Court Action Against Qantas
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time To Get On With It
Can’t help but be bemused by the view that Qantas Airways Limited can simply split off Qantas Domestic from Qantas Airways Limited, as created by the merger of Qantas and TAA and deem ‘Qantas Domestic’ to be a subsidiary - thereby escaping the obligations of the QSA.
The QSA states:
• ‘Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time, (even if its name is later changed),’
• ‘Qantas subsidiary means a body corporate that is a subsidiary of Qantas,’ and
• ‘Whether a body corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate is to be determined in the same manner as that question is determined under the Corporations Act 2001,’
And whilst I am not a lawyer, I suspect the above may be technically possible?
However, to do so would, I understand, require ‘approval by members’ and the 100,000 or so Qantas retail members who hold less than 10,000 shares each, may well take the view that splitting off the most profitable element of Qantas as created in 1995, is not in their interest and strenuously oppose any such split.
If attempted, personally expect such a contentious approach would ultimately become bogged down in heavy duty legal action and frighten off any strategic investors Qantas may otherwise be able to attract.
Better to come up with a solution that solidifies the various stakeholder groups and attracts investors I reckon.
It takes two to tango and it’s time to get on with it.
Can’t help but be bemused by the view that Qantas Airways Limited can simply split off Qantas Domestic from Qantas Airways Limited, as created by the merger of Qantas and TAA and deem ‘Qantas Domestic’ to be a subsidiary - thereby escaping the obligations of the QSA.
The QSA states:
• ‘Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time, (even if its name is later changed),’
• ‘Qantas subsidiary means a body corporate that is a subsidiary of Qantas,’ and
• ‘Whether a body corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate is to be determined in the same manner as that question is determined under the Corporations Act 2001,’
And whilst I am not a lawyer, I suspect the above may be technically possible?
However, to do so would, I understand, require ‘approval by members’ and the 100,000 or so Qantas retail members who hold less than 10,000 shares each, may well take the view that splitting off the most profitable element of Qantas as created in 1995, is not in their interest and strenuously oppose any such split.
If attempted, personally expect such a contentious approach would ultimately become bogged down in heavy duty legal action and frighten off any strategic investors Qantas may otherwise be able to attract.
Better to come up with a solution that solidifies the various stakeholder groups and attracts investors I reckon.
It takes two to tango and it’s time to get on with it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and jq's rebuttal
Wednesday 8 January 2014
Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong aircraft
The Sydney Morning Herald has today reported that there are a small number of aircraft for Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong which are awaiting deployment.
The Jetstar Group fleet order allows for a flexible approach with the allocation of flying resources. The additional aircraft in Japan will be used for upcoming services and to launch Jetstar Japan’s planned second base in Osaka this year. Jetstar Japan is Japan’s fastest growing LCC and recently launched its 10th destination and celebrated three million passengers.
There are also a small number of aircraft in Toulouse intended for Jetstar Hong Kong operations. The Jetstar Hong Kong board is evaluating options to manage its fleet in the short term as it has taken longer than anticipated to work through the approval process.
The Jetstar Group will continue to expand operations across its network, including in Australia, in 2014. About one-sixth of Qantas Group revenue comes from Asian operations. Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong are supported by strong local partners including Mitsubishi, Japan Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Shun Tak Holdings to tap into the immense opportunities of the Asia region.
Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong aircraft
The Sydney Morning Herald has today reported that there are a small number of aircraft for Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong which are awaiting deployment.
The Jetstar Group fleet order allows for a flexible approach with the allocation of flying resources. The additional aircraft in Japan will be used for upcoming services and to launch Jetstar Japan’s planned second base in Osaka this year. Jetstar Japan is Japan’s fastest growing LCC and recently launched its 10th destination and celebrated three million passengers.
There are also a small number of aircraft in Toulouse intended for Jetstar Hong Kong operations. The Jetstar Hong Kong board is evaluating options to manage its fleet in the short term as it has taken longer than anticipated to work through the approval process.
