https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...l#post10396114
Interestingly in another thread you post:
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
(Post 10396114)
Acording to the latest seniority list: 787 F/O approx 5 years from date of join. A320 command currently around 6 years in Sydney. Rough guides only of course as there are many variables, mainly how many extra airframes the A321LRs will result in. Jetstar are able to offer a lesser deal, as the time for promotion is much more rapid. You can go back to the original observation by the father of modern economics, Adam Smith in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations for some guidance on these matters: 10.1.25 The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations. In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker, there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks. In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it. How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes appear, their real retribution is never equal to this. Compute in any particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a very small proportion to their annual expence, even though you rate the former as high, and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompenced. Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years as an on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline. So arguments about differing rates of pay need to be filtered through the lens of time to promotion as an adjunct to pay. Some will choose quick promotion, for age or the ability to fly as a contractor, others better T&C, but accept a slower career path. One thing that is assured, if QF could wave a magic want tomorrow, and have all mainline new joiners on JQ T&C at the current extended time for promotion, those on the hold file with any experience would reconsider opportunities elsewhere. They need to offer better T&C to attract, the instant they don't they will struggle to crew aircraft just like everyone else. I had a group general manager boast to me that he was going to pay 1/3rd less for his NZ Turboprop operation prior to startup. I don't believe they had a single application once they put it to the market. As I said, there are no shortcuts in aviation. Airlines have milked there once off screw-over of the industry, now they are paying the price with a big shortage. Qantas mainline is insulated only while it has better T&C with some semblance of delayed career progression. Remove either of those, things will change. |
I had a group general manager boast to me that he was going to pay 1/3rd less for his NZ Turboprop operation prior to startup. I don't believe they had a single application once they put it to the market. As I said, there are no shortcuts in aviation. Airlines have milked there once off screw-over of the industry, now they are paying the price with a big shortage. Qantas mainline is insulated only while it has better T&C with some semblance of delayed career progression. Remove either of those, things will change. Jetstar has a role, for a long time, the economics were ignored, bastardised in favour of IR leverage. As the shortage is patently obvious to the entire industry, economics become more important, after all very quickly grounded aircraft generate no operating revenue. Qantas need focused capital expenditure, vision and strategy. With Fort Fumble they get plenty of strategy from IR, which is of declining relevance. |
“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.” I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!! There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs. |
There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs To state that time frame sounds a little desperate. |
There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs. Nothing to stop QF management pursuing such a policy with contractors flying JQ aircraft, all in search of lower unit cost. Of course though, that distracts from the present reality that the Qantas group finds itself. An incessant internal focus, at war with various groups of staff yet the market continues to move beyond them. Their fleet metrics are horrible. Their Capital Expenditure requirements, will, in all likelihood, exceed at least six times what they spent buying their own shares back. Additionally, they still have to pay for the $9.5 billion JQ order. Instead, they focus internally, setting work forces all against each other, hoping to save a penny. Picking up a penny in front of a steam roller is not good long term strategy. |
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
(Post 10476093)
“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.” I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!! There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs. The point I was trying to make, is there is a tradeoff, quick promotion, or better T&C, but you can't have both. In order to attract pilots to take the delayed promotional career risk something else has to be on offer. At the moment, that is exactly what is happening, mainline has sufficient applications of experienced pilots. However, If career prospects disappears, they will just be like everyone else scratching for crew. |
Hey Chad, I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across. The numbers and just general chat with my colleagues leads me with that conclusion that most don’t have the desire to go across. The 15 years was stated by an earlier poster (curtain twitcher). I understand that 737 F/O is available to the guys that want to take it substantially earlier than this and with retirements and more aircraft orders on the way this time frame will continue to decrease. The beautiful thing about the current landscape for QF group pilots at the moment is that if they want to go to mainline, that opportunity is available to them, and if they want to stay at their respective subsidiary for faster upgrade times or whatever their motivation may be, then they can obviously do that as well. |
I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across. Doesn't that tell you something? |
Originally Posted by OnceBitten
(Post 10476134)
That's 5% more JQ crew applying to QF than QF crew applying to JQ.
Doesn't that tell you something? |
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
(Post 10476113)
I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across. |
Originally Posted by Vindiesel
(Post 10476149)
Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.
What is the probability that the DHC operations in more expensive cities are struggling to attract sufficient 'talent'? Qantas has made a lot out of tying aircraft to pilot concessions. Fundamentally, as Curtain Twitcher surprisingly pointed out, 737 jobs are in plentiful supply with limited uptake. One might posit has IR been so successful that the pilots have in fact accepted the lower terms and conditions achieved to be worth the effort? The fleet problem is symptomatic of the broader malaise: Lack of strategic vision. Fleet and strategy are hand in glove. Qantas lost the hand picking up pennies in front of the steam roller. |
Originally Posted by Vindiesel
(Post 10476149)
Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.
All I am trying to do is balance the discussion that there are many of us at JQ who have looked at our lifestyle, remuneration and career progression and decided that were happy where we are. Many of my colleagues who have gone across to QF that I have spoken to are happy with their move but have realised that working at QF has its fair share of issues too. |
That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from. |
plenty of MOU captains have resigned from QF and are staying at JQ |
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
(Post 10476160)
That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from. They tell me you haven't really lived until you have done 3 or 4 days in a row of 11:00+ hours, consisting of multiple aircraft changes & 4 legs on the East Coast. Once someone takes a 737 slot, they cannot go back to being an SO, so the reality is new joiners who take this option will do 15 years of these days in the RHS. |
Originally Posted by SandyPalms
(Post 10476169)
I’m curious of when those decisions were made, and if the same decision would be made today. Other than the the bloke from Qrewroom who stated once, he’d like to be able to roll back the clock, are there any others? |
Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.
|
Originally Posted by Don Diego
(Post 10476192)
Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.
The situation is beginning to model the European experience. The operators of lower tiered equipment in more expensive cities were the first to notice the shortage. Suffice to say the demographic time-bomb has no short term solution. IR were dragged up this way kicking and screaming to reality. Reliable information suggests Network aviation, Jetconnect et al have little interest. Sources suggest Stream Lead may well be using an 'internal survey' of pilots to strengthen the case to allow further foreign pilot entry. Parachuting the said individual into lead negotiator for IR is just part of the former AIPA President's brief. The only way really to address the shortage is improvements to, rather than, reductions in terms and conditions. |
Section 311
It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time. Here are the facts. The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award. The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award. The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%. The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates. 787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots. There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign. Primarily section 311. (1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees. If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA. In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal! Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position. In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees. Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager. If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up. Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position. |
Originally Posted by FightDeck
(Post 10480968)
if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.