Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[notzac]

Is it just me or is anybody else dizzy from going round in circles so much?

This thread is far moar entertaining than TV :!:

 

[straitman]

Beats arguing with the wife

We could have a debate about that.

 

[ajw373]

Funny those are exactly the words Joyce has used (widely) on TV over the last X months. The actual reported claim is something like qantas flights and codeshares operated by pilots on similar conditions. - going from memory on this, hopefully someone might have the exact words.

Joyce has taken that line to mean Jetstar flights, because yes technically they might be QF codeshares. - this is what you mentioned.

But if we look at the pilots website (first time for me, found it googling for the reported pilots claim). It says interalia "the clause would guarantee that all qantas, or 'red tail', flying would be performed by qantas pilots" etc. That really gives the key issue.

No this is not what I have mentioned. I am mentioning what I have seen on the news where the AIPA has also mentioned Jetstar and Jetconnect.. Maybe that was their initial ambit claim and have now tonned down to 'red tail' as you have so put it. In which case that would mean just Jetconnect, but again that ain't gonna happen, because Jetconnect is a company operating in NZ flying NZ registered aircraft, so why should an Australian be at the controls?

How to negotiate that claim/demand. Listening to the AIPA guy on Sky on 29 Oct he said they'd accept exemptions. Take the above statement of the required outcome and negotiate accordingly. Jetstar, redq, jetstar japan, air pacific, etc. (all non red tail airlines) are exempt, existing jetconnect arrangement is grandfathered. Leaving QFi flights from Australia to everywhere except NZ, to be operated by qantas pilots.

That formalises the status quo and still allows qantas to set up new airlines and fly them to Oz.

It is an ambit claim, the pilots have publicly stated what they really want; besides some acting for the rank and file it shouldn't be that hard.

If this is the case the why are they playing the games they are playing? Even the announcements that they were making on flights (heard one myself) are contrary to this stance.

 

[The Rok]

Can we hold this conversation for 5 minutes, I need to put the kettle on and also put more popcorn in the microwave.....

 

[Happy Trails]

My heart is with Browski & Medhead, but my head is with Amaroo & Co.

 

[medhead]

Sorry think you are trying to tie two comments on different subjects into the one when that is not the case. In the first instance I was replying to your exaggerated claim that Qantas said no to everything. When clearly they didn't say no as they were by all accounts close with one union. You don't get there by saying no, you get there through negotiation.

So epic failure on your part, if you try reading in context (instead of selectively quoting out of context) you will see that I was not referring to "everything" when I said Qantas said no. So it was not an exaggerated claim, in the first instance.

IF you read my reply to you would see that it was specifically about your position that one union wanted to continue. I've highlighted that for you below. This is completely separate to train of thought. So if you try reading in context and not selective quoting your posts you will find that I'm not mixing 2 comments.

Now you raised the one union thing without any supporting evidence - so a wild claim. I quoted from a newspaper to the contradiction to your one union claim. Then you agreed with the contradiction and now your pretending you never claimed that one union wanted to continue.

I'd also say it might be nice if you tried quoting things in context.

Heres the text:

"That is a gross exaggeration, especially when one of the unions reported that they were close to agreement with Qantas and wanted another 21 days to continue. Sounds like there was some negotiations going on there. Also the same media reports indicate that the unions too have said no without a counter offer. The pilots union for example demanding that Jetstar and Jetconnect pilots be paid the same as them for example. So it takes two to tango. "

The second was in relation to the unions wanting to continue and Qantas not wanting to. Different thing altogether, so hardly contradicting the previous comment, if anything strengthening it.

"Of course they wanted to continue because they didn't receive what they wanted and they know if it goes to FWA they have no chance of getting what they wanted, so were trying to drag it out as long as possible. Clearly Qantas, quite rightly wants it all over and done with. "

 

[medhead]

No this is not what I have mentioned. I am mentioning what I have seen on the news where the AIPA has also mentioned Jetstar and Jetconnect.

Strange, your words match the Joyce rhetoric not the union's. Joyce has been all over the TV saying what you wrote.

. Maybe that was their initial ambit claim and have now tonned down to 'red tail' as you have so put it.

'red tail' is how the union put it not me - It is called a direct quote, not my words!

