MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately. [Archive] - Page 5

onetrack

2nd Nov 2011, 05:11

T28D - The issue of the breaking of the mining unions in the Iron Ore areas of W.A. has no comparison with the current Qantas/union dispute.
The mining unions in the Iron Ore areas of W.A. (and the W.A. Goldfields as well, to a certain degree) in the late 1960's and early 1970's, were controlled by militant thugs, who rode over weak management like a bus flattens a childs trike.
These thugs indulged in strike action at will, initiated by any spurious reason, using thug tactics amongst their members, and ensuring that secret ballots on strike action would never be instigated.

The scenario is a common one, and as a ex-mining contractor, I used to watch this scenario in disgust. A union meeting would be held right at shift changeover, at 4:00 PM.
Beer was freely handed out, and a professional union thug would take the soapbox, and whip up the workers with regard to some petty issue.
The issue was always overblown (flies in the mess, inadequate ice-cream varieties available, inadequate food quality, or some other "perceived" grievance), and the shop steward thug would call for a show of hands for a strike.

There were always the "union men for life" scattered amongst the workers, and upon the call for a show of hands, the "union men for life" would shoot their hands sky-high... then turn and glare at those who didn't have their hands up.
This resulted in a slow increase in the number of hands raised, until the union thug on the soapbox declared he had a "majority showing", and it was "everyone out!".

I would speak to moderate-view individuals later, independently, enquiring about what had transpired, and would always get the same answer... "everyone else had their hand up, so I felt obliged to do so, too". Union intimidation at its best.

These thugs ended up controlling the Iron Ore operations at will, and their demands were utterly outrageous. Demands for prime steaks for lunch for employees, descended into outright greed, where large coolers were filled with prime steaks, that fed the workers entire family for a week, cost-free.

The breaking of these outrageous thug-driven unions was needed, and the balance between unions and management restored. We no longer have very many of these style of unions, and they deserve no place in todays society.

On the other hand, this airline grounding exercise of Joyce, Clifford and the Qantas board, in retaliation for some very modest union activism, ranks on a par with Henry Fords actions against the auto-manufacturers unions.
All that's missing is the company thugs beating the crap out of the Qantas union organisers.

The lack of management ability of this board, coupled with an inability... nay, basically a refusal... to negotiate in good faith with unions, is a sign that this management sees the workers as the "enemy", to be manipulated, ambushed, and generally trodden underfoot, until they (the board) have a group that is totally subservient to them. This is not the way management and employees should engage in a properly-functioning company.

As has been mentioned previously, the Qantas of today is the result of 90 years of unfailing effort by employees, guided by competent management (up until the last few years, anyway).
This board ranks as little more than a blip on the radar, in the history of Qantas, taken into context of the companys history and achievements. Let's hope that blip on the radar doesn't turn into a massive, out-of-control thunderhead that brings down the entire fleet. :yuk:

peuce

2nd Nov 2011, 05:11

Let me riddle you this....

Say Qantas gets what it wants. It goes offshore, it recruits pilots and cabin crew from Asia, it has all its maintenance done in Mumbai and its call centre in Shanghai. Costs have now decreased significantly.

Please tell me why I am now booking on Qantas? ... instead of, say, Emirates

aseanaero

2nd Nov 2011, 05:18

That's my question also , how do you pretend the airline is still Qantas when it is 'not Qantas' ?

QF94

2nd Nov 2011, 05:27

That's my question also , how do you pretend the airline is still Qantas when it is 'not Qantas' ?

This is how!

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff432/QF94/qantasshell.jpg

T28D

2nd Nov 2011, 05:34

MBS: Industrial Dispute at the Robe River Iron Ore Mine (http://www.mbs.edu/go/case-study/industrial-dispute-at-the-robe-river-iron-ore-mine)

http://the-white-picket-fence.********.com/1992/08/power-switch-at-robe-river.html

Oldmate

2nd Nov 2011, 05:41

The lockout notice stated "All employees who will be covered by the proposed EA8 will be locked out"

Does anyone have any knowledge or thoughts on the legalities of locking out those longhaul pilots that are not union members and were not permitted to participate in industrial action?

Thanks,

(for the record I am an aipa member)

TIMA9X

2nd Nov 2011, 06:23

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RiulzgtBydc/TrDgafa0ukI/AAAAAAAAADE/HjMNVJmIItk/s420/01-borghetti-AJ.jpg

Virgin basks in the glow as brand Qantas crashes and burns

Qantas's chief executive, Alan Joyce, might have had the toughest week of his life but the man who lost out to him for the top job at the Flying Kangaroo is now basking in the glow. Virgin Australia's boss, John Borghetti, said today that the grounding of Qantas's fleet for two days showed the need for a "strong second carrier".
Qantas grounded its fleet on Saturday afternoon, stranding tens of thousands of passengers worldwide.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Mr Borghetti, who chose his words carefully at a business lunch in Sydney today, said some of the passengers who had switched to Virgin during the Qantas grounding would "stick".
He conceded that Qantas's predicament presented an "opportunity" on which his airline could capitalise.
Virgin carried 30,000 extra passengers in the three days after Qantas grounded its fleet, while those passing though its airport lounges "went through the roof – they literally went stratospheric".
"Virgin Australia reacted very, very quickly and made sure Australia kept moving," he said.
With Qantas's relationship with the federal government now described as toxic, Mr Borgehtti was keen to emphasise the support Virgin had received from Canberra as it attempted to boost flights to meet the demand after the grounding

Read more: Virgin basks in the glow as brand Qantas crashes and burns (http://www.smh.com.au/business/virgin-basks-in-the-glow-as-brand-qantas-crashes-and-burns-20111102-1mv8n.html#ixzz1cWhOo6k8)
nuff said

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 06:40

@peuce: "Let me riddle you this....

Say Qantas gets what it wants. It goes offshore, it recruits pilots and cabin crew from Asia, it has all its maintenance done in Mumbai and its call centre in Shanghai. Costs have now decreased significantly.

Please tell me why I am now booking on Qantas? ... instead of, say, Emirates"

But this applies even now. Look the Qantas declining market share already posted on this thread. Q is losing ground year after year because fewer people can see the reason for paying the Q premium (From post 288 by Metro Man:"...Internationally it's a totally different ball game. Back in 1976 QF had a 46% share, 1996 it was 39%, ten years ago 35% and today less than 20%. Asian and Middle Eastern competators play by different rules...").

From my post 238: And from the above you can see I am not alone.
7 - the last international flights I have flown are:
7a - London return - Singapore Airlines. Cheaper and in my view, equal or better service than Qantas
7b - Vancouver & return via Auckland - code share Air NZ/Air Canada. Less convenient than Qantas connections, but cheaper and in my view equal or better service than Qantas.
7c - San Francisco & return via Sydney - Cheaper (United), very average service, would use next cheapest next time. Would use Qantas if they were price competitive.
7d - Jahannesburg & return - Qantas because I had accumulated over 400,000 frequent flyer points over the last years, had not used any for the past 4 years and decided to use them up.
From this you'll see I am like many others - I am driven by a price/value/quality equation, and Qantas no longer comes out near best. Without people like me buying tickets. people like you won't have a job. It's that simple.

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 06:45

@TIMA9X: Interesting to see you reposting the praise for John Borghetti, but doesn't he run an airline that could be described as a low-cost carrier (just what you don't want Q to become) more akin to J* than Q?

And he has also had to address allegations that VA pays less:
"VIRGIN Australia chief executive John Borghetti has rejected claims the airline's pilots, engineers and ground crew are paid substantially less than those at Qantas Airways."
Gold Coast Breaking News :: News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (http://tools.goldcoast.com.au/stories/49113951.php)

Isn't part of what AJ is trying to achieve exactly what Borghetti has had the freedom to do?

I suggest that he got the better deal, becoming head of VA rather than Q, as if he was now in AJ's shoes he would probably be implementing the board policy that AJ has to implement, and would be just as unpopular amongst Q employees as AJ is.

hotnhigh

2nd Nov 2011, 06:47

Joe Hockey answers. Raises more questions.
Govt, Oppn trade Qantas questions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-02/govt-oppn-trade-qantas-questions/3615366?section=act)
Government seizes on Hockey's Qantas comments - ABC Newcastle NSW - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-02/albanese-renews-attack-over-qantas/3614710/?site=newcastle)

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 06:54

@hotnhigh - interesting, but many regard the ABC as the media arm of the Australian Labor Party, so balance those news reports with some others, too.

peuce

2nd Nov 2011, 07:04

David1300,

Without people like me buying tickets. people like you won't have a job. It's that simple.

Wild assumptions again ... you buying Qantas tickets has absolutely no bearing on my income.

But this applies even now. Look the Qantas declining market share already posted on this thread

Yes, exactly as I said in a previous post. Less people are willing to pay a premium price for an inferior product.

So, wont the numbers be even less as Qantas continues to shed its link to Australia and its premium trimmings?

My question still remains unanswered...

Why am I going to buy a ticket on a "New Qantas" flight?

What will it have that I want?
What will it have that others don't have?
What added value will I receive?
Why will it make me feel warm and fuzzy?

hotnhigh

2nd Nov 2011, 07:08

David1300, maybe I should ask Geoffrey Thomas for further reports? I think the bigger issue here is, if you ask the appropriate questions, you might get some very interesting answers.
And why during question time on monday, was every question thrown by the opposition about qantas, and we get to today, and there was not one?

Slowly but surely, it appears things aren't going to plan for Abbott, Hockey, wirth and Joyce. I'm looking forward to friday. I hope you think you'll receive a balanced view after the senate enquiry begins.

neville_nobody

2nd Nov 2011, 07:12

Why am I going to buy a ticket on a "New Qantas" flight?

What will it have that I want?
What will it have that others don't have?
What added value will I receive?
Why will it make me feel warm and fuzzy?

Will it get you there alive is probably the question to be asking.

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 07:12

@peuce: "Wild assumptions again ... you buying Qantas tickets has absolutely no bearing on my income."

Didn't you read the post correctly? That comment is an extract from an earlier post, was prefaced as such, and was not directed at you, so there is no assumption on my part. That earlier post of mine (238) was directed at Q employees, and was even in a different colour so that it was clear to everyone reading it.

Tidbinbilla

2nd Nov 2011, 07:15

David,

There is no need to place an @ in front of your posts. This is PPRuNe, not "Twatter" :}

bankrunner

2nd Nov 2011, 07:24

@TIMA9X: Interesting to see you reposting the praise for John Borghetti, but doesn't he run an airline that could be described as a low-cost carrier (just what you don't want Q to become) more akin to J* than Q?

No, Virgin is doing the exact opposite. It's moving away from the unsustainable (as Virgin describes it) LCC model to becoming a full service carrier, and the Virgin Blue -> Virgin Australia rebrand was a part of this.

QF94

2nd Nov 2011, 07:40

Isn't part of what AJ is trying to achieve exactly what Borghetti has had the freedom to do?

I suggest that he got the better deal, becoming head of VA rather than Q, as if he was now in AJ's shoes he would probably be implementing the board policy that AJ has to implement, and would be just as unpopular amongst Q employees as AJ is.

John Borghetti is changing the various Virgin brands (Virgin Blue, Pacific Blue and V Australia) into one (Virgin Australia). That's what you get when you have the ex-head of QANTAS operations, a premium airline running a low cost carrier and combining the two.

AJ has mostly been involved in low cost carriers, and is hell-bent on making a premium airline into a two brand product, with the lower cost model dominating. Virgin is exposed to the same competition QANTAS is, both domestically and internationally. You don't see Borghetti bleating about the competition or trying to make off shoots all over the place. Yes, they are an off shoot from Virgin Atlantic, but are pretty well self-sustaining, as opposed to JQ, who is heavily dependent on QF, and it is yet to be investigated about cost shifting from JQ onto QF, very much the same story Ansett experienced before its demis in 2001. Air NZ was shifting all of its costs onto Ansett.

John Borghetti failed in his bid to secure a position as CEO in QANTAS, because in past disputes and prior to the shutting down of heavy maintenance in Sydney, he opposed the board on both occasions as he said it was not a wise move to do so, and that QANTAS would lose control of what it always had control of. Its own maintenance, and to not get the employees off-side. I guess the board of a few years in QANTAS didn't care about a QANTAS employee of 33 years climbing through the ranks to head the QANTAS operations or his qualified opinions.

SimonBl

2nd Nov 2011, 07:40

Just got this from AJ, copied here without comment (at this point as I am busy at work):

Hello Simon

Now that Qantas has resumed normal operations I would like to update you on what the recent decision by Fair Work Australia means for you.

I apologise sincerely for any inconvenience that you or your family experienced during the grounding of the Qantas fleet between Saturday evening and Monday afternoon.

The decision to lock out some of our employees was an immensely difficult one and one that I did not want to have to make. But it was a decision that we were driven to by the industrial action of three unions, together representing less than 20 percent of Qantas employees.

As of last Friday, industrial action by those unions had forced the cancellation of hundreds of flights, disrupted 70,000 passengers and cost Qantas $68 million. Two union leaders had warned that industrial action could continue into next year.

This would have had a devastating effect on our customers, on all Qantas employees and on the businesses which depend on Qantas services.

On Saturday, I came to the conclusion that this crisis had to end. I made the decision to proceed with a lock-out, the only form of protected industrial action available to Qantas under the Fair Work Act, so that agreement could be reached quickly.

Unfortunately, it was necessary as a precautionary measure to ground the fleet immediately after the announcement that a lock-out would take place. While I deeply regret the short-term impact of the fleet being grounded, following the Fair Work Australia decision we now have absolute certainty for our customers. No further industrial action can take place. No more aircraft will be grounded and no services cancelled as a result of industrial action.

You can now book Qantas flights with complete confidence. This is an immeasurably better situation than last Friday, when Qantas faced the prospect of ongoing disruptions, perhaps for another 12 months.

We have now moved into 21 days of negotiations with each of the unions with the assistance of Fair Work Australia. All parties will be treated equally in order to reach reasonable agreements. If this cannot happen, binding arbitration will take place to secure an outcome. We will respect whatever decisions are reached.

Regardless of how and when the agreements are reached, the period of uncertainty and instability for Qantas is over. We are moving forward and putting this dispute behind us.

Our focus now is on our customers. We want to restore your faith by returning our on-time performance to its normal high levels, continuing to invest in new aircraft and lounges and ensuring the best possible in-flight experience.

The end of industrial action means we can concentrate on what matters – getting you to your destination on time and in comfort, offering the best network and frequency of any Australian airline and rewarding your loyalty as a Qantas Frequent Flyer.

Thank you for your patience and for your continued support of Qantas.

Roo

2nd Nov 2011, 07:42

Conquest/441,

I guess my question more directly then is "How does he weigh up the effect of an immediate grounding causing significant brand damage, with the option of a (say) 72hr delay that I'm sure he knew would have exactly the same outcome minus the significant trashing of the brand?"

My feeling is that he did not count on having to carry out the threat of an immediate grounding. He thought the threat thereof would force the Government to act immediately to Terminate before going to FWA. When they did not do this, QF had no choice but to follow through with their threat. I am not at all sure their lawyers judged a 72hr delay would lead to the same outcome. They probably judged it would lead to Suspension of PIA to prevent what FWA saw as impending irreparable damage to the economy occurring.

The sabotage / crew safety / state of mind issue was a Furphy to justify immediate action. In any case QF told crews in flight, hours from destination that they had grounded the outfit. How do you think that went down with an operating crews morale in flight (Think CC shocked and in tears etc)? If they genuinely cared about the Safety issue, there is no way these messages would have gone out.

breakfastburrito

2nd Nov 2011, 07:46

Todays Qantas questions from the house of reps.

mPRmkfwmpHg

The 7:30 report Hockey interview referenced in the questions was posted earlier (reproduced for those that haven't seen it, watch it first):
gefzn5u3Vmg

ALAEA Fed Sec

2nd Nov 2011, 07:49

How do we know that crews were told inflight about the grounding? Were acars messages sent?

The Voice

2nd Nov 2011, 07:59

there was a post to that affect somewhere back in the first half of the pages relative to this topic

Jetro6UL

2nd Nov 2011, 08:07

David,

There is no need to place an @ in front of your posts. This is PPRuNe, not "Twatter" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Tell the Admins to add a quote button to the forum and then it'd be easier to distinguish between what people are posting and what they are quoting....

1a sound asleep

2nd Nov 2011, 08:08

Email received

Hello XXXXXX

Now that Qantas has resumed normal operations I would like to update you on what the recent decision by Fair Work Australia means for you.

I apologise sincerely for any inconvenience that you or your family experienced during the grounding of the Qantas fleet between Saturday evening and Monday afternoon.

The decision to lock out some of our employees was an immensely difficult one and one that I did not want to have to make. But it was a decision that we were driven to by the industrial action of three unions, together representing less than 20 percent of Qantas employees.

As of last Friday, industrial action by those unions had forced the cancellation of hundreds of flights, disrupted 70,000 passengers and cost Qantas $68 million. Two union leaders had warned that industrial action could continue into next year.

This would have had a devastating effect on our customers, on all Qantas employees and on the businesses which depend on Qantas services.

On Saturday, I came to the conclusion that this crisis had to end. I made the decision to proceed with a lock-out, the only form of protected industrial action available to Qantas under the Fair Work Act, so that agreement could be reached quickly.

Unfortunately, it was necessary as a precautionary measure to ground the fleet immediately after the announcement that a lock-out would take place. While I deeply regret the short-term impact of the fleet being grounded, following the Fair Work Australia decision we now have absolute certainty for our customers. No further industrial action can take place. No more aircraft will be grounded and no services cancelled as a result of industrial action.

You can now book Qantas flights with complete confidence. This is an immeasurably better situation than last Friday, when Qantas faced the prospect of ongoing disruptions, perhaps for another 12 months.

We have now moved into 21 days of negotiations with each of the unions with the assistance of Fair Work Australia. All parties will be treated equally in order to reach reasonable agreements. If this cannot happen, binding arbitration will take place to secure an outcome. We will respect whatever decisions are reached.

Regardless of how and when the agreements are reached, the period of uncertainty and instability for Qantas is over. We are moving forward and putting this dispute behind us.

Our focus now is on our customers. We want to restore your faith by returning our on-time performance to its normal high levels, continuing to invest in new aircraft and lounges and ensuring the best possible in-flight experience.

The end of industrial action means we can concentrate on what matters – getting you to your destination on time and in comfort, offering the best network and frequency of any Australian airline and rewarding your loyalty as a Qantas Frequent Flyer.

Thank you for your patience and for your continued support of Qantas.

Alan Joyce :E

Howard Hughes

2nd Nov 2011, 08:25

How do we know that crews were told inflight about the grounding? Were acars messages sent?
A friend who was about halfway through a long sector when it happened, said his crew new nothing about until they were told by ground staff at their destination.

Bankstown Boy

2nd Nov 2011, 08:28

I think it's gunna cost AJ a little more than he and the board thought:

-- Qantas had offered customers refunds, the opportunity to rebook flights and compensation for expenses incurred by certain travellers. The airline was dealing with other claims on a case by case basis.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said while that addressed some of the commission’s concerns, it didn’t go far enough.

‘‘These circumstances are extraordinary and there have been a huge number of passengers significantly affected,’’ Mr Sims said. ‘‘It is squarely in the airline’s camp to make good.

‘‘If you have incurred additional expenses as a result of the grounding, the ACCC is of the view that Qantas should compensate you for all your reasonable losses.’’ ---

AAP

That sounds a lot more expensive than the Qantas proposal to me

(sorry, don't know how to insert quote - and just plain too damn lazy to look it up right know - will do better!)

