PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - History Repeating
View Single Post
Old 10th Jun 2012, 01:54
  #7 (permalink)  
Al E. Vator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Accruing MilliSiverts
Posts: 562
Received 20 Likes on 8 Posts
There are some similarities IMHO but the overriding element is stupidity.

Stupid managers destroying airlines and politicians letting them.

Harsh??

Qantas management were handed a fully functioning airline, all assets paid for and structures in place. They didn't have to lift a finger to start from scratch like most entrepreneurs. It was floated and almost immediately they started bleating about the unfair competition they received from foreign-government owned airlines!

And what have they achieved? They have massively devalued the Qantas brand. They have shrunk the airline beyond belief. They have disenfranchised the staff irreparably. QF safety and reliability is now the subject of talk-show host jokes.

And are shareholders happy? Not bloody likely. How inept do you have to be to transform my $4.00 shares to sub-$1.00. What an absolute farce.

Qantas domestic is propping-up the whole operation (allegedly, though accounting wizardry does make me wonder whether this 'fact' is part of the much-discussed smokescreen for a bigger management plan to scare QF Intl staff and ease offshore/cheaper recruitment). So perhaps Domestic should just have been left as TAA/Australian.

Ansett under Abeles had way too many aircraft types and structural complexities to survive long-term and Murdoch simply asset-stripped. ANZ under Selwyn Cushing was the dumb-bunny that invested in a basket-case. It came close to death when Compass was airborne (which is why Abeles mate the PM shut Compass down) and when Virgin came along the whole thing just imploded. Sad but after Reg Ansett was ejected - inevitable. Really the only similarity between Ansett and Virgin is the latter occupies some of the formers' terminals.

The newbies Jetstar and Tiger are new entities. Perhaps the only smart move by Dixon as JQ is successful, but it is so opaquely backed by Qantas it's very difficult to know if this is the prime reason for its success (underwritten assets, maintenance etc). True start-ups don't have this game-changing assistance.

Tiger seems to be an attempt at a Trojan Horse by SQ to counter the Qantas assault on the Singapore market but it wasn't done very professionally was it. Hopefully they can make a real go of it now.

In each case though, the only constant is management stupidity and what gob smacks me is they keep getting away with it, with ever-larger bonuses to boot,

Just incredible.
Al E. Vator is offline