# QANTAS  Grounds all Flights



## Calliope (29 October 2011)

QANTAS has locked out international pilots, baggage handlers and engineers, essentially bringing its operations to a halt.



> We are locking out until the unions withdraw their extreme claim and reach agreement with us,” Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told a press conference today.
> 
> Mr Joyce said his hand had been tipped by the impossible demands of the three unions.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...unds-all-flights/story-e6frg95x-1226180313383



The unions destroyed Ansett. They are on track to destroy Qantas


----------



## JTLP (29 October 2011)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...passengers-today/story-fn7x8me2-1226180030416

It's actually all flights now. Good old unions - if they're all for the jobs they wouldn't be destroying QANTAS would they?


----------



## robusta (29 October 2011)

*Re: QANTAS Grounds all Flights*

From a investment viewpoint maybe the returns would be better if they sold everything and put the capital in the bank. The unions may hurt Qantas their members and the travelling public but IMO the shareholders would be better off not throwing money into this business. Same goes for Virgin as well.


----------



## Whiskers (29 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The unions destroyed Ansett. They are on track to destroy Qantas




Not quite true.

Rupert Murdock controlled Ansett, put off renewing aircraft and the like to milk it of cash and sell out of it before the extent of the emptiness of the Ansett shell became apparent.

I have little time for TWU in particular in particular, but to echo Joyce's commentary is folly for me at this stage. Joyce seems more of the confrontational Murdock style than a people person Branson for example... ie whereas Murdock would deliberately milk companies of their assets, especially cash, before letting them go broke, Joyce is more likely to just cause collateral damage to get his way.

I want to have a closer look at who actually controls Qantas, literally through the share register and or who Joyce might be playing in favor of, before casting aspersions.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2011)

Jetstar is still operating.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ted-capacity-this-weekend-20111029-1mpiw.html


----------



## trainspotter (29 October 2011)

Alan Joyce gets a 71% pay increase and now pays himself 5 million dollars a year. The airline was losing 15 million a week from industrial action. The workers were asking for $1 per hour payrise. The airline since being grounded is losing 20 million dollars a day. The pilots association was not involved in the dispute. It is now. 

And this is the Unions fault?? The blame lies squarely at Alan Joyces feet. DYOR.


----------



## kavla1970 (29 October 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Alan Joyce gets a 71% pay increase and now pays himself 5 million dollars a year. The airline was losing 15 million a week from industrial action. The workers were asking for $1 per hour payrise. The airline since being grounded is losing 20 million dollars a day. The pilots association was not involved in the dispute. It is now.
> 
> And this is the Unions fault?? The blame lies squarely at Alan Joyces feet. DYOR.




$1? That's it.


----------



## trainspotter (29 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> $1? That's it.




YES ..... the lowly paid workers are on $20 per hour. They wanted a 3% pay increase same as the Customs officials plus some benefits totalling an extra $1 per hour. 

Same staff that helped them to a $534 million dollar profit last year as well.

http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/pg/2/fi903767.htm;jsessionid=CEB361080C75CD102F643E85ED74A2ED


----------



## startrader (29 October 2011)

That little creep is destroying the airline.  How he still has job I just don't know.  He is feeding lies and disinformation to the media who are printing it verbatim as they want those advertising dollars to keep coming in.


----------



## Tim Canberra (29 October 2011)

The question now is whether or not to buy Qantas shares on Monday.  I'm assuming there may be a trading halt and/or price plummet.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2011)

robusta said:


> From a investment viewpoint maybe the returns would be better if they sold everything and put the capital in the bank. The unions may hurt Qantas their members and the travelling public but IMO the shareholders would be better off not throwing money into this business. Same goes for Virgin as well.



Perhaps not as simple as that.  Qantas is one of the essential Australian icons.
We need to have a national carrier.

Maybe take into account that Virgin staff are not nearly as well paid as their equivalents in Qantas.

Perhaps Richard Branson has the personal charisma and capacity to carry people with him and this is something Mr Joyce lacks.


This evening ABC are reporting that the government has intervened.  About time.
This will be quite a test of the usefulness of Fair Work Australia.


----------



## Whiskers (29 October 2011)

I haven't been following this dispute very closely, but Joyce seems to think that because some of the demands by the unions are outside industry norms, he will win with a return to work order.

That's the folly of his reasoning, I think. If everything stayed within industry norms, nothing would ever change. 

All it says to me is Joyce is not prepared to be a trend setter in employment conditions like some other successful companies. He sees lower employment costs by overseas recruitment and provision of maintaince services etc as the only solution to competitive market forces. We all know about the compromise in safety and the worsening safety record from Qantas in recent years. 

I wouldn't rule out other unions joining in now as a matter of principle, maybe even an ACTU complete shut down of Qantas and it's associates. 

From the Labor Gov point of view, this could be the final nail in their coffin if they support Joyce. The ACTU will further dissociate themselves from the ALP and maybe launch one hell of a campaign against the ALP come next election... and I think Labor knows it... and know they can't afford it.

I'm a bit curious of support of Joyce by insto's, in the light of opposition by retail investors and the increase in the share register of the likes of Franklin Resources Inc. and it's affiliates with the timing of Joyce's announcement immediately after the AGM. 

With Joyce seemingly having a preplanned strategy, the Gov pissed off that it wasn't consulted, an emergency FWA hearing set, the ACTU meeting to consider it's position... it's going to be an interesting couple of days with someone ending up with egg in their face.

Since Qantas was still running at a profit, albeit a reduced profit, I'm wondering whether their grounding of the fleet and subsequent application to the FWA will be considered an abuse of the FWA act. It's a hell of a risky move by Joyce.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Maybe take into account that Virgin staff are not nearly as well paid as their equivalents in Qantas.
> 
> Perhaps Richard Branson has the personal charisma and capacity to carry people with him and this is something Mr Joyce lacks.



You've hit the nail on the head there.

The airline business is a tough one and that is no secret. Virgin management have clearly done a good job of keeping the staff on side and making a go of it whereas Qantas management is a comparative failure.

In all seriousness and looking at other occupations and the level of responsibility involved, I'd value the true worth of the Qantas CEO at $30 per hour. He's a trouble making dud pure and simple. Worth a bit more than a truly unskilled worker perhaps, he does have some skills, but nowhere near as valuable as someone who can actually fly a plane or even fix one. He clearly lacks the ability to resolve conflict, indeed he seems to be doing the exact opposite.

I've seen similar scenarios in a few smaller businesses before and my guess is that Qantas simply won't exist at all in a few years time if management keeps going the way they are. Whilst Qantas is focused on infighting and all this strife, rivals are just getting on with it and focusing on running the business. That alone gives rivals a massive strategic advantage over Qantas - they are focused on growing the business, Qantas is focused on managing decline. 

End the fight with the unions, stop all this argument for the sake of argument, then they might have a chance of turning it around. But it's not going to be good whilst Qantas management are determined to whack the unions over the head for the sake of it.

As I posted a while ago on the Virgin thread, I'd quite willingly pay more to fly Virgin than I'd pay to fly Qantas and the reasons why are a no brainer really. Why take a chance with old aircraft and unhappy staff (likely to make errors...) when there's an alternative that is simply getting on with the job of flying from A to B with comparatively few problems?

Qantas is a classic case of marketing based on past glories unfortunately. For those who only ever fly with them, all seems well. But those who also fly with the main domestic competitor will be well aware that Virgin have made a lot of improvements to their service over the past few years and are now a serious alternative rather than the "cheap" airline they were a few years ago. In short, they've taken note of what customers want and are getting on with the job of running an airline. Likewise there are plenty of good international airlines as well.

As for Qantas being a "national" airline - there's a pretty clear lesson with things "too big to fail" and that is that they go horribly wrong under under private ownership for the simple reaons that the fundamental principles of capitalism are undermined by the virtual certainty of a government bailout should things go wrong. If government is going to carry the risk then we may as well just nationalise it and be done with it.


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2011)

Julia said:


> This evening ABC are reporting that the government has intervened.  About time.
> This will be quite a test of the usefulness of Fair Work Australia.




Fair Work Australia is biased towards the unions. I agree with Peter Reith. There is no place for government intervention in industrial disputes, especially a Labor Government. When the unions want to take control of a company (as they did with Ansett) the company then becomes non-competitive.


----------



## Ferret (30 October 2011)

Government should cancel Joyce's work visa and put him on the first (non-Qantas) flight back to Ireland!


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Not quite true.
> 
> Rupert Murdock controlled Ansett, put off renewing aircraft and the like to milk it of cash and sell out of it before the extent of the emptiness of the Ansett shell became apparent.




The Unions killed off Ansett 



> The unions were fully aware of the arrangements at Virgin Blue which allowed it to operate at costs 40 per cent below Ansett's. But when Mr Toomey, CEO of Air NZ/Ansett, came to the unions six months ago with an agenda to make the company more competitive with Virgin Blue, he was spurned. Even when the firm went bankrupt, the unions continued their bloody-mindedness. They initially blocked Qantas from taking Ansett's planes by demanding that it match Ansett's more generous wages and conditions.




http://www.ipa.org.au/news/452/the-demise-of-ansett/pg/3


----------



## todster (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The Unions killed off Ansett
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ipa.org.au/news/452/the-demise-of-ansett/pg/3




Gut Qantas to promote Jetstar.
Nick Xenephon talked about this a while back you should read more.


----------



## drsmith (30 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for Qantas being a "national" airline - there's a pretty clear lesson with things "too big to fail" and that is that they go horribly wrong under under private ownership for the simple reaons that the fundamental principles of capitalism are undermined by the virtual certainty of a government bailout should things go wrong. If government is going to carry the risk then we may as well just nationalise it and be done with it.



What's that in the distance after the the flood levy ?

Is it a bird ?

Is it a plane ?

Is it a Qantas levy ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The Unions killed off Ansett



My experience with unions tells me that it takes rather a lot to actually start a dispute and that they aren't usually completely one sided.

It reminds me of a far simpler situation as follows. In short, workers used to drive company cars home each day. Then management decided that this was not an entitlement so they would end commuter use of vehicles. The bottom line is that it ended up costing more to lease overnight parking space than it used to cost to have employees drive them home. Needless to say the unions got involved and this is a classic example of defective management - wasting money and upsetting the unions as well for zero gain to the company. 

Things like that happen an awful lot, and I suspect the Qantas issue has more to do with management trashing the Qantas brand than anything about wages and conditions. I could be wrong, but the entire management strategy seems to involve a race to the bottom - something that other airlines are already moving away from because it isn't overly profitable.


----------



## startrader (30 October 2011)

John Borghetti used to work for Qantas and was passed over in favour of Joyce for the top job.  He left after six months "after seeing the company was going in a direction he didn't want to go" and was offered the CEO job at Virgin.  Since then he has changed the name of the airline, struck international alliances with major airlines, such as Singapore Airlines, amongst many other changes.  Staff morale is very high and the staff love him.

There couldn't be a more stark contrast with him and Joyce and I never see this mentioned in any of the media.   Part of being a good manager is to manage your staff well and clearly Joyce is doing the opposite of this.

Joyce's goal is to get rid of Qantas entirely and only have a low cost carrier or drive the share price down so low that there is a private equity bid for the airline that he will profit from.

That is rubbish that he keeps sprouting about Qantas being uncompetitive and not making money and the pilots being overpaid. Also they are not being paid anything like the figures that are being printed in the papers.  I keep reading that pilots working for overseas companies are paid peanuts and so the Qantas pilots should be too but this is just completely untrue.  I have brothers flying for two very well known overseas companies and they are on huge money.


----------



## noco (30 October 2011)

The three monkeys are in panic mode. 

The unions are starting to flex their muscle too much still Gillard relaxed the IR laws.

Bring back "Work Choices".



http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/joyce-warned-of-shutdown/story-e6freqmx-1226180532310


----------



## nulla nulla (30 October 2011)

Three points:

1. Shutting down the Airline rather than continue to deal with the unions through negotiation and/or arbitration is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The international damage to the brand name is already growing;

2. When Corrigan, at Patrick, engaged in illegal activities in an attempt to destroy the waterfront unions, the truth eventually emerged from under the Reith spin and the High Court found in favour of the workers. Were is Corrigan now?  and

3. For the Qantas board (and Joyce) to ground the entire Qantas fleet now, with the negative flow on effects to the Australian economy in these times, is something the Government is likely to remember next time another international airline applies for access to routes the are restricted to protect Qantas.

If the Qantas board is so determined to move off shore, it may succed but it would appear they have not stopped to consider the ramifications to Qantas of the Australian domestic and international routes being opened up for more airlines. The Australian public would be the big winners with more cheap fares.

Maybe it is time for an overhaul of the Qantas board as well as time to send Joyce back to Air Lingus.


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2011)

I missed an old friends funeral because of a cancelled flight a couple of weeks ago. 

Missing a very good mates engagement tonight.


----------



## Eager (30 October 2011)

kennas said:


> I missed an old friends funeral because of a cancelled flight a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> Missing a very good mates engagement tonight.



While sympathetic, you obviously chose the wrong airline. This dispute has been going on for months now, and in my opinion, anyone who chose to book with them in that period was flirting with the risk of disruption. Why put yourself in that situation? 

------

I would really like to know what the total cost of the package over the life of the agreement that the unions are fighting for is, compared to the loss that Qantas is experiencing on a daily basis now. Surely there must be a point in time, a tipping point, when it is no longer worth Qantas holding out? Maybe that point has already passed, which explains the bloody-minded attitude of Joyce? 

I would also like to know how the dispute got to this level. There must have been an unwillingness, a disinterest even, to negotiate amicably over the years by one of the parties. Whichever side it was. 

Just to comment on something that was said earlier in the thread - normally the 'winner' in a FWA hearing is the party who initiates proceedings there, i.e. they drag the other party there kicking and screaming, normally for good reason.


----------



## prawn_86 (30 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I would really like to know what the total cost of the package over the life of the agreement that the unions are fighting for is, compared to the loss that Qantas is experiencing on a daily basis now. Surely there must be a point in time, a tipping point, when it is no longer worth Qantas holding out? Maybe that point has already passed, which explains the bloody-minded attitude of Joyce?




Yeh pretty simple maths to me. If Pay Raises < ongoing dispute costs, simply give them the raise and be done with it. Joyce got a raise this year, why shouldn't his staff?


----------



## breaker (30 October 2011)

Dick Smith on Macca this morning said that the government does'nt restrict other airlines enough and our wages cant compeat with OS airlines


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I would also like to know how the dispute got to this level. There must have been an unwillingness, a disinterest even, to negotiate amicably over the years by one of the parties. Whichever side it was.




The three unions have been working for months now to cause the greatest disruption to the travelling public, at no cost to themselves. Their reason for doing this was to demonstrate that the unions still run the country, after being empowered by Fair Work Australia. The last thing they wanted was for their bloody-mindedness to cost them pay.  

The QANTAS board said "You call that disruption...t*his is disruption."* The unions are now whining that they could lose pay, and are pleading to their mates in Government and Fair Work Australia and the ABC, to restore their normal status of bleeding QANTAS dry.


----------



## Eager (30 October 2011)

Fact is, Qantas kept walking away from the negotiating table. The Us and Them mentality comes from management. Hardly conducive to a happy and productive workplace. Qantas is a dinosaur company.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> In all seriousness and looking at other occupations and the level of responsibility involved, I'd value the true worth of the Qantas CEO at $30 per hour. He's a trouble making dud pure and simple. Worth a bit more than a truly unskilled worker perhaps, he does have some skills, but nowhere near as valuable as someone who can actually fly a plane or even fix one. He clearly lacks the ability to resolve conflict, indeed he seems to be doing the exact opposite.




I know you're an expert on management responsibility and consider the QANTAS CEO is worth little more than a baggage handler, but perhaps you should consider that the owners of QANTAS, the shareholders, of which I am one, voted overwhelming at the General Meeting to give Joyce a pay rise.


----------



## IFocus (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I know you're an expert on management responsibility and consider the QANTAS CEO is worth little more than a baggage handler, but perhaps you should consider that the owners of QANTAS, the shareholders, of which I am one, voted overwhelming at the General Meeting to give Joyce a pay rise.




I wonder if Dixon (previous CEO) would have done this, answer is no he moved the goal posts on the unions quite successfully with out burning the house down.


Calliope 1st rule in investing is never hold shares in an airline, 2nd rule never hold shares in an airline, they are without exception loss making business over the long run world wide and high risk at best.


----------



## LifeChoices (30 October 2011)




----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The Unions killed off Ansett
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ipa.org.au/news/452/the-demise-of-ansett/pg/3




You miss the point many others including on this forum have made about the workplace and management culture.

Murdock had a strangle hold of Ansett for a long time and had no interest in promoting it as a bigger and better airline. He did what he does best, strip assets via dubious if not illegal activity. 

At this point, do some research into what Franklin are doing on the share register and what their  business is.




Smurf1976 said:


> My experience with unions tells me that it takes rather a lot to actually start a dispute and that they aren't usually completely one sided.
> 
> It reminds me of a far simpler situation as follows. In short, workers used to drive company cars home each day. Then management decided that this was not an entitlement so they would end commuter use of vehicles.* The bottom line is that it ended up costing more to lease overnight parking space than it used to cost to have employees drive them home.* Needless to say the unions got involved and this is a classic example of defective management - wasting money and upsetting the unions as well for zero gain to the company.
> 
> Things like that happen an awful lot, and* I suspect the Qantas issue has more to do with management trashing the Qantas brand than anything about wages and conditions*. I could be wrong, but the entire management strategy seems to involve a race to the bottom - something that *other airlines are already moving away from because it isn't overly profitable*.




In my opinion and experience, you are pretty well on the money there Smurf.



nulla nulla said:


> Three points:
> 
> 1. Shutting down the Airline rather than continue to deal with the unions through negotiation and/or arbitration is *cutting off your nose to spite your face.* The international damage to the brand name is already growing;
> 
> 2. When* Corrigan, at Patrick, engaged in illegal activities in an attempt to destroy the waterfront unions, the truth eventually emerged from under the Reith spin and the High Court found in favour of the workers*. Were is Corrigan now?  and




Yeah, a big risky move by Joyce. Personally, regardless of possible attempts (including the posssible engagement of the like of Franklin Resources Inc) to lobby and cause law changes etc to restructure the Qantas Articles of Association, I also feel Joyce is cutting off his nose to spite his face. 



> If the Qantas board is so determined to move off shore, it may succed




It won't succeed without changes to it's Articles... and it will take a change in Law (The Qantas Sale Act)... where you might pre plan a strategy with the involvement of  someone like the Franklin group.

The latest I heard is the FWA has adjourned and will consider the timing and circumstances by Qantas to ground the fleet and whether such action was illegal.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> You miss the point many others including on this forum have made about the workplace and management culture.




No you miss the point. I agree with Peter Costello. When Gillard, Combet and Shorten set up their union dominated Fair Work Australia, it was with the express intention of creating the type of situation which is now happening with QANTAS.

The industrial actions taken by the unions are exactly what FWA had in mind, i.e. to force a company to give in to the unions and risk the viability of the  union run business. The alternative was to hold out and incur the loss of millions in disruptions into the future, and eventually destroy the company 

From Labor's point of view their policies are working.

It is reminiscent of the time when Labor and the unions tried to destroy the waterside industry.

Remember this;

 "They reckon we used to run the country a while back … I reckon it wouldn't be bad if we did run it." 
Greg Combet, ACTU secretary


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

The section of the Qantas Constitution that is blocking Joyce from sending more work and basing more operations overseas.




> 1.3 Location of Principal Operational Centre
> 
> 
> Of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled international air transport services (for example, facilities for the maintenance and housing of Aircraft, catering, marketing, flight operations, training and administration), the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal centre of operations of Qantas.[Qantas Sale Act s.7(1)(h)]





The other point to remember in the whole argument about operating costs, the type of operations and base of operations is that Qantas is the Australian National Airline... protected by law.

The main consideration in any Industrial or Legal action is whether Qantas is being run (by management) in the 'national interest'. The national interest is to provide a safe and adequate service for the Australian public and in particular our leaders, (Gov, and representatives) where there is no obligation by any other carrier to to so.

If excess competition (ie cheap flights) was damaging Qantas's ability to survive, the appropriate action is for the Gov to limit approvals for other, supposedly cheaper overseas airlines to operate in and into the country.

By definition, contrary to Joyce's assertion and wishes, if most of Qantas maintaince, operations and staff were based offshore, it simply would not be able to guarantee it's ability to meet it's obligations as the national carrier.

I would expect that grounding the national carrier as a tool for industrial leverage is not only not in the national interest... but effectively and legally against the national interest.


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> No you miss the point.




Are you sure it's not the pain of your investment decision bias clouding your judgement!?

Read posts by Smurf and Julia in particular again, to hopefully get some insight into the sort of trivial, and counter productive decisions poor management makes that irritates employees, lowers their income and often costs the company more anyway... cut off their nose to spite their face... to use the expression someone used previously.

Re your argument about the unions trying to control Qantas, or at least re maintenance and employment conditions, that is certainly true. BUT, there is more to it than you portray.

I understand the union's have previously considered launching legal action into whether Qantas has breached it's legal obligations to be principally based in and act in the Australian national interest. See previous post.

While I don't have much time for unions generally or the TWU in particular, one has to be able to see through your prejudices and bias to assess what is really happening... and more importantly, to make a just and equitable decision in all the circumstances, not the least of which is the prevailing law and in this case, the national interest.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Are you sure it's not the pain of your investment decision bias clouding your judgement!?




What's clouding you judgement?:dunno: Immaturity perhaps?



> While I don't have much time for unions generally or the TWU in particular, one has to be able to see through your prejudices and bias to assess what is really happening.




I can see through your  prejudices and biases. You are anti-business and pro-union. That put us on opposite sides.


----------



## Boggo (30 October 2011)

Not taking any sides here but just a few items to consider.

1. Alan Joyce gets paid $5 mill, Geoff Dixon got $10 mill and $12 mill in his last year.

2. How many of you can answer the items on this question.

To comply with individual union rules how many people does it take to push back -
1 - A Qantas 737
2 - A Qlink dash 8 (turbo-prop)
3 - A Jetstar A320
4 - A Virgin 737

The opposite side of the coin is this (and the govt are aware of this and condone it !)

A new Jetstar cadet pays $120,000 to get a position with Jetstar in Aust. After he finishes his training he gets told that there are no positions for him in Aust but there are vacancies in New Zealand. Cadet takes up position in NZ and shortly afterwards is told that he is needed in Aust on a temporary transfer.
Cadet now ends up back in Aust doing exactly what he should have been doing in the first place only difference is that he is now being paid a lower NZ wage and the company (QAN) does not have to pay compulsory superannuation.

The cadet however still has to pay back his $120k loan as per the original agreement and in Aust dollars.

This was one of the rackets that was highlighted in the recent senate enquiry. The paperwork for all of this is still sitting on the desk of Anthony Albanese and he is quietly hoping that it all just goes away and that Senator Nick Xenophon also just goes away.

The bottom line is that Qantas is just going to be a holding company for numerous other companies in both NZ and Asia and the example above is an indication of how they will function.

The unions unfortunately are trying to go the other extreme and lock in for life practices that just cannot be viable in today's competitive market.

This is what a Jetstar Asia flight attendant looks like midway through a 20 hour shift, very Australian eh Qantas...


----------



## banco (30 October 2011)

If they are going to be the national airline and have special legislation they should go the whole hog and nationalise them.  They are in a twilight zone right now.


----------



## moXJO (30 October 2011)

This is an issue with Fair work Australia which is a complete union bullied joke. This is simply Joyce using what means he has at his disposal, regardless of it being popular or not.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I know you're an expert on management responsibility and consider the QANTAS CEO is worth little more than a baggage handler, but perhaps you should consider that the owners of QANTAS, the shareholders, of which I am one, voted overwhelming at the General Meeting to give Joyce a pay rise.



you have a right to your opinion but personally I would not hand a pay rise to someone who appears to be ruining the company. If he really does have some brilliant strategy as supporters will no doubt claim, then pay him _after_ he has successfully pulled off whatever he hopes to achieve not beforehand.

Fundamentally, the only asset that Qantas has which other airlines don't is reputation and a name. Recent events have substantially destroyed that, leaving Qantas to compete directly on cost with other airlines.

Do you honestly think it is a sensible idea to buy a decent restaurant with a good reputation and then turn it into a direct competitor to McDonald's when McDonald's already has an outlet nearby? You'll be lucky to sell a single burger unless yours are cheaper, and you're up against their massive scale of economy, marketing and so on. A far more sensible strategy would be to sell some other type of food, thus carving out a niche for yourself that won't have a huge corporation against you. 

I very much doubt that the average shareholder expected Joyce to go about substantially dismantling the company just as you don't expect a restaurant manager to throw out the fancy food and go into the burger business instead. Pay him once he's delivered, not whilst the company is in crisis, the brand (arguably Qantas' largest asset) is being trashed and anyone who wants to actually get from A to B is going with another airline or taking the train.


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

banco said:


> If they are going to be the national airline and have special legislation they should go the whole hog and nationalise them.  They are in a twilight zone right now.




Qantas was nationalised, ie wholy owned by the government for 50 odd years up to the early 1990's when it was privatised... but with an act of parliament and certain conditions mentioned previously, to ensure that it continued to serve as the 'National Carrier'.  

I think some people don't understand the duty and obligations of a 'National Carrier'.

If Qantas is released from the 'obligation' of the act as a national carrier, it will also loose a lot of business including subsidies to provide certain services that are tied to being the national carrier. The government will then have to appoint or start up another airline to carry the responsibility of national carrier.

Good stuff Boggo. There are a lot of tactics been going on that are, if not strictly against the law, then against the intent of the law and may well prompt a bit more than both sides bargained for... a complete revisiting, clarification and ammending of the Qantas act.


----------



## Boggo (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I think some people don't understand the duty and obligations of a 'National Carrier'.




Some more bits coming out now that could have an issue for QAN with both ASIC and the ASX, that being that a catering company in Darwin was aware of the likelihood of this grounding occurring.

If that is true and this was planned then they are in serious breach of the corporations law !

This is all going to end in tears and may be a catalyst for what is happening to so called 'Australian' companies.


----------



## Boggo (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> There are a lot of tactics been going on that are, if not strictly against the law, then against the intent of the law and may well prompt a bit more than both sides bargained for... a complete revisiting, clarification and ammending of the Qantas act.




The government by sitting on their hands while being fully aware of what has been happening, and by ignoring senate inquiry revelations are just making a rod for their own backs.

Its all about to bite them on the proverbial.


----------



## qldfrog (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I know you're an expert on management responsibility and consider the QANTAS CEO is worth little more than a baggage handler, but perhaps you should consider that the owners of QANTAS, the shareholders, of which I am one, voted overwhelming at the General Meeting to give Joyce a pay rise.



Good on you , I did not and does not want to be another sucker let these pigs feed at the troughs.When is the last time you got dividends (or value for your money?)

so I went out of qantas shares, and happy as you can image.
 you know perfectly that the votes allowing these pay rises are given by the super funds sucking fees from the very people these CEO will sack at will;
old boy's club I give you one you give me one..
A
I trade the market, believe in capitalism, own my own company but behaviors like Joyce's make me sick; I would not hire him at $30 an hour even for tending a parking booth as i would not trust him.
The very same people who lead the world in the current mess


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Qantas was nationalised, ie wholy owned by the government for 50 odd years up to the early 1990's when it was privatised... but with an act of parliament and certain conditions mentioned previously, to ensure that it continued to serve as the 'National Carrier'.
> 
> I think some people don't understand the duty and obligations of a 'National Carrier'.
> 
> If Qantas is released from the 'obligation' of the act as a national carrier, it will also loose a lot of business including subsidies to provide certain services that are tied to being the national carrier. The government will then have to appoint or start up another airline to carry the responsibility of national carrier.



