“Easy to just gloss over CX, prof?”
No, CX is a reasonably well-managed and profitable airline. Your nice little post there was rather informative. Thank you. But you misunderstood the intent behind my CX comment.
I was merely suggesting that it is absurd for Qantas pilots to benchmark its pilot labor costs against ONE single airline in the region when the VAST majority of competitors are at the other end of the scale.
“….failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?”
Their motive is MUCH MORE significant change than your union has offered in the past several decades. Your union talks the talk but the company knows it will not walk the walk. Do you really think that the disconnect between Qantas salary’s and those of competitor airlines occurred without belligerent strong-arming?
“Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"”
Not sure what this comment is aimed at? I have not suggested the employment of a “low cost CEO”.
“Any issues with the stack?”
Yes, Qantas is run reasonably poorly, like most legacy airlines.
Most posters on here simplify the argument into “we are good and management is bad” when reality is far more complex. Qantas is in trouble; make no mistake however the BRAND is never going away. Qantas is a small player in a tiny country with a geographical disadvantage saddled with legacy costs and unfriendly government policy. AND REASONABLY POOR MANAGEMENT, particularly in the past decade.
BUT the slickest management team within the industry would still find it challenging to navigate Qantas back into health. It will be a continuing uphill battle for Qantas in its present form to fight off the Chinese airlines (and airlines from the ME) that now fly new fleets of moderate service on impressive global networks with significantly lower costs and huge Government backing. It may not be fair but it is what it is.
And with this in mind, the management at Qantas do what most management do in similar situations, they trim labor costs. And in Qantas, there is plenty to trim.