MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.

[1a sound asleep]

Bring me back a Qantas owned by the people. Shares fixed at a Government 51% ownership.
The Flying Kangaroo was famous every where in the world. It was an airline that everybody wanted to fly

[QF94]

1a such fond memories of what was once a great airline, but let's leave the 80's fashion back there though.

QANTAS isn't dead, YET, but the only way to salvage what's left is the removal of the board (unlikely). We will have to see if there is any resolution come November 21. If not, it will be in the hands of FWA to make their decision on both parties, which inevitably, will affect all of QANTAS and will set a precedent to the rest of the workforce

[standard unit]

Qantas is Toxic

the culture at QF is toxic and this will inevitably translate to the service passengers get on board.

It has been Toxic for some time. About 8 years or so, coinciding with Geoff Dixon's regime with things deteriorating of late under our new "leader" for obvious reasons.

Engagement levels at Qantas as measured by professional companies tasked to do this have indicated the kind of low levels never before seen at companies of Qantas's size. Or any company for that matter.

In an effort to re-engage it's workforce Qantas cabin crew management admitted that passenger satisfaction levels with their onboard service of late are tracking at the highest levels in the companies history.

Qantas's operational staff understand very well who the enemy is. We ought to given the bullying, harassment and intimidation we been subjected to for so long.

Those of us who deal with the customer on a daily basis never take it out on them.

[Andu]

In an effort to re-engage it's (sic) workforce Qantas cabin crew management admitted that passenger satisfaction levels with their onboard service of late are tracking at the highest levels in the companies history.

Of late???? Gents and ladies, I have much sympathy for the QF workforce in this current fracas, but if your cabin service standards have dropped "of late", you're in real trouble. Your cabin crew have been in need of a major attitude adjustment for some time now. I can't comment about it "of late", but last time I flew with you - some time ago now - the attitude of your cabin crew towards "the cattle" (the fare-paying passengers in steerage) was close to a disgrace.

I flew First Class QF on two occasions over 20 years ago and have to say that was an extremely pleasant experience. However, numerous ventures in Economy since have been another matter altogether. QF needs to bring in a CC General Manager with a brief to slash, SACK and burn. Very deeply.

Those of us who deal with the customer on a daily basis never take it out on them.

Given my comments above, I'd really hate to see it if you started to.

[MACH082]

Yep, the old boilers at staff check in at Sydney are a disgrace.

Ask them a question or ask them to re-list you and it's like your asking them to chew on nails.

I have never dealt with such sour faced disengaged masochists who appear to take delight in your predicaments before.

[standard unit]

Andu,

I'm only passing on what management have told us and you haven't flown with QF for a long time.

Thanks for your input.

[TIMA9X]

A pretty good article this one.

This is a great article and really is the truth..... good stuff Peter whoever....

[The Kelpie]

Here's a couple from left field:

Given that the Qantas grounding was, as confirmed by AJ an operational decision and that PIA was not due to start until 8pm on Monday evening what juristiction did FWA have in terminating management's industrial action when it hadn't even started??

What juristiction do FWA have to meddle with the operational decisions of a company?

Given that it was an operational decision and not industrial action the insurance companies must pay out as they are simply flight cancellations and not industrial action which is often excluded. I would then think that it is a case of the insurance companies trying to go after QANTAS. Perhaps this explains why Qantas are being so compliant with the ACCC since the insurance companies may be some of the major shareholders.

More expense for international? I wonder whether this will be charged to corporate like the freight cartel fines!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[clotted]

Kelpie,
Stick to chasing sheep.
What do you not understand about:
1. The unions PIA was killing Qantas but not killing the national interest
2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout. This was enough to kill the national interest hence the govmint action and hence the FWA decision. Joyce agrees with that. That stops the killing of Qantas. The govmint and the unions didn't believe he'd do this and therefore were caught off guard hence the anger. The rest is a sideshow.

[QF94]

Kelpie,
Stick to chasing sheep.
What do you not understand about:
1. The unions PIA was killing Qantas but not killing the national interest

PIA.
Pilots wearing red ties and making announcements over the PA inflight?
A total of 6 hours stoppage by TWU?
A total of a few hours by ALAEA? If that!

