Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Court Action Against Qantas

Old 3rd Jan 2014, 23:15
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 297
The words "Misleading and Deceptive" might get their attention. Mind you it hasn't hit home at ASIC yet but shareholders need to get angry in this country!
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2014, 23:23
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Forget ASIC who have at best a questionable record of achievement. Perhaps they are even similar to the Rat with bloated ranks of highly paid consultant types and lack of demonstrable results for the investment (in this case of public monies).
ohallen is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 00:48
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 304
Yes, what ohallen is talking about is 'pearcing the corporate veil' and is pretty tricky.

I would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 01:14
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 276
My big question mark?...
Red Q

How can you possibly launch an asian premium carrier with lie flat beds using A320 aircraft and run them to Europe from a south East Asian base. Max range for 320 is what, 6 hours? How was this possibly going to work without added fuel capacity? How much money was spent on this little enterprise?
piston broke again is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 01:25
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
How about the failed Private Equity Bid?

JB stated that the PE bid was taking up the majority of managements attention at the time. To the point they weren't focussing on running the airline.

More money wasted.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 01:30
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Ordering 787's with the wrong pylons for long haul ops.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 06:32
  #47 (permalink)  
VC9
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Interesting that this action is being taken from the group that was going to "slow bake" the company.

Time some of you people take some ownership that you have been part of the problem. So typically Australian to blame everybody else. Grow up!!
VC9 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 07:21
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
I would argue that pilots engaging in legally protected industrial action was hardly a slow bake.

Hardly the same calibre as say.....engaging in illegal cartel activities to fix freight prices.

Perhaps its actually shareholders, employees & customers that have suffered a slow bake.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 12:16
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
It's the company slow baking the employees.

You kick people for long enough, one day they will look for a way to kick back. Perhaps that is starting to happen.
Bazzamundi is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 15:04
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 75
First time poster.

I truly hope you are not serious about pursuing this line of legal dispute? The fact that you are even considering this reflects very poorly on ALAEA.

Firstly your legal argument has no chance of success and you are wasting your own time, your own resources and those of your employer.

Secondly, even if your legal argument has some chance of success, what are you hoping to achieve from all of this?

You should be focusing your resources on how you can assist your employer to become more competitive. You should be looking at the activities of the competitors to Qantas that are causing it damage and highlight the inequities it faces and the regulatory missteps that are damaging Qantas. The only way to may your jobs more secure is to help your employer not hinder them.

You have run out of Old Cheese and you need to go in search of New Cheese. You need to stop being Hem and quickly become Haw. (Who Moved My Cheese by Dr Spencer Johnson).
CamelSquadron is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 19:48
  #51 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,919
Camel...I don't think you get it. Qantas does not want to be competitive. It wants to close down. Qantas has shut down world class, best in world, engineering facilities, shrunk International to nothing, come up with total BS like Red Q.....spent millions on failed LLCs around the world......And no, I don't work for Qantas, but I can see what's going on, and that is the management controlled destruction of a once great airline, but as I have said many times before on these threads....I'm fked if I can work out why they are doing it.
SOPS is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 20:11
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,783
You should be focusing your resources on how you can assist your employer to become more competitive. You should be looking at the activities of the competitors to Qantas that are causing it damage and highlight the inequities it faces and the regulatory missteps that are damaging Qantas. The only way to may your jobs more secure is to help your employer not hinder them.
We have no problem assisting Qantas and would love them to be the most profitable airline in the world. The problem is that Qantas appear to be making decisions to prevent them ever becoming profitable. The hindrance is from within.

The case is about them not seeking to remain competitive. If we win the case, they will be required to at least try and become a competitive company again. They know that cannot happen with the Jetstar Asian fantasy airline arrangement and the current management team.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 20:15
  #53 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,783
Interesting that this action is being taken from the group that was going to "slow bake" the company
Funny our group should be attributed to a comment we never made.

Some of the similar replies on this thread that attack our union or the workers indicate to me that Qantas are worried about this potential case. We know they follow and post on this site so thnx. Your interest has been noted.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 20:35
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,783
JB stated that the PE bid was taking up the majority of managements attention at the time. To the point they weren't focusing on running the airline.
This one goes back to 2007. I think for what we want for this case, that may not really fit in being a different management team.

Red Q

How can you possibly launch an asian premium carrier with lie flat beds using A320 aircraft and run them to Europe from a south East Asian base. Max range for 320 is what, 6 hours? How was this possibly going to work without added fuel capacity? How much money was spent on this little enterprise?
I like the potential of this arm of a case. I think I need to do some research on the Red Q debacle. Are the Neo's still on order?

I would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law.
Of course we would use legals when we are ready. You need the information to take to them though. The discussion here is well worth the time beforehand. Imagine if I went to an SC cold and said I want you to run a case about Qantas not remaining competitive, his first question would be - in what way aren't they seeking to remain competitive?

Ordering 787's with the wrong pylons for long haul ops.
Maybe. Not sure how long ago the order went in though. Be good if someone could find out.

