The premise behind the whole 'you're safe if you take LWOP" notion is a disgrace.

If CR's are required why is somebody on LWOP exempt? Why does it have to come down to a gamble? If 100 junior people are in danger of being made redundant, and the company are serious about retaining people with a substantial portion of their career ahead of them, why not give them the option of taking LWOP if it is envisaged that their departure is ACTUALLY required?

I don’t think anyone at the top is particularly comfortable right now.

For those sweating CR, remember the company has repeatedly said that CR will be viewed as a failure on their part. After VR there is still the option to apply “flexibility” to the EA. Whatever that means.

Nope! Not at all.

The company has stated they have a surplus of 190 pilots in mainline. This does not include anyone due to retire by the 1st July 2022. If that is say 58 pilots, the real surplus here is 190 + 58 = 248.

The 190 surplus pilots are being targeted by the VR program. LWOP will not affect this. LWOP is being used to manage the short to medium term pilot surplus (refer Q56 in the FAQ document).

If they do not get 190 pilots by the VR offer, they will start CR's. LWOP will not affect this.

For what its worth, if the most recently hired LH SO's all take LWOP, the company will be going up the list, and the next people in line were hired in Jan 2009.

Because the company is playing an IR game. Get as many people on LWOP ASAP to reduce the cost base of QF international.

I took a divisor cut when Dixon asked the pilots to raise $8m. Other second officers didn’t.

I took LWOP and went to Jetstar for 6 years. These same Second Officers didn’t.

I went to short haul and these guys have stayed on as second officers and we’re recently awarded FO slots in long haul.


Ive done my bit. In 12 years I’ve done my bit,

I want to name names, but I won’t.

Why can’t they all just piss off take LWOP and help out, but, as it’s proven before, they won’t. And they know who they are.

Why not just get CR’d? Money in your pocket and then a guarantee of sorts, when/if things pick up in the next few years you have to be re-employed, before brand newbies?! Just going on LWOP plays into the Co’s Hands!

So if CR is unavoidable, why are they offering LWOP at all? It would be cheaper to CR the most junior.

I don't actually agree.

Making 100 junior pilots CR compared to having A LOT of pilots on LWOP + doing CR eventually is a bigger saving to the company.

Not as cheap as CR for the most junior, and LWOP for the rest.

As you pointed out, this is clearly being driven by IR and the aim appears to scare junior members onto LWOP, and I think it’s to avoid paying CR.

Time will tell I guess, have a good weekend.

I realise that. But until JK or whatever new version Scomo comes up with runs out I won’t be taking LWOP. I’ve taken LWOP twice back post GFC to “save redundancy”......I’m done with it. If it gets to CR for me after 17 years then so be it. Pay me my cash and I’m out of here

Being CR’d means you’re no longer an employee and you’re no longer with the group. The company has no responsibility for you and won’t look after your welfare. Yes, you are first to be hired when it picks up but that means having HR approve more recruitment which may not happen for a while. Any pilot getting made CR would only pick up a few weeks pay anyway.

Better to be on the inside looking out than vice versa. As the most junior are 330 and 787 SOs they’ll be the first back once international flying resumes if the remain within the system, if they’re on the outside looking in it may be a long time.

That was addressed recently. LH and SH are separate. CR would only affect LH pilots as that is where the surplus is.

Wouldn't it be nice if the company provided a little transparency on the numbers interested in the VR EOI. But lets be honest with ourselves..

With the LWOP get out of jail free card needing to commence prior to the binding VR submissions, a calculated decision is a risky move...but lets crunch the numbers and see how we go -


If you were 63 or older as of July 1 - Lets rule out those who would be silly not to take the elusive "Retirement Package" Approx 50 pilots


60 to 61 - 65

61 to 62 - 59

62 to 63 - 50

Gives you approximately - 170 who would be considering the package very closely. Now I don't have the data on LHvSH age split, but for arguments sake lets assume 20% are SH pilots who are ineligible - Left with around 140 give or take.


