Qantas Sale Act?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So whats your "Roadmap for Peace"? Please don't tell me, "Engage in a meaningful dialogue with all parties" because it takes two to tango and the company is simply not interested.
I am listening.
I am listening.
Thread Starter
No Borg, the next line was
CM: Fantastic, then I can get on and collect my 2 Million Dollar bonus. Oh and GD did I mention how smart you're looking today, love the tie.... XOXOXOX
CM: Fantastic, then I can get on and collect my 2 Million Dollar bonus. Oh and GD did I mention how smart you're looking today, love the tie.... XOXOXOX
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two to Tango.
TCOB, Start with a ceasefire of attacks on Jetstar, it is not achieving anything. As for pilot unity, do you know anyone who can herd cats? Any attempt to increase remuneration or promotion prospects simply is not going to happen without the support of the Jetstar pilot group from here on in. There in lies the crux of the issue, how to get the Jetstar pilots on board? I’m fresh out of ideas but looking forward to constructive input. We’ve done the ‘beat them into submission’ thing for long enough and it has had the opposite effect. Do you not think its time to try something else? Not to sure on how to deal with the company yet, I don’t ‘tango’ to well either. I think the answer lies somewhere between the roadmap to peace and heading down the warpath, at some stage we will have to all stand together….or not, but who will fall on their sword?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIPA's proposed court action to try to have the international arm of Jetstar declared illegal is breathtaking hypocrisy and self-interest at its best. While it would be good to see Qantas operations restored to the pre-eminence they deserve, what was AIPA saying when Qantas started Australian Airlines a few years ago? They were in bed with Qantas with a cosy agreement to operate Australian's aircraft on terms and conditions, though different from mainline, that did not in any way have the potential to reduce mainline conditions. AIPA's position with Jetstar is not as pure as its motives suggest and I hope the mainstream media pick up on this.
Hugh G Rection's comments are very defensible. One would be hard pressed to argue the contrary position and win the argument. Time for AIPA to wake up but I think it's too late as their introverted ways and interests are now coming home to bite them on the bum.
Hugh G Rection's comments are very defensible. One would be hard pressed to argue the contrary position and win the argument. Time for AIPA to wake up but I think it's too late as their introverted ways and interests are now coming home to bite them on the bum.
Thread Starter
Court action
It's no longer proposed B A Lert it's happening. http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...58-462,00.html
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
When AO was started AIPA proved how flexible it could be and yet still the company wanted more and more, effectivly trying to implement AO conditions on mailine pilot by the improper use of a wet lease. This was never the accepted intent of having lower pay and conditions. Conditions which only stack up to those concerned by living in a place like Cairns where the lower cost of housing etc offsets the lower remuneration offered.
You are also implying AIPA knew of this possible breach of the Qantas Sale Act when AO was being set up, do you know this is the case as that would be central to your claim? Perhaps is only been under the new direction which GD and APA has forced AIPA that has lead to this discovery.
There are over 1000 First and Second Officers who have seen their carreers decimated by the advent of JetStar, how do you explain to them that it's just bad luck their next promotion has been put back 10 years so GD/APA etc can grab another few buckets of gold before sinking Qantas.
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.
Qantas pilots in bid to restrict takeover
By Steve Creedy
February 26, 2007 01:00am
Article from: The Australian
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
QANTAS pilots will today attempt to impose significant restrictions on the $11 billion takeover of the airline by asking the Federal Court to rule the carrier's Jetstar International subsidiary is operating unlawfully.
The Australian and International Pilots Association will argue that Jetstar's international services breach a section of the Qantas Sale Act preventing the national carrier from operating international passenger services under another name.
The union argues the Act requires Qantas to conduct scheduled international passenger services under the Qantas name or a name that contains the word Qantas.
It is taking the action after the Government revealed advice that the Sale Act, enacted in 1992 to ensure Qantas remained Australian, would not prevent the flying kangaroo spinning off Jetstar and selling it as a separate entity.
The Government subsequently argued that legislation covering international aviation agreements required an airline to keep its "principal place of business" in Australia and that this would prevent the low-cost carrier being sold overseas.
But some aviation experts and AIPA disagree, saying significant chunks of Jetstar could still be transferred offshore.
The union is also worried the Qantas Sale Act could be rendered meaningless by a simple transfer of Qantas business to its low-cost offshoot. And it remains unimpressed by repeated assurances from Airline Partners Australia – the private equity consortium behind the takeover – that it has no intention of breaking up the airline.
