Court Action Against Qantas

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hi all.

Hope we are all enjoying the festive season. I am away camping with the kids but even here at the Ocean Grove Caravan Park where I am with ALAEA President Paul Cousins, some Pilots and Engineers, conversation often turns to that one airline and how it is being destroyed.

We've all been reading the thread about Alan being unhappy and so many contributions regarding the direction the company is being taken. We can all see what is happening but there is a big question that remains unanswered. What can anyone do about it?

Although certainly not a total solution to our collective problems, there may be an avenue that we can pursue in the Federal Court under a clause contained in the LAME workplace determination. I will post the clause shortly but 11.3 of the WD says that Qantas shall 'seek to remain competitive". From what I have seen, Qantas are making decisions that seem to be against any common sense or purpose with regards to the airline itself. Essentially, they aren't remaining competitive by funding failing ventures and placing bills of other subsidiaries onto the mainline account.

I'd like you all to assist the ALAEA with this case. We've decided to do it in a very open way for a number of reasons. Firstly, it will give all the people who follow the thread an idea of what goes into the prep for such a case. Secondly, it will let Qantas know that we are discussing their little paper shuffling exercise and planning to move on them. I'm not concerned with them being pre warned, if we hit them with this case cold, they would have tried to hide evidence anyway. I suspect there is so much of it that they won't be able to cover their tracks.

I have our office chasing the original cost shift questions from two years ago that never got answered. The case should give us the ability to subpoena evidence and internal papers for use in the case. Just a note on that point. You cannot subpoena documents that you simply heard a rumour about as that would be deemed as a fishing exercise. You have to have some reasonable grounds to suspect something exists before you can gain access.

I think between us however, we can build enough of a case to run this one and prove that Qantas are making poor decisions and in doing so undermining the employment of LAMEs by destroying the same company the Pilots and others work for.

That will do for starters. Pls inbox me or post openly. The next few weeks will just be prep until we can review what we have in the office.

cheers
Steve P

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

11. JOB SECURITY

11.1 The parties to this Workplace Determination recognise that the major factor influencing job security for Qantas employees are forces external to Qantas.

11.2 The parties therefore recognise that some factors which affect Qantas' business performance are beyond the control of Qantas or are factors over which Qantas has little control. Subject to these factors, Qantas commits to retain the existing engineering and maintenance functions of employees covered by this Workplace Determination.

11.3 For its part, Qantas shall seek to remain competitive and seek to ensure that job security for employees covered by this Workplace Determination shall be maintained for the duration of the Workplace Determination, and the employees and the ALAEAin turn commit to continue to cooperate on issues which improve Qantas' productivity, efficiency and overall profitability.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just a few points on this case. We would have to prove that Qantas were not remaining competitive. The first thing we need to know is - what does "Qantas" mean? It is contained in the definitions of the Determination.


5.2 ―Qantas or the ―Company means Qantas Airways Limited.


I'm not sure what this means but a quick google search shows that QAN on the stock exchange stands for Qantas Airways LTD. Which appears to say that our contract is with the master company.


That being the case, it looks like we would be able through that definition to access documents from any part of the company including the subsidiaries that feed into it.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Next thing the ALAEA would have to establish is that Qantas were not remaining competitive. I have seen so many posts here about cost shifting and stupid decisions but we need a list of as many as possible. Be good if 20 issues were raised as part of a case. I will post them here as they develop but would start with the first one that really pi$$ed me off. The withdrawal from Frankfurt.


I know that loads were always good there. I suspect it was part of the deal to get EK to hold hands with their little friend. None the less, this appeared to be a service offered by Qantas that was making money.


The excuse that they used, and I am sure there are public statements to this effect, was that it was a loss making route. I've been looking at the loads around the time of the service withdrawal. I know loads aren't the absolute defining definition regarding profit but they are a very good insight.


I've taken the number from the BITRE website. I thought I would look at the 12 months before the withdrawal. The loads to Frankfurt compared to other Qantas International destinations. Of 15 International destinations, Frankfurt had the 3rd highest loads. Why would an airline carrying 85.9% loads withdraw that service and continue to fly to many places carrying 70's and even 50's load factor?

http://i39.tinypic.com/200va5h.png

[Gas Bags]

Mate you are on holidays...


Turn your computer off and relax. You will give yourself a heart attack!!!


This will all still be waiting for you when you get back.

[Creampuff]

QAL being uncompetitive in fact is not sufficient to prove a breach.

The obligation is “to seek” to remain competitive, not “to ensure” the Company remains competitive.

QAL can try hard but fail to remain competitive and still comply with its obligation. Technically, QAL would be in breach if it did nothing to try to remain competitive but ended up remaining competitive through blind luck. No damage to the ALEA though.

QAL would also be in breach if it deliberately sought to become uncompetitive. Good luck proving that! I imagine QAL would argue the ALEA breached its obligation under the same clause!

[piston broke again]

What I find amazing is the load factor for the UK. I'm not sure of the date they handed the Heathrow slots to BA but remember it was just prior to the Olympics - but 87.1? Equal best load factor? Crazy management!!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Yes Creampuff I agree that Qantas being uncompetitive is not the breach. It is whether they are seeking to remain competitive. Trying hard and failing is ok to. I suspect they are trying hard to fail. I think this is deliberate either by design or stupidity.


So the court would rightly concentrate on how the company sought to remain competitive. That would go to the decision making process of those people making the decisions and what evidence they had before them to make the decisions on.


Halving flts to London was a good example. Although it was in May 2012 when the flts were cut, the announcement was made in Aug 2011. The decision must have been made by then. Again a case of - why would you cut services? It would be rightly ok if you were struggling to get pax.


I've taken a snap shot of the 12 months of loads on the LHR services in those 12 months. They appear on the right column. These supposed (according to press release) services were losing money with an average load factor of 86.6%....


The corresponding previous 12 months, the loads are now down to 85.4%. These are extremely healthy load factors for any airline. The effect of this reduction of services was to make Qantas carry less pax for each piece of metal sent to London. Of course when the Board made this decision, they didn't know it would make them less profitable but they sure as hell knew they had been carrying 86.6% beforehand.


http://i43.tinypic.com/14y77v9.png

[Mstr Caution]

The transcripts of the Jetconnect case might be a good start. I believe it was recognised that there was some fairly dubious accounting procedures going on.

The problem is, the QF response would probably be for the QF group to remain competitive this arrangement was required to maintain a presence in NZ.

[600ft-lb]

I can imagine this

"Qantas needs to close itself down systematically by divesting itself of itself so as to remain competitive"

[Oldmate]

Mstr Caution, I agree completely. I don't see how saving a couple of bucks on staff wages offsets the cost of maintaining a separate AOC and management team for jitconnict.

[Creampuff]

Qantas needs to close itself down systematically by divesting itself of itself so as to remain competitive.Where have I heard that kind of reasoning before …. Hmmmm …. I know:We had to destroy the village to save the village.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hey mate. "shall" or "will".......the are very similar. Hard to think of a circumstance where the use of either within a sentence changes much. Important here though we look whether "will" changes the substance of the commitment given to us by Qantas.


Qantas shall seek to remain competitive

or

Qantas will seek to remain competitive


Na that won't harm us either way. They made a commitment. They are bound by law to honour it. In return we had to give them efficiency and that section of the job security clause was run extensively in the MOD case and we were ordered to give them that efficiency.


Just looking at some other flight data. Whilst Qantas were dropping services with loads of 85%+ they were moving metal to less popular routes. Singapore had services added when their original loads were only 78.6%. The corresponding months of now and the same months in the year before the change are shown. This is how you drive inefficiency into an airline business.


http://i42.tinypic.com/dvjxxk.png

[AEROMEDIC]

The board of this company is obliged to use their best endeavours to take the company in a direction which makes a profit for its shareholders.

The argument to say that they did not would have to be very strong indeed.

Cream Puff is right.
Proof of deliberate action by anyone on the board to prevent the company from operating to the benefit of the shareholders would be difficult to prove. However, a well structured case of past actions and outcomes might show interested parties the level of incompetence demonstrated by the board. Additionally, if deep detail is provided in each case, it might create such public interest, if provided to the media, that even the Government might get involved (albeit privately).


I wish you and all contributors to this action, the very best of luck.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Happy for the media to follow the thread as the case develops.


