Friday’s Dilemma: Hate Qantas or the workers?

Scotty says:

12:52pm | 14/10/11

Looks like the Red Kangaroo is becoming road kill by the unions. It has become and endangered species for some time. NO ONE outside Australia gives a dam what the unions are doing. They are killing the industry in Australia. They can all go on the dole or go, and gets jobs in the mining industry. When the last Red Roo is culled the space will be filled by overseas carriers. Go guy go KIL it OFF.

Eskimo says:

01:57pm | 14/10/11

Isn’t it a white kangaroo?

Gregg says:

03:43pm | 14/10/11

@Eskimo
You’d look a bit pale if not after a road kill too.
It is however a big red and you do not want to run into one not that the Unions could when they are up in the clouds, Unions there too at times!

acotrel says:

08:21pm | 14/10/11

Go ahead and blame the unions!  The truth is that we addressed the free market by removing tariffs knowing full well that Australian wages are much higher than elsewhere, and so are the prices we pay !  We have importers getting superlative mark-ups on imported goods, so someone has to pay.  Why not the workers ? QANTAS engineers still have to live and pay Australian prices for the items they consume.  It’s pretty hypocritical to love the free market, charge Australian prices for stuff which is bought overseas at rock bottom prices, then complain when workers want to maintain their wages.  Go and ask Bob Hawke, amd Paul Keating for the answers !

acotrel says:

08:23pm | 14/10/11

@Scotty
‘Looks like the Red Kangaroo is becoming road kill by the unions.’

Shut up and eat your caviar !

acotrel says:

09:03pm | 14/10/11

This struggle for higher wages has come about because brain surgeons are paid so much.  If we cut their wages, it would have a cascading effect, much like the ’ trickle down effect of wealth’ !

Tony says:

12:16pm | 14/10/11

Yep, definitely blame Gillard.

dovif says:

12:26pm | 14/10/11

Rudd did deregulate the airline and allow low cost competitors like Singapore and Ethied to compete with Qantas on a lot of routes. When they were not operating out of Australia. So maybe, the job lost was Rudd and Gillard’s fault

Blind Freddy says:

01:07pm | 14/10/11

I blame Bob Brown.

acotrel says:

08:40pm | 14/10/11

@Dovif
QANTAS is becoming uncompetitive because of the free market, not union wage claims.  Do you really believe that Australian union members are living on the fat of the land?  When Bob Hawke was PM, we had an airline pilots’ strike.  What was that about ? You can’t expect Australian workers to be happy about part of their wages being indirectly converted into profit for importers of the goods which were formerly manufactured in Australia.  None of us are bloody stupid, or blind.  We can all access the web, and plenty of us travel.  We know how much is being paid for goods from Asia.  That’s why idiots like Gerry Harvey are starting to feel the pinch, when people beat him at his own game, by buying over the web.
Think on this - suppose we arbiitrarily cut all wages by 50%, how much downwards pressure would that place on retail prices and rents ? Would the housing market collapse?  Would the farmers enjoy what Coles, and Woolies would do to them through their buying groups? 

I suggest the answer doesn’t lie in cutting workers’  wages. It is somewhere else !

Jommy says:

02:22am | 15/10/11

Um, Dovif…

You think Singapore and Etihad are low cost carriers??? Do you even know what that means?

Bruce says:

12:28pm | 14/10/11

If the industrial action goes on much longer and the share price keeps dropping, an overseas airline my make an offer to buy Qantas cheaply. Then all jobs will be lost.

Shane says:

12:50pm | 14/10/11

@AdamC - you’ve immediately lost points for your Andrew Bolt-style hysterics. Industrial vandalism? Calm down.

I am not fully across all of the negotiations to date (although I’m guessing ignorance of the facts don’t stop most posters) but quite simply, pilots and ground crew keep the planes I fly on from crashing. Alan Joyce’s “managment” doesn’t . Figure it out Joyce.

AdamC says:

01:16pm | 14/10/11

” ... pilots and ground crew keep the planes I fly on from crashing.”

