Qantas Shutdown

[Stephen Brown]

I think Ray that in the current climate the statement was made more to damage the image of the workers rather than signal a problem. If you were in a company and trying to reestablish credibility in your organisation this is one of the last things you would say.

Its easy to spot spin once you know what you're looking for.

[Ray P.]

Stephen, whilst I whole-heartedly agree with you that there is a great deal of spin surrounding this debate, I think that it is fairly heaped on both sides of the argument. But in this instance, the question of sabotage was included in a confidential submission provided to Fair Work Australia by Qantas.

[Stephen Brown]

I agree Ray that the spin certainly went both ways, however making this sort of announcement at this time was certainly ill advised.

As you said it was part of a confidential submission it really should have stayed that way.

[Rowan McKeever]

From what I heard of an interview with Geoff Thomas this morning it wasn't Qantas management that 'announced' the AFP was investigating cut wires on a 767. The very fact that the AFP are investigating cut wires on a 767 strongly suggests that listing sabotage as a potential risk is justified. While I do agree there's been plenty of spin and blame-gaming, this 767 is a pretty serious issue.

[Paul Waters]

interview with Geoff Thomas this morning

If there is a so called aviation 'journalist' that is worse than what that man can spit out, then I'll eat my hat.

Geoff Thomas, from what I've read in his articles, is ill informed and lacking in research.

Geoff, I know you're probably reading this, so why don't you do yourself a favour. Be a journalist and do some research, instead of simply copying and pasting the media release given to you. Quit sideing with one party and sprouting rubbish (Qantas pilots apparently earning over $500k a year, need I say more).

Paul

[Philip Argy]

Can someone explain to me what part of the Fair Work Tribunal's order removed the sabotage risk that was implied to be the 'conservative approach' reason for the immediate grounding? Just asking ...

[Rowan McKeever]

Paul... I'm not going to disagree with you however he did say (in a roundabout kind of fashion) that Qantas management was not his source. Surely he can't get that wrong...???

[Owen H]

Jeremy,

Its not about wanting Mr. Thomas to find fault with one group or the other.

It is about a major problem with some segments of todays media, where they no longer actually use their journalistic trade.

Mr. Thomas has now, on a number of occasions, stood in front of the nations TV screens and told the public 'statistics' which are simply wrong, and do not reflect reality. Factual data is extremely easy to obtain on this topic. In fact, a large number of people have volunteered to provide that information to him.

As an "aviation expert", he should be striving to provide the public with unbiased factual information, and allowing them to form opinions. He can give his personal opinion, but it should be backed up with researched facts. He should not be simply reciting a press release and scuttlebutt as gospel.

[Rowan McKeever]

I agree, Owen. It's also been known for Mr Thomas to provide two different stats for the same thing, in the same interview. This is also the man who said, on national TV, that the cut wires presented no risk to safety because they were IFE-only, when we all know bad wiring on IFE systems has caused onboard fires in the past.

He is actually a smart man, but lately seems a little too 'trigger-happy' when talking to the media.

[Andrew P]

Owen

an example please, where Mr Thomas got it wrong

thanks