Qantas SH EBA Latest Propaganda

[Nemisis]

I have just received the letter from one of our ‘colleagues’ which was conveniently delivered to our company mailslots. It contains ‘his’ view of AIPA’s current handling of the SH EBA negotiations.

The trouble to me is the letter does not read like it is from him at all . I for one do not believe he is the author. The letter sounds so incredibly like all the other company rhetoric we receive and from what he has written he and I clearly did not attend the same briefing. Basically it reads as a blatant insult to our 3 hardworking SH reps, who contrary to what this ‘colleague’ would have us believe, have a measured and strategic approach to the situation at hand. The fact that a change of offer is forthcoming from the company is proof of their competency and I believe we must let them do their job with our full support.

I believe the letter is clearly the act of someone who remains desperate to discredit AIPA, which to me is a really clear indication that it is doing its job and that is what we want them to do.

[Going Boeing]

So you think that the letter was concocted by Dixon's highly paid Industrial consultant?

[Nemisis]

I’m not sure whether on this occasion it directly emanated from the company oracle who lives in the Old Forrest, but to me the letter has the distinct aroma of involvement of at least one individual in the upper echelon. In particular it certainly smacks in similarity to other recent promulgations to the pilots, add that to the method of distribution of the letter and its not difficult to see a bigger picture of collusion.

[SHRAGS]

I tend to agree with Nemisis.
I went to a briefing and what was said in the letter is absolutely WRONG.
The boys have a well considered plan, it is NOT high risk and has nothing to do with the ACTU at all. Where does this come from I wonder....???
More desperate scaremongering by a nervous company scared of a united group. How else could he get these personal letters put in company mailslots???
DON'T LET THEM INTIMIDATE US. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[QFinsider]

Whilst I currently sit in long haul, it is certianly a fight we are all in...Your EBA is my future EBA, and my coming EBA hopefully your future.

As it stands we would be nuts to sign anything. The company will offer something to you guys in order to get you to say yes. Just remember the central tenet of Workchoices post collective agreement is that 90 days from expiry all conditions negotiated can be terminated.....

Given management's stellar employee relations I would personally not trust them as far as I could kick them...........

Hold the line fellas!

S/O briefings
A330 briefings
Now a sweetener to SH( it will come)

Who actually drives the company, Dixon et al?...I don't think so

We need do nothing.........:E

[Wingspar]

Personal mail distributed in company mailslots is definitely forbidden by management.

I would expect any individual doing so to be reprimanded accordingly by the company!

[Nemisis]

What I must say I have found heartening of recent times is the capacity demonstrated by my fellow pilots to see straight through the various attempts to attack those who represent us.

I believe the company oracle who lives in the Old Forrest has dined out on one to many glasses of red over the major victory of his career. Some years later having industrially evolved we see these tactics more clearly for what they are. Consequently I feel the oracle’s mystique has left him, his tactics are now outdated, quite ineffectual and he certainly does not seem to be providing value for money to those he advises anymore. He won’t like reading this of course, neither will his employer who in private moments has likely been having some sense of doubt about him for some time now. In particular I feel one very poorly executed move was the contracting of someone who once protected us, to apparently deliver us all to the company on a platter, a move that I believe has failed and has caused a colossal loss of corporate credibility.

In summary, my personal view is that this latest letter has been a very desperate, poor and extremely transparent attempt to turn around a complete failure to industrially deliver us to the company.

[The Full Monty]

Reading PPRuNe and Qrewroom is like watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Extreme left and extreme right views, which results in the silent majority of "moderates" switching off. Which is why most pilots I fly with never read PPRuNe or Qrewroom. Which is why you only tend to read extreme views here.

Unlike anyone who has "contributed" to this thread thus far, I rang the author of the letter. I had never met him, his name being only vaguely familiar from the occasional tech log entry. We had a good talk. I listened to what he had to say. I take my hat off to him for having the guts to sign his name, provide his phone number, and invite conversation to work for a common goal.

I have also spoken to two of the three pilot reps negotiating. They have said the same things to me that the author of the letter did! And most B737 pilots like the fella's doing this thankless task.

I have also spoken to our B737 managers who have the "honour" of sitting on the other side of the table with the company negotiators. They have said the same things to me that the author of the letter and our reps did! And most B737 pilots like our B737 managers!

