MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem for "The Company" is that in today's environment it is almost impossible to keep bad things secret.
Without commenting in rights or wrongs of WikiLeaks and many other (infamous) whistle-blowers, if wrong things have been done by any party in recent times there is a fair chance that the truth will come out.
QF has an independent whistle-blowers hotline, one call from a disgruntled secretary, one fax from a miffed lackey and a whole house of cards could collapse .......
ST
Without commenting in rights or wrongs of WikiLeaks and many other (infamous) whistle-blowers, if wrong things have been done by any party in recent times there is a fair chance that the truth will come out.
QF has an independent whistle-blowers hotline, one call from a disgruntled secretary, one fax from a miffed lackey and a whole house of cards could collapse .......
ST
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Look up and wave
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The leprechaun is not telling porkies he is telling the truth.
He made the decision to ground the airline on The Saturday. He planned to ground the airline in the weeks/months leading up to it. After receiving 97% shareholder support at the AGM, he activated the plan the following day. Problem is that 97% support is from 250 individuals representing the allotted shares. And they are all mates feeding out of the same trough.
This is like saying what came first the chicken or the egg. We could go around in circles all day.
The fact is while he made the decision to ground the airline on the Saturday, he planned to ground it in the weeks and months prior to that.
The question should be when did you plan to ground the airline. Not when did you decide to ground it.
Those leprechauns are slippery slimy little buggers!
He made the decision to ground the airline on The Saturday. He planned to ground the airline in the weeks/months leading up to it. After receiving 97% shareholder support at the AGM, he activated the plan the following day. Problem is that 97% support is from 250 individuals representing the allotted shares. And they are all mates feeding out of the same trough.
This is like saying what came first the chicken or the egg. We could go around in circles all day.
The fact is while he made the decision to ground the airline on the Saturday, he planned to ground it in the weeks and months prior to that.
The question should be when did you plan to ground the airline. Not when did you decide to ground it.
Those leprechauns are slippery slimy little buggers!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 77
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MACH082,
You are spot on. Keg is just like Senator X. Puffed up full of self importance. Scrambling for anything or any shred of happenstance that will support his cause or arguments. Senator X is merely of passing relevance. He is yet to make anything, just anything stick.
When are people especially pilots and Qantas pilots most of all, going to understand. Joyce did what he was permitted to do under FWA. If the unions, especially AIPA, didn't anticipate that he could or would then they are badly advised and badly miscalculated. He is entitled to ground the airline. If the board didn't like it, they'll sack him. If the shareholders didn't like it, they'll sack the board. If the union members who potentially were locked out didn't like it, then perhaps they'll now understand that their respective unions don't hold all the cards, by a long shot (slow bake, a year to get what we want, roll them at the AGM, I wouldn't buy tickets on Qantas before Christmas ..... are all words that come to mind). If the government didn't like it, it'll change the IR rules or exact revenge on Qantas. If the customers didn't like it they will fly with another airline next time BUT he can ground the airline if he chooses and if it is within the law and it is.
Furthermore FWA didn't put a hold on the PIA because some pilots were wearing red ties and making announcements that was of such piddling consequence. FWA did it because Qantas had grounded its fleet and that was of significance to the national interest. That was why the industrial action on BOTH sides was terminated. It is in the rules. That is exactly what he set out to do and more to the point said publicly that is what he set out to do. It is just the same in cricket when 10 batsmen are out or can't bat the innings is over...that's the rules.
You are spot on. Keg is just like Senator X. Puffed up full of self importance. Scrambling for anything or any shred of happenstance that will support his cause or arguments. Senator X is merely of passing relevance. He is yet to make anything, just anything stick.
When are people especially pilots and Qantas pilots most of all, going to understand. Joyce did what he was permitted to do under FWA. If the unions, especially AIPA, didn't anticipate that he could or would then they are badly advised and badly miscalculated. He is entitled to ground the airline. If the board didn't like it, they'll sack him. If the shareholders didn't like it, they'll sack the board. If the union members who potentially were locked out didn't like it, then perhaps they'll now understand that their respective unions don't hold all the cards, by a long shot (slow bake, a year to get what we want, roll them at the AGM, I wouldn't buy tickets on Qantas before Christmas ..... are all words that come to mind). If the government didn't like it, it'll change the IR rules or exact revenge on Qantas. If the customers didn't like it they will fly with another airline next time BUT he can ground the airline if he chooses and if it is within the law and it is.
