bjwonline wrote:

anstar wrote:

melpax wrote:

QF trying to terminate their Long-Haul Cabin Crew workplace agreement as the proposed agreement was not voted in by staff. QF wanting LH cabin crew to be rostered across all LH aircraft types (A330 & 380/B787)

https://www.theage.com.au/business/comp ... 59prv.html

I can't see it being unreasonable to want crew to be endorsed on 3 aircraft types.

This spin from QF is outright untrue. Many crew are already trained on all 3 wide bodies and all those who are employed by QCCA can be trained on any AC the company wish, it's in their contract, they have no choice. Only the small minority of crew on QAL contracts get to chose if they want to accept training on new AC.

And this is the issue... the QAL contract is no longer sustainable for the company. BA have got rid of the old WW contracts during covid and I see this as the same.

I presume it is just QASL they are terminating - not the more competitive QCCA contract?

I assume that, following last night's announcement of indefinite border closures from the WA Government, QF will now defer the planned restart of PER-LHR and either continue with DRW-LHR or re-route QF9 through SIN. Likewise, SQ are likely to significantly scale back their plans to have 17 flights a week between PER and SIN from 5/2 and retain their current skeleton service.

VHOGU wrote:

I hope the QF flight attendants fight hard. When the EBA at VA was renegotiated after administration most crew lost around $500 per pay and an insane number of conditions.

That's rough...

Pretty obvious going forward that QF really only want younger cabin crew who'll only stick around for a couple of years before they get burnt out or sick of the low pay if they don't get promoted...

tullamarine wrote:

I assume that, following last night's announcement of indefinite border closures from the WA Government, QF will now defer the planned restart of PER-LHR and either continue with DRW-LHR or re-route QF9 through SIN. Likewise, SQ are likely to significantly scale back their plans to have 17 flights a week between PER and SIN from 5/2 and retain their current skeleton service.

Unfortunately very likely unless they can negotiate some sort of COVID bubble fuel stop. Who knows?

Good job I didn’t book any trips on the hope the border was reopening I had my suspicions a long time ago the opening would be subject to change.

tullamarine wrote:

I assume that, following last night's announcement of indefinite border closures from the WA Government, QF will now defer the planned restart of PER-LHR and either continue with DRW-LHR or re-route QF9 through SIN. Likewise, SQ are likely to significantly scale back their plans to have 17 flights a week between PER and SIN from 5/2 and retain their current skeleton service.

There is no reason QF can’t proceed with the resumption of PER-LHR considering there were restrictions in place with introduction of DRW-LHR (gas-n-go).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

I assume that, following last night's announcement of indefinite border closures from the WA Government, QF will now defer the planned restart of PER-LHR and either continue with DRW-LHR or re-route QF9 through SIN. Likewise, SQ are likely to significantly scale back their plans to have 17 flights a week between PER and SIN from 5/2 and retain their current skeleton service.

There is no reason QF can’t proceed with the resumption of PER-LHR considering there were restrictions in place with introduction of DRW-LHR (gas-n-go).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WA will impose very tight quarantine requirements on the crews as well as the terminal staff who may interact with passengers from MEL or LHR and the point of going back to PER-LHR was so pax originating in or heading to PER could be accommodated. With these restrictions, there won't be any PER passengers. There really doesn't seem any point in QF bothering with PER at the moment.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Qantas737 wrote:

Thinking a little left field here and not knowing what actual pax loads on ZL flights to those small towns are like, could the upcoming Cessna SkyCourier with it's 19 pax configuration be a suitable aircraft for Rex? Perhaps even as a mixed fleet of SkyCouriers and ATR42s for the larger routes?

I can't detail numbers as I would get into some hefty strife, however pax loads to small towns fluctuate quite a bit during the week. Some days you're looking at full flights and some are quite low. That is why they do little runs between small ports before commencing to the major city destination, such as SYD-GFF-NRA, MYA-MIM-SYD. But ultimately it is hard to tell what demand is like for now and the future because of COVID. Short term, January is typically a quiet month anyway.

Just noting that SYD-GFF-NRA is a triangle route that Hazelton used to run in the 80s and 90s. If the ebbs and flows are the reason its still in place, it shows how little growth there's been in almost 30 years.

