Qantas' entire fleet grounded

[redandblack]

Here is what the 'greedy' unions are asking for.

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies ... ijqgol4e1O

from the Financial Review

[Chuck Wepner]

Interesting article if it's that simple. It makes Joyce look like an even bigger joke. The board should sack him immediately if they are serious....

[Bully]

thats what the 'say' they want. but i am positive its more then that as usual. I would love what they are asking for im my industry....but i would never get it, so why should they

[dedja]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

As an Australian based international company, Qantas (within reasonable means) should be able to restructure the company to improve productivity and reduce costs.

The real showdown is the union's complete abhorrence at the proposed measures that Qantas may apply to 'offshore' capability and services.

They're too stupid to realise that these measures will provide long term security for Qantas and it's employees (better to have most on ongoing employment than none).

In some ways, this situation is not too dis-similar to the efforts of Patrick to reform the waterfront a few years ago.

[bulldogproud2]

thats what the 'say' they want. but i am positive its more then that as usual. I would love what they are asking for im my industry....but i would never get it, so why should they

It is not just what 'they' say they want, the Financial Review has verified that this is what they are asking for.
Their claims are partially about safety and partially about trying to protect their jobs, rather than see overseas labour employed by QANTAS, a firm that increased its profits by 46% last year by already cutting a lot of costs which reduced the safety of their aircrafts.
Oh, and they somehow managed to increase the salary of their CEO by an obscene 70% yet are not willing to give pay rises of 4% to their employees!
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

As an Australian based international company, Qantas (within reasonable means) should be able to restructure the company to improve productivity and reduce costs.

The real showdown is the union's complete abhorrence at the proposed measures that Qantas may apply to 'offshore' capability and services.

They're too stupid to realise that these measures will provide long term security for Qantas and it's employees (better to have most on ongoing employment than none).

In some ways, this situation is not too dis-similar to the efforts of Patrick to reform the waterfront a few years ago.

Whilst it may provide long term security for QANTAS, it will mean loss of employment for many of its Australian workforce, replacing them with foreign labour.
Re the Patrick case, you will remember that Patrick were forced in the end to re-employ their Australian staff, against the wishes of Patrick.

[bulldogproud2]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

If the safety of employees and regular safety checks on aircraft are out of date, then, yes.
However, I would much rather, as a passenger, travel on an aircraft that is safe and not likely to drop out of the sky in the cause of cost-cutting. QANTAS used to enjoy the reputation of being the safest airline in the skies but, unfortunately, in the pursuit of cost-cutting has had a number of safety issues that have seen it fall well down the list.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-new ... 1jj3k.html

[sherminator]

Hypothetically speaking, if Qantas were to return to a solely Australian based workforce, therefore having to incur higher operating costs due to our higher wages etc., how many of you would be willing to pay the higher ticket prices and continue flying Qantas rather than using cheaper carriers?

I was having a similar discussion with a colleague the other day who was complaining about people not 'buying Australian' and yet then complained about products becoming more expensive. I maybe wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!) but doesn't all of this originally stem from Qantas wanting to outsource jobs to Asia in order to keep costs down and remain competitive?

[dedja]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

As an Australian based international company, Qantas (within reasonable means) should be able to restructure the company to improve productivity and reduce costs.

The real showdown is the union's complete abhorrence at the proposed measures that Qantas may apply to 'offshore' capability and services.

They're too stupid to realise that these measures will provide long term security for Qantas and it's employees (better to have most on ongoing employment than none).

In some ways, this situation is not too dis-similar to the efforts of Patrick to reform the waterfront a few years ago.

Whilst it may provide long term security for QANTAS, it will mean loss of employment for many of its Australian workforce, replacing them with foreign labour.
Re the Patrick case, you will remember that Patrick were forced in the end to re-employ their Australian staff, against the wishes of Patrick.

And you will also remember that productivity skyrocketed up ...

[dedja]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

If the safety of employees and regular safety checks on aircraft are out of date, then, yes.
However, I would much rather, as a passenger, travel on an aircraft that is safe and not likely to drop out of the sky in the cause of cost-cutting. QANTAS used to enjoy the reputation of being the safest airline in the skies but, unfortunately, in the pursuit of cost-cutting has had a number of safety issues that have seen it fall well down the list.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-new ... 1jj3k.html

And you're falling for the union's 3-card trick ... oh, only we can ensure safety ...

This is not about reducing safety levels, only about being more competitive by not having the workforce dictating company strategy.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Safety should be a priority shouldn't it ? It's an airline so you expect first class safety.I am certain that have sent some work off shore and then we saw a wave of safety issues hit Qantas yet never did before.

[dedja]

ummm, I don't think so ... again, that's what the bovver boys wish you to believe

[am Bays]

Pfft unions and safety??

One only has to read the joke of SafeWork SA 2005 legislation changes to the 1986 OHS&W Act. Bugger changes to the consequences of employers not ensuring the safety of of its employees, also the loop holes created betweeen owners/manufaturers of plant, owners of buildings vs occupiers of buildings but by god the right of "registered associations" officials to march into an business and make representation on behalf of employees was put in (provided they were asked, nudge nudge wink wink can you ask me to come in brother worker.....)

[HOORAY PUNT]

At some point they sent maintanence work to Maylasia and senior Pilots were concerned with the safety standards slipping and the Cival Aviation Safety Authority also stated Qantas had slipped.

[redandblack]

All these stories about dominant workers and poor companies.

I'm almost feeling sorry for the paupers on the Qantas Board. People who are only thinking about our safety and trying to help the workers, even if they have to sack them and employ cheaper Asian workers instead.

Their selflessness is inspiring, particularly in their position of being helpless and having no power at all to deal with those rapacious Australian 'bovver boys'.

And to think I thought it was the Qantas Board who organised this extreme action.

How wrong can you be

[Dogwatcher]

Why is it that the unions are getting castigated for Qantas making the decision to shut it down?
Effectively the company has called a strike and is being described by many as a champion for the cause of a free market.
If it'd been a union who'd called this action, all of you supporting Joyce and his cronies would've been screaming blue murder.
The unions are as much to blame for this mess but those of you championing Joyce for putting out many thousands of people, need to have a look at yourselves, I reckon.

[Dirko]

it's not the headline pay increases that are the issue ... it's the raft of out of date conditions that they either seek to cement or stonewall Qantas to restrict the company's ability to be internationally competitive.

And those conditions are?

Has anyone criticising the unions got any knowledge of the conditions/pay structure etc used by Qantas?

What would you do if your employer wanted to remove conditions and agreements that they've previously agreed upon, without course of compensation?

[dedja]

A thought to ponder ... why is there apparently no heat on Jetstar or Virgin when they don't match the employment conditions (i.e.. inferior) to Qantas? ... amazing considering Jetstar is a a subsidiary of Qantas.

[Pseudo]

Hypothetically speaking, if Qantas were to return to a solely Australian based workforce, therefore having to incur higher operating costs due to our higher wages etc., how many of you would be willing to pay the higher ticket prices and continue flying Qantas rather than using cheaper carriers?

I would. I already do. QANTAS club membership is a complete scam: one pays a biannual fee in order to maintain membership, then one has to actually fly with QANTAS in order to use the facilities, so they sting you twice! I fly infrequently enough that membership is clearly uneconomical, but I continue to renew membership every 2 years. When travelling internationally, the benefits of lounge membership are a godsend.

Having recently travelled domestically on JetStar (due to QANTAS not servicing the particular destination airport) I was left unimpressed wth the service and would happily continue to fork out a little more for QANTAS, when possible. Heard too much bad stuff about Tiger to ever consider flying on them, regardless of price.

I have my gripes about QANTAS too, but that's another thread....

[redandblack]

Thank God for the last sentence, P.

Restores my faith