Qantas Doing it Tough ?

[fishers.ghost]

Goldman Sachs analysts expect Qantas'full year profit before tax will rise from an estimated $561 million this year to $849 million in 2012 and $917 million in 2013.
C'mon Mr Joyce everyone has been hearing the woe is Qantas mantra for years.With these forward projections no one believes it any more.
Time to play fair and reasonable with your workforce

[Ken Borough]

Yep. The shareholders ARE doing it tough for they've not had a dividend for more than 2 years while the share price has tanked. Staff have received an annual percentage increase as well as some bonuses though not sure if they are cash or travel vouchers. If the latter, they are as good as cash and tax-free. The staff should not be whingeing as they are some of the best paid employees in Oz with benefits most workers would die for. And staff ought not forget that without investors, there's no company and with that, no jobs.

Next whine.....?

[breakfastburrito]

Ken, remember the pilot put together a "flexi-line" package in order to save the company $8,000,000. Many pilots voluntarily took significantly reduced incomes during this period.

Geoff Dixon then turned around and received that entire $8,000,000 to compensate for a change in tax law. Tell us again who's looking after the shareholders?

[surfside6]

Ken you seem to derive your information from the Readers Digest which makes you misinformed.You continually make these assertions without any supporting evidence whatsoever.Most Qantas employees receive increments of 3% on their remuneration.With inflation running around 2.5% employee wages are virtually at a standstill.
Stafftravel is on a "space available" basis.If there is an empty seat on aircraft you can occupy that seat.There have been changes made to stafftravel whereby a 30 year Captain can be be bumped by someone in IT who has been with the company 18 months.Personally I shop around the web for deals on travel.I pay more but the seat is guaranteed.Stafftravel is a non event.
The reason shareholders get it in the neck from Qantas is down to poor management.Qantas is not a business run to generate profit but rather reduce costs.The enormous amount of cash/income generated by this business is woefully managed.They are not clever with their revenue.
Mainline has been starved of cash for years and it shows.The idea is to leverage the brand without spending any money.That approach has been failing for years.Morale is not something that is understood by management either.Our learned friend Sunfish will tell you that an engaged workforce will generate around a 10% productiviy increase at zero cost.
We would all really like to know what these beyond the curve benefits are.
Please enlighten us

[blueloo]

Ken, I can only say to you:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt"





Mark Twain

[Biatch]

Ken Borough = Wind up....surely..... pfft

[Ultralights]

hook line and sinker! good catch!

then again, they are doing it tough, if the brand wasnt trashed, and the reputation in the publics eyes being constantly tarnished by poor staff morale, questionable safety, and the general stench of corporate greed and deception, they could be doing so so so much better!

[plainmaker]

Ken

Ever read the book 'Peanuts"

(and no, it's not a HR manual on how to pay your front line troops!)

To quote:

We look after the staff,
The staff look after the customers
The Customers look after the share holders.

Comment attributed to Herb Kelliher - former COO of the MOST successful US domestic carrier - SouthWest.

No wonder the QF Board feel secure if shareholders like yourself continue to justify their behaviour.

Plainmaker

[GlobalMaster]

This evening, television downunder aired the following segment: Lateline Business - 20-Apr-2011 (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201104/r754484_6285682.asx)

Perhaps they can do a follow up with Herb Kelliher,

[Handbrake]

Did anyone catch the 7:30 Report on ABC tonight? Main point- Tony Sheldon (TWU), Richard Woodward, both stating clearly that IA to take place due to QF off-shoring. It is yet to be posted on the ABC website.

[Mstr Caution]

CHAIR—Do you think it is sustainable that you can fly from Sydney to Port Douglas or
somewhere for $50?

Mr Joyce—I think it is. I think there will always be opportunities for airlines to fill up aircraft
seats at lower airfares. We have a large number of seats that go empty in the airline every year.
We know that having aggressive pricing out there stimulates demand; it gets people to travel
when they would have normally not wanted to. It fills up seats, and the economics for us are a
lot better. So you will always have the need to have very discounted airfares. Qantas has very
discounted airfares to fill up the capacity when we need it to be filled.


25th Feb 2011 Senate Inquiry Transcript

Time to rethink the cheap airfare mentality.

