Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

1,750 jobs to go at Qantas

Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:16
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Industrial Action?

On the 7.30 Report it was suggested by Moore that a Flight Attendants Union was talking about Industrial action.She was not precise about which Flight Attendant Association.
It would be hoped that it was NOT the International Division.Threats of Industrial action in this environment would only be contemplated by misinformed/uninformed lunatics
packrat is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:21
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree packrat - any industrial action really just gives Joyce an easy decision as to who to cut first. I know they have a right to action etc but it will achieve nothing in terms of "saving" jobs. Unfortunately, all the unions will be protecting thier own members, not worrying about the rest of them.
Qantas 787 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:23
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 107
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Joyce also said on the 7:30 report that the current situation the company finds itself in can be laid squarely at the feet of the Qantas engineers who took industrial action last year!
Surely he couldn't be that silly.

So they are cutting the guts out of mainline to grow Joke Star. Beauty. Wouldn't have guessed that one would we.

Lets see -- Boeing is going because Ryanair had airbus -- wouldn't have guessed that one either !!!!!

I wonder if there is an original thought in his head or whether he can only re create past models ?
arkmark is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:25
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Best Place!
Posts: 210
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hugh,

I am surprised by your comments. I am guessing that you are unaware of the 'EBA 7 variation agreement' whereby the Company has agreed to reinforce/strengthen the Seniority based reduction of numbers/retrenchment system. in the unlikely event of Tech Crew retrenchments ( they learnt a big lesson in the 70s fuel crisis), Im tipping AoA will be $500 better off.

Ken B.

There are no words in the Oxford dictionary that can describe the illogical cr@p that you have just written. Yes, there are a "lot of seat warmers, oxygen thieves, dead-wood, 'professional' First and Second Officers, .......preventing the progress of others who are certainly more productive and have more talent and potential." But for every one of them, there would be 50 who arent. So by your and HJs brilliant analysis, we should get rid of crew based on fleet type rather than seniority.

Which will get rid of 50 high achievers in addition to that 1 piece of dead wood.

Brilliant.

M

Last edited by mmmbop; 14th Apr 2009 at 10:38.
mmmbop is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:26
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MM was heard this afternoon on ABC 702 radio stating that the FAAA reserved the right to take industrial action in response to the planned cuts.

Perhaps his response was a result of information he has as to the nature of these cuts and just how they'll be managed........?
ditch handle is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:27
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE]Lets see -- Boeing is going because Ryanair had airbus -- wouldn't have guessed that one either !!!!!/QUOTE]

he worked for aer lingus not ryanair
ryanair has boeings not airbus
appart from that you could be right
domo is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:29
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And an EBA is agreed contract between Company and Union. If the companies think its so damaging then they would'nt agree with it in the first place. Right?

For your information these provisions have been in most EBA agreements for decades let alone just recent time.
Like most agreements undertaken by airlines and Unions many clauses are agreed to under duress during "good times". i.e. Airline thinks 'if I try and take out the seniority clauses regarding retrenchment the union will take Industrial action and cost us millions now'.

Many parts of the EBA aren't fashioned because the airline actually agrees. It's because at the time the cost would be too high. The end result is that during the low points of the economy the airline acknowledged that many good, young and new people (who are the type of people they want) will be retrenched. The cost to the company would have been too high and as a result of the union the young guys will feel the pain now. The union pushed this agenda, and the airline agreed. Those retrenched need to focus there attention on the union(s) for pushing the inclusion of this clause. It was never the companies idea to create a Last in - First out queue for retrenchment.

Airline EBAs were never about protecting the new and young guys in the company they were about protecting those who had been members for longer.

The young guys that work hard and do well for the company (vs. the few deadwood (you, i and they know who they are) can thank the union and not the company for being first on the hit list. It's sad, but it's the way things are now - as AoA says - it's a legal agreement.

QANTAS EBA(s) - The needs of the old outway the needs of the young.

preventing the progress of others who are certainly more productive and have more talent and potential." But for every one of them, there would be 50 who arent.
The deadwood stand out. The talented and potential stand out. Since you agree with this you should be advocating a system that recognises both and treats them accordingly. The current EBA(s) does neither.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:30
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: hk
Age: 47
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
spot on arkmark, though he may start charging to use the dunny
LeanRod737 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:32
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
Those of you who say it is possible to objectively and surgically remove your so called "dead-wood" should consider the following.

No pilot in Qantas ultimately holds any line crew position due to any of the following factors; Religious affiliation, nepotism, medical history, sexual orientation, family name, family influence, gender, perceived Born-To-Rule factor, number and health of children, other airline connections, health of spouse, ability to pay, old school tie, drinking partners or Rugby or Golf club affiliations.

Every single one of the line pilots in Qantas, be they Capt, FO/ or S/O, holds that position because;

a: They are qualified in all respects for position they hold; and..... well actually it's only a.

Please keep that in mind when you seriously advocate that objective removal of any pilot is possible and in anybodies interest.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:35
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

Gidday mmmbop,

The EBA will not be worth the paper it's written on if the company goes sooking to the IRC. Look at Kendell in 2001 with the CRJ pilots. Look at VB today with its Boeing pilots being transferred and downgraded.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately the die has been cast. Rest assured the IRC won't be on your side if Joyce and his cronies claim dire financial straits re retraining, etc..

