Originally Posted by
Vindiesel
Hey RatdeDe
Pretty sure that we all get the following:
1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.
I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.
What I want to know from you is - so what?
Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the question.
Central to understand what happened it to first admit to yourself you were being manipulated. Is there a Qantas staff member who believes that the grounding was not orchestrated?
If you answer yes, ask yourself to what purpose would Qantas want to lever the events of 29 October 2011.
That the 'terminal' (death) of Qantas was averted is a relief, but we ask was it ever terminal? If not why do what they did?
The 'transformation' was on the back of lower fuel prices and a depreciation adjustment. The latter an audit and management timing issue. The former luck.
That Qantas now seems to be using (at least from the Stream lead's comments) the decline again would suggest, given Little Napoleon's comments about fuel impact long haul to be both premature and incorrect.
With respect to Jetstar we believe the business to be over scale . Emirates have announced a pivot away from the A380, preferring the big twins. The data suggests a similar scale issue. To what extent is a judgement that varies from firm to firm.
Whilst the veiled personal criticism seems a little wasted, we ask you practically to consider why Qantas would choose not to report JQ in operating segments? The reason is that they choose not to.
That it forms part of a broader company strategic narrative may be true, but it isn't an economic one. What other purpose could they hope it serves?
With respect to Fair Work and Arbitration, it would appear that being forced to binding arbitration, had little downside, it appeared that the commission failed to cut where the company wanted to cut.
The 787 deal is not our purview. We think that on a cost basis, Little Napoleon is right the savings are substantial.
That a former Union President now is an IR negotiator and simultaneously espouses 'operating margin' declines whilst comfortably enjoying high level leisure travel and other 'incentives' to negotiate a deal bought us to this thread.
Ethics and morality.
Qantas is not in terminal decline, the International business is not in decline, yet someone with a vested interests speak of a -win-win, when patently declining to outline just what financial inducements he secure from such a deal.
We believe that to be both dishonest and disingenuous.
With respect to your legislative remedy, as is the case in most western economies it is much harder to withdraw labour. Even when the pilots tried with small non-monetary measures, the government backed the company.
The Hon Paul Keating suggested a different strategy that would have sorted the day.
As a former DFO said to a former CEO , and we paraphrase, who was going to outsource flying to (insert subsidiary) 'you can do that but in the interim every flight will divert and in two weeks you have no airline so go ahead'
The reason why IR focus on pilots is that as a collective pilots can bleed an airline rapidly. Cash flow is a fickle beast.
Ask any analyst who covers airlines, it is a fair bet that they ask in the first two questions, "what is the relationship with pilots?"
Thus they spend huge time and indeed money, even parachute a former Union President in to convey the message of woe.
Whether one believes it when in every Qantas' pilot's memory your airline has been
terminal and transformed.
Now on schedule up pops a lead IR negotiator with selective quotes saying yet again the business is in trouble...
We leave it to the readership, but it is worth quoting the orator of note, George W Bush.
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
.