QF LAME stood down over OT bans
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone actually tell me what happened to the LAME stood down in MEL? Wasn't there supposed to be a meeting today? God help both the Asn and the company if he doesnt get a favourable outcome. For that matter, god help us all , the travelling public included, in this whole debacle.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is still stood down. The company has nothing on him, but good ol' BD and co are suggesting untruthes to various people to elicite a response to hang someone?
Confirm the truth before believing the crap eminating from their mouths.
Where is the union?
Can't anyone see blantent, selfishness and greed coupled with short sightedness is destroying this airline and our great country.
WE ARE NOT AMERICA NOR DO WE WISH TO BE LIKE THEM!
Confirm the truth before believing the crap eminating from their mouths.
Where is the union?
Can't anyone see blantent, selfishness and greed coupled with short sightedness is destroying this airline and our great country.
WE ARE NOT AMERICA NOR DO WE WISH TO BE LIKE THEM!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
I appreciate your effort in conveying your interpretations of the 'real issues'. Where others have dismissed an oppurtunity to openly discuss this issue, you have taken the time to reply and it is appreciated, however.....(you knew it was coming!)
The QF product you speak of is the product of a Government owned era, where money was of no real concern and competition within Australia was negligable. I'm sure you'd agree that the aviation climate today is far different from what it was both Internationally and Domestically.
We like to believe that people fly with our Flag carrier for unsurpassed service, reliability and safety. This is a very big misconception. The reasons people fly QF are cheap fares, Oneworld links, frequent flyer (taken a bit of a battering lately) and cheap fares!
If service, reliability and safety were of such importance, you wouldnt see QF management cutting costs the way they are at the moment. They are cutting costs in order to provide a cheaper, more accessable, product for the general public. Which leads me on to.....
Where does the LAME and engineering fit into all of this. If we maintain our reluctance to change, we could quite possibly price ourselves out of the market. Sure engineers will always be required, but in what capacity and in what numbers is really going to depend on us, and our union.
With this in mind, I honestly believe it prudent for all to consider whats on offer from QF in the latest EBA. It may not be palatable at first, but it may be all that stands between keeping jobs at QF, in Australia, or losing the jobs to overseas interests.
I appreciate your effort in conveying your interpretations of the 'real issues'. Where others have dismissed an oppurtunity to openly discuss this issue, you have taken the time to reply and it is appreciated, however.....(you knew it was coming!)
The QF product you speak of is the product of a Government owned era, where money was of no real concern and competition within Australia was negligable. I'm sure you'd agree that the aviation climate today is far different from what it was both Internationally and Domestically.
We like to believe that people fly with our Flag carrier for unsurpassed service, reliability and safety. This is a very big misconception. The reasons people fly QF are cheap fares, Oneworld links, frequent flyer (taken a bit of a battering lately) and cheap fares!
If service, reliability and safety were of such importance, you wouldnt see QF management cutting costs the way they are at the moment. They are cutting costs in order to provide a cheaper, more accessable, product for the general public. Which leads me on to.....
Where does the LAME and engineering fit into all of this. If we maintain our reluctance to change, we could quite possibly price ourselves out of the market. Sure engineers will always be required, but in what capacity and in what numbers is really going to depend on us, and our union.
With this in mind, I honestly believe it prudent for all to consider whats on offer from QF in the latest EBA. It may not be palatable at first, but it may be all that stands between keeping jobs at QF, in Australia, or losing the jobs to overseas interests.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least it is nice to see someone from Qantas Management admit that they are cutting costs on service, reliability and safety. 
If service, reliability and safety were of such importance, you wouldnt see QF management cutting costs the way they are at the moment.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOC,
I have to disagree with your assessment. You say that we like to think that people fly QANTAS because of its:
"unsurpassed service, reliability and safety"
That is exactly the reason I USE to fly QANTAS. Over time, all of these aspects have diminished to levels that are equal to or below competitors. This use to be a distinguishing characteristic of QANTAS that meant I was willing to pay a little extra to travel with the flying kangaroo.
Now, under the careful eye of Chainsaw Dixon and his loyal troops, these qualities no longer exist for QANTAS to stand out from the crowd, and I go seeking the lowest price. If this is QANTAS, I'll fly them, if it's someone else, I'll fly that airline.
Bringing QANTAS down to the level of its competition as far as service, reliability and safety goes, means the only competitive advantage left is price. So now managment has to continually cut costs to lower prices to stay ahead. From my experience, it doesn't even have a great advantage here.
