Qantas Offshoring

[blow.n.gasket]

At least there is one Jorno not feeding from the Qantas trough:





Get set for the new Qantas anthem ‘I-now-call-Singapore-home’


February 10, 2011 – 6:49 pm, byBen Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)
The rhetoric in the Qantas pilots dispute today is more bitter than anything heard in airline circles since the infamous pilot strike of 1989.
But it is not otherwise similar to that brawl, which provoked the strongest anti-union reaction from a Labor Government since Ben Chifley used troops to break a coal miner strike in July 1949.
Instead this brawl, whether it leads to a Qantas pilot strike or not, is one that is set to force Canberra to deal with the ‘I-now-call-Singapore-home’ effect in which Qantas is shifting its flying and its resources offshore, in contravention of the purpose of the Qantas Sale Act, and preparing to import foreign pilots to undercut Australian pilot pay.
The business plan of the current Qantas management, to de-Australianise Qantas, and continue to sacrifice ‘costly’ legacy flight and maintenance arrangements through outsourcing, is something the Gillard government and Abbott opposition haven’t been prepared to contemplate.
But in this sense, that of forcing itself into the political arena, it is an incredibly risky dispute for both Qantas and the pilots to engage in.
Both sides know this.
They had their lobbyists on the ground in Canberra at various times this week and last.
As far as strike action goes, even if there is an overwhelming vote for protected action on the floor at off duty pilot meetings tomorrow and on Monday, a formal ballot will be required of all pilots, and any consequent disruption to Qantas flights would be weeks away. (Easter sounds good.)
The reality for Qantas has already been signaled by its CEO, Alan Joyce. The international business is unsustainable, and in need of serious investment. Less clearly signaled was the culpability of his management in further running the product up against the wall by failing to correct (so far) the disastrous fleet planning errors by his predecessors, and removing the engine shop that actually kept the aged Rolls-Royce engines reliable on its clapped out 747 fleet, followed by a cluster of failures that has damaged customer confidence in the carrier.
As for the world headline grabbing A380 incident, Qantas under Joyce has learned nothing about avoiding self harm, embracing a power-by-the-hour deal for those Rolls-Royce engines in which it found itself left ignorant of issues that were known to the manufacturer.
Internationally Qantas is being destroyed by better product being flown more directly to more destinations, and has tried to find an answer across its overseas and domestic networks by transferring assets to a Jetstar product that its higher yielding customers detest.
These management failings give the pilots nowhere to go other than to take their skills and experience to Emirates, Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines, all of whom are carving up Qantas up in terms of product and schedule.
At yesterday’s meetings between the Australian and International Pilots Association and Qantas management including Oldmeadow Consulting ((a firm associated in the union’s mind with the supplying of strike breakers) both sides dug in deeply.
Neither side agreed on how much a proposed pilot pay and productivity deal from the association would cost, and the key point was that the company refused point blank to contemplate any deal which wrote in job security.
This morning Qantas had not made any further comment on the dispute.
However the association hardened its language, with a statement headed
‘Tragedy looms for QANTAS as hard line management trashes its brand, seeks to smash its pilots.’
It said:
QANTAS is on the brink this morning as a questionable management team shows its contempt for its workforce by refusing to negotiate job security in return for improved flexibility and productivity.
President of the Australian and International Pilots Association Barry Jackson said the situation was a tragedy, with management seemingly eager to destroy its relationship with loyal workers.
“We are witnessing the demise of an icon through mismanagement. This is not the first time some of the Qantas managers have been through this. Many were centrally involved in the destruction of Ansett and Australian Airlines and back then, as they are today, the same industrial consultants are advising them. If Qantas disappears they will have wiped out all of the founding entities in Australian aviation.”
“This dispute is about jobs and whether there will be a recognizable aviation industry based in Australia in the future.
Mr. Jackson said that the degradation of QANTAS mainline has not stopped at the first subsidiary.
“Jetstar is now being undercut and off-shored at every opportunity, with the imminent formation of more off-shore bases proudly announced by Mr. Joyce at recent Company roadshows.”




……………………………………………………………………………………….



