Qantas industrial action again today [23Sep11]

[anat0l]

No, because virgin have a good management, have good staff and are on the good side of the unions, just got a pay rise and best of all... they have job security! Oh my god, so much to ask. They don't care if they are paid less because they have a good company to work for, and fellow staff and unions are happy with them and the unions.

I am so looking forward to the day when I can use and quote these words against you.

Also, would you (or anyone for that matter) please care to supply a clear and precise definition to the term "job security".

 

[mannej]

Shouldnt that read: "I'll continue to enjoy Qantas when they fly?"

OTP isn't just an issue for QF though. Has Virgin improved theirs as of late

 

[JohnK]

Nothing else published on the disrupts page about knock on effects, but given it is Friday and all. But you may be ok, I believe Johnk is flying a different airline today

My reputation precedes me! Perhaps airlines can pay me to fly the other airline more often to improve their own on time performance.

Seriously though my on time performance on domestic in the last 3+ years is ~30%-40%. Not good at all....

 

[Pushka]

Just booked our first Business flight through Virgin for the end of this week and cancelled the Qantas flight we had booked. Cant risk a non arrival.

 

[medhead]

I am so looking forward to the day when I can use and quote these words against you.

Also, would you (or anyone for that matter) please care to supply a clear and precise definition to the term "job security".

IMO job security in the context of Qantas, means maintaining jobs in the "home" airlines or maybe original is better. Not slowly killing off those airlines and the jobs of people with those airlines while at the same time picking up the work with other new airlines.

It doesn't mean paying jetstar staff the same as Qantas staff - a totally ridiculous suggestion from management. But committing to keep the current original airlines and the staff with those airlines.

Anyway, this is all pointless conversation. no point going on about someone's naive ideas. Youth are always full of naive and idealistic ideas. They soon lose those ideas when they meet reality and see just how [wrong] the world is. (sorry about the grammar, but SWMBO doesn't give a flying [sexual congress] about correcting my grammar)

 

[jakeseven7]

I am so looking forward to the day when I can use and quote these words against you.

Also, would you (or anyone for that matter) please care to supply a clear and precise definition to the term "job security".

I think Jack has also forgotten that it wasn't too long ago Virgin had industrial action by its' workers as well..... ahem....

 

[mannej]

Just booked our first Business flight through Virgin for the end of this week and cancelled the Qantas flight we had booked. Cant risk a non arrival.

And what is the actual performance of the OTP of both airlines?

 

[nlagalle]

Shouldnt that read: "I'll continue to enjoy Qantas when they fly?"

Not at all.. i don't see any mass groundings do you?? do you see thousands of people stranded?

 

[anat0l]

Not at all.. i don't see any mass groundings do you?? do you see thousands of people stranded?

I think Pushka is emphasising that you will enjoy Qantas as long as they are flying, not as long as you are flying.

The former requires the company to be alive. The latter requires you to be alive.

And what is the actual performance of the OTP of both airlines?

From a strict engineering point of view, Pushka is taking the least risky path. Qantas has a risk of cancelling the flight due to the industrial action (whether it is real or not, whether you like it or not - it's a blip on the risk scale). Virgin has very minimal risk in this regard. And from latest reports it doesn't seem likely that other factors will affect either airline in not operating flights (e.g. no planes to be grounded, etc.)

Irrespective of the actual OTP of the said flight, better to arrive hours delayed than not at all. So be it the decision. It may prove to be a pointless decision, and the risk may be infinitesimally small in both magnitude and differences between each airline, but until that happens the best we can do is minimise the risk.

 

[nlagalle]

I think Pushka is emphasising that you will enjoy Qantas as long as they are flying, not as long as you are flying.

The former requires the company to be alive. The latter requires you to be alive.

I thought it was more along the lines of the are flying less than Tiger....

 

[amaroo]

I thought the unions had a base membership of only around 18% of the population - looks like they are doing triple shifts on this forum

 

[Pushka]

We don't need thousands of people to be stranded for any strike action to impact our business, we just need the flight that we have to travel on to be cancelled. So what is that? Less than a hundred?

As far as performance goes, qantas cancelled flights to NZ and Melbourne when the Ash crisis was on but Virgin/Air NZ were flying. For the NZ cancellation we lost around $12000 for our business. We were stranded in Melbourne for 2 days with the ash thing whilst virgin continued to fly. We couldn't get a flight and we considered driving back. Last Friday we were delayed 45 minutes from the strike action. So, you ask why we won't give Virgin a chance? Anat01 gets it!

 

[drron]

Oh Jack.The pay rise that pilots got was on the basis of the 2007 EBA-the current management weren't around then.
The pilots are currently finalising their log of claims for the next agreement.Lets just wait and see what they ask for.

 

[amaroo]

We don't need thousands of people to be stranded for any strike action to impact our business, we just need the flight that we have to travel on to be cancelled. So what is that? Less than a hundred?

