Qantas Grounded

Related Stores

Qantas

• 

  [Deactivated] on 29/10/2011 - 19:49

  Glad to be back from my OS trip last month, I was bumped from a standby flight and had to make quick arrangements for alternative flights, which wasn't a very pleasant experience, and that wasn't competing with hundreds of others trying to do the same thing….

  This is going to have a lot more pain for a lot more people.

  Unfortunate that the government now says its going to act. They should have intervened last week.

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 20:11

    -3

    do hear when WA and NSW premier request julia liar to intervene and she said that just a publicity only. coz julia is need to protect their union member. i hope toll freight company do the same thing with union freight and other union in this country. they can not take ransom to all of us. time has change, they should be able to adopt with the globalization

    • 

      patientvalue on 29/10/2011 - 20:26

      +9

      settle down…if not for unions we would not enjoy 8 hour work day and weekends off, sick leave, 4 weeks holiday paid for et cetera. Just look at the crappy conditions in USA or China. Of course like all good things once the unions accumulated power they went on to abuse it and now they suffer from over reach. It is the way of the world. They are a necessary evil because you can bet if bosses can screw workers they will and do. (And the vice versa).

      In this particular case internationalisation is forcing down wages and I don't know of many people who want to give up what they have. People's mind set is to want more. Same for these workers. They see the big bucks the CEO gets and say 'what about me it isn't fair' (sorry couldn't help that :) And you have to admit the CEO doesnt need more to do his job. It is ironic how globalisation works well for senior executive salaries (have to meet world wide bench mark -which is always going up) while globalisation works against workers salaries (always going down)…mmmm.

      Poor shareholders, they are stuck with an investment in a high cost commodity producer-bad choice. Should bail while they still can. CEO is busy reducing costs but he will have to gut the company to achieve it.

      • 

        fish on 29/10/2011 - 21:44

        +5

        If Mr Joyce shows some leadership by CUTTING his salary, all problems solved!
        Globalisation means don't buy Qantas. IT revolution means don't buy Telster!

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 29/10/2011 - 22:07

        +2

        @fish

        Dont buy Qantas, so that solves the problem. All the staff lose their jobs, then get a job with say Virgin who pay less that Qantas, Wake up do you really know what you are saying here.

        And lose accumlated sick leave, seniority and other benefits. Sounds great.

        Just like Telster (Telstra). Optus - Singapore government owned. Vodafone UK owned. Both who use OS call centres…

      • 

        patientvalue on 29/10/2011 - 22:44

        +2

        Ozpete i really do know what i am saying. The shareholders are trying to maximise their gains not support employees but without doubt investing in a high cost commodity producer leads to poor economic returns. It is not the end of the world, if the price gets low enough some private equity firm will put in a bid (and drop the loss operating routes) or the govt will bail them out if it is perceived as politically important.

        Customers care about safety, price and service/quality. In this global era they will fly with whomever provides this whether that is Qantas or Virgin or whatever. Unlike Asian cultures-we don't support the local brand. You are aware that all governments restrict access to their air space which keeps forces up prices and this in turn this subsidies employee wages/benefits.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 07:14

        PV - due to limits how far the reply threads go, I was responding to @fish not you. Have edited my post to make that clear….

• 

  ozshaz on 29/10/2011 - 19:58

  +2

  just heard Dick Smith's comment on ABC - Qantas international should have been shut down 3 years back !!

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 20:14

    DS wants all australian to support the higher airfare of qantas so it support the australian job market. he is a dreamer.

    • 

      arcticmonkey on 30/10/2011 - 01:06

      +5

      Go and read a book called 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman', joannatan.

      Going by your comments on this forum, you clearly have no clue.

  • 

    sparkles on 29/10/2011 - 22:49

    Next Mr Harvey Norman will have something to say LOL…..about how all us cheapskates have caused this injustice and we should just all stay home and how it's unAustralian to travel overseas on a plane.

• 

  joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 20:40

  -1

  albanese just announce to ask fair work australia to intervene the industrial action by the union. they only take action after it happen. no prevention action before the thing happening.

• 

  gravel on 29/10/2011 - 20:45

  +2

  I din't think ozbargain was a forum for political comment, probably shouldn't be. I think what Joyce has done is completely outrageous, immature and destructive. If it backfires it will affect Airline prices and that will affect baragin hunters. I don't want to get into an argument about wether or not Julia Gillard and the government should have become involved. Calling Gillard Julia Liar is also immature and stupid and clearly made by an Abbott supporter. I think it's best that Jonnatan join the liberal party where he will get loads and loads of support. I care about Qantas not debating the rights and wrongs of the industrial action. If you care about Qantas you will be concerned about shutting the Airline down because of a few rolling strikes. If you do care there is a face book page - sack the board of Qantas

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 20:51

    i am not liberal supporter, my last vote to labour during kevin 07. don't be wrong, i don't like abbott as well.

    I care about qantas, less player on the airline industry = less competition = higher cost to the customer. i don't like qantas union playing ransom to the company.

    • 

      arcticmonkey on 30/10/2011 - 01:09

      +5

      If it wasn't for unions, I'd bet that your life would be a whole lot more crappier.

      How do you justify a 71% pay rise in ONE YEAR to the Qantas CEO?

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 01:22

        do u think ceo only working 9-5 only mate? they get pay to solve the problem. how to justify? you should ask the 96% of qantas share holder that vote yes. i don't have qantas share, so i can't give you my opinion, if i am holding qantas share and i vote yes, then i can tell you my opinion why i vote yes on the vote.

    • 

      joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 01:20

      crap? hmmm, i am telling you something mate. i was was the top three on my previous role, but got same bonus with other people that working outside the top 10, coz of award that design by the union. so i just feel union = communist, in different form.

• 

  gravel on 29/10/2011 - 20:56

  +3

  Ok, no problem. Problem is all Joyce has to do to get a massive pay increase is have a chat to his mates on the board. How do the staff get a fair go? If you are asking your staff to pull their heads in I think it's a bad look when you can't do the same yourself. Surely he could survive on 3 mil a year. Remember this is not his company he didn't build it up, but it looks like he is setting about to destroy it. Massive over reaction with other peoples blood and sweat.

