JobKeeper and Aviation employees in Oz.

[patagonianworelaud]

The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking.

We all know that lots have missed out on the $1500/fortnight payment , many from the arts, casuals under a certain time with one employer etc and the 6000 odd who work for Toll Dnata being disqualified because their employer is foreign owned. Specifically, I'm wondering, how many aviation people are affected? Are there any other outfits where the foreign government ownership has meant the local salaried workers also miss out despite them paying Australian tax etc. Is there a difference between a company having foreign government ownership or having a bunch of foreign shareholders?

Craig Keely, an MP, raised the Toll Dnata case. Did he get anywhere?

[601]

The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking.

Well think about the time frame on the Jobkeeper introduction when the forecast $130b was made on Treasury figures and the start of the registration by both the employers and employees

Where is the "stuffup"
The next thing the media will be on about is that we only had 100 odd deaths when it was forecast to be 50,000 as reported by SBS.

Are both of these stuff ups or conservative forecasting on an unprecedented event?

More like a "beatup" by the media.

[ringbinder]

You don't think that overestimating a program by around double isn't a "stuff up"? Give it another name if you don't like that term but it won't change things. It was treasury's modelling alone that arrived at this figure which was announced in the PM's press release on March 30th. Now the government is saying that it was errors during applying by companies that has resulted in the discrepancy. "In a statement, Treasury and the ATO said the mistake came from businesses reporting how much financial assistance they expected to receive, instead of how many employees they thought would be eligible. "For example, over 500 businesses with '1' eligible employee reported a figure of '1,500' (which is the amount of JobKeeper payment they would expect to receive for each fortnight for that employee)," the departments said." (https://treasury.gov.au/media-release/jobkeeper-update)

This is utter rubbish as the $130b estimate came out before even one employer had applied and the statement misrepresents the situation.

"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate.

Whatever it's called, it looks like a stuff up.

However, this is getting off the track. The OP raised the issue of how many aviation workers missed out by Job Keeper despite being on the payroll of companies in Australia. Let's stick to that. For example, how did Australian based Air New Zealand workers get on given the NZ gov't owns 52% - did any of those get stood down and, if so, were they disqualified from Job Keeper because of foreign involvement?

[bazza stub]

Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? We would still be months away from seeing payments. This was an emergency measure formulated almost overnight, there were bound to be errors made. The old “Fast, Cheap, Good” rule applies To JK.

As for foreign companies and their Australian staff, that’s a hard one.

[dragon man]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x2000/15d158a6_b656_4b60_a424_fb11bc66726c_5151f0f0cccf23ad8438dd9 92a2c61ec189f8c2f.jpeg

[down3gr33ns]

Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? .

I would, for one. Then all the people who should have got it, would have. Otherwise, implementing it as an emergency measure should have seen immediate and ongoing reviews to fix the shortcomings as they emerged.

Now, instead of seeing that those who wrongly, in my opinion, missed out finally get JobKeeper, the government is claiming the reduced amount as a win. They were prepared to fund it, and would have if the treasury estimates hadn't been so wrong, so why not do the right thing by those Australian paid staff currently excluded. Or, as a consistent alternative, no longer require them to pay Australian tax given the foreign involvement of their employer.

Will they be prevented from getting the pension when the time comes because they worked for a business that had foreign ownership component? I think not so why the disqualification now?

Incidentally, I wrote about this to Fydenburg (as my local member) where his website sates he reads all emails and replies to them. I'm still waiting despite it being three weeks ago.


p.s. dragon man, can you re-post the article as the right-hand edge has been clipped and text is missing. Otherwise, what is the link, please?

[601]

"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate.

Treasury estimated a figure of $130b.
Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO.
Based on the data from the applications, the ATO figures line up with the Treasury estimations. Looks lke the Treasury were correct in the estimations.

Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO.

A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO.

Yeah, we have saved $60b.

[galdian]

Yeah, we have saved $60b.

Whilst it DOES appear some people have been missed out and MAYBE some money could be allocated for stimulus etc the above statement is correct.

Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....."

Morons. :ugh:

[dragon man]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/982x1669/5941fff0_2294_41d4_9987_c2269a9e77d5_3f7b74d3029fc145976c6fc d52df1d24390f69e6.jpeg

[down3gr33ns]

Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....."


No, not so. you had a government prepared to spend that money on the scheme and had the numbers the treasury came up with been correct, it would have been spent. That was the intent and would have happened if there were 6 million workers needing it.
Yes, certainly the debt is reduced with the new figures but given the initial estimates allowed for it, why not use that for the benefit of those that missed out? Or, Galdian, do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough?

Treasury estimated a figure of $130b.
Yes, they did.

Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO
They did that, too.


Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO.
That's happening as well.


A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO.
Yes, AFTER the program had started. The treasury's initial estimate DID NOT HAVE any figures considered other than their own. the employer mistakes became evident after the scheme had started and in no way influenced the treasury's initial calculations.


However, this is getting off the track.
Couldn't agree more. Some input relative to the original post would be welcome to get away from the politics.

[CaptCloudbuster]

do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough?

Yes. I do support and expect the Govt to discriminate and make judgement calls when spending our money. Money I’ll be asked to pay back in spades with interest!

[unobtanium]

Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.

[Qantas 787]

Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.

I was thinking the same - sounds like a role at VA that was not required, and im sure its not required at QF.

What exactly are they doing to be 'working' in recent weeks when most of us are stood down and are not engaged except foe the Town Hall updates, which are optional.

[down3gr33ns]

Yes. I do support and expect the Govt to discriminate and make judgement calls when spending our money.

Discrimination for or against those currently not getting any support? Surely a good judgement call is to support those who need it but are not getting it.

[blubak]

Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.
He is the 1 who has been screwed by the company's interpretation of the jobkeeper system,obviously his level of engagement will be very low.
Interesting too how they say the decision only applies to 1 employee,that would mean every other employee receiving jobkeeper would have been paid correctly!

[galdian]

Discrimination for or against those currently not getting any support? Surely a good judgement call is to support those who need it but are not getting it.

I did allude that there may be those who missed out or that, maybe some funds needed to be used for stimulus etc.

You apparently reckon that money that doesn't exist (has to be borrowed) BUT was predicated on expected requirements in tough times, appears now only half the expected will be required.
BUT you still want to go out and have a big night at the pub and just put it on the credit card?

Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid?

Yes or No....it's not rocket science.

Cheers

[AmarokGTI]

Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.

Soon to be “former....” no doubt.

[down3gr33ns]

Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid?Yes. I’ve never denied, suggested (or even alluded) that it hasn't to be repaid HOWEVER, had the treasury predictions been remotely accurate and the money actually required, then I doubt you’d even be discussing this. They were prepared to support 6 million workers and with the estimated $$$’s it took. They’ve done neither despite their bleatings and now appear mean-spirited.

Now, galdian, I’ve answered your question but I see you’ve artfully avoided answering mine in post number 10. I think that puts your answer squarely in the affirmative.

As for “go out and have a big night at the pub etc.", what an immature, hysterical, trivialising and jingoistic catch phrase. You would appear to believe that those who work for an Australian employer and getting JobKeeper can “go to the pub“ (aka have some security and a semblance of an income) but those whose employers have a foreign basis are excluded and cannot do the same. Now, that’s equitable – NOT.

How do you rationalise the standing down of many thousands without any support whatsoever whilst others doing the same job for another local employer are getting government support? Indeed, there are many still working to various degrees and it is effectively the company getting the benefit via the government wage subsidy. Meanwhile, there are plenty getting NOTHING.

[galdian]

Oh boy, talk about missing the point - and my apologies if my jingoism was too simplistic, I was hoping it would set the scene in simple, maybe humorous, way.

You get a new credit card in the mail, decide to go out on a big night and blow the credit knowing you'll have to pay it back...with interest...your choice blowing money you don't have.

The federal govt has found there's XXX amount of money on their new credit card they WON'T have to blow, won't have to pay back...with interest...and you think they should just go and shout the Oz population a big night out at the pub.

IF, IF you've never denied that the $130BN should be repaid...why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent?? :ugh:

[patagonianworelaud]

All this arguing about the funding, but no-one seems capable of answering my query about which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.

[601]

All this arguing about the funding, but no-one seems capable of answering my query about which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.

That is easy.
Just listen or read social media and you will find a lot who will say that they are adversely affected.

Now it depends on your definition of "adversely affected"

Does it mean people who have not received any payment because they did not meet the criteria or people who are receiving more now that what they were being paid before.
The latter may not be "adversely affected" now but they will let everyone know that they are in the future when JobKeeper stops and they have to go back to what they were being paid before.

[Clare Prop]

As I understand it people not eligible for Jobkeeper can access Jobseeker? Does this apply to the Dnata people?

A lot of people registered for it, including myself, but (thankfully) didn't end up having the required drop in turnover to be eligible for it. This means my part timer missed out on a significant pay rise, so I guess she was adversely affected...

[witwiw]

people not eligible for Jobkeeper can access Jobseeker

Not everyone, unfortunately. Several people I know who have been stood down without Jobkeeper don't qualify for Jobseeker because they are over the aged pension age. They had been working full time, paying taxes still, but there is foreign ownership (non aviation sector) which excludes the Jobkeeper payment..

[kddk]

A lot of dnata staff not eligible for jobseeker if partner over the centrelink threshold poor show by the govt these workers pay their dues here as does dnata , a lot have been left on zero income and families are suffering due to significant income loss . It shouldn’t matter where a buisiness was owned as the pm clearly said this was to keep employees connected to their employers it should have had zero benefit to the company. I believe Emirates are paying staff 50% salary from June 30 so at least some relief for some people out there .

[down3gr33ns]

would set the scene in simple, maybe humorous, way.
I doubt those people excluded from the benefits see anything funny in current matters as it affects them. Rather an unsympathetic attitude on your part..

Government borrowing is a matter of course in their doing business, name one in Australia that hasn’t borrowed/isn’t borrowing to fund projects. You seem to think borrowing is an evil process. Yes, it comes at a price one way or the other either in monetary terms or human terms. You “alluded” to stimulus. Wouldn’t paying those who have missed out the JobKeeper amount provide the stimulus you mention? In lots of cases they could then pay the rent, pay their bills and buy food (have a look at the increased demand that Food Bank is reporting. Even the Victorian Parliamentary kitchens are preparing and distributing 4500 meals a day for those affected by the current circumstances - unprecedented to my knowledge). These people would have some money to spend which in turn flows to other services (landlords, utilities and shops) and be helpful in a widespread manner. The recipients of this spending go on to spend it further - aka stimulus..


..why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent??
I would expect the reality is that those denied JobKeeper will access JobSeeker. It follows, then, that the money not being spent on the former (for those currently eliminated from it) will be spent on the latter. That, in turn, erodes the ”saving” of $60b. Some of that money “saved” will be spent, it’s just a matter of under which scheme it occurs.

Attempting to put it in some perspective, Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper. $1500/fortnight for the term of JobKeeper comes to around $120m over the length of the scheme. Extrapolating that to, say, 1000 people in the aviation sector in the same boat as Toll Dnata, the figure goes to $200m - small bikkies in the grand scheme of things. Now there are many more exclusions (casuals, arts, university academics &c) so, for arguments sake, let’s assume there are 1 million people currently excluded. Paying them Job Keeper would total around $20bn. Using your logic of savings, this represents a “saving” of $40bn on the original estimate – an estimate the government was prepared to fund if necessary. As I said, some of the money will be spent one way or the other, it’s just a matter of how so that $60bn will get eaten into and is not a "saving" in its entirety.

Finally,
that no longer has to be spent
Because it discriminates against a significant number of people deserving of it - no other reason.

-

[patagonianworelaud]

Just listen or read social media and you will find a lot who will say that they are adversely affected.

Cannot, don't have access to it, hence the post.

Looks like it was futile though, thread went off at a tangent.

[Ragnor]

Makes me wonder, when jobkeeper runs out that's when the axe will fall. Virgin, Qantas, Jetstar. what that space

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Makes me wonder, when jobkeeper runs out that's when the axe will fall. Virgin, Qantas, Jetstar. what that space

the stand downs were announced before jobkeeper was, so my guess will be those without useful work will simply remain stood down without a govt subsidy.

Cheaper to keep people stood down without pay than to start paying out redundancies

I’d bet they wait till the end of the crisis when they know exactly how many people they’ll need in the post COVID world before people are permanently sacked

[ringbinder]

Going against my own statement that we stick to the thread topic, I cannot help myself from joining in on the divergence.

Galdian has failed to answer several questions put to him as a result of his comments:-

How do you rationalise the standing down of many thousands without any support whatsoever whilst others doing the same job for another local employer are getting government support?

and

Or, Galdian, do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough?These were asked but which were side-stepped. Why, because answering doesn’t support a particular argument?


and, to answer one of Galdian's:

..why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent??

Only not being spent because too many people have been unfairly locked out of a scheme that should have helped every Aussie worker paying tax but now without any income.

[galdian]

I doubt those people excluded from the benefits see anything funny in current matters as it affects them. Rather an unsympathetic attitude on your part..

Government borrowing is a matter of course in their doing business, name one in Australia that hasn’t borrowed/isn’t borrowing to fund projects. You seem to think borrowing is an evil process. Yes, it comes at a price one way or the other either in monetary terms or human terms. You “alluded” to stimulus. Wouldn’t paying those who have missed out the JobKeeper amount provide the stimulus you mention? In lots of cases they could then pay the rent, pay their bills and buy food (have a look at the increased demand that Food Bank is reporting. Even the Victorian Parliamentary kitchens are preparing and distributing 4500 meals a day for those affected by the current circumstances - unprecedented to my knowledge). These people would have some money to spend which in turn flows to other services (landlords, utilities and shops) and be helpful in a widespread manner. The recipients of this spending go on to spend it further - aka stimulus..



I would expect the reality is that those denied JobKeeper will access JobSeeker. It follows, then, that the money not being spent on the former (for those currently eliminated from it) will be spent on the latter. That, in turn, erodes the ”saving” of $60b. Some of that money “saved” will be spent, it’s just a matter of under which scheme it occurs.

Attempting to put it in some perspective, Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper. $1500/fortnight for the term of JobKeeper comes to around $120m over the length of the scheme. Extrapolating that to, say, 1000 people in the aviation sector in the same boat as Toll Dnata, the figure goes to $200m - small bikkies in the grand scheme of things. Now there are many more exclusions (casuals, arts, university academics &c) so, for arguments sake, let’s assume there are 1 million people currently excluded. Paying them Job Keeper would total around $20bn. Using your logic of savings, this represents a “saving” of $40bn on the original estimate – an estimate the government was prepared to fund if necessary. As I said, some of the money will be spent one way or the other, it’s just a matter of how so that $60bn will get eaten into and is not a "saving" in its entirety.

Finally,

Because it discriminates against a significant number of people deserving of it - no other reason.

-
Apologies for delay, I think we don't disagree on too many points....maybe just degrees.

As I'm now,unemployed and no access to any Federal govt assistance (for reasons I understand) I find it hard to see how I'm unsympathetic to any in the same situation.
I thought I explained my concern with a touch of whimsy or humour, if no-one agrees suppose I can scratch "comedian" off my list of potential future careers. Thanks for the heads up! :ok::ooh:

As I write this I see a couple of other questions from Ringbinder, sure will not satisfy anyone but:
- all this crap happened in a small period of time
- I think ANY Oz govt would have handled in a similar fashion with available information, libs, lab, anyone
- there will ALWAYS be perceptional winners/losers in these circumstances, you'll always have bitching and moaning regardless of the party in power
- life's imperfect.

You want to make it YOUR perception of those that have missed out and deserve $$ from the govt, so be it.