Mstr Caution

2nd Nov 2011, 08:31

AJ - Unfortunately, it was necessary as a precautionary measure to ground the fleet immediately after the announcement that a lock-out would take place.

AJ had to ground the fleet, one of the reasons being an impending lockout would otherwise result in pilots on the job & not focussing on tasks at hand.

I assume AJ did the same sort of risk assessment during the "alleged" death threats earlier this year.

Wouldn't want a CEO on the job & not focussed on tasks at hand.

Mr Leslie Chow

2nd Nov 2011, 08:36

1a please don't take any engaged love away from the richard cranium.

That stupid letter was signed something more touchy feely, only his first name,
as if we're mates. Yep, see you at the pub soon ****.

Makes me sick just thinking of it.

Funny how he states 'unions representing less than 20% of the QF workforce' as if it is insignificant yet look at the actions to quell it......

Douche

rh200

2nd Nov 2011, 09:04

AJ had to ground the fleet, one of the reasons being an impending lockout would otherwise result in pilots on the job & not focussing on tasks at hand.

I assume AJ did the same sort of risk assessment during the "alleged" death threats earlier this year.

To play devils advocate, most large companys with health and safety department that is corporate/ legal focused, take the view that if there is a chance you may be mentally impaired or distracted due to what ever personal/professional circumstances, and you are in a profession where you can harm yourself or others, then you don't work.

ohallen

2nd Nov 2011, 09:10

"We want to restore your faith"

Well the easy way to do that is go to the door, exit slowly, dont turn around and go to wherever you want to go away the hell from this Company. Also dont collect any money as you go.

If he wants to fly the national flag or use the term Spirit of Australia then he has to realise this is not his or the Boards personal play thing.

As one very wise passenger is reported as saying in LA...this is OUR Qantas..

The way things are shaping up Mr Joyce is in for a very long slow baking from those that count ie Govt, regulators and the media which he has brought onto himself with his own actions.

I also got the email and binned it without even reading until it was posted here because I know the credibility factor that comes with it NIL.

Lets hope his complacent institutional shareholders can now grasp the terms:

1. Regulatory risk.
2.Government relations.
3. Brand value.
4. Competitive advantage.
4. Business disruption while they address all the above.

Sooner or later they must be factored into the share price and bottom line results and it ain't going to be pretty.

ps I thought he and his team were actually paid to run an airline???

peuce

2nd Nov 2011, 09:13

To play devils advocate, most large companys with health and safety department that is corporate/ legal focused, take the view that if there is a chance you may be mentally impaired or distracted due to what ever personal/professional circumstances, and you are in a profession where you can harm yourself or others, then you don't work.

So, presumably, that situation existed immediately after the standown advice ...when all aircraft were on the ground ... but NOT immediately after the FWA decision... when aircraft needed to be put into the sky.

Pretty clever Pyschs they have ... Qantas and CASA!

peuce

2nd Nov 2011, 09:21

Will it get you there alive is probably the question to be asking.

Yes, that's the first question I would ask and considering recent technical events, I'd have to think about it a bit.

However, assuming I decided that I had a pretty good chance of surviving such a trip.... what will make it any different from other Airlines that will probably get me there alive?

Maybe I have to be more blunt .... here is a scenario:

The aircraft is registered in Singapore
It has a Vietnamese technical crew
The aircraft was last serviced in Hanoi
The cabin crew are Thai
The fare is similar to Singapore Airlines

Will I buy a ticket just because it has a white rat on its tail?

Alan Joyce thinks I will !

Is that a very excellent business plan?

neville_nobody

2nd Nov 2011, 09:23

Here is the QF AOC's holder under cross examination on this very issue. Sounds like CASA is putting a bit of pressure on QF over protracted industrial action and flight safety.

You're not in a position sitting in the witness box now, because you're not a trained psychologist, to give any informed view about what the impact may or may not be on an individual because of what is said to be a lockout, or for instance, the stress associated with a hearing such as this, are you?---Is the question am I a trained individual? No.

**** LYELL FRANCIS STRAMBI XXN MR MOSES
PN551

No, correct, I mean - - -?---But as my responsibilities go as the holder of the AOC, I have a responsibility and accountability though for ensuring the safe flight - the safe operation of flights, and these are factors that have to be considered in that.

PN552

But you've been aware for some 12 months that there has been negotiations and protracted disputes that have occurred between various parties in respect of matters between the pilots and Qantas?---Yes.

PN553

You haven't formed a view that that's caused any danger to safety as a result of those matters occurring, is that correct?---In one of the documents that I believe has been tabled, I have expressed a concern about the growing pressures on the business.

PN554

On the business?---On the airline, right? On the airline, and on the safety of flight. Now, in a protracted industrial relations environment and one that has such a high profile, that is going to put stresses on the airline. Our regulator has told us that so in my position I'm sitting here with that responsibility and I do see this balloon stretching over this timeframe.

PN555

The regulator has given no indication to you as to its view about what would be the psychological effects on staff as a result of industrial action, correct?---The regulator has made it very clear to me that while they have no provenance in industrial relations matters, they will take a very strong position, a very strong position where they perceive that to be a risk to flight. And I must add another point here - - -

PN556

And have they indicated that to - - -?--- - - -which helps the understanding of this. The regulator, in conversations with the regulator throughout this period and before this period, as we're giving our regular updates, this is a topical issue. It's raised if not by us it's raised by the regulator. In those conversations we have said and given undertakings that we will constantly review the growing stresses on the organisation, and an undertaking, and this is very important, an undertaking that we would take action before a regulator needed to take action, and that's consistent with the Qantas brand and it's consistent with the Qantas safety first approach. So we would not wait for the regulator to ground us, I would consider that a dereliction of my duties and I have to form that assessment on an ongoing basis.

**** LYELL FRANCIS STRAMBI XXN MR MOSES
PN557

Are you finished? Sir, are you finished? Can I ask you this question?---I though you asked me a question and I was answering.

PN558

CASA has not told you, has it, that if there is a lockout, if there is a lockout of staff on 72 hours' notice, that that would be a risk to safety? You haven't received that information from CASA have you?---CASA told me that they were concerned and watching and taking active steps, right, taking active steps to monitor and this, and this was pre-lockout. At the time of lockout there is an additional stress put into the system so you have a balloon that's expanding, as I said before, you have a regulator who is very focussed on this topic and now you introduce a new risk. And then I have to make an assessment at that point, is it safe to fly?

PN559

Can I assume from that answer that CASA did not inform you that if there was to be a lockout with 72 hours' notice that that would present as a safety risk, correct?---I would not have discussed that scenario.

Fliegenmong

2nd Nov 2011, 10:38

bankrunner

2nd Nov 2011, 10:39

Hello XXXXXX

Got the same one, with the same patronising salutation.

We're not on first name terms AJ, you c__t.

bankrunner

2nd Nov 2011, 10:44

Pretty clever Pyschs they have ... Qantas and CASA!

Doubt it, at least from CASA's end. The current management at CASA see no particular value in the human factors section.

gobbledock

2nd Nov 2011, 10:50

I'm wondering if Hotel rooms were booked, staff flown up on Thursday, Courier companies booked so on & so forth...then calling it a contingency plan is fair enough.......you need a contingency plan sure , and I do suspect the piccy of Ms Wirth on the 'Dingwa' in Canberra was a discussion of a contingency plan......has this contingency plan been put in place every weekend for several weekends, in case there was an escalation??? There you go Senator Xenophon, a very good question to ask Messr Joyce. But may I suggest you not just accept a verbal answer, but may I ask you request evidence? Such as in the lead up to the lockout, how many rooms/accomodation/transport/tickets on other airlines etc etc in line with their big 'contingency plan' was/were booked. Then compare that to the so-called other weekends in which the 'contingency plan' was being put in place, possibly.
When will the Feds be brought in to investigate this sham? At least they can also pull phone records, locations, and any other tidbit that will assist in painting a picture of the truth.

Again, line up the lot of them, one at a time and (no, it is not what you are thinking) and asked pointed, straight to the core YES or No answers of Joyce, Clifford, Worth, Abbott, Hockey, Carbon Queen, the Minister for bad teeth, and any other major player in this folly. Ask them under parliamentary priveledge, in a court, in a sewer pit - who cares, just line them up and ask the right questions in an environment where any false statements or lies will see their head roll, and any truthful statement will see their precious souls vindicated. Amen.

DirectAnywhere

2nd Nov 2011, 11:29

EK haven't wasted much time. Assuming it wasn't planned beforehand, their next roadshows are in a few weeks (just got my email from them a few minutes ago).

Amygdala1

2nd Nov 2011, 11:52

So while we are using the throw-away line of flight safety; what about the consideration of Occupational Health and Safety of the flying public that had either booked or were depending upon booking flights. What about doing no harm to passengers through grounding every aircraft without reasonable notice. What about the medical personnel that had critical matters to attend to? What about families who were reasonably dependent upon some level of service continuing, any level of service continuing? What about secondary and tertiary effect upon other people, children, businesses? Isn't this all outside of the realm of 'do no harm'? Is this a breach of Occupational Health and Safety legislation that should protect the public that were depending upon a level of service not, NO level of service? What do the miscreants, including their supporters, say about this?

Going Boeing

2nd Nov 2011, 11:53

EK haven't wasted much time. Assuming it wasn't planned beforehand, their next roadshows are in a few weeks

Pilots resigning to go elsewhere is exactly what SLIC wants - it's best that everyone remains and they have to look at the huge costs of compulsory redundancy.

teresa green

2nd Nov 2011, 11:56

Interesting he thought every crew member was going to take the crash axe to the flight deck, nobody did anything to a aircraft in 89, so he did not get it there. He really must think the pilots are a bunch of knobs, he seriously must, just to add insult to injury. I enjoyed Richo get stuck into him and Clifford tonight, followed by Paul Murray, his fan base seems to be slipping rather badly, and it a long way from over yet. We still might see the last of him, and that tosser Clifford yet.

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 12:08

@JETRO6UL:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tidbinbilla
David,

There is no need to place an @ in front of your posts. This is PPRuNe, not "Twatter" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Tell the Admins to add a quote button to the forum and then it'd be easier to distinguish between what people are posting and what they are quoting....

Precisely, although I do understand how some people will then quote endlessly and duplicate much info. For the moment I will happily continue to use @ and coloured text when I am responding to a particular post/poster :ok:

Trent 972

2nd Nov 2011, 12:13

Going Boeing, you must be very confident that the RedRat negotiators won't ask for and that the FWA arbitrators won't give them the ability to make pilots compulsory redundant on the basis of aircraft type.
I am not so confident.

Fliegenmong

2nd Nov 2011, 12:40

Quote -

Got the same one, with the same patronising salutation.

We're not on first name terms AJ, you c__t.

Funny,...I remember a local Gold Coast City Councilor (Broadbeach based IIRCC?) Sent a common letter to me addressing me by first name.....I was deeply offended, curiously I wondered why something so seemingly innocuous offended me so much......we'd never met, spoken, certainly hadn't exchanged email this was years before innynet!

It was an undeserved assumed familiarity, completely without regard to the unintentionally implied closeness of our common circumstance.....and as I said a common letter, I'd seen friends and neighbours with the same letter similarly addressed on a first name basis.

Ya know I reckon that some dill just out of a marketing course at a Uni somewhere was told in a lecture this was a good idea.....and QF probably pay him 6 figures 'cos he has a degree, but no idea....?

You know the type!....similar argument to the Bean counters knowing the cost of everything & the Value of nothing.......

oh and yes, have you been planning similar contingencies all these weeks that there may have been an escalation??......ALAN? :E

Tankengine

2nd Nov 2011, 13:38

Form letters are OK.
"To Qantas Employee" or "To Flight Ops staff" , "To all Longhaul pilots" etc would be OK,

But "Dear insert name here" is pretty crappy!:hmm:

tmadam

2nd Nov 2011, 14:08

How do we know that crews were told inflight about the grounding? Were acars messages sent?IIRC that was the claim of a pilot's wife who called in to ABC local radio in Melbourne Monday morning. Sorry I can't be more specific.

TIMA9X

2nd Nov 2011, 14:46

Call Australia home: push to contain Qantas

The chief executive of Qantas, Alan Joyce, will tell a Senate inquiry tomorrow the amendment, proposed by the independent senator Nick Xenophon and backed by the Greens, would curtail his business's ''right and entitlement'' to compete in international aviation.

Labor had opposed the amendment - which targets the issues at the heart of Qantas' industrial disputes - but with anger still hot over the airline's decision to ground its fleet at the weekend some in the ALP now favour a reconsideration of the national carrier's obligations.

''I think we need to look at what it means to be the national carrier,'' the Labor senator Doug Cameron said.

Read more: Call Australia home: push to contain Qantas (http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-australia-home-push-to-contain-qantas-20111102-1mvta.html#ixzz1cYih31Fk)
On ya senator Doug Cameron..getting closer, nearly got it with the headline...

Call Australia home, or I still prefer, Save our Qantas.

.

hotnhigh

2nd Nov 2011, 17:40

Apparently acars advised no onward loads due industrial action. Hance call to ioc. Remember no safety issue here folks.:=

TIMA9X

2nd Nov 2011, 19:41

I guess we could all sit around and play tiddly winks waiting for Qantas to tell the world what it has in mind ... or we could put two and two together.... and ask some questions.phase two of the big plan, "Joyce now makes up to Canberra, after last weekend" it's starting to feel like it is starting today.. hope the union leaders are ready for this....

Qantas will weather turbulence coming out of Canberra

The attacks on Qantas over who got told what when about the group's decision to ground its aircraft on Saturday is a confection.
To borrrow from Sherlock Holmes, the dog hasn't barked - there is no evidence that the Qantas chief executive, Alan Joyce, has terminally damaged his group's relations with the government.
He's dented Qantas's reputation, and is pedaling hard now to repair it.

But the restructuring of Qantas that Joyce has begun is unlikely to be fatally undermined by what happened on the weekend. The government understands what Joyce is trying to achieve and it supports it.

Senior Labor figures including the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten,

80UDVY4bxO8

and the Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, have criticised Qantas for not informing the government of the shutdown sooner.
But even as he said again yesterday that Qantas had not told the government that a full grounding was imminent, Albanese acknowledged that Qantas had been talking ''very clearly and publicly'' that if industrial action continued there would be groundings.

The ''logical extension'' was that ''it would reach a point whereby the airline would make a decision because of the proportion of the fleet that was grounded, that it was time to ground the entire fleet,'' he said.

Translation: Alan Joyce didn't tell government ministers several weeks ago to set their phone alarms to remind them at 5pm on Saturday, October 29, that Qantas would be announcing a decision to lock out its pilots, engineers and ground crew and, as a consequence, immediately grounding its fleet.

Read more: Qantas will weather turbulence coming out of Canberra (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-will-weather-turbulence-coming-out-of-canberra-20111102-1mvts.html#ixzz1cZufJwKZ)

This video, in time, will be a good reference to remind Mr Shorten of what he said.

He will twist and struggle answering.

teresa green

2nd Nov 2011, 21:06

Angry Rat, you are correct about your comments from the Herald Sun albeit Andrew Bolt, ditto Ray Hadley, ditto Alan Jones. Alas, their blasting of QF staff is not really the issue with them, they simply see it as another chance to blame Gillard and her unions, another chance to bring a election on (I am with them there) so its really about the unions, regardless if it was Rio Tinto, the Wharves, or whoever. But in doing so have not recognised or even acknowledged the damage done to the staff or the company over the last ten years, they are on a union hunt, and poor downtrodden, beaten up Joyce is their hero. What a shame in their hunt to destroy the Labor Govt, they have failed to understand the truth.

73to91

2nd Nov 2011, 21:24

Further to gobbledock in post 1095

There you go Senator Xenophon, a very good question to ask Messr Joyce. But may I suggest you not just accept a verbal answer, but may I ask you request evidence? Such as in the lead up to the lockout, how many rooms/accomodation/transport/tickets on other airlines etc etc in line with their big 'contingency plan' was/were booked. Then compare that to the so-called other weekends in which the 'contingency plan' was being put in place, possibly.

Surely there are many employees from all departments that are anti management. So lets ask them some questions.
Were any employees asked to work overtime on Saturday night or Sunday?
Were any requests for volunteers on the basis of 'we can't actually tell you why'?
More importantly, at what time on Thursday or Friday were they asked to volunteer?

All valid I guess but the problem is, who knows that other people are wanting answers to these type of questions? e.g. I was asked and worked as I needed the dollars but now I'm even more annoyed with my management, but who knows that I'm really pi55ed? my husband / wife / kids and a few of the others I worked with, that's all.

Do I also know that the CEO is to appear at a Senate enquiry on Friday? How would I know that, I'm more interested and concerned in what to make for dinner tonight / ensuring the kids do their homework / the latest reality TV show etc.

Annulus Filler

2nd Nov 2011, 21:34

What hypocritical business leaders we have!

John Singleton asking for more Australian Race horses to be in the Melbourne Cup.

Don't you realise John this is a Global race?

Him and the rest of his Crony mates should re-evaluate and start thinking that is just not all about them.

Keep Australian Companies Australian, owned by Australians and run by Australians.

Where is my bumper sticker??

david1300

2nd Nov 2011, 21:47

As regards the role of unions in this issue - I think that the unions involved in the Q disputes/actions have only themselves to blame for not having support from the general public.

Many perceive the union leaders as more concerned about themselves and their own welfare (and future life in politics), rather than having a genuine concern for the members; and for this you can blame people like MP Craig Williamson (paid for luxury trips, prostitutes, etc on his union credit cards), recently resigned 'rorter' Michael Williamson, who also resigned from senior positions in the labor party (Mr Williamson has resigned as ALP national vice-president and senior vice-president of the NSW ALP branch, the ALP said in a statement), and MP's who were once union leaders but are now continuing to feather their own nests in parliament (list too long to mention). Not to mention previous examples of union bullying and tactics already mentioned in this thread.

If the Q unions had stood up and disassociated themselves from what is perceived by many in the public as "union leaders self-interest", then the Q unions, and their members (and the claims) would be better received by the general public.

denabol

2nd Nov 2011, 21:48

My breakfast dose of Plane Talking was not good eating this morning.

Qantas Senate Inquiry set to grill airline, but let it die | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/11/03/can-qantas-be-forced-to-still-call-australia-home/)

Sandilands points out that in the submissions to the Senate inquiry tomorrow Qantas has contemptuously submitted what I see on the submission received link is just four pages of babble signed by Olivia Wirth.

That should infuriate the committee right up.

But he also points out that the Qantas (Still Call Australia Home) bill is totally hopeless and will go down in flames.

Sunfish

2nd Nov 2011, 22:13

I think that the ultimate source of the damage to Qantas has not yet dawned on you - It's lack of trust, and without trust, Qantas as a going concern is dead in the water.

1. Alan Joyce was quite prepared to massively inconvenience tens of thousands of travelers for corporate gain. The action appears to be premeditated as well. This is a breach of trust.

2. Alan Joyce, through his negotiating team was supposed to have been bargaining in good faith with the Unions concerned. I have no doubt that the Engineers and Pilots teams were operating in good faith since I have heard nothing from Qantas to suggest they were not.

In the case of the engineers, negotiations began in October 2010. My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Qantas made no substantive offers at all and still had not made any offer, right up to the point of grounding.

The sequence: stonewall for twelve months, PIA begins and is almost immediately followed by grounding and an appeal to FWA doesn't look like good faith to me.

It's simple really; no one in Qantas management can now be trusted. That will sink the company.

V-Jet

2nd Nov 2011, 23:44

That will sink the company.

