QANTAS Grounds all Flights

[noco]

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]

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]

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

Missing a very good mates engagement tonight.

 

[Eager]

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]

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]

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]

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...this 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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[Whiskers]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.