Out of curiosity there was one area where I suspect a decision was made that certainly on the surface appeared not to be cost effective. I don't know the detail and would like some help from out Pilot friends.


Wasn't there a time recently when Qantas Pilots were being paid but not working their full hours when contractors were brought in to fly? Think something to do with freighters. Anyone got any details?


Also from LAME readers. With Qantas cutting back numbers all around the country, I found it concerning recently when they decided to increase the number of managers in the same areas.


I take Mel for example. There was one Line manager and an Ops manager offsider. They are replacing the Ops manager position with 4 Ops managers (one per crew). What are they doing in other States?

[Ken Borough]

Off topic but for the pedants, an interesting discourse on 'will' versus 'shall' can be found here:

What?s the difference between ?will? and ?shall?? | OxfordWords blog (http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/09/will-versus-shall/)

To summaries, there's little difference!

[Capt Quentin McHale]

Steve,
Regarding "Ops Mgrs", I am reliably told from old mate up in Qld that same thing is happening up there. Save money?......Go figure
McHale.

[Ixixly]

I don't know if this will help much Fed Sec, but if could be useful. I've been told that Air Vanuatu who used to have their 737 Maintenance done by Qantas in Brisbane has now been told this will no longer be available. Surely if the Engineers were getting all their work done for Qantas and this was being done as well then they are deliberately losing money that would have been given to them for this work for no particular reason?

There may be evidence of other such "Minor" work that brought in extra money being allowed to disappear to the deliberate detriment of the Qantas Group.

[sys 4]

shutting the airline down because of pilots wearing red ties would surely fall into these clauses

[mickjoebill]

The notion that self interested management are risking and losing the crown jewels can be understood by the public, the press should be able to get behind you.



Mickjoebill

[TBM-Legend]

If you don't like your employer vote with your feet. Many of my QF friends are happy there.....

[ozzy58]

When will the BIG shareholders start some action ?

.... Disclosure

... Keeping the market informed


Etc. ,

Etc. ,

....perhaps even an action jointly with unions / employees, most of whom have an involvement via employee share holdings or superfund share holdings ?

Eventually gravity has to pull a lot of the balls/ ducks / pigs out of the air, one would think ?
......but what am I to know ?




And what recent announcements to the market and authorities

have been made ?

Is SOMEONE on that ship of fools in the Antarctic ?

[HavingAJet-Blast]

Longtime stalker, first time member/poster.

Excuse my stupidity, but what about closing the airline down? That cost the business a reported $60 million, not including the cost to the brand...?

I can see how one could quite easily argue it was because of the potential for strikes, safety and uncertainty...

Also, can someone explain how the duplication of ground handling businesses is good for QANTAS? e.g. Express Ground Handling & Qantas Ground Services?

Further, How can the number of FTE's only decreased by 405 people in 5 years (data from prelim report 2009 & 2013) but we have had a large number of redundancies taken in previous years?

Surely natural attrition %'s would be greater than 1.2%?

[gchriste]

As interesting an idea as this is, I have to ask, do you want to help save the airline, or help run it into the ground.

Whilst admirable, can you imagine:


The additional cost imposed defending this, given the already >$300M loss in first six months
Reputation damage the court case will cause (yes I know AJ has already trashed it)
Concern the flying public may have with flying on QF due to what gets dredged up


Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the current *mis*management seem to have done their dandiest to trash the airline, but is it prudent to add further hurt. Are you trying to help your members, or put more financial pressure on their job security?

Surely there is a more prudent public campaign that could be waged, without going down the costly court path. Can you imagine what this would cost in the long run, and if you lose, you will be expected to pay QF costs for brining the case against them.

[Romulus]

No chance.

You'd be better off with the old Employee Buyout via Super Fund chestnut.

[Prince Niccolo M]

I believe that the management of Qantas has been deplorable and that the Board and EXCO should step up to the gibbet en masse. Nonetheless, I question the product of your campfire chat:


Given that the clauses that so offend you are almost impossible to litigate to establish a legal breach, what is your intended outcome?


Does that outcome, if achieved, actually benefit the members in either the short or longer term?


Is the cost in terms of members' funds even vaguely defensible in terms of the expected value of that outcome?

[Arnold E]

No chance.

You'd be better off with the old Employee Buyout via Super Fund chestnut.
I wouldn't have thought an old union bloke like me would ever have anything in common with Romulus, but there you go, this time I agree with him.:eek:

[hadagutfull]

How about a fair go for qantas campaign?
If AJ can get 20000 signatures to support their plans, we should be able to get 2 or 3 times the signatures to demand the sacking or the board , CEO and chairman .
I'm sure there would be close to 30000 staff willing to sign straight up.
That will expose the boards backers and focus media attention on their failures.
Maybe that list of cost shifting questions might appear with public pressure to provide answers with proof..
Would save a costly court battle.. But be symbolic in getting our message across.

[ohallen]

why not just pay for newspapers adds with a collage of all those parked planes and a headline

What are you guys doing with our company money and our jobs????? We sure care about wasted $$$$, why don't you!!!!!

[Gear in transit]

What are you guys doing with our company money and our jobs????? We sure care about wasted $$$$, why don't you!!!!!

I like that one a lot. And it would force some sort of response and keep the heat on them.

[V-Jet]

And another a collage of the executive car park?

I get the idea from a docco I watched on the financial failure of UK football clubs. It started with a pan across a car park of players Bentley's, Lambo's, Ferrari's and the very best Audi and BMW's. The initial VoiceOver said something like 'Britain's Premier League is on the brink of financial collapse. In the next hour we will try to show where the money is going' etc etc..

[Gingerbread]

An Employee Buyout via a Super Fund Also has no chance. Too tightly correlated with salary and job security.

Any employee equity participation best achieved via salary sacrifice associated with productivity improvement supported by government backing.

If however employes won't back their company, one can't expect support from shareholders and government.

Is a good idea, but probably not one that really appeals to management and most unions. Much too democratic.

[Capt Quentin McHale]

hadagutful and ohallen,


Methinks you are onto something here. The workers have stayed out of the press for long enough. Following Alans advice to talk QF up around the BBQ, I get some strange looks when I tell it like it is. The punters out there have only heard the "company's side of the story", and, as we all know, there's 3 sides to a story...Your's, mine and the truth.


And whilst we are at it, lets ask the BIG shareholders why they have let the shareprice slide from $5.00 plus... to NO DIVIDEND... to JUNK status and done jack****e about it!!! Do they know something that the staff and Joe Public don't know??? Is there a hidden agenda out there??? Thank f%&k they're not my financial advisor!!!!


McHale.

[Sunfish]

The big shareholders are hedge funds who want to take the company private. They don't care about a dividend. Alan and the board are trying to drive the share price down, not up.

[blow.n.gasket]

So the big shareholders are hedge funds and they are happy to see their investment tank 'ços it's all part of a grand plan to take the company private.
So Al and the board are on their side compliantly tanking the share price for an ultimate buy-out?
Is this the deal?
Are mom and pop investors aware of this plan?
What are the hedge funds being told and aware of, that the small time investors aren't ?
What are the laws governing Insider Trading?
Are there issues with continuous disclosure here?


Thinking out aloud here ,Fed Sec, instead of a costly court case as you propose, , would a "poison pill "type court case be a better option?
Have a Class Action for the mom and pop investors ready to run , the trigger of course will be when the big boys make their Private Equity grab.
Might take the polish of their plan if there is a massive costly court action pending the moment they try to get their grubby mitts on all the loot.

[Devil Dog]

Sunny I love your succinct analysis ...if what you say is the status quo and I have no doubt it is then the direction to be heading is lodging a complaint with Takeovers Panel? ASIC? ASX? ...let them do what they are supposed to do ..although their track record is p!$$ poor. It may just force someone to make a decision earlier than the present programme ...there is a high degree of criminality involved in this on going matter ..woof! Woof!

[Capt Fathom]

Alan and the board are trying to drive the share price down, not up.
You would think that alone would be a criminal offence?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Good discussion here guys.


Could they be deliberately driving the share price down? Maybe. The clause I have talked about using here could flush all that out.


Employee share buy in Romulus? Absolutely I'd be interested in that. I would say the company would do all they can to prevent it though.


