Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Don't we all engage in of shoring whe we use an overseas travel web site, buy some books off Amazon, or otehr products from overseas since it's cheaper than buyin git in Australia.

I quite often think we forget that in Australia we actually have a decent minimum pay, one that you can live on (just), while in the USA, and most of Asia the minimum pay rates are so low it's hard to imagine how one survives unless they're working 2 jobs.

I'm sure the unions could help to make some decent cost savings in the company, and in return I think management could start to link their pay more to profatability and earnings per share. Heck the unions could do that to. It's how a lot of hotels in Asia operate where the base pay is lowish, but the 10% service charged for each booking is pooled for the month and shared with the employees, so that basically everyone shares in the success of the hotel. Maybe if QF staff had a more direct way of tapping into the success of the airline then a lot of this angst could be overcome?

 

[amaroo]

Not standing up for QF, but they aren't the first (nor last), company to off-shore parts of their business to try to turn a bigger profit. QF is listed on ASX and has shareholders, who l guess are hoping for a rise in the share price and dividends.

Some examples;
James Hardie doing a runner

(In talks/planning at the moment) Shell to stop refining at Clyde (NSW) and importing a finished product from Asia because labour is cheaper in Asia and Shell can turn a bigger profit - Sounds like QF to me.

Many successful companies offshore - some are that good at it, they create additional jobs back here in Australia.

For example:- Woolworths & Wesfarmers have multiply large buying offices in Asia - the jobs they create back here are different but they are still jobs.

 

[medhead]

Has there been any stated position, or anecdotal evidence, on coverage of lost income as a result of the grounding?

I had two days of work, related to CHOGM and booked long in advance, that were unrecoverably lost due to the grounding. No amount of free buffet in LA or free trips back home makes up for that.

There has been no offer made from Qantas. From reading the conditions of carriage

The last sentence of clause 9 tries to limit the ability to claim for other losses

We will not be responsible for paying any other costs or expenses you may incur as a result of the delay or cancellation, except as otherwise provided in these Conditions of Carriage or required by applicable laws.

Clauses 10, 14 and 16 provide some more detail so it would be worth studying in detail if you've had a significant loss.

Clause 17 puts a limitation on claims but includes the following:

Unless your right to claim for damages has expired earlier as provided elsewhere in these Conditions of Carriage, you will have no right to claim for damages if court proceedings are not brought within two years from:

That in combination with the inability of the conditions of carriage to extinguish legally allowed claims suggests that you may be able to make a claim for lost income. I'll leave to you to seek appropriate legal advice on if and how you can make such a claim.

 

[Moopere]

Don't we all engage in of shoring whe we use an overseas travel web site, buy some books off Amazon, or otehr products from overseas since it's cheaper than buyin git in Australia.

Yes, exactly right. We all get a bit too precious when it comes to QF for some reason. My background comes out of manufacturing ... believe me, that industry has almost entirely been off-shored.

I quite often think we forget that in Australia we actually have a decent minimum pay, one that you can live on (just), while in the USA, and most of Asia the minimum pay rates are so low it's hard to imagine how one survives unless they're working 2 jobs.

Theres a larger spectrum for sure (IMHO), though for many skilled positions there is not such a big difference that you'd want to move your operations. Sure, examples from both Asia and Australia can be found of individual agreements where payment seems unusually high. But wages, in my view, is part of the argument but not the whole argument. The overall cost of doing business in Australia is quite high. Government and related bodies demand for cash along with significant compliance is all part of the mix and makes turning a good profit quite difficult in many industries.

I'm sure the unions could help to make some decent cost savings in the company, and in return I think management could start to link their pay more to profatability and earnings per share. Heck the unions could do that to. It's how a lot of hotels in Asia operate where the base pay is lowish, but the 10% service charged for each booking is pooled for the month and shared with the employees, so that basically everyone shares in the success of the hotel. Maybe if QF staff had a more direct way of tapping into the success of the airline then a lot of this angst could be overcome?

Yes, its an excellent idea because it doesn't tie the business into a static payment scheme which is unsustainable in the rough times. In this model, when times are good and the team pulls together everyone wins - when times drop off, all feel the effect. Not enough businesses embrace this idea in my view.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Umm planning a strike so people rearrange flights etc and then cancelling the strike at the last minute IS blindsiding people.

YMMV Simon but IMHO the two events are not in the same boat as despite the engineers calling off the strike at the eleventh hour it was too late by then to reinstate the previously cancelled flights, the end result being that whether the engineers went back or not made no difference to the passengers.

The bottom line in passengers knew a couple of days in advance that the engineers were stopping work for several hours so although this was disruptive to many pax, people still had time to make alternative arrangements.

Engineers or baggage handlers never walked off the job with no notice leaving passengers stranded.

QF Management did not give passengers 48 hours notice of their intention to ground the entire fleet.

I had two days of work, related to CHOGM and booked long in advance, that were unrecoverably lost due to the grounding. No amount of free buffet in LA or free trips back home makes up for that.

A fact that escapes QF Management so far. Sure, people may utilise the FOC ticket however a lot of them have now flown on DJ & will stick with them or for overseas travel opt for another airline next time out of principle.

 

[Moopere]

QF Management did not give passengers 48 hours notice of their intention to ground the entire fleet.

Surely though, we AFFers can, in general, understand the safety concerns of the airline which would cause a potential problem if notice were given? The general flying public probably won't accept, or even know of the reality here, but we here in this forum should at least have a basic grasp. CASA was even having words with QF in relation to the same, a fact not being pushed by the mass media for some reason, possibly because Ma and Pa flyer still won't understand what that means.

A similar line of thought is often used these days, in my experience anyway, in relation to letting people go. Once upon a time it seemed reasonable and humane to let people know weeks or even a month prior to their position being made redundant. These days it appears to be common to find out on the morning, be escorted to ones place of work to collect personal effects and then turfed out the door with a "good luck for the future" 20 minutes later.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Yes, exactly right. We all get a bit too precious when it comes to QF for some reason. My background comes out of manufacturing ... believe me, that industry has almost entirely been off-shored.

And why has the manufacturing industry gone offshore? It's cheaper to do business elsewhere, where labour is cheaper.

I think this is what QF have in mind and why they are setting up a new Asian carrier. Cheaper than Australia.

 

[Kendall Roy]

Noticed this on another forum.. Apologies if not apt... I'll leave that to the mods

 

[ajw373]

I think this is what QF have in mind and why they are setting up a new Asian carrier. Cheaper than Australia.

Actually this is not quite right, and is something I think that is being lost in all this offshoring business. Fact is Qantas want's to EXPAND offshore into markets that for the most part don't include Australia, that is not the same as offshoring your business. I cannot beleive anyone seriously expects Australian based Qantas staff to crew a flight from say Singapore to Ho Chi Minh. So offshore expansion is a very sensible idea especially when there is bugger all expansion room left in Australia and plenty in Asia. And for an airline like Qantas that was given a massive share of the domestic market through the failure of Ansett 10 years ago, it would be not unexpected for their market share to shrink regardless of what they do or how good/bad they are. For business to survive and prosper it needs to expand, not shrink.

When it comes to actual offshoring I don't recall anywhere any mention what so ever of any Australian job being made redundant by their Asian expansion plans, and as I have said before if anything if the offshore venture works it may well lead to additonal jobs for Australian's flying around of Australia and maybe to and from Australia too. The only job looses were through contraction in the QFI, which again is not related to their expansion. The pilots union etc are being rather cheeky trying to tie the two together in the minds of the public when it is not the plan.

When it comes to maintenance same deal. Qantas has commited to contiuing to maintain the bulk of their fleet in Australia, as can be seen by the fact they, in recent years have moved A330 heavy maintenance on-shore, whereas before it was done offshore, mainly due to the fact the fleet was new and the numbers small. It is for the same reason heavy A380 maintenance is currently done offshore, ie they are new and there are not enough to justify heavy maintenance. Simple fact is the bulk of Qantas's fleet is maintained on-shore, with the A380's and overflow work being done O/S, plus some things like engine maintenance which has been contracted to the engine maker in most cases, again pretty common with modern aircraft where engines are purchased on a power by the hour basis from the maker.

If I am not mistaken the crux of the issue with maintenance staff is Qantas wants LAME's (or what ever they call the engineers who turn the a/c around) to use new diagnostic technology which is already built in their current fleet, which will lead to a reduction in numbers needed to do this work. Wheras the staff want to hold onto their old work practices thus ensuring jobs for life for the boys. Again in modern business that is not on, however by using scare campaigns and bulding on xenophobia in Australia they get away with sending the impression Qantas wants to offshore everything, when clearly they cannot and are not planning to do so.

 

[medhead]

Surely though, we AFFers can, in general, understand the safety concerns of the airline which would cause a potential problem if notice were given?

Why? Surely if we can understand that than we understand that the employer/employee relationship at Qantas is completely broken. Does management really think that their "loyal" employees are so loyal that they will sabotage aircraft? If that is the case, how do they know that, and what have they done to cause their employees to take such action. No I don't accept that employees would be distracted by the lock out into having an accident. Everyone faces all types of distractions in their daily live - sick kids and family, mortgages, bills, aggressive drivers, lack of sleep, etc. We really can't support the argument that those distractions make people unsafe.

 

[Moopere]

And why has the manufacturing industry gone offshore? It's cheaper to do business elsewhere, where labour is cheaper.

I think this is what QF have in mind and why they are setting up a new Asian carrier. Cheaper than Australia.

Certainly its generally a wages case that breaks the camels back in my experience. As a complete problem though its not only wages, its a whole raft of compliance related costs and general expense of doing business in Australia that is outside of your own employees direct wages cost ... government body compliance cost (including taxation regime), transport, energy, building/plant, etc, etc.

Wages are significant here, no mistake, but alone probably is not the only reason for moving manufacturing in many cases.

 

[straitman]

We really can't support the argument that those distractions make people unsafe.

medhead,
I have deliberately kept out of this discussion but have to ask that you don't include me in your collective me.

After approx 40 years in aviation as a pilot, as a chief pilot, as a flying safety officer, as a manager and having a masters in aviation management I have to totally disagree with your conclusion.

.... and no I don't care to elaborate!

 

[Moopere]

.... Does management really think that their "loyal" employees are so loyal that they will sabotage aircraft? If that is the case, how do they know that, and what have they done to cause their employees to take such action....

Its standard risk mitigation. Perhaps its different in your industry, but in mine, to use the redundancy analogy again, its now common practise to escort newly redundant ex-employees off the premises on the same day, usually within an hour or so of being given the news.

Why is this? I don't believe its the personal attack or lack of faith that it appears to be, in fact, I don't think its meant to be a personal slight against the individual at all - I believe this type of thing is simply risk management. There is a risk, when people are particularly stressed, that they may react in non positive ways. Will everyone do this? No, not at all, but its an identifiable risk.

Qantas doesn't have to "think" anything about this, they were being contacted by CASA for precisely the risk mitigation reason.

 

[medhead]

medhead,
I have deliberately kept out of this discussion but have to ask that you don't include me in your collective me.

After approx 40 years in aviation as a pilot, as a chief pilot, as a flying safety officer, as a manager and having a masters in aviation management I have to totally disagree with your conclusion.

.... and no I don't care to elaborate!

(You'll probably find that I was being, what is it?, factitious. It was also the royal We) I'm happy to accept your experience and I don't need elaboration. That being the case, then we must ground all airlines now. These are very real distractions that are outside the control of employers and that employers may not even know exist. Both types of distraction could have the same consequences but for everyday distractions the planes are not grounded. Given what I observe flying over my house everyday, I stand by my conclusion that the airline industry does not consider everyday distractions to be unsafe. If they did they would not be flying. Just like the distraction of a lock out requires them to not fly.

 

[Moopere]

...That being the case, then we must ground all airlines now. These are very real distractions that are outside the control of employers and that employers may not even know exist....

Many risks can be identified and managed. This is the day to day reality of flying, or buying a loaf of bread.

This stuff is not being made up on the fly, there is a ton of historical work in this area and people make a career out of managing risk in multitudinous industries and military situations. Note that managing risk does not then imply that there is _no risk_.

 

[medhead]

Its standard risk mitigation. Perhaps its different in your industry, but in mine, to use the redundancy analogy again, its now common practise to escort newly redundant ex-employees off the premises on the same day, usually within an hour or so of being given the news.

Why is this? I don't believe its the personal attack or lack of faith that it appears to be, in fact, I don't think its meant to be a personal slight against the individual at all - I believe this type of thing is simply risk management. There is a risk, when people are particularly stressed, that they may react in non positive ways. Will everyone do this? No, not at all, but its an identifiable risk.

Qantas doesn't have to "think" anything about this, they were being contacted by CASA for precisely the risk mitigation reason.

I'm highly confused, we are talking about notice of the grounding. Not notice of redundancy. That's all very interesting but is a step beyond the action that was taken or is being discussed.

 

[Moopere]

I'm highly confused, we are talking about notice of the grounding. Not notice of redundancy. That's all very interesting but is a step beyond the action that was taken or is being discussed.

Sorry, trying to use an analogy of "stressed" humans.

 

[medhead]

Many risks can be identified and managed. This is the day to day reality of flying, or buying a loaf of bread.

This stuff is not being made up on the fly, there is a ton of historical work in this area and people make a career out of managing risk in multitudinous industries and military situations. Note that managing risk does not then imply that there is _no risk_.

I didn't say it was being made up on the fly. Simply saying that if they think their employees are not professional enough to deal with the risk of a lock out in 2 days. Then they must surely doubt the ability of their employees to deal with other distractions. Also if the risk management system can not manage the distraction of a lock out it surely can't manage other distractions either.

BTW I work in radiation safety I get the risk thing a little bit...

 

[ajw373]

I didn't say it was being made up on the fly. Simply saying that if they think their employees are not professional enough to deal with the risk of a lock out in 2 days. Then they must surely doubt the ability of their employees to deal with other distractions. Also if the risk management system can not manage the distraction of a lock out it surely can't manage other distractions either.

BTW I work in radiation safety I get the risk thing a little bit...

Although I know the consipracry theorists will disagree and suggest it is a Qantas managemet plot, there was some suggestion/evidence of sabotage to an a/c just before, so maybe things like that were all put into their risk matrix in determining the best thing to do was suspend flights right away.

 

[medhead]

Although I know the consipracry theorists will disagree and suggest it is a Qantas managemet plot, there was some suggestion/evidence of sabotage to an a/c just before, so maybe things like that were all put into their risk matrix in determining the best thing to do was suspend flights right away.

Well that is the other part of what I was banging on about. Rereading it I didn't separate the ideas very well. But if (and that's not a doubting if) such thing happened I really have to go back to the employer/employee relationship being non existent. It indicates that relationship has been destroyed, which is a sad indictment of both sides. Qantas management might have won the terminate the strike battle, but they have lost the war if employees are sabotaging the aircraft. (that comment applies equally to the unions)


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