I wouldn't consider FF points and Oneworld links to be that attractive to the general community, especially considering the recent publicity regarding QANTAS' FF changes. How many people know anything about Oneworld anyway? Travel agents would be aware of this, but see EeastWest Loco's recent post regarding his attitutde to QF after their recent cutting of payment to travel agents.
Looking at your businesses' cost structure and removing "the fat" is a sensible practice. Slashing your costs at the expense of staff morale, product quality and customer satisfaction is not a formula for long term success in any industry. If you support this plan, can you show me an example of a airline that used this formula for long-term success?
I have to disagree with your assessment. You say that we like to think that people fly QANTAS because of its:
"unsurpassed service, reliability and safety"
That is exactly the reason I USE to fly QANTAS. Over time, all of these aspects have diminished to levels that are equal to or below competitors. This use to be a distinguishing characteristic of QANTAS that meant I was willing to pay a little extra to travel with the flying kangaroo.
Now, under the careful eye of Chainsaw Dixon and his loyal troops, these qualities no longer exist for QANTAS to stand out from the crowd, and I go seeking the lowest price. If this is QANTAS, I'll fly them, if it's someone else, I'll fly that airline.
Bringing QANTAS down to the level of its competition as far as service, reliability and safety goes, means the only competitive advantage left is price. So now managment has to continually cut costs to lower prices to stay ahead. From my experience, it doesn't even have a great advantage here.
I wouldn't consider FF points and Oneworld links to be that attractive to the general community, especially considering the recent publicity regarding QANTAS' FF changes. How many people know anything about Oneworld anyway? Travel agents would be aware of this, but see EeastWest Loco's recent post regarding his attitutde to QF after their recent cutting of payment to travel agents.
Looking at your businesses' cost structure and removing "the fat" is a sensible practice. Slashing your costs at the expense of staff morale, product quality and customer satisfaction is not a formula for long term success in any industry. If you support this plan, can you show me an example of a airline that used this formula for long-term success?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's in it for the long term, definately not dixon and his executive staff. After he has made a few years of record profits he will move on to something else and take his baggage with him.( hopefully)
The share holders can sell out any old time, the only people who are going to be around to see Qantas in the future will be the staff, lets hope there will be something left to salvage after he has moved on.
There will be no good memories of him and his kind in years to come.
The share holders can sell out any old time, the only people who are going to be around to see Qantas in the future will be the staff, lets hope there will be something left to salvage after he has moved on.
There will be no good memories of him and his kind in years to come.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bugsmashing, I appreciate your honesty and perspective on the current situation.
You have essentially confirmed my beliefs on the question of 'Why do people fly QF'. Oneworld may not be of much importance to the Australian Domestic market (well obviously anyway!), but the number of pax that can book a 'through' flight from one carrier, say British, and use the Oneworld network to get from Heathrow to Roma definately increases the pax loads for QF.
Look around at the post 9/11 aviation industry. Look at the Industrial reform being spearheaded by the Australian government. Look at the added competition in the region and how much is subsidised by THEIR governments (ie. Singapore, Malaysian etc).
Whether we like it or not facts are facts. We either deal with it, or we sink. Who's in for the long term? From a management perspective, who cares? Slash and burn is the flavour of the month. As engineers how much can we change QF corporate attitude.....very little if any I would say. So we deal with it. How we deal with it will define the future we have in this industry and the part we play.
Survival of the fittest. Level heads must prevail. Emotion must be removed from the equation, and we must move on in partnership with the company that pays our wages. Once again, I ask only that you consider the facts I place before you.
You have essentially confirmed my beliefs on the question of 'Why do people fly QF'. Oneworld may not be of much importance to the Australian Domestic market (well obviously anyway!), but the number of pax that can book a 'through' flight from one carrier, say British, and use the Oneworld network to get from Heathrow to Roma definately increases the pax loads for QF.
Look around at the post 9/11 aviation industry. Look at the Industrial reform being spearheaded by the Australian government. Look at the added competition in the region and how much is subsidised by THEIR governments (ie. Singapore, Malaysian etc).
Whether we like it or not facts are facts. We either deal with it, or we sink. Who's in for the long term? From a management perspective, who cares? Slash and burn is the flavour of the month. As engineers how much can we change QF corporate attitude.....very little if any I would say. So we deal with it. How we deal with it will define the future we have in this industry and the part we play.
