From the President | SHEA - 23 Sept '24

From the President 

G’day everyone,
 
One of the challenges of being AIPA President is striking the balance between representing the mood of our membership, with providing leadership at the appropriate time. It is a balance I have given consideration to every day since nominating for the role of President. Representing the diverse range of opinions and sometimes conflicting interests within our membership can be challenging. Some days are no-win situations.

It is with that awareness that I write the following words, which I believe have the best interests of all our membership at heart.

From the outset I would like to thank our membership for taking a considered view of the proposed SH EA deal.

Many of you have availed yourself of the facts AIPA has provided. On the eve of this important vote, I detect a sense of calm and consideration from many of you. It feels as though many AIPA members are parking the anger and emotion and viewing the deal through a lens of clarity and reason.

I do not dismiss the fact that many of you do feel angry. We are all aware of the way we were treated by the Company during the Joyce era. The damage done to the relationship between the pilot body and the Company is immense. It has presented incredible challenges to the EA team and other AIPA volunteers.

I have communicated this anger very clearly with the CEO of Qantas and other members of the Qantas executive across the past 18 months. I communicated it clearly with the Chairman as recently as last week’s AIPA annual dinner. I get it.

But when talking about this EA with many of you I have certainly detected a shift towards rational reasoning, which is a credit to you.

There have been social media echo chambers espousing strong positions, predominantly negative. Some of these positions are from people who have limited experience in Short Haul operations or limited to no understanding of the history of the SHEA, and certainly limited understanding as to how various pieces of the proposed EA fit together to deliver a total greater than the sum of its parts. Many opinions are being put forward with no understanding of the Australian industrial relations regime which these negotiations must operate within.

Sadly, there have also been some false and vile claims made about AIPA volunteers. The strident nature and tone of many of these conversations has stifled genuine debate. It has forced many who have viewed this proposed EA with more reason and consideration, to go underground. No one wants to stand up for a view which makes them the subject of online attacks or vicious whispering campaigns. I understand why many who are supportive of the deal have decided not to jump into that viper pit.

So, I would simply say: it is ok to vote ‘yes’. These noisy forums have warped the narrative and suppressed genuine debate. But if you feel that this deal provides certainty and improved working conditions for you and your family, then vote ‘yes’ without judgment.

Vice President Jason Lipson provided many reasons why you should consider voting ‘yes’ in last week’s Insights. If you haven’t had the chance to read it, I encourage you to do so. Jason has worked tirelessly on behalf of Short Haul pilots for many years and has spent more than a decade and a half operating on the B737 through both good times and bad. His experience, and that of many others on the fleet, is telling. Frequently, long serving Short Haul members ask, ‘how did you manage to negotiate…..’ and then DPC60, MGH60, pattern Credit guarantee…  fill in the blank space.

The so-called ‘wage freeze’ was how. It has enabled us to significantly increase remuneration for the overwhelming majority of pilots, whilst leaving the Company with its headline wage policy. It is the quintessential win-win: the Company can tell the market it has achieved its wage policy, while the pilots’ remuneration increases beyond what it would have with a straight 4 x 3% (or even 4 x 5%). In addition, we embed critical improvements to working life which have been sought for decades.

As Jason pointed out last week, it is important to remember that this contract has evolved from a 12-page document borne from the ashes of the 1989 pilots’ dispute. Since 1992, AIPA has incrementally improved this contract through eight EA negotiations. But the changes put forward in this deal represent a seismic shift in structural protections for our SH pilots.

I’m conscious most of us were not part of the 1989 dispute. I, for example, was 18 and just learning to fly when the dispute reached its peak. But I well remember the rhetoric that the pilots deserved better; that the airlines were not listening; that the pilots needed to show the airlines they were serious and wouldn’t take no for an answer. At the time, AIPA wisely looked at it as a lot of noise with very little IR strategy and stayed away.

Instead AIPA chose to fight smart: working within the legislative framework and engaging constructively with Qantas. The significant anger directed towards AIPA for that stance is similar to the anger directed towards AIPA today. But AIPA played the IR regime smarter than others. Had AIPA chosen to follow the domestic pilots in a flawed industrial strategy, I suspect the LHEA would not be the robust document it is today.

I have never operated under the SHEA, but 16 years of operating the B767 domestically have seen me cross the path of B737 pilots enough to understand the pain points that have irritated the SH pilots since 1990. This proposed EA fundamentally changes working conditions for the better.

Does it provide absolute certainty? No. Because pattern credit guarantee from roster publication required AIPA to open the door on contactability, which is something you told AIPA in no uncertain terms not to do. But with 92% of flight cancellations last year being captured by the PCG48 window, this structural change is an excellent starting point. Would I have liked PCG to include being displaced as a result of training outside the current PCG window? Yes. Was AIPA prepared to accept the increased contactability that would have been required? No. The issue of being displaced due to training is something we would absolutely look to introduce in subsequent EAs if we have the very strong and firm foundations of PCG under the proposed SHEA in place.

The interesting question is allocating value to multiple elements of the deal. Some of it is obvious, with tangible pay percentage increases, pay bands, and pay for reserve. Other elements are more nuanced. DPC60 will likely provide additional money on many disruptions, but equally it may provide more time at home due to more efficient patterns. Both should be viewed as a win.

Pattern Credit Guarantee will protect potential loss of flying. Some argue this isn’t a pay rise and I can understand that assertion. But there is a value to not having to sacrifice a day off to pick up extra flying in order to compensate for what’s been lost. Does it help you to be present for a child’s sporting triumph or a special moment with family? There is value in that!

Your survey responses told us that achieving a work/life balance was an important part of this EA. For those seeking extra remuneration it is still possible to chase the additional flying. It could, in fact, be easier to attain, as the protection of PCG could mean fewer pilots chasing additional hours.

A combination of DPC60 and PCG means that on a four-sector day where storms are causing havoc up and down the east coast, a decision to extend means extra money, and if the next day’s flying is jeopardised, it is no longer a consideration. It means focussing safely on the job at hand, without worrying about the price you are paying.

I have found it interesting that, for some, this vote may be the first real opportunity to express emotion, and direct anger at the halls of QCC. But alleviating that resentment and anger from years of being treated poorly is likely to take years of better behaviour from the Company. We have expressed that to the Company clearly. But metaphorically flipping them the bird by voting ‘no’ could be much more of an own goal.

And so, the question remains: would voting ‘no’ achieve a better deal? I honestly don’t know, but AIPA’s experts from our professional negotiating consultants and our experienced in-house legal team all say the only thing certain from a ‘no’ vote is uncertainty.

Depending on how the process goes from here and whether it ends up in a determination, the problems may not be solved. It would be interesting (and not in a good way) to see how a Fair Work Commission process would rule on how the SH rostering system should interact with concepts such as PCG, DPC60, paid reserve, etc. More likely the FWC would deliver a similar increase in remuneration to that already proposed, with none of the structural changes Short Haul pilots desire.

I also want to address the notion that it is bad practice to say ‘yes’ to the first offer. The reality is that AIPA rejected the first offer from the Company last year, not long after negotiations opened. It was after rejecting that first offer that bargaining really got down to business and finding ways to increase remuneration while leaving the Company with its wage policy began. So, it is wrong to say this is the first offer. It is in fact closer to offer number thirteen, thanks to your AIPA SHEA negotiating team.

Of course, you are still free to vote ‘no’. AIPA will respect a ‘no’ vote and manage it accordingly. But we need to be clear: the path to any potential new deal is uncertain and time consuming and is a risk which needs to be balanced with the deal on offer now. It is also important to be realistic as to what happens next. Discussions with the Company have confirmed that there are no other proposals being considered, despite the assertions of others. More than 50 hours were spent meeting with the Company and drafting the proposed EA. It has been an extensive process. There simply are, and never have been, any other unions in the room.

Whilst this EA deal isn’t perfect, it represents a revolutionary leap forward and addresses many of the things you wanted changed from the survey feedback. Frequently I hear the refrain from SH pilots that they don’t have the conditions of Long Haul. Concepts such as DPC60, paid reserve and PCG with very limited contactability, present an opportunity that has not existed for thirty years - all things SH pilots believe should always have existed- to move towards LH conditions.

The final point worth discussing is the A220. I know many pilots wanted more certainty regarding the plans for the domestic network. When the Project Winton SHEA variation was taking place in 2022, AIPA pushed hard to engage on the A220 but was rebuffed and every time I met with the Company from then, that did not change. But with a new CEO came a new opportunity to put forward the case for integrating the A220 operation into the mainline operation. At every meeting I’ve had with Qantas senior management since June 2023 I have discussed the issue of A220s and those discussions have been somewhat encouraging. At least it is now being entertained. Whilst I had hoped that the A220 operation could be included in the SHEA, the reality of the multitude of steps Qantas needs to consider prior to making that decision mean it is not ready to engage on that as part of the SHEA right now. A likely part of the concern is in fact the uncertainty around the SHEA.

The one thing I do know is that a ‘no’ vote would push any meaningful discussion about the A220 to the side, until the EA is resolved either through a ‘yes’ vote or Fair Work determination. However, a ‘yes’ vote enables discussion about the A220s to be initiated almost immediately.

At the end of the day, however, whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’, I respect your vote. As President I will continue to represent the best interests of our membership to the best of my ability.
 
Safe flying,
 
Captain Tony Lucas
AIPA President