I can see the sreening argument, but ZL is going to have to bite the bullet and upguage at some stage, whether to 50 or 70 seaters. Lease costs and availbility may still outweigh overcapacity in the fleet planning.

redroo wrote:

Good job I didn’t book any trips on the hope the border was reopening I had my suspicions a long time ago the opening would be subject to change.

I had a trip to Perth booked for February and had already moved it back to the end of March. I doubt that will happen now, but it’s impossible to know as they haven’t really given any indication of what target they are now working towards. If they are really waiting for 80-90% boosted then that will be another 3-4 months, by which time we are coming into ‘flu season’ and who knows what new Covid variant will pop up by then. I’ve just about given up hope of making it to WA anytime before spring.

Kent350787 wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Qantas737 wrote:

Thinking a little left field here and not knowing what actual pax loads on ZL flights to those small towns are like, could the upcoming Cessna SkyCourier with it's 19 pax configuration be a suitable aircraft for Rex? Perhaps even as a mixed fleet of SkyCouriers and ATR42s for the larger routes?

I can't detail numbers as I would get into some hefty strife, however pax loads to small towns fluctuate quite a bit during the week. Some days you're looking at full flights and some are quite low. That is why they do little runs between small ports before commencing to the major city destination, such as SYD-GFF-NRA, MYA-MIM-SYD. But ultimately it is hard to tell what demand is like for now and the future because of COVID. Short term, January is typically a quiet month anyway.

Just noting that SYD-GFF-NRA is a triangle route that Hazelton used to run in the 80s and 90s. If the ebbs and flows are the reason its still in place, it shows how little growth there's been in almost 30 years.

I can see the sreening argument, but ZL is going to have to bite the bullet and upguage at some stage, whether to 50 or 70 seaters. Lease costs and availbility may still outweigh overcapacity in the fleet planning.

Demand on many regional routes has barely grown in decades. Partly this is due to the relative decline of rural economies, and partly improvements to the road network meaning that driving times can be several hours quicker than 30 years ago.

Federal health department in the process of changing Covid testing requirements for international arrivals, with results from rapid tests to be allowed instead of PCR tests.

QF also not requiring passengers submit health info 7 days prior to departure from next week.

Good to see things returning to something that resembles normal....

https://www.theage.com.au/business/comp ... 59q82.html

Qantas says the return of QF9 to Perth is "under review", as you'd expect, with the prospect that Perth-London and Perth-Rome could both end up running via Darwin or Singapore instead.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... r-lockdown

Given the very lack-lustre reports I've read of the "temporary" Qantas lounge at Darwin's international terminal, and that QF1 and QF9 were both due to leave DRW and return to PER and SIN from March 27, I would expect that QF9 will now become a MEL-SIN-LHR Boeing 787 from that date, running alongside QF1 SYD-SIN-LHR, as it will allow Qantas to maximise its spend on the SIN lounge. No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

CraigAnderson wrote:

No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

Update on MEL-PER-LHR now added to the Executive Traveller article

"A decision is expected in the next few weeks given the lead times involved," the airline stated, adding it is "in discussions with the Northern Territory Government about extending the operation of the alternative Darwin-London route."

qf002 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

That's a fair point, although you'd hope that by middle of this year Singapore is back to a more normal transit situation. I suppose there might also be some crewing implication, maybe cheaper for QF crew to do the MEL-DRW leg and then return compared to doing MEL-SIN?

RyanairGuru wrote:

redroo wrote:

Good job I didn’t book any trips on the hope the border was reopening I had my suspicions a long time ago the opening would be subject to change.

I had a trip to Perth booked for February and had already moved it back to the end of March. I doubt that will happen now, but it’s impossible to know as they haven’t really given any indication of what target they are now working towards. If they are really waiting for 80-90% boosted then that will be another 3-4 months, by which time we are coming into ‘flu season’ and who knows what new Covid variant will pop up by then. I’ve just about given up hope of making it to WA anytime before spring.

I've given up leaving for at least until the end of the year, to be honest...

CraigAnderson wrote:

There's a rumour that Qantas is soon to announce PER-JNB flights, something it wanted to do several years ago but cancelled due to its dispute with Perth Airport, has anybody heard anything on this?

