I'm sorry to hear that, if that is the case, perhaps there is an emerging safety issue with mixed crew operations.......

No safety issue if both crew are big enough to separate work and industrial issues.

But there is definitely some quite unpleasant comments out there at the moment.

GN,

If what Fuel-Off is saying is true, which I see no reason why he/she would be less than truthful, there already is an issue.

One small amendment to my large post earlier, a disturbing question has presented itself.

No Training Wage ????, but what does it actually mean ?

In the old EBA, new pilots were payed training wage IAW 25.2 until checked to line or three months, then fleet pay as per section 25.

In the proposed EBA, no training wage, and salaries as per 25.1, but not until "endorsed"....

So does this mean, NEW FO's WILL NOT BE PAID, AT ALL, UNTIL ENDORSED ?

Check both EBA's.....

So I'm sure you've emailed the EBA team with your concerns given they are all currently in the BNE roadshow?

You should get an answer soon enough! :ok:

GN,

No, any words out of their mouths are irrelevant, all that matters is what is written in black and white within the instrument, nothing else.

All that matters is that which is legally binding, i.e. the actual EBA.

Not what someone who is trying to sell the deal says, never trust a salesman :ok:.

Josh I think part 47 "INITIAL ENDORSEMENT - FIRST OFFICER TRAINING ALLOWANCE" is what your after.
$665 paid weekly
Would have to ask the reps if DHA is payable on top of that as well.
30.7.2 "The Duty Hour Allowance is payable to Captains and First Officers for all Duty Hours."

Hi NC,

Yes, I believe the training allowance is in lieu of the accommodation and any other entitlement under Clause 48 (meal allowances etc etc ).

DHA, is, what it is.

But what about salary ?

Clause 47.1 mentions an induction salary, what is that ?, no training salary as per Clause 25 ?, and normal fleet salary applies for pilots "endorsed" on Q1/2/300 (25.2) or Q400 (25.3) pilots.

Clause 47 applies for the first 8 weeks, but is not a "salary".

Josh - you're cherry picking problems that don't even exist...:ugh:
The clause about Training wage remains because it was in the old EBA and it refers to the "training salary" i.e. those two words together, not their "salary" which is what they get paid from day 1 IAW 25.5.2. FO's will get their wage from day 1, there's not much more to say on that. There are other examples where historical paragraphs remain but have been nullified as such.

From the roadshow today we can all see there are a few things that are not ideal, but the vast majority like it and can see through the hysterical ramblings of the vocal minority.

Go to a roadshow - look at the facts - yes, ask the tough questions and you'll get straight answers.

Hi Roger,

I do not feel I am cherry picking, this is a legitimate question / possible script issue with the document, the Clause 25.1.2 is (verbatim):

So, if a new pilot is not yet "endorsed on Dash 8 100, 200 and 300 series aircraft", are they still paid as if they were "endorsed on Dash 8 100, 200 and 300 series aircraft" ?

Same issue for the Q400 (verbatim):

Legally binding documents must be tested for loop holes, is this an unintentional loop hole or intentional change ?

That does not mention new, old, endorsed or not endorsed.

I'm not seeing any hysterical ramblings on this thread, could you please point out which posts/posters you think qualify ?

All new hires are paid from day 1 of joining the company, this was clarified tonight.

Also for those who it applies, the practice of the company removing all outstanding training bonds, INCLUDES all Traineeship ADL bonds that some are currently repaying back (post tax) to the company.

Mr Dude,

Thanks for that.

GN,

That is good news, but it still needs to be pointed out, unless the document in corrected and sent out again in the corrected format, next week when everyone votes, they will be voting on the present, potentially "flawed" version of the document.

As per my earlier post, the words that come from the mouths of our reps or the company reps are meaningless without it being in black and white within the latest version of the proposed document.

Slight change of pace if I may.

What is happening WRT the introduction of an FRMS? My sources tell me that Qlink management have given up on the idea because they have been instructed that there will be no compensation for increases productivity.

