Court Action Against Qantas
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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.
I would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
short flights long nights
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 f
ked if I can work out why they are doing it.
ked if I can work out why they are doing it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that this action is being taken from the group that was going to "slow bake" the company
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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 would not waste time talking to bush lawyers on this forum. Get some good advice from a SC with experience in corporation law.
Ordering 787's with the wrong pylons for long haul ops.
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.
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.
shutting the airline down because of pilots wearing red ties would surely fall into these clauses
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
: