Qantas, Outsource the CEO.

[king oath]

Michael Pascoe writing in todays Crikey newsletter suggests Qantas could save heaps by outsourcing the CEO job to Asia.

His figures suggest Geoff gets more than the CEO's of Singapore, Cathay and British Airways let alone the other carriers around the region.

They could source Geoff's job out to a clever oriental businessman and save heaps. Hope the Board thinks of it too Michael.

[chief wiggum]

why not close the office down ?

surely it is a duplicate role, when you also have a chairperson, fleet managers, board and financial controller.

what IS the job description ?

[Ultralights]

with an asian CEO, they might even get a fair go at running their 1 star asia airline!

[Amelia_Flashtart]

I am never sure what credentials one is supposed to have to be CEO of an international carrier - however I believe Mr Dixon was a political journalist back in the 1970's. I worked overseas with a woman who had worked with him in Canberra as a journo, and even she cannot believe how he made the quantum leap to his current role.

No doubt he would have all the right connections even if he didn't have the business background or experience - and he could be his own "spin doctor".

Quite a frightening concept really - it seems that the job has already been outsourced!:rolleyes:

[Keg]

Outsource it? Bugger that. I'll do it for 25% of what Dixon's whole package is worth- and I'm already employed by QF! :E I'm tertiary qualified, have experience in business (director of a company), have experience in management (not QF), have experience in project management (about six on the go at the moment) and have a bit of an idea as to how to manage people- or so my subordinates say when I'm buying them beers! :}

Give it to me and I've INSTANTLY made the QF bottom line look better to the tune of $3 Million. That HAS to be worth a bonus straight up! 50% of the savings I reckon! :ok: :E

[OzExpat]

Now there's a novel idea Keg... put somebody into the job who has real experience!:eek:

Nah... far too much logic for this industry, so it'll never happen.:sad:

[Turbo 5B]

Keg, I don't have your qualifications so i'll have to put a bid in for 15%.

[jaded boiler]

Keg my boy, are you so disengaged that you're prepared to make such treasonous posts?

You're starting not to sound like a team member who is focused on making a commitment to core initiatives to facilitate positive outcomes with respect to key stakeholders and pursuing flexible responses in an extraordinarily difficult operating environment with multiple external challenges going forward. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Keg]

Not disengaged at all. What I'm seeing is the synergies that can arise when a workforce is networked to ensure optimal capability and combines with a flattened decision making matrix. Further, the efficiencies that come from engaging with the custodians of the organisational sub cultures mean that we can reach optimal performance quickly and achieve above average scores in all key performance indicators. All this for 1/4 of the cost of the current bloke. :E

Actually, I'm pretty well engaged at the moment. I'm loving what I'm doing and having a blast. I'm teamed up with a great bloke and we're just having a great time jumping through whatever hoops they put in front of us. I'll be even happier in a couple of months. Of course, note that it's all about 'me'! :}

Seriously though. How hard is it to tell people to slash and burn? :* Any chump can strip a business bare and outsource the lot. The real skill is in the 'building' of a business, not selling it all off! :(

[hotnhigh]

:cool:
Who'll be chief pilot Keg?

[Mr Qantas]

Pretenders the lot of you! Id like to see ya's preform like Mr Dixon did on the SUnday program I thoght it was a sterling effort.

[Sunfish]

Sunfish is going to be chief pilot. After all I can fly a Cessna so a 747 couldn't possibly be hard right?

[Keg]

Sorry Sunfish, but I'm not having a Victorian as my Chief Pilot. How would it ensure that Qantas maintains its Sydney centric mode of operation? :} :E

However, if you'd be prepared to denounce all other football teams and follow the Sydney Swans then I may consider your application. :cool:

ROFL @ Mr Qantas. Mr Dixon had want to have performed well....it was a doddle of an interview with no toughies at all.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Keg for PM

[Red Baron]

Interesting article, if only we could make it happen!:rolleyes:

[Scumfish]

Vote 1. Sunfish for Dicko's job. :eek:

[Woomera]

While thus thread remains in its current spirit I will let it run.

Be warned however that any future derogitory references to any individual or group will result in the deletion of the thread instantly...and banning of the miscreant involved.

We all like to poke a little fun but it's been getting well out of hand around here of late.


Ethereal Woomera

[engine out]

It seems to me that if Pilots, Flight Attendant, Ground Crew, Admin people etc are employed on a fixed contract with fixed rate of pay so should the CEO and all other managers. Granted their salary would be a little higher than the janitor or pilots but less than what they currently receive. Come the end of year if the company makes a profit then any bonus paid to them should be the same as that paid to everybody else, and the real bonus is that they keep their job for another year. This would cut costs dramatically. Some one might say that nobody would then want the job, but that is aviation and somebody always wants the job (just look at whats going on around us).

The days of corporate fat cats should be over. The other idea would be to link all pay rises and bonuses to that of the top executives so everybody wins, but the company and shareholder loses.

Can the share holders request such a management type change at the AGM?

[rescue 1]

Good thought Engine out.

I understand that Gerry Harvey pays himself about AUD200K, and takes shares as an annual bonus if the business performs. Perhaps more CEO's should take a leaf from him???

[king oath]

If anyone wants to read Pascoe's original piece it can be found on crikey.com. au under the business section.

While tongue in cheek it has some merit particulary if you are an engineer whose job is under threat of outsourcing.

Legitimate public discussion by Pascoe.

[Mr Qantas]

Mr DIxon may want to restructre the company to keep it vieble but why is that a problem. The value of the man can be seen in the share price thats up about a dollar in twelve months. 25% growth good work Geoff:ok:

[Keg]

Yeah, and what was it about five years ago? $5!

I'm sure that Geoff Dixon was part of the management team back then which means he presided over the share price going from $5 to under $3 and back again. Yeah, good one Geoff. :yuk: :*

[Ron & Edna Johns]

"Restructuring" has had nothing to do with this rise in share price. It has been purely because the sharemarket has been increasingly aware, over the last 4-5 months, that SQ was not going to get the green light on the Pacific. Ask any broker.

The damage that management is doing to its workforce aside, I will give Jackson and Dixon credit where it's due - they have been lobbying the Fed Govt tirelessly on that front and appear to have been successful. Well done.

[Datum]

It will not matter what the shareprice is now or later or for that matter who the CEO is for the next couple of years.....

Qantas is far bigger than the current man at the helm, the Board of Directors or the shareholder...

If QANTAS Management do not start to understand the problems it is causing due to its aggressive stance towards all their employee groups....the company will destroy itself and what it stands for from the inside out....

The shareholder is not the only stakeholder.....employee happiness and loyalty go a long way towards the long term success and development of a company.

'The shareholder' would be shocked if they had any understanding of how pissed of QF employees are right now....

GD should be ashamed of the culture that has emerged within his organisation :uhoh:

[frangatang]

If Dixon goes can he take that tart with ferking weird(sorry,that should be fashionable) glasses with him?

[Datum]

Taken from Australian Financial Review (59,Mon 27 Feb 2006)

"Reading John Durie's "Jobs threat: Dixon's key lever" (February 23) caused me to reflect on recent expressions that Australia has become a meaner country under the Howard government.

Qantas boss Geoff Dixon is waging an "assault" on unions, wanting to reduce maintenance workers' pay packets by $10,000 to $15,000 because they are obviously overpaid, earning about $65,000 to $70,000. Such a move might be commendable as a cost-cutting measure if it weren't for Dixon's personal pay performance, as reported early last year.
His total remuneration was up 163.8 per cent on the previous year, from a meagre $2,309,384 to $6,091,272. It seems the American disease is spreading to our top executives, but for everyone else it's a race to the bottom. Perhaps the maintenance workers could argue for greater parity in their enterprise bargaining agreement, not less.
Alan Pomering,
School of Management,
The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW."

