Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
YYZatcboy wrote:I'm surprised the pilots don't have a scope clause that prevents QF from starting another airline and outsourcing their flying. I'm also surprised that it is legal to negotiate directly with members of a bargaining unit, which would be totally illegal in Canada.
YYZatcboy wrote:I'm surprised the pilots don't have a scope clause that prevents QF from starting another airline and outsourcing their flying. I'm also surprised that it is legal to negotiate directly with members of a bargaining unit, which would be totally illegal in Canada.
VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Scotron12 wrote:Gives a bit more detail on the economics for QF by going ahead.
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/
The UBS analysis and its revenue projections suggest Project Sunrise is viable and isn’t dependent on the outcome of a pay deal.
Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.
zeke wrote:They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect
Revelation wrote:VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.
hooverman wrote:Revelation wrote:VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.
Where did you read that the airplane manufacturers and passengers have to make financial concessions? I only read about the pilot's.
Revelation wrote:VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.Scotron12 wrote:Gives a bit more detail on the economics for QF by going ahead.
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/
One point of interest:The UBS analysis and its revenue projections suggest Project Sunrise is viable and isn’t dependent on the outcome of a pay deal.
This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.
And:zeke wrote:They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect
... they have a track record of winning.
I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.
zeke wrote:YYZatcboy wrote:I'm surprised the pilots don't have a scope clause that prevents QF from starting another airline and outsourcing their flying. I'm also surprised that it is legal to negotiate directly with members of a bargaining unit, which would be totally illegal in Canada.
They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect
CriticalPoint wrote:
I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.
Scotron12 wrote:Just as a question: If QF did resort to hiring 400 pilots for PS, where would they come from and what training would be required?
As mentioned, 400 pilots are almost an airline on it's own.
Scotron12 wrote:Just as a question: If QF did resort to hiring 400 pilots for PS, where would they come from and what training would be required?
As mentioned, 400 pilots are almost an airline on it's own.
Scotron12 wrote:Just as a question: If QF did resort to hiring 400 pilots for PS, where would they come from and what training would be required?
As mentioned, 400 pilots are almost an airline on it's own.
Revelation wrote:hooverman wrote:Revelation wrote:Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.
Where did you read that the airplane manufacturers and passengers have to make financial concessions? I only read about the pilot's.
We know the pax will be paying a premium for the non-stop flight so that's their financial concession.
We know the aircraft manufacturers held a prolonged set of multi round negotiations before the enhanced A350-1000 was selected which is where they were making their concessions.
Now pilots are getting their arms twisted.
oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
Williamsb747 wrote:oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
The order has sort of been announced ,up to 12 A35Ks, a while back. But the final date for the order to be placed and slots to be secured is march the 31st.
Williams-
oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
VV wrote:oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
Considering the time to develop and to certify the modifications mentioned by Qantas in its press release, it is very likely they need to firm their order during the next six weeks.
They need to do it quickly if they want to start Project Sunrise operation in 2022.
VV wrote:oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
Considering the time to develop and to certify the modifications mentioned by Qantas in its press release, it is very likely they need to firm their order during the next six weeks.
They need to do it quickly if they want to start Project Sunrise operation in 2022.
oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
flipdewaf wrote:I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts.
qf789 wrote:Williamsb747 wrote:oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
The order has sort of been announced ,up to 12 A35Ks, a while back. But the final date for the order to be placed and slots to be secured is march the 31st.
Williams-
No order has been announced, all they have done is chosen the preferred aircraft type
scbriml wrote:flipdewaf wrote:I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts.
It is exactly that, but some try to make it sound like a bigger deal than it really is.
From the QF release - Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes.
scbriml wrote:Scotron12 wrote:Just as a question: If QF did resort to hiring 400 pilots for PS, where would they come from and what training would be required?
As mentioned, 400 pilots are almost an airline on it's own.
Thanks to CoronaVirus, there are a lot of pilots out there looking for work. The timing is great for QF, less so for their current pilots.