Olivia Wirth told the media QANTAS just can't switch off and switch on an airline during the disputes. AJ managed that quite well. Inconvenienced passengers worldwide, cost QANTAS many tens of millions of dollars, in addition to trashing the brand he accused the unions of doing

2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout. This was enough to kill the national interest hence the govmint action and hence the FWA decision. Joyce agrees with that. That stops the killing of Qantas. The govmint and the unions didn't believe he'd do this and therefore were caught off guard hence the anger. The rest is a sideshow.

AJ could have applied to FWA himself instead of trying to get the government to step in and make a decision, and risk appeal for doing so. I'm no Gillard fan, but I believe she took the only option she had. She took it to FWA and let them make a decision.

Unfortunately clotted, the blood letting at QANTAS was started before the grounding of the airline. This was done by QANTAS management, not the unions. AJ started the death by a "tousand" cuts.

The management have brought nothing to the negotiating table, stonewalled the unions for what they tabled and accused them of making outrageous wage claims. They didn't make a counter offer to claims.

International losing money? Nothing has been substantiated about how the loss has come about other than a figure of $216million plucked out of someone's backside and said here are our figures. "Believe them. They're true. Honest."

If you want to believe the hype from team QF management and the tabloid papers, that's your prerogative.

Pleeeeeease clotted, get your facts right before regurgitating press releases from team QF management and the press.

[The Kelpie]

Hey I only asked because i was unsure.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[V-Jet]

I remember that ad. Gave me goose bumps watching it.

A Pythonesque/Chasers take on that could be pseudo promo for TORA TORA TORA...

If I had the skills and the time I could have a lot of fun with that

If it wasn't heartbreaking....

QF94:

"Believe them. They're true. Honest."

Doesn't count if he had his fingers crossed...

[QF94]

QF94:

Quote:
"Believe them. They're true. Honest."
Doesn't count if he had his fingers crossed...

Ain't that the truth V-Jet!

[shon7]

Don't worry shon7, I will make sure that all passengers get the best service, I will do everything to get our passengers to their destination on time(maybe even early

I would rather be late with a pleasant onboard experience rather than 15-30 early with terrible service. The sooner both unions and mgmt realize this the sooner you can start to win back the high yield passengers.

[gobbledock]

Everyone has been mostly banging on about the commercial impact and implications of this ridiculous saga. Much has and is being said about ethics, decision making processes and traveller inconvenience, all valid arguments that I agree with.
1) However, why is SAFETY rating so low in the scheme of this debacle? Where is the Regulator and their interest in this event?
2) It is obvious that QF's Safety Policy and Just Culture policy have been completely trashed. The adhoc manner in which QF execs instigated this event bring into the question the abilities of those who have been approved to hold the airlines AOC, correct?
3) These same actions contributed to a decline in the airlines ability to function safely, why hasnt the accountable person (CEO) been brought to task on this issue?
4) The continuous engine failures and escalation in service issues over the past few years can no longer be ignored?
5) Further concerns about QF's ability to even undertake 'root cause analysis' is every time there is an incident, or for example the engine issue leading to the diversion onto Dubai, QF hit the media saying 'it is not related to this or not related to that', which is pretty hard to do when the plane is still in the air and an investigation has not yet even started.
6) Where is the risk assessment they supposedly conducted prior to the grounding? The mystery one that somebody has allegedly done in between the close of the Friday AGM, a Board meeting Saturday then the grounding at around 1400 Saturday afternoon? Was the Safety manager involved in this, as he/she should have been?
7) What safety elements or specifics were actually considered as part of the risk assessment matrix? Was passenger personal safety considered? It wouldn't appear that way from the personal interviews and stories being aired.
8) Resources (money and people) are an element of the Safety Management System (SMS), so has QF at any stage assessed NOT the financial implications of restructuring/making staff redundant (the most recent 1000 shafted) but the safety impact on the affected departments an capabilities due those redundancies being made?

