I never — never — thought I would see the day that I’d advocate government intervention in an industrial dispute. But it’s here; the Gillard government must sort out the mess at Qantas, and quickly. The government needs to sort out the mess its own dumb laws created.
News this afternoon that Qantas is grounding its entire fleet in the face of the industrial action it is confronted with means that one of three things now happens: the unions back down, the government orders them back to work, or Qantas goes out of business.
Qantas management is unlikely to back down, and nor should it; the demands it faces from its unions are ridiculous.
Clearly, the time for screwing around and causing trouble for the sake of it is over.
But a finger needs to be pointed at the ALP and the current federal government which, ultimately, is responsible for the mess by creating the circumstances in which this could occur in the first place.
The Rudd/Gillard government, as we all know, came to power in 2007 with little real mandate (aside from slogans like “Education Revolution”) other than to undo the WorkChoices legislation enacted by the Howard government.
But rather than simply repeal those amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, it went further, and created the most pro-union legislative environment in nearly thirty years.
And that environment has come back to bite — at least insofar as the dispute at Qantas is concerned.
It was only a matter of time before someone in the union movement tried it on, and — a little surprisingly — it’s been the aviation unions.
Between the raft of protected strike action provisions conveniently afforded by the Fair Work Act, and its general allowance of a return to pattern bargaining, unions are holding Qantas to ransom by simply refusing to budge an inch on their stated — and generally unreasonable — demands.
Those demands include pay rises of 15% over three years; well above inflation, and on top of the already-generous pay conditions they enjoy compared to engineering staff at other airlines.
Compared to engineering staff at Virgin Blue for that matter, too, with which the very same unions made a deal that saw their members earn considerably less than their brethren over at Qantas.
Those demands include conditions for contractors being made the same as those of their members who are employees of the airline, and that includes guarantees of job security — something which, by their very nature, a contractor can’t be given.
And those demands include guarantees of job security generally for union members who are employees of Qantas well beyond what is reasonable to expect any employer to provide; not least in light of the restructuring that is to commence at Qantas and the changes to its labour requirements such a restructure will necessitate.
The unions also say their campaign is designed to ensure Qantas remains a fully Australian-based airline and that they will “fight” moves to relocate operations and/or jobs to bases in Asian countries.
Never mind that management runs Qantas — not the unions some of its staff belong to.
Now that Qantas management is parking its planes on tarmacs around the world, let’s look at what is at stake and what the lie of the land really is.
Qantas International is already running at a heavy loss; the figure (depending on the source) is between $150 million and $220 million each year.
Yes, the other arms of the business are holding the overall entity in profit; last financial year the Qantas Group posted nett profit of some $550 million. But any business with a division haemorrhaging $200 million-odd per year has a serious underlying problem that requires urgent redress before it infects and drags down the remainder of the company.
The aviation industry is one of the most sensitive in the world to shocks on the cost side; terrorism, economic downturn, rises in the price of oil, plane crashes, government policies and taxes, and supply issues generally are all items on a much longer list of factors that can destroy airline businesses and send them into history.
Qantas has thus far made one major, major strategic blunder in its fight with its unions: the rather large pay rise its board endorsed yesterday for Chief Executive Officer Alan Joyce.
Not a good look, not smart timing, and damned silly tactically.
Still, the airline has lost $68 million so far from the present protracted industrial dispute, a figure widely accepted by economists, industry analysts, and aviation industry journalists.
It probably wasn’t smart for the unions, yesterday, to assert that this $68 million had been spent “on advertising.”
Indeed, it was probably the final wave of the red flag at the bull.
The 15% pay rise claim over three years mightn’t be so obscene if it weren’t for the fact that many of the engineering staff in question are already paid several times the average weekly wage of about $60,000 per year; factor in that the claim is for double the inflation rate, pressures in the aviation industry generally and problems in segments of the Qantas business specifically, and it’s outrageous.
One of the things Qantas management has said in the course of this dispute is that its engineers want to hold jobs and to be paid for maintenance work that no longer exists.
A process which has already — and belatedly — started is the retirement of Boeing 747-400s, Boeing 767-300s and older Boeing 737-400s from the Qantas fleet.
These planes represent half of the 200-odd units in the Qantas fleet, and those retiring planes have an average age of 20 years.
They are being replaced with brand new Airbus A380s, Boeing 737-800s, and the soon-to-be-introduced Boeing 787 Dreamliner — all of which will require little heavy maintenance for 6-9 years.