Is Qantas ditching unaffordable excellence? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/02/10/is-qantas-ditching-unaffordable-excellence/)

February 10, 2011 – 8:09 pm, byBen Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)
Here is something risky to think about in the context of the dispute between Qantas and the Australian and International Pilots Association over job security.
If Qantas were to remove the burden of excellence from its balance sheet, those pilot training, maintenance and standards costs that do more than just tick the boxes that make the carrier legal, what are the chances of disaster striking?
The answer is obvious. They would be the same chances that apply to other carriers who do the absolute minimum but claim to be conforming with ‘world’s best practice’, because in the weasel words of air safety standards, ‘best practice’ and ‘minimum required practice’ are identical.
The probability of a ‘hull loss’ which is a euphemism risk assessors use for a heap of dead people on world wide newscasts is probably one disaster every 25-30 years for a large airline.
This means that any such airline might not have a very bad accident for 50 years, or not until tomorrow. But if the company is saving $200 million a year by dispensing with excess excellence, meaning anything which is in excess of the minimum required to be able to claim conformity with ‘world’s best practice’, it will be more than several billion dollars ahead within a decade, and an accident could happen anyhow. Because ‘**** happens’ as Tony Abbott so lucidly put it the other day.
This is what is troubling about the apparently urgent need for Qantas to put an end to the unsustainable losses on its long haul operations, as flagged by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce a week ago in an address to the Melbourne Press Club.
The company has persisted with a failed network concept and a failed re-equipment program and uncompetitive products and seems determined to try and solve these issues by off shoring some of its assets and costs through the device of basing Australian registered aircraft in Singapore. The small beginnings of a major shift in strategy. It closed an engine shop that was critical to keeping its aged fleet of Rolls-Royce powered 747s safe over the far southern ocean routes or across the Pacific to North America. It deals itself out of knowledge and oversight over the engines Rolls-Royce put on its flagship A380s, only to put better versions on those supplied to other A380 operators without telling Qantas a thing until one of them rips itself apart, and tears 27 holes through the wing in the process, on the November 4 flight of one its A380s from Singapore to Sydney.
At the tense meeting between itself, its strike breaker contractor and the union yesterday Qantas refuses to consider anything that might give job security to the pilots that are the best trained in the world.
Why? There are several possible reasons for this. The widely discussed possible reason is that Qantas is determined to end the employment of pilots under ‘legacy’ terms and conditions and churn them back, through Jetstar, under different agreements. The less widely discussed reason refers to nebulous statements from Jetstar about the setting up of a pilot resource from which non Australian pilots flying elsewhere on the Jetstar franchises could perform flying in Australia for Jetstar at favorable rates. No doubt like those of guest workers in the building industry employed on temporary visas.
If such an arrangement is set up for Jetstar there is no reason why it then couldn’t be applied to Qantas, what’s left of it.
The bizarre situation arises now that Qantas has a cadre of pilots who appear to have a longer term loyalty to the carrier than its management. The former are prepared to put standards ahead of remuneration if it keeps the carrier truly Australian. The latter don’t want to know about it.
It isn’t clear if Qantas has thought through the consequences of undercutting and severing those legacy costs that are its brand ‘premium’. It is clear however that Alan Joyce has calculated the immediate consequences of not lifting productivity at Qantas, and this is where there is considerable pain and bafflement and anger in pilot ranks. They are prepared to lift productivity and keep pay in check.
Surely there must yet be room in this stand off for Joyce to make different, more constructive choices, that will engage and retain that part of the Qantas legacy which is priceless.

[Keg]

Given the shellacking that we give journos on PPRUNE it's only fair to acknowledge the work that Ben Sandilands has been doing- particularly over the last few months with respect to the senate inquiry and so on.

He's by far and away the most insightful journo I've read in recent times when it comes to aviation articles. Instead of just re-hashing the various press releases put out by the airlines (a la Steve Creedy) Ben looks to be digging deeper and considering the ramifications of the decisions and the wider impact on the industry beyond the spin of the various releases. He also appears to be doing so without fear or favour and thus is coming across much more credible than others (like Geoffrey Thomas) who look like they're attempting to curry favour with the airline management- to what end I have no idea but I'm sure some can guess.

So Ben, keep up the great work.

[TIMA9X]

it's only fair to acknowledge the work that Ben Sandilands has been doing- particularly over the last few months with respect to the senate inquiry and so on.