As said earlier, it is from a multitude of angles that the current QF activities
need to be thoroughly and comprehensively dissected and analyses, but from a safety perspective that should be number 1.

[QF94]

Gobbledock, just to answer a few questions. There'll be those that will jump all over these and throw in their 2c worth. They're entitled to, and it is warmly encouraged. Nothing like healthy debate.

Everyone has been mostly banging on about the commercial impact and implications of this ridiculous saga. Much has and is being said about ethics, decision making processes and traveller inconvenience, all valid arguments that I agree with.
1) However, why is SAFETY rating so low in the scheme of this debacle? Where is the Regulator and their interest in this event?

AJ had safety first when he grounded the fleet so the pilots wouldn't be distracted mid flight when they got the news that this may be their last flight. The truth is more likely that it isn't newsworthy if it doesn't come from management, unless they report sabotage of some wire being cut while engineers are at lunch in BNE.

2) It is obvious that QF's Safety Policy and Just Culture policy have been completely trashed. The adhoc manner in which QF execs instigated this event bring into the question the abilities of those who have been approved to hold the airlines AOC, correct?

Correct. Again, not newsworthy. Too many people are running for cover from this incident last Saturday, and nobody wants to get too involved, as the heat in the kitchen may be too hot to bear.

3) These same actions contributed to a decline in the airlines ability to function safely, why hasnt the accountable person (CEO) been brought to task on this issue?

Because he had a flight he couldn't miss yesterday. He tells the chairman of the Senate Committee hearing that he has other commitments. Politicians on both side of the political divide are treading carefully on this one, although Doug Cameron and Bob Brown gave him a tongue lashing, but that's all it was.

4) The continuous engine failures and escalation in service issues over the past few years can no longer be ignored?

No they can't, but they are. That would mean they would have to bring the engine overhauls back to Australia where they had a world class engine overhaul facility. Why pay good money for a good job when you can get a crappy job done for a fraction of the price? This is the plan for making a stronger, better QANTAS for the future.

5) Further concerns about QF's ability to even undertake 'root cause analysis' is every time there is an incident, or for example the engine issue leading to the diversion onto Dubai, QF hit the media saying 'it is not related to this or not related to that', which is pretty hard to do when the plane is still in the air and an investigation has not yet even started.

This is the technical explanation of Olivia Wirth who is well versed in Aircraft Maintenance and stating that it's an oil pressure switch problem.

6) Where is the risk assessment they supposedly conducted prior to the grounding? The mystery one that somebody has allegedly done in between the close of the Friday AGM, a Board meeting Saturday then the grounding at around 1400 Saturday afternoon? Was the Safety manager involved in this, as he/she should have been?

AJ is the judge, jury and executioner. It was his decision, and his decision alone. So he says. The board doesn't ask who needs to be involved. They omit those they don't want involved for fear of being advised against something their wishes. That's why they have partners in Freehills as part of their board membership (Mr Garry Hounsell).

7) What safety elements or specifics were actually considered as part of the risk assessment matrix? Was passenger personal safety considered? It wouldn't appear that way from the personal interviews and stories being aired.

Passenger safety? This was about locking out the unions and forcing the government's hand. Passenger safety and satisfaction never entered the risk assessment matrix.

8) Resources (money and people) are an element of the Safety Management System (SMS), so has QF at any stage assessed NOT the financial implications of restructuring/making staff redundant (the most recent 1000 shafted) but the safety impact on the affected departments an capabilities due those redundancies being made?

Absolutely not. If they did, they would not have chosen the path they're on. The cost alone of waging this war against its workers far outweighs the 3% increase being sought. When the board has a spare $3billion dollars in the kitty, it will gladly use this to fight the unions and trash its own brand. After all, their salaries are guaranteed, because it's in their contracts to be paid. No matter what. If they chose to engage the workforce in constructive dialogue and not in dispute, they would get a much better outcome, increased productivity, increased sales and market share and grow the company at the same time. Thee 1,000 redundancies is only the beginning.

As said earlier, it is from a multitude of angles that the current QF activities need to be thoroughly and comprehensively dissected and analyses, but from a safety perspective that should be number 1.