So, I've ascertained that B737 pilots, B737 reps and B737 managers are all working for and wanting largely the same thing.

It would appear to me from talking to the three parties above that the "problem" is at the top of the house at Qantas, and at AIPA. IMHO, until the new General Manager at AIPA learns that he is no longer a government lobbyist, and that the QF CEO is not an MP who reacts to public perception, as he cannot be elected out of office, and that AIPAs public is not the general public, but pilots who work for the CEO, then I don't think we will move forward. The CEO is the CEO is the CEO and you have to work with what you have.

To quote our former DCP, "if you continually thump someone over the head with a four by two, don't be surprised if he says get f*cked when you ask him for $10. Pilots do more damage to pilots than management ever could do".

For us moderates on the B737, we are now starting to feel left out in a war now being fought on ego's and legalese, which past experience shows we end up being the losers. That is all my new acquaintance who had the guts to put his name to a letter, was trying to say.

It is time to get out of courts, and to re-start a relationship with the office of the CEO. The new way is not working... the old way perhaps did not meet the expectations of the bar room policy makers, but it had successful runs on the board.

I have just realised that I have probably wasted half an hour of my life writing this and I retire again from posting for another couple of years... Bill O'Reilly is on soon anyway.

[QFinsider]

You are spot on Nemisis,

They have pushed a little too far...

You cant fool all the people, all the time. The hand has well and truly been overplayed, but there are a few believers steadfastly holding to the belief that management is looking after us! :ugh:

Wait for the EBA sweetener for shorthaul! :mad:

If we are collectively dumb enough to fall for it, amazingly after the next EBA expires...."workchoices" :E

[N2O]

It is time to get out of courts, and to re-start a relationship with the office of the CEO. The new way is not working... the old way perhaps did not meet the expectations of the bar room policy makers, but it had successful runs on the board.

I'm sure the vast majority of FO's & SO's who have seen their career aspirations evaporate might disagree.

[The Full Monty]

I am not a Captain :=

[N2O]

I am not a Captain :=
I wish you well in the future.

I can't get that scene from Wall Street (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/) out of my mind. It was only fiction...

BUD
I found out about the garage sale down at Bluestar. Why?

Gekko is taken by surprise.

GEKKO
Last night I read Rudy the story of Winnie the Pooh and the Honey pot. Know what happened: he stuck his nose in that honey pot once too often and got stung.

BUD
Maybe you ought to read him Pinocchio. You told me you were going to turn Bluestar around. Not upside down. You used me.

GEKKO
You're walking around blind without a cane, sport. A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place.

BUD
Why do you need to wreck this company?

GEKKO
Because it's wreckable. I took another look and I changed my mind.

BUD
If these people lose their jobs, nowhere to go. My father worked at Bluestar for twenty-four years. I gave 'em my word.

GEKKO
(hard)
It's all about bucks, kid, the rest is conversation...
(loosening)
Bud, you're still going to be president. And when the time comes, you'll parachute out a rich man. With the money you're going to make, your father won't have to work another day in his life.

BUD
Tell me, Gordon--when does it all end? How many yachts can you waterski behind? How much is enough?

GEKKO
Buddy, it's not a question of enough. It's a zero sum game, sport. Somebody wins and somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another. Like magic. That painting cost $60,000 10 years ago. I could sell it today for $600,000. The illusion has become real. And the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it.
Capitalism at its finest.

BUD
(again)
How much is enough Gordon?

GEKKO
The richest one percent of this country owns half the country's wealth: 5 trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds of it comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulation to widows and idiot sons and what I do -- stock and real estate speculation. It's bull****. Ninety percent of the American people have little or no net worth. I create nothing; I own.
We make the rules, Buddy, the news, war, peace, famine, upheaval; the cost of a paper clip. (picking one up)
We pull the rabbit out of the hat while everybody else sits around their whole life wondering how we did it...
(crosses to Bud)
...you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy are you, Buddy? It's the free market.
You're one of us now...take advantage of it. You got the killer instinct, kid, stick with me. I got things to teach you...

BUD
Obviously...

[Nemisis]

I believe Wall Street was a great movie indeed, whilst it was fiction one line from the movie that I believe is a matter of empirical fact was as I recall, “Money never sleeps”.

