Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[amaroo]

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.

I think they grounded the airline then & there to amplify their message to the passengers, unions, staff, Government & FWA, that enough was enough.

I know they said different to the Senate enquiry - but what do we expect them to say.......we did it Mr Senator, just to squeeze your lifeless Government into action.

I'm not trying to underestimate the impact on individuals crewing the planes but maybe, they, like the rest of us - were just pawns in the game.

Not all pilots & crew are created equal but I'm pretty sure they all have our safety front & centre.

 

[straitman]

(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.

It seems my answer was at least a few thousand feet above your head.

 

[Moody]

It seems my answer was at least a few thousand feet above your head.

Or perhaps below?

This side argument about the need to immediately ground the airline without notice is the biggest load of twaddle I have heard, and the pathetic need of the Qantas fanboys to justify it is a bit too desparate in my mind.

As has been pointed out, to infer that staff would be so underhanded as to sabotage their own airline rather than let it quiesce in an orderly fashion is quite insulting, and says more about managements mentality than the unions.

Qantas shut down the airline without notice because they were losing the battle and wanted to shift the focus to the government and FWA. Neither of those two were impressed by this drastic action (and the lack of notice), but have given Qantas what it wants - some breathing space to regroup and work on their next step - forcing an agreement that gives them the unfettered right to move jobs offshore.

Creating jobs - don't make me laugh. How many Australians does Jetconnect employ?

 

[amaroo]

Or perhaps below?

This side argument about the need to immediately ground the airline without notice is the biggest load of twaddle I have heard, and the pathetic need of the Qantas fanboys to justify it is a bit too desparate in my mind.

As has been pointed out, to infer that staff would be so underhanded as to sabotage their own airline rather than let it quiesce in an orderly fashion is quite insulting, and says more about managements mentality than the unions.

Qantas shut down the airline without notice because they were losing the battle and wanted to shift the focus to the government and FWA. Neither of those two were impressed by this drastic action (and the lack of notice), but have given Qantas what it wants - some breathing space to regroup and work on their next step - forcing an agreement that gives them the unfettered right to move jobs offshore.

Creating jobs - don't make me laugh. How many Australians does Jetconnect employ?

I agree with you - they were losing.....the company and eventually many, many employees along with it.

Management, have saved many jobs with their action.

 

[Moopere]

Or perhaps below?

This side argument about the need to immediately ground the airline without notice is the biggest load of twaddle I have heard, and the pathetic need of the Qantas fanboys to justify it is a bit too desparate in my mind.

As has been pointed out, to infer that staff would be so underhanded as to sabotage their own airline rather than let it quiesce in an orderly fashion is quite insulting, and says more about managements mentality than the unions.

To support this theory you would have to adequately explain CASAs concern as raised with QF. You can be as insulted as you like about it. Risk management does not, and cannot, be guided by everyone's 'feelings' about their fellow workers or fellow countrymen (or management).

Qantas shut down the airline without notice because they were losing the battle ...

Possibly. Strambi's view on the other hand was that the industrial action had to cease as quickly as possible otherwise CASA would likely step in. Again, be as insulted as you want to be about that. CASA's job is to mitigate risk, they perceived risk rising and made themselves known to QF about that. They didn't tell QF _how_to solve it, but that it had to be solved.

... and wanted to shift the focus to the government and FWA. Neither of those two were impressed by this drastic action (and the lack of notice)

I don't remember FWA directly saying anything of the sort.

but have given Qantas what it wants - some breathing space to regroup and work on their next step - forcing an agreement that gives them the unfettered right to move jobs offshore.

In your view. No-one except the unions seem to be spouting this and I'm sorry, they are becoming foamy at the mouth now, its not even funny. [Edit: Oh, and this is a good read which might help a bit; http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00854 ]

Creating jobs - don't make me laugh. How many Australians does Jetconnect employ?

I'd guess a lot more than Ansett does today. Think about it a moment before calling my comment a red herring.

 

[Simo]

QF had to stand up to the unions and stop the disruptions to the business.

Again with the planned action it will cause some disruption on Monday at BNE airport.

Hopefully no flights will be delayed or cancelled even though there are no action by on shift staff.

I had an employee say to me if I didn't give them more money they would resign.

I accepted his resignation he then asked if he could stay which I of course I let him do.

 

[medhead]

It seems my answer was at least a few thousand feet above your head.

Or perhaps I don't appreciate people trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

For whatever reason you took one sentence out of context and disagreed with it in a certain manner. The best I can conclude is that obviously you don't understand my point and I clearly haven't explained myself very well.

I don't think there is anything else to say.

Edit: But what the hell. Lots of industries manage all these risks, fatique, family breakup, disgruntled employees, everyday. These are not unique to aviation and it is naive to suggest they are unique. Those other industries manage the risks, using standard risk management techniques. :idea: They don't manage those risk but deciding to stop being in business. If aviation risk management is so ineffectual that they have to put their hands up and surrender, then I have to question how they manage all those other everyday risks. So no straitman I'm not suggesting those everyday risks don't exist. I do understand your post, but you clearly don't understand my post.

 

[Moopere]

Or perhaps I don't appreciate people trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

Thats a bit disingenuous don't you think? You seem to have engaged in a bit of presumably good spirited reductio ad absurdum and got called on that ... no need for eggs or sucking

After having called me on going off on a tangent with a retrenchment analogy, you then try and show that everyday stresses of life (kids, school, driving to work ... whatever) are similar to a workplace lockout (ie, where one loses their income, somewhat similar to what happens during a retrenchment ...) and that the risks derived by the one are the same as the risks derived by the other.... and that in both cases the risk is negligible.

 

[Moody]

To support this theory you would have to adequately explain CASAs concern as raised with QF. You can be as insulted as you like about it. Risk management does not, and cannot, be guided by everyone's 'feelings' about their fellow workers or fellow countrymen (or management).

I must have missed the bit where CASA said that the shutdown must be immediate. Could you please point me to your source. Can you also please stop inferring that my opinions are based on 'feelings' whereas yours are based on 'facts'.

Possibly. Strambi's view on the other hand was that the industrial action had to cease as quickly as possible otherwise CASA would likely step in. Again, be as insulted as you want to be about that. CASA's job is to mitigate risk, they perceived risk rising and made themselves known to QF about that. They didn't tell QF _how_to solve it, but that it had to be solved.

Is this letter from CASA to Qantas in the public domain? I'd like to read it. And as you rightly point out, Qantas decided that locking out all staff and stranding passengers world-wide was the best option. It had others that it chose not to pursue.

I don't remember FWA directly saying anything of the sort.

Gillard hid her annoyance with Qantas fairly well. Albanese was a bit less restained. FWA made it very clear that the unions' actions did not warrant FWA intervention, but Qantas had escalated the conflict so drastically (and with huge detriment to the economy) that it had no choice but to act. If you believe any of this to be untrue I would like to hear your alternative analysis.

In your view. No-one except the unions seem to be spouting this and I'm sorry, they are becoming foamy at the mouth now, its not even funny. [Edit: Oh, and this is a good read which might help a bit; Qantas Sale Act 1992 ].

So Qantas doesn't intend to create more Jetstar and Jetconnect entities and employ cheap overseas contract staff to run them? Then why don't they then tell the unions this because for some bizzarre reason they are quite paranoid about it. And I don't see how a link to the Qantas Sale Act adds anything to this particular discussion, but as you included it for a reason please let me know what you intended by it

I'd guess a lot more than Ansett does today. Think about it a moment before calling my comment a red herring.

So all airlines that don't use the cheapest contract labour available worldwide for engineering and crew will go belly-up? Is that what you meant? Please let me know how one of the most profitable airlines in the world is the same as another that went bankrupt years ago.

 

[straitman]

Or perhaps I don't appreciate people trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

Lost it with emotion. Nobody was telling you to suck eggs.

whatever reason you took one sentence out of context and disagreed with it in a certain manner. The best I can conclude is that obviously you don't understand my point and I clearly haven't explained myself very well.

Arguing for the sake of arguing again. (Your own words from another thread)

don't think there is anything else to say.

As you said, you should have quit here.

: But what the hell. Lots of industries manage all these risks, fatique, family breakup, disgruntled employees, everyday. These are not unique to aviation and it is naive to suggest they are unique. Those other industries manage the risks, using standard risk management techniques. :idea: They don't manage those risk but deciding to stop being in business. If aviation risk management is so ineffectual that they have to put their hands up and surrender, then I have to question how they manage all those other everyday risks. So no straitman I'm not suggesting those everyday risks don't exist. I do understand your post, but you clearly don't understand my post.

Don't forget the second part of basic risk management and I very clearly understood your post but do not agree with your conclusions.

 

[medhead]

Thats a bit disingenuous don't you think? You seem to have engaged in a bit of presumably good spirited reductio ad absurdum and got called on that ... no need for eggs or sucking

After having called me on going off on a tangent with a retrenchment analogy, you then try and show that everyday stresses of life (kids, school, driving to work ... whatever) are similar to a workplace lockout (ie, where one loses their income, somewhat similar to what happens during a retrenchment ...) and that the risks derived by the one are the same as the risks derived by the other.... and that in both cases the risk is negligible.

Suck eggs - thanks for the instruction in risk management. Because they don't have that in mining or hospitals or the nuclear industry There is a whole dozen eggs for me to suck right there.

As for you other rant. Firstly quote where I said the either risk is negligible. I didn't, that's your little false assumption.

If you go back and read again you will see that I said that if they can manage everyday risks they should be able to manage the risks of a lockout. Now to remind you of risk management - likelihood and consequence. Now the consequence of crashing your commercial aircraft is going to be basically the same. is it not? So how much does the likelihood of an event increase because of a lock out, compared to an employee turning up to work who is into the triads for $500k, or an employee whose wife has just walk out because he had an extra-marital affair, the wife is going to get 60% of all his savings including super, who is going to have to sell his house and holiday home, whose mum has liver cancer. What's the likelihood of an undiagnosed heart condition - that's my favourite because Joyce himself dragged out that one, clearly implying that the risk of heart failure was the same as the risk due to lock out. Well I'm sure you get the idea.

How much exactly does the likelihood of everyday risks compare to the liklighood of the risk from lock outs. There has to be statistics, doesn't there?

 

[medhead]

Don't forget the second part of basic risk management and I very clearly understood your post but do not agree with your conclusions.

Yes you clearly demonstrated your understanding with you put downs. or to put it another way, "I'm so much better than you, and you know nothing, and you're wrong" does not clearly demonstrate understanding.

No sucking eggs - yeah cause in my industry they don't have risk management. Only the high flyers in aviation know anything about risk management.

Arguing for the sake of arguing again. (Your own words from another thread)

That wasn't an argument, it was a generous interpretation of your response to me.

 

[JohnK]

I think that the fact that the remuneration report got a 96% for vote indicates that the shareholders are happy with the way things are going.

The institutions? They are the sole reason the world is in this mess right now.

The Unions never blindsided passengers like QF Management did as there was always advance notice of any possible delays or disruptions to flights. I've heard so many people use the words disgusted and Alan Joyce in the one sentence when referring to that event.

The general public supports the employees because they hate seeing someone preaching cost cutting & job losses all the while accepting a $2M pay increase. You may be able to get away with that when you are a dictator of some third world country but we won't cop it here.

I still do not understand the argument that what Qantas did was right.

It was stupid, premedidated and has caused them irrepairable damage....

 

[Moopere]

I must have missed the bit where CASA said that the shutdown must be immediate. Could you please point me to your source.

If CASA intervenes in a matter of its own perception of a safety breach, real or potential, airlines can be grounded, surely there would be few who would dispute that? Strambi presented the view (of the board presumably) that if things were not resolved and _if_ CASA were to react negatively then the impact on the airline as a result of a CASA "Safety" based grounding would be powers of magnitude greater than a self imposed grounding.

Can you also please stop inferring that my opinions are based on 'feelings' whereas yours are based on 'facts'.

My apologies. My style was probably influenced by this:

This side argument about the need to immediately ground the airline without notice is the biggest load of twaddle I have heard, and the pathetic need of the Qantas fanboys to justify it is a bit too desparate in my mind.

Sounds like an emotional statement. No offence meant in my response.

Is this letter from CASA to Qantas in the public domain? I'd like to read it.

I'm not sure. Possibly not. I can only go by statements made at the FWA hearing. It may be a leap of faith on my behalf, but presumably such statements by QF's Strambi were independently checked by researchers/clerks of FWA.

And as you rightly point out, Qantas decided that locking out all staff and stranding passengers world-wide was the best option. It had others that it chose not to pursue.

Sure. Tons. Very few realistic ones though if it wished to reach its (and by extension the shareholders) aims and to continue to be operational in the long term. What would you have done in AJ's shoes? Allowed 12 months or more of union disruption?

Gillard hid her annoyance with Qantas fairly well. Albanese was a bit less restained. FWA made it very clear that the unions' actions did not warrant FWA intervention, but Qantas had escalated the conflict so drastically (and with huge detriment to the economy) that it had no choice but to act. If you believe any of this to be untrue I would like to hear your alternative analysis.

The government was certainly annoyed - so their lack of action bit them and their union mates were on the phone ... they were trapped and rather peeved.

FWA for its part made statements which lead one to believe that they would not have intervened because of the union action alone, which implies then that union based stoppages and company pain would have continued for a year unabated. The QF "escalation" as you put it, which was no more than protected industrial action (aka, a response to the unions own protected action), is what caused FWA's to act. I do not remember reading or hearing inferences that the FWA panel were 'annoyed' at all.

So Qantas doesn't intend to create more Jetstar and Jetconnect entities and employ cheap overseas contract staff to run them?

Careful. _Creation_, the key word here, of new jobs overseas does not necessarily equate to the reduction of local jobs. It may indeed be so, but its by no means a fait accompli. An expansion of QF operations, via new subsidiary operations or QF branded operations will certainly create local jobs. Numbers are arguable of course and dependent on many factors.

Then why don't they then tell the unions this because for some bizzarre reason they are quite paranoid about it. And I don't see how a link to the Qantas Sale Act adds anything to this particular discussion, but as you included it for a reason please let me know what you intended by it

Its worth a read because it dictates many aspects of how QF, quite simply, must act under law. It also implies a lot, which of course is also where the wiggle room is for both QF and the Government. Some of the implied direction is being debated by a committee right now I believe.

So all airlines that don't use the cheapest contract labour available worldwide for engineering and crew will go belly-up? Is that what you meant? Please let me know how one of the most profitable airlines in the world is the same as another that went bankrupt years ago.

You know, I suspect; that the union argument was not only about wage levels. We are led to believe, by parties on both sides of the argument, that the pay/wage dispute, for the most part, was resolved for QF employees. However, it was the additional 'claims' that were seriously in dispute and it is those claims which the company management believed would make the business unviable. They would know, they run the business... we commentators, who've not seen the business plans and the accounting only have opinions on that.

 

[Moopere]

Suck eggs - thanks for the instruction in risk management. Because they don't have that in mining or hospitals or the nuclear industry There is a whole dozen eggs for me to suck right there.

Fair enough. Don't forget Military in the list ...

As for you other rant. Firstly quote where I said the either risk is negligible. I didn't, that's your little false assumption.

This is pretty fun. Two stirrers having a good stir

So how much does the likelihood of an event increase because of a lock out,

compared to an employee turning up to work who is into the triads for $500k, or an employee whose wife has just walk out because he had an extra-marital affair, the wife is going to get 60% of all his savings including super, who is going to have to sell his house and holiday home, whose mum has liver cancer. What's the likelihood of an undiagnosed heart condition - that's my favourite because Joyce himself dragged out that one, clearly implying that the risk of heart failure was the same as the risk due to lock out. Well I'm sure you get the idea.

I do.

Of course my opinion, not based in statistics or case history is no more worthy than anyone else's, but, in my opinion, the risk profile would be powers of magnitude greater. The reason is that on the one hand you have whole large sections (divisions) of the workforce who are distracted at the same time and for the same reason. In the other mentioned cases you have individuals with perhaps equally stressful events happening to them, but they are in isolation. The risk management strategy and process, if its mature, will have safeguards against single (or small groups) of employees turning up in a distracted state. Single (or small group) points of failure are usually the first to be identified.

How much exactly does the likelihood of everyday risks compare to the liklighood of the risk from lock outs. There has to be statistics, doesn't there?

You would imagine so.

 

[medhead]

Fair enough. Don't forget Military in the list ...

Since my knowledge of risk management was at issue and since my (limited) military career was so low flying, potential pun intended, such that I was never involved in risk assessment or management (well except as a potential risk) I didn't include it.

the risk profile would be powers of magnitude greater. The reason is that on the one hand you have whole large sections (divisions) of the workforce who are distracted at the same time and for the same reason

Well there you go, I've experienced an entire multinational company distracted over corporate shenanigans. They didn't shutdown. We're talking about qantas that has highly professional employees, something unions and management agree about. How many times did I hear AJ tell me that 30,000 employees backed his action. My opinion differs on the risk profile for those reasons.

 

[Moody]

If CASA intervenes in a matter of its own perception of a safety breach, real or potential, airlines can be grounded, surely there would be few who would dispute that? Strambi presented the view (of the board presumably) that if things were not resolved and _if_ CASA were to react negatively then the impact on the airline as a result of a CASA "Safety" based grounding would be powers of magnitude greater than a self imposed grounding.

