View Full Version : Qantas...A lack of Buzz

8th Aug 2005, 10:44
Recently took a trip to LHR and back.Staff travel for a retiree is not worth contemplating.
We flew Emirates to the UK and flew Virgin Atlantic to Sydney via HKG.
Now I know what all the fuss is about:These guys are good.I couldn`t put my finger on it but on another thread someone used the word "buzz".
Emirates and Virgin have a ton of it.
Qantas has none.
From the time we checked in in Sydney and arrived back home I saw nothing but happy obliging smiling faces.
Happiness is sadly lacking at QF
Dixon talks doom and gloom.This drives the stock price down.He is at war with his employees.He conducts random "security" searches.He hammers travel agents.He treats frequent flyers with contempt.The company is run on "incentive bonuses"There is no innovation.Fear and intimidation are "de Rigeur"
This is a tired deary airline bereft of ideas..a follower not a leader.The fleet is old and in dire need of a refurb/update.No one is proud of the product..black and grey are the uniform colours:BORING.
This is yesterday`s airline
Emirates and Virgin are vibrant,colourful innovative and the staff know it and relish it .The trip was fun.We had a ball.
These guys have the "Buzz"The buzz of success.
The only Buzz at QF are the BUZZards circling.
There is a LHR base ,an AKL base,a BKK base.The airline has no identity.
The mainline is being cannabalized.There is Jetstar,Australian,Jetstar Asia all competing and pulling in opposite directions.
QF staff are at loggerheads...fights are prevalent
I have mates who stay for the perverse pleasure of seeing Dixon and his cronies fail,leave or both.
This is multi billion dollar company that is imploding because of the idiocy of its dysfunctional CEO.
Good Heavens is anyone watching?
Does anyone care?!!!
Apparently not...how absolutely bloody sad!!!!

sling load
8th Aug 2005, 11:07
Captain Q,
Well said. I was on a recent domestic QF flight when they served up these bloody awful rolls, on the way back a few days later, when asked by a FA if i would like a roll, i politely said no thanks
Shes says" I see youve eaten here before"
Man, if thats what the staff think, i think your spot on Capt Q!!!

8th Aug 2005, 11:48
Captain Q
You have hit it on the head, I agree with everything you said.
And its going to get worse, but youre right about one thing, we will see the end of Di)(on and his cronies.
What a party we are going to have.

8th Aug 2005, 14:15
And sadly, does anyone really expect the replacements to be any better given all the wonderful training I can only assume they have received.


8th Aug 2005, 19:08
Capt Q

I stongly suggest you go to the Middle East site and check out Emirates. She aint the outfit you think it is. Quite an effort to go from No 1 in the world to No 17 in 2.5 years.

8th Aug 2005, 21:06
Sadly Capt Q you're right. In a recent BRW magazine Dixon is supposed to be finishing later this year with Peter Greg his likely replacement. Greg is just another Dixon, totally focused on dollars to the detriment of everything else. John Borghetti may be a bit better, but Qantas really needs to go outside and recruit a CEO with vision, someone who can rebuild the company, get the staff back on side.

Ronnie Honker
8th Aug 2005, 21:32
someone who can rebuild the company
Yes, Dixon has done a SUPERB job of dismantling, and in the process destroying, QANTAS.
Certainly there was some deadwood that needed removing, but this self-serving CEO has cut away just about everything except the main trunk.
I'm certain that if they upped his bonus, he'd chop that down, and rip the roots out as well!

8th Aug 2005, 21:56
I am sure if GOD had his way He would be QANTAS and everything would be contracted out….
His management of disengaging staff and cutting cost above all else will bring the share price down and then he will leave, after taking his bonuses.
If bonuses were paid after some years so the board could see the REAL effect of management decisions, would GOD get it…

8th Aug 2005, 21:57
Qantas has been dismembered to the point where it is hardly recognisable from what it was in its glory days.Dixon has put a "buzz"saw through the place.Brand recognition is supposed to be the holy grail of marketing,something buzzsaw Dixon seems to have forgotten.The market recognises this and has the shareprice languishing at $3.20.
Is Dixon secretly working for Virgin Atlantic and destroying the `roo from within?

king oath
8th Aug 2005, 23:26
Capt Q.

