Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce Buchanan was in the Australian today with very similar comments to what the minister has said. The thrust is that he believes the 1500 hour minimum is a cynical ploy to keep pilot wages high. In doing so he exposes what should be obvious, that the Jetstar cadetship is all about lowering barriers to entry and keeping downward pressure on pilot pay and conditions.
Having exposed his motivation behind pushing for low hour cadetships, he fails to mention that the recommendation for a minimum of 1500 hours was made by an independent panel of senators.
Arguments will continue but what we need is a truly independent regulator whose staff have sufficient experience to see through self interest on both sides. Not staff who would prefer to be working for the companies they regulate. Yes I am pushing for higher pay for key CASA positions, indeed some selective poaching from the airlines into CASA would be a good thing. Having people who can see through the spin and have industry experience is key.
Having exposed his motivation behind pushing for low hour cadetships, he fails to mention that the recommendation for a minimum of 1500 hours was made by an independent panel of senators.
Arguments will continue but what we need is a truly independent regulator whose staff have sufficient experience to see through self interest on both sides. Not staff who would prefer to be working for the companies they regulate. Yes I am pushing for higher pay for key CASA positions, indeed some selective poaching from the airlines into CASA would be a good thing. Having people who can see through the spin and have industry experience is key.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabotage?
xcel and others,
I do not understand this hang-up about cabotage. Cabotage in aviation is the legal restriction to domestic carriers of air transport between points within a country's borders.
It is about flags of registry, in this case the State that issued the AOC. Jetstar is an Australian domestic carrier and by definition cannot breach the laws of cabotage within Australia.
The whole aircraft can be crewed with martians (provided the pilots have valid CoVs) because it is the operator, not the crew or the State of registration of the aircraft, to which the laws of cabotage apply.
I do not understand this hang-up about cabotage. Cabotage in aviation is the legal restriction to domestic carriers of air transport between points within a country's borders.
It is about flags of registry, in this case the State that issued the AOC. Jetstar is an Australian domestic carrier and by definition cannot breach the laws of cabotage within Australia.
The whole aircraft can be crewed with martians (provided the pilots have valid CoVs) because it is the operator, not the crew or the State of registration of the aircraft, to which the laws of cabotage apply.
House Response to Inquiry
Seems the 'House of Reps' has 3 months to respond to the Inquiry report (see link from Senate Hansard 07/07/11 pg 74) from the good Senators. So people time to lobby your MP and keep Minister 
Fumblenese honest!
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...s/ds070711.pdf
Fumblenese honest!http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...s/ds070711.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What chance do you really think Aus aviation safety has ? The incompetent Albanese leading the pack, a CASA board consisting of bureaucrats, two washed up has been pilots as Director and Deputy Director of aviation safety and a lawyer and vood0o expert as Associate Director !
Tick tock tick tock.
Tick tock tick tock.
gobbledock maybe you are right!
But if you don't try then when there inevitably ends up being a major prang it'll be on your conscience.
I believe the weight of numbers could possibly shame Minister Fumblenese in to taking action, otherwise he could be known as the pollie that ignored the warning signs!
But if you don't try then when there inevitably ends up being a major prang it'll be on your conscience.I believe the weight of numbers could possibly shame Minister Fumblenese in to taking action, otherwise he could be known as the pollie that ignored the warning signs!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont disagree with 'people trying'. Perhaps Xenaphon, Ben Sandilands and a few othes should take over ? Couldnt do any worse ?
And I certainly hope that when our first major smoking hole occurs (it is inevitable, and no, I do NOT want it to happen), I hope it occurs during the Albanese tenure and on the watch of the current incompetent Fort Fumble execs. They do not deserve to set the scene for a disaster and retire with full government benefits before it occurs.
And I certainly hope that when our first major smoking hole occurs (it is inevitable, and no, I do NOT want it to happen), I hope it occurs during the Albanese tenure and on the watch of the current incompetent Fort Fumble execs. They do not deserve to set the scene for a disaster and retire with full government benefits before it occurs.
