Qantas pilot reductions, the real numbers.

[hotnhigh]

Since the announcement from the CEO regarding his plans for Qantas. The pilot surplus has been revised to be an initial 180.
To place that into context, this means pilots recruited post august 2007 face the bullet. Remember this is the first step in Alan's revolution.
A harsh reality when you consider this is his first move for the vision of the future.
And let's not beat around the bush about managing pilot surpluses with LWOP and the rest of the shambolic offerings placed on the table, (and then removed) in dealing with the proverbial s**t sandwich that has been served up.
Employment levels reduced to pre aug 2007 in one foul swoop. Not bad going Alan and Leigh. Other staff must be looking forward to the other steps in the plan.

[ejectx3]

The Emirates offer was apparently removed because fltops was too keen to get rid of us so published it before it was all signed and sealed by the powers that be in Saudi.

They had their noses put out of joint by QF, so pulled the offer. So I'm told...

[Sonny Hammond]

Almost.....

Saudi Arabia isn't an emirate of the UAE, that'd be Dubai. Otherwise on the money.

[Exit Strategy]

This thread starts off by saying that post AUG 07 hires are looking shaky. What makes you think seniority will play a major part in this?

It has already been shown in other industries that "last on first off" falls down as soon as the employer comes up with something along the lines of "we would have to retrain half the company and that will send us broke, better 180 tactical redundancies than 30000 out of work"

[hotnhigh]

Agreed exit strategy. Just trying to put some perspective into the depth of the cut. Yes there may be the possibility the numbers could indeed come from anywhere on the list.

[Exit Strategy]

...also interesting that 1000 jobs to go at Bluescope immediately results in $30m from the Federal Government and $5m from the NSW Government to assist the community and workers PLUS $100m directly to Bluescope to prevent additional job losses. Whilst this money will almost certainly be a complete waste it probably has some appeal to the local population (voters) in the two locations that Bluescope identified for layoffs. 1000 QF workers spread over lots of electorates - nobody cares.

Perhaps if things are not going that well for QF management should put their hand out to the Govt for similar hand outs, but then again perhaps this is not about efficiency and competitiveness at all, perhaps it is about driving down the share price for somebody's mates to launch a buyout????

[ACT Crusader]

...also interesting that 1000 jobs to go at Bluescope immediately results in $30m from the Federal Government and $5m from the NSW Government (ABC24 are quoting $100m which is probably not correct). Whilst this money will almost certainly be a complete waste it probably has some appeal to the local population (voters) in the two locations that Bluescope identified for layoffs. 1000 QF workers spread over lots of electorates - nobody cares.


The $100 big ones is a draw down from the Govt's steel transformation scheme that was an existing initiative as I understand.

This is getting a hot run in the press and up at the Big House also....

[ejectx3]

Re Saudi/Dubai ....Ah yes.....been up since sparrows'....brain mushy....

[Howard Hughes]

1000 to go at Bluescope steel is just the tip of the iceberg, many more have already been given their marching orders. A close friend in management at Bluescope had to personally deliver redundancies to half of his team over 12 months ago. The rest are just sitting and waiting for the inevitable.

The writing has been on the wall since the start of the GFC.

[breakfastburrito]

It has already been shown in other industries that "last on first off" falls down as soon as the employer comes up with something along the lines of "we would have to retrain half the company and that will send us broke, better 180 tactical redundancies than 30000 out of work"
Very convenient when it suits them.

AJ's response was that jobs were not being off-shored, rather they ceased to exist, that business was shutdown, and new businesses overseas were then being opened. (see the Leigh Sales 730 interview). This is clearly to make the quote above "work", to justify redundancies in direct contravention of the EBA.

In effect, labour is being immobilised, while capital is being off-shored. Is it not the clear intent clear intent of the Qantas Sale Act to prevent such an outcome?

A blind eye has been turned to the breaches of the Sales Act as the longhaul operation was slowly but constantly driven into the ground through "benign neglect". However, it is the politicians that have now been caught with their pants down. They have been deliberately put between a rock and a hard place - a contrived "crisis". They have been put in the position of either enforcing the act and allegedly "bankrupting" Qantas, or being "forced" into amending the act to legalise current practice. There are only two options for the politicians either enforce the act, or amend it to allow the capital & jobs to be off-shored.

Ultimately this is a "political" problem, and will end with a political solution.