What an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE.....Management maybe....LEADERSHIP - I think NOT!:*

[aircraft]

Datum, and those other posters to this thread that have such difficulty accepting the way the world is,

Geoff Dixon's remuneration is set by the Qantas board and has nothing to do with the pilot's salaries and conditions and nor should it.

For his remuneration to have gone up by 163% it appears that it must be linked to some aspects of the company's performance. It is not unusual for management remuneration to be linked to company performance.

If you can't accept these realities then maybe you need to move to and work in a communist country. I am of the opinion that his performance has been very good and that he most probably deserves every cent.

Call it "an assault" if that makes you feel better, but when it comes to reducing labour costs and increasing productivity, GD and the Qantas management are really just doing their jobs. If your problem is that he is not being very nice about it then you have a lot more to learn about this world than I realised.

For Qantas to survive it is imperative that labour costs are reduced and productivity increased, so start seeing management as the fighter warriors of all those mum and dad shareholders! Again, if you have trouble with this little reality, time to move to Cuba.

To all those that continue to use the expressions "overpaid" and "underpaid": when will you realise that these states are just matters of opinion and have absolutely no bearing on how much somebody is or should be paid.

How much somebody is/should be paid is determined purely by the market conditions! This is another of those annoying little realities - GD's remuneration is a perfect example of this reality.

[Keg]

I am of the opinion that his performance has been very good...

Based on what?

Share price? Still 25% below it's peaks of about five years ago.

Dividend return? About 5% although it has been less at times in the last bunch of years.

Expansion of airline to other destinations? Paris- gone. Rome- gone. Taipei- gone. Port Moresby- gone. Buenos Aires- gone. Tahiti- gone. San Francisco- only just going back now after 10 years out of the market. Same with China. The 744 flys to LHR and FRA via SIN, BKK and HKG and to LA via BNE, MEL, SYD and AKL. I hope nothing happens to the US market or the UK because if it does, the whole deck of cards comes tumbling down.

Staff engagement- the real place where you can make some money or at least lose much less- record lows.

So yeah, you're right. Based on those criteria. Sterling job. Actually, I've just worked out that I reckon I can save the company a truck load more than the original $3 mill if i were the CEO. I've just identified another 1-3 mill in savings. Most techies know where it would come from! :E I reckon I could find that again in multiples of ten! :yuk:

[Chronic Snoozer]

Based on what?
:yuk:

The fact that the airline isn't bankrupt, given the thin market it operates in.

[Keg]

Hmmm. On second thoughts, edited because I'd hate for the Woomerii to have to ban me.

I must remember for the future that as long as you're not broke, you're having a 'very good' performance. :rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Nobody responded to the bait when I appointed myself chief pilot, so I will have to make my comments directly.

I expect Mr. Dixon deserves his salary, despite the distaste some of us have for his strategy.

As you know, flying a B747 is vastly different from chugging around in a Cessna. It sounds easy to say lets make Keg the CEO, but consider the reality.

The first point is simply a question of equity, if Mr. Dixon is going to make a billion dollar profit for the shareholders, then he is entitled to some of it sticking to his fingers.

Why, you may ask? Because the CEO's position is infinitely more risky than an F18 pilots. One major faux pas and you are gone. Why is this different from a pilots position? Because the risks involved are only partially manageable.

Mr. Dixon is engaged in trying to turn a carrier with 35,000 staff (?) into a lean mean machine after 30+ years of protected state owned slumber. This is niether easy nor quick, if it is possible at all.

As pilots you know that you are absolutely responsible for getting the aircraft safely to its destination. Dixon is responsible in exactly the same way for all of you, and all your aircraft and other assets.