Then you have the 60-61 year olds who may run the gamble of holding out and getting back into a seat for 12-18 months (Im assuming most would be 380 pilots who may face 2-3 years on the bench and get a call up at 63-64)

- Holding a class 1, passing the line training on a different fleet after 3 years off and getting the boot without a severance would be a hard and sad way to go out.


Then you have the 55+ crew who will be happy with a few hundred thousand to hang up the wings and continue with their side career or those who just want to enjoy retirement fairly comfortably.


In my opinion I believe the 190 figure will be surpassed. Will the company approve more than 190? No.

Will there be a need for CR? No.

Will the company push for EA negotiations to get more crew stood up when the time comes? Yes

Can they put a date on when these "temporary" variations conclude? No, but this will be monitored extremely closely.


The data above represent figures to 2025 regarding retirements turned into VR

Its no secret that natural attrition will come into play excessively in the years that follow.

2026-2030 - 400


By the time to VR and early retirement has played out we would've reduced the pilot body by around 250 pilots.

2000 will remain reduced to 1600 by 2030 (20%) *Recruitment door closed for several years one would assume.


The company has done what they do best...cast doubt in ones mind. Who can forget the threat of a seperate entity to fly Sunrise only a handful of months ago! the same has happened here. Take LWOP and pass up your leave accruals and we will give you a golden ticket just incase we need to run a CR.


Keg - You seem to have your finger on the pulse - Happy to have your thoughts?


Its a horrid time for our industry and this WILL pass - Stay safe and look after eachoth...sorry I've watched too many Town Halls :)



Fuji

Fujiroll76

Are you suggesting that someone over 60, who has time off due to the present downturn, is incapable of passing their medical and getting through a new type course?

Sorry KZ Kiwi, I thought you were in NZ. I suppose you’re from NZ But in AUS.

I think someone asked if JobKeeper would be paid to those who voluntarily take LWOP (as opposed to the current stand down provisions).
There is not a chance in hell the government would allow this. That $1500 a fortnight would instantly vanish the day you commence LWOP (including any further extension in some sort of potential Aviation keeper form)

I'm still confused about what protections you'd have as a junior pilot who takes LWOP now, only to return in 12 months and be CR soon after if the business is still down? Why not say as a group "if CRs are going to commence, then we will enforce LWOP in reverse seniority? Seems much fairer

Unless you are on the bottom of the list

Fuji, not sure I understand your hypothesis.
I agree that all SH pilots are ineligible for VR, but as there are no SH pilots in LH where does the 20% come from?

You sure about that?

https://coronavirus.fairwork.gov.au/...bkeeper-scheme

HR even confirmed that you are entitled to JobKeeper whilst on LWOP. What HR did say is that they are not sure if it would continue with any extension to JobKeeper, or a new wage subsidy that the government brings in.

That may have been TLS’s/managements wish or interpretation, but I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry as ‘you’re in SH, you’re safe’...

See WK’s post on Qrewroom.

this.
sadly.

but it probably depends on your lawyers bill size

Not at all

I am simply stating the obvious that any pilot who has a lengthy period away from aviation would struggle.
Ill go out on a limb here and say that the older you get the harder it becomes to keep CASA away and a Class 1 doesnt come as easy as they once did. Incapable? No.......Hurdles? Yes

Well the jury is still out on that but yes for this I did not include in the surplus.
The figures used were based on the "65 Graph" issued by AIPA - Im not aware that this graph is solely LH pilots or a mixture of both SH and LH pilots reaching 65.

I assumed it was a mix and (weighted 80/20) This is my own assumption which i believe to be fairly accurate but happy to be advised otherwise.

There’s only 5 provisions of the Long Haul Agreement that apply to pilots who have transferred to Short Haul operations under 20.4 of the LH agreement. None of them deal with redundancy.

