Also Jetstar gets to delete every MOU number. I like it.

They could save on cost by reducing the number of CEO’s for a start. Then offshore the ones left to NZ, jobkeeper and all.
it’s a remarkable state of affairs if Qantas deems it appropriate to receive government funding whilst individual workers that could work and currently subsidised by jobkeeper, remain idle.
The current environment aviation finds itself in, isn’t one of profitability, it’s one of survivability. And I thought Qantas was supposed to be Australian.
yeah I know, we’ve been here before....

Mick, once again you are wrong and dare I say F.O.S.
it is people like you that give the internet a bad name. Do 30 seconds worth of research and correct your post so those less inclined to check the facts Don’t believe the crap you post.

Well that is debatable, Qantas Mainline might be considered Australian but they own or part own a lot of businesses that are not considered Australian such as Fiji Airways, Jetstar NZ, Jetstar Japan, Jetstar Pacific etc. Let's not forget that Jetconnect pilots are also sitting at home crapping themselves about their jobs, I don't think it is unfair for the work that they were doing immediately before COVID to be returned to them in the first instance. With the current outlook, from a business point of you it is probably better to re-activate the lower cost area's of the operation. Yes it sucks, but let's face it, Qantas doesn't give a sh*t about you or me despite their platitudes.

If they run the 74 RIN why would they need to heavy crew? Any training positions allocated would be kicked down the road until there’s flying available to facilitate so those crews stay stood down for a while.

Therefore any 787 or 330 Captains that are demoted can’t be FO trained and stay stood down anyway.

The FOs demoted to SO is easily achievable. A few Sims and the line training is only 1 observation sector so that’s not hard to find.

The 330 and 787 SOs are all at the bottom of the list so are obviously the ones who get made redundant. That would normally be an expensive exercise given the requirement for the period of notice and redundancy entitlement to be not less than 26 weeks but given we’re all stood down on no pay does that mean they only have to worry about purely the redundancy payout? Relatively inexpensive if that’s the case.

As for the cost of recruitment on the other side, doesn’t the ‘redundancy list’ kind of take care of that? It states a pilot on the list will be offered a position when available based on seniority

I have a good source in Air NZ training that said the way they are tackling it is deciding where the shortage of crew may be as the result of the redundancies, working out a down training schedule which resulted in 48 months of training required and then selecting the 40% of pilots who are required in the short term. Everyone else will have their training delayed until demand warrants them coming back on line, so 60% of the pilot moves are on hold for the medium term. I would think Qantas would be the same, carry out the training that is required to keep the operation going and leave everyone else on LWOP until needed regardless of seniority.

I think this is directed at my post? Not 100% sure.

The two issues are separate. The RIN should be run regardless given the previously articulated time frame for the 747 farewell. If there is ‘useful flying’ on any of the other LH fleets (even if it’s 1/2 or 1/3 of the normal hours) then a RIN’d 747 crew member electing to go to that fleet should be stood up and trained. Deal with any surplus on that fleet once that is complete.

My ‘heavy crew’ comments were in relation to the alleged difficulty of getting rid of the bottom 300 crew (if that’s what was deemed surplus to requirements). I’m simply pointing out that resorting to heavy crewing makes it decidedly simple to still crew those aeroplanes on longer flights until the fleet flying hours get beyond about 2/3 of the previous flown hours. It’s certainly easier and cheaper than the domino effect of doing multiple RINs across multiple fleets as the crew all push downward. Redundancy payouts for 300 pilots is going to be circa $20 million.

The F/O demoted quickly and easily to S/O with a sim (it wouldn’t even take that realistically) isn’t quite as clear cut. That demoted F/O may choose to become a S/O on a different fleet- a massive training cost. Again, cheaper to heavy crew and not demote people.

I don’t think Qantas wants to go down the redundancy road though. They don’t want to spend $20 million only to re-employ those crew a year or two later. Much easier to come to an agreement with current crew as to how to manage our way through this.

20 Million? That’s isn’t even a years salary for Joyce.

I think Qantas wouldn’t blink at a $100 Million. What did the shutdown cost all those years ago? I’m sure Joyce’s accountants could make it look good in the books whilst also writing it off as a tax loss and justify it as a bonus to the CEO for improving efficiency.

$20 million might cover 300 SOs it won’t go any where near covering 300 Capt/FOs on 26 weeks via a VR if that’s what they choose.

That’s why I’d be surprised if there were widespread offers of VR to A380 crew.

The EA allows the company to tailor their VR offer to individual crew members. One pilot may be offered something different to someone else depending on their specific circumstances.

The 747 crew you’re least likely to get a return from if they do a conversion course post March next year are those who turn 65 in the 18 months after that time. These are the ones most likely to get a targeted VR. There are less of them than you’d think.

Id leave those 747 crew out of it completely and assume they'd either give up, call it a day early or hit 65 before they can be trained.

