|
Since we are all throwing wild allegations out there. My guess is 800 pilots surplus to requirements over the next 2 years. Pilots to exit the business through use of VR, LWOP, retirements, and CR.
Once the announcement is made to the ASX (share price goes up), discussions will swiftly start with AIPA (as mentioned by the CP) to enforce Allan's grand plan. Take what your offered or be made redundant. |
I’m with IsDon. I can foresee redundancies across office and other areas depending on the nature of EAs. I can even foresee as many as 10K from across the group. CR for mainline pilots? Not at this stage. It probably depends on how flexible the majority of pilots want to be in order to save jobs.
|
They want pilots to take LWOP at their own volition as it means they don’t have to pay them their 51 days of LSL and annual leave as we are now accumulating. Also I believe that CR has become a big problem as there is a belief that under a CR pilots under the long haul contract would then have the ability to displace pilots in short haul which they can’t do under a RIN using the integration clauses in the contract. Confused? So am I.
|
Originally Posted by Cdash
(Post 10819124)
Dragon man has been on the money in the past...
enlighten us, any insight as to how many redundancies? Which work groups? CR or VR? I’m hearing quite dramatic fleet reduction crewmours inc a decent number of 330 and 737 |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10819154)
They want pilots to take LWOP at their own volition as it means they don’t have to pay them their 51 days of LSL and annual leave as we are now accumulating. Also I believe that CR has become a big problem as there is a belief that under a CR pilots under the long haul contract would then have the ability to displace pilots in short haul which they can’t do under a RIN using the integration clauses in the contract. Confused? So am I.
|
In redundancy, there is still no displacement. The hauls are separate.
|
Originally Posted by cloudsurfng
(Post 10819167)
In redundancy, there is still no displacement. The hauls are separate.
|
I’ll say it again there is a belief that under a CR and the integration document a pilot facing CR from long haul can displace a more junior pilot in short haul. Don’t attack the messenger it is above my pay grade, I see where it is coming from but I’m sure there will be different views from different lawyers depending on who is paying them.
|
Let me guess. The company is saying LH can't displace SH (because it saves them money on training costs). But more senior pilots and or AIPA are of the belief that they can.
Well that's headed to the courts. |
Originally Posted by normanton
(Post 10819180)
Let me guess. The company is saying LH can't displace SH (because it saves them money on training costs). But more senior pilots and or AIPA are of the belief that they can.
Well that's headed to the courts. |
Originally Posted by normanton
(Post 10819180)
Let me guess. The company is saying LH can't displace SH (because it saves them money on training costs). But more senior pilots and or AIPA are of the belief that they can.
:hmm: |
What? So if there are 200 pilots made redundant (pulling that figure out of my a*se), isn't it the bottom 200 on the list regardless of position?
|
Originally Posted by Fonz121
(Post 10819200)
What? So if there are 200 pilots made redundant (pulling that figure out of my a*se), isn't it the bottom 200 on the list regardless of position?
|
There are 2 different EA’s. Does what it says in the LHEA apply to anybody on the SHEA. What a mess.
|
Originally Posted by Bug Smasher Smasher
(Post 10819195)
Ha! This would be hilarious. So the bottom couple hundred 737 crews get made redundant and now a couple hundred ex career LHers have to get their heads around the 737 operation while commuting to PER and ADL - hard at the best of times but utterly masochistic on a limited domestic network - to fly a bunch of early Pilbaras or crew a handful of reserve days.
:hmm: Who would fill the vacancies? Probably no one in the short term, but I reckon a few career LHers might want the chance? Hard to tell. Depends how much this current crisis has altered their mindset? |
For QF Mainline It’s not ‘displacement’ as such. CR is last on first off- Any Haul! After the CR is complete everyone grabs a chair where their seniority lands with the remaining chairs. Tino’s comment to the Junior SH lad was simply saying he is less likely to be stood down like, say a, A380 pilot. Obviously they don’t want to run an extensive CR program as it’s will cost a fortune. SU gets around this for now. Reduction in heads is inevitable. Reduction in Tech crew heads is a little more tricky.
|
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
(Post 10819210)
There are 2 different EA’s. Does what it says in the LHEA apply to anybody on the SHEA. What a mess.
A mess is right. A mess QF will need to sort out if it goes down the CR path. |
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
(Post 10819210)
There are 2 different EA’s. Does what it says in the LHEA apply to anybody on the SHEA. What a mess.
|
The integration agreement says new hire pilots will be made redundant before Q or A list pilots. (Not sure where that is on the list, but if it gets that far there are big problems!). It then says pilots will be made redundant in accordance with the “Pilots Agreement”. which agreement are you on? That will be the question...
I’ve always been of the understanding the seniority applied, but only within the agreement I was on when it came to redundancy. ie, things don’t looks great for LH at the moment, it could just as easily be SH next time. it would seem this is the company position as well. im confident now however, that CR will be avoided. |
As Gazza stated, in a Redundancy situation regardless of which haul it is purely on Seniority number as current agreements stand.
