Airline Management

[RENURPP]

Whilst I was a passenger home on a Qantas flight today I took the opportunity to have a browse through their in-flight magazine “The Australian way”. The major feature, and rightly so is the 85 year anniversary of Qantas.

The part that particularly interested me was the profiles of people who made Qantas what it is today.
1 Barry Phair - General Manager Network planning
2 Ion Morrison - General Manager Aviation Health
3 Fiona Balfour - Chief Information Officer

Whilst these individuals may be very qualified and excellent in their particular positions?? they are hardly the types of positions that make interesting reading or what Qantas’s history is all about, regardless of how long they have occupied an office city desk near the likes of Dixon.

How about the engineers, who have built maintained and flown as engineers on the aircraft since day one. Pilots, who flew the early aircraft and are still there today, (there must be pilots who have been with QF for many years with extremely interesting histories, navigators and the early day cabin crew, the romance of early aviation was not created by pencil pushing little dicked bean counters.
Have to wonder if these are the people the general public have an interest in or was it driven by other paper pushing “management” types in an attempt to add credibility to their over paid positions.

A particularly uninteresting article.

[Calligula]

Edited after reading Danny's post - out of respect for him,

[Ronnie Honker]

This is probably one of THE glaring major differences between true Low Cost carriers and airlines such as QANTAS (aside from the low salaries of the coalface workers) - the legions of office workers sitting around computer terminals, or busily shuffling papers, overseen by grossly overpaid managers (each with their own P.A. - personal assistant) who hold "meetings" multiple times each week, whilst the real airline continues to be run from decisions made at the front lines.

It has been a long time since I have seen figures that give numbers of employees per aircraft, however it would be interesting to see how the numbers of BS Castle inhabitants compare with the number of "front line" workers.

[Butterfield8]

QF is what it is today not because of the visitors who have here about three minutes but because of the legion of ladies and gentlemen who have been here for awhile.
This includes everyone from all areas.
A drover's dog could run this company and still turn a tidy profit.
When I started I earnt a pittance.
I actually needed a second job to make ends meet.
I didnt care, I loved the place and the people.
God, it was so much fun.
The characters who worked here were fantastic.
Whatever management wanted me to do ..I would do it because I knew if I needed a favour to balance up my home life,it would readily forthcoming.
What a bloody change...fear and loathing reign supreme.
I am not vengeful person but,if I heard Dixon had been run over by a truck(and taken a few of the visitors with him)Beers at the Buena in Mosman would be on me.
What a total bunch of dysfunctionals.

[Calligula]

Ronnie.

I find myself in agreeance with you.

QF has twice as many staff per aircraft than VB.

Dont know how many JQ employ, but I am betting the ratio would be similar or even better than above.

[Simon Templar]

When QF had its 75th Anniversary not one tech or cabin crew was invited to any of the celebrations.
Collectively they represented about 25% of the total workforce.
In LHR a group of crew were told they could attend a function if they wore uniform and handed out Petite fours.
I knew the writing was on the wall from that moment on.

[Calligula]

Yes Simon, I know two of the crew who did that on the night.

Two of the guests were so impressed with the unifrorm and their behaviour that they both got ronnie coots of them later that night.

A practical gift for the airlines birthday at least

[Don Esson]

Calligula,

Check your facts before shooting off. Who said the current General Manager Network Planning had anything to do with the A330-200's? Like many ignorami who know all there is to know about Qantas, you should learn about the Company structure and the decision making process. You might be surprised. Just maybe, but maybe not as you know everything don't you? Why aren't you the CEO or GM Network Planning?

The bloke (BP) in question is one of the most decent and knowledgable person to have frequented Qantas. What he doesn't know about airline economics and planning ain't worth knowing about. That is why he is where he is!

Have a good night :yuk: :yuk:

[Calligula]

Well Don, you have finally outed yourself as a ground gripping blunt

Regardless this thread is about the fact that many in the company believe that the airline runs because of the non-operational office staff.

