Qantas to outsource ground handling across Australia

Mods can merge my other thread about the luggage throwing video.

But it's made the Channel 9 news.
fb.watch

Qantas baggage outrage | Shocking vision has emerged of Qantas baggage handlers recklessly throwing luggage onto the conveyer belt at Melbourne Airport. #9News | WATCH LIVE 6pm | By 9 News Melbourne | Facebook

7,006 views, 50 likes, 0 loves, 104 comments, 35 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from 9 News Melbourne: Shocking vision has emerged of Qantas baggage handlers recklessly throwing luggage onto the...
fb.watch fb.watch
 
Apologies for the Daily Mail link, it's also been picked up by them too:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Shocking video shows Qantas baggage handlers trash passengers' luggage

The male workers were seen laughing as they pulled customers' bags and suitcases out of a Qantas-branded storage container, believed to be at Melbourne Airport, before tossing them away.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

A Qantas spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia they had commenced an investigation into the footage, which was shared to TikTok on Friday.

'The behaviour in this video is clearly not acceptable, and our contracted ground handler is conducting an urgent investigation,' they said.
Click to expand...
 
AIRwin said:
Click to expand...
The news reports can be found all over.

What gets me is this line from the Qantas release:
As we have said from the beginning, we deeply regret the personal impact the outsourcing decision had on all those affected and we sincerely apologise for that.
Click to expand...
I don't know how anyone else feels, but stopping short of the fact it would be grievous assault, I think the person who says that deserves to be punched in the face. (So someone translate that to the equivalent expression of consequence that does not involve assault, please...)

An arrogant, insincere, untruthful and contemptuous statement if there ever was one. First of all, if there was deep regret from the beginning, there would be no need to go through all of this rigmarole to involve the High Court. Second, there would be much better planning in the first place to account for the sackings if they still needed to happen, recognising that it would have been a very much non-trivial decision. Third, this kind of contrite (albeit rather terse) statement should have been made right from the start; the statement now seems like at best a verbalisation of the most unimportant part of the sacking process when it happened or maybe just a go at rewriting their disposition in history. This kind of statement certainly flies in the face of the disposition adopted while the decision was pending.

It seems, like many large companies (not a Qantas specific thing), no one wants to apologise and no one wants to take responsibility for anything unless they are legally demanded to do so. I don't know how people who rise to the level of management went to school or whether MBAs are devoid of any human aspect at all, but I think most of us learned the value of integrity and responsibility when we were raised. It clearly is lacking in boardrooms.
 
anat0l said:
First of all, if there was deep regret from the beginning, there would be no need to go through all of this rigmarole to involve the High Court.
Click to expand...


And the Federal court, and then the Full Federal Court before this one!

Wonder what penalty is being looked at, with the airline having said that the original sacking etc actions would "save the airline $100m a year in labour costs, and another $80m over five years in equipment and maintenance."

Surely the airline won't be permitted to keep gains from an illegal act?
 
Quickstatus said:
So, will Andrew David the QFd "CEO" also now hand in his colours, now that 3 judgements have been handed down against QF. After all QF has consistently said it was his and only his decision all along
Click to expand...

No doubt advised by Counsel; wonder if it was internal or included outside advice; I'd think at least input by outside legal. Wonder who provided it, internally and externally?
 
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Quickstatus said:
My understanding is that QF said during all the hearings it was Andrew David who made the decision.
It would indeed be very interesting to see whether he had legal advice to the contrary before sacking all the ground handlers
Click to expand...

I'm sure that, if he obtained legal advice, it would have supported the course of action taken. If it didn't, I can't see how he would have survived the first court loss.

The previous 'head of legal' left the role in about Sept 2021. The incumbent:

1694575871011.png
 
Quickstatus said:
QF said that have provisioned costs in case they lose. Does anyone know how much they set aside?
Click to expand...

Been looking for that. Interesting. The following are selected extracts and by no means authoritative WRT the issue of provisions made.

2021 AR
P117:
(D) LITIGATION From time to time Qantas is subject to claims and litigation during the normal course of business. The Directors have given consideration to such matters, which are or may be subject to litigation at year end and, subject to specific provisions raised, are of the opinion that no material contingent liability exists.

Notes on accounting policies relating to Provisions:
Legal and other provisions: These are recognised where they are incurred as a result of a past event, there is a legal or constructive obligation that can be measured reliably, and it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation.

2022 AR
P115:
34 CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Details of contingent liabilities are set out below. The Directors are of the opinion that provisions are not required with respect to these matters, as it is not probable that a future outflow of economic benefits will be required or that the amount is not capable of reliable measurement.
(B) LITIGATION From time to time Qantas is subject to claims and litigation during the normal course of business. The Directors have given consideration to such matters, which are or may be subject to litigation at year end and, subject to specific provisions raised, are of the opinion that no material contingent liability exists.

Repeats much the same as D) above
_____________________________

I would have thought potential to lose a court case would be a contingent event?
 
Quickstatus said:
So, will Andrew David the current QFd "CEO" also now hand in his colours, now that 3 judgements have been handed down against QF. After all QF has consistently said it was his and only his decision all along (as in it was no AJ's decision)
Click to expand...
Should step aside before he is pushed out.
For the legal counsel to lose these cases shows he is not fit for his position.
Post automatically merged:

Quickstatus said:
My understanding is that QF said during all the hearings it was Andrew David who made the decision.
It would indeed be very interesting to see whether he had legal advice to the contrary before sacking all the ground handlers
Click to expand...
Or just thought he could get away with it.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 17 more.
Total: 374 (members: 67, guests: 307)
Back
Top