"We contend there is an exit strategy to spin Jetstar off," AIPA president Ian Woods said yesterday.
"Clearly, that was never intended by the Sale Act and it's not something that's in the interest of Qantas pilots."
APA has identified Jetstar International's growth as central to its plans to make money from its $5.60 a share bid.
Qantas pilots worry they are being excluded from the expansionary thrust. The union is hoping its action will force the Government to intervene and place restrictions on the deal.
"If our case succeeds the entire Jetstar International strategy – where a separate entity is created to hollow out Qantas – would breach the Qantas Sale Act and the Minister for Transport would be obliged to intervene," Mr Woods said.
By Steve Creedy
February 26, 2007 01:00am
Article from: The Australian
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
QANTAS pilots will today attempt to impose significant restrictions on the $11 billion takeover of the airline by asking the Federal Court to rule the carrier's Jetstar International subsidiary is operating unlawfully.
The Australian and International Pilots Association will argue that Jetstar's international services breach a section of the Qantas Sale Act preventing the national carrier from operating international passenger services under another name.
The union argues the Act requires Qantas to conduct scheduled international passenger services under the Qantas name or a name that contains the word Qantas.
It is taking the action after the Government revealed advice that the Sale Act, enacted in 1992 to ensure Qantas remained Australian, would not prevent the flying kangaroo spinning off Jetstar and selling it as a separate entity.
The Government subsequently argued that legislation covering international aviation agreements required an airline to keep its "principal place of business" in Australia and that this would prevent the low-cost carrier being sold overseas.
But some aviation experts and AIPA disagree, saying significant chunks of Jetstar could still be transferred offshore.
The union is also worried the Qantas Sale Act could be rendered meaningless by a simple transfer of Qantas business to its low-cost offshoot. And it remains unimpressed by repeated assurances from Airline Partners Australia – the private equity consortium behind the takeover – that it has no intention of breaking up the airline.
"We contend there is an exit strategy to spin Jetstar off," AIPA president Ian Woods said yesterday.
"Clearly, that was never intended by the Sale Act and it's not something that's in the interest of Qantas pilots."
APA has identified Jetstar International's growth as central to its plans to make money from its $5.60 a share bid.
Qantas pilots worry they are being excluded from the expansionary thrust. The union is hoping its action will force the Government to intervene and place restrictions on the deal.
"If our case succeeds the entire Jetstar International strategy – where a separate entity is created to hollow out Qantas – would breach the Qantas Sale Act and the Minister for Transport would be obliged to intervene," Mr Woods said.
When AO was started AIPA proved how flexible it could be and yet still the company wanted more and more, effectivly trying to implement AO conditions on mailine pilot by the improper use of a wet lease. This was never the accepted intent of having lower pay and conditions. Conditions which only stack up to those concerned by living in a place like Cairns where the lower cost of housing etc offsets the lower remuneration offered.
You are also implying AIPA knew of this possible breach of the Qantas Sale Act when AO was being set up, do you know this is the case as that would be central to your claim? Perhaps is only been under the new direction which GD and APA has forced AIPA that has lead to this discovery.
There are over 1000 First and Second Officers who have seen their carreers decimated by the advent of JetStar, how do you explain to them that it's just bad luck their next promotion has been put back 10 years so GD/APA etc can grab another few buckets of gold before sinking Qantas.
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dixon/apa plan is quite simple. Because of the Qantas sale act, QF had a negative takeover premium. Why would any consortium takeover Qantas if all it could do was tart it up and sell it back to the Australian public? Not a lot of money to be made there.
Hence the sale act loophole. The sale of j* effectively allows ANY foreign purchaser(s) to buy the select parts of the QF network, hence turning the negative premium into a positive.
j* has been built from the ground up as a trading vehicle to "capture" this takeover premium.
Further, it recognises that SQ & possibly EK would inevitably be given the rights to fly the Pacific. If you are going to have to share the pineapple, why not give them the prickly end?
All that has to happen is for the Federal government to recommend to the IASC that j* now be given the rights in its own right, rather than as a variation to QF's as part of the sale of j* to SQ. This convieniently gets Singapore off the governments back.
Some really interesting questions arise as to when QF knew about the loophole, and how & when apa became aware. dixon's regular pleading to the Federal government in hindsight, where obviously warning shots across the bow. Better to get the pollies to do your dirty work if you can, but they sensed the danger, therfore plan B.
