And that is the major point out of the Drs example. In the end the court will fall on the side of the greater good. In this case keeping the company (any company) viable, even if that means upsetting a few people. I think most companies will have a relatively easy case to prove what is a more cost effective way to help them survive and thus provide more employment in the longer run and the courts have already shown they will rule that way if it is a grey area.
|
Fuji,
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t get it. Well the jury is still out on that.... By definition, Short Haul pilots are those who fly the 737 and Long Haul pilots are everybody else. So how can 20% of LH pilots be ineligible for VR? |
Ozbiggles, AIPA can easily argue that making a SH F/O redundant (in seniority) won’t have a material impact on the SH business given the business is only flying 20, 30, 40, 50% of it’s normal flying anyway. Even as they ramp back up towards 100% it will simply mean slightly higher divisors for F/Os. I don’t think the ‘business detriment’ is going to be a valid argument by Qantas in that context.
Interestingly I reckon it’d be much cheaper for Qantas to make the bottom 250-300 redundant than offer VR. Any subsequent uptick in flying can be dealt with using heavy crew (2+2 or 1+2+1). At this stage we’d be insane to negotiate/ vote away the accrual of leave at normal rates whilst stood down or on reduced divisors. It’s a small price for Qantas to pay so that they have at it’s disposal a pilot workforce ready to go when things pick up. |
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.
This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus. |
Hi Keg, I don’t disagree with you or the logic. I only make the point any argument against ‘company’ logic starts behind the 8 ball. No body had Pandemics in mind when agreements where written and there is ample case law which suggests courts will rule in favour of companies if the company can argue the costs would be ‘unreasonable’ compared to other options, particularly if they can ‘show’ more people will be disadvantaged.
The only sure thing is 2020 might not be the worst year, but it has to be top 5 in that category for aviation. |
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10834997)
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.
This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus. |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10834982)
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. |
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy
(Post 10834987)
Fuji,
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t get it. The jury is still out on what? By definition, Short Haul pilots are those who fly the 737 and Long Haul pilots are everybody else. So how can 20% of LH pilots be ineligible for VR? |
The age group that fuji is talking about includes both SH and LH pilots, he isn't saying 20% are ineligible. The assumption is 20% of pilots in that age group are probably SH pilots and are therefore not eligible for VR. 20% is a very reasonable assumption IMO, maybe more. Maybe I’m not explaining this correctly. If an A380 S/O moves to B737 F/O is that person in now in short haul or still in long haul? If a B737 Capt moves to B787 Capt is that person still in short haul or are they now in long haul? |
Originally Posted by Poto
(Post 10834917)
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.
|
Originally Posted by cloudsurfng
(Post 10835047)
has the IA been modernised and is it FWC approved? Nope.
|
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10834997)
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.
This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus. So yes, Shorthaul will be isolated from a LH surplus. If there’s a surplus in Shorthaul and it gets to CR the same will apply. A senior FO can’t displace a junior pilot from LH. |
Originally Posted by Poto
(Post 10835052)
has a replacement been written or has the IA been cancelled? Nope
|
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy
(Post 10835041)
But there aren’t any SH pilots in LH, nil-none-nada
Maybe I’m not explaining this correctly. If an A380 S/O moves to B737 F/O is that person in now in short haul or still in long haul? If a B737 Capt moves to B787 Capt is that person still in short haul or are they now in long haul? |
Not a single SH pilot since the creation of the Integration agreement has signed an employment contract to fly in SH. It’s a secondment under the larger Mainline Umbrella.
That is why QF have the Master seniority list. As for the vacancy argument, What vacancies would be created in the foreseeable future if a bunch of Junior SH F/O’s were unfortunate enough to be suffer CR? Answer-none. Same as their will be nowhere for a 65yr to Go, Hence retirement for them. As for the Costs? The Payout for a Junior SH F/O will be quite a bit less than more Senior LH S/O or F/O (relatively speaking). Retraining costs for a future SH Vacancy? A significant amount of LH crews (S/O’s aside) would need some refamil sims and a week of line sectors to be back in that Seat. Not even the difference between the 2 CR payouts. How much would a Court challenge cost? Quite a bit for both parties. Whilst Tino might have his thoughts, I wonder if he knows what the IA is? Or even that it Exists? Does the a pilot Body really want Seniority circumvented? Tough Days ahead |
Poto, having no practical vacancies is incidental. From a legal standpoint the SH FO role itself is not redundant.
|
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10835109)
Poto, having no practical vacancies is incidental. From a legal standpoint the SH FO role itself is not redundant.
What Proof have you or QF or any airline that SH will need its entire workforce in the Short, medium or Long term? The Parked 737’s tell a different story right now unfortunately while I’m at it. The Jumbo is the only role where your logic makes sense. They are gone, not parked |
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.
If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can. |
Thanks for your response Troo, but this doesn’t speak to my initial query regarding Fujiroll’s post #678.
Once again, I’m possibly not asking the right question. In his post of #678 he said, 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. |
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10835117)
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.
If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can. |
If the company end up making anyone CR, it will be via the master seniority list as the IA has precedence.
