The Qantas Plan.... and the options.
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
Kremin, Sunfish, Jetsbest et al, there has been some real creativity & lateral thinking on this thread. In other circumstances I would say brilliant, but that's not quite appropriate.
Kremin, there is another option that is always on the table, the ANZ option of re-nationalisation, I put it out there to complete the menu of options.
In terms of control, the first & most important hurdle is 10% +1 share. Once this number is achieved, you get a seat at the table, and nobody can do a takeover without you. Don't forget, most QF employees have existing shareholding, I don't have the figures on hand, perhaps someone could post the actual number of shares that have been issued over the years. It still doesn't prevent management crashing the company for its break-up value, which appears to be one of the plausable scenario's.
Kremin, there is another option that is always on the table, the ANZ option of re-nationalisation, I put it out there to complete the menu of options.
In terms of control, the first & most important hurdle is 10% +1 share. Once this number is achieved, you get a seat at the table, and nobody can do a takeover without you. Don't forget, most QF employees have existing shareholding, I don't have the figures on hand, perhaps someone could post the actual number of shares that have been issued over the years. It still doesn't prevent management crashing the company for its break-up value, which appears to be one of the plausable scenario's.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Employee shares I believe are miniscule with regard to voting rights. Just not enough to make dent atm.
FedSec, the average premium for a takeover on the ASX is just north of 30% to the average market price before the takeover was launched. This varies of course, some a lot more, some less.
FedSec, the average premium for a takeover on the ASX is just north of 30% to the average market price before the takeover was launched. This varies of course, some a lot more, some less.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
BB, re-nationalisation I guess would come under Option 3 but would not be considered by the govt.... unless the company's balance sheet was in extremis. It isn't.
Another option is to resurrect the Sale Act case run by AIPA. This would require a major about-face by the current Exec, as they were elected partially on a platform of stopping it... something in hindsight they may be regretting.
The case was never stopped, just discontinued. It wouldn't take much effort.... just a decent amount of cash to get it going again.
Another option is to resurrect the Sale Act case run by AIPA. This would require a major about-face by the current Exec, as they were elected partially on a platform of stopping it... something in hindsight they may be regretting.
The case was never stopped, just discontinued. It wouldn't take much effort.... just a decent amount of cash to get it going again.
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
Kremin, the Sales Act case resurrection would appear to be the choice of options, most bang for the buck & least risk. I suspect the possibility of 700+ pilots facing redundancy will bring a large amount of pressure to bare on the AIPA exec committee to review their decision to discontinue the case.
Qantas did seem very concerned by the Sales Act case (with good reason), I wonder exactly why it was discontinued? Once again, time is not on managements side. Senator Xenophon is now raising the question in a very public manner, the media see to be catching on & the politicians are making very public statements about the Sales Act. The longer this continues, the more evidence will emerge. Open court will lead to all sorts of evidence becoming public. As for the cash, I suspect it will be the best investment a pilot could make.
Qantas did seem very concerned by the Sales Act case (with good reason), I wonder exactly why it was discontinued? Once again, time is not on managements side. Senator Xenophon is now raising the question in a very public manner, the media see to be catching on & the politicians are making very public statements about the Sales Act. The longer this continues, the more evidence will emerge. Open court will lead to all sorts of evidence becoming public. As for the cash, I suspect it will be the best investment a pilot could make.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
It was discontinued for four reasons;
1. Political. If it got up then the front man, the former President would have taken all the glory.
2. Cost. Approx 1 million to run it.
3. Applicability. Doubts over what a win might actually mean at the time.
4. Potential conflict of interest. AIPA at the time was in the process of getting Jetstar pilots into the Association. A win may have meant that Jetstar was illegal (it still may be!).
This 4th one remains the most contentious. However the Jetstar pilots have now seen for themselves what this management is capable of, and the potential offshoring affects them as well. Jetstar Australia seems to be headed down the same route.... offshoring of all expansionary slots.
You would have to speculate what the effects might be if the case was resurrected and Qantas subsidiaries were found to be covered under the Act. It may be that Jetstar would be folded into mainline, the same way that Australian airlines was. Would that be a bad thing for J* pilots considering the alternatives?
You'd have to ask the "A" pilots now in Qantas for that perspective.
1. Political. If it got up then the front man, the former President would have taken all the glory.
2. Cost. Approx 1 million to run it.
3. Applicability. Doubts over what a win might actually mean at the time.
4. Potential conflict of interest. AIPA at the time was in the process of getting Jetstar pilots into the Association. A win may have meant that Jetstar was illegal (it still may be!).
This 4th one remains the most contentious. However the Jetstar pilots have now seen for themselves what this management is capable of, and the potential offshoring affects them as well. Jetstar Australia seems to be headed down the same route.... offshoring of all expansionary slots.
You would have to speculate what the effects might be if the case was resurrected and Qantas subsidiaries were found to be covered under the Act. It may be that Jetstar would be folded into mainline, the same way that Australian airlines was. Would that be a bad thing for J* pilots considering the alternatives?
You'd have to ask the "A" pilots now in Qantas for that perspective.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kremin , a good thread and to some extent I agree wit your initial post . The two Associations have been sidelined , by Joyce , what is their prize ? should they "win". An employee buyout though is a dream , or I coud think of other more appropriate terms W**K comes to mind .
