Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[dfcatch]

Well those would be the communists in cabinet who believe the government should be running private companies. Sorry I'm really surprised that any Liberal or capitalist can seriously suggest governments have a place in telling them how to run their business.

Actually the FWA determination said their was no case for an intervention before Saturday. There was nothing to stop qantas going to FWA and presenting the case for the lock out and grounding and ask for a termination because qantas would have to take those actions without a termination order. It is called new information about qantas' business that only qantas knows until they take the action. Anyway I've already made this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

medhead - it's not about "communists running companies" - although I agree with you that this is an undesirable thing.

The issue is that the Gov't has legislation which enables sides to take disruptive industrial action.

The same legislation also has mechanisms to invoke when said disruptive industrial action becomes too disruptive.

Those mechanisms are there for a reason- they should have been enacted earlier. And in any event - the Gov't (given their close access to the union movement) should have used their soft influence to pull them into line before it got to this.


Rightly or wrongly - this is where the Gov't will be damaged politically.

 

[amaroo]

The issue is that the Gov't has legislation which enables sides to take disruptive industrial action.

The same legislation also has mechanisms to invoke when said disruptive industrial action becomes too disruptive.

Those mechanisms are there for a reason- they should have been enacted earlier. And in any event - the Gov't (given their close access to the union movement) should have used their soft influence to pull them into line before it got to this.


Rightly or wrongly - this is where the Gov't will be damaged politically.

I believe the PM has missed a golden opportunity to convert a rare win.....if she acted prior to 5pm Saturday, she would have been seen to be strong, de-tacthed from the unions & taking control. However her, all her advisors made a call that delivered the same outcome but delivered nothing but more criticism for her leadership & her party.

She needs to get better advisors, quick smart.

 

[medhead]

medhead - it's not about "communists running companies" - although I agree with you that this is an undesirable thing.

The issue is that the Gov't has legislation which enables sides to take disruptive industrial action.

The same legislation also has mechanisms to invoke when said disruptive industrial action becomes too disruptive.

Those mechanisms are there for a reason- they should have been enacted earlier. And in any event - the Gov't (given their close access to the union movement) should have used their soft influence to pull them into line before it got to this.

Rightly or wrongly - this is where the Gov't will be damaged politically.

The government has no place interfering in how a company conducts its business. In this case the government stepped in because of the national interest. As you say there are provisions in that legislation that should have been enacted earlier by Qantas. To repeat, The government has no place running any business, the government can not second guess how a business is going. If any business is having trouble then it is incumbent on the business to use the legal protections available to them.

Seriously, self determination and minimal government interference is a central tenet of the Liberal party ideology. Yet here they are telling is the government should stick its nose into running a business. It flys in the face of all the nanny state pronouncements from the Liberals on other topics. If the government is expected to be involved in the running of all businesses then we might as well cut out the middle man and nationalise all businesses. There is the fundamental problem of the advocacy for government interference, it is a basic tenet of communism.

I can not believe anyone can seriously suggest the government should have interfered with either party.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[drron]

Reports claiming this in the papers this morning didn't quote any cabinet ministers - looked to me like the story came straight from the opposition.

The report I saw(Yahoo7) named Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten supporting termination and Chris Evans suspension.

 

[dfcatch]

The government has no place interfering in how a company conducts its business. In this case the government stepped in because of the national interest. As you say there are provisions in that legislation that should have been enacted earlier by Qantas. To repeat, The government has no place running any business, the government can not second guess how a business is going. If any business is having trouble then it is incumbent on the business to use the legal protections available.

Seriously self determination and minimal government interference is a central tenet of the Liberal party ideology. Yet here they are telling is the government should stick its nose into running a business. It flys in the face of all the nanny state pronouncements from the Liberals on other topics. If the government is expected to be involved in the running of all businesses then we might as well cut out the middle
man and nationalise all businesses. There is the fundamental problem of the advocacy for government interference, it is a basic tenet of communism.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

Medhead - take your ideological blinkers off for 2 seconds (as I try to do occassionally)......

1/ The FWA confirmed that QF would have been unsuccessful had it tried to make application on its own.

2/ If QF had made application on its own - it would have taken significantly longer to get a FWA resolution - they certainly would not be sitting at 1am!

3/ It has nothing to do with the Gov't sticking its nose into business - it has everything to do with the Gov't stopping damaging industrial action which has progressed beyond the reasonable use of FWA provisions.

It's the Government's legislation which allows industrial action - that comes with Government responsibility to manage its "reasonable use".

