PDA

View Full Version : Qf Staff Morale


DEFCON4
18th Jul 2007, 02:13
CONTRAILS
with Geoffrey Thomas
In the wake of theAirline Partners Australia(APA) buyout collapse,Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon delivered the investmentcommunity a 21 page Powerpoint presentation on the airline’s strategy going forward.Longer suffering Qantas
staff, whose morale is at an all time low, would have been disappointed to note that there was no mention of any new staff initiatives or incentives to lift the morale off the runway and up to 40,000ft where it should be.One Powerpoint slide said the staff had “performed superbly” and there were
“some concerns on job security and future”. Both are gross understatements.
The Qantas staff were more than superb and morale is rock bottom – although it understandably jumped after the failure of the takeover.Dixon conceded to investors that staff – along with most Australians – were very pleased the bid had failed.Staff morale is the cornerstone of any service industry and an airline is the most service-oriented industry ofall. Across the globe wherever you have inspirational leadership, the airline soars.Ralph Norris, now CEO of the Commonwealth Bank,and current CEO Rob Fyfe at Air New Zealand are excellent examples of howi nspirational leadership has turned an airline around.
Norris adopted a philosophy along the lines of“I don’t care so much about
shareholders. I care about my staff, who in turn look after my passengers and my passengers look after my shareholders.”Qantas management has brushed with wannabe shareholders and has come off second best. Reputations have been tarnished at best and some business scribes even argue that their name shave been sullied, which is a shame as the team is one ofthe industry’s best.
But it is now high time to get back to basics. Qantas and Jetstar carry passengers from all over Australia – not just Sydney – and every passenger remembers a bad experience which tends to be retold countless times at
dinner parties or over morning coffee. This writer has never heard a bad Emirates,Cathay or Singapore Airlines story.There is no reason whatsoever
that Qantas cannot be the world’s best full service airline and Jetstar the world’sbest low cost carrier. All the ingredients are there.Qantas staff want to
connect with senior management and they want to share their fears and frustrations– not at round table survey sessions where they are polite for fear of their jobs– but at the coalface with John Borghetti serving economy passengers, Geoff Dixon checking passengers in and Peter Gregg lumping
baggage.
It is time to take a leaf out of Air New Zealand management’s book and
engage the staff in a real and meaningful way that will galvanise the airline and its staff.
Dixon and his team are being told what they want to hear by middle management that appears not to be connected with staff in the
workplace.
On the ABC’s The World Today, Scott Connolly from the Transport Workers
Union said: “The road ahead for the board, for the management team is not going to be any easier unless they refocus on what’s important to Qantas workers, what’s important to the Qantas community and what’s important to all Australians for their national carrier.”
Peter Somerville of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA)
added: “Qantas and its board have made one attempt to go ahead without the staff. Now it’s time for a new start and to do it with the staff.”
Somerville added in a sobering note that: “We’ve had years of Geoff Dixon talking crisis, talking problems,talking cost-cutting, talking sacrifice. We all understand that, but now after the APA bid and the amount of information
that’s come out, it’s time that part of the benefit was shared with the staff.”
Clearly, Qantas’s senior management needs to “walk the walk and talk the talk
with staff ”, not in a sanitised environment but on the job.Air New Zealand management works side-by-side with staff at least once a month and the results have been incredible, according to the airline’s employees.
Only by working shoulder to shoulder with frontline staff will senior management get a true understanding of the enormous pressures on, and the true value of, its staff and the effect on productivity will
be sky high! Geoff Dixon’s briefing to investors said the staff had “performed
superbly” during the APA takeover period, despite “some concerns
on job security and future”. Will management now work shoulder
to shoulder with its most important asset ?
Qantas – time to focus on the staff
Dixon feels that "morale"is a funny overused word
While ever he is around things wont change because he just doesnt get it

Erin Brockovich
18th Jul 2007, 02:48
“I don’t care so much about
shareholders. I care about my staff, who in turn look after my passengers and my passengers look after my shareholders.”Now there’s an idea!

surfside6
18th Jul 2007, 03:00
Before Dixon arrived QF employees were engaged.
If you saw a way of improving or fixing a procedure you were encouraged to do so.
Now we have a situation where, if you are not on the upper floors of QCA,you could not possibly have an idea that could be beneficial to the business.
Fear and intimidation are not and never have been successful managment tools.
There are a lot of failed companies which are testimony to this
Dixon is poorly educated.
He disguises this by being nothing more than a thug in a smart suit.
A thug is a thug is a thug.
Wake Up Geoff !!!

speeeedy
18th Jul 2007, 03:03
From the guru himself:

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, and I am constantly stating that message to our staff.

For this and other gems see the full interview here (http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-detail.cfm?cid=6292)

FOG

assasin8
18th Jul 2007, 03:05
Actually I'd like to see all three of them, Geoff, Peter and John, cleaning out the toilets!!!

Fantastic idea to have these "managers" out of their ivory towers and seeing it all for real! Might make them realise what a mess is being created by them all...

packrat
18th Jul 2007, 03:14
Dixon lives in a vaccuum where all his minions tell him everthing is fantastic......which it ain't.
The best thing about Dixon is his age..he will retire soon...but not soon enough.
Thank God the basturd is not 45.

lowerlobe
18th Jul 2007, 03:35
Darth's ideas on how to run a business would appear to be better suited to one that made wheel nuts or some other inanimate object.

He really has no idea when it comes to dealing with PEOPLE.Perhaps he should be a sewerage worker as he would fit right in.

chemical alli
18th Jul 2007, 03:43
answer to morale ,go kayaking and building little bridges from sticks ,works everytime.

Animalclub
18th Jul 2007, 03:45
I don't think it is fair to have a go at KENNY!!!

lowerlobe
18th Jul 2007, 04:18
Animalclub...Sorry,I wasn't having a go at Kenny,far from it.