There is no way any buyout by employees will happen , despite the delusional wishes of a certain Union Official . Time to start negotiating an honourable "peace "and get a deal that leaves the door still open for the future . Otherwise , be prepared to be casualties of the egos of certain Union folk , who are NOT Qantas employees , but will fight the good fight with the last drop of your blood . Yes , I am expecting the Troll allegations etc , anyone who does not toe the insane line that has been running on here for God knows hoe long is always tagged with that .
Time to reflect on where this is going and what you might think in 5 years , not in the emotion and hype of today.
There is no way any buyout by employees will happen , despite the delusional wishes of a certain Union Official . Time to start negotiating an honourable "peace "and get a deal that leaves the door still open for the future . Otherwise , be prepared to be casualties of the egos of certain Union folk , who are NOT Qantas employees , but will fight the good fight with the last drop of your blood . Yes , I am expecting the Troll allegations etc , anyone who does not toe the insane line that has been running on here for God knows hoe long is always tagged with that .
Time to reflect on where this is going and what you might think in 5 years , not in the emotion and hype of today.
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
At around $1,000 a pop to run the case would seem a very reasonable investment. As I said, time is not on managements side. The longer it goes on, the longer everyone can see the management agenda. No pilot employed directly or indirectly by a "Qantas Group" entity can take any comfort in the agenda. I suspect that they will target each group in turn in an unrelenting war against pilots.
I wonder why pilots are targeted for such a beating. One theory would be that pilots actually hold a huge amount of power, and any thought of this is to be beaten out them at every opportunity through a continuous process of denigration, almost ritualistic in nature. Is designed it to leave them as mental dwarf's, scared of their own shadow, cowering in the corner?
I wonder why pilots are targeted for such a beating. One theory would be that pilots actually hold a huge amount of power, and any thought of this is to be beaten out them at every opportunity through a continuous process of denigration, almost ritualistic in nature. Is designed it to leave them as mental dwarf's, scared of their own shadow, cowering in the corner?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Darwin
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New to this
I am cabin crew. As well as supporting you can I suggest you, your families and friends all individually write to, email, and ring your members of parliament. Regardless of your personal political persuasions, Nick Xenaphon, the Greens - Adam Brandt, and a few labour leaders are supportive of your cause. These are the people who have power. Use them to your advantage. Good luck
$1,000,000 is only a reasonable investment if there is a reasonable chance of success. I would expect a better chance of success lobbying a change to the Act itself, or at least waiting to see what Parliamentary support there is for Senator Xenophon and his proposals.
The $400 per mainline member of AIPA comes close to that $1,000,000 figure though
The $400 per mainline member of AIPA comes close to that $1,000,000 figure though
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
long haul lisa, I second that. I've had contact with at least 4 members and senators. If they dont hear from their constituents they will not act as they think nobody cares.
Interesting
THE construction firm Leighton Holdings will be hit today with a $400 million shareholder class action that relates to its handling of a series of profit downgrades and a $1.2 billion write-down on key projects including Victoria's $2.5 billion desalination plant in Wonthaggi.
The Herald can reveal the class action will be launched this morning by Maurice Blackburn and will be funded by the Singapore litigation funder International Litigation Funding Partners, which recently won a shareholder action against Multiplex worth $110 million.
The allegation is that Leighton misled shareholders and breached the continuous disclosure rules in the timing of its announcement of cost blowouts and project delays at the Victorian desalination plant, Brisbane's $4.2 billion Airport Link and its Middle East operations.
This caused the share price to drop dramatically, wiping billions of dollars off the value of the company.
Read more: Embattled Leighton faces $400m class action
And who is the CFO at Leighton's ?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought . . .
But what about the AIPA/ALAEA invitation to view the Qantas books - limited as it apparently is - is done in company with a couple of the eagles from MBC?
Pressing the QF execs about cost-shifting in the QF Group and see how forthcoming they are? Or how they react.
I predict a thickening of the brogue that seems to be characteristic of the CEO when under pressure . . .
Pressing the QF execs about cost-shifting in the QF Group and see how forthcoming they are? Or how they react.
I predict a thickening of the brogue that seems to be characteristic of the CEO when under pressure . . .
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Burrito
Is not enough to save a company from being over taken.
A Scheme of Arrangement where Investors control 75% of the share capital and have majority shareholder support can be suffice.
10% +1 share. Once this number is achieved, you get a seat at the table, and nobody can do a takeover without you.
A Scheme of Arrangement where Investors control 75% of the share capital and have majority shareholder support can be suffice.
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, my understanding was that >90% was needed for compulsory acquisition as per the corporations act.
I stand corrected, a Scheme of Arrangement can be used for a takeover with >75% of shares voted, however, >90% is still required to acquire the outstanding shares.
The scheme of arrangement still has some some interesting twists:
SMH
I stand corrected, a Scheme of Arrangement can be used for a takeover with >75% of shares voted, however, >90% is still required to acquire the outstanding shares.
The scheme of arrangement still has some some interesting twists:
Most notably, it called for the dumping of a headcount vote applying to schemes of arrangement. Schemes now require approval by 75 per cent of the shares voted - as opposed to the shares on issue - plus the approval of a majority of shareholders that vote on the scheme, the so-called headcount.
By contrast, in takeover bids a bidder must acquire 90 per cent of all shares on issue before moving to compulsory acquisition.
By contrast, in takeover bids a bidder must acquire 90 per cent of all shares on issue before moving to compulsory acquisition.
