The Qantas Sale Act
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When does this get debated in the senate? Whats the process involved for this to pass?
Chances of success?
Chances of success?
I'd say the chances of success for this amendment may have just gotten a lot better.
It would be a bit like nationalisation without actually having to buy it back…..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems the AIPA may have been compromised in running this case in terms of protecting its membership. Imagine the threats that would have been made by management about job losses. The Qantas Sale Act is a hopelessly poor piece of legislation given its apparent purpose was to keep Qantas an Australian owned, managed and operated company with an obligation to be the flag carrier internationally. Cleverly management found a loophole by operating subsidiaries internationally to avoid their implicit obligations under the Act.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett Link #9
I have always thought that it was managements aim to wind back the mainline to only those destinations that can support a full-service airline, that is, where there is a large percentage of pax who are prepared to pay full-fare or business. JetStar was to pick up the discount pax, the tourist destinations, both in Australia and overseas.
As for the international side of things, I work in International, and you are hard pressed trying to find a flight that is not full or not near full on all sectors heading out of SYD. SYD - Jo'berg, SYD-LAX, SYD-SIN, SYD-HKG, SYD-BKK, SYD-HNL.
Something is amiss with the reports coming out of COWARD St Mascot. If International is losing $200million a year, why is $250million being spent on upgrading 744 interiors to A380 status?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF94, love the cartoon - how true.
As to your previous post, I don't think we are disagreeing. Dixon may have stated that Jetstar wasn't going to cannibalise QANTAS routes, or compete on them, but I think this is semantics. The SY - ML route is the 3rd busiest sector because it is the prime business route in Australia. Second would be SY - BN, I suspect. QANTAS will continue to operate where there is enough business to justify full-fare pax.
I live in Tasmania and it is noticeable that QANTAS only operates here for the morning and evening flights, in other words, for the business end of town.
As to the international side of the business you have much better information than I. As to the public figures about that side of the business I have my doubts and would love to see the results of a forensic audit. It should also be stated that although AJ is being seen as the villain in all this there is the Chairman of the Board who has a wicked reputation, especially in the field of IR, from his time at other companies. A lot of what has happened over the past 12 months has his apparent imprint.
As to your previous post, I don't think we are disagreeing. Dixon may have stated that Jetstar wasn't going to cannibalise QANTAS routes, or compete on them, but I think this is semantics. The SY - ML route is the 3rd busiest sector because it is the prime business route in Australia. Second would be SY - BN, I suspect. QANTAS will continue to operate where there is enough business to justify full-fare pax.
I live in Tasmania and it is noticeable that QANTAS only operates here for the morning and evening flights, in other words, for the business end of town.
As to the international side of the business you have much better information than I. As to the public figures about that side of the business I have my doubts and would love to see the results of a forensic audit. It should also be stated that although AJ is being seen as the villain in all this there is the Chairman of the Board who has a wicked reputation, especially in the field of IR, from his time at other companies. A lot of what has happened over the past 12 months has his apparent imprint.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett,
I totally agree with you that AJ is not the brains in this fiasco. Seeing him live at the AGM convinced me of that. Leigh Clifford is one ruthless, vicious person, who I believe, possibly with James Strong, orchestrated this whole thing. The board needs a fall guy, and who better than Elmer Fudd (AJ). That's why they paid him the big bucks, as that will be his payout when he is made to leave the employ of QANTAS
I totally agree with you that AJ is not the brains in this fiasco. Seeing him live at the AGM convinced me of that. Leigh Clifford is one ruthless, vicious person, who I believe, possibly with James Strong, orchestrated this whole thing. The board needs a fall guy, and who better than Elmer Fudd (AJ). That's why they paid him the big bucks, as that will be his payout when he is made to leave the employ of QANTAS
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF94 absolutley spot on AJ is just a prostitute Clifford and Strong and the rest of the board are the evil ****e bags. Barely human they epitomise what is wrong with the corporate world. they are treading a very fine line on legality. it will be a happy day when these scum of the earth are found out for the vermine they really are.
