Ethics in Union Representation
So, You believe the international operation is not justified, or the whole outfit?? Curtains for Qantas??
Perhaps you believe that all airlines in Australia should be foreign operated ??
Do tell us more --- with a compelling business case, of course ---- not just expressions of blind prejudice.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it something to brag about saying they have lower crew costs than United, who don’t have second officers.
Surely you’re pulling his leg? No one can be this obtuse?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect my rhetorical sarcasm, a play on the usual management mantra that the entire future of the operation hinges on continuous reductions in T&C was missed.
For accuracy the 787’s weren’t deferred they were cancelled. Initially 15 787’s were understandably cancelled after the GFC by AJ. Fast forward to 2012 and AJ cancelled the remaining 35 firm orders for the 787-9’s.
The initial order was for 50 firm(all cancelled)
The initial order was for 50 firm(all cancelled)
Look at the proven history of what had occurred:
- Every single firm order was cancelled.
- Aircraft we had on fleet were being taken away and given to Jetstar.
- The only new long haul aircraft being ordered were for Jetstar.
- We were cancelling routes and reducing frequencies across the network.
- Pilots were being actively encouraged to go and find employment elsewhere or take voluntary redundancy.
These were not threats, this was the daily reality.
How one could stand by and say, “they won’t wind down international, it’s all a bluff”, while they were doing it right in front of your eyes baffles me.
Last edited by Beer Baron; 3rd Mar 2019 at 21:29.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lake Como
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why I can’t understand why people believe that not ordering the 787 was all an industrial bluff and the plane was always going to come.
Look at the proven history of what had occurred:
- Every single firm order was cancelled.
- Aircraft we had on fleet were being taken away and given to Jetstar.
- The only new long haul aircraft being ordered were for Jetstar.
- We were cancelling routes and reducing frequencies across the network.
- Pilots were being actively encouraged to go and find employment elsewhere or take voluntary redundancy.
These were not threats, this was the daily reality.
How one could stand by and say, “they won’t wind down international, it’s all a bluff”, while they were doing it right in front of your eyes baffles me.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because frequent flyer is valueless without the lure of a free trip overseas.
Because with the right equipment you can actually make money with international ops.
Because people don’t really like transiting through the Middle East.
Because they have to hide Jetstar's operating losses somewhere.
Because its says right there on the side of the (domestic) plane: Australia’s Overseas Airline
Because frequent flyer is valueless without the lure of a free trip overseas.
Because with the right equipment you can actually make money with international ops.
Because people don’t really like transiting through the Middle East.
Because they have to hide Jetstar's operating losses somewhere.
Because its says right there on the side of the (domestic) plane: Australia’s Overseas Airline
What changed Beer Baron? Why was International saved?
Let’s not forget, they had plenty of other options of where to put the money, options they had preferenced many times over the previous decade. Qantas is no longer just an international airline and the Qantas Group can and has spent their money on all sorts of different projects with various levels of success and failure. (Australian Airlines, Impulse, JQ domestic, JQ International, Network, JQ Asia, Australian Air Express, Red Q, JQ Pacific, JQ Hong Kong, Health Insurance, JQ Japan, Credit Cards, Jets Road Shipping, Alliance, etc.)
Investing in longhaul aircraft is hardly a certainty anymore. There will be return hurdles they need to achieve or the money will go to another entity. Just today Andrew David stated that the next tranch of 787 orders may well go to Jetstar as they have a compelling business case.
I hate that this is our new reality but that’s the way things are now.
Or you can believe the grand conspiracy theory that some posters on here love to (repeatedly) espouse. But how a CEO, that we are told is basically incompetent, could orchestrate and pull off a decade long plan involving numerous department heads, a union president, a shutdown, billions of dollars in losses, no dividends for nearly a decade, a bailout request and a fuel price crash, is a bit hard for me to swallow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“It was Rated who turned this into a discussion about fleet metrics and buy backs about 10 or 12 posts above, not me.”
It is the fleet composition that is responsible for the declining EBIT and Operating Margin, something that the Stream lead neglected to mention. Delivering the HY19 results, Little Napoleon noted that the International business spent more on fuel, flying the longer distances.That the Operating margin declined to 2.4% is not at issue, what is challenged is why did it drop: Qantas spend more on fuel for their fleet than other airlines, as they lack sufficient widebody twin engine aircraft.
That the company is the more than the sum of the parts is intuitive.
On first principles this is the reason why corporates tend to look for synergies horizontally and vertically integrating things like supply chains.
The value of the Frequent Flyer business without an international flight redemption option is marginal. Qantas now know this. A frequent flyer business doesn't do so well converting points for groceries. The analysts recognise this too. . Little Napoleon previously stated that International had shrunk as far as it effectively could. (paraphrase) In part the reasoning may well be this reality: Cut anymore and a rush of redemption of points may follow.