In a RIN in LH , SH can not be touched as per displacements, however the company could choose to make SH positions available to bid to as they did in the 767 RIN. Its pretty cut and dry, I don’t believe a heavy CR will be pursued for pilots right now, (too expensive) they will prefer extended standown. Not ruling it out but training costs will be too high while no one in the world knows when LH flights will resume. The other issue is an amendment to the EA, but that requires majority vote by members in that EA. Or the nuclear option could be QF go to fair work to demand redundancy on fleet and rank out of seniority, which would be fairly unlikely to succeed seeing as they forced in the LH vote during the Virus period. |
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...ource=rss_feed
But now it is time to deal with staffing levels. The most difficult to deal with will be the international pilots. It is understood Qantas will initially offer voluntary redundancies for pilots over 60 years old, but may need to go to compulsory redundancies. |
Below 570 ish, we are all ‘new hire’ pilots. We appear on Q list and A list. If redundancy got this far, there are specific provisions on how redundancy works.
as a new hire pilot, it is reverse seniority..in accordance with the pilots agreement. If you are a SH pilot...are you employed on the LH award? |
Originally Posted by cloudsurfng
(Post 10819245)
Below 570 ish, we are all ‘new hire’ pilots. We appear on Q list and A list. If redundancy got this far, there are specific provisions on how redundancy works.
as a new hire pilot, it is reverse seniority..in accordance with the pilots agreement. If you are a SH pilot...are you employed on the LH award? |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could not have explained it better. Thanks SO. |
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 10819250)
I believe you are misunderstanding Section 16 - it is purely by seniority - then by what else the redundancy sections of each SH and LH award specify. When it comes to CR there is no SH/LH differentiation in regards to your overall seniority. One big list.
its not what’s right...it’s whose lawyers can argue the best. anyway, I’m confident that noone will leave unless they want to..and that as a collective, we can find a way to support everyone’s position. |
Philosophers have been debating whether egalitarianism or utilitarianism is superior for thousands of years. I don’t think pilots are going to solve it. Fortunately, a consensus won’t be required. Sometimes certainty, even if the initial outcome seemed unfavourable, is more beneficial than a death by a thousand cuts.
|
Actually during the 767 RIN the company advised that CR would apply to surplus positions.
So if you find yourself in a surplus position, that position can be made redundant. You also cannot displace someone from a different award. So if Qantas go down the CR path, your position can become redundant, and if there is nowhere else for you to go, the retrenchment list will be your home. |
Around half a dozen A330s headed to the desert too according to the SMH today. That leaves a pretty small international fleet for the post COVID network.
|
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
(Post 10819320)
Around half a dozen A330s headed to the desert too according to the SMH today. That leaves a pretty small international fleet for the post COVID network.
|
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10819411)
That's an engineering request to temporarily store aircraft in a low humidity environment rather than permanent disposal of the aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE
(Post 10819427)
True, but also a fair indication that they won’t be required for quite a long time
|
There were a number of A330's that were getting close to cycles limit. The general consensus was that the JQ787's would replace them.
|
Thats why the ‘QP’ regos (-300) are doing the flying atm, both domestic and international, as they have less cycles than the others.
I would be stunned if they go to the states, maybe to YBAS if there is room? Or perhaps kick singair out of there🤬$$$$$. But I’ve been wrong before. |
Originally Posted by stiffwing
(Post 10819518)
I would be stunned if they go to the states, maybe to YBAS if there is room?
Or perhaps kick singair out of there🤬$$$$$. But I’ve been wrong before. |
This from the AFR late last night:
Qantas has called in its investment bankers to help consider its liquidity position ahead of its June 30 balance date. https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0...532d069d2aec0eQantas Airways is considering its financial position ahead of its June 30 balance date. Paul Rovere The bankers, including long-time adviser Macquarie Capital, are understood to be taking Qantas through a range of options including a $1 billion-plus equity raising. Sources said Qantas' board, led by chairman Richard Goyder, had yet to sign off on a deal, However, it's understood discussions were set to continue throughout Wednesday night and into Thursday. While Qantas has resisted calls to raise equity during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is easy to see how the board could decide it was prudent to top up its capital position in light of the circumstances, and ongoing uncertainty about when conditions will improve. There's also the possibility that there could be a second wave of COVID-19 inspired lockdowns, which would prolong the pain for Qantas. |
While the share price has recovered from its lows and share market is defying gravity seems to me it would be a very sensible thing to do.
|
Raising cash from investors is better than accruing even more debt imo. With mass redundancies now being touted they will need the cash.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...24-p555st.html |
Shares in trading halt.
|
|
I seem to remember Joyce saying during one of those babble fest, town halls that QF could hold out till the end of 2021, now they can’t. He’s been economic with the truth somewhere, my guess is that this is him signals to both the government and the unions in order to get either of them to bend to his will. Only a despicable prick would make statements suggesting one thing and then do the opposite, and to think that those town hall briefings were dripping with an undying commitment to the wellbeing of QF staff.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.