Most QF staff agree. Like you my family travelled to LHR with Emirates.

One aspect that shouldn't be underestimated is the management incentive bonus. Human greed becomes the motivater. They cut back on staff and product to boost their bonus at the expense of the customer.

You won't see an on time deparure out of many ports at the weekend due to "staff shortages". i,e, the manager is cutting back on staff on penalty rates to boost his/her bonus. Perth and Darwin spring to mind as an example. You arrive at Melbbourne or Sydney on a weekend and there's a delay getting an aerobridge over and the front door opened. Staff shortages again.

Bonus should be for performance that enhances the Airline and makes customers happy, rather than cutting costs regardless, so managers can have their snout in the trough.

8th Aug 2005, 23:27
Just for some balance.....

"Air Transport World", the No.1 U.S. trade magazine recognised Qantas as " The best managed airline in the world ".

"Airline Business" arguably the best U.K. trade magazine , in it's August 2005 edition , presented it's Executive Leadership award to Geoff Dixon.

Disguise Delimit
8th Aug 2005, 23:36
Well, I had a great time on Qantas!!

Recently flew SY-LA-ATL-Miami and return, with Qantas for the Pacific legs and Delta for the US domestics.

Qantas was wonderful. Good food, good service, happy and helpful cabin crew, comfortable seat pods in business class.

But Delta was a shocker, even travelling first class. No lounge facilities for my class of ticket, and I even was told to buy some food and drink for the 4 1/2 hour run to Atlanta. The aircraft were old and unloved and the crew was run off its feet just tossing peanuts at the punters. No pillow, just a rug in a plastic bag.

On the way back it was such a feeling of relief to step into the Qantas lounge and the Qantas plane.

9th Aug 2005, 01:32
I would love to see what criteria they use to determine "leadership".Dixon is not a leaders bootlace.The credibility of both magazines needs to seriously questioned when they make assertions like this.
If Dixon wins awards of this nature the other airline Ceo`s must be totally useless.

9th Aug 2005, 01:44
yes you're quite right, these magazines must be a total basket case to give him the award.

It makes you wonder about a lot of things!

The The
9th Aug 2005, 02:07
Is the remuneration of the CEO an excuse to do your job poorly?

I may not like it, nor like the savage cost cutting. However, I have a job, have not taken a 20-30% pay cut and will do my very best to keep my job and hopefully have a future.

If you cannot do your job professionally with a smile and offer the best service you are able - get out!

9th Aug 2005, 02:21
HIH and Enron are just two companies that spring to mind when discussing CEOs being both overpaid and incompetent.Al(chainsaw)Dunlap almost brought Sunbeam to its knees with his costcutting.He has not worked for any company since that little debacle.
QF employs 35,000 staff most of whom are unsmiling and unhappy.
When I was working I had a responsibility to my family to maximise my income.I would never contemplate a wage cut that would impinge on their standard of living.
Dixon has no MBA,no economics degree...he is an ex journalist (like Christopher Skase)who has no visible qualifications to run a company like Qantas.He is where he is because he is someone(s)mate.
No one at QF does their job poorly there is just no"buzz"
This is the difference between Virgin,Emirates and Qantas

Ronnie Honker
9th Aug 2005, 02:25
Is the remuneration of the CEO an excuse to do your job poorly?
"Blood money" would be a better phrase than "remuneration", in Dixon's case.
The extra burden placed on existing staff BECAUSE of this CEO's cost cutting based remuneration, resulting in understaffing is evident.

If "leadership" is defined by cutting a swathe through staff numbers, rather than using intelligent tactics, then Dixon is indeed a Leader!

He ought to MADE to stay in the hot seat for the next 5 years, rather than being allowed to slither away like a carpet snake that's just swallowed a kangaroo.

9th Aug 2005, 05:20
Rant mode on.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder(npd).

Corporations are just starting to wake up to the fact that certain classes of people with personality disorders are rather good at clawing their way to the top, only to destroy or maim their organisations before they are found out. You are going to hear a lot more about this in the business press.

NPD sufferers have no empathic abilities. That part of their brain is "broken". They also have a "hole in their self esteem bucket" that makes them constantly crave reinforcement of their importance to their company, their country, the universe, whatever.