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:20

    ok. so do you think as ceo he only worth 500k/pa? same as their a380 pilot salary? mate remember, as pilot you got responsible for 300-400 people in your airplane.
    as ceo, you got responsible for thousands of qantas employee, bigger their responsibility, it is fair he get paid higher as well. otherwise all manager will get the same pay, junior and senior manager the same pay? remember we are not living in socialist or communist country, that rule might apply in that country, not in the democratic / liberal country.

  • 

    sparkles on 29/10/2011 - 22:53

    +3

    I just saw Alan Joyce on TV and am really seriously wondering how a nuffy sounding dude like that managed to get such a high end job.

    • 

      joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:58

      -5

      are u not happy as well because he is an irish man mate? how about paul little? the ex of toll holding?
      remember joyce is ex jetstar ceo, do you like jetstar mate?

• 

  Natt on 29/10/2011 - 21:07

  +7

  for those thinking all unions are bad, you think you get a pay rise because the boss is being nice?

  the continual eroding of workers rights is worrying

  it is about balance, but sheesh look at little deeper before judging

• 

  [Deactivated] on 29/10/2011 - 21:10

  +5

  Interesting comment, is that this is part of the governments making, allowing international airlines greater access to Australia.

  Greater competition means lower fares = Lower income = lower ability to pay higher wages.

  Like others I think Joyces salary increase is rather galling, and shouldn't be allowed, but he did according to the papers get 98% vote on this. I am not a shareholder, but if I was I would have voted no.

  That said our Airline staff have to face the facts that they are competing internationally, and old work practices they enjoyed are a luxury that they can't have any more. My partner works at Myer and with the international competition retailers now face, her hours are now cut. Less income - I dont like it she doesn't like it. I understand Qantas staff's feelings, but you know my $1200 flight to the US comes at a price.

  If Qantas doesnt provide it at that price by cutting costs, then I fly someone else who can.

  And the rubbish about maintenance quality the unions have been espousing. Dont fly Qantas because planes are serviced overseas. So my alternative is to fly with other carriers (international ones) who also have planes serviced overseas probably in the same workshops. Doh!!!

  I used to work in an industry where we could afford to fly internationally on business class for any flight over 4 hours. that was in the "good times", in the end it was always economy even for 15 hour flights.

  And the CEO who almost destroyed the company earnt $15million a year. That sucked, but guess what he still got his $15 mill, when over 15000 got their gifts of a redundancy package.

  Adapt or die…

  • 

    stanas on 29/10/2011 - 22:13

    Yes most voted for the pay rise - not the little people though. Personally, I would not be against such a pay rise if it translated into profit for the company. However, reading the artlice below the shares have gone down dramatically - I find it a strange concept of giving someone such a massive pay rise when the companies share price is going backwards.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/qantas-rewards-corpor…

    • 

      joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:25

      don't worry mate, thats part of medical cost for mr joyce. he worked hard at jetstar and qantas then he got cancer. so it is moral responsibility for qantas to give him some compensation :)

    • 

      patientvalue on 29/10/2011 - 22:35

      I suspect he got the massive pay rise because he went to the board of directors and said i will not be able to earn a bonus based on rising share price so i want to be compensated by a larger wage rise ie higher base salary to compensate for lower bonus

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 07:23

        @Stanas.

        Agree no little people. But he did get 95%+ of the shareholder vote, are you suggesting that 2% of owners have the right to tell 95%+ what they should do with their money? Again I think many CEO salaries are a ripoff and it it was 45% being outvoted, then the argument about being unjustified would carry more weight but 95% plus

        @PV read above it was ratified by the shareholders. Again not by me who would not have done it. Then again taking action like this might make him unemployable as a CEO if it doesnt work so he might be putting his future on the line

      • 

        stanas on 30/10/2011 - 08:32

        @ OzPete

        No if the majority voted for the payrise then this is completely the way to go.

        It just does not seems logical to me that they would agree to this when the share price has dropped so much.

      • 

        McCoy on 30/10/2011 - 19:23

        -1

        The institutional shareholders are responsible for the 95% approval and it's a farce. The institutions approve anything no matter how stupid. The "95% approval" should be treated with the same credibility as saying "Kim Jong-Il was elected with 99.9% approval in North Korea".
        I thought we were finished with hopeless overseas sourced CEOs when Sol Trujillo left, obviously not. You can't give yourself a 71% pay rise and then say your staff don't even deserve 3%. Staff are struggling to pay a mortgage, don't think Joyce and the board are.
        This is a classic case of management stuff ups (wrong planes, wrong routes, gutting QANTAS for Jetstar, Japanese ski resorts) and then blaming the workers because you've nowhere else to go. Go the unions!!!!!!

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 31/10/2011 - 08:29

        @McCoy

        Then based on your logic

        95% of the "owners" cant have a say, because they have a different opinion to you.

        Just like Kim Jong-ll

        Go the Reds !!

        See where logic gets us - LOL

      • 

        joannatan on 31/10/2011 - 10:09

        mccoy, remember Qantas is public listed company. if you want control qantas board, better u buy that 95% of qantas share then you decide what is the qantas future.

        it is open market, you can't compare with north korea. no one force that 95% investor to buy qantas share. in north korea, they have being force to vote kim jong ill.

  • 

    INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 17:07

    I have no difficulty with the CEO pay package. Joyce explained he had taken previous pay cuts, and he earnt more as CEO at Jetstar. It all depends on what you include - I think he gets $2M (shares I believe) only if the Qantas share price improves. So that is no sure bet, but gives the CEO an incentive to cut costs - at any cost! Remember the 80's when some companies were worth more dead than alive! Beside, the majority of the votes were from corporate investors, who generally support CEO pay rises.

    But it certainly seems unnecessarily provocative to ask for a massive 'pay' rise while in an industrial dispute denying pay rises.
    With all the advisers & PR people available to Qantas, Qantas claim they did not know workers would be upset by Joyce's pay rise during negotiations the next day???
    Oh come off it!!

    So Qantas said it was forced to lock out the workers involved in the authorised bargaining period, to protect itself!
    Sounds like an excuse a child would make up!!
    He/She started it first, Miss.
    (Under Joh Bejelke Petersen government in 1980's Queensland, Joh would suggest sacking ETU workers, they would strike & protest, he would call an election - appealing to the voters as the only one who could control those 'communist' unions. Worked every time. Same old, same old.)

