The problem with QANTAS is...

[Eimar Moron]

....a shortage of lames to achieve the day to day assignments, without resorting to have them do o/t - resulting in excessive down time of aircraft, very upset clients, and loss of customer confidence.

....a shortage of F/A's, (as reported by Crikey) - resulting in passengers being offloaded, and loss of customer confidence.

....a shortage of pilots to crew the JetStar Asia operation - resulting in cancellation of services, and massive under utilisation of expensive equipment, and loss of customer confidence.

....a drastic change to the QANTAS FF'er scheme - resulting in some very p!ssed of people, and a loss of customer confidence.

QANTAS is on a BIG downhill slide, imho.

Geoff, you've screwed your staff about as much as you can, to try to keep the shareholders happy.
But you've rooted a good airline for the the forseeable future, because by screwing your staff (Congrats on your new Fatherhood, by the way :O ) you've "managed" to screw the business. The people who pay the bills have had a gutsfull, and are deserting in droves - from a multiplicity of areas...not just passengers.

In my opinion, you've really dicked QF, Dicko!

Eimar Moron.

[Kaptin M]

When does the change to the F. F`er point system come into effect (is it May)?

[Uncommon Sense]

....greed,

....greed,

.... and more greed.

[ftrplt]

The changes to the FF scheme were always going to happen, the accumulating points debt was always goign to be unsustainable.

(this is a worldwide issue; given the state of the industry in the US however its a little harder to bite the bullet over there just yet)

[pizza]

Bring on SQ domestic for some real service and competition.

[Howard Hughes]

....a shortage of lames to achieve the day to day assignments, without resorting to have them do o/t - resulting in excessive down time of aircraft, very upset clients, and loss of customer confidence.

....a shortage of F/A's, (as reported by Crikey) - resulting in passengers being offloaded, and loss of customer confidence.

....a shortage of pilots to crew the JetStar Asia operation - resulting in cancellation of services, and massive under utilisation of expensive equipment, and loss of customer confidence.

....a drastic change to the QANTAS FF'er scheme - resulting in some very p!ssed of people, and a loss of customer confidence.

Add to this list:

....a shortage of customer service staff, who if they call in sick, are'nt being replaced. Leading to longer turnarounds, very pi$$ed off clients and loss of customer confidence.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Flying Tiger]

And no shortage of obstructive unions and indulged employees that have been on the gravy train for far too long!

Run of the mill flight attendants earning 85K. CSM's earning well in excess of 100K. Second officers earning 150K. Ridiculous!

Geoff Dixon, you are the best CEO in Australia. The aviation world is changing and you have the courage to make the hard decisions BEFORE the red ink starts flowing. As for your $6m pay packet, I consider it just reward to operate a 24/7/365 business that turns over in excess of $12 bn per year and employs almost 40000. Some sort of responsibility that.

As for the alleged "squillions" Qantas make, and the "greed" which drives it, has anybody considered that the margin on turnover is around 4.5%. Yes, QF are rolling in it. They make 4.5 cents for every dollar of revenue. Every $100 ticket makes it $4.5, and every $1000 ticket makes it $45. Wafer thin margins in the most capital intensive industry in the world. How do you fund multi billion dollar re-equipment purchases on those kind of earnings? With experienced, intelligent people who need to be offered significant packages, otherwise their skills will walk out the door and vest with an organisation prepared to pay what they're worth.

I far prefer the proactive QF management team, who are effective agents of change, to their counterparts in the US. In that country, employees require the threat of bankruptcy to realise they are clinging to a world of pay and conditions and work practices that became unsustainable long ago.

Let my now assume the brace position for the usual spray of invective and vitriol...

[Uncommon Sense]

No vitriol required.

The commerical success of current decisions will determine the existence or otherwise of QF in the future, not your defence of the current executive.

The customers will decide - not an apologist for the mismanagement.

[Pinky the pilot]

Hmmm... interesting subject. Two completely different viewpoints put forward in a rational manner.
Any chance at all that this issue will be debated reasonably and without the invective and vitriol anticipated by Flying Tiger?
I sincerely hope so!!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Continental-520]

Well, I'm not that familiar with the economics of it all, but I have to say, I travelled on QF today and was impressed, despite the zero personal space that they allow per seat, which is the case on most airlines in economy anyway. Dunno how much money they made on the $249 that I paid, but they seem to be doing ok. For now.

Departure and arrival on time, food actually worth sniffing at, friendly crew and generally a good impression, unlike NJS and a few others.