The results are that these people are perfect management climbers. They have no compunction about being totally ruthless, lying or backstabbing, because they have no empathy with anyone, therefore there can be no guilt or blame, they are just doing their job.

Secondly, they manage "up" all the time, constantly seeking the approval of those above them. If you are below them on the management tree you are %^$%. If you are a co-worker, watch your back.

The net result is that they climb to dizzying heights in organisations because their bosses think they are wonderful, and to some extent they are. However there is a cost. They leave a trail of wreckage behind them that is usually covered up pretty well - for a time.

Once they reach the dizzying heights, they seek even more self aggrandisment (like starting an airline- so they can be a "Chairman" like their boss). However there are other traits that work against them.

They have an unbelieveable sense of entitlement. If you queried them about giving $500 bottles of wine to each other at Christmas when everyone else is being squeezed till the pips squeak, they would look blankly at you.

Laws are for little people, for example, why do you think Steve Vizard made it to the top of the tree in entertainement and that got caught in a grubby little insider trading deal? Leona Hemsley (Taxes are foir little people), Matha Stewart, Rene Rivkin, Adler, HIH, Enron, its a common factor in all of them. Entitlement and aggrandisment.

Rant mode off

9th Aug 2005, 05:31
There was a certain airline, across the pond that four years ago was almost dead in the water....Air NZ. Fortunately for them their CEO turned the thing over to the staff...They have ordered 787 and 777, whilst we at Qf continue to evaluate...

Dixon is nothing but another Dunlap..Don't forget though that he is merely the public face of a board. That board includes the pure genius of the Dame Margaret who presided over a huge loss whilst a Director of Southcorp wines. I'm not defending him, but Gregg is too an accountant who is given to COUNT.

Accountants, no matter what their advertising suggests do not understand much beyond figures. As a discipline it it necessary, but to allow them to run an airline will only provide more of the same, not matter what the party us staff have at the departure of GD, who incidently will recieve a lovely golden parachute. The understand nothing unless to it you can attach a number.. The synergies developed by happy driven employees isn't reflected (can't be) reflected on a balance sheet, so to an accountant is has little value. Yet this is the buzz about which the thread talks.

If Gregg gets it, he will drive costs further down, he will look at the results of the decisions, that is how the accountant thinks. They ADVISE on business, they don';t RUN them..

The share price linked to incentive bonuses is a recipe for disaster, we as a company lack an objective. Some of the morons i fly with say that it is impossible to have one, the industry is too unstable...They may well be right, but even Air NZ set a course and utilised a REAL ASSET to move the organisation toward it..It called synergy, but ask an accountant to quantify and they can't..so therefore it doesn't matter!!:mad:

9th Aug 2005, 06:21
Corporations are just starting to wake up to the fact that certain classes of people with personality disorders are rather good at clawing their way to the top, only to destroy or maim their organisations before they are found out. You are going to hear a lot more about this in the business press.


I find your assertions regarding individuals with Personality Disorders, in particular Narcissistic Personality Disorder, to be inaccurate and irresponsible. Any personality disorder is defined by severe social and occupational dysfunction, making it difficult to believe they would be successfully negotiating any kind of "perfect management climbing". Unless you are a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist (which i doubt), i suggest you are not in any position to be making such crude generalisations about people with mental illness.

However, if you like, you could provide us with a reference, so that the credibility of the information you have referred to can be ascertained.

handgun fellashio
9th Aug 2005, 06:42
Daniel Goleman has written several books...the first one being "Emotional Intelligence".Other books follow and elaborate on so called "sociopaths".These are dysfunctional individuals who exhibit some of the characteristics that Sunfish alludes to.
Alastair Mant has also written a book titled "Intelligent Leadership"
Gucci Gal personnality disorders can be intrinsic to the individual.ieThey are just wired up the wrong way.They are not necessarily a function of any "social" or "occupational"trauma that you suggest.
Some of these characteristics make these individuals perfect for todays corporate environment.
The Financial Review did a piece on this topic a few months ago.The conclusion reached suggested that many CEOs have similar psychological profiles to serial killers.
So rather than Sunfish being irresponsible and inaccurate he is to be commended for adding to this debate and highlighting CEO shortcomings(in particular Dixon`s)
I have met Dixon socially and he is not wired up correctly.His total disregard for others and the craving of the spotlight make him an unpleasant self absorbed dinner companion.
Gucci Gal I hope these references are adequate.
Dixon is leaving early because he is no longer up to the task.His personal life is a mess and his behaviour increasingly irrational.Dixon needs time to clean up his act.CEO responsibilities only exacerbate his problems.He has been making some very poor decisions.The ramifications of which are not yet evident.