Consider not running this case because it could cost Qantas several hundred $k? That is about the same they would pay for one of their new Engineering Ops Managers they are appointing in shrinking Engineering departments. It looks like they have made up around 20 of these new positions.


Having net problems here and will be back in civilisation next week to fully answer all these ideas. Please keep them coming, particularly areas where you have seen them deliberately pi$$ing money up against the wall.

[bddbism]

The volatility of the share price is no where near as profitable at $4-5 as it is at the $1-2 mark.

Almost annually over the last 5 years, coincidentally? since the sprouting of a little Irish weed, the share price has fallen by up to half, then bounced back. Whether intended or not, there are monster profits to be made (30 up to 100% some years) when the price bounces back. I'm not game enough to punt on it, but to those circling above and in managed funds it would make a pretty tasty annual feast.

[ohallen]

If considering legal action, also look at issues that may bring with them personal liability at a director level. That will get their attention and focus the minds.

[busdriver007]

The words "Misleading and Deceptive" might get their attention. Mind you it hasn't hit home at ASIC yet but shareholders need to get angry in this country!:ugh:

[ohallen]

Forget ASIC who have at best a questionable record of achievement. Perhaps they are even similar to the Rat with bloated ranks of highly paid consultant types and lack of demonstrable results for the investment (in this case of public monies).

[theheadmaster]

Yes, what ohallen is talking about is 'pearcing the corporate veil' and is pretty tricky.

I would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law.

[piston broke again]

My big question mark?...
Red Q

How can you possibly launch an asian premium carrier with lie flat beds using A320 aircraft and run them to Europe from a south East Asian base. Max range for 320 is what, 6 hours? How was this possibly going to work without added fuel capacity? How much money was spent on this little enterprise?

[Mstr Caution]

How about the failed Private Equity Bid?

JB stated that the PE bid was taking up the majority of managements attention at the time. To the point they weren't focussing on running the airline.

More money wasted.

[Mstr Caution]

Ordering 787's with the wrong pylons for long haul ops. :8

[VC9]

Interesting that this action is being taken from the group that was going to "slow bake" the company.

Time some of you people take some ownership that you have been part of the problem. So typically Australian to blame everybody else. Grow up!!

[Mstr Caution]

I would argue that pilots engaging in legally protected industrial action was hardly a slow bake.

Hardly the same calibre as say.....engaging in illegal cartel activities to fix freight prices.

Perhaps its actually shareholders, employees & customers that have suffered a slow bake.

[Bazzamundi]

It's the company slow baking the employees.

You kick people for long enough, one day they will look for a way to kick back. Perhaps that is starting to happen.

[CamelSquadron]

First time poster.

I truly hope you are not serious about pursuing this line of legal dispute? The fact that you are even considering this reflects very poorly on ALAEA.

Firstly your legal argument has no chance of success and you are wasting your own time, your own resources and those of your employer.

Secondly, even if your legal argument has some chance of success, what are you hoping to achieve from all of this?

You should be focusing your resources on how you can assist your employer to become more competitive. You should be looking at the activities of the competitors to Qantas that are causing it damage and highlight the inequities it faces and the regulatory missteps that are damaging Qantas. The only way to may your jobs more secure is to help your employer not hinder them.

You have run out of Old Cheese and you need to go in search of New Cheese. You need to stop being Hem and quickly become Haw. (Who Moved My Cheese by Dr Spencer Johnson).

[SOPS]

Camel...I don't think you get it. Qantas does not want to be competitive. It wants to close down. Qantas has shut down world class, best in world, engineering facilities, shrunk International to nothing, come up with total BS like Red Q.....spent millions on failed LLCs around the world......And no, I don't work for Qantas, but I can see what's going on, and that is the management controlled destruction of a once great airline, but as I have said many times before on these threads....I'm f:mad:ked if I can work out why they are doing it.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You should be focusing your resources on how you can assist your employer to become more competitive. You should be looking at the activities of the competitors to Qantas that are causing it damage and highlight the inequities it faces and the regulatory missteps that are damaging Qantas. The only way to may your jobs more secure is to help your employer not hinder them.

We have no problem assisting Qantas and would love them to be the most profitable airline in the world. The problem is that Qantas appear to be making decisions to prevent them ever becoming profitable. The hindrance is from within.

The case is about them not seeking to remain competitive. If we win the case, they will be required to at least try and become a competitive company again. They know that cannot happen with the Jetstar Asian fantasy airline arrangement and the current management team.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Interesting that this action is being taken from the group that was going to "slow bake" the company

Funny our group should be attributed to a comment we never made.

Some of the similar replies on this thread that attack our union or the workers indicate to me that Qantas are worried about this potential case. We know they follow and post on this site so thnx. Your interest has been noted.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

JB stated that the PE bid was taking up the majority of managements attention at the time. To the point they weren't focusing on running the airline. This one goes back to 2007. I think for what we want for this case, that may not really fit in being a different management team.

Red Q

How can you possibly launch an asian premium carrier with lie flat beds using A320 aircraft and run them to Europe from a south East Asian base. Max range for 320 is what, 6 hours? How was this possibly going to work without added fuel capacity? How much money was spent on this little enterprise? I like the potential of this arm of a case. I think I need to do some research on the Red Q debacle. Are the Neo's still on order?

I would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law. Of course we would use legals when we are ready. You need the information to take to them though. The discussion here is well worth the time beforehand. Imagine if I went to an SC cold and said I want you to run a case about Qantas not remaining competitive, his first question would be - in what way aren't they seeking to remain competitive?

Ordering 787's with the wrong pylons for long haul ops. Maybe. Not sure how long ago the order went in though. Be good if someone could find out.

Thinking out aloud here ,Fed Sec, instead of a costly court case as you propose, , would a "poison pill "type court case be a better option?
Have a Class Action for the mom and pop investors ready to run , the trigger of course will be when the big boys make their Private Equity grab. You could run them both. Mum and Dad class actions aren't in my area though. All I know is that someone has to do something or 30,000 people will most likely be out of work.

shutting the airline down because of pilots wearing red ties would surely fall into these clauses This one would be almost impossible to prove. The company could say that PIA could have been indefinite and cost them a billion. I reckon we can find 20 more direct examples of them deliberately blowing money. It need not be huge ticket items, could be a simple as giving i-pads to Politicians.

I've been told that Air Vanuatu who used to have their 737 Maintenance done by Qantas in Brisbane has now been told this will no longer be available.

There are a whole lot of Engineering contracts that I have heard they have passed on. If anyone has any details we need to roll that in to the case.

[CamelSquadron]

You have a fixation with Jetstar.

So lets ignore the lack of merit in your proposed legal case and think this one through as if you had some chance of success.

Despite your complaints about Jetstar, it remains an asset that has significant value. So if you were able to have some success tackling Jetstar then Qantas would be forced to sell it. It wont be closed down, it is way too late for that, it has too much value.

Jetstar then falls into the hands of a third party. This third party may be more cashed up than Qantas and it wont be hamstrung by the Qantas Act or any historical EBA obligations and its Australian businesses can be foreign owned (utilising the Virgin International structure). The new Jetstar owner wont have to worry about any market segmentation to protect Qantas mainline.

Is this what you want to achieve?

[Just watching]

Another first time poster, and another in agreement with CamelSquadron.
I cannot believe such a waste of time and money would be considered. It makes the union & leaders look foolish.

I would like to go back to a fantastic quote from Steve Purvinas regarding the QF32 incident and LH Technic doing the C check. I quote from News.com.au from 5th November 2010 "Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association secretary Steve Purvinas said since Qantas sent engineering and safety checks to countries such as Singapore, the national carrier's once near-perfect safety record had suffered.
And he said the German-based Lufthansa engineers who serviced the A380 Airbus involved in yesterday's incident did not even have the same aircraft in their own fleet."
Yet by this time LH had 3 380s in their fleet, and to me, says a lot about the agenda of the person making this quote, that a simple fact cannot be checked first.

Not to mention how hypocritical this thought of legal action seems. How can you say you want QANTAS to be profitable, yet partake in action of "death by 1000 cuts". No, the union didn't say this, but your actions are attributed to this saying.

Also it has been mentioned, the cost of Mr Joyce shutting the airline down for that period, but at no stage do I see any mention of the costs of the union action. [Put by Clayton Utz @ $68M please check their website for this reference]. I think it would be worth bearing in mind that union actions have also had a significant impact in profit.

