When does he GO?

[Flickroll2]

The Leader telling the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G3DXllgy2A


:mad:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

No misuse of context there of course... :hmm:

[KRUSTY 34]

Clever though Flick.

Naughty, but clever.

[ules]

just a stab out of the dark.
you wouldnt happen to be the pilot that made this blog abuot qantas
http://www.qantaspilot.com/

[Just Relaxin]

"I'm sorry, I don't apologise." ?????? Maybe my english isn't too good but am I missing something here?

[QFinsider]

As Mao said....

The rising tide lifts all boats...

Dixon has been nothing except lucky. His one track approach to reduce costs shows his spectacular lack of depth-the other side of the equation is to grow revenue. His pursuit of J* at all costs with no regard for any part of the business that actually returns its cost of capital is evidence of his inability to conceptually understand the notion of yield.

J* has been an industrial exercise, nothing more.

Highly elastic demand
one way markets
no brand penetration

an exercise in stupidity.
Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result is insanity...Unfortunately our corporate governance doesn't reveal the folly of his J* debarcle, the shareholders are none the wiser. At least not yet.

As the financial clouds gather, this group of very untalented "managers" who have risen with all boats as the tide came in may well be revealed to be swimming naked as the tide recedes....

For Dixon however he will be long gone. Maybe the Olympics, maybe the A380. He will be sitting on a beach earning 20% when the tide goes out and exposes the stupidity of killing mainline and "growing" an elastic demand, unproven airline with no brand penetration into one way markets where quite often the parent could not make a buck.... Clever accounting has seen the costs hived to mainline, the lack of corporate governance aiding and abetting the lie.

For the sake of us left behind, I hope he goes before it is too late and the company redirects its effort to where the business makes money.It may seem clever marketing spin, but the brand is Qantas....
May his forthcoming retirement be celebrated As an observer of many businesses over the years I have never seen such a peculiar and untalented person, so devoid of culture, so incredibly unengaging, so arrogant and so divisive.It starts from him and the acidity flows all through the company...Mind you, what goes around will eventually come around.....:E

[Keg]

I found this on another aviation website. He may be a great replacement for Geoff!

Southwest's Herb Kelleher steps down

The Herb Kelleher era ended this week, at Southwest Airlines, with one final plume of cigarette smoke and Kelleher's cackling laugh as he shook hands with adoring employees and shareholders.
Few executives are as closely identified with their company as Kelleher is with Southwest, the Texas puddle-jumper he built into a low-fare, no-frills giant and the most consistently profitable carrier in the country.

Kelleher stepped down Wednesday as chairman after presiding over his 31st annual shareholder meeting, a festive and emotional farewell at the company's headquarters.
The pilots union gave Kelleher a framed photo of him in the cockpit. Others gave him T-shirts, a needlework coat of arms, and a laudatory video. There were plenty of jokes about Kelleher's love of whiskey. 'I'm Lucky Herbie for having all these years with all of you,’ Kelleher said, his voice cracking, barely able to choke out some of the words.

Source: The Associated Press

[Wingspar]

Problem is he genuinely believes Qantas staff, and not just the pilots, are a liability.
Modern and progressive management would consider the opposite and nurture an asset such as staff.
Current events and not quarterly results may ultimately provide a clearer picture as to the long term health of the company.
I guess that time will prove his thinking correct or not.

[genex]

QF Insider,

A real first here at Prune, quoting history's undoubted greatest mass killer as your opening source.

Secondly...your inability to spell "debacle" let alone understand one....tells all.

QF 1 was a debacle. QF Legacy operations are a debacle. 744 S/Os getting paid 150 k is a debacle. Jetstar is simple an idea whose time has come. Good or bad is irrelevant....just the facts ma'am.

Other than that....PM me if you'd like a lucid explanation of why Jetstar has helped save your job at the Flying Museum.

Best wishes

Genex

[stiffwing]

Genex
QF s/o's getting 150K is not a debacle. Every s/o should get 150K.
Fleet pay will fix it, eh Keg?

[Teal]

A real first here at Prune, quoting history's undoubted greatest mass killer as your opening source.Sean Lemass was a killer?? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats

[schlong hauler]

Hey Genex,
Don't believe all the propaganda you are fed from J*.
Today's headline says it all. J* to employ 75 foreign pilots because they can't find enough suitable Aussie candidates. More like trying to control the wages growth equation in a market of deminishing returns. There will be comparisons drawn between 457 visas, foreign pilots and that date nearly twenty years ago, under a Labor government. I can't believe Gillard is allowing this crap. Be interesting to see how the ACTU, AIPA and tha AFAP handle this.

