Vale QANTAS

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:

JGK wrote:Cheers.

In truth, she's just impossible.

And they get more impossible as they get older.

That's the nastiest thing you've ever said to me.

As lardy says, "harsh but fair".

lardbucket wrote:Are all the engineers, baggage handlers, pilots etc that work for Virgin represented by a different union to the one that represents those working for Slut?

Prolly maintained in Asia. But it's a good question.

lardbucket wrote:Gillard has a difficult choice here:

Do what Joyce wants, get the airline flying again, and have the dispute independently arbitrated in a few months ... and lose any left wing support she still has

Do what the unions want, screw Qantas for all time, and be seen as pathetically weak by any right wing supporters she still has

Do nothing, temporise, hope for a miracle ... and be usurped within three weeks by Stephen Smith

Interesting analysis. The Qantas dispute is a lock-out not a strike, right? Is Gillard's position that shaky? The ALP do not appear to be particularly loyal to their leaders. Smith would make the 3rd ALP PM in 4 years. However the millstone around the present government's neck seems to be the carbon tax. Ditch that and the ALP has a good chance of reviving its electoral chances as Abbott does not appear to be any more credible as an alternative PM, going by the polling evidence. Would Smith do that if he succeeded?

The Government needs to pick a side. Show SOME sort of leadership FFS.

FWIW, I think Joyce is a bit of a c*nt for getting that pay rise at this time, but he does have a bit of a point in regards to workers demanding payment for jobs that are no longer required due to improved technology. And this 'Spirit of Australia' stuff is all well and good, but at the end of the day a business under siege has to operate pragmatically if it wants to survive.

And the workers talking about Joyce "wanting" to ruin Qantas makes them sound a bit silly. Obviously Joyce doesn't "want" Qantas to crash and burn. Whether it's the right decision or spectacularly wrong, Joyce is doing what he thinks is best.

Airlines have a tendency to sink quickly once in trouble. Qantas is well and truly at the crossroads, and it's certainly not inconceivable that they could completely collapse. Joyce is rolling the dice big time. Regardless of what happens, he'll still walk away from this a very wealthy man.

The government - masquerading as Fair Work Australia - has ruled to terminate the dispute (as per Qantas' wishes) not merely suspend it (as per the Union's wishes). A courageous move which Gillard has clearly been involved in, but equally has also managed to distance herself from, to avoid the left wing backlash.

Union bosses are desperately trying to paint this as a win for them, and a slap in the face for Qantas management. Qantas management (and probably shareholders) seem relieved ... the airline MAY have a future.

It may STILL be too little too late, in which case the airline will fold, and ALL the workers will need to find new jobs elsewhere. Which bit of financial difficulties do they not understand, honestly?

So they may not be terminal problems after all?

They may merely be in remission.

And not yet at the departure gate.

lardbucket wrote:Mick - it' not just business folk that fly Qantas. Images on ABC News 24 of folk in the very predicaments I described have been shown here.

Cairns won't do well.

...and does not deserve to

Harsh.

A town's gotta survive ...

nup...place is filled with bad history

Last stop before the barracudas, you mean?

Or your own experience(s)?

more the local council and the coppers taking baseball bats to the local Indigenous folk to get them to move out....has not happened there for a while tho to my knowledge

A summary from Paul Barry:

GUIDEBOOK
Paul Barry's guide to the Qantas dispute

Paul Barry Monday, 31 October 2011

The Qantas drama involves many of the key people we're following on The Power Index. But what's this dispute actually about, and what are the stakes for those involved?

What's it about?

There are three different unions in dispute with Qantas, representing pilots, engineers and ground staff. Essentially, all are fighting the same battle, which is to hang on to their Qantas conditions of service and well-paid Qantas jobs as management tries to cut costs.

What does Qantas management want?

Qantas management wants to slash labour costs, particularly on international routes, where the airline is supposedly losing $200 million a year. It wants to do this in a number of ways. First is to set up a new offshore hub—possibly with a new premium airline—where pay rates would be lower, shifts longer and conditions more "flexible". Qantas has done this already to a degree by employing pilots for its trans-Tasman route in New Zealand and paying them one third less than in Australia. It has also done this with Jetstar flight attendants based in Thailand who face 20-hour shifts, and whose conditions have been criticised as "slave labour".

Qantas also cuts costs by running code-share flights with Jetstar, and paying pilots at Jetstar rates. By increasing the use of code-share arrangements, domestically and internationally, it can extend lower pay rates to an increasing share of its business. But it doesn't necessarily cut fares.

In Australia, Qantas wants the right to employ contract labour ground staff to meet demand peaks. The TWU appears to have accepted this, but is demanding that the contract hire companies are unionised.

It's about the right to manage

The Qantas board (and the Institute of Public Affairs) say the dispute is about management's right to manage. And our friends at Business Spectator agree. But Qantas managers want to cut pay rates, change work practices, take jobs offshore and increase profits by lowering labour costs. In those circumstances, it's surely legitimate for the unions want a say, because it's about the conditions under which they work.

It's all about union power

Some say it's all about union power. And for Tony Sheldon and the TWU it may well be. But unlike the famous fights in the mining industry, where employees had plenty to gain from higher pay rates, employees in Qantas will lose from the changes that management want to make.

It's the only way Qantas can stay in business

Qantas claims its international operations are losing $200 million a year. Clearly, that can't continue. But not all the changes it's after—particularly those involving the TWU—are confined to international operations. Introducing contract labour to handling of domestic planes has nothing to do with the viability of the airline.

Which side will Fair Work Australia support?

If the disputes remain unsolved after 21 days, Fair Work Australia has the power to impose a settlement. But don't assume it will split the difference between the sides. While the Australian Industry Group is complaining that FWA is entenching union power, Qantas would take heart from a decision in September where FWA refused to apply Qantas conditions to pilots employed at lower rates by the airline's New Zealand subsidiary. It may well take that view again.

How about sharing the pain?

The Qantas dispute is part of an age-old battle between labour and capital. And there's no doubt who is winning. Take a look at these charts from Business Insider, which show CEO pay in the USA is now 350 times average earnings, while corporate profits and unemployment are at record highs and the share of wages in the economy is at record lows. It's not just Alan Joyce that's getting a 71% pay rise for making his workforce take less.

How about sharing the gain?

We all know Qantas passengers have been victims of this dispute. But that's not the only way they're losing out. Qantas made an underlying profit of $500 million last year, which translates to $700 million on its domestic operations. So why aren't passengers getting some of that in lower fares? And will Qantas pass on any future cost savings—at employees' expense—to the public? Or will it just hand it to its shareholders and management?

time to re-nationalise the airline

And the Banks.

hehehe

Was Ben Chifley the last decent Prime Minister Australia had?

He was a bit of a square.

Well, Paul Barry, if profit's all that matters, we could make Qantas a domestic airline again.

It lost 200 million internationally last year.

Qantas never was a domestic only airline.

That was TAA.

I know ... and you know what I meant.

...the friendly way...a different age

Listening to News 24 last night the transport journo they had on said that Qantas is hoping the govt nationalises the International arm

Aye, from what I've heard that wouldn't upset them at all.

Perhaps that's what the Union heavies mean when they say that Qantas management are trying to ruin the airline?

Given that it's losing $200m a year they should just give the international stuff to the govt.

And then the govt can screw them over by not allowing the "foreign Qantas" to land in Aust.