Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
But the average punter - have they turned away from QF in any effective way? It looks like just as many people in the QF terminals. I'm not
so sure it has changed the punter's travelling habits. I hope it has. But like hearing that someone you hardly know has got a terminal disease - we forget about it and get on
with our own lives.
so sure it has changed the punter's travelling habits. I hope it has. But like hearing that someone you hardly know has got a terminal disease - we forget about it and get on
with our own lives.
Punters are not turning away in droves because they have little choice, so where is the incentive to improve?
Lack of action could jeopardize the company in the long term, but other than the longer serving staff who really cares?
Goyder is halfway out the door with his cronies, the institutional investors enabled the current mess in the first place with thier short term focus, and joe public will get to A-B with whoever fills the void.
I hope I'm wrong, but anecdotally it does seem to be unfolding that way.
Will Hudson follow suite? I doubt it.
Save
ShareVirgin Australia has dodged the threat of disruptive industrial action from ground staff during the peak Christmas period, agreeing to a pay deal that will deliver some workers pay rises as high as 20 per cent in the first year.
The three-year pay deal involves a minimum 14.9 per cent increase across all pay grades, regardless of seniority, and comes after baggage handlers and cleaners won the right to a protected action ballot at the Fair Work Commission in late October.
The Transport Workers Union says the Virgin pay deal “corrects pay and conditions after pandemic sacrifice” for staff including baggage handlers and cleaners. Robert Rough Ground workers won 8.4 per cent in the first year, followed by 3 per cent and 3.5 per cent, after forgoing wage increases during the COVID-19 pandemic and as Virgin Australia entered administration. The airline has returned to profit for the first time in 11 years, as appetite for travel propelled earnings.
A small cohort of managers will get 20 per cent in year one of the agreement in recognition of their sacrifices during the pandemic, the Transport Workers Union said.
It is understood the highest-paid ground workers earn $67,000 a year before penalties and allowances while the lowest paid are believed to earn about $48,886 a year. The deal sets a precedent as Virgin tries to close out negotiations with cabin crew and pilots, before it resumes work to relist on the ASX in May. Cabin crew also sought the right to a protected action ballot last week after failing to reach agreement on pay.
The Reserve Bank of Australia is closely watching wage growth to ensure it does not spiral and undermine inflation-fighting measures. Annual wages growth hit 4 per cent in the September quarter, at the upper band of what the RBA sees as sustainable for inflation.
A Virgin spokeswoman said the airline was pleased to have reached agreement and stressed costs were not disproportionately high.
“The overall cost of this agreement is in line with the agreements we have reached with other work groups, and include increases to base wages, skills progression adjustments, allowances and productivity improvements,” she said.
TWU National Secretary Michael Kaine acknowledged Virgin had not followed rival Qantas’ lead, after the High Court ruled that Qantas had acted illegally in sacking 1700 ground workers at least in part to ward off industrial action.
“Workers are the backbone of an airline. Virgin’s commitment to in-source more jobs is a stark contrast to the brutal, illegal outsourcing approach of its rival, Qantas,” Mr Kaine said.
“Good, secure jobs are the answer to rebuilding Virgin Australia and the aviation industry. This deal will encourage workers to remain with the airline, while increased part-time hours and full-time positions will assist with on-time performance.”
The TWU said Virgin has also agreed to implement workplace safety measures including an extreme weather policy and changes to rostering numbers, “as well as correcting poverty pay that had led to workers juggling second or third jobs.”
“This is the premium enterprise agreement Virgin workers knew they needed to achieve from Bain Capital to correct pay and conditions and make jobs more secure after administration and pandemic sacrifices had left them struggling to make ends meet,” Mr Kaine said
Virgin ground staff win pay rises of up to 20 per cent
Ayesha de KretserSenior reporterNov 20, 2023 – 4.24pmSave
ShareVirgin Australia has dodged the threat of disruptive industrial action from ground staff during the peak Christmas period, agreeing to a pay deal that will deliver some workers pay rises as high as 20 per cent in the first year.
The three-year pay deal involves a minimum 14.9 per cent increase across all pay grades, regardless of seniority, and comes after baggage handlers and cleaners won the right to a protected action ballot at the Fair Work Commission in late October.
The Transport Workers Union says the Virgin pay deal “corrects pay and conditions after pandemic sacrifice” for staff including baggage handlers and cleaners. Robert Rough Ground workers won 8.4 per cent in the first year, followed by 3 per cent and 3.5 per cent, after forgoing wage increases during the COVID-19 pandemic and as Virgin Australia entered administration. The airline has returned to profit for the first time in 11 years, as appetite for travel propelled earnings.A small cohort of managers will get 20 per cent in year one of the agreement in recognition of their sacrifices during the pandemic, the Transport Workers Union said.
It is understood the highest-paid ground workers earn $67,000 a year before penalties and allowances while the lowest paid are believed to earn about $48,886 a year. The deal sets a precedent as Virgin tries to close out negotiations with cabin crew and pilots, before it resumes work to relist on the ASX in May. Cabin crew also sought the right to a protected action ballot last week after failing to reach agreement on pay.
The Reserve Bank of Australia is closely watching wage growth to ensure it does not spiral and undermine inflation-fighting measures. Annual wages growth hit 4 per cent in the September quarter, at the upper band of what the RBA sees as sustainable for inflation.
A Virgin spokeswoman said the airline was pleased to have reached agreement and stressed costs were not disproportionately high.
“The overall cost of this agreement is in line with the agreements we have reached with other work groups, and include increases to base wages, skills progression adjustments, allowances and productivity improvements,” she said.
TWU National Secretary Michael Kaine acknowledged Virgin had not followed rival Qantas’ lead, after the High Court ruled that Qantas had acted illegally in sacking 1700 ground workers at least in part to ward off industrial action.
“Workers are the backbone of an airline. Virgin’s commitment to in-source more jobs is a stark contrast to the brutal, illegal outsourcing approach of its rival, Qantas,” Mr Kaine said.
“Good, secure jobs are the answer to rebuilding Virgin Australia and the aviation industry. This deal will encourage workers to remain with the airline, while increased part-time hours and full-time positions will assist with on-time performance.”
The TWU said Virgin has also agreed to implement workplace safety measures including an extreme weather policy and changes to rostering numbers, “as well as correcting poverty pay that had led to workers juggling second or third jobs.”
“This is the premium enterprise agreement Virgin workers knew they needed to achieve from Bain Capital to correct pay and conditions and make jobs more secure after administration and pandemic sacrifices had left them struggling to make ends meet,” Mr Kaine said
The following 2 users liked this post by The Love Doctor:
Will Hudson follow suite? I doubt it.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Just playing devil's advocate here for a bit.
Media writers and readers of Pprune are keeping QF's behaviour at the front of mind - we read here, we back each other up, we argue, we learn new stuff. It's still active
as far as we are concerned. But the average punter - have they turned away from QF in any effective way? It looks like just as many people in the QF terminals. I'm not
so sure it has changed the punter's travelling habits. I hope it has. But like hearing that someone you hardly know has got a terminal disease - we forget about it and get on
with our own lives.
I hope the rhetoric continues - I'm just sceptical about the true outcomes. I also hope Pruners can give me examples of where it has all hurt QF.
Media writers and readers of Pprune are keeping QF's behaviour at the front of mind - we read here, we back each other up, we argue, we learn new stuff. It's still active
as far as we are concerned. But the average punter - have they turned away from QF in any effective way? It looks like just as many people in the QF terminals. I'm not
so sure it has changed the punter's travelling habits. I hope it has. But like hearing that someone you hardly know has got a terminal disease - we forget about it and get on
with our own lives.
I hope the rhetoric continues - I'm just sceptical about the true outcomes. I also hope Pruners can give me examples of where it has all hurt QF.