Hence the sale act loophole. The sale of j* effectively allows ANY foreign purchaser(s) to buy the select parts of the QF network, hence turning the negative premium into a positive.
j* has been built from the ground up as a trading vehicle to "capture" this takeover premium.
Further, it recognises that SQ & possibly EK would inevitably be given the rights to fly the Pacific. If you are going to have to share the pineapple, why not give them the prickly end?
All that has to happen is for the Federal government to recommend to the IASC that j* now be given the rights in its own right, rather than as a variation to QF's as part of the sale of j* to SQ. This convieniently gets Singapore off the governments back.
Some really interesting questions arise as to when QF knew about the loophole, and how & when apa became aware. dixon's regular pleading to the Federal government in hindsight, where obviously warning shots across the bow. Better to get the pollies to do your dirty work if you can, but they sensed the danger, therfore plan B.
Nunc est bibendum
Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort. Despite the fact that I think they blinked (much the same as many QF drivers have over the last couple of years) I see J* crew very much as my colleagues- the same way I view DJ pilots as well. We share the industry. This is not about slagging off a particular pilot group. This is not QF pilots against J* pilots.
It is about QF pilots vs QF management including the CEO. We had better believe this is us against him because I reckon he sees it as him against us. I'm not privy to the in's and out's of this and I confess to being an idealist of the highest order but to tart this AIPA action as being anti-J* pilot is an error at least and a gross misrepresentation at worst.
It is about QF pilots vs QF management including the CEO. We had better believe this is us against him because I reckon he sees it as him against us. I'm not privy to the in's and out's of this and I confess to being an idealist of the highest order but to tart this AIPA action as being anti-J* pilot is an error at least and a gross misrepresentation at worst.
Thread Starter
Keg,
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations. On the otherhand if 'Qantas' is simply inserted into their name and they continue to expand, perhaps they may aguably be covered by our award and should be paid accordingly at Qantas mainline levels.
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations. On the otherhand if 'Qantas' is simply inserted into their name and they continue to expand, perhaps they may aguably be covered by our award and should be paid accordingly at Qantas mainline levels.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole point is being missed. This has nothing to do with Pilot groups, but about keeping APA honest. Read Freddy K's post again.
IS or IS NOT J* International subject to the Sale Act? There's a difference of opinion, and a determination is being sought. Simple.
Seems to me that if J* Int is NOT subject to the act, then the way is open to a few sleight of hand tricks to enrich a few at the expense of the many.
N
IS or IS NOT J* International subject to the Sale Act? There's a difference of opinion, and a determination is being sought. Simple.
Seems to me that if J* Int is NOT subject to the act, then the way is open to a few sleight of hand tricks to enrich a few at the expense of the many.
N
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should AIPA be successful with this court action
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
About as likely as snow on Bondi at Christmas. How many (unsuccesful) court actions, how much $$$ has to be spent, how long with ZERO accomplished (Other than 'Standing up to the Company' whatever that means)?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems people here are falling into the trap of believing the media version of what is occuring. There is no court action against Jetstar, this is not about AIPA vs Jetstar or its pilots. This is simply AIPA asking the Federal Court to give an interprative ruling on the applicability of the Qantas Sale Act with regard to Jetstar. This is not a court case with two sides making legal arguments and a winner declared at the end, it is a request for legal clarification. Hope that stops some of the BS I've read above (yeah right
).
).
Thread Starter
Tinee,
Thanks for the measured response. Please tell us, 'How many (unsuccessful) court actions' have been pursued?
I believe the cost to Qantas vs AIPA and the pilot group is about 50:1 as they try to muscle and bully any actions out of court.
Zero would have been accomplished if AIPA had done nothing and allowed a few greedy selfish evil men and women to flourish. I don't see this as an act of standing up against the company so much as standing up for the company to ensure we are not stripped naked and 30,000 people, including myself, end up on the street.
Thanks for the measured response. Please tell us, 'How many (unsuccessful) court actions' have been pursued?
I believe the cost to Qantas vs AIPA and the pilot group is about 50:1 as they try to muscle and bully any actions out of court.
Zero would have been accomplished if AIPA had done nothing and allowed a few greedy selfish evil men and women to flourish. I don't see this as an act of standing up against the company so much as standing up for the company to ensure we are not stripped naked and 30,000 people, including myself, end up on the street.
Last edited by Mud Skipper; 27th Feb 2007 at 00:55. Reason: EEO, forgot to include possible greedy selfish evil women
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further implications of the dixon plan
If it's just the name that's the problem - would "Qantas Jetstar" or "Jetstar Qantas" solve it? Isn't Qantas Link a separate company?