Looks like the beers will be on me if I'm wrong.

I hope I am.
Hugh Jarse is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:36
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lets not get our knickers in a twist its a long way from CR, and yes its last on first off.
We can VR those that want to go and reduce hours and job share for those that want to stay. they want to talk and that is good.

If they go to CR never work o/t again the job you save may be your own
domo is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:48
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bottom of the Harbour
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
I think you will find that Joyce is cunningly trying to swing back votes to the company by laying blame at the feet of the ALAEA.

When retrenchments start on the tarmac (baggage handlers,cleaners,flight crew) he will continue to chant the same line. This is a PR exercise and he may swing public perception back on his side.

He wouldn't have gone into the media with a sweeping statement like this without a lot of people consulting him.

This is only the beginning, industrial action may well swing in the company's favour, as he has publicly stated he wants to avoid job losses on the tarmac.
KABOY is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:53
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you will find that Joyce is cunningly trying to swing back votes to the company by laying blame at the feet of the ALAEA.
The guy is cutting costs because of a reduction in revenue. That's it. When revenue declines costs become a focus - that's how companies survive. I'm not sure what your issue is. If your unions have driven up costs during the good times and won't work with the company to cut wages during the bad what do you think should happen? AJ said the engineers cost the company $150 million. I wonder if less jobs would be being lost if that wasn't the case. If QF was $150 million stronger would the job losses be less?

How many people will vote for across the board wage cuts? It's pretty obvious. It's easy to get a majority for across the board wage rises when unions claim "look at the profits" , it's next to impossible to get wage cuts when the market says "look at the forecast losses". What do you think the company should do?? Should the owners take a loss over the next few years to protect the young / new employees the union uses as bargaining chips?

He's not laying blame at ALAEA, he's pointing out fact. You "won" as you saw it and drove up costs. Don't shy away from it now - do we need to revist those threads here with union members talking of the joy of 'getting what they wanteed'. How many young guys now lose their job because of it. Everyone is dealing with that ALAEA action. You think the industrial action cost nothing? You need to think again. It was pushed and pushed hard - and if you think it didn't effect the airlines current position then you agree with Stephen Purvinas . If not you can email him what you think at [email protected]. If you've lost your job perhaps he can help you. He advocated help in times of need however I doubt he'll help now other than blame the company. Stephen pushed action that cost the company $150 million. I do wonder how many people wouldn't have been losing there jobs at the moment without that cost.

Last edited by ElPerro; 14th Apr 2009 at 11:14.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 10:54
  #74 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the board of Qantas, and shareholders collectively, would have cringed when they heard that naive statement from a naive young Irish idiot!
Forgive me for saying this but the only venture so far in these troubled times that is reputably somewhat stable; is Jet*. Wasn't that "young Irish idiot" involved in that establishment before his present position?
HotDog is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:11
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: there
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
ElPerro you are hilarious!! How exactly do you determine who is 'deadwood' among aircrew? It is obvious you have NO idea whatsoever as to what is involved with aircrew productivity. Nothing (especially in the past 12 years) has been forced on any company with regards to EBAs. EBAs have been as good for companies as they have been for employees. Are you 'Aircraft' perchance??
slice is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:16
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Obie!

Obie says, AJ also said on the 7:30 report that the current situation the company finds itself in can be laid squarely at the feet of the Qantas engineers who took industrial action last year!

Obie, go to the ABC website and watch the interview again. This time, pay particular attention. Perhaps, try listening. Then return, and update us on how not to screw with the ALAEA!
Acute Instinct is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:17
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slice: Probably had you as a first officer

Entertain your "play the man" attempt?. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that "over the years" I've got a reasonable idea of aircrew productivity. If you think all guys walk up front of the aircraft with the same attitude and work ethic then you should be a union rep.

Last edited by ElPerro; 14th Apr 2009 at 11:38.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:22
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,583
Received 96 Likes on 37 Posts
Forgive me for saying this but the only venture so far in these troubled times that is reputably somewhat stable; is Jet*.
Any Blind (and deaf and dumb) Freddie will be able to come to a pretty quick conclusion that premium markets will suffer and low fares will prosper when there are times of economic stress. No one can dispute that.

The big worry is that when the economy finally picks up again, will Qantas ever grow the Mainline product to at least (and beyond) the level it is at now...I fear not. It's given Joyce a perfect excuse to consolidate the Jetstar LCC model during the downturn, and then ramp it up when times are good, all the time neglecting the high yield end of the business.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:29
  #79 (permalink)  
tjc
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If AJ is laying blame on the engineers, we are all in trouble!

I hope there is a more constructive plan for the future.....
tjc is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2009, 11:31
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't really buy the "we didn't know it was coming" argument. Dixon has been squaking about Emirates and the other Gulf carriers for years, to no avail. So if he knew they were such a problem, why were all the QF aircraft ordered? Likewise, the LAX services. Over-reliance on a route duopoly in an ever-liberalizing world is not clever strategically. Weakening in demand is a global problem at the moment, but QF problems go well beyond just the current economic situation.
Amazing on a Board that has continually panned QF for not investing in the 777 and old aircraft, they are now getting panned for investing in the A380 and 787
moa999 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.