The following users liked this post:
I had some sympathy for Qantas but it’s very interesting they are just charging a ‘booking fee’ on top of Expedia - which they no doubt do with everyone they do business with
——————
Hotel booking made with Qantas website ‘didn’t exist’ when Aussie arrived at accomodation
A non-existent hotel booking was what greeted an Australian man after his long-haul flight, despite him paying Qantas for it months earlier.An Australian man has revealed the crushing moment he arrived at the overseas accommodation he booked and paid for via Qantas only to be told his booking didn’t exist.
Melbourne local Aaron Smith paid for his 12-night stay at Apollo Dimora Calicut, in India’s south, through the Qantas website in September, along with his flights.
When he arrived at the hotel – where he stayed for a business trip – on November 9 however, staff claimed they had no record of his booking, and because it was late in the evening, he had no way of contacting the airline.
“We resolved to create a temporary booking so I could contact Qantas in the morning, which I did, but they reiterated that the booking was active and confirmed,” Mr Smith told news.com.au.
Hotel staff initially doubled down on having no record and it was only after several days it found his booking.
At that point however, staff told him he would need to pay about 30 per cent more than what he paid through the Qantas site because he had been given the incorrect rate.
A series of chat messages and emails between the traveller and Qantas subsequently unfolded, during which it was revealed that Qantas was “essentially a wrapper” for Expedia, a third-party holiday booking site.
Both the hotel and airline told him they were “waiting on Expedia” to resolve the issue, despite the site not being mentioned at all throughout the booking process.
Mr Smith argued Expedia should have been “completely taken out of the loop in the resolution” given Qantas didn’t outwardly indicate it used the site.
“My suspicion is that the hotel doesn’t manage its listings very well and probably have wrong pricing all over the place,” he said.
“But my issue throughout this whole process has been the ongoing communication with Qantas and their inability to get a resolution up until this morning [Tuesday].”
He didn’t rule out that a post he made to X, formerly Twitter, could have spurred the airline into finding a resolution.
“I did that to try to apply pressure and get a response because I was completely out of options otherwise,” he said.
Hotel staff insisted he paid an increased rate, which was expected to be the equivalent of about $300 on top of what he already paid.
Shortly after he contacted news.com.au to share his experience, and after almost two weeks in limbo, Mr Smith was informed by Qantas that it would cover additional charges imposed by the hotel when he checked out.
“Arguably this should’ve happened 10 days ago rather than five hours before checking out,” he said.
“I typically like Qantas as an organisation but I just think they dropped the ball here.”
While Mr Smith was able to absorb the temporary loss of $300, he worried that others with different circumstances could be seriously impacted.
“I’m concerned that other people would go through this and not have the capacity to get it resolved,” he said.
The ongoing issue also distracted from the work Mr Smith was in India to complete, he added.
“I’m focused on work and this is a distraction. It’s just something I don’t need and I don’t want to spend any time on it. I wasted a lot of time.”
Qantas told news.com.au it had since apologised to Mr Smith and would be paying for all of his accommodation, including the additional charges.
“We sincerely apologise to Mr Smith for this situation and have worked with him and the hotel to resolve the issue,” a spokesperson said.
“In recognition of his experience we have provided Mr Smith with a full refund for the booking and the extra charge.”
The airline said it was working with Expedia to “understand how this has happened”.
Qantas also confirmed bookings with Apollo Dimora Calicut, where Mr Smith stayed, were facilitated by Expedia.
Mr Smith would also be provided a $250 Qantas Hotels voucher.
The following users liked this post:
I get the vague reference might upset people, but I look at it like this.
Like selling ‘ghost flights’ I see there possibly being two sides to the story and in this case, certainly the hotel has a lot to do with it - Qantas can’t be responsible for everything they do business with and I’m sure everyone appreciated that.
However, with the Qantas brand being used to sell anything it can market, what I found interesting was an insight into outsourcing from a marketing perspective.
Getting a glimpse of Qantas’ inner workings I found fascinating. And I fully understand it may be just me that sees it that way, but Abercrombie & Kent, Expedia is not. I would liken it to (something like) David Jones retailing Kogan stock in their stores, but charging customers 20% more for the privilege.
I don’t think many people booking through Qantas.com would do so if they realised they simply paying for Expedia + a ‘handling fee’ + GST and bonuses.