You think we've ditched already? I thought jets in the water floated almost forever:)

Keg

3rd Nov 2011, 01:22

neville_nobody

3rd Nov 2011, 01:33

But he also points out that the Qantas (Still Call Australia Home) bill is totally hopeless and will go down in flames.

Isn't that what the board ultimately want.

The game is either you give us QF on a platter or we will destroy it.

QF94

3rd Nov 2011, 02:51

Sunfish. Perfect snapshot of what the issues are and have been for the last 12-14 months of negotiation.

You may also find of interest is that according to AIPA, when they sat down with Qantas on Tuesday to take up from where they left off negotiations on Friday- the day before Joyce grounded the airline- the Qantas reps politely declined to negotiate on the basis that they needed to seek 'direction from the board'.

Everything changes and nothing changes. :ugh:

Funny about seeking direction from the board. LC clearly stated during the AGM last Friday that the board does not get involved in matters that are between management and employees. They do not get involved in disputes.

Isn't that what the board ultimately want.

The game is either you give us QF on a platter or we will destroy it.

Also during the AGM, AJ made it very clear that "We will not be told how to run "OUR" business.

It is evident that this dozen on the board believe that QF is theirs and no one will stop them. I think they have grossly undrestimated the will of the employees, the unions, the general public and government.

73to91

3rd Nov 2011, 02:54

It's OK everyone as AJ is now one of the Irish aviation executives along side Willie Walsh, Dermot Mannion, Michael O'Leary and Conor McCarthy who

represent a powerful grouping of airline managers who are having a profound impact on the shape and direction of world aviation.

Read more: The rise of the cost-cutters (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/the-rise-of-the-costcutters-20111102-1mvk3.html#ixzz1cbgkNI10)

Here are some additional links to these guys:
Dermot Mannion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Mannion)
McCarthy sees explosive growth for AirAsia - Airline Business (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/airline-business/2006/07/mccarthy-sees-explosive-growth-1.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Walsh_(Irish_businessman)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O'Leary_(businessman)

Red Baron

3rd Nov 2011, 03:27

Now when did I last see AJ laughing like this before?

Oh that's right, at the AGM when his remuneration package got voted in!

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/qantas_joyce_clifford.png

Teal

3rd Nov 2011, 04:16

The rise of the cost-cutters (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/the-rise-of-the-costcutters-20111102-1mvk3.html#ixzz1cbgkNI10)
Possibly explains the origins of jokes like this:

A Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walk into a pub. They each buy a pint of Guinness beer.

Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage three flies landed in each of their pints, and were stuck in the froth of each glass.

The Englishman pushed his beer away from him in disgust.

The Scotsman fished the offending fly out of his beer and continued drinking it as if nothing had happened.

The Irishman too, picked the fly out of his drink, held it out over the beer and then started yelling, "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YA BASTARD!!"

ejectx3

3rd Nov 2011, 05:37

More stories from lockout day...

Jetstar employees stranded in la given full fare tickets on us carriers to get home. Jetstar only of course.

Hotel in LA was booked a month prior with rooms for passengers.

Feeling more engaged by the day

Kharon

3rd Nov 2011, 05:37

Could not resist this: priceless.

Advertisement, (found while shopping for a cheap airline and a glove puppet for the kids).

Luck be with ye! Of all the good luck symbols in the world, the Leprechaun is best known for his ability to bring good luck and good fortune into any home.

We wont make any promises except for the fact that you'll love this Leprechaun puppet.

He is completely dressed in a tailored green suit with white dress shirt underneath. The hat and shoes he is wearing both have buckles on them.

His realistic glasses can be removed and if you so desire insert your hand into the slot in the puppet's back to operate the mouth.

Included is one arm rod which can be clipped to either hand for movement (for waving bye bye).

:D:D:D

The answers are still 'blowing' in the stock trading logs.

Selah.

aseanaero

3rd Nov 2011, 11:28

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/homepage/video/gruen_qantas_edit.flv

An interesting round table with advertising and PR execs on the grounding from Gruen

(not sure how to post this as a push and play file)

----------------------------------

I'm sure that is a safe link but my computer doesn't like it and it is 14.3 Mb!

Tail Wheel

packrat

3rd Nov 2011, 12:25

Sorry if you have done this but download VLC media player..it has worked for me

TIMA9X

3rd Nov 2011, 20:38

What last weekend showed us in no uncertain terms was despite the mutterings of Qantas being finished, it is anything but. It showed how much Australians rely on their National Carrier,yep, in my view, the guys running the show are in it for themselves, they have hijacked a well oiled machine, now pretending they invented it all over again. LC with patsy AJ are doing to Qantas what MUAMMAR Gaddafi did for Libya.

It's all about their outdated ego's, this time it will be harder, people are a wake up to these Freehills induced bully tactics putting Canberra on notice, the voters will not accept it this time around. Dixon got away with it, but I believe in time the Q PR machine will not be strong enough to change peoples opinions, too many holes in their argument. When you think about it, Joyce is the wrong front man to convince the Australian public. There is overwhelming evidence now in all media comments sections of the press, people simply don't like him as the face of Qantas, pure and simple. The punters see Joyce as only in this for his wallet, the image created by LC & AJ just by the arrogance they displayed last Friday at the AGM.

All a matter of timing in Qantas grounding (http://www.smh.com.au/business/all-a-matter-of-timing-in-qantas-grounding-20111103-1mxv6.html)

One of the most frequently asked questions surrounding the grounding of the Qantas fleet last Saturday afternoon was the point at which the chief executive actually made the decision to cease flying and lock out staff.
This has been exercising minds at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The regulator is in the early stages of investigating whether Qantas was selling tickets and accepting payment for flights it knew would not take off.
It's much the same principle as, say, selling a washing machine that you don't have. And it carries a penalty of up to $1.1 million per offence.

Read more: All a matter of timing in Qantas grounding (http://www.smh.com.au/business/all-a-matter-of-timing-in-qantas-grounding-20111103-1mxv6.html#ixzz1cg0MeCZL)

SFdBkeoe29c

Wally Mk2

3rd Nov 2011, 21:10

I would love to be a fly on the wall this morning (Frid) when AJ faces a parliamentary senate inquiry in CB into his latest 'engagement' of his workforce.

"failure of management & a failure of leadership" where words said by Senator Cameron (Doug)..........that pretty much sums up AJ's abilities or lack thereof!

Wmk2

bandit2

3rd Nov 2011, 21:21

Hey Wally MK2, If you go to the `Senate Enquiry` thread, people have provided links for live coverage of the `SHOW`.

Wally Mk2

3rd Nov 2011, 21:39

Thanks 'B2' that thread wasn't even listed when I posted the abv..............pilots sure are quick to attend any public hangings:E

Wmk2

oldgerman

3rd Nov 2011, 22:07

On Foxtel channel 648 a-pac right now

wishiwasupthere

3rd Nov 2011, 22:22

Live on Sky News too. Go Senator X!

Handbrake

3rd Nov 2011, 22:27

Live on ABC 24 too, it's free!

notaplanegeek

4th Nov 2011, 02:02

I thought it was quite typical when someone mentioned on this forum that EK would probably do a roadshow with all things considered. Announced on AFAP this morning lol. Guess there are going to be a lot of resignations coming up soon.

Red Baron

4th Nov 2011, 05:07

How many Senate enquiries is QF going to be called up to before we see some immediate change with this manipulative employer that calls them selves 'The Spirit Of Australia'? :*

QF94

4th Nov 2011, 06:15

How many Senate enquiries is QF going to be called up to before we see some immediate change with this manipulative employer that calls them selves 'The Spirit Of Australia'? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif

Patience, patience. We'd all love to see immediate change of the board, but all the facts have to be presented, sifted through and then decided on.

I would rather see the untruths exposed for what they are and then the board becomes answerable. Then an independent forensic auditor to go through the books and see the creative accounting that's been going on, and see how JQ has been propped up all these years and bleeding QANTAS and that the international operations of QANTAS weren't losing the money claimed.

clotted

4th Nov 2011, 07:20

Patience, patience. We'd all love to see immediate change of the board, but all the facts have to be presented, sifted through and then decided on.With all due respect, you are in dreamland. Unless you haven't noticed, over the last 19 years, Qantas has been a private company. Senate committees have any or little control over a private company. Yes, in the Qantas case, the coalition of loonies (aka Xenaphon/Brown/Cameron/Sterle) can give Joyce a hot time but in the end it counts for nought. The cheer squad here on Pprune can gloat and applaude all they like but in the end nothing changes. Cheer on.

QF94

4th Nov 2011, 07:42

With all due respect, you are in dreamland. Unless you haven't noticed, over the last 19 years, Qantas has been a private company.

16 years and 96 days that QANTAS has been a private company, to be closer to the truth. Merged with TN (Australian Airlines) 31 October 1993 and floated on the stock exchange 31 July 1995.

The senate hearing may change nothing now, but maybe a push from some of the senators that are interested in keeping an Australian company, Australian (for whatever reason or agenda they may have) may introduce a bill into the QANTAS Sales Act that would force the management to keep jobs in Australia, not necessarily in QANTAS.

It baffles me how there are those on this forum that are pro-corporate Australia in sending jobs off-shore and are happy for businesses to close down here. These individuals say we live in a globalised world and to move with it. Why? To help the bottom line of corporate board members? To help share investors boost their profits? To have but a few % of the population at the top of the tree sucking the life out of those below them?

If the QF management are allowed their way in this dispute, be prepared for the queue of corporations who will also threaten the government and the general population with closing down their companies if they don't capitulate to their demands.

Holden is already lining up for 2014/15.

It's a sad path you choose to follow, but a dangerous one.

ejectx3

4th Nov 2011, 08:04

^^^^^^ that

rh200

4th Nov 2011, 08:22

The senate hearing may change nothing now, but maybe a push from some of the senators that are interested in keeping an Australian company, Australian

Havn't done it to any other company, and theres a lot that who's workers where a bit more blue collar than Qantas. Don't hold your breath, there'll be a lot of huff and puff, but thats all there will be.

Kharon

4th Nov 2011, 08:28

TG - On the ball as always.
But in doing so have not recognizeg or even acknowledged the damage done to the staff or the company over the last ten years, they are on a union hunt, and poor downtrodden, beaten up Joyce is their hero. What a shame in their hunt to destroy the Labor Govt, they have failed to understand the truth.
Not sure if it's the complexity of 'matters aviation' or political agenda or plain lack of time; they seem to be struggling with all 3.

I keep hoping, but if this is the best we can manage, perhaps it's time to pack up and move to the Kampong.

Disappointing.:ugh:

clotted

4th Nov 2011, 08:37

It baffles me how there are those on this forum that are pro-corporate Australia in sending jobs off-shore and are happy for businesses to close down here.
I'm not pro-corporate but I am always amazed by dreamers such as yourself who think that the coalition of loonies giving Joyce a hard time for an hour or two equals victory for your cause. The coalition of loonies is just a circus no more no less. Nothing is going to change.

Annulus Filler

4th Nov 2011, 09:01

Fed Sec, where is our bumper sticker?

QF94

4th Nov 2011, 09:22

clotted,

If you showed more of the post I made, you would see I'm not dreaming. Maybe hopeful that there are a few in Canberra who will take a CEO and company to task for their actions. This could be signalling the beginning of a change in the way the government handles "rogue employers" (Doug Cameron).

This is a test case for Australian IR laws, particularly FWA. If it is seen to be a victory for QANTAS in what they did when they grounded their own airline, and told the government and FWA that anything short of a termination of IA will keep the aircraft grounded, no matter the expense to the customers and the economy in general, then this will open the gates for all major companies to do the same.

Today's hearing is just that. A hearing. If it progresses to the next stage of an enquiry and investigation, then it becomes interesting. It will become a bit more than a couple of hours of giving AJ a hard time, and applying some heat on him.

I agree, the senate committee, Canberra and the board are just circuses performing under the big top. It stops being a circus when implications and allegations are being thrown around. Pollies don't like being in the firing line, and will turn it around when it comes to the crunch. It's either them or AJ. AJ has named people high up in Canberra. He now has to back that up, but he has shifted on a few items of his story about who and when they were contacted.

This is just stage 1. No victories or cheer squads. Just patiently waiting the events to unfold.

MACH082

4th Nov 2011, 09:23

Wall Photos | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150348743228640&set=a.10150348743223640.355599.289402803639&type=1&ref=)

Priceless :)

QF94

4th Nov 2011, 09:32

I like what's in the DC10 Engine Cowl Bed.

Shed Dog Tosser

4th Nov 2011, 09:37

The coalition of loonies is just a circus no more no less. Nothing is going to change. Clotted, these same loonies are the ones that this morning were asking whether the proposed amendent to the QSA was a little extreme.

After today, I believe they know the proposed amendment does not go far enough.

I can't wait to see the QSA amendment MK11.

These same loonies have the power to change the QSA, that will f&^k their grand plans in both holes.

ohallen

4th Nov 2011, 10:30

One of the sleepers from today (and there were many which may have consequences) was the discussion on the intent of the QSA and the national interest. Seems the senators may have noticed that Mr Joyce's intent and the intent of the legislators may not be consistent.

There are also serious governance issues at QF if one individual, be it CEO or not, who can ground the airline in these circumstances when clearly there was NO safety risk.

If he had the authority then why did he call a Board meeting?

It does seem odd that the whole Board were available at such short notice. Presumably there was the obligatory celebratory dinner after the AGM which would have been planned (a bit like the planning for lockouts I suspect) so whoever organised this knew they would be available.

Where was the Chairman as well in all this as it was not unreasonable for him to have contact with people for such a national interest issue. IF he didnt see the national interest issue, then perhaps he may like to explain that as well.

I suspect a few regulatory bodies may now start to be a tad interested in events.

Disengagement

4th Nov 2011, 12:22

News Flash : Qantas CEO A.Joyce steps down as CEO over the grounding of the Qantas fleet and takes up the position Chairman of Qantas Group Asia Network.

Sorry this may be a bit early to release this so sorry Oliva to steal your thunder .

teiemka

4th Nov 2011, 14:45

Would anyone be able to provide exact text of the ACARS sent to flightcrews in relation to the grounding?

Keg

5th Nov 2011, 01:59

A pretty good article this one (http://www.theage.com.au/national/view-from-the-cockpit-20111104-1n0cu.html).

FIRST officer Peter S* was taxi-ing his Qantas CityFlyer flight from one of Australia's major airports on Saturday afternoon when the call came through from air traffic control to contact the Qantas operations frequency urgently. He was told to turn his flight around and return to the gate as all Qantas flights had been grounded.

"My gut wrenched as I immediately thought that an aircraft in our fleet must have crashed," Peter later told me.

Pilots are trained to suppress emotion at critical times, so Peter and his captain calmly did as they were ordered. After the engines wound down and the shutdown checklist was complete, the captain learnt that a total airline grounding had been ordered by CEO Alan Joyce.

"I was shocked. I did not understand what we had done to warrant this type of reaction," Peter said.

The captain then explained to his passengers what had happened — that the ground crew, engineers and pilots were to be locked out. He also outlined the pilots' major claim in our industrial negotiations — the principle that Qantas-branded flights be flown by Qantas pilots.

"The cabin erupted in applause in support for us," Peter recounted. "As the passengers disembarked, most stopped to talk, expressing support, dismay, anger and hostility towards Qantas management; especially Joyce. Some were crying in disbelief at what they were doing to us and this company."

Other Qantas pilots registered their shock and anger over the lockout in much the same way. Our industrial action had so far been low-key and designed to avoid the very dislocation that Qantas was now inflicting on its own customers.
For Peter, the situation was only now sinking in. "My fury was growing by the minute. Not so much for locking us out, but at the absolute contempt with the way it had been enacted — the biggest possible disruption to everyone. One of our business class passengers in fact said . . . 'I now understand why staff are unhappy at this airline — this is the style of management you have to put up with. I would never even contemplate treating any of my staff like this, much less my customers. He is a grade-A f------!' "

Qantas staff, including the cabin crew, tried to help their customers in the terminal as best they could, Peter said. "By this stage I was numb. I still could not understand how anyone could think that this was a rational, calm, measured response . . . He [Joyce] was holding a loaded gun at the head of pilots [including those still in the air], engineers, the travelling public, Fair Work Australia and the government. All timed to cause maximum disruption, to everyone with CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting] and Melbourne Cup. It was an act of true narcissism."

This summed up the general attitude among pilots I spoke with this week. Qantas, unwilling to give an inch on the key sticking point between the parties, had used its economic clout to force government intervention, a termination of industrial action — and, in all likelihood, a binding arbitration decision that will not include the clause that Qantas pilots consider vital to their career prospects.

The grounding marks a nadir in the progressively souring relationship between management and pilots that goes back to the Geoff Dixon era and the setting up of Jetstar. Dixon is quoted in a 2005 interview in ceoforum.com.au as saying that once he had decided to set up Jetstar he didn't talk to the employees unless it was on his terms. "I know some CEOs say, look after your customers, look after your employees, and the returns for shareholders will follow. I do the exact opposite."

As each contract negotiation was signed off in this period, suddenly the plans for Jetstar would expand, cutting into routes previously flown by Qantas pilots (who were effectively barred from entering Jetstar). Joyce, meanwhile, has selectively quoted and distorted the figures to overstate the amount some Qantas pilots are paid.

Joyce has also claimed that pilots want to run the company. We do not — but we wish our expertise in flying matters were listened to at critical times.
Joyce spent much time at the Qantas annual meeting last Friday week complaining about high fuel costs and then defending the decision not to buy the Boeing 777 — the fuel-efficient superstar of long-haul aircraft that almost all of its competitors use. Pilots point out that using the 777 would save about 80 tonnes of fuel per round trip to Los Angeles compared with the ageing 747 for a similar passenger load. This 80 tonnes per round trip amounts to a free flight (fuel-wise) every fourth trip across the Pacific. This saving alone would account for the alleged $200-million loss to international operations that Qantas uses as justification for its Asian-based airline plans.

Why this aircraft was never ordered continues to be a mystery, perhaps explained by the difference in cost compared with the Airbus A330s that were ordered as part of the A380 order. Some of these aircraft were at bargain basement prices. The A330 is a great aircraft in its niche, but is not capable of carrying economic loads from Sydney to Los Angeles or to London.
Pilots have never been able to escape the suspicion that the higher investment cost of the 777, offered just prior to the APA private equity bid in late 2006, was the deciding factor, and one that is costing the airline dearly today.

The choices facing many Qantas pilots now are stark. Qantas has signalled that it prefers to "rebase" pilots outside Australia, thus avoiding Australia's industrial relations system and requirements to pay onshore costs such as superannuation and payroll tax. Pilots want to know why they should have to to relocate outside Australia to retain a job with an Australian airline, presumably on less pay and minimal conditions. Many may simply be made redundant.

Pilots, trained to be always ready for the worst-case scenario, are beginning to look elsewhere. Their skills are in demand with rival airlines struggling to find quality pilots. Qantas has already lost highly experienced captains to the Middle-Eastern competitors, which it blames for many of its woes.

Each of these pilots represents a substantial monetary investment in training by Qantas that the company is evidently prepared to gift to the competition. A 20-year pilot has undertaken many expensive simulator sessions, plus aircraft endorsements for which Qantas has paid. This means their competitors do not reincur that expense and pilots can be put online almost instantly.

Many are former military pilots whose training the taxpayer funded — more than $1 million per pilot. That investment will be lost to the country.
After last weekend's events, the trickle of pilots leaving to take up positions with other airlines is likely to become a flood. Ironically, Qantas could find itself short of crews in the near term as pilots realise that their dreams of a Qantas career are probably over.