[Mstr Caution]

7:30 Report - Turbulent time for Qantas

7.30 Report - 24-Jun-2008 (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200806/r264973_1106795.asx)

Different faces, same story!

[Handbrake]

Qantas staff threaten to strike - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/20/3197175.htm)

[-438]

With respect to our mate Joyce stating $50 fares are worth it to fill empty seats between Sydney and Port Douglas.
Ken you should know that Qantas staff pay just over $63 for an economy seat (space available) between Sydney and Cairns one way.

By the way mainline pilots, in the 11 years I have been employed have received significantly less than 3% per annum pay rises.

[FGD135]

Time to rethink the cheap airfare mentality.

Hmm. Which would be better for Qantas: an empty seat between Sydney and Port Douglas, or a passenger in it, paying $50?

[Ultergra]

A quick drive around Mascot today.

China Southern, double daily to Guangzhou
Air Canada (eeh) daily to Vancouver then Toronto
Cathay Pacific 4 times daily to HK

Qantas: flat bed sydney-perth coming at some point later this year, once a day.
Qantas: quick check in. Read, ground staff cut backs, confusion and worry if you've even done it right...!

Really? Thats it Qantas? Awesome, im going to fly with you!

[Fruet Mich]

Unfortunately, Cathay Pacific, massive profits-no unions, Emirates, massive profits-no unions, Air China, massive profits-no unions.

Qantas, massive unions-bugger all profits. An unhappy workforce always complaining about what Qantas management are doing to them! That gets passed on to the customer, customer leaves and goes to an airline with happy staff. Why? Because there are no union delegates telling their workers how bad management are to them!

Don't cook the golden goose you Qantas people. You are literally milking it. If you rock the boat too much you'll end up like Ansett, all put of a job and all looking for someone to blame, but unfortunately the blame will be with you.

Don't be another Ansett! "I never thought this would happen to us" or "air new Zealand are to blame for this!"

[Autobrakes4]

Bugger all profits. Try 600 million this year, and 800 million forecast for next! :O

[breakfastburrito]

Fruet, unions will be the (convenient) scapegoats that allows Qantas to slip the noose of the Qantas Sale act, just this week we had:
The federal government has started talks on an open-skies agreement with Europe, but Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said the Europeans were asking for changes to the Qantas Sale Act, which limits the level of foreign investment in the airline.
from the same article
Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese's office would not comment last night on the state of European negotiations, but indicated the Qantas legislation was not up for negotiation.
The Australian:Europe puts brakes on Qantas China expansion plan (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/europe-puts-brakes-on-qantas-china-expansion-plan/story-e6frg8zx-1226042449534).
The fact that they keep mentioning it (Sale Act) suggests it is (constantly) on their minds .

The fact that Qantas will not accept a >10% pay reduction, put on the table by AIPA say's they are simply not interested in fixing the mainline operation. AIPA are desperately trying to avoid an "Ansett", Qantas doesn't want to play ball. Mainline international is being destroyed to justify its destruction.

[gobbledock]

Firstly, don't worry about Ken Borough. He usually comes into most QF threads, posts a supposedly knowledgeable comment, gets shot down in flames (because he is pretty much always well off the mark) and then he goes quiet and slinks away back to the dinner table in the retirement home and watches Dr Phil while taking his medicine and eating (sipping) pumpkin soup.



Back to the QF issues - Leadership. In other words it is the top level running the place. The decisions back in 2002/2003 to embark on a campaign of slicing and dicing every successful component of the organisation for the sole benefit of the Execs and Shareholders wealth was the beginning. Dixon's legacy lives on, and it does so through a continual inclusion of disconnected incompetents at the highest level.