Furthermore FWA didn't put a hold on the PIA because some pilots were wearing red ties and making announcements that was of such piddling consequence. FWA did it because Qantas had grounded its fleet and that was of significance to the national interest. That was why the industrial action on BOTH sides was terminated. It is in the rules. That is exactly what he set out to do and more to the point said publicly that is what he set out to do. It is just the same in cricket when 10 batsmen are out or can't bat the innings is over...that's the rules.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My limited understanding is there is a required notice period under FWA rules for an employee lockout. As such Qantas notified the Government of its plan to lockout employees in accordance with these requirements on the Saturday for a lockout on the Monday.
It then grounded the airline prior to this lockout even beginning. The reason for the grounding was apparently for safety reasons.
What were these safety reasons?
If Qantas had waited for FWA/Government to cancel the lockout due to national importance, the airline would never have needed to be grounded.
It then grounded the airline prior to this lockout even beginning. The reason for the grounding was apparently for safety reasons.
What were these safety reasons?
If Qantas had waited for FWA/Government to cancel the lockout due to national importance, the airline would never have needed to be grounded.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 77
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a required notice period under FWA rules for an employee lockout
Incorrect there is no such prescription. Maybe there should be but there isn't. It is but one of the flaws in the FWA legislation.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Premeditated is characterized by some degree of pre-planning.
The fundamental tenet in FWA is whether or not the pre-meditation included the booking of couriers. If you listen to the ABC lateline programme carefully the workers were offered work, prior to the weekend.
Joyce argues a degree of pre-meditation and applies plausible deniability. The fact remains the workers were offered the work, not the possibility of work. It is now established that it is in fact beyond premeditation it is now planned and pre-arranged. The legal amongst us understand the subtle difference and it will be argued that there was Never any good faith at the very least during the negotiations on Friday which were to occur in 'good faith'.
It will only take a few sourced documents or people.
The fundamental tenet in FWA is whether or not the pre-meditation included the booking of couriers. If you listen to the ABC lateline programme carefully the workers were offered work, prior to the weekend.
Joyce argues a degree of pre-meditation and applies plausible deniability. The fact remains the workers were offered the work, not the possibility of work. It is now established that it is in fact beyond premeditation it is now planned and pre-arranged. The legal amongst us understand the subtle difference and it will be argued that there was Never any good faith at the very least during the negotiations on Friday which were to occur in 'good faith'.
It will only take a few sourced documents or people.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Look up and wave
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely.
The leprechaun is a lot of things and we could fill pages with it. But he is a farking genius the way he played this game.
1. Carefully plan all outcomes and responses with the best legal minds.
2. Cost all options with the best accountants.
3. Buy the media and pollies (lounges, iPads, grange, upgrades)
4. Line up the right people in the right positions of power. (boards, FWA etc)
5. Confuse the crap out of the troops in the media.
6. Busy their resources putting out these small fires and playing the man.
7. Distract them with a phantom airline (redq) (do you think he's that stupid?, these airbuses are and always were for Jetstar)
8. Flank them from behind.
9. Knockout blow.
10. Get bonus and payrise.
It's almost as if a millitary strategist has planned this, it's basically warfare. Hmmmmmm
The leprechaun is a lot of things and we could fill pages with it. But he is a farking genius the way he played this game.
1. Carefully plan all outcomes and responses with the best legal minds.
2. Cost all options with the best accountants.
3. Buy the media and pollies (lounges, iPads, grange, upgrades)
4. Line up the right people in the right positions of power. (boards, FWA etc)
5. Confuse the crap out of the troops in the media.
6. Busy their resources putting out these small fires and playing the man.
7. Distract them with a phantom airline (redq) (do you think he's that stupid?, these airbuses are and always were for Jetstar)
8. Flank them from behind.
9. Knockout blow.
10. Get bonus and payrise.
It's almost as if a millitary strategist has planned this, it's basically warfare. Hmmmmmm
Disclosure Obligations on the Company
Listing Rule 3.1 requires the Company to immediately disclose to the ASX
information concerning the Company that it is or becomes aware of that a
reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of
the Company's securities.
