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

Qantas Shame

Old 30th Sep 2009, 20:52
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aircraft, oops, aircraft mark 2, oops, sorry, I mean ElPerro, sorry I get confused, you've gone very quiet. Are you upset that employee's get paid?
Enema Bandit's Dad is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2009, 23:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ElPerro
Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.
Over-simplistic, misleading, and illogical in itself (which you accuse others of being), like several of your arguments. Your comments are too long for me to dissect them all here, but I'll start with that little bit.

Firstly I note you prefaced it with "let me explain what unions do" - a clear attempt to authoritatively generalise the argument which doesn't seem justified. Not all unions threaten industrial action in all negotiations. In fact compared to the sheer number of negotiations, industrial action or the threat thereof is relatively uncommon these days.

Secondly you assert both a result and causation which are not necessarily related. A company paying 5% more than what they wanted to may or may not hire more or less staff. Who is to say what the company's financial position is? What the company wants to pay staff, and what it can afford to pay staff are two totally different things, and are highly subjective. Do you seriously believe a company goes to an EBA negotiation offering its very last penny to its workers?

"If any good costs more then the amount sold is less....". No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on the demand for that good. You're making unjustified assumptions that a union always reaches a point where it asks so much in salary that the company simply must employ less workers than it needs.
No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
Absolute piffle. EBAs result in demands and concessions from both sides. If Qantas conceded to pay me, as a pilot, $1 million a year that'd be great. If I conceded to work for 95 cents an hour, they would think it was great. The probability is that neither of those outcomes would be healthy for either of us for various reasons, but somewhere in the middle there is a point where both of us will be content, despite our desires. Even individuals who are on private contracts do this sort of negotiation. EBAs are where a representative body does it on an individual's behalf. Of course, if the company preferred, it can have 2,500 pilots book appointments for individual contract discussions a few weeks before its next expiry date.

Hey, unions are not all angels and they're not always sensible. No-one denies that. However you simply can't make sweeping anti-union generalisations (though I know you want to) and expect to be taken seriously. They are littered throughout several of your posts.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2009, 11:21
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Somebody has gone very quiet. I haven't heard any aircraft buzzing about or any Spanish yodling of late.....
Enema Bandit's Dad is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2009, 02:25
  #104 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Breaking News......more Qantas shame!!

From the ABC Saturday October 3, 2009.

Qantas criticised over foreign butter

Qantas is under fire from the Federal Opposition for serving imported butter on its Australian flights.

Australian dairy farmers are receiving low prices for their milk because of a global downturn in demand for dairy products.

Farmers in Tasmania claim their industry is close to collapse after excessive rain and recent power cuts.

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck says farmers are disappointed that Qantas is dishing up butter imported from Denmark.

"I found when I was flying to Western Australia last week that Qantas - the great Australian company, the national airline - is actually using butter from Denmark," he said.

"[That] really disappointed me, given there's significant subsidies on European butter at the moment, on European dairy products, and that adds up to disappoint local dairy farmers.

"They say on their website that they use the finest of Australian produce. This is clearly not Australian."

Qantas has confirmed it provides Lurpak butter.

A spokesman for the airline said the decision to purchase the cheaper Danish butter was made during the downturn in the aviation industry to minimise job losses.

Qantas says the butter served in its Qantas lounges is Australian.

***********************

So good of Qantas to help minimise Danish job losses
Shlonghaul is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 00:11
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hilarious ! Qantas choice of butter makes the news !!
What a joke.
Now,I may not be Qantas number 1 fan, I am happy to admit that, and I also recognise that everything a company does to protect or stabilize its bottom end may impact jobs,however even during a time of economic adversity and job cuts, if an airline ( publicly floated and measurable) cant make its own decisions about things such as what butter brand to serve, what chance does it have of long term survival ??
Let the airline make its own financial decisions, perhaps the money it saves from using items like Danish butter will go into improving service, staff morale, fair wages etc. That would be a benefit.

Perhaps Pricess Mary can become a 'Qantas Embassador' for butter ?
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 00:38
  #106 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahh Yes the...

'Spirit of Australia'.....

'The Flying Kangaroo'....

Play the patriotism angle with Australian children's choir singing world wide....

'I still call Australia home'.......but buy overseas goods when cheaper
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 01:00
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did someone mention moral compass?
ditch handle is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 15:56
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A bit of foreign butter seems rather insignificant compared to having your aircraft maintained and crewed by cheaper foreign sources.
twiggs is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 21:11
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.........................................or your new shirts that were made in Indonesia (tag still left on)

.........................................or the CC's unserviceable tags that were printed OS in such huge numbers - complete with a typo (fright number instead of FLIGHT number)

- but to add balance;
....................................... it seems that we really don't produce a lot in Australia anymore ! (and with the govt's blind focus on letting anyone flying in and out of Australia we can probably add pilots, CC & eng's to the import list in the near future)

cue the choir...
airtags is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2009, 23:31
  #110 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A bit of foreign butter seems rather insignificant compared to having your aircraft maintained and crewed by cheaper foreign sources.
Exactly what the office and management would like to us to think.

