You are being naive Normanton, the main problem with most of your posts, other than your attitude, is that you are putting a large amount of trust in senior managements word. I know you haven’t been around long at all but take some time to ask around, the number of times it proves foolhardy to do so is staggering.

As an example, as an SO it was insisted we find 8m savings or there would be CR. Flexi lines and LWOP were taken to share the pain. Those that didn’t were immediately assigned to div +5 and made an absolute killing. There was never an intention of CR and the senior managers had been taken at their word that was disingenuous at best.

Think about it, you are becoming a paid mouthpiece for the webinars, you might look back and feel very used. Alternatively... you are a paid mouthpiece and in that case disregard my reasoned post 👍

He hath spoken!

flyingfrenchie - just to take your point further - when do we all draw "a line in the sand" (remember that one?) with these webinars? It's IR propaganda. Having the ability to ask questions is good (in a way) but there are other alternatives where they don't get to control the message over and over again. If nobody listened would they keep doing them?

Mate, fair enough trying to sell the last EBA but don’t pull this BS...

Normanton, massive difference between stridently arguing your point (and basing it on logic and experience) and throwing a tantrum. Doing the former will at least garner some respect even if people disagree with you. Doing the latter achieves quite the opposite. Choose wisely.

Normanton
You are absolutely correct when you say “ Don’t listen to senior crew” you and anyone else who is concerned should seek advice from AIPA and the company. This forum is anonymous and full of generalisations. Fun to read but that’s about all. One question that comes to mind is the following scenario. At this point in time the only redundant jobs are on the 747. The EBA has a provision that outlines the various things the company must do in this situation before redundancy. The RIN is one. It has to be done. So at the end of this there may be a surplus of second officers on the remaining LH fleet. My question is are the remaining second officer jobs redundant? Or is there a surplus of second officers due to displacement? To my way of thinking the jobs on the remaining LH fleet are still there that is to say they are not redundant positions. The truely redundant 747 jobs have been accounted for by the RIN. So there would be a surplus of pilots Due to displacement. The distinction between genuine redundancy and retrenchment has been made in law. They are different things. Now you are correct that CR bypass for pilots on LWOP is in the EA and it appears that the company is dangling that carrot for obvious reasons. No one can fault them for trying to reduce their costs.The question is how does the company issue CR notices to anyone without identifying additional redundant positions? They really can’t. They may do so at a later date eg A380 jobs, but the process I outlined above would repeat while you are on LWOP. Again they would end up with a surplus of pilots because of displacement. Ultimately they would have to retrench the surplus pilots in seniority. They would be going around in circles all the while avoiding expensive CR .Along the way they may catch some in their VR net and some more in their LWOP net.So perhaps this so called promise of protection may be engineered to be practically unenforceable but very cost effective. This may not be an accurate assessment of how it would work but it can be argued as such.

....and another thing...
 

For all the ‘ambit claim’ bluster coming from the webinars about LWOP/VR/CR/ER... it’s pretty obvious that the cheapest option for QF is LWOP. Does anyone really think that, if VR/ER & LWOP are undersubscribed (slim chance IMHO), QF will seriously go straight to CR and the resultant expense?

I reckon there would be a re-think and further offers of more LWOP. Thus LWOP ‘bypass’ will likely become a moot point.

Sound cynical? You bet! Based on past behaviour; very plausible! Don’t make any irreversible decisions yet folks.😉

I'm not in QF or JQ, so really can't contribute to the specific EBA arguments on either side.

But with significant and fairly immediate reversals in forward planning and downsizing that has occurred following the Victorian COVID increase, wouldn't it be in the QF group's interest to keep the status quo until an enduring expansion is on the cards? Keep LWOP for as long as possible. There may be more ups and downs before an ultimate stabilisation.

With this in mind, I agree that rushing to any non reversible decision right now might not be the ideal choice.

I'm with Dale, I understand your emotion, I have been where you are myself. All this talk about EBA's, Seniority and Redundancy implies you haven't got your heads around the magnitude of what you're facing and that's quite understandable.

Thanks Keg! No tantrum here. Just shining a light on the reality a lot of the more senior crew don't want to hear. Great words - "choose wisely". I agree, everyone should choose wisely, as it will potentially save your career.

I don’t work for Mainline but another entity and it is a bloody disgrace how this lot are treating their staff. They have had the luxury of not paying the majority of staff since the beginning of April and they still want more. My mate at another legacy carrier the other day was weighing up whether he should volunteer for 67% pay for two years in which he won’t be expected to work and here we have Qantas saying you can’t stay on SLWOP as the 2 day annual leave accrual per month is too much....... wankers.

Your posts indicate otherwise. Choose carefully.

A business needs to make money. I don't think there's any business that could survive 2 years paying employees who aren't being productive at 67% wage, especially in the tight margin airline industry.
I'd be interested in knowing which airline that is? Unless it's a state backed carrier with deep pockets I can't think of any airline who could afford it in this climate. There's some US airlines that have offered early retirement packages til age 65 with similar numbers to what you've described (assuming the airline doesn't go bust in the meantime). A 12 month VR package plus leave payouts taken at beneficial tax rates that come with redundancy would give a similar figure in the bank to what you've described. The catch being the pilot has chosen to be made permanently redundant and can't be re-employed.

Either way they are both pretty generous offers in a time when there's not too much spare cash floating around in the airline industry. Even the aforementioned offer from the US can cost the company dearly if they pay out too much:

American Airlines “Squandering Cash” After it Gave Too Many Pilots Paid Early Retirement

The fact that so many of you are hanging onto “we would see any CR as a failure” is proof his personal PR Queen is doing her job well.

We are about to find how immoral and brilliant the firm really is.

A short post but how true!
Dont for 1 minute believe the 'WE CARE' & all the other repeated phrases you hear so often.
Anyway,the EAP is there to help if you need it,REALLY!

And who exactly are you Keg - the grand arbitrator of who's right and wrong ???

While I do agree with you, I bet the majority of these other carriers overseas would act exactly the same as QF if they could. Most countries or companies don’t have stand down or LWOP provisions, but if they did I bet the companies would be acting exactly the same. It’s a business after all.

I suggest it may be Cathay. Surprisingly Hong Kong industrial law is more restrictive than here in many areas.

I’m someone who learned about 20 years ago (and reinforced at various times since) that what is written on PPRUNE can have a direct impact on you in the workplace. People can choose freely to have their tantrums but they should do so understanding the potential impact that these can have elsewhere.

We know the companies position.

We know the associations position.

We know the short haul position.

We know the long haul position.

We know the junior and senior positions.

The rest will be up to the legals if it gets there.

As per the request from that room. That’s it from me on this thread. I’d suggest the genuine employees of the group do the same.

This seems to have run it’s course, although sadly I’m not surprised with the direction it took.

there is no silver bullet in all of this. No agreement, EA, or argument of what’s right will save anyone. When the time comes,you’ll either be in the right place or you won’t. The company will do what it wants, as it always does, and it will be allowed to. It’s about survival. No EA could have ever envisaged this situation. Clauses about bypass, strict seniority, SH v LH will not matter. Look at the rhetoric from the government. ‘EA flexibility’.

best of luck to everyone. Out.