By the way I dont work for QF (used to 11 years ago!) but I am saddened about what happened to a great company by low life corporate pigs feeding at the trough (DIXON you started it!).
Thats my rant!!!
By the way I dont work for QF (used to 11 years ago!) but I am saddened about what happened to a great company by low life corporate pigs feeding at the trough (DIXON you started it!).
Thats my rant!!!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bangkok & Vegas
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree QF94, I often wonder this, flights are always full or fullish and never ever light.....
The argument can be it is yield but I don't buy that line either...
Something smells like a night fighters undercarriage after NYE
The argument can be it is yield but I don't buy that line either...
Something smells like a night fighters undercarriage after NYE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been asked to post this.
Re: AIPA Senate Submission
Congratulations to whoever put together the attached AIPA submission to the Senate Inquiry into the ‘Aircrew Bill’ and the ‘Still Call Australia Home Bill’. It is a very comprehensive consideration of the consequences of Qantas’ strategy to offshore its international operations.
Notwithstanding, it has one very glaring mistake, which left uncorrected, will, I believe, curtail the only opportunity Employee Shareholders currently have to legally challenge Qantas’ offshoreing strategy. AIPA’s view that the:
· ‘Currently the Qantas Sale Act only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister. The bill extends this to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.’
Is materially misleading and if accepted by the Senate Committee, will probably neutralise the ability shareholders presently have to take issue with Qantas’ not complying with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to have enforced Qantas’ compliance with its own Articles of Association.
You may recall that the Sale Act action I took on behalf of AIPA members in 2007 was permissible because it sought to hold Qantas accountable to the Sale Act by enforcing compliance with its Articles of Association. I have attached for your information an email from AJ Macken & Co stating inter alia:
· the proceeding was properly brought;
· in Senior Counsel’s view Qantas was clearly in breach of the Qantas Sale Act;
· the proceeding gave AIPA and its pilot members some leverage against further and potentially more serious breaches of the Qantas Sale Act adversely affecting job security and career progression of Qantas pilots; and
· the discontinuance of the present proceeding would not prevent the commencement of a fresh proceeding by a qualified plaintiff if Qantas moves to take advantage of the discontinuance.
I note that the Senate Committee inquiring into ‘Aircrew Bill’ and the ‘Still Call Australia Home Bill’ is holding hearings tomorrow in Canberra and it is vital that AIPA make clear to the Senators that whilst only the relevant Minister can seek to take out injunctions enforcing Qantas’ compliance with the Qantas Sale Act, employee shareholders are presently able to seek Qantas’ compliance with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to enforce compliance with Sale Act obligations contained in the company’s Articles of Association.
Yours sincerely,
Capt Ian Woods
AIPA Past President.
Re: AIPA Senate Submission
Congratulations to whoever put together the attached AIPA submission to the Senate Inquiry into the ‘Aircrew Bill’ and the ‘Still Call Australia Home Bill’. It is a very comprehensive consideration of the consequences of Qantas’ strategy to offshore its international operations.
Notwithstanding, it has one very glaring mistake, which left uncorrected, will, I believe, curtail the only opportunity Employee Shareholders currently have to legally challenge Qantas’ offshoreing strategy. AIPA’s view that the:
· ‘Currently the Qantas Sale Act only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister. The bill extends this to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.’
Is materially misleading and if accepted by the Senate Committee, will probably neutralise the ability shareholders presently have to take issue with Qantas’ not complying with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to have enforced Qantas’ compliance with its own Articles of Association.
You may recall that the Sale Act action I took on behalf of AIPA members in 2007 was permissible because it sought to hold Qantas accountable to the Sale Act by enforcing compliance with its Articles of Association. I have attached for your information an email from AJ Macken & Co stating inter alia:
· the proceeding was properly brought;
· in Senior Counsel’s view Qantas was clearly in breach of the Qantas Sale Act;
· the proceeding gave AIPA and its pilot members some leverage against further and potentially more serious breaches of the Qantas Sale Act adversely affecting job security and career progression of Qantas pilots; and
· the discontinuance of the present proceeding would not prevent the commencement of a fresh proceeding by a qualified plaintiff if Qantas moves to take advantage of the discontinuance.