I reckon in runs in spite of them.

www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/flying/inTheAir/inflightMagazine/Qantas85years.pdf (http://)

[Angle of Attack]

Yeah your right there are staff everywhere, manager of this manager of this, I even saw a memo writeen by some guy with the Title of Manager of Economic Effectiveness. His claim to fame was to sack the Librarian of the Ops Library. My Question is this, anything I want to do whether changing details, asking a question about whatever, why does it take ages, many phone calls, much knashing of teeth, and lots of heartache to get anything bloody well done? I wonder if they have ever heard of a Communications manager that works, not some pseudo external outfit that doesnt know their elbow from their ar$e about anything. hmm my $22 fuel surcharge dollars worth , haha!

[Don Esson]

Calligula,

Why don't you out yourself and challenge either DO or BP to a debate about Airline Mnagement.I know who I'd be backing. And it ain't you.

No wonder ground staff think very little of many aircrew. If it's all so simple, why don't YOU and some of your mates give it a go? I'm sure that CM would love to have on his team a person with your obvious talent, knowledge, experience, wisdom and drive.

I'm not wasting any more time or bandwidth on your childish and spiteful character assassination.

[numbskull]

If he is the clown that decided to spend millions and millions of dollars doing reconfigs and "D" checks on the remaining 747-300.(as well as the A330-200 decision), then I agree Calligula

It's like trying to run a limousine service with a 15 year old Holden Commodore.(we'll just put new seat covers on and the punters will never know!!!!!!!!!!).

The next great management decision is to sack all the heavy maint staff because they cost too much to do "D" Checks on these 15 yr old clunkers.(that's a surprise considering their age!!)

If the CIO is being spouted as some sort of management guru then I'll be @#$#@#. Not a day has gone by for the past 5 years when I haven't had multiple problems with computers at work . If they were mine I'd have thrown them out the window years ago. But what would I know!! I only need these computers to order parts and access maintenance manuals.

Don I think you must be a fair way away from from the coalface and the troops aren't quite getting the message that you are. You probably need to create a new position for "disemination of information to plebs" but I'm sure you can make it sound much more grander than that

Unfortunately THEY ARE the people that have made Qantas what it is today but I don't think too many staff are very appreciative of their efforts.

[Calligula]

Its not about character assasination, its about accountability.


The reality is, the profitability of the airline has masked an unbelievable level of incompetence and lack of foresight.

The A330-200's are one example.

The B747 classic maintenance schedule another.

The failure to expand the business, a preoccupation with the distruction of operational staffs T and C's and the structure of everything around annual bonues has left QF in a precarious position given the imminent massive expansion of EK into the Australian marketplace.

The thing is, whenever anything negative happens GOD and the Dame blame the frontline staff and the unions. We are the ones who are having our livelyhood and futures destroyed - not you

If this guy was not involved in the Airbus - fine.

But some body was at some point though the article gives the impression it would have been him

[Danny]

Just a warning before too many of you lose your posting privileges. I am fed up to the back teeth having to get involved in editing these debates because a minority of you don't have the sense or wit to moderate your language or tone, especially if you don't happen to agree with another poster.

Additionally, if the few who are so thick as to be unable to realise the liabilities that I face just because some of you are, oh so brave, behind your cloak of anonimity and are unable to think of ways to express your anger about someone who may or may not be in the public domain, then you need to be very careful. Go and do a teeny bit of research about defamation before you go shooting your foul mouthed and ignorant rants on here.

You have an opportunity to express your views on here but that doesn't give any of you the right to abuse that priviege by attacking individuals without consideration for what is legal and what isn't. Also, too many of you feel that it is OK to attack another poster just because you disagree with their point of view. Well, if you think that's OK then you are going to get very frustrated when I go in and edit or delete all your rants and venomous posts. You'll just be wasting your time and mine.

Grow up and learn to debate as educated adults rather than a bunch of immature kids in a playground. Play the ball, not the player. If you want to criticise someone such as a manager then do so with wit and reason. If you get personal and descend to gutter level in order to try and get your point across then you don't deserve this platform which is provided for professionals to use, not ignoramuses who don't know how to debate as adults.

I apologise to most kids for the above remark referencing them. :*

[Calligula]

Hi Danny.

I have edited the post that was personal.