Does that mean come May1 2016, it'll be CAO48.1 with further limitations of the original CAO 48 (as defined in the Agreement). If so, that'll cost them!

KRUSTY,

Correct. We were told at the roadshow that no one (CASA included) knows what to do with the FRMS so the status quo remains.

Are you sure about that GN? Where have you found this information? There are FO's who have only been in company for about 1.5 years and they will be released? It is something I will be asking at a roadshow.

All current bonds (if agreement is voted up) are WIPED CLEAN. ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH! Word directly from the DCP himself.

Fuel-Off :ok:

Durandal,

What Fuel-Off said :ok:

Thanks very much for that Fuel-Off and GN. :ok:

Saying new pilots will be "paid" from day one and saying the new pilots will be "paid a full salary plus applicable allowances " from day one is not the same.

IMHO, the document must be redrafted, unless of course it is infact the intention not to pay them salary from day one....

Hi Josh,


I must agree with you, if it is not written down in black and white management interprets it differently to what pilots do and you won't have a leg to stand on.


It happens all the time, this is why these side letters and documents are written this way, otherwise they would be clear and concise.


Cheers.

Josh, if you are that concerned, have you told the Feds about this little word issue, or just leave it to the PPRuNE gods?

Fuel-Off :ok:

Are you are not concerned ?, these "little word issues" you speak of support Lawyers and their families worldwide. A stitch in time saves nine.

That is a very interesting attitude you have there...

I am not a new pilot, so by your logic, why should I care ?

Stupidly enough I do, I care deeply for the welfare of my fellow pilots, both present and future.

To answer your question, other than ringing SL, not a cracker, other than discussing it with my fellow pilots.

Josh, you are reading far too much into what I have said. All I was saying that if you're the one who has spotted the potential oversight in the proposed EBA that could disadvantage the new hires, then be proactive and bring it to the attention of the Feds and declare you have done so in the course of your discussion with other fellow pilots on this forum - and keep us updated on what the Feds are doing to remedy the situation! You used to be a council rep for Pete's sake!

Rather than have a discussion on this forum about the oversight and do nothing about it, then potentially bitch about the Feds because the wording wasn't fixed!

Crying over spilt milk as it were. See, I can do idioms too! ;)

Fuel-Off :ok:

So they've started playing the game just prior to an EBA vote - colour me shocked. And they'll keep playing the game until they don't want to play anymore (which they can do at any time they like, because the letters are unenforceable :ugh:)

Oh yes because you can trust the negotiating team to deliver an objective, impartial opinion on the facts of this EBA :rolleyes:

I must have a different calculator to DIVOSH - it is a fair deal and it is a YES vote from me.

Why the hostility towards our negotiating team? They have spent countless hrs working, without any reward to better YOUR life.

The disrespect shown here and elsewhere in the last couple of weeks has been disgusting.

They are on our side you dickheads!

Don't be surprised if in 3 yrs no one wants to push the cause for a group where a certain percentage are so ungrateful they just sit back and have a whinge.

Honestly, why would you bother?

Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN
 

I agree with Josh. One can only vote on the current agreement, and as it stands it is flaky, not to mention wrong for the youngens.

I'm sure it is a fair deal for you.

It's a shame about those who come after you though.

My feeling is the YES vote will get up. Those looking for a quick few bucks will be happy voting it up and there's nothing wrong with that if you're happy getting flogged for it.

Individuals in the company have stated that the aim is to get everyone flying 90 hours a month. This might not sound too bad from the perspective of someone coming from J* or QF where the sectors are longer and the duty to flying ratio is reasonably low, but for a regional operation where the duty to flight hour ratio is about 0.5:1 (typically half hour duty for every flight hour) this pushes duty times pretty high.

If you're not already doing 140 hours a month then lucky you but apparently it won't last forever.

But like I said, if you're not interested in lifestyle then why wouldn't you vote yes? Just don't go whinging about how ****e the rosters are in 12 months time.

