Originally Posted by
v1bang
Could take months. I’d bet fair work take their time with this as it’s the first aviation ruling under the new legislation. I still don’t envisage a scenario where Qantas come out the other end losing. In what world would a massive corporation earning billions in profit willingly walk into the unknown without being aware of the outcome? There’s definitely deals being done under the table though - after all, this is the corrupt government we are talking about.
It’s really a fairly simple dynamic when you consider QF’s IR history.
I personally don’t think it’s going to be a free kick to the employer. They’ve done some sh*tty things, like taking all the agreed terms off the table the day before applying for IB to manipulate the IB process. That stuff won’t be looked on kindly by FWC.
Also, anything seen as a “win” for the employer will open the flood gates for employers to use IB on a whim for strike breaking. In what is essentially a test case, FWC will not want to encourage employers to seek out IB.
Also, perhaps moreso than most other cases that might end up at Fairwork, the NAA workplace has an incredibly comparable dynamic to mainline shorthaul, Jetstar etc. If IB provides a solution vastly different to mainline shorthaul or Jetstar, the FWC will essentially be sh*tting on the federal government’s own “Same Job Same Pay” principle.
The Federal government will be wary of handing a win to a company bereft of integrity after the COVID cash grab, blatant refusal to pay any of it back, all while posting multi billion dollar profits.
The Chairman’s lounge effect is being overstated. I think the publicity over Albanese’s son’s membership and also the Qatar rights stoush means those in high public office will be very careful in the future to both declare those interests and not allow themselves to be manipulated.
Lastly, the whole argument of “Qantas wouldn’t go to IB if they didn’t already know the outcome” is not my opinion. I actually think they were happy to go to IB because they needed a test case before the shorthaul and long haul eba come up later this year. At 250 pilots (and dwindling fast), the NAA eba is a low risk test case for them to see where the chips will fall.
As for the whole NAA agreement, I’m pretty sure there would be some high level meetings going at the street, asking why they screwed it up so badly. They had them at 47/53, and now it’s descended into a bin fire.
The fundamental problem is still one of moving goalposts. The employment environment post COVID and particularly demand/supply for pilots has moved massively in four years. Qantas have failed to recognise that and are sticking to the only way they know how to do business - the big stick.
Plus, they have a blanket rule of wanting to punish PIA. As soon as any group goes to PIA, no matter how reasonable their claims, the default position is to burn them to the ground. They believe that any gains provided post-PIA is rewarding it, and so they are almost violent in their response to it.
Look at what happened in the lockout. That shutdown cost the airline circa $300m, when the cost of continuing to negotiate to a solution would have been a mere fraction. The shareholders should have been livid that $300m of their money was pissed away.
Wanting to save face is never a good business tactic. Supply/demand sets prices - for housing, for commodities, for food - and for pilots.
The sooner they wake-up to that and shelve their “must-win” ego, the sooner everyone can get back to making profits together.