QANTAS

[Golliwog]

FF, you may be interested in this link: http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/alan-joyce-wins-gamble-on-qantas-grounding-but-now-awaits-markets-lasting-return-61767

And in particular:

It is apparent Qantas hoped for government intervention, which was not forthcoming as the government wanted to avoid the battlefront. While Qantas could apply for intervention from FWA, the industrial relations body is limited to making decisions in cases that have a profound affect on the country's economy. As the tribunal stated in its 31-Oct-2011 ruling, "It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries."

Epic Legislative Failure!

But by that quote there, they wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if they had tried to use Section 431. I still don't see this as the government's fault. Qantas couldn't solve it's own problem so it tried to get the government to do it's work for it and force the unions to stop their industrial action. But that backfired when the government didn't do what the company wanted.

[somebody]

FF, you may be interested in this link: http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/alan-joyce-wins-gamble-on-qantas-grounding-but-now-awaits-markets-lasting-return-61767

And in particular:

It is apparent Qantas hoped for government intervention, which was not forthcoming as the government wanted to avoid the battlefront. While Qantas could apply for intervention from FWA, the industrial relations body is limited to making decisions in cases that have a profound affect on the country's economy. As the tribunal stated in its 31-Oct-2011 ruling, "It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries."

Epic Legislative Failure!

But by that quote there, they wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if they had tried to use Section 431. I still don't see this as the government's fault. Qantas couldn't solve it's own problem so it tried to get the government to do it's work for it and force the unions to stop their industrial action. But that backfired when the government didn't do what the company wanted.

Section 431 only became usable once the grounding was imminent.

[Fares_Fair]

Of course, this isn't over yet, not by a long shot.
They have 21 days to resolve their differences before it is handed back to arbitration.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Of course, this isn't over yet, not by a long shot.
They have 21 days to resolve their differences before it is handed back to arbitration.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Fixed.

[Otto]

Qantas passengers to get payouts over grounding
Ben Butler
November 3, 2011


ACCC chairman Rod Sims.

THE corporate watchdog has demanded Qantas reimburse customers for losses such as hotel and transport costs and even pleasure cruises they missed because the airline grounded its entire fleet on Saturday.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said Qantas should also pay for flights booked by customers while the airline was grounded over the weekend, even if they had yet to take those flights.

The compensation demanded by Mr Sims is far in excess of that previously offered by Qantas - $350 a day for accommodation, meals and transport. The airline also said it would pay full refunds or rebook flights, but only if they had been scheduled to take off before midnight last night.

Yesterday Mr Sims issued a strongly worded statement calling on Qantas to pay all ''reasonable losses'' incurred by grounded travellers. In response, the airline issued a terse statement saying it ''agrees to and accepts the ACCC's request''.

But exactly which costs Qantas will cover was not clear. Last night there were indications the airline might seek to water down Mr Sims's demands.

Mr Sims told The Age: ''What I think has really happened here is that people have suffered a lot of consequential loss and that $350 is not going to cover that.

''And, likewise, if people have incurred loss through things like having had some hotels booked they couldn't take advantage of, or missing a cruise or whatever else, then again I think those are costs I think Qantas should be compensating.''

Mr Sims said he would need clarification from the airline to determine whether it had agreed fully to his demands. But it is believed the airline will not provide the blanket compensation called for by Mr Sims and instead will look at each individual case.

However, a Qantas spokesman said the $350-a-night cap had been lifted. He said the airline interpreted ''reasonable losses'' to mean ''all costs that the customer can show are directly related to disruption resulting from the fleet grounding''.

''We'll comply fully with the ACCC's expectations,'' he said.

About 140,000 passengers were affected by the grounding.

How to claim against Qantas: Lodge a claim online at www.qantas.com.au, or contact Qantas on 13 13 13.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-passengers-to-get-payouts-over-grounding-20111103-1mwik.html#ixzz1cchZdGgF

[colinw]

Well & good, but our "QANTAS first" policy at work is now gone forever.  And we fly a lot, in our office there's nearly always one or two people flitting between here & China or Europe.