I meant that Darth would fit in with the other objects that are found in a sewerage treatment plant .

hotnhigh
18th Jul 2007, 05:37
Credit to Geoffrey of the Thomas variety, for highlighting what most in the organisation already know.
I'm the first to admit that I haven't agreed with some of GT's articles, however he was one of the first to make comments such as these in the early hours after the whole apa debacle fell over.
I thought his comments on sunrise the following morning hit the nail on the head and echoed many of the above sentiments. Shame David Koche(?) was blinded by his 'god is great' and 'how could this happen to australia's dream board' when he was talking to Geoffrey Thomas, to actually get a vibe on what his 'dream board' has really delivered and what is required to get Qantas back to where it should be.
Good one Geoffrey of the Thomas variety.:ok:

captainrats
18th Jul 2007, 06:09
Dixons shareholder rhetoric is nonsense.
Shareholders have continually hammered the QF shareprice.
Dixon has continually talked down the share price with his Chicken Little cry of the "sky is falling".
Dixons agenda...destroy the Unions and the Qantas Culture.
What he fails to realize is that the "culture"is a huge positive for the business.
The goodwill,the pride and the work ethic that are all part of what Qantas is all about are continually bombarded.
The effect is devastating.
Every time an engineer highlights a failure in maintenance Dixon or Cox complain that it is a ploy to further engineering's bargaining position in upcoming EBA's
Pilots highlight a problem....the same response
Cabin Crew highlight a problem and they are "evil bun tossers".
What sort of moron declares war on the very people who want the business to succeed more than he does.
Dixon is the chief "visitor".
He has been here for a minute
He has filled his pockets.
Then the bastard leaves.
The rest of us are left to clean up his mess.
Morale is what made Qantas great.
A poorly educated self absorbed CEO like Dixon must make the competition so bloody ecstatic.
Dixon provides no competition at all.
He has no ideas of his own.He steals them from others.
Dixon is just not very bright...cunning... but as dumb as dogshite.

B A Lert
18th Jul 2007, 06:36
Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon delivered the investment community a 21 page Powerpoint presentation on the airline’s strategy going forward.

Why the hell isn't this, and all other major presentations by Jackson, Dixon, Gregg, Joyce et al, published on the Qantas web-site so that all shareholders and staff can see what is being planned, and determine how it may effect them? :(:(

surfside6
18th Jul 2007, 07:25
..............because Dixon doesnt want you to know.
His concern for shareholders is just bloody theatre.

DEFCON4
18th Jul 2007, 08:50
Thats fantastic....if you have intranet access.....which the majority of staff don't.
Shareholders definitely DONT have access to the intranet.
So the point is moot.

B A Lert
18th Jul 2007, 10:39
I will ask again "Why the hell isn't this, and all other major presentations by Jackson, Dixon, Gregg, Joyce et al, published on the Qantas web-site"

If you look at the link below you will see how diligent QF has been in keeping shareholders briefed. After all, why maintain an "Investors" section at all on the Corporate web-site? Also, it's one thing to hear something but quite another to be able to swat the written word.

http://www.qantas.com.au/info/about/investors/companyPresentations

DEFCON4
18th Jul 2007, 12:35
During the APA bid it was next to impossible to obtain any information, including profit upgrades,from Dixon and Gregg.
It was only after a great deal of media pressure was brought to bear that the information was forthcoming.
The whole episode was a disgrace if not criminal in its process.
No wonder morale is non existent.....you cant trust your employer.
The board's complicity made it exponentially worse.
Epithets such as "the magic circle club"..."the illuminati".... spring to mind.
Gordon Gekko is a saint compared to these people.
Not one word from any regulatory body....what is going on in this country?
-Animal Farm-....elitist swine!!!

aircraft
18th Jul 2007, 13:57
The sins and/or failings of Dixon exist only in your imagination.

To judge whether he is doing a good job or not, you only need to look at the share price, but why not take note of the upward revised profit forecasts as well?

That share price, by the way, has recently been forecast to go as high as $7.

You must be thinking of somebody else.

lowerlobe
18th Jul 2007, 21:30
Aircraft....

SO when did the share price head north?

Thats right when someone found out about a takeover bid.

Dixon had been at the helm for years and continually talked down the price and all of a sudden now that someone has shown interest in the company the share price skyrockets.

So it had nothing to do with him at all and what about the reluctance of the board to give an accurate profit forecast to shareholders?

Why did he continually and with almost monotonous regularity talk down the share price when it was so valuable.

Obviously it is because the takeover group would not have been interested in borrowing such huge amounts of money to buy it.

He is typical of most corporate people at present.

When everything is going well it is because of their skill and acumen but when it goes south it is someone else's fault namely the employee's or the stupid market that has mental problems if they can't understand things.:E:E

Fliegenmong
18th Jul 2007, 22:33
LL.........

I enjoy your posts.....but why would you so much as read let alone justify via a response to aircraft???:confused:

lowerlobe
18th Jul 2007, 22:39
Fliegenmong...

Probably because I like the chance to have a shot at Darth.

Aircraft, as most of us have shown has no idea and is so far out of his depth even a snorkel would be of no help.

He is probably some 15 yeard old from the Young Liberals but as I said he is not the issue,Darth is.

gigs
18th Jul 2007, 22:51
aircraft,any company who has staff working for them who work and feel like they are living as slaves in the middle ages (some not all staff ) is going to make a shxx load of money.its not rocket science! cheers gigs

jaded boiler
18th Jul 2007, 23:57
Continued responses to the village idiot will only encourage him/her to further befoul this forum with more asinine, pig-ignorant musings. Best ignore.

Enema Bandit's Dad
19th Jul 2007, 09:26
Welcome back aircraft. Where have you been? How come you've come back? Did one of your kindergarten mates pinch your favourite Tonka toy from the sandpit or something??? :yuk::yuk::}:bored::eek:

speeeedy
19th Jul 2007, 12:18
Aircraft,

There is one fact beyond all doubt and that is that, you, who professes so much knowledge about Qantas and Jetstar and the management thereof did not know that Jetstar Asia existed. I'm sorry but you have no place in any debate regarding these topics other than as pure amusement. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

aircraft
19th Jul 2007, 15:23
lowerlobe said:
Dixon had been at the helm for years and continually talked down the price and all of a sudden now that someone has shown interest in the company the share price skyrockets.

So it had nothing to do with him at all...

But the share price did not return to the pre bid levels following the failure of the APA bid, so it must be said that this event caused a significant (favourable) revaluation of Qantas. In other words, the market was forced to come to its senses in regard to the Qantas value.