You would think that Minister Fumblenese would be rooting for the pilot unions being a Labor (left wing no less) pollie but I guess he is getting some sort of kickback from the RAT! Obviously he thinks that airline pilots are just Fatcats!
He is also obviously pissed about the good Senators derailing his 'no dead head jump seat idea', that's why he needs to be shamed into believing adopting the Senate Committee's 22 recommendations is possibly good for his career!
He is also obviously pissed about the good Senators derailing his 'no dead head jump seat idea', that's why he needs to be shamed into believing adopting the Senate Committee's 22 recommendations is possibly good for his career!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I certainly hope that when our first major smoking hole occurs (it is inevitable, and no, I do NOT want it to happen)
Turn up the heat on Albanese, so he can't ignore the recommendations.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: beautiful one day...............
Posts: 54
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I have flown in just about everything, with all kinds of pilots in all parts of the world -- British, French, Pakistani, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese -- and there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them except for one unchanging, certain fact: the best, most skillful pilot has the most experience." - Chuck Yeager
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Senate Committee report recommended that note be taken of the outcome of the investigation into this tragedy, especially given the low experience of the pilot in the RHS. Justification for reopening the inquiry to look closer at these and other issues that have occurred since in my opinion!!
AF447, media leaks say pilot panic, errors, lack of training destroyed jet
July 29, 2011 – 11:15 pm, by Ben Sandilands
In reports which the French accident investigators have already slammed for being simplistic and incomplete Le Figaro and Le Monde say Air France flight AF447 was destroyed by (variously)* pilot panic and errors and a lack of training in dealing with high speed stalls at altitude.
However it will be some time before the investigators hold a press conference in Paris.
The intriguing thing about the early reports is that if they are correct, it means the newspapers may have been told more about the disaster that killed all 228 people on board the Air France A330-200 on June 1, 2009, in the mid Atlantic, than the BEA may include in its third interim report, when published in a few hours time.
This is because the official version of this latest report on the inquiry into the disaster is the one negotiated with and approved by Air France prior to its release, while the leaks will have been blunter.
At this stage it is understood that the BEA has conceded that the auto-pilot disconnection that starts the four minutes long sequence of events that ends in a modern airliner being flown* into a high speed belly flop in the ocean* was triggered by ice clogging the external speed measuring probes called pitots and depriving the flight management systems of reliable air speed readings.
After that the jet climbs steeply to 37,500 feet from 35,000 feet and the two pilots left in charge of the flight deck while the captain rested had become confused about what to do, and failed to formally identify that the jet had stalled, despite prolonged audible stall warnings.
Neither had been trained by Air France to deal with high-altitude unreliable airspeed procedures and manual aircraft handling, which in itself, is an astonishing indictment of the airline.
While the pilots had plenty of time to recover from the stall they persisted with errors and incorrect diagnosis and lack of recognition of the situation they were in.
When the Captain was summonsed to the cockpit from his rest station time was lost discussing irrelevant issues as the jet rapidly lost height, meaning the Captain did not have time to resolve the problems before impact.
The BEA has already posted ten new safety recommendations relating to what will be its third interim report on the disaster, including an advisory that authorities ‘should assess‘ the requirement for angle-of-attack indicators in the cockpit. This measure of the nose high attitude of the airliner wasn’t displayed directly to the pilots.
Air France is already in damage control, telling the media that the latest findings showed a “combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster in less than four minutes” including the icing of the pitot probes, loss of associated control-law protection, and roll movements.
Air France is reported to have said “It should be noted that the misleading stopping and starting of the stall warning alarm, contradicting the actual state of the aircraft, greatly contributed to the crew’s difficulty in analysing the situation.
“At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew’s technical skills.”
While that may well be technically correct, there are 228 reasons to question the quality of Air France’s flight standards and the fact that it left its pilots without the skills to identify and correct a type of incident that had already happened to a number of other airlines’ A332s without leading to fatal errors.
