They are exactly the issues & exactly right IMO.pietillidie wrote:Pied Piper, where we seem to part ways on this is that I don't expect anything from Qantas outside the rules of the game they're playing. They're not a national airline anymore, so the quality of their service is a market consideration, not a national scandal.
The problem, of course, is that they're still trading on the reputation of having once been a national airline, while simultaneously trashing that reputation. If so, we have to cut the bastards loose and stop letting them trade off the past, include any advantages they get from favourable or preferential treatment.
The unholy combination of private profit making and public risk taking is a menace. You either privatise something properly, or you run it as a public good. My question is this: what advantages, if any, do Qantas get that other airlines operating in the free market don't get? (Did someone above mention protected routes?).
1. Qantas is being treated as "our"national airline so it has protected routes.
2. It can't compete against the mostly Asian & Mid East Airlines who are subsidized by their respective Governments & whose costs on international routes are vastly lower.
3. Qantas ultimately would prefer the Governement to pick up the losses of the international routes.
4. Qantas makes its dosh locally in Australia & regionally - in our neck of the woods.
5. Time once & for all to dispel the myth & sentiment associating Qantas still calling Australia home.
6. The third world Countries subsidizing their national airlines also means they (The Governments) realize the value of tourism, business & recognition, so economic pain via some airline routes or financial loss is more than compensated by the gains that tourism, business & recognition brings.
7. Once we stopped owning Qantas & privatised it, there is no requirement for Qantas to see a bigger national picture.
8. Qantas would prefer to privatise the gains but socialize the losses - isn't that how the free market works in any case?
9. Safety should be paramount in all of this. To say that there are vested interests by unions in using the safety argument & therefore ought to be dismissed suggests that there are no other vested interests in any other issues related to the whole drama. Given there are vested interests right through the airline issue which issues ought to be examined & which ought not be? To dismiss things out of hand like this is far too ideological IMO.
10. What we need is to try & compare apples with apples. The safety record by Qantas has justifiably taken a big perceptual hit in the last few years.
11. Jetstar staff (the overseas ones) are working onorous shifts. Airlines should not be determining what are safe working condtions for their employees. This should be independently vetted & arbitrated.
12. While it might be considered by some to be worlds best practice, the exploitation of overseas staff should not be the yardstick for OH&S for crew, maintenance, flight attendants etc. The same argument also needs to be applied to which aircraft are being used, which are safe etc. This knowledge should be at the forefront for each of us to make decsions about safety.
13. Qantas management have made the industrial action seem a lot bigger than it is. At the same time, the shareholders of Qantas (how many votes are maintained by the block industry investors) voted to allow Joyce to make obcene amounts while cutting the jobs & conditions of his employees.
14. Gillard has been diginified & at her best in these trickey times. She has not taken sides & has referred the issue to the Fair Work Commission.
