Qantas is grounding its entire fleet =/

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Is Quantas paying staff while it has closed down?

I think I read somewhere that they are not, but can't think where I did read it.

 

[StriderX]

Duh

Free trade is only a problem when you have become uncompetative.

Quantas is a perfect example of how unions do not care about that, they are in it for short term only. Quantas already have uncompetative costs, rather than agreeing to reform and accepting some change they are upto their normal tactics of trying to stop change.
Thats fine, but dont complain when long term Quantas goes out of business, and I mean the international business not te domestic.

Their international business is uncompetative, their domestic of which they hold 65% of the market isn't. Probably purely because they do hold 65% of the market, they are not really competing hard.

So they make their internationl competative or they die a slow long agonising death.

If your competators are more efficient than you, you are screwed long term if you do not change that position. The only way to beat that scenario is things like government protectionism, or some way to clearly differentiate your product to create actual or perceived value for money.

Quantas is a premium brand that competes with the likes of BA and Virgin in the international market.

I wont complain, incompetent and noncompetitive businesses die, simple as that.

That is how capitalism is SUPPOSED TO WORK, all this monopolisation and too big to fail bull is ruining the very foundations of our society.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Maybe they should take a look at there pricing compared to other Airlines before thinking about sending work overseas. The others offer better Service for better prices.
Plus they also made something like $500m profit this year anyway so they arnt losing too much.

The CEO is a Disgrace and has messed with the wrong country to pull a stunt like this. Its a country that will back the underdogs and the little people and it wouldnt surprise me if he has just become the most despised person in Australia.

They could have at least flown everyone home before doing this stunt rather then stranding everyone.

How would they make more money by dropping prices, sure you'd get more passengers and full flights, that's great, but look at the facts, their staff is paid ABOVE industry standard. Hence flight X that say, AA run, will cost less than it will cost Qantas, as they pay their staff more.

Also, it doesn't really matter if that if there is literally a strike going on at the moment, afaik, their staff has been striking and are threatening other strikes. The CEO is doing the right thing, he grounds the fleet now, BEFORE the next strike, taking all power away from the strike. THe other option is he didn't do this, and the next strike goes ahead, the SAME disruption for their planes, except the strike and power is with the union and staff.


Union's should have FAR less power than they do and more morality. If your workers are paid less than the industry standard, or safety standards are a joke, that's all fine and things unions should get involved in. Threatening and carrying out strikes, in recessions, when your workers are paid more highly than the same staff everywhere else.......... is a joke, its pure greed.

When the economy's good everyone's happy to get their pay rises, when the economy sucks and cuts need to be made, everyone is up in arms.

Its pathetic how we understand the economy when its going well and want more of the profits, but when the economy is doing badly, everyone's understanding goes out the window, no one is willing to work for less.

Striking over cuts, which literally leads to more losses, which leads to more cuts, is ridiculous, its selfish, its greedy and its hurting themselves. The ONLY people who benefit out of striking action in these kinds of times, are the lawyers and top people in the unions, the staff lose, the company loses.

 

[[TW]Fox]

What is it with this forum and peoples overwhelming sense of entitlement from private companies?

You are not entitled to pay increases. You agree a rate of pay when you sign your contract of employment and any agreed increases are specified in the contract. No increases in contract, no entitlement. Dont like it, don't sign contract. Why should it be anything other than this? It is a private company. It exists to generate money for shareholders. In order to do this it must hire staff and in order to hire staff it must offer them levels of pay to attract the right staff, but once they've got the staff this ridiculous notion that people are somehow entitled to constant pay increases because the company is profitable is just pathetic.

They'd all be first to complain if they got pay reductions in years when the company was loss making!

We have a free labour market - the way to increase your salary should be by moving around the market to other employers and by your own employer choosing to offer you a higher salary in order to discourage you from doing this.

Not from constant across the board pay rises. If every company gave everyone loads of pay rises every 5 minutes the net result would be hyperinflation anyway.

 

[StriderX]

How would they make more money by dropping prices, sure you'd get more passengers and full flights, that's great, but look at the facts, their staff is paid ABOVE industry standard. Hence flight X that say, AA run, will cost less than it will cost Qantas, as they pay their staff more.