'Hypothetically' speaking of course, rest assured that those that wish to make more of it, could attempt to do so, by eroding the conditions of a legacy carrier, by for example exporting its flying into a lower cost entity, then only to rebrand it back to the original one, when the few remaining in that legacy carrier are vanquished. The main ingredient for success in such a plan would be to render the moderates impotent (I have heard someone sees us that way) with propaganda so they would do nothing to resist. That is, to do nothing, whilst the planning to achieve this was continued in the Old Forrest and implemented in stealth.
Originally posted by The Full Monty
“I have also spoken to two of the three pilot reps negotiating. They have said the same things to me that the author of the letter did! And most B737 pilots like the fella's doing this thankless task.”
Now just to avoid any ‘potential’ for confusion, last nights edition of AIPA Insights said of the letter:
SHORT HAUL
EBA Update by the Short Haul EBA Negotiating Team
Judging by the private letter placed into Company mail slots recently, it appears that some members may be confused as to how the Short Haul EBA Team intends to progress future negotiations, even after the briefings.

We would like to address the major concerns:

We are not a test case for Long Haul. Short Haul talks are simply before Long Haul and one of the first Agreements under the new WorkChoices legislation, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
The ACTU has nothing to do with our negotiations and never has.
There is nothing high risk about considering all future ramifications of the new legislation. So that others are not confused, we would like to reaffirm that we are going to negotiate the best deal possible and let the pilots decide which way we proceed. We are attempting to maintain our current conditions and any future offers will need to address this issue.

The statements made in the letter were incorrect.

[Keg]

.... and to re-start a relationship with the office of the CEO.

We had a relationship with the CEO. It brought us Jetstar. They were having confidential negotiations with Impulse whilst turnining up to meetings with QF pilots and telling us that we would have a seat at the table. This is the same CEO that reportedly referred to QF pilots as 'soft cocks'.

As for the analogy of belting the CEO with a two by four then I think some are deluded about when the belting started. QF the company took to 'belting' the pilot body a long time before the pilot body decided to challenge them- be it in court, the newspapers or in discussions. The pilot body has been saying for a long time that we want good things for the group. We asked for a seat at the J* table and got nothing (and that was when we had a good relationship). We got an MoU to be able to fly J* aircraft that is worthless with company personnel telling us that they'll never let it work effectively because the mainline pilot body would 'pollute' the culture of J*.

I agree that the courts aren't the way to go but forgive me if I think that having a relationship with the CEO has delivered anything other than angst for the pilot body in recent years. :ugh:

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Well? After all this discussion, just what did the letter say?

[The Full Monty]

Keg, I forgive you.:)

I also acknowledge that you will never change your views and I respect that.

I also respect that it is your type of views (loudly and often expressed) that current AIPA have formed their bar room policies around.

I didn't apply to join Impulse. They have had good growth and that is fantastic for the people who work there. I didn't apply to join Sunstate, who have had good growth and that is fantastic for the people who work there (and I don't hear any human outcry from fellow Qantas pilots for the left seat of a Q400 and I can't distinguish the issue of "must have Jetstar" v's no interest in Sunstate, except one flies a jet. Ah, that is it !!).

I did apply to join Qantas and we have had great growth. I did not join as a Captain, or with any guarantee that I would eventually become one. Subject to a vacancy in the company that I joined, within the seniority system of the company that I joined, if I was operationally qualified, then it probably would occur. One day. It could take 20 years, or it could take 6 years. There is no timetable. If I can get through a 30 something year career without taking a demotion, without being retrenched, without taking a big hit in pay, then I will be more than satisfied and everything else will be remembered with fond reflection.

I look at Jetstar, or Sunstate, or Eastern, or Jetconnect, with the same view as I looked at the RAN FAA and AAAvn. Same "group", different arm, with my role to play in the arm that I joined. I may not have liked one or two CO's I worked for, but I respected the relationship, and my role in the relationship. If Qantas pilots put as much energy into making "our" business right, for our "CO", as they do incessantly going on about an arm they do not even work for, then we would all be much better off.

But that is not going to happen. I concede that. :ugh: Lucky for me that there are only two of us on the flight deck of a B737, and that the vast majority of the Captains in my base think like me. :D

Good bye.

