|
Folk,
Back to the fleet planning, you are all missing the big picture. The accountants and other Xperts have "done their numbers", and the answer is fly the 787 for 29.5 hours per day. QED, why haven't other airlines woken up?? If lawyers and accountants can bill 36 hours per day, what's the problem. Tootle pip!! |
Sorry for the ignorance, but just curious as to why a reduction in numbers is being talked about, when there are supposed to be more aircraft and more pilots recruited at QF (going through the application process myself). Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets? |
Oh if It were only so simple
|
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10140625)
Oh if It were only so simple
Such opinion overlooks the fact that the QF Longhaul EBA is an agreement between the parties. It is inappropriate that anyone should ‘cherry-pick’ what is no longer convenient in that agreement; every clause has been bought & paid for by one side or the other over a long period of time, and the typical blame game against the pilots seems to come from either the uninformed or the disingenuous. What will be, will be. It’s not fun, but neither was it a ‘thought-bubble’ imposed on a poor helpless IR/HR team. |
Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets? A move from the 744 to the 787 would be a reasonable pay cut and thus most 744 pilots will be looking to minimise their pay hit when the move eventually has to be made. The RIN process in some ways, allows this to happen; certainly for the more senior. |
Originally Posted by abcdoremi
(Post 10140332)
Sorry for the ignorance, but just curious as to why a reduction in numbers is being talked about, when there are supposed to be more aircraft and more pilots recruited at QF (going through the application process myself). Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets? |
Originally Posted by abcdoremi
(Post 10140332)
Sorry for the ignorance, but just curious as to why a reduction in numbers is being talked about, when there are supposed to be more aircraft and more pilots recruited at QF (going through the application process myself). Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets? There are a number of nuances as to how this plays out as alluded to by both Jetsbest and maggot. Not least of these is that you need crew trained for when a 787 arrives but you still need crew flying the 744 until the day the 787 arrives. So those 744 crew can’t be released to fly that new aeroplane straight away. It’s a three to four month course to convert. One month ground School, one month sim, one to two months line training- takes a full 8 Weeks to clock up ten sectors when the sector length is north of 14 hours. Hence maggot’s comment about it not being simple! |
Originally Posted by mrhooker
(Post 10140751)
No excuses for ignorance needed. 747 pilots have only ever been for 747 pilots. They ignore the facts as you rightly point out that recruiting is going gangbusters. Many are wishing for RIN for the $$$. Many are worried about going to a new type and therefore moving out of their comfort zone and most are thinking about the loss of $$$ for overtime going to a smaller aircraft. |
Originally Posted by abcdoremi
(Post 10140332)
Sorry for the ignorance, but just curious as to why a reduction in numbers is being talked about, when there are supposed to be more aircraft and more pilots recruited at QF (going through the application process myself). Wouldn’t QF just give the 747 pilots the new spots on the 787 and vacant spots on the other fleets? |
So Leigh at your April board meeting what has been obvious for a decade to the industry finally hit home: Qantas need a new fleet.
Whilst of course 'commercial in confidence' is the standard line pitched to all, what would 6 787 aircraft cost? Prudent management would have seen these aircraft purchased years ago, protecting fuel included CASK, growing operating profit margin, but self enrichment of insiders is a powerful drug. With share buy back and capital returns totaling AUD$2 billion, you could have paid for these aircraft out of cash flow surplus, such was the cheap fuel it was self interest all the way! With WTI crude nudging USD$70.05 jet fuel forward hedging, given contango, becomes a lot more expensive. Maybe you need a few more? Reality Czech whereabouts unknown. We await with interest the return from the Campus with a quantitative analysis as to the 'value of JQ' |
Cheers for the insights, but wouldn’t displacing more pilots when recruitment is going gang busters be very expensive (eg. a 747 captain could potentially displace 3 or 4 other captains and so on), and like Keg said, make a lot of pilots sit around in training courses not actually flying planes? I totally understand about pilots wanting to go to a plane that keeps their pay drop to a minimum (I would too), however, wouldn’t QF just turn around and say there’s is an increase in pilots required hence no reductions of numbers? So they only need to convert the 747 guys? As it seems a very expensive and inefficient way of doing business. |