[Jackneville]

The '1000 to go' in QF, not surprisingly is QF spin.
More like 1000 per year for the next five years as long haul is culled to 14 A380's and a handful of 747's.

This is the beginning of the end of Qantas .

[WorthWhat]

On August 22nd, breakfastburrito wroteA blind eye has been turned to the breaches of the Sales Act If the Sale Act is the issue Buritto, why then doesn’t AIPA simply have it enforced.

:confused:

[The The]

PLUS $100m directly to Bluescope to prevent additional job losses.

The reason Qantas did not get the same offer from the goverment is either:

1. The government knows that many job losses at Qantas is to continue.
2. Qantas would simply pay out the money as executive bonuses.

More likely both reasons.

[breakfastburrito]

worthwhat, that is a very good question. Supplementary question - why won't the Federal government enforce its own laws?
Can you imagine the ATO turning such a blind eye to open tax evasion from the average citizen? They are very quick to enforce on one hand, apparently not on the other.
As I said, political problem, political solution.

[Nuthinondaclock]

It should be noted that Bluescope Steel reported a $1.05 Billion Loss where Qantas is expected to announce a $500-550 Million Profit.

[theheadmaster]

What cases are you referring to specifically Exit Strategy? Kendell Airlines or some others?

With regard to the Qantas Sales Act, Qantas, AIPA and the Department of Transport have all had advice that the national interest provisions of the Act do not apply to subsidiaries. In effect, Qantas is able to bypass the provisions by setting up subsidiaries to syphon of resources. A change in the Act is required, not to make what Qantas is doing legal, but to make it illegal.

[unionist1974]

Don't for one minute think that you are in the same league as steel workers on the South Coast . You are represented by "Associations "that barely register on the political landscape , when it comes to handouts . Politicians ofany persuasion findit hard to feel sorry for someone earning $ 300k- 500k a year . Wake up . stop the silly ties bought in China , buildboards on the M4campaign and get fair dinkum . Don't expect anyone eles to fight for your well paid jobs .

[Beer Baron]

I would be VERY surprised if Qantas could avoid the "last on, first off" provisions within the EBA.
QF is expected to announce a $550 million profit so it would be hard to argue financial hardship.
Additionally, the EBA with the provision in it was agreed to by the company in the height of the GFC when profits were substantially lower, as such it would be hard to argue that the economic situation is degraded form when the EBA was signed off.
Also not forgetting they have the money ($9.4 Billion) to invest in 110 new A320's.

Given the above I can't see that QF would have valid reason to renege on an EBA provision they have only recently agreed to. To put into a legal EBA a provision which they never intended to abide with would surely raise the ire of Fair Work Australia.

[Bigboeingboy]

Dream on Beer Baron!

[Tidbinbilla]

I would be VERY surprised if Qantas could avoid the "last on, first off" provisions within the EBA.

Some research on the closure of Kendell Airlines, specifically the retrenchment CRJ crews will reveal that a precedent has been set, Beer Baron. (EBA and all).....

TID

[Angle of Attack]

Forgetting last on first off I would be more than happy to be retrenched, for me would be 11 months salary. But I can guarantee they would do all to try and prevent Compulsory Redundencys for this exact reason. But if they do it give it to me Ill make a cool 11 months then continue on another job I would damn double my salary for that year! Bring it!

[Howard Hughes]

Perhaps the last on first off will be applied to specific fleets. :eek:

[WorthWhat]

Posted without comment for the information of interested Bystanders.
Over recent weeks.......I have met with many of you to listen to your concerns and explain the efforts we are making to turn our international operations around. To say these conversations have been robust would be an understatement; nonetheless they have been incredibly important. From those conversations it is clear to me that our pilots still have a tremendous passion for the airline and a genuine concern for its future.

We are also well aware of your frustration that we seem to be making no
progress with the negotiations with AIPA (or several other Unions for that
matter) and this is a frustration we share. Many of you have expressed
disbelief that we have not been able to cut to the chase on the real issues
that matter. We are seeking to unlock this by communicating directly with you.

Your desire for job security is well understood and perfectly rational given the personal investment you have in your careers. Most people at Qantas have expressed the same desire and concern. But many of you now acknowledge that job security isn't something that can be negotiated, nor is it something management can guarantee; it only comes from business success.

