QPC Briefing No. 53 2026
Qantas LHEA11 – Blank Lines
Blank Lines effectively transfer the financial and lifestyle risk associated with Qantas’ need for dynamic operational coverage onto pilots, creating significant roster instability and uncertainty of earnings.
While the April EA proposal provided some modest financial offsets, it ultimately fell short of delivering meaningful reform. From the initial surveys conducted before negotiations commenced through to the post-no-vote surveys, pilots consistently identified Blank Lines as a significant concern. Importantly, the post-no-vote feedback from both members and non-members confirmed that the changes proposed in the April offer did not go far enough.
In the first post-no-vote survey, 90% of all respondents raised Blank Lines, the most prevalent theme in the feedback, greater even than pay. 32% of respondents rated Blank Lines as their most important issue, ahead of pay at 30%.
When asked what the biggest issue with Blank Lines was, 36% of respondents cited loss of income, while 64% cited lack of roster stability and predictability of time off. 75% of carers stated that Blank Lines being incompatible with their caring responsibilities was the primary reason that they applied for a carer’s line. Further, 72% of all carers said that if the system provided greater stability and predictability, they would likely no longer need a carer’s line.
The AFAP released a dedicated briefing on
Blank Lines in March of this year.
The AFAP has made it a priority to pursue solutions in both the short and long term. However, we encountered significant resistance from Qantas, which did not appear to recognise the scale of the problem and maintained that Blank Lines are necessary to preserve stable pattern lines. We reject that position for two reasons.
First, airlines around the world with route networks and fleet structures comparable to Qantas operate without subjecting pilots to 56 days of roster uncertainty.
Second, Blank Lines are currently running at up to 20–30% across many categories, well above the 15% contemplated in RM19.3. At those levels, Blank Lines cannot reasonably be characterised as simply a mechanism for maintaining pattern-line stability.
The vast majority of pilots also expressed a clear expectation that a renegotiated agreement would be reached within 6–12 months. This presented the AFAP negotiating team with a difficult choice. Given the widespread resistance to Blank Line reform across various areas of the business, attempting to completely redesign the system within EA11 was likely to extend negotiations well beyond that timeframe. Meaningful reform also requires careful development, modelling and testing to ensure that changes designed to address one problem do not create unintended consequences elsewhere.
Changing a long-established Qantas legacy practice will not be easy - however this is not a reason to accept the status quo and the AFAP will take up this challenge.
We have pursued a two-stage approach: reduce the impact of Blank Lines now, while creating a formal pathway to reform the system properly over the longer term. This balances the need for Blank Line reform with pilots’ expectation that they should have the opportunity to vote on a new agreement, and receive long-awaited pay increases, within a reasonable timeframe.
Short term changes
The proposed EA11 provides several immediate improvements for Blank Line holders.
Mitigating the Financial Impact of Blank Lines
First, pilots rostered a blank line will be paid divisor rather than MGH. Pilots will also receive a passive payment of 12 hours for each blank line performed.
In addition, all pilots will receive a further passive payment of 0.5 hours for each standby duty (this payment is also applicable for standbys on pattern lines). This is a marked improvement from the April offer.
These changes materially reduce the financial impact of Blank Lines in two ways. First, divisor pay improves the baseline earnings of blank line holders in bid periods where the divisor exceeds MGH. Combined with the 12-hour passive payment, this provides significantly greater protection against the earnings volatility associated with Blank Lines.
Second, the additional blank line and standby payments create a modest incentive for some pilots to bid for Blank Lines and standbys (such as pilots who live close to the airport), thereby reducing the rotation rate of Blank Lines for the remainder of the category. As a result, these changes have the potential to reduce the burden of standby on commuting pilots.
Improvements Work-Life Stability
The second element of the short-term Blank Line changes is aimed at improving work-life stability. Under the proposed EA11, pilots will have access to one block of three Golden Leave days, providing a guaranteed and uninfringeable period of time off. This gives pilots the ability to anchor part of their Blank Line or protect important personal commitments with certainty.
Projected BLH and APLH pilots will also be able to bid for this block and, if subsequently awarded a pattern line, may relinquish the Golden Leave without drawing down their leave bank.
As an alternative to Golden Leave, pilots may elect to use high-priority X days. While these do not provide the same absolute protection, they can only be infringed at an Open Time priority much further down the allocation order, providing a substantially higher level of protection than ordinary X days. Pilots can therefore choose between these options for each Blank Line according to their individual circumstances and priorities.
Summary
These immediate changes do not eliminate the Blank Line problem or address fully pilots’ concerns. However, they are designed to make the existing system less financially punitive and provide pilots with greater control over their time while the longer-term reform work is undertaken.
Long term changes
The proposed EA11 also establishes a formal Blank Line Working Group (BLWG) comprising representatives of the AFAP, AIPA and Qantas.
The BLWG will be tasked with developing, modelling and testing alternative systems for providing operational coverage, including models used by airlines around the world and proposals developed by Qantas pilots themselves.
The AFAP has already commenced that work. We surveyed pilots on standby systems used by airlines such as Emirates, Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Virgin Australia and Jetstar. The AFAP have since also evaluated the British Airways system. Members have also put forward a range of proposals, including suggestions for adapting elements of those systems to the Qantas operation and alternative models developed from their own experience.
The EA11 provisions require Qantas to participate in the BLWG and provide assistance in assessing and testing proposals brought forward by the parties. The BLWG is not simply a forum to talk about Blank Lines, its purpose is to do the work required to develop a credible alternative.
We recognise how difficult it is to change long standing and entrenched processes at Qantas. We are also conscious that any replacement system must be properly tested to avoid unintended consequences for pilots. However, we believe there is a genuine opportunity to achieve generational reform. AFAP representatives are already undertaking further research and evaluation so that substantive work can commence as soon as EA11 commences.
Importantly, the proposed EA11 does not require pilots to wait until EA12 if a workable solution is developed sooner. The agreement allows a variation to the EA to be pursued during its life, subject to majority pilot approval though a ballot. The realistic and achievable objective is to have a replacement system developed, tested and ready for implementation in EA12.
Conclusion
The AFAP heard from pilots well before the April vote that Blank Lines were a huge issue for many Long Haul pilots. This was confirmed in post vote surveys. The inadequate treatment of Blank Lines in the April offer was one of the reasons the AFAP could not endorse that agreement. 66% of pilots then voted no, and that mandate materially strengthened the bargaining position that led to immediate material improvements to Blank Lines in the proposed EA11, and a formal mechanism to pursue longer term structural reform.
Short term solutions aim to ease the immediate pain of Blank Lines, while the BLWG group provides an opportunity for a complete redesign of the system over the longer term. This path recognises the need to change Blank Lines while still putting the EA back to a vote in a timely manner.
As always, the AFAP recommends that pilots assess the proposed EA11 in its totality and consider its impact across all areas of their employment. The reforms to Blank Lines are an important part of that assessment.
Questions and Feedback
If you have any questions or further feedback, please contact your AFAP Qantas Pilot Council representatives at qpc@afap.org.au, or the AFAP Legal and Industrial team, Executive Director Simon Lutton –
simon@afap.org.au, Senior Legal/Industrial Officer Patrick Larkins –
patrick@afap.org.au and Senior Legal/Industrial Officer Deanna Cain –
deanna@afap.org.au.
Regards,
AFAP Qantas Pilot Council
Michael Egan – Chair
Mark Gilmour – Vice-Chair
Rob Close – Secretary
Michael Armessen – Committee Member
David LaPorte – Committee Member
Josh Chalmers – Committee Member
Rob Gilmour – Committee Member