The demise of QF's reputation for safety and service - senior management. QF has cooked the golden goose and has literally forced paying passengers to shop around and look for a better option because of the decline in service standards.
Offshoring - senior management. Once again the loss in revenue from once loyal passengers who have run in the other direction every time an engineering or maintenance issue related to an offshore provider raises its head.
Retaining tired and dismal 747's and 767's - senior management. It is pretty hard trying to convince people on the east coast that an ageing crammed 747 to the USA is a quality service.
Decline in customer service and a half decent product - senior management.
Disgraceful grab for cash at the executive level and unjustifiable salaries - the remuneration at the top end is simply nothing more than highway robbery. In an environment where taking an olive out of a first class meal will save a company money then how much more so would culling multi million dollar packages that are simply out of sync with actual executive performance. Plus it would help save the company from fiscal armageddon, if you believe the spin doctors at the top.
These are just a couple of points, but you need to delve deep into them to see the actual impact they have on the brand.
I don't disagree that the notion of a workforce needing to work smarter within an unstable economy, but the current idealogy from the top echelon blaming financial issues or likely future financial problems on its frontline workforce is ludicrous and is pure spin.

P.S I am hearing an unconfirmed rumour that the 380 SYD/LAX while on average carries an extra 70 pax is using an extra 15 tonne of juice compared to the 747, and that the top echelon are very very unhappy, especially when told that 'there may have been some design mistakes made due to flawed wind tunnel tests during the design phase'. Anybody know any other details or heard similar ?

[Jabawocky]

P.S I am hearing an unconfirmed rumour that the 380 SYD/LAX while on average carries an extra 70 pax is using an extra 15 tonne of juice compared to the 747, and that the top echelon are very very unhappy, especially when told that 'there may have been some design mistakes made due to flawed wind tunnel tests during the design phase'. Anybody know any other details or heard similar ?

Would not surprise me, when having dinner and a few reds with Capt Woodward who speaks fondly of his A380 we talked about fuel burn etc etc....my mental maths suggested this was not an improvement over the B744. Of course this was a highly forensic discussion :\, but it seemed unless you had the thing chockers on every flight it was not going to work.

Is that B748i's I hear you ask..... I'll bet in a few years from now despite the A380 being a wonderful machine, the B748 will be a better deal. Just a gut feeling........

[assasin8]

"Qantas doing it tough..."
Translates into..."Managers finding it difficult to justify larger bonuses!"
:ugh:
ps. Can someone start a retirement thread for some of our posters! (Hi Ken!):ok:

[Anthill]

Fruet,

The suggestion that there is a link between unions and profits is illogical. Your assertion that:


No Unions = High Profits

is unsupported by reality. For example Mercedes Benz and BMW use a highly unionised workforce and do very well. Southwest Airlines is another example.

According to your logic:

Unions = Low profits

is like saying that:

Pregnant woman = Has husband.

This is an error in determination of the link between cause and effect. You work in management, don't you?

[neville_nobody]

P.S I am hearing an unconfirmed rumour that the 380 SYD/LAX while on average carries an extra 70 pax is using an extra 15 tonne of juice compared to the 747, and that the top echelon are very very unhappy, especially when told that 'there may have been some design mistakes made due to flawed wind tunnel tests during the design phase'. Anybody know any other details or heard similar

Yeah heard a similar rumour but I think Emirates solved that problem by flying at a higher Mach No. which helped the fuel burn. However those sort of problems will be connected to cost index and the like so one solution may not fix everything. It will also depend on what sort of configuration you have in your aircraft and the yield etc etc.

QF are a classic example of why you should not pay performance bonuses in an airline. They should pay above the average salary with no performance bonus this should eliminate the short term thinking and the cash grabs.

[Anthill]

YouTube - An Irishman abroad tells it like it is !! :-)

[Fruet Mich]

Hey I'm not saying I don't support a union. I've been a member of the union since I started my career in flying, all I'm saying is be very careful. Talk of strikes by staunch unions kills a company slowly but surely. It's all good when you have a monopoly but when there are other options out there customers will leave and you all will be out of a job. Legacy airlines that are heavily unionized and won't budge on anything are failing all over the world. If you want to survive you are going to have to work with them and not be militant.

All I'm saying is be very careful. You don't know how good you have it until it's gone, and to be honest you have got it pretty bloody good!

Be careful what you wish for

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

In 2006, our union was working as much as they could with the company. In return they closed down the Sydney Heavy Maintenance facility with the loss of 1000 jobs.

Why would we ever do this again?

[Beer Baron]

P.S I am hearing an unconfirmed rumour that the 380 SYD/LAX while on average carries an extra 70 pax is using an extra 15 tonne of juice compared to the 747, and that the top echelon are very very unhappy

This is simply not true. Even if it were true, a 15 tonne increase in fuel on that sector for 70 extra pax would be a good trade-off.

The (4 class) A380 carries 450 pax while a (4 class) 744 carries 307. That is a 46% higher passenger load. The very rough fuel figures used for the 380 and 744 are 13T per hour and 10T per hour respectively. So an ~30% increase in fuel for a 46% increase in potential revenue.

Those numbers should show you that the 380 burns quite a bit more than "an extra 15 tonne of juice" on a SYD-LAX sector. However as the pax figure demonstrates, the fuel burn per passenger is reduced on the A380 compared to the 744.

Apologies for the thread drift but I get sick of hearing the same misguided anti-380 rumours again and again.

[gobbledock]

Apologies for the thread drift but I get sick of hearing the same misguided anti-380 rumours again and again.
BB, thanks for the input. My comment was not posed in a way to 'cause a misguided rumour'. I was simply relaying a comment I heard from high up in Mascot, and asking whether anybody else had heard similar or knew any facts and figures about the fuel burn comparisons. I am not and do not claim to be a fuel burn expert hence my question was to satis my own curiosity and educate me further, and it doesn't mean I am 'anti A380' either.

[4dogs]

Wouldn't the relative efficiency be better calculated by actual fuel burns vs actual pax numbers?

Stay Alive,

[rmcdonal]

Wouldn't the relative efficiency be better calculated by actual fuel burns vs actual pax numbers? You are better of using the ASK vs the average fuel burn and then matching the aircraft to the run that provides the highest load factor. So on thin routes run smaller aircraft. As a general rule the bigger the aircraft the better the ratio.

[unionist1974]

Good post KB , agree inthe main , but UNions are a safeguard in our society , yet some Union leaders have an anti QF agenda purely for personal reasons . i could name one or two , but i am sure most thinking people know who they are.

[Bypass ratio]

21APR OMDB - KJFK

A380 13hours 11 mins
Cost Index 180
ECON Cruise
TRIP Fuel 176.0 tonnes
Passengers 489
Payload 54.8 tonnes

B77W 13 Hours & 13 mins
Cost Index 35
ECON Cruise
Trip Fuel 111.1
Passengers 360
Payload 48.8 tonnes

Both Aircraft @ MTOW

So the A380 carried 6 tonnes more payload and burnt an extra 65 tonnes fuel!!

The A380 is really a piece of ****:ugh:

Beer Baron you need to take notice of those misguided rumours because they're true.......

[Red Jet]

Don't know that the A380 is a piece of sh!t, but until the B787/A350 enters service, there are no aircraft in the world that gets even close to the efficency of the 77W over 6-7000 NM sectors. A conservative rule of thumb for us is 8T/H, averaged over a 12-14 hour sector. And that moves 361 pax at M0,84 in a 3-class configuration. Up near MTOW, the delta-value for fuel burn (extra fuel burned for each extra tonne carried through to destination) is usually between 400-450 kg.

[Beer Baron]

Bypass ratio, you need to take notice of the content of the quoted rumour and the thread title.

My comment was about the A380 Vs the 744. Qantas (famously) do not own any 777's so your stats (while thorough) are not relevant to my post.

I willingly accept that Qantas ought to buy/have 777's but sadly that was not the rumour.

[gobbledock]

Bypass Ratio, don't worry about Beer Barron's response. It is his trademark to respond emotionally to individual posters on Pprune and considers himself to be the font of knowledge on all matters technical. One could almost conclude that he is 'Darth in disguise' ?

[blueloo]

The (4 class) A380 carries 450 pax while a (4 class) 744 carries 307. That is a 46% higher passenger load. The very rough fuel figures used for the 380 and 744 are 13T per hour and 10T per hour respectively. So an ~30% increase in fuel for a 46% increase in potential revenue.



And the respective freight?

[plainmaker]

While there may be a 46% increase in available passenger capacity, the notion that it transpires to a 46% increase in revenue is flawed.

Direct operating costs (fuel and crewing, plus service fees) when set as a percentage of yield (not capacity) dependant on the increase in configuration for each class, and the average fare value.