Simply put, International needs domestic, domestic needs international. Were Qantas to choose to provide more clarity, there is likely a co-dependence between some Jetstar and Qantas intersegment sales.
The business as a whole is better than each individually.
Thus to focus on one segment at the expense of the other is disingenuous, although it is a well tested IR strategy.
After all, JQ International isn't even reported as a segment..Wonder why?
Yet IR hope that pilots forget all this
They and the new Manager of Pilot Performance, hope also that pilots have forgotten that the ‘terminal decline’ of Qantas International took everybody by surprise.
Terminal itself is an interesting word, suggestive there is only one outcome., Yet amazingly after a grounding and a big write down of fleet, Qantas was transformed. Coincident was the fear and uncertainty that this series of events engendered in staff and customers alike. IR like this as it is where they wedge people; drive fear and concessions follow.
That the staff signed up for pay freezes, as did their managers, is to be applauded. Qantas had its 'biggest loss' in FY14. One might posit though that the loss was on paper.That the business was 'transformed' a year later shades a rather important point: Whilst pay freezes were served by the staff they did not benefit from the huge amounts of share options with 'curious' vesting dates. The managers did.
Mr Oldmeadow made his fortune changing sides and has for decades directed IR at Qantas, he still does, although these days he remains behind the curtain. There are new faces.
That the Stream Lead sits opposite the pilots he once purported to represent, claiming that Qantas International is in trouble again (as the Operating Margin has declined) is designed, right on cue to drive another fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign.
Precisely on message, right on time it emerges, just as he is selected to lead an IR negotiation. Is this a surprise?
With leisure travel perks ranking with those of the most senior flight operations officer like the DFO, it is rather obvious that there is a new paymaster:IR.
Ethically, perhaps it is time an open and transparent dialogue about personal conflict and motivation is needed. That way the relative merit of any financial commentary offered by the new IR manager can be weighed against his discretionary personal benefit (bonus), which like his leisure travel category, will likely eclipse most, if not all the Flight Operations senior managers.
It is the fleet composition that is responsible for the declining EBIT and Operating Margin, something that the Stream lead neglected to mention. Delivering the HY19 results, Little Napoleon noted that the International business spent more on fuel, flying the longer distances.That the Operating margin declined to 2.4% is not at issue, what is challenged is why did it drop: Qantas spend more on fuel for their fleet than other airlines, as they lack sufficient widebody twin engine aircraft.
That the company is the more than the sum of the parts is intuitive.
On first principles this is the reason why corporates tend to look for synergies horizontally and vertically integrating things like supply chains.
The value of the Frequent Flyer business without an international flight redemption option is marginal. Qantas now know this. A frequent flyer business doesn't do so well converting points for groceries. The analysts recognise this too. . Little Napoleon previously stated that International had shrunk as far as it effectively could. (paraphrase) In part the reasoning may well be this reality: Cut anymore and a rush of redemption of points may follow.
Simply put, International needs domestic, domestic needs international. Were Qantas to choose to provide more clarity, there is likely a co-dependence between some Jetstar and Qantas intersegment sales.
The business as a whole is better than each individually.
Thus to focus on one segment at the expense of the other is disingenuous, although it is a well tested IR strategy.
After all, JQ International isn't even reported as a segment..Wonder why?
Yet IR hope that pilots forget all this
They and the new Manager of Pilot Performance, hope also that pilots have forgotten that the ‘terminal decline’ of Qantas International took everybody by surprise.
Terminal itself is an interesting word, suggestive there is only one outcome., Yet amazingly after a grounding and a big write down of fleet, Qantas was transformed. Coincident was the fear and uncertainty that this series of events engendered in staff and customers alike. IR like this as it is where they wedge people; drive fear and concessions follow.
That the staff signed up for pay freezes, as did their managers, is to be applauded. Qantas had its 'biggest loss' in FY14. One might posit though that the loss was on paper.That the business was 'transformed' a year later shades a rather important point: Whilst pay freezes were served by the staff they did not benefit from the huge amounts of share options with 'curious' vesting dates. The managers did.
Mr Oldmeadow made his fortune changing sides and has for decades directed IR at Qantas, he still does, although these days he remains behind the curtain. There are new faces.
That the Stream Lead sits opposite the pilots he once purported to represent, claiming that Qantas International is in trouble again (as the Operating Margin has declined) is designed, right on cue to drive another fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign.
Precisely on message, right on time it emerges, just as he is selected to lead an IR negotiation. Is this a surprise?