This rule does not apply to particular information, if and only if each of the
following applies:
• a reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed; and
• the information is confidential and the ASX has not formed a view that the
information has ceased to be confidential; and
• one or more of the following applies:
i. it would be a breach of a law to disclose the information.
ii. the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation.
iii. the information comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to
warrant disclosure.
iv. the information is generated for the internal management purposes of the
Company.
v. the information is a trade secret.
Listing Rule 3.1 requires the Company to immediately disclose to the ASX
information concerning the Company that it is or becomes aware of that a
reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of
the Company's securities.
This rule does not apply to particular information, if and only if each of the
following applies:
• a reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed; and
• the information is confidential and the ASX has not formed a view that the
information has ceased to be confidential; and
• one or more of the following applies:
i. it would be a breach of a law to disclose the information.
ii. the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation.
iii. the information comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to
warrant disclosure.
iv. the information is generated for the internal management purposes of the
Company.
v. the information is a trade secret.
As a shareholder, I think it pertinent to be informed that the Company was planning to ground the airline, costing tens of millions.
I would also say the plan to ground the airline was sufficiently definite to warrant disclosure. The facts coming to light now regarding hotel/courier bookings reiterates the plans were definite.
It now depends on whether ASIC will investigate and take action.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems little doubt that Joyce has some serious questions to answer.
The problem is when it comes to proving potential guilt to the party sitting in official judgement, and as we often see, that throws up interesting results sometimes.
Much like OJ Simpson, the Irishman has bottomless pockets for paying his legal team to come up with some cockamamie defence which actually astonishes everyone by working.
The problem is when it comes to proving potential guilt to the party sitting in official judgement, and as we often see, that throws up interesting results sometimes.
Much like OJ Simpson, the Irishman has bottomless pockets for paying his legal team to come up with some cockamamie defence which actually astonishes everyone by working.
Incorrect there is no such prescription. Maybe there should be but there isn't. It is but one of the flaws in the FWA legislation.
The impression I got from the FWA transcript was that QANTAS had enough of the industrial action so proposed a lockout. Of which a 72 hour notice had to be given by law.
THE GROUNDING was on safety BECAUSE OF the impending lockout. QANTAS has stated on the record that CASA was onto them because CASA thought there might be a safety risk with all the ongoing industrial problems. (But somehow fatigue isn't
)Joyce thought that if they send everyone lockout notices that in the intervening time some safety issue might occur so he then decided as part of the saftey management system that he should ground the airline.
Two separate events occured here.
1. QANTAS wrote letters giving 72 hours notice of a impending industrial lockout under the FWA
2. Becuase of that (lockout) AND because of CASA AND because of the SMS QANTAS grounded the airline on the grounds of SAFTEY.
So essentially Joyce played the saftey card to orcharstrate a industrial outcome.......
The AIPA court case fits into this here somewhere.
Industrial relations with QF is like dealing with spoilt children. They want it all their way and will bully you and do anything possible to get their own way.
However if you play dirty on them they go running to mummy having a big cry. That's what we are up against here.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 22nd Nov 2011 at 05:07.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is entitled to ground the airline. If the board didn't like it, they'll sack him. If the shareholders didn't like it, they'll sack the board.
Incorrect there is no such prescription. Maybe there should be but there isn't. It is but one of the flaws in the FWA legislation.
The whole FWA thing is a lawyers fest, with the worker left to ponder at their mercy. It is a bloody big mess created by lawyers for lawyers guaranteeing that the workers come off second best.
Qantas have the cash to pay for the advice from the likes of Freehills the unions have far less resources to compete, it all comes down to cash reserves, other words corporate resources v the little guy.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bangkok & Vegas
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if people in the cabin crew world were followed up, it would appear that managers were flown over to ports (LA for sure) PRIOR to that illustrious day to assist crew if they happened to be 'stuck' in port.
Surely this and also the courier company could easily be traced as to the validity of the claims.
Hopefully these twits are shown to be liars to the public.
Surely this and also the courier company could easily be traced as to the validity of the claims.