They sure blinked at $90 million for a new sim centre. Based on some of the options given above, they’re still gonna need one soon.

The fact that the RIN operated that way previously is no guarantee it will do so now. These are vastly different times.

As you would know, the crew who were the last to be RIN’d off the 767 had no aircraft to fly for up to 4 months. They had training courses planned for a future date BUT they remained a 767 Capt’s or F/O’s until that course and received the pay and conditions applicable to that fleet despite the fact that there were no aircraft to fly.
By the same logic Qantas could easily determine that 744 crew were stood down before the RIN and will remain stood down after the RIN up until a training course is run. The allocation of a future training date need not interrupt one’s stand down.

I would certainly hope that is NOT the interpretation Qantas take but they have a long history of interpreting rules/laws to benefit the company and screw us. Let’s hope I’m proven wrong.

Excuse my ignorance but what exactly is RIN

thanks for that

Well then you’ve got to pay them MGH. There is going to be ‘useful flying’ in long haul at some stage during that time frame. If you’re going to pay them MGH over a period of 18 months you could offer them 12 months MGH and with the redundancy tax rates they clear the same (or perhaps a bit more) money.

Yes, these are different times but a RIN is an agreed process with a set outcome as per the award. I’d reckon it’d be ‘bad faith’ to say that when the 747 is finished at the end of March that a crew member could remain stood down for an indeterminate time before starting their training course at a time of the company’s choosing. The number of Captains that will require re-training will be in the thirties. Under normal circumstances if they were all going to the same fleet that would be 3-4 months. F/O numbers are slightly higher than that and then there’s the S/Os. There is ‘useful work’, it’s their training course. That there is a bottleneck is not the fault of the individual crew member.

If there is training capacity then again the courses should be started fairly promptly post March next year.

Agreed. I’d hope AIPA would argue against this fairly strenuously.

Telfer86, LHEA 15.10.3 under voluntary redundancy.

Redundancies would be as per the intergration agreement under the title Redundancy which is based on seniority, not long haul or short haul if it comes to this which I doubt.

Actually it’s A or Q list with two different provisions under two different EBAs.

So from me reading it a senior pilot in Longhaul can be made redundant over a junior pilot in shorthaul. Simply because you cannot displace someone under a different award.

It’d be like a Qantas pilot displacing a Jetstar pilot to CR.

Of course if guys want to complain about that, they were senior and could have gone to short haul.

Anyway it’s pie in the sky stuff. With stand down, jobkeeper and perhaps a few tweaks to entitlements during standown, I don’t think we will see a single Qantas pilot exit the business who doesn’t want to.

With 3 787’s waiting to be delivered, managing the RIN for the 747 will be made very easy. The A380 is a different story! As per the awards, LH and SH are completely seperate when it comes to RIN’s.

At some stage they’re going to have to address the numbers on the 380.
RIN for sure but there should be a sizeable number of retirements that will help.
RIN is problematic no matter what the fleet so VR must be a consideration.
Having said that the 65 club can’t rely on 737 slots because there won’t be any for some time.

BSM, Read the Integration award 16 (e) this relates to redundancies across mainline and states "vacancies resulting from the re-shuffling of positions consequent upon retrenchment shall be filled in accordance with the provisions for filling vacancies set out in this award and other applicable awards/agreements". Basically meaning in the whole context of section 16 relating to redundancies for those A and Q pilots above the Y, and below the Y relates to all remaining Q pilots in seniority. Vacancies that are created by these provisions will be subsequently advertised to be filled in seniority order from the remaining pool of pilots. So redundancies across mainline are done in seniority and are not dependant on the Haul according to the IA.
I agree with you in regards to RINs and displacements that these do not apply across the Hauls but mainline redundancies do. I also agree with your sentiment that with standown, Jobkeeper and VRs we won't see a crew member depart that doesn't want to.

16.D.iii trumps that though. If there are surplus Q pilots but not A pilots, Q pilots shall only be retrenched.

section E refers that if for instance a pilot is retrenched and that position becomes a consequential vacancy, It shall be filled in accordance with seniority. For instance if 10 787 SOs are made redundant, those positions if required will be filled from the top down. It doesn’t refer to jumping from long haul to short haul or vice versa.

I read it more as those positions are filled in order of seniority from those that are left, not the retrenchment list.

If it gets to Q and A pilots then it’s goodnight Irene!
Party’s over!

Well if what is stated above is true , then moving to SH straight after joining was a wise move

If you assume QF redundancy numbers similar % to AirNZ, BA - maybe 30% , but not quite the disaster level of Air Canada

then about 750 , that takes you back to LH hires circa 2005 to 2007 era doesn't it ?

You may as well wait for a CR as it is a much better deal in terms of quantity of payout & certainty of return

Why would you take a lesser value VR ?

