QANTAS Grounds all Flights

[Whiskers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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.

But more particularly, think General Motors.

General Motors was once the very symbol of American power and might, of technical leadership as well as well paid jobs and the corporate embodiment of the American dream.

But excessive pay rates, and in particular vast associated benefits, especially pensions and health benefits, negotiated over the course of many labor disputes, left General Motors completely incapable of competing against, leaner, lower cost and much more nimble, younger car companies, especially those from Asia.

A brand which one day looks iconic can easily be turned, judo like, by low cost competitors in a globalised trading environment into a brand which looks anachronistic, clumsy, slow moving and hopelessly encumbered by institutional disadvantages.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

View attachment 45016

 

[Calliope]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/