Ask a simple question - get a disingenous answer. Never a good sign.

I will ask one more time - where is there any evidence that CASA insisted, suggested or even hinted that if Qantas wanted to suspend operations then the shutdown should be immediate rather than adhering to the notice of protected industrial action that they are obliged to give?

If the answer is "There is none" then it would help us move on if you could admit to as much.

But feel free to spout the company line on other topics that are still in question.

 

[medhead]

Ask a simple question - get a disingenous answer. Never a good sign.

I will ask one more time - where is there any evidence that CASA insisted, suggested or even hinted that if Qantas wanted to suspend operations then the shutdown should be immediate rather than adhering to the notice of protected industrial action that they are obliged to give?

If the answer is "There is none" then it would help us move on if you could admit to as much.

But feel free to spout the company line on other topics that are still in question.

I'm sure I heard Joyce make this claim. I think we should all be prepared to accept the claims of both sides, with appropriate amounts of salt, as having some basis in the truth.

 

[Moopere]

Ask a simple question - get a disingenous answer. Never a good sign.

I will ask one more time - where is there any evidence that CASA insisted, suggested or even hinted that if Qantas wanted to suspend operations then the shutdown should be immediate rather than adhering to the notice of protected industrial action that they are obliged to give?

If the answer is "There is none" then it would help us move on if you could admit to as much.

I am not aware of what CASA had in mind. Are you? It sounds like you are disputing that CASA has the power to immediately ground an aircraft or a whole fleet? Without access to the CASA communication to QF on the 14th/10 how on earth can I respond to your demand? I have told you the source of the assertion that CASA had communicated with QF over concerns of safety related to the industrial action.

Concerns over safety can end in groundings in my opinion, happy to explore this further if you disagree. Strambi himself, at the FWA hearing, admits that pre-empting any potential grounding of the fleet move from CASA was part of the reasoning for the self imposed grounding.

There are transcripts of much, possibly all, of the FWA hearing, made available to the press and doubtless available online, if you believe that Strambi lied to FWA when he proposed the CASA communication then that sounds like a challenge you may wish to pursue. Personally, I am reasonably satisfied that whilst both sides will have slanted reality to suit themselves, anyone outright lying to FWA is likely to come unstuck in the most career ending way possible.

 

[Moody]

I am not aware of what CASA had in mind. Are you?

No - but I am not the one making excuses for Qantas grounding the airline completely and without notice. You are, and you have dragged CASA into the picture. I am asking you for ANY evidence to back your story. So far there has been none.

It sounds like you are disputing that CASA has the power to immediately ground an aircraft or a whole fleet?

No it doesn't and I have never even hinted that I do, but this is a perfect example of being disingenuous. You're not a lobbyist by any chance, are you?

Without access to the CASA communication to QF on the 14th/10 how on earth can I respond to your demand? I have told you the source of the assertion that CASA had communicated with QF over concerns of safety related to the industrial action.

Using the existence of a letter from CASA to Qantas does not allow you to justify all future Qantas actions as CASA-related. You have to make a logical link between them. Is this too hard for you?

Concerns over safety can end in groundings in my opinion, happy to explore this further if you disagree.

This is hardly worth responding to. Do you ever read back your posts?

Strambi himself, at the FWA hearing, admits that pre-empting any potential grounding of the fleet move from CASA was part of the reasoning for the self imposed grounding.

And has CASA agreed with that assessment?

There are transcripts of much, possibly all, of the FWA hearing, made available to the press and doubtless available online, if you believe that Strambi lied to FWA when he proposed the CASA communication then that sounds like a challenge you may wish to pursue. Personally, I am reasonably satisfied that whilst both sides will have slanted reality to suit themselves, anyone outright lying to FWA is likely to come unstuck in the most career ending way possible.

Where have I said or hinted that Strambi lied? Why do you make these things up and put words in people's mouths? Do you get off on it?

Qantas planned and executed an immediate shutdown of all operations, with no warning to passengers, staff, FWA or the government. They (and their paid and unpaid apologists) have defended this with some fairly insulting claims about staff fatigue (WTF!) and safety, and dragged CASA into the picture with some exceedingly circumstantial evidence (in this case evidence has the meaning "I'm sure I heard Joyce make this claim"). Your tiresome efforts to deflect from facts and accuse other people of saying things they haven't is starting to become a pattern and is quite frankly boring, but I'm up for it if you are.