That’s the market law of supply and demand; if Qantas doesn’t need to maintain the workforce it has because fleet renewal makes positions redundant, it has no obligation to keep staff on its books just to be nice.
On the other side of the coin, the skills these engineering people have are not only prized, but sought around the world; indeed, given the exponential growth in the aviation industry expected in the next 20 years — not least in the Asia-Pacific region — those portable skills offer licensed engineers and other engineering professionals the opportunity to work across the world.
Not, perhaps, in Australia, at least not in the immediate future; and not, indeed, in a regime where they can regularly tell their boss — to put it indelicately — to bend over.
They wouldn’t get away with it in Dubai or Singapore, for example.
And any industrial claim to put contractors on the same level of entitlements as permanent, long-term employees is so offensive (and abusive of process) that it doesn’t warrant or merit response.
Any airline business operating today needs to find cost savings; it’s the nature of the industry, the world over.
It’s why half the airlines in the US are in government bankruptcy protection; it’s why, for example, airlines in the UK (one of which Alan Joyce once ran) are looking at things like charging for use of toilets, or silly ideas like flying twice as many people standing up to maximise flight yields.
None of this has even been hinted at in Australia.
But if the price of maintaining Qantas as the Spirit of Australia (or, indeed, the living spirit of anything) involves some operations in Asian countries, then that’s better than the alternative.
Indeed, former CASA head Dick Smith — who ought to know about these things — was broadcast on Melbourne radio today, saying that if the current industrial action against Qantas doesn’t stop, the airline will either go broke or become a purely domestic carrier.
Just think about that…if Qantas goes broke, 40,000 people instantly lose their jobs; and air travel in Australia becomes something you save up for over a period of months or years like it was 15-20 years ago.
I can remember saving for six months for my first airfare from Brisbane to Melbourne as an 18-year-old in 1990…some people couldn’t even afford to do that.
This dispute is already affecting hundreds of thousands of travellers; it is placing tourism-based businesses under great strain; it is diluting what inbound international traffic is still coming here despite the high dollar and economic problems abroad; and it is impacting businesses across the country who require access to reliable air travel at short notice in the daily course of their operations.
And were the end result simply to be that Qantas became a purely domestic operation, every foreign carrier would look at us here, and say to anyone wanting to fly much further than Auckland or Bali — again — to bend over. The price of flights would rocket.
The economic damage to Australia of a partial or full collapse of Qantas would be horrific.
This isn’t Ansett, where a poorly run (and much smaller) parent company presided over a subsidiary in which management standards were abysmal and aircraft maintenance, service bulletins and compulsory fleet inspections were routinely and systematically ignored.
No, this is a business being held to ransom by a militant, unionised minority, endangering the whole business in the process, and potentially inflicting incalculable economic damage on Australia generally if it all goes pear-shaped.
It’s well-known that as a rule I’m generally contemptuous of unions, largely as a result of the type of thuggery and bastardry we’re seeing played out here.
But from a philosophical point of view I think workers are entitled to this type of representation if they want it — provided the organisations offering that representation don’t abuse it.
And they are here.
Completing the circle, Julia Gillard and her government need to intervene in this immediately.
It is ALP-sponsored law that has emboldened the unions down this path, and it is now incumbent on the government to shut this down.
It goes against every fibre of my being to advocate a government intervention, but in this case the government is as much at fault as the unions trying to put Qantas over a barrel are.
Neither side is perfect, but on a “points decision” or balance of probabilities or whatever euphemism you like, Qantas is right and the unions are wrong.
Now it’s grounded.
The longer it stays on the ground, the more it will cost the economy generally; and if this isn’t cleared up quickly — and once and for all — there’s a real danger of vast and permanent damage not just to the Australian economy, but to international confidence in Australia.
And that’s a hell of a price to pay for union thugs trying to hang “the boss” out to dry.
Shut it down, Julia.
This is a chance for the Prime Minister to deliver something other than rhetoric, or policies people despise and never voted for.
It’s time for the Labor Party to put the labour movement in its place. For the national good.
And for God’s sake, be quick about it…
How awful for these Australian citizens to ask for such awful things like $1 extra per hour to cover cost of living increases and that Australian citizens jobs of an Australian company stay in Australia? (They just welcomed the Queen for goodness sake) , and of course its acceptable to loose more per minute on pokies anyhoo.