In other words, Qantas is partly a privately owned airline and partly a contractor of sorts to government.

When government becomes involved with the private sector one thing is pretty certain - it ends in tears. The only question is whose tears they end up being - my guess is there's a taxpayer bailout in there at some point with the mere notion of such serving to encourage high risk behaviour by Qantas.

If it's a business then let it run as a business. If it's public service then run it as a public service. It's when public services have stock codes and shareholders that it all falls apart simply because the underlying ethos is conflicting.

I'm not at all convinced that we actually need a "national airline" but if we do then it would likely end up cheaper in the long run to just nationalise it and wear the cost of a low (zero?) return on capital rather than pay the huge bailout we'll otherwise probably end up paying in order to keep a privately owned "national" airline afloat.


----------



## nulla nulla (30 October 2011)

qldfrog said:


> ... behaviors like Joyce's make me sick; I would not hire him at $30 an hour even for tending a parking booth as i would not trust him.....




Probably close it down on what would be your most profitable weekend because the other attendants expected to be paid as well as him.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> you have a right to your opinion...




Thanks for your generosity. 



> *Fundamentally, the only asset that Qantas has which other airlines don't is reputation and a name*. Recent events have substantially destroyed that, leaving Qantas to compete directly on cost with other airlines.




You got that right.



> *Big, old, national champions such as Qantas can go from seeming invulnerability to disaster very quickly, often on the basis of labor disputes and uncompetitive cost structures.
> 
> Think PanAm, or Delta.
> 
> ...





*QANTAS is now on the slippery slope, and I'd be surprised if it could be turned around.* 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-modern-economy/story-e6frg76f-1226180606880


----------



## noco (30 October 2011)

It is a wonder Gillard and the Unions haven't blame Tony Abbott. It is always his fault when things go wrong for this government.


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2011)

noco said:


> It is a wonder Gillard and the Unions haven't blame Tony Abbott. It is always his fault when things go wrong for this government.




I also wonder if the T.W.U is going to fight as hard for the manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. I didn't see them pulling strikes on Bluescope and Onesteel when they shut down their furnaces or picketing the solar panel manufacturer that is sending its plant to China.
They would get more sympathy from me if they were consistent, the TWU are not jumping up and down about the carbon tax and the resultant loss of jobs to overseas manufacturers.
As per usual this Government is loading up the guns to shoot its own feet off, trying to have FWA cop the flack won't work. The FWA can't force a company to run in an unprofitable manner, only the Government can do that as was proved with Telstra.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I also wonder if the T.W.U is going to fight as hard for the manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. I didn't see them pulling strikes on Bluescope and Onesteel when they shut down their furnaces or picketing the solar panel manufacturer that is sending its plant to China.
> They would get more sympathy from me if they were consistent, the TWU are not jumping up and down about the carbon tax and the resultant loss of jobs to overseas manufacturers.
> As per usual this Government is loading up the guns to shoot its own feet off, trying to have FWA cop the flack won't work. The FWA can't force a company to run in an unprofitable manner, only the Government can do that as was proved with Telstra.




It will be interesting to see whether Fair Work Australia (which is the industrial mouthpiece of Gillard, Combet, Shorten etc) has the guts to terminate the industrial actions by the unions or just suspend them.


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...it would likely end up cheaper in the long run to just nationalise it and wear the cost of a low (zero?) return on capital rather than pay the huge bailout we'll otherwise probably end up paying in order to keep a privately owned "national" airline afloat.




The problem is governments want to have their cake and eat it too... eg sell off the asset for more disposable cash for election promises, but want the security of a national carrier at their beck and call as well.

I tend to think there is a need for a national carrier, especially while some of the world powers that we trade with and operate airlines in our country are still fairly parochial.

But that aside, I agree with your point that if the case for a national carrier is such that you need one, it seems that the cost is a secondary consideration and should be just worn as a part of the cost of a nationalised service, luxury, security or promotion, whichever is the case. 


Aparently, from a news snippet earlier, FWA is still hearing cross examination of Qantas witnesses, but intends or at least expects to make a decision tonight.

That nagging concern that this has all been orchestrated by Joyce and will end badly for him is getting worse the longer it takes for a FWA ruling.

My main issue is that if he wanted to end the dispute he 'legally' probably should have applied to FWA for a ruling first, to the effect that the union action was in some way illegal, grossly unreasonable or otherwise substantial burden risking the viability or obligations of Qantas, then if the union didn't abide by the umpire's decision, then he would have reasonable grounds to take exceptional measures like a lockout and close down the airline. 

As the FWA hearing progresses it appears the unions would propose a 120 day suspension of industrial action for negotions to continue. Qantas says it will only accept a termination of industrial action. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ed-to-ground-its-aircraft-20111030-1mpya.html

I cannot see how any court, least of all FWA can order a total ban of industrial action by a union in support of a log of claims, for ever and a day as Qantas wants. It simply goes against the free right to bargain and strike in a free society. The only exception is if it applied to a vital operator in a industry for the provision and protection of an essential service... which Qantas may be to some extent, BUT brought about the termination of that service by their own design and decision. 

I heard a US expert on TV earlier talking to one of the SBS news (middle east I think)affiliates, saying the general principle of taking a big stick to unions in this sort of conflict rarely works out well for management.


----------



## kavla1970 (30 October 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> View attachment 45016


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> * My main issue is that if he wanted to end the dispute he 'legally' probably should have applied to FWA for a ruling first*, to the effect that the union action was in some way illegal, grossly unreasonable or otherwise substantial burden risking the viability or obligations of Qantas, then if the union didn't abide by the umpire's decision, then he would have reasonable grounds to take exceptional measures like a lockout and close down the airline.




That would be fair enough if FWA was impartial. We've  been waiting for two years now for them to decide if Craig Thompson is a crook.

I'm surprised that so many posters on this thread are blaming Qantas management for not capitulating to the unions' demands. That would only have slowed down the airline's demise, not prevented it.


----------



## noco (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> That would be fair enough if FWA was impartial. We've  been waiting for two years now for them to decide if Craig Thompson is a crook.
> 
> I'm surprised that so many posters on this thread are blaming Qantas management for not capitulating to the unions' demands. That would only have slowed down the airline's demise, not prevented it.




Calliope. there are 8 ex union bosses on the FWA.

How fair is that?


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

noco said:


> Calliope. there are 8 ex union bosses on the FWA.
> 
> How fair is that?




Noco, I was accused by Whiskers of having "clouded"" judgement because I hold a handfull of Qantas shares. He also said; 

"one has to be able to see through your prejudices and bias to assess what is really happening."

You will notice that there has not been a word of criticism of bias or prejudice against the  FWA who are in the process of working out a way to give the unions a favourable decision and try to come out smelling like roses. Believe me, if they make the wrong decision Qantas is rooted.


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Noco, I was accused by Whiskers of having "clouded"" judgement because I hold a handfull of Qantas shares. He also said;
> 
> "one has to be able to see through your prejudices and bias to assess what is really happening."
> 
> *You will notice that there has not been a word of criticism of bias or prejudice against the  FWA who are in the process of working out a way to give the unions a favourable decision and try to come out smelling like roses.* Believe me, if they make the wrong decision Qantas is rooted.




All the more reason it was folly by Joyce to force (or attempt to force) FWA to make a decision in the matter.

PS: FWA may rule that Joyce made an illegal call by announcing the locking out the three unions 72 hours in advace. He may have had a reasonable case against the TWU, but It looks like a pretty poor case against he others.

They may well rule that it was Joyce's decision to announce a lock out decision 72 hours in advance, that acording to Qantas's own evidence to FWA created an unsafe environment, because of concerns of fatigue and distractions of staff, that led to the shut down of the airline... that brought about an incident of national consequence.


----------



## banco (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Noco, I was accused by Whiskers of having "clouded"" judgement because I hold a handfull of Qantas shares. He also said;
> 
> "one has to be able to see through your prejudices and bias to assess what is really happening."
> 
> You will notice that there has not been a word of criticism of bias or prejudice against the  FWA who are in the process of working out a way to give the unions a favourable decision and try to come out smelling like roses. Believe me, if they make the wrong decision Qantas is rooted.




Most of the industrial law experts I've heard interviewed have said they expect the unions to lose and lose badly.


----------



## Boggo (30 October 2011)

It will be interesting to see what happens on a number of fronts if the CEO of Jetstar knew the grounding was coming prior to the shareholders meeting !

email from Buchanan


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> All the more reason it was folly by Joyce to force (or attempt to force) FWA to make a decision in the matter.




So you admit that the FWA is biased against management, and any ruling they make against Qantas will be shonky.

Qantas chief Alan Joyce, who ordered the lockout, made it clear he would not put his planes back in the air unless he had the "certainty" of a termination, not a suspension, of all industrial action.

ABC/wires

Bill Shorten arriving at the FWA meeting to guide them;


----------



## noco (30 October 2011)

It looks like Gillard has goofed again.

If this woman had made as many mistakes in private enterprise, she would have been scaked months ago.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...already_had_the_government_used_its_own_laws/


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> So you admit that the FWA is biased against management,
> and any ruling they make against Qantas will be shonky.




No, but if that was the case, Joyce was folly for proceeding as he did.


----------



## noco (30 October 2011)

Holy hell, who would want to be a baggage handler with the conditions they have to work under.

POOR BUGGERS. You have to  feel sorry for them. You would wonder how they could survive on those wages and conditions.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...omments/qantas_grounded_gillard_needs_to_fly/


----------



## sails (30 October 2011)

noco said:


> It looks like Gillard has goofed again.
> 
> If this woman had made as many mistakes in private enterprise, she would have been scaked months ago.
> 
> ...




And this is what Abbott said about Section 431 of the Fair Work Act:



> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the government had the power to bring a swift end to the dispute.
> 
> "The prime minister says she wants the industrial action to be over," Mr Abbott told reporters in Canberra on Sunday.
> 
> ...




Read more: DISPUTE GOES TO LABOUR TRIBUNAL


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

noco said:


> It looks like Gillard has goofed again.
> 
> If this woman had made as many mistakes in private enterprise, she would have been scaked months ago.
> 
> ...




I don't see a big issue with applying under s240 instead of s431. At least it eliminates any perception of politicial bias.

But I am seeing a problem with Joyces stand down decision.



> *Division 2””Circumstances allowing stand down*
> 
> 
> *524 Employer may stand down employees in certain *
> ...


----------



## Macquack (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I agree with Peter Reith. There is no place for government intervention in industrial disputes, especially a Labor Government.




Peter Reith must be suffering from dementia if he fails to remember his role in the 1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Australian_waterfront_dispute


----------



## sails (31 October 2011)

Here is a 20 page PDF to the Log of Claims for a Qantas Group – TWU Fair Work Agreement: 

http://www.twu.com.au/Home/Campaign...tas/Draft-Qantas-Log-of-Claims-TWU-v5-3-8-11/


----------



## drsmith (31 October 2011)

It gets more interesting by the minute.



> Qantas sources confirmed yesterday Mr Joyce waited until five minutes before his decision to ground the fleet to hear from Ms Gillard, after attempting to contact her three hours earlier.
> 
> It is understood that all it would have taken for Qantas to cancel the grounding was for Ms Gillard to declare all future industrial action illegal.






> But not only did Ms Gillard not take Mr Joyce's call, she did not return it and still had not spoken to him as of yesterday afternoon.




http://www.news.com.au/national/qan...-but-was-ignored/story-e6frfkvr-1226180983230


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> But I am seeing a problem with Joyces stand down decision.




Of course you do, but then your opinions are "clouded " by your hatred of Joyce. A bias you share by the way with the airline unions. You think he should have caved into the unions. That would have been stupidity of monumental proportions. Appeasement of extortionists is never the way to go. They always come back for more.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 October 2011)

The bottom line for me personally is simply this. Qantas has a lot more problems than their main domestic competitor, Virgin.

We are forever hearing of mechanical problems with Qantas flights and near misses. Virgin carries roughly half as many passengers with perhaps 1% as many problems.

The domestic route I most commonly fly is not offered as a direct flight. I can however book a connecting flight with Virgin which makes it all very simple. Or I could book two separate flights with Qantas / Jetstar, have to re-check my bags along the way, and risk being left stranded should the first flight be late and I make it to the Jetstar counter 29 minutes before the flight takes off. 

Jetstar has a shocking reputation for cancelling flights for non-technical reasons. Virgin has a far better reputation in this regard.

Qantas and Jetstar are effectively the same thing. I could book with Qantas and end up flying Jetstar and, worse still, subject to Jetstar terms and conditions as a result. No such problems with Virgin.

You get the picture. Qantas works fine for many people that I would agree, but for me the odds are it ends up being a Jetstar flight anyway and they are simply an pain in the proverbial. It's far easier, more reliable and about the same cost to fly Virgin instead so that's what I do.

So who's to blame? Is it the unions or is it management? A few questions:

1. Who decided to create Jetstar, give it a shocking reputation, and then attach that same reputation to Qantas through sharing of flights and in some cases outright replacing former Qantas flights with Jetstar? Was that a union decision? Or was that a management decision?

2. Who decided to not upgrade the fleet, thus leaving Qantas with bits falling off planes and incident after incident? Was this unions? Or was this a management decision?

3. Who decided to ground flights during the volcanic ash issue when there was the alternative option, at significantly higher financial cost to the airline, of simply flying lower or longer routes? This helped kill Qantas for high yield business travellers more concerned with reliability than cost. Did the unions take this action? Or was it a management decision?

As with most business declines, this situation is the result of a series of blunders over a rather long period. At a guess, Qantas management became complacent following the demise of Ansett and thinking that Virgin with their cheap fares and cheap service would only ever appeal to low yield holiday travellers. It then becomes the classic "hare and the tortoise" scenario with Qantas management asleep whilst their competitor figured out how to appeal to a much broader range of travellers, including those willing to pay higher fares.

The situation now is precisely what Qantas would logically be hoping to avoid. You don't have to fly Virgin too many times to realise that they have been pushing the "give us a go" line for a while now, seeking to dispel the notion that they are a "cheap" carrier. And now Qantas has forced anyone with a real need to travel, and that will no doubt include many busines travellers, to do exactly that. Give the competition a go. 

Personally, I wouldn't pay a manager $5 million to send customers to the competition. I do understand that Qantas has issues with the viability of international operations but shutting down domestic flights was a serious mistake in my opinion.


----------



## tinhat (31 October 2011)

Fair Work Australia has terminated all industrial action. Parties have twenty one days to reach agreement otherwise the matters will be arbitrated by FWA. This is the outcome QANTAS wanted and also the outcome the federal government sought in taking this to FWA.

QANTAS should be back in the air within 24 hours, subject to CASA approval.


----------



## kavla1970 (31 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Yeh pretty simple maths to me. If Pay Raises < ongoing dispute costs, simply give them the raise and be done with it. Joyce got a raise this year, why shouldn't his staff?




I have always felt that Managers should lead by example. I recall many times how senior management (in my past life...now I run my own business) used to pay themselves a heap each year but argue to those 'lower' than them that the company couldn't afford pay rises. Well yeah! After they got paid, it couldn't!

Joyce should not have asked a for $2 million dollar payrise and then cry the company is stuggling.


----------



## kavla1970 (31 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> It gets more interesting by the minute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, the media is going to go after the PM now....

The one person struggling to manage an airline is ringing the other struggling to run the country.


----------



## kavla1970 (31 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> Ok, the media is going to go after the PM now....
> 
> The one person struggling to manage an airline is ringing the other struggling to run the country.




I have to add I don't blame Gillard for this mess. The CEO is running this little serfdom and he should know how to manage.


----------



## moXJO (31 October 2011)

With the current IR laws will only see more of this type of action imo. FWA is a joke and a lot of business is feeling the pain because of this mobs incompetency. All linked to a government that did its deals to get in power and is now in the process of paying them off.
The Qantas issue is one small battle in a larger looming IR war.


----------



## nulla nulla (31 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> I have to add I don't blame Gillard for this mess. The CEO is running this little serfdom and he should know how to manage.




It now appears that the media beat up about Gillard not returning Joyce's telephone calls is false and Qantas are expected to confirm this today.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> It now appears that the media beat up about Gillard not returning Joyce's telephone calls is false and Qantas are expected to confirm this today.




But, of course we all know Gillard is a liar. This is merely semantics.

The decision to terminate the dispute in favor of management goes against the grain of everything Gillard's unionised  cabinet and FWA stand for. But of course they had no choice. They were wedged and outsmarted by Joyce. To merely suspend would have been a disaster. Shorten and Gillard are claiming the decision as a win.

This is because the FWA is holding the trump card for itself of arbitrating in two weeks time if the parties cannot agree. Naturally FWA will arbitrate in the unions' favor, and that's when the sh*t will really hit the fan.


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

tinhat said:


> Fair Work Australia has terminated all industrial action. Parties have twenty one days to reach agreement otherwise the matters will be arbitrated by FWA.* This is the outcome QANTAS wanted* and also the outcome the federal government sought in taking this to FWA.
> 
> QANTAS should be back in the air within 24 hours, subject to CASA approval.




Not quite right!

Qantas wanted a permenant termination of all industrial action and a conclusion to the dispute, via some agreed or FWA ruling.

The circumstances giving rise to the termination order was weighted much more heavily toward the 'protected' industrial action taken by Qantas, ie the lockout and consequential grounding of the fleet, than the union action. 

At this stage there seems to be an order for termination of all industrial for 21 days with an extension of another 21 days if both parties agree progress is being made.

I cannot see any indication of an automatic determination by FWA of all the matters in the dispute if no resolution is not made within 21 days or any extension.

http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb7444.htm


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As with most business declines, this situation is the result of a series of blunders over a rather long period. At a guess, Qantas management became complacent following the demise of Ansett and thinking that Virgin with their cheap fares and cheap service would only ever appeal to low yield holiday travellers. It then becomes the classic "hare and the tortoise" scenario with Qantas management asleep whilst their competitor figured out how to appeal to a much broader range of travellers, including those willing to pay higher fares.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't pay a manager $5 million to send customers to the competition. I do understand that Qantas has issues with the viability of international operations but shutting down domestic flights was a serious mistake in my opinion.




Two very profound paragraphs in my opinion.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Not quite right!




Sorry Whiskers...you backed the wrong horse. Better luck tomorrow.


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Sorry Whiskers...you backed the wrong horse. Better luck tomorrow.




You're trolling again Calliope.


----------



## sails (31 October 2011)

Much blame is being blamed on to Joyce's decision to ground all aircraft, but I notice that there is little said of the union dispute that was already causing delays and cancelled flights.  I heard that Qantas passengers were down around 25% due to industrial action.

If one can look at it objectively, Joyce was most likely faced with two decisions.  One was to let the unions continue to distrupt Qantas for at least another year or try and bring it to a head.  If Joyce had let industrial action cripple the airline for another year, it's possible that they could lose far more than the 25% of passengers already cheesed off with union disruptions.

I agree with the VTIC comments below which wonders why nothing was done under the FWA act to protect the tourism industry long before this:



> The Victoria Tourism Industry Council (VTIC) says while the termination of industrial action by Fair Work Australia early on Monday was welcome, the industrial umpire and the federal government should have stepped in sooner.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8367584/qantas-dispute-hits-australias-reputation


----------



## tinhat (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Not quite right!
> 
> Qantas wanted a permenant termination of all industrial action and a conclusion to the dispute, via some agreed or FWA ruling.
> 
> ...




The Federal Government chose to take the action at FWA to seek termination, not QANTAS, although as you note this appears to be their intended outcome. Note, the federal minister could have made a determination under the act to terminate the industrial action but this may have wound up in court in any case.

Under FWA legislation, at the end of the twenty-one day negotiation period (subject to a possible twenty-one extension as you point out) , if not resolved, the matter goes to binding arbitration before the FWA. That may not have been included in the orders but it is, AFAIK (as a lay-man) the legislation.

You may also note from the timestamp of my previous post that I would not have had access to the written determination at the time of my post because I was following a live twitter feed from inside the FWA earlier this morning.

In any case parties have several avenues open to them to appeal the decision; either to the full bench of the Federal Court or straight to the High Court. I imagine that the legality of QANTAS lockout will be tested in court in time. The pilots union seem to feel that they have a good chance of demonstrating that the lock out of all of their pilots including those not involved in industrial action was not legal.

Xenaphon and the Greens want to look into the QANTAS sale act and hold an enquiry into whether QANTAS is complying and whether the act needs to be ammended due to QANTAS using subsidiaries as a loophole to the intention of the act. So this is an industrial relations and public policy war path that QANTAS is on now that is going to take quite some time to resolve.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

FWA - The Independent Arbitrator.




> FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA JOBS FOR LABOR MATES
> Trade union officials are five times more likely to be appointed as members of the ‘independent’ workplace umpire Fair Work Australia, than non-union officials, the Government has revealed.
> 
> In late 2009, then Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard, appointed 6 new members to serve as adjudicators on the bench of Fair Work Australia. Of these 6 appointments, 5 were ex-trade union officials and 1 was an ex-government bureaucrat.
> ...




http://www.wa.liberal.org.au/general/fair-work-australia-jobs-for-labor-mates


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

sails said:


> Much blame is being blamed on to Joyce's decision to ground all aircraft, but I notice that there is little said of the union dispute that was already causing delays and cancelled flights.  I heard that Qantas passengers were down around 25% due to industrial action.
> 
> If one can look at it objectively, Joyce was most likely faced with two decisions.  One was to let the unions continue to distrupt Qantas for at least another year or try and bring it to a head.  If Joyce had let industrial action cripple the airline for another year, it's possible that they could lose far more than the 25% of passengers already cheesed off with union disruptions.
> 
> ...




From reading the FWA ruling and reasons for their judgement, it seems like the union action was not significantly disruptive to warrant direct government action under s431 or the current application under s424.

The FWA mentions it cannot stop protected union action in persuit of a log of claims unless certain extraordinary circumstances exist.



tinhat said:


> The Federal Government chose to take the action at FWA to seek termination, not QANTAS, although as you note this appears to be their intended outcome. Note, the federal minister could have made a determination under the act to terminate the industrial action but this may have wound up in court in any case.
> 
> Under FWA legislation, at the end of the twenty-one day negotiation period (subject to a possible twenty-one extension as you point out) , *if not resolved, the matter goes to binding arbitration before the FWA. *That may not have been included in the orders but it is, AFAIK (as a lay-man) the legislation.
> 
> ...




I take your point about your timing.

The only clarification I would add is that in arbitration before FWA the FWA would need an application by a party for a particular ruling to be binding. At the moment I don't see any application on the log of claims for the Enterprise Agreement itself, only the process for getting to some agreement.

But I agree with you, there may be many twists and turns and court rulings about the legality of things before this is settled.


----------



## McLovin (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> From reading the FWA ruling and reasons for their judgement, it seems like the union action was not significantly disruptive to warrant direct government action under s431 or the current application under s424.
> 
> The FWA mentions it cannot stop protected union action in persuit of a log of claims unless certain extraordinary circumstances exist.




That was the plan of the unions. To create disruption to Qantas but not enough disruption that it could lead to s431 action.


----------



## sails (31 October 2011)

tinhat said:


> ...The pilots union seem to feel that they have a good chance of demonstrating that the lock out of all of their pilots including those not involved in industrial action was not legal.....




Maybe they will have a case, however, it takes much more team work than a pilot to get a large passenger aeroplane off the ground safely.


----------



## overhang (31 October 2011)

Maybe Mr Joyce could take a leaf our of this CEO's book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vTiYM4m24


----------



## joea (31 October 2011)

Qantas dispute general points.
Joyce won. He can now get most of the points accepted by both sides on paper, with the non agreed points going to FWA. The ultimate for Qantas is to have a business plan that will work in the future.
Qantas may now  have a chance in Asia.

Tony Abbott may now be able to tweak Labors Industrial Relations, as this sort of stand off should not have been allowed to happen. It shows a weakness of FWA.
Abbott has been reluctant to be drawn in to IR because of the dislike of Work Choices.

Interesting times ahead.
joea


----------



## Boggo (31 October 2011)

Really not sure why everyone is having problems getting back to Australia.

All they need to do is get to Indonesia and catch the Christmas Island ferry service, direct service, it runs 24 hrs a day everyday and when you get to your destination customs come to you and you also get free accommodation and meals.

Quit yer bitchin


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

Not a lot has changed.

Joyce didn't get what he wanted in terms of causing the unions to drop or have their demands ruled on... all seems to be for naught so far... they still have to continue on negotiating where they left off.



joea said:


> Qantas dispute general points.
> Joyce won. He can now get most of the points accepted by both sides on paper, with the non agreed points going to FWA.
> joea




He could have done that anytime before to force a resolution to the claims, but he didn't. He chose to try to use the big stick and if you read the detail of the ruling, has pretty well missed the unions and hit himself in the foot... ie his lockout has been broken, but the union demands are still there to be negotiated.


----------



## sptrawler (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Not a lot has changed.
> 
> Joyce didn't get what he wanted in terms of causing the unions to drop or have their demands ruled on... all seems to be for naught so far... they still have to continue on negotiating where they left off.
> 
> ...




From what I have heard, whiskers, the ruling gives a negotiation period. Then if no resolution is found a binding order will be made by FWA. I can't see how the union will not be creamed, unless the Government is prepared to fund the union demands.
I would guess with the FWA ruling to terminate all industrial action, it will give Joyce the breathing space required to fast track the changes adopted at the A.G.M. 
The unions have probably just accelerated the speed with which Joyce will introduce the changes. 
He has shown the Government he isn't going to be intimidated, therefore Gillard will have to put herself out on a limb to stop him from carrying out the proposals.
I for one think she will stop talking on the issue, there is no way she can stop Qantas from implimenting a business stratergy without raising the sovereign risk issue.


----------



## kavla1970 (31 October 2011)

Boggo said:


> Really not sure why everyone is having problems getting back to Australia.
> 
> All they need to do is get to Indonesia and catch the Christmas Island ferry service, direct service, it runs 24 hrs a day everyday and when you get to your destination customs come to you and you also get free accommodation and meals.
> 
> Quit yer bitchin




:


----------



## Julia (31 October 2011)

Boggo said:


> Really not sure why everyone is having problems getting back to Australia.
> 
> All they need to do is get to Indonesia and catch the Christmas Island ferry service, direct service, it runs 24 hrs a day everyday and when you get to your destination customs come to you and you also get free accommodation and meals.
> 
> Quit yer bitchin



:


----------



## sptrawler (31 October 2011)

Well it looks as though the government had ample warning of the impending grounding and could have stopped the grounding.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-but-was-ignored/story-e6freuy9-1226180960683

It doesn't look good for Julia and the boys as usual. Not wanting to be uncaring but she found time to phone Indonesia when one of our tourists was arrested for drug possesion. 
One would think she would have made time to ring Qantas back, I am sure the urgency of the request would have been forwarded to her.
The fall out this week will be interesting.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

The Transport Workers Union is hell-bent on destroying Qantas.