Their one hope lies in a South Australian senator who has taken up the cudgels for them. Senator Nick Xenophon's calls for the federal government to re-enforce the provisions of the 1992 Qantas Sale Act had little support in the halls of Parliament House up until last week. That situation may have changed with the actions of Alan Joyce last weekend. The Senate inquiry began yesterday and Joyce received a grilling from angry senators. Changes to cover the loophole in the act that Qantas management are adept at exploiting may be in the works. (The Qantas Sale Act does not refer to any subsidiaries of Qantas. Therefore Qantas is free to start subsidiaries such as Jetstar and RedQ, and transfer all the flying and jobs into those subsidiaries and offshore if required. The act places very strict conditions on Qantas-branded aircraft, but none on Qantas group aircraft like Jetstar.)

If the changes aren't made, then the worst fears of young Australian pilots such as Peter may be realised. In any case it is hard to see how the relationship between staff can be salvaged.

As Peter told me in the wake of Qantas grounding its fleet, "I have never wanted anything else since being a kid than to be a Qantas pilot — and this joke of a chairman and CEO don't give a rat's. My parents remortgaged for my loan to do flying lessons, and they too, are devastated.

"I am also amazed that, now that this is all over, they expect that we can just get on with it. After showing what they think of us and what they ultimately want to do with our profession, we are expected to go back to work and everything is hunky dory? The relationship is terminally poisoned.

"I would like to see my career out at Qantas, but I fear that its days are numbered, and as such, it's time to start looking elsewhere. As for my friends at Virgin, they were appalled by what happened. But since [John] Borghetti took over, they have never been happier." John Borghetti, CEO of Virgin Blue looks like the only winner from this debacle.

*Peter S is a pseudonym. The author is a current Australian airline pilot. The Saturday Age has withheld the name.

piston broke again

5th Nov 2011, 02:19

That sums it all up rather nicely....well said.

Namor

5th Nov 2011, 02:37

Someone, apparently an Oriental, posted this in another Pprune forum:

bakutteh (http://www.pprune.org/members/183730-bakutteh)

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Orient
Age: 55
Posts: 21

My 2 cents...Alan Joyce has succeeded in undermining the Qantas brand, a deliberate move so that JetStar can now emerge singularly to challenge VA. Qantas will eventually fade away and the unions can cry for all they want.

It's not Alan Joyce's battle to lose; its's the QF board's war to win. Alan had secured a handsome pay rise and should he come off badly in this battle, he will go away with a wonderful severance package based on the new pay. He can go away with all the curses and brickbats; but he has won the war for the QF board.

Alan Joyce will be nicely rewarded elsewhere; he has gathered ordnance for Tony Abbot to bomb away at Julia Gillard's government. Soon we will have many hug a ginga days!

Is the top management severance package ever dependent on last drawn pay? I always thought their golden handshakes are mostly arbitrary rewards of huge sums for jobs well screwed up.

Short_Circuit

5th Nov 2011, 03:10

Qantas CEO A.Joyce steps down as CEO over the grounding of the Qantas fleet and takes up the position Chairman of Qantas Group Asia Network.

Being on the nose with Pollies, Pax, Staff and Australians at large, it is the logical next step. He takes a Platinum parachute straight to Asia.

1a sound asleep

5th Nov 2011, 03:27

Slightly different perspective - we have all heard how AJ says "it was the ONLY option". He effectively acknowledged that people may have died because their medical care may have been compromised and that his actions had a dramatic impact on the country's economy.

Think for a minute if there was a national power company that did the same. Shutting down the entire country's power supply because it was the ONLY option

This should be enough for the Government to demand AJ be sacked and buy back 51% of Qantas. If its good enough for the likes of NZ, SQ, EY, EK etc to be Government controlled its good enough (and essential for Australia) that Qantas is protected from an evil CEO and irresponsible board

Remember it was the QF board that wanted to send QF broke with the private equity buyout. Time to take back control of our icon

rh200

5th Nov 2011, 03:40

It is not essential to have QANTAS, they are just over represented in the market, bit more diversification and the other carriers get a bit bigger and it doesn't matter.

We in West Australia saw next to stuff all of QANTAS on our regional routes for decades. They where serviced by MMA Ansett etc. Now Sky West, with QANTAS in the act as well.

The problem is there isn't enough capacity in the other carriers to pick up enough of the slack where its most needed, that will changed. Having so called national airlines, flag carriers is a obsolete view of piss ant nations. We don't need it.

1a sound asleep

5th Nov 2011, 03:43

Having so called national airlines, flag carriers is a obsolete view of piss ant nations. We don't need it.

That is one view. BUT all the airlines that are eating into Qantas' profits/market share are all national airlines/flag carriers owned or part owned by Governments

schlong hauler

5th Nov 2011, 03:51

ACTU against Freehills. Labor against Liberal. Corporate elites against workers. Thank God we live in a democracy. The Labor party performance in parliament this week has given new hope to the PM and Labor. Love them or hate them you have to admit that as Qantas employees it is reassuring to finally have the Government appearing to back us and using the weekends cluster * uck to high light the Liberals way of doing business. I was a liberal voter but perhaps never again. There is I believe after the GFC a ground swell of contempt for the way some Corporations behave and attempt to manipulate information for their own ends. To have a small voice through this and other forums plus the use of twitter during the FWA hearing gives me some hope. Imagine if the 89ers had the ability to communicate so freely and quickly as we do now? Bill Shorten said Qantas lacks leadership and now we can observe at first hand through live feeds, just how prophetic his judgement is.
I will be here at Qantas long after Clifford and Joyce are gone. We are like most employees the true custodians of Qantas. The true believers.

rh200

5th Nov 2011, 03:59

That is one view. BUT all the airlines that are eating into Qantas' profits/market share are all national airlines/flag carriers owned or part owned by Governments

Very true, but we are the ones who espouse the virtue of capitalism etc. Do we become like them? Virgin doesn't seem to bee doing to badly without being government owned.

There is I believe after the GFC a ground swell of contempt for the way some Corporations behave and attempt to manipulate information for their own ends.

Maybe in a lot of things, don't know about the QANTAS dispute though. Think there last straw poll I saw showed 56% supported Joyces actions and another 4% didn't know. It will be interesting if any of the professional pollsters have done any polling to see what they get.

K9P

5th Nov 2011, 04:05

Yes they might be long gone, but all of us have to live with the damage they have done.

1a sound asleep

5th Nov 2011, 04:16

Virgin doesn't seem to bee doing to badly without being government owned.

Virgin doesn't have the totally inept, self serving, greedy, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic board that another company does

Remember Virgin are only still here because of Ansett's demise. They were being squeezed out when Ansett was still alive. Virgin are yet to show a sustained profit and I am hopeful this will turn around. Reality is V Australia has been losing a fortune. The company posted a net loss of $67.8 million for the 12 months to June 30, compared with a profit of $21.3 million a year earlier

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/VBA-EPS.png

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/VBA-ROE.png

shon7

5th Nov 2011, 04:21

What was evident from the hearings yesterday is that the culture at QF is toxic and this will inevitably translate to the service passengers get on board. At the end of the day the revenues - especially the high yield revenue - depends on service. How do both sides intend to address that and not lose out to the airlines that are providing a far superior product in terms of service.

Seriously

5th Nov 2011, 04:25

Reality is V Australia has been losing a fortune

V Australia & Pac Blue made combined 22million before tax profit last financial year:ok:

1a sound asleep

5th Nov 2011, 04:41

Bring me back a Qantas owned by the people. Shares fixed at a Government 51% ownership.
The Flying Kangaroo was famous every where in the world. It was an airline that everybody wanted to fly

6UoSLavikZs

QF94

5th Nov 2011, 04:51

1a such fond memories of what was once a great airline, but let's leave the 80's fashion back there though.

QANTAS isn't dead, YET, but the only way to salvage what's left is the removal of the board (unlikely). We will have to see if there is any resolution come November 21. If not, it will be in the hands of FWA to make their decision on both parties, which inevitably, will affect all of QANTAS and will set a precedent to the rest of the workforce

standard unit

5th Nov 2011, 04:55

the culture at QF is toxic and this will inevitably translate to the service passengers get on board.

It has been Toxic for some time. About 8 years or so, coinciding with Geoff Dixon's regime with things deteriorating of late under our new "leader" for obvious reasons.

Engagement levels at Qantas as measured by professional companies tasked to do this have indicated the kind of low levels never before seen at companies of Qantas's size. Or any company for that matter.

In an effort to re-engage it's workforce Qantas cabin crew management admitted that passenger satisfaction levels with their onboard service of late are tracking at the highest levels in the companies history.

Qantas's operational staff understand very well who the enemy is. We ought to given the bullying, harassment and intimidation we been subjected to for so long.

Those of us who deal with the customer on a daily basis never take it out on them.

Andu

5th Nov 2011, 05:13

In an effort to re-engage it's (sic) workforce Qantas cabin crew management admitted that passenger satisfaction levels with their onboard service of late are tracking at the highest levels in the companies history.Of late???? Gents and ladies, I have much sympathy for the QF workforce in this current fracas, but if your cabin service standards have dropped "of late", you're in real trouble. Your cabin crew have been in need of a major attitude adjustment for some time now. I can't comment about it "of late", but last time I flew with you - some time ago now - the attitude of your cabin crew towards "the cattle" (the fare-paying passengers in steerage) was close to a disgrace.

I flew First Class QF on two occasions over 20 years ago and have to say that was an extremely pleasant experience. However, numerous ventures in Economy since have been another matter altogether. QF needs to bring in a CC General Manager with a brief to slash, SACK and burn. Very deeply.

Those of us who deal with the customer on a daily basis never take it out on them.Given my comments above, I'd really hate to see it if you started to.

MACH082

5th Nov 2011, 05:21

Yep, the old boilers at staff check in at Sydney are a disgrace.

Ask them a question or ask them to re-list you and it's like your asking them to chew on nails.

I have never dealt with such sour faced disengaged masochists who appear to take delight in your predicaments before.

standard unit

5th Nov 2011, 05:59

Andu,

I'm only passing on what management have told us and you haven't flown with QF for a long time.

Thanks for your input.

TIMA9X

5th Nov 2011, 09:25

A pretty good article this one (http://www.theage.com.au/national/view-from-the-cockpit-20111104-1n0cu.html).

This is a great article and really is the truth..... good stuff Peter whoever....

The Kelpie

5th Nov 2011, 09:44

Here's a couple from left field:

Given that the Qantas grounding was, as confirmed by AJ an operational decision and that PIA was not due to start until 8pm on Monday evening what juristiction did FWA have in terminating management's industrial action when it hadn't even started??

What juristiction do FWA have to meddle with the operational decisions of a company?

Given that it was an operational decision and not industrial action the insurance companies must pay out as they are simply flight cancellations and not industrial action which is often excluded. I would then think that it is a case of the insurance companies trying to go after QANTAS. Perhaps this explains why Qantas are being so compliant with the ACCC since the insurance companies may be some of the major shareholders.

More expense for international? I wonder whether this will be charged to corporate like the freight cartel fines!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

clotted

5th Nov 2011, 09:57

Kelpie,
Stick to chasing sheep.
What do you not understand about:
1. The unions PIA was killing Qantas but not killing the national interest
2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout. This was enough to kill the national interest hence the govmint action and hence the FWA decision. Joyce agrees with that. That stops the killing of Qantas. The govmint and the unions didn't believe he'd do this and therefore were caught off guard hence the anger. The rest is a sideshow.

QF94

5th Nov 2011, 10:19

Kelpie,
Stick to chasing sheep.
What do you not understand about:
1. The unions PIA was killing Qantas but not killing the national interest

PIA.
Pilots wearing red ties and making announcements over the PA inflight?
A total of 6 hours stoppage by TWU?
A total of a few hours by ALAEA? If that!

Olivia Wirth told the media QANTAS just can't switch off and switch on an airline during the disputes. AJ managed that quite well. Inconvenienced passengers worldwide, cost QANTAS many tens of millions of dollars, in addition to trashing the brand he accused the unions of doing

2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout. This was enough to kill the national interest hence the govmint action and hence the FWA decision. Joyce agrees with that. That stops the killing of Qantas. The govmint and the unions didn't believe he'd do this and therefore were caught off guard hence the anger. The rest is a sideshow.

AJ could have applied to FWA himself instead of trying to get the government to step in and make a decision, and risk appeal for doing so. I'm no Gillard fan, but I believe she took the only option she had. She took it to FWA and let them make a decision.

Unfortunately clotted, the blood letting at QANTAS was started before the grounding of the airline. This was done by QANTAS management, not the unions. AJ started the death by a "tousand" cuts.

The management have brought nothing to the negotiating table, stonewalled the unions for what they tabled and accused them of making outrageous wage claims. They didn't make a counter offer to claims.

International losing money? Nothing has been substantiated about how the loss has come about other than a figure of $216million plucked out of someone's backside and said here are our figures. "Believe them. They're true. Honest."

If you want to believe the hype from team QF management and the tabloid papers, that's your prerogative.

Pleeeeeease clotted, get your facts right before regurgitating press releases from team QF management and the press.

The Kelpie

5th Nov 2011, 10:21

Hey I only asked because i was unsure.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

V-Jet

5th Nov 2011, 10:35

I remember that ad. Gave me goose bumps watching it.

A Pythonesque/Chasers take on that could be pseudo promo for TORA TORA TORA...

If I had the skills and the time I could have a lot of fun with that:)

If it wasn't heartbreaking....

QF94:
"Believe them. They're true. Honest."
Doesn't count if he had his fingers crossed...

QF94

5th Nov 2011, 11:08

QF94:

Quote:
"Believe them. They're true. Honest."
Doesn't count if he had his fingers crossed...

Ain't that the truth V-Jet!

shon7

5th Nov 2011, 11:11

Don't worry shon7, I will make sure that all passengers get the best service, I will do everything to get our passengers to their destination on time(maybe even early

I would rather be late with a pleasant onboard experience rather than 15-30 early with terrible service. The sooner both unions and mgmt realize this the sooner you can start to win back the high yield passengers.

gobbledock

5th Nov 2011, 11:43

Everyone has been mostly banging on about the commercial impact and implications of this ridiculous saga. Much has and is being said about ethics, decision making processes and traveller inconvenience, all valid arguments that I agree with.
1) However, why is SAFETY rating so low in the scheme of this debacle? Where is the Regulator and their interest in this event?
2) It is obvious that QF's Safety Policy and Just Culture policy have been completely trashed. The adhoc manner in which QF execs instigated this event bring into the question the abilities of those who have been approved to hold the airlines AOC, correct?
3) These same actions contributed to a decline in the airlines ability to function safely, why hasnt the accountable person (CEO) been brought to task on this issue?
4) The continuous engine failures and escalation in service issues over the past few years can no longer be ignored?
5) Further concerns about QF's ability to even undertake 'root cause analysis' is every time there is an incident, or for example the engine issue leading to the diversion onto Dubai, QF hit the media saying 'it is not related to this or not related to that', which is pretty hard to do when the plane is still in the air and an investigation has not yet even started.
6) Where is the risk assessment they supposedly conducted prior to the grounding? The mystery one that somebody has allegedly done in between the close of the Friday AGM, a Board meeting Saturday then the grounding at around 1400 Saturday afternoon? Was the Safety manager involved in this, as he/she should have been?
7) What safety elements or specifics were actually considered as part of the risk assessment matrix? Was passenger personal safety considered? It wouldn't appear that way from the personal interviews and stories being aired.
8) Resources (money and people) are an element of the Safety Management System (SMS), so has QF at any stage assessed NOT the financial implications of restructuring/making staff redundant (the most recent 1000 shafted) but the safety impact on the affected departments an capabilities due those redundancies being made?

As said earlier, it is from a multitude of angles that the current QF activities
need to be thoroughly and comprehensively dissected and analyses, but from a safety perspective that should be number 1.

QF94

5th Nov 2011, 12:11

Gobbledock, just to answer a few questions. There'll be those that will jump all over these and throw in their 2c worth. They're entitled to, and it is warmly encouraged. Nothing like healthy debate.

Everyone has been mostly banging on about the commercial impact and implications of this ridiculous saga. Much has and is being said about ethics, decision making processes and traveller inconvenience, all valid arguments that I agree with.
1) However, why is SAFETY rating so low in the scheme of this debacle? Where is the Regulator and their interest in this event?

AJ had safety first when he grounded the fleet so the pilots wouldn't be distracted mid flight when they got the news that this may be their last flight. The truth is more likely that it isn't newsworthy if it doesn't come from management, unless they report sabotage of some wire being cut while engineers are at lunch in BNE.

2) It is obvious that QF's Safety Policy and Just Culture policy have been completely trashed. The adhoc manner in which QF execs instigated this event bring into the question the abilities of those who have been approved to hold the airlines AOC, correct?

Correct. Again, not newsworthy. Too many people are running for cover from this incident last Saturday, and nobody wants to get too involved, as the heat in the kitchen may be too hot to bear.

3) These same actions contributed to a decline in the airlines ability to function safely, why hasnt the accountable person (CEO) been brought to task on this issue?

Because he had a flight he couldn't miss yesterday. He tells the chairman of the Senate Committee hearing that he has other commitments. Politicians on both side of the political divide are treading carefully on this one, although Doug Cameron and Bob Brown gave him a tongue lashing, but that's all it was.

4) The continuous engine failures and escalation in service issues over the past few years can no longer be ignored?

No they can't, but they are. That would mean they would have to bring the engine overhauls back to Australia where they had a world class engine overhaul facility. Why pay good money for a good job when you can get a crappy job done for a fraction of the price? This is the plan for making a stronger, better QANTAS for the future.

5) Further concerns about QF's ability to even undertake 'root cause analysis' is every time there is an incident, or for example the engine issue leading to the diversion onto Dubai, QF hit the media saying 'it is not related to this or not related to that', which is pretty hard to do when the plane is still in the air and an investigation has not yet even started.

This is the technical explanation of Olivia Wirth who is well versed in Aircraft Maintenance and stating that it's an oil pressure switch problem.

6) Where is the risk assessment they supposedly conducted prior to the grounding? The mystery one that somebody has allegedly done in between the close of the Friday AGM, a Board meeting Saturday then the grounding at around 1400 Saturday afternoon? Was the Safety manager involved in this, as he/she should have been?

AJ is the judge, jury and executioner. It was his decision, and his decision alone. So he says. The board doesn't ask who needs to be involved. They omit those they don't want involved for fear of being advised against something their wishes. That's why they have partners in Freehills as part of their board membership (Mr Garry Hounsell).

7) What safety elements or specifics were actually considered as part of the risk assessment matrix? Was passenger personal safety considered? It wouldn't appear that way from the personal interviews and stories being aired.

Passenger safety? This was about locking out the unions and forcing the government's hand. Passenger safety and satisfaction never entered the risk assessment matrix.

8) Resources (money and people) are an element of the Safety Management System (SMS), so has QF at any stage assessed NOT the financial implications of restructuring/making staff redundant (the most recent 1000 shafted) but the safety impact on the affected departments an capabilities due those redundancies being made?

Absolutely not. If they did, they would not have chosen the path they're on. The cost alone of waging this war against its workers far outweighs the 3% increase being sought. When the board has a spare $3billion dollars in the kitty, it will gladly use this to fight the unions and trash its own brand. After all, their salaries are guaranteed, because it's in their contracts to be paid. No matter what. If they chose to engage the workforce in constructive dialogue and not in dispute, they would get a much better outcome, increased productivity, increased sales and market share and grow the company at the same time. Thee 1,000 redundancies is only the beginning.

As said earlier, it is from a multitude of angles that the current QF activities need to be thoroughly and comprehensively dissected and analyses, but from a safety perspective that should be number 1.

The only thing to be dissected, unfortunately, is the company itself.