Hopefully these twits are shown to be liars to the public.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I would like it, anyone who thinks a judicial enquiry is going to happen is dreaming.
ASIC are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing (as usual) and with a senate enquiry that will lead to nothing (based on results so far) what is going to be the trigger?
With a protracted FWA process about to start, the Rat can throw as much legal firepower as it can pay for to wear down the opponents and that is another tactic.
AIPA have indicated they have funds but who knows about the others and how deep their pockets are. It is certain they wont be as deep as the Rats.
This is not looking good for anyone unless Senators can show some balls beyond some easy shots.
ASIC are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing (as usual) and with a senate enquiry that will lead to nothing (based on results so far) what is going to be the trigger?
With a protracted FWA process about to start, the Rat can throw as much legal firepower as it can pay for to wear down the opponents and that is another tactic.
AIPA have indicated they have funds but who knows about the others and how deep their pockets are. It is certain they wont be as deep as the Rats.
This is not looking good for anyone unless Senators can show some balls beyond some easy shots.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liar liar pants on fire
It is always interesting studying video footage, body language and a person's reaction when they are asked straight forward questions and they are trying to hide something.
Perhaps the readers of this thread could do the examine the full interview as posted by TIMA9X and ponder over this analogy and make their own conclusions:
Perhaps the readers of this thread could do the examine the full interview as posted by TIMA9X and ponder over this analogy and make their own conclusions:
a) A statement with a contraction is more likely to be truthful: “I didn't do it” instead of “I did not do it" . Notice any shortened statements ?
b) A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive. Was somebody at times getting defensive?
c) A liar is uncomfortable facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away. Was somebody turning/tilting their head at times?
d) A liar will use your words to make answer to a question. When asked, “Did you eat the last cookie?” The liar answers, “No, I did not eat the last cookie.” Notice any answers containing the questioners wording?
e) Words may be garbled and spoken softly, and syntax and grammar may be off. In other words, their sentences will likely be muddled rather than emphasized. Notice any of that?
c) A liar is uncomfortable facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away. Was somebody turning/tilting their head at times?
d) A liar will use your words to make answer to a question. When asked, “Did you eat the last cookie?” The liar answers, “No, I did not eat the last cookie.” Notice any answers containing the questioners wording?
e) Words may be garbled and spoken softly, and syntax and grammar may be off. In other words, their sentences will likely be muddled rather than emphasized. Notice any of that?
f) Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements. Hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body so that the liar takes up less space. Notice any closed off actions, hunching and almost cradling the desk at times?
g) Eyes down right – For example, you have a neighbour who owes you some money. You find out that they just got paid and you want to suggest that they pay you back the money they owe you. But you are trying to be polite so you ask them, "Hey buddy did you get paid yet?" Their response is "Sorry, not yet. I don’t get paid for two more weeks” and they look to their right (your left). This would indicate that they are constructing or "making up" a lie.
h) Liars sometimes avoid lying by not making direct statements. They imply answers rather than deny something directly. Need I say any more??
h) Liars sometimes avoid lying by not making direct statements. They imply answers rather than deny something directly. Need I say any more??
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the people off-shore who can't stream last nights lateline.
some background from the senate inquiry
Agree mate, crossed my mind as well..
some background from the senate inquiry
It is always interesting studying video footage, body language and a person's reaction when they are asked straight forward questions and they are trying to hide something.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many threads on here today (it's hard to keep up) represents the media are well and truly on the case, something is up at Qantas, the public are not buying it. Probably why the trolls on here have been working overtime.
.
.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: canberra
Age: 77
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please post a link to support your assumption.
It isn't written that you shouldn't walk under a semi trailer but that doesn't mean you should or you shouldn't : it's your choice whether you do or you don't and whether you give notice and how much.
As I said above, one of a number of flaws in the FWA laws.
Try asking a lawyer in the know what happens if agreement is reached in the mediation phase but is voted down by the union members; what happens then: binding arbitration? back to mediation? back to PIA? back to ballot approval for PIA? back to FWA approval for PIA? nothing? no EBA renewal? double dissolution? Collingwood wins the premiership?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The leprechaun is a lot of things and we could fill pages with it. But he is a farking genius the way he played this game.