> Tony Sheldon, one of the architects of the union strategy of bleeding Qantas into submission with erratic work stoppages spread over months. Sheldon is national secretary of the Transport Workers Union and, as pointed out a week ago, is running for the presidency of the Labor Party.
> It says a great deal that Sheldon thinks bringing the national flag-carrier to its knees is a credential he can use to become president of the ALP. This is not a cynical observation given the numerous deals made by a union-dominated federal government.
> The context for the Qantas dispute is the Gillard government's transformation of industrial relations. Passing the Fair Work Act 2009 and setting up Fair Work Australia to replace the Industrial Relations Commission has re-empowered the unions. As well, *of the 11 Fair Work Australia commissioners appointed by the Gillard government, nine are former union officials or union advocates. The other two are career bureaucrats.*





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-faltering-20111030-1mqgv.html#ixzz1cKyX3RPs


----------



## Bintang (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Not a lot has changed.
> 
> Joyce didn't get what he wanted in terms of causing the unions to drop or have their demands ruled on... all seems to be for naught so far... they still have to continue on negotiating where they left off.
> 
> ...




I think Joyce achieved his primary objective which was to have all strike action stopped so as to create some certainty for Qantas customers. I for one have been wanting to book two trips with Qantas before year end but have purposely not done so because of the ongoing union industrial action. I am now prepared to make those bookings. There are probably others in  similar circmstances. The ongoing union disruption to Qantas was scaring customers away. That's what needed to be fixed and fixed quickly and I agree with the tactics used to achieve.  However something I don't agree with is the pay rise given to Joyce just before this happened. It was just an act of needless stupidity and PR suicide.


----------



## Boggo (31 October 2011)

Bintang said:


> However something I don't agree with is the pay rise given to Joyce just before this happened. It was just an act of needless stupidity and PR suicide.




To be fair to him, he did take a pay cut when he left Jetstar and Geoff Dixon was getting paid twice as much ($10 mill p/a) in the same position and got $12 mill in his last year.

This process that we are seeing now was actually put in place in 2004 by Dixon and the rest of the 'pallett of Grange Hermitage for Xmas' brigade.

The stuff the public are not seeing are the scenarios such as employing flight attendants  in asian cities who work for 20 hours a day for $20k pa.
The company employing the flighties is funded by.... you guessed correctly.
This is an indication of what is really going on that the public are unaware of and that the unions are fully aware of.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/more-claims-jetstar-is-exploiting-staff-20110930-1l0bq.html

and...
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...seas-cabin-crew-contracts-20110728-1i1br.html


----------



## sails (31 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The Transport Workers Union is hell-bent on destroying Qantas...




Classic example of biting the hand that feeds you.  

The hand might not be perfect, but when it brings in the weekly pay packet, it seems rather stupid to try and bite it until it bleeds to death.


----------



## joea (31 October 2011)

sails said:


> Classic example of biting the hand that feeds you.
> 
> The hand might not be perfect, but when it brings in the weekly pay packet, it seems rather stupid to try and bite it until it bleeds to death.




I think everybody is entitled to an opinion, and I completely agree with the above.
If Qantas wants to compete in Asia, then the airline has to be competitive.

As for Asian workers, I think they would love to work for Qantas.
After all you can get a video for 50 cents,( yeah it might be a copy), but it beats Australian prices and food is relatively cheap.

I am quitely thinking that, if this does not come out right for Qantas, will we have an International Qantas.
I hope we will.

Finally I do not think unkindly of Joyce's pay rise. That was the incentive to get results.
joea


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

joea said:


> I think everybody is entitled to an opinion, and I completely agree with the above.
> If Qantas wants to compete in Asia, then the airline has to be competitive.
> 
> As for Asian workers, I think they would love to work for Qantas.
> ...




It's a pity we can't have Asian stewardesses on Qantas planes in Australia. If Cathay and Singapore Airlines are anything to go by they run rings around our old dogs, in both appearance and service. They are also friendlier.


----------



## LifeChoices (31 October 2011)

There is no "U" in QANTAS


----------



## noco (31 October 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> There is no "U" in QANTAS




NO!

Queensland and Northern Territory Air Services. It originated in Longreach.


----------



## sails (31 October 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> There is no "U" in QANTAS




Do you mean like no "U" in labor?...

I don't know why there is no "U" in labor: but QANTAS stands for  "Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services" and it's easier to type without the original fullstops between every letter...

Here's some history on Q.A.N.T.A.S. from the Qantas Founders Museum:  http://www.qfom.com.au/

PS - sorry Noco, you beat me to it...


----------



## noco (31 October 2011)

Fair Work Australia with some 8 ex union bosses running the show would be like putting 8 foxes to look after the chickens. 

Call that fair????????????????????????????

Typical of this Green/Labor Government.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 October 2011)

sails said:


> Much blame is being blamed on to Joyce's decision to ground all aircraft, but I notice that there is little said of the union dispute that was already causing delays and cancelled flights.  I heard that Qantas passengers were down around 25% due to industrial action.



I think you'll find that much of that drop was due to passengers simply not booking flights in the first place rather than due to planned flights being cancelled by union action.


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

sptrawler said:


> *From what I have heard*, whiskers, the ruling gives a negotiation period. Then if no resolution is found a binding order will be made by FWA. I can't see how the union will not be creamed, unless the Government is prepared to fund the union demands.




The press commentary is mixed and somewhat confusing. That's why I posted the main extract from the FWA order and the link to the full order. Here it is again. http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb7444.htm

With regard to FWA deciding the matter, the following extract is what FWA said.
_*[17]* Termination does provide an opportunity for further negotiation during a period of 21 days, extendable for a further 21 days, if the parties agree that progress is being made. Fair Work Australia will be available_ _*to assist*_ _the parties during post-industrial action negotiating period._ ​To recap what I and others have tried to explain... The only application before FWA was the one by the gov under s 424... to terminate or suspend protected industrial action by both parties for 90 days. The exact text from FWA is as follows;

_*[1]* The Minister has made application for an order under s.424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 terminating, or in the alternative suspending for a period of 90 days, protected industrial action being engaged in and/or threatened impending or probable by Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas), QCatering Limited (QCatering), The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA), Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) and the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA). We refer to Qantas and QCatering collectively as Qantas._​As things stand, FWA has and can only rule on terminating or suspending protected Industrial action under s424.

It will need an application by someone else for FWA to settle the log of claims for the new enterprise agreement.



> I would guess with the FWA ruling to terminate all industrial action, it will
> give Joyce the breathing space required to fast track the changes adopted at the
> A.G.M.
> 
> ...




I'm curious... what changes do you think Joyce can and will fast track?




Bintang said:


> I think Joyce achieved his primary objective which was to have all strike action stopped so as to create some certainty for Qantas customers.




You probably missed the highlighted bit in a previous post where Joyce said an in a written press release that 'the lock out will continue until the unions drop their extreme demands'.

Joyce's lockout was ordered to be terminated as the gov sought, the union protected industrial action is terminated for the time being... but the 'extreme' demands of the unions still remain. 

The current order doesn't mean the unions can never take industrial action again. On the contrary, FWA stated in it's decision that it cannot prevent any party from taking legal industrial action... except in exceptional circumstances as s424.

_*[14]* There is a need to balance this issue against the fact that protected industrial action is permissible under our system and has been now for many years and has been taken relatively frequently in the airline industry with successive bargaining rounds. It is also important that encouragement of enterprise bargaining is also part of the system. In that respect, what we have heard indicates there are still prospects for a satisfactory negotiated outcome in all three cases. The prospect of a negotiated resolution in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements still remains._​The FWA decision actually said the union action was not a significant threat to the Aus economy, rather the action by Qantas was. The relevant paragraph from the decision:

_*[10]* It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day._
​I'm not too much concerned about what the final resolution of the union log of claims for the enterprise agreement will be, but rather;
the disharmony between staff and senior management at Qantas and the damage to our national carrier, and
the apparent efforts by Joyce to keep the benefits of being the national carrier, but reneg on the obligations of being the national carrier as prescribed by the Qantas act... in particular to keep most of it's employment, and operations based in Aus.
If Joyce  wants to be a cheap international carrier shifting it's operations around the world to where it can do it cheapest, then he ought to set up or buy an overseas airline. The simple fact is Qantas has a mandate to be the Aus national carrier first and foremost. 

*The gov has decided we need a national carrier and Qantas was it as a nationalised airline. However the gov floated off Qantas in the early 1990's under the Qantas Sale Act. Everyone knew what was required of and by Qantas under the terms of the privatisation.* 

To recap some history provided earlier in smurfs posts, Qantas got fat and lazy with a huge market share after the demise of Ansett. Virgin in particular has given stiff competition and is seriously eating into that market share. 

Qantas and Joyce have resorted to a lot of measures which may be in contravention of the Act.* The main sticking point with the current negotiations is to do with security of employment.* 

Joyce obviously doesn't want to commit to that so they can continue to outsource and base more operations offshore arguably in contravention of the Qantas Sale Act that created it's private entity.


----------



## sptrawler (31 October 2011)

Obviously from what you are saying whiskers, the industrial action can commence again. It will be interesting to see what Joyce and the boys do if it does recommence.
Maybe they will put the Qantas brand on the market, then focus more on Jetstar.
Just a thought.


----------



## Bintang (31 October 2011)

joea said:


> Finally I do not think unkindly of Joyce's pay rise. That was the incentive to get results.
> joea




Actually I wasn't making a judgement about the amount of the pay rise but I do think the timing of it was impeccably stupid.


----------



## todster (31 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> It's a pity we can't have Asian stewardesses on Qantas planes in Australia. If Cathay and Singapore Airlines are anything to go by they run rings around our old dogs, in both appearance and service. They are also friendlier.




Pop over to Bangkok mate get yourself one if you fancy them that much.
Plenty of old blokes doin it


----------



## todster (31 October 2011)

todster said:


> Pop over to Bangkok mate get yourself one if you fancy them that much.
> Plenty of old blokes doin it




Few young ones too


----------



## drsmith (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> _*[1]* The Minister has made application for an order under s.424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 terminating, or in the alternative suspending for a period of 90 days, protected industrial action being engaged in and/or threatened impending or probable by Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas), QCatering Limited (QCatering), The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA), Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) and the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA). We refer to Qantas and QCatering collectively as Qantas._​As things stand, FWA has and can only rule on terminating or suspending protected Industrial action under s424.



Inder items 15 and 16 as provided in one of your earlier posts, I would say FWA chose termination. 

That's how it reads to me.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23670&p=667165&viewfull=1#post667165


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 October 2011)

Joyce seems to have been a bullying victim at school and is living out his revenge in the business world. He will leave Q or get the toss next year.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2011)

noco said:


> Fair Work Australia with some 8 ex union bosses running the show would be like putting 8 foxes to look after the chickens.
> 
> Call that fair????????????????????????????
> 
> Typical of this Green/Labor Government.




Fair? It must be. Julia calls it an i*ndependent umpire*. And what's more she says it with a straight face.  Have you noticed her nose is getting longer?


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Joyce seems to have been a bullying victim at school and is living out his revenge in the business world. He will leave Q or get the toss next year.




I doubt it, he would have to have put his job on the line to make the grounding call.
If it had backfired and the FWA had only suspended strike action and ordered Qantas to recommence services. He would have lost his n#ts and be out of a job already.


----------



## Boggo (1 November 2011)

Hard to argue with the general leaning of this commentary I guess...
http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/tie-the-kangaroo-down-joyce/


----------



## tinhat (1 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Hard to argue with the general leaning of this commentary I guess...
> http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/tie-the-kangaroo-down-joyce/




That was a very entertaining read.


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

This whole argument is a bit silly, we complain that Joyce wants to move jobs offshore to be competitive, but we want cheap airfares.
Well maybe he should say, we will keep everything as it is, but you have to pay more.(then they go broke real quick)
I think there is more of an issue with foreign ownership of our agricultural and residential land.


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

Actually, I wonder how many of the people that are saying Joyce is wrong for wanting to move jobs offshore to reduce costs.
Are themselves buying products over the internet, which in turn is costing jobs in the retail sector.
It is a complex issue to make your dollar go further, but not sacrifice your job. 
I wonder how many baggage handlers make a point of buying Australian when they go to Bunnings?


----------



## Calliope (1 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I wonder how many of the people that are saying Joyce is wrong for wanting to move jobs offshore to reduce costs.
> Are themselves buying products over the internet, which in turn is costing jobs in the retail sector.
> It is a complex issue to make your dollar go further, but not sacrifice your job.
> I wonder how many baggage handlers make a point of buying Australian when they go to Bunnings?




Those posters on this thread who said they wouldn't pay Joyce more than a baggage handler have been quiet lately. Washing the egg off their faces I suppose. Joyce certainly outsmarted Gillard and her union buddies.




> *Ties that bind: how Alan Joyce called Labor's bluff*
> BY: PETER VAN ONSELEN, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR From: The Australian November 01, 2011 12:00AM
> 
> IF Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce wanted Julia Gillard to intervene and force arbitration - always his preferred option to the fleet being grounded while Fair Work Australia spent two days poring over evidence - it begs the question: why didn't he simply flag that option with the government before acting as he did? The answer, I have no doubt, is because Joyce could not be sure the government wouldn't tell the union movement about his intentions, stealing the element of surprise.
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...led-labors-bluff/story-e6frgd0x-1226181922733


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

I just watched the pilots association rep on lateline. He had a lot of trouble answering pretty basic questions to justify the pilots position.
I hope he does a better job in his presentation to an impartial umpire.

By the way I never have nor never will have airline shares in my portfolio.


----------



## todster (1 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Those posters on this thread who said they wouldn't pay Joyce more than a baggage handler have been quiet lately. Washing the egg off their faces I suppose. Joyce certainly outsmarted Gillard and her union buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bit like you with all the rubbish you wrote about the bias of FWA


----------



## nulla nulla (1 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Those posters on this thread who said they wouldn't pay Joyce more than a baggage handler have been quiet lately. Washing the egg off their faces I suppose.




If he was a chook, I wouldn't waste my feed on him. 



> Joyce certainly outsmarted Gillard and her union buddies.




This must be a bit of twisted Irish logic that I can't follow:

Nothing has changed in respect of the log of claims;
The Airline has been ordered back into the air;
Joyce still has to deal with the Qantas Sales Act and its' requirements before he can take Qantas offshore; and
Joyce now has the government offside and risks Qantas loosing significant Government business and the Government opening up domestic and international routes in competition to qantas.

I mentioned before, where is Corrigan these days, similarly you can also ask where are Sol Trujillo and his mate Phil Burgess (we know the outcome of their efforts with Telstra taking on governments). Now you can add Alan Joyce to the list of Company Directors that will have to live with the outcome of getting offside with an Australian Government.

When Qantas can demonstrate on their bottom line that this was a successful strategy I will happily revise my position. Until then I will continue to maintain that he has made a significant and enduring mistake.


----------



## nulla nulla (1 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> It's a pity we can't have Asian stewardesses on Qantas planes in Australia. If Cathay and Singapore Airlines are anything to go by they run rings around our old dogs, in both appearance and service. They are also friendlier.




I'm surprised Joe hasn't removed this post, totally inappropriate: sexism and age discrimination, irrelevent to the thread. 

The days of Reg Ansett's compulsory retirement of female flight attendants retiring at age 30 (his "old boilers" slag-off) or once they married no longer apply. Australia has a laws now against age and sex discrimination in the workplace.


----------



## moXJO (1 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> If he was a chook, I wouldn't waste my feed on him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually he has opened a whole can of worms in regards to FWA, Unions and Labors shoddy IR laws.  Business will begin to apply pressure imo. And it won’t take much to make the government look like even bigger idiots then they already are. Agree that labor is the petty kind and will make life hard for Qantas management and shareholders.  
Corrigan is running a stevedoring logistics and port management service and still taking it to the unions, what’s your point?

Unions seem to want to run the business receive the benefits but not pay the costs. BlueScope was overly union friendly which helped speed it to the position it is today. IR laws has swung back too far the wrong way and will only hurt the country.


----------



## Calliope (1 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> When Qantas can demonstrate on their bottom line that this was a successful strategy I will happily revise my position. Until then I will continue to maintain that he has made a significant and enduring mistake.




I would expect nothing else from you with your union bias.



> I'm surprised Joe hasn't removed this post, totally inappropriate: sexism and age discrimination, irrelevent to the thread.




You forgot about racist.


----------



## WaveSurfer (1 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Really not sure why everyone is having problems getting back to Australia.
> 
> All they need to do is get to Indonesia and catch the Christmas Island ferry service, direct service, it runs 24 hrs a day everyday and when you get to your destination customs come to you and you also get free accommodation and meals.
> 
> Quit yer bitchin




Classic!!



I still can't get past the signs employees were holding in their protest...

"TWU Proud and Powerful"

FFS, are you people daft or what? Please enlighten me as to what the hell this is supposed to mean? Pompous tossers. With that sort of attitude, they deserve no job if you ask me.


----------



## startrader (1 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> If he was a chook, I wouldn't waste my feed on him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well said Nulla.  Qantas management not only has got the government offside but I think has irreparably damaged the brand domestically and overseas.


----------



## nulla nulla (1 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> I would expect nothing else from you with your union bias.




My perspective in this instance is purely commercial. I don't consider the unions do any thing for their cause with the rallies and banner waving at the airports. They need to play down their banner waving and focus more on presentation of their arguments at the negotiation table and make more effective use of media spin like Qantas does. 

However I do consider Qantas has done more long term damage to their brand by shutting down the fleet than the unions have with their infrequent rolling stopages.




> You forgot about racist.




Humble apologies for this oversight, though I thought you were complimenting the Thai stewardesses rather than denigrating them.


----------



## nulla nulla (1 November 2011)

moXJO said:


> Corrigan is running a stevedoring logistics and port management service and still taking it to the unions, what’s your point?




I thought he had retired to Italy?  What Australian Company is he running?


----------



## Julia (1 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> When Qantas can demonstrate on their bottom line that this was a successful strategy I will happily revise my position. Until then I will continue to maintain that he has made a significant and enduring mistake.



 So how do you think he should have resolved the matter?  Given the unions what they were asking for?
Wiped the strategy of making QANTAS profitable by opening up Asia opportunities?
Holding onto old aircraft instead of acquiring more modern versions which require less servicing and therefore fewer maintenance hours?


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

Julia said:


> So how do you think he should have resolved the matter?  Given the unions what they were asking for?
> Wiped the strategy of making QANTAS profitable by opening up Asia opportunities?
> Holding onto old aircraft instead of acquiring more modern versions which require less servicing and therefore fewer maintenance hours?




I flew out of Perth last week on Qantas, the check in, affixing the luggage tags and putting the luggage on the transfer is all done by the passenger.
The transfer of the luggage to the plane seems to be the only function not carried out by the passenger. So therefore I doubt it will be long before this is an automatic function. I think the baggage handlers are an endangered species and their behaviour will only accelerate their demise.
Joyce did the appropriate thing, disrupt passengers for 2 - 3 days and resolve the issues. The way it was going no one would have booked a flight wth them for fear of missing a connection or appointment.


----------



## startrader (1 November 2011)

Julia said:


> So how do you think he should have resolved the matter?  Given the unions what they were asking for?
> Wiped the strategy of making QANTAS profitable by opening up Asia opportunities?
> Holding onto old aircraft instead of acquiring more modern versions which require less servicing and therefore fewer maintenance hours?




Qantas IS profitable - I wouldn't call making half a billion dollars last year (in spite of fuel increases, floods, the Japanese earthquake and volcanic ash fallout) unprofitable.  There has also been a lot of creative accounting going on.  Qantas is an integrated business and it depends on where you apportion the costs.  One of the things they have been doing is using Qantas infrastructure to subside Jetstar.

Apparently management and the workers were close to an agreement last week and suddenly negotiations were cancelled and management's offers were withdrawn.

Joyce's plan to start a new airline in Asia I find bizarre - good luck with that competing against the Asians in Asia.


----------



## moXJO (1 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I thought he had retired to Italy?  What Australian Company is he running?




Qube Logistics from memory. I think it has only recently started up. 
Which just goes to show you can't keep an evil union bashing bastard down. I think he started a war straight away again with the unions as well. Old habits die hard


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Those posters on this thread who said they wouldn't pay Joyce more than a baggage handler have been quiet lately. Washing the egg off their faces I suppose. Joyce certainly outsmarted Gillard and her union buddies.



Let's see what the situation is a few months from now, then we'll see how smart Joyce really is. 

Halting a fight with the unions doesn't mean that Qantas suddenly has a fleet of modern aircraft or that staff are actually on side with the company. One way or another, those twin problems are virtually certain to cause problems for Qantas going forward - the only questions being what and when. 

Compare that to Virgin which appears to have staff reasoanbly on side with the company and comparatively few problems with their planes. Relative to Qantas, that is a position of strength which enables management to focus on growing the business rather than spending their days "putting out fires" with unions and mechanical problems.

Fix those underlying problems at Qantas and then I'll give him the credit he will truly deserve. At the moment however, they have simply been ignored just as they have been for the past few years, the very situation which lead to trouble in the first place.


----------



## Eager (1 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I just watched the pilots association rep on lateline. He had a lot of trouble answering pretty basic questions to justify the pilots position.
> I hope he does a better job in his presentation to an impartial umpire.



Didn't see it, but I saw Shorten just before him and thought he performed well. He raised some salient points - if a company wants to introduce a cultural change to the workforce which is their prerogative, why wait until the end of the EBA to put it on the table? He also questioned Joyce's leadership skills - he might be a manager, but definitely not a leader - and I think Qantas sorely needs one now.

Joyce reminds me a bit of Captain Binghamton. 



sptrawler said:


> By the way I never have nor never will have airline shares in my portfolio.



I don't either, but REX is appealing for its yield...I cast my eye over them now and then.


----------



## JTLP (1 November 2011)

Eager said:


> Didn't see it, but I saw Shorten just before him and thought he performed well. He raised some salient points - if a company wants to introduce a cultural change to the workforce which is their prerogative, why wait until the end of the EBA to put it on the table? He also questioned Joyce's leadership skills - he might be a manager, but definitely not a leader - and I think Qantas sorely needs one now.
> 
> Joyce reminds me a bit of Captain Binghamton.
> 
> ...




LOL Shorten performed well? The other bloke must have performed horribly because Shorten is one of the biggest nuffs out there.

And to talk about leadership? Bigger LOL. His own party is in shambles and he wants to talk leadership.

I'll tell you what needs to and I sincerely hope happens:

Big Tony wins the next election. Attempts to crush carbon tax. Doesn't happen so calls double dissolution. Once he wins this crushes carbon tax. Then steps up and goes "P.S WELCOME BACK WORKCHOICES!!!".

Then all these union scumbags can choke and Australia will be a more prosperous society.

That. Is. All


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 November 2011)

> Qantas plans to cut fares...
> 
> Aviation and brand experts say the airline now has a huge job to restore confidence in its brand...
> 
> "I think Qantas will have to tread very carefully - not just in the coming months but in the coming years - to regain lost ground in terms of its reputation," he said.



http://www.theage.com.au/travel/tra...ble-frequent-flyer-points-20111101-1mthw.html

That's basically another way of saying these antics will cost them a fortune in lost revenue for years to come, thus necessitating further cost cuts and effectively transforming Qantas into a discount carrier.

Now, if the main domestic rival has dumped the low cost / low fare model because it wasn't sufficiently profitable then it seems rather odd to me that Qantas would choose to go down this path.

They've won the battle but they sure haven't won the war.


----------



## IFocus (1 November 2011)

Qantas board trash the brand name, Qantas becomes just a holding company, we no longer have a national carrier, Joyce turns another airline into cattle class and gets a massive payout.

More Oz jobs move off shore with the skill set that goes with it Qantas crashes its 1st plane.

The rot set in when they moved older aircraft into Qantas and move Jetstar costs over that they could get away with.

Then started the conversation that its the unions fault 

Australian icon going down the tubes thanks to a poison leprechaun and Rio head kicker. 


Abbott cheers loudly with his ASF supporter group.


----------



## McLovin (1 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now, if the main domestic rival has dumped the low cost / low fare model because it wasn't sufficiently profitable then it seems rather odd to me that Qantas would choose to go down this path.




Virgin ditched the low cost model because they felt that they were being squeezed from both sides by Qantas (on the premium side by Qantas mainline and on the discount side by Jetstar). Clearly the success of Jetstar is proof the low cost model works extremely well. 

The people on TV saying how they will never fly Qantas again are once a year flyers probably on the cheapest ticket they could find. They will continue to be once a year flyers on the cheapest ticket they can find and if that means flying Qantas then they'll be flying Qantas. All that needs to be done is to dangle a few cheap tickets in front of them.


----------



## Boggo (1 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Qantas becomes just a holding company, we no longer have a national carrier, *Joyce turns another airline into cattle class* and gets a massive payout.




That process started long before Joyce, in 2004 actually with Dixon an co, who by the way was getting paid double what Joyce is getting paid !

Worth reading...
http://ozhouse.org/2011/10/30/qantas-finally-the-truth-is-coming-out/


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Qantas board trash the brand name, Qantas becomes just a holding company, we no longer have a national carrier, Joyce turns another airline into cattle class and gets a massive payout.
> 
> More Oz jobs move off shore with the skill set that goes with it Qantas crashes its 1st plane.
> 
> ...




I agree with your sentiments, however Aussies want the best price.
Qantas offer flights at competitive prices already and include meals/drinks, yet customers choose Virgin for $20 less. I live in Perth and have only used Virgin once on price the rest of the time it hasn't been worth it.
The problem I see for Qantas is, their share price is starting to get into the preditory range. The unions can only screw so much mileage out of trashing the company, then the share price makes it attractive for a take over.
This would then put all EBA's and Awards up in the air I hope the unions have run this scenario past their members.


----------



## Boggo (1 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The unions can only screw so much mileage out of trashing the company, then the share price makes it attractive for a take over.




Who is actually intentionally thrashing it, you are listening to the mass media
http://ozhouse.org/2011/10/30/qantas-finally-the-truth-is-coming-out/


----------



## McLovin (1 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Australian icon going down the tubes thanks to a poison leprechaun and Rio head kicker.




The problem with this argument is everyone hates to see the icon go down the toilet but no one wants to actually give the airlines its patronage.

I fly a lot and I usually avoid Qantas. It's expensive and not that great compared to the competition. The inflight service varies from excellent to below average. Ground service is again variable from excellent to abrupt. The domestic lounges in the afternoon are crowded and difficult to find a seat. The seat (in business) is OK, but doesn't compare to say Singapore or Cathay which are invariably cheaper. And then there is the fact that they are constantly devaluing their FF program with "enhancements", I switched to American Airlines FF a few years ago and haven't looked back. Yes, I realise this can sound petty, but for people who travel regularly these sort of things make a huge difference. Like most people, I'm not that interested in spending my money propping up a national icon so everyone else can feel warm and fuzzy about it.


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Who is actually intentionally thrashing it, you are listening to the mass media
> http://ozhouse.org/2011/10/30/qantas-finally-the-truth-is-coming-out/




Well I don't know who is thrashing it but I do know I have pre payed a cruise next March and there is no way I would have booked a flight on Qantas to join it.
The way the on again off again strikes were going I wouldn't risk the cruise on the hope the unions decided mine was a fly day, F that.
Save for two years book a cruise and then miss it because the baggage handlers decide the plane won't leave, yeh right, get over it. That is like the RBA putting up interest rates 12% how would you react to that?


----------



## Boggo (1 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The way the on again off again strikes were going I wouldn't risk the cruise on the hope *the unions* decided mine was a fly day, F that.




At least they gave 72 hrs notice of their intentions !


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> At least they gave 72 hrs notice of their intentions !