Why are NJS crews always so obviously grumpy?


520.

[Captain Can't]

Why are NJS crews always so obviously grumpy?
I've (in my limited experience) always found NJS to be quite pleasant in the cabin... but, as in most areas, you inevitably get the grumpy ones... who become amicable at best after polite smiles etc...
oh well.... :cool:

[Chronic Snoozer]

Flying Tiger presents an interesting view point. I disagree with his/her representation of what various trades earn. I have always thought that if you can earn a lot for minimum effort - hats off. Market forces take care of the rest. One shouldn't be denigrated for having the temerity to do a job which requires apparently little effort but pays well. Not affecting the bottom line is it?

[rescue 1]

Agree Flying Tiger.

But as QF is a Full Service airline, when will QF differentiate themselves and start to increase the yield instead of competing with itself (Jetstar) and VB for revenue. That way the excellent conditions enjoyed by the current staff can still be excellent.

After-all David Jones doesn't sell itself as Kmart...

[Ultralights]

Geoff Dixon, you are the best CEO in Australia. The aviation world is changing and you have the courage to make the hard decisions BEFORE the red ink starts flowing. As for your $6m pay packet, I consider it just reward to operate a 24/7/365 business that turns over in excess of $12 bn per year and employs almost 40000. Some sort of responsibility that.

there are lot of just as good CEO's running Bigger companies, with twice or more staff than QF, and they earn far less than Dicko!

from an ex insiders point of view, QF seam to be sacrificing the medium term future for short term gain! i was offered(forced) a redundancy, and now on a regular basis, they are ringing me back asking if i would like to return!

there is no way im taking a $30K pay CUT to go back to that nuthouse on shift work.


sure, QF are doing well, but we all know what happens to a company in the longer term with a vast majority of very unhappy employees!

[Mr Qantas]

I far prefer the proactive QF management team, who are effective agents of change, to their counterparts in the US. In that country, employees require the threat of bankruptcy to realise they are clinging to a world of pay and conditions and work practices that became unsustainable long ago.


Here, here.

[Uncommon Sense]

I think the correct way of saying it is:

"Hear, Hear".

On what you are praising however, I think it is

"Jeer, Jeer"

[amos2]

Well, isn't that an interesting first post from Moron?

And doesn't he have an interesting name?

[The Voice]

food actually worth sniffing at after just recently clocking up quite a few miles on quite a few flights, I was mightily unimpressed with the catering. That is, until my last flight which was an Intl flt as a domestic pax .. and that was quite a different matter all together. Palatable and enticing, a far cry from the previous offerings.

But I guess if that was all I had to grumble about, QF did OK.

[Sunfish]

Sorry Tiger, 4.5% is a pretty healthy margin.

[blueloo]

Whinging about it on hear wont fix it. All it will do is create a new bashing thread, with pro and anti airline supporters.

Why not find out an important persons mail address in QF and send them your whinges, in a polite well thought out letter. Of course I doubt it will change anything either, but surely it has a better chance than on here.

[DEFCON4]

QF Addresses
[email protected]
[email protected]
Let them rip Boris

[Eimar Moron]

You're not exactly the sharpest tack in the box, are you Amos, with your "observation" - subtlety not your strongest point.

Why waste time emailing, vote with your feet.
I have!

Another dis-satisfied QANTAS ex-customer.

By the way, Flying Tiger, do you think it right that one employee, Dixon, should scoop 11/2% of the NETT PROFIT of QF.
QF might well be a 365/24-7 operation, but has anyone noticed he hasn't been around AT ALL for the past fortnight.

His tactics to raise returns have entailed mainly lowering employees' salaries and increasing their workload.
That having now reached its limits heralds a slide downhill for QF and shareholders' returns, imo.

Eimar Moron

[Flying Tiger]

Elmar

The answer is yes. I do think CEO's of large companies are entitled to generous packages. And no, I don't think salaries in the millions of dollars are excessive. Even more galling to you would be my belief that Dixon probably has a family, and is just as entitled to a holiday as everyone else.

The constant Dixon bashing on this forum, crikey and within the ranks of Qantas employees is classic tall poppy syndrome. I would be interested to know what YOU think a CEO is worth. Give me a figure. And more to the point, give me a rationale on how you arrive at this figure.

At the moment the market dictates management salaries. To get the people you want, you pay a certain price. Sometimes that price is high, but if you don't pay it, they walk. Its a perfectly rational way of determining salaries.