So to who, or what, should that previously unrealised value be attributed? I will give you a hint by reminding you that LBO schemers tend to target undervalued but well managed companies.

Why did he continually and with almost monotonous regularity talk down the share price when it was so valuable.
It only became "so valuable" when the APA bid was announced. It was not "so valuable" during the time that he was "continually and with almost monotonous regularity talking down the share price". Dixon would always have valued the company above the market but it is not his valuation that counts.

I cannot see how anybody could claim he (and the board) were not acting in the best interests of the shareholders before, during, and after the bid.

YesTAM
19th Jul 2007, 20:14
I try and avoid trolls, but this one finally laid enough bait.

I will give you a hint by reminding you that LBO schemers tend to target undervalued but well managed companies.This is crap. Companies are undervalued because of bad management such that their return on equity adjusted for risk is below long term interest rates. This is the capital asset pricing model.

Dixon and the Board have continually talked down the value of the company through moaning about business conditions and competition (which is a matter of record) for three reasons.

1. To keep pressure on the Government to maintain the Qantas stranglehold over capacity, and hence load factor and yield.

2. To keep pressure on staff and justify outsourcing and redundancies.

3. To mask the true value of the corporation for reasons I expect the ACCC will eventually investigate. Better commentators than I have remarked on the absence of useful information from the Board that would have helped the shareholders form a better informed opinion about the APA bid. This is also a matter of record.

As we have seen, the market called him on point number three, and have since been proved correct. Dixon is now forced to disgorge his profit improvement plans that were originally for the ears of APA I expect. That is why the share price has risen.

Notwithstanding the share price increase, it is stupid management behaviour in the long or short term not to pay attention to staff morale, since staff behaviour has an immediate and often permanent effect on customer perceptions - and that can be negative as well as positive.

I know of no one in my circle who will willingly fly Qantas if alternatives exist and there appear to be plenty of others who feel the same - you factor that into the share price.

And as a P.S....How stupid would the shareholders feel today, and how smug would the APA bidders feel today, given the tanking U.S. Dollar, if the bid had succeeded?

aircraft
22nd Jul 2007, 04:55
YesTAM,
Companies are undervalued because of bad management...
I think you mean underperform because of bad management. A company can only be undervalued if the entity making the valuation is sufficiently unaware of aspects of the business, or if the methods used in making the valuation are inappropriate for that particular company/business.

I think you are overestimating the effect of Dixon's statements on the share price, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that he was doing whatever he could to keep the share price down so that the APA bid would succeed.

How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.

YesTAM
22nd Jul 2007, 10:23
I'm not replying to Aircrafts posts on this subject because I believe this trolling is for the purposes of a defamation lawsuit, or other activity to shut down comment on Qantas by its staff or anyone else.

mrpaxing
22nd Jul 2007, 21:46
in the debate is APA was very keen on QF 's cash flow and cash at hand. lets not forget that over A$ 2 billion cash were in the kitty (now more likely 3+). add the gearing levels and here is your big carrot.:O

lowerlobe
22nd Jul 2007, 22:01
Aircraft and Pass whatever...have diverted the thread.It is about QF morale and if you look at the sheer numbers of disengaged staff there are then there is a significant problem.

'holic
22nd Jul 2007, 22:04
... let's assume that he was doing whatever he could to keep the share price down so that the APA bid would succeed.

How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.What utter rubbish!

Didn't Mac Bank state shortly after the bid failed that their valuation of Qantas shares was $7.60? That's like a real estate agent you've contracted to sell your house, talking the price down, then selling it to a mate who he knows values it at more than he paid. Oh, and pocketing an exorbitant bonus as well. That sounds like ROBBING the shareholders, rather than maximising their returns.

Dixon has also been bleating for years about the difficulty of raising capital with the low share price. Are you saying it would be in the shareholder's interest that he talk the share price down, placing financial stress on the company, in the hope that the LBO 100 to 1 horse came in? What if it didn't?

Sorry everyone, I know I shouldn't feed the troll. I'm just afraid someone young and impressionable might be reading this forum and actually believe this crap!

... why the deal failed. Either the market thought that the risk or future cashflow predictions for QANTAS had changed compared to those prior to the takeover bid, or they were not soley concerned with their future wealth.PAF, agree with you that the market's perception of Qantas had changed, but not that this was why the deal failed.

The deal failed because Qantas had been allowed to become the plaything of international hedge funds (outside the foreign cap, I might add), and one of those funds fcuked up! By that stage, no amount of change in shareholder/government/regulatory/public opinion would have changed the outcome.

Cheers

PS Yeah I know, comparing GD to a real estate agent is drawing a long bow. Real estate agents are way more ethical.

PPS I hope the REI don't sue me.

blueloo
23rd Jul 2007, 13:12
Is it any wonder that staff morale is low, when you hear your collegues say "I'm not allowed in there, therefore you can't go either" !

Nearly all staff hate each other, and are intensely jealous of what each others perks and benefits are.

aircraft
23rd Jul 2007, 14:23
'holic said:
Didn't Mac Bank state shortly after the bid failed that their valuation of Qantas shares was $7.60? That's like a real estate agent you've contracted to sell your house, talking the price down, then selling it to a mate who he knows values it at more than he paid. Oh, and pocketing an exorbitant bonus as well. That sounds like ROBBING the shareholders, rather than maximising their returns.

Actually, if we look again at the relevent history of the bid (a more calm look) we will see that nobody was robbed, and the shareholders received a pretty good offer. We will continue to use the real estate analogy. Consider the house owner in the analogy - he represents the Qantas shareholders.

For the house price, I will use the Qantas share price multiplied by 100,000. Note that for the 6 months leading up to the bid announcement, the share price averaged about $3.50

One day, Mr house owner receives an offer from a buyer that wishes to purchase his house. The buyer is offering $545,000.

Mr owner is well placed to consider the offer as he has been getting daily valuations of his house. Those valuations, over the previous six months, have averaged about $350,000.

Mr owner thinks about the offer for several months but eventually declines it. After declining it, the potential buyer mentions that he feels the house is really worth $760,000.

