blueloo
12th Apr 2006, 09:30
It may have been posted in another topic, but I post here for seperate comments - this writer seems to not hold back his very bias opinion - has this article been sponsored by Geoff? ( i think Geoff has a far better PR department, than any pilot body - be it AIPA or otherwise. What AIPA clearly needs is a professional, hired PR person/department which can counter these articles) I thought reporters were meant to research their facts. I would love to know what he earns, and how he can possibly justify his wage.
If he makes a serious mistake (like most of the attached article) all he has to do (probably only when threatened with legal action) is make an apology or retraction in a newspaper.....if a pilot makes a mistake.........
From the Australian Newspaper:
Australian Article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18789182-5001641,00.html)
Flying in the face of tradition
The boss of Jetstar shows that airlines can make money writes Matthew Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12, 2006
WHILE his pilots circle the Federal Court, trying to turn back their industrial relations clock, Geoff Dixon resolutely pushed ahead yesterday with Qantas's plans to create the lowest-cost international airline flying Australian skies.
And no, that will not be Qantas. Dixon's low-cost brand is Jetstar and from November it will replace Australian Airlines as the Flying Kangaroo's low-cost, or in airline speak, "leisure market" operator.
There is a lot to admire about Dixon. He is working in a most unusual industry, if only because a bulk of the international competitors in the long-haul market do not seem to care that much whether they make money or not.
And yet the Qantas team's relentless, stealthy search to balance business growth with improved productivity and cost reduction has shaped a business which usually earns better than its cost of capital. And that is a rare feat in the airline game.
The only arm of Qantas's business which last year fell short of Dixon's primary fiscal ambition was international. The effective transfer of Australian Airlines international routes to Jetstar should help change that. Where Australian lost money last year, Jetstar would have made a comfortable profit.
Why? Because Jetstar's costs are about 30 per cent lower than Australian and a remarkable 40 per cent lower than Qantas.
How is that? Because Jetstar employs its staff under an enterprise agreement completely different to the collection of historical baggage that is Qantas's workplace arrangements. The effect is that Jetstar pays its A320 pilots $148,000 a year. Qantas pays them something closer to $250,000. Jetstar uses fewer cabin crew more efficiently and for less pay than Qantas. And so it goes across the board from maintenance to administration.
Jetstar should be a model for those who continue to carry the flame of workplace reform in Australia. The discount airline was created to clarify and protect the Qantas brand and profit base from the threat of cut-price competition in the domestic market. As the same time it has allowed Qantas to release the hounds of workplace reform. So effective is the Jetstar business model that it was inevitable it would replace Australian.
The key to winning in the discount services game is, obviously, controlling costs of delivery. Like Virgin Blue, Jetstar was able to rewrite the rules, most particularly in its workplace deals. Only Jetstar did even better than Sir Richard Branson's Aussie love child. Jetstar workers do more for less than anyone in Australian airlines.
And, if the endorsement of the new EBA covering international flights by 70 per cent of Jetstar pilots is any guide, the workers don't mind the new world at all.
The old ones, though, are starting to worry and to express their agitation. After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots went to the Federal Court last month to stop the latest Jetstar pay deal. The Top Guns at Qantas reckon the deal undercut their industry standards and so fails the "no disadvantage test".
Meanwhile Dixon has decided to further test the tolerance of Qantas staff with the intriguing decision to switch 400 Australian Airlines staff into Qantas livery.
Qantas will "wet lease" the Australian fleet. Which means the Australian planes will fly under the Qantas banner, their crews will wear Qantas uniforms and their customers will be booked through Qantas systems. And yet they will be paid less than other Qantas crews.
This puts the various unions covering Qantas in a potentially difficult position. Any sustained protest might well risk 400 redundancies rather than the 40 cuts (no redundancies) Qantas is looking for.
Talking of jobs, given expected regulatory approvals, Jetstar will be on the hunt later this year for 550 new employees including 50-60 pilots, cabin crew, airport management and head office staff.
The 30 per cent expansion in Jetstar's number again shows how wrong is the perception that Dixon is a ruthless job cutter. In fact, the strategy for Jetstar keeps Dixon on track to maintain a record of creating about 1000 jobs a year.
The other intriguing cat let out of Dixon's bag yesterday is that he is trying to convince the federal Government to accept a golden share in return for surrendering some, or all, of the three-tier controls on Qantas's share register.
When the Government floated the national carrier it limited ownership by any one shareholder to a maximum of 25 per cent, ownership by an alliance of airlines to 35 per cent and overall foreign ownership to 49 per cent.
At the time it may have seemed Qantas needed that level of defence from muscled-up international predators. It has had the opposite effect though. It has prevented Qantas from capturing the full value of its comparatively stronger performance.
Effectively, the Qantas board does not have full control of its capital base. At least not enough to enter a takeover or merger that would involve a major equity placement or swap with potential international partners or targets.
Dixon's proposed kangaroo share, which has airline equivalents in Singapore, New Zealand and Britain, would give the federal Government power to approve any major evolution of Qantas's capital base. The effect of that would be that international governments would still view Qantas as operating under Australian Government control no matter who spoke for the equity of the business.