The confronting reality we all must face is that the international competitive landscape has permanently changed. We are not competitivebecause our costs are too high and our competitors can afford to grow onroutes where we can't even sustain operations. Until we start addressingthis lack of competitiveness our jobs are becoming less secure by the day.

This isn't pleasant and changing will be painful. Unfortunately standing
still isn't an option, doing nothing isn't an option and no white knight is
going to rescue us.

Many pilots have said that all they want is the ability to access positions in other Group airlines to secure their careers. There are opportunities to apply for positions in other Group airlines on a leave without pay basis and this is occurring right now with the advertising of some fifty positions at Jetstar. But unfortunately this is not what your Union is interested in.

AIPA's claim stipulates that Qantas rates and conditions must be applied to any subsidiary airline that bears the Qantas code. If we agreed to this,Jetconnnect would attract Qantas rates of pay and conditions and I have no doubt that trans-Tasman operations would not be sustainable and we'd withdraw from this important market. Likewise, unless Jetstar paid Qantas rates and conditions, they couldn't use the QF code and we'd lose the feed traffic they provide, further damaging all Qantas services including international. This claim is one we cannot and will not agree to because to do so would damage the airlines that are performing well and supporting our loss-making international operations.

Making job security a threshold issue for negotiations is taking us nowhere and my fear is that we are attacking this problem from the wrong end. Our focus shouldn't be consumed on how we move people as our internationaloperations fail, rather we should be stepping up to the changes we have to make to ensure these operations are sustainable and getting back into shape where we can grow.

Rather than grasping the new reality, our Unions are running a campaign of denial, personal attacks, talking down Qantas and threatening disruptive industrial action. This is unprofessional and counterproductive and I'm at a loss to understand how this will ever lead to job security. You need to challenge the AIPA leadership to explain the direction they are taking.

The notion that the shareholders and our Board are going to brush the
management aside is ridiculous. In fact they are saying the opposite. We
are being told in no uncertain terms that they want us to get on with
fixing the business. If anything, their message is we are not moving fast
or hard enough.

Last week, our Chief Financial Officer, Gareth Evans, spent over three hours with Barry Jackson and AIPA's independent financial representative to go through the Group's finances. This meeting was attended by KPMG who are responsible for auditing and signing off our financial reports. Qantas followed up the meeting with an offer of further briefings for AIPA
Committee members.

I am disappointed that all AIPA appears to have taken from this meeting is
a determination to continue repeating unfounded assertions to the effect
that the international business does not have problems.

We will be reporting a loss of around $200 million in the international
businesses this year. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to make this loss any less real.

On Wednesday we will release our full year results for 2010/11 and we will
rightly celebrate our Group profit in what as an incredibly difficult year. These results will again show that our Domestic routes, Jetstar, QantasFrequent Flyer, QantasLink and Freight are propping up the loss-making and capital-intensive International services. Sadly, I am expecting a predictable response from AIPA and other Unions.

While our results will be commendable under the circumstances, we have to recognise that to be sustainable and give job security we need to be making in excess of $1 billion each year. We remain a long way from this mark.

Drifting along at current Group profitability levels will result in a gradual decline for all parts of the Group when we can't fund growth and necessary investment in our product. Stemming the losses in theinternational operations has to be our immediate focus and would go a long way to putting the Group back on the right footing.

We cannot stay where we are. Change is never easy but we all know failure would be much less palatable.

I encourage you to get involved, attend briefing sessions as they are organised by Flight Operations and ask your Union how they intend to resolve this impasse without destroying our airline in the process.

[ejectx3]

Thing is Lyell Strambi, no-one believes a word you are saying....

The preliminary report identifies a number of other factual issues which would support the conclusion that Qantas is misrepresenting the relative performances of Jetstar and the full service international brand to the detriment of the long haul carrier and the pilots and engineers who are in an industrial dispute with the company. .....also posted without comment

If we agreed to this,Jetconnnect would attract Qantas rates of pay and conditions and I have no doubt that trans-Tasman operations would not be sustainable and we'd withdraw from this important marketPosted with this comment...what a complete load of bullcrap.

and Ben if I may borrow another snippet from your brilliant blog..
What is happening to Qantas is not about unfair competition, or the ‘outrageous’ pay demands of its staff, it is about the woefully dismal direction of the long haul carrier by a management and board that are infatuated with numbers games and the spread of the Jetstar franchise, and the abundant opportunities to flaunt the Qantas Sale Act because neither the government nor the opposition intends to do anything other than wring their hands and keep troughing it in the Chairmans Lounges.