Revelation wrote:VV wrote:Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.
flipdewaf wrote:VV wrote:oschkosch wrote:Any idea when QF announces that PS order for Airbus?
Considering the time to develop and to certify the modifications mentioned by Qantas in its press release, it is very likely they need to firm their order during the next six weeks.
They need to do it quickly if they want to start Project Sunrise operation in 2022.
I couldn’t read the press release on my phone but what were the modifications. I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts. Looks like they are having to more now? Very odd
....
VV wrote:Define "slight MTOW increase".
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/
The press realease says (emphasis added).
"Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes."
They add an additional fuel tank. It is not an Auxiliary Center Tank (ACT), but an additional tank. We do not know how it will be implemented (yet) and we do not know how much volume that additional tank will have.
I sincerely suspect they will have to do some serious engineering work.
In my opinion the timing for a start of service between Sydney and London in the first half of 2023 is very tight.
oschkosch wrote:VV wrote:Define "slight MTOW increase".
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/
The press realease says (emphasis added).
"Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes."
They add an additional fuel tank. It is not an Auxiliary Center Tank (ACT), but an additional tank. We do not know how it will be implemented (yet) and we do not know how much volume that additional tank will have.
I sincerely suspect they will have to do some serious engineering work.
In my opinion the timing for a start of service between Sydney and London in the first half of 2023 is very tight.
Well the definition of slight increase is unclear, since the statement comes from QF.
My guess is that Airbus might already have a lot of the engineering work completed. They have the ULR A350s that SG uses as a blueprint.
VV wrote:the A340-500
VV wrote:flipdewaf wrote:VV wrote:
Considering the time to develop and to certify the modifications mentioned by Qantas in its press release, it is very likely they need to firm their order during the next six weeks.
They need to do it quickly if they want to start Project Sunrise operation in 2022.
I couldn’t read the press release on my phone but what were the modifications. I had thought as previously mentioned that it was a slight MTOW increase and the addition of 1or 2 acts. Looks like they are having to more now? Very odd
....
Define "slight MTOW increase".
VV wrote:https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/
The press realease says (emphasis added).
"Airbus will add an additional fuel tank and slightly increase the maximum takeoff weight to deliver the performance required for Sunrise routes."
They add an additional fuel tank. It is not an Auxiliary Center Tank (ACT), but an additional tank.
VV wrote:We do not know how it will be implemented (yet) and we do not know how much volume that additional tank will have.
VV wrote:
I sincerely suspect they will have to do some serious engineering work.
VV wrote:maybe, not sure what the delivery slots could/would be.In my opinion the timing for a start of service between Sydney and London in the first half of 2023 is very tight.
oschkosch wrote:VV wrote:the A340-500
The A340-500??? Huh?
..
VV wrote:An ACT is an additional tank, but not all additional tank is ACT.
That is exactly why it was called Rear Center Tank (RCT) on the A340-500 for SIA.
Qf648 wrote:Revelation wrote:VV wrote:
Gee at those rates the second officers can get more money driving a mining truck, and I'll chuck their flights in for free.
Scotron12 wrote:Qf648 wrote:Revelation wrote:
Gee at those rates the second officers can get more money driving a mining truck, and I'll chuck their flights in for free.
Yeah! Was curious myself so did some online looking. Seems payscales quoted seem to be in the ballpark. Of course these would increase depending on seniority within the airline and the individual concermed. Who Im sure would not want to be a 2nd Officer for ever.
Mention was made that the exceptions are ME carriers and China, where the salaries are higher as Im sure the benefits are too.
Got no clue what tbe benefits are for driving a mining truck..I think flying an A350 beats it!
VV wrote:oschkosch wrote:My guess is that Airbus might already have a lot of the engineering work completed. They have the ULR A350s that SG uses as a blueprint.
Yes and no.
We do not know what the additional volume is. Depending on that volume the amount of engineering work can be quite different.
Although it is possible Airbus knows the required volume, it is still unclear how they would implemented it. Indeed on the A340-500 for Singapore there is a Rear Center Tank. However, I insist on the fact we do not know what the required fuel volume is. If the volume is huge then they may have to consider a slightly different solution.