I note that the Senate Committee inquiring into ‘Aircrew Bill’ and the ‘Still Call Australia Home Bill’ is holding hearings tomorrow in Canberra and it is vital that AIPA make clear to the Senators that whilst only the relevant Minister can seek to take out injunctions enforcing Qantas’ compliance with the Qantas Sale Act, employee shareholders are presently able to seek Qantas’ compliance with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to enforce compliance with Sale Act obligations contained in the company’s Articles of Association.
Yours sincerely,
Capt Ian Woods
AIPA Past President.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AIPA Senate Submission
Gingerbread/Woodeneye/blow.n.gasket,
I have read the AIPA submission - where does the 'glaring mistake' and the quoted AIPA view appear? 
Notwithstanding, it has one very glaring mistake, which left uncorrected, will, I believe, curtail the only opportunity Employee Shareholders currently have to legally challenge Qantas’ offshoreing strategy. AIPA’s view that the:
· ‘Currently the Qantas Sale Act only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister. The bill extends this to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.’
Is materially misleading and if accepted by the Senate Committee, will probably neutralise the ability shareholders presently have to take issue with Qantas’ not complying with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to have enforced Qantas’ compliance with its own Articles of Association.
· ‘Currently the Qantas Sale Act only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister. The bill extends this to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.’
Is materially misleading and if accepted by the Senate Committee, will probably neutralise the ability shareholders presently have to take issue with Qantas’ not complying with the Qantas Sale Act by seeking to have enforced Qantas’ compliance with its own Articles of Association.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm! the email you refer to was intended to be private correspondence between myself and some AIPA committee members, the AIPA executive director to whom it was addressed and lawyers also making submissions to the Inquiry, but now that it’s been made public without my consent, and you’ve publically asked, I’ll try to help you out.
I wrote the email above on behalf of some confused AIPA members, (I.e. those who knew I had filed a Federal Court Claim on behalf of all AIPA Members seeking to have the QSA upheld in 2007), but now wanting clarification of their Associations recent written advice to them that:
· only the Minister can make and application to the Court for (QSA) injunctions
To be clear, AIPA made no express statement in its Senate submission. However AIPA’s submission does support without qualification the fundamental Inquiry premise that QSA 92: ‘currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister.
The consequence of their association not clarifying the initial oversight made by whoever drafted the Bill’s terms of reference, is that the Senators conducting the hearing would, if not informed otherwise, probably accept that only the relevant Minister can seek injunctions and subsequently would probably support a recommendation:
· to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.
Regretfully, the situation as it stood was materially misleading, and could if it remained uncorrected, extinguish existing rights all shareholders currently have to seek enforcement of QSA obligations arising out of Qantas’ compliance with its Articles of Association and Australian Corporations Law.
For your information, I phoned the executive director on the Monday before the Senate hearing to apprise him of the situation, but I guess he was flat out, as he did not return my call. So I followed him up with the email you refer to.
At the end of the day, the issue raised in the email was not set straight by the Association at the Senate hearing on the Friday as requested. Nonetheless, the situation has now been clarified.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. If you are a Qantas pilot, contact me privately if you would like further information, as I would prefer not to discuss publically, a private matter.
Kind Regards
Ian Woods
I wrote the email above on behalf of some confused AIPA members, (I.e. those who knew I had filed a Federal Court Claim on behalf of all AIPA Members seeking to have the QSA upheld in 2007), but now wanting clarification of their Associations recent written advice to them that:
· only the Minister can make and application to the Court for (QSA) injunctions
To be clear, AIPA made no express statement in its Senate submission. However AIPA’s submission does support without qualification the fundamental Inquiry premise that QSA 92: ‘currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister.