Well, when they are actually on the job they do, Shane. And this isn’t (or, rather, shouldn’t be) about Alan Joyce.  The unions’ “us and them” attitude is toxic and antiquated. That, and their actions are damaging everyone, including innocent third parties like the Australian tourism industry.

I don’t think pointing this out is hysterical. And I stand by the ‘industrial vandalism’ description. That is what it is. I am not given to tepid understatements and euphemisms.

Will says:

01:31pm | 14/10/11

Alan Joyce has made it about himself by awarding himself a 71% (yes, SEVENTY-ONE PER CENT!) pay rise, bumping his annual salary up to over $5 million. All this while refusing to consider a 12% pay rise over 3 years for the people who keep the company running.
Leaving aside the obvious unbridled greed for a second, how thick can a board/CEO be to award themselves such an outrageous pay increase when the company is clearly in trouble?

Trevor says:

01:34pm | 14/10/11

@AdamC

“Qantas has to compete in a market, that means its staff have to be realistic and flexible.”

That’s the thing. These people have mortagages and no doubt a myriad of other ongoing costs that aren’t flexible. I think that you will agree, current consumerism dictates that we get into debt according to how much we earn, whether it’s 20k or 100k? So it would follow that flexibility on behalf of the workers is not an option.

Why not flexibility from banks when people loose a job? I don’t ever hear about them being ‘realistic and flexible’ with their mortagage customers? Nup, miss a payment or two and you are out on your arse! Maybe if creditors were a bit more ‘flexible’ then workers would have that luxury too.

Trevor says:

01:34pm | 14/10/11

@AdamC

“Qantas has to compete in a market, that means its staff have to be realistic and flexible.”

That’s the thing. These people have mortagages and no doubt a myriad of other ongoing costs that aren’t flexible. I think that you will agree, current consumerism dictates that we get into debt according to how much we earn, whether it’s 20k or 100k? So it would follow that flexibility on behalf of the workers is not an option.

Why not flexibility from banks when people loose a job? I don’t ever hear about them being ‘realistic and flexible’ with their mortagage customers? Nup, miss a payment or two and you are out on your arse! Maybe if creditors were a bit more ‘flexible’ then workers would have that luxury too.

Shane says:

01:39pm | 14/10/11

@Adam C - And this isn’t (or, rather, shouldn’t be) about Alan Joyce.

Huh? Exactly who do you think is responsible, then? As CEO he is should be ensuring the smooth running of the business to deliver higher dividends to shareholders. As one of those shareholders, I expect him to do his job - and he isn’t. 

“I am not given to tepid understatements and euphemisms.” Yes, of course you’re not. Because sensible discussion of differing opinions without resorting to hyperbole and hysterical language is quite unfashionable these days, isn’t?

Trevor says:

01:46pm | 14/10/11

@Bruce

“...an overseas airline my make an offer to buy Qantas cheaply. Then all jobs will be lost.”

How so Bruce? Robots at check-in gates/desks remotely controlled from an Indian call centre? Did Steve Jobs perfect the iBaggage Handler before he died? Did the CIA sell Australia a passenger version of the predator drone?

Not that I want to see QANTAS sold, however it’s hardly something new.

AdamC says:

02:09pm | 14/10/11

Will, as I understand it there is some dispute about the accuracy of this 71% pay rise claim. In any event, your CEO getting a pay rise is not a valid reason to inconvenience travellers and trash your employer’s brand. I don’t know how much SIA’s boss gets paid, but I doubt he has to put up with this sort of rubbish.

Trevor, I have no idea what you are on about. The striking Qantas staff are doing more to ensure they wind up missing a mortgage payment than Qantas is. Like I said, if Qantas can’t compete, it will have to cut routes and employ fewer staff. How does that help anyone?

Shane, I don’t think Alan Joyce would have intended for this situation to arise. For whatever reason, there are a number of high-profile industrial campaigns on foot at the moment. (Some have claimed unions are testing the limits of the new, pro-union industrial relations system.) Of course, Joyce could have simply caved into union demands, but that woud have had its own negative impacts. Shareholders like you pay CEOs like Joyce to make these kinds of judgement calls. I guess that’s why you pay them the big bucks.