Compare this with other employees. What determines our salaries? The market? No! Try history, union obstructionism and the constant threat of industrial action if we don't get our own way.

I may offend people because I don't look at the industry from a pilot's perspective...I prefer to take a commercial view. To my mind, creating efficiencies involves pain of a short term nature only. You may have to pay for your endorsement now, but the equation is very simple. Efficient industries equals a more price competitive product. A more price competitive product equals more opportunity for growth. More opportunity for growth equals more jobs, albeit initially at a lesser rate. More jobs equals more opportunity for promotion, which in turn equals a skills shortage in the labour market. A skills shortage in the labour market in the long term equals sustainable increases in wages and conditions for those professions where the shortage exists.

From a pilots point of view all of the above can be translated in one simple phrase...greater efficiencies equals greater growth equals more aeroplanes equals faster promotions equals better career opportunities and better career opportunities lead to retention problems and therefore better pay and conditions.

I have been telling people this for as long as I can remember. All the doom and gloom re pilots conditions was only a short term thing. Sure there is some short term pain, but the efficiencies and success of new generation airlines will be their downfall when it comes to keeping a lid pilots salaries. Look at Singapore - the LCC's and SilkAir etc are desperate for pilots and have significantly increased salaries. Look at Jetconnect - desperate for pilots, losing guys left right at centre, a significant pay increase, and still a shortage of crews. And wait until Jetstar pilots start accumulating significant A320 experience - it will be carnage and I can foresee uncrewed aircraft parked against a fence. Even now, I know two low time guys who haven't flown in 3 YEARS who have just picked up FO jobs overseas. These are long term, sustainable improvements in the labour market that are driven purely by supply and demand.

Sadly for flight attendants, the above will operate in reverse. Why? Because its a job requiring little in the way of qualification, and there will NEVER be a shortage of capable people. On the contrary, there will ALWAYS be an oversupply of candidates willing and able to do the job. All they can do is rely on their OBSTRUCTIVE union to protect what will prove to be the unprotectable. Virgin appear to have happily satisfied the regulator with their mix of hairdressers, beautitions and receptionists, so do you think 85K plus is justified for Qantas' pampered mix of licorice all sorts? Unlikely.

Look at the FAAA's attitude towards Australian Airlines. The company wants to grow and operate longer routes, and the FAAA claim amongst other things a 17% pay rise and preferential bidding. Essentially they try and turn it into Qantas. Well d'oh, the closer it becomes to Qantas, the less reason for anyone except Qantas to do the flying. But of course Qantas can't fly the routes, because they become uneconomic, and the flying is lost, together with the jobs. Congratulations FAAA, you've increased the pay and conditions, but you've killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Australian Airlines? RIP.

As a labour voter and a passionate critic of our esteemed Prime Minister, the above views may appear a little inconsistent. However, I try to look at every situation on its merits and react to what I observe. And what I observe from the Qantas cabin crew and the FAAA when viewed on a reward for effort basis is blatantly wrong. I never thought I'd say this, but I hope little Johnny Howard gives Dixon a hand in his quest to rip the FAAA apart.

FT.

[Uncommon Sense]

Now I get it.

Didn't get a job as a flight attendant.

Too compassionate perhaps?

[Chief Chook]

With almost half of your last post dedicated to F/A and FAAA bashing, you certainly have a big chip on those shoulders, don`t you Flying Tigger.Dixon probably has a family Well you`re not wrong there, pussycat - perhaps the Queen Bee in the QF beehive, has even more than one ;)

[Icarus2001]

A persons salary is a function of how difficult it would be to replace them. It is usually that simple. Therein lies the problem of GA in Australia. The glut of pilots however, seems to have shrunk to a more realistic number and so demand will definately stimulate better T & C.

Flying Tiger I agree with some of your post about short term effects on the labour market. I disagree about huge CEO salaries though, especially when the company goes backwards and the CEO still makes millions. There is something wrong with the mechanism when that happens!

You may be a laboured voter but I think that you probably mean Labor.

[Frank Burden]

I also disagree on such high CEO salaries. You see many of the managers these days making short term decisions as they have a short term tenure in an organisation. One of my senior managers once said when asked what the vision for the organisation was replied a renewal of their two year contract in six months time. So you can really appreciate the value of long-term decision making and the protection of the brand with this attitude. Short term profit often leads to long term suffering.

I remember a certain person now running a very large airport somewhere in NSW running the bus network in Canberra. Politicians thought he was perfect as he reduced operating costs (personnel, overhead, maintenance, etc). A year or two after he left the system was in chaos with broken buses, poor quality staff and zero morale. It took years and considerable capital to fix the problem. Pleased I didn't have to rely on the system when I lived there.

[INCOGNIT0]

So are you leading by example FT and taking that pay cut to decrease Q's overheads and cut it's costs?...I think not, 'pay the elitist creed what we think is deserving or we will walk OS' seems to be the gist of your piffle.
What about answering the first point as well and throwing in your support of the LAME's cause instead of just contriving narrow minded conjecture.Q and the overpaid Dixon are losing touch with not only it's customers but also it's workforce,especially it's LAME's who are the true bread and butter earners for this seemingly apparent feudalistic based airline.Q is still riding the wave of Ansett's collapse and if Q is the futuritial thinking and acting airline basing it's decisions on what the customer demands as you imply then the likes of VB would have never got off the ground or at least not have grown so fast.If it wasn't for the hard work,long hours away from loved ones and on the whole dedicated highly skilled professionals presenting a safe, appeasing product to YOU and the public you would be just another black stain in a large hole somewhere on this earth.

[oicur12]

Flying Tiger,

"Compare this with other employees. What determines our salaries? The market? No! Try history, union obstructionism and the constant threat of industrial action if we don't get our own way."

And when history is forgotten and union obstructionism is circumvented and the threat of industrial action is therefore diminished, as is happening in the airline industry in Australia, what determines our "salaries" then. Perhaps market forces will play a more prominent role?

Icarus,

"I disagree about huge CEO salaries though, especially when the company goes backwards and the CEO still makes millions"

Flying Tiger made reference to GD of Qantas. He is CEO of what recently was (and may still be - numbers pending) the most profitable airline in the world (not my words).
You are jumping at shadows - no one here has put forth an argument that CEO's deserve "huge" salaries when the company they are managing goes "backwards".

One only wonders where Ansett would now be had the board upped the compensation package for CEO and employed someone with market savvy like Jeffrey Bezos or industrial balls like Geff Immelt or Dave Cody.

Incognito

"Q is still riding the wave of Ansett's collapse...."

Perhaps they are. Maybe GD is smarter than you think.

[Sunfish]

Tiger, I agree with you on some points but not on others.

CEO salaries are high for good reason, its a 24/7 job and you must make decisions for the benefit of the shareholders as a whole, which may involve even selling the company and eliminating your own position. Furthermore, one mistake, or a change of management fashion fads, and you are out on your @rse. It is not easy.

To put it in personal terms, "I'll be f*&^%ed if I'm going to work my @rse off and carry the responsibility to make tens or hundreds of millions for shareholders without a percentage of it coming to me. I want equity if you expect me to hire people smarter then myself and really increase shareholder value".

I also agree that Qantas needs to change and that change is painful for them for good reason. - Qantas has had an effective monopoly for a long time and prising it from their fingers is going to hurt. Australia will be a lot better off without Qantas and their monopoly.

Where I do not agree with you is that Dixon bashing is tall poppy syndrome. This guy is a classic narcissistic personality disorder manager. The letter about Hamilton Island and the Jetstar Asia move are dead giveaways. Dixon is not interested in building a great airline - he is interested in building great self esteem for Dixon, nothing else. In pursuit of continually bolstering this self esteem he will literally do anything and leave a train wreck behind. I've watched it before.

However a train wreck Qantas might be just whats needed to open Australian skies.:ok:

[Flying Tiger]

Plenty of reaction to my post, but I note that there continues to be an absence of an answer to one question...does anyone have a suggestion as to what Dixon should be earning, and the rationale for the calculation?

Its all very well to criticise, but you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I believe in hard work and rewards based on your skills and productivity, and my opinion is that QF cabin crew provide little in either department, and continually do whatever they can to rort the system (roster adjustments etc). And don't start me on the quality of the service.

I am a pilot and I say unashamedly that any inefficiencies affect profit, price competitiveness and therefore growth. As such, they bear a direct negative impact on the ability of the airline to put new aircraft on the ramp, which in turn affects promotional prospects.

In this context, I will always have little regard for any employee group that chooses to be inefficient and unproductive, and this applies to pilots just as much as anyone else. However, as far as I can see, in legacy airlines no group is more culpable than the flight attendants.