The loss of Air France AF447 was preceded by two similar and high profile unreliable air speed problems that affected Air Caraibes A330-200s which ought to have galvanised Airbus and Air France into doing the things the BEA has now ‘recommended’.
July 29, 2011 – 11:15 pm, by Ben Sandilands
In reports which the French accident investigators have already slammed for being simplistic and incomplete Le Figaro and Le Monde say Air France flight AF447 was destroyed by (variously)* pilot panic and errors and a lack of training in dealing with high speed stalls at altitude.
However it will be some time before the investigators hold a press conference in Paris.
The intriguing thing about the early reports is that if they are correct, it means the newspapers may have been told more about the disaster that killed all 228 people on board the Air France A330-200 on June 1, 2009, in the mid Atlantic, than the BEA may include in its third interim report, when published in a few hours time.
This is because the official version of this latest report on the inquiry into the disaster is the one negotiated with and approved by Air France prior to its release, while the leaks will have been blunter.
At this stage it is understood that the BEA has conceded that the auto-pilot disconnection that starts the four minutes long sequence of events that ends in a modern airliner being flown* into a high speed belly flop in the ocean* was triggered by ice clogging the external speed measuring probes called pitots and depriving the flight management systems of reliable air speed readings.
After that the jet climbs steeply to 37,500 feet from 35,000 feet and the two pilots left in charge of the flight deck while the captain rested had become confused about what to do, and failed to formally identify that the jet had stalled, despite prolonged audible stall warnings.
Neither had been trained by Air France to deal with high-altitude unreliable airspeed procedures and manual aircraft handling, which in itself, is an astonishing indictment of the airline.
While the pilots had plenty of time to recover from the stall they persisted with errors and incorrect diagnosis and lack of recognition of the situation they were in.
When the Captain was summonsed to the cockpit from his rest station time was lost discussing irrelevant issues as the jet rapidly lost height, meaning the Captain did not have time to resolve the problems before impact.
The BEA has already posted ten new safety recommendations relating to what will be its third interim report on the disaster, including an advisory that authorities ‘should assess‘ the requirement for angle-of-attack indicators in the cockpit. This measure of the nose high attitude of the airliner wasn’t displayed directly to the pilots.
Air France is already in damage control, telling the media that the latest findings showed a “combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster in less than four minutes” including the icing of the pitot probes, loss of associated control-law protection, and roll movements.
Air France is reported to have said “It should be noted that the misleading stopping and starting of the stall warning alarm, contradicting the actual state of the aircraft, greatly contributed to the crew’s difficulty in analysing the situation.
“At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew’s technical skills.”
While that may well be technically correct, there are 228 reasons to question the quality of Air France’s flight standards and the fact that it left its pilots without the skills to identify and correct a type of incident that had already happened to a number of other airlines’ A332s without leading to fatal errors.
The loss of Air France AF447 was preceded by two similar and high profile unreliable air speed problems that affected Air Caraibes A330-200s which ought to have galvanised Airbus and Air France into doing the things the BEA has now ‘recommended’.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if that is the case then we must all make sure to keep the pressure on each and every member of that house.
If we do not, then we must accept some of the responsibility for that outcome.
We have a list of email addresses on this site, lets all get to work.
If we do not, then we must accept some of the responsibility for that outcome.
We have a list of email addresses on this site, lets all get to work.
I had an autopilot disconnect the other day in an Airbus and the cadet pilot handed over to me-
"You have control"
"Huh...I have control"
Presses red button- "Priority Left"
" Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect"
" Sigh ....Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect, I have Control ECAM actions "
"No Actions, Clear Auto Pilot"
"Clear Autopilot"
" Status.."
" Well fcuk Status, Here are, Autopilot 2 is back in, you have control"
This was on ILS base to an aerodrome 7000ft AMSL. A normal pilot would have realized the rigmarole of that exchange and just re-engaged the autopilot from an light upset.