And, as I said, describing industrial vandalism as industrial vandalism is neither hysterical nor a form of hyperbole. I am reminded of a Simpsons quote in which Mr Burns described a nuclear meltdown as an “unrequested fission surplus”. A man (or character) after your own heart, I see.

Economist says:

02:21pm | 14/10/11

@AdamC totally disagree and Fran is just hysterical. The fact is that you you can’t just go on strike. Fair Work Australia have to endorse and to do this it requires the union to demonstrate they’ve attempted to negotiate in good faith with Qantas management, I believe they’ve been doing this for at least a year,  the union has to hold a secret ballot with members to support the action and they must comply with FWA requirements. Disruptions have been minimised due to the workers being quite reasonable and the fact that they’ve informed management of their plans so that management can subsequently alert customers early of delays and reschedule.

No the problem is squarely with Qantas management. There business has gone to to dogs because of the routes they’ve selected, their partnerships, particularly with BA and the Qantas sales act. They’re trying to get sympathy with death threat crap and exaggerating the delays. Joyce is a joke, an overpaid one at that.

God help them if Virgin, a far superior airline, capture more of the business travelers market.

9% over three years is lower than current inflation estimates. 10% over two years is a little over the top without productivity improvement, 11-12% over three years may be reasonable.
The fact is though Qantas management are more interested in off-shoring and bringing in contract bag handlers regardless of the union demands.

Bomb78 says:

03:00pm | 14/10/11

@ Trevor - I was thinking the same thing about the baggage handlers, but it came to my mind whilst watching an interview of a TWU official. He was banging on about jobs heading offshore, but how do you send the jobs of baggage handlers off shore? Maybe its time for the unions to start eating some of the crap they serve up before they take giant chunks out of a great Australian employer.

commonsense says:

03:05pm | 14/10/11

This hurting ordinary people big time. To look forward to a holiday, reunion whatever for ages then suddenly it is off because of a strike is a horrible thing to do to the paying public.  Union officials will become the outcasts of society, they are not helping their members, they are killing off their jobs. The members are not helping themselves by acting like a herd of silly sheep either.

Shane says:

03:14pm | 14/10/11

@AdamC “I am reminded of a Simpsons quote in which Mr Burns described a nuclear meltdown as an “unrequested fission surplus”. A man (or character) after your own heart, I see.”

I think you’ve missed the point. In your example, Mr Burns is trying a bit of good old fashioned “spin” and doing the complete opposite of hyperbole by trying to minimise a disaster. Hyperbole is overdramatising a scenario - not minimising it. Oh and Mr Burns is the type of fella that would appreciate your “it’s all the union’s fault” opinions.

You also state “I don’t think Alan Joyce would have intended for this situation to arise”. At the risk of being flippant - well, der. Of course he wouldn’t. I would have expected a better negotiating performance from him, rather than his nonsense about “greedy” workers, directly after giving himself a very tidy pay rise.

His performance as a leader has been poor which is my biggest issue about it all. As I said, I don’t know which side is more at fault but as a CEO, Joyce is lacking.

AdamC says:

03:39pm | 14/10/11

Economist, I am no staunch defender of Qantas management, however, I note they have fared better than many of their old ‘flag carrier’ peers. And I wasn’t claiming that the union work stoppages were illegal or improper, just that they are terribly misguided and seem to be driven by animosity towards the management, rather than getting the best outcome.

That, and they are slowly killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Let’s be up front: Qantas engineers and pilots have it pretty damn sweet. They would get a rude shock if they had to leave their (relatively) sheltered workshop and get a job at a newer-model airline. No doubt that is why they are so paranoid about Qantas ‘offshoring’ and ‘Jetstar-ing’ routes. Their response, though - strikes, antagonism, slagging off the brand - has been totally counterproductive.