For instance you have already bagged Qantas ‘management’, which made several hundreds of millions of dollars profit through off shoring jobs to increase profits, and for its poor management who wants to continue to drop safety standards on which its reputation relies on(ie profits in pure economic terms rather than building a reputable brand people are pleased to use). Unbelievably, that was before the 70% pay increase to Joyce (Irish CEO) at the meeting on owners of significant stock. Not a lot of Mum and Dads there as purported by the conservative politicians/”business people” of the country want us believe. (yeah OK super funds technically makes a majority of the population shareholders but they have no control over spending or investment of the companies they ‘own”)
So they’ve(Qantas) lost some , conservatively in their own words, $80 million recently, which is bad for the company sure(anyone can see that), $80 million at $1 per hour is a lot for workers who could have been paid to work through some basic common sense? and would have saved the company money without the CEO’s threats of closure (and kept his outrageous pay increase, and the damage to the brand this created threatening the long term future of the company and trashing the brand),and despite the hard times he claims stops workers getting modest increases. This doesn’t include the legal fees and other “worthwhile” investments on the company that this would incur, which even modestly would be termed ‘substantial”. Another burden on shareholders that impacts on returns that wasn’t warranted.
This is pitiful, based upon conservative politics rep Tony Abbott (where was he through this or anything lately for that matter?) based politics on what Unions have been unfairly bagged for, fighting old battles, Joyce wanted off shoring technical jobs for less wages for less service for basic bottom line economics. So is it Unions and workers who are behind the times on a company built on reliability and safety or shall some blow in with “management solutions” ruin safety, our company name and Australian jobs.
Thank God we have an ALP Government that protects our interests rather than cheap political point scoring.
May the workers united, never be defeated !
Steve, everyone wants more money — it’s not always possible. I did a calculation prior to answering your comment: did you know that if every Qantas worker (35,000 of them) was given a pay rise of $1 per hour (based on a 38 hour week and a 48-week year) it would add, conservatively, $65 million to the annual Qantas wage bill? The actual figure would be far higher once overtime, penalty rates and shift allowances and so forth were accounted for.
It is true that in a previous article I criticised Qantas management for poor fleet planning decisions, and for the recruitment of ex-Ansett management personnel who took with them to Qantas the dreadful Ansett management culture and, to some extent, infected the Flying Kangaroo with that ailment. I have also criticised the pay rise the Qantas shareholders approved for Alan Joyce.
I have not criticised Qantas management about plans to set up subsidiaries offshore, although I did express reservations around these; and the line unions are pushing in relation to “off-shoring jobs” to cut costs is one I simply do not subscribe to. As long as the international arm of the business continues to operate, and as long as Qantas retains partnerships with other airlines, it is inevitable that some work is going to be done on Qantas planes on foreign tarmacs.
If you were going to get on a Qantas 747 in — say — Hong Kong to return home after a holiday; and if that 747 had blown an engine on landing in Hong Kong from (probably) London; would you prefer the engine to be overhauled at the Rolls-Royce engine facility in Hong Kong, or would you prefer to jump on board and fly back to Australia on a 747 with one bunged engine?
I didn’t think so…
And even if you argue that an overhauled engine could be flown from Australia as a V-Pod delivery, technicians somewhere else would still need to remove the dysfunctional engine and fit the replacement, adjust and calibrate it, test it, and probably take it on a test flight.
Surely from just this one very realistic scenario you can see what a pile of shit the union case about offshoring maintenance is built on.
The $80 million (using your figures) the dispute has cost Qantas would have been better spent buying a new Boeing 737 and getting rid of one of the 20-year-old 737-400s in the Qantas fleet. A new 737-800 costs $80 million.
The problem here with the union argument is that most of the new replacement planes Qantas has ordered are electronically programmed to diagnose most maintenance requirements and broadcast them in advance to a central company computer to flag works orders. This technology reduces the maintenance emphasis on inspection and increases it in the area of remedial action.
The aviation maintenance unions know this and are in denial over it; the “con” is that some of their jobs at Qantas might disappear. The “pro” is that Qantas will always need maintenance engineers, as will every airline in the world, and with aviation set to almost double in size as an industry in the next 20 years, those engineering staff will always have job opportunities.
They may not be at Qantas, and they may not be somewhere the unionists feel so comfortable about trying to screw their masters.
Qantas — like all of the so-called “legacy carriers” — is under enormous pressure to modernise, change its business practices, and compete with state-run outfits from third-world countries with inexhaustible cheap labour and fuel (yes, Emirates, Etihad and Qatar). This change isn’t mutually exclusive to the maintenance of safety standards and reliability.
Indeed, and ironically, the greatest source of unreliability at Qantas is the ancient planes its engineers never want to see leave the fleet because of the better reliability and lower maintenance requirements of the replacement planes starting to come on line.