[Wingspar]

Don't get too worked up.

Jetstar Int. has not proven itself yet and has a similar feel to when Aussie started up and just look at where that operation is now! Marketing was an issue then and look at the millions that JQ are pumping in to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again.
Sure the emphasis is on JQ at the moment but that will die down. But GD must keep QF expanding because of it's fixed cost base. This will happen eventually.

Patience is a virtue.

If everyone does their job including GD then all will be happy. The old QF is long gone and the new QF must evolve or die (re: Ansett).

Concentrate on keeping what is in the award or the best you can 'cause that is the best pay and conditions in the country now.

[Keg]

I also acknowledge that you will never change your views and I respect that.

Not true at all. I was once the quintessential 'company man'. I'm a very loyal servant (just ask my current boss in a different enterprise to QF although his title is CDR rather than 'CO' ;) ). I'm more than happy to review my thoughts and beliefs on any and all issues and have changed them when I felt that it was required. I'm very comfortable with the concept of what is good for the 'group' should also be 'good' for me in the long term. However I don't see any wisdom in locking out or disenfranchising a large swathe of the pilot body- and that applies equally to QF and AIPA.

Your military analogy isn't bad except for one thing. You joined the RAAF- part of the ADF. Six years later the ADF took over the RNZAF (work with me here) and decided that they preferred their cost base to do a lot of the work formerly done by the RAAF. The RAAF has stagnated, no promotion, no expansion. The ADF has decided that many tasks formerly done by the RAAF are better done by the RNZAF and are transferring equipment to them. This has meant that many RAAF personnel are doing little/ nothing whilst the RNZAF is expanding greatly. We have duplicate command structures, duplicates of policy and procedures, duplicates of virtually everything. The ADF is not talking to the RAAF and despite an MoU to allow RAAF crews to do an 'exchange' with the RNZAF has decided to stop that happening lest the RAAF crews pollute the 'culture' of the RNZAF. So in that respect I still give my loyalty to my CO (who isn't a bad bloke) and CDR of the FEG and do the best I can at the tasks I'm given but I think the CDF is not a nice piece of work. I also have some thoughts about the government who is over seeing the CDF (the board in QFs case). I think it's a waste that you have very competent and very capable crew who have dedicated their lives to the ADF but those who chose to serve elsewhere are given opportuntieis that are being actively denied to those who chose to serve here first. There is nothing we can do about the ADF 'favouring' the RNZAF in this case but it doesn't make it 'right'. It also doesn't mean that we lay down and say 'ah well, I should've signed on for the RNZAF twelve years ago'. Don't ge me wrong, this isn't whether or not the ADF should have just one arm, this is about having TWO arms doing EXACTLY the same thing.

I'll note too that it has taken me 12 years to get to my current level of disengagement. I'm actually quite easy to lead. If treated with respect I respond with respect. If treated with disdain is it any suprise that I respond with disdain? Even Wayne reckons that if you thump a bloke with a 2x4 it should be no suprise when he doesn't respond as you'd like!

Given that I don't even know what the views of the original writer of the letter are it's hard to argue whether or not I even agree with them. If you read my response to Wayne's comments on Qrewroom you'll see that I actually agree with Wayne on how to negotiate and then ask how it is that we do that when the other side does not. You'll note that I also asked if the original writer of the letter would post it up on Qrewroom for the rest of us. Until then I'm discussing things a bit one sided however I'll come back to my point- both here and on Qrewroom- it is difficult to negotiate and engage with someone who isn't playing by the same set of rules.

[cowabunga438]

I did apply to join Qantas and we have had great growth.


Except we haven't.

The entire group is in a time of "unprecendented" growth (our chiefs own words).

Mainline however is not growing, and promotion is stagnant.

The last period of growth in the mid 80s (which according to our chief was not as good as the one we are now in) saw commands occur in 10 years.

For those that joined at the biginning of the current growth period (mid 90s) commands are looking at being 16 - 18 years. For new joiners it could well be over 20 years.

You call that good growth?

Are you insane?

[blueloo]

Now now, settle.....remember... "the sun shines every day" :sad:

[The Full Monty]

Just a short exit note, as I'm off to work.