Bruce says:

06:09pm | 14/10/11

Trevor: You are correct, hardley something new. However, what could happen, to clarify “then all jobs will be lost” statement. A large existing airline company could buy out Qantas, given usual government and legal issues. Firstly all duplicated Senior Executive, Management jobs, supervisory jobs would most probably be the first to go. Some senior jobs maybe recreated with possibly ‘other job titles’ depending on resultant workload requirements. In regards to ground staff, baggage handlers, check out people etc, again any duplication and excess capacity workload issues will dictate the total number of staff required. Not to mention new technology which actually does reduce the number of staff required to check passports and check in luggage. Many airports around the world actually use electronics to check passports and process the time consuming aspects of checking in luggage, Helsinki and Copenhagen come to mind. This usually means less staff required. It woud also be a very strong chance that all job positions will be declared vacant and all existing staff will have to reapply for their job other jobs available, either at lesser pay or increased workload and responsiblity to maintain existing pay rates etc. The combination of these factors in determining the new job size usually means a large saving in costs for the new company and less jobs and a change in the nature of the culture of the organisation.  This usually creates quite a churn of staff. I can explain further, but I think this is enough to get the drift.

Ben says:

01:12pm | 16/10/11

AdamC, you’re absolutely right. Qantas pilots, ground crews and engineers are paid well in excess of industry standards and have been for many years. Higher cost bases are the principle strategic weakness that Qantas has in not just international air travel markets, but domestic ones as well. This sort of thuggery from the relevant trade unions is the definition of industrial vandalism and the travelling public should be fully aware that it is the unions who deserve the fallout from this. As if that wasn’t made obvious enough by a Labor government chastising the unions for the approach that they have taken.

As an aside, protestations and finger pointing at Alan Joyce’s remuneration package is all a bit silly given that the bulk of his package is contingent upon meeting fairly strict performance measures agreed upon by shareholders at Qantas’ AGM. Qantas workers need to start being more realistic if they want to keep their jobs.

adam says:

12:22pm | 14/10/11

Richard, if you think the current union actions are rampant, you must be quite young.
The seventies and to an extent the eighties were much more turbulent times.

That said, I suspect there is, like most issues, blame on both sides, and we do not have the historical distance to correctly apportion the blame

old fart says:

12:46pm | 14/10/11

to right they are positively timid and well behaved now

Trevor says:

01:41pm | 14/10/11

@Richard

“Australian workers have amongst the highest wages and best conditions in the world, how greedy can you get?”

It’s all relative and bullshit.

We might have high wages, but we also have possibly the highest costs of living. The most expensive housing, that’s for sure. So it’s all relative.

Best conditions in the world? Australians work the highest amount of unpiad overtime in the world. We have a massively casualised workforce. Many places in the world only work a 35 hour week, but not us. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid mate, Australia is no nirvana (except for fat-cat CEOs). Although I’ll qualify that by saying we could do a lot worse!

dovif says:

02:03pm | 14/10/11

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nationalise-qantas-international-20111014-1lo1o.html

I am going to say the union based on this

maley says:

02:13pm | 14/10/11

@Trevor - I doubt that Australia has the world’s highest cost of living, or anything close.  Ever been to Tokyo or London or Zurich?

The fact is, the airline business is a cutthroat one, with very narrow profit margins.  Qantas has to compete with airlines that have lower overheads and better routes.  It can’t do that while also wearing extremely high wage bills.  So, if there isn’t some flexibility somewhere, Qantas will have to stop competing on some routes. And there go the jobs.

acotrel says:

08:52pm | 14/10/11

@maley
‘The fact is, the airline business is a cutthroat one, with very narrow profit margins.  Qantas has to compete with airlines that have lower overheads and better routes.’

You are expecting the workers at QANTAS to pay the price of Australia being part of the free market.  They are not the main beneficiaries of the change in trading arrangements - it is the top end of town !
Tax the mining companies and the wealthy more,  and subsidise QANTAS !  The system should be ‘user pays’ !