In addition, the A340-500 has a metallic structure. Therefore Airbus needs to discuss with the regulators on a special condition for the said additional tank.
At this stage, I would say without any hesitation that an entry into service of SYD-LHR flight in first half of 2023 seems to be very optimistic.
smartplane wrote:...
Safe to assume Airbus, RR and QF have a good idea of the fuel requirements, technical solutions and timings. At this stage, they haven't seen the need to disclose to, or obtain approval from users on this site.
The modifications can't be all that great, as some of the aircraft offered already exist.
VV wrote:smartplane wrote:...
Safe to assume Airbus, RR and QF have a good idea of the fuel requirements, technical solutions and timings. At this stage, they haven't seen the need to disclose to, or obtain approval from users on this site.
The modifications can't be all that great, as some of the aircraft offered already exist.
I do hope you are right.
2023 is not too far anyway, so we will know relatively soon.
Let s meet again here in July 2023 to discuss about this case.
CriticalPoint wrote:Revelation wrote:VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.Scotron12 wrote:Gives a bit more detail on the economics for QF by going ahead.
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/
One point of interest:The UBS analysis and its revenue projections suggest Project Sunrise is viable and isn’t dependent on the outcome of a pay deal.
This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.
And:zeke wrote:They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect
... they have a track record of winning.
I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.
Those pay rates are terrible.
oldJoe wrote:VV wrote:smartplane wrote:...
Safe to assume Airbus, RR and QF have a good idea of the fuel requirements, technical solutions and timings. At this stage, they haven't seen the need to disclose to, or obtain approval from users on this site.
The modifications can't be all that great, as some of the aircraft offered already exist.
I do hope you are right.
2023 is not too far anyway, so we will know relatively soon.
Let s meet again here in July 2023 to discuss about this case.
Why hope that he is right ? Airbus knows very well about a timeline, see the A350-900ULR
VV wrote:oldJoe wrote:VV wrote:
I do hope you are right.
2023 is not too far anyway, so we will know relatively soon.
Let s meet again here in July 2023 to discuss about this case.
Why hope that he is right ? Airbus knows very well about a timeline, see the A350-900ULR
You know that the A350-900 EIS was delayed just like the 787, right?
Or perhaps the A330neo too.
So yes, they know how to manage timelines.
VV wrote:According to the press release Qantas has to form the order in March 2020.
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/
Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.
CriticalPoint wrote:
Those pay rates are terrible.
Revelation wrote:strikes don't work in a recession & with coronavirus having a long way to play out, there are now 1000s of pilots in Asia, getting no work & therefore no pay whatsoever.VV wrote:We are being told direct flight LHR-SYD is very attractive.
Actually we are being told LHR-SYD direct flights are only viable if passengers, airplane manufacturers and airline employees make financial concessions. Whether or not that is accurate is up for debate.Scotron12 wrote:Gives a bit more detail on the economics for QF by going ahead.
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london- ... -approval/
One point of interest:The UBS analysis and its revenue projections suggest Project Sunrise is viable and isn’t dependent on the outcome of a pay deal.
This suggests QF is using this opportunity to squeeze a concession out of the pilots, namely:Qantas says that if it cannot reach a deal with AIPA, it will approach pilots directly and offer terms. According to a report published overnight in The Financial Review, Captains would receive an annual base salary of USD$265,400, first officers would receive USD$175,370 and second officers would receive USD$86,680.
...
One of the sticking points is the salary for second officers on Project Sunrise flights. Qantas wants to pay future second officers less than it will pay existing second officers. AIPA isn’t happy with this.
And:zeke wrote:They have a history of doing that, either buying smaller airlines and expanding them to remove flying from mainline, Impulse, Network, using contractors like Cobham, Atlas, starting new airlines like Australian, Qantas Freight, Jetconnect
... they have a track record of winning.
I guess the real question is if QF's pilots will decide if they should resort to strikes or not.