Nemisis, I spoke to the two rep's. I know what they said, and as such I doubt they wrote the material you have quoted. But, I'm not interested in defending AIPA Insights, because at the end of the day, AIPA can write what it likes, because they are not accountable for anything in any material way, whilst that is not the case with the Company.

:) Keg my friend, nice try but I don't buy it because I firmly believe that this entire "problem" has no other basis than "we" want to cut someone else's lunch. I repeat that there is no human outcry about getting left hand seats on the Q400! And, I clearly remember my first type after pilots course being given to the Army...

The pilot utopia being sought would be a wonderful thing, but we work for a business. The only place I know where you can have access to everything on the airfield, in any scheme, is at ETPS! :ok: Has anyone actually thought through what AIPA utopia would mean? At the very least one could expect to kiss good bye to Qantas paying for type conversions...

Cowabunga dude, I'm not sure which Qantas you work for, but my Qantas has 6 more B744's, 14 A330's (yes, 4 are temporarily leaving) and 19 more B737's than the day I joined, with 6 B762's retired in that time and 1 B743 and 1 B742 retired. I had an "amazing" ride from S/O to F/O because of this growth. With more aircraft to come. :ok:

And just to finish up, the author of the letter that started this thread joined the Company in 1994 and became a Captain in 2003. 9 years! Well done that man. :D I wonder if I might be with him today.... off to ring Prakash in Scheduling again.

Retired from thread.

[B A Lert]

Monty,

Well said, and please don't retire as your words are indeed wise and even a tad challenging for many of your colleagues.

How refreshing. Encore. Bravo.:D :D :D

[longjohn]

A good post Monty, however, you may like to check your facts Re: the aircraft numbers, me thinks more retirements( 4 747 - 200's plus SP's 737 - 300s /400's and 1 747 - 400. and only 13 A330's (pre Jetstar). In nett terms I think you will find that the number of total mainline hulls have barely increased.

Also, your mate who made command in 9 years joined at perhaps the best possible time (1994 - 1997). His Seniority would be about 1150 ish out of 2400 odd. Shame about the quarter of the group (600 - 700) odd pilots who joined after 1998 (only 3 years later) and are looking at more like 20 years to command. I suppose it is all from whose perspective you look from.

[Jetsbest]

I disagree with Monty but for the sake of accuracy QF's A330s are as follows:
- A330-200s VH-EBA/B/C/D = four all going to Jetstar, and
- A330-300s VH-QPA/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J = ten staying in QF, so
- total = 14.

[N2O]

Shame about the quarter of the group (600 - 700) odd pilots who joined after 1998 (only 3 years later) and are looking at more like 20 years to command. I suppose it is all from whose perspective you look from.
And what guarantee will waiting 20 years provide?

[speeeedy]

Monty,

Your mate, lets call him Roger Clinton (Black Sheep Brother of the ex president), was just lucky to get his command when he did, at that time the 73 was on the nose with the 400 F/O's and it went very junior, but that changed just after Roger got his command because of the vertical promotion ban. Ask the guy just 2 numbers behind, he is still an F/O on the 737 apparently.

9 years for Roger, but 12 years and counting for the other guy just 2 numbers away - best estimate for when a 73 will get back to those seniority numbers is about 3 years but could easily be 5 or more.

That will make 15 to 17 years for a '94 joiner to get a 73 command - good luck for the rest......

[cowabunga438]

Just a short exit note, as
Cowabunga dude, I'm not sure which Qantas you work for, but my Qantas has 6 more B744's, 14 A330's (yes, 4 are temporarily leaving) and 19 more B737's than the day I joined, with 6 B762's retired in that time and 1 B743 and 1 B742 retired. I had an "amazing" ride from S/O to F/O because of this growth. With more aircraft to come. :ok:
And just to finish up, the author of the letter that started this thread joined the Company in 1994 and became a Captain in 2003. 9 years! Well done that man. :D I wonder if I might be with him today.... off to ring Prakash in Scheduling again.
Retired from thread.

A quick look at the books shows that most people who joined in 1994 are not within coooeee of a command. I think I know who the author is from your remarks, and I wouldn't be bringing up his rise to cammand as a talking point if I was you. He was bloody lucky. It had nothing to do with expansion.

The simple fact is commands are well over the 15 year mark for the majority (all but 1 or 2) of 1994 joiners, and more for later arrivals.