The Integration Agreement only specifies that new hire pilots be retrenched in accordance the Pilots Agreement, LH EBA. It doesn’t address those new hire pilots who transferred over to Short Haul. Unless it was one of the 5 provisions of the LH EBA that carried over nothing in the LH EBA will apply to a SH pilot. The SH EBA refers to redundancies if a pilot’s “position” becomes redundant. As no SH pilot is being offered VR then no SH positions are redundant.

However I’m not an IR lawyer, and I’ll assume no one else is. So it’ll probably end up in court anyway if it gets to the point of CR (I’m still fairly sure it won’t however which is the best thing for all).

Re WK post on qrewroom, he says redundancy will happen in accordance with the pilots agreement, EA10. A SH pilot isn’t employed under EA 10.

I really don’t think this is going to be a short term issue, however if this **** continues or gets worse it may. The company’s position is that SH is not going to be included if there are CR’s now. I’d believe their IR lawyers been through this in great detail, and that their position is pretty solid. The other side is that if SH shrinks, then any LH pilot will not be included.

Remember there are other mechanisms available before redundancy (ie temporary EA variations).

As Fuji said they should run the VR first.

If they get the required numbers, great and all of us can take a chill pill.

Problem is let’s say they even fall 20 numbers short. How many people in the bottom 100 are going to risk being the one not to take LWOP? And what about the next 100 pilots above them? As SandyPalms said- how far will the crocodile climb?

This is a very dirty tactic, but it’s in the EBA.

I think everyone’s barking at shadows here.
The company don’t want CR because it might start a fight.
All the options they’re providing will achieve their goals. Infact they will probably turn people down.
It is a bit naughty to offer the LWOP to protect ones position. They know the bottom few hundred will jump at it though.
That I don’t like but they’re not friends. It’s business to them. Pure and simple.
By the way when will they advise the results?
All I saw was that the binding commitment was valid for up to three months?

Jobkeeper definitely applies to lwop as it stands. If any continuation of JK is the same then lwop is a bit of a no-brainer for junior guys imo. But who’s to say how junior will be junior once everyone at the bottom absconds to secure their jobs.

If any new jobkeeper doesn’t include lwop then the company are essentially forcing us to choose between job security and a minimal wage which for a lot of us is the difference between scraping by or not. This would be a bit of a dick move by the company. I would prefer to stay stood down with no leave accrual to keep JK.

Also how does it work if a LH pilot is made redundant (compulsory) and there are say 50 SH pilots below them. Does that pilot then get rehired at the bottom of the list losing 50 spots?

No.

From the Agreement:

A pilot re-employed will resume the relative position on the pilot seniority list that he or she occupied as at the time of termination of employment due to redundancy.

The Integration Agreement sits above both the LH & SH award. It’s the mechanism that allows crew to move between awards. No one signs a new employment contract when they move between awards because the IA puts you under the same umbrella. The Last on first off redundancy rules come from this agreement.

Apologies if I've missed something, but how (even leaving SH pilots out of the argument) does being on LWOP allow the company to circumvent LH seniority regarding possible CRs?

If it comes to CR, it seems QF will try and Silo both sides. This is their desire, as the 737 pilots are the ones they will need soon. It will end up in court, and I think the IA will win. It will be straight seniority.

Great point Koizi. I don’t think that legal either.

so much of this is still so dependent on whether the SH and LH lists can be separated when it comes to CR. WK (who is the bloke who wrote the IA) thinks it’s not possible. It needs to be tested in court, and that could be a long process.

There are about 200 LH pilots over the age of 60.

The top 40 are over 63.5 and will get an ‘early retirement’ offer. It’s still likely to pay more than being ‘stood down’.

The next 40 are between 62.5 and 63.5. It’s a relative no brainer that they will be far better off financially taking the deal on offer. Even 61.5 (another 50) is probably better off to take it if they have more than a couple of months leave up their sleeve.

