Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[MarkD]

Damn naz_'s. Looks like its time to close the thread


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly app

 

[medhead]

Damn naz_'s. Looks like its time to close the thread

fair enough. But this also means you lost the argument


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

 

[eastwest101]

SNIP...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.....

At the risk of flirting with Godwin's Law - I feel I must respond to amaroo's final comment with the reminder that the last time a pilot union was involved in some serious industrial action in 1989 - look what happened to them! From the ALP as well...

I know I know its a bit OT.... But you do also make some other good points Amaroo so no offence intended.

 

[DC3]

As I read elsewhere, Qantas used the passengers as pawns to it's end game.

 

[dfcatch]

As I read elsewhere, Qantas used the passengers as pawns to it's end game.

I'm sorry - I don't accept this.

I accept that it's open to conjecture as to whether QF could/should have "threatened" the lockout without actually announcing it coupled with the grounding.... But I have my doubts as to whether or not the same outcome (cessation of all action) would have been achieved.

Fact is - prior to QF's actions, I, as a passenger (together with thousands of others) have been inconvenienced and disrupted as a result of the unions' actions.

So any charge of "using the passengers as pawns" should be levelled at the unions far in advance of any charge aimed at QF.

Was the grounding (as a single incident) more disruptive than any (single incident) union stoppage? Sure, of course it was.

Did QF have an alternative available to it? Perhaps not. They certainly argue that they didn't.

And the rest of us armchair experts can argue day and night about whether or not QF could/should have taken a different approach. Doesn't change the facts or events.

So IMHO - am I happy about the disruption caused by the grounding? Absolutely not!

But I blame the intransigent unions with their ambit claims and belligerent tactics.

Why do I blame the unions? Simple.

Because without their belligerent disruptions and threats - QF would have had neither the basis, nor the legal right to activate a lockout.

Simple cause and effect.

BTW - there are ample other threads on this forum to discuss support or opposition to QF's strategic direction under AJ.

 

[samiam]

Personally I don't think we will or should see any dirty laundry. Besides wild statements from one side or the other there is very little actually information on the actual claims and counter claims publicly available.

I'm sorry - I don't accept this.

I accept that it's open to conjecture as to whether QF could/should have "threatened" the lockout without actually announcing it coupled with the grounding.... But I have my doubts as to whether or not the same outcome (cessation of all action) would have been achieved.

<snip>

Fact is - prior to QF's actions, I, as a passenger (together with thousands of others) have been inconvenienced and disrupted as a result of the unions' actions.

<snip>

Did QF have an alternative available to it? Perhaps not. They certainly argue that they didn't.

<snip>

And the rest of us armchair experts can argue day and night about whether or not QF could/should have taken a different approach. Doesn't change the facts or events.

IME, hearings held before FWA will generally have a transcript published ~ 7 days following the event. Conferences and conciliation sessions are not published.

Should the transcripts be published, then the facts/dirty laundry/claims & counter-claims will be apparent.

Transcripts | Fair Work Australia

 

[simongr]

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."

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.

I actually think Hanlon's Razor was being invoked rather than Godwin's Law.

 

[DC3]

I'm sorry - I don't accept this.

I'm not asking for anyone to necessarily accept this view. I was stating a view that I happen to agree with. The relevance is that it is to do with "Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10".

 

[medhead]

Why do I blame the unions? Simple.

Because without their belligerent disruptions and threats - QF would have had neither the basis, nor the legal right to activate a lockout.

Simple cause and effect.

I think it is a bit more complex. Clearly in chicken and egg territory. Management have been publicly belligerent through this whole sorry affair. Given the track record of parties involve did management/board push back to force the unions to strike? Invoking Heinlein's razor -...., "but don't rule out malice."

Maybe more simply, the series of events that lead to this situation didn't start with the unions going on strike.


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

 

[medhead]

I actually think Hanlon's Razor was being invoked rather than Godwin's Law.

Yes that was clearly invoked. But Godwin was mentioned as well. I'll pit my hand up and say I went close to proving Godwin, while maintaining my transgression was subtly different.


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

 

[DC3]

I think it is a bit more complex. Clearly in chicken and egg territory. Management have been publicly belligerent through this whole sorry affair. Given the track record of parties involve did management/board push back to force the unions to strike? Invoking Heinlein's razor -...., "but don't rule out malice."

Maybe more simply, the series of events that lead to this situation didn't start with the unions going on strike.


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

Well put, Medhead

 

[samiam]

I actually think Hanlon's Razor was being invoked rather than Godwin's Law.

Thanks goodness it wasn't Helen Razer being invoked :shock:

 

[dfcatch]

I think it is a bit more complex. Clearly in chicken and egg territory. Management have been publicly belligerent through this whole sorry affair. Given the track record of parties involve did management/board push back to force the unions to strike? Invoking Heinlein's razor -...., "but don't rule out malice."

Maybe more simply, the series of events that lead to this situation didn't start with the unions going on strike.


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

This is a very relevant question / point......

Except that we're not (or at least I'm not) talking about who is right or wrong in their background motives (eg. whether the employees are entitled fairly to ask for what they are, or whether management has the right to go down the strategy they seek to), nor am I talking about the diplomatic and people skills that any or all sides possess.... These are subjective discussions that no-one will ever be able to win an argument on......

To me - the issue is solely related to "industrial action".

IE. Action taken by a party because they don't like the fact that they're not getting their way and they want to throw their toys out of their cot to make their point. Such action invariably is designed to cause disruption. (I'm not casting judgement on either side here).


A/ Now - the unions have decided at some point that instead of agreeing to whatever was on the table - they would launch disruptive industrial action. (Their right to do so).

B/ In the end - the company responded, not by agreeing to such demands, but with their own disruptive industrial action (Their right to do so).

Regardless of the merits of the arguments - B could only legally occur as a result of A occurring.

That's my point - and that's why I blame the unions.

My view on the industrial action is discrete, separate and isolated from any views I may hold on:

1/ The actual claims by individual parties and their merits;
2/ The performance and abilities of management;
3/ The strategy and direction of the company.

 

[medhead]

This is a very relevant question / point......

Except that we're not (or at least I'm not) talking about who is right or wrong in their background motives

well these things shouldn't be taken in isolation. You do blame the union for taking action, which suggests a judgement of their motivation for taking action. We have no idea what was or wasn't offered so it is a bit hard to say the union rejected what was on the table. Qantas might have refused to discuss some items entirely.


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

 

[dfcatch]

well these things shouldn't be taken in isolation. You do blame the union for taking action, which suggests a judgement of their motivation for taking action. We have no idea what was or wasn't offered so it is a bit hard to say the union rejected what was on the table. Qantas might have refused to discuss some items entirely.


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

You're correct.

But going back to my comment and my position - I couldn't care less what was or wasn't on the table, whether the claims were reasonable or not, whether management accepted/rejected or refused to discuss......

My position is simple - the unions took disruptive industrial action, QF responded. Cause and effect.

My blame on the unions is in relation to their actions (not whether they were justified or not depending on one's own views on a claim-by-claim basis).



On another thread I've commented extensively as to my personal views regarding whether the workers should strike or not.

IMHO - Disruptive industrial action that causes inconvenience to the public (by the unions) is almost never justified***

***Unless they were being forced to perform illegal or unsafe acts, or were being beaten or prostituted, molested with antique rubber chickens, or subjected to Joan Kirner's wardrobe.... then there is no justification IMHO to inconvenience the public.

Otherwise - if you don't get your claims agreed to - and you really think you are getting a raw deal - then leave. No doubt Virgin will be hiring given their improved market share


(QF Industrial action would not have been an issue if the unions didn't do theirs).

 

[medhead]

You're correct.

But going back to my comment and my position

you're totally right. I forgot to add. To my last that I respect your opinion and your reasons for holding it. Sorry.


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

 

[eastwest101]

While we are all feeling warm and fuzzy - I saw this on the net somewhere:

Great Aviation Quotes:

The greatest sin of airline management of the last 22 years is to say, "It’s all labor’s fault."
— Donald Carty, Chairman and CEO American Airlines, 12 August 2002.

British Airways believes that it is intrinsically deceptive for two carriers to share a designator code.
— British Airways, comment on PDSR-85, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 42199, 1984.

As of 1992, in fact—though the picture would have improved since then—the money that had been made since the dawn of aviation by all of this country's airline companies was zero. Absolutely zero.
— Warren Buffett, billionaire investor, interview 1999.

If the employees come first, then they are happy. A motivated employee treats the customer well. The customer is happy so they keep coming back, which pleases the shareholders. It's not one of the enduring great mysteries of all time, it is just the way it works.
— Herb Kelleher, Southwest Airlines CEO, in Lee, W. G., 'A Conversation with Herb Kelleher,' Organizational Dynamics, volume 23, issue 2, Autumn 1994.

Loyal employees in any company create loyal customers, who in turn create happy shareholders.
— Sir Richard Branson, Virgin Atlantic Airways founder and CEO, 2001.

Great Aviation Quotes: Airline Business

 

[browski]

IE. Action taken by a party because they don't like the fact that they're not getting their way and they want to throw their toys out of their cot to make their point.

The unions action was not in anyway "Toy Throwing"; maybe more like attention grabbing. The airlines action was a cough act against innocent(unsuspecting) people and not one that will not be forgotten quickly.

Gillard has no blame here. She can be blamed for many things but not interfering prematurely into a private business is not one of them. Old Liberals are turning in their graves over at the mere suggestion that government should interfere in private enterprise. She's untouchable on this one. I'm starting to like the cut of her jib.

.....and it is worth remembering that government intervention/referral to FWA is not restricted to the Federal Government. State Liberal governments in Victoria or NSW could also have done it at any time. Now maybe those 2 governments are still in training wheels but nontheless, they could have intervened earlier if they had the kahunas.

 

[Moopere]

The airlines action was a cough act against innocent(unsuspecting) people and not one that will not be forgotten quickly.

You can't blame the tortured for the fact they feel pain. In this case, the Unions caused significant pain to the airline and passengers over an extended period and is now somehow amazed that in fact they were playing with big boys here and got slammed.

You will see this in school yards every day of the week when bullies finally get called out. Aussies of all backgrounds in general will applaud the bringing back to earth of said bullies and so it appears to be in this case (share price, and general commentary).

Forgotten quickly? One certainly hopes not. This might cause some thinking people, capable of strategy and negotiation, to rise up in the current militant unions .. one would hope anyway, because presumably the memberships collective hearts just stopped for a moment as they realised where their union 'leadership' was taking them ... right up to the brink of unemployment.

 

[el_rooto]

The net level of pain inflicted to passengers over the long term will be a lot less after this saga over the weekend.

Short term pain vs long term gain. Shutting down the airline for two days compared too rolling delays over the peak season. At least Steve Purvinas now has no reason to say "If I was a person considering travel over the period up until Christmas I'd probably be looking at airlines other than Qantas because it's likely there will be some disruptions,"

I think the industrial action by the ALEA and the TWU has been nasty.

However I don't think the industrial action by the APIA has had an impact on the airline's ops. (Yet)