Second that! Kudos Ben.

wYwLeJ3Oz_w


Forgive me re-posting this here, but I think it fits the thread.

[The Kelpie]

Will apathy allow Qantas to off-shore more?
March 15, 2011 – 4:12 pm, by Ben Sandilands
Qantas pilots are moving closer to direct industrial action as the management puts its hopes in disinterest by the Gillard government to save its tax and cost reduction strategies for off-shoring jets and jobs.

The Australian and International Pilots Association is holding back on filing for a ballot of members to approve resorting to protected industrial action pending last ditch negotiations over a new EBA.

However Qantas isn’t negotiating on claims for job security in return for a new suite of work place efficiencies,* meaning* the sham arrangements under which the Qantas and Jetstar jobs have begun shifting to bases in Singapore and New Zealand* are still being pursued.

(These were recently exposed on here and on Crikey as involving sending cadet pilots to Auckland to open local bank accounts and obtain an NZ tax file number but work in Australia, for less than Australian rates while also saving on the superannuation levy.)

Taken to its logical conclusion by a management not known for restraint in such matters, Qantas can in theory put all of its Australian payroll on foreign labor agreements, assuming what it is doing in New Zealand and Singapore is legal.

An industrial relations authority not involved with the parties to this dispute says “This is a classic exercise in disengagement by the employer. It is hoping that if it keeps its head down this will all blow over, and in that respect it has the obvious support of the mainstream media and the Gillard government and the opposition, none of whom will challenge Qantas.”

In fact, the Gillard government and Abbott opposition have been as quiet as mice in the cheese pantry in the Qantas Chairman’s Lounges,* the feeding trough offered free to all federal and state politicians, senior judges, arbitrators, newspaper executives and key public administrators and trophy celebrities.

This is what the Qantas strategy involves.* Its* full service and Jetstar budget flights between Australia and New Zealand are in full or part respectively staffed by Australians given a NZ tax file number and a NZ bank account and who are paid at lower NZ rates which also save the Qantas group the superannuation levy, even when they continue to live in Australia.

These employees no longer have recourse to the rights found in Australian industrial law.

In Singapore Qantas has already based two Australian registered wide bodied Airbus A330-200s painted in Jetstar livery which operate services between Melbourne and Singapore using staff on Singaporean labor agreements and rates.

If unchallenged by the government there is no reason why the entire mining resources sector can’t do the same things, and change from using fly in-fly out charters from Australian cities to deals in which the work force is flown in and out on rotation from Jakarta, Singapore or Manila.

The savings in pay and superannuation and Australian taxation and industrial law compliance would also cost the ATO and government revenues substantial sums.

The merger of the Australian Stock Exchange and the Singapore Stock Exchange would allow the same hit on finance sector jobs in Australia, significantly downgrading the business relevance of Sydney and Melbourne, and removing high wealth jobs from the Australian economy.

The principles of off-shoring by Qantas are supposed to come in for more questions at this Friday’s hearings by the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety (and now extended to maintenance as well)* however sources indicate that Qantas and Jetstar executives are seeking secrecy.

These are matters for the government and opposition to chew on while they are troughing it in the Chairman’s Lounge, but it’s only a massive loss of revenue for the Australian economy* if the strategy prevails so, why would they bother.

Heads down into the tough again!




I think it is about time to have this discussion.

[Sunfish]

Of course Qantas is above the law!

QF has the most wonderful lobbying tool in the country! The Chairmans Lounge. I have twice had Directors forced onto Boards I reported to through the schmoozing that goes on in that place.

Public Company Chairman, CEO's, Politicians, Judges and very senior public servants, all mix together and naturally talk.

I would be very surprised if QF did not monitor the movements of its lobbying targets and arrange "chance" meetings.

[ACT Crusader]

Of course Qantas is above the law!

QF has the most wonderful lobbying tool in the country! The Chairmans Lounge. I have twice had Directors forced onto Boards I reported to through the schmoozing that goes on in that place.

Public Company Chairman, CEO's, Politicians, Judges and very senior public servants, all mix together and naturally talk.

I would be very surprised if QF did not monitor the movements of its lobbying targets and arrange "chance" meetings.


How's that tin foil hat Sunfish :cool:

Politicians don't need the Chairman's lounge, they have the big house on the hill to make all those dodgy decisions....