Im guessing this is now on ice too

CraigAnderson wrote:

Qantas says the return of QF9 to Perth is "under review", as you'd expect, with the prospect that Perth-London and Perth-Rome could both end up running via Darwin or Singapore instead.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... r-lockdown

Given the very lack-lustre reports I've read of the "temporary" Qantas lounge at Darwin's international terminal, and that QF1 and QF9 were both due to leave DRW and return to PER and SIN from March 27, I would expect that QF9 will now become a MEL-SIN-LHR Boeing 787 from that date, running alongside QF1 SYD-SIN-LHR, as it will allow Qantas to maximise its spend on the SIN lounge. No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

I’m all for it if they open 787 bookings to people travelling between SIN and SYD, QFs A330s don’t hold a candle to the BA 787, let alone SQ A350/A380.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

QFs A330s don’t hold a candle to the BA 787

I'd say it's actually the other way around, at least comparing to the refurbished A333s. QF offers substantially better seats and IFE in both J and Y - the only benefit BA has is offering F/W for those looking for that.

qf002 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

In the current environment, I'd suggest the term "third country" could equally apply to SIN or PER. Both have closed borders due to Omicron.

The NT has open borders and helped keep QF's international ops flying throughout Covid with repatriation flights to Howard Springs.

DRW's lounge may only be adequate and it has a small home market. However, if I was in QF network planning, I'd think consistency matters.

Disrupted passengers and operations incur costs. Relying on a single transit point also posses business continuity risks.

I'd think that the NT's track record of support would count for something as QF reviews the European flights.

QF's cabin crew contracts move is an odd one. A number of crew learnt firsthand how much better pay and conditions are in other industries during COVID as they sought out alternative employment. Unemployment rates are at near record lows and there are worker shortages across multiple industries. And the restart of longhaul flights is still very tentative and in fits and starts.

Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot for pretty marginal return.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas to suspend SYD-HNL from 31 Jan -26 March

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... lu-flights

Presume there's just not enough bookings for this, because the cuts to capacity would if anything free up some aircraft so not like Qantas desperately needs the SYD-HNL A330 for some other route.

qf002 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

Actually, the transit through SIN is very easy and seamless. I did it last week transiting MEL-SIN-FRA. With the exception of SIN feeling a little quieter than normal, it was almost the same as before. Lounges were open, retail was open, food court was open and there were no special requirements (testing requirements for SIN were compatible with both Australia and European.

anstar wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

anstar wrote:

I can't see it being unreasonable to want crew to be endorsed on 3 aircraft types.

This spin from QF is outright untrue. Many crew are already trained on all 3 wide bodies and all those who are employed by QCCA can be trained on any AC the company wish, it's in their contract, they have no choice. Only the small minority of crew on QAL contracts get to chose if they want to accept training on new AC.

And this is the issue... the QAL contract is no longer sustainable for the company. BA have got rid of the old WW contracts during covid and I see this as the same.

I presume it is just QASL they are terminating - not the more competitive QCCA contract?

No there is only one EBA with two parts so they can't just terminate the QAL part, the whole lot is gone if this application is successful. As mentioned, those on the QAL part of the EBA are a small minority now so this attempt of QF to make out as though this minority is restricting the entire operation is just false. The airline is actually operational right now with the previous contract still in place so clearly it can work. Not to mention the recent announcement of limiting/reducing international flying back down to 20% so there is even less flights to crew, allowing more flexibility with all crew now stood back up and available. Looking at the constant changing border rules in Singapore, forever delayed re-opening of WA, suspension of HNL due to lack of bookings all suggest that QF's dream of "significant ramping of up international" by April is rather unlikely which then means they have plenty of time to negotiate with the crew and get an agreed EBA without having to go down this draconian path.

The truth is that QF is equally responsible for over the years allowing the pay and conditions of the QAL staff to get to this point. Now they have decided the size of that group is small enough so they have a chance to wipe them out while at the same time also attempt to bring down further the conditions of QCCA. This action should concern every Australian who works on an EBA that in the next renewal of the agreement, your employer can offer a bad proposal and if you vote against it then they will just rip up the existing agreement and force you to start all over again, loosing all that was agreed from years beforehand.

bjwonline wrote:

The truth is that QF is equally responsible for over the years allowing the pay and conditions of the QAL staff to get to this point. Now they have decided the size of that group is small enough so they have a chance to wipe them out while at the same time also attempt to bring down further the conditions of QCCA. This action should concern every Australian who works on an EBA that in the next renewal of the agreement, your employer can offer a bad proposal and if you vote against it then they will just rip up the existing agreement and force you to start all over again, loosing all that was agreed from years beforehand.