In which case that would mean just Jetconnect, but again that ain't gonna happen, because Jetconnect is a company operating in NZ flying NZ registered aircraft, so why should an Australian be at the controls?

Did you actually read what I quoted from the pilots website? It does not say only an Australian must be at the controls.

besides some acting for the rank and file it shouldn't be that hard.

If this is the case the why are they playing the games they are playing?

I've highlighted the answer to your question, it was all there in my post

 

[medhead]

My heart is with Browski & Medhead, but my head is with Amaroo & Co.

I blame both sides. Just I don't need to defend management because there are so many here already blindly doing that; besides management are the ones being paid the big biscuits to prevent this sort of cough from going down. Belligerent management isn't going to calm down the unions. Employees have obviously lost faith/trust in management, they expect to be cut out by the management, which explains these job security claims. Management public belligerence then feeds a destructive spiral of aggression on both sides. I've already called this a urination competition; where was the circuit breaker, where was management maturity to break the cycle? On the TV telling Australia how cough the unions are?

So no I can't stand people supporting management and if people were here supporting the union I'd be negative to them as well (not that the Joyce fan club need any help from me)

Sorry if this sounds ranty - just feel the need to be constantly clear about my real feelings.

 

[ajw373]

So epic failure on your part, if you try reading in context (instead of selectively quoting out of context) you will see that I was not referring to "everything" when I said Qantas said no. So it was not an exaggerated claim, in the first instance.

IF you read my reply to you would see that it was specifically about your position that one union wanted to continue. I've highlighted that for you below. This is completely separate to train of thought. So if you try reading in context and not selective quoting your posts you will find that I'm not mixing 2 comments.

Now you raised the one union thing without any supporting evidence - so a wild claim. I quoted from a newspaper to the contradiction to your one union claim. Then you agreed with the contradiction and now your pretending you never claimed that one union wanted to continue.

I'd also say it might be nice if you tried quoting things in context.

The union that was close to agreement was the ALAEA, who said "We've finished negotiations ... We've just got a few outstanding matters that we are quite happy for Fair Work Australia to decide in arbitration. We were thinking ... a 21-day extension wasn't going to help us and it's just easier to sit down before a full bench and get them out of the way" - Steve Purvinas, secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association", source http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tra...-reach-agreement/story-e6frg8ro-1226201389312

So I stand by the comment where you said Qantas said no to everything and were not negotiating as a gross exaggeration when clearly they got so close with the ALAEA, so they and the union involved must have been doing something right. As for the other two unions who really knows.

As for quoting out of context, not sure what your on about. You made a claim I replied, that claim was what you said was a gross exaggeration. You then made another post later, which to me seem unrelated and I commented on that separately to which you tried to tie the two together and claim I was making a contradiction. As I said two separate issues, two separate posts and no contradiction, especially when you consider there are 3 unions involved in 3 separate disputes and nothing quoted out of context. I put it to you, that as you normally do to me and many others that you are simply trying to twist my words to match your arguments and in general just trying to be a bully to anyone who disagrees with you, sorry Medhead but enough is enough.

 

[medhead]

So I stand by the comment where you said Qantas said no to everything and were not negotiating as a gross exaggeration

Just go and read my post in the context of the discussion I was having with someone else. It, the discussion was about particular claims not every claim. Stand by your comment all you like, it is still wrong.

 

[ajw373]

Just go and read my post in the context of the discussion I was having with someone else. It, the discussion was about particular claims not every claim. Stand by your comment all you like, it is still wrong.

Enough is enough Medhead, give it a rest, your point has been made, so had mine.

 

[dfcatch]

Beats arguing with the wife

A lovely couple celebrating their 40th anniversary who I met a few years ago said to me (well... "he said"):

"Do you know the secret to a long-lasting relationship?"

"2 words......... Yes Dear!"

 

[amaroo]

I blame both sides. Just I don't need to defend management because there are so many here already blindly doing that; besides management are the ones being paid the big biscuits to prevent this sort of cough from going down. Belligerent management isn't going to calm down the unions. Employees have obviously lost faith/trust in management, they expect to be cut out by the management, which explains these job security claims. Management public belligerence then feeds a destructive spiral of aggression on both sides. I've already called this a urination competition; where was the circuit breaker, where was management maturity to break the cycle? On the TV telling Australia how cough the unions are?