    I think the PR Pixies may have had something to do with it!
    Not happy, Joycie!

• 

  joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:30

  don't worry, i don't believe the pilot and baggage handler can stand for long time, most of them got mortgage, how long they can stop to pay their mortgage and stop their lifestyle? joyce said the union that involved these dispute, their pay will be stopped as well during this dispute.

  • 

    arcticmonkey on 30/10/2011 - 01:12

    +4

    Not sure what language you're trying to speak, joannatan. I'd suggest reading something other than the Herald Sun.

    • 

      joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 01:24

      this is is based on my own experience in the past, some of my customer were the qantas pilots.

• 

  gravel on 29/10/2011 - 22:35

  +4

  If the Pilot makes a big mistake then a few hundred people plunge to their death, I reckon that's a pretty big responsibility. Joyce is paid more than, The Us president, Australian Prime Minister, Uk Prime minister. Many specialists at hospitals public and private are paid more than the CEO. There are numerous more examples. I personally think his pay and that of most Ceo's ( of large companies ) is obscene. However it's not the pay its the 70+ plus increase in remuneration when the share price has fallen and the only way he can negotiate with staff is to shut the airline down. I reckon if he's paid 5M a year he should be able to get a result without closing the joint down

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:49

    -3

    that is part of the strategy, as you may be aware, once the qantas board announce joyce pay increase, then the union declare another 2 days industrial action. have u ever running your own business mate, trust me, if your staff strike this week, and two weeks later, it is not good for your customer, especially this has been done in the last couple of months. surely, you can't follow all your staff demand. I have family in overseas, he told me couple years back that he got headache almost every day, as the union strike almost every week. the company can not running their business as normal, disruption = no income, no income = no pay to the staff. and the staff demand pay increase. at the end of the story, the company moved to thailand and vietnam. it is less headache for the owner of the company.

• 

  subydooby on 29/10/2011 - 22:50

  +7

  Doesn't matter who you blame, airlines as well as other transport services should be listed as essential services with an independent arbitrator appointed to settle disputes before they get this bad. There are many people out there that are really hurting because of this reckless action ( by qantas management).

  • 

    joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 22:56

    it should said both of them, not just blame the qantas management.

    • 

      patientvalue on 29/10/2011 - 23:20

      +2

      There has been research (i dont remember where i saw it while doing my studies) that shows the overwhelming majority of [mod: language removed] in the workplace (like 90%) are due to management and not the workers.

      • 

        sparkles on 29/10/2011 - 23:29

        …..because from experience management don't care until there is a stuff up and the fallout might make them look bad. They then show a real keen interest in something that up until that moment was completely ignored in favour of meetings, overseas trips and lunches.

      • 

        joannatan on 29/10/2011 - 23:35

        let me ask you.
        have u ever compare the cost per seat between qantas and their peer? such as SQ, Ethiad, emirates, cathay?

        qantas cost per seat is higher compare than his competitor.
        on the other hand, most of you may be aware that most people are flying with their competitor rather than with qantas.
        so from the qantas perspective, reduce income and now they got pressure from the union to increase their salary, which is will be translate to higher cost per seat again.
        if your competitor able to reduce their cost per seat, and qantas increase their cost per seat and qantas not able to sell their ticket higher anymore as part of the competition, then the final story qantas has to declare bankrupt. sorry guys just wondering, did anyone in here where you were a kid before, have anyone told you that bigger spending than your income will make you bankrupt?
        higher liabilities, and lower asset = bankrupt formula.

        so from management perspective, to reduce the this ASK (average seat per kilometer) cost, there are some strategies:
        1. reduce your staff
        2. efficiency - buy new aircraft with higher fuel efficiency, ask pilot for not speeding (some pilot to make up their lost time at the ground, they prefer use the maximum power of their jet engine to make up this lost time at the ground) - fuel efficiency, also request the pilot not to take extra fuel too much, and other mean

        in this case, i have to say the union demand is unreasonable

      • 

        patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 00:05

        +2

        joannatan,

        It is very widely known in the industry (and amply discussed in numerous case studies i read at uni) that Qantas management totally [mod: language removed] their choice of fleet a few years ago. They completely and totally [mod: language removed] it up many years ago and management have been trying to play catchup ever since.

        They not only selected a poor choice of planes but have a combination of many different types of planes which means they need lots of different parts for the different types engines, they have to train their (engineering/pilot) staff for different types of planes, they need different types of plates, seats, seat covers and so on because the different planes have different dimensions.

        The best airline operations are a single type-of-plane fleets that is most suitable ie fuel efficient and to a lesser extent quiet (to get over flight restrictions).
        Do some research before you start rehasing the latest garbage put out by management PR firm or lazy journalists.

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 00:27

        -2

        you might think this is a [mod: language removed] from the previous management. mate, if this is a [mod: language removed], why the previous ex qantas ceo and the private equity would like to purchase qantas in 2007/08? logically, if qantas is a shit product, why the qantas ceo at that time - geoff dixon wanna buy this company? single aircraft is suitable for domestic airlines, but if you fly international airlines, surely you also need other type of aircraft as well.
        even air asia have different type of aircraft.
        in 2002, i went to virgin recruitment process, being told in the training why virgin blue just fly single type of aircraft at that time. fast forward 9 years later, virgin not just flying boeing 737 only, they also have wide body aircraft.

        all airline that have big network like qantas, impossible having single type of aircraft only. every aircraft design for certain condition and how far they can fly. do you know as long you can fly a320 or b737, it is easy for you to get these pilot to train the next version of this aircraft?

        it is not about [mod: language removed]about choosing the wrong aircraft. market has changed!!!!
        in the past, qantas monopoly the usa - australia route, since virgin flying this route, as you can see the price has been drop.
        aus - european market, get big competition from sq and major middle east airlines.

        even you have a single type of aircraft only, but if your ASK cost higher than your competitor, no way you can compete with them.

        better you back to you univ again mate. get real, by reading the real company annual report and talk with your stock broker. and if you get friend that working as analyst, you might get better information.