[Sunfish]

ACT Crusader:

How's that tin foil hat Sunfish

It's not a tinfoil hat mate, it's personal experience.

Two of the #@#@ers even boasted to me about their use of the contacts they made.

[DrPepz]

I said this in some other post and I will repeat this here. What QF seems to be doing for the SIN base is not hiring Singaporeans to do the piloting jobs cheaper. They are getting Australians to work in SIN for probably less than what SQ SIN pilots would work for.

What's the term for this? Is it reverse outsourcing? Jetstar committed to committing 100 jobs in Singapore (directly or indirectly) for every widebody based here. They don't seem to be creating jobs for Singaporeans, and they certainly are not creating jobs for Australians.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I think the term is 'outfoxing'?

[chimbu warrior]

I discovered this little gem 1985/86: QANTAS Network | AIRLINE ROUTE (http://airlineroute.net/2011/02/11/w85-qf/)

Bear in mind that QF was a much smaller carrier, with no domestic operation in those days (prior to the merger with Australian in the early 90's).

See how the network has contracted.

[skybed]

Those were the days when QF had a network with proper layovers. down the memory lane.......:{

[packrat]

The days when Qantas news was printed on glossy paper.When the place was family.When there was pride in the place and everyone was on the same place in the same country.
Now the place is being driven into the ground by the same management failures who ruined other airlines.

[WorthWhat]

See below some relatively good news for Qantas employees facing possible redundancy created by any Qantas decision to maintain the B787 offshore and crew it with offshore pilots and cabin crew.

Will certainly help fix the pilot debacle created by:
'walking away from the undertaking Qantas made in LHEBA 8 to pay all who fly Qantas branded B787’s in accordance with the LHEBA and agreeing in the EBA 7 Rollover to recognise the role of Jetconnect'.

The Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (FWA) has further clarified the employer's obligations in redundancy situations. (Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Honeysett & Others; Murray & Ors v Ulan Coal Mines Ltd [2010] FWAFB 7578)

There is a substantial obligation on the employer to place an otherwise redundant employee elsewhere in its organisation, including within associated entities if it wishes to avoid an unfair dismissal claim.

While employees are unable to make an unfair dismissal application when the dismissal is a "genuine redundancy". For the redundancy to be genuine, the employer must seek to redeploy the employee elsewhere in the enterprise, including to an associated entity (http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/workplace_relations_insights/20101014/genuine_redundancy_what_are_the_redeployment_obligations_of_ employers.page), a matter overlooked in October's Workplace Relations Insights.

[DirectAnywhere]

Oh goody. So I can take a 40% paycut and be "redeployed" to Singapore. Phew, what a relief.:confused:

[Slasher]

Now the place is being driven into the ground by the same management failures who ruined other airlines.

I think it has to be faced that Qantas, the last bastion in the Oz industry that had any semblance of standards, is now destined to become as mickey mouse as the rest of them. Thanks to that can be partly given to the Gillard rabble.

Kelp's quote from Sandilands is quite accurate. Air Joyce won't quit till the White Rat has been driven into the ground and appropriate bonuses paid to the perpetrators at the top.

Bit sad really.

[WorthWhat]

May not be your bag, DA. Nevertheless the Full Bench concluded that a range of matters need to be considered when determining whether redeployment is reasonable, including:

the nature of any available position;


the qualifications required to perform the job;


the employee’s skills, qualifications and experience;


the location of the job in relation to the employee’s residence;


the remuneration that is offered; and


the degree of managerial integration between associated entities.
And even if one doesn't get to go elsewhere on ones Qantas terms and conditions, expect there will be any number of employees delighed to take Julia's guaranteed Fair Work Entitlements of four weeks redundancy pay for each year of service. Definately much better than being put out on the street because the Company no longer has a job for some people - say B767 techies and LH cabin crew.

[Metro man]

Unfortunately, whilst QANTAS might want to maintain a standard of excellence it may be unable to do so and remain profitable in it's present form. Just look at the competition today compared to when that route map was drawn up, Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Cathay, Singapore etc. All these have access to a cheap non unionised workforce for most positions, eg their baggage loaders aren't on $100 000/year for very little work with the ability to hold the company to ransom.

Does the average passenger know enough, or even care about the safety systems behind the scenes ? If a ticket SYD-LHR-SYD is $300 cheaper on EK compared to QF then that's $300 more drinking money for his holiday.