9th Aug 2005, 06:51

I've had the pleasure of working for one of these, I had two very senior HR types (one from New York) look at each other after I described certain behaviours and then chant the reference to a chapter in one of Alistair Mants' works on HR.

I've also had the pleasure of meeting one in a social setting that took me a year to recover from.

Npd has only recently been recognised as a disorder.

The simplest and best test a layman can use to uncover an Npd sufferer is to elicit their reaction to situations that would cause a "normal" person to respond with empathy. They simply don't do empathy.

In the personal case my dog was run over and upside down under the burning hot exhaust of a Commodore. I gave said person the keys to my car and told her to get it here pronto (it was 100 yards away) so I could get a jack.

She turned up thirty minutes later at the vets and explained that it was the worst thing she had ever seen in her life and two joggers had to comfort her and hear her story before she could come and find me. There is much, much more, and she wonders why she never can keep friends for more than a few months.

In a business situation, my finance and administration manager collapsed on the floor of his office one morning. He was subsequently diagnosed with Leukemia. Senior Board person merely enquired how he was to receive his financial reports. Same senior person was caught lying to the Board and also went through three personal assistants (one of which who sued him, another who quit with zero notice, before he found one slimy enought for his liking.) The damage this person has done to his organisation will not surface until next years accounts are published.




A few relevant quotes from the last reference.

Beck (1990, p. 49) describes the key elements of NPD as presumed superiority and self-aggrandizing behavior. These individuals also give evidence of intense motivation to seek perfection and a feeling state of emptiness, rage and envy (Masterson, 1981, p. 7). They are vulnerable to the most negligible slights and are prone to withdraw and become inaccessible when feeling offended (Benjamin, 1993, p. 141).

Individuals with NPD may show little real ability outside of their fantasies. They can become self-destructive because their grandiosity and self-preoccupation impair their judgment and perspective. They can experience such inappropriate rage in response to someone diminishing their sense of superiority that they attack and attempt to destroy the source of criticism (Oldham, 1990, pp. 93-95).

Kantor (1992, p. 207) believes that individuals with NPD can sustain good judgement if they demand performance of themselves that vindicates their self-esteem. Judgement becomes impaired when the self-love has little realistic basis. Even as these individuals inflate their efforts and overvalue their abilities, they seem surprised when they do not receive the praise they expect (DSM-IV™, 1994, p. 658). They appear to have little awareness that their behavior may be seen as objectionable or irrational (Millon & Davis, 1996, pp. 405-406).

Individuals with NPD assume that other people will submerge their desires in favor of the comfort and welfare of those with NPD. They believe that just because they want something -- that is reason enough for them to have it. They assume that others are as consumed by concern for those with NPD as the individuals themselves are; they believe they deserve special consideration from others (DSM IV™, 1994, p. 659) (Millon & Davis, 1996, p. 394). Narcissistic individuals use others to fulfill their own psychological needs and to maintain the stability of the self; others are valued by how well they provide comfort and emotional stability (Wink, Costello, ed., 1996, p. 149).

Kantor (1992, p. 206) notes that individuals with NPD have trouble cooperating with other people as their attention is on themselves. They view others as vassals or constituents; they seek admiration to document their own grandiosity and to preserve their superior status (Beck, 1990, p. 49). They have difficulty recognizing the experience and feelings of others. They lack empathy and form few genuine emotional commitments. They must, at all times, be admired. If they are able to recognize the needs of others, they tend to view these factors as signs of weakness and vulnerability (DSM-IV™, 1994, p. 659) (Oldham, 1990, p. 96). When able to perceive this vulnerability, individuals with NPD behave in a dominant and coercive manner (Birtchnell, Costello, ed., 1996, p. 186).

