse relief jobs. Didn't think so.

Any real airline those guys and girls would have been Captains years ago.

Sure, pilots will always find something to whinge about - and being demoted is probably a legitimate gripe. However, whinging about demotion to a fleet where many will be paid substantially more and have greater control over their roster is not as big a whinge as losing your job.

As bad as the RIN was, people at least had an opportunity to prioritise what was important - location, rank, pay.

Is any of this, however, related to the options available to short haul pilots with the upcoming vote?

Sure headmaster. Completely agree with the general principle. I'm not saying that my lot in life is terrible. As a 2nd prize it's still pretty good. My comments are directed to Ozsync regarding his perception that perhaps I shouldn't have a whinge at all.

A couple of technical points. Most of the F/Os getting demoted get a pay rise and more control over their lives. However they all could have had that years ago. They forwent that to love their job of being an F/O. Again, as 2nd prizes go it's pretty good but most of them would give it up on a blink to stay an F/O in Sydney.

Further, I'd be very surprised if any of the demoted Captains are going to be better off financially. I've crunched the numbers a bunch of times and I'm not in front. I will be better off lifestyle wise but I could have held that lifestyle years ago anyway. I'd give up that lifestyle in a moment to keep flying the 767.

None of the crew on the 767 being demoted want to be demoted. Almost universally we'd give up whatever 'benefit' any of us may achieve on the 380 to keep doing exactly what we're doing now on the coin we're getting now.

The answer to your final question though is 'probably not'. :ok:

It is distasteful that an airline pilots discussion forum has got to the point of arguing about dollars and cents. They've reduced the most professional and company minded people in the world to the 'what's in it for me?' mindset.

I don't blame you but it is disgraceful what's happened...

Hi Keg my comments aren't really directed at you, I do sympathise with those who have chosen to drop rank because of personal reasons, you are entitled to a whinge, I was directing my comment more at those who are whinging to anyone who does or doesn't ask about their predicament.

Aviation life really is still pretty good for any pilot involved in this RIN.

Qantas breakthrough with short-haul pilots

Gee that slipped through quietly!

What was different in the new deal?

The new deal provided the back pay they previously said they wouldn't pay. Approximately 7 million dollars worth across the all the SH pilots.

Probably more importantly it enshrines the provisions of the Integration Award within the new EBA. This was essential because changes to legislation would have rendered it unenforceable if the company did not participate in its modernisation. Currently the IA is the closest thing we have to a scope clause and contains important redundancy provisions.

Why were they entitled to it? As for setting an example, I think you'll find another five or more employee groups took pay freezes first. And don't give me that crap about the engineers getting their mates' jobs back. I guess now you'll tell us the AFAP or TWU is here to save the day and get jetstar pilots millions? :ok:

Amazing.
After all the chest beating prior to 14th it suddenly goes quiet and then ka-pow....YES.

Not one single comment on the new proposal before it was resoundingly voted in.

It is a disappointing result. This was an opportunity to fix some issues which will now fester for another 4 years.

"Never get between a pilot and a bag of money."

Quote from WFK, never more true.

What was the % vote yes?

Lotsa go back to your qantas angel forums please :mad:

So that you can all wallow in a sea of bravado and an over inflated view of your self worth and bargaining power?

Lotsa,

No so we can go sick on reserves, so beat that, idiot! We win you lose...

EBA
 

It seems from the outside that Q deliberately delays negotiations until well after the current EBA has expired. Then, after a significant period of no negotiation due to "other negotiations", Q's first offer is an obvious reject. This leads to the next offer which, invariably, contains a clause stating there will be no back pay up to the date of the new agreement being settled. Q then settles into a long, drawn-out period of "negotiation" during which the "no back pay" clause remains included. Years can pass, all benefitting Q's financial position.

My point is: if this can be proved as an across-the-board tactic employed by Q, could it be determined to be an illegal move by the company?

Thoughts?

The word is everyone will go sick on reserves once the new contract starts, so beat that, you won the battle but it's pretty simple to win the war...

There is no penalty for going sick on a reserve day so from the beginning of the new contract that's what's gonna happen.....why should be accept it, let's reject it! Cancel services and let the idiots fix the mess...