Thinking out aloud here ,Fed Sec, instead of a costly court case as you propose, , would a "poison pill "type court case be a better option?
Have a Class Action for the mom and pop investors ready to run , the trigger of course will be when the big boys make their Private Equity grab.
You could run them both. Mum and Dad class actions aren't in my area though. All I know is that someone has to do something or 30,000 people will most likely be out of work.

shutting the airline down because of pilots wearing red ties would surely fall into these clauses
This one would be almost impossible to prove. The company could say that PIA could have been indefinite and cost them a billion. I reckon we can find 20 more direct examples of them deliberately blowing money. It need not be huge ticket items, could be a simple as giving i-pads to Politicians.

I've been told that Air Vanuatu who used to have their 737 Maintenance done by Qantas in Brisbane has now been told this will no longer be available.
There are a whole lot of Engineering contracts that I have heard they have passed on. If anyone has any details we need to roll that in to the case.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 00:38
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 75
You have a fixation with Jetstar.

So lets ignore the lack of merit in your proposed legal case and think this one through as if you had some chance of success.

Despite your complaints about Jetstar, it remains an asset that has significant value. So if you were able to have some success tackling Jetstar then Qantas would be forced to sell it. It wont be closed down, it is way too late for that, it has too much value.

Jetstar then falls into the hands of a third party. This third party may be more cashed up than Qantas and it wont be hamstrung by the Qantas Act or any historical EBA obligations and its Australian businesses can be foreign owned (utilising the Virgin International structure). The new Jetstar owner wont have to worry about any market segmentation to protect Qantas mainline.

Is this what you want to achieve?
CamelSquadron is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 02:23
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Another first time poster, and another in agreement with CamelSquadron.
I cannot believe such a waste of time and money would be considered. It makes the union & leaders look foolish.

I would like to go back to a fantastic quote from Steve Purvinas regarding the QF32 incident and LH Technic doing the C check. I quote from News.com.au from 5th November 2010 "Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association secretary Steve Purvinas said since Qantas sent engineering and safety checks to countries such as Singapore, the national carrier's once near-perfect safety record had suffered.
And he said the German-based Lufthansa engineers who serviced the A380 Airbus involved in yesterday's incident did not even have the same aircraft in their own fleet."
Yet by this time LH had 3 380s in their fleet, and to me, says a lot about the agenda of the person making this quote, that a simple fact cannot be checked first.

Not to mention how hypocritical this thought of legal action seems. How can you say you want QANTAS to be profitable, yet partake in action of "death by 1000 cuts". No, the union didn't say this, but your actions are attributed to this saying.

Also it has been mentioned, the cost of Mr Joyce shutting the airline down for that period, but at no stage do I see any mention of the costs of the union action. [Put by Clayton Utz @ $68M please check their website for this reference]. I think it would be worth bearing in mind that union actions have also had a significant impact in profit.

SOPS, could you please reference where it is said Qantas wants to shut down. I would be very interested to read any articles.
Just watching is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 02:52
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Bubble
Posts: 633
Hmm, the 6th of January, the day when the managers come back to work after their restful Christmas hiatus. Back to solving the airlines problems it seems, 1 PPRuNe post at a time.
600ft-lb is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 03:02
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Just Watching

LH got it's first A380 in May 2010.

QF got it's first A380 in Sept 2008.

Did LH engineers conduct any maintenance on the said A380 between 2008 & May 2010.

If so, SP quote is correct.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 03:02
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,642
Camel Squadron and "Just Watching" are both out of your depth and should perhaps read much more and deeply about Qantas before opening your yapper.

To take "just watching" first:

(1) If you knew anything about transport aircraft, you would know that there are an almost infinite number of configurations of engines, supporting structures and systems, avionics, cabin layout and equipment that makes aircraft unique hence SP's statement is entirely correct - to put it another way it is totally unlikely that a Lufthansa configured A380 would be the same as a QF configured A380.

(2) A perusal of any number of threads on PPRuNe will demonstrate that employees wish the company to be profitable and have made numerous suggestions and contributions to improve profitability over many years - all of which have been studiously ignored by management.

(3) A simple study of the employment relations practices of Qantas show that they are:

(a) Bizarre.

(b) Cruel.

(c) expensive.

Translation: Qantas woes are self inflicted by its own management for bizarre reasons that fly in the face of good corporate governance principles.


Camelsquadron, please don't come up with this "who moved my cheese" crap. That only applies if you are operating in a good faith environment and Qantas has conclusively proved by its own management actions that it operates in Bad Faith mode which it demonstrated by prolonging EBA negotiations for over 12(?) months, then kicking over the chess board by grounding the airline.

In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion; likewise regarding either the rectitude or the depravity of a line of conduct. As a legal concept bona fides is especially important in matters of equity (see Contract).[1][2] Linguistically, in the U.S., American English usage of bona fides applies it as synonymous with credentials, professional background, and documents attesting a person's identity, which is not synonymous with bona fide occupational qualifications.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 03:19
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not Sydney
Posts: 132
Well said!

Well said Sunny!:
1746 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.