I'm sick of it. Cadets are being used to dumb down the RHS, putting extreme pressure on the Captain and negating a multi-crew concept, and their training is budgetary in itself. So, they are not getting an appropriate level of training to offset their lack of aeronautical experience.
Oh, and the same day I either took over a landing from the bloke or had to prevent a descent overspeed due managed mode blindness. I can't remember which, as taking over seems to be a regular event these days.
"You have control"
"Huh...I have control"
Presses red button- "Priority Left"
" Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect"
" Sigh ....Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect, I have Control ECAM actions "
"No Actions, Clear Auto Pilot"
"Clear Autopilot"
" Status.."
" Well fcuk Status, Here are, Autopilot 2 is back in, you have control"
This was on ILS base to an aerodrome 7000ft AMSL. A normal pilot would have realized the rigmarole of that exchange and just re-engaged the autopilot from an light upset.
I'm sick of it. Cadets are being used to dumb down the RHS, putting extreme pressure on the Captain and negating a multi-crew concept, and their training is budgetary in itself. So, they are not getting an appropriate level of training to offset their lack of aeronautical experience.
Oh, and the same day I either took over a landing from the bloke or had to prevent a descent overspeed due managed mode blindness. I can't remember which, as taking over seems to be a regular event these days.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate Estimates Hearings and CASA
Get your pens out, the next hearings are planned for the week of 17th October 2011
Get your information and submissions to the Senators by 7th October 2011
I suggest that you carefully format it to specific topics, with a well researched appendices of support documents, referred to from the body of the report. Make a summary single page at the front.
Try to exclude rants or assertions and use specific examples of what CASA has done to you.
If you require help, I can do so if you PM me, with adequate time.
One of the things that the enquiry has focused on is "malfeasance in public office".
Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.
Get your information and submissions to the Senators by 7th October 2011
I suggest that you carefully format it to specific topics, with a well researched appendices of support documents, referred to from the body of the report. Make a summary single page at the front.
Try to exclude rants or assertions and use specific examples of what CASA has done to you.
If you require help, I can do so if you PM me, with adequate time.
One of the things that the enquiry has focused on is "malfeasance in public office".
Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to act
One of the things that the enquiry has focused on is "malfeasance in public office".
Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.
Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.
Dear Senator Xenaphon,
All I can say is keep up your good work. You have smelled a rat within Australian aviation and justifiably so. The airlines are not the only individuals hell bent on screwing the world with no accountability. Although my personal opinion is that you have some major work cut out for you examining pilot training and CASA, may I suggest you thoroughly review some of the mechanisms that keep CASA 'above and beyond the reach of accountability', examine the senior management in close detail, history of dealing with the public, ministry, operators and it's own staff internally. Take aim at those with 7+ years service particularly, as Directors may come and go but the same bullying mentality has remained for well belong those Directors tenures, so a very robust examination is necessary (jeez I even talk like them now).
gobbledock, I agree with most of your sentiments but I think it also needs to be pointed out that most of the FOIs, AWIs and investigators in CASA on the coalface are doing their best in an impossible scenario ie they are going through the proper procedure but are hamstrung by their bosses.
Not sure if anyone caught Senator X's speach in the Senate the other night (23rd August):
It is quite obvious that the good senator is still fighting the 'good fight'!
Not sure if anyone caught Senator X's speach in the Senate the other night (23rd August):
Qantas
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based Tuesday, 23 August 2011 SENATE 67 CHAMBER
on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented night, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is 68 SENATE Tuesday, 23 August 2011 CHAMBER
acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based Tuesday, 23 August 2011 SENATE 67 CHAMBER
on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented night, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is 68 SENATE Tuesday, 23 August 2011 CHAMBER
acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Aug 2011 at 21:41.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the Senator could ask why QF has reached the point it is currently at while supposedly under the watchful eye of a robust Regulator (with a capital 'R')? CASA employees now working within the QF group, another good question? Why doesn't the Senator perhaps ask for a microscopic analysis of every audit, special audit, investigation, surveillance activity undertaken, approval given over the past 7 years for starters, to ensure that due process has always taken place? Not that anything is being insinuated here, it would be done within the context of Senator Xenaphon wishing to assure himself that worlds best practice from the Regulator has always been adopted ? After all a robust Regulator underpins the basis of safety within Australian skies does it not ?
