Wedcue said:
I'd be more concerned about Cobham and their business class fitted 717's operating on the east coast. Don't forget, QF domestic has been split from International and therefore is not bound by the QF sales act or its protections.
Let me see now, this was a thread about a possible influence of the Integration Award through the "successor" clause. The money is on "successor" as being a replacement corporate entity, rather than a related co-existing entity.
Now up pops Cobham. There is no ownership relationship between QF and Cobham - it is simply a contractor working under an operating lease arrangement for the B717. Cobham actually competes with QF in the FIFO and charter markets as a standalone entity. In short, no possible relevance to the Integration Award.
Then another gem about the "split" of AOCs between QF domestic and International somehow avoiding compliance with the QF Sales Act. There is no legislated limit on the number of AOCs a company may hold, so merely having two or more AOCs tells us nothing about the corporate entity that holds them or how other legislation may apply.
Did QF create a new company for each AOC? Was there a transfer of business to any new company? Did QF exit either of those businesses, ie domestic or international? Has QF ceased to exist?
The Sale Act applies to:
Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time (even if its name is later changed).
So Wedcue, can you explain to me how the internal accounting restructure (including the $80 million pissed against the wall to do it!) has avoided the Sale Act? Or what any of it has to do with that unrelated entity, Cobham?