Nobody was robbed - a good offer was made and, naturally, the buyer will always try to get the house for less than he thinks it is worth!

In the case of Qantas, everybody seems to be forgetting that the market had valued them at $3.50 leading up to the bid. Many posters seem to be suggesting that their "real value" during that time was much higher and that it was Dixon, through his public comments, that was keeping the price low.

Has it occurred to these posters that they can only say that with hindsight? To have been able to say that at the time required the savvy that seemingly only APA possessed. And, these posters are way overestimating the effect of Dixon's supposedly "talking down" comments - they are suggesting that his comments were suppressing the share price by about 60% !

'holic again:
Are you saying it would be in the shareholder's interest that he talk the share price down, placing financial stress on the company ...
No, for the purposes of the debate I was only suggesting that hypothetically.

aircraft
23rd Jul 2007, 14:32
blueloo said:
Nearly all staff hate each other, and are intensly jealous of what each others perks and benefits are.
Nearly all? That is some call. How do you know this? Have you done your own survey (or seen the statistics from some other survey)?

lowerlobe said:
... if you look at the sheer numbers of disengaged staff there are then there is a significant problem.
What can you tell us about those sheer numbers? This is a genuine question.

blueloo
23rd Jul 2007, 14:34
Yes - I did a survey on all 30000+ employees. Give me a day and I will run the statistical analysis of it for you.

Please, in the meantime, hold your breath - Or better yet, get someone to help you.

Angle of Attack
23rd Jul 2007, 15:30
And without getting the thread too much out of tune Aircraft did you get that John Howard Action figure that was mentioned elswhere? It even has the shining bald head and big eyebrows... That will get you excited!!

For info that will be an antique soon as he goes down in a blaze of shame haha! See you man!

lowerlobe
23rd Jul 2007, 23:15
Aircraft,

Your analogy with a real estate deal is deeply flawed but only you seem to be missing the point.

The share market is based on perception and as such relies heavily on information from the board, which is required to disclose such information.

It is a matter of record that one person in particular continually gave the impression that there were always problems on the horizon. We can speculate forever and a day on why this was the case but let’s look at your analogy.

There exists in a suburb a house which is owned by a trust involving a number of people .One day the owner’s were indeed offered $545,000 with the stipulation that there was a time limitation.

The owner’s as most owners do have an idea of the inherent value of the house whether this is accurate or not. This is because something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

Here is where your analogy goes off course.

The owner’s have business and financial advisors that are trying to persuade the owner to accept the deal at $545,000.

The owner’s discover that these advisors stand to make a healthy commission if they accept the offer of $ 545,000 from the buyer within the time frame.

These advisors tell the owner’s that the offer of $545,000 is a good deal and they must have mental problems if they do not accept the offer.

The owner’s believe that these advisors then intend to take over the house with the buyer and make certain changes and then possibly place the property on the market again for a new price.

The owner’s financial and business partners tell them that if they do not accept the offer the market will see this is a problem and the value will plummet. They tell the owners that the offer is far higher than any previous value and represents a great return for the owners.

Some other acquaintances tell the owner’s that the offer is undervalued and they should not accept the offer. After much deliberation the owner’s decide not to sell.

The offer is extended but the owner’s still decline the offer.

After the deadline the buyer mentions that the real value is much higher and is around $760,000…

After the deadline passes the value of the property does not plummet as forecast by the advisors and instead remains higher than the buyers offer and is at $578,000 at this point in time.

This is despite the fact that there are no immediate buyers and the owners understand that if new buyers appear the value would probably increase again.


NOW AIRCRAFT…..

What would you think about your business and financial advisors after that?

I know what I would do.

Capt Kremin
23rd Jul 2007, 23:24
Well said!

aircraft
23rd Jul 2007, 23:41
lowerlobe said:
What would you think about your business and financial advisors after that?
I know what I would do.
It's not about them - it is about the shareholders (the house owner). The question has been whether the right thing has been done by the shareholders. If the answer to this question is yes, then Dixon and the board have been doing the right thing.

You completely glossed over the fact that the house was valued at $350,000 at the time the offer was made.

If you owned a house valued at $350K and someone came along offering $545K, would you feel wronged? You didn't have to accept the offer, after all.

You say "I know what I would do". What would you do? Don't forget, this is back in December 2006 and the APA mention of $7.60 hasn't yet occurred, nor the huge (favourable) revaluation. Your house is worth $350K and someone is offering $545K - that is all you know.

lowerlobe
23rd Jul 2007, 23:53
Aircraft posted...

"It's not about them - it is about the shareholders (the house owner). The question has been whether the right thing has been done by the shareholders".....

Some people it appears cannot see the forest for the tree's...

speedbirdhouse
24th Jul 2007, 01:36
mmm.....

More likely, they don't want to.

speeeedy
24th Jul 2007, 01:43
Aircraft,

The house was 'valued' at $350,000 because a certain person who ran the house on behalf of the owners was telling all buyers at every available opportunity that the house was situated on polluted land, was structurally unsound, had a leaking roof and therefore would not get sufficient rent to cover the costs.

But to one particular buyer he told the truth: The land was great, The house was very solidly built, the roof was in top shape and the rental market was already starting to skyrocket. (Oh and he stood to get a massive kick back from this particular buyer, that he wouldn't get from all the other buyers).

That would be unethical and illegal for a real estate agent doing a $500,000 deal but apparently OK for a CEO doing an $11 Billion deal.

Oh and did I mention he also bought the house next door and was renting it out at a cheaper rate whilst charging all costs to the main house, claiming that he was a genius for the ‘success’ of his new housing investment (There is also a small house in Singapore, but you wouldn't know about that!).