Yeh mate, like you would risk $10k on that. Maybe you can afford it, I can't.

Also isn't that a great way to run an airline.


----------



## Boggo (1 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yeh mate, like you would risk $10k on that. Maybe you can afford it, I can't.




I cant and I wouldn't either, go for some of the Asian or Emirates or Etihad if you want reliability.


----------



## bellenuit (2 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> At least they gave 72 hrs notice of their intentions !




How many people book just 72 hours in advance.

About a month ago, I booked a flight to Hanoi, travelling from Perth.

Options were Thai Airways via Bangkok for about $1,225 or QANTAS/South China Airways via Sydney/Guangzhou for about $850. Although the latter would have added about 7 hours to my flying time, the deciding factor to me was the rolling strikes at QANTAS. It wasn't worth the risk to save under $400.

Although I support Joyce in what he is trying to do, I do believe he made a bad decision in grounding the planes at such little notice, particularly when couple with his pay rise. He probably could have achieved the same result by waiting until CHOGM was finished and then informing the government of his intentions allowing them time to act. A few days wasn't going to make such a big difference.

The problem for Joyce now is that although he is supported by the business community, he has lost the support of the general population by his actions. Labor has come out in support of the right of the unions to include job security as a legitimate demand and should the outcome of the FWA negotiations go against QANTAS, they will have little sympathy from the public.


----------



## joea (2 November 2011)

In making comments on what Qantas chose to do in grounding flights we should understand a few thing.
Gillard has built FWA regulations to protect the unions and give them more clout.
That is why she was put there in the PM seat.

Gillard admits the clause she should have used to prevent the grounding, is untried and it was possible the unions would win an appeal.
The unions wanted a suspension not a termination. So they could continue to bleed Qantas until they gave in to their demands.

What we do know is that, a number of businesses have tried using FWA, but have failed because of its support for unions or workers.
They are, Patrick Stevedores, Woodside and Toyota.

In the Qantas case the unions had not done enough to financial damage directly. So Joyce made a very risky decision which would do direct financial damage (which FWA accepted), to bring the matter to a head.

Now we have two results from Joyce's decision.
He has opened up a "can of worms" showing up the weakness in FWA, and he has probably united the whole business arena against FWA and Gillard.
Joyce has been the only CEO to get FWA to act on his business behalf. However he had to put his company's future at risk to do so.

As the Japanese Chief stated in bombing the USA at Pearl Harbour, "we may have wakened a sleeping giant" (or something to that affect.)

And that is the reason Albanese and Gillard have been frothing at the mouth with the "blame game" against Abbott and Joyce.
Labor has  been caught out once again, and as the Australian businesses and voters begin to understand fully, we will hopefully see the end of Gillard.

You will notice a few MP's in the background trying to defuse the spotlight on Labor with Brown, Wilkie and Windsor putting forward new points of attention.
joea


----------



## Boggo (2 November 2011)

Funny but closer to the truth than most realise...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kji8arr7l0U&sns=fb


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> *Well I don't know who is thrashing it* but I do know I have pre payed a cruise next March and there is no way I would have booked a flight on Qantas to join it.
> The way the on again off again strikes were going I wouldn't risk the cruise on the hope the unions decided mine was a fly day, F that.
> Save for two years book a cruise and then miss it because the baggage handlers decide the plane won't leave, yeh right, get over it. That is like the RBA putting up interest rates 12% how would you react to that?




You should!... before making judgements.





The fact is that Qantas:
was set up by a special law, The Qantas Sale Act,
has a clear duty and obligations as the national carrier under that act, and
has protected income as the national carrier.
Further, the corporate activity of Qantas, being accelerated by Joyce is in the same vain as corporate raiders (like Murdock on Ansett and many others including his raid on the Wall Street Journal, which the Bancroff family later said they regretted selling to Murdock because he misled them about maintaining the high standard of the paper), stripping assets from a company and dodgying up the books to try to conceal it.

Don't forget there is two sides to the financial aspects of being a national carrier legislsted in law... a protected income as well as the often cited more expensive costs compared to it's so called opposition in the Asian market. 

*Qantas has no opposition in the Asian market for it's primiary function, the protected national carrier.*



There are a number of things to ask about this so called low cost Asian competition before you rush to want to justify going down to their level:
What would be the financial impact of loosing the privilage and protection of being the national carrier? This is never flashed about to balance a move to cheaper operations abroad arguement.
How does their safety/crash record compare?
How does their route and connections compare?
How does their workplace relations compare?
Who owns them, in particular how much government control and funding?
What is the long term goal of the management/ major shareholder?
How profitable are they, ie which areas of operation are they most profitable?
In the end it may come down to some people not knowing the benifit of a national carrier, who respects that privilage, until they don't have one at a time of most need, such as;  

GFC #2, 3 etc, with more unprotected 'private' company closures,
severe volcanic or other natural disaster which limits and prioritizes airline activity,
war including trade war or other diplomat tension limiting available overseas based airline activity.



Boggo said:


> Funny but closer to the truth than most realise...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kji8arr7l0U&sns=fb




Quite so!


----------



## McLovin (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> The fact is that Qantas:
> was set up by a special law, The Qantas Sale Act,
> has a clear duty and obligations as the national carrier under that act, and
> has protected income as the national carrier.




Which part of the Act stipulates your second and third points?


----------



## noco (2 November 2011)

I wonder if someone would pass this on to our Prime Minister to inform her how Canada handled a similar situation and avoided the mess we are now seeing with Qantas, the unions and the government.

Listen to Lisa.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._shows_julia_how_to_handle_an_airline_crisis/


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Which part of the Act stipulates your second and third points?



 By virtue of being national carrier it gets;

first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.
subsidies for certain domestic business that from time to time is deemed necessary to provide such as some rural services... which while the individual routes were deemed unprofitable, subsidies make the overall cost of owning an aircraft and maximizing it's usefulness, cheaper to own and more profitable
extra business on the back of the presteige of being the national carrier, that it otherwise would not have had.
... a few that immediately spring to mind.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> By virtue of being national carrier it gets;
> 
> first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.
> subsidies for certain domestic business that from time to time is deemed necessary to provide such as some rural services... which while the individual routes were deemed unprofitable, subsidies make the overall cost of owning an aircraft and maximizing it's usefulness, cheaper to own and more profitable
> ...




 4.  If it doesn't give in to TWU demands it must be prepared to be trashed. (This is the sting in the tail.)


----------



## McLovin (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> By virtue of being national carrier it gets;
> 
> first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.
> subsidies for certain domestic business that from time to time is deemed necessary to provide such as some rural services... which while the individual routes were deemed unprofitable, subsidies make the overall cost of owning an aircraft and maximizing it's usefulness, cheaper to own and more profitable
> ...




Your first point is wrong.

On your second point, Qantas is under no obligation to fly rural routes. It does so because it gets government assistance. Any other airline would be free to do so as well. The process for applying to operate services on regulated routes is currently via a tender process which is open to any airline.

Your third point is probably correct but the benefit is extremely marginal. Qantas has seen its market share in  ex Oz international traffic halve in the last 15 years. So clearly the group of flyers that are in awe of Qantas' status as a national carrier ain't what it used to be.

Hard to see how any of those points prove that is has a) a clear duty and obligations, besides those legislated in the Qantas Sale Act and b) it has protected income. The aviation industry was deregulated nearly two decades ago. Qantas enjoys no special status, except as a "national icon".


----------



## sptrawler (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> By virtue of being national carrier it gets;
> 
> first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.
> subsidies for certain domestic business that from time to time is deemed necessary to provide such as some rural services... which while the individual routes were deemed unprofitable, subsidies make the overall cost of owning an aircraft and maximizing it's usefulness, cheaper to own and more profitable
> ...




That all counts for nothing if you can't sell a ticket because the unions keep stopping flights indiscriminately.


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> 4.  If it doesn't give in to TWU demands it must be prepared to be trashed. (This is the sting in the tail.)




It's not so much about the TWU, but about how Qantas is managing conflict.  

You tend to deal with a conflict with someone with no ongoing relationship differently than you would with someone you have an ongoing commitment and or relationship with such as family or workplace. You can get away with the big stick win lose approach with one of dealings, but there is a skill to negotiation a win win solution. Apart from skill, the environment has first to be in good faith, honest and transparent.

As for who is trashing the company, much has already been spelt out on that matter. 

Simply by virtue of Qantas wanting to be more offshore based and compete with low cost carriers in their market is by definition 'trashing' the company. 



McLovin said:


> Your first point is wrong.




Well, that's your opinion, but with no rationale.



> *On your second point, Qantas is under no obligation to fly rural routes. It does so because it gets government assistance.*




Isn't that what I said!?



> Any other airline would be free to do so as well. The process for applying to operate services on regulated routes is currently via a tender process which is open to any airline.




That's true, but as superficial a representation of the whole picture as Qantas, esp Joyce.

The first and main point to make is that for any airline to operate in Aus it has to be an Aus registered business and operate under our laws. The rest should be self explanatory why few try, let alone compete on the domestic market. Virgin is doing it with much better conflict resolution skills management than Qantas.



> Your third point is probably correct but the benefit is extremely marginal.
> Qantas has seen its market share in  ex Oz international traffic halve in the
> last 15 years. So clearly the group of flyers that are in awe of Qantas' status
> as a national carrier ain't what it used to be.




The benefit was and still is significant to any national carrier who respects and nurtures the position.


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> That all counts for nothing if you can't sell a ticket because the unions keep stopping flights indiscriminately.




I defer to my previous post, in particular the conflict resolution skills of Qantas or maybe it's more just Joyce.

On that note I saw a quote where he was asked why he didn't take the same application to FWA that the gov did. His reply was that they didn't think it would succeed. So what does he do... hold the whole world to ransom to try to win a point over a union and our gov and largely failed anyway. 

The gov and FWA would agree that employees have a right to ask for some sort of job security. Like it or not them's the players and grounds Joyce has to deal with and from a conflict resolution point of view, he is handling it poorly. 

It's akin to being caught in the middle of enemy territory and standing up in an open paddock and angrily yelling 'come on out and fight me'. Dumb!


----------



## McLovin (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Well, that's your opinion, but with no rationale.




Err no, it's a fact. Government travel since about 2009 has been utilising cheap fares on multiple airlines for years...



> *Government Air Travel Policies*
> 
> The Rudd Government is revising the two current Australian Government air travel policies; use of best fare of the day for official air travel; and official air travel on the Canberra-Sydney route: 25 per cent minimum usage target for smaller airlines.
> 
> ...




http://www2.financeminister.gov.au/media/2009/mr_562009.html




			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> Isn't that what I said!?




That wasn't in the post I replied to.




			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> That's true, but as superficial a representation of the whole picture as Qantas, esp Joyce.
> 
> The first and main point to make is that for any airline to operate in Aus it has to be an Aus registered business and operate under our laws. The rest should be self explanatory why few try, let alone compete on the domestic market. Virgin is doing it with much better conflict resolution skills management than Qantas.




Pardon my ignorance but what is supposed to be self explanatory?





Whiskers said:


> The benefit was and still is significant to any national carrier who respects and nurtures the position.




I doubt it. Just look at how flag carriers have been decimated in Europe by low cost airlines. I don't know how much flying you do, but I can tell you based on my own experience the majority of business travelers care far more about service and price. The status of the airline as a national carrier doesn't even enter the picture. Like I said, a small portion of travelers may be willing to pay more because of some perceived patriotic duty (Dick Smith types) but they are truly at the margins.


----------



## sptrawler (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> The gov and FWA would agree that employees have a right to ask for some sort of job security. Like it or not them's the players and grounds Joyce has to deal with and from a conflict resolution point of view, he is handling it poorly.




I wish the world was still like that, job security went out the window 15 - 20years ago. As for handling disputes poorly, one just has to go back to the Hawke handling of the pilots dispute. 
Now that was something, talk about causing chaos to the travelling public, there was more busses on the Nullabor than trucks.
As for the way Joyce handled this dispute it was nothing compared to how the Labor party joined the employers to cream the pilots in 1989. They didn't give a rats about the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Australian_pilots'_dispute


----------



## startrader (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> ....
> 
> The people on TV saying how they will never fly Qantas again are once a year flyers probably on the cheapest ticket they could find. They will continue to be once a year flyers on the cheapest ticket they can find and if that means flying Qantas then they'll be flying Qantas. All that needs to be done is to dangle a few cheap tickets in front of them.




A very sweeping statement to make and quite wrong.  A lot of the people saying they will never fly Qantas again were actually once loyal customers who are now willing to give other airlines a try - after having been treated with contempt by Qantas management.


----------



## McLovin (2 November 2011)

startrader said:


> A very sweeping statement to make and quite wrong.  A lot of the people saying they will never fly Qantas again were actually once loyal customers who are now willing to give other airlines a try - after having been treated with contempt by Qantas management.




Fine...Loyal fly-once-a-year customers.

For business customers the rolling strikes were far more damaging than the grounding. I have no doubt Qantas new the resolution would be quick and for that reason grounded on a Saturday.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> For business customers the rolling strikes were far more damaging than the grounding. I have no doubt Qantas new the resolution would be quick and for that reason grounded on a Saturday.




The Fair Work Act is a mongrel act, designed by union lawyers.



> *A central feature of the protected action undertaken by the unions was its intermittent and unpredictable nature. Designed to cause maximum disruption to the airline, it had very little impact on the hip pockets of the workers. That such drawn-out, faux industrial action is allowed under the act is something that needs to be reconsidered.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-three-big-flaws/story-e6frgd0x-1226182982295


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

Is the ACCC also in the government's pocket?



> ACCC chairman Rod Sims said while that addressed some of the commission’s concerns, it didn’t go far enough.
> ‘‘These circumstances are extraordinary and there have been a huge number of passengers significantly affected,’’ Mr Sims said. ‘‘It is squarely in the airline’s camp to make good.
> ‘‘If you have incurred additional expenses as a result of the grounding, the ACCC is of the view that Qantas should compensate you for all your reasonable losses.’’




Not a word about compensation to be paid by the three unions for all the disruptions and losses caused to Qantas and the travelling public by months of faux industrial action.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...ompensation-20111102-1mvap.html#ixzz1cX0CJBLe


----------



## IFocus (2 November 2011)

I wonder if Joyce and Co want the narrative to be about bad unions, costs are bad, losing money, governments fault etc. 

Instead of its a national icon / carrier, do we want Australians losing jobs to extremely cheap Asian labor and shocking conditions etc. 

What are we really willing to pay for and accept. 

I expect the unions to get smashed and Qantas becomes a memory that still is one of the most profitable airlines in the world but wont be making much more than it already is. 

We will of course lose a highly skilled work force and quality levels not seen by many competitors.

Our future is breaking rocks and shipping it nothing more.........


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Err no, it's a fact. Government travel since about 2009 has been utilising cheap fares on multiple airlines for years...
> 
> 
> I doubt it. Just look at how flag carriers have been decimated in Europe by low cost airlines. I don't know how much flying you do, but I can tell you based on my own experience the majority of business travelers care far more about service and price. The status of the airline as a national carrier doesn't even enter the picture. Like I said, a small portion of travelers may be willing to pay more because of some perceived patriotic duty (Dick Smith types) but they are truly at the margins.




Ensuring competition does not = lack of support or protection of the national carrier. It's a tool to try to stop the management of the business from getting complacent and taking it's position and market share for granted. 

The other point is* you seem to be focused on the isolated and short term perspective as a passenger.* The Gov and *regulatory authorities have the law and national interest (particularly in times of adversity as mentioned earlier) to consider* .



sptrawler said:


> I wish the world was still like that, job security went out the window 15 - 20years ago. As for handling disputes poorly, one just has to go back to the Hawke handling of the pilots dispute.
> Now that was something, talk about causing chaos to the travelling public, there was more busses on the Nullabor than trucks.




Back then was a bit different.

It was the move to Ã‰nterprise Agreements and more contracted relations by industry and a Liberal gov that led to Enterprise Agreements being still law today. 

Essentially an Enterprise Agreement is a contract in law. The basic notion of contract law is that there are penalty payments and or legal compensation for a party who breaches a contractural agreement.

Joyce seems to have a big problem with committing to some sort of contractural security for the terms of the enterprise agreement that they essentially agreed on long ago. 

In typical CEO and many employment contracts, like Joyce to the contract cleaners, they get a base pay, sometimes bonuses for performance and often a lump sum compensation (or legal recourse to) if their contract is terminated early by the employer. 

Joyce is trying to play a sleight of hands in the enterprise agreement like his accounting practices. It appears to be one thing on the balance sheet summary, but questions appear as to it's integrity that he does not want to answer. 

*Just to exemplify my point that it's all about the conflict resolution skills* of Joyce in particular...

What's the main beef of Joyce? High costs... compared to some Asian international carriers whom he wishes to branch out and compete more. 

But, isn't it true that they largely agreed on terms  with the unions, but the sticking point was to do with security of employment. Joyce apparently won't entertain that demand at all.

This is at the core of why I say honesty and openness is at the heart of a win win conflict resolution process. 

It's a major lack of good faith if you agree to give your staff say a 3% pay rise to settle a dispute, but don't commit that their employment is secure for the life of the enterprise agreement, or to categorically deny roumers and evidence that you might sack them anyway and send their jobs offshore.

In the first instance there is a serious failing in conflict resolution skills. Whether that translates into convictions for breaches of the law or changes to the law to close loop holes, we will have to wait and see. 


PS: Apparently ASIC is investigating some suspicious trades in Qantas of late. Limited comment until investigations are complete.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> We will of course lose a highly skilled work force and quality levels not seen by many competitors.




Baggage handlers? Skilled?


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Baggage handlers? Skilled?




Maintenance engineers and pilots!


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Qantas has seen its market share in  ex Oz international traffic halve in the last 15 years. So clearly the group of flyers that are in awe of Qantas' status as a national carrier ain't what it used to be.



I personally avoid Qantas and my reasons for doing so are simple. My perception is that their planes are old, worn out and less safe than competitors. Price is not the reason, nor is the quality of service. There are simply far too many "incidents" with this airline.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> For business customers the rolling strikes were far more damaging than the grounding. I have no doubt Qantas new the resolution would be quick and for that reason grounded on a Saturday.



I don't personally fly for work but I deal with many who do and I'd say that the volcanic ash debacle did more damage to Qantas than the union action. All those I've spoken to know damn well that the ash thing was nothing more than a PR stunt intended to fool the public into thinking that rivals were somehow taking safety risks when clearly they were not. 

That alone wrecked the Qantas brand for anyone wanting reliability - the recent grounding is simply another unnecesary round of chaos from Qantas but it's not the first in recent times.


----------



## moXJO (2 November 2011)

> The reason is that Qantas as an operational carrier is mired in a business model unable to adapt to the degree necessary to remain competitive. The root cause is its industrial relations agreements and culture from which it is unable to escape. It's a human resource manager's worst nightmare.
> 
> All attempts at management-worker bonding around a common business cause seem to have crashed. Chris Tipler described this in Business Spectator recently (Qantas' HR policy crashes to earth, October 6). The current concerted industrial disruption campaign by Qantas' unions should be understood for what it is. *It's a battle over who runs the airline; management or the workers' collective.*
> 
> ...




Rest is here http://www.contractworld.com.au/discussions/ken-phillips-Qantas-final-destination.php


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 November 2011)

We penny pinch hoping to save every last cent on air fares.

Then we get a taxi to a 4+ star hotel rather than taking the bus and staying in 3 star accommodation.

The obsession with minimising air fares whilst not worring about other related costs seems rather odd to me and a situation which can't possibly be good for safety no matter which airline you fly with.


----------



## Julia (2 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> That all counts for nothing if you can't sell a ticket because the unions keep stopping flights indiscriminately.



What a succinct and totally correct comment.



Whiskers said:


> I defer to my previous post, in particular the conflict resolution skills of Qantas or maybe it's more just Joyce.



Agree that Mr Joyce's human resources skills appear to be somewhat limited.
Such a contrast with the culture at Virgin.



> On that note I saw a quote where he was asked why he didn't take the same application to FWA that the gov did. His reply was that they didn't think it would succeed. So what does he do... hold the whole world to ransom to try to win a point over a union and our gov and largely failed anyway.



That he 'failed' is just your opinion.  I'd say he succeeded on the basis that he forced a cessation of the union's nonsense.




> The gov and FWA would agree that employees have a right to ask for some sort of job security.



What planet are you living on, Whiskers?  Job security?   No such thing these days and QANTAS workers need to get that.  If they continue to impede the profitability of the airline they won't have a job at all.



> It's akin to being caught in the middle of enemy territory and standing up in an open paddock and angrily yelling 'come on out and fight me'. Dumb!



And what do you suggest the unions were doing?  They were doing exactly that, just in a more drawn out fashion, ensuring the uncertainty for passengers and the company - if it were allowed to continue - would eventually kill off the whole business.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Maintenance engineers and pilots!




Yeah,  but it's your unskilled TWU members who represent the greatest danger to industrial peace. They are skilled trouble-makers, and have much more industrial clout than the pilots and engineers.


----------



## sptrawler (3 November 2011)

Best of luck whiskers, last time the union dug in they where creamed by the government. In the nations interest.


----------



## Calliope (3 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Best of luck whiskers, last time the union dug in they where creamed by the government. In the nations interest.




Tony Sheldon, the heroic leader of the baggage handlers. It is not surprising that FWA was designed to facilitate the destructive actions by the TWU.







PROMINENT union leader Tony Sheldon has conceded his union's bid to force Qantas to submit to contentious job security clauses would not have been possible under the Howard government and was only achievable after Labor changed workplace laws.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ead-tony-sheldon/story-fn59noo3-1226184061767


----------



## McLovin (3 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Ensuring competition does not = lack of support or protection of the national carrier.




You're just shifting the goalposts now. You said:



> first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.




Which is a complete myth. If you believe that there is protection, then how about some proof?




			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> The other point is* you seem to be focused on the isolated and short term perspective as a passenger.* The Gov and *regulatory authorities have the law and national interest (particularly in times of adversity as mentioned earlier) to consider* .





Having a competitive aviation market is in the national interest, it's why we don't protect airlines and regulate fares anymore. Business passengers were deserting Qantas because the rolling stikes had made it unreliable. This was reducing compeitition. No law was broken so that's a fairly dubious strawman.

Quite frankly, I don't care who flies me from Sydney to Melbourne. As long as they have a decent schedule and are reliable then it's much of a muchness. The national interest is not served by having a strong Qantas, the national interest is served by having a strong competitive domestic aviation industry.


----------



## Whiskers (3 November 2011)

For simplicity I will respond to the issues of* Joyces '' largely failed'' decision* and the *notion of job security* from a number of posters all together here.

I wish to reaffirm my commentry is from a conflict resolution perspective, not the best commercial, shareholder or union interest, but considering the existing laws, good or bad, they are what they are and that is the environment that the dispute is being conducted in.

Some posters seem to be missing the point, or even the whole notion of a particular field of management, Human Resource Management and the particular skills and process of conflict resolution. 

A number of comments have stemed from my earlier comment

_"I saw a quote where he was asked why he didn't take the same application to FWA that the gov did. His reply was that they didn't think it would succeed. So what does he do... hold the whole world to ransom to try to win a point over a union and our gov and largely failed anyway."_ 

 Firstly I said largely failed not completely failed. 




The reason is based on two main points;
Joyce said the lockout would continue until the unions dropped their extreme demands... highlighted is his press release below.
The estimated direct financial cost to his decision to lock out the unions and standown the whole fleet.
He certainly shook up some action, but  he didn't achieve his main point then... and there is no guarantee he will get it now, given the current structure of FWA, the gov and that he has got all the other parties to the dispute further off side now. 

The unions won in the sense that the lock out by Joyce was overturned. His attempt to make them suffer financially without pay, failed.

Whereas his (Qantas) costs for the lockout attempt look like blowing his estimate too. Qantas faces soaring payout for refunds and compensation.

From a conflict resolution point of view, the unions have been stopped in their tracks for the moment, without any financial loss, whereas Joyce failed to get the union demands withdrawn, but the blunt instrument he used to try to achieve that is coming back to bite him worse than he predicted. 

Job Security in this case is not about individual guarantees for a certain term of employment. Although an enterprise agreement or contract of employment can provide for compensation for termination of employment or contract.

What I'm on about in terms of job security is with regards to the requirements of the Qantas sale act that Qantas management keep the majority of their operations in Aus. Employees, the regulators, the gov and the Aus public are entitled to know of any plans that would be or are in breech of the Qantas Sale Act or other Aus law.

*For those condoning Joyces actions, maybe you would like to share how you see this panning out step by step to his/your desired outcome.* All I see atm is the water getting muddier, hostilities increasing, Qantas costs increasing and no further advanced than if Joyce had forced the unions hands earlier by taking the dispute to FWA. 

Given the nature of FWA and the current gov, wouldn't he have been better off biding his time until this gov was turfed out if he didn't want to publically declare that these jobs would not go offshore?



> November 3, 2011
> THE corporate watchdog has demanded Qantas  reimburse customers for losses such as hotel and transport costs and even pleasure cruises they missed because the airline grounded its entire fleet  on Saturday.
> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said
> Qantas should also pay for flights booked by customers while the airline
> ...









​


----------



## Boggo (3 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Employees, the regulators, the gov and the Aus public are entitled to know of any plans that would be *or are in breech of *the Qantas Sale Act or *other Aus law.*




Another grey area is that of how Asian flight attendants come through Darwin and crew on internal Aust flights down the east coast to Melb etc and then do the reverse the next day.
Similarly there are NZ crews that do the same on QAN aircraft, none of these people have Aust work visas etc.
Shouldn't the immigration dept be all over this practice ?


----------



## joea (3 November 2011)

It is apparent that many people want to concentrate on the lockout.
Wayne Swan is one of the biggest contributors to this. He can not let it go because it takes the gloss off an under performing government.

The government followed the script to the letter.
The lockout was never meant to happen. It didn't.

It was a simple IR move by Joyce. The first step to their new business plan was successful.
I for one give credit to the man, his board and his shareholders.

But then Australian's might not see things as I do.
A successful business with integrity generally has a good relationship with its people.
From there the rest of the bits just fall into place.
joea


----------



## Julia (3 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Another grey area is that of how Asian flight attendants come through Darwin and crew on internal Aust flights down the east coast to Melb etc and then do the reverse the next day.
> Similarly there are NZ crews that do the same on QAN aircraft, none of these people have Aust work visas etc.
> Shouldn't the immigration dept be all over this practice ?



Do Australian crew, based here, have visas for all the places they fly to or overnight at?
I'd imagine the relevant fact would be where they are based.


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Do Australian crew, based here, have visas for all the places they fly to or overnight at?
> I'd imagine the relevant fact would be where they are based.




Flying to and from international cities is different to flying within the country which is what for example QF is doing with Jetstar via Darwin, ie, employ them in Asia and then have them crew flights via Cairns etc all the way down to Melb and back carrying Australian domestic passengers.

All of this came up in the Senator Xenophon senate inquiry which is now published and teetering on the edge of Minister Albanese's desk just over his rubbish bin, all he needs now if for Xenophon to get distracted with pokies legislation and we have makings of another episode of 'Yes Minister' when the desk gets bumped.

The media and most commentator's (some on here too) have no idea of what all of this is really about.

This is just a very basic summary of just one aspect of it, you would probably take the train if you knew some of what is really happening...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/w...ghts-bill-more-humble-than-revolutionary.html

and here...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3279602.htm


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

Can someone tell me who is going to champion the cause for the haulpack drivers who are loosing their jobs.
Rio Tinto is buying 150 remote controlled driverless haulpacs, the existing drivers are bread winners, fathers, husbands whose jobs aren't going overseas they are lost for ever.


