Should Qantas pay back Job Keeper ?

[cove]

Even though we are shareholders we think Qantas should pay back the $900 million they trousered from Job Keeper.
It would be voluntary as there was no provision for refunds in the legislation.
What do you think?

 

[Human]

I'm not sure what the mods will think of this topic but here's my 2c...

Qantas has no legal, ethical or moral obligation to pay JobKeeper back. I'd rather they spent the extra money on improving their customer service culture and competence.

It would be a stunning PR and marketing win if they did pay it back, and it would restore some of the goodwill and trust that they have (rightly) lost. However, in the long term, it would be just a gesture. As above, I'd rather they slow down on the PR stunts and actually do something to improve the business in the long term.

 

[Guvner]

Even though we are shareholders we think Qantas should pay back the $900 million they trousered from Job Seeker.
It would be voluntary as there was no provision for refunds in the legislation.
What do you think?

i thought it was JobKeeper.

 

[cove]

Yes @Guvner you are correct. We never applied as we were not eligible. Others who were ineligible in our industry got it and never paid it back.

 

[Daver6]

For an airline that keeps portraying itself publicly as taking the moral and ethical high ground on social and environmental issues, it should flow through to paying this back. Other companies have done so, so it wouldn't be like QF would be doing anything ground breaking.

 

[jase05]

No they should not have to pay it back.
The government of the day set aside no provisions or requirements for anyone to pay it back so why should Qantas be singled out for it.

 

[Pushka]

I think several companies who later made a profit, have paid it back. I expect most Super funds have Qantas shares.

@Daver6 summed it up for me.

 

[justinbrett]

The companies that paid it back were generally the ones whose employees worked during the period and the payment was based on the businesses projecting a loss. However many ended up doing much better than forecasted (eg Harvey Norman) and paid it back.

In QF's case the vast majority of employees did not attend work, and would have been laid off, the government paid to keep them on their books which I believe helped for employee entitlements and no requirement to re-recruit when it got turned back on. QF used it for the exact purpose it was designed.

Covid was still a massive net loss for QF, if we had followed similar policies to UK/US travel would have been back about 12 months earlier and the losses would have been far less.

A move like this would be very detrimental for future investment - foreign companies look at things like this and if there's a chance the government can randomly demand tribute, it makes Australia look far less stable than other countries. Of course it won't happen.

 

[drron]

Yet they are willing to spend $500 million on a share buy back. The third time they have done this. If they had kept that back for the fleet renewal program they would not need the government to make sure they can still charge a higher amount for fares until they can afford it.

 

[Quickstatus]

Catherine King says the aviation sector is still in recovery?
Question: when does it fully recover?

 

[Clayton]

Yet they are willing to spend $500 million on a share buy back. The third time they have done this. If they had kept that back for the fleet renewal program they would not need the government to make sure they can still charge a higher amount for fares until they can afford it.

Perhaps they are buying back shares to inflate the value to the remaining shareholders (including execs yet to receive bonuses based on share price or planning to depart and sell-up)?

 

[Clayton]

Catherine King says the aviation sector is still in recovery?
Question: when does it fully recover?

And why do the airlines and airports take so long to recover when clearly the customers' desire to travel is pretty much fully recovered?

 

[Pushka]

And why do the airlines and airports take so long to recover when clearly the customers' desire to travel is pretty much fully recovered?

And yet the logic for some here for Qantas not to extend Status after July was because the Travel Industry had recovered sufficiently for passengers to have no excuse not to travel.

 

[elanshin]

While there is no obligation to pay back the money, there is both PR and marketing value which could likely lead to much more than the amount. Right now QF reputation is in absolute tatters and this is one thing that could help them repair that.

 

[BAM1748]

In this case no, some companies made record sales during covid which was unexpected and some have returned money.

In many airlines’ case they faced laying off nearly everyone so a different scenario completely.

QF reported heavy losses during Covid versus say Harvey Normal who made record profits.

The federal govt set a plan for business to retain what people they could. I think it worked reasonably well even though of course problems existed in who got it and who didn’t.

 

[justinbrett]

Should someone on unemployment have to pay back their jobseeker payments once they find a job and make money again?

 

[BAM1748]

While there is no obligation to pay back the money, there is both PR and marketing value which could likely lead to much more than the amount. Right now QF reputation is in absolute tatters and this is one thing that could help them repair that.

Yes but they spent that money ‘years’ ago paying wages, that money is gone and in the economy.

 

[RooFlyer]

When I saw the thread title, I thought it would be related to this headline I saw in the newsagent this morning, and just looked it up on-line:

Qantas directors have discussed whether the airline should pay back some of the almost $900 million the company claimed in JobKeeper benefits during the pandemic, as a circuit-breaker to stabilise the collapse in its reputation.

Both the board and Qantas’s outgoing chief executive, Alan Joyce, have previously taken a hard line against calls for the airline to refund any of the Covid-19 assistance funds. Last week, Joyce even implied paying back JobKeeper would have to come directly from his employees.

A source with knowledge of the Qantas deliberations told The Saturday Paper the board was contemplating whether it was worth paying back some government assistance it received during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic, as both a goodwill gesture and distraction from its other woes. No decision has been made.

“They’re [xx_XX] terrorists,” a former senior minister told The Saturday Paper. “And they will do whatever it takes in their own interests and only in their own interests.”

 

[Scarlett]

Even though we are shareholders we think Qantas should pay back the $900 million they trousered from Job Keeper.
It would be voluntary as there was no provision for refunds in the legislation.
What do you think?

No.
It was spent as planned at the time.

 

[elanshin]

Its not about whether the company should or shouldn't have obligations and when they have spent the money (or not).

Its all about PR and optics now. Effectively think of it not as a pay back, but spending money "paying back" jobseeker in exchange as a PR and marketing exercise.
Basically buying reputation.