If they can't terminate the agreement could they make them all redundant and just use a 3rd party hire company like they do with domestic? From memory didn't Finnair do this?

bjwonline wrote:

he airline is actually operational right now with the previous contract still in place so clearly it can work. Not to mention the recent announcement of limiting/reducing international flying back down to 20% so there is even less flights to crew, allowing more flexibility with all crew now stood back up and available.

I wonder if Joyce's next move will be to announce that a lot of staff will be stood down again, based on vastly reduced flying and the fact that for several quarters now Qantas has projected rebuilding capacity and that's been dashed each time. I could imagine if that was suggested maybe the crew on 'less flexible' EBAs might be the first to go?

It's just hard to imagine that even with the smaller total workforce now than this time two years ago, because Qantas shed a lot of employees as part of its 'right-sizing' early in Covid, the fact that the airline is now looking at 60% pre-Covid capacity for this quarter (Q3 of FY22) means there's not the need for all those staff, it would be a bit like a Woolies supermarket which now has just 60% of the customers retaining the same staffing it had at 100% of customers. That's not sustainable for a business.

evanb wrote:

qf002 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

No reason that SYD-SIN-FCO won't follow.

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

Actually, the transit through SIN is very easy and seamless. I did it last week transiting MEL-SIN-FRA. With the exception of SIN feeling a little quieter than normal, it was almost the same as before. Lounges were open, retail was open, food court was open and there were no special requirements (testing requirements for SIN were compatible with both Australia and European.

That's half true, but it changes at the drop of hat and SIN has been far from a stable option. I genuinely think DRW is the only bankable route right now. Don't forget passengers from the UK are subject to completely different transit rules at any midpoint, than people entering/leaving Germany. Just because transit is allowed to one place, doesn't mean it is allowed to another, and that mix changes literally every day.

beachroad wrote:

evanb wrote:

qf002 wrote:

The selling point is a nonstop flight from Australia that doesn't involve a potentially complicated transit through a third country.

Actually, the transit through SIN is very easy and seamless. I did it last week transiting MEL-SIN-FRA. With the exception of SIN feeling a little quieter than normal, it was almost the same as before. Lounges were open, retail was open, food court was open and there were no special requirements (testing requirements for SIN were compatible with both Australia and European.

That's half true, but it changes at the drop of hat and SIN has been far from a stable option. I genuinely think DRW is the only bankable route right now. Don't forget passengers from the UK are subject to completely different transit rules at any midpoint, than people entering/leaving Germany. Just because transit is allowed to one place, doesn't mean it is allowed to another, and that mix changes literally every day.

I tend to agree - until we see a period of stability in regional/global immigration and travel requirements, foreign transit points are undesirable for an airline due to the significant risks arising from constant changes.

It would therefore make more sense, and remove the significant risks, for DRW as the tech stop, and ensure point-to-point flying (in respect of countries) for all QF flights for now. SQ can deal with the transit implications at SIN, but it doesn't make sense for QF to try an manage those for now.

QF to close their NRT lounge - always was an odd one to me, I wonder if they still have a lounge in BKK and HNL?

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ort-lounge

I hope post COVID when the money is flowing again we see some investment finally in QF international lounges - MEL and AKL in particular are shockers, SYD is acceptable but needs some work. I know a lot depends on all three airport development plans and securing an appropriate space (and these move at glacial paces) - but even a refresh (paint, lighting and furniture) and bit of alignment with the branding/design with domestic would be welcome, for key international home ports they don't help the QF brand and reputation.

smi0006 wrote:

QF to close their NRT lounge - always was an odd one to me, I wonder if they still have a lounge in BKK and HNL?