It’s a credit to the Qantas engineering division that those planes are still very safe to fly on, but they can’t fly forever just to guarantee jobs.
I went to Britain in 2008 on the 1990-registered VH-OJH; you know, the jumbo that went for a round of golf at the end of the runway in Bangkok one stormy night in 1999.
It was repaired in Thailand under the supervision of engineers from Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and from Qantas.
Today, the 21-year-old OJH is still flying despite the repaired damage, its age, and technical issues with its engines and componentry and its sheer fuel inefficiency, which date to the mid 1980s in design terms and are shared with all 747-400s still flying in the Qantas fleet — of which 15 of the other 18 (excluding the six -ER models) are all of a similar vintage to, or older than, OJH .
When I go to Britain at some point next year, I don’t really want to see OJH there to pick me up and carry me — irrespective of who’s been working on her.
The ALP government has shown — again — its utter incompetence in its handling of this issue; see my post of 31 October for more details.
And as for the “Workers Of The World, Unite” bit — spare me. Scargill tried it in the coal mines in Wales in the 1980s; it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
And the Soviet Union is gone, no matter how much Bob Brown wants to create a nuclear-free version of it in Australia.
It’s all a load of codswallop, old sport…
$1 per hour?! Absolute bollocks, Steve Axe, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. The unions are seeking pay rises of twice the rate of inflation, for workers already on 6 figure salaries. Speaking as one who is not on a 6 figure salary, and working for a company that couldn’t afford pay rises for its staff this year, I find the unions’ claims and actions to be outrageous. Yes, it is equally, if not more, outrageous that Joyce pockets a massive salary jump in the midst of 9 months of industrial action over pay. But that does not justify what the unions are up to. Bill Shorten takes the biscuit on this issue – he’s screeching at Qantas for grounding its fleet and disrupting the plans of tens of thousands of Australian travellers. And yet the union disruptions and rolling stoppages over the last 9 months have done precisely that. Oooooh the hypocrisy.
there are several Unions with disputes covering different workers on different pay scales, baggage handlers are asking for $1 per hour.
Rolling stoppages came after months of negotiating , this action locking out workers for asking for a decent conditions, the draconian actions by Joyce are last century IR practices and is an absolute disgrace
They’re industrial practices that only became possible under your own Labor government’s Fair Work Act. The law is the law, Steve…just as the unions have farted around with their rolling stoppages under that law, so too is Joyce entitled to do what he did. If it’s a disgrace, go looking for the author of the Fair Work Act…she lived at The Lodge until she was evicted on account of it being a potential deathtrap…
Utilising ‘last century’ IR practices is an absolute disgrace, is it? And how ‘current’ are union tactics in this matter? Is Qantas supposed to just put up with union disruption to its business without responding? These disputes and rumblings have been going on for NINE MONTHS. Joyce’s tactic to shut the airline down is extreme, but I think he’s right in as much as it will bring everything to a head, to be resolved ahead of Christmas holidays. Would you consider it preferable that this crap continue on through the holidays? And let’s not delude ourselves into believing that the unions will not seek to disrupt the busiest time of the year.
You talk about only an additional $1 per worker per hour. That’s only for baggage handlers. What about the engineers? They are seeking a hell of a lot more than that. Funny how you pick the lower class of claim in order to prop up your flimsy arguments.
Let’s keep in mind that Qantas is a BUSINESS – it’s not a NOT FOR PROFIT. Keep in mind too that Qantas needs to replace its ageing fleet of planes (some of which are 20 years old). Conservative estimates for the replacement program in coming years is around $4 billion. Qantas may be making $500 million or so profits each year, but you’re looking at 10 years of consistently hitting $500 million profits in order to pay for the new fleet. Replacing the fleet is a no brainer – the planes are OLD. The longer they fly, the greater the risk of a serious crash leading to loss of life. I personally don’t relish the prospect of Qantas becoming the joke of Australia, in the same way Aeroflot (or ‘Aeroflop’) is the joke of Russia.
It’s pretty naive, and shows a distinct lack of business knowledge, to suggest that Qantas can afford this ridiculous wage claim.
So workers on $38,000 a year suffer becuase of bad management having to update its fleet in a short time? The engineers are after 5% which is negotiable and job security to protect the brand they work for by keeping maintenance operations here in Australia , with Australian jobs.
The business has plenty of avenues under the Fair Work Act to adress the issue but they have not budged despite Union efforts to negotiate, try and re write the facts as you will with personal slurs but the reality of this action is more to do with breaking up the brand not building the business.
