[odoherty]

Originally Posted by NM

I fail to see how my comment was "very arrogant and unsympathetic". I think it was pragmatic and realistic. As I said, it is unfortunate for those that will love their jobs. And I really would not like to see the alternate option of operating inefficiently and having the situation where even more people lose their jobs because the airline goes the same was as another famous Aussie icon airline.

I agree with NM entirely.

(I do, however, believe that if jobs were to move offshore, then the government should not protect Qantas on the Aus-US route)

[oz_mark]

Originally Posted by odoherty

(I do, however, believe that if jobs were to move offshore, then the government should not protect Qantas on the Aus-US route)

This is exactly in line with my thinking. Had they gone the offshore route, then the protection on that route should have come straight off.

[needaholiday]

Out of interest, where do DJ service their 737NG fleet, isn't it NZ? (heavy maintenance)

[NM]

Originally Posted by needaholiday

Out of interest, where do DJ service their 737NG fleet, isn't it NZ? (heavy maintenance)

Melbourne and Brisbane for line maintenance, Air NZ for heavy maintenance.

Originally Posted by Sheriff

A very arrogant and unsymapathetic remark considering many people who will lose their jobs probably have a big mortgage to pay and children to feed, that's life.

Sheriff

1. They chose to take on the big mortgage.

2. They (like all workers) had the facility of income insurance available.

3. They will likely get buku redundancy payouts and/ or the opportunity to relocate to the new facility.

4. It is neither arrogant nor unsympathetic - it is an objective observation.

5. It IS life - companies change, jobs move, jobs cease to exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Remember, the medication only works if you take it EVERY day....

[one9]

Originally Posted by Sheriff

A very arrogant and unsymapathetic remark considering many people who will lose their jobs probably have a big mortgage to pay and children to feed, that's life.

Sheriff

Think where we would all be if the likes of Sheriff had got Mark Latham elected last elections.

[Lindsay Wilson]

Knowing NM as well as I do, I know that his comment was as he stated "pragmatic and realistic". Others similarly found his comment in the same vein.

You found it an "very arrogant and unsymapathetic remark" Sheriff. That's your perogative and you're entitled to it.

Nonetheless, the facts (accord to QF's Geoff Dixon) is that the facility was bound to close in 2009, 2010 at the latest. So the workers who aren't able to be redeployed will be offered redundancies...that's fair. QF pays out a lot of money now in the hope that their calculations are correct that they will save alot of money in the long term...

Redundancy payments are also very tax effective, being that of the amount they receive, $6,491 plus $3,246 for each completed year of service (2005/06 FY rules) is tax free. Generally, the formula agreed to by the unions and QF (or in their EPA's or CAs) for the quantum of the redundancy payments for workers will be something like 4 week's pay plus 2 weeks for every completed year of service.

[NM]

A couple more media reports on this topic:

Qantas job losses regrettable: PM

Originally Posted by news.com.au

THE shedding of up to 480 jobs by Qantas is regrettable but at least the work is staying in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard said.

Qantas announced yesterday it was closing its heavy maintenance operations in Sydney and was moving them to Avalon airport outside Melbourne.

MacBank shops workers

Originally Posted by news.com.au

UP TO 480 Qantas workers will be sacked because Macquarie Bank would rather turn spare Sydney Airport land into a retail factory outlet.

The Daily Telegraph has learned the real reason the Qantas's (qan.ASX:Quote,News) heavy-maintenance work is being shifted interstate is because an airport draft master plan, released last November, did not set aside enough room for the operations.

Instead, Macquarie-backed (mbl.ASX:Quote,News) airport operators are determined to create extra retail space at the city's major aviation hub.

[bambbbam2]

Yes it is a sad fact about the jobs. Think of all those out-of-work blacksmiths after the horeseless carriage was invented!

But it has been an accepted economic fact since Adam Smith that 'money will flow to where it gets the best return'

There is a lesson in this for all of us - make sure you look after your own career, skills and education - because no-one else will.

[Sheriff]

NM,
I apoligise if my post has offended you, that was not my intention. I am entitled to express my views regarding your comments, whether you agree with them or not. From reading many of your posts (haven’t got enough time to read all of them), you sound like a morally responsible individual. So I would have thought you would have expressed your sadness and disappointment at the prospect of many hard working Australian maintenance workers losing their jobs. Many of whom have worked tirelessly for Qantas for many years maintaining aircrafts to ensure safety requirements are meet so Qantas’s excellent safety record is maintained. The fact is that many of theses maintenance workers are on the minimum award wage, have families with children to support that heavily depend on the income derived from this employment to pay for mortgages and other family commitments. Many of these retrenched workers will find it difficult to find another job, many will not even find another job, and many will receive small redundancy packages not even worth mentioning, that’s life. I sincerely thought your comment was inappropriate and harsh considering the circumstances these Australians are now faced with, even if it is the reality.

Regards
Sheriff