Lobey is spot on,they play the 'You're Australian,We're Australian,spend your money with us' sentimental approach and then in the same breath source anything they can offshore.

Twiggs might say that it is a insignificant amount of an insignificant item but it adds up to a huge amount of money.The office would like us to think "it's only butter,so why worry".

I think it was an American airline who saved millions by taking the individual packets of peanuts off.
Think about how many packets of butter they serve everyday and how much that would mean to Australian dairy farmers.
That is if the 'Spirit of Australia' is interested.

Butter,uniform shirts,paper work,maintenance, it all adds up.
RedTBar is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 00:18
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Look up and wave
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay folks, they buy all Australian products and go tits up because the cost base is too high.

If you want your 'Australian' airline to remain competitive and continue to employ over 30000 Australians then give them a little slack.

In a global market the strongest survive. As to dairy? well it would be better for the economy if the little two bit dairy farms with old equipment and poor hygiene standards closed or merged eventually evolving into something with critical mass that can compete. Sometimes you can only flog a dead horse for so long and Tasmania is so resistant to change that the economy has been stagnant for decades.
MACH082 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 03:00
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hypocritical Jingoism

The point is that they(Qantas) are more Australian than football meatpies kangaroos and holden cars when it suits..except when it comes to costs.
Qantas---costs above service and safety---forever and always
DEFCON4 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 09:44
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ok.. just spent 30 minutes replying and the login timed out and blocked my post..
I'll try again later (and copy to the notepad prior to trying to post)
ElPerro is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 10:39
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First day back at school and Elperro's back.
Enema Bandit's Dad is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 10:45
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Excellent rebuttable of what I had said. So hard to compete against such cutting logic.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 11:45
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by me
Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Over-simplistic, misleading, and illogical in itself (which you accuse others of being), like several of your arguments. Your comments are too long for me to dissect them all here, but I'll start with that little bit.

Firstly I note you prefaced it with "let me explain what unions do" - a clear attempt to authoritatively generalise the argument which doesn't seem justified. Not all unions threaten industrial action in all negotiations. In fact compared to the sheer number of negotiations, industrial action or the threat thereof is relatively uncommon these days.
Point One: Unions don't need to issue a notice to management for the "threat" of industrial action. It's an implied relationship. It's no authoritive generalisation of union's that is not made by union's themselves.

Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Secondly you assert both a result and causation which are not necessarily related. A company paying 5% more than what they wanted to may or may not hire more or less staff.
Totally wrong. The relationship may not be a -5% relationship, but it's a negative relationship. But I'll humour you, how exactly do you think companies decide on the number of staff they should employ? You argue it is not a relationship between the return on assets that an employee will return, instead you argue it is some kind or relationship between demand for transport by the pubic regardless of cost. A company will ALWAYS calculate how much hiring another employee will earn them vs other alternatives.


Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Who is to say what the company's financial position is? What the company wants to pay staff, and what it can afford to pay staff are two totally different things, and are highly subjective. Do you seriously believe a company goes to an EBA negotiation offering its very last penny to its workers?
That is exactly the point. To use an example, the company wishes to pay the staff the minimum that the correctly qualified ex-RAAF pilot will work for. The price the company is willing to pay is the minimum is has to in order to secure the correctly qualified person. That is countered by the rate that an ex-RAAF pilot will work for - for that company based on his circumstances. That is the market rate. When your union forces the price (wage) above that, it reduces the number of people the company is willing to employ. It's an economic fact and has been for hundreds of years.

Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
"If any good costs more then the amount sold is less....". No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on the demand for that good. You're making unjustified assumptions that a union always reaches a point where it asks so much in salary that the company simply must employ less workers than it needs.
No - it is an ABSOLUTE FACT. The higher the price, the lower the demand. It is an undeniable fact.
I'm astounded you actually believe what you wrote. The demand of a good is inversely proportional to it's price. You've totally ignored the supply side of the equation. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that price vs demand is the only influencing factor, and that it's not a relevant factor at that! Amazing. You seem to be attempting to point towards the price elasticity of demand which is the factor that determines the slope of the demand line (how sensitive demand actually is to price), whilst you seem to indicate that it's horizontal or negative. The fact remains, a given amount of supply and a union = a higher price given a fixed demand level (that does not mean a constant demand, it means a fixed relationship between price and demand). A union pushing the price above the market rate (supply vs demand) results in a lower level of employment than would otherwise be the case. Whilst I understand you many not understand or agree, people who do say this have won Nobel Prizes in Economics.