I wonder if around circa $64,000 a day could entice a decent CEO ? |
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
(Post 10140844)
I wonder if around circa $64,000 a day could entice a descent CEO ? |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10140824)
As once said to me when I was an SO your average Qantas pilot would eat his kids for $10. Don’t kid your self that 747 pilots are any different to pilots on other types in Qantas , they are all there to get what’s best for themselves. |
What a complicated pay scheme QF seem to have which stifles Pilots movement and recruitment. My airline pays by Company Seniority not by type. ie A 2 year seniority F/O on an A 320 gets the same basic as a 2 year A380 F/O. A 20 year A320 Capt the same as a 20 year 787/744/777 etc. (We don’t do the S/O partially trained Cruise Pilot thing, all joiners on all fleets fully trained as P2 for 2 pilot Ops) Flying pay and allowances tend to favour the LH fleets but not by much. This scheme means guys who want the SH European lifestyle don’t have to go LH just for the money, and obviating the need for double conversions to replace him. Also saves a bunch on Type Ratings and conversion courses for the Company as you can recruit direct onto the Fleets with the pilot requirements. Pilots recruited direct onto wide body types obviously need previous jet or large turbo prop experience, ex Military or previous airline. Saves all the hassle and bickering on who goes where, with for instance B744 fleet retirement, which seems to happen in QF? |
Cessnapete,
The SO role is probably easier to justify in this part of the world than most. Other than a few exceptions on one fleet, every wide body is going to be operating with an augmented crew so why pay for a third or fourth FO when an SO will do. I agree that seniority pay generally makes sence, I remeber the idea being mooted some years ago in the lower echelons of one carrier I was involved with, but the counter argument at the time was that all the large pay steps over the decades had a occured when new and larger types had arrived. Im sure that was party attributed to being the 'good old days' but there was little appetite for change going foward. Anecdotaly, most of the senior guys where happier with long haul life anyway and I doubt many would have embraced the multi sector short haul life even if the base pay was the same. Im sure it would work for the company, but as inefficent as it is in its current form I think it still works for the majority of the current pilot group most of the time. |
Thanks for the reply Lapon. I am surprised you get enough pilots recruits who will never fly the airplane! We had a short period on our last recruitment phase when due to lack of training route sectors some new F/Os on 380/777 etc had to wait a few months as Cruise Only, I think they could only sit up front above 20000ft. Thy hated it ,bored out of their tree after a month or two as a third pilot on a two crew airplane..
Still its better than no job. |
I reckon two of the company's claims for the LH EA this time around will be for fleet pay and longer type freezes post training. If the LH and SH EAs were negotiated together in some respects such that the SH contract was better in parts and the pay differential reduced between types, there are potential savings for the company in the tens of millions if not hundredish million p/a in reduced training costs.
|
Originally Posted by DirectAnywhere
(Post 10141690)
I reckon two of the company's claims for the LH EA this time around will be for fleet pay and longer type freezes post training.
|
Well, of course they can claim whatever they like. I would like to think that after the considerable concessions in the last EBA’s, and the subsequent record profits and exhorbitant executive remuneration, the pilots would be unlikely to accept anything less than a good pay deal in the next negotiation. QF IR know that, of course, they aren’t stupid. Which is of course why they are currently attempting to muddy the negotiating waters with Jetconnect and and Network (and 787 orders, please save me). |
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10141822)
At the pay rate of the lowest aircraft of course.
|
With WTI crude pipping USD$71.69, oil just topped AUD$96.00. Since the start of April oil prices (hence Jet fuel) is up in the order of 10%.
Geopolitical risk aside, China's recent foray into Yuan denominated oil contracts and clear patterns of increasing consumption suggest further contango in oil prices, Qantas may wish they were permitted more hedging latitude when fuel was considerably cheaper. Qantas hedging into FY18-19 may be significantly more expensive, and hedging discretion is only 40% of forecast demand outside 12 months. Those 787 orders may be needed sooner than later... Qantas need a new fleet |
The 787 EA is now being exposed for its many flaws.
The 787 had a very high chance of replacing the 747. So now a situation exists where 747 pilots could get sent to the 787 on far less pay/conditions regardless of going to year 4 pay. Quite possibly the mooted RIN will never happen and it's just another mind game to lessen conditions for the third time in a row. AIPA and the Qantas projections showed lots of Asia flying which would of lessened the effects of losing overtime and night credits. The long tours of duty that the 787 is currently flying was not disclosed. Simply put the 787 is a long haul 747 replacement type. Slim chance of a growth type. The company very successfully played SH vs LH and in the end pilots simply took a knife to their own pay and conditions. Very sad to see especially when the full bench of FWA ruled the contract as fair and reasonable. The Short Haul award deserves to be better without question. Sabotaging something adequate because something else is inadequate is just another self imposed race to the bottom.Collective representation should resist collective stupidity. Collective stupidity, Stockholm syndrome and group think is now Collective representation. Long Haul flying is different with very long trips away from family, a majority of fatiguing night flying and constant jet lag. The protections in the contract provided for these differences.Trade offs in pay in the past provided such. Instead of protecting them for when pilots eventually move to the various types, pilots self sabotaged. Early starts,multi sectors and long duty days are no less challenging. AIPA should be aiming to lift all boats given the shortage.Short Haul just like LH many years ago need to better working conditions. Those that attack their own by slagging off SH vs LH just show how easily manipulated they are by IR strategy. Doing a 19.5 hour all night duty from Perth to London is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. The cabin crew union were smart enough to provide protections if anyone had to move to a new fleet via top-up pay. Let us hope in a time of record bonuses, profits and pilot shortages AIPA and therefore it's pilots show some intelligence and some backbone when the A380 goes and a new type does nothing but "double sunrise" duties of 24 hours from one side of the planet to another. Same for the SH EBA. Concessions, panicking and comfort letters do not inspire confidence. Whilst I have a dislike for IR, HR and the mind games they play on pilots, they have played pilots for scared fools and have outplayed AIPA too. If AIPA were to run a survey on their impressions of a comfort letter I'm sure they would not like what they would see. Not many work groups that are in a global shortage have conceded so much time and time again. If pilots continue to go backward in boom times then god help us all. Or maybe Alan is worth his 30 million? |
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
(Post 10143695)
The 787 EA is now being exposed for its many flaws.
The 787 had a very high chance of replacing the 747. So now a situation exists where 747 pilots could get sent to the 787 on far less pay/conditions regardless of going to year 4 pay. Quite possibly the mooted RIN will never happen and it's just another mind game to lessen conditions for the third time in a row. AIPA and the Qantas projections showed lots of Asia flying which would of lessened the effects of losing overtime and night credits. The long tours of duty that the 787 is currently flying was not disclosed. Simply put the 787 is a long haul 747 replacement type. Slim chance of a growth type. The company very successfully played SH vs LH and in the end pilots simply took a knife to their own pay and conditions. Very sad to see especially when the full bench of FWA ruled the contract as fair and reasonable. The Short Haul award deserves to be better without question. Sabotaging something adequate because something else is inadequate is just another self imposed race to the bottom.Collective representation should resist collective stupidity. Collective stupidity, Stockholm syndrome and group think is now Collective representation. Long Haul flying is different with very long trips away from family, a majority of fatiguing night flying and constant jet lag. The protections in the contract provided for these differences.Trade offs in pay in the past provided such. Instead of protecting them for when pilots eventually move to the various types, pilots self sabotaged. Early starts,multi sectors and long duty days are no less challenging. AIPA should be aiming to lift all boats given the shortage.Short Haul just like LH many years ago need to better working conditions. Those that attack their own by sproting off SH vs LH just show how easily manipulated they are by IR strategy. Doing a 19.5 hour all night duty from Perth to London is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. The cabin crew union were smart enough to provide protections if anyone had to move to a new fleet via top-up pay. Let us hope in a time of record bonuses, profits and pilot shortages AIPA and therefore it's pilots show some intelligence and some backbone when the A380 goes and a new type does nothing but "double sunrise" duties of 24 hours from one side of the planet to another. Same for the SH EBA. Concessions, panicking and comfort letters do not inspire confidence. Whilst I have a dislike for IR, HR and the mind games they play on pilots, they have played pilots for scared fools and have outplayed AIPA too. If AIPA were to run a survey on their impressions of a comfort letter I'm sure they would not like what they would see. Not many work groups that are in a global shortage have conceded so much time and time again. If pilots continue to go backward in boom times then god help us all. Or maybe Alan is worth his 30 million? Well written post, if there is a RIN with no VR on the 747 it will be a blood bath. By my reckoning at least 30 A380 Captains will be bumped, followed by 787 Captains etc etc. The training system can’t even cope now it will go into melt down with a RIN. As only Qantas can do well the right hand wasn’t talking to the left foot. |
To put a slightly rosier picture out there. It’s worth remembering that since the 787 EA was signed up to, of the 15 airframe orders that have come due, 14 have been taken up. (The one skipped is apparently still available) There has been no indication that the next tranch will not be taken up next year. I have also heard rumour (this is a rumour network right?) that the Project Sunrise order due in 2019 will include a some non-ULR models of the selected aircraft type for delivery closer to 2020. These aircraft will replace the outgoing 744’s on certain routes. And finally, given most 787 patterns I have looked at are built on MDC, the lack of night credits is having very little effect at this early stage. This will be true of the upcoming BNE-LAX-JFK patterns also. Beyond that, who knows. |
Beer Baron.