DutchRoll

5th Nov 2011, 12:32

Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout.

Only option? Only option?

Stick to chasing sheep.

Stick to making informed, intelligent commentary.....

RIVER1

5th Nov 2011, 13:24

As a retired pilot from Ansett I watch with interest the QF situation and feel there are similarities in that large airlines can become uncompetitive with long inherited overly generous conditions of employment.The world is changing and if employees think a union is going to make their employer pay more than they can then they are destined to feel that shock of loosing your job and livelihood with an employer that you thought was just too big to fail.When I see the likes of Doug Cameron talking in the media I feel like pewking,why is it that when a labor party is in the whole industrial system goes down the drain with strikes and outlandish claims.When AN went down I was fortunate to be a financially independant business person and suffered less than many.AN was mainly a bad management and political problem but the entrenched conditions and entitlements probably kept possible purchasers away.People need to sit down and talk and maybe QF management are at fault to some extent but in my opinion the big unions and labor are a recipe for damage and pain.I do hope I am proved wrong but It would not surprise me if QF becomes a memory.

neville_nobody

5th Nov 2011, 13:52

Here are Dixon's thoughts on the matter:

World a tough place when seen from the Qantas cockpit
Geoff Dixon
November 5, 2011

The national carrier must be allowed to respond nimbly to the demands of a brutally competitive business if it is to survive, writes Geoff Dixon.

Commercial aviation is a tough business. It is in a constant state of change, is hit by more external shocks than most other industries and, historically, has been afflicted by inflexible employment processes and poor productivity.

So it should be no surprise that, when you add the huge capital outlays on aircraft and infrastructure, the returns for airlines are exceedingly poor.

The International Air Transport Association said recently that the industry's profitability on total revenues of $594 billion would produce just a 1.2 per cent net margin. And it predicts profits to fall further in 2012.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Despite all its difficulties the industry is without a doubt one of the most vital in the world. The way we live and the way we do business today depends greatly on aviation.

For Australia, as an island continent, it is more than vital: it is essential - as the events of last weekend highlighted.

The change that has engulfed the industry over the past 30 years, but particularly in the last 10 years, has been profound. It has seen many of the old flag or, as they are now known, "legacy", carriers become nothing less than "endangered species".

These carriers are struggling with all the labour inflexibility their longevity brings, together with continually high fuel costs and, most potent of all, very aggressive and growing competition.

This competition is coming principally from two quarters - national full-service carriers from lower-cost countries of Asia and the Middle East and the growing army of low-cost carriers.

The well-established Asian carriers such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, with their high service ethos, have now been joined by an array of quality carriers that 15 years ago did not exist or were not spoken of in the same vein as a Lufthansa, a British Airways or an American Airlines.

These carriers are epitomised by Emirates, the Dubai-based airline, but include Etihad and Qatar. They are, arguably, the fastest-growing airlines in the world.

They are also very high quality, have low labour costs and attractive taxation and other conditions for skilled expatriate personnel, and exceedingly young and modern aircraft. Most importantly, with these modern aircraft they are superbly placed geographically to service much of the world non-stop.

In more recent times we have also seen the emergence on the global stage of the Chinese mega carriers, China Southern, Air China and China Eastern. These are expanding through rapid organic growth, international growth, acquisitions and a heightened service culture, to compete successfully anywhere around the world. China Southern is now the third-biggest airline

in the world, carrying more than

70 million passengers a year.

All the major Asian, Middle Eastern and Chinese carriers see wealthy Australia as a desirable market. Singapore Airlines has about 90 flights to Australia a week, Emirates is close to that and China Southern has more than 20 flights a week, and is expanding rapidly.

These developments, and the emergence of the low-cost carrier, have changed aviation in ways that could not have been foreseen 20 years ago.

IATA has estimated that there will be 166 billion airline passengers by 2050, up from an estimated 2.8 billion today, with the biggest growth coming in the Asia Pacific region.

Low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet and, in our region, Jetstar and AirAsia, are no longer bit players. They are becoming market leaders, opening up new routes and destinations and providing fierce competition on established ones.

How have the legacy carriers fared in this new and more hostile environment?

Some have disappeared altogether (e.g. PanAm and Ansett) or been renationalised or recapitalised (e.g. Air New Zealand). Many have merged, such as Delta/ Northwest, United/Continental, Air France/KLM and British Airways/Iberia into the International Airlines Group.

Others have started their own low-cost carriers, such as Qantas and, more recently, Iberia. In the past few days Singapore Airlines has joined the fray with its new low-cost subsidiary, Scoot.

Where is the Australian industry in all this?

Australia has, by most measures but particularly compared with Europe and the United States, successful and, in the main, profitable aviation businesses.

Some key events and decisions over the past 20 years have underpinned this position:

The merger of Qantas and Australian Airlines in the early '90s and the subsequent privatisation of Qantas provided the scale and domestic franchise for Qantas's aggressive expansion and profitability. (Without the merger Qantas could not have been privatised and could easily have gone the way of PanAm);

The successful launch by Richard Branson and Brett Godfrey of Virgin Blue, which provided Australians with a real low-cost airline option and put extreme pressure on the cost base of the established players;

The collapse of Ansett in 2001 which, while devastating for those involved, gave further scale and momentum to Qantas and Virgin;

Qantas's successful launch of Jetstar in 2004 and its rapid transformation into a hugely successful and profitable domestic and international carrier; and

Prudent policy settings in Canberra, it must be conceded, have also significantly enabled the industry to restructure.

Successive governments of all political persuasions have supported Qantas as the "national carrier", opening up access to the Australian market just ahead of demand, thus giving Qantas time to adapt and change.

Qantas itself has also worked hard to meet the changing industry circumstances.

Over the past 15 years it has cut waste in all areas and created a portfolio of successful businesses, such as the Qantas domestic airline, QantasLink, Qantas Frequent Flyer and Jetstar, to make it one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

Unfortunately its international business is labouring, as are most of its older counterparts, with the inflexibility that time creates.

The fact is that Qantas's overall profitability and ability to expand, despite the occasional good year for its international arm, is being underwritten by its domestic businesses and, to an increasing extent, its frequent flyer and Jetstar subsidiaries.

Hence the desire to follow Jetstar into Asia by establishing a full-service international subsidiary that will help provide a more competitive overall cost base for the entire international airline. They will find it difficult, but Qantas unions should be supportive of any strategy, including basing a full-service airline subsidiary in Asia, that will increase the profitability of the group and enable further investment and growth in the various businesses - for this is a sure way to keep and grow jobs in Australia!

Why? Well, no matter what Qantas does in Asia or elsewhere in the world, the great core of its operations for practical and logistical, as well as brand and emotional reasons, must remain in Australia.

Qantas has about 36,000 employees, more than 32,000 of them in Australia, supporting thousands a week of domestic QantasLink and Jetstar flights, freight, corporate and sales services and, of course, international flights.

These operations require, and will always require, massive numbers of people, including skilled pilots, engineers, technicians and the like.

Finally, I believe the Qantas Sale Act must be interpreted in the interests of Qantas's long-term survival in what is a brutal industry. Making the act more inflexible would be a major backwards step.

For instance Qantas cannot walk away from potential mergers if a suitable opportunity arose for the management and board to consider.

Such an opportunity would require a more mature response than seen in Australia in 2008, when there was an opportunity for Qantas to merge as a major partner with British Airways.

That this did not happen was a lost opportunity for Qantas and for Australia.

Geoff Dixon was the chief executive and managing director of Qantas from 2000 to 2008.

Read more: World a tough place when seen from the Qantas cockpit (http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-a-tough-place-when-seen-from-the-qantas-cockpit-20111104-1mzpb.html#ixzz1cq4VUYwZ)

aseanaero

5th Nov 2011, 13:56

I wonder what the national security impact would be of not having the Qantas Jet Base around for maintenance ? Perhaps General Cosgrove could comment on that , that's in his range of expertise.

The next problem with outsourcing is you're at the mercy of the 'supplier' , once you don't have your own maintenance facility and capacity in the market gets constrained what looks like a cheap option now could get more expensive than doing the maintenance in Oz.

.

lame1

5th Nov 2011, 14:29

Yes the aviation world is in constant change but one thing that hasnt changed is the top level greed.What productivity have the CEO's at Qantas produced in the last 5 yrs in return for the 55 M dollars they have been paid.Id suggest GD concentrate on the next jingle for Tourism Australia.The industry is suffering from most of the decisions of the last 10 yrs.

simsalabim

5th Nov 2011, 20:21

The usual ravings on from GD. Interestingly no mention of the failed Airline Partners private equity bid in the recent history of Qantas as seen through the eyes of the esteemed $10 million dollar man.

dkaarma

5th Nov 2011, 22:25

http://www.kudelka.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ST111106.jpg
Jon Kudelka Kudelka Cartoons › Qantas Waiting Card (http://www.kudelka.com.au/2011/11/qantas-waiting-card/)

Gold!

my oleo is extended

5th Nov 2011, 23:02

Well well well, some comments from the super chief, Dixon!
I appreciate that Geoff, as I have printed off your comments an placed the paperwork strategically in my ensuite ****ter.

Dixon babbled on about aviation being a brutal industry and adapting to a regularly changing environment, interesting. Is that why QF group managers were detained in Vietnam, freight cartel price fixing scams were uncovered, QF international has supposedly not turned a profit in eons despite all methods of managing the business under the iron fist of Dixon and Joyce? What about wrong aircraft choice and the travesty of not introducing the 777? Yes Geoff, Alan, et al, you have done a splendid job of adapting to a changing business environment to date haven't you?
In fact, if history is anything to go by, each decision you have made has negatively impacted the business (refer to the current share price as to it's $5.60 value from many moons ago) history would suggest that with whatever decisions you make, the exact opposite is more effective. That therefor means that grounding the airline, fighting the unions an making staff redundant is exactly the opposite to what the company needs to do to remain competitive and sustainable.

The nail in QF's coffin will be the Asian adventure that management excitedly are pursuing. I hope the burial plot has been dug because the coffin is ready to be lowered.

DutchRoll

5th Nov 2011, 23:51

Alan Joyce has said in all the papers this morning that he's really really really double super secret sorry for the Qantas grounding. Sorrier than a really sorry thing.

http://natna.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/crocodile-tears-1.jpg

simsalabim

6th Nov 2011, 00:02

And the Corporate back up machine is kicking in nicely. Swaying little Aussie battler's public opinion in the "Battler's Bible" The Telegraph this morning. It never ceases to amaze me how they can turn their dedicated readership against itself with these stories.

The Numbers Man: How Alan Joyce soared to become Qantas boss | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/the-numbers-man-how-alan-joyce-soared-to-become-qantass-boss/story-e6freuy9-1226186471812)

hotnhigh

6th Nov 2011, 00:11

Just a shame no journo asked Alan the following....
If the grounding of the qantas fleet created an imminent safety risk, (as determined via your internal risk assessment) and aircraft either taxiing, lined up or about to push were told to return to blocks,
Why were aircraft that were airborne at the time, not told to landed at the nearest suitable airport?
Was there somehow different levels of imminent safety risk identified in the risk assessment? If so, please explain?
So many questions Alan.

Short_Circuit

6th Nov 2011, 00:25

A quote from the above Telegraph article by AJ

The best analogy is your car - 20 years ago you had to check the oil and water every weekend. Do you remember?You couldn't go a weekend without doing it? Now when do you check the oil and water? With new cars you don't have to. And that's the equivalent with aircraft technology. We're doing things we should have stopped 20 years ago."
Crapola, go and read your owner handbook for your car, I have, it will state something to the effect;
"The oil level & coolant should be checked at least weekly".... and more often if used in extreme operating conditions (My wording following.ie. Such as a car driving in the outback or aircraft flying non-stop across the Pacific or Indian Oceans. .).

Just People being lazy or ignorant..:ugh:

DutchRoll

6th Nov 2011, 00:35

Cosgrove's opinion too, is a disgrace.

It very much confirms what this former military man (ie, me) thinks about his dramatic about-turn in leadership since he left the military and joined the Qantas Board.

Then again, I never had any doubt that as an Infantry Officer he always figured a large aeroplane with complex systems carrying 400 people at 1000 km/h at 39,000 ft can be operated just like a Unimog.

rmcdonal

6th Nov 2011, 01:02

Why were aircraft that were airborne at the time, not told to landed at the nearest suitable airport?
Why were the aircraft in the air told about it at all? Would it not have been a better option to keep them in the dark until after the aircraft landed, and then to let the customer service guys explain the whole thing to the pax and crew once safely on the ground?
And why were QLink and Jetstar allowed to fly? Did the risk assessment cover them? Or was it assumed that pilots from these companies would not feel worried or distracted? If big brother falls there would be collateral damage in these companies as well.

Ixixly

6th Nov 2011, 01:24

"There's no guarantee of the right to exist. You have to fight for it and I think thats what we're doing." - Alan Joyce

Fight for it, just like the Unions are doing, fighting for their futures, fighting for practices that have kept their aircraft relatively safe for the last 60 years. Good on ya Alan, nice double standards.

As they said, hes a number man, its all numbers for him and pushing those numbers to their limits, eventually though with that philosophy you eventually push those numbers too far and something happens, generally in Aviation that something could be a smoking hole in the ground. I think we're all wondering if thats what it will take for people like Alan Joyce to really wake up and smell the roses and realise the part he has played in it.

Baxter Dewall

6th Nov 2011, 01:27

rmcdonal asked;

1. "And why were QLink and Jetstar allowed to fly?"

Probably because you can do min rest overnights, and only get 8 days off per mth of which not all have to be in blocks of two consecutive days. QLINK pilots can fly 90+ hrs per mth without overtime and JQ's overtime threshold is a lot higher than 55 hrs per month. In other words, both QLINK and JQ have much more "friendly and flexible" workplace agreements in place(read cheaper). That is the issue here; nothing else.

2. "If big brother falls there would be collateral damage in these companies as well."

Big Brother is not going to fall. Remember the company posted a $500+ million dollar profit last year, and has not posted a loss for how long??
There is 3+ Billion in the bank and the Company is very strong and diversified to cover all facets.

It's union busting 101 and nothing more.

Trent 972

6th Nov 2011, 01:37

QANTAS Executive Manager, Industrial Relations Ms. Sue Bussell in a letter to Australian and International Pilots Association dated Friday 14 October 2011 writes

“Qantas again requests that AIPA withdraw its AOEC (Qantas Flight, Qantas Pilot) claim and make the related consequential amendments to other claims….. In the absence of AIPA doing so, Qantas sees no value in further conferences before FWA”On the 19th October the Queen arrived in Australia for an eleven day tour.
On 29th October Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth departed Perth to return to the UK and immediately Joyce grounds QANTAS and says the decision was only made on that day and that it was the only option available.
Would QANTAS board member General P.J. Cosgrove AC, MC give his vote to lock out the staff and ground the fleet, while HRH was in country?
Perhaps the decision to lock out employees and ground the airline really was made on the 14 October in line with the Bussell letter and delayed until after the Queens departure.
The QANTAS board meeting on the morning of the 29th October was probably just to confirm if they were really going ahead with the pre-planned scheme, having had the 'snout trough' filled to capacity, at the previous days AGM.

QF94

6th Nov 2011, 02:28

As they said, hes a number man, its all numbers for him and pushing those numbers to their limits, eventually though with that philosophy you eventually push those numbers too far and something happens, generally in Aviation that something could be a smoking hole in the ground. I think we're all wondering if thats what it will take for people like Alan Joyce to really wake up and smell the roses and realise the part he has played in it.

Not at all. People at that level will just shift the blame onto their opposing forces, saying it was they who caused the distractions and all the problems that the management was trying to fix.

Mstr Caution

6th Nov 2011, 02:42

The QANTAS board meeting on the morning of the 29th October was probably just to confirm if they were really going ahead with the pre-planned scheme, having had the 'snout trough' filled to capacity, at the previous days AGM.

Could someone with a legal knowledge please advise.

If Alan Joyce called the board meeting for saturday 29th October, is it a legal requirement to record the minutes of the meeting.

If so, are these minutes available for public, shareholder or senate inquiry scrutiny?

MC

gobbledock

6th Nov 2011, 02:47

I agree, todays article about 'the numbers man' was nauseating. Joyces skill set is number crunching and mathematics, not safety systems or safety related risk, this is evident by his decisions.
Cosgrove makes me reach for the vomit bucket, it is a crying shame to see a pure blooded Australian turn into the :mad: he now is.

Also Joyce says he doesnt like name calling and racism, fair enough statement, but I take umbrage at him claiming to understand and know what Qantas means to Australians as a national icon and part of our culture??? Well no you don't you f:mad:Knuckle. You may have been nationalized in 2003 but you aren't and never will be a full blooded Australian with the same concerns for our national icon as some of us have. You are about as Australian as river dancing and the Eiffel tower!

ohallen

6th Nov 2011, 02:50

I think you can guarantee there were minutes of that meeting because the directors would have insisted upon it to cover their individual and collective arses.

The real issue is whether those minutes accurately reflect what occurred. Given as there has unlikely been another meeting since that date, the draft minutes would remain so until adopted and approved at a subsequent meeting.

Minutes are not generally available BUT they could be sought by Senate, any Regulatory authority or during any legal procedures. Hence para 2.

I think that opens up a few opportunities doesn't it?

gobbledock

6th Nov 2011, 03:00

They minutes from management meetings is also something that CASA often ask to see during audit, to ensure safety matters are being raised, discussed and any deficiencies mitigated.
But of course as we know, CASA are too scared to go after QF and prefer to poke around and make life unbearable for smaller operators. Nonetheless we will see CASA finally break through the QF barrier and investigate them to ensure the same standards are being met by QF as what the rest of Australian aviation community is expected to exhibit?
Yeah, I thought as much.

Disengagement

6th Nov 2011, 03:34

Free tickets, very clever indeed ,selling air , free ticket subject to availability and by accepting free ticket give up any right for class action suit . The Spin Doctors have been busy in the Bunker.

ohallen

6th Nov 2011, 04:09

Dont forget also with current reported loads on the Rat they have plenty of capacity to give away.

Do they really think consumers are so stupid as to buy this for a long term change?

It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to pander to the ACCC, give some cheap shots while they finish off the execution of the Joyce Plan.

There was not a person in that Senate room the other day that bought the constant and repetitive spin (and please change the tune on the car servicing it is like a broken and chipped record).

somewhereat1l

6th Nov 2011, 04:33

Forward loads are very poor. To Europe in December, normally full but checking now there are some days with only half full A380's

Tomorrow morning SYD-MEL peak hour almost 100 seat available.

Great time to use staff travel :ok:

Deaf

6th Nov 2011, 04:40

Then again, I never had any doubt that as an Infantry Officer he always figured a large aeroplane with complex systems carrying 400 people at 1000 km/h at 39,000 ft can be operated just like a Unimog

Isn't that why the army wanted the choppers? They are just a type of truck.

MTOW

6th Nov 2011, 05:00

Forward loads are very poorEver one to try to put a positive spin on everything - (maybe I should get a job with Jooliar) - if that's the case, it's good news for anyone on staff travel.

aseanaero

6th Nov 2011, 05:37

Can anyone name a major airline that DOESN'T have it's own maintenance base in their home country and outsources 100% of their major maintenance ?

Is it really cheaper to maintain an aircraft in Asia ? Ok the labor cost is $25 an hour but the customs delays, back handers (how are they going to handle that ?) are going to be issues and the skill level ISN'T to Qantas standards with very few exceptions. I've had customers wait 6 months to get a D check completed on a B737 here in Indonesia !

