|
Originally Posted by Justin. Beaver
(Post 10365930)
It might be nice to see so you can satisfy your unjustified sense of being hard done by, but it will make absolutely no beneficial difference to the outfcone of the EBA and what you are offered. You don’t seem to understand that the CEO you are dealing with is completely unfazed by ‘mongrel’ and ‘fight’ and other tough sounding negotiating tactics. |
Lordy - you lot need to hold it together.
Just remember - you all do the same job - you all put up with time away from those who love you - you all put up with multiple checkpoints each year that could end your career. You even fly the same bloody things - why should a JQ pilot earn less? (im not JQ btw!). The JQ lot signed up when it was going cheap - they did what they had to do. Not everyone can work for QAL - management made sure of that. Take it up with Dixon and Joyce. Unfortunately for management, people with your skill and demeanour are in short supply - so you should be embracing your brothers and sisters making the most of it - by demanding more! It benefits everyone, and it's the only mark/legacy on this industry available to you right now. |
Hazohag said it for sure...... Stop playing the game CEOs want you to! No other industry I know of has a bunch of guys dividing and conquering themselves. You should be pleased that the AFAP is on your side and not only fighting for the easy victory. Many a time I’ve watched with frustration as the AFAP fed another win to my company by being soft. |
A quote from another industry, but relevant
The bosses want us fighting over who has the biggest pile of crumbs so we don’t realise they made off with the whole damn cake.
|
Originally Posted by Justin. Beaver
(Post 10365930)
It might be nice to see so you can satisfy your unjustified sense of being hard done by, but it will make absolutely no beneficial difference to the outfcone of the EBA and what you are offered. You don’t seem to understand that the CEO you are dealing with is completely unfazed by ‘mongrel’ and ‘fight’ and other tough sounding negotiating tactics. So why bother trying, hey? |
Originally Posted by Justin. Beaver
(Post 10365930)
It might be nice to see so you can satisfy your unjustified sense of being hard done by, but it will make absolutely no beneficial difference to the outfcone of the EBA and what you are offered. You don’t seem to understand that the CEO you are dealing with is completely unfazed by ‘mongrel’ and ‘fight’ and other tough sounding negotiating tactics. There is no need Justin, for inflammatory words. Mongrel and fight are hollow and outdated. Qantas is transformed. That Little Napoleon still has a close personal protection team and likely gets scuttled away from a secure car park to a secure building in indicative that such a 'strategy' may have worked in that period, but demographics require no mongrel Justin, they are just demographics. Could he declare Qantas 'terminal' again? Maybe Mr Goyder has a different view. Whether Karl and '60 minutes' do a puff piece about the 'epic hero myth battle' or not, in demographics is destiny: Qantas needs more pilots. Their subsidiaries do, their competitors do and the industry does. Their pilot body, like most airlines is aging. Smarter airlines have responded positively, improving terms and conditions to attract supply. Importantly they relate to their staff a bit differently too. So save the inflammatory language for the time when the ASX is required to be updated on declining revenue and profit forecasts due crew shortage. Back in the factual reality, retirement rates are increasing. The baby boomer retirement (post World War 2) is upon us. Aviation is no different. Those of you in the 'Campus' ought be well aware, given the knowledge a campus allegedly contains Justin, that the recruitment, training and retirement model is strained. Not just at Qantas. That Qantas have spent considerable energy looking at measures to curbed a pronounced shortage is well known. That they can't fill the gap in the medium to long term is a fact that they and you Justin, desperately hope pilots in Australia and particularly those at Qantas never realise. |
Originally Posted by Roj approved
(Post 10365973)
The bosses want us fighting over who has the biggest pile of crumbs so we don’t realise they made off with the whole damn cake.
'89 showed us what a mass decision (right or wrong) can achieve or not achieve, we will never see that again in Australian aviation, unity is simply not there & that's the one thing that is needed to break the backs of the grubby Airlines! good luck to the boys & girls striving for better wages/conditions, I wish you all the best, am so glad I jumped ship a few years ago, I'd hate to be involved these days, it's just ugly:-( |
Originally Posted by OCTA
(Post 10365487)
Titian - thanks but then this site wouldn’t work very well would it? |
Effectively putting the majority of Australia’s short haul pilots in a postition of leverage |
Originally Posted by T-Vasis
(Post 10366136)
The airline was grounded once before - it can be grounded again...
|
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10366148)
That involved other unions, a lockout over red ties, I don’t think you would get away with that twice. I seem to remember that the arbitrated result wasn’t at all that unfavorable for the pilots in the end. Quite a good result actually... I wouldn’t guarantee an arbitration over Jetstar pilots merely asking for the same pay as Qantas pilots, for doing the same work, would work out in the company’s favor either. |
Originally Posted by ExtraShot
(Post 10366178)
Almost certainly not. I seem to remember that the arbitrated result wasn’t at all that unfavorable for the pilots in the end. Quite a good result actually... I wouldn’t guarantee an arbitration over Jetstar pilots merely asking for the same pay as Qantas pilots, for doing the same work, would work out in the company’s favor either. Agreed, I would take the risk before I’d take what AIPA were to offer. |
Originally Posted by Popgun
(Post 10365611)
Wouldn’t it be great if we could all act in unity as a group of professionals standing together in solidarity against the weight of MBA graduates and accountants that know the cost of everything yet the value of nothing. PG So those in QF believe so strongly that QF and JQ should get paid the same. So those in QF, should agree to take a pay cut for the difference between QF and JQ so that their comrades in JQ can be paid the same as those in QF. Now that would be a fair outcome. Now that would be standing together. Now that would be solidarity. In the end, its all about self interest and greed on both sides of the fence. |
Originally Posted by CamelSquadron
(Post 10366397)
Now what a great idea.