Which all sounds good. But the fact that Dixon has to lob such an idea at the Government, which after all can control foreign ownership of Qantas through the Foreign Investment Review Board, tells us that it is not of a mind to change the current ties binding Qantas.
If he makes a serious mistake (like most of the attached article) all he has to do (probably only when threatened with legal action) is make an apology or retraction in a newspaper.....if a pilot makes a mistake.........
From the Australian Newspaper:
Australian Article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18789182-5001641,00.html)
Flying in the face of tradition
The boss of Jetstar shows that airlines can make money writes Matthew Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12, 2006
WHILE his pilots circle the Federal Court, trying to turn back their industrial relations clock, Geoff Dixon resolutely pushed ahead yesterday with Qantas's plans to create the lowest-cost international airline flying Australian skies.
And no, that will not be Qantas. Dixon's low-cost brand is Jetstar and from November it will replace Australian Airlines as the Flying Kangaroo's low-cost, or in airline speak, "leisure market" operator.
There is a lot to admire about Dixon. He is working in a most unusual industry, if only because a bulk of the international competitors in the long-haul market do not seem to care that much whether they make money or not.
And yet the Qantas team's relentless, stealthy search to balance business growth with improved productivity and cost reduction has shaped a business which usually earns better than its cost of capital. And that is a rare feat in the airline game.
The only arm of Qantas's business which last year fell short of Dixon's primary fiscal ambition was international. The effective transfer of Australian Airlines international routes to Jetstar should help change that. Where Australian lost money last year, Jetstar would have made a comfortable profit.
Why? Because Jetstar's costs are about 30 per cent lower than Australian and a remarkable 40 per cent lower than Qantas.
How is that? Because Jetstar employs its staff under an enterprise agreement completely different to the collection of historical baggage that is Qantas's workplace arrangements. The effect is that Jetstar pays its A320 pilots $148,000 a year. Qantas pays them something closer to $250,000. Jetstar uses fewer cabin crew more efficiently and for less pay than Qantas. And so it goes across the board from maintenance to administration.
Jetstar should be a model for those who continue to carry the flame of workplace reform in Australia. The discount airline was created to clarify and protect the Qantas brand and profit base from the threat of cut-price competition in the domestic market. As the same time it has allowed Qantas to release the hounds of workplace reform. So effective is the Jetstar business model that it was inevitable it would replace Australian.
The key to winning in the discount services game is, obviously, controlling costs of delivery. Like Virgin Blue, Jetstar was able to rewrite the rules, most particularly in its workplace deals. Only Jetstar did even better than Sir Richard Branson's Aussie love child. Jetstar workers do more for less than anyone in Australian airlines.
And, if the endorsement of the new EBA covering international flights by 70 per cent of Jetstar pilots is any guide, the workers don't mind the new world at all.
The old ones, though, are starting to worry and to express their agitation. After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots went to the Federal Court last month to stop the latest Jetstar pay deal. The Top Guns at Qantas reckon the deal undercut their industry standards and so fails the "no disadvantage test".
Meanwhile Dixon has decided to further test the tolerance of Qantas staff with the intriguing decision to switch 400 Australian Airlines staff into Qantas livery.
Qantas will "wet lease" the Australian fleet. Which means the Australian planes will fly under the Qantas banner, their crews will wear Qantas uniforms and their customers will be booked through Qantas systems. And yet they will be paid less than other Qantas crews.
This puts the various unions covering Qantas in a potentially difficult position. Any sustained protest might well risk 400 redundancies rather than the 40 cuts (no redundancies) Qantas is looking for.
Talking of jobs, given expected regulatory approvals, Jetstar will be on the hunt later this year for 550 new employees including 50-60 pilots, cabin crew, airport management and head office staff.
The 30 per cent expansion in Jetstar's number again shows how wrong is the perception that Dixon is a ruthless job cutter. In fact, the strategy for Jetstar keeps Dixon on track to maintain a record of creating about 1000 jobs a year.
The other intriguing cat let out of Dixon's bag yesterday is that he is trying to convince the federal Government to accept a golden share in return for surrendering some, or all, of the three-tier controls on Qantas's share register.
When the Government floated the national carrier it limited ownership by any one shareholder to a maximum of 25 per cent, ownership by an alliance of airlines to 35 per cent and overall foreign ownership to 49 per cent.
At the time it may have seemed Qantas needed that level of defence from muscled-up international predators. It has had the opposite effect though. It has prevented Qantas from capturing the full value of its comparatively stronger performance.
Effectively, the Qantas board does not have full control of its capital base. At least not enough to enter a takeover or merger that would involve a major equity placement or swap with potential international partners or targets.
Dixon's proposed kangaroo share, which has airline equivalents in Singapore, New Zealand and Britain, would give the federal Government power to approve any major evolution of Qantas's capital base. The effect of that would be that international governments would still view Qantas as operating under Australian Government control no matter who spoke for the equity of the business.
Which all sounds good. But the fact that Dixon has to lob such an idea at the Government, which after all can control foreign ownership of Qantas through the Foreign Investment Review Board, tells us that it is not of a mind to change the current ties binding Qantas.