There is a BIG difference between managing its legislative provisions (which IS the responsibility of Government) vs interfering in the management of an organisation.


We can agree to disagree - but as I said earlier - mark my words.......

The Government will lose from this, the unions will win a larger payrise - nothing more.

QF will walk away reasonably happy and will recover.

My shout of the Taittinger at the F lounge if I'm proven wrong

 

[Rebekkap]

The report I saw(Yahoo7) named Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten supporting termination and Chris Evans suspension.

Yeah, but did they quote a Labor source who told them those names? Because if not, the story is most likely to have come from the Opposition - who will have backgrounded a journalist, but who wouldn't actually know what went on in cabinet.

Both sides do the same thing. None of it's believable.

 

[medhead]

The report I saw(Yahoo7) named Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten supporting termination and Chris Evans suspension.

Hey? But by which mechanism? We know Almagest and shorten supported termination as that is the case they presented to FWA.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Mwenenzi]

If Qantas wants to outsource international operations leg by leg (ala Jetconnect) can the government stop them? And the big question is - does anyone here care? (By "here" I mean Australia, not the unrepresentative swill on this board).

No one cares. Especially the 80% of people who DO NOT fly QFi. They have voted with there credit card. With uncompetitive fares more will do so

I continue to be amused that the unions say nothing about DJ trans Tasman flights: all ZK aircraft & crew
I continue to be amused that the unions say nothing about DJ heavy maintenance being done out of Aust. Those 737's & 777 must be unsafe :shock: (As are the thousands of other aircraft in the world not fixed in Aussie)

 

[dk4]

The government is just posturing. Pretty clear - and they don't have any other option...

That's the question isn't it?

Big picture Gillard knows she’s on the nose, and the government (or at the very least, she) is on the way out. Her passion, other than education, is industrial relations. So, does she want to leave office with an incoming coalition government taking the reigns and corporate board rooms, emboldened by the Qantas board's actions, taking on unions in workplaces right around the nation?

Or perhaps, is she prepared to announce, after Melbourne Cup is done and dusted, that she has lost confidence in the Qantas board to oversee the airline (after they shut up shop over the weekend) and that due to a lack of confidence in Qantas to continue to operate services, she is issuing an edict to all federal department - taking effect immediately, that no more future bookings are to be made with any Qantas Group airline, by any federal department for official travel until the dispute is officially settled. And further more, that if Qantas is to close its doors again; as a private business the federal government will not support it, and allow market forces to either keep it afloat or allow it to collapse (like Ansett).

(There are also specific tactical reasons for such a position related to the specific Qantas dispute. But, is she prepared to fall on her sword, knowing there is one coming her way anyhow?)

This is just one extreme (eye for an eye) option, reminding us that there are always options.

This ongoing Qantas dispute is not over, there will be no certainty at Qantas until both union reps and management stand together on the podium and say "we are in agreement".

 

[drron]

Yeah, but did they quote a Labor source who told them those names? Because if not, the story is most likely to have come from the Opposition - who will have backgrounded a journalist, but who wouldn't actually know what went on in cabinet.

Both sides do the same thing. None of it's believable.

Now I have a low opinion of journalists but you obviously have an even lower one.Journalists know who is briefing them.If quoting cabinet discussions it is unlikely that even they would believe an opposition spokesman
Now if it was a story about the ALP leadership-full steam ahead.
You obviously have a too firm belief in conspiracies.As I was told by a senior pollie in the 80s-"Ron if it is ever a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up the stuff up wins every time.Hard enough to get 2 pollies to agree,3 is impossible."

 

[MarkD]

Lol goodwins law works


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly app

 

[Moody]

No one cares. Especially the 80% of people who DO NOT fly QFi. They have voted with there credit card. With uncompetitive fares more will do so

I continue to be amused that the unions say nothing about DJ trans Tasman flights: all ZK aircraft & crew
I continue to be amused that the unions say nothing about DJ heavy maintenance being done out of Aust. Those 737's & 777 must be unsafe :shock: (As are the thousands of other aircraft in the world not fixed in Aussie)

The trans tasman route has already been outsourced by Qantas - the kangaroo on the tail should really be a silver fern.
Maintenance can be safely performed anywhere in the world - but if you are shopping around for the cheapest bidder then there will be some obvious consequences. It certainly seems to be a flawed model when independent safety checks are not routine, but then Qantas can always fall back on the world's best pilots to get them out of trouble. Or will they in future employ those skillful Air France crew???


All in all, if Joyce had built an airline from the ground up (ala Virgin Blue) then he has a right to shape it how he likes within the bounds of corporate/company and employment law. But he has been employed to steer the oldest continuosly operating airline through a more deregulated environment, and he will trash 90 years of history and goodwill at his peril. As the pilot's spokesperson said when asked last night why Virgin does not have the same staff issues even though on a whole their wages are lower .... "Joyce does not engage with the staff".

Clifford has hired a CEO who is happy to crack heads, collect his millions, and wander off into the sunset taking some of the stench with him. Pretty common corporate behaviour these days, I'm afraid.

 

[amaroo]

Ok case in point, you've pretty much listed the companies version of what the unions have claimed. The company version of the claims needs to be viewed in that context. For example, Hearing the pilot association guy over the weekend I don't accept that the job security claim is for every single pilot in the Group to earn exactly the same. There can be limits and exceptions but management have never bothered to propose something different. There are the 2 sides on that point. I don't know what is true. Good luck to you, if you do.

Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

Sometimes the facts speak for themselves, QF has made no secret of their plans to offshore & outsource. The unions responded to lessen the impact on their members, as you would expect.....they just did it very poorly.

Rambo style unionism is is being smothered by total exposure in new media. They are going to have to evolve and start using smart tactics.

Look at the pilots - softly, softly fence sitting approach as they watched & used the foot soldiers of the TWU & ALAEA, do all the heavy lifting - when the heat was applied on Saturday, what was their response, "we didn't strike...we were only wearing red ties"

Reminded me of those nature shows where you see parasite's that live of the hard work & misery of the larger mostly inferior species.....

 

[Rebekkap]

You obviously have a too firm belief in conspiracies.

Not in the slightest - I'll believe something is a stuff up not a conspiracy every time. But I also know how the media works, and how backgrounding a journo works.

 

[Moopere]

Clifford has hired a CEO who is happy to crack heads, collect his millions, and wander off into the sunset taking some of the stench with him. Pretty common corporate behaviour these days, I'm afraid.

You shouldn't be surprised. I assume you know Cliffords background?

Heres an interesting read:

Leigh Clifford: the key Qantas man in the coughpit

Do a google search on Rio Tinto and Clifford, you'll be amazed at what pops up.

 

[Mwenenzi]

The trans tasman route has already been outsourced by Qantas - the kangaroo on the tail should really be a silver fern.

Not true. Some flights are VH rego. That aircraft continues on to LAX. Other TT flights are on a Qantas owned company: not out sourced. "Out source" is a term most people take to mean subcontracted to an independently owned company.

 

[medhead]

Medhead - take your ideological blinkers off for 2 seconds (as I try to do occassionally)......

1/ The FWA confirmed that QF would have been unsuccessful had it tried to make application on its own.

2/ If QF had made application on its own - it would have taken significantly longer to get a FWA resolution - they certainly would not be sitting at 1am!

3/ It has nothing to do with the Gov't sticking its nose into business - it has everything to do with the Gov't stopping damaging industrial action which has progressed beyond the reasonable use of FWA provisions.

It's the Government's legislation which allows industrial action - that comes with Government responsibility to manage its "reasonable use".

There is a BIG difference between managing its legislative provisions (which IS the responsibility of Government) vs interfering in the management of an organisation.


We can agree to disagree - but as I said earlier - mark my words.......

The Government will lose from this, the unions will win a lager payrise - nothing more.

QF will walk away reasonably happy and will recover.

My shout of the Taittinger at the F lounge if I'm proven wrong

The problem is 1 disproves 3. Or in reverse, if it was bad enough for the government to take action, this of course assumes the government the same knowledge as qantas (a proposition I reject), then it is bad enough for qantas to take action. 1 also guides us on the immediacy of needing to terminate in relation to 2. 1 should be overcome by qantas telling someone of the need to do what they did without a termination.

As for what happens now, as I understand the payrise amount is already agreed so I doubt that can increase.

Dare i say it? I think a lot of blinkers need to be removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[medhead]

Lol goodwins law works

hey? No one has mentioned the N or H words yet

And there hasn't been a reductio ad stalinum argument made because the only comparison was about something which is considered bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[oz_mark]

hey? No one has mentioned the N or H words yet

Man, and I went looking for them. Maybe it was just a prediction :shock:

(BTW I thought it was Godwins Law)

 

[medhead]

Man, and I went looking for them. Maybe it was just a prediction

(BTW I thought it was Godwins Law)

Maybe it is a prediction. But then doesn't godwin's law already predict it.

I thought it was Godwin as well, but the is one google result for Goodwin, which states the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.