The Jetstar Group will continue to expand operations across its network, including in Australia, in 2014. About one-sixth of Qantas Group revenue comes from Asian operations. Jetstar Japan and Jetstar Hong Kong are supported by strong local partners including Mitsubishi, Japan Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Shun Tak Holdings to tap into the immense opportunities of the Asia region.
Waren,
That's not a rebuttal! It's bullsh!t of the most simplistic kind and fails to address the real issue. How can anyone possibly hope to make money with expensive assets sitting idle or terribly under-utilized? We know that their two 787s are presently flying very low daily hours. It would be interesting to know the daily utilization if the Japanese fleet. Jetstar is, after all, a low cost carrier and therefore cannotafford to burn cash the way it appears to be doing.
That's not a rebuttal! It's bullsh!t of the most simplistic kind and fails to address the real issue. How can anyone possibly hope to make money with expensive assets sitting idle or terribly under-utilized? We know that their two 787s are presently flying very low daily hours. It would be interesting to know the daily utilization if the Japanese fleet. Jetstar is, after all, a low cost carrier and therefore cannotafford to burn cash the way it appears to be doing.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose if all of your conspiracy theories are right then it is better for Qantas that the ALAEA waste its members resources on a legal action that has no chance of success.
"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."
Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!
"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."
Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!
If there was really something in this wouldn't ASIC be onto it? They seem to get bank managers skimming accounts, so for people with the resources, ability and the legal power it wouldn't be that hard to find who owns what. You can't hide an aeroplane, the leases are virtually public information. And even if the owners were some group in the Caymens ASIC could start hunting them or bounce them onto the ATO.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire neville, everything done will meet the absolute black letter legalities of the law, comply with the applicable accounting standards, just as ENRON did. It is all hidden in plain sight.
It is the unintended consequences of complexity, inconsistencies, imprecision, ambiguous language that create loopholes in the myriad of accounting standards & legislation. Then add in multiple jurisdictions & the language & translation of regulations & standards on top of that. The problems are extremely sublime, subtle & manifold.
The globalisation of capital means it is back to the wild west where virtually anything goes with jurisdiction shopping. The rules no longer apply, if they ever actually did. Quite frankly, they can do, and have done whatever they want, and it is all completely black letter law "legal".
You might want to look into the history of the Sarbanes Oxley Act for a guidepost to the thinking. However, every written law will have complexities that allow clever lawyers to work around its clear intent & spirit. Remember, they get the cash first, and argue about who to pay latter. This gives them an enormous war-chest & advantage over everyone else.
Australia has weak accounting standards, and therefore companies are ripe for the plucking. I have a feeling the Australian public will get to see this for themselves in the not too distant future, and it will be a harsh lesson.
It is the unintended consequences of complexity, inconsistencies, imprecision, ambiguous language that create loopholes in the myriad of accounting standards & legislation. Then add in multiple jurisdictions & the language & translation of regulations & standards on top of that. The problems are extremely sublime, subtle & manifold.
The globalisation of capital means it is back to the wild west where virtually anything goes with jurisdiction shopping. The rules no longer apply, if they ever actually did. Quite frankly, they can do, and have done whatever they want, and it is all completely black letter law "legal".
You might want to look into the history of the Sarbanes Oxley Act for a guidepost to the thinking. However, every written law will have complexities that allow clever lawyers to work around its clear intent & spirit. Remember, they get the cash first, and argue about who to pay latter. This gives them an enormous war-chest & advantage over everyone else.
Australia has weak accounting standards, and therefore companies are ripe for the plucking. I have a feeling the Australian public will get to see this for themselves in the not too distant future, and it will be a harsh lesson.
CamelSquadron:
I'm labelling you as a troll, or terribly misinformed.
(1) A group of investors attempted to take the airline private with the support of management and the Board. That same group have looked at buying Qantas again as late as December 2012. Considering the continuing bizarre behaviour of managment I fail to see how conspiracy is not able to be ruled out.
(2) The ALAEA has been a model of rectitude in its dealings with Qantas, I therefore fail to see how they are "the problem". Managment has not dealt in good faith with the ALAEA in my opinion.
You really should read a lot more before making sweeping statements.
I suppose if all of your conspiracy theories are right then it is better for Qantas that the ALAEA waste its members resources on a legal action that has no chance of success.
"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."
Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!
"What is causing our action is that it appears to us that Qantas are deliberately blowing money. This in turn is reducing job security of our members and also about 28,000 others."
Your own actions are reducing the job security of your members. You have chosen to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!!!
(1) A group of investors attempted to take the airline private with the support of management and the Board. That same group have looked at buying Qantas again as late as December 2012. Considering the continuing bizarre behaviour of managment I fail to see how conspiracy is not able to be ruled out.
(2) The ALAEA has been a model of rectitude in its dealings with Qantas, I therefore fail to see how they are "the problem". Managment has not dealt in good faith with the ALAEA in my opinion.
You really should read a lot more before making sweeping statements.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ALAEA offered 25% less wages for staff in 2014 at Avalon to keep it open. Offer was rejected by the company. If you think that is a union that is causing problems I would suggest that you may be wrong.
Nev ASIC are weak as pi$$ in this country. They didn't even act when shareholders raised motions that weren't even tabled by the Board at the 2012 AGM.
Nev ASIC are weak as pi$$ in this country. They didn't even act when shareholders raised motions that weren't even tabled by the Board at the 2012 AGM.
The Jetstar Hong Kong board is evaluating options to manage its fleet in the short term as it has taken longer than anticipated to work through the approval process.
It is clear to everyone except the management double speak clowns that dreamt up this aaammmaaazzzingggg business that JQ is bleeding cash. Even a statement like the one above displays monumental stupidity. Seriously - who would have possibly thought the Chinese Govt might take a while to agree to BGA's great plan??
Who here would think that BGA losing hundreds of thousands a day on wasted aircraft is going to hurry the regulators along?
God give me strength!!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ALAEA offered 25% less wages for staff in 2014 at Avalon to keep it open. Offer was rejected by the company. If you think that is a union that is causing problems I would suggest that you may be wrong."
It was a good move but came late.
If I was in your position I would be focused on developing potential solutions involving the rest of your members now rather than wait until its too late. Get on the front foot.
Jobs are going to go and more work is going to be outsourced and off-shored. What can you do now to make your members more efficient and cost effective so they can put their best foot forward when the company evaluates its options?
Seek to make the changes now so the changes become irrefutable facts and not promises.
Yes its simplistic but you need to move forward and stop looking backwards and adapt quickly to what is a rapidly changing market.
Forget focusing on Jetstar, its a change that has already happened and its not going away. Your wasting your resources trying to fight Jestar - you need to put those resources into developing solutions.
Dont wait until February's announcements to get started - get started now!
It was a good move but came late.
If I was in your position I would be focused on developing potential solutions involving the rest of your members now rather than wait until its too late. Get on the front foot.
Jobs are going to go and more work is going to be outsourced and off-shored. What can you do now to make your members more efficient and cost effective so they can put their best foot forward when the company evaluates its options?
Seek to make the changes now so the changes become irrefutable facts and not promises.
Yes its simplistic but you need to move forward and stop looking backwards and adapt quickly to what is a rapidly changing market.
Forget focusing on Jetstar, its a change that has already happened and its not going away. Your wasting your resources trying to fight Jestar - you need to put those resources into developing solutions.
Dont wait until February's announcements to get started - get started now!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at the latest report on CAPA titled "Unit cost analysis of Emirates, IAG & Virgin; about learning from a new model, not unpicking it". Its a worthwhile read.
CS: Clearly you haven't worked for this collection of no-hope losers and incompetents. They should not ever have been allowed near anything as complicated as a mousetrap and yet an ever bigger collection of morons gave them an airline!!
Do you not think that nearly 30,000 staff have been as pro-active as they possibly can for more than 90years to make this airline a success? Imagine how you would feel watching it being stolen from, destroyed, wasted and thrown away in 10 short years?
And then to add insult to injury an equal fool suggests that staff need to change.