My understanding of the A380 dynamics and economics, is that the last 60 seats in the aircraft are sold deep discount, and the only benefit is revenue with no impact on profitability.

EK even do it - NZD$500 J class AKL-SYD at the airport on day of travel.

Speaking with friends in the USA who own several travel agencies, they are saying that overrides on A380 services LAX-SYD and net fares are VERY attractive. While some proponents say that that is reflective of the A380 economics, I tend to lean more towards the economic theory that less capacity would tend to increase yield (ie less of the deep discount seats per aircraft).

Sorry for the thread drift, but (and only those fairly deep in QF would confirm this) the 380 is not proving the panacea on the Pacific. Time will tell (interesting to see a number of senior QF people at Seattle looking and talking about the 748 (not the HS either) earnestly when I was up there a few weeks ago.

Plainmaker

[Jabawocky]

with hindsight.......I would have thought about 10 years ago it should have been , order some 777's some more 744's and show a lot more interest in a 748, then when the 748 was announced order the thing. Phase out the older 744's and it may have been a better strategic move all round.

Add to that the A330's where it suited....keep a rolling progression in the fleet, maintain them well and flog em off before they were farked.

Didn't somebody do that before? :confused:

[Angle of Attack]

It is not rocket science to realise the A380 is a niche aircraft. I went to Farnborough International Airshow around 5 or 6 years ago, when the A380 was on first debut. If you compare it to the 747-8 or even the 777 it fails miserably even on the initial published operating cost figures. It is fine if it is full but really fails when loads are light, I believe the A380 is much nicer for the pax but realistically the 777 and even 747-8 $hit over it comercially, however I guess it depends on the purchase price which is a CEO's secret although their own salaray takes up a sizable portion of any aircraft!! :)

[DEFCON4]

Boeing's own research indicated that Airbus was going the wrong way with the A380.It was just not a practical aircraft and has been said a niche filler only.
It was only ever designed for high volume routes of which Qantas has three.The rest of the network is largely regional and much of that has been given to Jetstar(with more to follow)
Borghetti suggested that it would eventually fly to JoBurg.Qantas simply has the wrong fleet mix.
This is what happens when management have the wrong skillset for the operation.Apart from Borghetti and Lindeman the executive experience was running a domestic airline in a fairly benign domestic market.When the game changed it quckly became obvious they were out of their depth.
Air travel is price sensitive except when you offer a premium product a la Sing Air.Joyce keeps ramping up prices and levies for a product that is anything but premium.Bundle this with all the other Qantas shortcomings and the punters are leaving in droves.
They have Grant heading a taskforce to brainstorm solutions.The result will be more of the same.... costcutting .Qantas spends money on the wrong areas of the operation(lounges for example)but neglect the fundamentals.The food is attrocious and there is little of it.Particularly J/C and P/C where the high yield travellers sit.
Unless someone with nouse and knowledge is found to run the place effectively it will die a slow humiliating death

[skybed]

As recently printed in the media European regulators want to change the sales act under the European open ski agreement. what a lot of rubbish. open sky agreements do not require changing the sales act. one can have an open sky agreement (europa and the US) but does not need to interfere in ones company structure. It would suit QF as they then can link with either IAG or others and employ, base more planes overseas with overseas crews.

Australian Newspaper: AMBITIOUS Qantas plans to develop a Shanghai hub similar to its Singaporean operation are being slowed by European demands that the Qantas Sale Act be changed as part of an open skies agreement.

Defcon, having travelled recently on other carriers i must admit QF food isn't that bad in the pointy end. As for the fleet mix i totally agree. imagine the fuel money saved if QF had triplers going to SFO/FRA/etc.


As i mentioned before the 2 remote cousins (AJ & WW) come from the same stock with a slash and burn mentality.:ugh:

[Angle of Attack]

The biggest mistake for QF was not getting 777's enough said, too many chiefs not enough Indians I say! The funny thing is that the frontline staff knew it all along while multi million idiots just stuffed it up, same with all companies these days...

[Oriana]

"The Europeans".:hmm:

Which 'Europeans'??:confused:

And....FFS.....how many European airlines still fly to Australia?:ugh::ugh:

[ampclamp]

Being a publicly listed company on the ASX they are well researched by a number of broking houses.
Consensus earnings per share for the year 2012 are estimated to be about 26.5c per share and in 2013 almost 33 cents per share.