With leisure travel perks ranking with those of the most senior flight operations officer like the DFO, it is rather obvious that there is a new paymaster:IR.
Ethically, perhaps it is time an open and transparent dialogue about personal conflict and motivation is needed. That way the relative merit of any financial commentary offered by the new IR manager can be weighed against his discretionary personal benefit (bonus), which like his leisure travel category, will likely eclipse most, if not all the Flight Operations senior managers.
Last edited by Rated De; 4th Mar 2019 at 04:50. Reason: horrible structure
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might just be the most repetitive person in the history of the internet...
Why is JQ international not reported separately? Because the capital invested in it is minuscule compared to the many billions invested in the 380s, 747s, 787s and 330s in mainline international. Simple. JQ wa supposed to get 14 788s. That was reduced to 11 because the market changed. The board didn’t just blindly put the last 3 airframes in to JQ despite your silly conspiracy theories.
Why is JQ international not reported separately? Because the capital invested in it is minuscule compared to the many billions invested in the 380s, 747s, 787s and 330s in mainline international. Simple. JQ wa supposed to get 14 788s. That was reduced to 11 because the market changed. The board didn’t just blindly put the last 3 airframes in to JQ despite your silly conspiracy theories.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey RatdeDe
Pretty sure that we all get the following:
1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.
I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.
What I want to know from you is - so what?
Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?
Thanks in advance.
Pretty sure that we all get the following:
1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.
I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.
What I want to know from you is - so what?
Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by Vindiesel; 4th Mar 2019 at 06:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey RatdeDe
Pretty sure that we all get the following:
1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.
I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.
What I want to know from you is - so what?
Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?
Thanks in advance.
Pretty sure that we all get the following:
1. You despise Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford and NS.
2. You think the last EBA was a dud deal and that everyone was hoodwinked.
3. You think Q international must inevitably exist no matter what because it adds value to domestic and to frequent flyer, even if it's a marginal operation in its own right.
4. You reckon that JQ international costs are hidden in mainline for industrial purposes.
I got all that. I'm sure the many readers out there will make up for themselves in their mind to what extent all the above is true / relevant.
What I want to know from you is - so what?
Let us assume we all believe you or agree with you and therefore we all vote no to whatever upcoming eba comes our way. So we vote no and QF inevitably says 'no planes for you until we have certainty'. We then keep voting no or never vote anything up. What does this gain for us or prove? Are we trying to get in front of fair work Australia for another arbitration? If so, please ell me how/why this is a good idea? Are you saying we then embark on PIA expecting that Joyce and the directorship of QF capitulate and give us A380 terms and conditions for 787s and future types? I guess what I am asking you is - where exactly does this lead the pilot group in practical terms of strategy?
Thanks in advance.
Central to understand what happened it to first admit to yourself you were being manipulated. Is there a Qantas staff member who believes that the grounding was not orchestrated?
If you answer yes, ask yourself to what purpose would Qantas want to lever the events of 29 October 2011.
That the 'terminal' (death) of Qantas was averted is a relief, but we ask was it ever terminal? If not why do what they did?
The 'transformation' was on the back of lower fuel prices and a depreciation adjustment. The latter an audit and management timing issue. The former luck.
That Qantas now seems to be using (at least from the Stream lead's comments) the decline again would suggest, given Little Napoleon's comments about fuel impact long haul to be both premature and incorrect.
With respect to Jetstar we believe the business to be over scale . Emirates have announced a pivot away from the A380, preferring the big twins. The data suggests a similar scale issue. To what extent is a judgement that varies from firm to firm.
Whilst the veiled personal criticism seems a little wasted, we ask you practically to consider why Qantas would choose not to report JQ in operating segments? The reason is that they choose not to.
That it forms part of a broader company strategic narrative may be true, but it isn't an economic one. What other purpose could they hope it serves?
With respect to Fair Work and Arbitration, it would appear that being forced to binding arbitration, had little downside, it appeared that the commission failed to cut where the company wanted to cut.
The 787 deal is not our purview. We think that on a cost basis, Little Napoleon is right the savings are substantial.
That a former Union President now is an IR negotiator and simultaneously espouses 'operating margin' declines whilst comfortably enjoying high level leisure travel and other 'incentives' to negotiate a deal bought us to this thread.
Ethics and morality.
Qantas is not in terminal decline, the International business is not in decline, yet someone with a vested interests speak of a -win-win, when patently declining to outline just what financial inducements he secure from such a deal.
We believe that to be both dishonest and disingenuous.
With respect to your legislative remedy, as is the case in most western economies it is much harder to withdraw labour. Even when the pilots tried with small non-monetary measures, the government backed the company.
The Hon Paul Keating suggested a different strategy that would have sorted the day.