L.Mountbatten says:

10:08pm | 14/10/11

@Maley, actually mate, I have just come from London, Tokyo and Stockholm (Sweden, not Switzerland admittedly) and I can tell you the cost of living is higher in Australia. Fact: you can eat dinner in Monaco (was there as well) over-looking the harbour cheaper then eating out in the Perth suburbs…and when that is the case there is something seriously wrong. Australia is outrageously expensive, and has been for some time.

marley says:

06:58am | 15/10/11

@acotrel - well, Australia became uncompetitive in manufacturing, and workers in that industry have paid the price.  If it becomes uncompetitive in the airline industry, I expect workers will pay the price again, not with lower wages but with unemployment.  Lets get real here - the unions and management have to work together if Qantas is going to continue to operate in anything like its current form.  If both sides stay as inflexible as they now are, Qantas is going to die a slow death.  It’s already happening, and has been for years.

marley says:

10:23am | 15/10/11

@L. Mountbatten - there’s more to cost of living than eating out.  Every recent survey I’ve seen puts Sydney around 24 or 25th on cost of living surveys, with the cities I’ve named well ahead of them.

Pastor Sauce says:

12:34pm | 14/10/11

Now this I like, it has drama, romance and pathos and even some naughty bits.  oooooooooooo you are awful.

Steve Perry says:

01:01pm | 14/10/11

Gold!!!

Thanks for the laugh :-D

JP says:

10:24pm | 16/10/11

Obviously:

The answer is simple, we can blame everything on forty-two.

After all, it is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe and everything, which naturally includes “who should I blame for things?”

To be less jocular - blame either yourself (for being willing to fly, and thus creating the situation where you can’t trust the carrier), or the scarcity of resources principle (which means there can’t be an unlimited supply of everything).

Then again, blaming yourself for everything is so Middle Ages.

Andy D says:

12:38pm | 14/10/11

Virgin, please stay that way, the world doesn’t require you to procreate.

You are too lazy to bother finding out the facts yourself, yet you are happy to demand that others get the info for you and spoon feed it to you.

It’s no surprise that without any info to go on a person like you will default to supporting the unions.

JP says:

10:26pm | 16/10/11

Virgin - no spin?

No such thing, my friend. Even a robot spins things towards logical consistency (as well as hard drives!); a human or humans with emotional elements will only spin more than that. Everyone has vested interests and ideologies, however slight, and that will colour their explanations.

The righteous one says:

12:48pm | 14/10/11

yeah be well rounded like Erick

dovif says:

02:05pm | 14/10/11

It was the female flight attendant’s fault

and the sexist females

Cam says:

10:06pm | 14/10/11

Yes dovif I blame the trolley dollies .... well I’m sure that’s what Erick would call them.

Jordan says:

01:14pm | 16/10/11

Because Tony Abbott has something to do with this? The ALP’s fair work act is a more likely culprit.

Andrew says:

01:26pm | 14/10/11

I would disagree, it is not the board but the industry. Airlines are terribly unprofitable businesses. i would actually say that the Qantas board have been doing a great job with the limited assets that they have.

The companies finances would be a lot worse if they were not flying the 20yo planes. New planes cost so much more money and they already have enough debt and shareholders would likely be less enthused to tip in more money.

Ben says:

01:29pm | 16/10/11

Obviously you know nothing about Qantas John. The Qantas board and management has done a superlative job ever since privatisation occurred in 1995. Open any Australian management text book and I can guarantee you that Qantas is one of the case studies for effective change management in a dynamic industry. The airline today has approximately 70% market share on domestic trunk routes, up from 55% when Ansett was liquidated in 2001. It was one of the few airlines in the world to maintain an investment grade credit rating through the financial crisis and it’s re-engineering process with the introduction of Jetstar as a way to ward off competition from other low cost carriers is widely regarded as a managerial triumph.

Anthony says:

07:46pm | 16/10/11

Superlative job? Qantas fly aircraft that it’s major competitor has retired (SQ and the 744) and the low cost carrier gets new, less maintenance intensive aircraft whilst the ‘premium carrier’ continues to fly old aircraft that burn more fuel and require more maintenance. It’s fuel bill is approximately $500 million per annum more than it could be due to not retiring the 744 and replacing them with 777. That instantaneously makes QF profitable again.