As far as performance goes, qantas cancelled flights to NZ and Melbourne when the Ash crisis was on but Virgin/Air NZ were flying. For the NZ cancellation we lost around $12000 for our business. We were stranded in Melbourne for 2 days with the ash thing whilst virgin continued to fly. We couldn't get a flight and we considered driving back. Last Friday we were delayed 45 minutes from the strike action. So, you ask why we won't give Virgin a chance? Anat01 gets it!

I think your post would read different if one of those birds came down due to the ash - how can one say that a company that holds ones safety before profit is a poorly run business :?:

A flight that is delayed by 45 min is frustrating but it's "only frustrating". It's drawing a bow to long to say it's a failed company that deserves no further business.

Living life with these limitations must be a tough task as I'm sure disappointment is only around the next corner no matter who is providing the service.

 

[Pushka]

I think your post would read different if one of those birds came down due to the ash - how can one say that a company that holds ones safety before profit is a poorly run business :?:

A flight that is delayed by 45 min is frustrating but it's "only frustrating". It's drawing a bow to long to say it's a failed company that deserves no further business

Well, the thing about the ash - if it was that dangerous to fly routes during the ash crises, then why wasnt all air space cleared, as happened in Europe? because it planes could fly, but fly around, or lower than the usual route, which costs the airlines more. So the argument about safety doesn't hold with me, it was an economic decision NOT to fly. All someone has to do is tout "security/safety" and it is taboo to contradict. Just like global warming of a few years ago. it has become the catch for the general public to put up with all sorts of tripe.

I agree, 45 minutes is nothing in the overall scheme of things, but add this to the list of issues over the last few months, coupled with the Matching to Gold recently provided by Virgin, well, why not. I never said we would never fly with Qantas again and in fact we have a large European trip booked with Qantas next year, but for the moment our risk management strategy is to find alternative carriers.

 

[nlagalle]

We don't need thousands of people to be stranded for any strike action to impact our business, we just need the flight that we have to travel on to be cancelled. So what is that? Less than a hundred?

As far as performance goes, qantas cancelled flights to NZ and Melbourne when the Ash crisis was on but Virgin/Air NZ were flying. For the NZ cancellation we lost around $12000 for our business. We were stranded in Melbourne for 2 days with the ash thing whilst virgin continued to fly. We couldn't get a flight and we considered driving back. Last Friday we were delayed 45 minutes from the strike action. So, you ask why we won't give Virgin a chance? Anat01 gets it!

But that can happen on any airline you fly on. What happens if your Virgin flight is cancelled? Same spot. It's one of the things of air travel.

 

[nlagalle]

Well, the thing about the ash - if it was that dangerous to fly routes during the ash crises, then why wasnt all air space cleared, as happened in Europe? because it planes could fly, but fly around, or lower than the usual route, which costs the airlines more. So the argument about safety doesn't hold with me, it was an economic decision NOT to fly. All someone has to do is tout "security/safety" and it is taboo to contradict. Just like global warming of a few years ago. it has become the catch for the general public to put up with all sorts of tripe.

I agree, 45 minutes is nothing in the overall scheme of things, but add this to the list of issues over the last few months, coupled with the Matching to Gold recently provided by Virgin, well, why not. I never said we would never fly with Qantas again and in fact we have a large European trip booked with Qantas next year, but for the moment our risk management strategy is to find alternative carriers.

I think you will find it would cost more to keep planes on the ground than to fly a lower than normal altitude. It was discussed back then. to fly a plane at a lower altitude will cost more, but not as much as it sitting on the ground not earning a cent. You could say the opposite that Virgin kept flying because they needed the money. It's all subjective.

 

[Rebekkap]

I think you will find it would cost more to keep planes on the ground than to fly a lower than normal altitude. It was discussed back then. to fly a plane at a lower altitude will cost more, but not as much as it sitting on the ground not earning a cent. You could say the opposite that Virgin kept flying because they needed the money. It's all subjective.

Yep, and it's Qantas's safety culture that keeps me (mainly) flying Qantas - better a delay on the ground than something going wrong in the air.

 

[TheInsider]

So the argument about safety doesn't hold with me, it was an economic decision NOT to fly.

You do know it would easily cost more for an aircraft not to fly? You still have to pay all staff (ground, ramp, pilots, cabin crew, sales, IT, engineering, contractors, catering, freight, load control, movement control, customer relations, HR etc etc)
Then you have the added cost of QF supplying hotels and meals to people, rebooking. So your view is very short sighted and incorrect.

 

[Pushka]

But that can happen on any airline you fly on. What happens if your Virgin flight is cancelled? Same spot. It's one of the things of air travel.

Yes, of course it can. But when we know the Unions are ramping up their tactics, the chances of a cancellation are increased dramatically from normal operational troubles.

So your view is very short sighted and incorrect.

In your mind anyway. I read quite a lot of discussion which stated exactly the opposite. And is Virgin's safety record an issue? Air New Zealand?