MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach082 ”The pax will not be inconvenienced one bit”
You suggest flying into headwinds , that normally adds to flight time causing delays therefore incovenience.
Even if you were to fly your 'high fuel burn profile' perfectly with no delay you have just eroded the safety margin in the flight by carrying more fuel resulting in greater take off distance and mmore stress on the aircraft and engines while the primary goal of this flight is to be an economic weapon rather than a safe , efficient and comfortable flight for the pax who are customers trying to support you.
Seriously , just think about what you said logically , there is an effect
You suggest flying into headwinds , that normally adds to flight time causing delays therefore incovenience.
Even if you were to fly your 'high fuel burn profile' perfectly with no delay you have just eroded the safety margin in the flight by carrying more fuel resulting in greater take off distance and mmore stress on the aircraft and engines while the primary goal of this flight is to be an economic weapon rather than a safe , efficient and comfortable flight for the pax who are customers trying to support you.
Seriously , just think about what you said logically , there is an effect
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep flying Qantas, it will be bigger and better than ever.
As the day progresses it appears Alan Joyce is on the nose with the public, he is attracting scathing comments from all over the country with his now well documented action last Saturday, Qantas management didn't give a stuff about it's customers, no warning in its preplanned action. .
FWA is a joke, it sided with the company, so why have FWA at all? It is a dud piece of industrial relations feeding more lawyers who didn't accept their own decision to allow the unions the right to legal action.. If Qantas didn't have strong unions then today we would see a lot less Australians working for Q....
I doubt the Australian public are falling for what you preach NP Q customers have been silently voting with their feet for a few years now due to poor management decisions .....what Joyce has demonstrated since the AGM, it's all about his pay packet and his pals on the board led by LC and his ego.
NP, Why do guys like you want to come on here and wind everyone up... why not go and gloat with the mainstream media comment sections....?
Having said that, I do agree with you on.
Don't worry about fools like Mach082 planning to take revenge out on QF which would also impact on customers.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody turncoat, he didn't want to get involved, much, now he spins it like the government did it....
love the question 1.03 "should it be illegal.......
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just read the decision here [2011] FWAFB 7444
So it was only Qantas's protected industrial action which met the requirements of s 424(1). Why then was the protected industrial action by the unions, which FWA found did not meet the requirements of the section, also terminated?
Any legal minds able to provide a judicial decision in relation to this?
[10] It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day.
[11] We find that the requirements of s.424(1) have been made out with respect to the action of which Qantas has given notice in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements. In the circumstances we are required to make an order either terminating or suspending the protected action.
[11] We find that the requirements of s.424(1) have been made out with respect to the action of which Qantas has given notice in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements. In the circumstances we are required to make an order either terminating or suspending the protected action.
Any legal minds able to provide a judicial decision in relation to this?
Thanks for the link 'Voice'.....
On the ball, and to the point - as usual!
Cheers
On the ball, and to the point - as usual!
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 31st Oct 2011 at 03:44.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just read the decision here [2011] FWAFB 7444
[10] It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day.
[11] We find that the requirements of s.424(1) have been made out with respect to the action of which Qantas has given notice in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements. In the circumstances we are required to make an order either terminating or suspending the protected action.
So it was only Qantas's protected industrial action which met the requirements of s 424(1). Why then was the protected industrial action by the unions, which FWA found did not meet the requirements of the section, also terminated?
Any legal minds able to provide a judicial decision in relation to this?
[10] It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day.
[11] We find that the requirements of s.424(1) have been made out with respect to the action of which Qantas has given notice in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements. In the circumstances we are required to make an order either terminating or suspending the protected action.
So it was only Qantas's protected industrial action which met the requirements of s 424(1). Why then was the protected industrial action by the unions, which FWA found did not meet the requirements of the section, also terminated?
Any legal minds able to provide a judicial decision in relation to this?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to rumours
this strategy was in line with the revised schedules coming in april. A333 from mel to hkg, bkk terminators etc. they might have an excuse now to bring some of the flying changes forward as punters will vote with their feet and abandon qf. aj and the board then can blame the unions on losing the business.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See my post #806.
Seems possible that CASA has the balls that most in government did not!
I would not be endorsing a Qantas conceived risk management plan until I was absolutely sure all identified risks had been mitigated as best as possible.
That assessment may take some time
Seems possible that CASA has the balls that most in government did not!
I would not be endorsing a Qantas conceived risk management plan until I was absolutely sure all identified risks had been mitigated as best as possible.
That assessment may take some time
Can Joyce ever fly Qantas again?
Exclusion from flight:
A person shall be denied boarding if they:
. conduct themselves in an improper manner
. are apparently of unsound mind
. are likely to constitute an annoyance to other passengers or crew.....
The final decision to offload passengers rests with the Pilot In Command
A person shall be denied boarding if they:
. conduct themselves in an improper manner
. are apparently of unsound mind
. are likely to constitute an annoyance to other passengers or crew.....
The final decision to offload passengers rests with the Pilot In Command
The Qantas Stink and the dirty little man
Prediction - Alan Joyce will go. He hasn't realised it but he has been used by the board to do their dirty work. Qantas is on the nose because of Alan Joyce. Whilst Joyce smells so does Qantas. The public dont see the boards face, just the voice and face of Joyce - and the voice and face of Qantas is Alan Joyce.
The public see Joyce as a nasty arrogant egocentric maniac and that's how they see Qantas. For that reason he will go. Qantas cannot survive with a dirty face.
Qantas will need/get a fresh new inspiring leader to take Qantas forward from 2011. The board will pay Joyce out and justify the cost the same way they justified the cost of the grounding. .... Joyce will last 12 months max. You watch
The public see Joyce as a nasty arrogant egocentric maniac and that's how they see Qantas. For that reason he will go. Qantas cannot survive with a dirty face.
Qantas will need/get a fresh new inspiring leader to take Qantas forward from 2011. The board will pay Joyce out and justify the cost the same way they justified the cost of the grounding. .... Joyce will last 12 months max. You watch
Last edited by 1a sound asleep; 31st Oct 2011 at 03:39. Reason: Deodorant will never solve the smell
There is case law that terminating can be done for all action.
In the case of the former, there is absolutely no reason for the three unions' action to be terminated (especially the pilots).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliament Question Time is interesting.
Something to note from Albanese:
According to AJ, the airline was grounded solely due to the suspension of the AOC due safety concerns (from stress?).
What happened to grounding the fleet because of the industrial action, eh AJ?
Something to note from Albanese:
According to AJ, the airline was grounded solely due to the suspension of the AOC due safety concerns (from stress?).
What happened to grounding the fleet because of the industrial action, eh AJ?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to AJ, the airline was grounded solely due to the suspension of the AOC due safety concerns (from stress?).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, now some time has passed by since the FWA announcement, I believe it is a good time to look at the live announcements again, I feel that we all have been hoodwinked... I trust some legal eagles on here may see something that isn't quite right.... before the media start editing stuff out for tonight's stories...
will post some more as the day progresses....
.