The A380 Replacement will do nothing but Sydney London and Sydney New York and Sydney Rio or equivalent. Alan Joyce was clear in a presentation to the ASX.Its a double sunrise 23-24 hour TOD machine. The 787 Perth London patterns are not MDC, Nor are any of the Los Angeles patterns. Also told 787 crews will NOT slip in JFK but fly LAX-JFK-LAX in one return 3-4 pilot so as to avoid MDC. AIPA did not include the 787 to have a two day slip requirement in JFK. The trip length has to be at least over 7 days, really 8-9 for the MDC to be higher than the stick hours. The loss of night credits is why the 787 loses on the majority of patterns, not to mention zero overtime. The hourly rate increase never equals the equivalent loss of overtime or night credit for pattern credit in the take home pay.Bigger number sounds good though. If it did some Asia flying it may mitigate the loss somewhat but it does not. I suspect due to to ETOPS restrictions the 747 will hang around longer. SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL won't be able to be flown by 787 as far as I can see currently. I don't think QF would have checked this with flight ops.Sure a bag of cash, some Chairmans lounge memberships and some First upgrades may change it in time. As others have wisely commented, A RIN only functions properly in a slowdown.Even then it is a disaster. Training is at max, retirements are increasing so a RIN will be a nightmare for QF in that environment.Feel for the Allocations department and the training section. 747s owe nothing, are refurbished and the newest ERs are not that old. As ex classic crews will tell you its not over till it is over. |
I find it a little amusing that you use Alan Joyce's statement to discredit the rumour I mentioned but in the same post you say that the future fleet plans he has announced almost certainly wont occur. So do we believe him or not?? The 787 Perth London patterns are not MDC, Nor are any of the Los Angeles patterns. Many of the London patterns are crewed from the east coast and all of those attract MDC. Of the 49 LAX pattern codes all but 4 are built on MDC and all of the PER-MEL patterns are MDC. Some of these factors will change as more crew are trained and the fleet increases but these are the facts on the ground now. As you say, if 787 flying to Asia increases the EA proposition improves and given the 744 flies to Hong Kong and Tokyo it's a good chance that will happen. Also told 787 crews will NOT slip in JFK but fly LAX-JFK-LAX in one return 3-4 pilot so as to avoid MDC. AIPA did not include the 787 to have a two day slip requirement in JFK. I do agree with you that the SCL and JNB flights are not best suited to the 787 and I think you will be proven right that the 744 will be here longer than announced. However, these route difficulties are the very reason a 777-8 or A350-800 (with 330 and 370 min ETOPS respectively) would be an ideal addition to the fleet around about 2020. |
Once the initial line training requirements settle down the MEL-LAX patterns will return to a normal 36 hour transit of LAX - and flight time credits. It would not be surprising to see Melbourne crew doing at least some of the JFK’s too once they start in September; especially after Brisbane-Chicago starts.;) The 78 hour transit in London will also probably be reduced to 54 once other European ports come online - more options to protect the operation in the event of diversions. Most future options around daily services will trend towards flight time credits over time ( or no overtime whichever way you look at it! :rolleyes:) |
Originally Posted by C441
(Post 10144414)
Once the initial line training requirements settle down the MEL-LAX patterns will return to a normal 36 hour transit of LAX - and flight time credits. It would not be surprising to see Melbourne crew doing at least some of the JFK’s too once they start in September; especially after Brisbane-Chicago starts.;) The 78 hour transit in London will also probably be reduced to 54 once other European ports come online - more options to protect the operation in the event of diversions. Most future options around daily services will trend towards flight time credits over time ( or no overtime whichever way you look at it! :rolleyes:) MDC is irrelevant on PER-LHR as the stick hours are greater than MDC anyway. Night credits would have meant more hours for this pattern just as LAX/JNB/DFW on the 747/380/330 where Night credits make duty credit greater than BOTH stick or MDC. The MEL/LHR 10 day patterns won’t hang around forever as PER base reaches establishment nor will 120 hour slips in LAX. Its only the long slips that MDC comes into play and they are not a sustainable representation of long term flying. So Beer Baron are 787 BNE/JFK patterns out? They will have a 2 day slip in JFK and therefore be a 9 day pattern? |