In order for the plan to work, j* was required to have the appearance of being a completely separate subsiduary, rather than simply window dressing. This meant, avoiding at all costs the transfer of any staff to the j* operation, as this could be seen as contrived.
Further, the growth would only be in j*,to maximise its sale price.
Stop and think about this, dixon knew full well when the plan was activated that career progression for pilots would be slowed to a trickle for mainline crew, dependant entirely upon the retirement rate. dixon snuffed out your mainline careers, in full knowledge of its devestating effects many, many years ago.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just to throw some oil on it...
Jet* does get sold off to a "different" private equity partnership (the same principle owners); buys QFA mainline for $1.00 (off the other/same owners); would that open the door for transmission of business rules and full use of the QFA brand for whatever evil it chooses.
Jet* does get sold off to a "different" private equity partnership (the same principle owners); buys QFA mainline for $1.00 (off the other/same owners); would that open the door for transmission of business rules and full use of the QFA brand for whatever evil it chooses.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a minefield and anything could happen and i suppose that is why apa want to delist the company.The bottom line is that they will want a fast return on their money and they are borrowing a motsa.the interest alone would make my wifes credit card bill look pathetic..and thats not easy..
on another note this mornings news of australias 3 wealthiest men looking at starting their own nuclear power plant reminds me of the simpsons and mr burns...and then they will probably sell it to the Mac bank.......duohhh
on another note this mornings news of australias 3 wealthiest men looking at starting their own nuclear power plant reminds me of the simpsons and mr burns...and then they will probably sell it to the Mac bank.......duohhh
Hypocrisy on a grand scale
Mud skipper wrote:
No hypocrisy other than the fact that there are Jetstar Pilots who are members of APIA (some admittedly are on LWOP from Q, but most are not), and AIPA is actively trying to recruit more Jetstar pilots. This is too stupid for words, Join up fellas, and we will use your hard earned to f
you over.
Keg wrote:
Really, well standing on the other side of the fence that is exactly how it looks. Hugh is on the money. AIPA (QF pilots) is taking Qantas to court to try to shut down Jetstar Int. (JQ Int. in breach of the Qantas Sale Act). How is that NOT QF pilots against JQ pilots. JQ pilots may not be respondents to the court action but we are directly affected by the outcome. Do you consider us as collateral damage should you be successful?
Mud Skipper wrote:
How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’
Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:
Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.
There is no hypocrisy about this, this is what we pay AIPA for, defending it's members jobs.
you over.Keg wrote:
Hugh, interesting diversion you've taken by stating that this is about QF pilots vs J* pilots. I don't see it anything of the sort.
Mud Skipper wrote:
Could not agree with you more. Along those lines I think, should AIPA be successful with this court action, we'll need to ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots disadvantaged by possibly winding back of their international operations.
How do you propose to ‘ensure the company looks after any Jetstar pilots……’
Last time I checked Australian Airlines Wet Leasing did not have Qantas in its name. How are the hundreds of AOWL pilots faring with their necks also on the line. Are you sharing Mud skippers’ sentiments regarding AIPA:
Best of luck IAN WOODS & Co, thank you AIPA for championing Qantas pilots.
Or do you have a slightly bitter taste in your mouth knowing that you are funding this little adventure.
Relax Keith
As I understand it AIPA has been seeking the 'Group Opportunity List' and management keep saying 'NO' with no verifiable explanation of why. AIPA has sought to talk with QF and been stonewalled at every turn. The only legal alternative is to ask a judge to decide since all other doors are effectively closed.
I cannot imagine any J* pilots being demoted/sacked... the QF Group still need the pilots. The bright side might be that J* pilots actually converge with mainline conditions after all. Would you still be bitter then?
And another thing. AOWL has only about 80 pilots who are all ex-QF and have the right of return to mainline under present arrangements. Their EBA negotiations are stalled too as it seems that the company wants to import the discount FNQ (ie Cairns) conditions to Sydney or anywhere else for that matter. Facts please. Maybe even Aust Airlines was, in hindsight, a dubious bend on the intent of the QF Sale Act. The court action is about getting an independent arbitrator to rule.
AIPA may win or lose, but at least we'll all know where we stand. I don't think you need to fear, you're still in the low-watermark (pay-wise) group, even if you're proud of it. Aim higher!
I cannot imagine any J* pilots being demoted/sacked... the QF Group still need the pilots. The bright side might be that J* pilots actually converge with mainline conditions after all. Would you still be bitter then?
And another thing. AOWL has only about 80 pilots who are all ex-QF and have the right of return to mainline under present arrangements. Their EBA negotiations are stalled too as it seems that the company wants to import the discount FNQ (ie Cairns) conditions to Sydney or anywhere else for that matter. Facts please. Maybe even Aust Airlines was, in hindsight, a dubious bend on the intent of the QF Sale Act. The court action is about getting an independent arbitrator to rule.
AIPA may win or lose, but at least we'll all know where we stand. I don't think you need to fear, you're still in the low-watermark (pay-wise) group, even if you're proud of it. Aim higher!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a bit emotive here aren't we?
If the court ruling says that J* Int is illegal, the simple fix is to change the name. All that means is that J* International pilots become Qantas (Express, Lite...whatever) pilots.
It doesn't mean they lose jobs or opportunities.
Ever wondered why Dixon is so implacably opposed to a group opportunity list? On the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Operationally there is a lot to be gained by cross-pollination of the two pilot groups. But Dixon has stated that it will never happen, and has gone on to spend large sums of money to ensure that by having QF A330 crews sitting on their rears while employing overseas pilots to fly those A330's for J* on a lot more than what the JPC negotiated for it's pilots.
The only real reason to do something like that is that he wants to avoid having QF pilots in Jetstar when he flogs it off to Emirates or Singair in a few years time. Any QF pilots in J* would have to come back to mainline and J* would not have enough pilots to crew their aeroplanes. Hence the requirement in the MOU for any QF FO seeking a Jetstar command to resign from Qantas.
It all makes perfect sense now.
J* pilots should realise that their company is the prize in Dixons game. If J* is not subject to the Sale Act, then there remains no legal impediment to expanding J* at the expense of mainline, asset stripping such as what we have already seen with the A330's but on a much grander scale and selling it off as a fully integrated domestic/international carrier based in Australia to the highest bidder.
Instead of being a QF group airline, in will be Qantas main rival. What happens to mainline in this time is open to conjecture. You would think that there would still be some investment in QF but it may end suffering the same fate as Ansett.
There is nothing to stop this occurring if the Sale act does not apply.... not a thing.
So if you J* pilots see this as some sort of threat, I think you haven't seen the ramifications of this to 2600 QF pilots and 35000 QF staff.
Making J* international beholden to the Sale Act may be the one thing that makes this exercise in capitalism gone mad unviable.
But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to.
If the court ruling says that J* Int is illegal, the simple fix is to change the name. All that means is that J* International pilots become Qantas (Express, Lite...whatever) pilots.
It doesn't mean they lose jobs or opportunities.
Ever wondered why Dixon is so implacably opposed to a group opportunity list? On the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Operationally there is a lot to be gained by cross-pollination of the two pilot groups. But Dixon has stated that it will never happen, and has gone on to spend large sums of money to ensure that by having QF A330 crews sitting on their rears while employing overseas pilots to fly those A330's for J* on a lot more than what the JPC negotiated for it's pilots.
The only real reason to do something like that is that he wants to avoid having QF pilots in Jetstar when he flogs it off to Emirates or Singair in a few years time. Any QF pilots in J* would have to come back to mainline and J* would not have enough pilots to crew their aeroplanes. Hence the requirement in the MOU for any QF FO seeking a Jetstar command to resign from Qantas.
It all makes perfect sense now.
J* pilots should realise that their company is the prize in Dixons game. If J* is not subject to the Sale Act, then there remains no legal impediment to expanding J* at the expense of mainline, asset stripping such as what we have already seen with the A330's but on a much grander scale and selling it off as a fully integrated domestic/international carrier based in Australia to the highest bidder.
Instead of being a QF group airline, in will be Qantas main rival. What happens to mainline in this time is open to conjecture. You would think that there would still be some investment in QF but it may end suffering the same fate as Ansett.
There is nothing to stop this occurring if the Sale act does not apply.... not a thing.
So if you J* pilots see this as some sort of threat, I think you haven't seen the ramifications of this to 2600 QF pilots and 35000 QF staff.
Making J* international beholden to the Sale Act may be the one thing that makes this exercise in capitalism gone mad unviable.
But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COB....I'm curious as to what you mean by this line in your post...
"But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to"
If QF wants to operate as a low cost international carrier exactly where do they cut their cost base.
"But it doesn't mean that Qantas cannot operate a low cost international operation if it wants to"
If QF wants to operate as a low cost international carrier exactly where do they cut their cost base.