The only difference is that Dixon can "lighten ship" by throwing people overboard and you cannot.:}

[Lodown]

And he can take the ship in directions that the passengers don't want to go. Or even better, he can leave it parked on the ground, make lots of engine sounds, blacken the windows, shake the fuselage and serve drinks. Then after a few hours, he can turn the lights back on, stop making noises and causing fuselage shakes and tell everyone they've arrived. Some will believe him. If he does it often enough, those who still don't believe him will give up arguing otherwise.

[Datum]

Aircraft - As I said the CEO has responsibilities to many different stakeholders, least of which are his employees! Many in the corporate world have chosen to ignore this of late...for many it has come back to haunt them later. :uhoh:

I aggree...the Board of Directors are responsible for setting the CEO's conditions. Obviously they are also out of touch and lack an understanding of sound leadership....

Imagine the effect on the QF Group staff if GD announced that he was 'LEADING' the way towards a 'SUSTAINABLE FUTURE' by taking an equal cut in pay that he is demanding of his employees (Engineers, Cabin Crew and Pilots..) Imagine the roll on effect it may have on the rest of Corporate Australia...

Change requires careful implementation and management. If change is poorly managed without solid leadership....the BRAND will suffer. There are long term effects to much of what is being forced upon areas of the company.....It does not matter whether an organisation is providing a service or product if the majority of employees are not happy the end product or service will be below standard!

Additionally, I would argue that a Pilot or Crew has a far greater potential of losing an Airline inordinate sums of money.

How much revenue do you believe would be lost if a B744 crew stuffed up so badly the fully laden aircraft crahed killing everyone on board.....the CEO's mistakes would suddenly look somehat INSIGNIFICANT!:hmm:

[Lodown]

Look at it like the achievements of an engineer - a construction engineer. Anyone can build a bridge, but an engineer will build it at half the cost and a third of the weight. Same thing with Dixon. I could have a go at the CEO job, but I don't think I would be there for long and neither would Qantas.

Datum, a lot of pilots tend to think of the company as being about flying an aircraft. It's a little more than that. It provides a service to a demanding customer. Pilot duties, cabin crew, PR staff and managers all have a duty in providing that service. Any one or more of them can stuff up that service and ruin an image and reputation.

[qcc2]

its not the board who sets the wages of geoff. its done by consultants (as pointed out by dame margret) who advises the board on a various packages. performance targets are set depending on market expectations/conditions and if achieved triggers a variety of bonuses. of course you never see a consultant reduce someones package (that would be the end of his/her career).
as for lodown comment on providing service to pilots/crew etc. here is the lowdown. i haven't operated on an aircraft which works for the last year(and before that) it has gone progressevily worse the state of the cabin, fittings and entertainment system.the technical log is full of inoperative equipment, the IFE log is full page after page and you can add everyones favourite page at the beginning of the ife log hidden inside which lists the open defects.
thats why we keep calling it apologie airways. does gd and the rest give a you know what. no, because it would affect their bonuses:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Chris Higgins]

Okay, so here we have it. Aircraft falling apart. Aircraft without engines still being shown as part of the fleet and rotting at Avalon. The mainstream product being diluted by cost-cutting moves and by exporting labour to cheap countries. Negative press on industrial relations and falling out of favour with the government....

Does anyone still think this wannabe is still doing a good job-and no I'm not talking about kids from Perth; I mean anyone that actually works there?

[Datum]

For any 'Management' types reading this thread, or anyone with aspirations of Airline Management read the following summation posted today by 'ROKAPE' in D+G General Aviation + Questions....

As a Manager / Leader - It is important to understand ALL facets of your business or organisation. (Albiet a limited understanding of some areas) However, by understanding the challenges your workers face every day you will have a greater RESPECT for your valuable workforce.

NOTE: Respecting your workforce will probably increase your performance bonus and salary indirectly, yet substantially. Got your attention yet!

READ AND REFLECT....

QUOTE:

'Colleagues,

With regard to Chimbu chuckles writings on bean counters and others perception of our profession and our level of remuneration.....
The next time a ground crew member, FA, accountant, bloke at a bbq etc says to you "Yea but it's all automatic isn't it? You guys don't work, you don't even do the landing". Instead of smiling or mumbling a half hearted response, let them know the facts of our profession.

The vast majority of T/O and Landings are manual.
We land a 65t, 85t, 100t etc machine at 200kmph on a piece of tarmac, in all sorts of weather conditions, the machine is worth US$65, A$85, A$100 million with 100, 200,400 POB.
We work 8-11 hour shifts nearly every time we sign on.
Our work space is in a small locked room at 8000' with large amounts of radiation.
The aircraft is travelling 800kmph+ at 40,000’ with a -65 degree temperature. It is a harsh environment if something goes wrong.
We can’t leave our ‘office’ for lunch or a coffee/smoke break, we don’t do corporate lunch’s.
We too take our work home, we spend significant amounts of time updating Jepps/company manuals and brushing up on CASA/company regulations and aircraft systems. Or writing the odd incident report.
Yes we have overnights in exotic places like Perth, but we don't go home every night to catch up on house jobs, kids and the washing.
No we don’t work as many hours as doctors, however a doctor works on one patient at a time with four, five, six or more other doctors available for a second opinion. Not to mention nurses that will also monitor and assist with a patient.
Yes we fly the majority of our time in controlled airspace with ATCO’s to assist us. However they are not in the cockpit and the final responsibility is with the Captain. We are responsible for hundreds of people at a time.
We are tested at aircraft simulator sessions bi or quad annually.
We must renew our command instrument rating every 12 months.
We are line checked every 12 months.
We must qualify in EP's, DG's, CRM and must keep these current.
Yes in the cruise we do sit there and manage (radio, navigation, aircraft systems, crew, passengers, aircraft cabin environment) the safe conduct of the flight. And yes on occasion someone may read a paper. I don’t know of an accountant who will crunch numbers for an entire eight hour shift with out sneaking on the internet or reading the paper or making a non business related phone call.
We have done a long poorly paid apprenticeship to gain the experience to qualify for a jet job. PPL,CPL,IREX,ATPL,ME-CIR, numerous aircraft endorsements ratings and approvals.
We must have a valid medical to fly, which lasts 12 months. As you get older the medicals get more rigorous.
We have a large influence on the operating costs of our company with regard to, on time performance, fuel carried, fuel used, brake usage, training.
‘180k may be 4-5 time the national average’ remuneration that's what experience is worth. I don’t mind a medical specialist making A$350,000, he deserves it, I am paying for his experience.
I also don’t begrudge a Caterpillar D12 bulldozer driver making A$110,000+. He is operating expensive equipment and can push dirt on a 35 degree bank angle and move ? tonnes of tailings per hour.If an accountant makes a mistake a company only loses A$100 million on fuel hedging or a stapler gets jammed and gets paid accordingly. If pilots make a mistake the company will probably not survive and people may be hurt or worse.
When people mention "yea but most crashes are pilot error", mention the incidents in which the pilots have saved the aircraft and occupants. These incidents happen every day.......'

END QUOTE - Good one ROKAPE!...:ok:

[Traffic]

King Oath

Your original post referred to the fact that the CEO of Qantas makes more than the CEO's of SQ, CX and BA.

I think if you had researched a little more before making that statement you would have found that the CEO of Qantas took more out of his company than the other three combined.

...and if my research is correct, there would still be enough money left over to employ the CEO's of Thai, Vietnam Airlines, Air China, China Southern, China Eastern and China Airlines.


Woomera,

As long as the debate remains civil I request you let it run. This debate addresses an important matter of principle.

Qantas continues to exercise oligopolistic powers in its own market and maintains a significant influence over government aviation policy.

With that power comes a responsibility.

If the CEO of Qantas has a hide so thick that you could use it to re-skin a 747 , someone or some group with greater power should remind him forcefully of his responsibilities.

If he is so devoid of ideas that the only weapon he can use is to destroy the organisation he is entrusted with, then perhaps it is time for a change.

[Metro man]

If the company does well the CEO gets the credit and the bonuses, even if the improvement is due to outside factors eg competitor collapses.

If the company does badly usually some external factor can be blamed and a reduced bonus taken.

If a companys poor performance is glaringly obviously due to the CEO and no outside factor can be found to pass the blame on to then an exit package is worked out, giving the CEO a nice payout.

Come what may they can't lose. See what kind of payout you get if you fail your instrument rating.

Outsource the entire board to India at 10% of the present cost and pass the savings on to the staff who really do the work.

[Chris Higgins]

When Donald Carty at American Airlines took huge "bonus" money, the shareholders and unions fired him almost immediately. He was entirely responsible for the crackpot idea of the TWA takeover. If the unions ever get together in Australia and actually start courting the press properly, you will get similar results.

[aircraft]

Datum,

Your post was way off topic. This thread is about outsourcing the Qantas CEO - not about what QF pilots think they are worth.

I find it amazing that in almost every recent post about Qantas/Jetstar, some QF pilot has to make a post about how much "they are worth". None of the threads in question were about how much a QF pilot is worth and nobody said or implied they were being "overpaid" in any way. I and a few others did say that Qantas cannot afford the current salary levels but that is not the same.

I am beginning to think that these QF pilots are so insecure that any disagreement with them is viewed as an attack on their personal worth.

I have said it a number of times recently and will say it yet again:

What you think you are worth has nothing to do with how much you are/will be paid. It is the market conditions that determine how much you are/should be paid. What you think you are worth is a matter of opinion and no two individuals would think the same.

I suggest you start a new thread titled "QF pilots - what we think we're worth" and confine the chest beating to that thread only. In fact, I dare you to do this.

Traffic,
GD is just doing his job. The board and shareholders are best placed to judge whether he is doing a good or bad job, and they don't seem to be complaining too loudly.

Chris Higgins said:
Aircraft falling apart. Aircraft without engines still being shown as part of the fleet and rotting at Avalon. The mainstream product being diluted by cost-cutting moves and by exporting labour to cheap countries. Negative press on industrial relations and falling out of favour with the government....
Sounds like a perfectly normally functioning airline to me!

[get_over_it]

i'm going to leave this one alone.

the industry is.....hmmm in a bit of a crossroads at the moment.

pay pilots more to do a better job? can we do a better job? probably not.

pay the CEO more to do a better job? i don't know.

somebody probably could *hint hint*

[Agent Mulder]

What no one cares to define is what is the "Market"?

There are 300 JQ Pilots, 400 VB Pilots and about 100 NJS Pilots flying jets in Australia. Total of 800.

There are 2500 Qantas Pilots flying jets in Australia.

Total 3300.

Qantas Pilots are 76% of "the Market".

Therefore, by any reasoned argument, Qantas Pilots are the "Market". The other 24% are earning below market salaries and therefore are to be supported in their attempts to bring their salaries up to meet the market, not the opposite.

Standing by for reasoned argument.

[Chris Higgins]

I see you're only six years old, that might actually work out better. At least you could look forward to long tenure..it would be a long-term investment. What does child labour go for at the executive level?

[get_over_it]

I see you're only six years old, that might actually work out better. At least you could look forward to long tenure..it would be a long-term investment. What does child labour go for at the executive level?

no i think i'm below the legal age for employment (in australia anyway...dunno about where you are? who knows....probably depends which state (or country)). heaven forbid if a six year old like myself was put in charge of qantas.

[Chris Higgins]

Agnet Mulder

The below average remuneration package doesn't stop there.

Not only paying for initial employment, but paying for a shot at upgrade; come on! Talk about selling out.

Did any of the Eastern guys fall for that Pay-For-Training crap to fly a turbo-prop?