Also, it doesn't really matter if that if there is literally a strike going on at the moment, afaik, their staff has been striking and are threatening other strikes. The CEO is doing the right thing, he grounds the fleet now, BEFORE the next strike, taking all power away from the strike. THe other option is he didn't do this, and the next strike goes ahead, the SAME disruption for their planes, except the strike and power is with the union and staff.


Union's should have FAR less power than they do and more morality. If your workers are paid less than the industry standard, or safety standards are a joke, that's all fine and things unions should get involved in. Threatening and carrying out strikes, in recessions, when your workers are paid more highly than the same staff everywhere else.......... is a joke, its pure greed.

When the economy's good everyone's happy to get their pay rises, when the economy sucks and cuts need to be made, everyone is up in arms.

Its pathetic how we understand the economy when its going well and want more of the profits, but when the economy is doing badly, everyone's understanding goes out the window, no one is willing to work for less.

Striking over cuts, which literally leads to more losses, which leads to more cuts, is ridiculous, its selfish, its greedy and its hurting themselves. The ONLY people who benefit out of striking action in these kinds of times, are the lawyers and top people in the unions, the staff lose, the company loses.

Nobody understood the economy before the recession... otherwise it wouldn't have occurred.

 

[StriderX]

What is it with this forum and peoples overwhelming sense of entitlement from private companies?

You are not entitled to pay increases. You agree a rate of pay when you sign your contract of employment and any agreed increases are specified in the contract. No increases in contract, no entitlement. Dont like it, don't sign contract. Why should it be anything other than this? It is a private company. It exists to generate money for shareholders. In order to do this it must hire staff and in order to hire staff it must offer them levels of pay to attract the right staff, but once they've got the staff this ridiculous notion that people are somehow entitled to constant pay increases because the company is profitable is just pathetic.

They'd all be first to complain if they got pay reductions in years when the company was loss making!

We have a free labour market - the way to increase your salary should be by moving around the market to other employers and by your own employer choosing to offer you a higher salary in order to discourage you from doing this.

Not from constant across the board pay rises. If every company gave everyone loads of pay rises every 5 minutes the net result would be hyperinflation anyway.

I think its more about in times like these, directors and shareholders seem to get strange increases in pay, which is a fact frankly considering the news about it a few days ago.

I mean i agree with the contracts and the entitlement that people seem to have but it just seems terribly silly to expect people to not get angry over director pay rises while you fear your pay may get cut, the correlation in peoples minds would be that their money is being taken from them and given into the CEOs/directors/Shareholders hands, even if its not true, it doesn't matter.

I feel we are in a transition between the irrelevancy of nation states and rise of corporate entities to fill in that role somewhat, but people don't know what to do.

 

[[TW]Fox]

If you are annoyed about director payrises, become a director.

You'll probably find it quite hard to make it onto the board of a large company like this. It's a world where mostly only the best make it.

I'm not there and never will be. I suspect you won't either. But railing against it is simply jealousy at the end of the day no matter how much people try and dress it up as being about quality and fairness.

Life isn't fair and never will be and somebody running a multi-billion dollar private organisation will always enjoy a fabulous salary and pay rises.

However its important to realise that however headline grabbing the numbers in CEO pay rises might be - and however much money it might seem like to you and me - in the context of the organisations they run and the budgets these organisations hold it's a completely irrelevent sum of money.

 

[StriderX]

If you are annoyed about director payrises, become a director.

You'll probably find it quite hard to make it onto the board of a large company like this. It's a world where mostly only the best make it.

I'm not there and never will be. I suspect you won't either. But railing against it is simply jealousy at the end of the day no matter how much people try and dress it up as being about quality and fairness.

Life isn't fair and never will be and somebody running a multi-billion dollar private organisation will always enjoy a fabulous salary and pay rises.

However its important to realise that however headline grabbing the numbers in CEO pay rises might be - and however much money it might seem like to you and me - in the context of the organisations they run and the budgets these organisations hold it's a completely irrelevent sum of money.

I never said i cared, im just saying to the average moronic worker that thinks hes president of his little corner of the universe, that is what would be going on his mind.