[Ngineer]

Our earnings outlook may be bright, but since the GFC I refuse to listen to these broking idiots who failed to see it coming, or who lost millions of other ppl's money. Most are simply market commentators.

[73to91]

And....FFS.....how many European airlines still fly to Australia?

Vey good point and is directly related to where QF use to fly as well, looking at Europe west to east there was:
Greece - Olympic - and QF flew to Athens
Old Yugoslavia - JAT - and QF flew to Belgrade
Italy - Alitalia - and QF flew to Rome
Austria - Lauda Air and Austrian Airlines - and QF flew to Vienna
France - Air France - and QF flew to Paris
Netherlands - KLM - and QF flew to Amsterdam

leaves
Germany - Lufthansa - and QF still flies to Frankfurt.
UK - BA and QF flew to Manchester and naturally still to London.

Who flies here? BA but does anyone else?

[moremj2]

Lets see if I have got perspective on this....


Qantas Profit 2009....$163,315,000 (BAD Unions!!)

Lufthansa Profit $388,252,000 (Must have BAD Unions!)

National Aviation Company of India Loss -$1,260,317,000 (Good Unions!)

Phillipine Airlines Loss -$266,000,000 (Good Unions!)

JAL Loss -$1,309,693,000 (What Union?)

Air France KLM Loss -$1,729,475,000 (Nasty Unions!)

Five things stand out for me....
1) Qantas isnt doing it tough....they've just ballzed it up
2) There is no correlation between Unions Vs Profit....Even in places like India where labour costs are basically zero....you can still ballz it up
3) Ken...stop it...your hand will get tired....anyone who has worked for Q knows how to see and smell the crap being peddled as solutions....
4) QF board need to smell what they are shovelling
5) Re A380 Fuel Burn...if its not as per advertised performance, QF will be compensated...like they were with the RB211-524G's which didnt work as advertised..so no loss there..

I need a nap after that rant....:eek:

Figures from ATW... http://atwonline.com/sites/atwonline.com/files/misc/ATW%20World%20Airline%20Report%202010_0.pdf

[Fruet Mich]

It's a real shame that the union issue is not being addressed.

Every time you Qantas guys don't get your way you threaten strike action! Perhaps that's why you scare your customers off and you lose market share? Who wants to fly with an over priced airline flying museum pieces around the skies with staff that are not engaged! You give your customers every excuse to leave for another competitor offering a better product. When you threaten strike action it gives them even more reason to dump their loyalty and leave because at the end of the day they need to be at an appointment/meeting on time safely. They now have more airline choices than ever before all performing with an equal amount of safety as Qantas once had.

Yep, bad management could be to blame or perhaps union demands could be to blame, one way or the other, threatening strike action is most definitely partly to blame for the continue loss of business to the Qantas group. This alienation from management has been built from many years of staunch union demands and bickering. It's a real shame, a real shame.

Right now Qantas is trying to negotiate with Air New Zealand a new contract for ground services. I'd almost bet my left testie that Qantas will lose this to another service provider out of fear because of the bantering of strikes!

Cast your mind back to the last time Qantas engineers striked, you might also remember around that time Qantas engineering lost 60% of their work to another provider. Air New Zealand and Cathay Pacific dumped Qantas because they couldn't work with a group that will strike and threaten their business.

I am most definitely a strong union supporter, but just because you are in negotiations doesn't mean you need to get more out the honey pot. constant demands is not healthy dialogue.

As I've said before, Qantas does not have the monopoly anymore, the more you threaten strike action, the more you alienate yourselves from management and the more you drive your customers away. Every time you hear of strike action in aviation in this country, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be Qantas!

United we stand! the fall is going to hurt.

You guys are the masters of your own destiny. All the best of luck.

[Tempo]

Fruet,

So what is your answer then Fruet....just roll over and take it because we dont want to upset the public?? Nobody wants to cause disruptions...however....negotiation is a 2 way process. And at the end of the day if I am going to give away conditions then I want something in return....i.e. a job in 5 years time!!!

