The student of the corporation would be well placed to study Q. It is a classic example where operational disconnect and executive management with no operational experience are driving a company into the ground.
Executive management requires a thorough understanding of the operation. Who at executive level posesses that experience? If they do not posess it do they canvass it from the operational experts, be they cabin, pilots, engineering, ramp, check in etc.
In a highly labour oriented business these people are key ASSETS. They are not COST. Ask an experienced cabin crew how to organise the aircraft interior and schedule meals/service they will tell you. Ask engineers how to fix aircraft and what needs to be watched, they will tell you. Ask the performance engineers about the 3 important bits, range, payload and pax-they will tell you. Ask pilots about operating an aircraft, weather etc they will tell you! Ask check in staff about busy times, staff numbers etc they will tell you. More than likely you will reduce cost!
Qantas executive ask nothing! Not only do they not posess the knowledge, they do not seek it. Or if they seek it, they seek it from the yes men. If Dixon was worth $6m, he would not coccoon himself in P class he would talk. His individual illsuited personality and what it engenders and the illsuited people it promotes underscores the problem.
Business segmentation pits normally "objective" focused teams against each other. I cannot get the aircraft to LA if they loaders don't do their job, the engineers don't sign it out, the cabin crew aren't onboard and ready to serve the passengers, the check in staff haven't processed, the fuel isn't loaded etc...A very people intensive business.
Now engineering can duck shove a cost to commercial and the manager generates a $ for himself. The cost borne out in the annual reports meansures nothing of downline disruption, damaged perceptions or OVERALL LONG TERM COST. This does not interest Dixon, nor Gregg nor Jackson, Gosgrove, Cross et al. It is not a tangible cost to the accountant and deserves little attetion. If it can't be measured it isnt important. If they collectively understood the business, they would intuitively know how we are perceived is at the heart of the bottom line.
The end result is clever media, outsourced everything and slick marketing (which is Dixon) substance is little. Substance and tangibility are key in convincing people to fly your aircraft over water to whereever and arrive in one piece. The perception can be manipulated for a time, but for how long?
With an aging fleet, poor route structures, declining market shares, dispatch relaibilities falling, numerous product failures and poor aircraft choices, we see manifest evidence that the executive does not listen nor seek any differing opinion, they know best. The canaries are chirping in the mine, but the company isn't listening. Us canaries be us cabin, engineering or pilot crew will chirp here. The public is getting wind of just how much spin and little substance is Q executive. This latest near miss is a chirp from the mine...
Dixon can't twirl a spanner, Jackson couldn't open a door, Borghetti can't land off an ILS. It is much easier to dismiss their lack of knowledge by fostering a culture where operational people are malaigned and intimidated, particularly if we challenge the process of decisions.
Gordon Bethune could, both twirl spanners and fly 757/767. He encouraged feedback, he was honest and turned around a company that was left with the stain of its Dixon. I hope this occurs before some of the bean counter induced "cost redution" inposes a cost on real operational people that is too big for us all to sustain.