Survival of the fittest. Level heads must prevail. Emotion must be removed from the equation, and we must move on in partnership with the company that pays our wages. Once again, I ask only that you consider the facts I place before you.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again MOC, thanks for the reply
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that the aviation industry as a whole has become far more volatile in the last five years and many airlines have collapsed, gone into receivership or being forced to rely on government assistance to survive.
However, through luck, good managment or other reasons, neither QF or DJ have experienced any of these issues. Yet, for over three years, we have heard Geoff Dixon using these horror stories to justify why QF can't afford to give staff pay increases and why Australian jobs need to be moved offshore.
Immediately after 9/11, Geoff Dixon was able to force a wage freeze on staff. QF then announced a net profit of A$428 million. After accepting the wage freeze, the unions asked for some level of job security, which QF refused. This is the sort of partner that Dixon likes to be. Since then, there have been redundancies each year, while profits continue to increase.
A CEO is paid his bonuses depending on the growth of share holder value, which is based on profit growth. He is supposed to increase profits by growing the company. Finding new opportunities and the such. Unfortunately, along the way, someone worked out "Hey, if I just cull 1000 staff and make the rest work harder, we make a bigger profit and I get more money". Rinse, wash, repeat.
You ask "Who's in for the long term?" The employees are for a start. Their future is heavily invested with the company. Most don't have the financial resources to survive without the employment the company gives them. Will working with the management this time be any different from past experiences? Will it just reinforce to them that they can continue to remove jobs as they please?
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that the aviation industry as a whole has become far more volatile in the last five years and many airlines have collapsed, gone into receivership or being forced to rely on government assistance to survive.
However, through luck, good managment or other reasons, neither QF or DJ have experienced any of these issues. Yet, for over three years, we have heard Geoff Dixon using these horror stories to justify why QF can't afford to give staff pay increases and why Australian jobs need to be moved offshore.
Immediately after 9/11, Geoff Dixon was able to force a wage freeze on staff. QF then announced a net profit of A$428 million. After accepting the wage freeze, the unions asked for some level of job security, which QF refused. This is the sort of partner that Dixon likes to be. Since then, there have been redundancies each year, while profits continue to increase.
A CEO is paid his bonuses depending on the growth of share holder value, which is based on profit growth. He is supposed to increase profits by growing the company. Finding new opportunities and the such. Unfortunately, along the way, someone worked out "Hey, if I just cull 1000 staff and make the rest work harder, we make a bigger profit and I get more money". Rinse, wash, repeat.
You ask "Who's in for the long term?" The employees are for a start. Their future is heavily invested with the company. Most don't have the financial resources to survive without the employment the company gives them. Will working with the management this time be any different from past experiences? Will it just reinforce to them that they can continue to remove jobs as they please?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far from what I've heard and read our O/T bans are having great effect. I see them at the least showing unity of Licenced Engineers and demonstrating the worth of 'Good Faith' shown by Engineers, and taken for granted by QANTAS, in the amount of O/T worked normally.
David Cox isnt so happy, and therfore neither are any of the managers beneath him. They have targeted individuals in an attempt to stem the effect of the bans, but members have stuck to their guns.
With these feeble attempts to incriminate people, and the bans going so well, why am I hearing rumours that the ALAEA is going to make this all official. This along with Bruce Deahms Line Maintenance newsletter saying we should take any grievances to our union, something just doesnt smell right. If these bans are going so well, why give QANTAS the oppurtunity to fight this industrially? We're killing them at the moment and the protection of being directed by the ALAEA isnt all that great anyway.
Stay united and out of sight. They cant hit what they cant see. They can try but dont have much chance of doing any real damage.
David Cox isnt so happy, and therfore neither are any of the managers beneath him. They have targeted individuals in an attempt to stem the effect of the bans, but members have stuck to their guns.
With these feeble attempts to incriminate people, and the bans going so well, why am I hearing rumours that the ALAEA is going to make this all official. This along with Bruce Deahms Line Maintenance newsletter saying we should take any grievances to our union, something just doesnt smell right. If these bans are going so well, why give QANTAS the oppurtunity to fight this industrially? We're killing them at the moment and the protection of being directed by the ALAEA isnt all that great anyway.
Stay united and out of sight. They cant hit what they cant see. They can try but dont have much chance of doing any real damage.