On a side note, I think the reps have vastly overestimated how much DHA is going to help combat sick leave and get people answering their phones when they don't have to. If people are working so hard they're turning down call-ins (like a lot are at the moment) then how are an extra few dollars an hour going to make a difference?

Ground schools are planned for approximately every 6 weeks until the end of the year so establishment numbers will be coming back up again. There are close to 12 FO's coming across from the Classic to the 400 in BNE which will reduce the workload among the 400 FO's and more evenly balance the workload between fleets.

I don't see the mass exodus continuing unless VA/JQ hire in big numbers soon. Not everyone wants to go to Cathay.

Plenty still taking call ins from where I'm sitting. Many ringing up crewing the day before looking for a bit of extra coin while they can and getting a shift more often than not.

Lack of FA's across most bases seems to be the reason for quite a few cancellations lately.

The general tone around the place seems to have changed after the roadshows given quite a large number went and most should have a better understanding of what the package is worth to them.

Make an INFORMED decision... :ok:

Also how have EAA costed what the 55% FO rate will save the company?

So they must know how many recruits are planned and how many will fall under the 55% bracket.

In the soup,




you are the model pilot a management team would want!




"Haters are going to hate... So whatever".






Now, whilst you responded to someone else with this, it really does show how unintelligent you are. Disagreements emerge in all of these processes. It isn't about hate, it is about what is right for you. Stop being a douchebag and go and put your Taylor Swift music back on!




Take care and all the best!

ITS,

I am absolutely certain the person you are talking about does not care about what some naysayer hiding behind a pseudonym thinks,,,,,,, in most part because said person does not claim to have, or put any value in playing some twisted popularity game.

Personally, I only care what my wife and children think of me.

If you can not dispute said persons calculations ( or the other posters, or the EAA pilot council, a whole bunch of northern and southern members, or Di Vosh, or the posters on other social media ), or sack up and present your own mathematical assessment of this proposal for critique, I would imagine further communications with you would be best described a waste of electrons.

If you believe something, and no logic can sway you, vote yes, that is your right.

No haters here buddy.

Sunstate pilot's Reps undercut Eastern pilots AGAIN
 

Can't see Joyce damaging the brand so much again. We all know that was a mistake. Rex is a better prospect than both Eastern and Sunstate.

" no haters here"

I'd suggest otherwise Josh with regard to haters.

Just look at how quickly your secret Facebook group got personal. I'd strongly suggest people tone it down as any personal attack is a breach of QF group policy.

Peter

Peter,

If someone attacked you on the Facebook site, as everyone posts under their own name, how about you take it up with them. It has nothing to do with the EBA thread.

It has everything to do with this thread, Josh. That complete abortion of a 'forum' was nothing more than a witch hunt to weed out those who dared to happen an opinion in favour of the EBA and (gasp) actually give informed answers as to why, using their real names.

The fact that it was moderated by yourself and DIVOSH - the two most vocal opponents of the EBA, just showed right from the outset that it was NEVER going to be a balanced discussion and those who spoke out against your rantings were set upon by the restless lynch mob (the small group of pilots you've corrupted) - and the posts becoming just plain vile. For the record I never posted on that 'forum' only because I didn't want to subject my intelligence to something so pathetic and wrong.

We all know you have an axe to grind with the council, Josh. But to do what you have facilitated on social media, I hope the ramifications from that get back at you in big way. You may think you don't deserve this spray, but neither did those other pilots who just happen to disagree with you.

Rant over.

Fuel-Off :ok:

This week, the Sunnies team released their draft EBA and associated side letters. As far as I can see, the only thing that has changed in your favour is the start time for the DHA.

My claim of no extra time off and no extra protection to lifestyle: CORRECT. Nowhere in the document can I see any provision guaranteeing a pilot more than eight days off per roster (though admittedly you’ll probably get the 8 ½ you’re getting now). Nowhere can I see real protections against pilots doing three (or more) day trips.

