qantas strike

[parsonstrish]

Did I hear correctly this am re. qantas strike over a month for 747's due to o/s maintenance??

Only heard the tail end of story so completely confused.

Due to fly out 4/9 to lhr to start 3 mo. long service leave.

I'm sure I can hear 'don't worry' but I'm a worrier. :shock: I'm flying on award ticket. I've been counting down for about six months, so it's a big deal for me.

I can't find anything on news releases, has anyone else seen any complete reports? thanks

 

[parsonstrish]

I just found an article re my previous post.

I now have the story and will try and relax and take it day by day.

 

[simongr]

Do you have a link to the story? ARe there going to be passenger impacts do they think?

 

[NM]

Qantas could be grounded by strikes | NEWS.com.au Business

QANTAS engineering staff could ground flights if the Australian Industrial Relations Commissions (IRC) accepts their bid for industrial action.

Licensed aircraft engineers began a legal process today to allow them to ground Qantas aircraft that have been sent offshore for maintenance.

Two Qantas 747 aircraft that were serviced offshore could be grounded until they have been inspected locally.

 

[jakeseven7]

Sigh.... this is why I vote Liberal.

It is just the unions posturing, bloody annoying, I hope it isn't one of my 747's I'm flying soon.

AFAIK its only 2 they are complaining about, they are upset that QF have moved some maintenance offshore and this is their 'clever' way to put pressure on QF in a very public way.

Oh - and don't worry

 

[NM]

The crazy part of this current "strike threat" by the unions is that their key issue has been proven to be a false claim!

"This action is a response to revelations of the substandard work, including the stapling of electrical wiring, being carried out when aircraft have been sent offshore for maintenance," he said.

Its been about a month since that wiring staple issue was proven to have happened in Australia and not in Singapore as initially claimed by the union.

The whole purpose here has nothing to do with safety, but with protecting Australian jobs, as noted in a later paragraph:

"The aim is to see this work ultimately bought back to Australia by securing written assurances from Qantas in binding enterprise agreements. We don't intend to disrupt Qantas services but unfortunately this may occur.

They just think that scaring Australian public by playing the safety trump card is more likely to create the leverage they want.

 

[Keith009]

I have a number of friends who work for unions and it is interesting to see the different cultures that operate within each union. But generally there are very progressive and moderate unions that have very good working relationships with employers, then there are ones which are still stuck in the 19th century who see militant action as the best way to achieve any outcome. And guess what... the unions that achieved the most for their members (in terms of tangible outcomes like pay increases, EBA conditions etc) are usually the moderate ones. You'd think that those in the latter category would've been clued up by now...

OT: A friend works for the Health Services Union and she's currently negotiating with this hospital which is trying to cut its employees' sick leave... hmm

 

[serfty]

The main problem is that airline engineering staff generally have working conditions and pay rates far better and above those of engineering staff in other industries.

One reason for this is that until the early/mid 90's there was a great big revenue "trough" to feed from which was continually replenished by the exorbitant airfares that resulted from the two-airline duopoly. (e.g. In 1987, the cheapest MEL-SYD return fare was $208)

Each group within the industry lobbied to get their snouts into that trough and ensure their place in the pecking order was high.

As a result, the airline companies made good profits while at the same time their employees enjoyed extremely favorable working conditions and pay rates, far better than those generally received outside the industry.

With the advent of LCC competition the replenishment rate for the "trough" has slowed significantly and the it has started emptying. Airlines have to adjust, but no-one wants to sacrifice their bloated benefits.

The fact that use of equivalent servicing being performed for a lot less money is a logical move for any carrier.

The complaining about the use of O/S labour and the "need" to be protecting Australian jobs is merely a smoke screen; they simply want to retain the inflated work conditions and rates they have enjoyed as a legacy of the days when Qantas and Ansett ruled the Oz skys.

 

[browski]

Sigh.... this is why I vote Liberal.

It is just the unions posturing, bloody annoying, I hope it isn't one of my 747's I'm flying soon.

AFAIK its only 2 they are complaining about, they are upset that QF have moved some maintenance offshore and this is their 'clever' way to put pressure on QF in a very public way.

Oh - and don't worry

Though you vote Liberal, Jake I don't think the Gov't will be agreeing with you on this one.
Qantas secured tax concessions on parts as well as an indefinite delay on Singapore Airlines being granted access to Australian airports to 3rd party countries.
These concessions were largely given to Qantas on the basis that they would NOT move heavy maintenance offshore. See:
http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/tax-break-keep-qantas-6963.html


and
http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/qantas-pulling-down-governments-6697.html

 

[dragonman]

OT: A friend works for the Health Services Union and she's currently negotiating with this hospital which is trying to cut its employees' sick leave... hmm

Sigh ... that is why I vote Labour

 

[acampbel]

... Though you vote Liberal, Jake I don't think the Gov't will be agreeing with you on this one.
Qantas secured tax concessions on parts as well as an indefinite delay on Singapore Airlines being granted access to Australian airports to 3rd party countries.
These concessions were largely given to Qantas on the basis that they would NOT move heavy maintenance offshore....

Yes, but no, but ....... Qantas is just trying to push the boundaries of that agreement so to best serve their shareholders and maximise profits, whereas those nasty Union Bosses * are trying to best serve their members and maximise their pay. The bleedin' hide of them!


Cheers,

Andrew

* This almost deserves a Wikipedia entry, but as it would soon be coughised by corrupted public servants there is little point.

 

[NM]

Sigh.... this is why I vote Liberal.

Sigh ... that is why I vote Labour

I once saw a car with a receipt for paying the fine for not voting stuck to the back window, along with a note saying "Don't blame me .... I didn't vote" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[simongr]

Yes, but no, but ....... Qantas is just trying to push the boundaries of that agreement so to best serve their shareholders and maximise profits, whereas those nasty Union Bosses * are trying to best serve their members and maximise their pay. The bleedin' hide of them!

Fair enough that the unions try to maximise the benefits of their members - but threatening disruption to paying passengers is not really giving the public a fair go. It is unfortunate action like that can have a trickle down effect to passengers seeing poor reliability from QF and switching to the LCCs. The end effect potentially being the reduction in local jobs.

Sadly for the engineering (and ancilliary) staff some of them are going to have to take one for the team. They are too expensive for the business and causing disruption does not help their members in the long run. QF can only wait so long for the members that ratcheted up benefits in the 80's to retire...