Qantas senior executives and managers will step down from their usual roles to pitch in as ground handlers, as the airline continues to suffer from major staff shortages.
The shake-up is part of an extraordinary contingency program expected to last three months and help the airline get back on its feet before the busy summer holiday period.
While the airline has rehired close to 2000 staff after letting about 1700 ground handlers go during the pandemic, it has struggled to stay on top of baggage, flight delays and cancellations.
Chief operating officer Colin Hughes told staff that during the contingency program, they would be an “embedded resource within the ground handling partners”, Australianreports.
“This means you’ll receive a roster, be scheduled to operate and be supervised and managed in the live operations by our ground-handling partners.”
Staff participating in the program would be required to sort through and scan bags, and drive airport tugs to carry luggage onto planes and between terminals.
“It’s our singular company focus to support our teams to get our operation back to where it should be and provide our passengers the experience they expect from the airline,” Mr Hughes said in his note to staff.
A Qantas spokesperson said the measures were introduced as a result of staff shortages caused by flu and Covid, as well as the tight labor market.
“We’ve been clear that our operational performance has not been meeting our customers’ expectations or the standards that we expect of ourselves – and that we’ve been pulling out all stops to improve our performance,” they told news.com.au .
“As we have done in the past during busy periods, around 200 head office staff have helped at airports during peak travel periods since Easter.
“While we manage the impacts of a record flu season and ongoing Covid cases coupled with the tightest labor market in decades, we’re continuing that contingency planning across our airport operations for the next three months.”
Qantas is filing an appeal in the High Court after the Federal Court found it was in breach of the Fair Work Act for sacking almost 2000 staff during the pandemic.
It has yet to fully staff its operations since domestic and international travel summarized following the Covid shutdown period.
Qantas’ reputation has suffered immensely in recent months with furious customers complaining about delayed and canceled flights, missing luggage and extreme customer service wait times.
An 11th hour Federal Court injunction has temporarily halted the construction of a contentious major highway project in Western Australia.
Key points:
The Bunbury Outer Ring Road is WA’s most expensive ever road project
Work to clear land for the road began this week, amid protests
But an 11th hour Federal Court injunction has temporarily halted work
Clearing of bushland to make way for the $1.25 billion Bunbury Outer Ring Road began this week to a chorus of backlash from local community members who say the highway will cause irreversible environmental damage.
The injunction issued late on Friday by the Federal Court of Australia prevents Main Roads and its contractors from conducting any more clearing work on the southern section of the road through the semi-rural community of Gelorup.
Clearing of the land, which sits on a 40-year-old road reserve, began on Monday following a visit to the site by former Greens leader Bob Brown.
Opponents had been campaigning for Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to reverse her decision to sign off on environmental approvals, paving the way for construction to begin.
The Bunbury Outer Ring Road has cleared all environmental hurdles at a state and federal level.
The court order is in place until a scheduled hearing on Monday afternoon.
The injunction does not prevent work from continuing on the northern section, which has been under construction for months.
Main Roads would not comment on the injunction, other than to confirm work at the site had stopped until the court hearing.
Dr Sue Chapman is the vice president of local action group Friends of Gelorup Corridor.(ABC South West: Sam Bold)
Sue Chapman — a local resident whose name is on the court application — said it was a big win for the community.
“We are just so relieved, it’s been the most traumatic week watching the beautiful trees, just simply bulldozed, and wood chipped immediately,” Dr Chapman said.
“To finally feel like there’s a sense of reprieve. It’s just been overwhelming.”
premier backs road
Earlier this week, Premier Mark McGowan said his government would be building the road and the route had been planned for decades.
“The Bunbury Outer Ring Road is designed to save lives and to reduce the pressure on traffic going through Bunbury,” Mr McGowan said.
“It’s been in the plans for the South West for [more than] 30 years. Whichever route you choose, there would be some clearing.
“It’s designed to make life much better for people in the South West. We’ve actually done Bussell Highway as well — which lots of people were dying on as well — in addition to that project.
“So look, that’s the plan. We actually got full environmental approval, the whole range of offsets, that’s replantings, preserving possum habitat and the like.”
A map of showing the route of the southern section of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road.(ABC South West: Asha Couch)
WA Police said there had been very little enforcement required to maintain order at the construction site, despite several protesters being removed for trespassing.
Since Monday when land clearing began, there have been five arrests for trespass, four move-on notices issued and one court summons.