[O_128]

Well & good, but our "QANTAS first" policy at work is now gone forever.  And we fly a lot, in our office there's nearly always one or two people flitting between here & China or Europe.

damn want to get me a job =p.

on another note a lot of people have said the same thing, Bring on HSR!

[Golliwog]

FF, you may be interested in this link: http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/alan-joyce-wins-gamble-on-qantas-grounding-but-now-awaits-markets-lasting-return-61767

And in particular:

It is apparent Qantas hoped for government intervention, which was not forthcoming as the government wanted to avoid the battlefront. While Qantas could apply for intervention from FWA, the industrial relations body is limited to making decisions in cases that have a profound affect on the country's economy. As the tribunal stated in its 31-Oct-2011 ruling, "It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries."

Epic Legislative Failure!

But by that quote there, they wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if they had tried to use Section 431. I still don't see this as the government's fault. Qantas couldn't solve it's own problem so it tried to get the government to do it's work for it and force the unions to stop their industrial action. But that backfired when the government didn't do what the company wanted.

Section 431 only became usable once the grounding was imminent.

But the bolded quote was made by the tribunal was made after the grounding had occurred. My understanding is for Section 431 to be used, there has to be serious damage to the economy/whatnot occuring/about to occur.

[somebody]

FF, you may be interested in this link: http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/alan-joyce-wins-gamble-on-qantas-grounding-but-now-awaits-markets-lasting-return-61767

And in particular:

It is apparent Qantas hoped for government intervention, which was not forthcoming as the government wanted to avoid the battlefront. While Qantas could apply for intervention from FWA, the industrial relations body is limited to making decisions in cases that have a profound affect on the country's economy. As the tribunal stated in its 31-Oct-2011 ruling, "It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries."

Epic Legislative Failure!

But by that quote there, they wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if they had tried to use Section 431. I still don't see this as the government's fault. Qantas couldn't solve it's own problem so it tried to get the government to do it's work for it and force the unions to stop their industrial action. But that backfired when the government didn't do what the company wanted.

Section 431 only became usable once the grounding was imminent.

But the bolded quote was made by the tribunal was made after the grounding had occurred. My understanding is for Section 431 to be used, there has to be serious damage to the economy/whatnot occuring/about to occur.

Read in context it seems reasonably clear that is referring to the action before the grounding.

I think a Qantas grounding could be considered to have a significant effect (damage) on the tourism and air transport industries in this country.

[Golliwog]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

[ButFli]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

Um... why does Qantas have to mention anything to you about its plans?

[Fares_Fair]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

Um... why does Qantas have to mention anything to you about its plans?

I know your question isn't directed at me BF, but maybe because it left people stranded and caused 'grief' all around the world.
They could have given a public warning, say of 7 days, allowing strandees to find alternative means of travel and possibly circumventing the near total grounding by forcing action to be taken sooner.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ButFli]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

Um... why does Qantas have to mention anything to you about its plans?

I know your question isn't directed at me BF, but maybe because it left people stranded and caused 'grief' all around the world.
They could have given a public warning, say of 7 days, allowing strandees to find alternative means of travel and possibly circumventing the near total grounding by forcing action to be taken sooner.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

And you expect a workforce, having been warned of a lockout that is to occur in 7 days, to continue to work safely and effectively for that time?

It doesn't allow the grounding to be circumvented. It gives a rebellious workforce the upper hand by allowing them to call the shots. Less than 36 hours after Alan Joyce made his announcement the issue with industrial action was resolved. 7 days notice would have meant 7 days plus 36 hours to reach a resolution, with a whole lot of employee-instigated industrial action in the mean time. What's worse? 7 days of disruption followed by a 36 hour grounding or a 36 hour grounding with no notice?

[somebody]

And you expect a workforce, having been warned of a lockout that is to occur in 7 days, to continue to work safely and effectively for that time?

It doesn't allow the grounding to be circumvented. It gives a rebellious workforce the upper hand by allowing them to call the shots. Less than 36 hours after Alan Joyce made his announcement the issue with industrial action was resolved. 7 days notice would have meant 7 days plus 36 hours to reach a resolution, with a whole lot of employee-instigated industrial action in the mean time. What's worse? 7 days of disruption followed by a 36 hour grounding or a 36 hour grounding with no notice?

AIUI the union would have been required to give 72 hours of industrial action, so if the notice of the lockout was less than this, then the point in your second paragraph doesn't apply.

But people's lives are at stake.  I think the grounding was the responsible action given that notice of a lockout has been given.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Free flights offered in Qantas bid for loyalty

[colinw]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

Um... why does Qantas have to mention anything to you about its plans?

I know your question isn't directed at me BF, but maybe because it left people stranded and caused 'grief' all around the world.
They could have given a public warning, say of 7 days, allowing strandees to find alternative means of travel and possibly circumventing the near total grounding by forcing action to be taken sooner.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

And you expect a workforce, having been warned of a lockout that is to occur in 7 days, to continue to work safely and effectively for that time?

It doesn't allow the grounding to be circumvented. It gives a rebellious workforce the upper hand by allowing them to call the shots. Less than 36 hours after Alan Joyce made his announcement the issue with industrial action was resolved. 7 days notice would have meant 7 days plus 36 hours to reach a resolution, with a whole lot of employee-instigated industrial action in the mean time. What's worse? 7 days of disruption followed by a 36 hour grounding or a 36 hour grounding with no notice?

Resolved?  Not at all.  Temporarily quashed.

I am friends with a couple of Qantas employees, and they are more determined than ever. Having heard quite a lot from my friends about what passes as workplace relations within Qantas, if I were there I would be 100% behind this action as well. (Indeed if anything comparable occurred at my workplace I would have no qualms about participating in industrial action.)

[somebody]

Basically Qantas wants as many as possible of its staff on the 'A' pay scale to leave.  I think you'll find all of the 1000 redundancies from the down sizing come from this pool.

To be honest, I don't think there are any good guys in this battle.  Most of the flying staff are getting well above market rates, which is why they don't just go to DJ.

Qantas won the battle, but have certainly not won the war.  If the arbitration quashes the demand for job security, Qantas may have gotten what they wanted.

[ButFli]

Indeed, the paragraph directly after the one you quoted:

And so Qantas needed to concoct a scenario that would cause significant damage. As Mr Joyce said on 29-Oct-2011 when announcing the grounding, "I have no option but to force the issue." The grounding, the only legal form of retaliatory industrial action available to Qantas, put the carrier in the position it wanted, even if as a last resort. FWA agreed it could intervene given the severity. "The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries," FWA said in its ruling.

Ok, so Section 431 could have been used (though may have been challenged anyway). But my point RE: Qantas jumping from negotiations to lock-out was quite swift. Despite what the papers have been saying over this week about Qantas telling anyone (in Parliament House) that would listen that a grounding was possible/likely, I hadn't heard any mention of it until when it happened.

Um... why does Qantas have to mention anything to you about its plans?

I know your question isn't directed at me BF, but maybe because it left people stranded and caused 'grief' all around the world.
They could have given a public warning, say of 7 days, allowing strandees to find alternative means of travel and possibly circumventing the near total grounding by forcing action to be taken sooner.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

And you expect a workforce, having been warned of a lockout that is to occur in 7 days, to continue to work safely and effectively for that time?

It doesn't allow the grounding to be circumvented. It gives a rebellious workforce the upper hand by allowing them to call the shots. Less than 36 hours after Alan Joyce made his announcement the issue with industrial action was resolved. 7 days notice would have meant 7 days plus 36 hours to reach a resolution, with a whole lot of employee-instigated industrial action in the mean time. What's worse? 7 days of disruption followed by a 36 hour grounding or a 36 hour grounding with no notice?

Resolved?  Not at all.  Temporarily quashed.

I am friends with a couple of Qantas employees, and they are more determined than ever. Having heard quite a lot from my friends about what passes as workplace relations within Qantas, if I were there I would be 100% behind this action as well. (Indeed if anything comparable occurred at my workplace I would have no qualms about participating in industrial action.)

What are they going to do? Strike illegally?

[ButFli]

If the arbitration quashes the demand for job security, Qantas may have gotten what they wanted.

I don't see how FWA can make an order for "job security". That is entirely outside its ambit. The unions (and the employees they represent) are trying to dictate how Qantas runs its business. A union cannot stop a company downsizing. A union cannot stop a company changing its business practices. A union can attempt to dictate the conditions on which its members are employed. It can't dictate the conditions of non-members overseas. If the unions want job security for their members then maybe they should try offering their services in a way that is competitive with the outside world. Having an Australian based workforce is actually beneficial for Qantas (because their planes are based here) so it will be prepared to pay a premium for it. But if the Australian workforce are going to act like prima donnas then cheap foreign labour looks all the more attractive.

[somebody]

I don't see how FWA can make an order for "job security".

That may be, but I'm not 100% sure that means that they have to make an order which will refuse job security.  Although it looks likely.

[colinw]

But if the Australian workforce are going to act like prima donnas then cheap foreign labour looks all the more attractive.

Easy to say when its not your job on the chopping block.

[somebody]

But if the Australian workforce are going to act like prima donnas then cheap foreign labour looks all the more attractive.

Easy to say when its not your job on the chopping block.

I say that it is a cartel, and I won't shed a tear if it is broken.

[#Metro]

Hi speed SeaTrain anyone?

[colinw]

But if the Australian workforce are going to act like prima donnas then cheap foreign labour looks all the more attractive.

Easy to say when its not your job on the chopping block.

I say that it is a cartel, and I won't shed a tear if it is broken.

Please elaborate ... I'm interested in hearing where you're going with this.

[somebody]

But if the Australian workforce are going to act like prima donnas then cheap foreign labour looks all the more attractive.

Easy to say when its not your job on the chopping block.

I say that it is a cartel, and I won't shed a tear if it is broken.

Please elaborate ... I'm interested in hearing where you're going with this.

Well they are getting paid well above Australian market rates for the work they do.  This is only tolerated because of union power.  The unions lost all sympathy from me with their demands to guarantee jobs.

[Arnz]

Maglev Amphibus to Los Angeles anybody? 

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Qantas talks with pilots collapse: union

[Fares_Fair]

I had a very interesting chat with a person from a rival airline and this person said that they did not pay their pilots as much as QANTAS does.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I had a very interesting chat with a person from a rival airline and this person said that they did not pay their pilots as much as QANTAS does.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

No kidding.

F/A also definitely make more at Qantas, at least on the "A" scale.  "B" scale only came about late 2007.  I think the "B" scale might be slightly more than Virgin.  I'm not sure about engineers/baggage handlers though.

[verbatim9]

Please sign the Petition from Qantas to reopen the borders safely--> Safely Open our borders

[SurfRail]

Why?

Quaintarse can do its own advocacy on its own behalf.

[red dragin]

Qantas were all "hahaha look at Virgin going broke, we're fine"

Now they are "we're going broke, but we'll politicise the matter rather than admit our error"

[verbatim9]

Its looking likely that JQ will remain in Melbourne and QF Admin and Maintenance will be moved to Brisbane. Sydney has a huge Australian Defence presence so they will survive.

[techblitz]

https://www.qantas.com/au/en/100-years-of-the-spirit-of-australia.html

[verbatim9]

Couriermail.com.au--->800 JOBS: Coast launches bold bid to land Qantas

QF likely to move heavy maintenance to BNE and MCY as well as Sim training.

[verbatim9]

One could now say there is now more of a case for fast electric to rail to MCY connecting to BNE.

^^Having all airports in Seq connected by fast rail makes sense OOL-BNE-WTB-MCY

[verbatim9]

New Qantas ad, in anticipation of the 80% vaccination target

https://youtu.be/4o9_AK1Kcyo