The only thing to be dissected, unfortunately, is the company itself.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by clotted

Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout.

Only option? Only option?

Stick to chasing sheep.

Stick to making informed, intelligent commentary.....

[RIVER1]

Qantas grounded

As a retired pilot from Ansett I watch with interest the QF situation and feel there are similarities in that large airlines can become uncompetitive with long inherited overly generous conditions of employment.The world is changing and if employees think a union is going to make their employer pay more than they can then they are destined to feel that shock of loosing your job and livelihood with an employer that you thought was just too big to fail.When I see the likes of Doug Cameron talking in the media I feel like pewking,why is it that when a labor party is in the whole industrial system goes down the drain with strikes and outlandish claims.When AN went down I was fortunate to be a financially independant business person and suffered less than many.AN was mainly a bad management and political problem but the entrenched conditions and entitlements probably kept possible purchasers away.People need to sit down and talk and maybe QF management are at fault to some extent but in my opinion the big unions and labor are a recipe for damage and pain.I do hope I am proved wrong but It would not surprise me if QF becomes a memory.

[neville_nobody]

Here are Dixon's thoughts on the matter:

World a tough place when seen from the Qantas cockpit
Geoff Dixon
November 5, 2011

The national carrier must be allowed to respond nimbly to the demands of a brutally competitive business if it is to survive, writes Geoff Dixon.

Commercial aviation is a tough business. It is in a constant state of change, is hit by more external shocks than most other industries and, historically, has been afflicted by inflexible employment processes and poor productivity.

So it should be no surprise that, when you add the huge capital outlays on aircraft and infrastructure, the returns for airlines are exceedingly poor.

The International Air Transport Association said recently that the industry's profitability on total revenues of $594 billion would produce just a 1.2 per cent net margin. And it predicts profits to fall further in 2012.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Despite all its difficulties the industry is without a doubt one of the most vital in the world. The way we live and the way we do business today depends greatly on aviation.

For Australia, as an island continent, it is more than vital: it is essential - as the events of last weekend highlighted.

The change that has engulfed the industry over the past 30 years, but particularly in the last 10 years, has been profound. It has seen many of the old flag or, as they are now known, "legacy", carriers become nothing less than "endangered species".

These carriers are struggling with all the labour inflexibility their longevity brings, together with continually high fuel costs and, most potent of all, very aggressive and growing competition.

This competition is coming principally from two quarters - national full-service carriers from lower-cost countries of Asia and the Middle East and the growing army of low-cost carriers.

The well-established Asian carriers such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, with their high service ethos, have now been joined by an array of quality carriers that 15 years ago did not exist or were not spoken of in the same vein as a Lufthansa, a British Airways or an American Airlines.

These carriers are epitomised by Emirates, the Dubai-based airline, but include Etihad and Qatar. They are, arguably, the fastest-growing airlines in the world.

They are also very high quality, have low labour costs and attractive taxation and other conditions for skilled expatriate personnel, and exceedingly young and modern aircraft. Most importantly, with these modern aircraft they are superbly placed geographically to service much of the world non-stop.

In more recent times we have also seen the emergence on the global stage of the Chinese mega carriers, China Southern, Air China and China Eastern. These are expanding through rapid organic growth, international growth, acquisitions and a heightened service culture, to compete successfully anywhere around the world. China Southern is now the third-biggest airline

in the world, carrying more than

70 million passengers a year.

All the major Asian, Middle Eastern and Chinese carriers see wealthy Australia as a desirable market. Singapore Airlines has about 90 flights to Australia a week, Emirates is close to that and China Southern has more than 20 flights a week, and is expanding rapidly.

These developments, and the emergence of the low-cost carrier, have changed aviation in ways that could not have been foreseen 20 years ago.

IATA has estimated that there will be 166 billion airline passengers by 2050, up from an estimated 2.8 billion today, with the biggest growth coming in the Asia Pacific region.

Low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet and, in our region, Jetstar and AirAsia, are no longer bit players. They are becoming market leaders, opening up new routes and destinations and providing fierce competition on established ones.

