1,750 jobs to go at Qantas
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
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
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.
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!
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 ?
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
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.
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........?
Perhaps his response was a result of information he has as to the nature of these cuts and just how they'll be managed........?
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
he worked for aer lingus not ryanair
ryanair has boeings not airbus
appart from that you could be right
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.
For your information these provisions have been in most EBA agreements for decades let alone just recent time.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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??
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!
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!
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.
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.
Forgive me for saying this but the only venture so far in these troubled times that is reputably somewhat stable; is Jet*.
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.
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.