Qantas Integration document breech

[Troo believer]

Sorry to bore the pilots not familiar with the Qantas/Australian Integration Award, but it begs the question, what is Qantas as defined in the document.
Under definitions in the document, Qantas is defined as "Qantas Airways Ltd. or any successor. "
Is a successor possibly Jetstar/Jetconnect/Qlink? The legal definition;is an entity that takes over the role of another. If this is correct then the whole premise of operating subsidiaries, with respect to pilots, of Qantas without referring to the integration document is in clear breech. If this is so then the pilots especially in Jetstar are employed in breech of the integration award/ document which basically divides the flying between Qantas and Australian Airlines pilots that existed in 1992 both internationally and domestically. It also refers specifically to any new aircraft type provisions requiring both Qantas and AIPA to agree to the terms and conditions within a certain time frame. It's very specific for those without a copy but it was intended to protect both groups into the future and is the overarching document that governs any new aircraft flown by Qantas and by definition or any successor.
This could be very big indeed and something worth exploring.
So what is a successor?

[dodo whirlygig]

Do not confuse breach with breech. Breach means 'break an agreement or rule' (they breached the Data Protection Act), 'break through something', or 'a gap', whereas breech means 'the back part of a gun barrel'.

[Keg]

If they close down mainline and paint J* white with red tails then that would be a 'successor' and I reckon you're a fair chance of the IA applying. If they close down mainline and replace it with J* in silver then I reckon you could argue that's a successor too.

I don't think you could argue that it applies to the J* loco operations as they stand at the moment though as that's not a successor but a subsidiary and not Qantas Airways Ltd.

[spotfx]

A successor entity has a fairly well understood legal meaning: it refers to where (for example) QAL merges with a separate entity, or all the assets and liabilities are transferred from QAL to a new entity by way of a court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement, etc.

As has been noted above, a subsidiary of QAL is not a "successor". You would struggle to argue that Jetstar is a successor entity while QAL continues to operate as a going concern.

[Wedcue]

JQ wont take over QF. JQ is a low-cost model that quite frankly is doing very well for itself. It's had support to get going, it gets aircraft given to it, but the 'brand' is far too established both domestically and internationally to ever be morphed into QF.

I'd be more concerned about Cobham and their business class fitted 717's operating on the east coast. Don't forget, QF domestic has been split from International and therefore is not bound by the QF sales act or its protections.

[scrubba]

Wedcue said:

I'd be more concerned about Cobham and their business class fitted 717's operating on the east coast. Don't forget, QF domestic has been split from International and therefore is not bound by the QF sales act or its protections.

Let me see now, this was a thread about a possible influence of the Integration Award through the "successor" clause. The money is on "successor" as being a replacement corporate entity, rather than a related co-existing entity.

Now up pops Cobham. There is no ownership relationship between QF and Cobham - it is simply a contractor working under an operating lease arrangement for the B717. Cobham actually competes with QF in the FIFO and charter markets as a standalone entity. In short, no possible relevance to the Integration Award.

Then another gem about the "split" of AOCs between QF domestic and International somehow avoiding compliance with the QF Sales Act. There is no legislated limit on the number of AOCs a company may hold, so merely having two or more AOCs tells us nothing about the corporate entity that holds them or how other legislation may apply.

Did QF create a new company for each AOC? Was there a transfer of business to any new company? Did QF exit either of those businesses, ie domestic or international? Has QF ceased to exist?

The Sale Act applies to:

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

So Wedcue, can you explain to me how the internal accounting restructure (including the $80 million pissed against the wall to do it!) has avoided the Sale Act? Or what any of it has to do with that unrelated entity, Cobham?

[Stalins ugly Brother]

QF domestic has been split from International and therefore is not bound by the QF sales act or its protections.

That is just a myth and you will find that any attempt to sell Domestic as a whole would be greeted by the same resistance as would any full sell off of international. It's still covered under Qantas Pty Ltd as defined in the Qantas sales act.

The split is more about bean counters and tax.

I agree with the above re the integration award, it is clutching at straws to think Jetstar or any of the other entities would have a bearing on it.

[Wedcue]

Cheers Stalin, I was told otherwise.

[Derfred]

Nobody said anything about selling Domestic as a whole... why would you sell the only part of your business that makes money?

It would, however, get around the foreign investment cap.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

It would, however, get around the foreign investment cap.

Please explain How????

The Act is very clear in this regard of foreign ownership. It doesn't matter if domestic and international are now defined as separate entities they are still traded under the banner of Qantas PTY LTD so foreign ownership under the act still applies.

There is a BS belief that because Virgin domestically can have full foreign ownership that if Joyce magically separates the two and wants to flog off domestic the same would apply. this is simply not the case. The act covers this to avoid it happening, it also covers Qantas changing it's name to do the same as well.

It's not rocket science, simply download the Doc and have a read, it's only 55 pages thick, bit like the Jetstar ops manual! :E:E

[Derfred]

You mean the same document that prevented the APA bid?

[moa999]

APA bid was technically within the act as >50% of the equity came from Australia sources.

QFd and QFi are still owned by Qantas Airways Limited (ie the company that is listed), the only difference is they now have separate internal reporting structures and will/do report as separate segments

[Troo believer]

Thank you for your responses so far and the spelling faux pas correction. Yes I was clutching at straws but I don't put anything pass this mob!
What about if both domestic and International were technically operated just like Jetstar as subsidiaries of Qantas Ltd. Call them Qantas D and Qantas I. Is it at all possible to do a Virgin and shonk the system using a share structure that both satisfies the QSA and Air Navigation Act? The share purchase plan being conducted by the company at the moment is propping up the share price artificially but what ulterior motive could there be? What's to stop Qantas "I"
shares being held by a trust just like that of Virgin Australia Holdings as a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways Ltd? By restructuring, share ownership rules could be dilluted and perhaps attract the likes of Emirates into the fold. Over to my learned friends.