Downgraded from Business Class on Qantas due to "tech crew" [pilot] Travel Requirements

[serfty]

@Pushka I was just listening to Melbourne radio and caught the tail end of a bit of chatter about a male Qantas pax very disgruntled yesterday at being bumped from J to Y for a "young tech person as it was part of his contract " .....anyone else get the full story?

It was 3AW rumour file.

I will confirm but ISTR the the affected PAX being a veteran.

 

[Flyfrequently]

Not me! Wow, like I said, the thing of the future. Points upgraders beware.

I got the impression it was someone the radio host knew/knew of.....

More information - it was on 3AW Rumour file @ 7.05 -7.15 am
AW have put a call out to Qantas for comment and will have more on it tomorrow .....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not me! Wow, like I said, the thing of the future. Points upgraders beware.

Not just points upgraders. If the cabin was full with $ J fares, two full paying pax would have been moved!

 

[prozac]

Not me! Wow, like I said, the thing of the future. Points upgraders beware.

My feeling is if it involves a Qantas group EBA then the seats should never be sold in the first place, at least not until it is known if crew need to fly. If it involves a big customer account that has workers who also have an EBA condition where the worker must fly J (I have worked under such an EBA) then no passenger should be displaced. From her original description I still suspect @Pushka might have been bumped for a big customer account.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My feeling is if it involves a Qantas group EBA then the seats should never be sold in the first place, at least not until it is known if crew need to fly. If it involves a big customer account that has workers who also have an EBA condition where the worker must fly J (I have worked under such an EBA) then no passenger should be displaced. From her original description I still suspect @Pushka might have been bumped for a big customer account.

Bumping pax for a corporate client would breach QF’s terms and conditions, which say you can only be moved for operational or safety reasons. Pilots required for duty would be safety related.

It has been pretty established that these were tech crew.

The impact of this was harsh because of the connecting flight. In other circumstances those being downgraded could opt for a later flight in J. I don’t believe it’s workable to hold seats until departure in case urgent duty travel is required.

 

[equus]

My feeling is if it involves a Qantas group EBA then the seats should never be sold in the first place, at least not until it is known if crew need to fly. If it involves a big customer account that has workers who also have an EBA condition where the worker must fly J (I have worked under such an EBA) then no passenger should be displaced. From her original description I still suspect @Pushka might have been bumped for a big customer account.

Customers with EBA should not be a problem - when it is J0, they need to book another flight.
I doubt @Pushka being bumped could be such a scenario, as nobody other than Qantas is going to be able to overbook a full cabin.
The issue with the Qantas EBA is that these situations arise when they end up with a last minute need to position people due to IRROPS - and need to make a choice between over-sell, then bump someone, or have a whole plane somewhere else not going anywhere.

 

[muppet]

<snip>
Pilots required for duty would be safety related.

</snip>

Honestly I cannot see how this is true. I’m not across CASA regulations, but I doubt there is a safety-related requirement for pilots flying on duty travel to be in business class.

How would JetStar pax its pilots? How would Bonza?

It’s a negotiated term in the EBA that Qantas elected to agree to in exchange for something else (lower pay, rostering changes etc.). It’s all too easy to throw around the “its safety related” to avoid accountability in this industry.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Honestly I cannot see how this is true. I’m not across CASA regulations, but I doubt there is a safety-related requirement for pilots flying on duty travel to be in business class.

How would JetStar pax its pilots? How would Bonza?

It’s a negotiated term in the EBA that Qantas elected to agree to in exchange for something else (lower pay, rostering changes etc.).

Well… at a stretch I could fit it under operational/safety. I think the comfort of crew, the ability to work in a more peaceful environment, and not be interrupted by people needed to get out for the WC, or eating meals etc would lead to a better outcome?

 

[equus]

Honestly I cannot see how this is true. I’m not across CASA regulations, but I doubt there is a safety-related requirement for pilots flying on duty travel to be in business class.

How would JetStar pax its pilots? How would Bonza?

It’s a negotiated term in the EBA that Qantas elected to agree to in exchange for something else (lower pay, rostering changes etc.). It’s all too easy to throw around the “its safety related” to avoid accountability in this industry.

Operational or safety reasons. The need to move tech crew on duty would definitely meet the criteria of an operational reason, so enables Qantas to bump people. It is an EBA condition that tech crew on duty travel are in J - so within the T&C. Irrelevant if the reason that is in the EBA is or is not a real safety concern.