I doubt the government will be stepping in subsidise a balance sheet of red ink. The company needs to adapt in order to survive. Why not get your experts to come up with a workable plan which maintains your conditions and keeps the company profitable ? Show the management how it should be done.

[WoodenEye]

The Ulan Coal Mines case isn't a perfect result, but is nonetheless, good news for some.

Any legislation that forces Qantas to offer its employees a reasonable job in Jetconnect and/or Jetstar on conditions acceptable to the Court can only reduce the companys desire to unilaterally transfer the business.

Definately a step in the right direction, but does require willingness on both sides to get an outcome acceptable to both staff and management.

[Dropt McGutz]

Metro, staff try too. There is a wealth of talent amongst the QF workforce with relevant management/university qualifications PLUS operational experience(what the present management lack) but any input is ignored, because the execs know better. It's a very sad state the way that Qantas is being run at the moment because there is so much potential to turn the airline around into a top rate product. What would I know anyway? I'm just a dumb pilot with several tertairy qualifications.

[Metro man]

The travel market has changed a lot in the past twenty five years, with cheapest on the day increasingly being what gets the business. I recently booked my holiday travelling on Emirates, normally I would go with SQ who are my favourite but a difference of $1000 for all the family couldn't be ignored.

I'm going to sit in a seat for eight hours, eat a couple of meals and watch the inflight entertainment. It's not the experience of a lifetime.

As an airline pilot I am much beter informed about the goings on behind the scenes than the average passenger. There are some airlines I will not fly on. Whilst EK came close to Australia's worst ever airline disaster with their tailstrike, SQ had Taipei and QF have certainly had more than their fair share of incidents recently. You pays your money and takes your choice.:hmm:

[mcgrath50]

Metro Man,

I agree there is a market that goes totally on cost. But all the baby boomers I have spoken to (50+, close to retirement, generally with a pretty good disposable income who are ready to enjoy the finer things in life), are prepared to pay a premium to travel on a PREMIUM, safe and AUSTRALIAN carrier.

Is Qantas this? Probably no at the moment. Is it meant to be? Yes

When you add the business market to this it surely is worthwhile given the higher yeild per seat sold compared to a LCC.

[Roller Merlin]

ABC News, evening of14 April 2011:

Qantas using shell company to offshore jobs: union
By Wendy Carlisle


Qantas says the Boeing 737 with the flight number QF50 that made an emergency landing at Sydney Airport on Wednesday was not really a Qantas flight at all.

The plane was flown by wholly owned, New Zealand-based Qantas subsidiary Jetconnect.

The pilots union and the ACTU are citing the emergency landing, triggered by a faulty fuel transfer valve causing a false alarm, as proof that Qantas is operating Jetconnect as a sham company to lower pilots' wages and conditions.

When QF50 took off from Auckland Airport in the early hours of Wednesday morning, passengers would have been forgiven for thinking they were flying with Qantas.

The pilot and flight attendants wore Qantas uniforms and the passengers ate Qantas food.

Indeed, when the ABC reported the emergency landing that morning it was Qantas fielding media inquiries about the incident.

"Well, it's marketed as Qantas, the aircraft are painted in Qantas livery, Qantas is written down the side of the airplane, in fact it says 'The Spirit of Australia'," Pilots Association spokesman Adam Susz said.

"On the other hand you've got a New Zealand flag and a New Zealand-registered aircraft, so it's quite a contradiction."

It is that contradiction - was QF50 a Qantas or a Jetconnect service - which is at the heart of the dispute that was heard before Fair Work Australia this week.

The Pilots Association says QF50 shows that Jetconnect, which was formed by Qantas in 2001 to fly the trans-Tasman route, was created solely so pilots could be employed under lower New Zealand awards.

"What's been clearly identified during the case is that it's basically a sham arrangement. It really is Qantas by another name," Mr Susz said.

"It's a company that's controlled by Qantas, managed by Qantas and governed by Qantas. In fact, I don't think they even have a bank account in New Zealand.

"Really it's just an industrial set-up to avoid paying Australian terms and conditions."

The ACTU also made submissions before Fair Work Australia in the case, arguing that if Qantas succeeded in sending jobs offshore with Jetconnect, it would set a dangerous precedent for other industries.