How have the legacy carriers fared in this new and more hostile environment?

Some have disappeared altogether (e.g. PanAm and Ansett) or been renationalised or recapitalised (e.g. Air New Zealand). Many have merged, such as Delta/ Northwest, United/Continental, Air France/KLM and British Airways/Iberia into the International Airlines Group.

Others have started their own low-cost carriers, such as Qantas and, more recently, Iberia. In the past few days Singapore Airlines has joined the fray with its new low-cost subsidiary, Scoot.

Where is the Australian industry in all this?

Australia has, by most measures but particularly compared with Europe and the United States, successful and, in the main, profitable aviation businesses.

Some key events and decisions over the past 20 years have underpinned this position:

The merger of Qantas and Australian Airlines in the early '90s and the subsequent privatisation of Qantas provided the scale and domestic franchise for Qantas's aggressive expansion and profitability. (Without the merger Qantas could not have been privatised and could easily have gone the way of PanAm);

The successful launch by Richard Branson and Brett Godfrey of Virgin Blue, which provided Australians with a real low-cost airline option and put extreme pressure on the cost base of the established players;

The collapse of Ansett in 2001 which, while devastating for those involved, gave further scale and momentum to Qantas and Virgin;

Qantas's successful launch of Jetstar in 2004 and its rapid transformation into a hugely successful and profitable domestic and international carrier; and

Prudent policy settings in Canberra, it must be conceded, have also significantly enabled the industry to restructure.

Successive governments of all political persuasions have supported Qantas as the "national carrier", opening up access to the Australian market just ahead of demand, thus giving Qantas time to adapt and change.

Qantas itself has also worked hard to meet the changing industry circumstances.

Over the past 15 years it has cut waste in all areas and created a portfolio of successful businesses, such as the Qantas domestic airline, QantasLink, Qantas Frequent Flyer and Jetstar, to make it one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

Unfortunately its international business is labouring, as are most of its older counterparts, with the inflexibility that time creates.

The fact is that Qantas's overall profitability and ability to expand, despite the occasional good year for its international arm, is being underwritten by its domestic businesses and, to an increasing extent, its frequent flyer and Jetstar subsidiaries.

Hence the desire to follow Jetstar into Asia by establishing a full-service international subsidiary that will help provide a more competitive overall cost base for the entire international airline. They will find it difficult, but Qantas unions should be supportive of any strategy, including basing a full-service airline subsidiary in Asia, that will increase the profitability of the group and enable further investment and growth in the various businesses - for this is a sure way to keep and grow jobs in Australia!

Why? Well, no matter what Qantas does in Asia or elsewhere in the world, the great core of its operations for practical and logistical, as well as brand and emotional reasons, must remain in Australia.

Qantas has about 36,000 employees, more than 32,000 of them in Australia, supporting thousands a week of domestic QantasLink and Jetstar flights, freight, corporate and sales services and, of course, international flights.

These operations require, and will always require, massive numbers of people, including skilled pilots, engineers, technicians and the like.

Finally, I believe the Qantas Sale Act must be interpreted in the interests of Qantas's long-term survival in what is a brutal industry. Making the act more inflexible would be a major backwards step.

For instance Qantas cannot walk away from potential mergers if a suitable opportunity arose for the management and board to consider.

Such an opportunity would require a more mature response than seen in Australia in 2008, when there was an opportunity for Qantas to merge as a major partner with British Airways.

That this did not happen was a lost opportunity for Qantas and for Australia.

Geoff Dixon was the chief executive and managing director of Qantas from 2000 to 2008.

Read more: World a tough place when seen from the Qantas cockpit

[aseanaero]

I wonder what the national security impact would be of not having the Qantas Jet Base around for maintenance ? Perhaps General Cosgrove could comment on that , that's in his range of expertise.

The next problem with outsourcing is you're at the mercy of the 'supplier' , once you don't have your own maintenance facility and capacity in the market gets constrained what looks like a cheap option now could get more expensive than doing the maintenance in Oz.



.