Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[browski]

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

Straitman, are you not the author of this doozy: "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!"

That is the text book example right there of "Arguing for the sake of arguing".
Too funny.

Getting back on topic though, wasn't AJ's ridiculous (after-the event) reasons (like the "safety" issue) also to try to appease/fool the ASX. Otherwise he was (and maybe still is) open to a breach of his duties to the market (by not announcing his plans at the AGM)?

 

[straitman]

Straitman, are you not the author of this doozy: "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!"

That is the text book example right there of "Arguing for the sake of arguing".
Too funny.

Good to see the one person got it :!:

 

[samiam]

For anyone with some time on their hands, the transcripts from the FWA hearing on 29th & 30th October are here:

s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc. Transcripts - FWA - 291011B20113816

and here:

s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc. Transcripts - FWA - 301011B20113816

Have fun

 

[Moody]

For anyone with some time on their hands, the transcripts from the FWA hearing on 29th & 30th October are here:

s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc. Transcripts - FWA - 291011B20113816

and here:

s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc. Transcripts - FWA - 301011B20113816

Have fun

Lots of stuff to wade through painfully, then when Strambi is getting to the nut of the matter this is on the transcript:-

(PARRY) Thank you for painting a risk scenario. Why is the announcement and the (indistinct)?
(STRAMBI) In looking at our previous assessment of the safety of - in the operation by (indistinct) industrial relations, the risk assessment (indistinct) of industrial relation activities for our controls we have in place to actually deal with them. You then - from there you look at subsequent protections you have against that particular event. A lot of our controllers, our last line of defence are controllers, are very (indistinct) particularly involving (indistinct) and the concern became very obvious to us through this work was that when you announce a lock-out or the intention to lock-out, you are introducing some real undermining of those particular human related (indistinct). That can drive (indistinct). The key factors (indistinct) the threats that we have to operation is a (indistinct). It's a common thread. We also have (indistinct) around fatigue, so the array of normal threats and the controls deal with those. The problem here was that by announcing an intention of lock-out, you significantly change those two particular elements. So you were likely to introduce an element of fatigue as people worry about the consequences of the lock-out decision announcement. Likewise, too, it was like (indistinct) in particular, but so, too, other workforces involved and those things tend to significantly increase the risk to the business.


Well that's all cleared up then. Funny that there's no mention of CASA, but (indistinct) certainly gets a good run!

Edit :- made it through to the end of day 1 and there was just one other interesting exchange. All three union reps asked for Qantas to produce the risk assessment that led to the immediate lockdown. Qantas refused. FWA did not compel them to comply. Interesting.

 

[Moopere]

Well that's all cleared up then. Funny that there's no mention of CASA, but (indistinct) certainly gets a good run!

Oh for goodness sakes. You must not even be reading my posts so there is probably little point in responding to the last - Thats fine though.

For others reading from the transcript:

**** LYELL FRANCIS STRAMBI XN MR PARRY

"If I could hand you a document, and hopefully in Melbourne there's a document from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority dated 14 October to Mr Joyce. If I could hand you a copy of that, and hand up copies down the bar table. What's that document, Mr Strambi?---It was a document sent to Mr Joyce, copied to myself, from our Civil Aviation Safety Authority's acting director of aviation safety in regard to CASA's view on industrial action and the risk that presented to flight safety. It was making us aware that CASA would continue a high level of audit and surveillance, and would take any necessary action required to maintain aviation safety. It was a clear signal that CASA was getting very interested in the industrial negotiations or the impact of industrial negotiations on flight safety"


The above is no direct worded threat, and in fact, is somewhat indistinct on exactly _how_ CASA's view was transmitted, nevertheless, there it is, to accept, or not, as it presents itself.

I can't easily put the above in-context as its a large body of work - well worth a read though as the various aspects of risk management and decision making are teased out, to some degree, by the FWA panel and Strambi answers.

 

[oz_mark]

Well that's all cleared up then. Funny that there's no mention of CASA, but (indistinct) certainly gets a good run!

In day two there is:

PN429

• If I could hand you a document, and hopefully in Melbourne there's a document from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority dated 14 October to Mr Joyce. If I could hand you a copy of that, and hand up copies down the bar table. What's that document, Mr Strambi?---It was a document sent to Mr Joyce, copied to myself, from our Civil Aviation Safety Authority's acting director of aviation safety in regard to CASA's view on industrial action and the risk that presented to flight safety. It was making us aware that CASA would continue a high level of audit and surveillance, and would take any necessary action required to maintain aviation safety. It was a clear signal that CASA was getting very interested in the industrial negotiations or the impact of industrial negotiations on flight safety.
  

