QANTAS Grounds all Flights

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.

Both sides (management and unions) are pointing fingers of blame at each other. There's an enormous public relations battle accompanying the flight disruptions, which have halted nineteen weekly domestic services for at least a month as five aircraft stay grounded due to a backlog of maintenance work.

In reality no one at Qantas is to blame, not the workers or management. Qantas is simple faced with the horrid reality of the competitive global airline business.

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
was grounded over the weekend, even if they had yet to take those flights.

The compensation demanded by Mr Sims is far in excess of that previously
offered by Qantas - $350 a day for accommodation, meals and transport. The
airline also said it would pay full refunds or rebook flights, but only if they
had been scheduled to take off before midnight last night.

Yesterday Mr Sims issued a strongly worded statement calling on Qantas to pay all ''reasonable losses'' incurred by grounded travellers. In res-ponse, the
airline issued a terse statement saying it ''agrees to and accepts the ACCC's
request''.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...ring-payout-20111102-1mvsj.html#ixzz1cbHtRfdf

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 ?

QANTAS Grounds all Flights

sptrawler

startrader

McLovin

Calliope

Calliope

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Whiskers

It's a small world

Calliope

Whiskers

It's a small world

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

moXJO

menace to society

Smurf1976

Julia

In Memoriam

Calliope

sptrawler

Calliope

McLovin

Whiskers

It's a small world

Boggo

Similar threads

QANTAS Grounds all Flights

You are arguing with a Galah

It's a small world

It's a small world

menace to society

In Memoriam

It's a small world

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency