Qantas Loses Appeal Over Alleged Illegal Sacking

[kangarooflyer88]

Looks like Uncle Alan is not gonna be happy today with Qantas losing a Federal appeals case against workers who were allegedly illegally sacked by their former employer in favour of cheaper outsourced workers. Here's the 7News video report on that story and here's the story as written by the ABC. To summarize the story:

In August 2020, Qantas revealed it would be outsourcing its ground handling operations at 10 Australian airports to third party contractors, and as a result, 1,683 employees lost their jobs.Last year, in one of the largest reinstatement cases ever heard, the Federal Court found in favour of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) against Qantas in challenging the outsourcing of about 2,000 jobs by the airline. Qantas has [now] lost its appeal against a Federal Court decision that found the outsourcing of about 2,000 ground crew workers was illegal. But the company now plans to appeal the landmark case to the High Court.

In any event, here's to hoping these court challenges make Uncle Alan smarten up for once and bring back crew to make the whole airport experience acceptable rather than frustrating. Certainly my last trip out of SYD was a real hassle, especially with security queues as far as the eye can see.

-RooFlyer88

 

[SydneySwan]

But AJ is never wrong - hence his plan to appeal to the High Court.

 

[Cheatah]

The Qantas press release on this says they are saving $100m per year (opex) and $80m over 5 years (capex) by outsourcing?!?!?

Seems huge, and hard to imagine why QF didnt progress these savings earlier if they are so material.

I struggle to understand how QF could be so inefficient that an outsourcing company can save so much. Are the wages/conditions/benefits appreciably lower?

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/featured/statement-on-ground-handling-federal-court-appeal/

 

[SCM]

The Qantas press release on this says they are saving $100m per year (opex) and $80m over 5 years (capex) by outsourcing?!?!?

Seems huge, and hard to imagine why QF didnt progress these savings earlier if they are so material.

I struggle to understand how QF could be so inefficient that an outsourcing company can save so much. Are the wages/conditions/benefits appreciably lower?

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/featured/statement-on-ground-handling-federal-court-appeal/

Based on the presser I would imagine they would be using some contractor overseas who do a "pay as you go" model, so instead of investing in equipment that Qantas themselves own, they are just paying some kind of a flat service fee for every type of service (which incorporates the equipment cost), and the savings are just from their assumptions about fluctuating demand.

With all this outsourcing, Qantas is really becoming a third rate airline. Maybe they should have a think about fixing all these efficiencies internally rather than outsourcing.

 

[Melburnian1]

Based on the presser I would imagine they would be using some contractor overseas who do a "pay as you go" model, so instead of investing in equipment that Qantas themselves own, they are just paying some kind of a flat service fee for every type of service (which incorporates the equipment cost), and the savings are just from their assumptions about fluctuating demand.

With all this outsourcing, Qantas is really becoming a third rate airline. Maybe they should have a think about fixing all these efficiencies internally rather than outsourcing.

I don't have a problem with outsourcing per se PROVIDED any contracts stipulate key performance metrics and severe penalties if these are not caused by force majeure. The meanings of words used have to be properly spelt out in the glossary.