If Qantas can’t afford to pay its workforce here in Australia, and seeks overseas options then why did Joyce accept a 70% pay increase if times are that tough?
Unions gave notice of their industrial action, Joyce pulled planes ticking over on the runway with passengers on board to notify customers of the industrial action taken by the Board, despite the fact it would have had to have been planned for sometime.
Locking out employees who haven’t gone on strike by leaving pilots and cabin crew stranded all over the world is a disgrace.
This is simply bad management and, as usual, lets blame the workers and their Union rather than look at the actual causes of their systemic managerial failures and agendas more to do with breaking up an Australian company then defending the brands image and future viability.
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/what_the_unions_want_1XPzVNsdfoO8ijqgol4e1O
Fin Review explanation on what each side wants
http://www.keepqantasflying.com.au/
Shows what the union demands will cost.
Steve there is a very simple fact here that you are ignoring. QANTAS are losing money in the International division. Their costs are already 25% higher than their competitors.
How can they pay the people more and still reduce costs so that they are competitive and profitable?
I’ll explain it on your level:
Great sky bird lose money.
Great sky bird go broke.
Aaaaalllllll people, work for Great sky bird, out of job.
Savvy? (There are only two words of more than one syllable)
Very true, JohnB, whoever you are; you’ve given Steve an unusually concise and beautifully brief summary of the situation at hand; I’ve taken the time to go into it in more detail for him, but I doubt he will like either of the two perspectives.
I’ll be watching to see if your post elicits a response.
You seem hell bent on focusing on baggage handlers, when clearly the issues are far broader than that. The 5% the engineers are after is twice the rate of inflation. And as I said earlier, many companies, including the one I work for, did not give their employees pay rises this year because they simply couldn’t afford it. I work in the travel industry, and my company is as susceptible to international turbulence as Qantas. By the way, our workplace has union representation – and I haven’t heard a whisper of industrial action.
Qantas didn’t pull its planes out of spite. The decision was made to ensure that these issues are resolved quickly – but then you know that, so I don’t understand why you are banging on about the injustice of it all. What’s unjust is that the rumblings of a few have the power to cause major interruptions to the many. Maintenance schedules on many Qantas planes are backed up because engineers are on a ‘go slow’ program. This process has had flow on effects to flight cancellations over the course of the last 9 months. But as I said, you already know that. You are determined to ignore facts and instead focus on the rights of the workers. Sounds awfully like a communist manifesto.
The only way to ensure Qantas survives, and that Australian jobs are saved, is to ensure that the company is profitable and competitive internationally. The international business is haemorrhaging money, and you don’t have to listen to Joyce say it’s unsustainable to know that that’s the case – all you need is a modicum of business sense. This is not a unique business perspective – my company shed a truck load of jobs and moved them to an overseas office so as to try to shield it from the battering we’ve been taking on forex.
Companies operating in the travel sector, susceptible to international forces, are finding it incredibly hard going, and have been finding it so for quite some time. It’s not all about the workers – if it were, then no company in any sector would ever turn a profit.
Unions gave notice of their action – as they have been doing so all year. Joyce had a decision to make. Play dosey-doh with the unions once again, and wait for the next little hissy fit to come up (probably over the Christmas holidays, for maximum impact), or lay everything on the line now and resolve everything in one go.
You are focused on a single issue, and are resolutely failing to see the bigger picture. I can only assume you don’t work in private enterprise, as your lack of business sophistication is truly staggering.
I must say I am wrong on the % asked by engineers its actually 2.5% not 5%. Hardly a huge amount for a company that CAN afford it. You don’t need an MBA to work that out.
If you work in travel then surely you would like it sorted as quickly as possible meaning you would want management to bargin in good faith on an agreement which ran out in January in the case for engineers. Qantas also had the opportunity to call in the bargining period to seek a resolution and choose not to even though they receive legal advice from Freehills, a noted IR legal firm who would well know that was an option. They received advice ten days ago about the implications of this action, they had time and didn’t allow travellers to know. Thats wrong.
Your workplace probably didn’t look to legal action becuase it , as you state, couldn’t afford it, and example of Unions actually being sensible about these things.
I find it quite odd that you criticise my business sophistication when this issue is almost certainly cover IR, and many other aspects of business that , if you support Joyce actions rather than those that were also available to him shows a distinct lack of understanding of that aspect of business. Its not all about bottom lines(especially when the company turns a reasonable profit, large enough in fact to ‘grant’ the CEO a 70% pay rise).