My claim of lower DHA: CORRECT. I still can’t believe this one. When the company offered the DHA initially, their offer was $10.00/$6.50. Yes, the start time of the DHA has now become “on signing” (i.e. accepted by the FWA) instead of 1 Jan 16. But even that is now being used to pressure pilots: (“The sooner you vote YES, the sooner you get DHA”).

My claim of new FO’s being thrown under the bus: CORRECT. A new hire that doesn’t have the hours/qualifications will have a first three year base salary BELOW that of a REX FO!

I can’t describe this as anything other than A NEW LOW IN AIRLINE T&C’s

Oh that’s right. You guys were told in the roadshows not to worry, because all the current new hires will have 2000hours and ATPL to qualify for 65% salary. Won’t be much comfort to new hires that don’t have it when they get employed. It was pointed out during the roadshows that if you join without 2000 hours and an ATPL you are stuck on the lower wage scale for three years, even if you acquire those hours and an ATPL during your first three years.

All I’ve written about are the facts as I see them, and my opinion on how they were achieved.

As opposed to…

Fuel-Off who compares me with his uncle, and has a go at me about “Hysterical rants” while making some himself. Someone else who appears to have created a Prune ID simply to have a go at me. (Pity his post demonstrates zero research and understanding of the issues at play). But the best one is from IN THE SOUP, who is having a go at me for the use of IMHO! That’s your point? IMHO?

Here’s another one for you: OMFG!

You’re supposed to be an intelligent individual and either an FO or a Captain of an airliner. In a debate where adults are discussing potential financial/lifestyle changes affecting 250 odd Sunstate pilots and potentially another 250 odd Eastern pilots, your written response to an opponent is “Haters will hate…. Whatever”.

And people are talking about MY credibility!

Gentlemen, if you’re not able to discuss the issues without resorting to personal abuse (and some of the tirades here lead me to wonder whether you’re fit to fly), perhaps you should let others speak.

The Eastern team has put up some costings. Predictably, some here have rubbished them. Okay.

What are your costings? The EBA team in the roadshows (when asked) simply said that Eastern had got it wrong, and in the latest Sunstate update the Eastern costings were “wrong and biased”. But did they say why? Or did they put up their own costings to refute?

No?

No. They simply said that the Eastern costings were wrong. And that’s good enough for some here. Again, something about credibility…

Going Nowhere, all well and good, but all you’ve got to do is look at the Cairns establishment numbers to know how hard the company wants to work you, and what the “new normal” is going to be regarding Flight/Duty hours.

By all means, just don’t come crying on here when you’re flying 20 days out of 28, have more than 10 overnights per roster, etc, all for a little more money. And when you’ve got a “low hour” FO next to you doing the same for less than $65k base pay, remember to tell him/her that you voted for their conditions.

DIVOSH!

DIVOSH, If you look closely, my joining date was Feb 2009, so again you make a fool of yourself in claiming that I had to create an ID just to get at you (tickets much?).

You claim that I have zero research but alas you twist the truth to your favour - just like the EAA costings.

I would like to further counter your pig ignorant posts; but I'm not fluent in stupid.

Fuel-Off :ok:

(Sigh)

Fuel-off, the user I was referring to was BIGLANCHOW, but by all means keep up the personal abuse. Says more about you than me.

DIVOSH!

This is hilarious - you guys are killing me - I have not laughed so hard for a long time, for this I thank you.

Peoples, take a chill pill.

DIVOSH - In regards to inappropriate use of IMHO, I suspect the writers were not referring to you at all, but someone else. But you took the bait (always read a post that you do or don't strongly agree with at least twice before responding).

I would love to keep posting my opinions but we both know that my opinion in your sphere and it's poor cousin does not agree with yours so it will be screamed down by you and your army of 2 or 3 others.

But please, keep posting, for sheer entertainment value, it certainly beats the TV with "Dancing with the Stars" or "The Voice" on a Sunday night after dinner?