Nope 579, that is to be exact, 96% of shareholders. All shareholders
get a vote on the salaries of executives. If you owned shares,
you would have gotten a vote too.

Yabby,

"Good on him for showing guts and intellect."

Seems pretty loony to me...in any case, at least people won't be confused as to whether or not Qantas is a reliable airline. Having all its planes on the ground instead of in the air is a dead giveaway there - and during CHOGM and the run-up to the Melbourne Cup too.

But, Yabby, you seem to think you're an expert of "stuff like this". What sort of damage will this have on the "reputation" of Qantas? Surely you can't be serious in thinking it's a clever response?

It seems like more of a monumental hissy fit.

*Surely you can't be serious in thinking it's a clever response?*

Of course I am serious, Poirot. Joyce clearly has the capacity to
think things through, not just about next week.

Fact is after the shareholder meeting, unions were quite willing
to continue their guerilla tactcs for another year. "We will strike,
then we won't strike", is an old tactic which does maximum damage
to the company, at little cost to the employees. How much damage
do you think that the brand would have suffered, if this had
continued for a year? How many people would have booked Qantas
tickets?

Fact is that Qantas are losing 200 million $ a year on their
international routes as people choose cheaper Asian carriers. You
either restructure that end of the business or shut it down. That
is good business practise.

This dispute is not about wages, its about who runs the airline,
management or the workers. If workers want to run it, they should
buy it.

Joyce has drawn a line in the sand. You can't operate an airline,
if nobody knows wether the planes will fly or not. You need certainty.
Without that certainty, the best thing is to leave those planes on
the tarmac until there is an answer. Bleeding Qantas to death slowly,
week by week, which the unions were quite prepared to do, is not
an option.

Its a tough decision, but its the correct one.

If an act of terrorism had this effect on Qantas' fleet we'd be calling for heads.

The simple fact is Qantas is not competitive and, to become competitive they must restructure, which means, they either go elsewhere, or, they pay their Australian workers what the competitors pay, which is far less, but the unions won't wear that.

Then there is the cost of compliance, as this adds even more costs to thier operating budget.

The end result is that these stricking workers and thier unions may well be the end of this icon.

The flow on effects from this, should it occur, may well cause many ripples for us.

They are the highest paid workers within thier industry and they are still not happy.

Perhaps they need to loose thier jobs so they can have a reality check.

rechtub and yabby,

Of course there's always two sides to every dispute. That said, the effects of this action will reach far beyond the mere interests of the airline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-30/peter-ryan-analysis-on-qantas-grounding/3608832