It closed down its world renowned engine overhaul centre and now suffers a higher engine failure rate than its competitors flying the same engines. This EOC used to tell Rolls Royce what the issues were with the engines that other operators would have and provide the solutions. Now, RR doesn’t tell Qantas about problems with engines on the wing until it blows up and almost fatally cripples the aircraft. No one on board QF32 out of Singapore thought the crew were overpaid I bet.

Qantas is world renowned for how NOT to engage its workforce. It puts people into operational positions who have no experience in operations. It’s board have little practical airline experience.

So by all means keep deluding yourself how good Qantas management are. It’s market share, profit, share price and employee engagement indicate quite the opposite.

St. Michael says:

02:09pm | 14/10/11

To be fair, the old “$100K has nothing to complain about for conditions” misses out the crucial equation of what your real hourly rate is.

If (at the outside) you’re working 100 hours per week and earning $100K per year, assuming you work 52 weeks in a year, that means you’re getting paid about $19.23 per hour.  On a 40 hour week that’s about $769 per week—although bear in mind this is all prior to tax being extracted from it, which drops it to roughly the $350s or so in take-home pay.

By comparison, current minimum wage is $15.51 per hour, or $589.30 per (38 hour) week.

Comes down to whether, being single, you’re prepared to sign away 100 hours of your life per week for the $100K per year.  That sort of time load isn’t going to really make it possible to find a life partner or keep her, but that might not be your priorities.  With any payrate, I think you always have to ask yourself: what’s your real hourly rate, and can you do better elsewhere?

Steve says:

03:49pm | 14/10/11

Bet you were one of those people though complaining about 150k not being wealthy and the guvermint taking your money. Amiright?

Debs says:

04:02pm | 14/10/11

St Mick is definitely not a tax accountant.  No-one in Australia pays more than half their gross pay in tax.

Tator says:

07:53pm | 14/10/11

St Michael,
considering that working 100 hrs a week has severe OH&S issues with fatigue and that no company in their right mind would let someone work that many hours, especially one with such a highly unionised workforce.

Now considering that a newbie baggage handler with no experience or qualifications can earn a base rate of $35k, now with shift penalties and overtime averaging out over a three week day and afternoon roster at around 20% means they are earning $42k.  Not bad money for someone without any qualifications or skills.  This advances to $45k after 5 years as the top rate for those without supervisory roles.  Still not bad money for someone with little qualifications and a very small skill set.
http://www.fwa.gov.au/documents/agreements/wpa/CAUN085623995.pdf
Their last EB ended up with a pay rise of around 10% ove three years and they are asking for a 15% rise for this 3 year EB.  You would think that they would be able to find some common ground.

acotrel says:

08:59pm | 14/10/11

@Tator
’ This advances to $45k after 5 years as the top rate for those without supervisory roles.  Still not bad money for someone with little qualifications and a very small skill set.’

I wonder how much you earn, and whether you are worth your salt ? - ‘Smug as a bug in a Persian rug’ ?

Tator says:

08:57am | 15/10/11

Alcotrel,
wages are supposed to reflect the skills required, risks entailed and responsibility that the job entails with a demand factor thrown in, which is why some people are paid more than others.  $45k is fair money for someone who is basically an unskilled labourer considering that the minimum wage is only $28k.  Now I am using the position description from their own EB to determine the skill level and I am looking at this in an objective manner.

KH says:

12:51pm | 14/10/11

non union AND non skilled - yeah, sounds like a great plan….......just how many aircraft engineers and pilots do you think there are just lurking around, waiting for openings at Qantas?!

Shane 2.0 says:

12:56pm | 14/10/11

What a cracker of an idea Fran Smith! I can’t see why you’re not in Alan Joyce’s job with brilliant negotation tactics like that.

Note: in case it was too subtle for you, I am being sarcastic.

Mahhrat says:

01:08pm | 14/10/11

@Fran, except then you compromise the safety of the traveller.

Remember those near misses over the last 12 months?  All to do with planes going overseas for maintenance.