Fliegenmong
24th Jul 2007, 03:17
(There is also a small house in Singapore, but you wouldn't know about that!).:}:D:E

BTW does that JWH action doll say things like "Is it me?":confused::}:p

RedTBar
24th Jul 2007, 03:45
After reading Aircrafts posts i have realised that the others are correct and his only purpose is fishing.

roamingwolf
24th Jul 2007, 04:26
hang on i'll just flick through the latest young libs meeting minutes

a for aquisitions..nuh
b for bankers picnics..nuh
c for corporate bonuses..nuh
d for downsizing unions..nuh
e for elections in oct..nuh
f for the fact finding trip to france...nuh
g for hoping to stay in government..nuh
h for my hero johnny howard..nuh
i for industrial domination by employers..nuh
j for job with bank if we lose election...nuh

j..j...j...theres nothing about jetstar asia here,

is there an airline called jetstar asia?

why didn't anyone tell me about an airline called jetstar asia

no one told me about this at school or at the yacht club

how long has this been going on

wait till i bring this up at the next branch meeting

crank
24th Jul 2007, 13:15
Sorry, but i gotta agree with aircraft.

If i took my house to auction, and it maxed at $350k and was passed in (even though I thought it was worth more), then got an offer of $545k, it wouldn't take me too long to sell.

speeeedy
24th Jul 2007, 13:28
crank,

You may well sell, but you would be mighty pissed off if you found out the reason it passed in at $350k was because the agent had talked down the value of your home. Then you find out the buyer for $545k had been fully advised by the same agent and actually knew it was worth $760k.

Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently:rolleyes:


Sorry, but i gotta agree with aircraft.
Now wash your mouth out:=

Erin Brockovich
24th Jul 2007, 13:40
lowerlobe and speeeedy, great posts. You’ve both summed it up perfectly and have shown aircraft for what he is. I just can’t work out if he/she is prune face or margs :confused:

aircraft
24th Jul 2007, 15:24
lowerlobe,

It was 'holic that started the real estate analogy - I was just continuing it.

In an earlier post you complained about the drift of this thread away from "QF staff morale". I tried to move the thread back in that direction by asking you to elaborate on your "sheer numbers of disengaged staff" claim but you ignored me.

Again I will ask you to elaborate on that claim. I am genuinely interested in the level of "disengagement" at Qantas.

You said:
Some people it appears cannot see the forest for the tree's...
You said that because, to you, it is all about Dixon and his conduct and not about the shareholders. But, you cannot make judgements about Dixon without considering the shareholders point of view.

If you consider the shareholders and find that their interests were indeed served, then it immediately becomes very difficult for you to make your case about Dixon's alleged conduct.

Were the shareholders interests served? Of course they were - they were offered a return that was almost 60% above the prevailing market value.

So, logically, if Dixon was negligent, it can only be because 60% was not enough!

But if you agree with that assertion, then you can't also agree with the idea (expressed by speeeedy and many others) that Dixon was at fault for "talking up" the price to one buyer in particular!

To continue with the real estate analogy, using speeeedy's idea that Dixon was "talking down" the price to one group of buyers, but "talking it up" to one special buyer:

The real estate agent, in seeking potential buyers, identifies one particular "special" buyer as having deep pockets. To this buyer, he "talks up" the price as much as possible but tries to discourage all the other buyers by making pessimistic comments.

The special buyer carefully calculates what he is prepared to pay and arrives at the figure of $545K. The deal falls through and the special buyer remarks that he thinks the house could be worth as much as $760K.

When you look at it this way, how can you say Dixon was not just trying to get the best possible price? And you can't say Dixon was playing favourites because there were no other bidders!

I do not believe speeeedy's assertions. To do so requires one to believe that Dixon's pessimistic comments alone were suppressing the share price by around 60%.

Speeeedy said:
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparentlyThere are 10 times more laws governing corporations than real estate. Your problem here is that the real estate analogy is not completely faithful to the business situation.

I really enjoyed the "little house in Singapore" comment from speeeedy but commendations also to Fliegenmong and roamingwolf for what were quite clever, witty and humourous posts. You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display to my future grandchildren!

speeeedy
24th Jul 2007, 20:58
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently

Aicraft You missed the roll eyes icon thingos :rolleyes: at the end of that statement. I am aware of the many laws and of ASIC, I was hinting that they are not doing anything in this case.

On your other point regarding dixon talking down the value, I think it is worth remembering that it is rare for CEO's to so actively (and often) bag their own company, so negative comments from them do in fact have a tremendous effect on the market, the reverse has been proven after GD's positive comments post APA.

Oh and one other thing:

FOG

lowerlobe
24th Jul 2007, 21:33
Speedy....Don't waste your time with aircraft ,he does not answer any questions and is only fishing.......A 5 year old could understand our analogy........do not take the bait

speedbirdhouse
24th Jul 2007, 21:47
Ally "whatshername" interviewed Il Duce last night on Lateline Business.

Questions ranged from the new Roo logo to damage to the brand from the failed rort, [sorry bid].

For mine she left the best question to last.

Two words............. "How's morale ?"

You should have seen him squirm.:yuk:

lowerlobe
24th Jul 2007, 23:14
Speedbird..I have just downloaded the vid clip and it is very interesting as he tries to put a positive spin on her questions.

When asked about morale and he admits that there could be some areas with a morale problem I would have liked her to ask .............WHY?????

Crank...A few points that you have got wrong...

The property was never for sale when it was valued at $350,000 and therefore it was never passed in.It was simply a value that the marketplace has put on it just as everything else has a value.

Your advisors then tell you that you have an offer at $545,000 and you would have to have mental problems not to accept it.They want you to put your property on the market at $545,000.

You understand that your advisors are working with the buyer and are to recieve a significant commission if you sell.

Your advisors tell you that the value of your property will plummet if you do not accept the offer.

The reality is that your property increases in value instead of falling as your advisors told you and in fact could be nearly 40% higher than the offer THEY wanted you to accept.....and they said you must have had mental problems not to accept.

aircraft
24th Jul 2007, 23:39
lowerlobe said:
Don't waste your time with aircraft ,he does not answer any questions and is only fishing...
I have twice now asked you to elaborate on your earlier statement of "sheer numbers of disengaged staff". From where have you obtained these numbers?

Are you just counting griping PPRUNE posters and extrapolating?

Butterfield8
25th Jul 2007, 00:00
1.The Company's own survey indicate a large number..>72%...of staff are disengaged.
2. Can anyone indicate the origins of Dixon's statement that crew "are nothing more than evil bun tossers"?

RedTBar
25th Jul 2007, 00:58
Aircraft,

If Butterfield8's info is correct then that would mean a big problem for any company,would it not?