 

[eastwest101]

Although I personally have not seen this letter of the 14th Oct to QF management, from my reading of Mr Strambali's evidence is that this is simply a letter saying that CASA would continue a "high level of audit and surveillance" on the Qantas operation. I don't see any specific threat in that. And I would expect that if CASA did have any specific events or concerns then they would have acted on them.

I agree with Moody - in that all the 'indisticts' in Strambis evidence makes makes it impossible to draw any conclusions or obtain any information about his reasoning at all. I think he was trying to make some sort of comment about fatigue risks in the second part and the first part was incomprehensible. But my "buzzword bingo" antennae were up.

 

[mbeder]

Today's Sydney Morning Herald headline article highlights that the public blame Qantas management:

QANTAS has emerged as the chief villain after the dispute that momentarily paralysed the nation, with a new poll showing more voters disapproving of its actions than those of any other key player.
The latest Herald/Nielsen poll finds 60 per cent of voters disapproved of the decision by Qantas two weeks ago to ground its entire domestic and international fleet as a tactic to force an end to a long-running dispute with three unions.
Only 36 per cent of those surveyed agreed with the measure that left thousands stranded at home and abroad.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who moved to terminate the dispute by referring it immediately to Fair Work Australia for resolution, was not rewarded in the court of public opinion. The poll found only 40 per cent approved of her handling of the dispute while 46 per cent disapproved.
Labor and Greens voters were far more supportive of Ms Gillard's actions than were Coalition voters. Vice versa, Coalition voters were more supportive of the action by Qantas than were Labor and Greens voters.
The unions also found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion with 49 per cent disapproving of the industrial action they took in their dispute with Qantas. Only 41 per cent approved of union action.
The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday night to Saturday night, a fortnight after Qantas grounded its fleet. Since then, Qantas has embarked on a public relations offensive, offering every inconvenienced passenger a full flight plus reimbursement for costs incurred for being grounded.
The period also encompassed a row in which the Coalition said Ms Gillard should have used a separate section of the act which would have terminated the dispute immediately, stopped Qantas grounding its fleet and bypassed Fair Work Australia.
The dispute has also ignited an industrial relations policy battle in Canberra with the Coalition and big business siding with Qantas, saying it had no other choice.
Business and some in the Coalition claim that the unions were able to bring Qantas to its knees because Labor's Fair Work laws, which replaced Work Choices, enable unions to bargain on a greater range of issues, including job security.
The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, disagreed, saying the Qantas dispute was not a matter of policy but the Prime Minister not using all the tools at her disposal to end it while keeping the planes in the air.
The Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, said yesterday the Fair Work Act should not be amended to remove job security provisions from the bargaining process.
''[The dispute] was a failure of leadership within Qantas for the years leading up to the grounding of the airline to be able to convince its workforce about workplace change,'' Mr Shorten told Sky News. ''Too much of the political debate about industrial relations in Australia comes down to a debate about what is the right regulation. We get the microscope out to look at the legislation, but when do we start talking about good leadership in Australia?''
The Fair Work Act will be reviewed next year.
The ACTU secretary, Jeff Lawrence, concurred with Mr Shorten, saying the Qantas grounding was an example of ''employer militancy''.


Read more: Public points its finger at Qantas and PM in poll​

 

[drron]

Ah you have to love a good headline.So 41% approve of the Unions actions,40% the Governments and 36% QF-not major differences I would have thought.

 

[amaroo]

Ah you have to love a good headline.So 41% approve of the Unions actions,40% the Governments and 36% QF-not major differences I would have thought.

Smack in the middle of the margin of error that all polls generate

 

[themaiz]

Today's Sydney Morning Herald headline article highlights that the public blame Qantas management:

[snip]

The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday night to Saturday night, a fortnight after Qantas grounded its fleet. Since then, Qantas has embarked on a public relations offensive, offering every inconvenienced passenger a full flight plus reimbursement for costs incurred for being grounded.