SOPS, could you please reference where it is said Qantas wants to shut down. I would be very interested to read any articles.

[600ft-lb]

Hmm, the 6th of January, the day when the managers come back to work after their restful Christmas hiatus. Back to solving the airlines problems it seems, 1 pprune post at a time.

[Mstr Caution]

Just Watching

LH got it's first A380 in May 2010.

QF got it's first A380 in Sept 2008.

Did LH engineers conduct any maintenance on the said A380 between 2008 & May 2010.

If so, SP quote is correct.

[Sunfish]

Camel Squadron and "Just Watching" are both out of your depth and should perhaps read much more and deeply about Qantas before opening your yapper.

To take "just watching" first:

(1) If you knew anything about transport aircraft, you would know that there are an almost infinite number of configurations of engines, supporting structures and systems, avionics, cabin layout and equipment that makes aircraft unique hence SP's statement is entirely correct - to put it another way it is totally unlikely that a Lufthansa configured A380 would be the same as a QF configured A380.

(2) A perusal of any number of threads on Pprune will demonstrate that employees wish the company to be profitable and have made numerous suggestions and contributions to improve profitability over many years - all of which have been studiously ignored by management.

(3) A simple study of the employment relations practices of Qantas show that they are:

(a) Bizarre.

(b) Cruel.

(c) expensive.

Translation: Qantas woes are self inflicted by its own management for bizarre reasons that fly in the face of good corporate governance principles.


Camelsquadron, please don't come up with this "who moved my cheese" crap. That only applies if you are operating in a good faith environment and Qantas has conclusively proved by its own management actions that it operates in Bad Faith mode which it demonstrated by prolonging EBA negotiations for over 12(?) months, then kicking over the chess board by grounding the airline.

In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; likewise regarding either the rectitude or the depravity of a line of conduct. As a legal concept bona fides is especially important in matters of equity (see Contract).[1][2] Linguistically, in the U.S., American English usage of bona fides applies it as synonymous with credentials, professional background, and documents attesting a person's identity, which is not synonymous with bona fide occupational qualifications.

[1746]

Well said Sunny!:D::D:D

[Budfox]

Just Watching

Take the first letter of each name and get...........

J= Joyce
W= Wirth

Bravo welcome back from holidays :D

[c100driver]

Jetstar, the discount unit of Australian airline Qantas Airways, lost ground on trans-Tasman routes last year, though still managed to send some $156.2 million back to its parent.

The airline's subsidiary Jetconnect, which manages the group's trans-Tasman passenger schedule, reported a 17 per cent drop in profit to $8.8 million in the 12 months ended June 30, on an 11 per cent drop in sales to $67 million, according to statements filed with the Companies Office.

During that period, rival Air New Zealand increased its passenger numbers on Tasman/Pacific routes 3.5 per cent to 3.18 million. In the five months to Nov. 30, Air NZ lifted passenger numbers on those routes 2.9 per cent to 1.36 million.

The local Jetstar unit had $147.9 million of cash at the end of its 2012 financial year, and returned capital of $98.2 million to Qantas on March 22 last year, on top of a $58 million dividend payment to its parent the same day.

Jetstar made inroads into Air New Zealand's grip on the domestic market, reporting market share of 22.4 per cent as at June 30 from 20.6 per cent a year earlier, when it published the group's annual result in August.

Sister New Zealand unit, Jetstar Airways, which employs and hires cabin and technical crew for budget brand Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd, made a profit of $2.4 million in the June year, from $1.9 million a year earlier, according to separate financial statements.

Operating income, which is derived from the wider Jetstar unit, climbed 26 per cent to $26.8 million, outpacing the 25 per cent increase in spending on manpower and staff of $23.4 million.

Since then, Qantas's credit rating was cut to a sub-investment grade BB+ after warning of a first half loss of up to A$300 million, blaming a deterioration in trading conditions and a weaker return on fares.

Shares in Qantas fell 0.9 per cent to A$1.09 in trading today, having plunged 27 per cent in 2013. The stock is rated an average 'hold' based on 12 analysts compiled by Reuters, with a median target price of A$1.16.

Jetconnect recognised the Inland Revenue Department's tax investigation into optional convertible notes case as a contingent liability, even though it used $10.3 million of tax losses against the tax department's shortfall penalties assessment. If it wins the dispute it will reinstate the tax losses.

New Zealand's tax department is seeking to deny interest deductions claimed on the notes which were used to fund Qantas's former interest in rival carrier Air New Zealand.

The IRD contends the hybrid securities, which let companies juggle equity and debt to provide a tax advantage, were structured purely to minimise tax. The tax department has previously won in the High Court and Court of Appeal in favour of its assessment of the notes against Western Australia's Alesco Corp, and the Supreme Court will hear the case next month.

[Fruet Mich]

The local Jetstar unit had $147.9 million of cash at the end of its 2012 financial year, and returned capital of $98.2 million to Qantas on March 22 last year, on top of a $58 million dividend payment to its parent the same day.

Very poor journalism. It was Jetconnect (Qantas) that had $147 million in cash and who returned $98 million to Qantas. This after gifting around $78 million to Jetstar NZ a few years back.

Jetstar NZ is not registered with the NZ companies office.

Documents (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1143116/documents?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanie s%2Fsearch%3Fmode%3Dstandard%26type%3Dentities%26q%3Djetconn ect)

[maui]

a 17 per cent drop in profit to $8.8 million in the 12 months ended June 30, on an 11 per cent drop in sales to $67 million, according to statements filed with the Companies Office.


8.8 mil profit on sales of 67 mil. A 13% PROFIT on turnover.


Wow what a truly an amazing business!!!!!


M

[CamelSquadron]

Sunfish said "Camelsquadron, please don't come up with this "who moved my cheese" crap. That only applies if you are operating in a good faith environment and Qantas has conclusively proved by its own management actions that it operates in Bad Faith mode which it demonstrated by prolonging EBA negotiations for over 12(?) months, then kicking over the chess board by grounding the airline".

I can only suggest you do some reading because you have just slam dunked "who moved my cheese". You need to wake up, look forward and put your collective intellect and resources into how you can contribute towards making Qantas more competitive if you want to really want to save jobs.

You need to get on the front foot, see what is coming and try to pull together solutions now. From these posts in these forums, you can all see what is coming - maybe the exact detail varies a little - but you all can see it. You cant stop it by trying to stand still or by looking backwards. Put your heads together and try to come up with solutions that work for both you and your employer.

I will leave it here. You can pursue your legal argument if you like but your wasting your time and money. I dont expect you to listen as you have a previous track record for not doing with disastrous consequences for your members.

In the end if you happen to the be the last person leaving one of the "engineering buildings" for the final time who has to turn off the lights - dont look back and blame Qantas for your demise - you can blame yourselves because you wasted the opportunity to be pro-active and chose to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[SOPS]

Just Watching....I just look at things like not investing in 777s, not giving any 787s to International, closing down routes and/or gifting them to Jetstar, completely walking away from main land Europe...I could be wrong, but it seems like a slow close down or at least a hell of a big shrink to me.

[tarmacrat]

Fed Sec

Not sure if you can use this?

Qantaslink (Sunstate) VR and CR in Brisbane total number 13, then after 12 months later double that number put on in hangar and AME contractors.

Just told a contractor went crying to DD and will not sign for two AME (LAME but not on type). (Something to do with engine rigging and is the second time with the same contractor). Good work safety department.

So good to be out and free.

[Just watching]

@ SUNFISH....How would you know if we are out of our depth?? What do you know about me that gives you the right to make this judgement?
I don't or haven't presumed anything about you

(1) If you knew anything about transport aircraft, you would know that there are an almost infinite number of configurations of engines, supporting structures and systems, avionics, cabin layout and equipment that makes aircraft unique hence SP's statement is entirely correct - to put it another way it is totally unlikely that a Lufthansa configured A380 would be the same as a QF configured A380.

The why say anything then. No A 380 will be the same especially OQA,B & C. LH Technic by this reasoning shouldn't be doing any checks on anything other than their own planes. And to follow on this line of thought, good thing Air Vanuatu isn't getting any maintenance checks done by Qantas because who knows about spec differences in these planes!

"2) A perusal of any number of threads on PPRuNe will demonstrate that employees wish the company to be profitable and have made numerous suggestions and contributions to improve profitability over many years - all of which have been studiously ignored by management."

