Qantas grounding?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, when an airline takes on against the unions, then it is black mail. When unions black mail the company by endless series of strikes, this is right. Well, now I get it. Strange logic...
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alisoncc
1. J P Morgan Nominees Australia 514,714,244 shares 22.72%
2. HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 428,322,920 shares 18.91%
3. National Nominees Limited 413,707,968 shares 18.26%
4. Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 253,053,991 shares 11.17%
Bankers, bloody bankers. They stuffed up the US home market, whilst lending funds to countries that couldn't repay leading to the European sovereign debt crisis. How much more of the world's business do they need to stuff up before they get reined in. Join the "Occupy Wall St" movement.
1. J P Morgan Nominees Australia 514,714,244 shares 22.72%
2. HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 428,322,920 shares 18.91%
3. National Nominees Limited 413,707,968 shares 18.26%
4. Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 253,053,991 shares 11.17%
Bankers, bloody bankers. They stuffed up the US home market, whilst lending funds to countries that couldn't repay leading to the European sovereign debt crisis. How much more of the world's business do they need to stuff up before they get reined in. Join the "Occupy Wall St" movement.
My understanding is that a nominee account is one where the named party holds it on behalf of others which could be individuals, pension funds etc. So although you see the names of banks it is not they who vote or have the economic benefit of holding the shares.
I agree greedy Banks are partly to blame for lending to bad credit risks but surely greedy governments and individuals wanting to spend beyond their means and taking up the credit are equally to blame. It's all to easy to make a single party a scapegoat so everyone else can feel good but the truth is more complicated and the media is not interested in the truth but in keeping circulation and viewing figures up by telling a story that accomplishes that.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too, used to believe that CEOs must deserve the pay the get because of the extraordinary responsibilities they bear and the exceptional insights they've gained from their years of experience and training. Then I grew up. CEOs are paid so much because their self-interests coincide with those of the boards and the remuneration consultants they hire to determine their salaries.
Every time they make a decision, they can call on highly paid consultants to advise them and PR people to spin the results of their mistakes. If they do lose their jobs they will have a golden parachute and they know that other company boards and remuneration consultants will not judge them harshly. Can anyone cite an example of a CEO who was not actually jailed for his behaviour who ended up in the unemployment line?
The pilot, engineer, cabin attendant or customer service rep, on the other hand, has to make decisions without consultation all day, knowing that their actions will be judged from above by people and institutions whose main objective is to protect themselves, rather than to reach a fair conclusion. If they follow the company rule book strictly, they'll be judged inflexible. If they bend the rules to account for reality, they'll be judged insubordinate. Either way, they hit the highway!
Marketing calls Qantas "Australia's airline," when it's really owned by bank holding companies. If Qantas goes bung, the CEO will depart by golden parachute. The holding companies scratch a little value off their funders' assets, though they might avoid that by having bet against Qantas in the share market casino. The board members collect their fees and move on to other companies. If Qantas survives (even in the short term), they all collect their bonus and move on.
Because of deference to authority, the majority of customers will always swallow the management line and blame any inconvenience on greedy staff instead of greedy or incompetent management, regardless of the facts.
We need unions because, without them, employees will always lose in a dispute with management.
Every time they make a decision, they can call on highly paid consultants to advise them and PR people to spin the results of their mistakes. If they do lose their jobs they will have a golden parachute and they know that other company boards and remuneration consultants will not judge them harshly. Can anyone cite an example of a CEO who was not actually jailed for his behaviour who ended up in the unemployment line?
The pilot, engineer, cabin attendant or customer service rep, on the other hand, has to make decisions without consultation all day, knowing that their actions will be judged from above by people and institutions whose main objective is to protect themselves, rather than to reach a fair conclusion. If they follow the company rule book strictly, they'll be judged inflexible. If they bend the rules to account for reality, they'll be judged insubordinate. Either way, they hit the highway!