      • 

        evol on 30/10/2011 - 05:53

        +4

        "efficiency - buy new aircraft with higher fuel efficiency, ask pilot for not speeding (some pilot to make up their lost time at the ground, they prefer use the maximum power of their jet engine to make up this lost time at the ground) - fuel efficiency, also request the pilot not to take extra fuel too much, and other mean"

        "it is not about [mod: language removed]about choosing the wrong aircraft. market has changed!!!!"

        "even you have a single type of aircraft only, but if your ASK cost higher than your competitor, no way you can compete with them."

        etc. etc.

        joannatan it's pretty obvious from all of your comments that you have absolutely no clue about what's going on, let alone anything about the airline industry and how it operates. Your comments don't even make sense or have a valid point (Not to mention that they have horrible grammar). Please do some background reading and research on the facts before posting totally useless comments.

        The point that patientvalue was trying to make is quite valid. Qantas management pretty much gambled with the future of their fleet, in mass ordering the Boeing 787 as their next main aircraft soon after Boeing announced development. The 787 would allow:

        • Cost inefficient and very old Boeing 747 fleet to retire

        • Aging and inefficient Boeing 767 fleet to retire (not to mention they're at the end of their leases)

        • Much improved cost efficiency over international and domestic routes with the fuel efficiency of the new Boeing 787's.

        • Reduced maintenance costs with the 747's and 767's out of the fleet.

        However, Boeing has been hitting problem after problem with the 787's. Qantas was meant to receive their first 787's in late 2008. Right now, Boeing is planning to deliver them to Qantas in 2013 some time.

        Whilst Qantas wait, they are forced to lease more A330's from Airbus, and to maintain their current existing fleet (which like patientvalue correctly pointed out, is costly due to their age and the differences in components shared by the fleet).

        So no it's not just the one thing killing Qantas; it's a perfect storm of bad management decisions (eg. aircraft purchase planning, very slow to introduce (crappy) in-flight entertainment compared to other airlines etc. etc.), union's being silly, Boeing failing to deliver on its deadlines, and a slightly crazy CEO, that have culminated in the shameful current situation Qantas find themselves in.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 07:41

        +2

        @evol . Some very valid points you make, Its not simple, if it was then it probably could have been resolved earlier.

        Agreed about the gamble, but now that the fleet is due to arrive, that is also one of the issues being fought over.

        These new planes save money because some work requirements are different, and the change to those.

        In this dispute its not a simple issue, although fundamentally if Qantas was protected against foreign (subsidised) carriers, then the issue would not be as great as it is.

        And arguing if that should or shouldn't be is pointless as its now a reality. Both the airline and staff have to adapt to this, to keep going like the old days will just create another Hardly Normal retail world.

        As we break down the trade barriers we will suffer both cheaper prices, and lower wages. Hopefully the trade off will be a net positive.

        But like the carbon tax, we'll know in 20 years if it was vision or a stuff up

        @PV Yes single plane strategies work better. But when you are flying to small airports and large airports - 747's eg to Launceston, it's not going to work. Most airlines have multiple planes in their fleets unless they are just cherry picking routes.

        So they go with Boeing and wait for the Dreamliner, or go Airbus and 380's with exploding engines.

        And if they stuff it up which they may have done, how does increasing costs help them out?

        Change the board that stuffed it up. Yep Dixon's already gone and so have some of the board. Just like sacking the current minister for Navy because of what Kim Beazley bought 15 years ago doesnt solve the current issue

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 13:39

        -2

        hi evol, are you an airline analyst? do you trade in the stock market actively? do you know how to read company annual report? a lot of people think they are an expert, blame this blame that, in fact you are not the person that running the business, you only see the skin. and you think u know what is inside that company already. until you are the ceo or you have done the due diligence to the company then you are entitle to said that they do gamble etc.

      • 

        patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 13:59

        Couple of points:

        1) Apologies for my bad language. I got on my high horse :)

        2) When the past CEO and private equity wanted to buy Qantas they could use very cheap funds to leverage up the company. Also the CEO would have earned multiple millions to back it - more than 10M i vaguely recall - quite a conflict of interest and he got into trouble for it. Private equity guys are without doubt thankful they dodged that bullet-they got very lucky. They would have done what is happening now - gut the company and sell of assets.

        3)Ozpete: Qantas is protected from competition- govt restricts access to the routes mostly on the basis of quid pro quo. If it was truely open skies then international carriers would offer fairs on domestic flights but they are prohibited. The melb to syd route is the busiest in the world or the most profitable or both - again i forget.

• 

  GUYANDSON on 30/10/2011 - 01:07

  +4

  The decision seems entirely irrational, it is one way of solving the issue, but definitely not the right way. Yes both sides are being silly but with the recent events, Qantas and its management are just adding fuel to the fire.

• 

  arcticmonkey on 30/10/2011 - 01:17

  +1

  Some interesting stats: http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/qantas-dispute-most-to-blam…

  http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/qantas-dispute-opinions/

  Not surprising figures given that Qantas more than doubled their net profit and gave their CEO a 71% pay rise.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 07:30

    +2

    Stats?? - Read their website.

    To quote

    We know our approach works because when organisations work with EMC they win:

    • With the ACTU we drove the Howard Government out of power with the Your Rights at Work campaign
    • With the AEU we secured billions of dollars in federal funding
    • With The Wilderness Society we have stared down Gunns as they attempt to destroy the Tasmanian wilderness
    • With Australians for Affordable Housing we got affordable housing onto the national political agenda
    • And with the Kimberley Land Council we are developing a new model of indigenous development.

    Not a recipe for unbiased statistics….

• 

  Elephant on 30/10/2011 - 08:16

  What's with the moderation here: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/56015

  Discussing a certain topic has been decided off topic, but you get carte blanche posting "off topic" before a certain arbitrary time?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 09:52

    Fair comment - Maybe the others should be deleted. Trying to get a balance and maybe got it wrong.

    The "arbitrary time", was the time I found the deal discussions, which was late last night. At that time I thought that was the fair thing to do, and a number of comments covered both Qantas and the AirAsia deal, and I wasn't wanting to edit each comment.

    Deleted comments were both for and against Qantas Management, so it was not censoring either side

    • 

      INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 15:34

      Thats what I have called for. Since you provided the handy link to this post, a fair approach would be to take down all 'controversial' off-topic posts like the only one left - (sal78 "It's the stupid unions"). This is a complex ongoing argument within the industry, political parties, and the wider community that is not helped by allowing only 1 comment from 1 side. It triggers heated deep seated views.

      Leaving 1 one-sided comment just because it was put up before an arbitrary time, just causes a problem that would not occur if all such comments were taken down. interestingly, the voting on that comment indicates an almost even number of votes for/against the comment.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 31/10/2011 - 08:17

        Other comments removed now…

        BTW posting off topics in the other thread after the warning wasnt appreciated.

        I had placed you on a 1 day suspension for that breech, as you knew what you were doing.

        But I have now suspended that, after I saw your comments here and I replied to them. This is so your or no one else could think that your were being banned for opinions that did not necessarily agree with a mod.

        Please dont knowingly breech our site related requests in the future

• 

  INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 15:02

  +2

  There is no simple solution to this complex argument.
  Maybe we are all being led into a complex ploy by Qantas.

  Qantas has basically said it sees its future in Asia, with lower costs to remain competitive, and announced large job losses here. Australia will be probably connected by flights from a hub there. So, as a business there is no need for the Australian operation. Commentators like Dick Smith have said that. Baggage handlers & check-in can be outsourced here. Pilots & maintenance can be sourced cheaper in Asia. It just would leave admin & executive staff here - as an 'Australian' company. Oh and the vital role of PR could stay local I suppose.

  Focusing on Joyce's package is a distraction. Strange how that happened a day before the planes stopped flying!!!
  (Sorry, I have seen far too many smokescreens as a Queenslander under the Bjelke Petersen Government! If Joh wanted tougher police powers, he would say he was about to legislate about a controversial topic. While we were distracted,…) Remember the PR company hired by the Kuwaitis to convince (through deception) the USA to mount Gulf War I??

  No wonder the unions are complaining. If you have long term commitments here (mortgage, kids), it can be upsetting to lose your job. With increased cost of living, they are asking for a pay increase - along with police, nurses, etc. Nothing new there, so a distraction to blame them for asking for what they want. The union would say that is only $1 per hour pay increase.
  But the main thing Qantas workers seem to be requesting is job security. Alan Joyce (have met & like him as a person) said they can not negotiate on job security - hence the long drawn out negotiations. But, you can not guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow, or Qantas will still exist. But people do not like losing their house! That would upset almost anyone.

  From what I understand, industrial action by a business is hard to control under Fair Work legislation. That is why this is historic, and sounds like the warf dispute. Unions claim Qantas booked hotel rooms ages ago, and trained baggage handlers overseas 9 months ago. Easy to claim, so they should provide proof - the smoking gun that would show a 'conspiracy' by Qantas. But the claim by Qantas that the decision to ground flights was not considered as a tactic before their AGM is hard to believe. Surely shareholders should have been made aware of any action that may adversely affect their share value. Qantas say they were forced to take this action, for the safety of their workers and property - as a lockout may bring about an unpredictable outcome in workers! This follows claims of an earlier death threat against a smiling CEO. Sounds like PR spin to me.

  Comments on ABC24, are that businesses like Qantas can not be ordered to provide a service. You can regulate opening hours, but not that doors are opened! The Unions can be ordered back to work, or face fines and individuals possibly prison. But if Qantas refuses to fly??? The implications of this dispute have on other industries is interesting. With water, electricity, gas, motorways, garbage collection often in private hands, what happens if management decide to 'pull the plug' over a similar dispute??? Interesting times!

  Sounds like Qantas wants an excuse to move everything but a slimmed down admin & executives off-shore. They know the public outcry that would cause.
  In life, it is always nice to have someone to blame! It saves time thinking.

• 

  INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 15:45

  I see Channel Nine is running a story which makes me think this may be a move to bring in tougher 'Work Choices' type legislation & prove Fair Work Australia does not work??? Worked last time with the 1989 warf dispute.
  Bargaining rules need to change:think tank
  "Aggressive tactics by union leaders, enabled by Fair Work Australia, are damaging workplace efficiency, a right-wing think tank says."
  http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8367328/bargaining-rules…
  Everyone is out to get what they can, and the traveller is stranded & possibly out of pocket.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 30/10/2011 - 17:10

    +1

    There is much spin by both sides.

    Unfortunate because spin tends to work on the public. Hey look at reality TV shows.

    Of course Qantas would have "considered" this action before they took it. They would have made discrete enquiries to see what would be available during any action.

    If they didn't then it would be highly irresponsible to customers and their shareholders.

    Now we get caught on "consideration".

    What was prudent planning and looking at all options.We see the same in court room dramas where some is asked "Did you consider…." They say yes… Then "no further questions your honour", BUT. No BUTs just answer the question.

    Now when is "considering" actually planning… if you know the answer I reckon you can make more money that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

    Management can be bastards. Unions can be bastards. Each has their own interests at heart.

    Management can be forward thinking, kind and caring. Unions can be likewise and a safety net for their members.

    But as I said, when external forces come to play. Both sides should be looking at a solution for a win win by everyone.

    And your analogy about business refusing to supply vs unions/workers refusing to supply misses the point.

    A business refuses to supply, people go elsewhere, this in NOT a monopoly.

    The workers can get jobs with the other businesses. They are free to move quickly. The business has capital investment that cant be just upped and moved as quickly.

    And you can force someone to turn up to work, but hard to get them to put any effort in if they dont want to. Go slow campaigns. But to incite someone to do this is illegal.

    And the real issue with these disputes is that it affects other people by nature of our interdependent society.

    And since this is about workers benefits, and Qantas staff are paid more than other staff with other companies. Shouldn't the strike be against the other companies. Virgin pays its staff less, why not strike at Virgin until they pay Qantas like salaries

    But like all arguments for and against its not just that simple…..

    • 

      INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 18:49

      +2

      Spin on both sides - oh come now! Cover my ears!!
      Of course that is correct. But we tend to believe the spin that supports our beliefs, predjudices, and vested interests, and ridicule the rest without thought. It keeps our lives simple (minded).

      Of course Qantas examined possibilities a long way ahead, the same as the Unions - copying & learning from similar actions around the world. As you point out, they would be negligent /irresponsible not to. The 'decision' to ground aircraft may have been 'made' the day after the AGM, but that was probably a decision to invoke Plan B instead of Plan A. There would have been a lot of money spent on analysing possible actions. Nothing wrong with that. But it is hypocritical to say Qantas only took the action to ground because of a totally unexpected and unreasonable reaction by the other side to the CEO's pay package the day after the AGM!

      Totally agree that a win-win, bigger picture solution is needed over partisan interests, as in all conflict resolution.

      But my argument was not about…
      "And your analogy about business refusing to supply vs unions/workers refusing to supply misses the point. A business refuses to supply, people go elsewhere, this in NOT a monopoly."
      Nice theory there! If that were the case, why would anyone worry about this dispute? Qantas still is a major supplier of transport in Australia (with flow on effects in tourism, government, business, and families), and to a lesser extent overseas. We are talking about tens of thousands of people without transport - missing important events, losing money, being away from loved ones. The loss of supply from such a major supplier without warning, decreases competition as available supply from other source dramatically diminishes.

      I was pointing out the industrial legislation has a bearing on employees supply of labour (with severe penalties for breaches), but can not force an employer to supply. In some industries (electricity, water, gas, petrol, etc) that may have dire consequences. Usually the law controls worker action in those workplaces, but may not force a business to supply an essential service. Industrial action by a business is novel. Certainly the implication of this is being discused.

      You are talking very theoretical about people's lives! That is usually the domain of political parties. In my work I come across Professional people who think that is how others (beneath them) should work, as it won't affect them. Individual skilled aviation workers may not be in a position to follow their jobs overseas in a declining industry. Theoretically everyone should be able to move tomorrow to a new job, house, school for their children,… but it is very disruptive. Talk to grown up children of diplomats (or military) as I have done, they don't often see it as a positive. It was all part of the flexible workforce ideal under Work Choices. Man will fit the machine - a very old concept (16th Century from memory) drawn from observing wind up toy soldiers & the thought of how good an army/workforce of automatons would be. Are you ready to retrain for a new job tomorrow, while living away from your parner/childen, work for lower wages, longer hours, shorter breaks? This seems the major difference between Qantas & at least some workers - the desire for job security. Pay rates are not the only issue. It is far more complex.

      Business and work can be less adversarial. Pay is not the driver for all. I have set up such workplaces - productivity increased. Not everyone is like you & wants the transitory life of dropping everything for your boss's whims. Good for you if you want that. But many bosses expect that of their staff without consoltation, leading to the adverse work practices you listed & I have been brought in to resolve. People often want community - which means longer term relationships than a 6 month employment contract and involvement with more than work colleagues.

      In that area of people's lives, like you say…
      "But like all arguments for and against its not just that simple….."

      • 

        patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 19:20

        +1

        very well said brucefromaustralia and clearly expressed from your own experience. Capital is very mobile but not so much labour-we humans get easily attached whether to people, places or activities (jobs) or status and everything else - it is human nature.

        I agree that we express views to support our beliefs- we are all inherently biased and flawed and this is gradually being recognised in more areas of our lives. The challenge is one of self-examination which is impossible when passions are heated. And the current dispute has blood boiling on both sides. Management feel they have the right to rule (i feel they are the new ruling aristocracy) and unions tend to assume the worse of management's motives even when there are no ulterior motives. So it is not surprising when union's fears materialise.

        In this case it seems unions saw the writing on the wall ie Qantas strategic move to adopt Joyce's Jetstar operations and they were afraid of their conditions and jobs. Put a crowd together and stoke fear and they will become dangerous. The challenge for workers is to present a reasonable face while Management seek to present them as an unreasonable crowd and vice versa.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 31/10/2011 - 08:24

        @Bruce

        All reasonable comments., but on one point there is some issue.

        We are now informed, by the media that under our new laws, the fairwork act that this was the action required by a business to have the fairwork tribunal act.

        And they have acted by ORDERING Qantas to resume work.

        Now that goes against your comment that the Unions are the only ones the Act can force back.

      • 

        INFIDEL on 01/11/2011 - 08:39

        OzPete, I did not say FWA could not order an end to an industrial dispute by an employer, just it can not order a business to actually supply a service.

        There is a big difference between ordering an employer to end industrial action (but I do not know what penalties refusing to do that would entail, and I think it would be untested powers as there would be few precedents, unlike with workers taking industrial action) and ordering a business to supply a service! It does not have that power as far I can see (and should not interfere with the operation of a business, just employment issues). That was my point.

        Qantas has only been told to end its current industrial action, not resume supply. The outcome should mean Qantas would want to resume supply, but it is not a given depending on their own reasons. Qantas can take further industrial action, as long as it is a separate action. A business can decide not to supply a service, without it being an industrial action. That was what I was talking about. Ansett grounded its fleet & refused to supply a service when administrators took over. Of course, that was the end of Ansett - they could not trade out of their problems without an income.

• 

  INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 20:07

  So now we know more about who are behind Qantas's strategy…
  those behind the two most devisive industrial disputes of recent history.

  • same lawyers that worked on the '98 Docks dispute with Chris Corrigan to break unions (Freehills http://freehills.com/901.aspx#)

  • Chairman of Qantas Leigh Clifford, was the chair of RioTinto in the other big mining dispute to break unions in the '90s http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/466789-leigh-cli…

  So this dispute was planned well ahead by Qantas with intended consequences for the Australian public. Qantas never wanted negotiation. And we get shafted!

  Interesting that there is a new Docks dispute with Corrigan going on at the moment! http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/26/crikey-clarifier-how-doe…

  And those disputes brought on the Howard Government with Work Choices.
  I am beginning to think this all stinks.
  Seems we are being used for a political purpose (again).
  Not Happy, Joycie! (Source ABC24)

• 

  joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 20:28

  if union need some guarantee, there are only two things that qantas can give guarantee to them
  1. tax
  2. dead
  other than that, no one can give them guarantee about their job.
  how many big company has been collapse so far, which is more far bigger than qantas? so please do not demand unreasonable request.

  • 

    patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 20:34

    I bet 100% of all the Qantas union members would swap a job guarantee or job security for Joyce's job and his pay packet even for just 1 year even with the promise they would never be allowed to work again - let alone for his full term contract. 100% of them would.

    In fact i guarantee you 90% of every union worker in the world would swap their job for Joyce's and his pay packet. He earns more in one year than most would make in a life time (60k is the median wage).

  • 

    INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 20:40

    You are of course correct about the only certainties.
    But how many large businesses fail solely due to wage requests?

    When people know that their jobs could be about to be lost, they can get a little worried. (How will they pay their mortgage?)
    Any employer who is unaware of basic human desires for security, should do something else. Its not all about wages. Workers have apparently taken wage freezes to help Qantas profitability. Now profit has doubled in the last year, they are asking for a wage increase.
    Similarly, workers need to realise their employers need profits to employ them. No profits, no jobs. Simple!

    But concerted industrial action by Qantas (& Corrigan on the docks - again!) seems for a political purpose… forcing compulsory arbitration to win their way, but inconveniencing so many people.

  • 

    joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 21:27

    do you think the job as ceo just attending the party only? drink good wines? having fun every day?
    i am telling you, during gfc 2008, most of the ceo can't sleep at night. Back in 2008, in my company we have a serious case on one night, all senior manager in australia that night wasn't sleep at all, they are fighting hard to make sure the company still survive the following day. how about the worker? most of them still able to sleep at night.

    you guys that see people get high salary, only thing the big money, but you never seen their responsibility.

    I have a friend that working as analyst at investment bank, start from 7 or 8 am, and finish at early time 9pm but most of the time finish 1 or 2 am, most saturday still have to work for 6-8 hrs, sometimes weekend as well for 4 hrs. 70 hours is his minimum working hours a week. and he got bonus this year $250k, with his base salary below 100k. people will see him attending some function, drink nice wine, have see him having fun. but no one see his dark side. and people might see his income, but never see how hard and stress his work. do you think that union worker can handle the pressure? yeah for sure everyone want that money, but how many people want the task and responsibility behind that money?

    and these ceo / higher income earner; most of them also got higher mortgage as well. and they can get sack at any time by the board, and they can loose everything. with union? the company normally give them plenty of time to find another job and company also normally help them to transfer to another department and if no solution they got redundancy package. how about the ceo and these higher income earner? most of them has to find the new job by themselves.

    • 

      patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 21:42

      +4

      you are delusional!

      Plenty of people, myself included have worked long hours and through weekends(i did 19 days straight with many of them to midnight for an artificial deadline created by incompetent management) if it is necessary and for no big bonus- the boss gets the bonus and the plebs get a pep talk and a thankyou. I have worked in industries where the executives leave before the plebs and to manage the profit squeeze they have a wage freeze for workers year after year. The same places practice transfer pricing to avoid paying tax here.

      Your friend works in finance, it is a peculiar industry with very high margins and relatively low costs-the main cost is labour - accounting for 50% of profits - mostly in massive bonuses-this is morally theft from shareholders. Accounting, consulting and law also enjoy high margin industries. These industries operate by getting the lower level employees to charge maximum billable hours (work long hours) and give them nice bonuses but mainly the incentive is that they can rise to the top and then they can earn the million $ salary - but most leave exhausted and burnt out. It is quite brutal and inhumane -relying on greed.

      When a high executive is let go they are given a massive golden handshake-minimum 3 months in 95% of all contracts even if they have been with the company 1 year (no worker gets that unless they have been with the company 10 years), they get outplacement services too - i know i enjoyed that myself. The privileges of the powerful are massive. You have no idea.

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 21:52

        -3

        are u saying that u are competent replacing your manager? and you can do better job than you manager? i suggest you now, quit your job right now, try setup your own business and try your best to make your company survive in the first year, and make your company still in profit year on that first year with all your plan, then you came back to here tell your story. have you contribute some idea to your manager how to reduce the work load? most of the worker only give solution increase the staff. not all thing can be solve by hire more staff if the staff it self is not working efficiently.

        have you been working in hk? japan? seoul or singapore? try worked over there for 1 year mate, then you come back to here. then you tell me which one is heaven and which one is the hell.

      • 

        samfisher5986 on 30/10/2011 - 22:01

        +1

        joannatan, there is a big difference between starting and owning your own company, and walking in and taking over as CEO.

        Its a lot easier then people might think to be CEO when you can take over from someone else who is already running it reasonably well.

        Also if you are some new CEO then your unlikely to care about what happens to the company….

      • 

        patientvalue on 30/10/2011 - 22:07

        +2

        you jump to illogical conclusions. people have different strengths and weaknesses. Just because i see incompetence from my management doesn't mean i can do it. They have certain skills i don't, i recognised it and my own weaknesses.

        And yes i have been to Asia and USA and no way would i want to put up with their crap, which is why everyone wants to come here - but not pay tax :) Don't call me mate, there is nothing friendly in your tone; nor mine.

        I left the corporate world in 2006 fed up with the lies and incompetence all around-it was too immoral and demotivating. You talked about contributing ideas that save the company a lot of money but why bother when management repeatedly take the credit for those ideas with the CEO for themselves - this is such a common occurrence- it is called managing up and is endemic in the corporate world due to fear and short term goals everyone operates under.

        While working I started my own business - and the biggest challenge is people (always is, always will be) no argument with me on that but management - including me :) are just as big an issue. I am selling that biz to go traveling, i am burnt out even though it is a simple low maintenance operation.

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 22:10

        -2

        talking about manager that go home early, yeah my manager came 8 am and finish 4.30pm on time. but all of us knew that she has another meeting with hq at 10 pm until 2 am almost every night, and sometimes 6 am meeting as well. and the other manager within company that i knew well, that person might not a human being, i can see the trail email that this person start replying email from 1 am - 4 am, and start work again 8 am. just wondering if this cause of their marriage break down.

        talking about 19 days, my best was 21 days, can't make it 28 days straight as my bos told me by the law they have already break the law that allowing me working 21 days straight. is it my boss fault? nope. it is my choice (i need the money), and i believe it should be same in your case mate. no one force you except your self voluntarily express your willingness to do the job. including my mate that got that big bonus. he wants to impress his bos, he also wants to get good bonus.