Ah the "if its said on PPRuNe then its true". How do you know that I haven't been reading for a good many years. I haven't been rude to you and I haven't presumed anything about you, so as asked before please tell me what you know about me that gives you knowledge to make these factual judgments

Could someone tell me if it was an Australian LAME who recently in making a seal repair, removed an upper door instead of making repair insitu, in spite of being against Airbus methodology to remove the door. So then said 380 was AOG until Airbus could send the actual guy and his specific tool who fitted this door in Toulouse. Yup best in world....

[Workers Perspective]

Maybe the QF Board should consider this. :}

Why attractive CEOs boost share prices (http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/why-attractive-ceos-boost-share-prices-20140106-30cnc.html)

A university study has found that companies can boost their share prices by hiring good-looking chief executives.

Economists at the University of Wisconsin, Joseph Halford and Hung-Chia Hsu, found a positive correlation between a company's stock performance and their chief executive's "facial geometry".

The study, Beauty is Wealth: CEO Appearance and Shareholder Value, used a "facial attractiveness index" to value the appearance of 677 chief executives from the S&P 500.

It found that "attractive" bosses receive better total compensation and can improve share prices on their first day by creating a good first impression. The research also suggested that they perform better on the negotiating table, and are more likely to land good deals.

Regular media appearances can also improve shares if the chief executive is attractive, the study found.

"CEO attractiveness may also affect shareholder value through the visibility channel, in which media attention may affect a firm’s investor base and stock prices," it said.

"We find that more attractive CEOs are associated with better stock returns on CEO-related television news days."

Speaking to CNBC, the researchers said that Marissa Mayer, the 38-year-old chief executive of Yahoo, was a good example, while being quick to stress that CEO attractiveness is only a small part of share performance.

Since Ms Mayer charge of Yahoo!, the company's shares have risen by more than 150 per cent.

"She scored 8.45 (out of 10) in our facial attractiveness index and is among the top 5 per cent in our sample," they said. "Of course, we don't mean that all the increase in stock price is from her appearance. We just find that there might be some positive correlation between the two."

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Could someone tell me if it was an Australian LAME who recently

I could tell you but I won't. This thread is about potential court action against Qantas for not seeking to remain competitive. Start another thread if you want to talk about maintenance errors.

Qantaslink (Sunstate) VR and CR in Brisbane total number 13, then after 12 months later double that number put on in hangar and AME contractors.


Yes might be something in all the Sunstate redundancies. I have heard their maintenance is now twice as costly.

Keep adding ideas guys. I will collate them all before long.

[neville_nobody]

Despite your complaints about Jetstar, it remains an asset that has significant value

What on earth gave you that idea? Take away all the QF subsidisation and freebies and how much value does it really have?

How on earth can it survive without QF propping it up? It would be impossible.

As said before you're out of your league here....

[600ft-lb]

Could someone tell me if it was an Australian LAME ... Yup best in world....

You seem intimate with this knowledge, it would be interesting to know what your job is. My guess its got something to do with cutting costs, in an office, dealing with consultants and drinking the koolaid combined with a pathological hatred of LAME's. You'd have to either be an aircraft engineer or an office dweller who loves a bit of water cooler hot gossip action.

We could all go off on a slagging off contest like mentioning staples, upside engine mount washers, checks requiring a/c power signed of during a poweroff phase of a check, leak checks c/o without panels fitted etc, but that would be setting people off on a tangent which has NOTHING to do with this thread.

[aveng]

You need to get on the front foot, see what is coming and try to pull together solutions now. From these posts in these forums, you can all see what is coming - maybe the exact detail varies a little - but you all can see it. You cant stop it by trying to stand still or by looking backwards. Put your heads together and try to come up with solutions that work for both you and your employer.


Camelsqadron

You either ARE a QF manager or a naive bystander - because, if you did try talking to QF managers you'd know its like talking to a brick wall. Everyone I know who has sent emails suggesting cost cutting (as requested by LS) has been shot down.:rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Camelsquadron you are out of the loop. The entire "who moved my cheese", "Bridge of trust", "Pity city", "engagement surveys" and a host of other very expensive HR related motivational and change management strategies have been inflicted on the Qantas workforce over the last Ten years.

The only problem is that the management operates in Bad Faith mode all the time and any employees who actually try to internalise all the right stuff end up getting screwed.

The best (worst) example of Qantas management behaviour is their habit of announcing long running "reviews" of various parts of their business which always end with the closure of the affected part and the firing of the employees. This is just plain cruel as it is designed to maximise fear, uncertainty and doubt in the workforce. The correct way to do this stuff is either clean and slow, with a timetable and lots of consultation and support for the workforce or quick and dirty where its done very fast and one then spends time supporting the remaining workforce.

I speak as someone who has managed both types of process and participated in any amount of team building and motivational exercises including Seven day live in sessions etc. over Thirty years.

[SOPS]

I have never read the book, but it would seem to me a hell of a lot of cheese was moved when BKK-LHR, HKG-LHR, SIN-FRA just to name a few were given up.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I am getting a few pms that are adding to the list of options. This one is interesting. Wondering if any of our other Perth friends have witnessed the same.


Apparently there have been quite a few Qantas ads offering $600 return trips to Sin. When you go to search for the fares on the net, the Qantas website redirects to the Jetstar-Asia as the only option for $600 fares.


I would imagine Qantas are paying for the ads. It is certainly using the goodwill of a great airline. Any profit however would be returned to an outfit only 49% owned by Qantas. Shame.

[Kemerton]

Geepers,
The number of A320's in storage around the world is growing.
Melbourne
Bordeaux
Japan
Toulouse
This is extraordinary. Wow

[Sunfish]

As I've said in the other thread, I have a feeling Qantas is going to go into administration. Nothing chews up money like an airline, and having jets sitting idle for any reason is disastrously expensive.

[waren9]

can someone have a count up and get sandilands to write something?

[Romulus]

There you go Waren9

Crikey (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/07/are-idle-jetstar-a320s-bleeding-qantas-cash/)

[Suck&Blow]

Done. See Ben's article in Plane Talking this morning! :D:D:D

[theheadmaster]

While Qantas loses money due to these leased aircraft sitting idle, the owners of the leases still make their money. Who owns the leases? If you can find that out, I suspect the whole puzzle will fit together...

[Australopithecus]

Wait! You aren't saying that current and former executives could lease new aircraft to QF, have them unused yet still be paid? Why, that would amount to transferring three or four billion from the coffers to the executives!

The only way that gambit would work is if you knew in advance the lessee couldn't operate them, ever. Jetstar HK and RedQ were sure-fire winners from the get-go weren't they?

Those :mad: ers!

[Ti64]

Interesting. OK on the face of it this looks like a fools errand, but I acknowledge that there is much I dont know (full text of the wd for example) so I can at best make general comments.

Let me say at the outset that I have a lot of sympathy for what you are facing. I am not in aviation except to the extent I have dealt with aviation related matters in my work, but I have seen enough to know this is probably the most incompetent board and management in my experience. I'm a lawyer by training and member of the AICD and this bunch of tosspots are for me the epitome of what is stuffed with coporate governance and management in this country. They are the poster children for why we are screwed as an economy.

That said, and even if you take that as read, nothing about that actually makes your case.

A few questions first;

1. What does the dispute resolution section of the WD say? Is there a mandatory process and or jurisdiction for dispute resolution in the case of a purported breach of the WD?

2. What is your cause of action? Do you in fact have the cause of action you think you do?

And a few general points.

1. The clause reads like standard waffle clauses we see in a lot of agreements. One I am very familiar with that it resembles is the "best endeavours" clause in commercial licensing agreements. Experience with those suggest there is almost no conduct sufficient to trigger a breach short of writing in your own blood in front of sixteen witnesses "I am deliberately not trying so there suckers" and even then you might get away with it. It is understood as a statement of general intent, more in the way of a recital, and not a litigable provision.

2. Even if it were, and even if everything pointed out eloquently in this thread is true, you still havent made a case. Yes they are crap, but being crap is not a breach in itself. They may justifiably argue that they are following a stragety designed to make the company competitive, its just going worse than expected. The fact it is a stupid one being followed badly isnt enough. The clause doesnt make stupid actionable. You would need to go further into something close to fraud and despite the many conspiracy theories here, you dont got that. And therein lies the rub, no Court is going to let you go on a fishing expedition based on what you've got. If you try to allege what amounts to fraud (or at the least a breach of directors duties) simply on the basis of what you've got here, they will just strike out the claim with costs as being legally embarassing and not disclosing a cause of action.

Good luck to you all, and I hope to God someone somewhere does the right thing for once but I cant see it happening. There may be other more likely (albeit remote) scenarios that could get the fight you need than this one, and if so good luck with them.

[neville_nobody]

Awesome conspiracy theory but I doubt they would have enough cash to run a aircraft leasing operation. You would need over a billion dollars. Whilst QF executives get paid well, a few million here and there doesn't cut in this game.

Institutional banks are the only ones who have the dough to buy 50 aeroplanes.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Google GAAM Nev.

[flyingfrenchman]

Global Aviation Asset Management Pty Ltd.: CEO and Executives - Businessweek (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=114937153)

[sys 4]

there was a rumor going back a few yrs ago,that once the QF executive sold off the QF freight fleet,they discovered that they needed freighters again and it just so happened that the CEO owned a 747,so guess who they asked if they could lease his idle aircraft.Just a rumor though.

[framer]

Does GAAM own any of the idle A320's?

[73to91]

You aren't saying that current and former executives could lease new aircraft to QF, however, they sold the aircraft leasing business in Aug 2011.

FORMER Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon has revealed he and adman John Singleton were among a group of wealthy investors who worked on taking a strategic stake in the airline three months ago, but shelved their plans because of concerns about global instability.

For the first time publicly confirming rumours that have swirled for months, Mr Dixon said a group backed by himself, Mr Singleton and investment banker Mark Carnegie and advised by a global investment bank took a "serious look" at Qantas as its share price slumped to an all-time low.

"All we did was have a look at it," Mr Dixon told The Weekend Australian. "And we looked at it in a serious way. We had some very top people looking at it and had a lot of people interested. But there are a lot of reasons why we decided to let it go at this stage." The aviation business owned by Mr Dixon, Mr Singleton and Mr Carnegie - Global Aviation Asset Management - and a group of wealthy private investors was looking to seize a strategic stake in the airline as an investment opportunity.

GAAM is run by Greg Woolley, a former Macquarie Bank executive who headed the investment committee behind the failed $11 billion takeover bid for Qantas by the Airline Partners Australia consortium, including David Coe's now failed Allco, private equity group TPG and Macquarie Group.

The bid, in 2007, was famously endorsed by the Qantas board and Mr Dixon as chief executive but collapsed after it was blocked by two key shareholders.

In early August, GAAM sold its aircraft leasing business to New York Stock Exchange-listed FLY Leasing for $US1.4bn ($1.44bn).

Speculation that a private equity bidder was circling Qantas surfaced only weeks later, after John Durie reported in The Australian on August 6 that GAAM may be interested.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/we-eyed-qantas-stake-ex-ceo/story-e6frg95x-1226206618200#)

[Paragraph377]

Lads, please read theheadmaster post again :D
Stop retrieving the herrings you are being thrown and look outside the box. The real money earner for an airline executive doesn't come from the paltry millions they earn in salary and bonuses := It comes from airframe, engine and component leasing, GSE leasing/purchases, uniform suppliers and myriads of consultancies such as accounting/auditing/people training.......etc etc. That is where you will find a well connected airline executive is truly earning his moolah!
But beware - To find the needle in the haystack takes a LOT of hard work, a support fund and some very well respected investigators. The spiders webs have many many threads in them.
The answers ARE out there, you just need to dig in the right areas. I genuinely wish you all the very best. Don't go down without a fight and if it does come to a fight to the death make sure you take some of the top level f:mad:s with you. Now start digging!!!

Camelsquadron and just watching, nice work. It is always fun to watch pathetic management trying to dilute the truth. Particularly just watching, activating one of your many 'sleeper' identities stored in readiness for a Pprune attack on those who aren't 'towing the party line' or who dare to raise some well researched facts about your snivelling little 'sneaks'. Hmmmm yes you would be surprised who works within your very own fold and is prepared to sell out even their top tier buddies :E . Read it and weep, your ball of string will unravel :ok:

[Romulus]

Para377 - are you making accusations of fraud?

[Paragraph377]

Romulus, NO. I am stating that some airline executives (I didn't say QF executives) are crafty buggers. And no, I do not believe it to be fraudulent to be a part owner in a supply company anyway. I do not know of what 'fraud' you speak of Sir.

[Romulus]

Romulus, NO. I am stating that some airline executives (I didn't say QF executives) are crafty buggers. And no, I do not believe it to be fraudulent to be a part owner in a supply company anyway. I do not know of what 'fraud' you speak of Sir.

If such a relationship isn't declared and appropriate steps taken to identify conflicts of interest throughout the procurement process and mitigate them then it is almost certainly fraudulent behaviour (in most western countries anyway, I don't have any knowledge of other legal systems).

[600ft-lb]

On the face of it all, Qantas does have some pretty good safeguards in place for procurement of items. It's a bit hard to hide stuff like that in such a high profile company. They do make us suffer through online course after online course after all.

[Paragraph377]

If such a relationship isn't declared and appropriate steps taken to identify conflicts of interest throughout the procurement process and mitigate them then it is almost certainly fraudulent behaviour (in most western countries anyway, I don't have any knowledge of other legal systems).
You are probably quite correct with that assumption. But again I reiterate that my comment was general and not aimed at any specific airline. As you yourself would be aware there are numerous different airlines mentioned by others within this thread. Then there are the countless airlines that haven't been mentioned by name.
Your point is duly noted, but totally not relevant to what I was expressing, old friend.

Cheers

[AEROMEDIC]

Perhaps the answer can be found in Section 3.1 of the Corporations Act regarding Continuous Disclosure.
Surely, enough posts on this thread can be explored to discover if the board or any of the directors have failed to comply.
Continuous Disclosure requires these directors to provide any market sensitive information to the market and the ASX if not previously reported. Given that costs have ramped up again due to the matters discussed here, it would seem that another report to the market is overdue.

Now, where to start.....

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

A few questions first;

1. What does the dispute resolution section of the WD say? Is there a mandatory process and or jurisdiction for dispute resolution in the case of a purported breach of the WD?
The WD has the usual dispute res clause. You raise your concern with the company first (which we will), if unresolved goes to higher management and then FWC. FWC can arbitrate but not compel witnesses or evidence. Nothing in dispute clause prevents any party going to Fed Court at any time.

2. What is your cause of action? Do you in fact have the cause of action you think you doI'm not sure what you mean by this. What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others.

1. The clause reads like standard waffle clauses we see in a lot of agreements. One I am very familiar with that it resembles is the "best endeavours" clause in commercial licensing agreements. Experience with those suggest there is almost no conduct sufficient to trigger a breach short of writing in your own blood in front of sixteen witnesses "I am deliberately not trying so there suckers" and even then you might get away with it. It is understood as a statement of general intent, more in the way of a recital, and not a litigable provision.

Yes I agree this would be a tough fight to win. We actually ran a case last year over another aspect of this clause in the Fed Court. Although we didn't get the outcome we wanted, there were some very import things to take away from the decision. The one that for me sticks out was these words - "The clause must have some work to do".

2. Even if it were, and even if everything pointed out eloquently in this thread is true, you still havent made a case. Yes they are crap, but being crap is not a breach in itself. They may justifiably argue that they are following a stragety designed to make the company competitive, its just going worse than expected. The fact it is a stupid one being followed badly isnt enough. The clause doesnt make stupid actionable. You would need to go further into something close to fraud and despite the many conspiracy theories here, you dont got that. And therein lies the rub, no Court is going to let you go on a fishing expedition based on what you've got. If you try to allege what amounts to fraud (or at the least a breach of directors duties) simply on the basis of what you've got here, they will just strike out the claim with costs as being legally embarassing and not disclosing a cause of action.

Again I agree that stupidity alone will not be enough to proceed here. Remember what you have seen upfront on Pprune is only a portion of the info we are gathering before we make a decision to go ahead.

[Devil Dog]

I'm a bit confused perhaps someone can resolve my confusion...does the QSA relate to QF International or The QF Group as a whole? Thanks in advance.