Originally Posted by me
No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
.... EBAs result in demands and concessions from both sides. If Qantas conceded to pay me, as a pilot, $1 million a year that'd be great.
QANTAS seeks to pay you the minimum it has to. That is correct, and based on the number of qualified people available. You obviously assume there is an overqualified number of people earning your wage as a first officer otherwise you'd have no problem - if QF was having an issue finding people with your qualifications they would increase the wage.

Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Even individuals who are on private contracts do this sort of negotiation. EBAs are where a representative body does it on an individual's behalf.
Exactly. So why is it that many highly paid professions don't have to use unions. According to your logic, companies will pay the minimum wage - why do accountants and software developers get paid well without a union? Your logic is that they'd not earn a good wage without the union. That's not the case though is it. Why do we pilots need a union? Why don't accountants? So if the company wanted they should be able to make an individual agreement with an individual pilot right? Explain that one please.

Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Of course, if the company preferred, it can have 2,500 pilots book appointments for individual contract discussions a few weeks before its next expiry date.
Excellent, so if the company wishes it should be able to do this, why do you argue against this? It's their should be their choice! Since you believe numbers are an impediment to doing this there is no need for a union or federal legislation to prevent it. You are alluding that the cost prevents it. You are arguing that it's cheaper for a company to negotiate with a union - then you should also advocate no requirement for Industrial relations legislation compelling the company to do this. If unions are responsible for good wages then how are (let's pick one) accountants earning good wages. I'll tell you why. Supply vs Demand.

Originally Posted by Dutch Roll
Hey, unions are not all angels and they're not always sensible. No-one denies that. However you simply can't make sweeping anti-union generalisations (though I know you want to) and expect to be taken seriously. They are littered throughout several of your posts.
My posts are based on logic and not "sweeping" statements to prove a point. I'm yet to be convinced of a positive effect resulting from unionism. Unless you are a selfish individual. If you are selfish - join a union - that's what they are for. I chuckle every time a unionist says "capitalism" or "the free market" is at the expense of people.

I'll say it again -
Unions cause higher unemployment and cost those at the bottom of society.
and:
Dutch Roll:

You're previous posts show that you are an ex-RAAF C130 Captain. You exercised your freedom of choice when you joined QF. I support you in that choice. You signed up to QF employment T&C's and a given wage. You had your pilot training totally paid for. The fact that you now use a union to attempt to further your individual financial situation at the expense of others and yet still claim you would be hard done by without a union I personally find staggering. Don't you?

Last edited by ElPerro; 5th Oct 2009 at 12:59.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 11:58
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
el perro

There are villages in need of you.
max1 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 12:00
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Enema
Somebody has gone very quiet. I haven't heard any aircraft buzzing about or any Spanish yodling of late.....
Yes, Sorry Enema - I've been working late a lot.

I must say I find it shocking and indicative of the group of people you work with that you believe that someone who believes in the free market like myself must be someone else who advocated it (Aircraft?) - yes, only one person in Australia believes this.

What's more indicative is the way that people move once joining the airline industry. "And a step to the left" (Dutch Roll for example?)
ElPerro is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 12:03
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Max1:

Ad hominem attacks don't make you sound cool in front of other people, and don't make your argument more convincing.

What point do you as an Air Traffic Controller have to make on Qantas pay? I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion on this - I'm serious - what is your beef in this - how do you think this effects you? What is your point on aircrew pay?

Last edited by ElPerro; 5th Oct 2009 at 14:00.
ElPerro is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2009, 12:50
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 941
Received 26 Likes on 10 Posts
A bit rich Elperro to have a dig at someone 'attacking' you when your busy having a spray on anything a union may or may not have done.
There are some forms of employment that give you a choice of joining a union, civil aviation being one. If you are involved in it one day you may understand why you would want to be in one.
There are other forms of employment where you don't have a choice to be part of a union. You may be aware of one? It gives you things like the Aircrew Sustainability Project, ground jobs, postings to ground jobs around the corner. You didn't like the ASP but what can you do about it? Complain to the S/L who just got posted to DP?
You may have something in your DNA against unions and we all know unions have done bad things, but most rational people would acknowledge they have done some good as well.
A pilot in RPT with no union would have as much chance of negotiating with the people who run airlines as a boggie talking to Shep about avoiding a ground job and getting a payrise.
ozbiggles is online now  

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.