[snip]

Only 36 per cent of those surveyed agreed with the measure that left thousands stranded at home and abroad.
​

That number might make more sense if we could factor the number of those surveyed who belong to the personally-inconvenienced group, as opposed to the baying-for-blood-from-the-sidelines group.
​

It's all too easy to yell "you coughs" at the boss when you're in a theoretical discussion (even if nobody has yet killed Kenny).

The unions also found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion with 49 per cent disapproving of the industrial action they took in their dispute with Qantas. Only 41 per cent approved of union action.

So half of the [uncategorised] sample thought the Unions were wrong and, of those polled, about the same proportion thought the unions were wrong as thought Qantas was wrong. :!: Presumably different people.

Me? I have QF bookings which put me on two planes this weekend, and another two planes in three weeks, and another two planes a week after that. I'm thrilled with the probability that they will go somewhere and come back, most likely on time. I'm even more thrilled with the potential that my clients will see me when committed. I get very angry with people who prevent me from generating revenue over a dispute in which I have no skin.

Bah!

 

[NM]

Ah you have to love a good headline.So 41% approve of the Unions actions,40% the Governments and 36% QF-not major differences I would have thought.

And just like any good election, we have a total of 117% of the population voting :shock:

 

[dfcatch]

And just like any good election, we have a total of 117% of the population voting :shock:

Vote Early, Vote Often

 

[medhead]

Oh for goodness sakes. You must not even be reading my posts so there is probably little point in responding to the last - Thats fine though.

For others reading from the transcript:

**** LYELL FRANCIS STRAMBI XN MR PARRY

"If I could hand you a document, and hopefully in Melbourne there's a document from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority dated 14 October to Mr Joyce. If I could hand you a copy of that, and hand up copies down the bar table. What's that document, Mr Strambi?---It was a document sent to Mr Joyce, copied to myself, from our Civil Aviation Safety Authority's acting director of aviation safety in regard to CASA's view on industrial action and the risk that presented to flight safety. It was making us aware that CASA would continue a high level of audit and surveillance, and would take any necessary action required to maintain aviation safety. It was a clear signal that CASA was getting very interested in the industrial negotiations or the impact of industrial negotiations on flight safety"


The above is no direct worded threat, and in fact, is somewhat indistinct on exactly _how_ CASA's view was transmitted, nevertheless, there it is, to accept, or not, as it presents itself.

I can't easily put the above in-context as its a large body of work - well worth a read though as the various aspects of risk management and decision making are teased out, to some degree, by the FWA panel and Strambi answers.

I must say the above suggest to me that they don't trust their risk management/ safety systems to stand up to a high level of audit and surveillance. The bit quoted by moody was also interesting for the suggestion of an extra element of fatigue, even if saying nothing with the indistincts. Again raises questions about the fatigue management system. iMO

 

[ethernet]

Tick Toc. 29th. Timer began on the 1st? Call the 21 day negotiating period 1st November, so +21 Days means next Monday should be crunch time. Now if 'Job security' is a not on the table item - FWA should really have to rule, as it would be farcical to go soft , hoping for a miracle - and if that fails -so the bombshell announcement is peak pre Christmas season. I hear little about 'negotiations' , which probably means irreconcilable differences are major.

On Fatigue, my opinion is Aussies confuse it with being 'cough' after, while many foreign employees will deny/lie
it exists - if it keeps their paycheck. But bottom line happy or ignorant employees are the best, while disgruntled employees will probably do more things wrong. For CAA to focus on one set of feelings seems wrong. Grounding is a very bad outcome - that leads to consequences months later. I hope they did into common sense over 'rules'.

 

[ethernet]

AJ just put out a very good press release that inspires confidence - only it is not so.
Betting that the arbiter FWA will give him all pigs flying and a long term fix is farcical, especially as QF is not lilly white. If the gulf is large, I would rule a 14 month deal, and then it all starts over again.... Its a wild guess, but I think they hoped for consensus, without getting their hands dirty. To the corners ...

 

[Blackadder]

More fuel to the fire that the grounding was premeditated.

Qantas grounding pre-planned, couriers say | News.com.au

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Of course it was pre planned. Both sides have been pre planning things from the word go. Big deal.

 

[Blackadder]

So in other words Joyce is liar, with his denials of it being pre planned.

 

[serfty]

So in other words Joyce is liar, with his denials of it being pre planned.

That's not the case.

AFAIK, he said the grounding was one option being considered, so (by implication if nothing else) of course there was pre-planning and prior arrangements being made.