[600ft-lb]

Cast your mind back to the last time Qantas engineers striked, you might also remember around that time Qantas engineering lost 60% of their work to another provider. Air New Zealand and Cathay Pacific dumped Qantas because they couldn't work with a group that will strike and threaten their business.Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Qantas's customers such as Air NZ (among almost all) were given notice by Qantas management that the service was to be terminated with a notice period.

Cathay employ their own engineers in Australia, so for Qantas to lose that contract those engineers must've been wreaking havoc.

There's always 2 sides mate. Qantas have been going broke since GD ruled supreme and they still are today.

Qantas engineers are paid less then Jetstar engineers for comparable licence types and Jetstar engineers are paid about 25k/year less then Virgin engineers for comparable licence types.

Somehow our 3%/year claim = 46% or whatever it is lately. Any wonder PIA vote got up 80% yes.

[Fruet Mich]

Hey, don't get me wrong guys, I support your plight. Point is, if you keep on with threatening strike action you won't have a job in five years, your customers will leave and this management team will have the perfect excuse to then gift some more flying to Jetstar because you are not "profitable"

I'm sorry, I don't have the answers to what you can do?

Do you work to rule? No overtime, don't except visual approaches or track shortening, tanker fuel? Management work on OTP and economics. If the OTP has turned to shyte because the engineers are working to rule and the gas bill has gone through the roof because the pilots are flying full STARs etc? I dont know but threatening strike action as you always do will lose customers, loyal customers. The customers pay your salary, so don't **** them over, **** your management over. There are too many competitors in Australia now for you guys to be aggressive with strike action. You will reap what you sew. Customers pay your salary not managers!

[600ft-lb]

Like we always do ?

There is a reason 'we always do'. EBA negotiations shouldn't have to be expired for over a year before an agreement is reached. Which by the way, the company uses, has used and will continue to use the 'if you don't accept this you won't get your backpay'

The company wants this fight for its own reasons, demands haven't been unreasonable, demands this time are for job security. They won't give it to us which obviously means they want us out.

Regardless of what we concede and just take it on the chin (like the pay freeze in 2001 which was promised to be given back once times got better... never was), they're going to sack us all anyway. The funny thing is I'll probably walk into the door of their new engineering services company on a higher rate of pay then I've been on the day after I'm given the boot for being too expensive.

[mcgrath50]

Who mentioned a strike? The pilot's are threatening PIA which from media releases at this stage would be limited to various 'work to rule' measures.

[blueloo]

At no stage have the Pilots threatened a strike. However - The company has said that the pilots will go on strike....


Which is really bizarre.... why would a company tell the public that a group of employees had threatened a strike.....??

What is their agenda?

Lower the share price?
Scare customers off?
Self destruction?

As a shareholder I would love to know why they are ruining my investment, and lying to the media.

[hewlett]

Fruet,the engineers too have applied for "Protected Industrial Action". As far as I know a "strike" is along way down the list. Interesting how the employer is the scare monger in the media.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

"Strike" was not even on our ballot paper.

[jibba_jabba]

Well peoples,

you can throw numbers around, but keep in mind that Qantas (along with jetstar) use a company called Boston Consulting Group (BCG).

BCG conducts analysis of major business and make the company more ....whatever.... efficient, cheap, restructured etc etc....

They are responsible for the direction of Jetstar's "Race to the bottom" and will be the tip of the spear for the removal of conditions at Qantas.

Trust me on this one.

Oh by the way, BCG get paid Sh*tloads of cash to do this to hard working people!

They want to remove the EBA.... and have individual contracts, just like overseas so beware. Start to stand together NOW or you will have nothing!
The reaper is at your door!

[Worrals in the wilds]

"Strike" was not even on our ballot paper.

So out of interest, is it defamatory for Qantas to be suggesting that it is?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

An Organisation can't sue for defamation.

[Ken Borough]

..........otherwise most Trade Unions would have been forced to shut up shop long ago!

[psycho joe]

An Organisation can't sue for defamation.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK In the U.S. a corporation has similar defamation rights to a private individual. They can and do sue for defamation.

I've often wondered whether we'd gone down, or are likely to go down, the same path here?

[Worrals in the wilds]

Fair enough.
How about individual employees, or a group of them?