The remaining 70? Line ball call as to whether the flying picks up enough for them to make more than the VR offer on the table. Give the impact that a lump sum payment can have into your bank account I suspect the offer will be enough for at least half of them to take it. 165 in total. There may be some crew under the age of 60 who have a look at the deal too so perhaps another 5-10 there.

So I suspect Qantas will go pretty close to getting the 190-200 they’re after.

Unless they have a job contract to go to, any junior pilot should sit on their hands until the VR process plays out and avoid taking LWOP. Under CR Qantas pays a minimum of 6 months (this would apply to anyone hired since 2016) and you have a right of return as per the EA. Take LWOP and you get no accrued leave, no credited years towards LSL, a future CR won’t include any credit for time taken LWOP, etc. Until AIPA is able to have input into this LWOP and get a few quid pro quo’s for helping the company out you’d be nuts to just jump in the hope that it’d save your job.

Of course if you have a 2, 3, 5 year contract on the table and want some certainty for the next few years then go for it! Little to lose in that situation. Though if you really wanted to ‘play the system’ you could hold off applying for LWOP and continue to accrue leave and years of service and then take the LWOP a little further down the track. A strategy not without risk!

Koizi/Sandy Palms, it is legal. Have a read of 15.10 of the EA, it’s all spelt out there. It also addresses re-employment after CR etc. Might I suggest to all at QF having to navigate through this time that a good read of that section of the award is worth a lot more than trawling through all the assumptions and opinions put forward on PPRuNe.

Its absolutely ridiculous.

Yes some crew may have other options outside Qantas who will explore the LWOP option and get their golden ticket. BUT the vast majority don't. So its either hand up your entitlements and get a ticket too or stay stood down and accrue your leave BUT you may be made CR......but we can't tell you until its too late.

Dirty tactics

that is not the opinion of the company. Believe me, they have explored this in great detail. Hopefully we won’t have to find out.

I think the argument of not getting your entitlement accrual while on LWOP is a wish washy point as we all know the company will be going after that anyway with temporary EBA amendments.

To be clear to everyone, the company's view is that CR will come from LH only.

AIPA really needs to provide more information.

The Company has had ‘Its position’ changed quite a few times during this pandemic. I would expect this one will be no different if they commence CR.

The integration award was the award that allowed seamless transfer between two seperate agreements. It is very specific on how existing pilots (at the time the IA was written) will be treated in respect of redundancy, but it only provides pilots hired after it’s implementation with a brief sentence saying they are to be retrenched first. It doesn’t provide any specifics on what order those new hire pilots will be retrenched.

One could argue in court that the provisions between Q and A pilots in the IA should be applied to new hire pilots as well, which would mean all CR is quarantined to LH. One could also argue SH pilots cannot be bound by provisions of a LH EBA that they cannot vote on, unless it’s written those provisions specifically apply to them.

A court could determine that it is a grey area and the company and AIPA have to sort it out amongst themselves with something definitive.

IMO the overarching statement is the one saying “a pilots position becomes redundant” in the applicable EBA. As no SH pilots have been offered VR, then no SH pilot’s position has become redundant.

Agreement discussions notwithstanding don’t forget there’s also legal precedent in Australia for not applying seniority in redundancy (Kendell).

Read the Kendal airlines decision. Not a precedent at all

It’s not an exact precedent for this situation (nothing ever is) but it is an example of when the Industrial Relations Commission in 2002 sided with a company over a union over the issue of seniority “having regard to likely additional costs and disruption in the context of presently tenuous airline operations” (those words from the AIRC decision). Just after Ansett collapsed there were then “tenuous” airline operations in Australia, as there are now. It involved a court case over actions outside of strict seniority, and the court did side with the company over the union citing prohibitive costs.

But I don’t think this line would be perused in court, I think if it did end up in court it’ll come down to what is written in current agreements.

And again, I firmly believe no CR will be required at all. The package is pretty generous enough and I think it’ll be oversubscribed.