300 Qantas pilots to get the chop ???
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Easy to just gloss over CX, prof?”
No, CX is a reasonably well-managed and profitable airline. Your nice little post there was rather informative. Thank you. But you misunderstood the intent behind my CX comment.
I was merely suggesting that it is absurd for Qantas pilots to benchmark its pilot labor costs against ONE single airline in the region when the VAST majority of competitors are at the other end of the scale.
“….failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?”
Their motive is MUCH MORE significant change than your union has offered in the past several decades. Your union talks the talk but the company knows it will not walk the walk. Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?
“Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"”
Not sure what this comment is aimed at? I have not suggested the employment of a “low cost CEO”.
“Any issues with the stack?”
Yes, Qantas is run reasonably poorly, like most legacy airlines.
Most posters on here simplify the argument into “we are good and management is bad” when reality is far more complex. Qantas is in trouble; make no mistake however the BRAND is never going away. Qantas is a small player in a tiny country with a geographical disadvantage saddled with legacy costs and unfriendly government policy. AND REASONABLY POOR MANAGEMENT, particularly in the past decade.
BUT the slickest management team within the industry would still find it challenging to navigate Qantas back into health. It will be a continuing uphill battle for Qantas in its present form to fight off the Chinese airlines (and airlines from the ME) that now fly new fleets of moderate service on impressive global networks with significantly lower costs and huge Government backing. It may not be fair but it is what it is.
And with this in mind, the management at Qantas do what most management do in similar situations, they trim labor costs. And in Qantas, there is plenty to trim.
No, CX is a reasonably well-managed and profitable airline. Your nice little post there was rather informative. Thank you. But you misunderstood the intent behind my CX comment.
I was merely suggesting that it is absurd for Qantas pilots to benchmark its pilot labor costs against ONE single airline in the region when the VAST majority of competitors are at the other end of the scale.
“….failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?”
Their motive is MUCH MORE significant change than your union has offered in the past several decades. Your union talks the talk but the company knows it will not walk the walk. Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?
“Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"”
Not sure what this comment is aimed at? I have not suggested the employment of a “low cost CEO”.
“Any issues with the stack?”
Yes, Qantas is run reasonably poorly, like most legacy airlines.
Most posters on here simplify the argument into “we are good and management is bad” when reality is far more complex. Qantas is in trouble; make no mistake however the BRAND is never going away. Qantas is a small player in a tiny country with a geographical disadvantage saddled with legacy costs and unfriendly government policy. AND REASONABLY POOR MANAGEMENT, particularly in the past decade.
BUT the slickest management team within the industry would still find it challenging to navigate Qantas back into health. It will be a continuing uphill battle for Qantas in its present form to fight off the Chinese airlines (and airlines from the ME) that now fly new fleets of moderate service on impressive global networks with significantly lower costs and huge Government backing. It may not be fair but it is what it is.
And with this in mind, the management at Qantas do what most management do in similar situations, they trim labor costs. And in Qantas, there is plenty to trim.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know enough about the QF business but I do know that as a widebody longhaul captain for a major airline I once worked for, I was being out paid by my QF drinking mates who were FO's at the time. And the numbers mentioned here, I was probably on par with a senior SO at QF. Thats nuts guys and I hope it lasts but be carefull.
Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?
Bottums Up
wild goose,
Me thinks you've been away for too long. One can no longer strike as you suggest. One must apply for Protected Industrial Action (PIA) through Fair Work Australia. Even if approved, I believe the relevant minister can veto PIA at any stage.
It's not that simple any more.
Me thinks you've been away for too long. One can no longer strike as you suggest. One must apply for Protected Industrial Action (PIA) through Fair Work Australia. Even if approved, I believe the relevant minister can veto PIA at any stage.
It's not that simple any more.
I believe QANTAS won the right to manage the company in the courts. I also believe what you are asking for is called "unprotected industrial action" and incurs large fines on organisations or individuals who organise or participate in such actions. I personally can not afford the fine.
Bottums Up
wild goose,
In very broad terms what you've suggested is roughly what happened a couple of years ago. IIRC PIA had been approved but no action announced (under the legislation I think the industrial organisation must give three days notice of, and detail the type of action to be taken), the only action the pilots were taking, if it could be called action, was the wearing of red ties and some made PA announcements.
QF shut down for a day or so, stranded thousands of folk, at a cost said to be circa $200,000,000.
The days of industrial action that you probably recall, are long gone. In some ways this is good, as it takes the bastardry out of things. But it also severely limits employees flexing any muscle.
In very broad terms what you've suggested is roughly what happened a couple of years ago. IIRC PIA had been approved but no action announced (under the legislation I think the industrial organisation must give three days notice of, and detail the type of action to be taken), the only action the pilots were taking, if it could be called action, was the wearing of red ties and some made PA announcements.
QF shut down for a day or so, stranded thousands of folk, at a cost said to be circa $200,000,000.