Any idea of what’s likely to happen at Jetstar

I would say domestic back to normal within 12 months.

the 787's would have the same question mark as the QF 380's....nothing anytime soon.

Domestic, Tasman and Pacific look to be positive for Jetstar OZ and NZ for a quick Ian recovery. 787 and international such as Bali look weak. No rumours of redundancies yet, they were undercrewed anyway and will likely manage things througH LWOP, continued stand down, part time etc.

Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and China along with all of the Pacific will back open by the end of the year. The 787’s and 330’s will be busy again. Also you’d think QF will have around 80% of the domestic market.

Not if Victoria keeps having transmission

You can think what you want but International travellers won’t be allowed back into the country without a 14 day isolation at their own cost for a loooooong time yet. There are not going to be to many rushing for that deal. The governments haven’t done all this just to start from scratch again. If Qantas don’t downsize they will be the only major airline in the world to achieve it. You can toss around percentages of the market, but that market won’t have anywhere near the number of passengers it used to...there not allowed into the county.
IN 2018 there were 8.5 million international visitors, it was projected to hit 10 million in 2020. There are an awful lot of domestic trips that they won’t be taking now.

It’s not talked about much but since the 767 RIN the firms opinion has been that SH/73 is quarantined from both RIN and CR. The outcome of any subsequent challenge to that is of course unknown. It is also worth remembering that opinion cuts both ways if there were to ever be an over supply domestically.

Except where there used to be 380s/747s, there will be 787s. Where there used to be 330s, there will be 737s. Where there used to be 737s, there will be 717s, where there used to be 717s, there will be Q400s etc etc.

Qantas has a lot of flexibility with its fleet, over say a giant A380/777 operator or the like.

So in reality, Qantas will have a similar network with similar frequencies to what it had before. It’ll just fly smaller aircraft.

While I'm sure the reduced international visitors will impact domestic demand as well, it may be largely offset by an increase in domestic travel by Australians unable to travel overseas.
The best evidence we have right now is China where domestic flights are no up to 80% of pre-covid levels.

Yep spot on. 3 x week will be the new daily.

Large aircraft won’t be required unless of course these “travel bubbles” eventuate. I’m hypothesising here, but if say Thailand and Australia form a bubble, you may need a 380 running to Bangkok because the demand is centralised on a few specific approved countries and it’s the only place people can travel. Likewise Japan, Singapore etc. And then potentially use the 787 for long thin routes to countries in Europe like Austria and Germany.

QF obviously need to shift away from UK and US destinations, their traditional heartland. Might involve some loss making routes for a while but you can’t just sit on your hands forever (with aircraft sitting on the ground) and do nothing.

Qantas group profit drivers are domestic and QFF. Obviously international traffic feeds into domestic operations so I’m not trying to discredit the role of International. Qantas own most their fleet. They obviously have debt to service so there may be a balance where a bit of extra revenue is a good thing even if it is loss making. I suspect the scope for this is very small, and it’s far more likely the A380 operation will take another year off with their crews remaining stood down.

Jefferies Investment Bank have assumed QF wages bill next financial year will be over 50% down from FY19. They have assumed the government will be very slow opening international borders even once a vaccine is developed.

Leave accrual for 1500 long haul pilots whilst stood down cost the company about $30M/yr. That is the redundancy payout for more than 400 juniors.

There are tough decisions ahead. I’d like to believe no pilot who doesn’t want to leave the company will be forced to. It is becoming clear though that keeping the piloting family together is going to be dependent on our leadership.

i think we will be surprised by just how many will want to come to Australia when they can, even with strict 14 day quarantine. Backpackers, retirees etc who can spend months travelling around a huge country and NZ, freely with no risk of COVID.

If quarantine controlled international arrivals are allowed here by northern hemisphere winter, Australia will be a very popular place for those with money to stay here for 3-4mths.

I have been talking with some expat UK friends that live here and they are really hoping to bring parents and family here to escape the northern winter and potential second/third wave. They said everyone they talk to are thinking the same thing, even getting family out here permanently as soon as possible.

Australia is in for a post COVID boom the likes of post WWII.

Leave 1500 stood down for $30 million, or

Make 400 redundant for $30 million.

400 redundant still leaves 1100 stood down at a cost of about $20-25 million...

So 400 redundancies and 1100 stood down is $50+ million.

Very rough numbers and plenty of variables but prolonged stand down makes sense to me over deep cuts.

Absolutely Captain! Remember that when the company come asking to save some of that $30M. They want flexibility from us to reduce costs, but what do we want in return? Did someone whisper the Tasman?

Ha ha, it is cute that you think this will be a negotiation. It will be more like ‘do it this way or stay stood down’.

Usually I’d agree with you...however, whenever ratified EBA’s are up for temporary amendment it certainly is a negotiation. We have savings they want that are currently unavailable.