So those in QF believe so strongly that QF and JQ should get paid the same. So those in QF, should agree to take a pay cut for the difference between QF and JQ so that their comrades in JQ can be paid the same as those in QF. Now that would be a fair outcome. Now that would be standing together. Now that would be solidarity. In the end, its all about self interest and greed on both sides of the fence. Given a big part of the rapid expansion of JQ and resultant career opportunities it presented was 'industrial leverage', playing groups of people off against other at Qantas is standard fare. Whether the JQ "business model" is anything more than a big IR game in disguise, may determine what 'cost base' it can sustain. Sadly for management of airlines world wide, a shortage of qualified, professional and available flight crew is now well known, so people being played off against each other is increasingly difficult to co-ordinate. |
Why is it so inconceivable for QF pilots to think JQ make any money?
|
Originally Posted by ExtraShot
(Post 10366178)
Almost certainly not. I seem to remember that the arbitrated result wasn’t at all that unfavorable for the pilots in the end. Quite a good result actually... I wouldn’t guarantee an arbitration over Jetstar pilots merely asking for the same pay as Qantas pilots, for doing the same work, would work out in the company’s favor either. Or do you mean the mean the introduction of “redeployment” - a big win for Qantas and change to seniority that aipa would never have agreed to. How about the introduction of shared blank lines without the pilots getting a vote? Or the introduction of “postings”, which aipa would never have agreed to. None of the key job security or group seniority aipa claims that were the entire point of the eba campaign were agreed to by fair work. Neither were any of aipa’s claims about pay rates for the 787, which makes it pretty obvious that they won’t arbitrate terms and conditions for any future types including 777 or A350. A deal as good or better than the arbitrated deal would have been negotiable from day 1 instead of the protracted “campaign” of red ties and PAs and millions of dollars funding lawyers’ lifestyles and mortgages through legal feee. If you think the long haul determination was a win for the pilots then you clearly do not understand its detail and its value as legal precedent that gives senior management huge certainty that makes them unafraid to end up there again. The naivety on display here is enormous. |
Of course it is reasonable for Jetstar pilots to get paid less than Mainline pilots, they are totally different business models. Low cost models would not exist if all the employees had to be paid the same as legacy carrier employees? Also the Qantas contracts have been evolving for decades, you can’t expect to catch up within 10 years. I work for Jetstar and would expect to have to go and join mainline if I want those rates of pay. No doubt there is room to improve our contract and for the company to be able to absorb that, but to be saying we want mainline pay is unrealistic and a waste of everyone’s time just the same as Tiger pilots claiming they should be paid the same as Virgin pilots. |
Originally Posted by Justin. Beaver
(Post 10366761)
Exactly what part of the arbitrated result was good for the pilots? The pay rises given were no better than the pay rises given to other EBA work groups at that time, so it can’t be the pay. Or do you mean the mean the introduction of “redeployment” - a big win for Qantas and change to seniority that aipa would never have agreed to. How about the introduction of shared blank lines without the pilots getting a vote? Or the introduction of “postings”, which aipa would never have agreed to. None of the key job security or group seniority aipa claims that were the entire point of the eba campaign were agreed to by fair work. Neither were any of aipa’s claims about pay rates for the 787, which makes it pretty obvious that they won’t arbitrate terms and conditions for any future types including 777 or A350. A deal as good or better than the arbitrated deal would have been negotiable from day 1 instead of the protracted “campaign” of red ties and PAs and millions of dollars funding lawyers’ lifestyles and mortgages through legal feee. If you think the long haul determination was a win for the pilots then you clearly do not understand its detail and its value as legal precedent that gives senior management huge certainty that makes them unafraid to end up there again. The naivety on display here is enormous. |
You mean the one approved by 82% that has no shortage of bidders from the 330 and as opposed to the no deal on 787s from fair work? You don’t seem to realise that the ceo is holding all the aces here because the naive decision to go to arbitration over job security has proven that fair work won’t be imposing pay rates for future types. He can therefore be confident that new types will only be introduced under terms that he agrees to. And he can’t afford to be seen to give in to industrial action. |
Correct, the 82% of mugs who voted up a deal to get the back pay thinking they would never have to fly under it. Now it’s like finding someone who voted for Gough Whitlam no one wants to admit they voted up a deal that in the words of the CEO gave him 35% productivity. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.