Yeah right!
Do you not think that nearly 30,000 staff have been as pro-active as they possibly can for more than 90years to make this airline a success? Imagine how you would feel watching it being stolen from, destroyed, wasted and thrown away in 10 short years?
And then to add insult to injury an equal fool suggests that staff need to change.
Yeah right!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that at the Price Waterhouse Coopers Engagement forum in May 2013.
One pilot stood up and said to management that the failures lay in the strategy. That before investing in untested ventures in Asia such as Red Q or JQ Japan. They had to sort out QF Mainline (Domestic & International)
The management response was something like, the Strategy is Not Negotiable.
Roll forward 8 months.
And what do you know.......
There is a complete "Strategic Review" being undertaken due in February 2014.
I wouldn't place too much faith in the strategic overview. As it comes from the same crew that gave QF;
1. A strategic review and came up with Red Q. Leslie Grant spent over 6 months on that winning strategy.
2. A strategic review to split the Domestic & International businesses to improve profitability. Financially, the losses have increased.
MC
One pilot stood up and said to management that the failures lay in the strategy. That before investing in untested ventures in Asia such as Red Q or JQ Japan. They had to sort out QF Mainline (Domestic & International)
The management response was something like, the Strategy is Not Negotiable.
Roll forward 8 months.
And what do you know.......
There is a complete "Strategic Review" being undertaken due in February 2014.
I wouldn't place too much faith in the strategic overview. As it comes from the same crew that gave QF;
1. A strategic review and came up with Red Q. Leslie Grant spent over 6 months on that winning strategy.
2. A strategic review to split the Domestic & International businesses to improve profitability. Financially, the losses have increased.
MC
Hey camel. Lets cut to the chase,
What is the 12 month loss going to be? $800 mill maybe?
So if you averaged 2200 long haul pilots at 200k you will see there is still a big hole. I'm not sure of the exact lame numbers but you might be able to get my drift.
Even if all the engineers and pilots worked for nothing, Qantas would still loose money. Do you get that? Ie, if Alan's figures are to be believed, no profit.
It's the strategies that have a far greater impact than salaries.
We all agree that efficiencies should always be looked for, but the fact is the strategies are what have decimated the share price, yield, customer loyalty and growth.
What is the 12 month loss going to be? $800 mill maybe?
So if you averaged 2200 long haul pilots at 200k you will see there is still a big hole. I'm not sure of the exact lame numbers but you might be able to get my drift.
Even if all the engineers and pilots worked for nothing, Qantas would still loose money. Do you get that? Ie, if Alan's figures are to be believed, no profit.
It's the strategies that have a far greater impact than salaries.
We all agree that efficiencies should always be looked for, but the fact is the strategies are what have decimated the share price, yield, customer loyalty and growth.
Yes V-Jet, staff need to change. Change never stops. The world will not stand still for your benefit.
So change is meant as what?
It is QF management who need to change and start running an airline.
Camel squadron's ideas are at least as obsolete as his namesake...
Camel Squadron: I reckon that it is safe to say, given my user name, that I have been around the block once or twice before you were in long pants. I have seen various generations of "Mr. Set-The-World-Afire" Mba experts try to treat airlines as a plain vanilla retail outlet chain.
Airlines are the oddest of enterprises: part political creature, part commercial, part object of national pride, part everyman's conveyance, part strategic airlift, part invisible, never inaudible.
Airlines have, over the decades, settled on something just less than one hundred employees per narrow body, and historically about 160 per wide-body. Whose fault, exactly, is it that Qantas maintains a bloated ratio nearly twice that? Fix that, starting from the top down, and you will repair the airline's profitability.
Australian airlines may be forgiven the slightly less than optimum tech-crewing ratio requirement: that is the fault of those pesky fatigue limitations as mandated by CASA. Either way, it only adds a marginally higher staff number: two or three at most.
Foreign airlines have paid and do pay higher pilot costs than Qantas: EK, AA, BA, LH, CX, SQ, DL, from time to time depending on exchange rates, etc. Australian employees are hamstrung somewhat by the very high costs of living in this delightful country: taxes, education, dwellings, food, energy, transportation, retail and recreational drugs* all cost far more here than they do in the home countries of many of our competing airlines. So too do the services of any tradesman, taxi driver, executive.
* that was a joke, by the way. I get my drugs online and save heaps!
Name any ground based employee group and try to extract more than slightly marginal savings...and see where that gets you. (It will get get you generation Y ethics/loyalty. ie. zero)** Try the same with pilots and they will, those who can***depart permanently. Why would you stay when pilot-hungry EK will insulate you from the four biggest expesnses a pilot will ever pay; Housing.Schooling.Transportaion.Taxes.
There are other airlines besides EK, by the way.
** apologies to gen x and Y, but why is that every gen Y F/A I encounter is eager to tell me how tired and hungry they are? My daughter's contemporaries dismiss most of their employer's policies with a pithy "f*ck that!" Is that what you want?
*** pilots with compliant spouses, aged less than 54. If that path is taken, then you can count on an odd experience gap over the next ten years.
So then: your contention is that staff owe the company some meaningful changes, some recognition of the realities of modern airline operations. Why is it always the staff? Do you think that airlines (or any business, for that matter) should become the playthings of the management class, and provide an (only) lower middle class income for its actual producers?
Why don't you have a hard look in the mirror, have an honest look at the results of the bold yet pig-ignorant strategy of the board and executive. And then do something appropriately final.
Airlines are the oddest of enterprises: part political creature, part commercial, part object of national pride, part everyman's conveyance, part strategic airlift, part invisible, never inaudible.
Airlines have, over the decades, settled on something just less than one hundred employees per narrow body, and historically about 160 per wide-body. Whose fault, exactly, is it that Qantas maintains a bloated ratio nearly twice that? Fix that, starting from the top down, and you will repair the airline's profitability.
Australian airlines may be forgiven the slightly less than optimum tech-crewing ratio requirement: that is the fault of those pesky fatigue limitations as mandated by CASA. Either way, it only adds a marginally higher staff number: two or three at most.
Foreign airlines have paid and do pay higher pilot costs than Qantas: EK, AA, BA, LH, CX, SQ, DL, from time to time depending on exchange rates, etc. Australian employees are hamstrung somewhat by the very high costs of living in this delightful country: taxes, education, dwellings, food, energy, transportation, retail and recreational drugs* all cost far more here than they do in the home countries of many of our competing airlines. So too do the services of any tradesman, taxi driver, executive.
* that was a joke, by the way. I get my drugs online and save heaps!
Name any ground based employee group and try to extract more than slightly marginal savings...and see where that gets you. (It will get get you generation Y ethics/loyalty. ie. zero)** Try the same with pilots and they will, those who can***depart permanently. Why would you stay when pilot-hungry EK will insulate you from the four biggest expesnses a pilot will ever pay; Housing.Schooling.Transportaion.Taxes.
There are other airlines besides EK, by the way.
** apologies to gen x and Y, but why is that every gen Y F/A I encounter is eager to tell me how tired and hungry they are? My daughter's contemporaries dismiss most of their employer's policies with a pithy "f*ck that!" Is that what you want?
*** pilots with compliant spouses, aged less than 54. If that path is taken, then you can count on an odd experience gap over the next ten years.
So then: your contention is that staff owe the company some meaningful changes, some recognition of the realities of modern airline operations. Why is it always the staff? Do you think that airlines (or any business, for that matter) should become the playthings of the management class, and provide an (only) lower middle class income for its actual producers?
Why don't you have a hard look in the mirror, have an honest look at the results of the bold yet pig-ignorant strategy of the board and executive. And then do something appropriately final.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australopithecus.
In Qantas (May 2013) there are 2,566 people at Manager level (or above) AND 8,557 Supervisors. Co-ordinating the activities of the other 23,298 employees.
MC
In Qantas (May 2013) there are 2,566 people at Manager level (or above) AND 8,557 Supervisors. Co-ordinating the activities of the other 23,298 employees.
MC