As for the communist manifesto , I probably have the benefit of actually reading it to understand it, clearly if you beleive this is communism then you don’t understand the basic facets of that ideology. Modern IR is in the Unions Court, old world class warfare in this instance is Joyce and his cronies. There actions to lookout workers is old school IR penalising all of their workforce out of spite, and with the aim to offshore jobs. How many tourism industry jobs do you think will be here if we are all unemployed becuase workers on third world rates are doing our jobs?
The ALAEA seeks a payrise of 15% over three years, amongst other things; with inflation running at 2.4% on an annualised basis with one-offs stripped out (e.g. the price of bananas after the cyclone in Queenland in January) the claim is for double the rate of inflation.
Oh the company CAN afford it? Because you say so? On the basis of what? Your detailed study of the books, your in-depth knowledge of the industry and the cost pressures it faces? Your ignorance is astounding.
You seem to forget the point I made earlier – Qantas needs to spend about $4billion in the next few years to replace its ageing fleet. I agree that Joyce’s salary increase is an abomination – I don’t believe ANYONE needs to be paid a seven figure salary. However, his $5 million is not going to be enough to buy a wheel, let alone an entire aircraft.
I don’t understand why you think that the Unions are acting in a ‘modern’ way, when strike action (especially the sudden stoppage variety) is a gambit they have always used. Qantas is not penalising its workforce out of spite – it is simply trying to put an end to the uncertainty and disruption that has occurred over the course of the year. Qantas is not blameless – nor are the unions. And it’s about time you acknowledge the union movements’ role in this whole sorry saga, including the damage done to the airline’s reputation.
As to Qantas sitting on advice as to the implications of the decision to shut down 10 days ago. Needless to say, that was legal (particularly IR advice). Presumably, the business then had to crunch the numbers on whether this was a viable option in order to resolve the ongoing disputes – how much money would it cost to do this, versus how much it has already cost and the likely ongoing costs from further industrial action. Unions had already indicated these rolling stoppages would go on for another year. These are not figures that can be plucked out of thin air.
The economics of the situation are bleeding obvious. Of course, working in the travel sector, I want this resolved. Everyone does. No one will be well served by the demise of Qantas, least of all its 37,000 employees. Where do they go then? Again, look to the bigger picture.
You’ve actually read the communist manifesto? How unsurprising.
Ummm so your arguments that they can’t afford must surely be based on your in depth knowledge of Qantas books then by your fuzzy logic.
Again management faults in not continually updating its fleet and then relying on borrowings ( paid off in ten years on your maths) are blamed on workers seeking moderate pay increases and job security. Half a billion in profits does mean they can negotiate a fair outcome for all concerned. The issue is Qantas doesn’t seek this, they want to increase profits by off shoring jobs to places with lower wages and safety conditions.
The big picture is clear and has nothing to do with a stretched budgetary position .
My my, what a very spiritied and caustic argument we have unfolding in this little Blog.
It is no secret where my loyalties lie and they are cerainly not with any Union with their bullying tactics and a total disregard for anyone – yes, even their members.
Qantas had no choice but to call this action into play to MAKE this lazy, lying, fly on the shirtails of others Prime Minister have to stand up and acknowledge that there is a serious problem here that HER (and KRudd’s) policies have created.
Yes, perhaps the timing for the pay rise, in hindsight, was not the best – but who would want to do Alan Joyce’s job for any less??? Not I.
It is clearly and unmistakably obvious – by that very occurance, that this action was not planned.
Sure, it may have been Plan ‘B’ but for how long does any business have to tolerate being told what to do and how much to pay and how to run their business by a bunch of thugs.
PLUS lose $15 million per week – every week in the process.
Here I go, and I promised myself that I wouldn’t get angry,
Perhaps some attention could be directed at the price gouging taking place at Virgin – regardless of their “Knight in Shinning Armour” demeanor.
There was one of those wonderfully Photoshopped pictures around the place some years ago; it featured two Boeing 737s parked adjacent to each other — one with tail livery saying “Virgin” and the other (obviously doctored) saying “Slut.” Certainly, Virgin has sought to make a lot of money out of what has been going on at Qantas; it’s an obscenity as far as I am concerned that the same unions holding Qantas to ransom struck deals with Virgin for members employed there to be paid a lot less than their members employed by Qantas. How does the song go? “I say democracy…you say hypocrisy…let’s call the whole thing off…”
Steve Axe, you are entirely ignorant of the operations of the airline industry. Qantas’ ability to update its fleet is entirely contingent on the aircraft manufacturers building the planes. As a business, Qantas will always want to have the latest & greatest planes, the most technologically advanced planes. The Airbus A380 took many years to build, many more than it should have due to various glitches and delays in manufacture. Qantas had been waiting on delivery of these planes, to commence its replacement schedule.
Qantas is also awaiting the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner – again, a technologically advanced plane that has experienced manufacturing delays. Same story again for the Boeing 777.
So planning is one thing – Qantas can plan until its blue in its corporate face. But if the planes ain’t ready, the planes ain’t ready. And there’s no point buying new versions of the old planes, when its competitors will only buy the brand spanking new models and market themselves to passengers accordingly as having the best planes from the passenger comfort and gadgetry perspectives.
You don’t even have to be an aviation specialist to know this – all you have to do is read more widely than the left wing propaganda you swallow with a teaspoon of sugar for breakfast every morning.
How about you read this, especially section ten.
http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb7444.htm
Now with all the available evidence can you say that its the Unions fault?
Here’s a tip – read the whole thing before pulling out one paragraph in isolation. In particular, look at paragraphs 13-16, in which it is said that continued disruption by both the unions and Qantas is permissible under our system, and FWA considers it in the best interests of all parties to terminate protected industrial action immediately. Note the use of the word ‘both’? It’s a concept I mentioned in my previous post – unlike you, I’ve not sought to blame one party for this whole ridiculous mess.
Relevant paragraphs repeated below, for your ease of reference. Emphasis added.
“[13] On the evidence there is significant uncertainty arising from the protected action INITIALLY OF THE UNIONS but in particular arising from the lockout and the grounding of the airline. We should do what we can to avoid significant damage to the tourism industry.
[14] There is a need to balance this issue against the fact that PROTECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER OUR SYSTEM and has been now for many years and has been taken relatively frequently in the airline industry with successive bargaining rounds. It is also important that encouragement of enterprise bargaining is also part of the system. In that respect, what we have heard indicates there are still prospects for a satisfactory negotiated outcome in all three cases. The prospect of a negotiated resolution in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements still remains.
[15] In this case the primary consideration, however, as required by s.424(1), is the effect of the protected action on the wider aviation and tourism industries. We have decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, which on the evidence include the particular vulnerability of the tourism industry to uncertainty, suspension will not provide sufficient protection against the risk of significant damage to the tourism industry and aviation in particular. Suspension is necessarily temporary – it leaves open the possibility there may be a further lock out with its attendant risks for the relevant part of the economy. That is, a risk the situation we are now dealing with will recur.
[16] For these reasons we have decided to terminate protected industrial action in relation to each of the proposed enterprise agreements immediately.”
Get your facts straight before you jump on your soap box.
Here’s another tip, thanks for highlighting other sections of the decison which supports my side of the argument, where does it allocate blame for the problems in tourism industry is caused by Unions?
the protected industrial action relates to both (however it is the employer who was instigating that action at the time of the decision) and there is no particular blame as there certainly is in section 13 where it states initialy instigated by Unions but IN PARTICULAR ARISING FORM THE LOCKOUT AND GROUNDING OF THE AIRLINE.
Further THAT THERE ARE STILL PROSECTS FOR A SATISFACTORY NEGOTIATED OUTCOME IN ALL THREE CASES. Qantas brought this on becuase they argued this wasn’t the case and shut down the entire workforce.
S15 talks of the vulnerability of the tourism industry due top the uncertainty of a an indefinate lockout by the employer.
s16 relates to the current actions of the employer as the Unions were not, it was the lockout that instigated this.
But thanks for highlighting my argument for me.
God you are so wrong, it’s laughable. The employer instigated the action following many months of disruption by unions. Paragraph 13 says ‘initially by unions’. Paragraph 14 goes on to point out how protected industrial action has been used many times in the airline industry. Paragraph 16 is a reference to protected industrial action utilised by both parties. See that word again? ‘Both’. Again, and I can’t believe I have to say this, BOTH PARTIES ARE AT FAULT.
Given you live with your head in the sand, it’s not at all surprising that your ears are blocked.
So you quote Qantas on “facts” I mean really (my links where to independent FWA and the Fin Review and go tow the Bosses line), and on the rate of what the Unions are asking for is simplistic argument, it doesn’t count that it what they high point of what they have always suggested they are happy to talk about, what Qantas baulks at is the job security. The bottom line is the company is making money even if they have to buy new planes, and the main reason people fly them is being trashed becuase of the actions of management.
