About time there is some constructive messages.

Dragon man - You are correct. We won’t get night credits and the legacy over time back. This went in EBA9 and will be redundant from the agreement when the legacy aircraft disappear.

Like any negotiation you never get everything you want. But locking in the a350 to the long haul agreement gives us all longevity in our work place. Hopefully the union and company gained some ground today.

Stick it to the company attitude, or bite the hand that feeds you only ends in tears... Poor tiger 320 drivers could attest to this.

I guess if everyone keeps telling themselves that then it must be true

I hear what you're saying in the rest of your post, but I want to pick up on this point - if we vote yes, and get the A350 onto the EA for LH and ULH operations, could they threaten to outsource A350 flying in the future? Would that pass the 'new flying' test? If so, then bugger.

I don’t know what is in it however I am informed that Qantas have taken what AIPA offered and substantially changed it obviously for their benefit.

Hi Secret,
There’s still a transfer of business clause so it just depends on the total number on Mainline crew at the time. They can’t just transfer a chunk of flying out and make mainline crew redundant, that’s what the transfer of business is all about.

Don’t be so scared of some tough bargaining. Your willingness to roll over and take it up the clacker at the first threat is a little worrying.

Remember, it would cost them massive amounts of money to do what they threaten, even if it was legal.

Remember, the company's track record on blowing millions on new start-up ventures is pretty spectacular.

If the company chooses to do this then IMO the ACTU will get involved, it will go to FWA then the loser will take it to the Full Bench for an appeal then to the high court if they will hear it. This is not as simple as Qantas make it out to be IMO.

[QUOTE=ScepticalOptomist;10697002]Don’t be so scared of some tough bargaining. Your willingness to roll over and take it up the clacker at the first threat is a little worrying.

Remember, it would cost them massive amounts of money to do what they threaten, even if it was legal.[/QUOTE

The willingness of many to risk losing the flying and allow the company to start up a separate entity (and therefore stop any future progression mainline) all for the sake of ego and entitlement is more worrying to me

Ego and entitlement you are kidding. It’s because we have been here for long enough to know what you need to balance long haul flying fatigue with family life. FFS if we are going to debate this let’s at least be sensible. Ego and entitlement FFS.

Qantas Management have a long history of unethical behaviour, and I think we are being lied to again.

If they can easily or profitably set up a greenfields operation then why wouldn’t they just go ahead and do it? Backslaps and bonuses all around!

However, if anyone is spooked by this latest threat, do NOT sign unless there is an ironclad statement ensuring the flying...good luck with that.

Has QF ever said categorically that they won’t offshore the flying of you vote yes? Seems some here are blindly assuming that a yes vote will keep the flying in house.

I'd guess they (and any other airline) will offshore when it makes economic sense - the business changes constantly and, as an earlier poster said, legacy conditions are on the way out - and I'd add "worldwide".

That’s quite funny because I’m not in the LHS. I’m an F/O, I spent almost the entire “lost decade” stuck as a second officer and it took me 16 years to finally get a LH RHS (yet not even in my home base). So those pilots DO agree with me, I am one of them and my similar vintage colleagues agree.
I can’t decide if that is just hopelessly defeatist or selfish. WHY would you join a legacy airline just to come in and vote to trash the conditions and be “completely comfortable with that”? Why not just join Jetstar or Tiger if you are happy with low cost conditions? Or are you thinking that you’ll hold onto the good terms and just screw those who join after you?
Either way it’s a pretty sad attitude.

If you think 16 years to go from SO to FO is something to be proud of, I am so sorry for you. Just because it happened to you, doesn't mean it needs to happen to the next generation of pilots. Your attitude here is absolute selfish.

YOU of all people will benefit the most out of a Sunrise deal. Your LHS will come so much quicker.

The new SO's will be hired into mainline or a new entity. PICK ONE!

There is no such thing as the ‘new flying test’. As has been stated above Transmission of Business only comes into it if pilots start getting sacked but with natural attrition rates hitting 100 a year in the mid 2020’s they won’t need to sack anyone.
The Integration Award would not apply in that case either as the A330 is not an ‘existing aircraft type’ as defined in chapter 15.

So yes, they can roll out this threat every 4 years. And if we capitulate and start giving away the silver this time then you can be 100% certain they’ll try it out on next time.

Beer Baron selfish, you kidding me, he’s a realist who knows what’s best in this case. As he said if you want quick promotion and lousy conditions why don’t you try the Middle East carriers.

You obviously missed the point. I’m not proud it took 16 years, it’s completely fu€ked. But I suffered through those bad years so don’t tell me how people in that position would feel.

The rest of your post is nonsensical rubbish.
You say that I am “absolute selfish” and then go on to state that, “YOU of all people will benefit the most out of a Sunrise deal.” Yet I’m the one advocating to vote NO!
If I was selfish and stood to gain so much then surely I’d vote YES!?!

I want new S/O hired into mainline on mainline conditions not some ****ty new deal that isn’t good enough for me but is fine for someone else. If I’m as selfish as you attest then shouldn’t I be quite happy to vote yes to significant pay cuts for future S/O’s?

They won't have to. The new entity will already be established flying the 350 when you voted NO.

Your argument is moot. They will be hired anyway on an even worse deal under the new entity. Then the company has an established cheap labour company competing directly with you. 16 years from SO to FO? Wait till you see the consequences voting NO will have on the rest off your LH flying career.

Also I disagree with your statement about your vintage colleagues. After flying with some who have been directly affected from the lost decade, there opinion is the complete reverse of yours. They were of the opinion they never want to see it happen again, and I agree.

Normanton - you’re obviously passionate which is great. Keep that fire burning.

The vote is yours to do as you think is best.

Unfortunately you also seem scared by the threat, and are playing into the IR tactics game. Experience will help overcome this fear, in your own time.

Talk to your colleagues on the flight deck that have been around a while and listen to their logic in why the fear is just a tactic.

Safe flying.