At least - that’s my take! Don’t take my comments too personally - unless your Qf bonus is over $500k, they are not directed at you!
Like selling ‘ghost flights’ I see there possibly being two sides to the story and in this case, certainly the hotel has a lot to do with it - Qantas can’t be responsible for everything they do business with and I’m sure everyone appreciated that.
However, with the Qantas brand being used to sell anything it can market, what I found interesting was an insight into outsourcing from a marketing perspective.
Getting a glimpse of Qantas’ inner workings I found fascinating. And I fully understand it may be just me that sees it that way, but Abercrombie & Kent, Expedia is not. I would liken it to (something like) David Jones retailing Kogan stock in their stores, but charging customers 20% more for the privilege.
I don’t think many people booking through Qantas.com would do so if they realised they simply paying for Expedia + a ‘handling fee’ + GST and bonuses.
At least - that’s my take! Don’t take my comments too personally - unless your Qf bonus is over $500k, they are not directed at you!
The following users liked this post:
I think that puts them above Qlink Dash 8 FOs now.
Qantas can’t be responsible for everything they do business with and I’m sure everyone appreciated that.
PS: Newscorp article - not Crikey. I should have credited it.
Mr Mossberg - little argument from me, but taken to the extreme I wouldn’t blame Miss Management (Elaine’s Wig) for a flat tyre on a car I rent through Qf. But who they (she?) is jumping into bed with does raise my eyebrow.
As I wrote and I the reason I posted it, Expedia is not a ‘premium’ brand. For Qantas to grab it, put a Qf Club entry onto it and mark it up (no doubt substantially) I find very interesting.
I doubt it’s ever going to be illegal but like many things, Qf does it is likely morally questionable. If I was in the hot seat I would be ceasing all such arrangements as a matter of priority. Cheapening the brand is extremely damaging. And my word, they’ve done a LOT of that…
Mr Mossberg - little argument from me, but taken to the extreme I wouldn’t blame Miss Management (Elaine’s Wig) for a flat tyre on a car I rent through Qf. But who they (she?) is jumping into bed with does raise my eyebrow.
As I wrote and I the reason I posted it, Expedia is not a ‘premium’ brand. For Qantas to grab it, put a Qf Club entry onto it and mark it up (no doubt substantially) I find very interesting.
I doubt it’s ever going to be illegal but like many things, Qf does it is likely morally questionable. If I was in the hot seat I would be ceasing all such arrangements as a matter of priority. Cheapening the brand is extremely damaging. And my word, they’ve done a LOT of that…
I get the vague reference might upset people, but I look at it like this.
Like selling ‘ghost flights’ I see there possibly being two sides to the story and in this case, certainly the hotel has a lot to do with it - Qantas can’t be responsible for everything they do business with and I’m sure everyone appreciated that.
However, with the Qantas brand being used to sell anything it can market, what I found interesting was an insight into outsourcing from a marketing perspective.
Getting a glimpse of Qantas’ inner workings I found fascinating. And I fully understand it may be just me that sees it that way, but Abercrombie & Kent, Expedia is not. I would liken it to (something like) David Jones retailing Kogan stock in their stores, but charging customers 20% more for the privilege.
I don’t think many people booking through Qantas.com would do so if they realised they simply paying for Expedia + a ‘handling fee’ + GST and bonuses.
At least - that’s my take! Don’t take my comments too personally - unless your Qf bonus is over $500k, they are not directed at you!
Like selling ‘ghost flights’ I see there possibly being two sides to the story and in this case, certainly the hotel has a lot to do with it - Qantas can’t be responsible for everything they do business with and I’m sure everyone appreciated that.
However, with the Qantas brand being used to sell anything it can market, what I found interesting was an insight into outsourcing from a marketing perspective.
Getting a glimpse of Qantas’ inner workings I found fascinating. And I fully understand it may be just me that sees it that way, but Abercrombie & Kent, Expedia is not. I would liken it to (something like) David Jones retailing Kogan stock in their stores, but charging customers 20% more for the privilege.
