AFAP Qantas Pilot Council Briefing No.1 2025
Happy New Year to all our members and all non-members who have subscribed to these briefs. 2024 was a challenging but rewarding year for the QPC as we saw significant membership growth leading to expansion of the QPC while continuing negotiations for both hauls, introducing a full-time scheduling expert and resolving multiple grievance cases with the Company.
As our membership grows, we are able to harness the strength and expertise brought by our new members to offer more dedicated resources to Qantas members. Looking ahead into 2025, we have been working on a new AI based professional service app for members that will have significant capabilities. In the coming weeks we will reach the trial stage and thereafter will be able to share more information about these capabilities.
Short Haul
The rush to an in principle agreement before Christmas was disappointing for the QPC. Immediately before the ballot was put to pilots, the AFAP fielded a second survey based on the first in principle agreement. This survey demonstrated that a majority of pilots did not support the first in principle agreement. It showed pilots had issues surrounding the tight PCG window, the significance of the concessions being asked of them and felt the proposed structural changes were not sufficiently backed up by guarantees.
Our negotiations following the no-vote centred on these items. As flagged in previous briefs, we believe firmly in both union negotiation teams understanding each-other’s position to ensure we weren’t ‘played off’ each-other. Disappointingly, when we tried to arrange a meeting with the AIPA team, we received no reply, despite the team originally expressing interest. This made for a difficult negotiating environment with the Company.
We will provide an analysis of the changes in the second in principle agreement in the coming weeks. Our commitment, as ever, is to securing you the best possible outcome which satisfies the largest possible majority. Despite the lack of reply from AIPA in the lead up to the new in principle agreement, we still believe communication will be essential in the event of a no vote, and will again attempt to meet in such a circumstance.
Direct Entry FO
It is timely to remind pilots that your Union membership gives you access to a legal team of experienced, practicing lawyers and industrial officers who can provide expert legal advice on industrial and employment matters. In many instances the AFAP legal team will also seek external advice to ensure you are given the best information to make an informed decision.
The proposed SH EA contains some significant concessions, including direct entry First Officers (DeFO). The significance of this concession has been underplayed in online commentary. Often this commentary is unqualified and makes assumptions and assertions that fail to consider all the unintended consequences of the concession.
One such example is the assumption that the Company’s current hiring practice already demonstrates their ability to hire into SH directly and nullifies the significance of this concession. The legal advice we have received on this matter contradicts this assumption. The AFAP legal team has reviewed the contracts of DeFOs and prepared some advice on the matter as follows:
AFAP Legal Advice on the Lawfulness of the B737 Direct Entry Contracts
The AFAP is aware of a serious issue concerning pilots right to bid for a vacancy in accordance with clause 16.3 of the Qantas Airways Limited Pilots Long Haul Enterprise Agreement 2020 (LH EA).
Qantas has been issuing pilots with employment contracts that compel them to bid for a particular vacancy under threat of termination.
The relevant contract clause says:
In accepting employment I confirm that immediately upon commencing employment I am bidding for a vacancy as a First Officer B737 in [base] and that the Company may rely on this document as formally recording this bid and then awarding me such a vacancy.
I also acknowledge and accept that the Company in offering me employment as a Second Officer Under Training (SOT) has done so on the basis that I will submit this bid for the B737 and that should I seek to withdraw this bid it will be open to the Company to withdraw the offer of employment or, should I have already commenced employment, terminate my employment.
Clause 16.3 of the LH EA deals with how a pilot can express interest in a vacancy and bid for a specific role. The above clause is, in effect, forcing pilots to express interest in a role they may have no interest in. This is plainly antithetical to the ‘voluntary’ nature of a bid and, in our view, is coercive behaviour that may have significant legal ramifications for Qantas.
In particular, forcing pilots to bid for a vacancy against their will may contravene the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which protects employees from adverse action (such as termination) because they exercised a workplace right (such as exercising a preference to not bid for a vacancy).
Moreover, the direction by Qantas to bid for a vacancy would not be a lawful and reasonable direction, to which the affected pilots may have legal recourse either through common law civil proceedings and/or disputation grounded in the dispute resolution procedure in the LH EA.
At this stage, Qantas has avoided liability because every pilot has complied with the clause/direction so far. The AFAP does not endorse Qantas’ coercive approach to this matter and we reserve our right to take legal action. Qantas has been advised accordingly.
If you have any questions, please contact your AFAP representatives on the details below.
LH Negotiations
Long Haul negotiations continue with regular meetings. So far the meetings have covered only Company proposed pay table structures and some additional payments. These discussions have been slow because they contain complex changes. As we have learnt from previous EAs, complex changes need thorough analysis across all possible scenarios to prevent unintended consequences. We have not yet discussed any concessions proposed by the Company, and will brief members once the Company’s entire claims have been reviewed and understood. Our next meeting is scheduled for early February.
FRMS
FRMS continues to be a hot issue with many members getting in touch with the QPC having concerns around patterns and pattern changes. One such recent example was the publication of Manila patterns ex BNE that had successive night duties separated by minimal day-time rest. Some members raised this issue, which we subsequently escalated with the Company.
While the Company’s FRMS Principal Advisor was helpful and engaging, immediately implementing mitigations after the issue was flagged, he confirmed the patterns were compliant with the biomathematical model.
The AFAP have regularly expressed our concerns about the limitations of biomathematical models while its fundamental components and inputs are controlled by the Company and stakeholders are denied access to the model’s mechanisms, input and output data. We believe the system has significant limitations, often placing the risk management squarely on the pilots.
As academic studies show many pilots find it difficult to correctly make the decision to ‘call fatigued’, we view reliance on this risk mitigation strategy as entirely insufficient. Many pilots have started using sleep tracking wearables. These devices can often be extremely accurate at plotting sleep quality and readiness. While the most accurate judge of restfulness and sleep quality remains the pilots themselves, these devices can help confirm and support a pilot in the instance they are required to call in unfit for duty due to fatigue. It is timely to remind pilots that a condition of our licence makes us ultimately responsible when it comes to rest, and the gravity of this responsibility should not be taken lightly.
The QPC has now established a fatigue study team and are moving forward with planning and partnerships for the study which we hope to extend across all fleets. In the longer term, the QPC believes in data collection on the broader health implications of extended duties, back-of-the-clock operations and increased flying duties associated with the loss of night credits, the introduction of ULR and the introduction of FRMS. It is our belief that changes in previous EAs allowing for more Company flexibility with crew use failed to adequately assess the health implications on crew. Our LHEA log of claims contains claims for data access and more robust systems to mitigate fatigue. We hope the Company will approach crew health and fatigue with the seriousness it requires.
Questions
For any enquiries regarding matters at Qantas please contact any of us or the AFAP legal and industrial team of Senior Legal/ Industrial Officer Pat Larkins (
patrick@afap.org.au), Senior Industrial Officer Chris Aikens (
chris@afap.org.au), or Executive Director Simon Lutton (
simon@afap.org.au).
Regards,
AFAP Qantas Pilot Council
Michael Egan – Chair
Mark Gilmour – Vice- Chair
Daniel Kobeleff – Secretary
Michael Armessen – Committee Member
David LaPorte – Committee Member
Josh Chalmers – Committee Member
Rob Close – Committee Member