Not being party to this particular EBA, do I understand you that you can go sick on an R day and have no penalty? If so I would just re-record my voice mail message to that effect. And follow that up with a "no volunteer" movement for open time.

You deal the cards, you play out the hand.

correct...no penalty, no sick leave used, no certificate required. There is a clause somewhere in the EBA that says the company 'may' require a certificate for R, AV, BL days, but they have to provide notice or something. Ive never been asked for one.

There are some crew known to scheduling who go sick on every reserve. Just treat it as an additional 3 days off.

With the company having more access to AV days now, i have no doubt that sickness on reserves will skyrocket. Since the agreed coverage has increased, Reserves will now go further up the rotation. After a short period, people will get fed up of getting pinged every AV day, and R coverage will be even less than it was before.

The only positive in this EBA is the inclusion of parts of the integration agreement.

So some will go sick and cutoff your nose to spite your face. Real smart!

Good idea, plan lots of Industrial Action in an ailing lossmaking airline. Disrupt your passengers who pay your salaries, airline looses even more money.
Give more work to LOC rivals, airline gets smaller, less jobs. Seems a good plan.

The yes vote was around 70%, meaning that a majority were happy with the agreement. I doubt you'll see widescale sick-ins.

Id guess the majority went for a cash grab, rather than reading the changes to the agreement.....

From discussions with a lot of Yes voters, they weren't aware of what the changes to Reserves and AV's were, and how they would impact their rostering.

It will depend on the flying/base, but MEL and SYD R sickness will definitely increase.

cessnapete, your understanding of the Qantas business position is as thorough as your spelling.

arcs'n'sparcs you are spot on with that comment. Those tactics were regularly employed by Eastern several years back when I was working there. They would come up with an offer that was absolute crap, usually a year or two overdue, and then threaten us by saying if we didn't vote it up we would lose all our back pay. Negotiation by threats, intimidation and theft of our money that we should normally be entitled to.

Anyway that was one of the main reasons I decided to leave (and haven't looked back since).

Cloudsurfing, the effect of the reserve changes is that one more rank on reserve per day across the country, so the practical effect of that will be negligible.
And if the ones who don't like it call in sick, then others will pick up the trips in their place and get the $, that the beauty of the SH award ;)

I voted yes this time around but I wouldn't go so far to say I was happy with the agreement.

This entire process was an absolute disgrace from the outset. A completely wasted opportunity by a "leadership" team (devoid of real Leadership) to engage with their employees and genuinely negotiate real outcomes.

In the end I had to decide if voting NO would result in a significantly better deal.

I won't go sick on RES's. I will use the new flexibility clause though to "negotiate" double time for my services when crewing are desperate and sms'ing me on a day off to help out.

Dr Dre,

I stand to be corrected but from my reading it will be an extra reserve in each rank, in each Base per day. i.e. from 3 on reserve every day to 4.

That is a big increase, 33%.

First world problem and all, but we just gave it away for nothing. Just like I'll be trying to do with my Reserves. Anyone?

Brutus,
The new agreement calls for a reserve ratio of 1:18
Divide that into the number of shorthaul pilots, and this equates to the total number of reserves being 1 or 2 higher than the fixed number of reserves now per rank. And with the ADL base taking up a reserve per day this new ratio will have very little noticeable effect on overall reserve numbers and how high up the position numbers they'll go.

Does the short haul cover the A330's as well or just the 73's

Just the mainline 737's

The following is a cut and paste from the FAQs.

Agreed daily reserve coverage of up to 1:18 based on the total number of line pilots across all B737 bases (including pilots on leave but excluding pilots on LWOP). This mechanism will increase the total daily coverage across all bases from an agreed fixed number of 12 per Category to 16 per category based on current numbers.

An increase of 33%

For nothing.

For moving the timing of the backpay and having the relevant words from the Integration Award incorporated into the EA.

Nope

In the current EBA there is a fixed number of 12 reserves total in each rank in the bases active when the EBA was written (Syd, Mel, Bne)
Since then, Per base has I believe 2 per day, and Adl should have 1 =15, so going up one per day across the country, not 33% overall