Aviation: Qantas calls a strike

On some accounts, the Australian public is annoyed with Qantas, the main player in an airline industry that, domestically, serves the same purpose as trains and buses in most other countries. On other accounts, there is support for the airline which has published what the pay and conditions are relative to its competitors with the result that many see the demands of the workforce as greedy at a difficult time for the airline industry and the wider economy. Even more seem to support the airline's strong action in forcing the issue - thousands of flights have been disrupted over the past year as the unions have held strikes lasting just a few hours (and selling the idea to the public as a short-sharp-shock) but which, once planes are not where they are supposed to be, has a knock-one effect lasting several days.

Qantas has taken the initiative in a bold way.

And it has - at least in part - paid off.

Late on Sunday, Fair Work Australia - the industrial tribunal - gave its order after an emergency session. It ordered Qantas to bring its 108 plane fleet back into the air - and ordered both sides to reach an agreement - without further industrial action - within 21 days failing which all parties must submit to compulsory arbitration.Qantas had been trying, without success, to get government / tribunal intervention in the dispute for several months.

The grounding cost Qantas an estimated AUD21 million per day; the industrial action was costing AUD16 million per week, the airline said. And there was no end in sight.

Because the airline was grounded, as a matter of law, its air safety certificate was suspended. That was reinstated immediately after the Tribunal gave its decision.

There was a barrage of criticism from many sources including some that argued that Qantas is synonimous with Australia and that tourism would be harmed: yet none of those voices had been raised to point out that tourists were already subject to widespread disruption due to frequent industrial action.

The unions are painting their dispute as an argument against Qantas moving some jobs offshore: conveniently forgetting that Aussie pilots are subject to Aussie tax wherever in the world they are based and that a baggage handler in Manila is no use when the bags are in Sydney. They also fail to point out that Qantas has recently invested in a huge new maintenance facility to centralise some of its Australian maintenance - and that the flying time from some parts of Aus to that facility are longer than to some overseas maintenence depots.