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ort-lounge

I hope post COVID when the money is flowing again we see some investment finally in QF international lounges - MEL and AKL in particular are shockers, SYD is acceptable but needs some work. I know a lot depends on all three airport development plans and securing an appropriate space (and these move at glacial paces) - but even a refresh (paint, lighting and furniture) and bit of alignment with the branding/design with domestic would be welcome, for key international home ports they don't help the QF brand and reputation.

BKK went many years ago. Id be surprised if HNL survives. The overseas international lounge network is now just SIN, LHR and LAX. I think AKL will come back but that badly needs a refurb.

We can probably say goodbye to the AKL first lounge when the refurb happens. Definitely needed though.

I think any expenditure at SYD and MEL International lounges was awaiting terminal expansion (SYD towards the freight terminal), which is probably now also delayed, so maybe they might do something.

Bangkok was initially split between BA and QF, then CX took the BA part, and QFs old space is now third party.

Agree AKL needs some work.

JAL lounges are an excellent alternative in Japan. I think it makes sense to use oneworld and partner lounges in International destinations. HK is now going to be CX lounges for QF customers by the look of it.

Currently inside my hotel room in Singapore waiting for my result to come back.

Flew on SQ212 this morning and surprisingly the flight was very full. (Regretted not buying PY as I thought the flight was gonna be fairly empty. The guy next to me kept invading my space.)

Other than that everything went pretty smooth. I prepared so many documents to show the immigration and they didn’t ask for any. (Probably because they already have everything electronically)

Great to finally fly on an international flight after 2years.

a19901213 wrote:

Currently inside my hotel room in Singapore waiting for my result to come back.

Flew on SQ212 this morning and surprisingly the flight was very full. (Regretted not buying PY as I thought the flight was gonna be fairly empty. The guy next to me kept invading my space.)

Other than that everything went pretty smooth. I prepared so many documents to show the immigration and they didn’t ask for any. (Probably because they already have everything electronically)

Great to finally fly on an international flight after 2years.

The new online verification services have taken a lot of pain out of terminal processing. Terminals just don't have the space and staff can't keep track of the ever changing rules.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

We can probably say goodbye to the AKL first lounge when the refurb happens. Definitely needed though.

Qantas has already said that when the AKL lounges are updated, something it promised years ago, the dedicated first lounge would be abolished and AKL would end up with a single 'integrated' lounge for all eligible passengers, along the same lines as LHR and HKG for example. Makes sense as there's no QF F to AKL.

A court has refused an urgent application by Qantas and Jetstar workers to save their jobs until the legality of the airlines’ vaccination mandate can be tested.
Two dozen employees, including three already sacked, launched a class action against the Qantas Group over the direction to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 or face dismissal.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 86fd9dd46a

Hard for me to be sympathetic here, 24 people refusing to be vaccinated is the tiniest fraction of a minority across the whole Qantas Group and the airline announced its mandatory vaccination policy in July 2021 so they've had ample time to get the jab.

In the ideal world it would be good if they were in work from home roles such as customer support as part of the 'virtual call centre', so they would never have to personally interact with other Qantas staff, but there are limits to how far any employer should have to go in cases like this, IMHO.

Looks like Virgin has postponed the commencement of SYD-CBR using Link S340s by about two weeks (originally set for 31 Jan). Was just about to book when the flight options disappeared. Prices weren't that cheap so presumably demand isn't the problem. An Omicron-delay?

There was always speculation surrounding Qantas and their Haneda/Narita services announcing they’ll be splitting MEL/BNE-HND & SYD remains unchanged.

What I find most disappointing is the SYD-HND down gauge B744-A330 & confident this is a short term move until A350’s come online.

Qantas returns to Tokyo, with Haneda Airport as its new hub

When Qantas flights to Tokyo restart from the end of March, the airline will make Haneda Airport its new home.

Qantas will consolidate its Tokyo routes at Haneda Airport when international flights return from the end of March, swapping the city's distant Narita Airport for Haneda's downtown convenience.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... 1643068431


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CraigAnderson wrote:

A court has refused an urgent application by Qantas and Jetstar workers to save their jobs until the legality of the airlines’ vaccination mandate can be tested.
Two dozen employees, including three already sacked, launched a class action against the Qantas Group over the direction to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 or face dismissal.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 86fd9dd46a

Hard for me to be sympathetic here, 24 people refusing to be vaccinated is the tiniest fraction of a minority across the whole Qantas Group and the airline announced its mandatory vaccination policy in July 2021 so they've had ample time to get the jab.