Icaraus, I apologise to you for my typo. It was not long ago that many ppruners were strong in their criticism of Qantas decision to make HSC English a minimum requirement. However, it seems there is less compassion towards grammatical imperfections on the pprune. The common thread seems to be you don't need great English to fly a jet, but the boys and girls will hammer you if you slip up on pprune!

Consistency? Nothing like a good set of double standards!

FT.

[Sunfish]

There are consultancies like Hay/MSL who advise Boards on salaries, up to and including CEO's and Directors. There is also a quarterly salary and benefits survey that gets trotted around - you get a copy if you participate in the survey.

I would think that Dixon's package would have some relationship to this type of benchmark - it would be in the minutes of the remuneration committee meetings.

The actual terms of his contract would depend on how good a law firm he uses to negotiate it. The trend in the U.S. is to have an employment contract and a back to back severance contract as well. The severance contract usually has a number of "triggers", like takeover/change of control, termination as an employee, mutual agreement etc. etc. It also would have vesting rights clauses regarding options and all that jazz.

The trouble with changing an organisation's culture is that everyone is for change when it involves someone else, and against it when it involves themselves. You either do change quick and dirty, like a variety of U.S. airlines in bankruptcy, or you do it slow and cleanly with consultation, voluntary redundancy programs yadda yadda. Quick and clean is an impossibility and slow and dirty is awfully suboptimal. Guess which method Dixon is using?

[jettlager]

flying tigger,

just love your bull**** sweeping statements.

"and continually do whatever they can to rort the system (roster adjustments etc). "

Tell us all will you, just what are the rorts to which we continually resort?

[argusmoon]

Flying Tiger
Pilots in general appear to be concerned with other peoples renumeration more than anybody else ...why I will never know.
From my perspective pilots like you are merely grossly overpaid monitors...the aircraft essentially flies itself.Studies are being conducted on the feasability of pilotless aircraft.Perhaps once you are redundant you may like a position as a flight attendant.Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize what I do

[Argus]

Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize what I do

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. And, with great respect, if you are a QF flight attendant, you don't do it very well.

I will not fly with QANTAS, especially on long haul routes.

It's not because of the flight deck crew or engineering staff. It's because the standard of QF cabin service is generally way below what the competition offers.

I work for myself. I stand or fall on the quality of service I provide for my clients, most of whom are satisfied with what I do. I go out of my way to ensure client satisfaction. No clients, no income.

When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe and North America, I expect to receive in flight service that represents value for my hard earned money. Unfortunately, when compared to the likes of Cathy, Lauda (Austrian), JAL, Air Canada, Malaysia, Singapore and even BA, QANTAS doesn't get to first base.

I don't expect forelock tugging servitude from cabin staff. But I do expect basic manners, a customer focussed approach to reasonable requests and flight attendant availability throughout the flight/sector. In my experience, QANTAS fails on all three counts. Rather than getting on with the job and maintaining the revenue flow, QANTAS cabin crew are more interested in preserving the Public Service attitude of "rights", "entitlements" and "hard won" employment conditions.

Complaints to QANTAS Head Office either go unanswered or are responded to in ambiguous language that rarely answers the questions put by the complainant. So punters like me vote with their feet.

Take a moment to look at the Skytrax 2004 Worlds Best Cabin Staff Survey (http://www.airlinequality.com/2004/Staff_04.htm) Globally, for the second year running, QANTAS fails to make the top ten. Regionally, QF ranks five out of five. The supporting information says that the survey attracted more than two million (2,117,846) eligible nominations from 93 different nationalities over a 10 month period, there were detailed back-up interviews of a representative sample of respondents and, finally, data weighting was applied to provide nomination equity when evaluating airlines of different size and network. Unless that’s a load of porkpies, it’s a well run survey, with reliable results.

Sorry girls and boys, time to get real - if you are 'fair dinkum' about your jobs you need to meet the competition.

[Uncommon Sense]

Flying Tiger,

By your rationale, your position as a QF Pilot should therefore be opened up to the market.

You should abandon your union protectionism and let NZ, ME and Asian based companies bid for providing tech crew to QF. More companies like JetConnect, Impulse, National Jet etc.

If there are or in the future will be (as market conditions dictate) a pool of capable people who are willing to let the market dictate a cut price service to provide safe piloting (or systems monitoring as someone else said) to QF, then you should gladly let them roll in and do so. (Perhaps they might even do it with a smile as opposed to grumpy pilots like you - much better for the customer no?)

If the QF CEO then gives himself and his cronies a nice bigger fatter bonus for doing so, you will stand on the sidelines and applaud the market forces at work?