Cactusjack

6th Nov 2011, 05:38

One example - - - I have flown the family (6 of us) SYD/LAX/SYD each year for the past 3 years. Now for personal reasons I hate Virgin with a burning passion, but I just paid for my next trip for the family to LA with them. Why? Well QF now has the most unreliable, expensive ****e service for that route ever. No more getting screwed around by them, no more crammed antiquated 747 for me. Virgin are offering a modern aircraft, better leg room, better meals and better IFE. To hell with Joyce and his mainline international operation which is absolutely pathetic, he can shove it, I am voting with my feet.
Borghetti, you have just picked up my international business as well as domestic flights effective immediately. I never ever thought I would say it of do it. Well done Virgin, there is absolutely no doubt that the longer Joyce and co stay at Qantas the bigger the Virgin business will grow. I may be one voice but I now know several other businesses deserting QF. I do wish all the Qantas staff (below management level) all the best in your battle, you don't deserve to be shat on by the rogue Irish imbecile. I hope in my heart that you can win me back one day.

aseanaero

6th Nov 2011, 05:43

I know a few other people like CactusJack , these are Q Platinum and Gold FF and they said if they're status is recognised by other airlines they are moving ...

V1OOPS

6th Nov 2011, 05:55

Besides hearing of others swapping allegiances, I personally know of one leading travel agent tour rep, a Qantas gold FF and long time Qantas fan, who was offered Lounge access last week on their first/forced flight with Virgin. My acquaintance, who didn't reveal who they worked for, questioned the offer thinking it was a mistake, but to their increasing disbelief they were then given a Virgin gold FF card and a premium seat!

One new convert who just happens to be responsible for hundreds of bookings a week.

aseanaero

6th Nov 2011, 05:58

This is the biggest surprise consequence of the Joyce grounding , Platinum and Gold FF, 20 to 40 year customers moving away from Qantas, Q's most loyal customers.

Ngineer

6th Nov 2011, 06:02

The Libs showed their true colours on the news tonight when discussing the lockout debacle with Penny Wong. Seemed totally against the QF workforce. It seems work choices is still very much on the agenda.

This is the biggest surprise consequence of the Joyce grounding , Platinum and Gold FF, 20 to 40 year customers moving away from Qantas, Q's most loyal customers.

They have also lost the support of many of the family and friends of staff who work there. Word does travel quick!!

MACH082

6th Nov 2011, 06:10

Its a precarious situation we find ourselves in right now.

On one hand Labor will destroy the country with existing policies and I want to see them suffer for what they are doing.

On the other, man if Abbott and co get in they will support the 1% who own the government and control business. There will be some type of revamp of industrial relations much to our detriment.

We need a fair dinkam third option to keep the bastards honest. Unfortunately this has been the greens and independents. Look what happened.

What to do what to do.

Short_Circuit

6th Nov 2011, 06:15

Free qantas flights to anywhere in Oz (not many) & NZ? qantas does not fly to NZ, J* & Jetconnect does, not qantas.

onetrack

6th Nov 2011, 06:27

Now let me get this right. Joyce claims Qantas is unable to pay a cent more in wages to the "less than 20% of employees" (his words) who are agitating for some seemingly modest pay increases.

Joyce refuses to even talk to these people (indicating a total lack of communicative ability, let alone leadership ability) - yet he grounds the airline, without a shred of care for anyone, be they employee or customer - costing the airline something in the order of $30 to $40M, in initial grounding costs? (haven't seen, and probably never will see, the actual cost of this grounding, in relation to daily, ongoing costs).

Now, after some rumblings from the ACCC, whereby the ACCC has told Qantas that it has to... "reimburse passengers for everything from hotel and transport costs, to missed pleasure cruises and flights booked whilst Qantas was grounded".

This payout is going to be substantially more than the miserable $350 per passenger, initially offered by Qantas - and it could become a very substantial figure, when people start claiming lost income because they missed flights to their workplaces (surgeons missing surgery appointments come to mind) - or they decide to sue. :uhoh:

The end result is going to be, that the total cost of this grounding exercise is easily likely to be something in the region of $100M, if the compensation is substantial, and the compensation outlays are properly accounted for - and not hidden in the mass of "running cost" figures, that the Qantas Board appear to be very good at manipulating.

So... in the washup... Joyce claims he is totally unable to pay any increased pay claims... yet he can blow (read "waste") up to a possible $100M on an exercise that achieved little more than worldwide anger from employees, the travelling public, politicians, and aviation groups... and which militant exercise, also trashed the airline brand, that he was appointed to, to supposedly "nurture" and "improve" its profitability?

Is there any doubt left in anyones mind what Joyce really plans to do with Qantas?? :suspect:

aseanaero

6th Nov 2011, 06:32

As a former Gold FF (I don't travel much anymore) and 30 year customer of Q I will still fly Q if it gives me the best routing (which it normally does) and I will pay a 20% or 30% premium over other airlines , if Q becomes say Philippine Airlines disguised as a Kangaroo that willingness to pay a premium disappears.

I think the bean counters and bankers are assuming the revenue line stays the same when they punch in the revised cost structures moving significant chunks of operational costs off shore into their financial models , my gut feel is a business which is going to be worth less not more from a pure financial perspective.

It would be interesting to see how the loss of Platinum and Gold FF has impacted income over the next 6 months , how much money just walked out the door ? Are the numbers of Platinum and Gold FF publically reported anywhere in Qantas annual reports ? This is something that the existing management will want NOT to report. Anyone on the inside able to leak these figures ?

Also for a 'private company' there's a lot of blurring between a private company and 'an essential service' and getting the government involved when it suits them , I think the whole ownership and future of Qantas needs to be reviewed , maybe the government needs to buy back 51% (at current share prices it's cheap) and put some staff representation on the board. To lose a NATIONAL ASSET like the Qantas Jet Base and the skills and training it provides would be a disaster long term for short term gain after the financial locusts have made their windfall profit and moved on. Ex Qantas engineers are highly sort after overseas so the skills and training are recognised by the market.

With regards to baggage handling and other services which HAVE TO BE IN OZ , how are they going to reduce costs on that ? Bring in slave workers from Khazakhstan after outsourcing to a private company ? Everyone looks down on the baggage handlers but the quickest way to have an angry customer is for their bags not to turn up within 15 to 20 mins after the flight arrives, an important part of the customer satisfaction chain.

I have never before been involved in these worker vs management discussions but the arrogance of the grounding and the unequal playing field being used against people I went to school with , learnt to fly with etc who are well intentioned average Aussies pisses me off.

Also if there has been deception , back room deals and other foul play by management these issues need to be investigated and the players exposed to the process of law and not swept under the carpet. Joyce is a willing but disposable hand puppet who will be gone once his mission is done , who is really pulling the strings ?

ps . I would much rather fly on a 777 than an A330 , why did they buy those 'fly by HAL' aircraft ?

-

piston broke again

6th Nov 2011, 06:43

So does Jetconnect wear the cost of these free flights to/from NZ? Or does it come off Qantas' books...?

QF94

6th Nov 2011, 07:30

piston broke again
So does Jetconnect wear the cost of these free flights to/from NZ? Or does it come off Qantas' books...?

They'll come off the QANTAS books. Jet Connect will tell QANTAS it's your stuff up you pay for it.

onetrack
So... in the washup... Joyce claims he is totally unable to pay any increased pay claims... yet he can blow (read "waste") up to a possible $100M on an exercise that achieved little more than worldwide anger from employees, the travelling public, politicians, and aviation groups... and which militant exercise, also trashed the airline brand, that he was appointed to, to supposedly "nurture" and "improve" its profitability?

This will run into hundreds of millions. If the engineers IA in 2008 reportedly cost the company $150million for a few hours stoppage, this IA by Joyce will run into hundreds of millions.

Short_Circuit
Free qantas flights to anywhere in Oz (not many) & NZ? qantas does not fly to NZ, J* & Jetconnect does, not qantas.

QANTAS does fly to NZ, but not many flights.

TIMA9X

6th Nov 2011, 08:10

Joyce is a willing but disposable hand puppet who will be gone once his mission is done , who is really pulling the strings ?

I agree,
Probably why the board are saying nothing and keeping a low profile.....

eVJCSfovyDs

Handbrake

6th Nov 2011, 09:25

TIMA9X,
You always manage to come up witht the goods when we need you. Do you happen to have any copies of the afternoon session (Woodward, Jackson and Purvinas) at the Senate Inquiry last Friday?
Or anyone else for that matter.
Cheers

TIMA9X

6th Nov 2011, 09:49

Sorry guys, only the morning show with AJ and cast, (focused on AJ that day... ) surely someone at AIPA or over SP's HQ...... or TWU...... can get it posted?

MR WOBBLES

6th Nov 2011, 09:52

what part of the sale act is so hard to understand

QANTAS SALE ACT 1992 - SECT 7 Qantas' articles of association to include certain provisions (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/qsa1992120/s7.html#qantas)

(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and

(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:

(i) its company name; or

(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"; and

(g) require that the head office of Qantas always be located in Australia; and

(h) require that of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled international air transport services (for example, facilities for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration), the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas; and

(i) require that, at all times, at least two-thirds of the directors of Qantas are to be Australian citizens; and

(j) require that, at a meeting of the board of directors of Qantas, the director presiding at the meeting (however described) must be an Australian citizen; and

(k) prohibit Qantas, at all times, from taking any action to become incorporated outside Australia.

peuce

6th Nov 2011, 10:33

(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:

Unfortunately, it doesn't prohibit a company that Qantas OWNS from doing those nasty things.... :{

1a sound asleep

6th Nov 2011, 10:47

(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:

(i) its company name; or

(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"

Still dont understand how they can use the jetstar name. Qantas doesnt seem defined as being the parent company or the airline

600ft-lb

6th Nov 2011, 11:09

Nothing in the act stipulates that Qantas must be X size and subsidiaries can only be Y size, or a limit of capital allocated to subsidiaries etc.

The act is basically worthless in the sense that they could if they want, totally stop investing in the Qantas brand, a bit like cancelling the A380s and not purchasing any new narrowbody aircraft in the recent bout of orderings and not actually, firmly allocating any of the 787s to anyone except 'jetstar is getting the first 15'.

So in that sense, they are within the bounds. Meanwhile the 767s still trundle around, the 734s are still stop gapping lack of investment in new narrowbody aircraft and the 330s (bar the latest 4 domestic ones) are starting to look a bit tired. Not to forget to mention the 90000 hour 747s syd-per-syd daily.

Now is that 747 syd-per-syd with international pilots, international f/a's, international fleet allocation, being paid for by domestic or the international cash bleeding segment? The mind boggles.

Dixons Millions

6th Nov 2011, 18:22

clotted:

2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout.

You are wrong. There was another choice available. AJ could have fronted FWA and threatened lockout on given day (i.e. we WILL be commencing lockout on Oct.....) and this would have then required FWA to accomplish same, except without the grounding of the entire fleet, saving Q 100M or so, and yet to be determined stupid amounts of $ in lost customers. AJ knew this. Why then the theatrics clott...?

aseanaero:

Is it really cheaper to maintain an aircraft in Asia ? Ok the labor cost is $25 an hour but the customs delays, back handers (how are they going to handle that ?) are going to be issues and the skill level ISN'T to Qantas standards with very few exceptions. I've had customers wait 6 months to get a D check completed on a B737 here in Indonesia !

Read a real good article the other day, about China becoming less and less competitive globally as time goes on. Wages on the increase, manufacturing costs on the increase...Western companies that once needed to have bases there due to cheaper costs/labour are now returning home to do it in-house. Why? Simple math, at 10 odd % inflation compared to the 3 odd % at home, they become expensive. Advantage lost. As a self proclaimed math genius one would think AJ would understand this. So offshoring engineering etc by the little man using the $ advantage as the excuse will soon, if not already, disappear.

My two cents worth? China is not the saviour of all Western evils (for many reasons, see another thread, Globalisation...) They are a bubble, one that AJ and his bunch of inbred clowns just don't see. As we all know, the big Q are always the last to the party. What was that game we all used to play, when we were silly and small like AJ, and about the same age...? Oh yeah, thats it! Pass the Parcel! 10 in the room, 9 chairs...AJ will soon be flying a fleet of shiny new A320 toys into China when the music has already stopped...

AJ, LC et al, your stupid Asian experiments will not work. Certainly none have worked to date, so why do you keep throwing good money after bad?

aseanaero

6th Nov 2011, 19:00

Other examples of 'Asian efficiency' , a large wide body maintenance facility is now charging $15,000 to move a CFM56 from the engine shop to the store , about 5 minutes by forklift

"You want your aircraft signed off quickly (prioritised) after maintenance Mister ?" ... translated : please leave your envelope on the table or it will take us another few weeks to sort it out

Another personal experience was a 2 week HF installation which spun out to 2 months !

2 engine stands being stuck in customs for 4 months as they were second hand and needed a special clearance for import from the dept of trade , even though the engine shop was in a bonded area. They were in country for 1 week for loading and re-export and a $45,000 bill for storage.

I look after a few turboprop freighters here in Indo and we flew the aircraft to Australia for a scheduled engine change to avoid having an engine stuck in customs ...

On paper it may look good cost wise but then you have to factor in how much 'unscheduled delays' from customs , the maintenance facility staff and other people who can and will make life difficult. These are the realities of most low cost Asian countries.

How much does a grounded B747 cost per day ?

Shed Dog Tosser

6th Nov 2011, 20:20

Clotted,

The general public and Government are not ****ty about QF/Joyce locking out the LH Pilots / Engineers / Baggage staff, that was OK to lock out.

But he grounded the airline, what of the domestic pilots ?, they were not using PIA, what about all the other staff ?.

This action was as Captain Jackson/Woodward stated, Joyce holding a knife to Australia's throat.

I am pretty sure the amendment to the QSA is going to be very unpleasant for Joyce, the fact that he antagonised the Government by grounding the fleet will/has made things very much worse for him.

The proposed amendment to the QSA was a little inert, but the new and improved amendment will not be.

So, whilst the AIPA, ALEA, and TWU might not like what FWA will "arbitrate", an appropriate amendment to the QSA will be far more reaching than a couple of EBA's with some watery clauses, so it can be a massive win via proxy ( Senator Nick and the QSA amendment ).

Well played Unions !!!!!!!!!.

Tankengine

6th Nov 2011, 22:42

I personally have flown a 330 SIN-MNL, 48hrs on the ground, -SYD all empty ferry. Assuming our engineers are on over $1000 per hour and the Philipinos are free it is still a way to bleed money!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

peuce

6th Nov 2011, 23:03

Qantas doesnt seem defined as being the parent company or the airline

The Qantas Sale Act 1992 defines "Qantas" as:

Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time (even if its name is later changed).

My view is that the "intent and spirit" of the Act prohibits similar actions on the part of its subsidiaries, however, the "detail" of the current Act appears not to.... or at least it's debatable.

Therefore ... we have the Senators' proposed amendment ...

So, it's really now up to the Government ... to decide if it wants to allow Qantas the latitude it demands, with all the associated National issues that creates ... or to reign it in, also with many associated Corporate issues.

My view is that the "spirit" of the Act was known when it was privatised and that the management, after conducting their due diligence, should have created their business plan, based on the implications of the Act.

My further view is that, if the current management can't operate the Company successfully, within the confines of the spirit of the Act, then they should step aside for an alternative Team.

TIMA9X

7th Nov 2011, 01:07

My further view is that, if the current management can't operate the Company successfully, within the confines of the spirit of the Act, then they should step aside for an alternative Team. Great words mate, if the management spent half as much time getting on with the job "competing with the opposition" rather than blaming everyone else by employing people like Freehills as consultants to change the playing field alienating the staff and its customers. These consultants have bogged down any positive constructive initiatives to counter the competition from the other international carriers. Other words, these consultants have hijacked the day to day running of the business by diverting the attention away from "positive action" to "what if we change this piece of legislation or IR rules etc" a lawyers picnic day aboard the gravy train...

Meanwhile the operational staff end up running the airline with no positive clear direction set by the management, only mixed messages always in the negative like,
1. we are moving somewhere to Asia with 120 single aisle NEO's that Airbus wouldn't have built without the support of Qantas!

2. Not investing any more in the International arm of Q

3. Ground the airline (the day after the AGM) not telling anyone, now offering free flights to say sorry, then in a few weeks AJ will announce a profit warning blaming everyone else but not recognising that in fact his decision to a lockout, the board supporting it all along, and their combined handling of all the issues this year leading up to the pending profit warning announcement, in real terms 80% caused by the management themselves.

I believe the long haul experiment with J* is starting to wear thin with the punters.... tried it once now want to go back to a full service experience which they prefer. The punters are discovering the "low cost" model for Australia long haul ain't that much cheaper than what the full service airlines offer. (EK 30 kilos baggage allowance.) Who wants to squabble with the restrictive low cost check in rules when you are traveling to London?

from another thread.

Revenue seat factor Qantas International was higher than Jetstar International. Jetstar actually went backwards 4.2% from same time last year.I doubt in the long term Jetstar will ever replace the Q long haul traditional model. People will quietly vote with their feet leaving the Q group all together for the opposition. I wonder who management will blame when this trend becomes more obvious? The consultants?

.

V-Jet

7th Nov 2011, 01:14

Shed Do (and others). I think I speak for all at Qantas who would say that **IF** there are efficiencies we can make to secure the future of the airline then we would be happy to accommodate Qantas.

We want survival of the airline. What we are upset about is the blatant gutting of the place from management.

So, whilst FWA arbitrator may be painful, it is way better than anything Qantas would have otherwise forced.

I am by nature a very nervous person in front of courtrooms, but in this instance I believe Alan Joyce my have helped us immeasurably. One thing is certain. It could not possibly be any worse than it would be if Qantas were in charge. Grounded for wearing red ties and making a 10 second PA is an example of bad, then everything else can only be good:)

Surely??

Although we could have just heard the doors close on the cattle trucks on our journey to Poland in 1941 i suppose:(

QF94

7th Nov 2011, 02:24

Who in this forum remembers the words uttered by AJ on August 16 about "for every 100 passengers fying out of Australia, only 18 choose to fly QANTAS"? Come on. Hands up! I can see you out there.

As this figure has never sat right with me, and constantly seeing the loads that leave Sydney on a QANTAS flight destined beyond our shores, the planes looked more than 18% full to me. Virtually standing room only (that's another airline's proposition).

Anyhow, I have been doing a little research of my own and I came across these figures at Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

The figures I'm putting up here are as recent as August 2011. If you read them as they are, Mr Joyce is correct.

Out of 1,159,372 outbound passengers, QANTAS carried only 209,339 of those passengers. This equates to 18%. So what you say. That's what he told the Australian public on that day, and that is accepted. That's why we have to restructure the International arm, send jobs offshore and employ foreigners at a much cheaper rate.

But wait! There's more!!

These figures include EVERY airline that flys out of Australia to destinations that QANTAS does not fly to, and does not compete against. A QANTAS plane does not fly to Malaysia. It is therefore not in direct competition with Malaysian. A QANTAS plane does not fly to Canada, therefore it is not in direct competition with Air Canada, and so on. As you remove the airlines QANTAS is not in competition with, by removing the destinations they don't fly to, the percentage of passengers carried out of Australia on a QANTAS plane increases dramatically.

The ammended figures I'm giving here are for August 2011 only.

Airlines that QANTAS is in direct competition with carried 662,520 passengers. Of that 662,250, JQ carried 100,374. I'll use the 662,520 figure just to show the "creative" number crunching of AJ. This number jumps to 31.597385739%. I'll just round that DOWN to 31%

Going to the US run alone, the figures are:

QANTAS 48,653
United 18,191
Delta 7,050
Hawaiian 5,195

I can see AJ's 18% of capacity there.