However the two areas of significantly poor decision making I referenced are common knowlege amongst QF crews.

Regardless of who made the decisions, they were still made.

Happy to edit further if I have missed the point

[Ronnie Honker]

However the two areas of significantly poor decision making I referenced are common knowlege amongst QF crews.Problem is, mate, we're now spruiking stuff read worldwide, so whilst (you're right) it IS common knowledge within QF, we don't want to give 1 or 2 of these previously mentioned a-holes an opportunity to outdo Hudson by foul means - or fair.

Ya speak pretty good Strine, Danny. Get yourself a passport, and you might find there's an opening for a young lad of your talent and expertise!
Course first you'll have to jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge (naked), with a can of Fosters in one hand, and a KB in 'tother, screaming "*&%** you Captain Cook" all the way down.

[Chimbu chuckles]

This is an article written by Herb Kelleher...the fella who started Southwest Airlines.

My question is why most modern management are incapable of seeing this success and emulating it...if nothing else out of enlightened self interest? Of course the answer is their personality types...you can't just pretend this stuff from 9-5 you must be it.

Note especially which company personnel, besides aircrew, partcipate in the CRM courses...this is a telling point.

This company has about 20000 staff/ 4000 pilots/ 429 aircraft...Qf has 36000 odd staff, how many pilots/aircraft?

I don't think GoD is a Herb Kelleher type personality.



Herb Kelleher article (http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/spring97/kelleher.html)

[Richard Kranium]

The types like Herb Kelleher and there have been others, are builders, creators, they are visionaries....like Reg Ansett, who had a go and created something...unlike the Dixons of this world who are snake oil salesman and smart allecs who are appointed to the position after the fact...

I put Dixon in the class of Lorenzo who nearly destroyed Continental, but for Gordon Bethune...now there's a book to read "From Worst to First" will tell you something about how a different approach can change a companies direction and fortune...

Dixon is smart arseing because he is a legend in his own mind I suspect... a miracle worker as seen by so many, only because its all done by smoke and mirrors and conjuring to portray this percieved infallability...

Had SIA bought that other half of Ansett as was intended, it would have been a totally different story at QF, and Dixon would have to approach his employees in a diffrent way...:hmm:

[RENURPP]

My point in starting this post was to start a discussion on the "interesting" people and history behind Qantas's 85 years. The people mentioned in the article may well be talented, or not, how ever they make very uninteresting reading, at least from my point of view.

I would prefer to hear about engineers, navigators, cabin crew and of course the pilots.

Although management make the final decision, I believe it is the workers that make an airline what it is.

Think about when you hop on board, are you think about GoD or the F/A that greeted you, the checkin staff, the pilot you got a glimpse of through the window the baggage handler with the camel head??

Years past the Captain was to be respected, remember the days he walked through the cabin, spoke to the odd passeneger including kids. Have things changed, certainly from where I sit they have.

I would be interested to hear about some of the early days of QF.

I would imagine the F/A's were a different breed to the current day F/A's as the pilots certainly were. Engineers actually got their hands dirty and navigators didn't live in a 6" x 6" box on the panel.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The F/As are the same girls/guys....just 30 yrs older:E

[Keg]

Renurrp, if you're interested in the people who made QF great, track down a book called 'Qantas, by George'. It's about one of the long serving ginger beers who helped make QF what it is. Great read....if only I could find my copy at home so I could read it again!


Qantas By George!
Author: Paul Byrnes

Online Price
$27.50

Category: Transportation - Aviation - General
Additional Category: History - Australia & Oceania
Publisher: Watermark Press,Australia
Date Published: 15/11/2000
ISBN: 0949284521
Format: Paperback
Number of pages: 200

:ok:

[Ronnie Honker]

Back to the point again Keg, me old.
RENURPP mightn't feel like forking out around $30 to buy that book, but I believe he is saying that info similar to that in the book would be of far more interest to him than the self-aggrandaisement article featured in the QANTAS inflight magazines, provided foc to all the passengers who pay our fuel and salary bills.

Thanks for helping put some things back into their proper perspective RENURPP. :ok:

[7gcbc]

quote:

"you can't just pretend this stuff from 9-5 you must be it."

