Would it be cynical to say these negotiations went hand in hand with the J* PIA discussion between AJ and AIPA?

Removal of overtime and night credits, a330ish hourly rate. One can hope.

Tuner 2 - "I'm sure the company would be pushing for a new set of terms for a new type. I doubt it will sink to the depths of the jetstar WB terms or the Virgin 777 terms though"

...... and that, in a nutshell, is why QF is in trouble in its current form. Adapt and survive.

If indeed JQ and VA have significantly lower crew costs, as suggested above, then any competitor will need to adapt or face the outcome of higher operating costs in an industry where margins are less than the bank's offer in interest for cash deposits.

Rotating seniority?

I heard the company is now paying far, far in excess of the market rate for it's long haul crews? If that's the case, I can see why they are wanting to start afresh with a new type.
Hopefully with a rotating seniority system as well, as the last years with no great movement have caused havoc for those who were unlucky to be at the bottom of the list.

I noticed you changed from "11 pilots" to "far in excess". Care to substantiate either claim?

The stuff being thrown around here has Buckley's chance of getting through AIPA's CoM let alone the membership. I suspect there are some lonely people who are attached to the company side of the negotiations spreading this crap in order to attempt to loosen people up. It won't work. $1bn profit makes it hard to sell a pay freeze. Good luck getting anything else.

There are other ways to achieve things without reinventing the wheel. Rotating seniority is not the answer either.

Well that depends on what the question is.

Rotating seniority is awesome. Don't be scared :)

It's a new freaking type. We'd be insane NOT to introduce rotating seniority or whatever equitable rostering system exists whether it's 'fair share' or similar. We put so many stupid restrictions on Carmen when it's ability to share the love around is well beyond many's ability to comprehend.

We were stupid not to do it with the A380. Let's hope we don't make the same mistake again!

As to the T&Cs, I suspect it'll be 'junior' to the A330 so as to avoid A330 crew bidding to it. It'll be a 'bid back' and I think that's at company discretion.

I suspect there will be some overtime component as they want to encourage crew to get the job done when operating close to Flight and Duty time limits and additional $$$ will do that (I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea from a safety perspective, just the reality from a commercial perspective). It probably won't be the same overtime rules as now unless the pay rate is down around the current 767 hourly credit rate. Even if it was between the 767 and A330 and a change of overtime rules I still reckon that's not a bad outcome.

I agree that night credits will probably go or at least be significantly reduced.

Whether the deal is done or not, I guess we wait and see.

Rotating seniority is the barrow been pushed by people who don't like the present system. Many people do like the present system. No change to the bidding system should be made without a separate vote from the EBA been called for and passed. To anyone who says that the 330 present hourly rate without night credits is ok is kidding themselves. If you flew 800 stick hours at the rate of $265 an hour ( I think that's the approx rate) plus 6 weeks leave gives you just under $240,000. IMO the hourly rate would need to be approx $320 per stick hour with a min guarantee of a about 150 stick hours per eight week bid period. Night credits are there for a bloody reason .

Umm, credit hours still exist! From my understanding of some of the positions put forward, you'd still be looking at a divisor of 160 for an 8 week roster. You'd still be getting 1040 hours per annum as min guarantee. Night credits may be worth 30% but on many trips they don't actually add 30% to the credit of the trip.

Damn straight. Of course it is. That's because the present system is inequitable and in times of stagnation- like we've had for 6 years now- it ensures that those who are trapped on the bottom of the pile suffer a crappy life for considerable amounts of time. We've tolerated it because it's in and it's difficult to change for fleets that have been around. I acknowledge that many people stayed on type in category because they didn't want the disruption of being junior.

A new type changes all that. You bid (or not) knowing that you can get the weekend off that you want (probably) but you don't get that and the best trip and another other six weekends off whilst someone else gets the worst trips and no weekends off.