NPD relationships are impaired because of entitlement, need for admiration, and disregard for the feelings of others (DSM-IV™, 1994, p. 659). Individuals with NPD are interpersonally exploitative; they expect special favors without reciprocal responsibilities (Millon & Davis, 1996, pp. 405-406).

Competent individuals with NPD are often in positions of authority themselves. If dealing with other authority figures, they are non-deferential, convivial or condescending, and presumptive of special treatment. They do not reveal any information derogatory to themselves and behave with self-righteous indignation when questioned. Lying is not difficult; concealment is a routine behavior. These individuals are unwilling to accept that society's limitations apply to them.

NPD behavior is usually haughty. These individuals behave in an arrogant, supercilious, pompous, and disdainful manner. They have a careless disregard for their own personal integrity and a self-important indifference to the rights or needs of others (Millon & Davis, 1996, p. 405). Yet, they can also show assertiveness, social poise, assurance, leadership potential, and achievement orientation (Wink, Costello, ed., 1996, pp. 153-154). Their ambition and confidence may lead to success, but their performance can also be impaired by their intolerance of criticism (DSM-IV™, 1994, p. 659). For all of their grandiosity, individuals with NPD are remarkably thin-skinned. They are easily offended and frequently feel mistreated (Golomb, 1992, p. 22). Individuals with NPD also experience boredom, dissatisfaction, and a lack of fulfillment and meaning in their work (Wink, Costello, ed., 1996, p. 149). It is problematic for these individuals to stay in long-term employment where responsibility for error or failure get harder and harder to obscure (Richards, 1992, p. 252).

ndividuals with NPD do not believe that reciprocal social responsibilities apply to them. They expect others to serve them without giving much in return (Millon & Davis, 1996, p. 405). They are abrasive, abrupt, and lacking in gratitude (Beck, 1990, p. 244). They may engage in temper tantrums, verbal harangues, because of their belief that others should be primarily concerned with making them happy or comfortable. These individuals are particularly apt to become resentful and contemptuous of anyone who tries to hold them accountable for their exploitative, self-centered behavior (Beck, 1990, p. 244).

You can google the rest yourself.

Anytime you see a high profile person do something that is mean, spiteful or downright illegal, and you find yourself thinking "Why would a person of such accomplishment, standing and obvious success do something so dumb? Please think about NPD. Its real and its out there and I've seen it first hand, and its not nice.

So please don't come the "health professional " line with me.

labia vortex
9th Aug 2005, 07:05
I don`t always agree with what you say but,in this case:
Bloody Bravo!!!
There is malicious intent behind everything Dixon does.A particularly nasty small person

9th Aug 2005, 07:27
SPOT ON, ill make sure i never cross you though sunfish, very interesting to say the least. Im sure most people along with myself, can relate this to certain individuals that we have dealt with in our careers.:cool:

9th Aug 2005, 08:04
Firstly, As a health care professional you do NOT need to define NPD for me, nor do you need to quote the DSM-IV, as i happen to own a copy.

Secondly, i did not say that NPD is caused by occupational dysfunction, rather that it is DEFINED by it. Two different things ENTIRELY.

Thirdly, 'pop-psychology' is not a credible reference and sociopathy is completely different to NPD. Sociopathy is what is now referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder, one of the other varieties of PDs which also includes Histrionic and Borderline types.

Sunfish, you've presented some anecdotal "evidence" and done a good cut and paste job with your definitions of NPD. However that was not my point. What I was asking for is clarification of your generalisations of business mangagers/leaders. To do this you would need to find statistics which demonstrate the percentage of business leaders who qualify for the diagnosis of NPD or any Personality disorder, which as I hope you realise, is a VERY rare disorder.

Lastly, I was not defending or commenting on Dixon or anything related to him. I was merely pointing out that Sunfish's 'rant' was making generalisations which i think are inaccurate.