As a former DFO said to a former CEO , and we paraphrase, who was going to outsource flying to (insert subsidiary) 'you can do that but in the interim every flight will divert and in two weeks you have no airline so go ahead'
The reason why IR focus on pilots is that as a collective pilots can bleed an airline rapidly. Cash flow is a fickle beast.
Ask any analyst who covers airlines, it is a fair bet that they ask in the first two questions, "what is the relationship with pilots?"
Thus they spend huge time and indeed money, even parachute a former Union President in to convey the message of woe.
Whether one believes it when in every Qantas' pilot's memory your airline has been terminal and transformed.
Now on schedule up pops a lead IR negotiator with selective quotes saying yet again the business is in trouble...
We leave it to the readership, but it is worth quoting the orator of note, George W Bush.
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread guys and I have watched all this unfold from the inside....both your former President's path and former Federal Secretaries of my union who have done the dog on us and crossed directly over.
I say that only 2% of workers want to be union Reps/delegates be it for Pilots, LAMEs or any other profession, most people just want to work without worrying about the hassles. Of those who want to get involved in their union, only half are doing it for the correct reason with the other half in it for themselves. I think I can pick a good Rep early on, even when I was a young LAME I knew my leaders were trying to sell lemons on behalf of the company. You know this because they are always encouraging yes votes at EA time.
The ALAEA has since 2006 when I was elected to my role had a fixed position on all EBA votes. We never recommend one way or another. The offer itself is what is being considered and it should sell itself. This way you will also get better deals. You should not have been sold your last EA offer by AIPA. Members do listen to advice from the likes of NS on which way to go with a proposal and he should never have intervened.
Nobody should rise to union leadership with a view to seeking internal promotion within that company. I consider it a low act that undermines the trust people put into their representatives. My predecessor jumped ship as did most of them and it gave our Association a bad name. They all took inside knowledge to the other side and airlines will pay big money to get that info. You need to be very careful who your comm elects to the role of AIPA President and although I haven't met the new boss yet, I hope he is better than NS and as good as Woodsy and Barry.
cheers
Steve Purvinas
I say that only 2% of workers want to be union Reps/delegates be it for Pilots, LAMEs or any other profession, most people just want to work without worrying about the hassles. Of those who want to get involved in their union, only half are doing it for the correct reason with the other half in it for themselves. I think I can pick a good Rep early on, even when I was a young LAME I knew my leaders were trying to sell lemons on behalf of the company. You know this because they are always encouraging yes votes at EA time.
The ALAEA has since 2006 when I was elected to my role had a fixed position on all EBA votes. We never recommend one way or another. The offer itself is what is being considered and it should sell itself. This way you will also get better deals. You should not have been sold your last EA offer by AIPA. Members do listen to advice from the likes of NS on which way to go with a proposal and he should never have intervened.
Nobody should rise to union leadership with a view to seeking internal promotion within that company. I consider it a low act that undermines the trust people put into their representatives. My predecessor jumped ship as did most of them and it gave our Association a bad name. They all took inside knowledge to the other side and airlines will pay big money to get that info. You need to be very careful who your comm elects to the role of AIPA President and although I haven't met the new boss yet, I hope he is better than NS and as good as Woodsy and Barry.
cheers
Steve Purvinas
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“ it would appear that being forced to binding arbitration, had little downside,”
Apart from:
1. Arbitrated change from CAO48 to CAO48E industry exemption as the new Flight and Duty limits and insertion of clause 11 requiring Aipa to agree to FRMS without ‘unreasonable’ disaproval. Good luck with interpreting that one.
2. Introduction of SBLs that are now totally broken and dysfunctional such that they are easily avoided.
3. Standard pay rises that were available without millions in legal fees and red ties.
4. Introduction of redeployment - a subversion of seniority
5. Introduction of postings to replace the security/rewards of bases/localised lines.
6. Most critically: confirmation for AJ that fair work will never arbitrate a pay scale for a new type.
The wins for pilots were.........?
Apart from:
1. Arbitrated change from CAO48 to CAO48E industry exemption as the new Flight and Duty limits and insertion of clause 11 requiring Aipa to agree to FRMS without ‘unreasonable’ disaproval. Good luck with interpreting that one.
2. Introduction of SBLs that are now totally broken and dysfunctional such that they are easily avoided.
3. Standard pay rises that were available without millions in legal fees and red ties.
4. Introduction of redeployment - a subversion of seniority
5. Introduction of postings to replace the security/rewards of bases/localised lines.
6. Most critically: confirmation for AJ that fair work will never arbitrate a pay scale for a new type.
The wins for pilots were.........?
Wasn’t the 787 pay scales a win for the pilots?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts