I think they meant the sandpit as in the Middle East, not Perth! :}

ahh my mistake

Roger that. To clarify all flights originate from Perth. Perth-London has been proven, the other European cities are shorter flights.
Problem is they haven't enough 78s or A350s project sunrise thing. They need to find more pronto and if the A380s are still iffy coming back then train up all the remaining 747/A380 crews
Don't know about the union/politics on how that will work, though you got the drift of my intent.

If only Qantas has some of those rubbish 777s

Old technology.

Short answer is that it won’t work. The problem is with the SO ranks. The pay on the 78 is complete rubbish for SOs, it’s only attractive for new hires and Qantas aren’t buying 350s any time soon.

12yr A380 SOs stood down, receiving IRP and AL/LSL (not including Personal Leave) are getting just under 50% of a 787 SO salary flying at MGH all year. They’re not far off earning the same take home as a 787 SO flying a BP on/ BP off roster.

Why would they move to the 787 voluntarily or take the risk of not being able to move after the (18 month/ more junior taking promotion) pay protection if moved involuntarily? The only way you’d get them to move is to do a RIN. Then they’ll displace off the 330 if they have any sense. And now you’ve got a cascade of training.

Nice idea Turnleft, but the only way it would work is with fleet pay, and we know how that ends up.

How much AL/ LSL they got left?

It’s accruing it at 6 weeks AL and 3/10 of a month LSL per year pro rata during stand down, so it’s ongoing.

What a bunch of rubbish - if the company got enough 350s or more 787s most of the SOs on the 380 would take FO slots anyway.

I reckon the ones that are too junior for a slot would happily take 787 MGH pay any day over being stood down.

The SO pay on the 787 is far from rubbish - it’s just not the overinflated 380 pay some may be used to.

It’s not rubbish, it’s numbers. Part 5 section 32 of the EBA if you’ve got access to it.

787 SO pay is low. It’s low, not only compared to Qantas SO rates, but also compared to the industry 787 pay. That’s why clause 32.6 is in there, to protect current SOs to 330 average pay.

And I hardly think the argument for ‘promotions all round’ is valid given the current situation, but thanks as always for your optimism (even if it isn’t skeptical in this instance).

Hold on, what other airlines are out there paying substantially more to their cruise relief/SO pilots? The only others I can think of that employ cruise relief/SOs are CX and JQ, and neither of them pay more.

The conditions are appropriate for the entry level nature of the position, pre 2020 there was absolutely no shortage of applicants, plenty with jet airline experience, for recruitment onto the 787 at that pay, so the rates were appropriate at a market level.

Show me an operator who pays a 787 pilot of any rank just over $100k? And we’re talking pre-covid here when the rates were negotiated. It’s even worse when you consider the take home pay of QF 787 pilots compared to the foreign contemporaries.

But SO isn’t just any other rank. It’s an entry level cruise relief job in which you don’t even hold a type rating that allows you in a control seat below FL200. You can’t expect pay for that role to be on par with Capt/FO ranks of any other operator.

S/Os hold a type rating that allows them to land the plane Dre. There’s no such thing as an S/O type rating.

Do Qantas group SOs land the aircraft? If not, the the matter of type rating is moot.

The only Qantas SO’s that “hold a type rating that allows them to land the plane,” are SO’s that come from that type as an FO.
ie JQ 787 FO whom is now a QF 787 SO, or a CX 330 FO whom is now a QF 330 SO

All other SO’s only have a cruise relief type rating which prohibits them from sitting in a control seat below 20,000’ (I’m not saying an SO with the full TR can be in a control seat below 20,000’, as their full TR isn’t current and the FAM prohibits it also)

Are they expected (by the company)to be able to land the aircraft if needed? If the answer is yes than that’s all that really matters.

Is it safer to have SOs rather than FOs or is it cheaper? You know what the answer is.........

I have no skin in this game, but if the SOs were called FOs and paid the same money would it be any safer?

Actually that statement is complete rubbish. Having done a number of jobs outside aviation in the last 16months for minimum wage I can say that from my perspective 100K plus a year to be a SO above 20000ft is a very good wage.