[Creampuff]

From the QSA:3 Interpretation
…
Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time (even if its name is later changed).Qantas Airways Limited is a single corporate entity, not 'the group'.7 Qantas’ articles of association to include certain provisions

(1) The articles of association of Qantas must, on and from the day on which Qantas first becomes aware that a person, other than the Commonwealth or a nominee of the Commonwealth, has acquired voting shares in Qantas:

(a) impose restrictions on the issue and ownership (including joint ownership) of shares in Qantas so as to prevent foreign persons having relevant interests in shares in Qantas that represent, in total, more than 49% of the total value of the issued share capital of Qantas; and

(aa) impose restrictions on the issue and ownership (including joint ownership) of shares in Qantas so as to prevent foreign airlines having relevant interests in shares in Qantas that represent, in total, more than 35% of the total value of the issued share capital of Qantas; and

(b) impose restrictions on the issue and ownership (including joint ownership) of shares in Qantas so as to prevent any one foreign person having relevant interests in shares in Qantas that represent more than 25% of the total value of the issued share capital of Qantas; and

(c) impose restrictions on the counting of votes in respect of the appointment, replacement and removal of a director of Qantas so as to prevent the votes attaching to all substantial foreign shareholdings being counted in respect of the appointment, replacement or removal of more than one‑third of the directors of Qantas who hold office, at any particular time; and

(d) confer the following powers on the directors of Qantas to enable the directors to enforce the restrictions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c):

(i) the power to do anything necessary to effect the transfer of shares held by a person;

(ii) the power to remove or limit the right of a person to exercise voting rights attached to voting shares;

(iii) the power to end the appointment of a person to the office of director of Qantas; and

(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.There is also a definition of, and provisions relating to, ‘Qantas subsidiary’. Here is a link to the QSA: Qantas Sale Act 1992 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00928)

[WorthWhat]

Time To Get On With It

Can’t help but be bemused by the view that Qantas Airways Limited can simply split off Qantas Domestic from Qantas Airways Limited, as created by the merger of Qantas and TAA and deem ‘Qantas Domestic’ to be a subsidiary - thereby escaping the obligations of the QSA.

The QSA states:
• ‘Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time, (even if its name is later changed),’
• ‘Qantas subsidiary means a body corporate that is a subsidiary of Qantas,’ and
• ‘Whether a body corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate is to be determined in the same manner as that question is determined under the Corporations Act 2001,’

And whilst I am not a lawyer, I suspect the above may be technically possible?

However, to do so would, I understand, require ‘approval by members’ and the 100,000 or so Qantas retail members who hold less than 10,000 shares each, may well take the view that splitting off the most profitable element of Qantas as created in 1995, is not in their interest and strenuously oppose any such split.

If attempted, personally expect such a contentious approach would ultimately become bogged down in heavy duty legal action and frighten off any strategic investors Qantas may otherwise be able to attract.

Better to come up with a solution that solidifies the various stakeholder groups and attracts investors I reckon.

It takes two to tango and it’s time to get on with it.

[waren9]

and jq's rebuttal

Wednesday 8 January 2014

Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong aircraft

The Sydney Morning Herald has today reported that there are a small number of aircraft for Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong which are awaiting deployment.

The Jetstar Group fleet order allows for a flexible approach with the allocation of flying resources. The additional aircraft in Japan will be used for upcoming services and to launch Jetstar Japan’s planned second base in Osaka this year. Jetstar Japan is Japan’s fastest growing LCC and recently launched its 10th destination and celebrated three million passengers.

There are also a small number of aircraft in Toulouse intended for Jetstar Hong Kong operations. The Jetstar Hong Kong board is evaluating options to manage its fleet in the short term as it has taken longer than anticipated to work through the approval process.

The Jetstar Group will continue to expand operations across its network, including in Australia, in 2014. About one-sixth of Qantas Group revenue comes from Asian operations. Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong are supported by strong local partners including Mitsubishi, Japan Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Shun Tak Holdings to tap into the immense opportunities of the Asia region.

[Ken Borough]

Waren,

That's not a rebuttal! It's bullsh!t of the most simplistic kind and fails to address the real issue. How can anyone possibly hope to make money with expensive assets sitting idle or terribly under-utilized? We know that their two 787s are presently flying very low daily hours. It would be interesting to know the daily utilization if the Japanese fleet. Jetstar is, after all, a low cost carrier and therefore cannotafford to burn cash the way it appears to be doing.

[CamelSquadron]

I suppose if all of your conspiracy theories are right then it is better for Qantas that the ALAEA waste its members resources on a legal action that has no chance of success.

"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."

Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!

[neville_nobody]

If there was really something in this wouldn't ASIC be onto it? They seem to get bank managers skimming accounts, so for people with the resources, ability and the legal power it wouldn't be that hard to find who owns what. You can't hide an aeroplane, the leases are virtually public information. And even if the owners were some group in the Caymens ASIC could start hunting them or bounce them onto the ATO.

[FYSTI]

Au contraire neville, everything done will meet the absolute black letter legalities of the law, comply with the applicable accounting standards, just as ENRON did. It is all hidden in plain sight.

It is the unintended consequences of complexity, inconsistencies, imprecision, ambiguous language that create loopholes in the myriad of accounting standards & legislation. Then add in multiple jurisdictions & the language & translation of regulations & standards on top of that. The problems are extremely sublime, subtle & manifold.

The globalisation of capital means it is back to the wild west where virtually anything goes with jurisdiction shopping. The rules no longer apply, if they ever actually did. Quite frankly, they can do, and have done whatever they want, and it is all completely black letter law "legal".

You might want to look into the history of the Sarbanes Oxley Act for a guidepost to the thinking. However, every written law will have complexities that allow clever lawyers to work around its clear intent & spirit. Remember, they get the cash first, and argue about who to pay latter. This gives them an enormous war-chest & advantage over everyone else.

Australia has weak accounting standards, and therefore companies are ripe for the plucking. I have a feeling the Australian public will get to see this for themselves in the not too distant future, and it will be a harsh lesson.

[Sunfish]

CamelSquadron:

I suppose if all of your conspiracy theories are right then it is better for Qantas that the ALAEA waste its members resources on a legal action that has no chance of success.

"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."

Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!

I'm labelling you as a troll, or terribly misinformed.

(1) A group of investors attempted to take the airline private with the support of management and the Board. That same group have looked at buying Qantas again as late as December 2012. Considering the continuing bizarre behaviour of managment I fail to see how conspiracy is not able to be ruled out.

(2) The ALAEA has been a model of rectitude in its dealings with Qantas, I therefore fail to see how they are "the problem". Managment has not dealt in good faith with the ALAEA in my opinion.

You really should read a lot more before making sweeping statements.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The ALAEA offered 25% less wages for staff in 2014 at Avalon to keep it open. Offer was rejected by the company. If you think that is a union that is causing problems I would suggest that you may be wrong.


Nev ASIC are weak as pi$$ in this country. They didn't even act when shareholders raised motions that weren't even tabled by the Board at the 2012 AGM.

[V-Jet]

The Jetstar Hong Kong board is evaluating options to manage its fleet in the short term as it has taken longer than anticipated to work through the approval process.

You have got to be kidding! A pre schooler could have told them that!!

It is clear to everyone except the management double speak clowns that dreamt up this aaammmaaazzzingggg business that JQ is bleeding cash. Even a statement like the one above displays monumental stupidity. Seriously - who would have possibly thought the Chinese Govt might take a while to agree to BGA's great plan??

Who here would think that BGA losing hundreds of thousands a day on wasted aircraft is going to hurry the regulators along?

God give me strength!!

[CamelSquadron]

"The ALAEA offered 25% less wages for staff in 2014 at Avalon to keep it open. Offer was rejected by the company. If you think that is a union that is causing problems I would suggest that you may be wrong."

It was a good move but came late.

If I was in your position I would be focused on developing potential solutions involving the rest of your members now rather than wait until its too late. Get on the front foot.

Jobs are going to go and more work is going to be outsourced and off-shored. What can you do now to make your members more efficient and cost effective so they can put their best foot forward when the company evaluates its options?

Seek to make the changes now so the changes become irrefutable facts and not promises.

Yes its simplistic but you need to move forward and stop looking backwards and adapt quickly to what is a rapidly changing market.