Maybe the Board could even outline their role as to what they actually do that contributes to an enhanced safe Australian skies? Perhaps evidence can be submitted to prove that all CASA inspectors (the overarching word being inspectors) have all undergone safety management systems training that is equal to or exceeds the requirement of operators? Perhaps CASA can table all internal training records, processes, proceduresand training programs undertaken internally over the past 5 years, not just the last 6 months? The Senator needs to be sure that the current regulatory system meets or exceeds worlds best practice methods doesn't he? The good Senator should ask for a cent by cent analysis on what and how much CASA has spent on projects and consultants and provide evidence of what was undertaken, if it was completed, what the outcomes were and where deficiencies were found after spending wads of money, how were those deficiencies corrected, by what means? What about a forensic analysis of every trip internationally to conventions, workshops, seminars, how much was spent and what systems were introduced into CASA as a result of such trips abroad? What about staff remuneration- why are bonuses paid to people who work as regulators? Is CASA an independent regulator or a business venture? How much are these bonuses, who receives them and based on what criteria ? Simple questions. And what about taking a look at the books to analyze who has worked in any capacity as a consultant for CASA that has also worked for them on a salary at some stage? Just to ensure that no ex employee has gained financially by either fully owning, partly owning or working for a consultancy hired by CASA after the person has been a salaried officer a year or so earlier, just to be on the safe side really and again to ensure that all checks and balances are followed in line with correct governance processes?
Anyway, these are mere thoughts that I have, thoughts that may be also on Senator Xenaphons mind, then again, maybe not? If anything I have had the opportunity to indulge in some standard bureaucratic dialogue (of which most can be found in CASA corporate statements and other such fluffed up puff pieces)..
Maybe the Board could even outline their role as to what they actually do that contributes to an enhanced safe Australian skies? Perhaps evidence can be submitted to prove that all CASA inspectors (the overarching word being inspectors) have all undergone safety management systems training that is equal to or exceeds the requirement of operators? Perhaps CASA can table all internal training records, processes, proceduresand training programs undertaken internally over the past 5 years, not just the last 6 months? The Senator needs to be sure that the current regulatory system meets or exceeds worlds best practice methods doesn't he? The good Senator should ask for a cent by cent analysis on what and how much CASA has spent on projects and consultants and provide evidence of what was undertaken, if it was completed, what the outcomes were and where deficiencies were found after spending wads of money, how were those deficiencies corrected, by what means? What about a forensic analysis of every trip internationally to conventions, workshops, seminars, how much was spent and what systems were introduced into CASA as a result of such trips abroad? What about staff remuneration- why are bonuses paid to people who work as regulators? Is CASA an independent regulator or a business venture? How much are these bonuses, who receives them and based on what criteria ? Simple questions. And what about taking a look at the books to analyze who has worked in any capacity as a consultant for CASA that has also worked for them on a salary at some stage? Just to ensure that no ex employee has gained financially by either fully owning, partly owning or working for a consultancy hired by CASA after the person has been a salaried officer a year or so earlier, just to be on the safe side really and again to ensure that all checks and balances are followed in line with correct governance processes?
Anyway, these are mere thoughts that I have, thoughts that may be also on Senator Xenaphons mind, then again, maybe not? If anything I have had the opportunity to indulge in some standard bureaucratic dialogue (of which most can be found in CASA corporate statements and other such fluffed up puff pieces)..
Last edited by gobbledock; 26th Aug 2011 at 21:51.
Maybe you should copy and paste your post to the good senator, or send him the link.
[email protected]
cheers
[email protected]
cheers