You a/c figures seem wrong to me. Unless you joined at a funny time (after some a/c went but before some others arrived). In my time there has been an increase in a/c numbers by only a couple.

So unprecedented expansion is bugger all increase in a/c numbers and 17 years to command.

If you think that is good you are insane.

[OneDotLow]

FACT :

The latest promotional training slots showed that the most junior command was awarded on the B767 to a pilot who joined QF 19 years ago.

Posted without emotion, so you can make your own minds up...

[Nemisis]

Nemisis, I spoke to the two rep's. I know what they said, and as such I doubt they wrote the material you have quoted. But, I'm not interested in defending AIPA Insights, because at the end of the day, AIPA can write what it likes, because they are not accountable for anything in any material way, whilst that is not the case with the Company

I too have now made my enquiries and it can be taken as FACT that the Short Haul EBA Team have autonomy over the AIPA Insights Short Haul EBA byline and that the team wrote the material.

This weeks AIPA Insights is quite thought provoking, it sounds very familiar to me. Its time to see through the illusion.

From AIPA Insights 8th November 2006
Union Busting
Pursuing that line a little further, one of our members provided me with the following excerpt from a book he has been reading:

“Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is a war without honour. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. Each “union prevention” campaign, as the wars are called, turns on a combined strategy of disinformation and personal assaults. When a chief executive hires a labour relations consultant to battle a union, he gives the consultant run of the company and closes his eyes. The consultant, backed by attorneys, installs himself in the corporate offices and goes to work creating a climate of terror that is inevitably blamed on the union.”These words are from “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Martin Jay Levitt. Levitt was one of the most successful union busters in recent history in the USA. He successfully destroyed unions in over 200 companies in his career. If the tactics described above sound familiar then I suspect it could be because just such an entity is being used by the company in its attacks on the unions, including AIPA. Interestingly, Levitt reveals that the busters usually number only a handful of people who set the strategies. The real work is done by managers and supervisors, basically a pyramid scheme of destruction.

[Agent Mulder]

Do you believe in the Boogie Man?

Why is it that sensible individuals believe everything that is written in that populist magazine (insights)?

You are being misled!

[Nemisis]

If only, it was just that Mulder, it would be an easy fix.

My view, I believe its the oracle from the old forrest in consultation with his mates from the east coast and Martin Jay Levitt's book is a detailed and true story of what goes on in a union busting situation.

[Nemisis]

FYI GD on CEO Forum here :

http:www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6292 (http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6292)

[Keg]

There is some possibility of that, although I have found, at least in my role, the urgent often is the important! We do long-term planning, but, inevitably, you are doing a lot of fire fighting as well. I think this would be the same for a lot of CEOs.

Intersesting that one of the lessons espoused in management forums (including QF CRM as recently as last year) is that what is 'urgent' isn't always important. There are times that it is but more often then not it is just what is in front of your face at the time. Perhaps as the CEO he has different experiences to the vast nature of the remainder of management......then again given his next comment nothing suprises me when GD goes 'counter' to established thinking and practise when it comes to leadership and management.

I sometimes get criticised for this, but I have always seen shareholders as our most important stakeholders. I know some CEOs say look after your customers, look after your employees, and the returns for shareholders will follow. I do the exact opposite. We wouldn’t have staff or customers unless we had shareholders who were willing to invest in what is not the most attractive industry at present....

One hundred years of leadership research, theory and practise shows that if you focus on the task to the exclusion of all the 'team' and the 'individuals' who make up the team then you're eventually going to come a cropper. I'm guessing the directors of companies who have had significant success with a team first approach are being negligent in GDs eyes. Without the success of those people there would be no company for the shareholders to invest in. It's a circular argument and not a very bright one- especially if you get to the stage where your workers are crap because you've neglected them for too long. See how well looked after your shareholders feel then! :rolleyes:

ceoforum.com.au: Now you have two very different businesses, do you move managers a lot between the two entities, so they can acquire different operating skills?

GD: No we don’t, although we would like to do more of this in the future.

But we couldn't possibly move pilots who are doing bugger all flying in one part of the group because we're claim to be worried about 'polluting' the culture. In reality we're just p'd off that they voted in a union leadership who aren't quite as compliant as the old mob.