Greater than 72% is massive and if so what would be the cause Aircraft?

Sounds almost as bad as the morale in the Liberal party with the current polls,wouldn't you say aircraft?

Some here have suggested that you are here on a fishing exercise aircraft.Is that why you said this:

"You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display"

U.K. SUBS.
25th Jul 2007, 01:40
For info, the EGM 'the borg' said on abc business lateline that certain 'groups' were unhappy and were suffering from low morale. I would put it to him that they are;

1 pilots
2 engineers
3 flight attendants

now out of 37,000 employees.....how many would that group add up to?

oh yes......and the borg came off with the most hypocritical statement ever, 'at Qantas safety is 1st,2nd,3rd,4th.':yuk: Obviously takes his cue from the boss of engineering, cocks

Freddy Fudpucker
25th Jul 2007, 01:45
Went to a 'meet the CEO' conference a year or so ago, GD was the guest.

In question time from the floor the (dis) engagement survey was brought up. GD answered that Cabin crew scored the lowest for morale ( 18% of them engaged) of any group of emloyees ever surveyed by the auditors. He also stated the Tech crew scored the second lowest for morale of any group ever surveyed. The auditors conduct these surveys worldwide!!!!!!!
GD next sentence was along these lines:

"The result was a surprise but with tech crew they are the highest paid employees in the company and under 1% of them leaves the company in any given year. What does that tell you?"

GD statement says it all. In a risk management style of leadership he is only concerned with money making ability of decisions. Staff engagement is not even a consideration......unless there is a shortage of staff. Fingers crossed

speedbirdhouse
25th Jul 2007, 09:16
What on earth would KB know about excellence in human resources?

http://www.acevents.com.au/hr2007/

At least he will have some first person insight into staff disengagement.

Eight enemies to staff engagement????

I can think of one.
FOG

speedbirdhouse
25th Jul 2007, 12:24
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/With-many-staff-not-calling-Australia-home-morale-at-Qantas-isnt-soaring/2005/02/14/1108229933032.html

lowerlobe
25th Jul 2007, 23:12
Looks like aircraft does not have a response to you speedbird.....

aircraft
26th Jul 2007, 17:22
Thankyou Butterfield8, Freddy Fudpucker and speedbirdhouse for providing some substantiation to the "disengaged staff" claim.

Given the magnitude of the cost cutting program at Qantas, it must be expected that there will be widespread resentment felt by staff towards management. I am sure that, rather than asking whether staff felt "engaged", if the survey had instead asked whether staff felt "satisifed with the management", the results would have been almost identical.

To dedicated staff that value the satisfaction they get from their job almost as much as the remuneration, the onset of cost cutting can arouse feelings of despair, anger and rejection. Satisfied staff that had felt "part of the team" can, almost overnight, begin to feel shunned and worthless.

Exacerbating the "disconnect" felt by staff can be the attitude, expressed by management, that staff have no such right to feel that way, given that they are employed to do a certain job, rather than feel a certain way.

So just how far are management expected to go in cushioning the impact of cost cutting? Counselling sessions for every member of staff? It costs money to cut costs and besides, given that the company is trying to save money, any such large scale efforts may be seen as counterproductive, thus furthering the perception that the management "does not know what it is doing" and is "out of touch".

The tears of grief have been going on for long enough. Surely those staff that made Qantas so great can complete the adjustment and get back on with the job?

To those that say the cost cutting is all unnecessary, have a bit more faith in Dixon. Most of you seem to think you could do a better job but the reality is that 99.5% of you couldn't.

busdriver007
26th Jul 2007, 19:50
Interesting reading. Aircraft may consider reading "Grounded" the book about the demise of Texas Air and Eastern airlines. The emphasis was on cost-cutting and that's great but someone forgot where the revenue came from. You may be interested to see the growth of the VB business market which will be released next month. Engagement survey carried out in 2005 at QF gave the worst results ever by the company carrying out the project, they were never asked back. Survey carried out prior to the 2006-7 half-yearly results showed staff were happy with the company. Turned out the survey was of 30 people of which 28 were management. Talk about animal farm. If you can make a billion dollar profit with disengaged staff how would you go with engaged staff. The only tangible cost to low morale will be grounded aircraft. Even then they will blame someone else!:ugh:

RedTBar
26th Jul 2007, 21:36
aircraft certainly sounds like airline management as he has just spent over 150 words to say .. "SO what get over it"..thats the way to treat employees aircraft.

Erin Brockovich
27th Jul 2007, 02:39
aircraft said: I have twice now asked you to elaborate on your earlier statement of "sheer numbers of disengaged staff". From where have you obtained these numbers?
Are you just counting griping PPRUNE posters and extrapolating?

aircraft then said: Most of you seem to think you could do a better job but the reality is that 99.5% of you couldn't.Replace “Nearly all” with “99.5%”

aircraft also said: Nearly all? That is some call. How do you know this? Have you done your own survey (or seen the statistics from some other survey)?
Mr aircraft could you please substantiate your own claims – but do your posting on your own time. Remember the shareholders.

lowerlobe
27th Jul 2007, 02:56
He's probably Darth's secretary....

Fliegenmong
27th Jul 2007, 03:14
Liberal party stooge is aircraft, see how quick they (coalition) are to accept credit when interest rates lower, but pass the blame when they rise (as they have been since 2001) - same tactic ain't it? I'm want to see the f#$Ukers kicked out, but part of me wants to see them win again so when it all falls to pieces it is squarly at their feet! :}

Right then, you won't catch me grooming the eyebrows of aircraft's JWH doll.......:p

roamingwolf
27th Jul 2007, 06:04
hey aircraft it didn't work out to good with the chocolategate did it:E

aircraft
27th Jul 2007, 14:42
Erin, where I said "99.5%" I should simply have said "the vast majority".

I am not GD or MJ, or anyone else employed by Qantas. I have nothing to do with the Liberal party and am not "fishing" for anything.

Back on to the "disengagement" felt by Qantas staff.

I hate to have to point this out, but sometimes the real world is not so cosy and comfortable.

The disengaged Qantas staff have three options:

1. Accept reality and get on with the job;
2. Leave Qantas;
3. Continue to sulk;

I would be choosing option 1.

blueloo
27th Jul 2007, 15:01
Thats Crap aircraft.

If that happened (Option 1) Nothing would ever change. The same would be true in the rest of the world.

Whilst nobody is listening now, eventually someone will. They may actually have to.

LME-400
27th Jul 2007, 15:18
1. Accept reality and get on with the job;
2. Leave Qantas;
3. Continue to sulk;

I took option 2.

rammel
27th Jul 2007, 15:40
I'm building up my skills and will take option 2 when I have a chance. I'm going to take as much as I can get from the place in a package and start a new career from there.

aircraft
27th Jul 2007, 16:08
blueloo said:
Thats Crap aircraft.

If that happened (Option 1) Nothing would ever change.
Actually, that option would have to be the most tried and true method known to humanity for dealing with some unpleasant reality - shed a few tears, learn from your mistakes, then move on.

And, things always change, no matter how hard you or anyone else tries to keep them the same.

Managers Perspective
27th Jul 2007, 16:16
Sadly that seems to be a very common approach.

Never before have I seen such a diverse group of people be so happy to repeatedly thrust a knife up into the cow whilst laying back suckling on a back teat.

M.P.

busdriver007
27th Jul 2007, 20:28
MP,
This is not about money, this is about respect and the human condition. Good will can be very inexpensive.Some people never get it.:confused:

RedTBar
27th Jul 2007, 20:49
I cannot comprehend the lack of fundamental understanding in both MP and aircraft.Of course they could and most probably are employed by the company and are only here to divert attention from the path the management are taking.

aircrafts basic answer to problems shows about as much thought and ability as a 5 year old and he talks about sulking.

1. Accept reality and get on with the job;
2. Leave Qantas;
3. Continue to sulk;

So basically when faced with a situation that everyone but management can see holes in aircraft comes up with an over simplification that beggars description.

If humanity took aircrafts advice we would have been extinct long ago.
We would still think the world is flat.

We would all be speaking German or Japanese.

A perfect example and one that Managers Blindness and airblown have not answered is chocolate.How many times and how much money have managment wasted in exercises like that and for what purpose?

rammel
27th Jul 2007, 23:36
The thing that turned my position against the company, was when we took a pay freeze after Sep 11 and then in the following years management seemed to forget all about it. Since then our pay has not kept up with inflation.

Before this I pretty much did the right thing by the company, but this was a big "up yours" to all the employees.

domo
28th Jul 2007, 00:06
I'm building up my skills and will take option 2 when I have a chance. I'm going to take as much as I can get from the place in a package and start a new career from there.
90% of my crew feel this way that we will all get F***** over,
everyone has a plan b which takes priorty over plan a
the other 10% are in denial, why are qantas placing the assets(aircraft) in another company is it because to protect the company from massive retrenchement payments if they close down qantas engineering?
I read everything seeking reasurance. read the lastest leading edge singapour gave they workers 6MONTHS PAY BONUS they all agree to work in partnership workers and company. Read what cox says new aircraft less maintenance(people) do what the company says or you are history.

rammel
28th Jul 2007, 00:29
I also think that the level of "engagement" when the pay freeze happened was pretty good. Once that pay freeze was not recognized later, that is when the level of engagement plummeted.

domo
28th Jul 2007, 00:36
I also think that the level of "engagement" when the pay freeze happened was pretty good. Once that pay freeze was not recognized later, that is when the level of engagement plummeted.

lames done very well out of that pay freeze
they got 3 points towards their grading system
4 points equals $80

blueloo
28th Jul 2007, 01:07
Never before have I seen such a diverse group of people be so happy to repeatedly thrust a knife up into the cow whilst laying back suckling on a back teat.

M.P.


I completely agree with Managers Perspective - Only the people who are thrusting the knives up the cow are management, and the people who are suckling on a teat are also management.

The cow is made up of the hard working staff, who plan to still be here 20, 30, 40 years from now. They are the people who management sponge off, they are the people who have given QF its famous claim to safety and they people who have built its proud reputation.

They are also the people who will have to rebuild its reputation once the current management have finished raping the cow, and taken their short term gains.

speeeedy
28th Jul 2007, 03:11
Only the people who are thrusting the knives up the cow are management, and the people who are suckling on a teat are also management.


:D :D :D :D :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Big Unit
28th Jul 2007, 04:01
aircraft said:
Actually, that option would have to be the most tried and true method known to humanity for dealing with some unpleasant reality - shed a few tears, learn from your mistakes, then move on.

Aircraft, we are not the ones that have made the mistakes - d**khead. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

RedTBar
28th Jul 2007, 05:50
Actually aircraft is correct.

When things are going well,it is because we are so lucky to have far sighted management leading us.

If things go bad it's because the employees did something wrong and it could never be the fault of management.

The people in suits could never be wrong and all you have to do is mention Rodney Adler,Ray Williams,Bond Corp,Christopher Skase,One Tel..uhhh ..what..ohhh..sorry fell asleep

FrankFoxworth
28th Jul 2007, 09:12
I heard an interesting quote the other day attributed to former St George Rugby league coach Harry Bath , he said

"Those that drink at the well should never forget those that built the well "
it struck me as a simple piece of homespun philosophy but it shook me to the core in how true it is.

FOG

Managers Perspective
28th Jul 2007, 11:30
All this negativity, and they haven't even informed you guys yet that the checks on the A380 will all be done in Singapore.

The line maintenance in Australia will all be done under the new licence system.

So, time to sit up straight boys.

Don't miss that training bus....

M.P.


Oooops late edit for a typo. Hmmmm people in glass houses again!

Shlonghaul
28th Jul 2007, 11:50
Duck for cover MP or the bus might just run over you. :eek: After all accident's do happen. :E And it's spelt negativity smarta:mad:e. Quick there's still time to change it! :=

roamingwolf
28th Jul 2007, 12:08
Managers Warped Perspective ,mate i thought you said you did not work for the rat?

aircraft
28th Jul 2007, 13:39
Big Unit said:
Aircraft, we are not the ones that have made the mistakes ...I knew somebody would misunderstand this. Actually, in this context (coming to terms with something, then moving on) it is you that has made the mistakes. And, "moving on" doesn't necessarily mean leaving Qantas - it just means "putting it all behind you".