How do I know?  Lived with a QANTAS aircraft mechanic.  She spends her days trying to fix all the things left undone, done badly or done illegally by the cheaper overseas workshops.

Blind Freddy says:

01:11pm | 14/10/11

Yeah- let’s make it part of the work for the dole scheme.

Old Bugger says:

01:57pm | 14/10/11

Your comment reminds me of my last trip to asia, hard 24/7 work ethic, and three dollars an hour. Surprised you did not say, replace them all with boat people they will need jobs. Oooops no they won’t the boat people don’t need jobs they they will be to busy smoking in their Australian funded hotels.

gangusk says:

02:02pm | 14/10/11

Maybe Gillard should be an airline engineer, she could not possibly do that job worst then her current one

Fran Smith says:

02:14pm | 14/10/11

@ KH - what proof do you have that the 85% of the workforce who refuse to join a trade union are unskilled?
@ Shane - your comment is pointless. I shouldn’t even be wasting my time replying to you.
@ Mahrat - the recent safety incidents involved aircraft being serviced in Australia. FACT!

Sack these cowards. Sue them for the losses they have forced upon Qantas. Deny them employment with any other airline.

Qantas should also seek criminal charges against these unionists.

marley says:

02:29pm | 14/10/11

@mahrat -  I’m a bit curious about your statement.  We hear all the time about poor offshore maintenance leading to near crashes, but have any incidents been specifically attributed to that?  Certainly, it had nothing to do with the the worst recent problem - the exploding engine on that flight out of Singapore last year.  And I thought most of the maintenance was being done by Singapore Airlines, which has a pretty good safety record.  So I’d be interested in any more light you can throw on the subject.

Shane 2.0 says:

03:29pm | 14/10/11

@Fran - I guess I’d care if you thought my comment is pointless if you appeared to have a shred of common sense.

Marto says:

04:24pm | 14/10/11

Fran, you are literally too stupid to insult.  How are labotomites like you allowed to vote?  There is not enough time or space to try and educate you on labour laws and the background of this dispute, and I fear it would be akin to teaching a chimp to play chess.  Keep reading your Bolt columns and watch out for the sky falling on your head Chicken Little, but please do not bother people with your inane dross any more (unless you add a note advising that you are in fact a comedian by trade).

Andy D says:

01:08pm | 14/10/11

Safety concern eh? Yeah, those baggage handlers and catering workers hold our lives in their hands every time toss another set of golf clubs on a carousel or load congealed goo into trolley.

ibast says:

02:34pm | 14/10/11

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue the Engineers and Pilots don’t have a point.

St. Michael says:

02:12pm | 14/10/11

Either quote the actual industrial agreement that provides those payrates and conditions or stop talking generalist bullcrap.

Aaron says:

11:08pm | 16/10/11

St Michael, Joan is roughly right in her estimates of take home pay (for a leading hand anyway). It’s a lot of money for a low-skill job, with excellent conditions. Engineers (mechanics, they’re not really engineers) get about $130-150K. Some of that involves actually fixing aircraft, other bits involve low-skill stuff like wing-walking a plane back from a bridge to the apron. What next?

Fiona says:

02:15pm | 14/10/11

maybe if Joyce agreed to a the same percentage pay rise as he is asking the unions to accept it would take the heat out of the argument

HappyCynic says:

03:10pm | 14/10/11

No, no leave the chairs in there, put cameras and up and hope they salute each other… in the face… with the chairs   the TV rights would probably go for millions, financing both the workers and the CEO’s pay increases

Ren says:

03:11pm | 14/10/11

The thing is Joyce must have put a lot of time and money into being able to educate himself well enough to become a CEO of a large corporation.

He is simply an employee himself. He gets set targets. If he meets them then he gets pay rise or bonus. Huge as they may be.

This guy like him or not decided to do something, educate himself. He didn’t want to be a baggage handler. Why should he have to take the same pay rise % as someone that has put little effort into their future thus having to take a job moving baggage?

Steve says:

03:52pm | 14/10/11

Ren that’s crap. I forgot that engineers weren’t highly educated and intelligent people.