You have kids??

I don't - yet I consider the debt and interest that YOU want to place o YOUR kids/grandchildren and ongoing by taking a $60BN credit card to the pub for a big night out. :ugh:

Sure your kids/grandkids will thank you.
Cheers

[rcoight]

galdian, I understand and agree with you 100%.

[Bend alot]

If inflation remains under control - the money does not need to be paid back!

The government borrowed the money from the government (us), - they generated it on a keyboard.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/should-taxpayers-pay-back-the-government-s-coronavirus-response-package

Given every country has been affected inflation should remain stable compared to other countries.

[Buster Hyman]

... which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.
I know of one small Pacific carrier whose staff here are ineligible. In fact, they were mentioned in the media by MP Craig Kelly (not a great advocate but, you know...). If it applies to one then surely it would apply to all.

[Tom Sawyer]

I believe none of the employees for of any of the ME3 airlines in Australia were eligible due to the foreign ownership clause, despite them being Australian residents/citizens and tax payers. There have been some job cuts and maybe more to follow. Not sure what happened to the proposed amendment motion that was meant to go before Parliament????

[C441]

I'd rather a $60 Billion overestimate than a $60 Billion underestimate, and then some, that was the NBN……...

[down3gr33ns]

I believe none of the employees for of any of the ME3 airlines in Australia were eligible

one small Pacific carrier whose staff here are ineligible

Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper

but there are those that think that is OK because it "saves" $60bn *. Apparently the human cost is just too bad.

Is it not the case that those employees pay Australian tax, spend their money (when they had it) in Australia to contribute to the overall economy, their employers pay the payroll tax despite there being foreign ownership and are obliged to pay the SGC? Why the differentiation, their operations in Australia would be no different if they weren't foreign owned?

* by the time those locked out of Jobkeeper go onto Jobseeker, a good part of that $60bn will disappear as I mentioned earlier. Some just can't seem to grasp that simple point.

[Buster Hyman]

I'm surprised that the usual Law firms aren't jumping onto a class action to recover Tax monies paid by these groups (if they're not eligible for support). The Govt. have opened an interesting can of worms here.

If you look at it from another perspective...would that mean employees of Australian companies in the UK, for example, can claim Jobkeeper?

[Car RAMROD]

Yes Buster, very interesting can indeed. I agree.

aussies employed by the likes of DNATA (and I’m sure there’s more outside of aviation) who have been paying Australian income tax, who are not eligible for Australian government jobkeeper support because they are owned by a “foreign entity” or whatever it is, can those people recover all tax previously paid whilst working for said companies and in future not pay any more tax whilst working for said companies?

[Checklist Charlie]

Just a small point, employees do not claim "JobKeeper", their employers do (from the ATO).

CC

[ECAMvsEICAS]

The employee is not entitled to Jobkeeper. The employer is. A Foreign company is not entitled to claim Jobkeeper. Australian Tax paid by an employee is irrelevant, as it’s not their claim.

[zanzibar]

I was until recently employed but am now stood down. I cannot access Job Keeper because of the ownership status of my employer. Now, whilst my income is modest (permanent part-timer), the break-up of how the tax I’ve paid is representative of how everyone’s tax dollars are spent. I’ve attached my most recent tax receipt for reference.

In it you will see that around 40% of my tax liability goes towards welfare. I am quite happy about that.

You will also see that my tax dollars go towards Health, Defence, Education, Transport and Communication, Public Order and Safety, Foreign Affairs and Economic Aid, Housing, Industry Assistance and several other components. I am also quite happy about all that as I see it as part of my role as a tax paying citizen towards making Australia the great country that it is. This is so for all Australian taxpayers irrespective of the ownership of their employer.

I make the point that I contribute to Australia as does every other tax payer but, because of an arbitrary ruling, I am denied assistance when it is needed. Because of my age I am not entitled to Job Seeker, so, no support whatsoever despite never, ever having made a call for any benefits over 40 odd years of working. If my employer wasn’t foreign owned at least I’d qualify for Job Keeper until the decision is made as to my redundancy or otherwise. I cannot see where this exclusion is fair, just and reasonable.

I note that the government’s total debt last year was $546 billion. IF the entire $60 billion that is spoken of was spent (which in itself is debatable), it would result in a modest 11% debt increase overall. It would roughly result in an increase in interest repayments of around $2 billion/year. It sounds a lot but in terms of relativity it isn’t. Is that too big a price to pay to have all Australian workers treated uniformly?


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1460x2000/tax_take_da27f6953f9285a9c1fe9f3cb7e8021e0b474349.jpeg

[almostthere!]

Is that too big a price to pay to have all Australian workers treated uniformly?


It's a subsidy to Australian businesses, not employees, the sooner people acknowledge that, the better.

[down3gr33ns]

It's a subsidy to Australian businesses, not employees, the sooner people acknowledge that, the better.

Maybe, but the effect is to keep the economy ticking over in some form, albeit limited. Allowing stood down employees to have some degree of income has got to benefit the economy and the ultimate recovery.

The subsidy, paid to the businesses, flows to the employees whereas, in those companies excluded, nothing flows to the employees.

Tell me that equates to "we're all in this together".

[down3gr33ns]

Just a small point, employees do not claim "JobKeeper", their employers do (from the ATO).

and whom in turn pass it on in full to the employees.

However, there are the niggards who thought doing that imposed an unfair "administrative burden"

[Buster Hyman]

I get that they are supporting Australian businesses, and that's fair, but then the question becomes, "Do foreign owned companies pay tax in Oz?" Considering they've been chasing a few online companies for tax, I'd say that's the case. I guess it's one of those questions where you'd need a serious understanding of Tax Law to properly answer but, the can of worms remain.

[zanzibar]

"Do foreign owned companies pay tax in Oz?"

You ask a valid question. A lot don't on their "profits" because they shift them offshore via various means however, they pay payroll tax and their employees make their contribution towards the government coffers.

The employees shouldn't be penalised for the possibly nefarious deeds by the employers.




good observation, thanks - fixed.

[Bend alot]

1 or 2 "Labour Hire" firms will have shafted a number of employees or as they claim "independent contractors" .

It is a brave new World.

[Buster Hyman]

The employees shouldn't be penalised for the possibly nefarious deeds by the employers.
Absolutely. We're all in unchartered waters but just trying to get my head around the legalities. The ethics though are unquestionable.

good observation, thanks - fixed.
:ok:

[Car RAMROD]

Absolutely. We're all in unchartered waters....


“Together” so they say.

yet some have been given life jackets. Others left to tread water by themselves.

[Hasherucf]

Would have liked to see more help for the Aviation industry from the government. Many of us are facing a career change and fast tracking us into another career would help the economy. For example Pilots as Loco drivers or Engineers as Fitters or Electricians.

I've looked into the uni short courses on offer from the government incentive and many are aimed towards Health care professionals or Teachers. Two groups that shouldn't be out of work at the moment. Also most require a degree to apply and as most aviation workers haven't required that in the past, as our licences are our more important paperwork, we are ineligible. Not one uni is offering a Graduate Certificate in Aviation!

I don't blame universities as this was sprung upon them by a government scrambling to get anything happening. Aviation will be the hardest sector to restart , just the training and fuel sectors will take time to ramp up. I think the travel industry (60% domestic , soon to be 99%) and hospitality will bounce back easier.

I'm unsure how long our global isolationist stance can last as most of the world moves through the pandemic. Government ministers catchphrase I have heard a lot is "We bought ourselves time". Hinting maybe to a full expose to the virus in the future. Certainly if a vaccine is unsuccessful there will need to be a plan B... through to Z . Certainly aviation sector jobs will start appearing overseas well before Australia rebounds.

[patagonianworelaud]

Quote:
I believe none of the employees for of any of the ME3 airlines in Australia were eligible
Quote:
one small Pacific carrier whose staff here are ineligible
Quote:
Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper

For a moment I thought my original query was starting to get some traction. That thought was short lived .