[Datum]

Your post was way off topic. This thread is about outsourcing the Qantas CEO - not about what QF pilots think they are worth.



aircraft - This thread addresses far more than 'Outsourcing the Qantas CEO'...like most threads it has expanded in it's scope. The underlying theme of this thread surrounds the principle of FAIRNESS or lack thereof. More specifically, the thread highlights the thoughts of the majority - that is, 'LEADERSHIP' within many corporate organisations (including QF) is severely lacking....

I was attempting to do two things:

1. Highlight a well thought out post from another thread; and

2. Illustrate the inequality of a Airline Pilot's Salary (read terms and conditions) compared to a CEO when examined against the resposibilities and challenges associated with day to day operations....

Once again - I was attemtping to promote open discussion on FAIRNESS.

I do not for a minute believe the CEO job would be a walk in the park...
Actually, I will openly admit GD has done some good things for the QF Group....

However - it is a bit rich to be asking numerous employee groups within the organisation to make considerable financial concessions whilst he only grows more wealthy....this is simply UNFAIR...I think it is time the Board of Directors seriously consider another option as the employees of the QF Group need SOLID LEADERSHIP and they need it NOW!

[Animalclub]

The vast majority of pilots that I know/knew (international as well as domestic) tell of the expense and trying places/companies that they have worked in/with... but they still made the CHOICE to become a pilot... and I applaud them for sticking it out. We need them.

Most wanted to fly bigger/faster aircraft and did enough research to KNOW what Simbu Man said and Datum reproduced (except for the bits about the Cat driver, doctors and nurses).

I'm an ex arline man (too old) and I'm not trying to bring the wrath of pilots down on me but... it is a lifestyle that pilots CHOOSE... there are such things as insurances to take care of such things as loss of licence... and if you can't pass the exams/tests you shouldn't be a pilot.

Hasn't that list been the situation since passenger jets started flying? Employment conditions/salaries are not on the list so please don't bring that up.

[QUOTE=Datum]
The vast majority of T/O and Landings are manual.
We land a 65t, 85t, 100t etc machine at 200kmph on a piece of tarmac, in all sorts of weather conditions, the machine is worth US$65, A$85, A$100 million with 100, 200,400 POB.
We work 8-11 hour shifts nearly every time we sign on.
Our work space is in a small locked room at 8000' with large amounts of radiation.
The aircraft is travelling 800kmph+ at 40,000’ with a -65 degree temperature. It is a harsh environment if something goes wrong.
We can’t leave our ‘office’ for lunch or a coffee/smoke break, we don’t do corporate lunch’s.
We too take our work home, we spend significant amounts of time updating Jepps/company manuals and brushing up on CASA/company regulations and aircraft systems. Or writing the odd incident report.
Yes we have overnights in exotic places like Perth, but we don't go home every night to catch up on house jobs, kids and the washing.
Yes we fly the majority of our time in controlled airspace with ATCO’s to assist us. However they are not in the cockpit and the final responsibility is with the Captain. We are responsible for hundreds of people at a time.
We are tested at aircraft simulator sessions bi or quad annually.
We must renew our command instrument rating every 12 months.
We are line checked every 12 months.
We must qualify in EP's, DG's, CRM and must keep these current.
Yes in the cruise we do sit there and manage (radio, navigation, aircraft systems, crew, passengers, aircraft cabin environment) the safe conduct of the flight. And yes on occasion someone may read a paper. I don’t know of an accountant who will crunch numbers for an entire eight hour shift with out sneaking on the internet or reading the paper or making a non business related phone call.
We have done a long poorly paid apprenticeship to gain the experience to qualify for a jet job. PPL,CPL,IREX,ATPL,ME-CIR, numerous aircraft endorsements ratings and approvals.
We must have a valid medical to fly, which lasts 12 months. As you get older the medicals get more rigorous.
We have a large influence on the operating costs of our company with regard to, on time performance, fuel carried, fuel used, brake usage, training.
QUOTE]

My point... don't use "choice" in an argument/debate.