The days of industrial action that you probably recall, are long gone. In some ways this is good, as it takes the bastardry out of things. But it also severely limits employees flexing any muscle.
And it was a labor government who gave us the poxy legislation. Go figure.
The legislation encourages a gridlock which ends in arbitration and justifies the existance of fair work Australia.
But we negotiated in 'good faith' shriek both parties.
The legislation encourages a gridlock which ends in arbitration and justifies the existance of fair work Australia.
But we negotiated in 'good faith' shriek both parties.
WG: Your concern and appreciation of the issues are both greatly appreciated.
These idiots have, over the last ten years, done every single thing they possibly can do to a) Extract as much cash as they possibly can for themselves and b)Systematically destroy the business with every single decision they have made being indescribably bad for the Company - that is still paying their wages BTW.
There have been great minds trying to work out an approach that might achieve something, but when the CEO is legally protected when he decides 'waking up one morning' to shut an international airline and National Flag Carrier down completely to stop evil unionists wearing red ties instead of normal black ones and making legally approved 15 second PA's at Top of Descent it is very difficult to work out what you can do that might work.
The thing that throws people is that the board should be looking out for this type of thing, but it is a conspiracy and an enormously big one. The question is really: Is it a conspiracy of truly monumental stupidity and incompetence, or a conspiracy involving the greatest theft of money from a public company ever seen in Australia?
Putting my right wing hat on (which is usually stuck firmly on my head anyway) my argument in favour of the status quo is that it should NOT be the Govts 'job' to ensure public companies are operated in the best interests of the shareholders and national interest.
For some bizarre reason (it is Sunfish and others long held belief that NYC Hedge Funds want to have half the Domestic airline travel in their pocket) the major shareholders seem to be supporting this indescribably bizarre situation, so really what could the govt do? Shareholders, Board and Management are actually all in cahoots against the evil Unionist. Sure the Govt is a big shareholder, but it does have other issues to deal with than working out who is telling bigger fibs in the airline industry.
What I can tell you from the inside and from just on 30 years of working for them, that it is absolutely awful to witness something you work so hard for over so long, being totally destroyed by people who don't care about the Company at all. 'They' are gambling with 'our' beloved Company.
These idiots have, over the last ten years, done every single thing they possibly can do to a) Extract as much cash as they possibly can for themselves and b)Systematically destroy the business with every single decision they have made being indescribably bad for the Company - that is still paying their wages BTW.
There have been great minds trying to work out an approach that might achieve something, but when the CEO is legally protected when he decides 'waking up one morning' to shut an international airline and National Flag Carrier down completely to stop evil unionists wearing red ties instead of normal black ones and making legally approved 15 second PA's at Top of Descent it is very difficult to work out what you can do that might work.
The thing that throws people is that the board should be looking out for this type of thing, but it is a conspiracy and an enormously big one. The question is really: Is it a conspiracy of truly monumental stupidity and incompetence, or a conspiracy involving the greatest theft of money from a public company ever seen in Australia?
Putting my right wing hat on (which is usually stuck firmly on my head anyway) my argument in favour of the status quo is that it should NOT be the Govts 'job' to ensure public companies are operated in the best interests of the shareholders and national interest.
For some bizarre reason (it is Sunfish and others long held belief that NYC Hedge Funds want to have half the Domestic airline travel in their pocket) the major shareholders seem to be supporting this indescribably bizarre situation, so really what could the govt do? Shareholders, Board and Management are actually all in cahoots against the evil Unionist. Sure the Govt is a big shareholder, but it does have other issues to deal with than working out who is telling bigger fibs in the airline industry.
What I can tell you from the inside and from just on 30 years of working for them, that it is absolutely awful to witness something you work so hard for over so long, being totally destroyed by people who don't care about the Company at all. 'They' are gambling with 'our' beloved Company.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Age: 48
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That isn't why he shut the airline down, when not gatecrashing the Anzac Day Parade(because "we flew the troops" to Saigon) the Qantas Pilots were babbling about wanting "job security". Joyce knew they had a complete disconnect with reality but he could put up with them their red ties, although their verbal moaning to passengers about how tough they had it was becoming very tiresome.
He shut the airline down because the self proclaimed "engineers" (spe) had promised to do him slowly, and gradually escalate their industrial action. The spe had a lot of form in this area costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars in their various industrial actions on previous EBA actions notably 2005. The were happy to wreak complete economic vandalism on their own employer.
The shutdown brought finality to all of the industrial actions. What do you suggest Joyce should have actually done? , what were his choices ? Remember he was dealing with pilots who thought they had some entitlement to job security , and some who had deluded themselves into thinking they were some kind of combat veterans. Then he had spanner monkeys who thought they were engineers, and had form for costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars.
I would suggest to you that the man (Joyce) didn't really have a whole lot to work with
He shut the airline down because the self proclaimed "engineers" (spe) had promised to do him slowly, and gradually escalate their industrial action. The spe had a lot of form in this area costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars in their various industrial actions on previous EBA actions notably 2005. The were happy to wreak complete economic vandalism on their own employer.