Main Roads said it understood there were a lot of emotions at play, and the community had a right to peacefully protest.
But it said it would call police when people accessed the construction site without authorization and put workers’ safety at risk.
Construction of the northern section of the road is well underway.(Supplied: Nearmap)
A WA Police spokesperson says “engagement has been very positive between protesters and police, including those who have removed themselves from machinery or trees when requested.
“We support any person who wants to protest as long as it is done lawfully and in an orderly manner.”
A Russian billionaire suing Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister claims sanctions imposed over the invasion of the Ukraine have caused him severe reputational damage.
Key points:
Alexander Abramov is the chairman of steel company Evraz and is estimated to have a net worth of over $6 billion
The Morrison government imposed financial and travel sanctions on 67 individuals in April
Mr Abramov says no other country has imposed sanctions against him
Steel mogul Alexander Abramov launched legal action against senator Penny Wong after the former government’s April sanctioning of 67 Russian elites and oligarchs over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
His lawyer Ron Merkel QC told the Federal Court on Friday the sanctions caused severe reputational harm and the legal consequences had led to continuing financial losses.
Mr Abramov, who co-founded Russia’s largest steel producer, Evraz, wants the sanctions removed, arguing they are unique to Australia because no other country has placed similar bans on him.
“Our real point here is the approach the minister has taken is misconceived,” Mr Merkel said.
“Australia’s sanctions have also impacted Mr Abramov’s dealings in New Zealand.”
He said the case was unusual as public announcements by former foreign minister Marise Payne explaining her decision would form part of the suit.
On April 7, Senator Payne announced the government had decided to impose “targeted financial sanctions and travel bans” on 67 individuals “for their role in Russia’s unprovoked, unjust and illegal invasion of Ukraine.”
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Former Foreign Minister Marise Payne announced sanctions on 67 Russian elites in April
Those sanctioned included Russian military, business and government officials.
Senator Wong is represented by barrister Brendan Lim.
The federal government was considering an application to prevent the public release of some information in the court documents, Mr Lim said.
The matter will return before Justice Susan Kenny on August 26.
Australian Mercedes-Benz dealers are in a $650 million “fight of their lives” against the luxury German car maker in a test case described as one of the most significant in franchise-law history.
Key points:
38 Mercedes dealers are suing the German car-maker for $650 million in compensation
Mercedes-Benz is one of a growing number of car makers switching to a fixed sale price and commission model
Car dealers argue Mercedes has breached the franchising code and consumer law
Bob Craig sold his dealership of 48 years last year in frustration over Mercedes-Benz’s decision to move to a fixed-price agency sales model.
“I would love to have done 50 years with Mercedes,” Mr Craig said.
“In the last five years, there was a deterioration in relationships between the dealer and the manufacturer.”
Previously, dealers bought cars from Mercedes and could set their own sale price.
But under the agency model, which came into effect in January, the manufacturer retains ownership of the cars while dealers become agents that sell cars at a fixed price for a set commission.
Thirty-eight of the nation’s 55 Mercedes-Benz dealerships have launched legal action against the company in the Federal Court seeking compensation.
Dealers argue they were forced to sign new agency model deals with Mercedes that will dramatically reduce their profits and wipe out years of goodwill with customers.
Mr Craig is not involved in the court case because he sold his business in Orange before the agency model came into effect, but he is speaking on behalf of former colleagues too nervous to publicly criticize Mercedes.
“They’re all shattered, their livelihood is shattered,” Mr Craig said.
A photo of Bob Craig’s Mercedes-Benz dealership in Orange from the 1970s.(ABC News: Hamish Cole )
Dealers allege Mercedes hatched a secret plan in 2016 to switch to an agency model, undertook a sham consultation process, and pushed forward with a decision despite the majority of Australian dealers being against it.
They claim that in a bid to capture the profits of dealers, Mercedes has broken Australian Consumer Law by engaging in unconscionable conduct, along with breaching the franchising code’s good-faith provisions.
“This is an incredibly important case for the automotive industry,” Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) chief executive James Voortman said.
“In fact, it’s probably one of the most important franchising cases in Australian history.”
James Voorten says dealers are arguing Mercedes-Benz has engaged in unconscionable conduct and breached its good-faith obligations.(ABC News: Matt Roberts )
Dealers involved in the case are seeking $650 million in compensation from the car marker.
“That takes account of all the millions of dollars of investment that has gone into facilities, but also equipment and the goodwill they’ve created,” Mr Voortman said.
“It’s a large claim, but it’s more than fair.”
“These are regional dealers, these are city dealers, they are Australian businesses, and they’re in the fight of their lives against a big multinational corporation.”
In March 2019, Deloitte modeled the impact of the agency model for dealers.
It found, for example, that under the agency model one particular dealer’s profits would decline by more than 50 per cent compared to the dealership model.
The case against Mercedes, which saw hearings begin in the Federal Court this week, is being funded by dealers involved in the legal battle, including billionaire businessman Nick Politis, the PR company working for AADA has confirmed.
“So many of these dealers have represented the brand for decades, they’ve invested so much money in the brand, and they’ve put in so much work to bring customers to the brand,” Mr Voortman said.
“And now all of that hard work is being taken away with change to a new business model.
“They need compensation for that change, and we hope that the court agrees with that.”
Test case for updated franchising laws
Last year a Senate inquiry, launched after General Motors decided to ax the Holden brand, found an inherent power imbalance between car dealers and manufacturers.
The inquiry also examined Japanese car manufacturer Honda’s treatment of dealers in its move to a fixed-price agency model.
Subsequent legislative changes introduced by the Coalition government doubled fines for breaches of the franchising code, and added other protections for car dealers, including “fair and reasonable compensation for franchisees in the event of early termination.”
Jenny Buchan from the University of New South Wales’ Business School said the Mercedes-Benz Federal Court legal battle was a test case for those new laws.
“So since 2015, there have been progressive slight tweaks to the code, and the current tweak is probably the biggest that we’re dealing with,” Ms Buchan said.
“The current tweak introduces very specific requirements in relation to motor vehicle dealers and the franchise agreements that they enter into.
“It is an important case, and it’s really important that the dealers have their day in court, and that the courts have an opportunity to really interpret the wording of this new change to the franchising code.”
Jenny Buchan says the case against Mercedes-Benz is one of the most significant in franchising-law history.(ABC News—Dan Irvine )
“The problem with good faith is that good faith is such a nebulous concept,” Ms Buchan said.
Ms Buchan said a recent case involving 7/11 franchisees showed the difficulty of mounting legal arguments based on a breach of good faith and unconscionable conduct.
“They were unsuccessful [at] alleging good faith, they were unsuccessful with unconscionable conduct,” she said.
“But they did succeed in establishing that 7/11 had misled them, so they did receive an award of damages in relation to the misleading conduct.”
Ms Buchan believes that ultimately Australia’s franchising code is still too weak to protect franchisees.
“My really deeply held view is that the franchising code can never give franchisees the protection that they ultimately need, and that we won’t really see true equality until franchisees are somehow brought in under the corporations act,” she said.
Transparent sales model
In a statement, a spokesman for Mercedes-Benz Australia said the company was defending its position in court.
“It is evident Australian customers had embraced the new and transparent sales model,” the company spokesman said.
“We remain committed to the agency model and the advantages it delivers for our valued customers, especially in terms of transparent pricing, the reduction of dealer delivery fees and access for all Australians to our national pool of vehicles, regardless of where the customer may live.” .”
Car industry analyst Steve Bragg, partner at Pitcher Partners, said the agency model had been in place in New Zealand for several years and was becoming widely adopted in Europe and the UK.
Jaguar is another global car manufacturer with plans to move to an agency model. (Reuters: Aly Song)
Jaguar, BMW, Land Rover, VW and Honda are just some of the other companies moving to a fixed-price sales model.
Mr Bragg said a potential upside for customers in buying through an agency model was price transparency — as long as they were not paying too much.
“It’s a model that’s coming, but that doesn’t mean the dealers have to lose,” he said.
“In the future, as dealers are doing their part, they’ll need to be compensated as well — and what they get paid needs to cover costs.”
‘Not the company we recognised’
Bob Craig owned a Mercedes-Benz dealership for 48 years.(ABC News: Hamish Cole )
As direct online sales grow and more companies move to bypass dealers and maximize profits, the agency model represents the end of an era for industry veterans like Mr Craig.
“In a country town, the motor dealer — not just Mercedes, but every franchise — is a great part of the community,” Mr Craig said.
“Our customers are our friends and they (dealers) are part of the fabric of our city.
“I don’t want to be the cranky old man that sold out [of the dealership].
“But in the last few years, it’s not the company that we recognised.”