[Jackneville]

Hey Lyell, the 7:30 Report just gave Qantas the opportunity to publically
refute those "unfounded assertions".

Why did Qantas decline ????

[bobhoover]

If we agreed to this,Jetconnnect would attract Qantas rates of pay and conditions and I have no doubt that trans-Tasman operations would not be sustainable and we'd withdraw from this important market

That's funny, I would have thought the syd-lon route was a pretty important market, arguably more so leading up to the olympics. Had no problems withdrawing there though.

[bucko70]

Thanks for the letter Lyell,
I would like to respond to your kind words but the repy email you supplied is [email protected]
???

[Budfox]

Imagine what the profit would have looked like if they invested properley in the right machines :ugh:

Still scratching my head how in 8 months since the Dec 2010 report, how International have lost so much money when it was stated by AJ both International and Domestic were performing strongly WTF :=

Beyond belief this is !!!!

[Dixons Millions]

Drifting along at current Group profitability levels will result in a gradual decline for all parts of the Group when we can't fund growth and necessary investment in our product. Stemming the losses in the international operations has to be our immediate focus and would go a long way to putting the Group back on the right footing.

We cannot stay where we are. Change is never easy but we all know failure would be much less palatable.

I encourage you to get involved, attend briefing sessions as they are organised by Flight Operations and ask your Union how they intend to resolve this impasse without destroying our airline in the process.

You would have to be one of the most inept, stupid managers Australian Corporate has ever seen. Please re read what you have said above, in bold. Pause, look to the ceiling, and then tell us your fix. Oh yeah, that would be by starting two new airline entities, J* Jap and some yet unnamed Premium somewhere else in Asia! All with tiny little A320's! Wow! Lyell, how for one minute does this help QF International, you clown? Instead of spending 9 billion on 110 nothings, if you really, really wanted to fix QF Int why not 40 odd 777's instead, and really compete with our competitors (i.e. every other airline in the world...they all have 777's)! ARE YOU REALLY THIS NAIVE? Or are you actually smart, in bed with Dixon and crew, oooh the conspiracy theories abound.....

" Well from what I know Dixon is all cashed up and has invested heavily in an aircraft leasing company...my speculation is that AJ+co are purposely driving down QF's shares so Dixon can come in on the cheap and pick up QF...lots of meetings/lunches have been going on with Dixon and AJ at the Deutsche Bank Bldg in SYD..."

Well, let's all stay tuned then eh....!

[Mstr Caution]

AIPA's claim stipulates that Qantas rates and conditions must be applied to any subsidiary airline that bears the Qantas code. If we agreed to this,Jetconnnect would attract Qantas rates of pay and conditions and I have no doubt that trans-Tasman operations would not be sustainable and we'd withdraw from this important market.


I recall Geoff Dixon stating that the strength of the particular brand (QF versus JQ) & NOT pilot wages would determine which entity flew where.

Now it seems it's not the strength of the individual brand & it's all about wages.

[Mstr Caution]

Dear Lyell,

I realise you didn't work for Qantas at the time, but I was recently handed a copy of a letter sent to all Qantas pilots from Geoff Dixon on 20th March 2007.

If you would like a little insight as to why your workforce is pissed off, maybe you should endeavour to locate a copy of the said letter.

Here's a sample of Geoff Dixons handy work:


I understand that a media report early in July (2007), to the effect that A330 aircraft might be diverted from Jetstar to Pacific Airlines in Vietnam or Jetstar Asia rather then being returned to Qantas has created some concern. I can assure you that ALL our plans provide for the A330's to return to Qantas.

We do, however plan to expand our operations in Asia through joint ventures and investment. These plans, I believe could provide further and real opportunities for Qantas Pilots and other personnel in interesting parts of the world.


MC

[aussie_herb]

Mstr Caution , the other problem with that statement is that it is complete and utter garbage . The only time you can be sure these guys are lying is when their lips are moving . The AIPA claim is very simple yet difficult to understand for some of these genius' . If a QF mainline service is replaced by another Qantas group aircraft within 12 months of it being cancelled / replaced the pilots of that service will operate at current negotiated terms and conditions . The nett cost is zero because the cost of the pilots on that service remains exactly the same . Resistance to this clause only heightens awareness that they are planning to substitute many mainline services , as they have already done .