 

[Zip]

This will only be small because in on my phone

But its not just payrises the unions a ****ed at. Qantas have been sending work to new zealand and its not unknown that they are looking at sending maintenance in asia. They have already shut down regional maintenance centres forcing employees to shift away from there homes and family's or to find a new job.

The general feeling to qantas down here right now is hatred and they will find it hard getting peoples trust again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I never said i cared

I thought you were one of these anti-capitalism-horrible-ceo's-we-should-all-earn-the-same lentilists, sorry. So many of then on OcUK lately its easy to get confused

 

[RDM]

There is a certain disparity in terms of the bargaining positions though, if workers wish to remove their labour and have it make enough of an impact to be noticed then they've usually got to organise into a mass strike. It's also worth bearing in mind that when striking the workers are almost always forgoing pay for that period so it is an action on their part that will also cost them financially as well as the company - the hope is, of course, that ultimately it will prove more rewarding.

I am struggling to see the financial difference tbh. Qantas will be losing money while it is shut down on the hopes that it will ultimately prove more rewarding. Not really sure how you can argue that the right to strike is OK whilst the right to shut down the business is not. Two sides of the same coin as far as I am concerned.

Is Quantas paying staff while it has closed down? If not then it's essentially a unilateral decision to cost the staff money rather than a collective acceptance that this course of action will cost themselves money.

Other than the money that the company will be losing from all the customers it is not flying? It isn't like this is a no cost option for the company, they must just feel it is a better option than giving in to union demands. Again, the very similar to a union position.

 

[[TW]Fox]

This will only be small because in on my phone

But its not just payrises the unions a ****ed at. Qantas have been sending work to new zealand and its not unknown that they are looking at sending maintenance in asia. They have already shut down regional maintenance centres forcing employees to shift away from there homes and family's or to find a new job.

The general feeling to qantas down here right now is hatred and they will find it hard getting peoples trust again.

Qantas is a global organisation operating in a global industry. If it makes sense to have servicing facilities for aircraft in New Zealand given how often they fly there then why waste money by keeping it all in Australia?

 

[StriderX]

I thought you were one of these anti-capitalism-horrible-ceo's-we-should-all-earn-the-same lentilists, sorry. So many of then on OcUK lately its easy to get confused

Capitalism is fine and frankly i endorse it, but this screwed new form of capitalism is doing no one favours.

More to do with the US's Iron triangle of economics, but its relevant globally.

 

[TJM]

If you are annoyed about director payrises, become a director.

You'll probably find it quite hard to make it onto the board of a large company like this. It's a world where mostly only the best make it.

Fred Goodwin: Simply the best.

 

[cheets64]

What is it with this forum and peoples overwhelming sense of entitlement from private companies?

You are not entitled to pay increases. You agree a rate of pay when you sign your contract of employment and any agreed increases are specified in the contract. No increases in contract, no entitlement. Dont like it, don't sign contract. Why should it be anything other than this? It is a private company. It exists to generate money for shareholders. In order to do this it must hire staff and in order to hire staff it must offer them levels of pay to attract the right staff, but once they've got the staff this ridiculous notion that people are somehow entitled to constant pay increases because the company is profitable is just pathetic.

They'd all be first to complain if they got pay reductions in years when the company was loss making!

We have a free labour market - the way to increase your salary should be by moving around the market to other employers and by your own employer choosing to offer you a higher salary in order to discourage you from doing this.

Not from constant across the board pay rises. If every company gave everyone loads of pay rises every 5 minutes the net result would be hyperinflation anyway.

Some of the stuff you come out with is laughable, shows you don't have a clue, so what if someone has worked in a job for 20+ years and then the company wants to change pension plans/pay, good luck going getting the same job in another sector so easily, you have a house and a mortgage, kids at a school, its not that easy just to say, leave... leave your life and job you like just because the company thinks you dont deserve certain things,

You are nothing but a anti union poster boy.