In the ideal world it would be good if they were in work from home roles such as customer support as part of the 'virtual call centre', so they would never have to personally interact with other Qantas staff, but there are limits to how far any employer should have to go in cases like this, IMHO.

From the articles I’ve read - it seems they are unhappy they weren’t consulted and due process followed through. Give me a break - it’s a pandemic, the industry is collapsing, pilots, baggage handlers and engineers are not public health experts. Not to mention the myriad of public health orders articulating vaccine mandates for airport/airline staff. No need to consult (sounds as QF did) As always they had a choice, it just came with consequences.

I don’t agree with how QF is handling their crew EBA, but I do agree with them on this one,

smi0006 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

A court has refused an urgent application by Qantas and Jetstar workers to save their jobs until the legality of the airlines’ vaccination mandate can be tested.
Two dozen employees, including three already sacked, launched a class action against the Qantas Group over the direction to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 or face dismissal.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 86fd9dd46a

Hard for me to be sympathetic here, 24 people refusing to be vaccinated is the tiniest fraction of a minority across the whole Qantas Group and the airline announced its mandatory vaccination policy in July 2021 so they've had ample time to get the jab.

In the ideal world it would be good if they were in work from home roles such as customer support as part of the 'virtual call centre', so they would never have to personally interact with other Qantas staff, but there are limits to how far any employer should have to go in cases like this, IMHO.

From the articles I’ve read - it seems they are unhappy they weren’t consulted and due process followed through. Give me a break - it’s a pandemic, the industry is collapsing, pilots, baggage handlers and engineers are not public health experts. Not to mention the myriad of public health orders articulating vaccine mandates for airport/airline staff. No need to consult (sounds as QF did) As always they had a choice, it just came with consequences.

I don’t agree with how QF is handling their crew EBA, but I do agree with them on this one,

Don't be shocked if these staff members win this case. It's not about our own opinions here, is whether it is correct as far as the laws are concerned.

I can't recall the company or industry they were in, but I'm pretty sure a similar case a couple of months ago was won by the unvaxed employee's.

LTEN11 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 86fd9dd46a

Hard for me to be sympathetic here, 24 people refusing to be vaccinated is the tiniest fraction of a minority across the whole Qantas Group and the airline announced its mandatory vaccination policy in July 2021 so they've had ample time to get the jab.

In the ideal world it would be good if they were in work from home roles such as customer support as part of the 'virtual call centre', so they would never have to personally interact with other Qantas staff, but there are limits to how far any employer should have to go in cases like this, IMHO.

From the articles I’ve read - it seems they are unhappy they weren’t consulted and due process followed through. Give me a break - it’s a pandemic, the industry is collapsing, pilots, baggage handlers and engineers are not public health experts. Not to mention the myriad of public health orders articulating vaccine mandates for airport/airline staff. No need to consult (sounds as QF did) As always they had a choice, it just came with consequences.

I don’t agree with how QF is handling their crew EBA, but I do agree with them on this one,

Don't be shocked if these staff members win this case. It's not about our own opinions here, is whether it is correct as far as the laws are concerned.

I can't recall the company or industry they were in, but I'm pretty sure a similar case a couple of months ago was won by the unvaxed employee's.

Yeah that was BHP and they won because the change procedure in their EBA was not followed by BHP. But BHP put the mandate back in pretty soon after the case. Its in the courts again I think.

Who is funding these antivax workers?

qf2220 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

From the articles I’ve read - it seems they are unhappy they weren’t consulted and due process followed through. Give me a break - it’s a pandemic, the industry is collapsing, pilots, baggage handlers and engineers are not public health experts. Not to mention the myriad of public health orders articulating vaccine mandates for airport/airline staff. No need to consult (sounds as QF did) As always they had a choice, it just came with consequences.

I don’t agree with how QF is handling their crew EBA, but I do agree with them on this one,

Don't be shocked if these staff members win this case. It's not about our own opinions here, is whether it is correct as far as the laws are concerned.

I can't recall the company or industry they were in, but I'm pretty sure a similar case a couple of months ago was won by the unvaxed employee's.