[Howard Hughes]

Biccy Chucker,

Could it be that asian airlines are able to have almost twice the number of cabin staff, because they are working for half the price?

Perhaps managements continual drive to reduce wages and put jobs offshore, is so that they can employ more staff and provide a premium service?

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: I dont really think so, but just putting forward a hypothesis.

[Howard Hughes]

I don't ever see QF giving back a crew member though, they'll pocket the extra cash and that'll be the end of it.

How true and very sad of our "national carrier".

Now before you all start, I do realise that they are a private company, but they are still considered around the world as our flag carrier.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Uncommon Sense]

You think QANTAS want to reduce salaries and conditions of cabin crew so they can:

a.) increase the number of cabin crew on flights , or

b.) increase the bonuses in the executive pockets?

Get Real.

They will even tell you they are doing it for their shrareholders.

Well maybe one or two eh Geoff?

What will the shares be worth when real competition arrives and nobody will fly with them anymore?

[ferris]

I think Flying Tiger is giving some good, sound, economic advice. Although I'm unsure about...I am a pilot and I say unashamedly that any inefficiencies affect profit, price competitiveness and therefore growth. As such, they bear a direct negative impact on the ability of the airline to put new aircraft on the ramp, which in turn affects promotional prospects Why would promotional prospects feature on anyone's radar? After the FAs are all replaced by Thais, the pilots replaced with remote systems operated by call-centre type ops from India, or Thais, and of course that grossly inefficient management team replaced with far more sustainable , cost effective , people (like, say, a Thai MBA or two- you could get 400 just for Dixons pay alone!).
Why you all keep mentioning people , or their aspirations, is just beyond me. Labour is just a cost......




As are consulting firms who try and run interference on industrial issues by posting on PPRUNE etc.

The Spirit of Australia:zzz:

[Chilli Muscle]

Any truth to the rumour that Dixon has reduced the hourly rate in his pub and is out there pulling beers as the bar tenders are on strike?.:E

[Eimar Moron]

Flying Tiger, you ask "does anyone have a suggestion as to what Dixon should be earning".
May I ask you why you believe Dixon is justified in drawing a salary that is 100 TIMES, yes 100 TIMES, that of the average QANTAS employee, whilst attempting to further degrade those employees' T & C's, or to replace them altogether with cheaper overseas labour.
Now "replace" is a far kinder word than the harsh reality of this ruthless CEO's intents.
If we believe the Flying Tigers, it is quite acceptable to them, as Australians, to have other Australians (they never think of themselves as being among the affected ones) thrown on to the unemployment scrap heap, leaving them and their families dependant upon Social Welfare.
All to allow Geoff to continue to drain a totally unrealistic, multi-million dollar income.
you have the courage to make the hard decisions BEFORE the red ink starts flowing. The "hard decisions" you cite, Flying Tiger, have been hard on on the rank and file staff.
They have not affected - to anywhere near the same degree - the bloated middle and upper level management.
Biscuit Chucker's post demonstrates how Dixon's knife wielding of staff levels of F/A's is adversely affecting the ability of the reduced staff numbers, to achieve their work to their own level of satisfaction, and that this is (adversely) affecting their morale.

The non acceptance of overtime by QF lames, is another manifestation of acute understaffing created by Dixon.

The so-called "hard decisions" (to slash away at employee numbers), are not the sort that require any great management expertise.
Using the same basal technique, the next step would be to replace existing staff with a slightly increased number of lower paid coolies - raising the profit margins for another year, to maintain that healthy CEO bonus - followed by a decrease in coolie numbers in the ensuing years.

There is a great deal of dis-satisfaction with QANTAS from within and outside the organisation, and I believe this dis-satisfaction can only increase further under this style of selfish management.
The type of management that exists only for the sake of feathering its own nest, possibly because the remuneration is TOO high, such that the drive to achieve PERSONAL gain outweighs sensible management decisions made for the longer term benefit and survival of the COMPANY.

The fight for QANTAS' survival in the coming years are not going to be caused by staff inefficiences, but from the bad management decisions being made NOW.
Decisions based on bonuses rather than future company health.
Eimar Moron.

[HIRRY BALSAK]

The question has to be asked about all this profit by degredation of staff numbers.GD has to continue making profits to please the shareholders.He has done this by reducing employment wage bills.Numbers may be up pax wise, but what about yield?.
Employees wages bill is an easy target for savings.Now he has reduced staff numbers to cater for this and we are on minimum numbers eg LAMES having to work OT to keep the airline running .Just one example .What can he do next year?

