Why would you be seeking parity to Qantas when it is another airline and another company? Just because it is part of the 'Group', does not mean that all conditions should be aligned across all airline groups. They don't for many parts of the business, and for good reason (mostly cost). If this 'benefit' is desired - then why not join Qantas? JQ is an LCC, so, their 'conditions' reflect that of an LCC. I am not sure why there is this mentality.

There are career/employment benefits for working at JQ and there are career/employment benefits for working at QF. And this replicates around the world. Personally - you are better off focussing on the things that really matter to you, and defending those. Not throwing all the 'other airlines benefits' into the basket, especially something like 'lounge', which has such little materiality.

Have a few, meaningful terms and conditions versus a laundry list of 'match this and match that'... My view anyway...

They are seeking equal pay for an equal service, I don't see why that's hard to understand.

As for the lounge access, it's extremely pleasant after a shift before pacing to relax in a clean and comfortable environment instead of the crew room or in the local coffee shop fighting for a seat. Just my two cents though.

That prehistoric notion of "if you don't like the conditions find another job" is quite behind the times. Budget airlines are budget airlines, but there's no such thing as a budget pilot.

I still can't fathom the decision to not give the same benifits (as Qantas) to this pilot group, consider qlink EFA and network get better.

But it isn't an equal service as it is not an equal business. I don't agree with this comparison. Two banks don't necessarily pay the same wage for an equal role. It will always be different. LCC's are LCC's. They survive because of a low cost base. Without that - it's dead. That is the nature of the beast. You have a choice where you work. I choose company A because of these benefits, or I choose company B because of these benefts. Pushing an agenda that will just not heppen, is not best use of time and resources. Optimise. Don't cheery pick usless 'comforts' that don't materilally improve your working conditions.

It's quite impossible to agree with your notion, the salary increase would be insignificant to the overheads at best, again I will say, There's no such thing as a budget pilot, equal pay for equal service, and that equal service is those two/three people flying the same class aircraft as the other three main carriers.

The fairytale that pilots can jump between companies easily and effortlessly is just that, Jetstar will be the career job for a lot of these pilots and the current stance that the company is taking is unsustainable.

​"​​​​If you don't like it leave policy" is again, dated and quite impossible to defend.

I think you’ll find things like lounge access we’re not just handed to Mainline, but agreed to during varying EBA negotiations. The question is what would you be willing to trade to get it?

But where does it end? And with what parts of the business? On aggregate, cASK erodes. Eventually you tread water. JQ needs deeper profit margins to 'weather' poor periods. It is cyclical, and variable to much outside of the airlines control. If they hover around the profitability line, a few negative periods may result in closure (just look around the globe), then all suffer. No offence - but I think this is an ideology of equal aircraft class and equal pay. Fine if profit margins are also equal. They're not.

Profit margin, not operating margin.

Can you quote the figures that prove this? Any Annual report references or ASX statements? [/left]

Tigerair has a negative EBITDAR margin. It is technically bankrupt. It can only keep operating because it is being funded by VA. If it was on its own - it would need to borrow cash in order to keep operating. The TT pilots don't know how luckly they are. That business would 'close up shop' without a debt funding source. But you introduced a different company into the discussion. I refer to JQ and QF. It seems you're looking for an 'industry standard' renumeration/terms and conditions package. Why should that be the case? Every company is different.

ROIC would be the appropriate comparison measure. But important here to note is JQ does not invest in assets/infrastructure/services as much as QF, so they are poor comparisons. JQ needs to be benchmarked on a similar LCC business, where almost all assets (except for x aircraft that were purchased), infrastructure is leased and services subcontracted etc.

You are part of the Qantas group. Allan has a hard 3% line drawn in the sand, and he is not going to budge. Forget about it, it's not going to happen.

If Jetstar pilots get 10% or 5% or whatever, next Qantas pilots will be going for 10%, then Network will want 20%, then Qlink will want 12% to catch up blah blah blah. It's just not going to happen. Forget about it.

If you want pay parity with Qantas pilots, well sorry at some point you need to understand you applied, and work for a LCC. You can't have all the bells and whistles that mainline pilots get. Your passengers don't pay $10k for a business class ticket.

If you want more, then apply for mainline, or come over on the MOU. The latest internal rumour is that all future recruitment will be from within the Qantas group only. No externals.

And I wouldn't be giving up anything for Qantas club access. It's not worth it.

Given the complete opaqueness afforded Fort Fumble under the lax accounting standards it is almost impossible to quantify exclamations made by over zealous management about JQ and its alleged performance.
That the Jetstar business lacks any yield premium ought concern management, for a footprint (fleet and ASK size) it lacks any ability to deliver a substantial yield premium; It simply cannot generate revenue.
Thus, as T-Vasis says reliance on mother Qantas for capital equipment, beneficial leases and the like keeps the "Cost base" low.
A layman would call that subsidisation, but in accounting terms subjective allocations of cost will prejudice one segment in favour of another.