----------



## startrader (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Flying to and from international cities is different to flying within the country which is what for example QF is doing with Jetstar via Darwin, ie, employ them in Asia and then have them crew flights via Cairns etc all the way down to Melb and back carrying Australian domestic passengers.
> 
> All of this came up in the Senator Xenophon senate inquiry which is now published and teetering on the edge of Minister Albanese's desk just over his rubbish bin, all he needs now if for Xenophon to get distracted with pokies legislation and we have makings of another episode of 'Yes Minister' when the desk gets bumped.
> 
> ...




Yes Boggo,

I'm shocked at how people are cheering on Joyce and the Qantas board while they go about doing things to the company which must be downright illegal. Do they really want foreign crews crewing Qantas planes and working 20 hours straight (which is already happening)? And, if so, why? If I fly a Qantas plane I want to know that it has a Qantas pilot flying it and this is the sort of thing that the workers are trying to protect.

If they succeed in what they are trying to do then Qantas should not be the national carrier and should enjoy no privileges like it does now and be opened up to real competition with all the other airlines.


----------



## nulla nulla (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Can someone tell me who is going to champion the cause for the haulpack drivers who are loosing their jobs.
> Rio Tinto is buying 150 remote controlled driverless haulpacs, the existing drivers are bread winners, fathers, husbands whose jobs aren't going overseas they are lost for ever.




Maybe Joyce will offer them jobs as pilots? 

P.S.  Don't forget about the female haulpack drivers. The mining companies have been hiring female haulpack drivers now for several years after they realised the female drivers were more efficient drivers.


----------



## dutchie (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Can someone tell me who is going to champion the cause for the haulpack drivers who are loosing their jobs.
> Rio Tinto is buying 150 remote controlled driverless haulpacs, the existing drivers are bread winners, fathers, husbands whose jobs aren't going overseas they are lost for ever.




No one. This happens all the time now - its called progress. Machines/technology  replace humans in the workforce.


----------



## IFocus (4 November 2011)

startrader said:


> Yes Boggo,
> 
> I'm shocked at how people are cheering on Joyce and the Qantas board while they go about doing things to the company which must be downright illegal. Do they really want foreign crews crewing Qantas planes and working 20 hours straight (which is already happening)? And, if so, why? If I fly a Qantas plane I want to know that it has a Qantas pilot flying it and this is the sort of thing that the workers are trying to protect.
> 
> If they succeed in what they are trying to do then Qantas should not be the national carrier and should enjoy no privileges like it does now and be opened up to real competition with all the other airlines.




I wonder if the Joyce supporters / union critics here would be happy if their kids were working 20 hour shifts earning $20K / year is that the future for our own............if that's the case then who are the BB's going to sell their mac-mansions to?


----------



## IFocus (4 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Maybe Joyce will offer them jobs as pilots?
> 
> P.S.  Don't forget about the female haulpack drivers. The mining companies have been hiring female haulpack drivers now for several years after they realised the female drivers were more efficient drivers.





The girls tend to not flog the gear so hard like the boys do, boys will be boys, but main reason for hiring the girls in most of the places I worked was to boost morale on site and take some of the agro out of the air.


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

dutchie said:


> No one. This happens all the time now - its called progress. Machines/technology  replace humans in the workforce.




Yes and I am sure that if they can use remote controlled tucks to move 200tons of ore around and deposit it in pre detirmined locations. 
It is only a matter of time before the luggage is moved from the terminal to the plane remotely.


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2011)

Interesting day in Canberra today with the Senate inquiry into Qantas.
Most of it is live on ABC24.


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2011)

Another engine problem today, seems like this was an oil leak which probably makes a welcome change from the the problems they have been having since they shifted the maintenance on the Roller engines overseas.

This refers to the ongoing issues, not the latest failure...
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/10/17/the-failure-engine-strikes-again-at-qantas/

_If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident._


----------



## todster (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Can someone tell me who is going to champion the cause for the haulpack drivers who are loosing their jobs.
> Rio Tinto is buying 150 remote controlled driverless haulpacs, the existing drivers are bread winners, fathers, husbands whose jobs aren't going overseas they are lost for ever.




I think you will find these are new positions,no redundancies.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Another grey area is that of how Asian flight attendants come through Darwin and crew on internal Aust flights down the east coast to Melb etc and then do the reverse the next day.
> Similarly there are NZ crews that do the same on QAN aircraft, none of these people have Aust work visas etc.
> Shouldn't the immigration dept be all over this practice ?




Asian based crew on Asian labour contracts should not be allowed to crew domestic legs. The same rules that apply around cabotage (ninth freedoms) should apply to foreign crewed flights, IMO. NZ should be the same, although as I understand Jetconnect (the Qantas NZ subsidiary) only operates trans-Tasman routes it doesn't operate domestic services.


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

todster said:


> I think you will find these are new positions,no redundancies.




That's good. It is still a shame the position is lost, but thats technology for you.


----------



## Whiskers (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> _If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident._




Indeed!

A big problem Qantas has in this process of once being the top of pile in terms of safety, and now trying to compete with cheap Asian airlines and cheaper overseas maintenance, is quality control. 

With the increasing rate of incidents, how long is it going to take before a crash sparks criminal and or civil litigation of negligence for loss of life, earnings etc.

It will be a tough case to defend given the current haste, lack of transparency and poor conflict resolution management in getting to a cheaper cost base with obvious higher rates of incidents as a trade off, being acceptable by management.

Apart from public perception of the brand and customer satisfaction, this down hill strategy of acceptance of lower standards will be one hell of an obstacle in legal terms, since the 'norm'  and ususl legal requirement is for management to at least maintain safety standards if not improve them.

That will be the acid test of whether Qantas's strategy will be successful.

The old saying, 'you get what you pay for' is certainly relevant here for those insisting that cheaper fares (from lower costs) are the main criteria for them.


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Asian based crew on Asian labour contracts should not be allowed to crew domestic legs. The same rules that apply around cabotage (ninth freedoms) should apply to foreign crewed flights, IMO. NZ should be the same, although as I understand Jetconnect (the Qantas NZ subsidiary) only operates trans-Tasman routes it doesn't operate domestic services.




Exactly, the problem is that the average travelling public (no disrespect to anyone) are just not aware of what is really going on behind the scenes and the pollies are turning a blind eye.

Imagine the uproar if the WA miners started a fly in/fly out service from Manila or Bangkok instead of Perth !


----------



## sptrawler (4 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Indeed!
> 
> A big problem Qantas has in this process of once being the top of pile in terms of safety, and now trying to compete with cheap Asian airlines and cheaper overseas maintenance, is quality control.
> 
> ...




Qantas has being having maintenance incidents for a few years and that is with the current maintenance workforce.
They seem to be having more problems than the Asian based carriers. This may be due to things out of their control, but it does reflect badly on their maintenance personel and or proceedures. 
Which in turn dilutes the arguement that safety standards will drop if the work is carried out overseas.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Exactly, the problem is that the average travelling public (no disrespect to anyone) are just not aware of what is really going on behind the scenes and the pollies are turning a blind eye.
> 
> Imagine the uproar if the WA miners started a fly in/fly out service from Manila or Bangkok instead of Perth !




Even worse is the song and dance Qantas put on when Singapore Airlines wanted their fifth freedoms to extend to being able to fly LAX-SYD-SIN, saying they couldn't compete against Asian based crews. As it is now, most flights between Oz-Europe on Qantas have Asian or UK based crew on the Asia-Europe leg. The Bangkok based crew are probably the best I have come across on Qantas.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Qantas has being having maintenance incidents for a few years and that is with the current maintenance workforce.




I love the canard often used about maintenance being offshored leading to a reduction in standards. Maintenance is being offshored all around the world, there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from those carriers that have offshored their maintenance. It's just a convenient trick of the unions to play on xenophobia.


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> I love the canard often used about maintenance being offshored leading to a reduction in standards. Maintenance is being offshored all around the world, there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from those carriers that have offshored their maintenance. It's just a convenient trick of the unions to play on xenophobia.




Its not so much the quality of the work, its getting the work done when it needs to be done.
There is a current mod on the Roller engines that QF cannot get done because they are at the back of the queue behind the asian operators that should have been done 12 months ago, a few years ago they would have done it themselves.

Just more of the same, get used to it...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-06/another-qantas-flight-grounded-after-engine-failure/2326036


----------



## Whiskers (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Its not so much the quality of the work, its getting the work done when it needs to be done.
> There is a current mod on the Roller engines that QF cannot get done because they are at the back of the queue behind the asian operators that should have been done 12 months ago, a few years ago they would have done it themselves.
> 
> Just more of the same, get used to it...
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-06/another-qantas-flight-grounded-after-engine-failure/2326036




Yes, 'standards' encompasses timing and availability issues, among others, as a function of management proceedures, as well as actual manual labour quality. 


Further to... 



> Originally Posted by *McLovin*
> 
> 
> I love the canard often used about maintenance being offshored leading to a reduction in standards. *Maintenance is being offshored **all around the world, there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from **those carriers that have offshored their maintenance.* It's just a convenient trick of the unions to play on xenophobia.




Generalizations are of little help. 

Again, it's not just a matter of offshoring, it's a matter of the particular expertise and equipment that your circumstance demands being available and done in a timely manner.

And finally keeping within the laws and regulations of your operation... that the majority of operations be based in Aus. There is some ambiguity of the interpretation of the majority of operations being tested by Qantas. For example Qantas might feel that it can offshore all of it's maintaince operations and still have most of it's operations based in Aus. This is likely to test the original intention of the act which may have been intended to mean each individual function, eg maintaince, must be majority Aus based.

Since maintaince is a critical factor of any operation, it reasonably could be argued that as the national carrier that most or all maintaince should be done in Aus or at least facalities be kept to do in Aus in an emergency like closure of those offshore facilities for any number of reasons from natural disaster, war to financial collapse.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Generalizations are of little help.




Which generalisation? If you have evidence that offshoring of maintenance has lead to an increase in incidents then I'd love to see it. 




Whiskers said:


> Again, it's not just a matter of offshoring, it's a matter of the particular expertise and equipment that your circumstance demands being available and done in a timely manner.




I'm sure someone in Kunming can be trained to be an aircraft engineer just as well as someone in Sydney.



Whiskers said:


> And finally keeping within the laws and regulations of your operation... that the majority of operations be based in Aus. There is some ambiguity of the interpretation of the majority of operations being tested by Qantas. For example Qantas might feel that it can offshore all of it's maintaince operations and still have most of it's operations based in Aus. This is likely to test the original intention of the act which may have been intended to mean each individual function, eg maintaince, must be majority Aus based.




Ditch the Sale Act or nationalise the airline. The current situation is not sustainable. You have a government supposedly pro free-trade imposing artificial barriers to trade for a major Australian company. Airlines are a sh!tty enough business to be in, forcing an airline to compete in an open market but imposing restrictions (on ownership and operations) is unfair.


----------



## DB008 (4 November 2011)

Complex situation.

Overheads are very high for QF. 
Staff costs are through the roof. I very much doubt that a EK/AF/LH A380 pilot gets paid what a QF A380 pilot gets. Not to mention that some of the middle eastern carriers are also in tax free countries. 

Australia is also a end-of-point destination, whereas Asia and Middle East (EK-Dubai), are fantastic transit points on the globe.

QF had to do something to fend off the unions and unrealistic demands they demanded.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Complex situation.
> 
> Overheads are very high for QF.
> Staff costs are through the roof. I very much doubt that a EK/AF/LH A380 pilot gets paid what a QF A380 pilot gets. Not to mention that some of the middle eastern carriers are also in tax free countries.
> ...




Exactly. If the status quo is maintained then QF international will be done in a few years. And "Qantas" will become an amusing footnote on the balance sheet of Jetstar.


----------



## startrader (4 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Complex situation.
> 
> Overheads are very high for QF.
> Staff costs are through the roof. I very much doubt that a EK/AF/LH A380 pilot gets paid what a QF A380 pilot gets. Not to mention that some of the middle eastern carriers are also in tax free countries.
> ...





Overheads are not as high as Qantas management is making out. Staff costs are not through the roof. Do you know how much those overseas pilots get paid do you? I very much doubt it and you are believing the line being fed by Qantas management. For your information an LH pilot is on a similar salary package to a QF A380 pilot. Air New Zealand has similar overheads and staff costs to Qantas and it's doing fine.

Plus, QF did not have to fend off the unions because they were not making unrealistic demands - they're not striking for the fun of it and it's not about more money.


----------



## Whiskers (4 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> *Which generalisation*? If you have evidence that offshoring of maintenance has lead to an increase in incidents then I'd love to see it.




Your assertion that* "*_there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from those carriers that have offshored their maintenance_*"*

That maybe on average, but that is no comfort for one that is below the average and has a serious incident... or increased incidents as Qantas is suffering.




> I'm sure someone in Kunming can be trained to be an aircraft engineer just as
> well as someone in Sydney.




What I said was, with renewed emphasis...
"_Again, it's not just a matter of offshoring, it's a matter of the particular expertise *and equipment* that *your circumstance demands* being *available* and done in a *timely manner*."_
​Yes new engineers can be trained, albeit experience is an invaluable assett in sophisticated engineering... but my point was you also need the right and enough equipment, which is also not always so readily available or easily obtained and collectively you need it all to come together in a timely framework so that as boggo has already pointed out, you are not languishing in a cue in someone elses workshop where you don't have priority treatment when you need it. 



> *Ditch the Sale Act or nationalise the airline*. The current situation is not
> sustainable. You have a government supposedly pro free-trade imposing artificial
> barriers to trade for a major Australian company. Airlines are a sh!tty enough
> business to be in, forcing an airline to compete in an open market but imposing restrictions (on ownership and operations) is unfair.





I don't necessairly dissagree with that... BUT that is the environment atm to which Joyce must conform, unless he can force a law change, hence my mention at the outset of the thread of the likes of Franklin on the share registry and investigations into unusual or suspicious trading in Qantas prior to the lockout. 

My point has always been about the effectiveness/wisdom of his strategy in resolving conflict to get a win win solution, as opposed to a win lose solution which aggrevates people you have to continue working with.

I would also reaffirm the point by startrader... it's not really about the so called 'unrealestic' demands of unions. Joyce agreed to give them pretty much what they wanted in monetry terms. The so called unrealestic demands of the unions is wanting some sort of commitment in relation to the majority of work being based in Aus (according the the Qantas Sale Act)

PS: From what I understand the bill before parliament or soon to be, also requires most of Qantas's heavy maintenance of aircraft, flight  operations and training to be conducted in Australia.

I haven't heard the gov or opposition position, but Xenophon and the green apparently support it.


----------



## McLovin (4 November 2011)

Whiskers said:


> Your assertion that* "*_there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from those carriers that have offshored their maintenance_*"*
> 
> That maybe on average, but that is no comfort for one that is below the average and has a serious incident... or increased incidents as Qantas is suffering.




But isn't that the most sensible way to approach it. Rather than take specific examples as evidence of flawed maintenance. If the averages have remained stable then that would indicate the level of service is ok.






			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> What I said was, with renewed emphasis...
> "_Again, it's not just a matter of offshoring, it's a matter of the particular expertise *and equipment* that *your circumstance demands* being *available* and done in a *timely manner*."_
> ​Yes new engineers can be trained, albeit experience is an invaluable assett in sophisticated engineering... but my point was you also need the right and enough equipment, which is also not always so readily available or easily obtained and collectively you need it all to come together in a timely framework so that as boggo has already pointed out, you are not languishing in a cue in someone elses workshop where you don't have priority treatment when you need it.




Right, but that none of that changes the fact that what is done in Sydney could as easily be done in China, and cheaper. Obviously the change wouldn't happen overnight.




			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> I don't necessairly dissagree with that... BUT that is the environment atm to which Joyce must conform, unless he can force a law change, hence my mention at the outset of the thread of the likes of Franklin on the share registry and investigations into unusual or suspicious trading in Qantas prior to the lockout.




I agree, but I do think the Act as is outdated. The World has changed an awful lot since 1992.



			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> My point has always been about the effectiveness/wisdom of his strategy in resolving conflict to get a win win solution, as opposed to a win lose solution which aggrevates people you have to continue working with.




I think we have common ground here, I don't think either side has done their cause much help.

I'll add something from a frequent flyer forum that I frequent. It's written by someone who lives in the UK (and is British not Australia) and so gives a bit of an outsider's perspective. I think it's about spot on though...



> ...there are those who think that Qantas is an eternal Australian icon, which will forever be protected like koalas are. If you subscribe to this view, then Alan Joyce's action was of course utterly disproportionate because there is no threat to Qantas' existence and all there is at the moment is the usual run-of-the-mill industrial kerfuffle, like a disagreement about the length of tea breaks.
> 
> I think that the third group [described above] are actually the most insidiously dangerous, because it isn't unreasonable for a rational but uninformed Australian layman to hold this view. Qantas has been a national icon for decades, to the extent that its status is enshrined in specific legislation. It's dangerous because this groupthink could actually affect the way that decision-makers approach the situation. This view completely fails to understand how Qantas is now teetering on the brink and radical measures need to be taken, or else the company will continue its inexorable transformation into "Jetstar Group", a company for which Qantas is merely a historical footnote.




Parenthesis mine.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Qantas has being having maintenance incidents for a few years and that is with the current maintenance workforce.
> They seem to be having more problems than the Asian based carriers. This may be due to things out of their control, but it does reflect badly on their maintenance personel and or proceedures.
> Which in turn dilutes the arguement that safety standards will drop if the work is carried out overseas.



As someone with a background in maintenance and the management of a maintenance workforce (albeit not in the aviation industry), I'd be looking at these likely explanations:

1. The asset itself is being run down through either incresing age and/or reduction in preventative maintenance.

2. Generic faults in particular aircraft type of a certain age. Such issues are common in other fields, and result in huge spikes in failure rates once the critical running hours are reached. This seems somewhat unlikely with Qantas however, given that other airlines operate identical aircraft such that any generic problems ought to be known to the manufacturer by now.

3. The workforce may be distracted and thus prone to making mistakes and/or not carrying out proper fault finding (which with any complex system is a damn hard thing to do at the best of times).

There are other possibilities, but I suspect that all of these apply to Qantas and have done so for quite some time.

As for outsourcing maintenance, it is always a huge liability to not have critical responses in house. Outsourcing works fine under business as usual circumstances but fails spectacularly in a crisis unless you really are the contractor's number one client and thus priority (which I'd expect Qantas isn't). The loss of technical skills in any situation such as this will in and of itself increase costs, no matter what wages anyone is being paid or what country they are from.

I've never, ever seen an outsourcing situation where the contractor didn't cut at least try to cut corners somewhere. It's not the work that they do which is the problem, you can check that, it's the things they don't do because there's nothing in writing requiring it that are the problem. You'd need a barrow load of proceedure manuals to cover everything, and odds are there's still a loophole somewhere.

My own preference for not flying Qantas has nothing to do with Joyce, unions, service standards or the comfort of seats. It all comes down to one thing - safety. It seems to be a regular occurrence that a Qantas flight makes an unplanned landing due to mechanical problems and I know all too well that there's a relationship between the number of near misses and the probability of a major incident. This airline has far too many near misses for my liking and sadly, it won't surprise me in the slightest when I turn on the news someday and hear that a Qantas plane went down. 

That factor, the apparent lack of safety, is the reason I don't like flying Qantas these days. I really don't care about seats, food or the politeness of staff but I sure do care about getting from A to B alive. I prefer airlines that aren't in the news too often for this reason.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> But isn't that the most sensible way to approach it. Rather than take specific examples as evidence of flawed maintenance. If the averages have remained stable then that would indicate the level of service is ok.



I would take (1) the mean average and (2) the worst actual incidents as the relevant measures. 

That is comparable to "average return" and "drawdown" in investment terminology. There's no point earning 50% per month if you get a 100% drawdown once every few years and there's no point improving overall reliability if it comes at the expense of an increase in occasional catastrophic failures.


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Exactly, the problem is that the average travelling public (no disrespect to anyone) are just not aware of what is really going on behind the scenes and the pollies are turning a blind eye.
> 
> Imagine the uproar if the WA miners started a fly in/fly out service from Manila or Bangkok instead of Perth !



 Actually, I don't think the average Australian would give a damn.
The average Australian just wants to fly on an airline that is safe, sticks to its schedule and can be depended upon.
The unions were making it impossible for the travelling public to have any such assurances.  
Why would anyone book a seat on QANTAS in the knowledge that the unions might well go on strike on the day they had booked to travel.
No thanks.
Hence the need for Mr Joyce to do what he did or the unions would be completely running the airline into the ground.  That was their stated intention, according to many media sources.




McLovin said:


> Exactly. If the status quo is maintained then QF international will be done in a few years. And "Qantas" will become an amusing footnote on the balance sheet of Jetstar.



Exactly.



Whiskers said:


> Your assertion that* "*_there hasn't been a noticeable increase in incidents from those carriers that have offshored their maintenance_*"*
> 
> That maybe on average, but that is no comfort for one that is below the average and has a serious incident... or increased incidents as Qantas is suffering.



Reasonable point.  A few decades ago, one would never have seen the number of 'incidents' that have occurred in the last few years.

Whiskers, given that you are so disapproving of Mr Joyce's actions, how exactly would you suggest he could have resolved the situation?
And no need to go on about dispute resolution skills.  We accept that Mr Joyce is hardly a model for demonstration here.

However, his patience has been sorely tried, and the unions are clearly 'out to get him' in a pretty personal sense, plus they obviously want to see the airline stuffed.
How on earth they can imagine this will translate to protecting their jobs is beyond me, but hey, they're unions and have that peculiar mentality.


----------



## dutchie (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> but hey, they're unions and have that peculiar mentality.




Thats gold!


----------



## todster (5 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Which generalisation? If you have evidence that offshoring of maintenance has lead to an increase in incidents then I'd love to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I'm sure someone in "Kunming"can be trained to do your job too,
 how would you feel about that at a cut price alternative.
Worked on big construction jobs in W.A during boom times when supervisors were telling me how good these 457 blokes were.
They got a bit funny when i mentioned that they have supervisors in the Philipines that are just as skilled as them and can be employed cheaper than there shiny arses


----------



## sptrawler (5 November 2011)

Smurph you are spot on, outsourcing maintenace doesn't necessarily mean a better outcome. But with Qantas like you say the planes are getting tired and the maintenance appears to be lacking. The incident rate over the last few years is increasing dramatically.
The problem may require a massive injection of capital to renew the fleet. This can be achieved by an increased revenue stream or a reduction in operating costs.
However one thing for sure something has to be done or a catastrophe will happen.


----------



## todster (5 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Smurph you are spot on, outsourcing maintenace doesn't necessarily mean a better outcome. But with Qantas like you say the planes are getting tired and the maintenance appears to be lacking. The incident rate over the last few years is increasing dramatically.
> The problem may require a massive injection of capital to renew the fleet. This can be achieved by an increased revenue stream or a reduction in operating costs.
> However one thing for sure something has to be done or a catastrophe will happen.




Was on the flight a couple of weeks back that hit birds on take off,not a maintenance issue but bloody frightening when you hear a jet engine of that size detonating and trying to fire at full throttle.
Was issued a $200 voucher for the 14hour trip to Melbourne as compo.
Many crownies in the q club feel sorry for the people who had no access to free beer


----------



## IFocus (5 November 2011)

todster said:


> I'm sure someone in "Kunming"can be trained to do your job too,
> how would you feel about that at a cut price alternative.
> Worked on big construction jobs in W.A during boom times when supervisors were telling me how good these 457 blokes were.
> They got a bit funny when i mentioned that they have supervisors in the Philipines that are just as skilled as them and can be employed cheaper than there shiny arses




LOL yes its them and us I notice the critics of unions here are always talking about them.

I am sure there are plenty of CEO's that could be trained up as well


----------



## Eager (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, given that you are so disapproving of Mr Joyce's actions, how exactly would you suggest he could have resolved the situation?
> And no need to go on about dispute resolution skills.  We accept that Mr Joyce is hardly a model for demonstration here.
> 
> However, his patience has been sorely tried, and the unions are clearly 'out to get him' in a pretty personal sense, plus they obviously want to see the airline stuffed.
> How on earth they can imagine this will translate to protecting their jobs is beyond me, but hey, they're unions and have that peculiar mentality.



I'll attempt to answer that.

it is important to realise that every action so far taken by the unions involved has been a part of the legal process that they have to comply with to achieve an outcome suitable to their members. They are NOT deliberately sh1tting in their own nests as some would have us believe. Without debating whether industrial law as it stands, or FWA itself, is 'good' or 'bad,' is besides the point - it is what it is and must be complied with. Having said that, the procedure is this: (1) EBA about to expire, and a new one is to be negotiated, (2) unions submit a log of claims, normally comprising improved pay and conditions, after consulting their members, (3) the company submit their wish-list, normally comprising changed work practices to achieve increased flexibility and productivity, to the union, (4) union meetings are held to discuss the issues, (5) union officials and management negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, (6) if stark differences appear in 'the way forward' and compromise is not negotiable from either side the unions ask their members what they want to do, (7) if the membership feels strongly enough about it they vote to begin an industrial campaign to push their cause. During EBA negotiations it is legal to undertake industrial action with 72 hours notice to FWA - striking at any other time is illegal and carries the threat of heavy fines - so this protected action is the last step that can be undertaken by the unions to pressure the company into retreating from their position. It's just a process Julia; your perception of a person vendetta against Joyce by the unions is unfounded. If he did have reasonable dispute resolution skills, which you agree are lacking, and a better appreciation of the processes involved, I doubt whether the situation would have deteriorated to this level. It is not all about union mentality and you know it. There are many workplaces around ther country with a unionised workforce that enjoy a great relationship with their respective employers - for the benefit of all. I'll bet none of those companies have a leader like Joyce though.

In this instance, Joyce could have easily resolved the situation by going to FWA himself for a ruling. I wrote in answer to someone else (I forget who) several pages back, in response to the thought that FWA is union-friendly, that the losing party there is normally the one that gets dragged there. Both parties ended up being dragged there this time; I wonder why Joyce didn't take the initiative this time, unless he already knew that his position was weak?

Qantas management could have prevented all of this by beginning talks with the unions about 'the big picture' the day after the ink dried on the current EBA, getting them used to the idea over 2 or 3 years. Qantas would already be where it wants to be now...


----------



## McLovin (5 November 2011)

todster said:


> I'm sure someone in "Kunming"can be trained to do your job too,
> how would you feel about that at a cut price alternative.




Fortunately, I work for myself.


----------



## Calliope (5 November 2011)

Senator Brown and Qantas Chief Alan Joyce  have at least one thing in common. They both have male partners.


----------



## sptrawler (5 November 2011)

todster said:


> Was on the flight a couple of weeks back that hit birds on take off,not a maintenance issue but bloody frightening when you hear a jet engine of that size detonating and trying to fire at full throttle.
> Was issued a $200 voucher for the 14hour trip to Melbourne as compo.
> Many crownies in the q club feel sorry for the people who had no access to free beer




Was that the one over Perth? I was outside when it happened, a huge bang I thought something had let go in the turbine. It scared me enough for me to ring and report it to the aviation authority.


----------



## Whiskers (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, given that you are so disapproving of Mr Joyce's actions, how exactly would you suggest he could have resolved the situation?