Marketing calls Qantas "Australia's airline," when it's really owned by bank holding companies. If Qantas goes bung, the CEO will depart by golden parachute. The holding companies scratch a little value off their funders' assets, though they might avoid that by having bet against Qantas in the share market casino. The board members collect their fees and move on to other companies. If Qantas survives (even in the short term), they all collect their bonus and move on.
Because of deference to authority, the majority of customers will always swallow the management line and blame any inconvenience on greedy staff instead of greedy or incompetent management, regardless of the facts.
We need unions because, without them, employees will always lose in a dispute with management.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain why the Jetstar, QantasLink and other "related" pilot groups are not striking in support of their Qantas brothers/sisters? That would be typical here in Europe (more leverage) - why does this not happen in AussieLand?
Do Jetstar and the others not have a union? Sorry, a bit unfamiliar with the situation in your beautiful country!
Do Jetstar and the others not have a union? Sorry, a bit unfamiliar with the situation in your beautiful country!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankers
The banksrs don't own the shares. Note the word "nominees" in the shareholders' names.
This means they hold the shares on behalf of their stockbroking and other clients.
This means they hold the shares on behalf of their stockbroking and other clients.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively would you like the Federal government (taxpayer) to buy all the outstanding (relatively cheap at the moment) shares? That has not worked, (socialism, or taxpayer bailouts) ever in history by the way.
Maybe Joyce is banking on a similar bailout.....too big to fail anyone?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: europe
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is indeed a sad day without precedent in aviation and whatever happens things will never be the same again!.
It is a watershed and (without knowing the particulars) CEO AJ's reaction appears to be way over the top.
His pay-rise (on the face of it) seems outrageous under the circumstances.
Also management/union relations must really have hit to floor for things to have escalated to this extent.
Pistols at dawn!
Lets hope management puts it's gun back it the holster or at least gets a good winging by unions next
, or otherwise as mentioned here earlier we are all screwed
It is a watershed and (without knowing the particulars) CEO AJ's reaction appears to be way over the top.
His pay-rise (on the face of it) seems outrageous under the circumstances. Also management/union relations must really have hit to floor for things to have escalated to this extent.
Pistols at dawn!
Lets hope management puts it's gun back it the holster or at least gets a good winging by unions next
, or otherwise as mentioned here earlier we are all screwed
Moderator
Can someone explain why the Jetstar, QantasLink and other "related" pilot groups are not striking in support of their Qantas brothers/sisters? That would be typical here in Europe (more leverage) - why does this not happen in AussieLand?
The banksrs don't own the shares. Note the word "nominees" in the shareholders' names.
This means they hold the shares on behalf of their stockbroking and other clients.
This means they hold the shares on behalf of their stockbroking and other clients.
Xenophon
This is what ‘JDI’ posted in the DG&P section (August 24-QANTAS, Thread; Post 702). Interesting speech from a neutral (?) observer who is looking to keep the national flag carrier in place and Australians employed.
Senator Xenophon Speach!!!
________________________________________
Xenophon speech
For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
Senator Xenophon Speach!!!
________________________________________
Xenophon speech
For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morton,
Excellent post! I think the general public are much better informed than they were in 1989 and are less likely to side with QF management.
The fool at the top might have finally fallen on his sword.
Excellent post! I think the general public are much better informed than they were in 1989 and are less likely to side with QF management.
The fool at the top might have finally fallen on his sword.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pjac
You're right "Overrun", QANTAS should never have been privatised-but I don't feel that Joyce is the man for the job. The "Proof of the Pudding" is a regular return to the shareholders-not a litany of blame directed at unions, who incidentally have no ability to defend themselves in the same manner, on the media-when there is, no such reward. At the end of the day, when the airline is gone-who are the losers? Joyce will trot off with his "Golden Handshake" to be hired by some other company-and do the same bad job once more-and there are a few predecessors out there, with the "Teflon Touch".
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glhcarl:
When CEO's have a more than a hundred or thousand times the responsability of a line employee.
The line employed is hired to do a job.
The CEO is hired to run the company.
-How the simple and basic employee faces his reponsabilities: by the possibility to lose his job.