Ah , but Chimbu, how they try and try and try............and still get it wrong.

It is so obious to me how modern "management" very often falls short of the simple stuff, over the last few years the main types of management taught on the various "Xmas bauble" MBA courses are in a word, not worth the paper they are written on.

Certainly most of the new styles of management I have come across are based on bullying, threats , blame culture and some bizzare artifical "team" dreamt up by FAR (Human resources rephrased to indicate F*** All Resources), if I see a company slogan or mission statement that combines the words "passionate" or "value people" .

I run a mile.

teams evolve naturally on mutual respect , sincerity, trust and a willingness to help and look out for you collegues, neither of which are part of the modern management technique, which cannot co-exist with this model. You cannot artifically force a team to work unless they want to, and you certainly cannot conjure up sincerity through threat.

Chimbu is right, you can't learn this (at least not from an MBA course) it has to come naturally and confidently, there is nothing wrong with confidence, but with it must come humility and self-doubt, otherwise you are a conceited ******.

which sadly most are.

I've been around long enough to spot these techniques, and they still don't impress me.

[Simon Templar]

Read the Boss supplement in this weekends AFR.
It has a piece on VDD
It should be renamed DROSS
It paints him as just short of an intellectual saint..which he definitely ain't.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is a chap who was a family friend...known me since I was born...you know the type...Uncle xyz...spent his entire working life running businesses and teaching management....deeply religous man who sang in the church choir...tenor or baritone or some such...his voice moved people to tears,..retired now and suffered from throat cancer presumably from 40 years smoking a pipe.

A few years ago we sat discussing modern management practices with specific reference to what I had experienced in aviation.

I had NEVER seen this man angry let alone swear...I certainly did that night...even the dreaded F word:eek:

In his most passionate view modern management do just about everything they are taught NOT to do in reputable MBA courses....that from a man who spent over 40 years at his craft.

[HI'er]

http://www.pwcgov.org/library/joke/pigs_trough.gif

[gaunty]

HI'er I simply can't resist this.

Who is the fourth pig from the left then?:E

[HI'er]

That would have to be Zarse.

You call them managers!??!!

[gas-chamber]

Gaunty, the 4th little piggy is da boss. The other three are wannabe pilots

[speedbirdhouse]

Facinating that the lead article in this weekends The Australian Financial Review is so scathing of Australia's corporate culture.
More specifically that of QANTAS, Coles Myer, Telstra ect.

Those who have been around pprune for a while will no doubt be aware of how QANTAS operational staff are desparing of the abuse and neglect being inflicted on our national icon.

The article describes the term "short-termism" and is described by the business council of Australia as major problem.
Their report concludes that "short-termism" is, "increasingly a driver of market behavior and a potential constraint on longer term value creation"

On pprune we have more correctly defined the problem as the, "executive performance bonus".

Hell, the BCA it seems agrees and goes on to say, "it may be that short-termism is the result of rational decisions made within an incentive framework that skews the decision maker's focus towards the achievement of short term rewards, even to the detriment of long term returns".

It goes on to explain how reinvestment in aircraft at QF has been constantly delayed to avoid the disincentive of market reaction to spending programs.

At pprune we have correctly described the term as "pigs at the trough". This term descibing the actions of Senior Executives gorging themselves on bonuses derived by maximising short term profits before they move on to their next gig. Leaving the company a basket case.

The article explains, "the overriding imperative in these [QANTAS, TELSTRA etc] cases has been to demonstrate to the market that management is focused on keeping costs down.
The distortion was compounded by executive renumeration schemes that set cost reduction targets as hurdles for bonuses and other incentives.
In a very direct manner, business manaagers were being encouraged to gorge themselves on the carcases of sacked workers.
Maybe you miss your revenue target but at least you meet your cost cutting KPI's."

Rings a bell doesn't it for those at the rat?

The whole article makes facinating reading especially since it comes from the same publication that only weeks ago was hailing Geoff DickSon as the new messiah.

If anyone has an account that allows the link to be cut and pasted it would make interesting reading for the general public.