The short answer (as Eager has suggested), take the EBA dispute to FWA himself ages ago and accept the umpires decision.

If the unions demand for 'job security' as per the Qantas sale act was/is so 'unreasonable' he surely would have succeeded in getting a ruling in his favor.

But, I think he knew he would not succeed, just as he knew he would not succeed taking action under s424 himself.

But, isn't the big picture about Qantas allegedly circumventing the intentions at least, if not the strict interpretation of the Qantas Sale Act (and maybe other laws) to offshore more operations and wanting to get rid of the Qantas sale act or significant parts of it to be abe to operate more from cheaper offshore bases... and an upcoming BILL to change the Qantas Sale Act to 'specify' that most of the heavy maintenance, flight operations and training be retained in Aus?

If he wants to change FWA and the law under which he is governed, then he'd be better off doing some lobbying (to which the appearance of Franklin on the share register may be an indication) and biding his time until a change of government, if he thought the opposition would be more sympathetic to his cause.


The bottom line of his shutting out the unions, grounding the fleet and forcing the gov to act under s424 is that;
he was forced by FWA to lift his lockout before any union employees lost pay or retracted what he said was unreasonable demands.
the estimated cost of the lockout is going much higher than he predicted, via the ACCC warning to completely compensate passengers for missed connections and tours etc.
he has the gov and some inductry groups off side for the particularly bad timing of the lockout in terms of CHOGM, the Melbourne Cup etc.
But most importantly, the whole dispute is back in FWA where he could have taken it himself ages ago, but for his strategy hoping to, but failing to have those so called 'unreasonable' union demands about job security as per the Qantas Sale Act beaten away.
I would suggest that unless he has another move far more successful than the last up his sleeve, he is worse off than he was before the shut out.


----------



## DB008 (5 November 2011)

startrader said:


> Plus, QF did not have to fend off the unions because they were not making unrealistic demands - they're not striking for the fun of it and it's not about more money.




Sure, sure....

Sky's the limit for demanding Qantas workers




> The international side of the Qantas business is being dragged down by cost structures a hefty 24 per cent higher than rivals, by competition from airlines run by oil-rich governments and by geographical challenges.
> 
> Our national carrier is an end-of-the-line airline, not one operating from the world's major hubs. So the decision by Qantas to cut unprofitable routes and to build two new airlines in major Asian hubs using 110 new narrow body aircraft makes eminent commercial sense. In fact, it's good old common sense.
> 
> ...






> *And don't fall for the unions' wicked use of emotional tricks. Steve Purvinas, the boss of the engineers' union, said last month: "Alan Joyce does not want Australian aircraft engineers inspecting aircraft because we find things wrong with them; he'd rather take his chances that nothing goes wrong at 40,000 feet."
> 
> Apart from ignoring the crucial fact that 90 per cent of maintenance of Qantas aircraft occurs in Australia, is Purvinas really making the knuckleheaded claim that the 82 per cent of passengers who travel overseas on an airline apart from Qantas are willing to take their chances that nothing goes wrong at 40,000 feet? This arrogant nonsense highlights why the union movement has only itself to blame for its slow demise.*




Copy and Paste from Flyertalk.



> And QF has reached an agreement with all but 19% of its workforce. So what is it that makes you think QF has not tried to balance its need to reduce cost with the demands of 19% of its workforce. Especially when its competitors such as VA who have to work with the exact same Unions are not subject to the same demands? Why should QF have to yield to requirements that no one else needs to, when it is already burdened by the QF sale act (which VA is not), and unbalanced air rights agreements (such as no more than 3x 747 services a week to Paris)?
> 
> The unions are no saints in this and perhaps if the unions wanted to reach a sensible agreement earlier then none of this would have happened. Now instead we have a private company with a proposed amendment to its license to operate before parliament to stop expansion. No one stopped James Hardie from relocating its HQ overseas to limit its liabilities so why should QF be singled out to this sort of action?
> 
> Are you really saying that this is all the fault of QF for not managing its staff correctly?




AND...



> From the other side of the world it appears that Australia's Ã¼ber-liberal approach to Open Skies has pretty much resulted in what was anticipated by many...the end of a viable world leading airline. Letting EK suck the entrails and dollars out of the country's flag carrier has played right into the hands of the vulcher airline that masquerades as the consumers' friend but is really a death star to indigenous companies. Fortunately the Canadian government has seen through EK's ruse and limited its access to our airports


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

Eager said:


> I'll attempt to answer that.



Thank you.  I appreciate all the detail you've provided.



> It's just a process Julia;



I'm happy to defer to your obvious familiarity with union matters.  I've never, thank god, had anything to do with them and have had no trouble negotiating good employment conditions on a personal basis.



> your perception of a person vendetta against Joyce by the unions is unfounded. If he did have reasonable dispute resolution skills, which you agree are lacking, and a better appreciation of the processes involved, I doubt whether the situation would have deteriorated to this level.



Various union leaders have made clear statements about wanting to do the airline and its CEO over.



> It is not all about union mentality and you know it.



Eager, I hear these union leaders, I also hear politicians like ex-union Senator Cameron, and have formed my own view about this.   Fine if you disagree.



> There are many workplaces around ther country with a unionised workforce that enjoy a great relationship with their respective employers - for the benefit of all. I'll bet none of those companies have a leader like Joyce though.



I'll take your word for that.    Have already acknowledged Mr Joyce's social skills are less than adept.

I'd just say to you and Whiskers, that the primary duty of Mr Joyce is to the company's shareholders.  If profit for the airline is going to be maximised and its future ensured, given the competitive environment in which it operates, by moving some of the operations overseas, then the shareholders would probably agree that that's what he should be doing.

Someone made the point on safety about QANTAS's ageing aircraft.  Quite so.
Reportedly, one of the union's objections has been about the very introduction of the new aircraft which apparently require much less servicing, thus reducing labour hours.
They can't have it both ways.

Agree with you, Whiskers, that the grounding was a bad look with respect to CHOGM, racing carnival, and all the poor folk whose travel plans were stuffed up.

I think there's plenty of bad behaviour and lack of good faith on both sides.


----------



## todster (5 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Was that the one over Perth? I was outside when it happened, a huge bang I thought something had let go in the turbine. It scared me enough for me to ring and report it to the aviation authority.




Yeah good day for brown pants.
You should of heard it where i was sittin


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Actually, I don't think the average Australian would give a damn.
> The average Australian just wants to fly on an airline that is safe, sticks to its schedule and can be depended upon.



Exactly. I'm far more concerned about safety and reliability than whether or not they give me a meal and a comfortable seat. For a typical domestic flight actually getting from A to B is all that really counts in my opinion. 

Comfort matters if you are flying Sydney to London or LA, but it's pretty much irrelevant if you're only going to be in the air an hour or two. 

Week after week we keep hearing about mid-air incidents involving Qantas planes. THAT is why I choose to fly with others, and regard any class of travel with Qantas as a last resort. It's not the seats, food or even the price. I just don't wish to be on board when the next of these increasingly frequent incidents occurs. That is the problem that management, unions or whoever needs to fix if they want me flying Qantas.


----------



## DB008 (5 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Week after week we keep hearing about mid-air incidents involving Qantas planes. THAT is why I choose to fly with others, and regard any class of travel with Qantas as a last resort. It's not the seats, food or even the price. I just don't wish to be on board when the next of these increasingly frequent incidents occurs. That is the problem that management, unions or whoever needs to fix if they want me flying Qantas.




Smurf1976, and others, please keep in mind that the Australian Media is hell bent on reporting everything negative that happens with a Qantas plane. I'll also put my neck on the line and say that Qantas has no more incidents than any other airline. 

Example -
This week, a QF A380 diverted (unscheduled stop) to DXB (Dubai) because of a low oil indicator (engine #4 oil low level light turned on, was shut down as a precautionary, dumped fuel, circled in holding pattern, then landed). 
Now, did you also hear about the Emirates A380 making a unscheduled stop this week? EK A380 (EK385), en-route from BKK-DBX A380 making a unscheduled stop/landing in India this week? No, thought not. http://avherald.com/h?article=444f5092&opt=0


Want to 'open you eyes' to what happens in the aviation industry. Simple.
http://avherald.com/
Updated as it happens.
Have a look, you'll be surprised....


QF A380 which diverted to DXB this week.
http://avherald.com/h?article=44591647&opt=0


Check out Lufthansa on Thursday, 27th October.... 


> Lufthansa A320 near Frankfurt on Oct 26th 2011, acrid smell in cabin
> Lufthansa A320 near Zurich on Oct 21st 2011, acrid smell in galley
> Lufthansa A320 near Perm on Oct 25th 2011, smoke in cabin



Holy smoke, l'm never going to fly LH, too dangerous....


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Smurf1976, and others, please keep in mind that the Australian Media is hell bent on reporting everything negative that happens with a Qantas plane. I'll also put my neck on the line and say that Qantas has no more incidents than any other airline.



I was referring primarily to domestic aviation where there is only one significant competitor (Virgin).

Maybe it's media bias (?), but how many mid-air incidents have Virgin actually had this year? And how many have Qantas had?

In term of number of passengers carried, Qantas domestic is about twice the size of Virgin and yet I get the impression that they are having an order of magnitude more incidents. Either that or the media is choosing to report domestic aviation incidents only when they involve Qantas aircraft...


----------



## Calliope (5 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Week after week we keep hearing about mid-air incidents involving Qantas planes. THAT is why I choose to fly with others, and regard any class of travel with Qantas as a last resort. It's not the seats, food or even the price. I just don't wish to be on board when the next of these increasingly frequent incidents occurs. That is the problem that management, unions or whoever needs to fix if they want me flying Qantas.




A better reason to avoid Qantas is because the planes are serviced by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association who have a big chip on their shoulders against Qantas. They also embellish most of the incidents, no matter how trivial.


----------



## Boggo (5 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> A better reason to avoid Qantas is because the planes are serviced by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association who have a big chip on their shoulders against Qantas. They also embellish most of the incidents, no matter how trivial.




I will go for the chip on the shoulder along with ability of these QF guys any day over the ones that staple electrical cables to the fuselage and can't even fit an oxy bottle properly (and I hope you remember how just those two items nearly made the dialogue of Rain Man look irrelevant).

Some of the ambit claims the the unions are looking for will not work in the current competitive international climate but their claims are a damn sight closer to being realistic than some of the populist media spin that some on here are falling for.

Ask QF management why they are the only major airline in the world that does not operate Boeing 777's, for those that don't know, they are the ones that burn 80 tonnes less fuel on a Syd to LAX trip than an aging 747 and why they bought A330's (Hyundai's of the sky) instead which cannot even make it to LAX with a full load.

Its costing them more on fuel and maintenance of four old engines on a 747 on a daily basis to LAX than what the unions are asking for over ten years.

Do some homework folks, some of you are so far off the mark it is funny.


----------



## joea (5 November 2011)

Boggo
You are correct.
Its obvious that Joyce was transferred to Qantas after his stint at Jetstar to build a business plan for the future.
Building the fleet will be a part of it.
However his first step is to sort out the Industrial Relations side of it.

In the AFR there is an article from Bob Kelty titled "Kelty recalls joy of bargaining".

a quote from Kelty" We knew why they didn't like enterprise bargaining because we f##ked them over and over again." he told a Monash University IR conference on Friday.

continue...'I used to love bargaining" he said "you could kick companies to death sometimes. It does teach you accountability, real accountability, because if you kick to death your own employer, there are no jobs for your members. If you are silly you pay the price."

As far as I am concerned Cameron and Sheldon are from the same union mold.

So from what I saw, Joyce was putting them on TV for the Australian voter to see what he has to deal with, when he bargains.

No doubt the plot will thicken.
joea


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> A better reason to avoid Qantas is because the planes are serviced by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association who have a big chip on their shoulders against Qantas. They also embellish most of the incidents, no matter how trivial.



When you investigate major failues of mechanical / electrical / engineering systems then there is usually a pretty similar pattern.

1. The underlying infrastructure itself requires that certain things be done correctly in order to continue operating safely. That is, the failure can usually be traced to a human cause. Sometimes a piece of metal really does just break when it shouldn't have, but things like that are relatively rare. There's normally a human factor - someone either didn't do something correctly, or they didn't do it at all.

2. Systematic errors are made. It's normally not just one isolated mistake that caused the problem. More commonly, proceedures were not being followed correctly (or at all) on a routine basis or are in some way flawed in their design. Once you start doing that, well then you'really playing with fire since you are removing in-built safeguards, after which you are dependent absolutely on the judgement and performance of individuals.

Under resourcing / commercial pressures are a common cause of proceedures not being followed, as are slack workers or managers.  

3. The ducks simply line up. With a system reliant on humans, and there being weaknesses in (or ingorance of) proceedures which ensure their performance, it's only a matter of time until the inevitable happens and things go horribly wrong.

As someone who has spent his entire working life thus far around electrical and mechanical things (not aircraft however) I will tell you this. If the workers are distracted in a serious manner, due to whatever cause (anything of an industrial relations nature is a major red flag here), then the chances of making a mistake or missing something increase dramatically.

In the context of Qantas, this applies to maintenance engineers and pilots alike - if people are distracted then they are more likely to make mistakes. All it needs is a pilot to make a serious error entering data into the plane's computer or a maintenance engineer forgetting to lubricate some vital part and that's it, there's the catastrophy.

You don't need to be an airline CEO, union official, pilot or maintenance engineer to know this since it's the same pattern in every industry. Regardless of which side you are on, the undeniable point is that the situation is a distraction to Qantas workers and thus almost certainly is increasing the chances of a serious incident.


----------



## Boggo (5 November 2011)

joea said:


> Its obvious that Joyce was transferred to Qantas after his stint at Jetstar to build a business plan for the future.
> Building the fleet will be a part of it.
> However his first step is to sort out the Industrial Relations side of it.




Yep, correct joea.
Actually he was put there to see through the process that was put in place by Dixon and Jackson in 2004.
Building the fleet that you mention is not the QF fleet, its building the cheaper subsidiaries is the task.
As crazy as it may sound, he is not really the culprit here, he is left carrying the can that Borghetti wouldn't touch.


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> I will go for the chip on the shoulder along with ability of these QF guys any day over the ones that staple electrical cables to the fuselage and can't even fit an oxy bottle properly (and I hope you remember how just those two items nearly made the dialogue of Rain Man look irrelevant).
> 
> Some of the ambit claims the the unions are looking for will not work in the current competitive international climate but their claims are a damn sight closer to being realistic than some of the populist media spin that some on here are falling for.
> 
> ...



Aren't they planning to pension off the 747's for the new aircraft that are coming, i.e. the ones the unions don't want because they require fewer servicing hours?

And, Boggo, instead of casting aspersions on the motives of the company, wouldn't it perhaps be reasonable to just spell out for those of us who are less familiar than you are with aviation, just exactly what the problems are with the existing aircraft and any comments you may care to make about the proposed new fleet?



> Do some homework folks, some of you are so far off the mark it is funny.



Well, put us all right, then.


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Smurf1976, and others, please keep in mind that the Australian Media is hell bent on reporting everything negative that happens with a Qantas plane. I'll also put my neck on the line and say that Qantas has no more incidents than any other airline.
> 
> Example -.......



I quite believe this.  It's a long time ago now, but I took a couple of years off from career and spent it as cabin crew with Air NZ.  There were 'incidents' all the time, none of which were any actual safety risk, but for the sake of doing things absolutely 110% by the book, the aircraft would return for complete check out.

None of this was ever recorded by the media and neither it should have been.
The media are all over this QANTAS thing at present.  As soon as it all dies away they'll return to not reporting what is irrelevant.

And btw, I think Alan Joyce did pretty well to hold on to his temper to the extent he did in the Senate hearings.  Given the aggressive, unreasonable rudeness dealt out by Bob Brown and that awful Cameron bloke, I think I'd have got up and punched them!


----------



## sptrawler (5 November 2011)

I can't understand why the senators Evans and Cameron are paying out on Joyce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Evans_(Australian_politician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Cameron_(politician)

Like they would be impartial. DUH


----------



## Boggo (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> None of this was ever recorded by the media and neither it should have been.
> The media are all over this QANTAS thing at present.  As soon as it all dies away they'll return to not reporting what is irrelevant.




Here's how the media do it kiddies...
http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html


----------



## Calliope (5 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Ask QF management why they are the only major airline in the world that does not operate Boeing 777's, for those that don't know, they are the ones that burn 80 tonnes less fuel on a Syd to LAX trip than an aging 747 and why they bought A330's (Hyundai's of the sky) instead which cannot even make it to LAX with a full load.
> 
> Its costing them more on fuel and maintenance of four old engines on a 747 on a daily basis to LAX than what the unions are asking for over ten years.
> 
> Do some homework folks, some of you are so far off the mark it is funny.




How come they are not as smart as you? If only they had consulted you on which aircraft to buy.


----------



## sptrawler (5 November 2011)

Labor as usual are trying to make milage out of anything they feel will give them some traction with the electorate. They feel this time they are on a winner because if they bash the bosses (Joyce) they will get worker support.
Well I think they will end up with egg on their face yet again, time will tell.
But it definately looks like a desperate act by panicking politicians.


----------



## startrader (6 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Sure, sure....
> 
> Sky's the limit for demanding Qantas workers
> 
> ...





What an appalling article from the Australian!  Absolutely full of inaccuracies.

My comments:

*"Take, for example, the pilots' union demand that all pilots on Jetstar and other Qantas affiliate airlines be paid the same as Qantas pilots. This is sheer economic lunacy." * *Wrong: * The pilots are asking for any flight with a QF number for the pilots to be paid Qantas rates, in effect you pay for a Qantas ticket you get a Qantas pilot, you pay for a Jetstar ticket you get a Jetstar pilot.  Sounds fair to me.

Regarding the pay for Qantas cabin crews it is only the older recruits recruited under the QAL union who are receiving far more money than those newer recruits employed under the QCCA union.  When Joyce says that the cabin crew are well paid he is referring to those under the QAL agreement who are obviously being phased out.

*"The decision by Qantas to cut unprofitable routes and build two new airlines in major Asian hubs using 110 new narrow body aircraft makes eminent commercial sense".  *A320's competing against Singapore Airlines 777's - ridiculous!

"Commercially illiterate unions" - ha! as opposed to the wonderfully commercially literate management who seem to only understand cost cutting and outsourcing.  Qantas management endorsed a private equity bid which would have saddled the airline with a massive debt and whereby airline executives stood to make $91 million.  The bid was to be 75-80% funded by borrowed cash which would have been paid off by asset stripping the company.  If it had gone ahead the company would have collapsed in the GFC under the mountain of debt.

The vast majority of problems at QF are management inflicted.  Qantas is struggling from 15 years of almost no investment in their fleet.  Flying all their fuel inefficient aircraft while gifting brand new aircraft to their low cost carrier.  Now that Jetstar's A330's are due for millions to be spent in maintenance they are giving them back to Qantas for them to pay the bills.

Qantas has done nothing to take advantage of any edge that it used to have over other airlines and done nothing to expand its network or exploit some markets that are clearly underserviced, but constantly complains about how well other airlines are doing and they can't compete.

Most international premium carriers are making good profits because they have not wasted money starting up low cost operations.  There is a reason there is not a single other international low cost airline in the world.  Because it is impossible to make money on a sector over 5 hours due to fuel becoming a bigger part of the equation the further you fly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2011)

startrader said:


> Qantas has done nothing to take advantage of any edge that it used to have over other airlines and done nothing to expand its network or exploit some markets that are clearly underserviced, but constantly complains about how well other airlines are doing and they can't compete.
> 
> Most international premium carriers are making good profits because they have not wasted money starting up low cost operations.  There is a reason there is not a single other international low cost airline in the world.  Because it is impossible to make money on a sector over 5 hours due to fuel becoming a bigger part of the equation the further you fly.



Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you have a premium brand (of anything) then why would you spend your time developing a discount rival to your own premium brand? 

Looking specifically at airlines, it has long been the case that there are different classes of fare on the same plane. 

Those who want cheap fares can choose that option along with cheap service. Those who want business class / first class can choose to pay for it. They get a better seat, better food, better service and so on. All segements of the market are catered for, at the same time and on the same plane. Surely that has to be more efficient than running an entirely separate airline?

Qantas (domestic): Two separate airlines (Qantas and Jetstar) offering 3 classes of service and price.

Virgin: One airline offering 3 classes of service and price at the same time on the same plane. Surely this has to be more efficient than running two entirely separate airlines?


----------



## McLovin (6 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Smurf1976, and others, please keep in mind that the Australian Media is hell bent on reporting everything negative that happens with a Qantas plane. I'll also put my neck on the line and say that Qantas has no more incidents than any other airline.




The media hear massively over reports anything to do with Qantas. This week they actually had a story about three Jetstar planes being grounded because some of the seats were loose. A few years ago a British Airways flight from LAX-LHR lost power to one engine somewhere over Arizona and continued the whole way on to London. I can only imagine the horror if Qantas was to do something like that.

If you have a few minutes and want to see what really shoddy maintenance looks like then this thread is for you!

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/240082-adam-air-flying-circus-nightmare.html

Note the image of the ground staff pushing the plane back down the runway because it had a non-serviceable nose wheel!


----------



## noco (6 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Labor as usual are trying to make milage out of anything they feel will give them some traction with the electorate. They feel this time they are on a winner because if they bash the bosses (Joyce) they will get worker support.
> Well I think they will end up with egg on their face yet again, time will tell.
> But it definately looks like a desperate act by panicking politicians.




IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.

History shows how this Green/Labor socialist left wing government operates. They were hoping to get some mileage from the Qantas fiasco to boast their bad poll ratings and they are also flogging the mining tax with the sweetner of an extra 3% super for one and all. They call it employer bashing and the unionist love it, but all they are doing is sh*^ting in their own nest.

Most voters love to think their pockets will become heavier.


----------



## Boggo (6 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> How come they are not as smart as you? If only they had consulted you on which aircraft to buy.




Or better still just consult any of the current 51 airlines that do operate them unless of course you think that they are all wrong and QF is right 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_777_operators#Active_operators


----------



## sptrawler (6 November 2011)

noco said:


> IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.
> 
> History shows how this Green/Labor socialist left wing government operates. They were hoping to get some mileage from the Qantas fiasco to boast their bad poll ratings and they are also flogging the mining tax with the sweetner of an extra 3% super for one and all. They call it employer bashing and the unionist love it, but all they are doing is sh*^ting in their own nest.
> 
> Most voters love to think their pockets will become heavier.




I loved Bill Shortens comments in todays paper " the increase in super contributions will result in lower pay rises". 
So if it is to be payed for by giving a corresponding cut in pay rises. How can they say it will be payed for by the mining tax, someone is telling porkies, they can't have it both ways.
Obviously just another Labor lie rolling off the tonque as smooth as silk. LOL 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998


----------



## todster (6 November 2011)

noco said:


> IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.
> 
> History shows how this Green/Labor socialist left wing government operates. They were hoping to get some mileage from the Qantas fiasco to boast their bad poll ratings and they are also flogging the mining tax with the sweetner of an extra 3% super for one and all. They call it employer bashing and the unionist love it, but all they are doing is sh*^ting in their own nest.
> 
> Most voters love to think their pockets will become heavier.



 Congratulations after 13 pages you noticed the distraction


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> If you have a few minutes and want to see what really shoddy maintenance looks like then this thread is for you!
> 
> http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/240082-adam-air-flying-circus-nightmare.html
> 
> Note the image of the ground staff pushing the plane back down the runway because it had a non-serviceable nose wheel!



As per my previous post, systematic failure to follow correct proceedures leaves the door wide open to human error causing an accident.

Back to Qantas, there would seem to be a fairly simple way to sort out the "is maintenance done properly" argument and I'm guessing that the info would be available to the public somewhere.

What is the frequency of incidents affecting, or potentially affecting, functional operation of the aircraft as an aircraft (as distinct from things like the entertainment system) per 1000 take offs? And how does this compare to other airlines both domestic and international? Ideally, it would be good to see the annual figures for at least the past 10 years for Qantas, all domestic rivals, and major international rivals on the same routes.

Someone must have that data.


----------



## IFocus (6 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As per my previous post, systematic failure to follow correct proceedures leaves the door wide open to human error causing an accident.
> 
> Back to Qantas, there would seem to be a fairly simple way to sort out the "is maintenance done properly" argument and I'm guessing that the info would be available to the public somewhere.
> 
> ...




The iceberg principle, put all the incidents into a a layered risk category  then determine probability to the big one.  

Aircraft maintenance was the leader in maintenance principles leading to the discovery of all the various modes of failure, a number of programs run are from this area PMO etc.

What protects aircraft these days is the various barriers (3 is a good starting point)to catastrophic failure.

i.e. you have to have 3 system failures for the plane to drop out of the sky.

Hence many of the serious problems come back to pilot error. 

Having said all of that Australian unionist work forces tend to enforce discipline around quality levels more so than purely returning value to the shareholder models seen it many times over the years particularly around safety standards in high rating hazardous chemical manufacturing facilities.


----------



## DB008 (6 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> I will go for the chip on the shoulder along with ability of these QF guys any day over the ones that staple electrical cables to the fuselage and can't even fit an oxy bottle properly (and I hope you remember how just those two items nearly made the dialogue of Rain Man look irrelevant).
> 
> Some of the ambit claims the the unions are looking for will not work in the current competitive international climate but their claims are a damn sight closer to being realistic than some of the populist media spin that some on here are falling for.
> 
> ...





Seems that someone took your post, and posted it on a airline forum.

Reply below....



> The stapling of electrical cabling in a 747-400 was done in Australia by one of QF's direct employees: Home truths about those Qantas staples | Crikey
> 
> In relation to oxygen bottle; the ATSB concluded: "the investigation found that the manner of cylinder failure was unusual and implicated the presence of a defect, or action of a mechanism that directly led to the rupture event.". The most recent inspection of the aircraft oxygen cylinders had been "carried out at the operator’s in-house workshops and facilities" some eight weeks earlier in Australia.
> 
> As for the 772, it did not have the range for MEL/SYD/BNE-LAX/SFO when Qantas were evaluating it. By the time the 772ER became available, Qantas were already committed elsewhere.


----------



## Eager (6 November 2011)

noco said:


> IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.



No, silly, it's the boats themselves that sink!  That'll serve 'em right, ay old chap? It's just as well the media don't latch onto the fact that at least twice as many illegals arrive by plane...maybe those high flyin' illegals firmly attached themselves to the right wing on the way over... 

And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.


----------



## drsmith (6 November 2011)

Eager said:


> And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.



Labor chose deception instead. 

Their day of reckoning will come at the next election.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> What protects aircraft these days is the various barriers (3 is a good starting point)to catastrophic failure.
> 
> i.e. you have to have 3 system failures for the plane to drop out of the sky.



Yep, same principle with lots of other systems too. It takes multiple things to go wrong in order to actually cause a disaster, hence when you investigate such events you usually find that a lot of the barriers were routinely being removed, thus requiring only one more thing to go wrong in order to cause a major failure.

It's a bit like saying that you had a problem with overloading the power circuits in the kitchen when you tried to run the toaster, microwave and kettle all at once. So you fixed that by putting a nail in place of the fuse that kept blowing. 

Now that you've got them running, you find another problem which is that the toaster sets off the smoke detector. So you fix that by taking the battery out. 

Then you have another problem where the kettle fails to switch off by itself when it has boiled. Not to worry, you'll just turn it off manually.

I'm sure by now you can see where this story ends up...