[Transition Layer]

Other than that....PM me if you'd like a lucid explanation of why Jetstar has helped save your job at the Flying Museum

genex, why should we resort to PMs? I am sure we are all keen for a bit of a lesson, so please enlighten us!

[bdcer]

Genex,

We (S/Os) don't all earn 150k!!!

I WISH I DID.

Those that might reach that amount do it because of the allowances (of which a large portion must be spent to survive whilst in slip ports). Not much allowance can be saved, unless you want to carry around two minute noodles everywhere!

Yes, it is still much better than my previous working conditions.

This is probably opening me up for multiple attacks...

[hotnhigh]

Hooray for Genex....... All qantas mainline blokes, like myself, should burn at the stake.
As for your legacy line, mate what are you on. I wouldn't have a clue what goes on in Jetstar, and I place a bet you have no idea what goes on in mainline. I came back from a heavy jet job overseas and can say that the legacy costs have a minimal amount to do with pilots but a lot to do with outdated systems in place that Qantas mainline uses, ie IT sytems mainly, and also the associated costs of supporting Jetstar. An example, Why is Qantas spending in excess of $350000/month in sending mainline people all over the world to train on airbus sims when they don't have access to their own sim? Why isn't jetstar sending blokes overseas at the same rate? Oh, that's right, it will hammer your bottom line, your operating costs. It would be dangerous if they looked like legacy costs. What about fuel? What about engineering, etc, etc.
I'm sure the way Jetstar flies the 330 is very similar to the way QF flies their's. I understand that your JPC has a distinct hate for all things qantas mainline. Especially the line that AIPA is only there for 400 captains. Unfortunately they probably only make up around 10% of the pilot group, so it's a flawed argument.
What some Jetstar pilots fail to grasp is the ultimate death of QF mainline terms and conditions will have a real impact on you guys.
Lets move on a few years. QF mainline contract is dead. QF decides to takeover someone else. They use this company to introduce the 787. All of a sudden your terms and conditions appear very legacy like and the whole ugly saga begins again. Over the last few years you have done nothing to endear yourselves to any other pilot group in the country. One only has to look at what you achieved for the NJS guys when they were handed(?) the 717s. Oh that's right, you and the JPC organised or negotiated a deal that then required the NJS people to take a pay cut to remain in jobs. How opportunistic of you. Now, that is something QF mainline guys have never done to another group.

[breakfastburrito]

Not only that, genex "sold" the latest jq EBA allowing 457 visa holders to his brothers as a great deal. Bravo genex, bravo.
When assessing the credibility of genex's posts, bear that in mind.

[QFinsider]

The post was not intended to push the old chestnut of who is better..

My point related to the fact that the rising tide lifts all boats..And as Warren Buffett remarked it is only when the tide goes out you see who was swimming naked.

As such Geoff Dixon benefitted from the big bull market, high revenues due a prolonged property bubble and demographic factors the likes of which have never been experienced in western history.

In demography is destiny...Who said that?

The storm clouds build, financially the tide is on the way out and to paraphrase Willie Walsh BA CEO on the weekend, "airlines that don't price in "cost" will fail" He went on to name Ryan Air, Easy Jet.

To sort of wrap it up for you Genex, if Dixon is swimming naked, then maybe J* isn't as he wanted you to think.It may not be a great idea to assume that your career may not take a turn for the worse...

Of course Qantas under a new CEO looking closely at revenues, yields and Contribution margin wouldn't sell off an under performing airline with soft demand would they?

[altocu]

"Of course Qantas under a new CEO looking closely at revenues, yields and Contribution margin wouldn't sell off an under performing airline with soft demand would they?"

We can only hope...it would be truly enlightening to see how Jetstar survived without the support of a "legacy airline".

Alto

[genex]

It would be way more enlightening to see how the legacy airline fared without Jetstar......

[Johhny Utah]

Why don't you do us all a favour, genex, and read the last Qantas yearly report. Then let us know the profitability of each business unit.
THEN try repeating your above statement with a straight face....:ok:

[OBNO]

Genex. I recall reading in The Fin Review last week Dixon saying they are seeing a softening in demand for Jetstar, and that Qantas group profits are being generated by the International premium product-Mainline. Maybe it is time for your "lucid explanation" we are all ears.

[genex]

OBNO, as I will be writing about this issue, not talking, your ears are not going to be of much help. Try the eyes.

And....if I am going to put some time into this "lucid explanation"....can I ask that you put aside any pre-conceived ideas and think through this clearly. I can't promise you will understand it all....or that if you do, you will agree with me. But I'd rather not start off on this educational venture with you already committed to not agreeing with me.

While I put some time into writing, you can usefully use your time by going the Google and spending some study time getting to grips with "Economies of Scope". You will not understand much of what I am going to explain unless you do. I think that's a fair exchange of time don't you?

[Sunfish]

Bull**** Genex, and it's economies of scale, not scope.

Economies of scale were originally a concept to do with manufacturing where there are set-up costs that can be amortised more cheaply if volume is increased.

....Unfortunately Genex, since approximately 1955 following the development of the Kanban system by Toyota, the aim of industry everywhere has been to reduce the economic order quantity from many thousands to just one item.

So your concepts of a monster Jetstar or QF group with many thousands of spare engines, spare people, specialised labor etc. is irrelevant. The industry is being driven towards the goal of an airline owning (or leasing) the absolute minimum number of aircraft and maximum utilisation with minimum maintenance. Everything is supposed to happen "just in time' with minimal spare capacity - which is what Kanban is all about

[WynSock]

Genex, apart from the usual crud you come up with, your opening to OBNO has to be up there with the most immature, puerile attempts at a put-down I have seen on Pprune.

Stop showing off and grow up.

[genex]

Sunfish.....you missed the point entirely. What I was getting at has little at all to do with economies of scale. That is a subject all of its own and one where there's a lot to talk through. But Economies of Scope is a very significant theoretical underpinnning of the Qantas 3 Brand policy. I didn't create it, I am not responsible for it, I don't know the people at Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink who created it or administer it....I simply observe it and see that it works for the Qantas Group whereas for many other of the world's current (and long-gone) airlines, it doesn't. I suspect it's not perfect but these days any airline that gets better than a C+ at running things is probably way above average.

And as for WynSock.........your reply out-pueriles anything I have yet seen on Prune. Well done. As your career unfolds I trust you do take on the opportunities to learn without pre-conceived ideas and with some diligence. I think you will find it rewarding. Prejudice has no place in the cockpit. This a complex issue and deserves some study, not just one-liners.

[OBNO]

Some advice for you Genex. Your condescending and patronising attitudes do you no favours here at all.

[Johhny Utah]

From Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) - Economies of Scope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scope)

Economies of scope are conceptually similar to economies of scale. Whereas economies of scale primarily refer to efficiencies associated with supply-side changes, such as increasing or decreasing the scale of production, of a single product type, economies of scope refer to efficiencies primarily associated with demand-side changes, such as increasing or decreasing the scope of marketing and distribution, of different types of products. Economies of scope are one of the main reasons for such marketing strategies as product bundling, product lining, and family branding.

Often, as the number of products promoted is increased and broader media used, more people can be reached with each dollar spent. This is one example of economies of scope. These efficiencies do not last, however; at some point, additional advertising expenditure on new products will start to be less effective (an example of diseconomies of scope).

If a sales force is selling several products they can often do so more efficiently than if they are selling only one product. The cost of their travel time is distributed over a greater revenue base, so cost efficiency improves. There can also be synergies between products such that offering a complete range of products gives the consumer a more desirable product offering than a single product would. Economies of scope can also operate through distribution efficiencies. It can be more efficient to ship a range of products to any given location than to ship a single type of product to that location.

Further economies of scope occur when there are cost-savings arising from by-products in the production process. An example would be the benefits of heating from energy production having a positive effect on agricultural yields.

A company which sells many product lines, sells the same product in many countries, or sells many product lines in many countries will benefit from reduced risk levels as a result of its economies of scope. If one of its product lines falls out of fashion or one country has an economic slowdown, the company will, most likely, be able to continue trading.

Not all economists agree on the importance of economies of scope. Some argue that it only applies to certain industries, and then only rarely.

The assertion that you need to justify, genex, is why it will be JetStar that will be supporting Qantas Mainline, and not the other way around; especially given the widely accepted view that jetStar has been extremely heavily subsidised by Qantas Mainline in virtually every single cost area since day one, and thus would not be able to generate a profit as a stand alone company. I put it to you that such this situation has been occurring in the relatively good times - let alone when JetStar encounters softening demand and rising costs.

[Tankengine]

Another interesting idea would be to look at Virgin's profitibility in the routes that Qantas gave to Jetstar such as Launy and reduced in service such as "cooly"[see other thread] and Hobart!:confused:

Many punters I know have moved their traffic from QF to Virgin - great for the group!:ugh:

[tenretni]

Genex,

Enjoy what you have now mate as the future is just as uncertain for you as it is for any QF pilot.

I mean we all know that Jetstar is Dixon's little pet project. So what happens in the event of a management change. Will the new CEO be as enthusiastic about Jetstar?

AIPA recently tried in vain to talk to you guys about joining forces. What do you do? Piss that opportunity away and then actively engage in a **** fight with QF mainliners on PPrune.

Life is full of interesting and unexpected surprises. So your smugness might be a tad misguided.

Trust me when I say to you that you are not the hero you think you are.

[Wingspar]

Johnny U......good argument!

[genex]

I am not a JQ pilot and am certainly not a hero, whatever particular meaning attaches to that word. I certainly did not say that JQ subsidized Mainline....simply that "It would be way more enlightening to see how the legacy airline fared without Jetstar..."

The argument that Qantas mainline could survive at Jetstar yields in the discretionary market segments is probably untenable. Hence the Economies of Scope theme..(and the Wikipeadia article is a start Johnny , you should re-read it carefully) .....that (and this is putting part of the concept very simply) if you are already running one airline you can run another airline more efficiently than would two completely separate entities. The allocation of fixed costs and transfer pricing intra-group is a matter which always attracts great debate and is not possible, as with all such arbitrary matter to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I take no joy in the atrocious relationships between pilot unions and pilot groups. It was not always thus and need not be. But I'd suggest that there is one group with the industrial power to change it all and they have not done so and are most unlikely to do so.

Until then, as I have once again been thoroughly beaten by superior wit, knowledge and skill I will retire back into the cave. Cautioning you only to to be wary of what you wish for.....the Qantas Group without Jetstar might not be a very pretty place to work, indeed for many currently working, there may be no jobs at all.

And OBNO.....what is that short for?.....I do not mean to be patronizing. But am still a little ruffled by the AIPA monkeys and peanuts campaign that has never been withdrawn. Maybe I'm too think-skinned and over-reactive.

[Sunfish]

There is an old Polish name for your "Economies of Scope" argument, loosely translated it's called "Pissing in the Soup", and it's not very smart at all.

It doesn't work and never has. Qantas can make it look like it works, but we don't know what cross subsidies exist between them.

The trouble with this approach is that Board level decision making suffers, because the Board is being asked to switch focus all the time from one entity to another. Ultimately the wrong decisions get made. This is why, after some monumental cock ups - Like buying Magma Copper in the U.S., BHP deliberately split itself into BHP Oil and Gas and BHP minerals, and sold their steel division.

In the case of QF look at the decisions that have to be made? Which aircraft is right for QF mainline domestic? Oh! But that won't work for Jetstar because of (insert reason). Well what about QF LH bases in (insert country)? Yes but we already have a Jetstar International base there, how is that going to work? That's the sort of conversations that will be going on all the time. You need three boards, in three totally financially separate companies, all pursuing their own strategy to make that work.

This whole idea has been tried before in many industries and it doesn't work. The usual management mantra is "stick to your knitting", meaning focus on your core business.

[indamiddle]

transfer pricing between QF and J*? which one will get to use the fuel that has been hedged or will it be split between the two groups? ask fog

[kotoyebe]

source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qantas-cuts-flights-and-sacks-staff/2008/06/05/1212259007024.html
However, Mr Borghetti hit out at union claims Qantas could be using the environment of high oil prices to drive down the working conditions of its 36,000 staff.

"What I recommend these people do is either pick up a newspaper or watch some morning news," he said, noting the drastic moves by US airlines such as United and American to cut capacity in recent days to combat higher oil prices.


Oh dear,

I was hoping that as a contender for replacement of FOG, JB would be a little more "employee and customer focused". Obviously not! More of the same mantra from the same school, and more of the same plan taking us down the orange road, no doubt.

What a patronising di*khead. No, John. I had no idea that oil prices have increased. I'm rushing off to buy a newspaper to find out what's going on.

[teresa green]

I suggest you blokes, go look at the posting of 19th year of 89, if you think it cannot happen again think again. You have to have a united front if you are to get anywhere. The word is (so I am told) from a mate from the big end of town that Cosgrove is almost dead set. If that is the case at least we will get a operational thinker, not a bean counter, a bloke who is at least a lateral thinker. For CH%$st sake start thinking together, because the A/C are starting to go up against the fence, and you blokes are going to have to present a united front. Bigtime.