The consequence of their association not clarifying the initial oversight made by whoever drafted the Bill’s terms of reference, is that the Senators conducting the hearing would, if not informed otherwise, probably accept that only the relevant Minister can seek injunctions and subsequently would probably support a recommendation:
· to allow for applications to the Court by 100 shareholder members or shareholder members who hold at least 5 percent of the shares in Qantas.
Regretfully, the situation as it stood was materially misleading, and could if it remained uncorrected, extinguish existing rights all shareholders currently have to seek enforcement of QSA obligations arising out of Qantas’ compliance with its Articles of Association and Australian Corporations Law.
For your information, I phoned the executive director on the Monday before the Senate hearing to apprise him of the situation, but I guess he was flat out, as he did not return my call. So I followed him up with the email you refer to.
At the end of the day, the issue raised in the email was not set straight by the Association at the Senate hearing on the Friday as requested. Nonetheless, the situation has now been clarified.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. If you are a Qantas pilot, contact me privately if you would like further information, as I would prefer not to discuss publically, a private matter.
Kind Regards
Ian Woods
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Qantas Pilot
WoodenEye,
I'm not a Qantas pilot, just an interested bystander intrigued by that email.
Out of interest, I had a bit of a look at the Qantas Sale Act. I think that the statement you quoted "that QSA 92: ‘currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister" is factually correct. But I don't think it is correct to say that any existing shareholders rights are at risk at all.
Here's my slant on it:
The Minister (or the Minister's Delegate) whilst acting in that capacity has no standing under the Corporations Act 2001 to apply to the Federal Court for injunctive relief in regard to any nefarious activities at Qantas. Therefore, section 10 of the Sale Act specifically created Ministerial standing as part of the national interest provisions.
Importantly, section 13 of the Sale Act means that neither Act interferes with the other. My understanding is that any amendments to section 10 of the Sale Act would operate the same way and that no rights available to shareholders under the Corporations Act 2001 would be affected in any way by the Sale Act.
As an aside, that probably means that the proposed amendment to include the shareholders is moot, except to the extent that the Corporations Act 2001 does not provide the same grounds to shareholders as would the amended section 10.
I'm not a Qantas pilot, just an interested bystander intrigued by that email.
Out of interest, I had a bit of a look at the Qantas Sale Act. I think that the statement you quoted "that QSA 92: ‘currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister" is factually correct. But I don't think it is correct to say that any existing shareholders rights are at risk at all.
Here's my slant on it:
The Minister (or the Minister's Delegate) whilst acting in that capacity has no standing under the Corporations Act 2001 to apply to the Federal Court for injunctive relief in regard to any nefarious activities at Qantas. Therefore, section 10 of the Sale Act specifically created Ministerial standing as part of the national interest provisions.
Importantly, section 13 of the Sale Act means that neither Act interferes with the other. My understanding is that any amendments to section 10 of the Sale Act would operate the same way and that no rights available to shareholders under the Corporations Act 2001 would be affected in any way by the Sale Act.
As an aside, that probably means that the proposed amendment to include the shareholders is moot, except to the extent that the Corporations Act 2001 does not provide the same grounds to shareholders as would the amended section 10.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Prince, the issue is a private matter well documented in volumes of legal argument and really not suitable for debate on an anonymous public forum.
Suffice to say, injunctive rights the Minister has and injunctive rights Shareholders have are different because they arise out of different legislation and in the Qantas Sale Act case I was applicant for, it took one hell of a lot of time and money for lawyers to establish that Shareholders do in fact have injunctive rights.
That the issue was hotly contested, is I assume, what concerns a number of Qantas pilots about the unqualified statement -QSA 92 currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister.
Best Wishes
Ian Woods
Suffice to say, injunctive rights the Minister has and injunctive rights Shareholders have are different because they arise out of different legislation and in the Qantas Sale Act case I was applicant for, it took one hell of a lot of time and money for lawyers to establish that Shareholders do in fact have injunctive rights.
That the issue was hotly contested, is I assume, what concerns a number of Qantas pilots about the unqualified statement -QSA 92 currently only allows an application to the Court for injunctions by the Minister.
Best Wishes
Ian Woods