With airlines, it's impossible for an ordinary passenger to know how many (if any) of the barriers are being removed / ignored and that's what worries me. I'd much rather pay $200 to fly with an airline that takes safety seriously than pay $100 and take my chances. The trouble is, I'm no longer convinced that Qantas (or any other particular airline) takes safety seriously.With so much financial pressure, I'd be surprised if at least some corners weren't being cut - and that's not at all good.

All that comes back to one critical point. People pay ridiculous sums (in my opinion) to stay in fancy 5 star hotels but it seems that most want a cheap flight to get there. Personally, I'd rather pay a few more $ to ensure the plane is safe and settle for a 3 star hotel instead.


----------



## sptrawler (6 November 2011)

Eager said:


> No, silly, it's the boats themselves that sink!  That'll serve 'em right, ay old chap? It's just as well the media don't latch onto the fact that at least twice as many illegals arrive by plane...maybe those high flyin' illegals firmly attached themselves to the right wing on the way over...
> 
> And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.




Twice as many illegals may arrive by plane, but at least they have passports and can be identified. That's probably a small point in your estimation, but you try getting into another country without one.

As for you second point, deception only works for so long, eventually everything they say becomes unbelievable. The carbon tax was not taken up by the others at the G20, so we will just have to wear the losses.
The super surcharge going to 12% being funded by the mining tax is more spin. 
As Bill Shorten said it will be funded by lower pay rises, the mining tax only funds the loss of tax from your compulsory salary sacrifice.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998
Most jobs now are a salary package(unless you work for government) this includes superannuation. You just take home less.


----------



## noco (6 November 2011)

Eager said:


> No, silly, it's the boats themselves that sink!  That'll serve 'em right, ay old chap? It's just as well the media don't latch onto the fact that at least twice as many illegals arrive by plane...maybe those high flyin' illegals firmly attached themselves to the right wing on the way over...
> 
> And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.




Eager, the difference is though, the people who fly in must have passports and visas must have access to money to pay their own way or stop with friends or relatives. They don't get free  4 star accomodation, free telephone calls, free cigarettes and social seciruity, whereas the boat people destroy their ID's so the authorities do not know from where they come.

At least when they come in by air, the Australian authorities can keep track of them to a certain ponit and they are not a burden on the tax payer.


----------



## Logique (7 November 2011)

Great summary by Paul Sheehan of the SMH, I'd suggest everyone read it.

*Inquisitors' cheap shots over Qantas backfire* November 7, 2011
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...as-backfire-20111106-1n1vi.html#ixzz1cy6R6C64

"..In a Senate committee hearing room in Parliament House, Canberra, the government went on the offensive against someone who had directly challenged the power of the unions. 

Government senators and their Green allies took cheap shots, exaggerated, sneered, distorted, indulged in conspiracy theories, made personal attacks and did everything but exhibit an understanding of how to run a business.."

"..Fair Work Australia has been stacked with Labor appointments since it was set up in 2009. Of the 11 Fair Work Commissioners appointed by the Gillard government, nine are former union officials or union advocates, and the other two are career public servants.

This is the same Fair Work Australia which has found nothing wrong with the conduct of the former union official and Labor MP Craig Thomson, on whose survival in Parliament the government's fate depends.."


----------



## noco (7 November 2011)

Logique said:


> Great summary by Paul Sheehan of the SMH, I'd suggest everyone read it.
> 
> *Inquisitors' cheap shots over Qantas backfire* November 7, 2011
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...as-backfire-20111106-1n1vi.html#ixzz1cy6R6C64
> ...




IT IS ABOUT TO BE CALLED UNFAIR WORK CHOICES.


----------



## sptrawler (7 November 2011)

I can't see how Qantas can come to agreement with the unions if it entails job guarantees. Therefore one would assume it will be up to FWA to arbitrate.
Now that will be really interesting, if FWA agrees with the unions and forces Qantas to enshrine the jobs in their award, every workplace in Australia will be after it. 
That would be terrific, I would vote for that, absolute job security for my kids. 
Yeh bring it on, bet it doesn't happen.


----------



## sails (7 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I can't see how Qantas can come to agreement with the unions if it entails job guarantees. Therefore one would assume it will be up to FWA to arbitrate.
> Now that will be really interesting, if FWA agrees with the unions and forces Qantas to enshrine the jobs in their award, every workplace in Australia will be after it.
> That would be terrific, I would vote for that, absolute job security for my kids.
> Yeh bring it on, bet it doesn't happen.




And if Qantas workers get their job security, watch out for more strikes as other industry groups try to get the same sort of deal.  If FWA to go this way, I would think they will be setting a precedent for other unions.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2011)

Trouble is, nobody can really guarantee ongoing employment just as I can't guarantee what the weather will be doing on Christmas Day. Just because I'd like everyone to have a job and for it to be fine and sunny but not excessively hot doesn't mean that either of those things can be guaranteed.

100 years ago you were pretty safe getting a job with the railways since we'd always need to transport things. Since that time a great many railway tracks have been torn up or abandoned, railways in many countries have in, out and in some cases back in to public ownership, steam engines have given way to diesel or electric, ticket sellers and conductors have given way to electronic cards and so on. About the only thing which existed with rail 100 years ago which still exists today is the track itself, though even that has changed with the move from timber to concrete sleepers.

Will we even have airlines as such 100 years from now? If we do then the odds are that they will be barely recognisable compared to what we have today. Indeed it could be argued that there's very little in common with the likes of Jetstar and an airline of 50 years ago in terms of actual operations. They still fly planes and there's still a Captain and First Officer but that's pretty much where the similarities end. As a business, it's a very different beast.

The odds that Qantas even exists in 100 years' time are virtually zero, just as the chances of any other major company surviving that long are also close to zero. They'll either go broke, be nationalised, merge, take over or whatever but the lesson of history is that things come and go.

The unions may well get some sort of "guarantee" but ultimately it will be worthless when Qantas itself ceases to exist. As such, it's not really a guarantee of anything other than that Qantas will continue employing people whilst they continue present operations. That's close to meaningless in practice, unless anyone seriously expects them to still be flying the same planes and doing the same things in 2020 as they are today, a situation which would simply send them broke anyway.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2011)

sails said:


> And if Qantas workers get their job security, watch out for more strikes as other industry groups try to get the same sort of deal.  If FWA to go this way, I would think they will be setting a precedent for other unions.



Unions absolutely love precedents. One that immediately comes to mind is employees expected to work "reasonable overtime". I'm told that the unions have already tested this one and FWA deems that 15 minutes per month meets that requirement. They might as well have said "zero" in that case - what's someone really going to do in all of 15 minutes a month? And what about the great many workers who actually want to work paid overtime because they need the money?


----------



## Glen48 (7 November 2011)

The Locabie  ? bomber did it for Pan Am  put them right out of business almost over night and cured the Bombers prostate cancer as well.


----------



## sptrawler (7 November 2011)

One way or another, smurph, the outcome of this industrial dispute will set the die for many to come.
If FWA sides with the union, it will cause a lot of flow on claims and cause the soveriegn risk debate to rear its head again.

If FWA sides with Qantas the unions will spit it completely with Labor. 
Bob will throw a party because he will pick up all the disenchanted Labor voters.

Forgot to mention the Coalition have a field day whichever way it goes.

My bet is the union gets a pay rise and no job security.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> That would be terrific, I would vote for that, absolute job security for my kids.
> Yeh bring it on, bet it doesn't happen.



And neither should it happen.  To guarantee absolute job security would be to say to privately run companies that they may not run their organisations for their primary purpose of making a profit for their share holders.

No one is guaranteed job security these days.There is already way too much tolerance of incompetent people being permitted to stay in jobs where they are under performing.

The unions in the Qantas dispute, e.g., are apparently unprepared to accept that the newer aircraft coming on line will require less servicing and thus their workers will get fewer hours.  Tough.  Why on earth should the airline continue to fly ancient, trouble prone aircraft just to satisfy the work hours demands of the unions?????


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 November 2011)

I am a Union member because I believe an organisation should bargain for better wages and working conditions for the workers. These conditions shall be in proportion to living expense changes (e.g. inflation), reasonable sense of job security and company profits of which the workers who do the actual work should be afforded. 
What I don't agree with is Union bosses rejecting reasonable offers such as the 3% wage increase (what we got recently) and bullying tactics such as persistent strikes and threats.


----------



## Logique (8 November 2011)

The union leadership yearns for an Australia that no longer exists. They want to roll back to the good old days. Dinosaurs, they need to realize it isn't the 1950s any more. Watching Doug Cameron on TV is like viewing a historical snapshot.

The unions believed in the White Australia Policy once.  They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.


----------



## joea (8 November 2011)

It appears Gillard is thinking about having a review of FWA legislation.
This is probably a good idea, but give that job to the Productivity Commission.

Because if the government does it, you can compile the report now and save the money.

joea


----------



## cutz (8 November 2011)

Logique said:


> They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.




So why should they be welcoming of the above ?

Aircraft maintenance capability in OZ is a good thing for many reasons, give me a few good reasons why the bulk of it should be outsourced overseas.


----------



## Macquack (8 November 2011)

Logique said:


> The unions believed in the White Australia Policy once.  They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.






cutz said:


> So why should they be welcoming of the above ?




Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else", and he has the gall to question union members concerns that their jobs will be lost to Asia.

I am waiting for more white collar jobs to be lost offshore to provide a bit of balance to this "everything in Asia is cheaper" argument.


----------



## DB008 (8 November 2011)

Macquack said:


> Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else", and he has the gall to question union members concerns that their jobs will be lost to Asia.
> 
> I am waiting for more white collar jobs to be lost offshore to provide a bit of balance to this "everything in Asia is cheaper" argument.




I think below is what Logique meant. 'Most' of the people in my company are employed on a 'casual basis'. You get more per hour, but no holiday leave and sick leave. Guess it works out to the same, but for the employer, they can lay off a few people easier (i.e., no work this week mate, if it gets slow).



Julia said:


> No one is guaranteed job security these days.There is already way too much tolerance of incompetent people being permitted to stay in jobs where they are under performing.




^Spot on Julia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

Macquack said:


> Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else", and he has the gall to question union members concerns that their jobs will be lost to Asia.
> 
> I am waiting for more white collar jobs to be lost offshore to provide a bit of balance to this "everything in Asia is cheaper" argument.



I'm sure that a lot of white collar workers are in for one almighty shock in the years ahead. That's about the time we'll see the demise of all this outsourcing stuff I'd expect - when it starts to hurt the immediate colleagues of those making the decisions rather than some factory worker they've never met.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> I think below is what Logique meant. 'Most' of the people in my company are employed on a 'casual basis'. You get more per hour, but no holiday leave and sick leave. Guess it works out to the same, but for the employer, they can lay off a few people easier (i.e., no work this week mate, if it gets slow).



Without knowing the specific industry in question, there's something missing from that equation.

Cost per hour goes up - agreed.

Easier to lay off staff thus reducing numer of paid hours - agreed.

Loss of staff committment to purpose = massive expense not accounted for. 

Loss of corporate knowledge = another massive expense.

Faced with a need to cut costs, my employer has adopted a fairly simple strategy. If it can be done in house then do it in house and eliminate as many casuals, consultants, contractors etc because they are simply too expensive relative to what they _actually_ do.

A point I made at work was about consultants who are put on long term (say, 4 years) for a specific project. Now, I'm not sure how long the average employee remains with the employer but I do know what consultants are paid and it's a ridiculous amount. It would be cheaper to employ someone on staff for 10 years than pay a consultant for 4, and the odds are pretty high that you'd find at least something for them to do during the final 6 years. Consultants have their role, but for ongoing work it's a truly dud idea financially to be paying someone else's profits whilst also trying to make your own.

My experience with outsourcing, casuals etc is that it's cheaper for dealing with spikes in workload, one off's and the like but it's an outright dud of a strategy to use on an ongoing basis unless the job is very simple with no committment or knowledge required. You save a bit of cash but you lose a lot of committment and knowledge.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

Julia said:


> No one is guaranteed job security these days.There is already way too much tolerance of incompetent people being permitted to stay in jobs where they are under performing.
> 
> The unions in the Qantas dispute, e.g., are apparently unprepared to accept that the newer aircraft coming on line will require less servicing and thus their workers will get fewer hours.  Tough.  Why on earth should the airline continue to fly ancient, trouble prone aircraft just to satisfy the work hours demands of the unions?????



Totally agreed. If modern aircraft need less servicing then so be it. 

We didn't stop the use of computers so as to keep typewriter repair people in business and we're not stopping the extension of car service intervals (I'm told that some manufacturers are now looking at 30,000 or even 40,000 km between services for models in development) just to keep motor mechanics employed.

I work in a maintenance industry where, due to technological change, maintenance work per unit of output has been trending down since the 1960's with fairly steep falls recently. Needless to say, we've reinvented and diversified ourselves into other activities in order to remain a long term viable operation.


----------



## IFocus (8 November 2011)

Julia said:


> The unions in the Qantas dispute, e.g., are apparently unprepared to accept that the newer aircraft coming on line will require less servicing and thus their workers will get fewer hours.  Tough.  Why on earth should the airline continue to fly ancient, trouble prone aircraft just to satisfy the work hours demands of the unions?????




I have never seen this claim do you have a link?


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Faced with a need to cut costs, my employer has adopted a fairly simple strategy.



Hi Smurf, can you pin point the cause of 'need to cut costs' and why the cost of doing business (creating electricity?) can't be passed on to the consumer?   



> My experience with outsourcing, casuals etc is that it's cheaper for dealing with spikes in workload, one off's and the like but it's an outright dud of a strategy to use on an ongoing basis unless the job is very simple with no committment or knowledge required. You save a bit of cash but you lose a lot of committment and knowledge.



That is the correct basis to employ casuals/contractors, not to reduce the permanent workforce to save a dollar in the short term.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi Smurf, can you pin point the cause of 'need to cut costs' and why the cost of doing business (creating electricity?) can't be passed on to the consumer?



I can't be too specific on a public forum but "desire to cut costs" would have perhaps been a better statement than "need" as such. It always makes sense in any business to be efficient, and it's just a case of management taking a pretty hard look at things at the moment in view of the broader economic circumstances. 

For those who've been around long enough, it's a case of seeing what came in during the 90's be thrown out now. Back then the mentality in a lot of similar industries was along the lines of outsource, outsource and outsource some more along the "informed client" model. Trouble is, the only way you can really remain a truly "informed client" is to have your own team actually doing comparable work in house. Then the inevitable happens and someone compares the two options - and that raises a few eyebrows once it's realised that in house costs are less than half that of "competitive" contractors.

I'm not saying that noting should ever be outsourced or that there's anything inherently wrong with it per se. But in the case of Qantas I do think they'd be foolish to lose the skill base even if retaining it isn't strictly economic. Once the in house skills are gone, well then that's when the contractors all start ramping up their prices. 

Having skills in house also proves its worth during an emergency situation - you can set the priorities of your own team but there's far less ability to push your problem through the queue with a contractor.

To use another example, the local council uses a contractor to run the entire garbage collection service. Now, I just can't see what is preventing the council from buying a few trucks, employing some drivers and running the service in house. They could team up with neighbouring councils if scale of operations is an issue. Collecting rubbish isn't rocket science and I just can't believe that there isn't a valid opportunity to cut out the middle man here and save some $. That's a really classic example of a contractor that are in practice defacto employees. May as well just employ them directly - surely this would have to be cheaper?


----------



## startrader (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> I have never seen this claim do you have a link?




I have never seen such a claim either and I think the reason for this is that there is no such claim.  I think it is a nonsense statement.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Collecting rubbish isn't rocket science and I just can't believe that there isn't a valid opportunity to cut out the middle man here and save some $. That's a really classic example of a contractor that are in practice defacto employees. May as well just employ them directly - surely this would have to be cheaper?



I can tell you why smurf and that is because the council will deliver the contract on performance. It is another way to run a business without the hassle of lazy employees, sick pays, workers Union agreements, holiday pays, consumables, safety equipment, uniforms etc.. If the contractors don't meet the expectations of management then their contract won't be renewed and that is the incentive for productivity. John Howard is all for this type of employment a la Work Choices.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> I have never seen this claim do you have a link?



No. It was discussed by various aviation commentators during the height of the Qantas dispute.  I heard it aired multiple times on ABC Radio.  I am not going to go trawling through all the current affairs programs of the time to look for a link.
Fine with me if you choose to disbelieve it.

But, just do yourself a favour and think about it for a minute.  New technology, as in cars etc is eliminating the need for frequent servicing.  Obviously the same is going to apply to the new aircraft Qantas sensibly intend to acquire.

To do otherwise would lay them open even further to accusations of running out of date, past their use by aircraft, and thus to more accusations of disregard for safety.
They can't win.


----------



## moXJO (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> I have never seen this claim do you have a link?






> I have never seen such a claim either and I think the reason for this is that there is no such claim. I think it is a nonsense statement.




Wow you sound surprised when we all know what lengths unions will go to ensure workers don't work or stupid systems are kept from the days when 5 guys were employed to watch one guy work. I'm knee deep in unions both friends and others that can only be described as zealots and nothing would shock me as to what goes on. Keep pushing the lie guys. And welcome to the throwback days of grand old Labor.




> Another area of contention is the new A-class licence system borrowed from the Europeans. The new licence allows a non-LAME to carry out some line-maintenance tasks such as topping up fluids and changing wheels. The airline says this would allow licensed engineers to focus on specialist tasks and provide opportunities for less-qualified personnel to learn new skills.
> 
> Mr Joyce has accused the engineers of trying to lock in 20-year-old work practices that have already changed overseas.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/both-sides-of-qantas-dispute-dig-in-over-safety-checks-licences/story-fnaskcqt-1226181950587


----------



## Logique (9 November 2011)

Macquack said:


> Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else"...



It is? Where did I say that? Unlike the ACTU leadership I suppose, on the conveyor belt to a safe seat.  

My attitude is that Qantas hasn't been nationalized, and the unions don't sit on the board. This is a turf war, encouraged with shameless partisanship by the federal government. 

They wanted to pillory Alan Joyce, yet Bolt reports this morning that Joyce is a life long lefty and a gay. Scarcely the cigar chomping industrialist of union imaginings.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 November 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I can tell you why smurf and that is because the council will deliver the contract on performance. It is another way to run a business without the hassle of lazy employees, sick pays, workers Union agreements, holiday pays, consumables, safety equipment, uniforms etc.. If the contractors don't meet the expectations of management then their contract won't be renewed and that is the incentive for productivity. John Howard is all for this type of employment a la Work Choices.



I must say that I really don't understand the management thought process which seeks to punish workers whilst spending _more_ money to do so. If it actually saved money maybe I could see the point, but this business of paying extra, putting in a middle man and shafting the workers doesn't really stack up any way I look at it unless the objective is non-financial in nature.


----------



## noco (9 November 2011)

What a lot of hypocrites these Labor MP's are, they bag Alan Joyce and Qantas one day, but are quite happy to accept all the hand outs from Qantas the next day.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ted-qantas-gifts/story-e6freooo-1226189439728


----------



## Ferret (9 November 2011)

noco said:


> What a lot of hypocrites these Labor MP's are, they bag Alan Joyce and Qantas one day, but are quite happy to accept all the hand outs from Qantas the next day.




Actually, I'm more disappointed at Qantas for this (if its true).  I don't think its right to be handing out largess to politicians on either side.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

noco said:


> What a lot of hypocrites these Labor MP's are, they bag Alan Joyce and Qantas one day, but are quite happy to accept all the hand outs from Qantas the next day.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ted-qantas-gifts/story-e6freooo-1226189439728




Now we can understand why Craig Thomson didn't understand what he did wrong. 
Lets be honest its the rest of us that is out of step, jeez we have principles and decency how stupid are we?


----------



## nulla nulla (10 November 2011)

Logique said:


> ......They wanted to pillory Joyce, yet Bolt reports this morning that Joyce is a life long lefty and a gay. Scarcely the cigar chomping industrialist of union imaginings.




If Joyce wants to be a lefty lesbian good on her, no sexual discrimination here.


----------



## Eager (13 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I must say that I really don't understand the management thought process which seeks to punish workers whilst spending _more_ money to do so. If it actually saved money maybe I could see the point, but this business of paying extra, putting in a middle man and shafting the workers doesn't really stack up any way I look at it unless the objective is non-financial in nature.



Yeah. It's funny that you should mention garbage collection as an example. A nearby local council had, until recently, employed a contractor to manage its waste facility, employing 6 men. A dispute between the employees and the contractor ensued when it came to light that the workers had been underpaid over a long period of time (little wonder they won the contract in the first place), and, yes, shock horror, they went on strike. So the contractor sacked the workers, but obviously could no longer fulfil its contract - so the council sacked the contractor!

The council is now once again managing the waste facility in-house, employing the sacked workers who are now getting paid properly.


----------



## sptrawler (21 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> From what I have heard, whiskers, the ruling gives a negotiation period. Then if no resolution is found a binding order will be made by FWA. I can't see how the union will not be creamed, unless the Government is prepared to fund the union demands.
> I would guess with the FWA ruling to terminate all industrial action, it will give Joyce the breathing space required to fast track the changes adopted at the A.G.M.
> The unions have probably just accelerated the speed with which Joyce will introduce the changes.
> He has shown the Government he isn't going to be intimidated, therefore Gillard will have to put herself out on a limb to stop him from carrying out the proposals.
> I for one think she will stop talking on the issue, there is no way she can stop Qantas from implimenting a business stratergy without raising the sovereign risk issue.




It looks as though the union is going to blink first, they don't want FWA to arbitrate. Also you can bet your last dollar that Gillard will be pressuring the union to cave in.
The last thing she wants is her FWA legislation tested in the High Court, if it is anything like her other attempts at constructing law, it will have more holes than Swiss cheese.
She has obviously worked out from experience there is a difference between making "Laws" and them actually being "Lawfull"
In my opinion Joyce will blow holes out of the union and FWA if it makes a ruling in favour of job security. Now that would mortaly wound Gillard and the government's credibility.
Can't wait to see the outcome off this it has the makings of another Labor government stuff up, possibly their biggest. IMO


----------



## prawn_86 (21 November 2011)

Flew Qantas yesterday iand it was rubbish. Flight was delayed an hour, so we ended up getting in at 8pm, and yet they still only served a snack instead of a meal as the original flight time didnt fall in the dinner bracket. Also in an old plane with no tv's in the seats etc

Seems to me they just don't care at all about their customers thoughts and are relying on their national carrier status and lack of competition.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 November 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Seems to me they just don't care at all about their customers thoughts and are relying on their national carrier status and lack of competition.



It's like a lot of "iconic" things. Was good at some point and it still sounds credible, but if you take a cold hard look at the facts then it's not really that great. That applies not just to Qantas, but to rather a lot of Australian "iconic" products and services - there are exceptions but sadly many have become little more than junk relative to competitors who have moved with the times whilst the "icons" stood still. Qantas is just another one.


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2011)

prawn_86, can l ask which route you took?

Was the plane one of those ageing Boeing 767's? They are in fact terrible. l guess some of the blame should really be directed to Boeing (not QF) because of the much delayed 787 Dreamliner, which will eventually replace the 767's.



> Also in an old plane with no tv's in the seats etc



Think that's bad? Try flying Lufthansa on a 747 from Asia to Europe with no in seat entertainment (AVOD).

Boeing 787 Dreamliner delayed again...

Just Google - "Dreamliner delayed" and you'll get a good idea.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> prawn_86, can l ask which route you took?




ADL -> SYD (not sure what plane but it was pretty massive for a domestic route)

I guess the plane manufacturers also have a duopoly, but it does seem to be a bit short-sighted to be only trusting one manufacturer imo


----------



## Boggo (21 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Think that's bad? Try flying Lufthansa on a 747 from Asia to Europe with no in seat entertainment (AVOD).




Think that's bad, try flying Zurich to Singapore with Swiss, Airbus A340 with no individual overhead air vents in cattle class 

Actually I think it was Zurich to Bangkok.


----------



## cutz (21 November 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> ADL -> SYD (not sure what plane but it was pretty massive for a domestic route)
> 
> I guess the plane manufacturers also have a duopoly, but it does seem to be a bit short-sighted to be only trusting one manufacturer imo




The airline operates aircraft from both manufacturers, 

FWIW, i've flown Qantas many times both domestically and internationally, delays have been extremely rare, the ones I do recall were caused by passengers late at the gate.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's like a lot of "iconic" things. Was good at some point and it still sounds credible, but if you take a cold hard look at the facts then it's not really that great. That applies not just to Qantas, but to rather a lot of Australian "iconic" products and services - there are exceptions but sadly many have become little more than junk relative to competitors who have moved with the times whilst the "icons" stood still. Qantas is just another one.



I haven't been on Qantas for some time but a friend flew to Canada and the USA and back recently with them and found it terrific - hugely superior to any of the internal flights they had over there.


----------



## McLovin (21 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I haven't been on Qantas for some time but a friend flew to Canada and the USA and back recently with them and found it terrific - hugely superior to any of the internal flights they had over there.




Domestic flights in the US are disgraceful. Dirty cabins, shabby tired looking staff and food that I actually can't eat (and I've eaten plenty of weird and wonderful things) even in business/first. If you use US airlines as a basis for comparison then almost any airline will be terrific. The only exception to that rule are a few of the transcon flights NYC/BOS/MIA-SFO/LAX etc. They actually offer a far superior hard product on some of those routes, comparable to international business/first.

Oh and you're expected to tip in the club lounge when you get a drink!


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2011)

McLovin said:


> Domestic flights in the US are disgraceful. Dirty cabins, shabby tired looking staff and food that I actually can't eat (and I've eaten plenty of weird and wonderful things) even in business/first. If you use US airlines as a basis for comparison then almost any airline will be terrific. The only exception to that rule are a few of the transcon flights NYC/BOS/MIA-SFO/LAX etc. They actually offer a far superior hard product on some of those routes, comparable to international business/first.
> 
> Oh and you're expected to tip in the club lounge when you get a drink!




Yes McLovin, l think that people should really have a look at what is offered in relation to QF Domestic. We have it pretty good over here. Almost all US legacy carriers are 3 star, and the only 4 star Airline in USA is JetBlue (a LCC), work that out  

I recently flew Intra Europe (2 hours) in Y and you know what they served, tea/coffee + biscuit. "Business Class" intra Europe is more like VA/DJ's 'old' PE (LOL!). 

It will be interesting to see what happens in regards to the FWA decision.

Boggo - I also similar experience on a BA 747 a few years ago.


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> ADL -> SYD (not sure what plane but it was pretty massive for a domestic route)
> 
> I guess the plane manufacturers also have a duopoly, but it does seem to be a bit short-sighted to be only trusting one manufacturer imo




QF (and almost every other Airline), usually have planes from both Airbus and Boeing. I think Southwest the exception with only 737's in their fleet.

Guess it's like only being able to choose from Ford or Holden and delays happen (from the manufacture), what can you do, as the customer?


----------



## McLovin (21 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> Yes McLovin, l think that people should really have a look at what is offered in relation to QF Domestic. We have it pretty good over here. Almost all US legacy carriers are 3 star, and the only 4 star Airline in USA is JetBlue (a LCC), work that out
> 
> I recently flew Intra Europe (2 hours) in Y and you know what they served, tea/coffee + biscuit. "Business Class" intra Europe is more like VA/DJ's 'old' PE (LOL!).
> 
> ...




I have a J RTW (DONE4 if you're familiar with the abbreviations ) trip coming up with plenty of domestic US legs and intra-Europe flights. intra-Europe business is really just turning 3 Y seats into 2 J seats, and a hot breakfast. You are correct, we have it very good here for domestic.

