slipperysamWhat is the Qantas dispute all about?
Updated October 30, 2011 09:05:43
Qantas planes on Sydney airport tarmac Photo: The fleet grounding will impact 108 planes at 22 airports, domestically and internationally (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
Related Story: Irate passengers vow to abandon Qantas
Related Story: Industrial umpire adjourns Qantas hearing
Related Story: Qantas grounding a ‘disaster’ for tourism
Related Story: Wrong Alan Joyce targeted on Twitter
Map: Australia
Qantas has announced the immediate grounding of its entire fleet as a long-running industrial dispute with employees, including pilots and engineers, comes to a head.
Here are some facts about the stand-off:
Industrial action by three unions, representing engineers, baggage and catering staff and long-haul pilots, has been ongoing for several months over pay and conditions.
Qantas says that the strike action had until Saturday resulted in 70,000 passengers being affected, more than 600 flights cancelled and seven aircraft grounded.
The fleet grounding will impact 108 planes at 22 airports, domestically and internationally.
Jetstar flights, QantasLink flights and Qantas flights across the Tasman operated by Jetconnect will continue.
The dispute has cost the airline about $70 million in damages so far, with costs mounting at $15 million each week. Grounding the entire fleet will cost $20 million a day.
In July Qantas pilots on international routes began their first industrial action in 45 years with unauthorised in-flight announcements telling passengers about their dispute. Rolling strikes by engineers also began delaying thousands of passengers.
In August Qantas announced a restructure which will see 1,000 jobs slashed as part of a new emphasis on Asia, a move met with a firestorm of criticism from unions.
Later that month Qantas announced it had more than doubled its full-year net profit to $250 million but warned of challenging times ahead as it revamps its loss-making international arm.
In October Prime Minister Julia Gillard urged unions and Qantas to sort out their differences.
The airline flies to 208 destinations in 46 countries, operating more than 5,700 flights a week across all its brands domestically and more than 970 international flights. It moved 44.5 million passengers in the year ended June 2011.
slipperysamThe only “strike” action was from the baggage handlers….
The cabin staff, pilots union, and LAMEs have all been in dispute with the airline for months due to pay, conditions and threats of moving more jobs offshore (including a plan to more QANTAS offshore).
Alan Joyce has gone completely mad by suddenly announcing a complete world wide shut down and lock out of all staff members despite 2/3rd of the staff members not “on strike”.
This is just 2 days after the shareholders voted him a near 70% pay rise and bonuses….
A statement in response to Qantas action
Following Qantas management’s unprecedented and unilateral decision to ground its fleet on Saturday there have been several erroneous reports both in the media and directly from management that we would like to clarify:
Industrial action by AIPA pilots has not cost the company a single cent in revenue.
Industrial action by AIPA has not delayed a single passenger or grounded a single flight.
Our entire public industrial action over the past 4 months has been to make positive in-flight announcements and to wear red ties with our campaign message on them.For Qantas management to respond to these reasonable and non-disruptive actions in this way is more than a gross over-reaction. It is a sign that the current management has lost touch with the travelling public, its workers and the basic Australian ethos of free speech.
We are hoping for a positive outcome from today’s talks and will provide updates as soon as we can.
In the meantime we’d like to thank all of you who have expressed support for our pilots. Your kind words have been much appreciated.
Barry Jackson
President
Australian and International Pilots Association
Published on Saturday, 29 October 2011 20:23
Alan Joyce’s decision to ground the entire Qantas fleet is nothing short of a maniacal overreaction, the Australian and International Pilots Association said today.
AIPA Vice President Richard Woodward said the move was pre-meditated, unnecessary and grossly irresponsible.
“Alan Joyce is holding a knife to the nation’s throat,” Captain Woodward said.
“No one predicted this – because no one thought Alan Joyce was completely mad. This is a stunning overreaction. It is straight-up blackmail.
“I knew he was trying to kill Qantas, but I didn’t know he wanted to do it this quickly.
“This is a grave and serious situation and the board should move to sack Mr Joyce immediately. This is the saddest day of my 25 years with Qantas.
“AIPA’s industrial action has been limited to making brief, positive in-flight announcements and wearing red ties. In response to this, Mr Joyce has now locked out every pilot working for Qantas. This is nothing short of crazy behaviour.
“Mr Joyce is stranding thousands of Qantas passengers all across the globe so he can engage in his mad game of one-upmanship. All so he can pursue his delusion that Qantas should be an Asian airline, instead of an Australian one.
“We believe this action is unlawful and we are currently seeking legal advice. He has locked out short-haul 737 pilots who aren’t even involved in any action at all.
“This would have been planned months in advance. Let’s be clear about this: Mr Joyce would have planned to strand thousands of Qantas passengers all across the globe months ago.
“To ground your entire fleet – when doing so is completely unnecessary – is not the act of a sane and reasonable person.
“He has snatched his ill-deserved millions on Friday and grounded the airline on Saturday. It’s just tragic and unnecessary.”
slipperysamUmm.. well if you thought it about logically youd know why.
1) Most airliners have engines under the wings, a FSW will need to be stronger in all cases to hold the weight of engines.
2) A FSW airliner wont be able to park at ANY AIRPORT IN THE WORLD which uses an aero bridge…
slipperysamOk ill bite… looking at photo… whats the 2nd???
slipperysamCorruption, fraud, laziness is rife all over the place.
The problem with this type of fraud is that the excuse of “its in the national interest” would be used in nearly every case where they get caught (or not).
Remember the powers that be believe they know more then you… and that YOU as a private individual dont know what is good for you.
Its also a matter of… its not my money so i dont care… as long as i get my big bag of money at the end of the day.