[blueloo]

The problem with Qantas is that......


It only ever goes as far as the regular posters on PPRUNE, who debate the topic, put forward both good and bad ideas, it goes full circle, a few arguments ensue, and ultimately nothing changes........



:sad:

[Eimar Moron]

Geoff Dixon's warnings of potential calamity in the face of record profits......could this be an admission that he has cut back the number of staff to an unreallistically low level?

The man is full of self contradictions,
"We can't sit here and be all-Australian," Mr Dixon said...more Qantas jobs and services will have to head offshore if the airline is going to compete...Mr Dixon's determination to improve competitiveness would result in more than 7000 jobs moving overseas.
"It doesn't mean we'll be any less Australian and it certainly doesn't mean mass redundancies or anything like that."

Having already slashed Australian staff numbers, and indicated that there are many thousands more to go, the axe is now being wielded into the main QANTAS Company tree, lopping off limbs and branches, to allow him to get "just ONE more Performance Bonus", before the main trunk comes crashing down.The segmentation program essentially splits Qantas Group into five airlines – Qantas international, Qantas domestic, Australian Airlines, Jetstar and QantasLink – as well as related businesses such as Qantas Catering and Qantas Holidays.

Eimar Moron

[Sunfish]

OK Unions, go for the jugular. If Qantas is not primarily operated and staffed by Australians, reduce its monopoly position proportionately.

In other words unionists, stop whining about Dixons salary. It does nt do you any good. The smart thing is to say OK Qantas, you are now staffed 30% by non australians overseas, we will reduce your share of availablr slots/ capacity on the Australia london and Australia Us routes by 30% and give it to new players.

To put it another way, there is no F%$#@ng excuse for Qantas to have the lions share of Australian aviation capability if it is not an Australian airline.

[Kaptin M]

there is no F%$#@ng excuse for Qantas to have the lions share of Australian aviation capability if it is not an Australian airline (*employing Australians).
*my addition, but I'm sure that's what F%$#@ng Sunfish ;) was intimating.

If Dixon....actually I don't think it's an "IF", he indicates it's a "WHEN".....is going to export so many QANTAS jobs overseas, then bring on the competition.
I have paid EXTRA $$$'s for the sole reason of flying QANTAS, to support an Australian product.
When the CEO of the same company publically states that HE is going to gut the company of everything Australian, except the name, then I believe it's time to level the playing field completely.

If QANTAS, under Dixon, is to become an airline staffed by non-Australians, is there any reason for Australians to support it?

[bushy]

We will have to. The minister for Qantas will make sure we have little option but to fly Qantas or one of it's subsidiaries or contractors.

[Uncommon Sense]

QANTAS - The Spirit of ?

Australia - No

New Zealand?

Thailand?

India?

UK?

....uh....

The Spirit of Corporate Greed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1545000/images/_1547664_qanta-dixon-ceo-afp-150.jpg

http://****sutonka.port5.com/watchtn.jpg4tw (http://fourthtermwatch.********.com)

[Sunfish]

Direct hit!!!!!:ok:

Bushy, the Minister for Qantas knows that unless he plays ball, the Packer Press will drop a bucket of Sh1t on him and his party at the next election.

[Angle of Attack]

Quote

"From my perspective pilots like you are merely grossly overpaid monitors...the aircraft essentially flies itself.Studies are being conducted on the feasability of pilotless aircraft.Perhaps once you are redundant you may like a position as a flight attendant.Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize what I do."

The most typical attitude by most hosties. All I can say is most hosties are like a deer with no eyes. No idea ... No idea what most pilots go through to get into airlines. They've climbed a lot more ladders, crossed a lot more barriers than all hosties have. And before you criticize me, you know any hosties having grossed less than 5K a year for 10 years while they struggle and aim to get a hosty job in Qantas? No. It just doesnt happen. Im quite willing to walk a mile in your shoes hosties, but they are not moccasins, they are used dunlop volleys. As replaceable as a pea in a golden circle pea cannery.

Hmm as for the pilotless aircraft, bring it on!! I havent mortgaged myself up to the hilt like most hosties so I dont care! I have a skilled profession and a job so it will be a tea party moving on compared to you guys. (By the way the studies you refer are a pilotless hostiless aircraft)

Now Ive hopped off my pedestal, it may sound like Im a hostie hating nazi or something but Im not. There maybe be lots of people bagging hosties on this forum but.. i have never witnessed a pilot bag a flight attendant in front of him/her in real life, but i can tell you I have had a gutful from heaps of hosties for no apparent reason, only because I am a techie!? Im always pleasant and polite, always! And I'd say 50% of QF flight attendants are great fun people. but its not a small minority souring the bucket its around half of them Id say..

[Frank Burden]

Being a bit unfair hitching myself to your bandwagon AoA, but you can be happy that you are twenty years younger and twenty kilos lighter than most moccasins wearing Q tendos.

On reflection, my reflection is older and wider than it once was when I wore a younger person's clothes.

[Kaptin M]

Got to confess that I must agree with Eimar's observation, it seems that GOD is making "Decisions based on (his) bonuses rather than future company health."

THAT, imo, is the problem with QANTAS today!!

[Argus]

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.

[Uncommon Sense]

All that says is Rupert is onboard in the media war.

What a surprise.

[ferris]

Michael Mijatov played the populist, saying Qantas had a responsibility to the Australian community. Nonsense
Mr Dixon's international argument inevitably invites more competition for Qantas from other airlines – whatever the accents of their air crews. If I was a pilot (or anyone else) working for Qantas, Id be supporting the F/As.

[amos2]

OK! Frank, I think that was a good post...I think!

Now, could you just spell that out in simple English so we might all know what you're on about?...

or, perhaps, even know what you're on?!

:confused:

[Frank Burden]

No prizes for second baby!!! I detect a certain sensitivity. Are you a Qtendo or just one of the also rans???

[Argus]

I don't normally fly QF due to poor in flight service, but was forced to do so last week due flight timings.

Credit where credit's due. Flight deck commentary was excellent during a tricky approach into Melbourne due to lots of Cb, and afterwards during delay at the gate due to a thunderstorm.

And, dare I say, the cabin service SY-ML-HB was excellent, even if the food was, er, indifferent.

I dips me lid!

[schlong hauler]

There seems to be a lot of self proclaimed experts / protaganists posting crap about QF and Virgin on pprune. Just how many have first hand knowledge as employees of either company would be very interesting. Good to see ARGUS has given his/her reluctant endorsement of QF operational standards. Perhaps someone could explain in what capacity ARGUS and others base their opinions on?

[Kaptin M]

"Market Standards", schlong hauler, ;)"Market Standards" ;)
It probably belongs in the same basket as "Market Forces" - that quantifiable term used by airline managers to lower everyone else's conditions.......................except their own! ;)

[Argus]

schlong hauler
Perhaps someone could explain in what capacity ARGUS and others base their opinions on?

Certainly. I'm a frequent flier (pointy end mug punter) to both Europe and North America; and domestically to and from most major cities. And check my profile - which is considerably more expansive than yours!

[schlong hauler]

I am just a Captain with QF mailnline. And no I was not invovled in the unspeakable but already employed with QF.

[Eimar Moron]

Aussies sometimes like to whinge,
Sometimes they like to whine,
But with Dixon running QANTAS,
We can do it ALL the time.

In "honour" of Geoff's "achievements", the official logo of QANTAS will be changed from the Roo to the Wombat - that uniquely Australian marsupial renown for its ability to burrow deeply, and the other hallmark well known to Australians - it eats roots and leaves.
http://condor.depaul.edu/~gandrus/jpg/pics/wombat.jpg

Eimar Moron

[QFinsider]

Nice pic EM,
And oh so true

The thing with GD is he is but the public face, and by the way I'm not defending him he isn't on my christmas card list.

Don't forget the Dame and son of, another two intellectual featherweights. It is these idiots and the other cronies who sit around tables collecting director fees that drive this puppy, of which GD is one...:E


So Dame M how much did ya make from Southcorp's stunning performance under your stellar leadership?:mad:

[king oath]

Eimar,

Eats Roots and leaves is the truth.

Eats up heaps of the profits.

Roots... Ask any staff member.

Leaves. Thats in about 2 years from now.

[Frank Burden]

I thought it was eats roots shoots and leaves. The would make:
[figuratively] shoots those that disagree or are a cost factor.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Problem with QANTAS:

They still charge premium rates but have cut the service. e.g.

Two months ago I flew QANTAS Full economy Syd - Adl.
Took off at like 5 or 6 pm, landed like 7:30 Adl time.

Got to place where I was staying at 8:30. What did I get to eat for my full economy seat :

3 little biscuits.

Cheap :mad:s