Singapore outbound:

Singapore Airlines 96,249
QANTAS 37,594
JQ 12,504
Emirates 5,331
Tiger 3,379
British 1,969
Etihad 609

Out of a total of 157,635 passengers carried to Singapore, QANTAS carried 23.8% and I'll round that DOWN to 23%. Still better than the 18% AJ mentioned.

One more destination. Hong Kong:

Cathay 61,459
QANTAS 23,533
Virgin Atlantic 3,729

A total of 88,721 passenger to Hong Kong, that's the best part of 26% of passengers carried. Not 18%.

These are but just a few of the flights over one month.

If you want to check these figures for yourself, here's the link:

International Airline Activity - Monthly Publications (http://www.btre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=211&NodeId=103)

They are month by month.

There needs to be an uncovering of the truth as to how this man, AJ, has deceived the Australian public, the business sector and its investors, and the Australian government as to the dire need of QANTAS to outsource and offshore the company and grounding of an airline under false pretences for an illegitimate cause for the benefit of but a few at the expense of many.

ACT Crusader

7th Nov 2011, 02:42

QF94 - using statistics of convenience is hardly a capital crime and is par for course these days (unfortunately). Everywhere you look someone is using a stat that isn't telling a 'lie', but could easily be contested, as you have done below.

You take the stat that resonates with your message and voila, you start to sound credible.

Torres

7th Nov 2011, 03:03

QF94. And on those statistics QF has a revenue load factor of, or in excess of 80%?

How can Qantas expect to build it's market share if it does not offer the capacity?

There have been unflattering references in this thread to the individual Qantas Directors. Consider this:

Joyce told the Senate Estimates Committee he alone made the decision to ground Qantas.
Corporate governance suggests that if it was not a Board decision, the Board at least ratified Joyce's decision.
Board confidentiality suggests will never know if that Board decision or ratification was unanimous. I suspect it was not.

ohallen

7th Nov 2011, 03:21

Torres,

Not sure it is that simple.

Corps Law requires minutes to be kept of all proceedings and resolutions of directors meetings. Presumably if it was unanimous there was a resolution.

That puts them in the frame I would have thought atleast insofar as their state of mind at that time and what information they were provided with.

Then again they have good lawyers in the process so who knows.

DrPepz

7th Nov 2011, 03:22

QF94:

It is not fair to just use comparisons with cities that QF flies to. QF's international network is so small and the airline cannot take foreigners and Australians alike to and from most destinations either on a direct flight with one flight number.

QF's Europe network includes only LHR and FRA

Asia is basically BKK, MNL, CGK, SIN, NRT, PVG and HKG.

There are many more Australians who want to go to places other than LHR and FRA, and many other foreigners who originate in cities other than LHR and FRA in Europe.

The reason only 18% of intl pax into and out of Australia use QF is because QF's intl network is just too small to be of relevance to most passengers - Australians and foreigners alike.

DrPepz

7th Nov 2011, 03:40

aseanaero:

On paper it may look good cost wise but then you have to factor in how much 'unscheduled delays' from customs , the maintenance facility staff and other people who can and will make life difficult. These are the realities of most low cost Asian countries.

Yeah I don't quite work in aircraft maintenance but for our work in China, we outsourced work for project management, and did not factor in the costs for "gifts" and "relationship management". Which can easily double the cost of your work. If you don't gift the airport fire safety officer something, he won't approve your drawings. If you don't gift customs something, they would never give you an airside pass. Small little things like that which can ruin your entire project.

This is the reality in Asia excluding SIN and HKG. Even the Singaporeans and Hong Kongers themselves get burnt all over Asia. (Having worked for Singaporean corporations myself, my bosses used to be so utterly and truly shocked when they realised that Vietnam and China were not as straightforward as Singapore.

QF94

7th Nov 2011, 03:47

QANTAS's network is small, and many people want to fly to destinations QANTAS doesn't fly to or orginate from. Name one airline that flies to every destination on the planet. That's why codeshare exists. All airlines use it to be able to get passengers to their destinations. Some destinations can't be justified to fly to. Some sectors would need a Cessna 172 to service them because of the passenger numbers. It makes sense to use a partner airline to carry your passengers.

It's obvious the routes QANTAS flies do make money and lots if it. That's why they have the routes they have. Some are more profitable than others, but they are all making money and not the -$216 Million as claimed.

QF94

7th Nov 2011, 05:00

DrPepz,

QF94:

It is not fair to just use comparisons with cities that QF flies to. QF's international network is so small and the airline cannot take foreigners and Australians alike to and from most destinations either on a direct flight with one flight number.

QF's Europe network includes only LHR and FRA

Asia is basically BKK, MNL, CGK, SIN, NRT, PVG and HKG.

There are many more Australians who want to go to places other than LHR and FRA, and many other foreigners who originate in cities other than LHR and FRA in Europe.

The reason only 18% of intl pax into and out of Australia use QF is because QF's intl network is just too small to be of relevance to most passengers - Australians and foreigners alike.

I fail to understand how it is not fair to use comparisons with cities that QANTAS flies to. That would be like using a hypothetical scenario on a sector to Moscow from Australia, that Aeroflot has 100% of the market share and QANTAS has 0%. Using AJ's logic, people prefer to fly Aeroflot because QANTAS can't compete on price and they provide a better service. When in reality, QANTAS doesn't fly to Moscow, because it isn't viable, so they would code share on that sector.

Generally speaking, most people going to Europe want to go to LHR, then fan out from there. That's where most airilines fly to (BA, EK, Etihad). Most people going to the US want to go to LA and fan out from there. The main Asian cities that most airlines go to are SIN, BKK, HKG.

QANTAS used to fly to Rome, Paris, Athens, Manchester and depending on how far back you want to go, they even used to stop in the Middle East. But as is constantly mentioned in the press and on this forum, things change. As they changed, QANTAS pulled out of those destinations and code shared with carriers that fly there, freeing up aircraft to pursue a greater share on more profitable routes. i.e. USA, South Africa, South America, etc.

As we all know, Australia is a destination port. Not a hub. Not bad for a carrier that carried 197,547 passengers out of Australia and 209,339 passengers in, for the month of August. Also, Australia has a very small population in comparison to the rest of the world.

The reality is QANTAS carries 18% of all traffic out of Australia, and 31% of traffic to destinations it flies to in direct competition with other airlines.

SimonBl

7th Nov 2011, 09:59

Wow, ABC Q&A is fiery on the Qantas subject tonight! Well worth watching if you're near the TV.

gobbledock

7th Nov 2011, 10:42

Has anybody been able to establish whether there are any links between Freehills and the River Dancer, Darth or Boston Bruce in any way, whether it be family, friends, mates, past or serving business partners?
Is any QF board member or any other executive manager or family associate, friend or relative linked in anyway to Freehills, past or present?
I am just curious, after all, there are rumors that some very senior Australian aviation executives bolster their paypackets handsomely by way if external consultant services of which they are shrewdly linked, apparently.

Ixixly

7th Nov 2011, 11:41

I'm certain I read on one of these Topics about Qantas that one of the current Directors of Qantas is also a Partner or Director at Freehills? I can't quite remember which one I saw it in...perhaps one of the ones going on about "Plays" and "Actors involved"

*EDIT*

Gary Hounsells~Qantas non executive director,Sits on Freehills Board
Geoffrey Guidice~President of Fair work Australia,Partner at Freehills and involved in the 1989 Pilots dispute

thats the one I was thinking of!!

SimonBl

7th Nov 2011, 12:11

Oh come on guys, you read something 'on the Internet' and you believe it, without checking and corroborating? When I saw the post about the President of FWA allegedly being a Partner at Freehills, I did some checking.

Didnt take long to find out that it's not QUITE as black and white as that. Suggest you use the powers of Google or whatever your favourite search engine is and do some checking before you believe everything you read. Sheez....

Ixixly

7th Nov 2011, 12:13

Point Taken SimonBL, I only said thats what I saw elsewhere, didn't bother looking around myself as i'm not reading too far into it!

*EDIT*

Quick Google and a look at the Qantas website shows that Hounsell is indeed a Board Member of Freehills

And it shows that Geoffrey Guidice "With his interest in IR and law now well and truly stirred, Giudice approached a number of law firms working for Myer, with a view to doing his articles with one of them. He was accepted by
Moule, Hamilton and Derham, which, in later years, merged with Freehills. From small beginnings, he was eventually offered a partnership – and after “six or seven years” representing employers, made the decision to go to the Bar."

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/files/2010/09/j25_v001_WR_pt01_GiudiceInterview.pdf

under "Union backgrounds"

SimonBl

7th Nov 2011, 12:21

Just to clear things up, from the Qantas website:

Garry Hounsell
BBus(Acc), FCA, CPA, FAICD
Independent Non-Executive Director

Garry Hounsell was appointed to the Qantas Board in January 2005.
He is Chairman of the Audit Committee and a Member of the Nominations Committee.
Mr Hounsell is Chairman of PanAust Limited and a Director of Orica Limited, DuluxGroup Limited and Nufarm Limited. He is Chairman of Investec Global Aircraft Fund, a Director of Ingeus Limited and a Board Member of law firm Freehills.
Mr Hounsell is the former Deputy Chairman of Mitchell Communication Group Limited. He is a former Senior Partner of Ernst & Young and Chief Executive Officer and Country Managing Partner of Arthur Andersen.

And from The Federal court website:

The Hon Geoffrey Michael GIUDICE AO
Judge, Federal Court of Australia: 17.9.1997
Location: Melbourne

Other Commissions/Appointments:
Fair Work Australia – President

Geoffrey Michael Giudice is the inaugural President of Fair Work Australia which commenced operation on 1 July 2009.

Justice Giudice was appointed as President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia on 17 September 1997. At the time of his appointment he was a practising barrister at the Victorian Bar.

Justice Giudice graduated from the University of Melbourne in Bachelors of Arts and Law in 1970. He was employed in the health and retail industries until 1979 before practising as a solicitor. He was called to the Victorian Bar in 1984 and practised in State and Federal courts principally in industrial relations and employment law.

And from the SMH:

The Howard-appointed Giudice - a former partner in a law firm which later merged with Freehills, known for its union-busting credentials - became the Julia Gillard-appointed president of the newly formed Fair Work Australia.

SimonBl

7th Nov 2011, 12:23

Ixixly, yup, sorry, was meaning the FWA President reference. Who, while he has an association with Freehills, at a stretch, isn't a partner, that I can find anyway.

Sorry, it's slow cut and pasting on an iPad ;-)

Ixixly

7th Nov 2011, 12:25

No worries SimonBL, just edited my last post as well with the info I found about him pointing to the same thing!

tmadam

7th Nov 2011, 12:26

Torres - AJ gave specific testimony in the Senate hearing the other morning that the board ratified his decision *unanimously*.

onetrack

7th Nov 2011, 13:58

It is an extremely common move to have directors who hold directorships in multiple public companies. The fact that oil company directors also hold positions on vehicle manufacturing company boards, is part of the reason why we never get cars that go for a hundred kms on a litre of fuel... which is entirely possible, if these crony arrangements did not exist.

It's stated publically that these directorship positions are offered to directors with "wide-ranging skills and qualifications". The truth is that the corporate world is a world of nepotism, "matey-ness", old-school ties stuff, and "mates scratching mates backs".

You wouldn't want to dig too deep, because you'd uncover some unholy and ugly corporate and director alliances, that constantly work against public benefit, to the singular benefit of the upper levels of the corporate world.

compressor stall

7th Nov 2011, 19:34

that constantly work against public benefit, to the singular benefit of the upper levels of the corporate world.

And that is why the Occupy movement started. It has since, however, seemingly been hijacked by anyone with a grievance about anything, obfuscating the original cause.

73to91

7th Nov 2011, 20:39

QF94

7th Nov 2011, 22:11

QF94 - thanks for the link, I found the numbers for DPS & HNL interesting.

DPS - 64,700 outbound pax in August and the winner (well winners) are, 33% by both Garuda and Pacific Blue with JetStar picking up 30%. Out of Perth 35,528 pax headed up to DPS. I have heard it myself up in Bali that plenty of people fly Garuda simply because they provide a J class service.

I'd bet that if QF had the flights with J class that they'd get more than the 33% held by both Garuda and Pacific Blue.

HNL - 13,400 outbound pax in August and the winner is JQ 42% to Hawaiian's 39%. QF had 19% and just like DPS - I'd say QF would kill it to HNL if they had the A330's and went daily rather than the 3 per week compared to JQ's 5.

With the US - remove JQ & Hawaiian from the numbers and that gives you AUS to the east coast and QF had 52% in August, compared to both United and V Australia both picking up 20%.

If only you guys were able to do all of the international flying http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Lies, damned lies, and statistics :ugh:

Thanks for the vote of confidence 73to91.

The statistics are there and can't be argued with. Sure, QANTAS may have only carried 19% of the HNL passengers. As you very well put, if we were able to use the 330's and increased frequency, those figures would go up. For August, QANTAS had 202 flights to the US (This obviously includes HNL, as there is no seperate figure for this), carrying 50,997 passengers with seat capacity of 58,084 giving a load factor of 86.7% for the US run.

United Airlines had 61 flights carrying 18,191 passengers with a seat capacity of 22814. Load factor 79.7%

Delta, 31 Flights, 7,050 passengers wit a capacity of 8,339. Load factor 84.5%

Hawaiian, 22 flights, 5195 passengers with a capacity of 5,589. Load factor 93.0%

JQ, 19 flights, 5,684 passengers with a capacity of 6,386. Load factor 89%

Even to Hawaii, JQ with its 330's can't outdo Hawaiian using old 767's. Must say something about the price and service of Hawaiian compared to that of JQ.

The worst load for QANTAS in August was Port Moresby with 44.6% while Japan (NRT) was the best with 93.5%. The monthly average for all outbound flights was 75.2%

JQ had Vietnam as its worst with only 47.4% load while its best was USA (HNL) with 89%. The August average was 76.4%

This flies in the face of only 18 passengers out of every hundred choose to fly QANTAS.

QANTAS only flies to about 21 international destinations, and code shares on the rest. As other airlines code share on QANTAS because they don't service every destination either. Hence alliances such as Star and One World.

Agent Mulder

7th Nov 2011, 23:47

ACT Crusader

7th Nov 2011, 23:51

Plenty of media noise about an appeal of the FWA Full Bench decision. Taking it to the Fed Court would be a massive step and would probably need ACTU backing.

Some of the reasons reported would appear to have very little legal base in my view.

A "disproportionate response" to the action being taken by employees, namely the pilots. In my reaading of the Fair Work Act, there is nothing that suggests a proportionate response by an employer in initiating "employer response action" (lockout) is warranted.

If there are claims that the action taken by QF was unfair or capricious then there may have been a case that the QF industrial action was not PIA and the employees or unions could have sought a section 418 order against QF (a far more simple and straightforward matter to pursue than an appeal).

In pursuing PIA employees or employers basically need to demonstrate that they are genuinely trying to reach agreement. That is the threshold factor, and from my reading of cases, the tribunal has set a very low bar on that.

The other thing I've heard, and I wonder if this is getting caught up in the reporting of the Greens Bill to change the Fair Work Act rules on notification, is that QF didn't meet the notice requirements when they initiated the lockout. The key difference with 'employee claim' action (stop works, bans, red ties, announcements etc) is the 3 full working days notice required. With a lockout it's essentially written notification after the employee claim action has commenced. There is no 3 day requirement

The Fair Work Act introduced no pre-emptive lockouts. It is fact that all three unions had taken some form of PIA. As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions on an employer around timing other than it being in "response".

Is there a concern over whether or not QF met the notice requirement about taking all reasonable steps to notify? Did employees get an email or letter, or was there something placed on the Intranet? This may be contested, but there is case law on the "taking all reasonable steps" test.

So if QF didn't meet the notice requirements lets say, then the argument by the TWU (who's been the most vocal) would be that it was unprotected industrial action by QF and therefore a section 424 application should not have even been heard. The TWU probably should have argued that in opposition during the hearings to put weight to it.

But there may be somehting else out there, which based on last nights media Fed Sec is keen to get his hands on

Keg

7th Nov 2011, 23:51

HNL - 13,400 outbound pax in August and the winner is JQ 42% to Hawaiian's 39%. QF had 19% and just like DPS - I'd say QF would kill it to HNL if they had the A330's and went daily rather than the 3 per week compared to JQ's 5.

I wonder what QF's capacity to HNL is? We fly a 767 configured 25/202 three times per week compared to J*s A330 configured with ? 5 times a week. Anyone know Hawaiian's config and schedule? Apparently QF still make money on HNL- to both Dixon and Joyce great surprise apparently.

QF94

8th Nov 2011, 00:06

Do the figures you quote break out the code share i.e. JQ codeshare on the QF flights to HNL. Are the numbers bums on seats on the airline or sales by carrier.

JQ passengers book on a QF service to HNL and get the JQ fare with all the goodies thrown in and don't have to pay extra. Savvy punters. There are very few seats available on QF between HNL and SYD and the load factors on the JQ you quote don't seem right from years of operating the route.

May need to look at the breakdown of actual passengers on carriers between JQ and QF.

Agent, those figures are from the downloaded spread sheet from the link provided. It shows the JQ loads for each country not city. So seats and loads to US, which is HNL. But for the QF loads of US there is no breakdown between HNL and mainland US. I know the QF HNL flights are jam packed and very difficult to get a seat on. Their loads are at least 85% to 90% on average.

The only real way to get those types of loads would be to get into flight ops database.

QF94

8th Nov 2011, 00:09

Apparently QF still make money on HNL- to both Dixon and Joyce great surprise apparently.

QF is making money on just about all of its routes much to the begrudgement of Dixon and Joyce. There is no way QF International is losing $216 million a year. That figure is most probably the losses of JQ being dumped on QANTAS. Just ask about the Vietnam sector.

73to91

8th Nov 2011, 01:38

Agent Mulder, you said: JQ passengers book on a QF service to HNL and get the JQ fare with all the goodies thrown in and don't have to pay extra. Savvy punters. how does that work? Isn't a JQ pax a JQ pax? Different for a pax who gets on the QF site and gets re-directed to the JQ site isn't it?

the load factors on the JQ you quote don't seem right from years of operating the route
as JQ only operate to HNL it's easy to see the outbound numbers and I just checked again - Aug JQ 42% & Hawaiian 39% in Jul it was 35% for JQ and Hawaiian had 47%

Keg, Anyone know Hawaiian's config and schedule? Hawaiian on their web site have a 767-300 seat characteristics and it states 264 seats - as the config for 1st class is 2/2/2 that would be 18 in 1st & 246 in coach. They operate 5 p/w. Boeing 767-300ER - Hawaiian Airlines (http://www.hawaiianair.com/Services/boeing-767/)

QF94 for the QF loads of US there is no breakdown between HNL and mainland US but on Table 5 the total between Sydney & HNL (outbound) is 13,400 - Using Table 3 you can see the outbound pax travelling to the USA on JetStar & Hawaiian so balance must be QF ?

Just ask about the Vietnam sector
This shows what smart people they have at JQ and I think I read months ago that JQ send all of their flights via DRW. So looking at Ho Chi Minh City only, Vietnam Airlines in August flew 6,725 outbound compared to JQ's 1285 that's 84% v 16% - but it's about choice :rolleyes: fly direct from Melbourne or Sydney on Vietnam Air or via Darwin with JQ.

FYSTI

8th Nov 2011, 01:55

PPRuNeUser0198

8th Nov 2011, 07:39

QF is making money on just about all of its routes

QF94 - are you in Qantas Revenue Management? If not, how do you know route profs. Qantas makes on their International markets?