So no I can't stand people supporting management and if people were here supporting the union I'd be negative to them as well (not that the Joyce fan club need any help from me)

Sorry if this sounds ranty - just feel the need to be constantly clear about my real feelings.

Your second last line is a cracker :?:

FWIW, there's no way that I'm blindly defending management.....I'm just posting my views on an IR dispute.

My views are just different to yours.

IMO, different views & opinions contribute to the AFF community.

 

[ethernet]

I have posted this previously, but will repeat.

If the negotiation related purely to staples such as pay and working conditions, agreement would have been reached long ago.

No, the sticky issue is who is empowered to decide on the employment aspects of who, how and from where. It appears neither side is budging on this.

Mod up.
Moving forward, Sunshine Tractor case needs to be reminded to those ignorant of where unions fit in.
Times have moved on. If you internationalize, and contract out , you cut on dice unity and fundamentally undermine the union and collective bargaining. If you dictate your outsourcers policy add 'if we dont like - forget renewal' , you further undermine wages and conditions. Have smart lawyers fuzz up 'At arms length' and you get a legally correct way HR Nichols members will re-joyce (sic) at. I am not aware of other foreign airlines giving up local input - there are unwritten expectations of common decency and national primacy.

If one was practical, you would rule to retain the current status quo, put the brakes on outsourcing, BUT say any NEW growth, excluding substitutions, is open slather, with condition that the 'feel' is not changed.
That would lock QF into proportional high costs locally, but give them room to match their competition OS from a low base for QFi. I think that was the intent of the sale of QF Act. Clever people will see that no outsourcer has a clue on nationality hours worked - so this is the beancounters wet dream, and the lawyers smart cough way of miscounting relative 'domestic employment'.


The SWOT aspect, is that if QF wins too much, the sale of QF act could be amended. If an agreeable win-win formula,relative percentages of Australian staff, both can probably suffer it. I expect Virgin Intl is probably is close to this concept.

 

[medhead]

Your second last line is a cracker :?:

FWIW, there's no way that I'm blindly defending management.....I'm just posting my views on an IR dispute.

My views are just different to yours.

IMO, different views & opinions contribute to the AFF community.

Yeah pretty funny. Yes, unfair for me to use "blindly".

I guess my issue is regurgitation of the lines of either side to a dispute as if they are fact and ignoring the other side's position. Doing that achieves nothing, I'd rather put aside individual views and explore the issues to get some idea of the real story.

400 pages of "the unions are evil and they want to destroy qantas" doesn't really mean much.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[dfcatch]

Yeah pretty funny. Yes, unfair for me to use "blindly".

I guess my issue is regurgitation of the lines of either side to a dispute as if they are fact and ignoring the other side's position. Doing that achieves nothing, I'd rather put aside individual views and explore the issues to get some idea of the real story.

400 pages of "the unions are evil and they want to destroy qantas" does really mean much.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

I think many of us actually agree on the facts, the details, and the historical record.

That only leaves disagreement on the conclusions Comrade

 

[medhead]

I think many of us actually agree on the facts, the details, and the historical record.

You mean you agree on a version of the facts, details and historical record that is the same as the version of one side of the debate.

You (pl.) also sink the boot into anyone who seeks balance. But that is the problem with the dark side it only deals in absolutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Maca44]

The vast majority of posts on this thread are from a very small group, and you guys seem to be going around and around, arguing your point/opinion on the issue. I appreciate that that is what forums are for, but it is very repepative with some posts getting very close to attacking the man and not ball.

Lets face it people, everyone has their own view (and obvious personality) and with it coming up to 900 posts isn't it time to move on, and just wait for the referees decision whether it be by agreement or arbitration.

 

[drron]

A lovely couple celebrating their 40th anniversary who I met a few years ago said to me (well... "he said"):

"Do you know the secret to a long-lasting relationship?"

"2 words......... Yes Dear!"

And having just reached the 40 year mark I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately I sometimes forget.

 

[dfcatch]

And having just reached the 40 year mark I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately I sometimes forget.

Congratulations drron