Qantas pilot reductions, the real numbers.
Thread Starter
Qantas pilot reductions, the real numbers.
Since the announcement from the CEO regarding his plans for Qantas. The pilot surplus has been revised to be an initial 180.
To place that into context, this means pilots recruited post august 2007 face the bullet. Remember this is the first step in Alan's revolution.
A harsh reality when you consider this is his first move for the vision of the future.
And let's not beat around the bush about managing pilot surpluses with LWOP and the rest of the shambolic offerings placed on the table, (and then removed) in dealing with the proverbial s**t sandwich that has been served up.
Employment levels reduced to pre aug 2007 in one foul swoop. Not bad going Alan and Leigh. Other staff must be looking forward to the other steps in the plan.
To place that into context, this means pilots recruited post august 2007 face the bullet. Remember this is the first step in Alan's revolution.
A harsh reality when you consider this is his first move for the vision of the future.
And let's not beat around the bush about managing pilot surpluses with LWOP and the rest of the shambolic offerings placed on the table, (and then removed) in dealing with the proverbial s**t sandwich that has been served up.
Employment levels reduced to pre aug 2007 in one foul swoop. Not bad going Alan and Leigh. Other staff must be looking forward to the other steps in the plan.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Emirates offer was apparently removed because fltops was too keen to get rid of us so published it before it was all signed and sealed by the powers that be in Saudi.
They had their noses put out of joint by QF, so pulled the offer. So I'm told...
They had their noses put out of joint by QF, so pulled the offer. So I'm told...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Prime Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread starts off by saying that post AUG 07 hires are looking shaky. What makes you think seniority will play a major part in this?
It has already been shown in other industries that "last on first off" falls down as soon as the employer comes up with something along the lines of "we would have to retrain half the company and that will send us broke, better 180 tactical redundancies than 30000 out of work"
It has already been shown in other industries that "last on first off" falls down as soon as the employer comes up with something along the lines of "we would have to retrain half the company and that will send us broke, better 180 tactical redundancies than 30000 out of work"
Thread Starter
Agreed exit strategy. Just trying to put some perspective into the depth of the cut. Yes there may be the possibility the numbers could indeed come from anywhere on the list.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Prime Meridian
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...also interesting that 1000 jobs to go at Bluescope immediately results in $30m from the Federal Government and $5m from the NSW Government to assist the community and workers PLUS $100m directly to Bluescope to prevent additional job losses. Whilst this money will almost certainly be a complete waste it probably has some appeal to the local population (voters) in the two locations that Bluescope identified for layoffs. 1000 QF workers spread over lots of electorates - nobody cares.
Perhaps if things are not going that well for QF management should put their hand out to the Govt for similar hand outs, but then again perhaps this is not about efficiency and competitiveness at all, perhaps it is about driving down the share price for somebody's mates to launch a buyout????
Perhaps if things are not going that well for QF management should put their hand out to the Govt for similar hand outs, but then again perhaps this is not about efficiency and competitiveness at all, perhaps it is about driving down the share price for somebody's mates to launch a buyout????
Last edited by Exit Strategy; 22nd Aug 2011 at 05:23. Reason: new news
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...also interesting that 1000 jobs to go at Bluescope immediately results in $30m from the Federal Government and $5m from the NSW Government (ABC24 are quoting $100m which is probably not correct). Whilst this money will almost certainly be a complete waste it probably has some appeal to the local population (voters) in the two locations that Bluescope identified for layoffs. 1000 QF workers spread over lots of electorates - nobody cares.
This is getting a hot run in the press and up at the Big House also....
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
1000 to go at Bluescope steel is just the tip of the iceberg, many more have already been given their marching orders. A close friend in management at Bluescope had to personally deliver redundancies to half of his team over 12 months ago. The rest are just sitting and waiting for the inevitable.
The writing has been on the wall since the start of the GFC.
The writing has been on the wall since the start of the GFC.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has already been shown in other industries that "last on first off" falls down as soon as the employer comes up with something along the lines of "we would have to retrain half the company and that will send us broke, better 180 tactical redundancies than 30000 out of work"
AJ's response was that jobs were not being off-shored, rather they ceased to exist, that business was shutdown, and new businesses overseas were then being opened. (see the Leigh Sales 730 interview). This is clearly to make the quote above "work", to justify redundancies in direct contravention of the EBA.