Not everyone who is a jerk has a mental illness.

labia vortex
9th Aug 2005, 08:24
Your point is ...what?Is it that you have a need to show us how clever you are?
Go and read Mant and Goleman.Bring yourself up to speed
This thread is about Qantas and its lack of "buzz".
If you want to talk about mental heallth issues take it somewhere else or start a thread of your own.
Your references have been supplied and your questions answered.
Now, if you have anything to add to QFs lack of enthusiasm among its staff,feel free.
If not, go to another playroom.

Kaptin M
9th Aug 2005, 08:30
Covered before, in 2004, here Is your manager a PSYCHOPATH? (http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=117263&highlight=Is+your+boss)

Is your manager a PSYCHOPATH?
The Washington Post

So your boss is charming, impetuous, single-minded, and has a bit of a temper. Uh, oh – you might be working for a psychopath.
And you say you’re working for one of those New Age companies in a constant state of flux, with few rules, little supervision, and even less bureaucracy? Uh, oh – you may be working for a company that’s a psycho-magnet!

Industrial psychologist Paul Bablak, and forensic psychologist Robert Hare of the University of British Columbia, claim that psychopathic supervisors are remarkably common in today’s new style work environment..
Their research shows that these volatile types seem particularly drawn to firms where the only rule is there are no rules.

Bablak and Hare are co-authors of “Snakes in Suits; When Psychopaths Go to Work” – due out this year. The book is based , in part, on a test they devised to identify workplace emotional misfits.
The workplace test asks the boss’ boss, colleagues, and subordinates, to rate how well certain phrases describe the supervisor. Descriptions include:
“Comes across as smooth, polished and charming”…
Lies to co-workers, customers, or business associates with a straight face”…
Has created a power network in the organization….
Fakes sincerity with great conviction”.

“There are 3 basic motivations of psychopaths,” Bablak asserts. “They love to play games, they’re thrill-seekers willing to take risks, and they like to hurt people. When you look to see what makes a successful business person, it’s someone willing to take risks, who likes to ‘play the corporate game’ to advance (him/her self) within the company.”

Bablak claims that today’s rolling corporate environments tend to favour the psychopath personality. “The business world has changed. The old dinosaur model of an overly structured bureaucracy with many rules and closed culture doesn’t cut it any more,” he said. “Companies have to be swift, fast, less bureaucratic. This is an open invitation to the individual with psychopathic tendencies.”

9th Aug 2005, 08:43
As the initiator of this thread could we please stay on topic?
While Dixon contributes to the staff woes there are other factors which have an equivalent affect.
Could we discuss these please and leave mental health issues for another forum/thread.

9th Aug 2005, 09:15
Captain Q, may I suggest you have a read of this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184614) before you make any more comparisons between Emirates and Qantas service standards?

I have no opinion on which is better but things are not what you claim over in Dubai and I reckon there'd be a lot of people who'd like to know how you came to the conclusion you did.

Labia your name-sake is showing through. It wasn't GucciGal who started the mental-disorder digression, if indeed it was a digression. At least GG put her own thoughts into posting rather than cut-and-pasting.

9th Aug 2005, 09:44
Gucci, I understand what you are saying, but there are a number of issues I cannot deal with by posting tonight. Yes, NPD is a rare disorder, and no there is little research on the topic, however I would point out that people with Npd will automatically self selct for management positions in companies or institutions with a high public profile. That is why they are over represented.

As for "pop psychology" I was into this discussion four years ago and the media and "Pop Psychologists" are yet to even catch up to where I am on this subject.

The most they can do is write books about "Office Psychopaths" which are irrelevent and pointless because they don't offer any suggestions about screening these people out.

9th Aug 2005, 09:55
Labia Vortex,

I am not here to impress anyone. As a qualified and practicing Clinical Psychologist, who is regularly involved with the ongoing treatment of patients with various Personality Disorders, I am quite sure that I am "up to speed" on the topic. Goleman is a lovely piece of "pop-psychology", such as you would find in the self-help section at your bookshop. However this is not the scientific evidence/statistics required to give credence to the bandwagon you so eagerly clamber on. And if you missed my point, here's a clue - it's the last sentence of my previous post. Also, thank you for your delightful Personal Message, it was most insightful to your character.

My apologies Capt Q, i did not wish to help anyone hijack your thread. :)

9th Aug 2005, 10:15
Ok Thanks...now back to the topic....please.