As for their international line ‘losing money’ over all they make money and fund Jet Star costs (airport fees, etc..) to get around their obligations under their Act , Qantas is owned in majority by investment bankers/groups not Mums and Dad investors interested in protecting the brand. Qantas has an agenda which isn’t in our national interests, while you run around saying its the Cold War all over again with evil english coal mine Unions smashing the state, Qantas is screwing us all. I hope you are all around when it happens, but I suspect the unions will be at fault not it’s International owners.
Why is it that you lot have to try and deride me by insults rather be confident in your own arguments.? Says something.
@Yale, I am sure Tony Abbott would be pleased to know you are arguing such a low cost of living increase
Steve, it’s quite simple – you insist on being right, backing your comments with questionable interpretation of commentary and the FWA ruling. Posters here have refuted your claims that Qantas has deep pockets and can afford to pay its staff whatever they want. Your link to the FinRev article does nothing more than to point out that the dispute between Qantas and the 3 unions has been going on for quite a long time. Joyce’s action was extreme, but at least there will be a resolution (one way or another) within 21 days. It was a calculated risk, and only time will tell whether it was worth taking. But at least all of this will be resolved before the critical Christmas travel period.
You use quotes and references questionably – which is why your comments hold no weight. The company has made a $500 million profit. It’s international arm is losing truck loads of money. It’s cost base is substantially higher than that of its competitors. And, again, the company needs to continue its program of updating ageing aircraft.
You know, if you’re very lucky, then Qantas will fold. Another major international carrier will move into the market. I hear that Malaysian Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Emirates are watching this situation with enormous interest. And you can bet your little tushy that if Qantas does fold, and one of these carriers comes into the market, they will not be paying salaries anywhere near the levels that Qantas is currently paying.
Hardly, posters here have yet to put forward an argument which allows someone to see the position from another light except for from an original position of bias with unsubstantiated claims.
Updating by leasing new aircraft isn’t the economically crippling task you suggest, if it were so and decent management would forward project this and wage rises for employees in its future planning and side some thing weren’t viable. The aircraft update will reduce costs, less fuel, as Yale states less employees, tax benefits, would all be calculated into their bottom line. Hence adressing much of the concerns of the international wing.
https://www.qantas.com.au/agents/dyn/qf/info/201102/0221
This is about the company getting around the Qantas Sales Act and offshoring jobs to save more money as they are run by investment bankers , not people interested in strenghtening an Australian brand.
I don’t want Qantas to fold, far from it. I want jobs here, but I also want workers to be treated with dignity and respect, Joyce doesn’t give me confidence that that will happen.
But if it’s not ecomonically viable to keep jobs here, then why should Qantas be punished? It’s a reality faced by many companies these days (as I’ve said, including by the one I work for). Unions are seeking a security that no employer can guarantee, and which can ultimately only lead to the demise of the company itself. Face facts – if Qantas airfares are not competitive on price, then travellers will go elsewhere, bookings will plummet and it’s all over red rover.
You’ve got to see the big picture – this is not just about worker/union demands.
How are they ‘punished’ ? Paying a porportion of their profits to ensure a happy, productive workforce is hardly being ‘punished’ .
Big picture is , Qantas (Joyce and the Board) are using tactics to get around the Qantas Sales Act to change from being the quality, high profile airline to a cheap Asia based airline. There is a niche market to retain their current brand image as is successful as reported buy other airlines in the same market segment, the reality is overseas investment through investment funds rather than Australians (Mum and Dad shareholders who want to protect the brand and keep its jobs and therefore our economy ticking through employment) is driving them away despite record profits .
So yet again, big picture , they are leaving here for Asia, they want someone to blame (ie Unions), our industry is destroyed becuase our market leader (through outstanding safety records becuase of great, well trained staff – and good on Qantas for ensuring this previously) ditched its reasons for being the market share leader in OZ and a competitive OS provider (yep heard weak arguments and they don’t stack up) , end of story.
I can’t believe that everyone thinks this union thug has changed his spots. When I was a young lad i remember this standover mafia brainless turd standing beside John Halfpenny – remember him?. These two made Al Capone look like Mary Poppins. I,ve had PERSONAL first hand experience in closed shop union meetings with Bill and John in the ‘bad ol’ days’ I wouldn’t give this shifty schyster the bloody time of day and if he told me the sky was blue, I would rush outside to verify it. He sleeps with one eye open because he doesn’t trust himself. This piece of sh*t hasen’t got a skeleton in the closet, he’s got a whole cemetary.
Not sure who the union thug is that you’re talking about John, unless it’s the union tactics in general…either way, welcome, and thanks for your comment.