-How the CEO faces his responsabilities? By the possibility to make his employees lose their job. What a joke.
-The 1000 times more responsabilities you are speaking about here means bullcrap when the CEO just decided to stop operations. What a genius's idea! You need to have a nobel prize to have the smartness to make this decision, nobody could have thought about it!
-The 1000 more responsabilities you are talking about here means nothing as the employees take all the consequences.
I don't care how bang up a job a CEO does. Making 5 million per year is just bullcrap. When did it become fashionable to pay a CEO a hundred or a thousand times more than your line employees?
When CEO's have a more than a hundred or thousand times the responsability of a line employee.
The line employed is hired to do a job.
The CEO is hired to run the company.
-How the CEO faces his responsabilities? By the possibility to make his employees lose their job. What a joke.
-The 1000 times more responsabilities you are speaking about here means bullcrap when the CEO just decided to stop operations. What a genius's idea! You need to have a nobel prize to have the smartness to make this decision, nobody could have thought about it!
-The 1000 more responsabilities you are talking about here means nothing as the employees take all the consequences.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Serenity
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Pinkman!
Flew a couple of sectors with QF (LHR-BKK - 747, SIN-LHR A380) over the last few weeks. I was a bit startled to hear it the first time and made a mental note of it the next. It didnt slam the airline directly but lots of indirect allusion. It basically said that they and their colleagues in the airline strive to be professional, uphold the highest standards of safety for their passengers and were committed to an Australian-based airline (didnt use those words but that was the thrust) etc etc. It went on to refer obliquely to the industrial action and express confidence that the travelling public and passengers would understand and share their aspirations. On one flight it was made by the capt. and on the other by the FO "on behalf of capt. XX". It was about 30 sec as a previous poster said.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain why the Jetstar, QantasLink and other "related" pilot groups are not striking in support of their Qantas brothers/sisters? That would be typical here in Europe (more leverage) - why does this not happen in AussieLand?
AIPA did not want to know
The domestic pilots were on our side but didn't hold much sway with the captains club on the other side of Sydney airport.
Although QLink are still in the air for now I saw the writing on the wall and left.
Good luck to the crews your just learning what the QLink crew have put up with for years.
I don't think things are going to improve soon.
BTW the rot set in with Dixon and Jackson, the Irish guy is just the idiot following a dream of Dixon. he doesn't have the background to think of this and cope.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that they've sacrificed the Qantas' name and reputation (eg travellers in Perth for Chogm and the Bangkok floods) means they're planning to shut the company down for good.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the drama unfolded when Alan Joyce announced the grounding of Qantas | Perth Now
They still use Telegraph?
Did it go further than expected, ie He thought the government would step in to prevent the grounding?
QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce telegraphed his snap decision to ground the airline at 2pm when he phoned federal ministers Chris Evans, Martin Ferguson and Anthony Albanese. His attempts to reach Prime Minister Julia Gillard failed because she was locked in the CHOGM leaders' retreat in Perth with world leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron.
A senior Qantas source said Mr Joyce indicated the seriousness of the proposed action to the ministers and asked them to pass on the message to Ms Gillard.
Joyce told the ministers he was aware that the proposed move was "unfortunate" but that it was the only legal course of action that Qantas could take under the provisions of the Fair Work Act.
Mr Joyce expected the Government to immediately intervene to prevent the grounding of all aircraft. But they didn't.
Mr Joyce announced at 5pm that he was grounding all aircraft immediately.
A senior Qantas source said Mr Joyce indicated the seriousness of the proposed action to the ministers and asked them to pass on the message to Ms Gillard.
Joyce told the ministers he was aware that the proposed move was "unfortunate" but that it was the only legal course of action that Qantas could take under the provisions of the Fair Work Act.
Mr Joyce expected the Government to immediately intervene to prevent the grounding of all aircraft. But they didn't.
Mr Joyce announced at 5pm that he was grounding all aircraft immediately.
Did it go further than expected, ie He thought the government would step in to prevent the grounding?