I have spoken to a few former defence personal from two different nations and they tell me the same thing. There is plenty of evidence that billions are wasted and yet NO ONE is ever held accountable. Yet when a private citizen rips of the government by not paying tax, or commits social sercurity fraud they go to jail for a very long time!
Its all very well to look at all this shiney new equipment and go wow, at the end of the day more then likely its cost YOU the tax payer tripple the orginal price and it probably doesnt work as advertised or will take a decade of upgrades by which time its obsolete.
The F35 fan club always make sick to my stomach as this is a classic example of a huge waste of money on an aircraft which is how many years behind the ORGINAL schedule? How much more over the ORGINAL price? Yet anytime any of this is discussed on here they all go on and on about how wonderful it is blah blah blah with out giving a toss as too how much of the public money has been wasted and how much more pay the bosses in this project recieve for achieving NOTHING.
(look at CEOs of big business and youll see billions of dollars wasted on people who dont deserve anything but a bullet).
slipperysamYup the F5 was on the short list to replace the F86… in the end we got the MirageIII
slipperysamWhat IACO “standards” would a civilian C-5 have to meet?
The C-5 was built in the United States so it has to meet FAA “standards” not IACO.
The C-5’s AFM, MM, IPC, WD, flight test data, fatigue and static test data and all the substantiating data still exist. It would not be hard to dig it out of the vaults in the B-1 tunnels.
Many different Lockheed ex-military aircraft including F-104’s, T-33’s, P-3’s, C-130’s and P2V’s are currently on the civilian registry that do not have full FAA certification a fact they share with the AN-124.
And does the C-5 meet all the FAA requirements?
You realise military aircraft are not built to FAA or ICAO requirements.
the C-5 is a military aircraft.
The AN-124 was a civilian aircraft because of its aeroflot heritage.
http://www.icao.int/env/TechnologyStandards.htm
There are noise and emissions standards which it will probably have to meet.
(since it will be re-engined).
And as i said.. ALL the operating manuals etc are written for the military.
They will need to be re-written.
Do you honestly think that will be cheap?
many different Lockheed ex-military aircraft including F-104’s, T-33’s, P-3’s, C-130’s and P2V’s are currently on the civilian registry that do not have full FAA certification a fact they share with the AN-124
Do you understand the difference between a commerical aircraft and a non-commercial aircraft? An F104 is NOT a commercial aircraft…. it ends up on the “experimental” category typically…
VOLUME 5 AIRMAN CERTIFICATION
CHAPTER 9 OTHER AIRMEN AUTHORIZATIONS
Section 2 Issue a Letter of Authorization for Pilot in Command of Surplus Military Turbine- or Piston- Powered Airplanes
5-1576 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1579.
5-1577 OBJECTIVE. This task provides guidance on procedures and policies for issuing an authorization for an airman to fly an aircraft as a pilot in command (PIC) for which the Operating Limitations require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-issued authorization to act as PIC. This authorization may be listed on an airman certificate designating other authorized aircraft that the airman is qualified to fly. These aircraft are generally aircraft with Special Airworthiness Certificates that identify them as “large” aircraft, turbojet-powered aircraft, or other aircraft specifically identified by the Administrator as described in this chapter that require a specific authorization for a person to act as PIC during flight. Figure 5-173 lists some of the aircraft so identified.
slipperysamPerhaps the idea is to stop using An-124s, so that that charter funding goes to a US company operating a US built & maintained aircraft.
After all, there is a push for government aid to increase domestic spending and government-aided job creation.
And again the cost of civilian certification?
Its not just paperwork that needs to be submitted.
The aircraft would have to be retested to ICAO standards, have all new pilots manuals written as well takeoff and landing charts, maintenance manuals, weight and balance, c of g redone as all the military equipment is removed….
For such a small number of aircraft it would be almost cost prohibitive…
I believe the AN124 was certified to close to ICAO standards when it was built as aeroflot was its end user so it would need to meet ICAO standards in order to operate in its “civilian” disguise….
slipperysamSo, the J-20 flies with protective covers on?
Why yes of course it does… seriously if you cant tell the object is SOLID and bent forwards because its flexable then you should get your eyes checked.
Its a solid rectangular box shaped object. An engine cover.
In the sequence of pictures you see the cover progressivly stick out further and further as its falling out.
I have no idea what photo your referring to as in a previous post you said put it up showing the cover blockinging the intake while the plane is flying.
Very clever aircraft i must say if it can breath in air while the engine is blocked.
Have looked back several pages and cant anything you have posted up resembling an intake cover.. or whatever you think it is.
slipperysamNo. Don’t try to twist things. You were making this point: “Nice! They would appear to confirm that the supposed variable DSI are in fact just protective covers though.” Which I counter with this: “And why would an aircraft fly with the protective cover on?” Now, isn’t the J-20, in the picture I posted, flying?
ITS AN INTAKE COVER…. open your eyes.
No wonder I rarely visit these threads as the same rubbish is discussed over and over with more and more wild claims.
slipperysamSometimes I really cringe reading some of the replies on here…
Nearly two pages of argueing about a FOAM engine cover which is falling out while the aircraft is being towed.
Come on guys seriously GET A GRIP… Its not some variable DSI..
ITS an engine cover made of foam or similar.
slipperysamCessna 337 and Ov-1 Broncos secret love child????
slipperysamWas it ever certified to ICAO standards for civllian use?
If not… would cost a fortune…
Then what about spare parts?
Servicing?
Not even worth the effort is it?
slipperysamAre you able to estimate this size in real scal being?
Shouldve given the wings a bit more surface area…. but pretty nice model none the less
slipperysamInfortunately the drug culture infiltrates any type of organization…. pretty sad really.
Sign In