It'll also be cathartic for those of us at the coalface who still care enough to bemoan our continuing and tragic slide into mediocrity...................

[Sunfish]

As I have said before elsewhere, the rest of the world has woken up to this. Companies perform capability audits when managers leave to ensure that perfomance driven bonuses do not arise from "slash and burn" policies.

Better still, companies who reward managers for performance two to five years in ARREARS.

Cabin crew and pilots deserve annual "performance" bonuses because their performance has an almost "instant" effect on profitability. The decisions the Board and senior management makes normally have at least five year time horizons. It stands to reason that their bonuses should be calculated in arrears - often long after they leave.

Its this stupidity - pilots and cabin staff who make decisions having an immediate effect on profits, having a three year time horizon (as in renegotiating an EBA) while management (who make decisions having three to ten year time horizons) get rewarded on "annual" performance.

[speedbirdhouse]

The following is brought to you via Pro Golfer69, thanks.

____


COMPANIES THAT FORGOT THE CUSTOMER

Author: Andrew Cornell
Publication: Australian Financial Review (17,Sat 26 Nov 2005)
Edition: First
Section: Perspective
Keywords: Qantas (4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you can't watch a movie on the net ... When you can't stretch your legs on a plane ... When the bank can't take care of your money ... Blame it on corporate Australia's habit of under-investing in the future

Across the spectrum, companies are having to face the fact that cost cutting does not constitute an investment in keeping their customers happy.

This week new Commonwealth Bank of Australia chief executive Ralph Norris admitted the bank had to work harder on customer service. It seems that satisfied customers stay with the bank and are more profitable. They are the key to sustainable earnings. And they like branches and helpful humans.

It sounded like a "Doh!" moment: "Oh, customers, that's what we're about; we're in a service industry, we better invest in service." CBA just hadn't made that investment.

In another core franchise, business banking, Norris confessed to a decade of "under-investment".

CBA, though, is hardly alone. There's Telstra: "Doh! We're a technology company and we haven't invested enough in technology infrastructure." Or Qantas: "Doh! We're an airline and we haven't been buying enough planes." And Coles Myer: "Doh! We're a modern retailer and our supply chains are old-fashioned."

Across the corporate spectrum companies are having to face the fact that they have under-invested in the future of their business. Instead, they have pursued shorter-term earnings growth through cost cutting and skimping on maintaining and growing core parts of their business.

These companies have, in ANZ Bank chief executive John McFarlane's memorable phrase, "harvested" without considering future crops.

David Kirk, the new chief executive of Fairfax, the publisher of this paper, has made the point that companies such as Fairfax have not been sufficiently "aggressive" about the future. He explains why: "More considered risks of course, to make acquisitions or to start products, or launch things, to position the company for growth, and growth inevitably is more risky because you're often putting costs out there before you can see whether the revenue's going to work."

The Business Council of Australia agrees the malaise - which goes by the ungainly name short-termism - is a major problem and commissioned a research paper for its annual review called "Beyond the Horizon: Short-Termism in Australia".

"Leading corporate managers, investors and other major participants suggest that short-termism is increasingly a driver of market behaviour and a potential constraint on longer-term value creation," the BCA concludes.

It defines the issue as "the excessive preoccupation with projects, activities and investment designed to deliver improved near-term returns and outcomes at the expense of those that could deliver higher returns and outcomes over the long run".

More technically, it becomes "investment myopia" - inflating the value of near-term returns or, alternatively, excessively discounting future returns.

So Coles Myer finds itself two to three years behind arch rival Woolworths in supply chain management. The blow is doubled: Coles Myer is now spending $600 million over three years while Woolworths lowered its cost of doing business by $1.15 billion in 2004-05 aided by its previous investment in the Project Refresh supply-chain overhaul.

Behind this investment myopia, paradoxically, is a sharper focus on investment performance. The major investors in companies - institutional shareholders and fund managers - are now judged on their quarterly returns. They in turn transmit that constant pressure on to companies. Although fund managers say they are not chopping and changing on a quarterly turn, pressure exists.

