Printable View
Not wishing to enter into the rights/wrongs or who is at fault etc - I just have a question from those who are into the legal aspects.
I am not flying or have any tickets etc - just curious.
From my very basic understanding - if I purchase a ticket with an airline I'm entering into a contract with them to deliver me from point A to point B.
If the airline chooses to stop flying are they in breach of contract and thus liable to legal action to recover costs or even punitive damages?
When you bought that ticket, the contract had a HEAP of fine print.
And that fine print will refer you to a bigger heap of terms and conditions that will have enough loop holes to fly a whole air line through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Thank goodness ita all resolved due to fly to Syfdney on the 23rd:2tsup:
not a bad read here...
it might be a little cynical... but if Qantas own Jet Star which costs a lot less to run and manage to kill off the company. They could then sell their Qantas jets to Jet Star at a good price shut up shop and re-open as a cheaper Jet Star organisation. Then all the Qantas employees would have to apply to keep their old jobs with Jet Star at a reduced rate if those jobs aren't moved offshore.
I don't know who's right or wrong in this situation but I would be suprised if class actions weren't investigated against both the unions involved and Qantas down the track.... just glad I'm not flying anywhere myself in the near future:rolleyes:
To answer part of my own question - on "AM" this morning it appears if your departure point is in a Euro Union country you may be entitled to 600 euros as compensation but not if you are flying into the Euro Union.
On advice from webjet we rebooked our flight to another flight.
Then went to get a refund but was told (apparently on the QANTAS website) the refunds were only available to direct QANTAS customers ie you bought from them, only for flights between 29Oct - 02Nov, if outside those paremeters then NADA.
Back to webjet and they will give us a credit to fly with QANTAS only, but at a discounted price, with a stack of caveats. Which means we'll forfeit our fares.
Yep fine print caught us out.
Now travel insurance won't cover the costs of rescheduling as advised by QANTAS CEO on TV, "rebook non essential travel, we'll refund tickets". He didn't state caveats either.
Insurance says as the flight wasn't cancelled by QANTAS and our flight was outside the paremeters we have no claim.
Cheap flight to Tassie - I don't think so!!! :((
Indeed corbs. A good read.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
Without taking sides I feel the stance of the management indicates a poor understanding of public relations. from corbs' read:
"Complicating the issues at hand have been a number of highly visible sticking points. Firstly despite crying poor, Qantas still made a sizable profit of $377 million last financial year, largely on the back of its dominance of the domestic market.
In addition, it is a bad look in anyone’s book to give chief executive Alan Joyce a 71% pay rise after announcing the axing of 1000 jobs, principally from within pilots, engineers and cabin crew. These job cuts were connected to the announcement of the establishment of a new, non Qantas branded, premium airline to be based in South East Asia."
A particularly foolish move to my mind.
Regards
Paul
I think this may be another area of poor reporting on the journalists behalf... I understand he gets the pay rise in the future with the caveat that he significantly increases the share price. Not sure if this is true but I can't see him doing that with a lockout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Interesting speech by Nick Xenophon, which looks at some of the reasons the flying rat is being made to look unprofitable. Ties in pretty much with Corbs' link.
Quote:
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
Thank you AlexS. Thank you Nick Xenophon.
Many questions there. I think that even if only half of these questions prove to be true there would be a horrible dose of corporate greed rearing it's ugly head.
I belive too that all this should be viewed in the light of the global financial crisis where Qantas was one of the few airlines worldwide that posted a profit.
I am not advocating they should make a loss, but even a modest profit is a resounding success in these troubled economic times.
These paragraphs, which I have repeated below, btw, were not mine but quoted from a link in corbs' post. I thought I should point this out.
"Complicating the issues at hand have been a number of highly visible sticking points. Firstly despite crying poor, Qantas still made a sizable profit of $377 million last financial year, largely on the back of its dominance of the domestic market.
In addition, it is a bad look in anyone’s book to give chief executive Alan Joyce a 71% pay rise after announcing the axing of 1000 jobs, principally from within pilots, engineers and cabin crew. These job cuts were connected to the announcement of the establishment of a new, non Qantas branded, premium airline to be based in South East Asia."
Regards
Paul
Absolutely, which suggests something I have always maintained that the idiocy is pretty well balanced on both sides is these sort of disputes.Quote:
"Complicating the issues at hand have been a number of highly visible sticking points. Firstly despite crying poor, Qantas still made a sizable profit of $377 million last financial year, largely on the back of its dominance of the domestic market.
In addition, it is a bad look in anyone’s book to give chief executive Alan Joyce a 71% pay rise after announcing the axing of 1000 jobs, principally from within pilots, engineers and cabin crew. These job cuts were connected to the announcement of the establishment of a new, non Qantas branded, premium airline to be based in South East Asia."
A particularly foolish move to my mind.
The real danger is when it gets down to princples, these are invariably very expensive to resolve.
I wonder what qantas would do if it spread to Jetstar etc like in the old days?
I believe the pilots union is endeavouring to have the major share holders change thier vote about the 71% pay rise. If 25% do so it will cause a board spill of all the directors. That would set the cat amongst the pidgeons :U