In effect, labour is being immobilised, while capital is being off-shored. Is it not the clear intent clear intent of the Qantas Sale Act to prevent such an outcome?
A blind eye has been turned to the breaches of the Sales Act as the longhaul operation was slowly but constantly driven into the ground through "benign neglect". However, it is the politicians that have now been caught with their pants down. They have been deliberately put between a rock and a hard place - a contrived "crisis". They have been put in the position of either enforcing the act and allegedly "bankrupting" Qantas, or being "forced" into amending the act to legalise current practice. There are only two options for the politicians either enforce the act, or amend it to allow the capital & jobs to be off-shored.
Ultimately this is a "political" problem, and will end with a political solution.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin
The '1000 to go' in QF, not surprisingly is QF spin.
More like 1000 per year for the next five years as long haul is culled to 14 A380's and a handful of 747's.
This is the beginning of the end of Qantas .
More like 1000 per year for the next five years as long haul is culled to 14 A380's and a handful of 747's.
This is the beginning of the end of Qantas .
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On August 22nd, breakfastburrito wrote
If the Sale Act is the issue Buritto, why then doesn’t AIPA simply have it enforced.
A blind eye has been turned to the breaches of the Sales Act
PLUS $100m directly to Bluescope to prevent additional job losses.
1. The government knows that many job losses at Qantas is to continue.
2. Qantas would simply pay out the money as executive bonuses.
More likely both reasons.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
worthwhat, that is a very good question. Supplementary question - why won't the Federal government enforce its own laws?
Can you imagine the ATO turning such a blind eye to open tax evasion from the average citizen? They are very quick to enforce on one hand, apparently not on the other.
As I said, political problem, political solution.
Can you imagine the ATO turning such a blind eye to open tax evasion from the average citizen? They are very quick to enforce on one hand, apparently not on the other.
As I said, political problem, political solution.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite in the same boat......yet.....anyway.
It should be noted that Bluescope Steel reported a $1.05 Billion Loss where Qantas is expected to announce a $500-550 Million Profit.
What cases are you referring to specifically Exit Strategy? Kendell Airlines or some others?
With regard to the Qantas Sales Act, Qantas, AIPA and the Department of Transport have all had advice that the national interest provisions of the Act do not apply to subsidiaries. In effect, Qantas is able to bypass the provisions by setting up subsidiaries to syphon of resources. A change in the Act is required, not to make what Qantas is doing legal, but to make it illegal.
With regard to the Qantas Sales Act, Qantas, AIPA and the Department of Transport have all had advice that the national interest provisions of the Act do not apply to subsidiaries. In effect, Qantas is able to bypass the provisions by setting up subsidiaries to syphon of resources. A change in the Act is required, not to make what Qantas is doing legal, but to make it illegal.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't for one minute think that you are in the same league as steel workers on the South Coast . You are represented by "Associations "that barely register on the political landscape , when it comes to handouts . Politicians ofany persuasion findit hard to feel sorry for someone earning $ 300k- 500k a year . Wake up . stop the silly ties bought in China , buildboards on the M4campaign and get fair dinkum . Don't expect anyone eles to fight for your well paid jobs .
I would be VERY surprised if Qantas could avoid the "last on, first off" provisions within the EBA.
QF is expected to announce a $550 million profit so it would be hard to argue financial hardship.
Additionally, the EBA with the provision in it was agreed to by the company in the height of the GFC when profits were substantially lower, as such it would be hard to argue that the economic situation is degraded form when the EBA was signed off.
Also not forgetting they have the money ($9.4 Billion) to invest in 110 new A320's.
Given the above I can't see that QF would have valid reason to renege on an EBA provision they have only recently agreed to. To put into a legal EBA a provision which they never intended to abide with would surely raise the ire of Fair Work Australia.
QF is expected to announce a $550 million profit so it would be hard to argue financial hardship.
Additionally, the EBA with the provision in it was agreed to by the company in the height of the GFC when profits were substantially lower, as such it would be hard to argue that the economic situation is degraded form when the EBA was signed off.
Also not forgetting they have the money ($9.4 Billion) to invest in 110 new A320's.
Given the above I can't see that QF would have valid reason to renege on an EBA provision they have only recently agreed to. To put into a legal EBA a provision which they never intended to abide with would surely raise the ire of Fair Work Australia.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be VERY surprised if Qantas could avoid the "last on, first off" provisions within the EBA.
TID