[airtags]

Worrals - defo is applicable to an individual and it is necessary to demonstrate a loss has been suffered as a result of the publications made by another party.

defo also varies greatly between jurisdictions so you're better off getting slagged in a State where the favour tends to the applicant.

Led by AJ & Ms Worthless, Q has fallen to a new low in their amatuer media relations and are only again highlighting themselves as the next case study in what not to do. Certainly the comments of recent months are defamatory towards eng/pilots/unions et al., but in reality their comments have only served to erode their own credability. (In fact I think Joyce's latest spray actually gave us a leg up)

End of the day when the EBA is signed or there's another QF30/32/72.... there will be a need for the misguided management to step out from hiding behind their wallets and stand beside the front line staff desperately hoping that nobody replays the likes of kamakaze quotes.

Smart Execs don't play IR games in public - this lot are of course far from smart.

AT

[SpannerTwister]

Every time you Qantas guys don't get your way you threaten strike action!

Yeah...Sad isn't it ?

Last time the engineers "striked" (see below) it was because they had exhausted all other options ..........

1) Please Mr Qantas can we have a 3% pay raise, which by the way, is under inflation ?

No, Bugger off !!

2) If you don't give us a 3% pay raise, which by the way, is under inflation, we'll ask you again

No, Bugger off !!

3) If you don't give us a 3% pay raise, which by the way, is under inflation, we'll ask you again and again

No, Bugger off !!

4) If you don't give us a 3% pay raise, which by the way, is under inflation, we'll hold our breath until we turn blue

No, Bugger off !!

5) If you don't give us a 3% pay raise, which by the way, is under inflation, we'll "go on strike*"

OK, Here's 3%

Thankyou :)

.....Cast your mind back to the last time Qantas engineers striked.......

IIRC that would of been about 1981 ??

In 2008 the engineers DID take PIA, which involved JUST A FEW four-hour stop-work meetings* during a 12 hour-shift and no overtime.

How much "fat" is there in the engineering section do you think when a few guys, take one-third of a day off and the engineers do no overtime and the world falls to pieces ??

*The engineers were actually "unable to work" while attending the stop-work meetings for much less then four hours at a time, but due to the stupid IR laws if they stop work for ONE MINUTE the employer MUST dock them a full four hours pay.
If you're getting docked four hours pay, you're gonna make sure the meeting takes four hours !!!!

ST

[Tankengine]

And:

Pilots' last strike 1966 and never yet undertaken PIA.

Yeah, we are really militant!:hmm::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Was Joyce even born then?:rolleyes:

[Ken Borough]

Pilots' last strike 1966 and never yet undertaken PIA.

One needs a long memory to claim 'never'. While the pilots have not struck since 1966, some old timers will be able to tell you that Qantas pilots imposed arbitrary TOW limits by way of industrial action in the early days of the B747. The doctrine of PIA is a recent phenomona and did not apply then but action they sure did take!

[assasin8]

Hey Fruet et al...

The reason QF is losing market share, is not because of threatened strike action, or militant unions, but because the travelling public are not offered what they want!

Jetstar was gifted (creative accounting on the QF balance sheet, I'm sure!) brand new aircraft while QF continues operating some of the oldest aircraft out there... With no change on the horizon, as the B787s are slated to go to Jetstar first!

This weird logic somehow makes perfect sense to out managers, but none at all to QFs loyal employees...

Does it really matter what product a LCC flies around in, especially when you pay peanuts (unsustainable!) for a ticket!

While full fare passengers, especially business class, ends up with old aircraft, with no in-seat video, skybeds, etc, etc... Might make sense in "cloud cuckoo land?"

We hardly fly anywhere anymore, internationally! So much for network!

Front line personnel, whether airport ground staff, flight attendants, etc (ie people that actually provide the service that we advertise!) are continually reduced in number... There goes the "service!"

So what have we got left... A life support system for the frequent flyer business and a trough for the management snouts!

By the way, if management wants us competitive with our asian counterparts, they might lead by example and reduce their enormous salaries to what an equivalent manager in asia gets!:mad:

QF employees are proud of the airline and want to see it succeed, but the current group of management clowns are ruining the business!

[Taildragger67]

73to91,

Who flies here? BA but does anyone else?

Virgin Atlantic.