The "mistakes" were things like believing you would always be cosy and comfortable at Qantas.

This option 1, is all about coming to terms with an unpleasant fact, shedding the tears, then getting positive and putting it all behind you.

Ron Jeremy Porn Star
28th Jul 2007, 19:09
In the future we'll have an airline of space cadets..trained to live at home with mummy and wearing cardigans whilst believing that they're the best pilots in the world, working for the best airline in the world...

Shall I remind you how quickly an airline could fall over....Narita....oh sorry that one hasn't come out yet...or has it

A rumour is not a rumour if it doesn't go away....

Stop complaining about your precious conditions, lack of commands and get on with the job...

So many other pilots in Australia would trade their conditions for those of a Sky God....stop whinging

lowerlobe
28th Jul 2007, 22:08
A few observations,

Ron ....you are living in the 70's..get with the program.

Mangled Perspective...wolfman is right,you said you don't work for QF but you seem to know something about training and maintenance on the 380.

aircraft..I suggest you re read your own posts.YOU did say get over your mistakes....

We are talking about the mistakes from higher up.The only mistake we are making is to listen to someone like you.It certainly appears as though some here do work for the company and want to divert attention from things like this thread and that is lack of morale.

Could it be that the WHOLE workforce is at fault and introspective or could it be the few in positions of authority?

Then again as with our delightful PM you just don't understand do you.

mrpaxing
29th Jul 2007, 00:27
seeing the A380 serviced in asia. that means the 747's are going to be around for a long time. given the history of any aircraft so far serviced in sin it is a feast for the media. let alone the extra time frame and cost associated with all the stuff ups. good one, DC:ugh:

blueloo
29th Jul 2007, 00:33
Shall I remind you how quickly an airline could fall over....Narita....oh sorry that one hasn't come out yet...or has it



Say what willis? ?

Bolty McBolt
29th Jul 2007, 04:42
All this negativity, and they haven't even informed you guys yet that the checks on the A380 will all be done in Singapore.

The line maintenance in Australia will all be done under the new licence system.

Finally MP says something I agree with.

SQ and EK have completed their License training on the A380 where QF have done nil and is yet to decide who is going to do their maint...:yuk: as none of the current managers (except 1) in ACS have any operational experience, let alone the experience of introducing a new type to the international fleet.

So it would look like SQ being ready to do maint on the A380 would be the logical choice to handle the QF aircraft maintenance and/or transits in SIN.

Currently SIA handle 1 or 2 QF transits a day in Singapore.
The stats on this is engineering delays run at 3 times the rate of the QF handled transits.
Delays have a known cost so I am guessing the handling contract for the A380 could involve penalties for avoidable delays which could return or credit some of the cost back to QF engineering.
I am sure it will look great on paper..... as QF have tried before to farm out minor maintenance only to be bitten hard,
Time will tell...:ugh:

Shall I remind you how quickly an airline could fall over....Narita....oh sorry that one hasn't come out yet...or has it

Are you talking about JAL?
JAL is looking very shakey as the airline needs a new fleet successive boards have resigned over the airlines current state.

FOG

Managers Perspective
29th Jul 2007, 15:54
Delays have a known cost so I am guessing the handling contract for the A380 could involve penalties for avoidable delays which could return or credit some of the cost back to QF engineering.

Agree, but the KRA's are always extremely difficult to administer.

In reality, you have the squabble but you never get much back.

M.P.

lowerlobe
29th Jul 2007, 20:55
So two points mangled Perspective,

One you do work for the company

Two you agree with Bolty then.

Is that you Wayne?

roamingwolf
30th Jul 2007, 01:44
do you guys mean wayne king?..think about it:E:E:E

Shlonghaul
30th Jul 2007, 02:22
To use a cricketing term roamingwolf I think you've cracked one through the covers :ok:

watch your6
30th Jul 2007, 04:48
Two current Qantas Execs are looking at setting up a heavy maintenance facility to do all QFs work.
A conflict of interest...yes... .immoral.....definitely.
Illegal...only if they get caught.
It will be private company with a convoluted ownership structure so it will be impossible to determine who owns it.
Call it corporate limbo...how low can you go?

speedbirdhouse
30th Jul 2007, 04:53
My sources suggest that those in question are gd and pg.:yuk::yuk::yuk:

watch your6
30th Jul 2007, 05:08
Bloody Good sources shagger baby.
Its only at the feasibility stage.
It may take a while to get up and running.
When does Darth leave?A nice little earner in retirement
The startup date may be coincidental.
Some of the bods from the failed APA team may provide some support

Managers Perspective
30th Jul 2007, 09:26
No I don't work for QANTAS.

No I am not Wayne, but it if makes you happy then call me who you like.

In relation to agreeing with Bolty, I agree about the A380 maintenance, and I agree that rebates are tough to get back when outsourcing the maintenance.

Decision to conduct all A380 maintenance under Part66 (CAO 100.66) has been a well known position in relation to the CASA SCC inputs and the sidebar pressure put on the CASA CEO (ie bring in Part 66 or the A380's will not be VH registered).

M.P.

mrpaxing
30th Jul 2007, 09:53
no,sorry sir, not yet. foreign registered QF A380 is not on the agenda, whatever the politics with casa. imagine the real politics. not even GD would go near that one.;)

The Butcher's Dog
30th Jul 2007, 10:02
Where is TJ these days? Couldn't he sort the morale problem out;)!

Going Boeing
30th Jul 2007, 10:13
Darth is planning for offshore Heavy Maintenance for the A380's because the "D" check interval is 8 years (vs 6 years for the 30 B744's) and with only 20 aircraft planned there wont be enough work to keep a HM line fully employed. The B787 "D" check interval is 12 years but because that aircraft has been ordered in much larger numbers then having a HM line in Oz is viable.

prunezeuss
30th Jul 2007, 10:32
TJ couldnt solve the problem....He WAS the bloody problem

Dropt McGutz
30th Jul 2007, 10:55
Managers Perspective, you didn't once grace the pages of PPRUNE under the name of Sunfish did you?