I haven't flown Jetblue, but they do seem to have a pretty good reputation amongst US carriers. Continental was pretty good for a while too, not sure what they're like post merger.


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2011)

McLovin - check your PM inbox.

PS, yes l am familiar with all those expressions. 


Back on topic.
Talks have collapsed between Unions an QF


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 November 2011)

Julia said:


> I haven't been on Qantas for some time but a friend flew to Canada and the USA and back recently with them and found it terrific - hugely superior to any of the internal flights they had over there.



I was referring to domestic only in my post. Qantas are something of an Australian icon but it's the old planes and association with Jetstar that put me off and devalues the product in my opinion. 

Qantas isn't a bad airline per se, actually it's quite good compared to many overseas, but it just so happens that the main domestic rival (Virgin) has newer planes, cheaper or the same fares, and fewer hassles. Qantas needs to match, or preferably beat, the competition otherwise in due course the masses will realise that the Qantas offering isn't as good in relative terms as it used to be.

The real thing I just don't grasp is why they put all the new planes into Jetstar where low price is the only thing customers care about whilst keeping the old bangers in Qantas which is supposedly a premium product. Surely it would have made more sense to put new planes into Qantas and give the cast offs to Jetstar? Maybe I've missed something here?


----------



## Eager (21 November 2011)

From the article that DB008 provided a link to:

_Qantas 'did not terminate talks'

Qantas’s chief executive, Alan Joyce, said his preferred option had been to resolve the dispute with the pilots’ union and the TWU through negotiations but it was ‘‘now time to let Fair Work Australia bring the matter to a close’’.

Mr Joyce said Qantas did not terminate the negotiations but both sides had concluded that an agreement could not be reached.

Qantas had made a ‘‘generous offer’’ to the TWU, which included reasonable increases in pay and conditions, and protecting the jobs of existing employees, he said.

He also said that the federal government had indicated it would vigorously defend the decision by Fair Work to terminate the industrial action three weeks ago, in the event that the pilots’ union and the TWU purused legal action.

‘‘We are right behind the government on this,’’ he said.
_

So, according to Joyce, Qantas and the gov't are in alignment.

Where does that leave the opinions of the majority of ASF members then?


----------



## sptrawler (21 November 2011)

Eager said:


> From the article that DB008 provided a link to:
> 
> _Qantas 'did not terminate talks'
> 
> ...




Don't worry the government is in damage control with this one!!!!!!
The last thing they want is Joyce taking the FWA to the high court.
With regard the government backing their union mates, it's more like"please leave a message we are not available at this time"  IMO


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2011)

There is a news.com.au "Idiots Guide" trying to explain some of the workings of the dispute  here


----------



## sptrawler (23 November 2011)

This really does have the potential to blow up in the governments face.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...oliday-flight-disruptions-20111122-1nsze.html

It may highlight exactly what Joyce was complaining about with FWA just being a union puppet show.
No matter what happens from here it won't look good for Gillard, it is becoming loose/ loose.


----------



## joea (23 November 2011)

Sheldon was truely "dusted by Joyce in the Senate sideshow.
His  body language showed that he is a sore loser. His comments since have confirmed it!

Qantas carry's the flag for Australian travel, and any significant stuff up by Gillard will be reflected in the polls.
But is she using, or intend to use the Qantas fiasco as a political step up in the polls?
That's the million dollar question.
My money is on a yes.
Carbon Tax in, Mining tax in, resolve the Qantas problem and then solve the people smugglers. No problem!!
The theme will be " you can't catch me Tony".
joea


----------



## Logique (23 November 2011)

Cheap political points on offer here for the PM if she smacks down the TWU, who are out of control and need to be reined in. Ever quick with a scare campaign against Workchoices, but not so happy when under their own system, compulsory arbitration is imposed on them.

Fascinating that the TWU actually believe they'll get any joy out of the top 5,000 Qantas shareholders at a shareholder meeting.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...oliday-flight-disruptions-20111122-1nsze.html
"..The unions are furious the dispute has gone to compulsory arbitration. Mr Sheldon said yesterday the union would decide ''later this week whether we appeal the court decision from three weeks ago''.

He said unions would need to have Fair Work's termination ruling overturned in the Federal Court before they could seek further protected action.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which is a Qantas shareholder, also expects the airline to hand over its share register tomorrow. The union plans to contact the airline's top 5000 shareholders in an attempt to muster the 100 or more required to call an extraordinary meeting.."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...disruptions-20111122-1nsze.html#ixzz1eTPC01G1


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2011)

Logique said:


> Cheap political points on offer here for the PM if she smacks down the TWU, who are out of control and need to be reined in. Ever quick with a scare campaign against Workchoices, but not so happy when under their own system, compulsory arbitration is imposed on them.
> 
> Fascinating that the TWU actually believe they'll get any joy out of the top 5,000 Qantas shareholders at a shareholder meeting.
> 
> ...




Yep, the games are just getting warmed up.

I mentioned at the outset that it was likely Joyce's action would likely get the whole trades hall off side... but the CFMEU action looks like being a bit smarter tactic than I gave them credit for. Whether it is successful or not is another thing.

But, on what is likely successful, I reckon the pilots might have a good shot at appealing the FWA ruling against them. Their action doesn't seem to fall into the category of s424. I think FWA might have erred in bundling them all together. The TWU probably don't have a chance and the engineers probably only a slim shot.
*FAIR WORK ACT 2009 - SECT 424 *

_*FWA must suspend or terminate protected industrial action--endangering life etc.* _
_Suspension or termination of __protected industrial__action_

_             (1)  FWA must make an order suspending or terminating __protected industrial action__ for a proposed __enterprise agreement__ that: _
_                     (a)  is being engaged in; or _​_(b)  is threatened, impending or probable;_ ​_if FWA is satisfied that the __protected industrial action__ has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten: _
_                     (c)  to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or _

_                     (d)  to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it._ ​


----------



## nulla nulla (23 November 2011)

Is the share price dropping along with the general market jitters over the past few days or is the market less confident of the FWA outcome for Qantas?


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Is the share price dropping along with the general market jitters over the past few days or is the market less confident of the FWA outcome for Qantas?




I say just moving with the market atm.

I would elaborate a bit further on my earlier assessment of the merits of the unions successfully appealing the FWA decision. If the Federal Court (which by the way is not nearly as influenced by the gov as FWA is)... decides that the unions can not be held responsible for the retaliation of Qantas against protected industrial action that was in itself not causing or threatening;
_(c)  to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or _

_                     (d)  to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of _
_it._ ​but, that it was the retaliation by Qantas that not only threatened, but caused;
_(c)  to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or _

_                     (d)  to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it._ 
​By locking out key operational staff that were essential for the safe operation of the planes, which led to the inability of the fleet to fly safely and Joyce grounding the fleet. 

The law is a bit of a funny animal and Judges (especially on appeal) will pay much closer attention to the precicse cause and effect and the letter of the law.

I suspect Gillard who btw is a lawyer probably knows there is a reasonable chance of an appeal winning, hence their urging the unions to let the(ir) umpires decision stand and not take further legal action. 

That's a bit of hypocrisy from a lawyer and our prime minister to try to deny people their legal right to appeal/contest any administrative or lower court decision. Surely if the law is not framed the way the gov want's it, isn't it better to have it decided sooner rather than burying everyone's head in the sand until later!?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2011)

Put youself in the shoes of the average person who knows little about the issues and who just wants to fly from A to B sometime in January.

Would you book with Qantas as your first choice? Or would you check to see if another airline also flies that route and has seats available? 

As long as this dispute remains in the news it's going to hurt Qantas at least in the short term no matter what the eventual outcome.


----------



## Boggo (23 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Put youself in the shoes of the average person who knows little about the issues and who just wants to fly from A to B sometime in January.




Sounds like the average person is waking up to the spin from the QF department of spin.
How does it go, you can fool some of the people some of the time etc etc...

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...mpaign-backfires/story-e6frfq80-1226202445747


----------



## sptrawler (23 November 2011)

I can't understand why Joyce doesn't want to sit there and answer to Doug Cameron the ex union delegate, now labor royalty.LOL LOL LOL

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fly-by-joyce--misses-second-inquiry-grilling-20111123-1numa.html

It must be hard to sit there with a straight face, when Doug is telling you that your unreasonable


----------



## nulla nulla (24 November 2011)

Boggo said:


> Sounds like the average person is waking up to the spin from the QF department of spin.
> How does it go, you can fool some of the people some of the time etc etc...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...mpaign-backfires/story-e6frfq80-1226202445747




Not sure, is it...

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time....?

Sounds like Joyce is looking for a carreer change to politics.


----------



## Boggo (24 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I can't understand why Joyce doesn't want to sit there and answer to Doug Cameron the ex union delegate, now labor royalty.LOL LOL LOL
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/fly-by-joyce--misses-second-inquiry-grilling-20111123-1numa.html
> 
> It must be hard to sit there with a straight face, when Doug is telling you that your unreasonable




At the moment we have Cameron (Scottish) with his boss Julia (Welsh) going to sort out Joyce (Irish).
I think I may have just found a use for all those used boats that are sitting around Christmas Island !

Did you hear the one about the Irishman, the Scotsman...  hahaha :aus: :jerry


----------



## sptrawler (24 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Don't worry the government is in damage control with this one!!!!!!
> The last thing they want is Joyce taking the FWA to the high court.
> With regard the government backing their union mates, it's more like"please leave a message we are not available at this time"  IMO




Well it sounds like someone has taken Sheldon into a back room and read him his horoscope.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...rs-four-years-strike-free-20111124-1nwdt.html

I would say the T.W.U have sealed the fate of their members, another sad day for ill advised members. IMO. Been there, done that, have the T shirt.


----------



## sptrawler (30 November 2011)

Didn't someone on this thread say that Qantas is the national carrier therefore it gets preferential government treatment.
Well why, if that is true, did N.B.N sign up with Virgin as its prefered carrier.
Sounds as though a bit of bullsheeet is been thrown around. No wonder this has gone quiet we probably won't hear much about the outcome of FWA arbitration. In my opinion it will be ugly.


----------



## Boggo (30 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well why, if that is true, did N.B.N sign up with Virgin as its prefered carrier.




Maybe they wanted to get there on time 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-check-ins-down/story-e6freon6-1226209788009


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2011)

Hope the Qantas workers watched lateline business the other night. They were read their horroscope, American Airlines share price $41 down to 0.47c they are having the same competition problems.
Even Dick Smith was saying Qantas can't compete with overseas carriers.
Best the Unions get in touch with Julia, she will look after you.LOL,LOL cough,LOL,LOL


----------



## bellenuit (7 December 2011)

Surely yesterday's events at Perth airport are a prime example of the issues facing QANTAS.

I flew in from Bangkok at about 3:30pm on Thai Airways, went through immigration and customs in no time and was out front ready to be picked up at 4pm. The only thing unusual was the large crowd in the baggage area, not what I expected mid Tuesday afternoon.

Later I learned that due to electrical storms over and near Perth, thousands of QANTAS passengers were severely delayed, some waiting in planes for many hours, others having to catch connecting flights on non-QANTAS airlines without their luggage and many others missing connecting flights completely.

Its seems the award that the Baggage Handlers and Engineers have with QANTAS allows them to not work on the tarmac when there is thunderstorm activity within 5km of the airport. 

In the midst of the QANTAS chaos, other airlines, including domestic competitors such as Virgin, were able to fly in and out mostly unaffected. This whole affair will be very costly to QANTAS if they have to reimburse passengers for missed connecting flights etc and for baggage forwarding.

I don't expect anyone to work on the tarmac when there is an electrical storm overhead, but 5kms away is a long way and allows ample time to clear the tarmac. The newspaper didn't say, but it is also possible that the 5km exclusion even applies to storms that are passing within 5kms but not heading towards the airport.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Surely yesterday's events at Perth airport are a prime example of the issues facing QANTAS.



What stopped them getting people off the planes ?

Yesterday's thunderstorms, while unusual for perth, are standard fare in the tropics.


----------



## Logique (7 December 2011)

Boggo said:


> At the moment we have Cameron (Scottish) with his boss Julia (Welsh) going to sort out Joyce (Irish).



And don't forget Sen Chris Evans, ALP Senate Leader, born in England, and ALP Sen S Conroy ditto. 

A backload for the boats (Joyce excepted).


----------



## bellenuit (7 December 2011)

drsmith said:


> What stopped them getting people off the planes ?
> 
> Yesterday's thunderstorms, while unusual for perth, are standard fare in the tropics.




The newspapers didn't specifically say. I can only surmise many planes were waiting for docking bays to become available, others may not have been able to approach the bay if the guy that directs them the last few metres wasn't allowed on the tarmac. Apparently some were kept on the planes for up to 7 hours. That is just unacceptable. Here is a link to the story on the West Australian.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...antas-passengers-fume-as-storm-creates-chaos/


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

The baggage handlers and staff that move the telescopic walkway, apparently have a clause in their award, that keeps them indoors when there is an electrical storm.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The baggage handlers and staff that move the telescopic walkway, apparently have a clause in their award, that keeps them indoors when there is an electrical storm.



So, the war continues.


----------



## joea (7 December 2011)

Hi.
About 4 years ago I was picking up a passenger in Cairns and there was an electrical storm, so I waited 40 minutes for the plane to unload.
So it goes back a while.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

Yes drsmith, how they think this sort of thing helps their case is beyond me. 
All it does is give Joyce more ammunition for a complete overhaul of the award.
Like I've sugested before, it is more likely the baggage handlers are being set up to take a big fall. Then the government can turn around and say FWA is working and is prepared to take a hard line.IMO
Nothing worse than being cannon fodder. Bit sad really in my opinion.


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

joea said:


> Hi.
> About 4 years ago I was picking up a passenger in Cairns and there was an electrical storm, so I waited 40 minutes for the plane to unload.
> So it goes back a while.
> joea




Thats exactly right joea and Joyce will be saying these work practices are causing Qantas to become uncompetitive. It isn't going to end well. Been there done that.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

I miss TAA and hanging over the barrier at Cairns, lighting a doorie, watching a true love disembark from a Fokker.

gg


----------



## joea (7 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I miss TAA and hanging over the barrier at Cairns, lighting a doorie, watching a true love disembark from a Fokker.
> 
> gg




Your correct. I have been on them, great flight. Probably better waiting for true love.
Went on a flight once and was sitting next to a woman going to a funeral with a wreath on her lap and was "s##t scared of flying. She asked me if she could hold my hand and I said ok.
Made one mistake because we were flying low, told her her we did not have far to fall.
She screeched and the hostess came to calm her down.
Most entertaining flight I ever had. And did not even  have a movie to watch.
Life goes on.
joea


----------



## Eager (7 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I don't expect anyone to work on the tarmac when there is an electrical storm overhead, but 5kms away is a long way and allows ample time to clear the tarmac. The newspaper didn't say, but it is also possible that the 5km exclusion even applies to storms that are passing within 5kms but not heading towards the airport.



The line has to be drawn somewhere.

A storm 5km away will probably allow enough time to disembark all the passengers and get their luggage into the terminal.

A storm 3 or 4km away might not. I will leave it up to you to tell me which passengers will have to stay on board!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Surely yesterday's events at Perth airport are a prime example of the issues facing QANTAS.
> 
> I flew in from Bangkok at about 3:30pm on Thai Airways, went through immigration and customs in no time and was out front ready to be picked up at 4pm. The only thing unusual was the large crowd in the baggage area, not what I expected mid Tuesday afternoon.
> 
> ...




It is all getting ridiculous. Perhaps a ration of rum for the Qantas handlers might assist. This is not a good image in the Industrial disputes in FWA. 

I myself have been hit my lightning and survived.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is all getting ridiculous. Perhaps a ration of rum for the Qantas handlers might assist. This is not a good image in the Industrial disputes in FWA.
> 
> I myself have been hit my lightning and survived.
> 
> gg




You shouldn't have been holding the wine cask, above your head, to get the last drop out.


----------



## bellenuit (7 December 2011)

Eager said:


> The line has to be drawn somewhere.
> 
> A storm 5km away will probably allow enough time to disembark all the passengers and get their luggage into the terminal.
> 
> A storm 3 or 4km away might not. I will leave it up to you to tell me which passengers will have to stay on board!




Well since the captain is in charge of his/her ship, shouldn't it be left up to the discretion of the captain whether it is safe to disembark? The captain decides on all other issues relating to the flight, some of greater import such as whether it is safe to fly in the conditions.

imposing a 5km hard and fast rule when ground conditions may suggest there is no safety issue is too stringent. Remember this 5km rule applied only to QANTAS staff. All other airlines were able to do ground operations during the gaps in the storm when they deemed it safe. Even the QANTAS pilots expressed bemusement at the state of affairs.


----------



## Boggo (7 December 2011)

Aviation and all things associated seem to be one of those industries where the number of experts almost equals the number of customers. In most cases public opinion (a little bit of knowledge) and reality are poles apart.

The procedures (mandated, especially in the case of thunderstorms) that apply to all of of Australia's larger airports both conform to ICAO standards and in some cases set the standard.

The basic concept is that safety procedures are never tested, they are ahead of any potential risk circumstance.

Here is an extract from from one document that may provide a very minor insight to the reality that Joe Public doesn't need to know about. The onus is on each airline to have in place a standard set of procedures that are approved and must be followed.

_Thunderstorms and the associated weather have a range of impacts on operations at airports that include disruption to air traffic and to ground operations. Lightning in particular presents a hazard to ground staff and various ground operations will cease while thunderstorms and associated lightning are in the area.
The disruption to ground operations compounds the disruption to air traffic when there are thunderstorms in the terminal area._
_The flow-on disruption can last for many hours and extend around the country as aircraft cannot be unloaded and refuelled, they cannot leave parking bays and arriving aircraft may have no place to park. The pressure to maintain operations at airports is great and there has been a need for better real time information about thunderstorms and associated lightning in the terminal area that enables better __strategic and tactical planning of ground operations by the airlines without compromising safety requirements.
To satisfy this requirement an Automated Thunderstorm Alert Service (ATSAS) has been developed by the Bureau of Meteorology and implemented at the major airports around the country.
Systems that support the ATSAS integrate radar information and lightning data and automatically generate end-user graphical and text products that show the location and movement of thunderstorm cells and the presence of lightning near the airport._ _The products are updated frequently and can be more easily understood by airline personnel.
The airlines in conjunction with airport authorities have developed response __procedures that enable them to better manage the disruption and minimize impacts._


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

Provide proof mate.

This is bureaucratic gobbledygook.

Provide Proof.

Most folk are in more danger of dying on their way to the airport than on the flight.

You are conflating a possible, minuscule threat on boarding a flight, in to something it is not.

gg


----------



## Boggo (7 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Most folk are in more danger of dying on their way to the airport than on the flight.



You've answered your own question there gg, who is in charge on the way to the airport 



> You are conflating a possible, minuscule threat on boarding a flight, in to something it is not.



I dont write em, I just read em


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

Boggo said:


> You've answered your own question there gg, who is in charge on the way to the airport
> 
> 
> I dont write em, I just read em




See my previous post mate.

No proof.

Reading is not an excuse.

gg


----------



## Boggo (7 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> See my previous post mate.
> 
> No proof.
> 
> ...




OK, what about having to comply with ?

_The airlines have developed joint working arrangements for coordinating ramp shut-downs which will be initiated by operational staff within the airlines based on the ATSAS products.
The shutdown will occur when there is a risk of CG lightning within 5 NM of the airport. The thresholds for initiating the shutdown are fairly conservative and these are still being refined.
The ATSAS is now operational at Cairns, Brisbane, Coolangatta, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin airports._


----------



## sptrawler (7 December 2011)

Boggo said:


> OK, what about having to comply with ?
> 
> _The airlines have developed joint working arrangements for coordinating ramp shut-downs which will be initiated by operational staff within the airlines based on the ATSAS products.
> The shutdown will occur when there is a risk of CG lightning within 5 NM of the airport. The thresholds for initiating the shutdown are fairly conservative and these are still being refined.
> The ATSAS is now operational at Cairns, Brisbane, Coolangatta, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin airports._




By the way why aren't the other airlines complying with this requirement?
Or is it an instruction only enforced on Qantas?
If it is a requirement of all airlines will there be an investigation as to why Qantas staff was the only one following correct protocol?
Is this protocol is only a requirement for Qantas, is it because of the award conditions?
Well Boggo there's a couple of questions that should clear up the issues for those not involved in the airline industry.


----------



## Boggo (7 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> By the way why aren't the other airlines complying with this requirement?
> Or is it an instruction only enforced on Qantas?




Some airlines seem to add their own buffer to the minimum requirements and I am assuming that is what QF does.
QF do taxy their aircraft with the wing de-ice lights on to illiminate the wings both day and night, an example of individual company procedures that they deem appropriate to their operation for some reason but other airlines don't think necessary.


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2011)

Boggo said:


> Some airlines seem to add their own buffer to the minimum requirements and I am assuming that is what QF does.
> QF do taxy their aircraft with the wing de-ice lights on to illiminate the wings both day and night, an example of individual company procedures that they deem appropriate to their operation for some reason but other airlines don't think necessary.




Yes that would have worked well at Perth, WE HAVE OUR DE-ICING LIGHTS ON. 
What about answering the questions posed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 December 2011)

Boggo mate,

You have implied that people are in mortal danger between arriving at the embarkation gate and boarding the aircraft.

This is serious.

Please provide some proof.

Otherwise a stiff rum may be required for baggage handlers frightened of the rain. 

gg


----------



## Boggo (8 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes that would have worked well at Perth, WE HAVE OUR DE-ICING LIGHTS ON.
> What about answering the questions posed.




I just did, I don't write their individual compliance procedures nor do I know why they might consider adding their own buffers.

(BTW de-icing lights are built into the fuselage of each aircraft and they illuminate the leading edge of the wing- sorry, that's the front of the wing and are nothing to do with Perth  )


----------



## Boggo (8 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Boggo mate,
> You have implied that people are in mortal danger between arriving at the embarkation gate and boarding the aircraft.




Aaah, no I didn't. All I did was quote a small extract from a document.

Can you show me where I _"implied that people are in mortal danger between arriving at the embarkation gate and boarding the aircraft"_.


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2011)

Boggo said:


> I just did, I don't write their individual compliance procedures nor do I know why they might consider adding their own buffers.
> 
> (BTW de-icing lights are built into the fuselage of each aircraft and they illuminate the leading edge of the wing- sorry, that's the front of the wing and are nothing to do with Perth  )




So thats it, all the Qantas passengers sitting on on the tarmac in Perth, while all the other planes were arriving and unloading, can rest easy knowing their de-icing lights were on.(the leading edge BTW)
What a classic, like I said earlier it sucks being a pawn in a bigger game, you are the first to be sacrificed.


----------



## Boggo (8 December 2011)

You could always ring them and ask why...
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/contacts/global/en


----------



## pilots (8 December 2011)

Not hard to see why Qantas will be wiped out by the Unions, two other air lines loaded and unloaded,  don't the union pussies have rain coats. What are all the Union pussies going to do when Qantas moves over seas. IT WILL HAPPEN.


----------



## sptrawler (8 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes drsmith, how they think this sort of thing helps their case is beyond me.
> All it does is give Joyce more ammunition for a complete overhaul of the award.
> Like I've sugested before, it is more likely the baggage handlers are being set up to take a big fall. Then the government can turn around and say FWA is working and is prepared to take a hard line.IMO
> Nothing worse than being cannon fodder. Bit sad really in my opinion.




Like the earlier post said, it won't end well for the baggage handlers.IMO


----------



## Logique (8 December 2011)

bellenuit said:


> ...Apparently some were kept on the planes for up to 7 hours. That is just unacceptable. Here is a link to the story on the West Australian.
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...antas-passengers-fume-as-storm-creates-chaos/



Too right it's unacceptable. Still no accident stats on lightning strike when getting off a plane. Given the choice for the onboard passengers: - sit in here for up to 7 hrs - or get off and risk the lightning - I reckon there'd be a scramble for the exits.


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Like the earlier post said, it won't end well for the baggage handlers.IMO




Well we did say,it would get worse before it got better for the union.
They are now devouring their own.
Maybe Bogo can shed some light on the issues.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/union-heavy-sacks-staff/story-fn6b3v4f-1226224854306

Sheldon made an appalling mess of the Qantas dispute and blamed his staff for it," National Union of Workers NSW state secretary Derrick Belan said.

"(Qantas chief ) Alan Joyce took him on, now Sheldon's got to save face," another senior union figure said


----------



## Boggo (18 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe Bogo can shed some light on the issues.




I have no idea what the unions are doing, not sure why you would think I do.

Its obvious that QF will do the same with all their other departments that they have with the flight attendants.
Most of my interstate trips are with Virgin but I got sent to Melb last Friday for a few hours and flew both ways with QF and it was obvious on the flight over that the cabin crew were QF employed as they were a bit 'more experienced' and struggled to smile.
(I am sure that you are all aware of the fact that QF no longer emloy flight attendants, they are actually employed by a pommie company - MAM Aviation Support Services - but you guys already knew and accept that that is what goes with the cheap fares).
http://www.mam.net.au/default.asp

With the unions eating their own I guess it is just a matter of time for all of the "We still call Australia home" airline departments to be subcontracted out to foreign companies but that's ok because we can all fly for the cost of a bus fare, that makes it ok doesn't it ?

Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger highlighting some areas of what is happening.


----------



## sptrawler (18 December 2011)

Boggo, I wasn't having a go at you.
I think Sheldon, holding the company to ransom was a dumb play, that could only end in tears.
This is the problem when labor get into power, the unions think it is a field day, it has happened on numerous occasions before.
Initially the labor government pander to the the unions, then the economic backlash kicks in and the government abandons the unions. Leaving the workers to pick up the mess.


----------



## Boggo (19 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Initially the labor government pander to the the unions, then the economic backlash kicks in and the government abandons the unions. Leaving the workers to pick up the mess.




Exactly, and that combined with a 'we are not going to change' union mentality is playing into the hands of the 'we can get it done cheaper overseas' corporate approach to the destruction of the last recognisable symbol of Australia that is on display worldwide.


----------



## Eager (19 December 2011)

This may surprise some, but I am the first to acknowledge that there are some 'dinosaur' union leaders out there who are living in the past and creating a more and more unsustainable future for their members.

But - it takes two to tango. Why don't more business leaders actually have a go at engaging their workforces, motivating them NOT by threat, and creating a culture of co-operation and efficiency? Don't tell me that the union leaders won't let them - that's rubbish - because at the end of the day a workplace will always run according to management. If a company cannot communicate the message to their workers, it is they who are the poor communicators.

There are probably more 'dinosaur' managers out there clinging to old practices than union leaders.


----------



## sptrawler (14 February 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Boggo, I wasn't having a go at you.
> I think Sheldon, holding the company to ransom was a dumb play, that could only end in tears.
> This is the problem when labor get into power, the unions think it is a field day, it has happened on numerous occasions before.
> Initially the labor government pander to the the unions, then the economic backlash kicks in and the government abandons the unions. Leaving the workers to pick up the mess.




Looks like the mess is starting to unfold.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12902064/union-loses-appeal-over-qantas-strikes/

That's one ruling I wonder if there are any more pending. 
I saw Tony Sheldon on T.V the other night, he was very subdued, not like him at all.


----------



## Glen48 (14 February 2012)

the wheels might not be falling off but the wings  on the 380 don't seem to healthy and on such a young bird.


----------