9th Aug 2005, 10:27
Gucci Sweetie, I don't give a flying *** about your status as a practicing psychologist!

I'm afraid I've seen the damage these people do at first hand, furthermore, the damage was predictable, as was the behaviour of the NPD sufferers, as it still is with the one I regularly see today.

Translation it is not "pop Psychology" and I've got the scars (as have many others) to prove it.

Of course you wouldn't see very many of these people because they are resistant to therapy by the nature of the disorder, as you should know. The only way you can get them to therapy is to convince them that they have a special malady that is so rare that only the greatest psychologists can treat them (pandering to their grandiosity again). They are virtually untreatable. I am watching one gradually die not far from me.

Normal attempts at getting them to therapy merely convinces them that the therapist is an idiot, and you are an idiot for suggesting they need therapy. Again this is confirmed by experience.

Have you ever been through the "idealisation, devaluation and discard" cycle these people go though? I have, and I know others who have.

You may well be right about the lack of scholarly research on the topic, but since research lags reality by about ten years I'm not surprised.

Let me put it in scientific terms. Once you have studied what narcissitic personality disorder sufferers do, as I have had the misfortune to have had to do, their behaviour is totally and utterly predictable, even for a mere mug with an MBA like me.

Common symptoms in business:

- Creating a new grand sounding title when joining a company.

- requiring that only "special" people are allowed to speak to them.

- managing "up" while totally ignorinmg managing "down"

- suppressing and controllling "down" the management tree.

- a sense of entitlement.

- a complete and total lack of empathy to the point it is comical.

- Lying, scheming underhand behaviour. For example have you ever heard a Director of a company explaining, as if to a child (me) that the President of a subsidiary had a "use by" date (if you don't understand what I mean PM me and I will explain)

With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure you have seen many of these animals. I have seen two personally and after that expereince I can pick them.

I hope that you never have to confront any of them because it is a singularly unrewarding expereince.

P.S. Dixon fills the bill, maybe not in your terms, but his managemnt behaviour is bizarre.

Translation: How the %^$# can a Board give itself $500 bottles of wine at Christmas while making record profits and crying poor to its staff?????

If you don't understand the disconnect in this event from a management point of view, then please confine yourself to purely clinical comments.

Sorry, it just doesn't add up. The simplest explanation is NPD

9th Aug 2005, 10:36
I have asked nicely.
Take your dixcussion somewhere else or I will delete the thread.

9th Aug 2005, 10:38
Kee-rist, you two. Sunfish, that's pretty rude.

And there have been several polite requests to stick to the topic. If you need to demonstrate your intellectual prowess to each other, please do so via PM. The rest of us aren't interested, if I may speak for them... :p

So, Capt Q., did you take a look at the EK thread.....??? Or are you steadfastly sticking to your original position no matter what?

9th Aug 2005, 10:47
I can only talk from my experience.Emirates were superb both on and off the Aircraft.
It would appear that they have some backroom problems.But again on the day I travelled they were brilliant.
Virgin likewise on the way home.
The "buzz" was definitely there as it once was with Qantas

9th Aug 2005, 11:28
On topic. as I have said before, I was SO proud of QF in the mid 70's. They had soemthing to prove and they proved it.

I remember travelling back from LHR and across the isle was a family of Pom's (the translucent sun deprived kind) who were emigrating and obviously rather concerned if they were making the right decision . Mum, Dad and two little kids.

The QF steward sussed out what was happening. He fussed over all of them, found out where they were migrating to, looked after them "here you go kids - this is Australian sunshine - orange juice- get it in yer", and basically put them at there ease as much as he could - it made you proud.

I don't thinkl I've seen that behaviour for ten years, but maybe my standards are too high.

9th Aug 2005, 11:31
How about returning the "Spirit of Australia" to Qantas :confused: Certainly wont achieve that with the constant tantrums that goes in here.

9th Aug 2005, 14:32
Ladies and gentleman,

As a member of the team of people who derive not only income from our national carrier, I must say you will still find elements of us who really do try to make our airline a great experience for our customers...Sounds rudimentary but it is true.