No body has a right to a job but people have a right to fair working conditions and pay.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Some of the stuff you come out with is laughable, shows you don't have a clue, so what if someone has worked in a job for 20+ years and then the company wants to change pension plans/pay

I have not covered changes in terms and conditions like that because I have completely different views on it. Its also something you need effective employment legislation to combat - not unions.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Fred Goodwin: Simply the best.

Solely responsible for everything as well I hear.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I am struggling to see the financial difference tbh. Qantas will be losing money while it is shut down on the hopes that it will ultimately prove more rewarding. Not really sure how you can argue that the right to strike is OK whilst the right to shut down the business is not. Two sides of the same coin as far as I am concerned.



Other than the money that the company will be losing from all the customers it is not flying? It isn't like this is a no cost option for the company, they must just feel it is a better option than giving in to union demands. Again, the very similar to a union position.

The point isn't that the company shouldn't have the option, it's that there is a disparity in terms of negotiating positions and resources.

Out of interest are there any procedures that a company must comply with before closing down? I'm wondering here if there's anything equivalent to the steps that must be taken before a strike becomes a legitimate option.

 

[Floogie]

Duh

Free trade is only a problem when you have become uncompetative.

So you advocate domestic workers being paid what exactly in order to remain competitive? 1/4 NMW, 1/6 NMW? Frankly, that's a stupid position to take. Free trade remains a flawed idea only espoused because the minority of people stand to make a lot of money from it.

Quantas is a perfect example of how unions do not care about that, they are in it for short term only. Quantas already have uncompetative costs, rather than agreeing to reform and accepting some change they are upto their normal tactics of trying to stop change.
Thats fine, but dont complain when long term Quantas goes out of business, and I mean the international business not te domestic.

Their international business is uncompetative, their domestic of which they hold 65% of the market isn't. Probably purely because they do hold 65% of the market, they are not really competing hard.

So they make their internationl competative or they die a slow long agonising death.

From the figures I've seen, Qantas's international operation would have been in profit last year if it wasn't for the natural disasters involving international business and not for the losses incurred through them provoking labour disputes. This is also not even touching upon the alleged overstating of costs that the management are doing to build their case...

If your competators are more efficient than you, you are screwed long term if you do not change that position. The only way to beat that scenario is things like government protectionism, or some way to clearly differentiate your product to create actual or perceived value for money.

Quantas is a premium brand that competes with the likes of BA and Virgin in the international market.

If the changes go ahead then Qantas will not be much less a premium brand. You can't raise prices and simultaneously lower safety and service standards. That is not being competitive, thats stupidly throwing what makes your product different.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Free trade remains a flawed idea.

Why, why is it a flawed idea, there is no flaw I can see, only that uncompetative (for whatever reason) industries will fail. The only way you can compete long term is to be competative either and/or domestically and internationally based on your business segment. The only other option is to ban free trade and then what, as a consumer will you pay 100% plus price rises on most of your consumable goods to support inefficient domestic producers?
(p.s. thats what killed uk car industry)
Of course you could completely isolate yourself from the rest of the world, protect your producers? Yeah I guess thats the equivalent of reverting to the stoneage..

alleged.

Forget alledged, work on facts

simultaneously lower safety and service standards.

Again speculation and the sort of thing a union rep would spout with no backup. From all accounts this non customer facing so ignoring the complete service standards red herring for now, there are one or two things an aircraft company has to comply with, if they did suddenly have a noteable reduction in safety that would be very apparent and highly investigated.

There is very little if any different ability in most manual workers worldwide, and when it comes to skills thats mainly down to training. If there was any significant notable skill difference most of the stuff we consume wouldn't be produced elsewhere.

What you are saying is that you think we can just expect companies that currently operate/produce in the westernised economies to just suck up the bad lot they have ben dealt with and deal with it. And people wonder why there is a lack of jobs and companies are not investing here...
Why the hell would you setup here and not in china/korea/vietnam etc?

From the figures I've seen, Qantas's international operation would have been in profit last year if it wasn't for the natural disasters involving international business.

Ah I see so an old business of that size with a board of directors and shareholders who own the company have missed the fact it was a one off due to natural disasters and the fact that they have quoted what they believe are the factors making it unsustainable long term are wrong... you better get in touch quick, they may have a vacant CEO position for you soon