In its report on short-termism, the BCA notes the reality: "While the three- to five-year range is an important gauge of performance, it is a lagging indicator and in practical terms gives little guide to future performance.

"As the only way to climb the fund manager league tables is currently one quarter at a time, there are strong competitive pressures to achieve results on a short-term basis. In circumstances where fund performance has been poor, quarterly performance can take on a heightened significance."

A former head of strategy at Colonial remembers being in the target's "war room" during CBA's successful takeover bid.

"We had been constantly speaking to our major investors, gauging their reaction to the bid, talking to them about the long-term value we were building into the company," he says. "We thought they were on-side. But you could watch, as the price moved, those funds just cashing in, one after the other, as they achieved their quarterly performance numbers. They didn't give a f--- about the long term."

The BCA research supports this interpretation: "It may be, however, that short-termism is the result of rational decisions made within an incentive framework that skews the decision makers' focus towards the achievement of short-term rewards, even to the detriment of long-term returns," it says.

"The structure of the funds management sector, the shortening of media/reporting cycles, and increasing levels of media scrutiny are often cited as examples of incentive frameworks which affect the behaviour of fund managers and corporate decision-makers."

Thus the incentives for Qantas to constantly upgrade its fleet of planes are offset by the disincentive of market reaction to spending programs. But the investment can't be postponed indefinitely and Qantas has now committed to a $20 billion renovation of its fleet over 10 years from 2010, on top of a $9 billion program already begun. Not only is Qantas's existing fleet nearing the end of its natural life, the cost of maintenance and rocketing fuel bills from less fuel-efficient older aircraft mean the decision to delay replacement has proved even more costly over time.

The overriding imperative in these cases has been to demonstrate to the market that management is focused on keeping costs down.

The distortion was compounded by executive remuneration schemes that set cost-reduction targets as hurdles for bonuses and other incentives. In a very direct manner, business managers were being encouraged to gorge themselves on the carcasses of sacked workers. Maybe you miss your revenue target but you still make your cost-cutting KPI (key performance indicator).

The BCA cites a Duke University and University of Washington study of 401 senior financial officers of United States companies which found 78 per cent would give up economic value in exchange for reporting smooth earnings growth. Fifty-five per cent of respondents would delay the start-up of profitable investment projects to avoid missing an earnings target, while four out of five executives would defer maintenance and research spending to meet earnings targets.

"Investors prefer the certainty of results today to the prospect of higher but possibly riskier results tomorrow," says ANZ's McFarlane. "The institutionalisation of money together with regular fund performance benchmarking has refocused shareholders towards shorter-term returns. Annual guidance is now almost a given.

"The consequences of short-term underperformance are material. This is in sharp contrast with the purpose of companies, which is essentially to produce acceptable returns for shareholders over the medium term."

Kevin Eley, chief executive of HGL, a listed investor in private companies (see story opposite), sums up the situation: "The first thing to recognise in the public and private company thing is that with private we are in for the long term. With public companies, it is very difficult to consider issues from the long-term perspective."

The temporal mismatch is perhaps best illustrated in the resources world, where a project maybe 10 or even 20 years in development and may run for 100 years. But sharemarket valuations, based on discounted cash flows, don't work over those periods.

Iconic Australian mining figure Arvi Parbo, former managing director of Western Mining Corp and chairman of BHP, made precisely this point in a eulogy for WMC when it was taken over by BHP Billiton.

Paying tribute to Lindesay Clark, a 40-year veteran of WMC, Parbo noted "funds were allocated for bauxite exploration in the Darling Range in the 1950s and for nickel exploration at Kambalda in the 1960s. These modest sums were a severe strain on the company's finances at that time.

"Had discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations then been popular, neither of these projects would have proceeded: the bauxite had been pronounced uneconomic by previous investigators, and there had been no nickel found in the goldfields after 70 years of intense exploration for gold."

Yet today the combined value of the companies that emerged from that vision, WMC and Alumina, approaches $20 billion - more than 300 times the $50 million (in today's dollars) Western Mining was then worth.

The challenge is complex. According to McFarlane "the three main challenges facing companies today are staying alive, producing value for shareholders and building an enterprise that will not only survive but also succeed over the longer term".