The shutdown brought finality to all of the industrial actions. What do you suggest Joyce should have actually done? , what were his choices ? Remember he was dealing with pilots who thought they had some entitlement to job security , and some who had deluded themselves into thinking they were some kind of combat veterans. Then he had spanner monkeys who thought they were engineers, and had form for costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars.
I would suggest to you that the man (Joyce) didn't really have a whole lot to work with
You are an idiot.
V-jet
In the period before the shutdown, unions had taken well-orchestrated stoppages that created a lot of uncertainty with the travelling public. Forward bookings literally fell off the cliff. The only real option available to QF was to take the action that it did. The travelling public required and deserved certainty. It's interesting to note that it didn't take long after certainty was assured that the forwards started to look healthy.
Call me and others idiots if you wish should you have another point of view but doing so says more about you than others.
In the period before the shutdown, unions had taken well-orchestrated stoppages that created a lot of uncertainty with the travelling public. Forward bookings literally fell off the cliff. The only real option available to QF was to take the action that it did. The travelling public required and deserved certainty. It's interesting to note that it didn't take long after certainty was assured that the forwards started to look healthy.
Call me and others idiots if you wish should you have another point of view but doing so says more about you than others.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Ken,
I'm with V-Jet .. there is ample evidence that the shutdown and lockout were planned well in advance as a union-busting exercise. To say Management had no choice is completely incorrect.
It is just unfortunate for them that their plans did not come to fruition in FWA.
N
PS .. tinytesticles ... bit early for the red ink?
I'm with V-Jet .. there is ample evidence that the shutdown and lockout were planned well in advance as a union-busting exercise. To say Management had no choice is completely incorrect.
It is just unfortunate for them that their plans did not come to fruition in FWA.
N
PS .. tinytesticles ... bit early for the red ink?
NOIP
I'll play good and agree to disagree with you. I think M'ment was so frustrated and fed-up with intransigent behaviour, as were the customers, something drastic had to be done. The damage would have been far greater had they not acted as they did. .
I'll play good and agree to disagree with you.
I think M'ment was so frustrated and fed-up with intransigent behaviour, as were the customers, something drastic had to be done. The damage would have been far greater had they not acted as they did. .
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again ken your facts are skewed. The engineers had been in negotiation for a new Eba for 18 months. Meaning the old Eba was expired for that period. The company refused to negotiate or even attempt to resolve the matter. Funny how these facts are never spoken about. The previous Eba was the same. So what would you have the employees do. Have no workplace agreement ? The matters you talk about seem beyond your grasp
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Options
Flyboat North
Fair question.
He chose to lock out the parties taking protected industrial action (PIA) and grounded the airline until the lockout period commenced based on an internal safety department risk assessment. This forced the Government to apply to FWA to have the industrial action terminated under s 424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA 2009) on the basis that it caused significant damage to an important part of the Australian economy.
I think he had two other options:
1. Apply to the FWA under section 423 of FWA 2009 to terminate the PIA on the basis that it was causing significant economic harm to Qantas that it could not bear. This would have achieved the same outcome as the one he got but without adversely effecting all the paying passengers.
2. Negotiate with the unions to make a new workplace agreement.
You and he seemed to think that option 2 was not feasible.
I still have not seen any coherent reason given why option 1 was not attempted first.
The shutdown brought finality to all of the industrial actions. What do you suggest Joyce should have actually done? , what were his choices ?
He chose to lock out the parties taking protected industrial action (PIA) and grounded the airline until the lockout period commenced based on an internal safety department risk assessment. This forced the Government to apply to FWA to have the industrial action terminated under s 424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA 2009) on the basis that it caused significant damage to an important part of the Australian economy.
I think he had two other options:
1. Apply to the FWA under section 423 of FWA 2009 to terminate the PIA on the basis that it was causing significant economic harm to Qantas that it could not bear. This would have achieved the same outcome as the one he got but without adversely effecting all the paying passengers.
2. Negotiate with the unions to make a new workplace agreement.
You and he seemed to think that option 2 was not feasible.
I still have not seen any coherent reason given why option 1 was not attempted first.
Last edited by GaryGnu; 22nd May 2014 at 07:27. Reason: replace "suspend" with "terminate"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 72
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ballsdeep
I thought you were being derogatory in calling Qantas pilots "sky gods", from what you say you would not insult others so it would seem you hold them in high esteem!
But then:
I realized my error and that you are still just a troll!
Why do you sky gods insist on insulting others just because they have opinions that differ to yours?
But then:
you decrepit old fools
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: W1
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boatfly and small balls please stop posting, I know you are only doing what your masters want you to say but it is bad enough reading the headlines you clowns put out in the company comms email each day. Bitter ill informed comment on this forum that is just very upsetting for those at QF who are very vulnerable at the moment to the massive mis management of a once great company- no doubt this pleases you. Ignore the posts of these trolls.