QF Group Ground Handling Cuts

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Jetstar is terminating 370 employees in a move to outsource 100% of their ground handling function. Qantas will go through a 'bid' process with internal and external groups for ground handling across Australia.

https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/qantas-says-2500-more-jobs-are-at-risk-20200825-p55p3o

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-set-to-cut-another-2400-jobs-by-outsourcing-ground-handling-20200825-p55p3l.html

[dr dre]

It's pretty much what happened with Catering a few years back. Those jobs are outsourced and are technically not part of the group, which means the official headcount of employees reduces, but those people are still doing the same work for a new outsourcing provider.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Not exactly. Qantas sold their catering business (what remained) to Dnata. The Cairns and Sydney units to Gate Gourmet back in 2012.

This is a case of outsourcing versus insourcing. This enables competitive labour pricing pressure and greater workforce flexibility without the liabilities Qantas retains today. Whilst many of these workers will secure new roles at third-party handlers - not all will. And for now - most of them won't. What will be interesting is how much 'productivity' will be relinquished by the current in-house teams in order to avoid outsourcing to third-parties. That will be very interesting as I am sure the QF award is more favourable than say a Swissport or Menzies etc. But I don't know...

[unobtanium]

Not exactly. Qantas sold their catering business (what remained) to Dnata. The Cairns and Sydney units to Gate Gourmet back in 2012.

This is a case of outsourcing versus insourcing. This enables competitive labour pricing pressure and greater workforce flexibility without the liabilities Qantas retains today. Whilst many of these workers will secure new roles at third-party handlers - not all will. And for now - most of them won't. What will be interesting is how much 'productivity' will be relinquished by the current in-house teams in order to avoid outsourcing to third-parties. That will be very interesting as I am sure the QF award is more favourable than say a Swissport or Menzies etc. But I don't know...

Ask any Dnata/snapfresh worker how happy they are being ineligible for jobkeeper as its foreign owned.

[PoppaJo]

It’s the Tiger model. Outsource every single thing aside Pilots. Even Tiger went down the path of contract Cabin Crew via third party operators however ended in tears.

Swissport have plenty of Tiger Airbus equipment laying around.

[non_state_actor]

From what I have witnessed outsourcing ground staff never really works and results in many unintended problems as a result. I am sure it's cheaper on paper though.

[unobtanium]

I know afew AeroNOcare staff, and they were treated so badly turnover rate was ridiculous. Same with Swissport, Oceania or whatever they're called now. Basically if you don't like it, leave. Promotions, good shifts and management positions for mates only.

[Adambrau]

Hoping AF keeps us in-house at JFK. We're the last of the foreign carriers at JFK to do so.

[Ascend Charlie]

Why don't they outsource Joyce?

[blubak]

Not exactly. Qantas sold their catering business (what remained) to Dnata. The Cairns and Sydney units to Gate Gourmet back in 2012.

This is a case of outsourcing versus insourcing. This enables competitive labour pricing pressure and greater workforce flexibility without the liabilities Qantas retains today. Whilst many of these workers will secure new roles at third-party handlers - not all will. And for now - most of them won't. What will be interesting is how much 'productivity' will be relinquished by the current in-house teams in order to avoid outsourcing to third-parties. That will be very interesting as I am sure the QF award is more favourable than say a Swissport or Menzies etc. But I don't know...
labour pricing pressure & workforce flexibility really works so well!!,lets take the aged care sector as an example,what can go wrong.

[patty50]

Very few will want to stay on as Swissport, who in their right mind goes from full time hitting $100-120k/year to casual making $22/hr on 3 hour shifts. All ground crew knew this would happen eventually.

There will certainly be plenty of tears along the way for Qantas. If you’re ever flying on a Friday night or Sunday make sure you don’t pack a bag because you’ll be waiting awhile.

[Superman1]

Swissport will be rubbing their hands together with this one and VA will follow suit shortly and all ramp services in all Australian airports will be provided by third party contractors.

Sad day for those involved they will go from a heavily unionised workforce loading a 737 with 6 people on $100k a year each and great staff travel benefits to loading it with 3 people on a good day, being paid $60k each full time with no benefits and greatly reduced rostering benefits.

This will be a tough pill to swallow but likely was going to happen over the next 5-10 years anyway. COVID/19 has simply accelerated the process, provided justification and prompted QF and JQ to act in this exceptionally rare time there will be minimal operational impact.

if this was attempted outside of COVID the staff would have walked off the job by now with airports severely disrupted. The unions will be furious that’s a lot of their hardcore members gone.

[blubak]

Swissport will be rubbing their hands together with this one and VA will follow suit shortly and all ramp services in all Australian airports will be provided by third party contractors.

Sad day for those involved they will go from a heavily unionised workforce loading a 737 with 6 people on $100k a year each and great staff travel benefits to loading it with 3 people on a good day, being paid $60k each full time with no benefits and greatly reduced rostering benefits.

This will be a tough pill to swallow but likely was going to happen over the next 5-10 years anyway. COVID/19 has simply accelerated the process, provided justification and prompted QF and JQ to act in this exceptionally rare time there will be minimal operational impact.

if this was attempted outside of COVID the staff would have walked off the job by now with airports severely disrupted. The unions will be furious that’s a lot of their hardcore members gone.
100k a year for how many hrs a week?,not 38 i can tell u.
Maybe you would like to elaborate on the great staff travel benefits too?
Standby only with low priority,that does seen great,doesnt it!

[lc_461]

Sure there are a few full time rampies pulling big bucks, but the vast majority of new hires for at least the last 5-10 years were already employed by a subsidiary, Qantas Ground Services.
This led to a workforce predominantly guaranteed 20h/week and salary generally equal to or in some cases, less than the ground handling companies they compete with.
Trying to break free from these conditions was an aim of the last EBA negotiations.
So i'm not sure how much $$ they will save on staff, but perhaps capital expenses.. if they have to buy 50 new tugs over the next few years I think they can easily get to $250K each.

[Icarus2001]

to casual making $22/hr on 3 hour shifts.

Minimum casual wage is $24.80 per hour.

Based on the full time hourly rate of $19.84 with a 25% loading.

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages


Why don't they outsource Joyce? Because "they" benchmark management packages against New York and London but the workers wages against Mumbai and Dhaka.

[flyingfrenchman]

Maybe they are factoring in the saving from reduced worker’s compensation claims, it’s rumoured the costs of this alone are huge.

[patty50]

Sure there are a few full time rampies pulling big bucks, but the vast majority of new hires for at least the last 5-10 years were already employed by a subsidiary, Qantas Ground Services.
This led to a workforce predominantly guaranteed 20h/week and salary generally equal to or in some cases, less than the ground handling companies they compete with.
Trying to break free from these conditions was an aim of the last EBA negotiations.


Having worked for both QGS and Aerocare I can promise you QGS will pay about double over a fortnight with plenty of time on your arse to watch football, play cards, study, whatever.

Pre-covid plenty of QGS part timers hitting 70-90k, it’s significantly more than many other blue collar type full time jobs. A QAL full timer doing zero overtime will hit 80k, with sickies, LSL, 20th days, DILs and annual leave they only work 40 weeks a year.

On compo, for QAL it is self insured and the rorts are truly impressive. Smash out the overtime for 3 months pick your ailment of choice, tell Doc it hurts when you drive and stay home for 6 months doing whatever.

[Icarus2001]

Maybe they are factoring in the saving from reduced worker’s compensation claims, it’s rumoured the costs of this alone are huge.

Normally covered by the obligatory insurance not the employer.

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/workers-compensation

[machtuk]

It's the way of doing business, max profits for the smallest outlay! Airlines exist to make money, they are not there to make everyone happy or doing it for fun!

[Derfred]

From a simple back of the envelope calculation: if outsourcing 2500 jobs will save $100M/year, then they think they can get they equivalent job done for $40,000 less per employee.

Now, if Patty speaks the truth, it could be that simple. But I doubt Patty speaks for the majority of ground staff. That would be like saying “all pilots earn $400K! Surely we can outsource pilots for half that!”

The fact that Tino/Alan actually did threaten something similar to their pilots just 8 months ago hasn’t escaped me, but I digress.

Given that you wouldn’t be likely to be able to shave $40K off an average cleaner’s wage and expect them to re-apply to the contracting mob, there must be some fat in there somewhere that we’re missing.

The only clue I’ve found so far was actually in clear sight in the press release: it “includes management roles”.

Ahh.

[V-Jet]

The purpose running a business is run a business in that field. Accountants don’t get that - they get bonuses. Zero vision. Outsource enough and the business ceases to exist in anything but name and a bank account.

[Derfred]

It's the way of doing business, max profits for the smallest outlay! Airlines exist to make money, they are not there to make everyone happy or doing it for fun!

I think you’ve over-simplified it.

If, pre-COVID, Alan had made ALL 2500 ground staff redundant and effectively hired most of them back through contracting companies, whether these companies were owned by Qantas or not, he would have been highly in breach of Australian workplace law. Qantas would have been taken to court, and lost. There is plenty of case law for this. (Yes, the equivalent can be legally achieved over time through a thousand cuts, but not in a case lot like this).

He is doing it now, presumably on the basis that these people don’t have “useful work” anyway. So he has, effectively, found a loophole that he can capitalise on, free of litigation. In the “crisis”, he has discovered something to his advantage that he never would have been able to do otherwise.

The Australian concept of “stand-down”, which was only intended for a short-term stoppage, is gathering new consequences daily. This move is not in the spirit of “keeping jobs” as publicly advertised by Alan. This move is an opportunistic “don’t waste a crisis” kick in the guts for all Qantas staff, and I hope the TWU expose him for it in the media. I actually thought he was doing well until now.

[blubak]

From a simple back of the envelope calculation: if outsourcing 2500 jobs will save $100M/year, then they think they can get they equivalent job done for $40,000 less per employee.

Now, if Patty speaks the truth, it could be that simple. But I doubt Patty speaks for the majority of ground staff. That would be like saying “all pilots earn $400K! Surely we can outsource pilots for half that!”

The fact that Tino/Alan actually did threaten something similar to their pilots just 8 months ago hasn’t escaped me, but I digress.

Given that you wouldn’t be likely to be able to shave $40K off an average cleaner’s wage and expect them to re-apply to the contracting mob, there must be some fat in there somewhere that we’re missing.

The only clue I’ve found so far was actually in clear sight in the press release: it “includes management roles”.

Ahh.
I doubt that many of them earn over 40k a year,if u took 40k off them they may end up with $100 a week if they were lucky.
1 of them told me they were basically no worse off on jobkeeper,the work they do is not appreciated.

[unobtanium]

I just dont understand why the Board still retains AJ. Is he really that good in his job?

This is why you're a banana and not a board member. Alans doing a great job saving the company money. Like it or not, a unionised legacy workforce is expensive. (Sickies, staff travel, allowances, penalty rates...dry cleaning!) There is a never ending crowd of keen young people willing to do their job for half the $. Their enthusiasm usually burns out after 6-12months, ready for the next batch.

[rammel]

I haven't worked in that area for quite a while, but Patty's estimate is close to what I would've have estimated for base wage plus penalty rates for a full timer. If there are more than one or two people earning an extra 20k due to overtime, is that the workers fault or it is bad management?

[Sunfish]

........and the predictable result will be a massive increase in lost, stolen damaged and late baggage. That will produce enough reputational damage to offset any savings. However since the reputation bit isn’t quantified in accounts, it will look like a saving.

[patty50]

From a simple back of the envelope calculation: if outsourcing 2500 jobs will save $100M/year, then they think they can get they equivalent job done for $40,000 less per employee.

Now, if Patty speaks the truth, it could be that simple. But I doubt Patty speaks for the majority of ground staff. That would be like saying “all pilots earn $400K! Surely we can outsource pilots for half that!”


There are immense productivity gains to be made. Even when they eventually get back to full schedule the 2500 jobs will be replaced by 1800.

Swissport will do 737s with 4 rather than 5 man teams. You won’t have guys doing 3 35 minute turnarounds in 8 hours like you do now. Or 2 guys loading a nearly empty morning flight while 3 have a sleep. No more rocking up hungover at 5 and the boys letting you sleep until 7.

There are plenty of legacy conditions that will be done away with, the TWU EBA has allowances for everything. All breaks are currently paid, that will be gone. The penalty rate structure is completely different. Overtime goes on a weekly basis rather than after an 8 hour shift.

QAL managers currently each have about 25 people underneath them. There are additional supervisors and there are workforce planing. All will go and be replaced by a handful of supervisors.

The GSE mechanics will mostly go. All the bus drivers and bus mechanics.

Very easy to see how they will get their $100m in savings.

[Oriana]

Like it or not, a unionised legacy workforce is expensive. (Sickies, staff travel, allowances, penalty rates...dry cleaning!) There is a never ending crowd of keen young people willing to do their job for half the $. Their enthusiasm usually burns out after 6-12months, ready for the next batch.

Never ceases to amaze me the amount of workers who subscribe to this notion, whilst it is not their job that is affected.

Well, sooner or later, they will come for everyone.

[neville_nobody]

Like it or not, a unionised legacy workforce is expensive. (Sickies, staff travel, allowances, penalty rates...dry cleaning!) There is a never ending crowd of keen young people willing to do their job for half the $. Their enthusiasm usually burns out after 6-12months, ready for the next batch.

Of course that theory seems to stop at senior management levels when suddenly we need "experience" and "we have to pay market rates to attract the right talent" and people who are made redundant have roles created for them out of thin air.

Reality is the same game could be played with CEO and senior managers if boards wanted to get serious. The issue however is that once you get into senior levels of any corporation it tends to be a bit of a closed shop and very much on who your mates are and who is going to support you politically.

[ConfigFull]

Never ceases to amaze me the amount of workers who subscribe to this notion, whilst it is not their job that is affected.

Well, sooner or later, they will come for everyone.

Just as the former CEO of QF International just found out. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

This is why you're a banana and not a board member. Alans doing a great job saving the company money. Like it or not, a unionised legacy workforce is expensive. (Sickies, staff travel, allowances, penalty rates...dry cleaning!) There is a never ending crowd of keen young people willing to do their job for half the $. Their enthusiasm usually burns out after 6-12months, ready for the next batch.

Sick leave: legislated
Staff travel: money making exercise, get rid of it if you like.
Allowances: feel free to roll a lesser amount in to base pay - but they don't want to pay the super
Penalty rates: Fair Work sets the "normal" hours of work, see the retail award etc. Only someone who hasn't had their sleep patterns disrupted long-term would have a problem with this
Dry cleaning: outrageous!

[plainmaker]

I think this is AJ's way of getting rid of the TWU - who are a PITA as far as management are concerned. I assume that this also means the demise of the old Qantas Transport team - those who used to do the crew transfers QCC to airside and return, plus tech crew home transport? (Showing my age now).

Used to be that Ground handling was a very profitable part of the Qantas Airports 'division' - recall many times costing up bids for other airlines handling at SYD International. Critical issue was when you had an AOG close to the curfew, you had your own staff to handle the pax to hotels exercise (and return). TWU used to be rostered until 0100, so the staff was on hand. A certain accountant put paid to that and it only took several weeks before the late LAX departure went tech. So due to Flight time limitations, new crew to be called out and the service was a no-go. The pax had to shuffled off to hotels etc, but the TWU pulled the 'sorry no overtime' and shot through when the shift was due to finish. Took an eternity for the pax to get to their hotels, only to be waken up for a 0600 departure. Would like to have been a fly on the wall as the (few) management did the bags, organised the transfers and hotels, Plus did all the rebookings for the displaced pax. And our American brethren were SO accommodating and flexible in their requests! Heard through the grapevine the overall 'impact' was in excess of $100k and that was in the early 90's.

Seems they never learn about the full outsource model - no 'ownership', no loyalty, and in the end it hurts your business. Ask PanAm and TWA.

[Qantas 787]

........and the predictable result will be a massive increase in lost, stolen damaged and late baggage. That will produce enough reputational damage to offset any savings. However since the reputation bit isn’t quantified in accounts, it will look like a saving.

Well cutting all the call centres down to minimal staff has led to people being on hold for hours on end....and these are the premium passengers. Of course a lot of things can't be done online but other carriers can manage it. Call centres were under resourced and customers were angry- looks at some of the stories on Facebook and you shake your head. But management don't care because they have saved so much closing call centres in Hobart. So reputation only matters when it suits.....money talks

[krismiler]

Never let a crisis go to waste, the prospect of a 40% discount on future ground handling and not having the unions squeezing his nuts must have been too much to resist for AJ. The idea of simply picking the lowest tender instead of negotiating with militant union leaders just prior to the peak travel season would be very appealing.

If it was cheaper to have ground handling in house, then other airlines would be doing it rather than outsourcing. Whilst there are undeniable advantages to having your own people, these are obviously outweighed by the disadvantages and higher cost.

Baggage handlers at QF are paid considerably more than similar workers in comparable jobs outside of the airline, and it’s only because of the disruption they are capable of causing rather than supply and demand.

FIFO workers on the mines are very well paid because that is what it takes to have people away from their families for 2 - 3 weeks at a stretch doing 12 hour shifts in the outback. I saw a job for a grader driver in the Pilbara recently, 3 weeks on 1 week off, 12 hours shifts at $65 an hour plus super. Comes out at +$200 000 a year, which is more than most F/Os make and not too far off junior narrow body Captain rates, if anyone wants a career change

[myturn]

There are immense productivity gains to be made. Even when they eventually get back to full schedule the 2500 jobs will be replaced by 1800.

Swissport will do 737s with 4 rather than 5 man teams. You won’t have guys doing 3 35 minute turnarounds in 8 hours like you do now. Or 2 guys loading a nearly empty morning flight while 3 have a sleep. No more rocking up hungover at 5 and the boys letting you sleep until 7.

There are plenty of legacy conditions that will be done away with, the TWU EBA has allowances for everything. All breaks are currently paid, that will be gone. The penalty rate structure is completely different. Overtime goes on a weekly basis rather than after an 8 hour shift.

QAL managers currently each have about 25 people underneath them. There are additional supervisors and there are workforce planing. All will go and be replaced by a handful of supervisors.

The GSE mechanics will mostly go. All the bus drivers and bus mechanics.

Very easy to see how they will get their $100m in savings.


Words of wisdom here.......... 👍

[Turnleft080]

Just a crazy fact off topic, if you double the QF job losses and double the VA job losses add them together you get 19000 job losses. Thats what AA just announced.
Could not fathom this 12 months ago never mind right now. Just beyond belief.

[blubak]

There are immense productivity gains to be made. Even when they eventually get back to full schedule the 2500 jobs will be replaced by 1800.

Swissport will do 737s with 4 rather than 5 man teams. You won’t have guys doing 3 35 minute turnarounds in 8 hours like you do now. Or 2 guys loading a nearly empty morning flight while 3 have a sleep. No more rocking up hungover at 5 and the boys letting you sleep until 7.

There are plenty of legacy conditions that will be done away with, the TWU EBA has allowances for everything. All breaks are currently paid, that will be gone. The penalty rate structure is completely different. Overtime goes on a weekly basis rather than after an 8 hour shift.

QAL managers currently each have about 25 people underneath them. There are additional supervisors and there are workforce planing. All will go and be replaced by a handful of supervisors.

The GSE mechanics will mostly go. All the bus drivers and bus mechanics.

Very easy to see how they will get their $100m in savings.
Would love to know where you get your facts from,early morning flights were basically always full,check the schedules & you will see there was a flight to syd every 15mins,airlines dont run at that frequency if no pax on board.
Coming in hungover at 5am,are you serious!!,the drug & alcohol policy is so strict it makes your claim an insult.
And 3 flights in 8 hours,makes me really wonder where you got this info from.
If they want to use 4 instead of 5 to load a 737,so be it,see how long it takes to load 120 bags & freight/mail also.
As for paid breaks,that is because they are shift workers!
It seems you think these guys get it easy,try doing their work on 38+c days & no,im not 1 of them.

[TACQANAVIAVEC]

I just dont understand why the Board still retains AJ. Is he really that good in his job?


I'd take Joyce over Borgetti or any other current Airline CEO any day of the week. I wasn't a fan but like Warren Buffet once said "Only when the tides goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked" and boy Qantas
has been shown to be one of the very few airlines to have been wearing shorts, not acknowledging Joyce as responsible would be disingenuous. Its a tough business for our nations airlines to compete in a world were 3 middles eastern
carriers have flooded the market with their subsidized business models. People here will not like to hear it but we have to admit he is a brilliant strategist.

[Climb150]

Whilst I too would never say being CEO is easy, Joyce did enjoy having only to deal with one poorly run competitor domestically (Virgin). I believe domestic is where the majority of Qantas profits were made in the last few years.

The Emirates code share proved he wasn't too keen on making a go of international, but then the project sunrise fiasco came along. Too little too late and mostly a PR stunt. He didn't have to compete with the ME3 going to Asia or the USA, just LHR mostly and he fixed that with a soul crushing 17.5 hour direct from Perth.

He also likes to fake huge losses (asset write offs) and then the following year be hailed aviation god by posting a profit.

Now whether this qualifies you as either a great CEO or great b#lls@it artist the jury is still out for me.

[swh]

Why don't they outsource Joyce?

Difficult shoes to fill

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/626x626/leprechaun_shoe_green_24640_38630_0c57672d902cc2303cc4aa0b18 8b0a2a39b262fb.jpg

[unobtanium]

Never ceases to amaze me the amount of workers who subscribe to this notion, whilst it is not their job that is affected.

Well, sooner or later, they will come for everyone.

That is true, like the empty car factories and industrial sheds, Australians is screwed while the rich get richer.

[seventy-seven]

AJ is simply cutting out the rot he doesnt want and replacing it with the cheapest he can find. I am sure the QF board agree with his actions given the current climate. Ground handling over the years has always been an issue with stop work meetings and strikes with no notice .
No one dared question their TWU Gods or else. Baggage loaders are honestly overpaid for what they do. I should know as my relative is one with QF and he bludges his way through. The airline industry is changing rapidly every day now across the globe for better or worse.
This is for many at QF and VA the end of the road unfortunately and there is vrtually no stopping management from continuing the cutting.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

It's interesting how many people are quick to kick the boots in to ramp staff for being over paid, when pilots from the same airline are easily the highest paid for the least work in the Aussie market ($250,000 S/Os and the like).

What will be said if the Qantas IR cross hairs are turned towards pilot T&Cs?

Glass houses gentlemen.

[Buttscratcher]

Yeah sure, ECAM, but it's a Pilot's forum......what did you expect?

[C441]

What will be said be said if the Qantas IR cross hairs are turned towards pilot T&Cs?

They have been. That's what the last two EA ultimatums were about.

[krismiler]

There are two schools of thought:

1. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, there is less pressure for reductions in other areas.

2. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, continue the momentum across all departments. Restructure and break union control.

Baggage handlers were grossly overpaid and only got what they did because of their ability to ground the airline, they can easily be replaced. This has been demonstrated many times as other airlines outsourced.

Pilots are a different matter, safety critical and expensive to train, the company has a considerable investment in each one that they employ. Overall a relatively small percentage of operating costs so less reward for cost reduction but plenty of potential for disruption, and not so easy to replace given lengthy training and lead in requirements.

Possibly a few concessions needed during the current situation but T&Cs can be restored once profitability returns.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

There are two schools of thought:

1. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, there is less pressure for reductions in other areas.

2. Having got a substantial reduction in ground handling charges, continue the momentum across all departments. Restructure and break union control.

Baggage handlers were grossly overpaid and only got what they did because of their ability to ground the airline, they can easily be replaced. This has been demonstrated many times as other airlines outsourced.

Pilots are a different matter, safety critical and expensive to train, the company has a considerable investment in each one that they employ. Overall a relatively small percentage of operating costs so less reward for cost reduction but plenty of potential for disruption, and not so easy to replace given lengthy training and lead in requirements.

Possibly a few concessions needed during the current situation but T&Cs can be restored once profitability returns.

My point wasn't so much that qantas will be looking to replace its entire pilot workforce but rather the lack of empathy towards your fellow workers because they were paid above market rates, when it would be difficult to argue that QF pilots arent in a similar position (I recall a thread about a year ago of QF 737 drivers gloating about how much they were earning).

.

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

That’s a fair point ECAM, however somebody needs to be on top, and I’d bet you’d tell us all about it if you were. Whether that is cause for gloating, not really sure. I’ve been here long enough to know that those who are paid the most, are always the target. Always, always, always pray that someone in your line of work gets paid more than you. You never want to be the target.

[krismiler]

Passengers have alternatives to QF, if after having considered their options they decide (usually) to pay a premium in order to travel QF and the airline is making profits then crew should be appropriately rewarded.

It would be unusual if pay and conditions at a country’s main airline didn’t set the standard, so QF Pilots will be the best paid in Australia and set the benchmark for everyone else.

I don’t need to explain what we go through to get onto the flight deck of an airliner and stay there, we deserve what we earn. Why should an unskilled baggage handler earn close to what a junior pilot makes ?

QF pilot pay should compare with other national airlines such as BA, AF, CX etc

Baggage handler pay should compare with similar jobs in the area. Obviously SYD is more expensive to like in and Kalgoorlie has to compete with what’s on offer in the mines.

[Derfred]

(I recall a thread about a year ago of QF 737 drivers gloating about how much they were earning)

I don’t recall such a thread.

And I seriously doubt it. Can you refresh our memories?

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

I don’t recall such a thread.

And I seriously doubt it. Can you refresh our memories?

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/623006-qantas-short-haul-2019-ea-negotiations-ea-8-a-4.html

Page 4. Guys were posting screen shots of their payslips, quite strange.

But the point of my original post wasn't to bash QF pilots for their salaries, just to point out the irony of inferring that the ramp staff's time is up because they're the best paid in the industry when QF pilots are in the same boat.

I agree with Fat Guy, I think that its healthy for us (JQ) to have the QF guys get paid what they get paid as it prevents downwards pressure on our wages (pre covid of course, who knows what will happen now).

[patty50]

QF pilot pay should compare with other national airlines such as BA, AF, CX etc



Be careful what you wish for. In the luxurious days of 2019 BA pilots were starting on £26000. CX D scale isn’t much either.

717s all over the east coast. Maybe Sunrise will be done by labour hire anyway. The sim centre gets canned but the pilot academy is an investment in the future. There are more job losses coming as Alan said they need execs stood up for the “major projects”. Everyone knows management have a plethora of ways to screw you.

The pineapple is certainly coming for pilots too. But yeah f*ck those overpaid baggage handlers.

[dr dre]

Those salaries could only happen if flying was close to maximum (1000hrs pa, unsustainable in the long term) and the incentive payment was paid at full rate. Base salary (which is what it’ll be for the foreseeable future) is closer to industry standard.

[krismiler]

The pineapple is certainly coming for pilots too. But yeah f*ck those overpaid baggage handlers.

QANTAS can't be everyone's personal cash cow, it already has to compete with the ME3 on routes to Europe and Virgin on the domestic front. None of these are grossly overpaying their ground staff or have powerful unions squeezing their nuts, they don't live with the threat of some bolshie shop steward calling a work stoppage during the morning peak.

The cruise ship operators restructured long ago as it was impossible for them to remain in business while paying union rates to American staff. Was this inevitable or did the unions drive the shipping lines to register under a flag of convenience and employ third world nationals, because of excessive pay demands ? Either way the result was that only the Captain and a few senior officers are US citizens, the rest of the crew are from India, China, Philippines, Vietnam etc.

Of course this has already been going on with airline cabin crew for a while.

Remember the "glorified bus drivers" didn't get much support from the union movement back in 1989.

[wheels_down]

That’s pretty much how the Jetstar 787 operation runs. Norwegian also. The Cruise liner model. The Cabin Crew via an agency in Indonesia or Thailand. All ground functions via a third party. The only people on the airlines payroll outside of HQ are the two or three pilots up the front. We even saw one carrier in this country go as far as outsourcing its Safety Department to another country.

Some even go as far as recruiting FOs via an agency and bound them to a multi year slave contract, before dangling the carrot for a potential contract as a senior FO before a Command course.

The only people probably not outsourced in the future is Senior FO’s and Captains.

[AerialPerspective]

From what I have witnessed outsourcing ground staff never really works and results in many unintended problems as a result. I am sure it's cheaper on paper though.

I'm often surprised that people see this as not being inevitable. When 'cheaper' GH organisations were allowed to set up independently, many airlines jumped ship from Qantas ground handling and even Ansett ground handling at the time because while they preferred to be handled by another airline, they couldn't not do it because of the price reduction. Qantas (and even Ansett back when...) ground handling was if not profitable, very lucrative because it allowed economies of scale and for airlines like Qantas to basically largely offset their cost of their own workforce by having it subsidised by handling fees, often with the opportunity to utilise those airline's services at locations where Qantas operated (like Singapore for example or London) and obtain some sort of special rate.

Once the likes of Aerocare (Swissport), Menzies, Skystar and others emerged, the ground handling business for airlines died and has been on life support ever since. In the past, the $100M that is needed to be spent wasn't a problem because a fraction of the ground handling fees were based on equipment wear and tear, in lots of cases, the customer airlines handled were in gaps where QF had no activity, which made it worthwhile employing a FTE instead of PTE because the shift was largely paid for by the client airlines that took up the remainder of the shift time.

It surprises me that this hasn't happened earlier. Why wouldn't ANY business do this, remembering that Qantas doesn't do its own handling ANYWHERE else in the world and in many locations around Australia - the possible exception being the USA where it owns 49% of Hallmark Aviation Services.

If they were trying to destroy the product (I know no-one has said that) then they'd contract out Customer Services as well. Customer Services doesn't require hundreds of millions to be spent on GSE that is only used for Qantas and a few other airlines... one of the reasons that the independent ground handlers can do it cheaper (not just wages) is that they amortise the cost of the GSE across many clients, just like Qantas and Ansett used to do when providing ground handling and even TAA before the merger, who also handled many international carriers.

[AerialPerspective]

labour pricing pressure & workforce flexibility really works so well!!,lets take the aged care sector as an example,what can go wrong.

I think it's a bit different, how could Q Catering possibly compete on sourcing stores and large purchase items when they were effectively only negotiating with suppliers for the stocking of 3 catering centres, whereas DNATA has probably a hundred catering centres and can achieve much greater economies of scale. Q Catering would make sense if it had had centres in the USA, Europe, Asia, etc. but it didn't.

[AerialPerspective]

Sure there are a few full time rampies pulling big bucks, but the vast majority of new hires for at least the last 5-10 years were already employed by a subsidiary, Qantas Ground Services.
This led to a workforce predominantly guaranteed 20h/week and salary generally equal to or in some cases, less than the ground handling companies they compete with.
Trying to break free from these conditions was an aim of the last EBA negotiations.
So i'm not sure how much $$ they will save on staff, but perhaps capital expenses.. if they have to buy 50 new tugs over the next few years I think they can easily get to $250K each.

Back when I was involved, an FMC30 was about $300-400K and you need two to service any widebody aircraft. I know Ansett refurbished many for $100s K before the Olympics and Qantas, in SYD, bought 8 brand new FMC30s... that's ENORMOUS money basically for 6 or 7 ports and that's just the 'scissor-lift' loaders.

[AerialPerspective]

Maybe they are factoring in the saving from reduced worker’s compensation claims, it’s rumoured the costs of this alone are huge.
And Qantas self-insures.

[AerialPerspective]

........and the predictable result will be a massive increase in lost, stolen damaged and late baggage. That will produce enough reputational damage to offset any savings. However since the reputation bit isn’t quantified in accounts, it will look like a saving.
Not in my experience, Skystar (now part of Menzies) is a great example... run by ex airline people, won many awards from carriers like Singapore Airlines, Emirates and others for the excellence of their ground services. It was owned by a Mining Company (Monadel)... not sure what it's like now but it's definitely possible to provide quality ground services at a lesser cost than the airline and maintain quality.

[AerialPerspective]

I think this is AJ's way of getting rid of the TWU - who are a PITA as far as management are concerned. I assume that this also means the demise of the old Qantas Transport team - those who used to do the crew transfers QCC to airside and return, plus tech crew home transport? (Showing my age now).

Used to be that Ground handling was a very profitable part of the Qantas Airports 'division' - recall many times costing up bids for other airlines handling at SYD International. Critical issue was when you had an AOG close to the curfew, you had your own staff to handle the pax to hotels exercise (and return). TWU used to be rostered until 0100, so the staff was on hand. A certain accountant put paid to that and it only took several weeks before the late LAX departure went tech. So due to Flight time limitations, new crew to be called out and the service was a no-go. The pax had to shuffled off to hotels etc, but the TWU pulled the 'sorry no overtime' and shot through when the shift was due to finish. Took an eternity for the pax to get to their hotels, only to be waken up for a 0600 departure. Would like to have been a fly on the wall as the (few) management did the bags, organised the transfers and hotels, Plus did all the rebookings for the displaced pax. And our American brethren were SO accommodating and flexible in their requests! Heard through the grapevine the overall 'impact' was in excess of $100k and that was in the early 90's.

Seems they never learn about the full outsource model - no 'ownership', no loyalty, and in the end it hurts your business. Ask PanAm and TWA.
Pan Am until the day they stopped operating to Australia had their own staff on their counters... that was the case with PA just about everywhere, one of the reasons their costs were so high.

[krismiler]

Owning expensive equipment or employing people directly is only justified if full use is being made of the resource, there are three levels:

1. Employ the minimum number that can be fully utilised and contract in when extra is needed.
2. Employ the average number used and contract in or out depending on the workload.
3. Employ full coverage and contract out to keep busy during downtime.

Foreign airlines with a single daily flight simply cannot justify maintaining full time support at the destination and often contract out most of the functions whilst retaining their own station manager. Non competing airlines or members of the same alliance often support each other.

Once airlines get a taste of outsourcing it doesn’t take them long to go a step further and contract out everything they can possibly save money on. An airline can be “virtual” and need only employ a few managers directly. Aircraft can be leased, maintenance, ground handling, catering, call centre, reservations, simulator hours etc can all be put out to the lowest bidder.

Problems arise when asked to support a direct competitor, possibly from another alliance. This is where independent ground handlers come in, remember QF refused handling to Tiger Airways when they started domestic operations in Australia.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I don’t need to explain what we go through to get onto the flight deck of an airliner and stay there, we deserve what we earn.

More a supply and demand situation really. Now it's over supply and under demand. Let's see where that goes in the long run.

[QFcrew]

I think you’ve over-simplified it.

If, pre-COVID, Alan had made ALL 2500 ground staff redundant and effectively hired most of them back through contracting companies, whether these companies were owned by Qantas or not, he would have been highly in breach of Australian workplace law. Qantas would have been taken to court, and lost. There is plenty of case law for this. (Yes, the equivalent can be legally achieved over time through a thousand cuts, but not in a case lot like this).

He is doing it now, presumably on the basis that these people don’t have “useful work” anyway. So he has, effectively, found a loophole that he can capitalise on, free of litigation. In the “crisis”, he has discovered something to his advantage that he never would have been able to do otherwise.

The Australian concept of “stand-down”, which was only intended for a short-term stoppage, is gathering new consequences daily. This move is not in the spirit of “keeping jobs” as publicly advertised by Alan. This move is an opportunistic “don’t waste a crisis” kick in the guts for all Qantas staff, and I hope the TWU expose him for it in the media. I actually thought he was doing well until now.

Umm.. he has already done it... Got rid of all catering staff (all rehired), and created QF Ground Services (all rehired), QF Cabin Crew UK and Jetconnect - if there was anything illegal about all of this, it would have been exposed.

[MelbourneFlyer]

Shots fired between Qantas and TWU this morning over ground crews.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-pandemic-ground-crew-exit-had-been-on-the-cards-for-a-decade-20200907-p55t4x.html says "Qantas developed a plan 10 years ago to outsource all airport ground handling work by 2020, raising questions about its claim that last month's move to sack all 2400 remaining ground workers was a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis."

The airline said in August that outsourcing Qantas and Jetstar baggage handling, aircraft cleaning and ground crew work to third-party contractors at 11 major Australian airports would save it around $100 million a year as "part of its COVID recovery plan".

But an internal company document from 2010 obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age shows that Qantas had long considered the move as a way to simplify the business and cut costs.

The "private and confidential" document outlines a "2020 Vision" strategy for the airline which includes "BTW (below the wing) ground handling exited" by this year.

The document outlines that the strategy would deliver a "quantum reduction in staff numbers" at airports and enable Qantas to be "more focused on process rather than people management".

Qantas management canvassed the strategy internally in 2010. While it is unclear whether the company adopted the "2020 Vision" strategy in full, the document shows outsourcing all "below the wing" work has been part of the executive team's thinking since before the bruising 2011 industrial dispute.

TWU's Michael Kaine "seized on the document as "utterly shocking" evidence that Qantas wasn't sacking more because of the pandemic but as part of a "pre-arranged plan".
"This revelation shows the outsourcing of Qantas' entire ground operations is not based on any rational thinking but shows a senior management team out of control and targeting a group of workers," Mr Kaine said."

But a Qantas spokesman said the idea the job cuts were in the works for 10 years was a "conspiracy theory that ignores the reality of what's happened to aviation in the past six months".

The spokesman said "virtually every airline around the world" had outsourced their ground handling work over the past 10 to 20 years, so it should not be surprising Qantas considered it in the past.

"But that’s not why we're considering it now," he said.

"We were hiring into Qantas ground services as recently as February and making long-term investments in new ground handling equipment. We wouldn’t have done that if we had plan
to outsource it."

The airline says COVID-19 travel restrictions will blow a $10 billion hole in revenue this financial year and it has adopted a cost-cutting program that intends to deliver $15 billion in savings by 2023.

"We have to find ways to do things more efficiently and outsourcing our ground handling to specialist providers could reduce the cost of this function by around 40 per cent," Qantas' spokesman said.