PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - The problem with QANTAS is...
View Single Post
Old 17th Jan 2005, 21:10
  #54 (permalink)  
Argus
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Today's editorial in 'The Australian' is right 'on point' IMHO.

QANTAS boss Geoff Dixon is a hanrahan on what will happen to his airline unless it keeps cutting costs to compete with international carriers. With Qantas paying its own way while the national flag carriers of other countries are subsidised and US airlines are using the shelter of bankruptcy protection to reduce overheads, it is easy to get the impression Mr Dixon fears his airline will be ruined before the year is out. He has a point. If Qantas does not get those of its costs it can control into line with its most efficient competitors it will be unable to compete. And improving overall productivity may mean fewer people working for the airline in Australia. Ninety-four per cent of his 34,000 staff are based here, a figure he wants to reduce, saying Qantas can no longer afford to be an "all Australian" business. Other successful international airlines source anything up to 30 per cent of products and services away from home base. In Qantas's case, to match world-best practice, this could take 7000 jobs out of Australia. Whatever the final number, any move to export jobs will likely generate significant savings. By increasing the number of long-haul flight attendants based in London by 500, to 870, Qantas already expects to save $18 million a year in accommodation and allowances.

While the numbers add up for Mr Dixon, unsurprisingly, the unions are not impressed. Yesterday, flight attendants spokesman Michael Mijatov played the populist, saying Qantas had a responsibility to the Australian community. Nonsense. Qantas is obliged to serve its shareholders and passengers. This requires a well-rewarded workforce, but where they live, or whether they are Mr Mijatov's members, are second-order issues. The last Australian airline that looked after its staff and ignored its bottom line was called Ansett, and today it does not employ anybody, anywhere.

But Qantas is not above playing the Australian card when it suits, selling itself as "the spirit of Australia". To turn Qantas into an efficient – but bland – international carrier, would erode the enormous equity it has built up in an Australian identity. This is hardly likely to happen and we are a long way short of the deracination of the flying kangaroo. However, the airline cannot have it both ways, on the one hand, aspiring to base staff overseas when it suits, while on the other expecting protection as a national icon. As it stands, there is no case for Qantas's present protected access to the lucrative Australia-US route. Mr Dixon's international argument inevitably invites more competition for Qantas from other airlines – whatever the accents of their air crews.
Argus is offline