QF94

8th Nov 2011, 09:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by QF94
QF is making money on just about all of its routes

QF94 - are you in Qantas Revenue Management? If not, how do you know route profs. Qantas makes on their International markets?

T-vasis, no, I personally am not in QANTAS Revenue Managment, but those I do know in there are saying they are. Also, the loads I am personally seeing on dispatch would imply they are making money, otherwise it would be very poor management on their part for having the loads they have and losing an alleged amount of $216 million a year on the international side of things.

SpannerTwister

8th Nov 2011, 09:16

From Bens Blog...

Is there anybody out there ? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/11/02/qantas-club-sydney-1pm/)

ST

gobbledock

8th Nov 2011, 10:58

Good point, where were all the pax?
Oh I forgot, we are talking about 'Qantas Club 2011', all the ferals must have been out buying thongs, or perhaps QF management had been inside the lounge earlier and the stench of ****e drove everyone away?
Maybe nobody was interested in the stale Sao's, a handful of soggy lettuce and coffee beans that taste like they have been brewed in the honey cart disposal facility adjacent to the terminal? Or maybe it was the food tongs that looked as though they had just been driven up somebody's ass, or was it the daily newspapers soiled in food condiments, the screaming rugrats that have been spawned by ferals and bogans, or is the now legendary ****e QF service, ****e planes, ****e continuous delays and general disgust of QF managements disdain and attitude towards staff, the public and businesses that has contributed to everyone deserting QF and now playing in Borghetti's lounge?

Baxter Dewall

8th Nov 2011, 11:20

Gobbledock;

Mate for your own sanity, I think you should leave QF.

QF94

8th Nov 2011, 11:27

Mate for your own sanity, I think you should leave QF.

Sanity? In QANTAS? That's what makes the place so interesting. If it was too sane, it would be a morbid place to work in. But then too much insanity, well you saw the results of a CEO having a hissy fit and taking his aeroplanes home.

Ahhhh! QANTAS. It's a love-hate relationship. Management love to hate the employees, and the employees hate to love the management. One big happy family.

DutchRoll

8th Nov 2011, 11:56

Mate for your own sanity, I think you should leave QF.

Don't worry mate, many are. One per day at last count. At some point Alan is going to say "WTF?" and one or two brave souls might say "well, we did mention this possibility a while back".

Don't worry though. Alan will pluck replacements from the Longhaul Qantas Captain/First Officer replacement tree which is currently blossoming in its springtime growth phase behind the Qantas management building.

Alan Joyce: "You pr*cks TOLD ME there was a tree there!!!"

Worrals in the wilds

8th Nov 2011, 12:49

There has certainly been enough fertiliser...of course you also need seeds or small plants, plus a suitably supportive environment to cultivate them and effective weed control. That usually costs money, unless you're hoping that the seeds/plants will fall from the sky into your fertiliser filled paddock and the weeds decide to go somewhere else. Strangely enough, that doesn't usually happen. :}

"Weeds that are declared noxious are those weeds that have potential to cause harm to the community and individuals, can be controlled by reasonable means and most importantly, have the potential to spread within an area and to other areas. A weed is declared noxious because its control will provide a benefit to the community over and above the cost of implementing control programs." Weed definitions & FAQs | NSW Department of Primary Industries (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/definition)
Doesn't sound like any company board I know of...:}

No doubt Qantas hope that Pilatus Desperadum and LAME Aspirare seeds keep magically falling from the skies...even if there are no suitable soils for them to fall on, and a serious lack of irrigation and weed control. :hmm: Don't worry, we'll just import them, if we spray them with enough urea, they'll grow...

cart_elevator

8th Nov 2011, 16:13

Sad to say,but regardless of the usual clap-trap on here-I think the unions have lost.

Barely a by-line in any major newspaper yesterday,the only reference in the press this morning was a segway into changing industrial relations laws. Let's face it-'Australias Next Top Model' and 'Celebrity Apprentice' are getting more press than Qantas and it's unions this week :eek:

The crisis has ended,the press and therefore the public have moved on.

Face it,the public forget very easily,the government WANTS/NEEDS to move on from it.

It will all end in arbitration,they will rule on the side of the management.

And never again will any union be able to take industrial action at QF,they will just be locked out.The government has allowed it this time,they have set a precedent.

AJ wasn't just playing his cards for the 3 unions involved-he was telling the whole company what he will do to ANY union in the future.

Game, set and match :{:ugh::{:ugh::mad:

fl610

8th Nov 2011, 18:58

You are a fine student of history cart_elevator, this has all happened before!:(

Wunwing

8th Nov 2011, 19:39

Cart Elev.
You are wrong its not forgotten by the public.
I for one am being deluged by email on the subject by persons not remotely connected to aviation.
Have you looked at the letters page of the papers? Financial Revue and SMH has letters on the subject every day and I assume that they are only printing a few of what they receive.
Wunwing

PPRuNeUser0198

8th Nov 2011, 20:09

THE same politicians who unleashed scathing attacks on Qantas for bringing an abrupt end to damaging industrial action have accepted thousands of dollars in flight upgrades and gifts from the airline.

A check of the pecuniary interests register shows about 50 per cent of MPs and Senators from all political parties received perks from the airline over the past two years, including wine, tickets to the AFL, iPads and flight upgrades, the Courier-Mail reported.

Qantas also has a policy of inviting all federal politicians and their spouses to be members of the exclusive Chairman's Lounge.

It is understood Greens Senator Scott Ludlam used his privileges in the Chairman's Lounge on the same day he interrogated Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce at last Friday's Senate inquiry.

Some of those to receive iPads from Qantas include Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, Tourism Minister Peter Garrett, Labor MP Alan Griffin, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop and Liberal MP and Qantas shareholder Barry Haase.

Ministers Martin Ferguson and Bill Shorten have been guests of Qantas at AFL grand finals, and veteran Queensland Liberal Ian MacFarlane declared the airline gave him 50,000 frequent flyer points.

Even Julia Gillard accepted flight upgrades from Qantas before she became Prime Minister and got her own jet. This week a motion to have Qantas's political critics give up lucrative perks from the airline was voted down by the Senate.

Emirates Airlines also provided flight upgrades and hospitality at events such as the Melbourne Cup for several politicians while Virgin Australia offered MPs access to their Velocity lounges and loyalty program.

Meanwhile, Qantas flight bookings have rebounded to pre-strike levels just over a week after the airline's dramatic global fleet grounding.

A huge exodus of passengers to other carriers, mostly Virgin Australia, was one of the reasons Mr Joyce grounded the fleet last month in an effort to bring a permanent halt to industrial action by three unions.

John Guscic from internet booking agency Webjet said the action appeared to have had the desired effect.
"The bookings going forward reflect a bounce back," Mr Guscic said.
news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/critical-mps-accepted-qantas-gifts/story-e6frfq80-1226189523699)

Capt Kremin

8th Nov 2011, 22:06

news.com.au..........

ejectx3

8th Nov 2011, 22:33

The day that news.com.au articles are not riddled with spelling errors is the day I might start paying much attention to the content..

gobbledock

8th Nov 2011, 22:42

Gobbledock;
Mate for your own sanity, I think you should leave QF. Sometimes you have to read between the lines with my posts, and certainly I vented frustration (not unusual) in my previous post.
My point is that I am watching a once very good premium service which had a few nice bells and whistles attached turn into a second rate farce.
Anybody stood in the business class check-in line at any of the majors lately? Half the time the general check-in lines move faster?
Anybody lately tried to work quietly with their laptop while consuming a glass of OJ in the lounge? Hard to achieve anything while feral brats run screaming around the lounge while their 'mums with nose jewellery and barge arse whale tails exposed sit quietly staring into space while devouring some salmonella inducing pasta salad'.
I guess that in my own terminology this is my frustration with the Rat, and what it has become.

Worrals - I absolutley love your post. Weeds, fertilizer, throw in a mention perhaps of 'polishing the turd' and you are bang on the money!

Now, who do I phone because I am sure I can smell urea somewhere around here.............

teiemka

8th Nov 2011, 22:42

Busted!

Qantas Group’s domestic market share is expected to remain between 64 and 65 per cent (2010: 64 and 65 per cent) and international market share remains between 27 and 28 per cent (2010: 27 and 28 per cent). These ranges were estimated having regard to the Qantas Group’s committed fleet plans and those of its existing competitors.

Qantas Annual Report, page 77 (http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/.../2011AnnualReport.pdf)

Actually no, Qantas Group(QF+JQ) based on DOT YTD International Market Share June 2011 (http://http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/11/Files/0611_M.pdf)(FY11 equivalent of Annual Report) indicates QF 18.7, JQ 8.

Worrals in the wilds

9th Nov 2011, 01:21

Glad you approve. :)
Cart elevator, I don't think the issue has gone away. I mix with a lot of people who aren't aviation based and like Wunwing I have found that particularly since the grounding, many people are interested and (I find, anyway) a bit suss about AJ and QF management. Last week I ended up boring an entire dinner party about it for two courses because they wouldn't change the subject, however hard I tried. :zzz:

It would be very unsual for an issue to dominate news headlines for more than a few days. Apart from political crap you usually only see that level of coverage when there's an accident causing a massive loss of Australian lives or a big overseas weather disaster with lots of piccies. Even foreign airline crashes usually only get a couple of days coverage unless there were a lot of Aussies on board.

As for the IR stuff, I think that's worrying a lot of people who work for wages. Someone needs to paint 'remember what happened to you bastards last time' across the Liberal HQ front door. However, who needs the Libs when you can get shafted by the ALP? Damned if you're red, damned if you're blue, not going green whatever happens, and even bloody Katter's looking comparatively appealing. :eek:

Anyway, I hope you're wrong WRT our IR future but unfortunately I'm not too sure you are...:ooh:

SimonBl

9th Nov 2011, 20:49

So it's on again - Headline news on the ABC here in Perth "Commuters face renewed travel chaos" as the lead-in to the TWU potentially appealing the FWA hearing.

Sigh, and I thought the ABC was more balanced than that.

ohallen

9th Nov 2011, 21:03

I see the Rat PR machine are in overdrive yet again.

Not sure how anyone makes the quantum leap from an appeal to the Federal court to further disruptions.

This has the same stench about it that keeps coming from Rat HQ.

FYSTI

9th Nov 2011, 21:37

teiemka, OK, how do we square that with this statement:
The Asian airline is actually going to recover our share of the market into Asia. At the moment we need to recover the traffic that has gone to Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia—it is not travelling with Qantas today. In fact, as you know we only have 18 per cent market share—82 of every 100 travelling Australians travel on another airline. We need to recover that. And it is even worse in Asia. So we need an Asian hub.

Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011, Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011
FRIDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2011

AJ just seems not to mention the Jetstar contribution at all. Is it part of the Qantas, the Qantas Group or operating on its own? Is Jetstar one of the "other airlines".

The justification for the Asian hub is that 82 per cent of the market travel on other airlines, whilst not mentioning the additional 8 per cent traveling on his "other airline" of which he has diverted capacity, deliberately muddying the waters to obfuscate the issue.

The load factors for Qantas are high. The question is, if Jetstar international had not been started, what would been the percentage be? I put it to you it would be very close to the 27~28 per cent. Passengers are choosing to fly Qantas internationally, however, they are being denied the ability to do so in greater numbers through a policy of deliberately reducing available capacity.

SimonBl

9th Nov 2011, 22:35

From ABC News' website a short time ago:

Labor Senator wants Qantas strike ban challenged
Posted November 10, 2011 10:03:35

A West Australian Labor Senator has defied the Government and urged the Transport Workers Union (TWU) to challenge Fair Work Australia's decision banning all industrial action at Qantas.

The union will reportedly meet the ACTU today to consider seeking a Federal Court stay on the decision.

If successful, the challenge could reignite action which led to the grounding of the airline almost two weeks ago.

Treasurer Wayne Swan says the Government's position is very clear.

"The Government would strongly oppose any attempt to challenge that decision of Fair Work Australia to terminate the industrial action from any party, from any union, or any employer," he said.

But Labor Senator and former Transport Workers Union official Glenn Sterle disagrees.

"Both parties have every legal option to challenge any decision all the way through and in all fairness to the members of the TWU at Qantas," he said.

"If I was a member of the TWU at Qantas, I would want them to pursue that.

"If Qantas are fair dinkum, Qantas tell us they're fair dinkum, well, sit down and negotiate. The TWU want, quite rightly, job security, and Qantas aren't prepared to come to the table and talk about job security."

The comments took another Labor Senator and former union boss, Doug Cameron, by surprise.

"That's news to me," he said.

"The Government's position as I understand it, unless there's been a change that I'm unaware of, is that the parties should sit down under the auspices of Fair Work Australia, negotiate in good faith, and bring about an end to the dispute.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has told Channel Nine he is confident the ruling by Fair Work Australia will stand up to any court challenge.

"The Government were careful about which way to use the act and which way to apply for the termination of the enterprise bargaining period," he said.

"We believe the decision taken by Fair Work Australia was the right decision; it was a sound, legal and robust decision."

Opposition Senator Eric Abetz has condemned the union's possible Federal Court challenge.

"All this mess and ongoing uncertainty is going to do further damage to public confidence in Qantas, as a result of which there will be further damage and disruption to the travelling public," he said.

wpax

9th Nov 2011, 23:21

Here's an interesting article by Clive Thompson, described as "Senior Visiting Fellow and teacher of a negotiation skills and change management course at University of New South Wales":

Bargaining the Qantas way: how not to run an industrial dispute (http://theconversation.edu.au/bargaining-the-qantas-way-how-not-to-run-an-industrial-dispute-4205)

QF94

9th Nov 2011, 23:26

FYSTI I posted earlier about the load factors of QANTAS. As of August 2011 they had load factors of 75% outbound and 71% inbound. These figures do not include JQ. As for market share into Malaysia, we have none as we have not flown there in a number of years and when JQ tried it a couple of years ago they failed and pulled out inside of a year.

The 18 out of 100 that fly QANTAS is for all flights against all airlines that we don't even compete against. The 75% and 71% load factors are for airlines we do compete against.

DJ737

10th Nov 2011, 00:05

The 18 out of 100 that fly QANTAS is for all flights against all airlines that we don't even compete against.

You are seriously deluded if you think QANTAS does not compete with other airlines out of Australia just because QANTAS does not operate to other airlines hubs.

On the Europe routes there are a multitude of airlines that QANTAS has to compete with including Malaysian, Emirates, Qatar etc.

Just because QANTAS does not operate SYD-KUL-LHR doesn't mean they do not compete with those airlines that do.

The same with Dubai, QANTAS doesn't operate to Dubai (unless an engine goes bang or they forget to file a flightplan with one of the "stans")

Your logic suggests QANTAS doesn't compete with Emirates.

QF94

10th Nov 2011, 02:27

DJ737

Quote:
The 18 out of 100 that fly QANTAS is for all flights against all airlines that we don't even compete against.
You are seriously deluded if you think QANTAS does not compete with other airlines out of Australia just because QANTAS does not operate to other airlines hubs.

On the Europe routes there are a multitude of airlines that QANTAS has to compete with including Malaysian, Emirates, Qatar etc.

Just because QANTAS does not operate SYD-KUL-LHR doesn't mean they do not compete with those airlines that do.

The same with Dubai, QANTAS doesn't operate to Dubai (unless an engine goes bang or they forget to file a flightplan with one of the "stans")

Your logic suggests QANTAS doesn't compete with Emirates.

I'm not going to get into a dispute as to who is delusional or not. QANTAS competes with Emirates on the Singapore/Bangkok runs and to AKL, but not into the Middle East. That would be like saying Emirates is competing with QANTAS across the Pacific to the US. In that instance, Emirates has nothing on QANTAS. Nor does any other airline going across the Pacific that QANTAS is in direct competition.

QANTAS competes with airlines that fly to Europe from SIN, HKG and BKK. Does QANTAS compete with South African to Johannesburg? NO. They code share out of Sydney on a QANTAS plane, and codeshare out of Perth on a SAA plane.

As for market share, I'll use what's quoted from the Aust. Gov't website.

International Airline Activity - Monthly Publications (http://www.bitre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=211&NodeId=103)

These figures are as of August this year. Many more statistics to choose from, but I'll use the most recent and the one that has supposedly affected QANTAS so much due to disputes. Page 11 of the report.

Top ten airlines
Share of passengers carried Aug-10 Aug-11
Qantas Airways 18.7% 17.7%
Air New Zealand 8.5% 8.6%
Jetstar 8.9% 8.6%
Singapore Airlines 8.5% 8.5%
Emirates 8.1% 7.5%
Pacific Blue 6.3% 6.9%
Cathay Pacific Airways 5.1% 5.1%
Malaysia Airlines 3.6% 4.2%
Thai Airways International 2.9% 3.5%
Garuda Indonesia 1.7% 2.1%

As can be seen from the figures, QANTAS has more than double the marketshare of all airlines for passengers carried in and out of Australia.

If we talk about capacity, QANTAS fared very well also. Their competitiveness is very strong, even losing some market share for the same period the previous year. Only the management is poor.

Praise Jebus

10th Nov 2011, 02:42

I have to go with DJ on this one, QF you are over simplifying what the competition is. You are correct in saying Qantas doesn't compete with EK to the Middle East but the reality is the majority of punters don't get off in Dubai. They continue to All points North, South and West including LHR, so competing with QF to the UK. It's the punter's choice to go one or the other. Similarly, EK do fly from SYD to the West Coast of USA, just the long way around so QF would win that competition, but EK is still an alternative, just as CX and CSA are for that matter. Ultimately though QF can't compete, the product just isn't up to it.......

david1300

10th Nov 2011, 03:23

@QF94: "QANTAS competes with airlines that fly to Europe from SIN, HKG and BKK. Does QANTAS compete with South African to Johannesburg? NO. They code share out of Sydney on a QANTAS plane, and codeshare out of Perth on a SAA plane."

Qantas competes with the following when passengers fly Aussie to Johannesburg/South Africa: Singapore; Malaysian; Emirates; Cathay & maybe others too. How do I know - I have friends and family who have all used these airlines on the route in the last year. Sure, some flights take 12 to 18 hours longer, but many people treat a stopover in a never-before seen city as an adventure.

TIMA9X

10th Nov 2011, 03:35

Treasurer Wayne Swan says the Government's position is very clear.

"The Government would strongly oppose any attempt to challenge that decision of Fair Work Australia to terminate the industrial action from any party, from any union, or any employer," he said.

But Labor Senator and former Transport Workers Union official Glenn Sterle disagrees.

"Both parties have every legal option to challenge any decision all the way through and in all fairness to the members of the TWU at Qantas," he said.Clear as mud Wayne, I believe a challenge from the pilots is in order..

Qantas pilots move to overturn ban on industrial action

The long-haul pilots' union has today launched a legal challenge to the workplace umpire's termination of its long-running battle with Qantas.
In a decision that threatens to reignite the bitter battle that led to the grounding of Qantas's fleet for two days, the pilots' union today filed proceedings in the Federal Court in Sydney, seeking a review of Fair Work Australia's decision last week to terminate its protected industrial action.
The Australian and International Pilots' Association had been waiting for further talks today with Qantas negotiators in front of the workplace umpire before deciding whether to challenge. It had said that Qantas had made "semi-conciliatory noises" in negotiations on Tuesday.

But the union said today that it had launched legal action because the negotiations before Fair Work were "moving very slowly" and it believed that Qantas's decision to lock out staff involved in the industrial action was "disproportionate" to its campaign, which included wearing non-uniform ties

Read more: Qantas pilots move to overturn ban on industrial action (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-pilots-move-to-overturn-ban-on-industrial-action-20111110-1n8v5.html#ixzz1dH2AwfwO)