I don’t think many people booking through Qantas.com would do so if they realised they simply paying for Expedia + a ‘handling fee’ + GST and bonuses.
At least - that’s my take! Don’t take my comments too personally - unless your Qf bonus is over $500k, they are not directed at you!
I want to fly with an airline that appreciates aviation and the 'journey', not one that considers me a walking cash register. But QANTAS isn't the only 'profit vehicle' that takes their customers for mugs and tries to leverage loyalty.
And that is not a reflection of the fine people that work at QANTAS, that is squarely aimed at the beancounters and executives.
The following 5 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
The gift that just keeps on giving.
QANTAS STAFF FUME AT PROSPECT OF AN EXTRA $6.1M JOYCE BONUS
Tansy HarcourtQantas staff have become increasingly furious that former Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce is in line for a further $6.1m pay cheque under so-called long-term incentive bonuses – on top of the $21.4m he’s already gearing up to receive.
The former boss of the nation’s biggest airline will leave with more than $28m, taking his total tally to more than $150m for 15 years in the captain’s seat.
During this period, the airline cut a quarter of its staff and was found to have illegally fired 1700 of them.
“It just became all about the money for Alan,” said one very senior former Qantas executive of his peer’s motivations. “I still can’t believe how much he changed as a person.”
To put it in perspective, Qantas paid $1.3bn in dividends over the 15-year period, meaning Mr Joyce has pocketed 12 per cent of the overall payout tally for himself.
Qantas has suffered an unprecedented breakdown in reputation over the past two years following a litany of failures including cancelled and late flights, difficult-to-use credits vouchers, lost bags, illegally firing staff and allegedly selling tickets on already cancelled services. To top it all off, the board approved Mr Joyce selling $17m of shares when he knew (but the market didn’t) that the airline was being investigated.
The airline is the competition watchdog’s most complained about company for the second year running and, just this week, it topped the list for least-on-time *departures, even underperforming its own low-cost unit, Jetstar.
In announcing the 83 per cent vote against its remuneration *report, Qantas chairman Richard Goyder conceded it was “obviously a very clear message from shareholders”, but still didn’t clarify that the correct figure to be cited should not have been $21.4m but actually closer to $28m, *including the long-term bonuses.
The extra $6.1m Mr Joyce stands to receive and the millions of dollars that Andrew David, the former CEO of Qantas Domestic and the frontman for the illegal firing of Qantas baggage handlers, is set to receive also raises a bigger question of why companies are so opaque about continued bonus payments to former staff after they leave.
Australian Shareholders Association CEO Rachel Waterhouse said that companies needed to be clear about how much money in bonuses former executives stood to take from firms after they left.
“It needs to be transparent,” Ms Waterhouse said. “It’s an issue that shareholders are actively voting against at the moment.”
In the case of Qantas, the board did elect to trim 20 per cent from Mr Joyce’s payout, taking it down to the widely publicised $21.4m, and the company points out that it is yet to pay out the bonus portion of that figure, citing clawback provisions.
This same clawback would apply to the additional $6.1m long-term bonus but only if the board is able to legally prove that he acted with misconduct. Most believe this will be unlikely.
Ms Waterhouse said the ASA was in favour of expanding “the clawback and malus clauses so that the company is not completely reliant on proving misconduct should management decisions cause risk or loss”.
Another shareholder questioned the whole premise of why a top executive would continue to receive their long-term incentive bonus at all upon leaving, given they would already receive their short-term incentive bonus and their *salary for a set period of time when they could not work elsewhere.
However Dean Paatsch, a proxy and governance risk adviser from Ownership Matters, said it was still better for executives to have their bonuses tied up with long-term performance rather than short.
“I’m a big supporter of long-term incentives if shareholders get rich, as I say, it beats the *alternative for people that paid out in cash, and get to laugh in the face of declining shareholder experience.”
He added that it “stops someone staying around well beyond their use-by date”.
In the case of Qantas and Alan Joyce, some people may disagree.
