This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

QANTAS Grounds all Flights

Jump to new

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.
 
IFocus said:
Australian icon going down the tubes thanks to a poison leprechaun and Rio head kicker.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/
Click to expand...

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 said:
At least they gave 72 hrs notice of their intentions !
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 

You should!... before making judgements.





The fact is that Qantas:
  1. was set up by a special law, The Qantas Sale Act,
  2. has a clear duty and obligations as the national carrier under that act, and
  3. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. How does their safety/crash record compare?
  3. How does their route and connections compare?
  4. How does their workplace relations compare?
  5. Who owns them, in particular how much government control and funding?
  6. What is the long term goal of the management/ major shareholder?
  7. 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
Click to expand...

Quite so!
 
Whiskers said:
The fact is that Qantas:
  1. was set up by a special law, The Qantas Sale Act,
  2. has a clear duty and obligations as the national carrier under that act, and
  3. has protected income as the national carrier.
Click to expand...

Which part of the Act stipulates your second and third points?
 
McLovin said:
Which part of the Act stipulates your second and third points?
Click to expand...
By virtue of being national carrier it gets;
  1. first option of all gov travel and often Aus representative teams/delegations etc abroad.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
 

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

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".
 

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.


The benefit was and still is significant to any national carrier who respects and nurtures the position.
 
sptrawler said:
That all counts for nothing if you can't sell a ticket because the unions keep stopping flights indiscriminately.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Whiskers said:
Well, that's your opinion, but with no rationale.
Click to expand...

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


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


Whiskers said:
Isn't that what I said!?
Click to expand...

That wasn't in the post I replied to.



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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
M
FEA - Forest Enterprises
Replies
8
Views
5K
So_Cynical
M
ASIC to review stock 'loaning' racket
Replies
15
Views
6K
Whiskers
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...