 

[muppet]

Operational or safety reasons. The need to move tech crew on duty would definitely meet the criteria of an operational reason, so enables Qantas to bump people. It is an EBA condition that tech crew on duty travel are in J - so within the T&C. Irrelevant if the reason that is in the EBA is or is not a real safety concern.

I was just commenting on the ‘safety related’ as I feel airlines cry wolf with safety to avoid criticism and accountability for their decisions/failures.

The reality is not safety it is simple, Qantas promised the business class seat to two people and had to pick a winner.

 

[Vic]

OPs and the other 2 were in the QP (no J lounge in ADL).

sorry late to the thread. My reading capacity is limited.
I hope someone made the point that there is a Chairman's lounge in adelaide. If these two were really important, what are they doing in the lounge with the riff raff?

 

[RooFlyer]

It has been pretty established that these were tech crew.

Except in the opinion of the OP, who was there - for reasons going beyond what they were called. Go back to the first 3 posts and some subsequent ones by the OP.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Except in the opinion of the OP, who was there - for reasons going beyond what they were called. Go back to the first 3 posts and some subsequent ones by the OP.

I think there was confusion that they were not pilots because they were referred to as Technical Crew. That could lead the layperson to think they were engineers, or something else. Cause otherwise you’d call pilots ‘pilots’.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think there was confusion that they were not pilots because they were referred to as Technical Crew. That could lead the layperson to think they were engineers, or something else. Cause otherwise you’d call pilots ‘pilots’.

Mindful of moderators direction but please re read first 3 posts of this thread. There are similar OP posts later. Not just because of what they were called.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was just commenting on the ‘safety related’ as I feel airlines cry wolf with safety to avoid criticism and accountability for their decisions/failures.

The reality is not safety it is simple, Qantas promised the business class seat to two people and had to pick a winner.

Point taken. I have always equated ‘operational’ to be ‘safety’. But this may be a case where ‘operational’ doesn’t directly equate to safety, although i’d argue it is semi-related.

‘operational’ cannot mean moving a passenger from one seat to another to accommodate a P1. Which is clearly not safety related, nor is it related to the operation of an aircraft.

 

[Princess Fiona]

My feeling is if it involves a Qantas group EBA then the seats should never be sold in the first place, at least not until it is known if crew need to fly. If it involves a big customer account that has workers who also have an EBA condition where the worker must fly J (I have worked under such an EBA) then no passenger should be displaced. From her original description I still suspect @Pushka might have been bumped for a big customer account.

It has already been established by QF that the pax were tech crew.
Let’s not revisit this again.

 

[NM]

My understanding from the OP post was they were tech people, possibly from the mines. Others can post their interpretation but this is what the OP said.

That assumption has been well and truly clarified. They were pilots on duty travel. Also clarified by Qantas in an email to @Pushka. Their appearance and conversation, and the use of specific terms describing them by airport staff may have lead to alternate considerations at the time, but this point is no longer in dispute.

 

[NM]

I was just commenting on the ‘safety related’ as I feel airlines cry wolf with safety to avoid criticism and accountability for their decisions/failures.

The reality is not safety it is simple, Qantas promised the business class seat to two people and had to pick a winner.

I would posit that it is likely the pilots union, negotiating the EBA between the pilots and Qantas, that suggested there is a safety requirement for pilots on duty travel to be accommodated in a higher cabin if one exists on the aircraft, and Qantas agreed to that requirement as part of the EBA negotiations. Once the link to safety is made by one of the negotiating parties, it would be difficult to argue that it is not a safety issue without being open to claims of negligence if there was ever a safety-related event resulting from the decision.

 

[Pushka]

My feeling is if it involves a Qantas group EBA then the seats should never be sold in the first place, at least not until it is known if crew need to fly. If it involves a big customer account that has workers who also have an EBA condition where the worker must fly J (I have worked under such an EBA) then no passenger should be displaced. From her original description I still suspect @Pushka might have been bumped for a big customer account.

This is exactly my thought. Or at worst addressed prior to boarding. Our upgrade was around 12 hours prior. We were at the airport early, as we do. As were the two men who were involved. There was ample opportunity for someone in the QP to rectify, then again at scanning prior to boarding, for this to be sorted. But no. Around 30 minutes after the flight was due to depart were we taken off. That still remains my stick point.

 

[JohnK]

Honestly I cannot see how this is true. I’m not across CASA regulations, but I doubt there is a safety-related requirement for pilots flying on duty travel to be in business class.

How would JetStar pax its pilots? How would Bonza?

Do Virgin pilots fly up front?

The customer should trump EBA. Customers are the only reason airlines exist.