Originally Posted by
StudentInDebt
Not questioning your explanation, but it seems a bit of a paradox. If it wasn’t unionised the commercial/economic factors to outsource it would probably not have been present as, without unionisation, the staff would more than likely be on lower T&Cs. Makes Back to the Future look like elementary meta-physics!
No appeal can ignore the capital cost of the equipment. A ground handler (I know some of them use older equipment but not all) can purchase the capital equipment (that equipment is not required in passenger handling, which is why it's not a target for outsourcing which is what I thought was one of the principal reasons for offloading the work) and amortize its cost across many clients/airlines, Qantas cannot. It's like a small garage that services cars, it can't afford sophisticated emissions testing equipment, for example or it would take 100 years to pay it off based on throughput of business/income, so it contracts that component out to someone who specializes in that and can afford the equipment because it is amortized over hundreds of clients.
Because of the introduction of independent ground handlers, who eventually became much cheaper than Qantas once they garnered large numbers of clients, the critical mass that once existed is now no longer present. It's a no brainer really. I know there's a lot of emotion around the decision and I understand having been in a position made redundant several times, but that is emotion, not fact and the fact is it's not sustainable.