It seems I have angered the Troll. A thousand apologies...

Just like your mate Camel (who I suspect is probably the same person), you too have simply ignored any argument you can't answer. Still waiting for your answer to my post my dear "General Yamamato"...

https://www.pprune.org/showpost.php?p=10646607&postcount=478

As for your assertions that I'm wrong on points of fact, lets hear it. What precisely am I wrong about, that's angered you so.

I believe they mentioned the 3% policy has been in effect for 10 years (sorry cant remember the exact date of the GFC whether that was less than 10 years ago), so if any of these pay freezes came in within the last 10 years I think there should be a fair claim by all in order for the 3% policy to be maintained that it needs to be implimented into the appropriate base pays.

The origins of 3%
 

A quick bit of economic history.In the 1980’s a shadowy figure, a former Union thug presented as a lovable larrikin; Prime Minister. The head of the union movement at the time, Bill Kelty and he, along with Australia’s “industry associations (business unions) created The Accord. In exchange for “industrial harmony” wage outcomes would be held to CPI, thus, in theory, holding purchasing power.
CPI is politely a bastardised measure; many things are left out, substituted enhanced and otherwise manipulated. The REAL experienced inflation rate most live is far higher than the “reported CPI.

https://www.businessinsider.com/if-p...my-2016-8?IR=T


In real terms, purchasing power of the individual’s salary/wage/income is held “constant” if one uses the CPI.
Actual lived inflation is higher and so purchasing power has fallen: fallen real wages are a common theme in many western economies.
To maintain standards of living in most western economy required debt, lots of it. From a macro perspective, falling real wages, relative to another country increases competitiveness. For an airline, with wages/salary equating nearly 25% of operating expense, holding wages to this nominal CPI 3% makes sense, provided unions, workers and all actors accept CPI as "inflation" is a big transfer from employees to employer.

Assuming, say a real inflation rate of 7% with CPI (contract improvements at 3%) the difference, transferred to an employer is improved "efficiency" but over time the compounded impact on the individual is substantive.

After all, airlines don’t hold ticket prices to 3%, nor does fuel comply with CPI, but holding wages, provided everyone plays along, provides real benefit to senior management, companies and the economy.

CPI is currently only 1.7% and has been under 2% for over 4 years.

Your sinking when you have to rely on that bottom feeder who is very accustomed to scavenging around in complete darkness.

So lets clear this up, what is the garbage I have been shoveling?

From your own words, the company has made it very clear that it considers your asking for something that it cannot give. So you have a very big problem. Expectations have been set by the Union for an outcome can be achieved that cannot be achieved. How are you going to solve this problem?

I understand your arguments about equity. But its an enterprise bargaining system and not an industry bargaining system.

The company has made many clear statements over the years and then done something different. The staff stopped believing them quite a few years ago. The relationship is fractured because there is no trust, and no respect.
Quite simply, the Operational staff don’t believe Management.
I actually think the problem is worse for the company. Many Captains I have talked to are pretty much done with the idea of doing the job until retirement. They’re too tired and the family isn’t happy. With that mindset they are more likely to keep striking and take a lock-out or two until the financial pain is too much for the company or FWA sorts it out.

Ad hominem. No idea who you think "your" fooling. And just for my own amusement.

CamelSquadron post #427 : "Anyway lets stop playing the person here"

Brilliant.

Oh it's already quite clear. Where to start! Very nearly every single post you've made in this thread has been crafted with the intent to sow fear and uncertainty. But lets just deal with the pure garbage first.

Garbage shoveled point 1.
The idea that somehow the AFAP has failed at 'negotiations'. You have been challenged on this point so many times now I have lost count, up to and including my very last post. And as always, like clockwork, you just neatly step around it and pretend like it never even happened.

There. Is. No. Offer. Of. Negotiation. From. The. Company. Its 3%, that's it. Nothing else. Every material thing the AFAP has put forward has been simply dismissed out of hand by the company. The company has written to the pilots and the union and stated in the clearest possible terms that they will not even meet with AFAP unless they agree to the 3% policy and don't even ATTEMPT to bring up any bargaining point that they company rejects.

Your point is garbage because it relies on the false premise that the company has any interest in negotiation. They do not, and demonstrably so. The fact you haven't made a single criticism of the company or its 'negotiators' belies your position and intent in this thread.


Garbage shoveled point 2 - Your ridiculous 'precedent' argument. Again, as is the way for your kind at Coward St, you have simply ignored the rebuttal to this argument.

You don't get to pick and choose which precedents suit you. One one hand you want us to believe that slipping beyond 3% would instantly make all other EBAs indefensible against the same demands. On the other you wish to declare that the precedent being set by our peers in competitor and group airlines are irrelevant, and we should all be happy with being the considerably lowest paid pilots in the category, whilst doing the most work and holding the most responsibility. Not to mention of course that you lot certainly DO use the precedent set by your management peers at other companies to improve your salaries, again picking and choosing the precedents that suit you.

It is a fallacious argument.

I could go on but for the sake of brevity, and the fact you'll almost certainly simply ignore this argument like you have all the others, lets move on.

The company has no credibility with the pilot group, what they say is irrelevant. How are we going to solve this problem? Same way Ryanair solved their problem from an equally belligerent management group. For all their bluster, threats and insults of their own pilots in the media (sound familiar?), there is a financial reality to what we can do that ultimately cannot be ignored. O'Leary found that out the hard way, and it cost him 20% on his wage bill.

Garbage
 

So carmelsquadron,as pointed out you are happy to throw inaccurate info around in many of the forums but cant back any of them up.
Not long ago you posted that the actions of Steve Purvinas & the ALAEA had cost the jobs of 5000 engineering staff during the dispute when the $24m man shut down the airline.
I am still waiting for you to tell me where these 5000 came from.
So,where did they come from????

Nah mate, I'd say you're on the ball.........

From a strategy perspective with both QF and JQ pilots off contract engaged in endless "negotiating" undertaking work stoppages represents a real chance for pilots to envelop the company.
Both sets of pilots undertaking industrial action could be very effective.

From QF IR's perspective having overplayed their hand, perhaps an acquiescent union will put a hasty "deal" to their pilots....

You really have no idea bottom feeder.