Yeah that was BHP and they won because the change procedure in their EBA was not followed by BHP. But BHP put the mandate back in pretty soon after the case. Its in the courts again I think.

Who is funding these antivax workers?

I believe the BHP case is sorted now and the company won after undergoing another round of consultation.

The consultation process is only part of the antivax case though and not a major part from the arguments I saw reported. The judge seemed particularly sceptical of the complainants, challenging them as to why they waited until the final moment to seek legal redress etc. There was also a bizarre argument put forward that by enforcing the vax mandate, QF was NOT providing a safe workplace for staff. I don't think the lawyer involved is of a particularly high calibre.

At most I'd say QF would have to go back and consult, then implement the requirement. A la BHP.

EK413 wrote:

There was always speculation surrounding Qantas and their Haneda/Narita services announcing they’ll be splitting MEL/BNE-HND & SYD remains unchanged.

What I find most disappointing is the SYD-HND down gauge B744-A330 & confident this is a short term move until A350’s come online.

Qantas returns to Tokyo, with Haneda Airport as its new hub

When Qantas flights to Tokyo restart from the end of March, the airline will make Haneda Airport its new home.

Qantas will consolidate its Tokyo routes at Haneda Airport when international flights return from the end of March, swapping the city's distant Narita Airport for Haneda's downtown convenience.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... 1643068431\

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Qantas will be chasing IASC about Virgin's allocated HNE slot. Qantas originally applied for both the slots granted to Australian airlines, but Virgin also applied and got one which was supposed to be for BNE-HND on an A330. Without those A330s and no sign that Virgin plans to resume long-haul flying or at least any time soon, I think Qantas will apply to the IASC to get the Virgin Australia slot and also lobby the Japanese authorities to push for the slot to be enforced, and then use this to launch a second daily SYD-HND frequency once demand returns. The old 747 flight reportedly used to have very high load so maybe 2023-2024 will see the need for two daily SYD-HND flights to replace that.

aerokiwi wrote:

At most I'd say QF would have to go back and consult, then implement the requirement. A la BHP.

[/list]

I believe QF did consult... they even sent out a survey prior to their staff asking their views.

CraigAnderson wrote:

I think Qantas will be chasing IASC about Virgin's allocated HNE slot. Qantas originally applied for both the slots granted to Australian airlines, but Virgin also applied and got one which was supposed to be for BNE-HND on an A330. Without those A330s and no sign that Virgin plans to resume long-haul flying or at least any time soon, I think Qantas will apply to the IASC to get the Virgin Australia slot and also lobby the Japanese authorities to push for the slot to be enforced, and then use this to launch a second daily SYD-HND frequency once demand returns. The old 747 flight reportedly used to have very high load so maybe 2023-2024 will see the need for two daily SYD-HND flights to replace that.

I doubt the Japanese will get involved. The way the HND slots have worked is that Japan has given those allocations to counties and required the local regulators to administer how they are used and by who. They have not shown an interest in getting involved in how the other countries have used them. The only conditions Japan put on them was that they were daytime slots, to be used between 6am and 10:55pm. The is different to the Qantas's existing HND slots which were nighttime slots (between 10pm and 6:55am).

The most recent notification from IASC gives Virgin and extension until 30 October 2022 to utilize them. They've been granted extensions due to border closures, however, they would have to show a compelling reason to extend this further. Australian border closures won't be a compelling reason any longer, although Japanese might. But even then, they'd be expected to use them as soon as reasonably possible or then use them.

In the original process, Qantas argued that they automatically revert to them if Virgin didn't utilize them, but IASC denied that, but I don't see any other option than them ultimately being awarded to Qantas (even if just as a placeholder) once Virgin inevitably loses them.

Can IASC offer the slot for a fixed period, say 2 or 3 years to QF and then a reassessment at the expiry of that time?

Would QF even want the slot at the moment? Sure in the long term but there is not enough demand to be offering 3 x daily at the moment and nobody knows how long the recovery will take

jrfspa320 wrote:

Would QF even want the slot at the moment? Sure in the long term but there is not enough demand to be offering 3 x daily at the moment and nobody knows how long the recovery will take

I think QF would take it so VA cant.