This isn't a vested interest here either. There are 8 people in Qantas senior to me who are younger than me. I end up very, very senior. I said as a senior S/O on the 744 who only rotated for 1 bid period that it was unfair. I said as a junior and senior F/O on the 767 that it was unfair. I said as a middle level 744 F/O who didn't rotate that it was unfair and I've said the same whilst being 40 of the bottom of the 767 command pile.

(As an aside, I know of some relationships that have gone through some tough times in the last six years because of the lifestyle impacts of the stagnation of the mainline and being trapped junior).

I bet they're not in the bottom third or have been trapped for the past six years in those numbers. I'd be interested to hear why they think that continuing a system that ensures those senior on fleet- particularly a potential new fleet where everyone knows what they're getting into- get everything they want whilst those junior get nothing of what they want is a system worth continuing. To put it another way, were we to have a fair share system, what justification would there be to move to a pure seniority system?

We've done that a couple of times over the years. The majority at those times have indicated a desire for a fairer system. Why not introduce a new type with that fairer system. You still bid for the aeroplane on seniority. Lifestyle (and pay if there is diversity in O/T between trips) on that fleet would be far more equitable.

There have been surveys with no results released to the membership. An indication of a fairer system is not an endorsement of rotational seniority it's just what you want. The present system allows the top 2/3ds to have stability under rotational seniority no one has stability. You only have to look at the bull**** of shared blank lines to release that many lies will be told in this debate. I average one every four on the 747. Is that was sold to me ? No it's not. By knowing the rules there are some 747 pilots who are yet to do a blank line. You remove night credits you remove about 30% of your credited hours on the 747 therefore you would have to fly 30% more stick hours for the same money or get a 30% increase in the stick hourly rate to compensate.

If there is to be a vote on rotating seniority, it should be made available to all those who may in future be on type (including short haul).
I'm pretty sure if you include short haul in a vote it would be voted up.

While I am as optimistic as I have been in years about the 787 coming to mainline, could I caution people not to get too excited. This deal, if it in fact exists, may be part of an unpleasant "whole package" of an EA. However it does seem that QF are talking to AIPA and that after years bobbing in the water, good ship QF and its pilots may be about to experience a slight breeze.

It's coming you can bank on it. They want the eba finished before the official announcement . The changes will only effect those that choose to go there the existing types will continue under the current arrangements.

Lol. I call BS on that one! That's simply not true... both the first part of your sentence as well as the second part.

Significantly, a more equitable rostering system doesn't have to be a rotational one- it's just the one that most people are familiar with. Carmen has so many more capabilities than what our meagre minds have considered. It can do 'fair share' of weekends off. It can do fair share in terms of points awarded for particular things. It can do fair share in terms of night flying, early starts, late finishes, etc, etc.

And I call your comments bull**** also. The 2/3 rds that would have the change would go from having a good idea of what they will get to all sorts of different things ranging from the top to the worst. It's funny how when some says rotational seniority is crap that you come out and say we can make changes to Carmen to make it more equitable. Why hasn't that been talked about?

The only people who complain about fairness and equity are a percentage of those who benefit from the imbalance. Fortunately, this time these people are in the minority.

Keg, big news, you are not the arbiter of what is fair.


Your argument is one used by politicians i.e. what I say is fair or more fair therefore by default what others are saying is not fair. It's an attempt to marginalize an opponent and shutdown debate.


In reality fair is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer to look at what choices different systems give over a career and how that fits in with the rest of life. IMHO the current system offers more and better choices over a career especially for those with long term issues such as sick or disabled family.
Stagnant times are an issue but there are plenty of ways to handle this without throwing out the system.

We already have shared blank lines, shared annual leave and LSL and buckets on trips so your somewhat emotive proclamation that junior gets nothing and senior everything is false. That's another political trick, exaggerate.


Next political trick, ask "do you want a fairer system?" Who could say no, I mean gee "do you want world peace?" It's a loaded question with implications that makes it hard to say no. That's why the question is put this way, it's to get the desired result not to open serious debate.


If you want serious debate about systems and choices good, but please leave the "my system is fairer" argument to the shyster politicians.

Mypov, take a bow. Beautifully put.