Another manifestation of short-termism is executive churn. The blunt response of many boards to shareholder pressure over performance has been to sack chief executives.

According to Booz Allen Hamilton, the underlying tenure of CEOs is 4.9 years - less time than a typical businesses cycle.

The growing recognition of under-investment today is a reaction to several factors. In part it is cyclical. The director of Advanced Strategies at AMP Capital Investors, Michael Anderson, says the ratio of capital expenditure (a current measure of investment) to depreciation (a measure of past expenditure) shows Australian companies are in an above-cycle phase of investment.

"I suspect there are two elements there," he says. "One is catch-up, coming off a period of under-investment in 2002 after the dotcom collapse. The other is a recognition of the strong Australian and global economy and the need to build capacity."

Anderson argues investors such as AMP Capital Investors do not have a short-term perspective and predilection for immediate returns at the expense of longer-term sustainability. "AMP Capital Investors pushes long-term incentive plans for executives, we want long-term shareholder value, we want companies to invest," he says. "That's why we argue executives should be incentivised to participate in the fruits of investment three years down the track."

Anderson concedes that the market does react much more quickly than five or even three years ago. Analysis is much more sophisticated, and some companies may not do a great job of explaining their plans.

The market can still be capricious. When ANZ reported its recent record profit, the bank's expenses grew nearly 8 per cent. McFarlane's explanation was straightforward: the bank had hired thousands of new staff and opened branches, investment was ongoing for growth in the future. The share price was crunched. ANZ stock lost almost 2 per cent on the day of the announcement as investors reacted to the short-term implications of the investment cost.

McFarlane was unapologetic: "We have consciously reduced this year's result for future gains," he said.

With McFarlane's record, investors can be confident those future gains have a good chance of emerging. And the share price did recover.

Yet, as the examples of other major companies show, the prevailing ethos has been that it's better to keep today's shareholders happy by holding back expensive investment - which will only benefit tomorrow's shareholders.

[numbskull]

hear hear Speedbird!!!

It's like watching a car crash.........,unfortunately I happen to be in the car.The driver is focused on someting else and I'm powerless to stop the impending crash.

[Left2assist]

"it's like watching a car crash.."

A huge, catastrophic, slooooooooow motion car crash:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[relax737]

Non operational staff, and I don't mean this to be a put down.....

Pilots can do all the tasks in the airline with the exceptionof engineering with about half a day's training, or perhaps less.

Ground staff couldn't do the pilots' job without many years training and experience.

How do I know that? Well in GA we do all those things, ticketing, cleaning, loading, PR, general roustabout, driving vehicles, and anything else you can think of.

It's the attitude of the management toward their pilots that gets pilots pi$$ed off. They are the ONLY people who GENERATE revenue. If that hurts, then so be it, but it's a fact.

[hughgoagogo]

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He spots a man down below and lowers the balloon to speak with him.

The balloonist gets close enough to speak with the man on the ground and shouts down to him, "Excuse me, but maybe you can help me. I promised my friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man on the ground responds, "No problem; you are in a hot air balloon hovering about 30 feet above this field. You are located at 26' 04.4 North Latitude, and 80' 09.2 West Longitude and drifting slowly south."


You must be an airline pilot, says the balloonist.

"I am, how did you know?" replies the man on the ground.

"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of the information you gave me. I am still lost, so you have done absolutely nothing to help me!"

The man on the ground says "You must be in airline management."

"I am" replies the balloonist, "how did you know?"


"Well"; says the man on the ground, "you do not know where you are or where you are going. You have made a promise that you cannot keep and you expect me to solve your problems for you. The fact is that you are in the exact same position you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."

[Sal-e]

A reason to have a unified union guys....the condition of pilots in Australia is exactly where management wants them to be. So all you '89ers really better bury the hatchet and lets get this unified body up and running asap.

[Chimbu chuckles]

And all this is news?

I have seen this malaise written about at length on this site and discussed it with fellow pilots enroute and on overnights AD NAUSEUM for years!!!!

And NOW all these high paid money people and 'managers' are just coming to the same realisation?

Please!!