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 22:33

        -2

        good comment " Just because i see incompetence from my management doesn't mean i can do it. They have certain skills i don't, i recognised it and my own weaknesses."

        so don't judge people then. it is easy to say people fault as you can see the result now, but no one can see the future, why don't you judge people future as well?

        no airlines company know what happen with the airplane manufacture future. you order the airplane with the promise will deliver qantas management, the decision was made that time with the situation at that time.

        when qantas order that aircraft, it was done after done some research. no management can predict the future, what they can do is make decision that suit at that time and suit with the company expansion plan. if future change, they just need to adopt that future, no need to blame something that has been done in the past.

        you always thinking about short time incentives, you always want to be recognize. for me when i contribute my idea, i don't care if my manager take credit or not, my aim only one, make sure i don't have to do over time, i get pay for 37.5 hrs, then i will make sure they only get 37.5 hrs of my time, no more.

    • 

      INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 22:32

      +1

      Now then, we're not equating a persons real worth to the size of their package, are we?? When I briefly met Alan Joyce, I never thought of his package, but liked the down-to-earth person.

      People can work long hours without remuneration, for instance as a volunteer. That does not make them a lesser person. Some people have character flaws that drive them to work too much. Often they are avoiding intimacy & other issues. It is of concern to me when they tell me everyone should work 'all the hours God sends', and they are annoyed by people who don't. Some people work long hours simply because they love the challenge that work provides.

      Many of my successful corparate clients (of my former business) worked long hours. (They had insecurities they could not normally discuss with anyone. A Minister of Government's only worry was that he did not write his own speeches!) But when I asked them why they worked so long & hard, they thought it was expected of them - it was the 'culture'. When I convinced them to get what they really wanted directly, outside of work (more time with family, sport, whatever), their spirits lifted along with the productivity of the organisation.

      These workplaces usually became less competitive between staff (often a driver for working unproductively long hours in my observations), as we worked out what each wanted to achieve (rarely any mention of money - it is just a substitute) & helped them help other workers increase productivity & profits. All this improvement in profits, job security, & less hours worked!

      • 

        joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 22:36

        -2

        love your comment below bruce "These workplaces usually became less competitive between staff (often a driver for working unproductively long hours in my observations), as we worked out what each wanted to achieve (rarely any mention of money - it is just a substitute) & helpe"

        i have seen this with our overseas branches. they have culture to say yes to their boss. so sometimes we need to push them to said what they thing is the best to change the situation.

      • 

        INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 23:09

        +2

        Where else but Japan would you find Karōshi - death by over work. It is so relatively common, they have a word for it! Parents tell me of friends of their children or neighbours who committed suicide during the GFC because of the great shame of not finding a job when they graduated.

        It is just cultural to work long hours. People within the culture don't think it is abnormal. In my many travels in Japan & South Korea, people find my views challenging. But in private they feel free to discuss their misgivings. Long hours are usually unproductive, and mainly for show. Like all pretense, I think it is ultimately unhealthy.

        As for speaking out, we tend to pride ourselves on it. But we are a timid mob. International surveys show we are conformists, rather than the larrikin of Aussie myth. Working within Aboriginal communities soon shows most people how Aboriginals can say what they think, while ordinary Aussies think I could not say that. It is also cultural. But Asian cultures emphasise respect, which is where we don't usually give a damn.

        As for my work in establishing different workplace cultures, it requires respect and true listening. That is truely lacking in the Qantas vs Unions dispute. I would not know where to start - as both sides have dug in. I had the luxury of working with small departments of large organisations, or individuals. It was very personal.

    • 

      gornfishin on 31/10/2011 - 16:22

      +2

      I used to work in hospitality industry for 12 years. I couldn't sleep at night, worked 12 hours a day (on my feet, no sitting down on backside) do extra shifts when people were sick or incompetent and took home $640 a week. This is stressful work too and I never got bonuses or wines at functions etc. Lots of pressure too, and very dark side.
      Sorry but I just cannot see how one human being can earn sooooooooo much more than another. Joyce doesn't personally look out for each and every employee and all the company entails- he has deputies that look after all that. So its total crap- he needs to take his bat, ball and 5 mil and F O back to Ireland.

• 

  aldog on 30/10/2011 - 21:08

  +1

  Remember, generally CEO's get paid a lot as they have a LOT on their shoulders!

  Hopefully this all gets sorted out sooner than later and people can continue their journeys.

  Anyway, there has been a lot of valid points throughout this thread, and I am going through giving people positive votes for being bothered writing half-page-plus statements! There are some passionate OzBargainers out there! :)

  • 

    INFIDEL on 30/10/2011 - 21:30

    Good on you - we are a crazy mob!
    Having an opinion can be lonely, so people with similar opinions like to huddle in groups, repeating their own opinions & deriding others for having different ones.

• 

  joannatan on 30/10/2011 - 23:30

  -1

  any way guys, as usual when the big storm hit, then you can see a sun will come up. we are ozbargainer in here waiting the qantas big sale to lure the customer back to fly with them again. looking forward for your sale ticket QANTAS.

  • 

    joannatan on 31/10/2011 - 18:28

    hmm it seems someone doesn't like qantas sale

• 

  m0nkeycheese on 31/10/2011 - 01:07

  +4

  Quote from a Pilot from another forum;
  This looks really sus!!

  ---

  This confirms what others have been saying for a while about how Qantas is subsidising Jetstar to its own detriment and to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act.

  For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.

  Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

  While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

  But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

  To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

  Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year.

  Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

  Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all re-bookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

  Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

  Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

  Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

  I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

  A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.

• 

  joannatan on 31/10/2011 - 10:24

  +2

  "AirAsia co-founder and CEO Tony Fernandes backed Mr Joyce’s move, saying on Twitter, 'You have to salute Alan Joyce for doing what he's doing. This is not about workers vs management. It’s about survival in the modern world.'"

  Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-shares-rise-in-early-t…

• 

  leiiv on 31/10/2011 - 17:05

  And this would be their (old, but still relevant) TV advertisement:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WSJop5sG2c&feature=player_em…