Sure, those in SH wish it weren’t so, and those in LH do, but IR law doesn’t really bother with opinions - just the agreements as signed by the interested parties. Whether you’re LH or SH - we have one seniority list. I don’t believe anyone will be made CR. |
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy
(Post 10835120)
Thanks for your response Troo, but this doesn’t speak to my initial query regarding Fujiroll’s post #678.
Once again, I’m possibly not asking the right question. In his post of #678 he said, "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." Rather than me asking the wrong question (again); could you or Give it the herbs or Fuji himself explain what this sentence (in bold) means. |
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10835117)
Yes, the 747 is the only role that is redundant. The RIN process is what prevents redundancies in category.
If the company wants to make SH pilots redundant due to a SH surplus, it can. The A380 is effectively redundant. It ain’t coming back. It’s finished so those stood down pilots are basically unemployed until the company comes clean and decides on the future of the A380, but that decision won’t come soon. So A380 crew are screwed for now. The IA will first model all Q and all A pilots going back to their original hauls. Then it will determine where the surplus is. We already know it’s in LH. Then it should start chopping from the bottom of the Q list, below the Y of course. A’ Pilots will be the last ones sacked in the case of a LH surplus. Hopefully those over 60 will just leave. I know they are whinging to AIPA because they cannot arrange their final flights! Man, if that’s their biggest problem, they have lost the plot. |
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 10834997)
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.
This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 10835157)
I don’t believe anyone will be made CR.
|
He is saying the number of pilots in those age brackets listed is inclusive of both SH and LH pilots. Except for that cohort of pilots who fall into the “early retirement” category, every other pilot in long haul is eligible for VR. Says so in the HoBO’s email last Friday. |
Emmit, there is a graph showing the number of pilots in QF who turn 65, year by year. Its all of us, not SH or LH, but everyone employed in QF mainline. Doesn't matter if you're in SH or LH you can still turn 65. That is the chart he is referring to. So he is taking 20% out of the numbers to try and reflect an accurate number that may be in SH who will turn 65, as SH pilots are not eligible to take thus round of VR.
|
This isn’t about that group who will turn 65 on or before 01/07/2022. I’m happy to disregard the quoted 20%, Fujiroll’s premise that there’s short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul. |
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy
(Post 10835307)
This isn’t about that group who will turn 65 on or before 01/07/2022. I’m happy to disregard the quoted 20%, Fujiroll’s premise that there’s short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul. Nobody is suggesting SH pilots are in LH. I think you've missed the point. Are you in QF and a member of AIPA? Have you seen the chart? |
Originally Posted by Emmit Stussy
(Post 10835307)
Fujiroll’s premise that there’s short haul pilots in long haul (and therefore ineligible for VR) is incorrect.
I say again, there are no short haul pilots in long haul. |
That was exactly the road I was going down.
Emmit - Please don’t get the two confused. I’m not saying there are SH pilots in LH at all. The age graph includes both and therefore to get somewhat accurate figures I used an assumption that there would be approx 20% SH in the above 60 category. Again it’s not perfect as you can’t know exactly BUT 20 seems reasonable and gives us all a ballpark to work towards. |
Looking ahead, let's say there is a solid uptake of ER and VR. Also likely is that every LH SO hired since late 2016 "volunteers" for LWOP out of fear of CR, not wanting the "pass-over" plague to rise to their number.
Company is going to be pretty happy with the result. |
Originally Posted by Koizi
(Post 10835628)
Looking ahead, let's say there is a solid uptake of ER and VR. Also likely is that every LH SO hired since late 2016 "volunteers" for LWOP out of fear of CR, not wanting the "pass-over" plague to rise to their number.
Company is going to be pretty happy with the result. Then the cascade affect with training people up. Sound silly? Last VR they were recruiting well within two years! |
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
|
Originally Posted by Koizi
(Post 10835639)
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
Thats the question, I think. The company is trying to save money. If enough take LWOP then I feel CR will not be necessary. |
Originally Posted by ruprecht
(Post 10835643)
How many LWOPs equal 1 CR?
Thats the question, I think. The company is trying to save money. If enough take LWOP then I feel CR will not be necessary. |
Originally Posted by Koizi
(Post 10835639)
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
|
Surely if enough pilots were to take LWOP there’d be no need for VR or CR as effectively the LWOP pilots aren’t a cash drain to the business anymore? Or am I missing something?
|
I’m sure they would take up every LWOP application they are given. It’s only a 4 week activation to get them back, isn’t it? Plus they could heavy crew long sectors if they got caught with their pants down |
Originally Posted by Wingspar
(Post 10835629)
Last VR they were recruiting well within two years!
Koizi et al, sit on your hands. Your accrued leave is less than 12% of your total income. For a S/O with less than three years in that’s about $15K per annum? 200 S/Os taking LWOP saves $3 million. That’s a rounding error! |
Originally Posted by Koizi
(Post 10835639)
I guess my question is, when every SO on the 330/787 applies for LWOP (and I suspect it would be a gamble not to ) will they approve them all even if they get a solid VR/ER subscription?
As I said before, I doubt anyone will be made CR. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.