Having an MBA doesn’t make you intelligent, it makes you a w@nker.

Jan says:

03:53pm | 14/10/11

Re Joyce, yes he educated himself, got to the top. His salary reflects an extremely high and unrelenting level of responsibility.  If one Qantas plane drops out of the sky, he is where the bucks stops.
There’s many jobs in this world where the CEO’s have huge public responsibility and that is why their remuneration is comparatively far greater than the ordinary hard working bloke who goes home at 5 pm to relax and crack open a stubbie.
These CEO’s have to answer to everyone. Shareholders, customers, regulatory authorities, unions, thousands of staff, government and support service organisations and anyone who envies their salary status. Most of those CEO jobs are almost 24/7 commitment.
There is no way a kid who completed school studies at Grade 9 would ever be permitted to involve himself in high level decision making.
Unless of course you are union official Paul Howes. Then you get onto the corporate union team that picks the Prime Minister.

Ren says:

05:16pm | 14/10/11

I was making a point about people expecting the CEO to take the same pay rise as a baggage handler Engineer.

MBA might make one a wanker. He sounds like he is. But a rich wanker nonetheless.

jf says:

02:41pm | 14/10/11

If only. The unions want all the reward without the risk so it will never happen.

Steve says:

03:54pm | 14/10/11

Tell me what exactly has Joyce “risked” to get the company started. Even the shareholders, they bought a mature business off the Government, they didn’t risk their capital to get it started.

I certainly don’t mind people being rewarded for taking a calculated risk. But Joyce and the shareholders did neither to get this company started.

jf says:

04:27pm | 14/10/11

Steve says:04:54pm | 14/10/11

“Tell me what exactly has Joyce “risked” to get the company started.”

Tell me exactly where I defended Joyce’s remuneration.

As to the shareholdes, it seems to me that the risk that risk to any investor’s capital is being very well illustrated by current events.

Timmy says:

10:26pm | 14/10/11

haha. Nice.

Jo says:

10:15pm | 14/10/11

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d rather have well paid staff with at least some degree of intelligence enforcing our border thank you very much! Considering the quality of some people entering our country, I say it’s a job I certainly wouldn’t want!

marley says:

06:54am | 15/10/11

The only problem with all of this is that I would rate Singapore Airlines considerably higher than Qantas in every area, and that includes safety.  Qantas has had a lot of issues lately, and none that I know of has actually been caused by offshore maintenance.  Singapore has a better safety record than Qantas on the maintenance front (its only crash was pilot error, not maintenance).  Furthermore, its service standards are much better.  Not to mention its baggage handling.

So, here we have an airline that delivers a better service with an excellent safety record, operating out of Asia.  Qantas has to compete with that if it’s going to survive.  That’s the reality.

stephen says:

12:08am | 15/10/11

Why ?

jf says:

10:43am | 16/10/11

Just because Joyce is overpaid doesn’t mean the other employees are underpaid (yes Joyce is an employee as well; his contract is up for renewal in a couple of years if you fancy having a crack).

They are all overpaid. No way would I buy shares in Qantas. I’d fly Qantas though if it was the cheapest on the day.

Aaron says:

11:14pm | 16/10/11

“Let’s ignore that the workers are applying for a 12% increase and some job security whilst their bosses have been awared a significant rise (both by percentage and actual dollar value).”
The point is their CURRENT conditions are claimed to be too high, the 12% pay rise fades into insignificance.

“Let’s ignore the fact that the union has given Qantas management ample notice in advance and even floated a contingency plan to minimise inconvenience to customers and Qantas chose to ignore this.”

The didn’t ignore it: they implemented full contingency. The union call offs were deliberately done at the 11th hour after the reorganising (cancelling) and damage to the scheduling of flights had been done.

“Let’s obviously ignore that the strikers are fellow Australian workers making a claim.”
OK so can I earn 80K a year for a low-skill job with travel benefits too then?

Your arguments would make sense if they were, well, based on facts.
PS. I’m not anti-Joyce, or the unions - the whole thing is a debacle.