"We're arguing that Jetconnect is not a real airline. It has no claims, it has no customers, it has no real assets. I mean, it doesn't even have a bank account in it's so-called home country New Zealand," ACTU president Ged Kearney said.

"It is a subsidiary wholly owned, controlled and operated by Qantas. It is a shell company, in other words."

Ms Kearney also criticised Qantas's response that it has not made one pilot redundant in the past 40 years.

"That's a nonsense argument because jobs are about jobs that are potential, that are real, that are future jobs. It's not just about jobs in the past," she said.

"They are simply not employing Australians under Australian terms and conditions.

"They are employing people overseas, offshore, in sham companies so they can avoid paying Australian wages and conditions, they can avoid being a good corporate citizen and giving back to the very communities and countries that actually have loved Qantas and used Qantas very loyally over the last 40 years.

"It's really an appalling situation and an appalling behaviour by a large iconic company."

Qantas declined to comment to PM, but in a written statement said Jetconnect was a New Zealand-registered company, operating New Zealand-registered aircraft.

[rmcdonal]

Europe puts brakes on Qantas China expansion plan | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/europe-puts-brakes-on-qantas-china-expansion-plan/story-e6frg8zx-1226042449534)

Anyone for a China basing?

[Terrey]

Given Qantas's current form I don't think you will ever see another 'basing' . It will be on local chinese rates and local conditions. "It's the only way we can compete with other airlines based in China".

[apache]

"It's probably still only a matter of time, because everybody's moving to open skies and this is us maybe waiting for the right moment.


so does that mean that SQ can fly the pacific? or NZ fly domestically in oz?

or is this STILL a Qantas policy of monopoloy when it suits, and a "fair go" policy when it restricts them?

[big buddah]

Qantas pilots angry over Wallabies plane
By Jeff Waters

Updated 11 hours 36 minutes ago


The plane is flown by New Zealand pilots and staffed by New Zealand cabin crew. (ABC)

RELATED STORY: Qantas engineers to go on strike
RELATED STORY: 'Guerrilla warfare' threatens to bring down Qantas
Qantas has accused the Pilots Association of staging a media stunt over the airline's use of a plane to promote the Wallabies rugby team.

Qantas has confirmed to the ABC that its special Wallabies plane, which is painted in green and gold and used to promote the team, is actually a New Zealand aircraft, registered in Auckland.

The plane is also flown by New Zealand pilots and staffed by New Zealand cabin crew.

Australian pilots say it is evidence that Qantas plans to outsource its operations overseas.

Australian and International Pilot's Association spokesman Nathan Safe, who is also a Qantas long-haul pilot, says fans should be outraged.

"It's exactly like putting Jonah Lomu in a Wallabies jersey and expecting the public not to notice," he said.

The pilots say almost all trans-Tasman Qantas flights are now crewed by New Zealanders who work for lower wages.

It is evidence, they say, that the airline wants to employ inexpensive foreigners from Asia as well.

"Where's it going to end?" Mr Safe said.

"We don't know, so we need to act now to keep Australian jobs in Australia."

The association has now sent a letter to Qantas management, threatening a strike ballot for May 19.

Nobody from Qantas was available for interview, but a spokesman said highlighting the Wallabies plane was a media stunt by pilots set on damaging the Qantas brand.

He said Qantas cannot accept a "veto on change" by a union now threatening to strike.

Meanwhile, Qantas aircraft engineers went to arbitration on Wednesday to negotiate upcoming stoppages which have been called over the outsourcing of their own work.

Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association secretary Steve Purvinas says the action is not designed to hurt Qantas customers.

"It's about Qantas themselves, that's why we've limited our disruptions to one hour to cause minimum disruption to the Qantas network," he said.

Mr Purvinas says Qantas would not guarantee that hangars and maintenance tools would stay in Australia.

"We were hoping to receive at least just a glimmer of hope from Qantas regarding our job security clauses but unfortunately at the end of the day there was no real break through in those discussions," he said.

"The job security clause is one that we hope will fit into our new agreement.

"We can't really say too much more because it was a private conference and to say that there was no resolution is a fairly accurate summary of the day."

Engineers say they will strike for an hour early on Friday, as well as holding two half-hour stoppages on Monday.