The bit that makes this soo difficult to achieve is that the management is soo focused on the SHAREHOLDER, not the customer. As such decisions are made to placate this group, not please the cusotmer, from whom after all we derive our income!
One may ask why the shareholder is the focus....its simple Bonuses

The shareholder wants the dividend, the management achieve a bonus upon delivery! Easy, except the customer misses out. So do the staff for mangement has two ways to achieve the bonus, one is easy rhe other requires skill.

Cut costs. There is a baseline where staff fail to believe management spin, and even now the shareholder doubts it too. The Spirit of Australia is a shell. Gregg ,Dixon, Jackson et al are no different to Al Dunlap and a myriad of other short term bonus seeking gutter scum.

However as Walt disney put it so many years ago...You want good customer relations, first seek good employee relations, and the rest shall take care of itself


note:Bonuses may be a little harder to come by, but you will have the buzz

9th Aug 2005, 18:22
"Staff travel as a retiree is not worth considering"

Welcome to the new world Capt. Q (at least you got that far )- it has all changed !! Just be thankful to have worked your time when QF captains lived on the north shore and sent their kids to private school.

The carrier\'s cost-cutting targets are "very aggressive and we have been looking closely at how we can do things differently to drive greater efficiency," Mr Gregg told an aviation conference in Sydney.

Just wait for the first wide-body in a low cost - that will get AIPA's attention.

I rest my case ( and I feel for the young guys)

P.S Will the executives give up some of the bonus's - Glad to be out of Aussie aviation (sadly, C172 - B747-300 havn't paid for an endorsement so far ).

Great place to live; after retirememt


9th Aug 2005, 20:43
There has been a trend for at least the last five years in the U.S. (which means Australia is just about to catch up) of Boards requiring regular annual capability audits of Divisions and Departments where Managers are entitled to performance bonuses.

This is to prevent Managers from gutting their Departments to produce a short term spike in profitablity, grabbing a bonus, and running for the hills before the damage they inflicted becomes apparent.

I'm not sure how long QF has been managed in this style, but my guess is that it will take as least as long again to reverse the damage and put back some form of buzz.

Thanks for the Disney quote QFinsider, I hadn't heard that one before, and I agree totally with the sentiment.

One cabin attendant with a bad attitude can have more immediate and permanent affect on QF's reputation and profitability than anyone at Board level.

Senior Managers should be looking at least three to five years ahead. However they often stop doing that when annual performance bonusses are available. I guess if I was on a five year contract it would be tempting to plan to maximise my bonuses rather than the value of the company.

10th Aug 2005, 01:54
It's not rocket science.

My old boss, Merv McMillan, had a basic premis which still worked for me up until I "retired"....

Look after the staff and the staff will look after the job. It would be so easy to get the buzz back!

10th Aug 2005, 02:22
I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full. Can you PM me please with another e-mail address.


10th Aug 2005, 02:50
As a flip side, my parents recently flew (full fare) to and from the US with QF. They showed me the letter they have written to the cabin crew management complimenting the crew on the excellent service they recieved. They were absolutely wrapped with QF and as a contrast, were repulsed at what passes for 'service' on US carriers. No wonder the LCCs are making a killing across there.

(Note that I do work for QF but the letter was legit!) Whilst I acknowledge that the lack of 'buzz' exists, some still manage to give great service- not withstanding the significant obstacles put in front of them by other parts of the company! :ok:

10th Aug 2005, 02:58
DiVosh, mailbox now cleaned out, PM's working.


10th Aug 2005, 21:47
DiVosh, was my description of her behaviour reasonably correct?

10th Aug 2005, 22:00
Sorry to divert this thread (again). :O

It appears that I was one of the Joggers that Sunfish mentioned earlier in this thread.

I'll continue this with Sunfish via PM, but YES. She was totally self-absorbed. My mate and I initially thought that she'd had something far worse happen to her (bashed, [email protected], or seen a mangled human in the car in the distance).

We were surprised to find out she was in that state because her partners dog was stuck under a car. Also a bit concerned that she was so useless when there were things she could be actively doing to help the dog (like getting the car jack - eventually supplied by either the police or from the Commodore).

Anyway, back to the thread...

11th Aug 2005, 00:08
"Partner" is stretching it a little bit.

Divosh, Gucci, PM's?

Back to the htread.