Forget focusing on Jetstar, its a change that has already happened and its not going away. Your wasting your resources trying to fight Jestar - you need to put those resources into developing solutions.

Dont wait until February's announcements to get started - get started now!

[CamelSquadron]

Take a look at the latest report on CAPA titled "Unit cost analysis of Emirates, IAG & Virgin; about learning from a new model, not unpicking it". Its a worthwhile read.

[V-Jet]

CS: Clearly you haven't worked for this collection of no-hope losers and incompetents. They should not ever have been allowed near anything as complicated as a mousetrap and yet an ever bigger collection of morons gave them an airline!!

Do you not think that nearly 30,000 staff have been as pro-active as they possibly can for more than 90years to make this airline a success? Imagine how you would feel watching it being stolen from, destroyed, wasted and thrown away in 10 short years?

And then to add insult to injury an equal fool suggests that staff need to change.

Yeah right!

[CamelSquadron]

Yes V-Jet, staff need to change. Change never stops. The world will not stand still for your benefit.

Dont change and more jobs will go. Its that simple.

[Sunfish]

Camel squadron is a know nothing troll. It's management that refuse to change, not Qantas staff.

[CamelSquadron]

Believe it or not Sunfish, I am trying to help. I have said enough now and wish you all the best.

[Mstr Caution]

I was told that at the Price Waterhouse Coopers Engagement forum in May 2013.

One pilot stood up and said to management that the failures lay in the strategy. That before investing in untested ventures in Asia such as Red Q or JQ Japan. They had to sort out QF Mainline (Domestic & International)

The management response was something like, the Strategy is Not Negotiable.

Roll forward 8 months.

And what do you know.......

There is a complete "Strategic Review" being undertaken due in February 2014.

I wouldn't place too much faith in the strategic overview. As it comes from the same crew that gave QF;

1. A strategic review and came up with Red Q. Leslie Grant spent over 6 months on that winning strategy.

2. A strategic review to split the Domestic & International businesses to improve profitability. Financially, the losses have increased.

MC

[hotnhigh]

Hey camel. Lets cut to the chase,
What is the 12 month loss going to be? $800 mill maybe?
So if you averaged 2200 long haul pilots at 200k you will see there is still a big hole. I'm not sure of the exact lame numbers but you might be able to get my drift.
Even if all the engineers and pilots worked for nothing, Qantas would still loose money. Do you get that? Ie, if Alan's figures are to be believed, no profit.
It's the strategies that have a far greater impact than salaries.
We all agree that efficiencies should always be looked for, but the fact is the strategies are what have decimated the share price, yield, customer loyalty and growth.

[neville_nobody]

Yes V-Jet, staff need to change. Change never stops. The world will not stand still for your benefit.

Meaning what exactly? You can't argue salary as many of the technical people could go overseas and get a pay rise.

So change is meant as what?

It is QF management who need to change and start running an airline.

[Australopithecus]

Camel Squadron: I reckon that it is safe to say, given my user name, that I have been around the block once or twice before you were in long pants. I have seen various generations of "Mr. Set-The-World-Afire" Mba experts try to treat airlines as a plain vanilla retail outlet chain.

Airlines are the oddest of enterprises: part political creature, part commercial, part object of national pride, part everyman's conveyance, part strategic airlift, part invisible, never inaudible.

Airlines have, over the decades, settled on something just less than one hundred employees per narrow body, and historically about 160 per wide-body. Whose fault, exactly, is it that Qantas maintains a bloated ratio nearly twice that? Fix that, starting from the top down, and you will repair the airline's profitability.

Australian airlines may be forgiven the slightly less than optimum tech-crewing ratio requirement: that is the fault of those pesky fatigue limitations as mandated by CASA. Either way, it only adds a marginally higher staff number: two or three at most.

Foreign airlines have paid and do pay higher pilot costs than Qantas: EK, AA, BA, LH, CX, SQ, DL, from time to time depending on exchange rates, etc. Australian employees are hamstrung somewhat by the very high costs of living in this delightful country: taxes, education, dwellings, food, energy, transportation, retail and recreational drugs* all cost far more here than they do in the home countries of many of our competing airlines. So too do the services of any tradesman, taxi driver, executive.

* that was a joke, by the way. I get my drugs online and save heaps!

Name any ground based employee group and try to extract more than slightly marginal savings...and see where that gets you. (It will get get you generation Y ethics/loyalty. ie. zero)** Try the same with pilots and they will, those who can***depart permanently. Why would you stay when pilot-hungry EK will insulate you from the four biggest expesnses a pilot will ever pay; Housing.Schooling.Transportaion.Taxes.

There are other airlines besides EK, by the way.

** apologies to gen x and Y, but why is that every gen Y F/A I encounter is eager to tell me how tired and hungry they are? My daughter's contemporaries dismiss most of their employer's policies with a pithy "f*ck that!" Is that what you want?

*** pilots with compliant spouses, aged less than 54. If that path is taken, then you can count on an odd experience gap over the next ten years.

So then: your contention is that staff owe the company some meaningful changes, some recognition of the realities of modern airline operations. Why is it always the staff? Do you think that airlines (or any business, for that matter) should become the playthings of the management class, and provide an (only) lower middle class income for its actual producers?

Why don't you have a hard look in the mirror, have an honest look at the results of the bold yet pig-ignorant strategy of the board and executive. And then do something appropriately final.

[Mstr Caution]

Australopithecus.

In Qantas (May 2013) there are 2,566 people at Manager level (or above) AND 8,557 Supervisors. Co-ordinating the activities of the other 23,298 employees.

MC

[scrubba]

Australopithecus,

I think I got most of the humour and sarc/irony, but WTF is the "optimum tech-crewing ratio requirement" and how and by whom is it determined? :suspect:

[Australopithecus]

Scrubba: you know exactly WTF the optimum crewing ratio is. Divide the number of monthly hours an aeroplane flies by the (CASA maximum annual hours/12). Anything outside these theoretical maxima is usually the effect of inneficient rostering.

Your average line pilot can fly the CASA mandated maximum hours within the constraints of the working agreements. The fact that the company is unwilling to utilise the aircraft and crews to the most efficient level is not the fault of the pilots.

Oh! One other thing! The company, in a bizarre act of self-abuse is carrying a huge number of surplus pilots. One of their methods of dealing with that is to over crew the 737 since it pays the lowest monthly hour limit. They refuse to create an avenue into Jetstar (a QF enterprise), and they refuse to exercise conventional remedies. They insist on down-sizing the airline, axing profitable routes, failing to have a long-haul fleet plan, failing to provide the simplest common-friggin-decency act of career progression planning.

Here is an exercise for the student: plot the number of managers and executives against the number of aircraft over the last ten years. See a trend? Go fix that then come talk to me about my long suffering colleagues.

[Bahama Breeze]

Why do idiots keep suggesting it's the staff that need to make pay concessions?
The staff didn't put the company in this position.

It sounds like everyone is forgetting what the 'A' in EBA stands for. The company and the staff collectively agree to these terms and conditions. As soon as people start offering pay cuts to work we will turn out like the U.S. with airline staff giving up everything from hourly pay to annual vacation time. We need to stop falling victim to the argument that we as the staff are the issue!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just doing some sniffing around on the ASX website. Noted that Sept-Oct this year Qantas bought back $62M of their own shares. I would think that by then they would have been fully aware that they were heading for their biggest ever half yearly loss.


Why would a company be buying back its own shares knowing that the share price would plummet when their half yearly forecast was made public?

[V-Jet]

Share price/bonus link?

Share price/Ratings Agency link?

Where did the cash come from? Borrowed?

[V-Jet]

Buybacks also underpin the share price to an extent and also allows stale or larger holders a chance to exit their holdings without depressing the market more than it usually would.

That makes a lot of sense...

[ohallen]

If qf management knew of looming loss at time of buy back someone needs to do something but that is unlikely to happen given all vested interests involved.

Also if any link could be found between board knowledge and large shareholders sale then that could be an interesting court case

Market seems to be treated like fools yet again while those in the know get away with whatever they are up to.

[AEROMEDIC]

Under buy back rules, disclosure must be provided on which shareholders have sold their shares back to Qantas.
Might be interesting to find if there has or has not been compliance on this.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This is a link to Airbus insider dealing charges.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db043bb0-5b71-11e3-a2ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qTJNOS9g