QANTAS Grounds all Flights

[Whiskers]

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;

1. he was forced by FWA to lift his lockout before any union employees lost pay or retracted what he said was unreasonable demands.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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]

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.

Unencumbered by logic, the unions are the biggest drag on our flying kangaroo. 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. Jetstar operates in the very different, low-cost leisure market. The low-cost airline has excelled because it has negotiated different enterprise agreements with its staff that enable it to compete favourably with other low-cost airlines.

Now check out the terms of your average Qantas pilot. They receive higher salaries than most long-haul pilots across the globe and fly fewer hours, receive six weeks' leave and 25 sick days. They get cheap flights and upgrades to the pointy end of the plane. But they want more - for starters, a 2.5 per cent wage increase for the next three years, free international economy tickets, upgradable to seats closer to the cockpit and $1 million to fund their union bosses each year.

The pilots' greedy demands will endanger the low-cost Jetstar business and burden Qantas with costs its international airline cannot afford. Simple mathematics tell you this is not good for customers or jobs.

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 über-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?