Yes JFKs will be planned the same as they currently are on the jumbo. 48/48/48
|
Think you will find that SJ , JFK patterns are 48/48/24 hr slips. |
. I do agree with you that the SCL and JNB flights are not best suited to the 787 and I think you will be proven right that the 744 will be here longer than announced Same out of SCL with relevant sector length considered? |
Once the initial line training requirements settle down the MEL-LAX patterns will return to a normal 36 hour transit of LAX - and flight time credits. Looking at the schedules I can't see how most slips won't be around 3 days in both LAX and SFO, creating a 6 day pattern paid on MDC. If crew operate MEL-LAX-BNE-MEL (to avoid the long slip) the extra day in BNE pushes a 5 day trip out to 6 days anyway and then MDC exceeds stick hours. It would not be surprising to see Melbourne crew doing at least some of the JFK’s too once they start in September; especially after Brisbane-Chicago starts. The 78 hour transit in London will also probably be reduced to 54 once other European ports come online I'm just saying it can't hurt to be a little positive. We have all suffered huge damage to our careers at the hands of our current management team but if there are some green shoots appearing lets not be too quick to try and find a downside. |
Same out of SCL with relevant sector length considered? |
Sure, but I thought the (Genex powered) 787 is FAA approved 330min ETOPs, so no different to the 777-8, just no QF approval as yet by CASA (which would be the same for the 777 anyhow...) Shouldn’t be to hard to get sorted with enough experience operating the type. Im well aware Joburg is 5000 plus feet, that’s why I asked the question re; performance, quoting your typical summer weather for the departure times (at least when I’ve operated there) Otherwise, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be a good fit to replace the 747, reduced capacity notwithstanding. |
Any reason the Dugong can’t do SYD- JNB- SYD? In a couple of years time they’ll all be through the refit and we should have all 12 available at any one time as opposed to the 10-12 we have now depending on what is getting re-config’d, heavied, etc. |
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 10144912)
Any reason the Dugong can’t do SYD- JNB- SYD? In a couple of years time they’ll all be through the refit and we should have all 12 available at any one time as opposed to the 10-12 we have now depending on what is getting re-config’d, heavied, etc. The rumour is spare A380s will do SYD-SFO and MEL-HKG. 747 Engineer told me that will become MEL-SIN-LHR soon so who knows. 😉😉 Melbourne premium pax dislike MEL-PER-LHR particularly P class however I can’t see them upsetting the game changer for now. Perhaps one day it switches to a PER to single European destination instead of LHR. |
Yes, the 380 is supposed to be going to Joburg which is to be the last 747 destination. On another note management believe that putting the 787 on JFK will stop all the delays on that service. Smoking something pretty strong me thinks. |
Yes, the 380 is supposed to be going to Joburg which is to be the last 747 destination I have little doubt this was the plan back when the 380 was ordered, but do you reckon it still is? I’m not sure I see it. The current direction for QF seems to be the pursuit of Yield premiums and the minimization of excess capacity (note the almost complete lack of excess capacity QF currently has from AUS to UK). The A380 on the JNB route would have 100-150 excess seats every day, based on what I’ve heard the current loads are (happy to be corrected). That’s a very risky ~12 tonne an hour, especially in an environment where some analysts are expecting Oil to start rising toward US$100 a barrel in the next 18 months or so. I wrote elsewhere what I thought the plan for JNB possibly might be... the 787s replacing the 6 weekly 747s out of Sydney, and the ‘proposed’ 4 weekly 330s out of Perth making up the lost capacity. This would have the added benefit of enabling the destination to be served 10 times a week rather than the current 6, whilst improving connections to/from around the country, where Sydney is a backtrack or inconvenient in comparison. It also allows for an easy reduction in services when the next downturn occurs, without necessarily sacrificing daily access in and out of JNB. A couple of potential issues with this are sorting out the conflict with Perth Airport over Terminal use, and whether the 787 can reliably take a full load of punters back to Sydney year round (I’d be surprised if it couldn’t), but I think it might be more likely than the 380 taking it over. |
A380 to JNB , will be an interesting exercise considering the complete lack of suitable alternates, and how much DPD Contingency Fuel will have to be loaded for the more southern route ? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.