It’s no wonder the usually outspoken Irishman remains in Dublin, spending time with his elderly mother to be sure, but also far away from *intrusive questions about why he should be paid almost $28m when he has left the airline in a mess on all measures apart from profit.
QANTAS STAFF FUME AT PROSPECT OF AN EXTRA $6.1M JOYCE BONUS
Tansy HarcourtQantas staff have become increasingly furious that former Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce is in line for a further $6.1m pay cheque under so-called long-term incentive bonuses – on top of the $21.4m he’s already gearing up to receive.
The former boss of the nation’s biggest airline will leave with more than $28m, taking his total tally to more than $150m for 15 years in the captain’s seat.
During this period, the airline cut a quarter of its staff and was found to have illegally fired 1700 of them.
“It just became all about the money for Alan,” said one very senior former Qantas executive of his peer’s motivations. “I still can’t believe how much he changed as a person.”
To put it in perspective, Qantas paid $1.3bn in dividends over the 15-year period, meaning Mr Joyce has pocketed 12 per cent of the overall payout tally for himself.
Qantas has suffered an unprecedented breakdown in reputation over the past two years following a litany of failures including cancelled and late flights, difficult-to-use credits vouchers, lost bags, illegally firing staff and allegedly selling tickets on already cancelled services. To top it all off, the board approved Mr Joyce selling $17m of shares when he knew (but the market didn’t) that the airline was being investigated.
The airline is the competition watchdog’s most complained about company for the second year running and, just this week, it topped the list for least-on-time *departures, even underperforming its own low-cost unit, Jetstar.
In announcing the 83 per cent vote against its remuneration *report, Qantas chairman Richard Goyder conceded it was “obviously a very clear message from shareholders”, but still didn’t clarify that the correct figure to be cited should not have been $21.4m but actually closer to $28m, *including the long-term bonuses.
The extra $6.1m Mr Joyce stands to receive and the millions of dollars that Andrew David, the former CEO of Qantas Domestic and the frontman for the illegal firing of Qantas baggage handlers, is set to receive also raises a bigger question of why companies are so opaque about continued bonus payments to former staff after they leave.
Australian Shareholders Association CEO Rachel Waterhouse said that companies needed to be clear about how much money in bonuses former executives stood to take from firms after they left.
“It needs to be transparent,” Ms Waterhouse said. “It’s an issue that shareholders are actively voting against at the moment.”
In the case of Qantas, the board did elect to trim 20 per cent from Mr Joyce’s payout, taking it down to the widely publicised $21.4m, and the company points out that it is yet to pay out the bonus portion of that figure, citing clawback provisions.
This same clawback would apply to the additional $6.1m long-term bonus but only if the board is able to legally prove that he acted with misconduct. Most believe this will be unlikely.
Ms Waterhouse said the ASA was in favour of expanding “the clawback and malus clauses so that the company is not completely reliant on proving misconduct should management decisions cause risk or loss”.
Another shareholder questioned the whole premise of why a top executive would continue to receive their long-term incentive bonus at all upon leaving, given they would already receive their short-term incentive bonus and their *salary for a set period of time when they could not work elsewhere.
However Dean Paatsch, a proxy and governance risk adviser from Ownership Matters, said it was still better for executives to have their bonuses tied up with long-term performance rather than short.
“I’m a big supporter of long-term incentives if shareholders get rich, as I say, it beats the *alternative for people that paid out in cash, and get to laugh in the face of declining shareholder experience.”
He added that it “stops someone staying around well beyond their use-by date”.
In the case of Qantas and Alan Joyce, some people may disagree.
It’s no wonder the usually outspoken Irishman remains in Dublin, spending time with his elderly mother to be sure, but also far away from *intrusive questions about why he should be paid almost $28m when he has left the airline in a mess on all measures apart from profit.
The following 3 users liked this post by 1A_Please:
Canceled hundreds of cheap aircraft orders. Ghost flights. Expiring credits. Illegal sackings. Outsourced everything. Average fleet age from 6 to 18 years. Potential insider trading.
And his last, parting FU to the future of the airline - his replacement.
The following 5 users liked this post by Slippery_Pete: