Qantas Shame

[Shlonghaul]

As reported by Liam Bartlett in the Perth Sunday Times 16 August 2009.........

NEXT time you thrust your boarding pass into the hands of a bedraggled Qantas flight attendant, take a second to smile and say: "It's not your fault".

In fact, if they're not already at the sanitarium and still happy to wrestle with overhead lockers and bad management, then they deserve a medal. Not that too many will need to be minted, if their boss is successful.
The brains trust at Qantas has asked the national flying watchdog, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to give it the green light to cut cabin crew numbers on all its flights.

Instead of employing one attendant for every 36 passengers, Qantas reckons one for every 50 would be more than enough. That means every worker in an Aboriginal motif would have to look after almost 50 per cent more passengers than they do now, and we're not just talking about the tea and coffee service.

How about managing in-flight problems, security threats, plain old bad manners or, heaven forbid, directing people to emergency exits?

If you're unsure whether this move is a human-resources numbers game or a real safety issue, it may help to learn that all US airlines employ this magical "one-in-50" ratio. Anyone who has ever flown on an American flight and hungered for a second packet of peanuts would know that in a heartbeat, but why would Qantas want to follow in their highly dubious footsteps and risk its far- superior record?

The short answer is money.

Chief executive officer Alan Joyce will do anything to protect the bottom line and in an economy in which all airlines are struggling to put bums on seats, there are really only two choices.

The first is aircraft. Joyce has saved $3.76 billion by cancelling an order for 15 Boeing Dreamliners, as well as delaying delivery of another 15 and deferring four A380 "superjumbos". That's the easy part. The second and last choice is the people who make the ride worthwhile, and they are being treated abysmally. Already, Qantas has gained exemptions from CASA for its most popular domestic routes, being allowed to cut its crew on the Boeing 737-800 and Airbus A320 from five to just four. Only just enough to get by – and it certainly shows.

On a recent flight to Perth from Sydney, I noticed one of the two forward toilets was out of order. Flying back to Sydney the next day, it was still broken. The same plane had gone across the Nullarbor twice in the interim and the loo remained kaput. I suppose no maintenance means no cost, but try being a crew member and apologising four times on four flights for the same problem.

That's marginally better, though, than the flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne last month on which passengers copped a surprise dunking from the overhead bins when the water stored for the toilets sprang a leak. Try explaining that away as the reason your Neil Perry cookie is soggy.

WA flyers also have the dubious honour of putting up with the worst "major" airport in the country, where getting a seat in the Qantas lounge often proves more difficult than booking a discount fare in the school holidays.

And that's one thing a lot of flying has taught me – it can always get worse. Like the flight from Sydney to New York earlier this year that was cancelled in Los Angeles for no apparent reason. By that, I mean Qantas never gave any of the 220-odd people a reason for letting them sit on the tarmac for three hours at LAX after a 14-hour flight, and then disgorging them into the never-never, where they scrambled to make their own plans for a connecting flight. Most of the rejected customers took all day to get there, but did Qantas really give a hoot? Less than a handful of ground staff were thrown to the wolves to make the apologies.

Where is Joyce and his loyal lieutenants when the excuses have to be made to the tired and distraught flyer?

I seriously doubt if Joyce actually flies on his own airline. If he does, I'm willing to bet the first perk he uses is the executive velvet eyeshades.

That way he wouldn't have to watch his workers scurrying around patching things up, trying to put a friendly face on decaying resources. Like the 747 crew on a recent flight from Sydney to London who departed with one stove in all four galleys in a state of disrepair. That may seem cosmetic to some, but what does it say about the cost-cutting that might be going on under the plane?

Just over a week ago, the Qantas engine workshops received their expression of interest for redundancy. Of 360 jobs, only 142 are set to remain in a Band-Aid engine service role. Does this make a lot of sense? The accounts department would say yes.

It's probably the same department that ran the debacle at Perth airport in July when many passengers were delayed for more than eight hours for an overnight flight to Sydney without one peep of communication from Qantas ground staff.

In that instance, management was able to spin the problem by using a lightning strike to justify the appalling behaviour – but the real issue was cost.

It's the same motivation that has led them to disregard an obvious safety principle and begin to sell exit rows as separate seats, at a premium price. The same thinking allows them to continue the public charade that pretends Jetstar is an entirely separate business competitor to Qantas.

For the past two weeks, this low-rent, discount offshoot has been running full-page ads in the national press and I can't help but think how many free plastic cups of water its customers might enjoy on the next cattle run if only it stopped its wasteful self-aggrandisement.

Meanwhile, Joyce and his predecessor Geoff Dixon – the corporate Harry Houdini who was somehow allowed to keep his job despite trying to arrange a private- equity takeover at huge personal gain – have managed to foster two tiers of cabin crew that can only end in tears.

We now have the more experienced flight attendants, known as Qantas Air Lines crew, being paid about 30 per cent more than their younger counterparts, the Qantas Cabin Crew Australia.

Bizarrely, the QCCA not only get paid less than their QAL colleagues for exactly the same work, but they can also be ordered to turn up for 50 hours more in any eight-week block. The same duties on the same planes for so much less. And, incredibly, the less experienced are being sent out on the most advanced aircraft, the A380, because – yes, you guessed it – it costs so much less to service more passengers.

And you thought that aroma coming from the galley was just the smell of their ubiquitous omelets being reheated.

It turns out its just the stink of CEO Joyce putting profits before jobs, safety standards and customer service – the hallmarks of what used to make the Flying Kangaroo such an envied and successful airline.
*****************
Thank you Liam Bartlett :D :D

[woftam]

Someone is FINALLY seeing what has been going on for years !!!!!!!!
:ugh:

[surfside6]

I will be surprised if this guy still has a job in a week.
Honesty and good investigative journalism can be costly.
He managed to just about cover everything that is wrong with Qantas.

[Firecat]

Stalag Airlines
The Flying Circus(Run by Clowns)
Air Greyhound(gone to the dogs)
Take your pick

[lowerlobe]

The answer to this will be twofold...

First,they will ignore it...

Second,they will be placing calls to their favoured journo's for a more complimentary article......

[BuzzBox]

What an excellent summation of the Qantas experience. Bravo Liam Bartlett.

[defconx4]

Service standards will decline even further...if thats possible
The surplus of CC that the company now has will increase.
Now is a perfect opportunity to improve service on Qantas by increasing the crew complement and thereby absorbing the surplus that are currently sitting around on paid leave or reserve.
When the cycle begins to trend upwards dont expect the crew member to be replaced.
If you think staff are disengaged now then you aint seen nuthin
American style airline service here we come.
Lesley Grant Head of Cabin Services is convinced that Qantas offers the Best service in the sky.
She is either medicated or should be.
Liam Bartlett.....outstanding

[FGD135]

Ho hum.

Qantas is a business that is trying to reduce its costs. Any business, airline or otherwise, would show similar signs during enforced cost cutting.

All just very standard business. This story says nothing about Qantas but everything about run-of-the-mill business.

Liam Bartlett has been around for a long time. He knows that Qantas is a business and that businesses have no choice but to do these things from time to time.

But his job is to write articles like these. His income depends on his ability to package up a story that will be swallowed by the masses.


Chief executive officer Alan Joyce will do anything to protect the bottom line ...
Of course - that is the whole point. If Liam was a shareholder of Qantas he would insist on nothing less. (Liam may well be a shareholder - his article was all about selling newspapers and not necessarily what he personally believes Qantas should, or should not, be doing).

[packrat]

Qantas doesnt do this from time to time.Its been doing it for ten years.
If you are serious about cutting costs reduce management bonuses.
The share price has been as low as $1.79.Destruction of shareholder value.
Please dont carp on about the WFC ...Qantas was going south long before that started.
Pax feedback suggests that the Qantas product is crap.Joyce is just mini me Dixon with an Irish lilt

[lowerlobe]

FGD135...
Did you actually read the article?

Notice anything about the safety component of reducing the number of cabin crew?

or anything else in a service industry that is still reeling after years of slash and burn management....

This is not a business making paper rolls or nuts and bolts.This is a business about moving people from A to B where safety is the key word and image is everything.....if you want to cut costs then how about slashing the number of middle and upper management as well as corporate bonuses....:D

You mentioned Ho Hum....however,it should have been Bah Humbug....:(

[ebt]

Seriously - how come every other country seems to be fine with a 1/50 ratio of CC to Pax, as is Virgin Blue and Jetstar, yet its an issue for QF? Has there been anything proven about a reduction in safety levels from a completely objective point of view? I don't believe so...but then again this is Pprune, so why let that get in the way of a good whinge.

So the real problem is again Qantas being a nice big red-tailed target for the newspapers. Stuff happens, aircraft go tech, somebody on the front lines makes the wrong call and inconveniences people - this stuff happens everywhere, but when it comes to QF, it's worth a journalist's opinion piece in the Sunday Slimes. Either that or the rest of the world must be right with Mr Bartlett.

[packrat]

Qantas Airbus A380 ...489 pax 22 crew
Sing Air 17 crew on a jumbo
Japanese Airline(JAL) 18 on a jumbo
Every other airline?
Every other American Airline.
Airlines require a minimum spend to maintain standards of service.
Qantas has been below that minimum spend for about 6 years and its shows.
The product is rubbish

[Metro man]

Already, Qantas has gained exemptions from CASA for its most popular domestic routes, being allowed to cut its crew on the Boeing 737-800 and Airbus A320 from five to just four.

At least that's one for each main door. Asian low costs operate A319s with three cabin crew, and I believe New Zealand allows three cabin crew on some 737s ?

Difficult decision which way to go:
Run a first rate airline charging high fares and delivering first rate service IF your market will support it.

OR

Join the low costs in the lower end of the market, reducing your costs and standard of product to compete.

It's all very well having a low pax/crew ratio, good meals and satisfied customers. But you won't be around long if you're flying half empty losing money because most of your potential passengers were put off by the price and decided to pack a cut lunch and go on Tiger instead.

[lowerlobe]

how come every other country seems to be fine with a 1/50 ratio of CC to Pax, as is Virgin Blue and Jetstar
...Errr No ....I think you'll find that it is only aircraft registered in NZ....and then only LCC's...

QF is not a LCC and competes against other legacy airlines with more cabin crew....so feel free to remove foot from mouth.

There will always be a market for a legacy airline especially on Overseas long haul flights as against a short hop across the pond or the dutch as our Kiwi friends call it.
decided to pack a cut lunch and go on Tiger instead.
Has SIA announced plans to become a LCC...No they have Tiger amongst others just as QF have J*.This does not mean those who want to spend money will fly an airborne bus...

Next argument please against this accurate summation of the way the airline is being run....

[Wod]

That's not journalism; it's look at me, I have an opinion and I don't care who I upset.

Internally, the piece is illogical and unbalanced - minimum numbers versus service standard numbers for instance.

If you read that rubbish about an industry in with which you are not engaged, you wouldn't get to the end of the first paragraph.

Who is this guy, I have a grandson called Liam and this character has blotted the escutcheon.

Rant over. feel better:E

[ebt]

JQ and DJ have CASA exemptions allowing them to operate on a 1/50 seat ratio. US, NZ and EU allow the same ratios. Tell me where the other full-service carrers domestically that operate with the same crewing complement as QF did? Bear in mind, the exemptions for all players are also only for domestic services. My foot is far from my mouth, thankyou very much.

Bear in mind that QF competes with one LCC (Tiger) and a 'new world carrier' (which has lower costs than it anyway) on domestic services. No matter how premium a product may be, if it cannot be delivered in a way to earn a yield premium you end up in a bad spot. I think in time, this will be less and less with a number of passengers currently downgrading either to economy or LCCs and living through the experience (some even enjoy it), so I wonder if long term there will be a shift in customer demand towards chasing the lowest fare. Only time will tell

[lowerlobe]

the piece is illogical and unbalanced
Funny Wod.....that's what I thought about your post.:E
Tell me where the other full-service carrers domestically that operate with the same crewing complement as QF did?
ebt...That's the heart of the problem and shows your mindset...Qantas is a lot more than a domestic airline.
The money earner really is in the golden triangle with the business market and they will always be prepared to pay top dollar so long as they are recognised in the business lounge,on board and with on time departures...they don't want to fly on a airborne version of a bus.
The brains trust at Qantas has asked the national flying watchdog, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to give it the green light to cut cabin crew numbers on all its flights.
Mind you I don't condone the reduction on domestic flights either...but those who have never worked as cabin crew will probably never understand the real issue in any case...

[Ken Borough]

This is a beat-up on an obviously slow news day fed to a journo by I suspect the FAAA. This hypothesis may be incorrect but the article is trying to advance one side of a industrial difference of opinion.:(

[lowerlobe]

The brains trust at Qantas has asked the national flying watchdog, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to give it the green light to cut cabin crew numbers on all its flights.
Another point of view more than a little short on detail...

Ken disagree's but doesn't tell us why...only that he doesn't like it....

[blow.n.gasket]

packrat wrote:
Cost Cutting From Time 2 Time-Rubbish
Qantas doesnt do this from time to time.Its been doing it for ten years.
If you are serious about cutting costs reduce management bonuses.


Or how about management actually making some hard decisions and earn those huge bonus', decisions like cutting the deadwood in Qantas?
Get staffing levels / airframe in line with worlds best practice.
That would be a good way to narrow the gap with competitors!
PS I believe the areas of overstaffing are not in the front line departments. If you ask me there are too many blunts and middle management types running around in back rooms trying to look busy. How often do you see over weekends and public holidays no backroom office staff or management types, yet the airline continues to function? :uhoh:

[Z Force]

I believe that Qantas has brought mangement consultants in. One has to ask if management are competent why do they have to bring in outside consultants?

[blow.n.gasket]

Jobs for the boys.
You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Baksheesh!
Just look at the unholy alliance between Joyce, Buchanan, JetStar and Boston Consulting.

[Ultralights]

its far- superior record? many moons ago, yes, but not in its recent history. or even this millennium.

n line with worlds best practice. hahahahaahahah worlds best practice.... hmmm that should be the new company slogan, painted on the side of all its aircraft,

the spirit of australia is long gone. QANTAS "worlds best practice"

worlds best practice is a myth. its a management buzzword meaning. cheapest possible.

[blow.n.gasket]

Ultralights, just have a look at the number of staff Qantas has to run a 100 or so aircraft. Some 38,000.
Qantas ,if it was fair dinkum in cutting costs ,should be able to achieve this with a hell of a lot less staff, like other legacy carriers do.
The fat ain't in flight ops, it doesn't appear to be in cabin crew, last time I looked it wasn't in check-in staff, it doesn't appear to be in bag snatching ranks, it most certainly isn't in Engineering, so where are all those excess staff sitting?
Here's a hint, have a look around QCA, over the road in the TNT building and anywhere else the pen pushers and middle management types hang out and take long lunches.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

I seriously doubt if Joyce actually flies on his own airline. If he does, I'm willing to bet the first perk he uses is the executive velvet eyeshades.

During his time in JQ, Alan always sat in seats around the aircraft - middles seats, down the back etc.

The other day, he flew economy to MEL from SYD as the flight was full. Staff would have had to downgrade a commercial pax.

That's right - he flew down the back in a 76. You would never see that with any other executive.

The cabin crew's jaws fell to the floor - it was funny to watch.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I'm glad to hear he didn't sit on a seat outside the aircraft :bored:

[Metro man]

The money earner really is in the golden triangle with the business market and they will always be prepared to pay top dollar so long as they are recognised in the business lounge,on board and with on time departures...they don't want to fly on a airborne version of a bus.

Wasn't an all business class airline tried recently in Australia and didn't last long ? OZJET

Silverjet in the UK, also all business class folded just over a year ago.

Even Singapore Airlines have had to suspend some of their all business class A340 services to New York. Generally the premium cabins on all flights have had disappointing loads.

Jetstar Asia have a corporate travel department with a growing list of clients, catering to downgraders.

Even the Brisbane - Melbourne leg of the golden triangle is only a little over two hours long. With business fares at around $1300 return and "e-deals" from $170, the corporate world is going to find it difficult to justify the extra expense to the share holders at the moment. Many contracts allow business class on flights longer than eight hours only.

A $1000+ saving is difficult to ignore when the travel budget comes under the microscope. Of course the politicians and top end of town will pay, but will that be enough to justify the cost of keeping business class going ? First Class has all but disappeared on short flights throughout the world. Prehaps Business class will be restricted to a few of the more desirable seats ie front row or exit, flexible ticket, increased baggage allowance and a better meal.

[ebt]

Indeed, there may be a number of people who still want their status and will pay the extra for the big seats, but I wonder how long that can be counted on. As Metro man points out, the premium carriers are now having to rely on the people in the back of the cabin to pay the way. Corporate accounts are finding that you can save a packet and are putting their employees in economy or *gasp* on LCCs, and they still get to their destination. The real question will be once the economy recovers if those people then decide to pay the extra for the comfier seat - I personally think they may not. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Lodown]

Be unique or be cheap. Qantas ceased being unique many, many years ago.

[Agent Mulder]

I actually think the premium markets will recover and the next major shock is going to be the collapse of the LCC market.

Why?

Global commentators say business is picking up, however, unemployment has not caught up to the forecast yet due to various reasons including people living off redundancy and not looking for work yet.

The greatest area for unemployment? The low income to middle income worker or as some of you like to refer to them, the cashed up bogan. These people make up the bulk of Virgin, Jetstar, Ryanair, Air Aisa X etc passengers. This market appears to be next in the firing line.

The self funded retirees etc have seen their share portfolios rebound in the last few months and will NOT be flying low cost for their long awaited holidays. Look at the Honolulu market if you want proof. Who wants to die knowing the kids will be living it up in business class while you went LCC to save a few quid?

If the full service carriers can get their products up to speed they will be well positioned to capture this upswing and the subsequent yield improvement from it. The LCC's will have to transform their take it or leave it product (pay for it or don't get it) if they want to even attempt to capture some market share. The problem, as VB have found, is that you then add cost and are no longer a LCC or full service carrier and no one knows where you sit in the market, so they still identify you with your original market entry point, in the case of VB, low cost.

[packrat]

Fuel cost is about to rise and continue to rise.
LCCs begin to lose their advantage once fuel hits $80/Barrel.
At present the only difference between Jet * and mainline is cost.
The service is crap on both.
With jet star at least you know what you are getting.
With mainline your expectations are definitely not met.
The entire Cabin Services Dept. need to be sacked.
The post menopausal sewing circle is preoccupied with the position of an FAs name badge and has absolutely no idea of how to improve service onboard

[capt.cynical]

Lowdown,
"Be unique or be cheap. Qantas ceased being unique many, many years ago.":{

LD, that all started in 1995 with the arrival of JBT and his blue army of "experts". :yuk:

[ditch handle]

The entire Cabin Services Dept. need to be sacked

Hear, hear, hear........

Grant, Webster, Tarranto, Jackson, Lamberg Burnett, farrk the list just goes on and on and on and on.

A more delusional, dysfunctional, self serving and adversarial bunch of halfwit pretenders one could never hope to meet.

These idiots wouldn't have a farrking clue what happens on board our aircraft, what pleases passengers or how to get the best out of their staff.

Witness some [most?] of the fools who've been promoted to positions of authority and control in the cabin crew ranks during their tenure for proof of that.

These ideologically driven megalomaniacs just have got to go whilst we still have an airline worth salvaging.

Are you listening Alan, Alan???.........hello.............?

[Pegasus747]

you left out the head of the audreytorium herself.....

[lowerlobe]

That's not journalism; it's look at me, I have an opinion and I don't care who I upset.
This is a beat-up on an obviously slow news day fed to a journo by I suspect the FAAA.
Who is this guy, I have a grandson called Liam and this character has blotted the escutcheon.
After reading these two posts by Wod and Kenny who are people who obviously didn't like the article I thought I would do some research on Liam Bartlett.

Here is some of what I found...
One of Perth’s foremost investigative reporters, Liam Bartlett has been involved in Western Australia’s media industry for the past 15 years, holding positions at Golden West Network, STW Channel 9, Radio 6PR and the ABC.
Liam Bartlett then moved to ABC News and Current Affairs, where he became known to audiences statewide. His reporting culminated in the public disclosure of $30 million in taxpayer funds being secretly funnelled into Rothwell’s Merchant Bank through the State government’s insurance commission. This was considered by many to be the final straw which forced the establishment of the Royal Commission in WA Inc.
He launched STW 9’s Lateline programme, hosted the ABC’s 7.30 Report, and later joined the Nine Network’s A Current Affair in Melbourne.

Over the years, Liam’s reporting has led to the removal of disgraced public officials and the instigation of various parliamentary and departmental enquiries in the areas of Health, Emergency Services, Public Sector Standards and Treasury. It has also seen a state ombudsman sacked, a 30 year suspect finally named as a murderer in the Coroner’s Court, and a Minister lose her portfolio only two weeks into the job.
Liam was appointed to Australia’s most successful current affairs program 60 Minutes in 2006, with his first story reporting from Beirut during the Hezbollah war.
Who is he Wod....Well,to me he sounds like the right sort of journo to open up a can of worms in this business.....

[VBPCGUY]

T-Vasis, Brett Godfrey is the same he always flys at the back of VB aircraft.

[Trevor the lover]

Agent Mulder, remind me never to take investment advice from you -man have you a clue at all.

"Self refunded retirees will NOT be flying LCCs...." So how many self funded retirees did you survey for that bold one mate.

"Who wants to die knowing the kids are living it up in business class while you saved a few bucks on LCCs...." I don't think you are suggesting people are dying on LCCs - but if you are, what a tool.

Sorry mate - from now until we are all worm sh!t, there will always be a market wanting the lowest fares. There will ALWAYS be bogans, no matter what our GDP, and no matter what our annual economic growth figures are.

[Transition Layer]

It's easy for Godfrey and Joyce to sit down the back in Economy...they're both shortarses! (with the subsequent short-man syndrome, that's why they make great CEOs)

Bet you don't see many 6ft 5' CEOs in Economy.

[Ski Guru]

VBPCGUY,

so he should next to the deadheading tech crew.

[porch monkey]

Where else is he gonna sit? He's not getting the jump, that's fer f@ckin' sure!

[stubby jumbo]

.....great post 'lobe.

Liam Bartlett has hit the nail right on the proverbial.

He is an experienced Journo. Living in PER..... I use to listen to him on ABC radio -720 where he was much loved and rated #1 in mornings .......why ?,.....'cause he did exactly as he did in this article. Spoke the truth and stood up for what he believed and not bendover for his next upgrade.

Wake up......... we had one Fairfax ( SMH) journo who had the guts to tip the bucket on Dixon and his marauders during the APA bid / sham.

Name one other journo of late ( other than in Crikey.com) who are prepared to write anything other than "pap" about QF for fear of losing their freebies /upgrades during their family hol's.

Just a further thought.

Could it be the reason why people like Wod thought the article lame-be something to do with this being a "cabin crew-centric" type article and wo-forbid not paying due respect to the people who sit beyond THE DOOR.:uhoh:

[Cactusjack]

Hate to disapoint you folkes, but Joyce has been squirrelling Managers from JQ over to QF for some months now, one at a time, slowly slowly,building his base.
So for those of you who dream about the good old days with the Roo where service and safety came first, sorry, its 'JQ Mk 2' !!!!!

[Metro man]

The challenge for QANTAS is to provide a better product than the low costs (not hard), but at an acceptable difference in price to make it justifiable for those who are prepared to pay a bit more.

If a QF return MEL - SYD is $300 vs $240 on Tiger, I would rather go QF and enjoy food, drinks, increased baggage allowance and better resources to recover in the event of a disruption.

However if QF want $500 vs $240 then I start making allowances for the lack of service, and make sure I comply with the terms and conditions of the competition.

The fare difference, particularly with two travelling, gives a lot of extra spending money on a weekend break. Better hotel, nicer meals, even more frequent holidays.

The low costs know their target market and cater to it. QANTAS needs to find its position in a changed market, and decide what standard of service they can provide to their type of passenger, at what cost and still make a profit on it.

Finding the bottom and making money on it is a lot easier than finding profitable middle ground, just look at McDonalds.

[Sunfish]

Word is 777 purchase will be announced today.

[RedTBar]

No doubt about it,the announcement about the 777 is going to be made today.
I got an email about it and they can't be wrong,just ask the Libs:E

[Mstr Caution]

Joyce has been squirrelling Managers from JQ over to QF for some months now, one at a time, slowly slowly,building his base.



Why would they be transferring to the RAT, wasn't JQ the way of the future?

[packrat]

Jet* will incorporate Qantas just like the Borg.
Resistance is futile.We are heading towards the lowest common denominator.
If an order for tripplers is announced you can bet mainline wont be getting them

[skybed]

:ugh:Why would J* managers come to the roo???????????
The Honeypot!! Lots more money to be made in a much shorter time then in J* and no responsinbility.No one is ever responsible for anything at the Rat:ugh:

[Teal]

Word is 777 purchase will be announced today.No doubt about it,the announcement about the 777 is going to be made today.
I got an email about it and they can't be wrong,just ask the LibsApparently not. If Ben Sandilands' summation is correct.

Qantas: No 777s, more A330s, 87% less profits and group flew into negative earnings in second half (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/08/19/qantas-no-777s-more-a330s-87-less-profits-and-group-flew-into-negative-earnings-in-second-half/)

August 19, 2009 – 9:02 am, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)

The Qantas full year financial briefing to 30 June is underway.
Its filings are available on Australian Securities Exchange - Stock Market (http://www.asx.com.au)
Information, Stock Quotes - ASX (http://www.asx.com.au) under the code QAN.

The highlights are:
Profit before tax down 87% compared to the previous financial year to $181 million
This is less than the half year to 31 December PBT of $288 million, indicating a second half overall loss.
The group will lease 4 more Airbus A330s to make up for delays to the 787 program on which it remains ‘committed’ but ‘vigilant.’
The additional A330s will allow Jetstar to pursue its international expansion.
No final dividend to be declared with 6 cents per share paid on half yearly results accounting for a full return of profits to stock holders.
Record earnings for the Frequent Flyer program of $310 million EBIT, or an underlying $226 million under complex accounting procedures outlined in a supplementary ASX filing.
Qantas brands lost $77 million for the full year after non-recurring items and had an underlying profit of $4 million.
Jetstar made a record $137 million EBIT, a rise of 18%
As reported in on Plane Talking two months ago, Jetstar will cut Avalon-Sydney services and begin direct Melbourne-Sydney flights in October to deal with Tiger at 5 flights a day.
Qantas will reconfigure its A380s and Boeing 744s for more premium economy seats and less business class seating, details to be announced later.

[breakfastburrito]

If an order for tripplers is announced you can bet mainline wont be getting themWill j* mainline (Oz) get them either? I wonder if they will go to NZ or Vietnam instead. Time will tell.

[Jet-A-One]

When will QF listen to it's pilots and engineers on the 777?

[A. Le Rhone]

For goodness sake, why all this fascination with the old 777? It's getting long in the tooth now. Soon we'll be asking for 707's!

Far better to stick with either later-gen 787's (tested to ensure they don't actually melt in the sun) or A350's (a real 777-beater).

[ernestkgann]

Except that neither of them exist other than as static displays or plans on a board.

[RedTBar]

No doubt about it,the announcement about the 777 is going to be made today.
I got an email about it and they can't be wrong,just ask the Libs
Apparently not. If Ben Sandilands' summation is correct.
Teal,It was supposed to be a joke.Do you read about Australian politics or the papers at all?
the Libs,fake email,utegate etc...

[Shlonghaul]

V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777
by Ben Sandilands

Virgin Blue has really shown how it can punish Qantas for its absurd resistance to acquiring Boeing 777s.

The announced ‘phase two’ expansion of its V Australia fleet which rises to only four of these jets by December is going to be an enormous headache for Qantas.

And especially considering it holds orders or options for up to 13 Boeing 777-300ERs.

Qantas made two incredibly inept decisions concerning its fleet needs in recent years, in choosing to buy a large fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and not buying Boeing 777s.

In its defence, it was as easy a sell for the ‘plastic fantastic’ 787 sales pitch from Boeing as many other carriers, just more so considering the order peaked at 65 units and was recently trimmed to 50.

But when Geoff Dixon, then CEO, and Peter Gregg, then CFO, gloated over the wisdom of that deal in December 2005, their major competitors, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Emirates, saw clearly the merits of the latest versions of the 777 and swooped.

The 777 is a product of a Boeing that knew how to design airliners and deliver on its promises, not the latter day Boeing that spread a truly promising concept in the 787 far and wide among sub contractors and risk sharing partners, some of them unequal to a task that the new management of Boeing wasn’t effectively supervising anyhow.

Hobbled with an aging fleet that Qantas for a period neglected to even maintain in a clean and reliable manner, it p*ssed more than a billion dollars in excess fuel consumption into the wind by not having 777s in its fleet. Money it will never get back. The 777-300ER is the most fuel efficient 300-400 seat sized longer range airliner available until at least 2014 and perhaps well beyond.

Qantas lost. Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Emirates gained. And now V Australia is gaining too, even by using the 777s on routes that are really too short in some cases, such as to Phuket or Nadi, to deliver the best economics of the jet.

These short routes give V Australia the chance to play havoc against the likes of Jetstar or Air Pacific at times when the 777s would otherwise be idle between long haul flights, racking up parking fees at the major Australian airports.

Much the same way that Emirates punts its A380s and 777s across the Tasman daily to take advantage of the big cargo container market that Qantas and Air NZ neglect with their smaller single aisle jets, plus passengers as a bit more cream on top, rather than do nothing while waiting for the right time to fly back to Dubai.

Being optimised for long haul, the 777s also have much better economy class amenity than shorter haul jets (despite Emirates going for 10 across seating).

Anyone who is familiar with the crammed condition of economy class on a Qantas 747 to Johannesburg is going to be pleasantly surprised by a V Australia 777. The difference will be very noticeable over the 12-13 hour long flights.

Using 777s, V Australia will be able to offer very attractive alternatives over a range of shorter as well as longer haul flights, cutting across the territory of both Jetstar and the Qantas full service offerings.

This takes the Virgin Blue subsidiary out of its until now total exposure to the cut throat environment of the trans Pacific routes where the A380 does give Qantas a cost per seat per kilometre advantage, as well as an even nicer airliner. And it allows V Australia to diversify into markets where the giant Airbus is some years away from being a force, which it won’t become until sustained growth returns to international aviation.

And the Qantas answer to the 777, the slightly smaller 787, isn’t coming any day soon, maybe never. Qantas can use A330s very effectively over medium distances where that Airbus is the efficiency leader, but as it turns out, those who use the 777 against it in Asia, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Emirates, also have large A330 fleets for just that reason. They have the long and medium haul routes covered with A330/777 strategies that eluded Qantas, to its costly disadvantage.

In fact out of its better equipped major competitors, Emirates is the largest A380, 777 and A330 operator in the world, with Singapore Airlines also flying large numbers of all three types.

On Wednesday Qantas has allowed extra time for its always important financial year results announcement and briefings.

There are whispers. Some say it has cancelled the 787. Others that it has come to an agreement with Boeing to replace some or all 787s with 777s.

If it is a case of the latter, better late than never, but rather sad considering the squandered opportunities.
*************************************************

Another disaster Darth left behind :mad: :ugh:

[Shlonghaul]

Qantas Group To Lease Additional A330 Capacity
Sydney, 19 August 2009

The Qantas Group announced today it would take four additional wide-body A330 aircraft, on six-year leases, to allow for Jetstar's long haul international growth.

Qantas Chief Executive Officer, Mr Alan Joyce, said the first A330-200 aircraft would be delivered in November 2010.

"A key component of the Group's growth strategy is its significant fleet renewal program," Mr Joyce said.

"We currently have more than 160 aircraft on order over the next 10 years, including 50 Boeing 787s for operation by both Jetstar and Qantas.

"B787 program delays mean we have had to consider medium term options to support new long haul market opportunities for Jetstar."

Jetstar currently operates a fleet of six A330-200s. This will increase to seven in December 2009 and grow to 11 with the delivery of these new two-class, 303-seat aircraft.

Mr Joyce said the Group was also considering a fifth leased A330-200, also for operation by Jetstar.

"Jetstar's growth is an important part of our two brand strategy and these new aircraft will support the airline's growth across its international network which covers Australia, South East Asia and the Asia Pacific ahead of the delivery of the Qantas Group's first B787-9," he said.

Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Qantas will not get the 777. It would not be sound to bring a whole new frame into the business currently.

Why JQ managers are moving to QF? Because they do a better job. They know all about efficiency and 'working harder for less'. They will sort all the fat out of Qantas and deliver efficiencies the legacy free-loaders would not do for so long...

Long-term sustainability.

[Mstr Caution]

Maybe my sarcastic tone didn't have the desired effect in my post!

So managers are permitted opportunities for career progression & promotion but tech crew remain quarantined.

[Shlonghaul]

Why JQ managers are moving to QF? Because they do a better job. They know all about efficiency and 'working harder for less'. They will sort all the fat out of Qantas and deliver efficiencies the legacy free-loaders would not do for so long...



I love your sense of humour :E

[blow.n.gasket]

Mstr Caution;
So managers are permitted opportunities for career progression & promotion but tech crew remain quarantined

The Star cherubs are indoctrinated to believe the only "polluted culture" lies with Qantas,thereby keeping the font of all that is so good and wholesome,Jet Star, pristine clean by only allowing "the chosen ones" to go to the dark side whilst not allowing those filthy perverted Mainline pilots access to low pay nirvana!:bored:

PS. It's a slow night.

[rudderless1]

I thought the whole article was due Qf side lining Channel 9 for Channel 7!:ouch:

[lowerlobe]

Or.....The journo hit the nail on the head....:D:D:D

[Cactusjack]

Good point. JQ is the way of the future when it comes to lean and profitable, but the catch quite simply is that QF pays its Managers (and everyone for that matter) much more than what its budget sibling pays !!

[Cactusjack]

Oh I love that, JQ Managers do a better job !!! Now that is funny........

[The Green Goblin]

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll60/QantasPilot/777-3OOer.jpg

Sigh :(

If only

[ditch handle]

What was he?

The worlds highest paid airline executive running the worlds 10th largest airline.

:mad::mad::mad:

[Shlonghaul]

The worlds highest paid airline executive running the worlds 10th largest airline.



And at the same time Darth was RUINING the worlds 10th largest airline :( :rolleyes:

[ElPerro]

I have no problem with this. Passengers are free to choose if they wish to fly an airline with a 1 to 36 ratio or a 1:50 ratio. If an individual thinks this is unacceptable they are free to choose not to fly with QF.

As for the drift into Geoff Dixon's payout.

Most economic fallacies derive - from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another

As true today as the day he said it. If you are an employee and don't own the company you have no business questioning the pay of other employees. If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.

That’s $100k that has always gone to QF, previously without hesitation. The fact that I am now willing to forgo my QF Platinum privileges That's exactly right. You are free to choose. That is how economic freedom works. :ok:

And at the same time Darth was RUINING the worlds 10th largest airline You are free to choose to work elsewhere. If you are still working for QANTAS whilst you think that someone who the owners paid to run it is ruining it then it begs the question why you didn't move on. Assuming you work for QANTAS then your actions indicate that you don't believe he was in the process of ruining the airline. If you actually believed that why did you continue to work for QF when you thought it was being dragged out of business?

[DEFCON4]

The parallels that exist between Qantas and Enron CEOs are obvious to everyone but El Perro

[lowerlobe]

I have no problem with this. Passengers are free to choose if they wish to fly an airline with a 1 to 36 ratio or a 1:50 ratio. If an individual thinks this is unacceptable they are free to choose not to fly with QF.
Do you have a problem with people not wearing seat belts,driving at excessive speed or not being told about the dangers of smoking...because if there were no regulators checking things in life, people would be free to do anything they want without understanding they are being taken for a ride and suffer the consequences.

There are people in this world in positions of authority who will do want ever they want.If there were no checks being made and regulations enforced people who have no idea of the consequences would be at risk....
Most economic fallacies derive - from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another
As true today as the day he said it. If you are an employee and don't own the company you have no business questioning the pay of other employees. If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.
Let me see if I understand you ElPerro...

Money gained is somehow derived from thin air and therefore has no impact on anyone else....Do you think that money is taken from a bottomless pit and that it has no impact at all on others....

Tell that to families who have a member with a gambling addiction...

Looking into your strategy of 100% freedom reminds me of Wall Street when started.... Ahh yes...Wall Street.....the leading example of market forces and the way things ought to be run....

Now can you explain to us the exact cause of the current GFC,where it started and how a number of CEO's and board members seem to think they are a law unto themselves...

Now of course if something is wrong ElPerro tells us ......

No need to do anything about it....Don't worry or complain...just resign.Let others get caught and look the other way.

Brilliant..........:yuk:

I'm not mentioning any specific person or entity but if there were no regulatory bodies and people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.

Even now after what has happened some CEO's and boards in the US and around the world still carry on as if nothing has happened and what they do will have no impact on anyone else....

[ElPerro]

Hi LowerLobe,
I'm glad you asked.. This will be a long post as you've actually managed to ask a lot of questions (that you obviously believe to be simple) that take a little explaining.

Do you have a problem with people not wearing seat belts,driving at excessive speed or not being told about the dangers of smoking...because if there were no regulators checking things in life, people would be free to do anything they want without understanding they are being taken for a ride and suffer the consequences.
1. Seat belts - In an ideal world no , so long as they are informed of the possible consequences and risk. If people wish to place themselves at risk and they don't threaten the health and safety of a third party then they should be free to choose. If we regulate that seat belts must be worn why not regulate against sky diving?
2. Driving at excessive speed - of course, it places a third party at risk We allow people to drive at high speed on private property or on a race track but not on public roads because it risks harming others.
3. Not being told about the dangers of smoking - of course I don't support that. I didn't say people should not be told about risks. People should be free to choose what personal risk to their safety they accept so long as it doesn't effect a third party.

Money gained is somehow derived from thin air and therefore has no impact on anyone else....Do you think that money is taken from a bottomless pit and that it has no impact at all on others....

I didn't say money is a bottomless pit. Let me answer your initial question with a question. Why doesn't the Earth have the same amount of wealth that it did in the year 100AD? Are you far better off than your ancestors because money was transferred from someone to you? I'll fill in one piece of the puzzle for you. It wasn't because a central government commanded that people should earn more.
Tell that to families who have a member with a gambling addiction That's a matter for private individuals. If an individual wishes to gamble his / her own money away he should be free to do that. If other family members are unhappy with that then that's a matter for the individual and their family. If it's someone elses money, then that's a crime. That is what government is for.
Looking into your strategy of 100% freedom reminds me of Wall Street when started.... Ahh yes...Wall Street.....the leading example of market forces and the way things ought to be run....

I didn't advocate 100% freedom. When you construct a "straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)" and tear it down you don't advance your point. Wall Street was about one man "Gordon Gecko" taking advantage of breaches in private agreements. Companies seek mutual benefit in making deals and enforce "Non Disclosure Agreements". What Gordon Gecko did was hire someone to break into premises in order to gain information on private agreements. That is one key role of government - to enforce private agreements. Hence why Gordon Gecko found himself in grief.
Now can you explain to us the exact cause of the current GFC,where it started and how a number of CEO's and board members seem to think they are a law unto themselves...
A failure due to (not because of an absense of) government intervention. Why are loans under duress at 6% in the US whilst under 1% in Australia? It's not because of government intervention in Australia. It's because the US Democrats intervened in the market years ago. They brought in legislation that would financially harm US Financial institution is they didn't loan a certain amount of their loans to "disadvantaged groups". Secondly the US Government made it possible for US Financial institutions to loan money and transfer the risk. They made it possible for a bank to loan money to a low income person and on sell the loan to what was essentially a Federal Government institution (i.e Fannie Mae- a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE)). The US Democrats disabled the free market mechanisms that prevent this. In the free market people make investment decisions (or in this case loan decisions) based on the risk versus reward. The US Government took away the risk. This is the core problem.

So yes, the GFC was not caused by a lack of regulation but because of the unintended consequences of government intervention.

'm not mentioning any specific person or entity but if there were no regulatory bodies and people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.
I never advocated an absense of government in the market. The government should be there to enforce deals between two private individuals / companies. They should not be there to prevent agreements between private individuals as the current Prime Minister desires. people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.That's ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that people would continually make bad investments knowing they would lose their skin in 5 years (or every year if you believe your "permanenty GFC". Your lack of belief in rational human behaviour is staggering. If it become a known fact that shares tank every 5 years do you think people would invest in shares? Of course not. You are being illogical. Again to quote a Nobel Laureate
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
You seem to lack a basic understand of free markets. The owners of QANTAS would not have offered to pay Geoff Dixon the amount they did unless they thought the company would benefit from it. Geoff Dixon would not have agreed to work for QANTAS unless he thought he would benefit from it.
I'll conclude with another Milton Friedman quote:
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. You argue against Freedom, economic Freedom at that. Whether you acknowledge that our not you are in the same class as Stalin. Do you believe socialism did the former USSR well?

[Obie]

Oh dear!...we have a foolish philosopher in our midst!

Never mind...elPerro will, hopefully, like all the others, wander off into the sunset. :ok:

[Obie]

After your latest rambling, I rest my case, Eiperro!

QED :ok:

[ElPerro]

No response required on this. See post at 06:52. You demonstrate the lack of ability to discuss issues. Why did you bother posting Obie?

[Shlonghaul]

Oh dear!...we have a foolish philosopher in our midst!


Hit the nail on the head there Obie!

So El Perro why did I not choose to leave Qantas whilst Darth was ruining it? Why should I do so after more than thirty years working with great people at a great airline just because one sociopath comes along with his cronies who’s apparently only concern is to make as much money for themselves in the best tradition of Wall Streets Gordon Gekko? You see I’ve been around long enough to know that the busiest person at Qantas is the sign writer changing the names of the managers on their office door ………..they come and they go and I’m still here. All Qantas employees, of every department, can thank our lucky stars that the Dixon-Jackson endorsed takeover attempt of 2007 didn’t go through or Qantas, an airline begun in 1920, an Australian company, most likely would no longer exist. We’re a better company, a better airline now that the cancer has been removed from it.

In any case it’s my business who I work for, or whether I decide to leave, or apply to work for another company, and in this you can mind your own business.

You’re apparently quite young as you have no understanding of how thing’s were like working for a company before the CEOs main concern was for their own bottom line. You need to read up on Enron, Bernard Madoff, Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, WorldComs Bernard Ebbers, Christopher Skase, One Tel & HIH Insurance for starters, ohh and another little thing known as the GFC.

If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.


Don’t make me laugh the average shareholder has very little say in CEOs remuneration. The one’s that have the most clout are at the top end of town rubbing shoulders with those same CEOs, or as I’ve said before they’re like dogs sniffing each other’s bums. They look after their own very nicely even when that CEO and their management team have done a poor job, yet they still leave with millions of dollars of shareholder monies.

According to Wikipedia “El perro is a neo-realist fable about a man and a dog” I believe it’s time for you to head back to your own prescribed location El Perro…..the dog house, better still let your hero Darth take you out for a long walk on Balmoral Beach and feed you some doggie treats……….he can afford it. :E

[SOPS]

perhaps Perro is Darth?

[lowerlobe]

Why doesn't the Earth have the same amount of wealth that it did in the year 100AD?
Please tell me ElPerro why you believe this to be so?
Wall Street was about one man "Gordon Gecko" taking advantage of breaches in private agreements.
I was referring to Wall St the institution not the movie.....
The GFC was according to El Perro due to...
A failure due to (not because of an absense of) government intervention.
How about a lack of intervention in the greed which pervades the corporate sector even after the melt down....I will give you one example ..Bernard Madoff.
So yes, the GFC was not caused by a lack of regulation but because of the unintended consequences of government intervention.
If you believe that then you are either kidding yourself or believe that others are as gullible as you would like them to be....
the most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
What a load of unadulterated rubbish....Tell that to the tens of thousands if not millions of people world wide who have lost everything over the years since the inception of the stock market....both parties benefit....you don't sell used cars or real estate do you?
You argue against Freedom, economic Freedom at that. Whether you acknowledge that our not you are in the same class as Stalin. Do you believe socialism did the former USSR well?
That quote is a paranoid as Stalin was.....So because I don't believe in complete and unlimited freedom and greed within our markets and banking sectors I am therefore by your thinking a socialist or worse....

ElPerro....It's time to step away from the keyboard and start taking whatever medication you stopped taking....

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

ElPerro is that little know it all Aircraft (Mark whatever number he got up to before the moderators kicked him off) making a comeback :yuk::yuk::ugh:

[Cactusjack]

I have to agree with SOPS. I am thinking Elperro may actually be Darth Di..n ??
Perhaps the insidious former QF Master will be around to taunt the aviation world for decades to come ?? He will hide behind many disguises.Never wishing to expose himself.
Or maybe Elperro is one of the upper echelon at the Roo,a true zealot,a loyalist, and a believer in Darth's management style, the way of the 'dark side'?
Unfortunately Darth is actually not like cancer. Cancer eventually rots a human being away. Darth is still kicking along quite well. He is more like Satan I think.
Besides the world needs philosophers to amuse the masses with their ramblings. As Mel Brookes once quoted ' a philosopher is actually a bulls..t artist' !!!!

[KaptinZZ]

El Perro has to be a management stooge or a troll !!!

[Cactusjack]

I would say he/she is both !

[ElPerro]

the most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
What a load of unadulterated rubbish....Tell that to the tens of thousands if not millions of people world wide who have lost everything over the years since the inception of the stock market....both parties benefit....you don't sell used cars or real estate do you?
I believe you've misunderstood what happens when a person buys shares. They want to own part of a company in order to have the opportunity to experience capital growth / dividends from ownership in a company should that company make a profit. They want that and pay for it. They benefit as they get what they want - an opportunity. If they want a more certain outcome then they are free to choose numerous investment options where the probability of return is higher. Share investment is not like the provision of labour where you agree to provide labour in return for a guarantee of payment for that labour (that's why we have laws making it illegal not to pay someone for their work, but no law guarantees a certain return on the purchase of a share in a company.)

In a non-free market (socialism) the government "owns" a company on behalf of taxpayers. If you don't want your money invested in that company you have no choice - the government has taken your money and is investing it against your will. You no longer are free to choose as you must follow the "collective" opinion.

How about a lack of intervention in the greed which pervades the corporate sector even after the melt down....I will give you one example ..Bernard Madoff. There are already laws against what he did. He breached the conditions of the private arrangement he had made with investors. As I said before, that is what government is for - enforcing agreements between individuals who choose to enter into an agreement.

The "shame" at QANTAS is the influence of unions. They lower employment and cause great harm those at the bottom of society.

Unfortunately Darth is actually not like cancer. Cancer eventually rots a human being away. Well to continue the human body analogy (and at risk of sounding crass) I guess unions are like maggots. Eating away at the flesh of individual companies which make up the economy. The bits of meat they chew on are actually the poorest in society. Whilst you may believe you are getting one over Dixon with industrial action or a given "EBA" you aren't (the recent payout should prove that to you), you are pushing those at the bottom off the ladder off the bottom rung.

[hadagutfull]

I'm affraid the only maggots are the fly blown management and board who are fattening up on the carcass of a once great and profitable airline. As fir shareholders, they are free to invest where ever they like.. I agree!
How they can sit back and watch the sabotage happening defies logic.
Any profitable company has engaged and motivated staff.. That is in itself an investment that will pay dividends to the shareholders and company!!!
Perhaps we can forgo a payrise and union fees to pay for a royal commission into this company and all the criminals who have milked it..
Perhaps some forensic accounting into jet star might reveal some interesting news.
Even all the connections between board members and other companies supplying outsourced services to Qantas???
There would be a very hi level of co operation between staff/ unions and management if the game was not so blatently rigged!!!

[lowerlobe]

I believe you've misunderstood what happens when a person buys shares. They want to own part of a company in order to have the opportunity to experience capital growth / dividends from ownership in a company should that company make a profit.
No actually ElPerro....I think it is you that is misunderstands what happens...

The individual buys shares in the HOPE that the shares will rise in value...not only from a profit but from other events.All to often this is not the case.

I asked you about Bernie Madoof....and this was your answer...
There are already laws against what he did. He breached the conditions of the private arrangement he had made with investors. As I said before, that is what government is for - enforcing agreements between individuals who choose to enter into an agreement.
Well,the laws didn't stop him did they?...
The "shame" at QANTAS is the influence of unions. They lower employment and cause great harm those at the bottom of society.
Actually,if it wasn't for the management that run so many organisations there would be no need for unions would there?

[Dropt McGutz]

ElPerro, what do you think of Mr. Dixon's final payout? It was 10% of what the profit was. Is that a good thing ElPerro? ElPerro, do you think he should have taken less? Just imagine how many jobs his millions would pay for. Please reply ElPerro.

[ElPerro]

The individual buys shares in the HOPE that the shares will rise in value...not only from a profit but from other events.All to often this is not the case.

Exactly, they benefited from the exchange in that they were granted exactly what they wanted. In your world you, your union's super fund, the man on the street would not have an opportunity to invest in any company because you don't want freedom of choice, you want certainty of outcome.

Well,the laws didn't stop him Nope. And you've proven my point. Introducing more government intervention and more laws won't stop people breaking those new laws either. People break laws. The only thing we do is punish those who break them. Restricting individual economic freedom will not stop that occuring. If you argued that government enforcement of current law should be better - not for more government intervention then you may have a point.

Actually,if it wasn't for the management that run so many organisations there would be no need for unions would there?

I don't think you really understand what unions are for. What exactly do you think unions do for yourself and more importantly those below you on the economic ladder.

Edit:
Just imagine how many jobs his millions would pay for. Please reply ElPerro.
Not a single one. Companies don't employ people based on how much cash they have in the bank, they employ people based on if they are going to make them money or not. Or to put it another way - if they will add to shareholder value. Geoff Dixon's payout has absolutely no effect on whether one more pilot, engineer, cabin crew or cleaner will make QANTAS any more money next year.

[lowerlobe]

Exactly, they benefited from the exchange in that they were granted exactly what they wanted. In your world you, your union's super fund, the man on the street would not have an opportunity to invest in any company because you don't want freedom of choice, you want certainty of outcome.
That's the funniest thing you have said.....so how do you explain all the people who have lost everything or at least a huge slice of their super or is that the certainty of outcome that you mentioned...?
I don't think you really understand what unions are for
Oh I understand all to well....as I said if it wasn't for the actions of unions people would still be working 17 hours a day in the mines...

If it wasn't for management greed there would never have been a need for collective bargaining....

[Dropt McGutz]

Come on ElPerro. You're obviously very knowledgable on all of this. Show some credibility and answer everyone's questions. Now answer mine will you?

[qf 1]

el perro,so how is one man taking 10 % of a companys profits with a work force of 35000 odd people a free market economy in action.The man did not own the company

[ElPerro]

That's the funniest thing you have said.....so how do you explain all the people who have lost everything or at least a huge slice of their super or is that the certainty of outcome that you mentioned...? Easy. They purchased ownership in a company. They didn't purchase a AAA rated sovereign backed bond (although technically that isn't even a 100% probability of a given return on equity). They wanted ownership in a company, and someone else wanted to no longer own a company. Both parties benefited.

Oh I understand all to well....as I said if it wasn't for the actions of unions people would still be working 17 hours a day in the mines...

A complete misnomer. "Union gains" have been only attributed because a union was involved. Union achievement is not the cause. If a company needed to pay a higher market price for labor a union was "seen" to have made that gain. This is not a new phenomenon, it's as old as doctors using the hippocratic oath as a restriction of labor practices / agreement of the division of labour. The original stated ""I will not cut persons laboring under the stone but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work.". An agreement between physicians and surgeons.

Let me explain what unions do.

Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.

These employees seek other employment. Obviously they can't obtain employment in careers that require higher qualifications so they shuffle down into the best paying job below their desired employment. This chain continues down until you hit the minimum wage level resulting in those with the least professional qualifications being pushed out of a job due to those who would otherwise have been employed at a higher level.

Your union is about gaining you, a union member, a wage above that which otherwise would be the case in a free market. That comes at the expense of those at the bottom of the employment ladder as those who miss out on employment in your field move down the scale.

Sure, you are pursuing your own financial self interest, but to lecture others on greed when it is your own self interest costing the poorest in society employment is overreaching your argument.

[Dropt McGutz]

Okay ElPerro, you finally answered one of my questions. Still thinking about the others I assume. they employ people based on if they are going to make them money or not. Or to put it another way - if they will add to shareholder value So why did Mr. Dixon get such a big payout and why was he paid so much? And aren't EBA's about give and take too?

[ElPerro]

So why did Mr. Dixon get such a big payout and why was he paid so much? And aren't EBA's about give and take too?
Easy, Dixon was payed that because the board of directors as representatives of the owners of QANTAS believed that his individual knowledge / skill produced more than that for the company.

No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take. They are about an organisation using an effective monopoly of labor supply to force another party to pay them more than they are worth in a free market. It's not "organised labor" taking from management. It's about "organised labour" taking from those who would otherwise be employed. A company isn't going to reduce the salary of the board of directors salary because of your EBA. They will hire less engineers, flight attendants, pilots, and attempt to outsource to parties who accept the market rate.

[qf 1]

rubbish elperro,wages were not being forced up by the union,which in turn pushed down worker numbers,the union was looking at bring up the wages to a parity equal to most western countries for aircraft engineers.the problem with aircraft engineers wages is linked to the demise of Ansett.once they folded there was only one place to work as a group 20 engineer and that was Qantas.where they had a monoply on the trade in this country(where if you didn't work for them,you didn't work)

[ElPerro]

once [Ansett] folded there was only one place to work as a group 20 engineer and that was Qantas.where they had a monoply on the trade in this country(where if you didn't work for them,you didn't work).

Your logic is incorrect. Firstly, it's factually incorrect that QANTAS had a monopsony over aircraft engineers in this country. Then or now.

Additionally to insist that all levels of employment in all industries in one country must only grow or their number remain static is illogical. If that were the case the steam train drivers union would be alive and thriving. Whilst I admit we are talking about unemployment due to different reasons the analogy is still valid.

At that time (ANSETT) some aircraft engineers began employment with Virgin Blue. Not long after some lost employment with Ansett. So two airlines existed still, and they were not the only employer of aircraft engineers (especially in the globe)

The union was looking at bring up the wages to a parity equal to most western countries for aircraft engineers

Why should the wages be at parity globally (or in the Western World) when in each country, each business has it's own fuel costs, tax regimes to comply with, statutory compliance costs, trade barriers, subsidies (government owned airlines), costs of living, supply of labour etc. Why should wages be at parity? Petrol in the middle east costs but a fraction of what it does here, should a union or government body insist on price parity for petrol?

If you want wage parity then you should advocate free migration for skilled labour, of course that won't work in a world where union's can shut a company down for hiring people for the wage they are actually willing to work for.

[Cactusjack]

Hey Elperro, 4 questions for you my friend , no strings attached here.

1) Did you vote Liberal or Labor in the last election ?

2) What are your views on CASA`s regulatory abilities,performance wise ?

3) Fan of Branson, yes or no ?

4) Next investment opportunity - Should I increase my investment in Gold, Casiono's (e.g PBL) or some other arena ?

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

ElPerro is definitely aircrafts love brother. See here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/300983-qantas-looking-overseas-workers-smh-2.html or http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/301011-if-labor-win-what-jet-awas.html as examples. Hey aircraft, oops, sorry, I mean ElPerro, how's your sandpit going? Did Father Christmas bring you any more Tonka toys for it?

[Shlonghaul]

Posted by, and with thanks to, Flugbegleiter, on thread 1,750 jobs to go at Qantas

PS: ElPerro, you are what is wrong with this country these days. You think you are smarter than the average bloke with a more "big picture" view of the world. Your greedy, capitalistic, corporate philosophies and ideas repulse me. Don't even bother commenting on this, because nothing you can say will change my opinion of people like you. You are here just to stir up trouble.

Never a truer statement has been made

[Dropt McGutz]

ElPerro, QF pilots went without a payrise for over four years whilst the company made record profits and the executives received very large bonuses etc. The pilots were eventually able to negotiate a variation to the EBA which was a win/win for both pilots and the company WITHOUT the threat of any industrial action. We did receive back pay, however our payrises, after tax, don't even keep up with inflation, unlike executive remuneration.

[Z Force]

I have a policy of not critisicing people on this forum but in this case I am unable to abide by that. ElPerro, you are a twit.

[whatever6719]

Interesting (yet depressing reading) here -:

Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/)

I cant see how totally gutting QF and growing JQ at all costs is smart.
Practically everyone bags JQ. They certainly dont have a good name out there
compared to QF. Cheap fares may be OK to stimulate demand here and there
but to go on a wholesale rout and kill the goose that lays the golden egg is
absolutely crazy!!

I cant think of another airline that is going down this path anywhere.
What is going on here???!!!!

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

aircraft, oops, aircraft mark 2, oops, sorry, I mean ElPerro, sorry I get confused, you've gone very quiet. Are you upset that employee's get paid? :{:{

[DutchRoll]

Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.
Over-simplistic, misleading, and illogical in itself (which you accuse others of being), like several of your arguments. Your comments are too long for me to dissect them all here, but I'll start with that little bit.

Firstly I note you prefaced it with "let me explain what unions do" - a clear attempt to authoritatively generalise the argument which doesn't seem justified. Not all unions threaten industrial action in all negotiations. In fact compared to the sheer number of negotiations, industrial action or the threat thereof is relatively uncommon these days.

Secondly you assert both a result and causation which are not necessarily related. A company paying 5% more than what they wanted to may or may not hire more or less staff. Who is to say what the company's financial position is? What the company wants to pay staff, and what it can afford to pay staff are two totally different things, and are highly subjective. Do you seriously believe a company goes to an EBA negotiation offering its very last penny to its workers?

"If any good costs more then the amount sold is less....". No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on the demand for that good. You're making unjustified assumptions that a union always reaches a point where it asks so much in salary that the company simply must employ less workers than it needs.
No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
Absolute piffle. EBAs result in demands and concessions from both sides. If Qantas conceded to pay me, as a pilot, $1 million a year that'd be great. If I conceded to work for 95 cents an hour, they would think it was great. The probability is that neither of those outcomes would be healthy for either of us for various reasons, but somewhere in the middle there is a point where both of us will be content, despite our desires. Even individuals who are on private contracts do this sort of negotiation. EBAs are where a representative body does it on an individual's behalf. Of course, if the company preferred, it can have 2,500 pilots book appointments for individual contract discussions a few weeks before its next expiry date.

Hey, unions are not all angels and they're not always sensible. No-one denies that. However you simply can't make sweeping anti-union generalisations (though I know you want to) and expect to be taken seriously. They are littered throughout several of your posts.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Somebody has gone very quiet. I haven't heard any aircraft buzzing about or any Spanish yodling of late.....:bored:

[Shlonghaul]

From the ABC Saturday October 3, 2009.

Qantas criticised over foreign butter

Qantas is under fire from the Federal Opposition for serving imported butter on its Australian flights.

Australian dairy farmers are receiving low prices for their milk because of a global downturn in demand for dairy products.

Farmers in Tasmania claim their industry is close to collapse after excessive rain and recent power cuts.

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck says farmers are disappointed that Qantas is dishing up butter imported from Denmark.

"I found when I was flying to Western Australia last week that Qantas - the great Australian company, the national airline - is actually using butter from Denmark," he said.

"[That] really disappointed me, given there's significant subsidies on European butter at the moment, on European dairy products, and that adds up to disappoint local dairy farmers.

"They say on their website that they use the finest of Australian produce. This is clearly not Australian."

Qantas has confirmed it provides Lurpak butter.

A spokesman for the airline said the decision to purchase the cheaper Danish butter was made during the downturn in the aviation industry to minimise job losses.

Qantas says the butter served in its Qantas lounges is Australian.

***********************

So good of Qantas to help minimise Danish job losses :E

[Cactusjack]

Hilarious ! Qantas choice of butter makes the news !!
What a joke.
Now,I may not be Qantas number 1 fan, I am happy to admit that, and I also recognise that everything a company does to protect or stabilize its bottom end may impact jobs,however even during a time of economic adversity and job cuts, if an airline ( publicly floated and measurable) cant make its own decisions about things such as what butter brand to serve, what chance does it have of long term survival ??
Let the airline make its own financial decisions, perhaps the money it saves from using items like Danish butter will go into improving service, staff morale, fair wages etc. That would be a benefit.

Perhaps Pricess Mary can become a 'Qantas Embassador' for butter ?

[lowerlobe]

Ahh Yes the...

'Spirit of Australia'.....

'The Flying Kangaroo'....

Play the patriotism angle with Australian children's choir singing world wide....

'I still call Australia home'.......but buy overseas goods when cheaper:oh:

[ditch handle]

Did someone mention moral compass?

[twiggs]

A bit of foreign butter seems rather insignificant compared to having your aircraft maintained and crewed by cheaper foreign sources.

[airtags]

.........................................or your new shirts that were made in Indonesia (tag still left on)

.........................................or the CC's unserviceable tags that were printed OS in such huge numbers - complete with a typo (fright number instead of FLIGHT number)

- but to add balance;
....................................... it seems that we really don't produce a lot in Australia anymore ! (and with the govt's blind focus on letting anyone flying in and out of Australia we can probably add pilots, CC & eng's to the import list in the near future)

cue the choir...

[RedTBar]

A bit of foreign butter seems rather insignificant compared to having your aircraft maintained and crewed by cheaper foreign sources.
Exactly what the office and management would like to us to think.

Lobey is spot on,they play the 'You're Australian,We're Australian,spend your money with us' sentimental approach and then in the same breath source anything they can offshore.

Twiggs might say that it is a insignificant amount of an insignificant item but it adds up to a huge amount of money.The office would like us to think "it's only butter,so why worry".

I think it was an American airline who saved millions by taking the individual packets of peanuts off.
Think about how many packets of butter they serve everyday and how much that would mean to Australian dairy farmers.
That is if the 'Spirit of Australia' is interested.

Butter,uniform shirts,paper work,maintenance, it all adds up.

[MACH082]

Okay folks, they buy all Australian products and go tits up because the cost base is too high.

If you want your 'Australian' airline to remain competitive and continue to employ over 30000 Australians then give them a little slack.

In a global market the strongest survive. As to dairy? well it would be better for the economy if the little two bit dairy farms with old equipment and poor hygiene standards closed or merged eventually evolving into something with critical mass that can compete. Sometimes you can only flog a dead horse for so long and Tasmania is so resistant to change that the economy has been stagnant for decades.

[DEFCON4]

The point is that they(Qantas) are more Australian than football meatpies kangaroos and holden cars when it suits..except when it comes to costs.
Qantas---costs above service and safety---forever and always

[ElPerro]

ok.. just spent 30 minutes replying and the login timed out and blocked my post..
I'll try again later (and copy to the notepad prior to trying to post)

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

First day back at school and Elperro's back. :yuk::yuk:

[ElPerro]

Excellent rebuttable of what I had said. So hard to compete against such cutting logic.

[ElPerro]

Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.

Over-simplistic, misleading, and illogical in itself (which you accuse others of being), like several of your arguments. Your comments are too long for me to dissect them all here, but I'll start with that little bit.

Firstly I note you prefaced it with "let me explain what unions do" - a clear attempt to authoritatively generalise the argument which doesn't seem justified. Not all unions threaten industrial action in all negotiations. In fact compared to the sheer number of negotiations, industrial action or the threat thereof is relatively uncommon these days.

Point One: Unions don't need to issue a notice to management for the "threat" of industrial action. It's an implied relationship. It's no authoritive generalisation of union's that is not made by union's themselves.

Secondly you assert both a result and causation which are not necessarily related. A company paying 5% more than what they wanted to may or may not hire more or less staff.

Totally wrong. The relationship may not be a -5% relationship, but it's a negative relationship. But I'll humour you, how exactly do you think companies decide on the number of staff they should employ? You argue it is not a relationship between the return on assets that an employee will return, instead you argue it is some kind or relationship between demand for transport by the pubic regardless of cost. A company will ALWAYS calculate how much hiring another employee will earn them vs other alternatives.


Who is to say what the company's financial position is? What the company wants to pay staff, and what it can afford to pay staff are two totally different things, and are highly subjective. Do you seriously believe a company goes to an EBA negotiation offering its very last penny to its workers?

That is exactly the point. To use an example, the company wishes to pay the staff the minimum that the correctly qualified ex-RAAF pilot will work for. The price the company is willing to pay is the minimum is has to in order to secure the correctly qualified person. That is countered by the rate that an ex-RAAF pilot will work for - for that company based on his circumstances. That is the market rate. When your union forces the price (wage) above that, it reduces the number of people the company is willing to employ. It's an economic fact and has been for hundreds of years.

"If any good costs more then the amount sold is less....". No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on the demand for that good. You're making unjustified assumptions that a union always reaches a point where it asks so much in salary that the company simply must employ less workers than it needs.

No - it is an ABSOLUTE FACT. The higher the price, the lower the demand. It is an undeniable fact.
I'm astounded you actually believe what you wrote. The demand of a good is inversely proportional to it's price. You've totally ignored the supply side of the equation. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that price vs demand is the only influencing factor, and that it's not a relevant factor at that! Amazing. You seem to be attempting to point towards the price elasticity of demand which is the factor that determines the slope of the demand line (how sensitive demand actually is to price), whilst you seem to indicate that it's horizontal or negative. The fact remains, a given amount of supply and a union = a higher price given a fixed demand level (that does not mean a constant demand, it means a fixed relationship between price and demand). A union pushing the price above the market rate (supply vs demand) results in a lower level of employment than would otherwise be the case. Whilst I understand you many not understand or agree, people who do say this have won Nobel Prizes in Economics.


No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take.
.... EBAs result in demands and concessions from both sides. If Qantas conceded to pay me, as a pilot, $1 million a year that'd be great.
QANTAS seeks to pay you the minimum it has to. That is correct, and based on the number of qualified people available. You obviously assume there is an overqualified number of people earning your wage as a first officer otherwise you'd have no problem - if QF was having an issue finding people with your qualifications they would increase the wage.

Even individuals who are on private contracts do this sort of negotiation. EBAs are where a representative body does it on an individual's behalf. Exactly. So why is it that many highly paid professions don't have to use unions. According to your logic, companies will pay the minimum wage - why do accountants and software developers get paid well without a union? Your logic is that they'd not earn a good wage without the union. That's not the case though is it. Why do we pilots need a union? Why don't accountants? So if the company wanted they should be able to make an individual agreement with an individual pilot right? Explain that one please.

Of course, if the company preferred, it can have 2,500 pilots book appointments for individual contract discussions a few weeks before its next expiry date.
Excellent, so if the company wishes it should be able to do this, why do you argue against this? It's their should be their choice! Since you believe numbers are an impediment to doing this there is no need for a union or federal legislation to prevent it. You are alluding that the cost prevents it. You are arguing that it's cheaper for a company to negotiate with a union - then you should also advocate no requirement for Industrial relations legislation compelling the company to do this. If unions are responsible for good wages then how are (let's pick one) accountants earning good wages. I'll tell you why. Supply vs Demand.


Hey, unions are not all angels and they're not always sensible. No-one denies that. However you simply can't make sweeping anti-union generalisations (though I know you want to) and expect to be taken seriously. They are littered throughout several of your posts. My posts are based on logic and not "sweeping" statements to prove a point. I'm yet to be convinced of a positive effect resulting from unionism. Unless you are a selfish individual. If you are selfish - join a union - that's what they are for. I chuckle every time a unionist says "capitalism" or "the free market" is at the expense of people.

I'll say it again -
Unions cause higher unemployment and cost those at the bottom of society.
and:
Dutch Roll:

You're previous posts show that you are an ex-RAAF C130 Captain. You exercised your freedom of choice when you joined QF. I support you in that choice. You signed up to QF employment T&C's and a given wage. You had your pilot training totally paid for. The fact that you now use a union to attempt to further your individual financial situation at the expense of others and yet still claim you would be hard done by without a union I personally find staggering. Don't you?

[max1]

el perro

There are villages in need of you.

[ElPerro]

Somebody has gone very quiet. I haven't heard any aircraft buzzing about or any Spanish yodling of late.....

Yes, Sorry Enema - I've been working late a lot.

I must say I find it shocking and indicative of the group of people you work with that you believe that someone who believes in the free market like myself must be someone else who advocated it (Aircraft?) - yes, only one person in Australia believes this. :rolleyes:

What's more indicative is the way that people move once joining the airline industry. "And a step to the left" (Dutch Roll for example?)

[ElPerro]

Max1:

Ad hominem attacks don't make you sound cool in front of other people, and don't make your argument more convincing.

What point do you as an Air Traffic Controller have to make on Qantas pay? I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion on this - I'm serious - what is your beef in this - how do you think this effects you? What is your point on aircrew pay?

[ozbiggles]

A bit rich Elperro to have a dig at someone 'attacking' you when your busy having a spray on anything a union may or may not have done.
There are some forms of employment that give you a choice of joining a union, civil aviation being one. If you are involved in it one day you may understand why you would want to be in one.
There are other forms of employment where you don't have a choice to be part of a union. You may be aware of one? It gives you things like the Aircrew Sustainability Project, ground jobs, postings to ground jobs around the corner. You didn't like the ASP but what can you do about it? Complain to the S/L who just got posted to DP?
You may have something in your DNA against unions and we all know unions have done bad things, but most rational people would acknowledge they have done some good as well.
A pilot in RPT with no union would have as much chance of negotiating with the people who run airlines as a boggie talking to Shep about avoiding a ground job and getting a payrise.

[ElPerro]

There really is no point discussing this with socialists. You'll never get it.
Complain to the S/L who just got posted to DP?I'm not in the RAAF ozbiggles.

I'll sign off on this thread with a great quote from Thatcher

"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches."

[stubby jumbo]

OK.....time out El Wise One.

Its time for your daily walk in the sun.

So take your "cardy" off. Turn on the kettle, prepare your White Liptons Tea( don't forget to heat the cup and tea pot first) and milk arrowroot biscuit and enjoy.


ahhhhhhhhh -thats better.

[DutchRoll]

Do I know you ElPerro? Just wondering. Anyway, again your post is far too long for me to go through point by point, but let's get a few things straight.

1. Do not make wild presumptions about why I joined the Pilot's Association, unless I've actually explained to you why I did, or unless you have clairvoyant powers. It was not mandatory for me to join (and nor should it be). My overall political views have changed zero since I left the RAAF. Not having the possibility of representation by a professional body is nothing to write home about on so many fronts.

2. You appear to be completely ignorant about what benefits I get out of the Pilot's Association. I'm not going to list the many benefits when I joined which had nothing whatsoever to do with increasing my salary (including one extremely significant one which costs Qantas - how much ElPerro? - ZERO).

I also won't go into how it was the Pilot's Association who got a Manager to wind his neck back in when he falsely accused me of breach of contract whilst an extremely junior employee (and low enough on the food chain for no other managers to give a rats) in my first 6 months of employment and implicitly threatened termination. The Association helped me get the evidence together, and after a meeting with the Chief Pilot, everything suddenly went very quiet. But heck, Managers/employers are always so nice, aren't they? Anyway I digress.....

3. ElPerro, there is no need to be a condescending little sh*t on these pages. It doesn't make people pay more attention to you. No I am not an economist (I am sometimes wrong, but economists may always be right - I don't know), but from personal experience it is not always only one which is driven only by the other. High (inceasing) demand and lack of available supply can drive prices up, is the point I was making. This doesn't necessarily mean someone won't pay the higher price, at least until it reaches a certain point. This applies to everything. Consumer goods, utilities, labor (for christ's sake, if I need a bloody plumber because poo is being pumped into my kitchen, and the only one available charges $200/hr, then $200/hr it is).

By the way, ElPerro, before you go off explaining your worldly knowledge of logical argument, calling you a "condescending little sh*t" is NOT an "ad hominem" argument. It is an insult.

It is only ad hominem if I say: "you are wrong, ElPerro, because you are a condescending little sh*t" or "don't listen to ElPerro, he's a condescending little sh*t, so his arguments are nonsense." That would be ad hominem, as I would be using the insult of calling you a "condescending little sh*t" to attack your argument.

Logical Fallacies 101. You keep hinting how good you are at logic, but you don't know this?

Next logic lesson (Logical Fallacies 102): The Hasty Generalisation
Student Assignment: Relate the "Hasty Generalisation" fallacy to this concept: "Everything unions do is always bad".

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Did you go away for holidays ElPerro? :}

[lowerlobe]

ElPerro.....

You are showing the same signs that Stalin also used in his approach to those with whom he disagreed ...

Simply because your politics are to one extreme it is simplistic and foolhardy to label your opponents as socialists.

Subsequently,as you are just as myopic in your political stance any further debate is an exercise in futility....

Moving back to the issue about Danish butter.....How can someone produce,package and transport Danish butter to Australia butter at a cost which is competitive to Australian butter....just a thought.

[OlAME]

I wonder which flight the journo did not get an upgrade on ?

[Pedota]

ElPerro said

I'll sign off on this thread . . .

That's a shame because it was just getting interesting!

[ozbiggles]

Raaf will be happy

[max1]

El Perro

No - it is an ABSOLUTE FACT. The higher the price, the lower the demand. It is an undeniable fact.

Apply this argument to upper management.

What point do you as an Air Traffic Controller have to make on Qantas pay? I'm not saying you aren't entitled to an opinion on this - I'm serious - what is your beef in this - how do you think this effects you? What is your point on aircrew pay?

If you actually read your own posts, and the generalisations you make about unions/associations you may understand. You make broad sweeping statements that may have their basis on the BLF/wharfies of yesteryear, but do not reflect what Professional Associations are doing on behalf of their members now.

How do you see the AMA?

When they gain large increases across the board for their members is this okay, or should individual doctors be fronting the hospitals and seeing who will work for the lowest money?

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I wonder what Sunfish would have to say? I remember when ElPerro was posting as "aircraft", Sunfish thought he was a goose. Sunfish, please give us your opinion please. :ok:

[DutchRoll]

I remember "aircraft" ages ago. If I recall correctly he was a complete wan*er (by general mainstream standards anyway).

That's not an "ad hominem" argument either. Just a simple insult, and an opinion. ;)

ElPerro must be a lovely boss to work for. Great esprit de corps going on in his workplace, I bet. :eek:

[Keg]

aircraft was a troll and El Perro doesn't fit that definition.

El Perro claims to not be RAAF but is certainly from the same song sheet as Pass A Frozo who also hasn't been around for a while. Perhaps they went to the same uni....... ADFA? :ok:

There is a middle ground here too. El Perro is at one end with his anti union clap trap, others are at the opposite end with their 'all CEOs are evil' points of view. The middle ground holds the key to success.

[DutchRoll]

Yeah Keg, that was part of the reason behind my "do I know you?" question a couple of posts ago.

Because I quite amicably know PAF from RAAF days many years ago. My last correspondence was a couple of years ago, but I would be a little bewildered if that whole exchange was from the same individual, as I wouldn't think he would be the sort of guy to invent a whole new pseudonym just for an anti-union rant. PAF's opinionated and proud of it.

Either way, I sincerely doubt that ElPerro speaks from experience of both sides of the coin, otherwise a more balanced view - pros and cons, etc - would probably result.

I totally agree with the middle ground statement, and fear that Australia is becoming more like the USA - politically polarised. You know - "you're either with us or against us".

Another logical fallacy! The "False Dichotomy"! How many can we talk about in one thread? :)

[carpe_jugulum]

o - it is an ABSOLUTE FACT. The higher the price, the lower the demand. It is an undeniable fact.

Could El Perro, in less than 20 of his own words - not copied and pasted from the economist - explain the mass appeal of Apple computer products.
Significantly more expensive than equivalently equipped competitive items, yet the demand is outstripping supply: i.e. the iPhone.

Really, RU486 was designed to prevent the El Perros of this world.....

[ElPerro]

Could El Perro, in less than 20 of his own words - not copied and pasted from the economist - explain the mass appeal of Apple computer products.
Significantly more expensive than equivalently equipped competitive items, yet the demand is outstripping supply: i.e. the iPhone.

Easy! Product differentiation allowing Apple to charge near monopolistic pricing.

Aircraft... Pass A Frozo

I still don't understand the logic. Do you guys really believe one (now two!) people are the only people with contact with the aviation industry who aren't pro unions? I think this says a lot about the state of the current industry if that's the case.

That's not an "ad hominem" argument either. Just a simple insult, and an opinion. Hi DutchRoll,

A good quote that kind of sums up my opinion, from Pierre S. du Pont (25th of September 1790):

Gentlemen, it is a disagreeable custom to which one is too easily led by the harshness of the discussions, to assume evil intentions. It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions; one should believe them good, and apparently they are; but we do not have to be gracious at all to inconsistent logic or to absurd reasoning. Bad logicians have committed more involuntary cries than bad men have done intentionally"

I have no problems with your intent. All men want what is best. You, me and everyone else. It's the way we achieve that. I question logic.

How do you see the AMA? Like any other union. The AMA exists to restrict the supply of doctors in order to maintain high wages. The current education system introduced by Gillard assists them in this endeavour. Whilst it appears perfectly permissible (as it should be) for a 22 year old to work, save and spend money on purchasing a V8 Commodore the current government finds it unacceptable for that same individual to work, save and spend that money on self funding education.

Doctors were the original unionists - read the original Hippocratic oath constructed 20 years after the death of Hippocrates (who taught anyone, so long as they would pay his fee) made in response to the fierce competition for medical service:

I swear ... to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else. Commonly what is known today as a closed shop... the original "no ticket, no start" I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

The original division of labor. This was an agreement where someone would swear that if they were trained to become a doctor they would not do the work currently undertaken by surgeons.

should individual doctors be fronting the hospitals and seeing who will work for the lowest money?

There is no need for that. Firstly hospitals should be free to hire doctors on the wages that they (the hospital and the doctor) freely agree on. Doctors like people in most professions establish reputations on the quality of their work. New doctors don't command the salary that experienced, quality doctors do. The government (or a union) should have no role in deciding the salary.

Salaries in the free market are based on supply and demand, and to what extent individuals can differentiate themselves from others in terms of "quality".

A question for you, if union's are responsible for wages, why do accountant's earn more than cleaners? It certainly has nothing to do with the accountant having a "better union" than the cleaner.

As you see, my argument is not class based, it's logic based.

Moving back to the issue about Danish butter.....How can someone produce,package and transport Danish butter to Australia butter at a cost which is competitive to Australian butter....just a thought. A little hard to read but I presume you are asking how Danish butter sells in Australia in competition to Australian Butter.

I don't know enough about the field of butter to make an analysis, but I suspect that you mentioning "Danish Butter" rather than "Butter" means there is some form of product differentiation involved? Does it sell as "butter" or "Danish Butter" ? You could ask a similar question - do flights on Gulf Air sell for less than QANTAS fares simply because of a differentiation in labour costs or because the products are not considered equal?

You might argue that the output of Australian workers differ to that of overseas workers. We've seen the aircraft engineer workers union making that case. The difference is that customers aren't being forced into choosing QANTAS of Gulf Air. The engineer's union seeks to force QANTAS to chose their workers. If the work of Australian engineer's is worth more than overseas workers and that product is demanded then you don't need a union making your pay claim.

You appear to be completely ignorant about what benefits I get out of the Pilot's Association. I'm not going to list the many benefits when I joined which had nothing whatsoever to do with increasing my salary I have no problem with you seeking professional help / advice with a problem at work. Let me ask you this, if an organisation provided this assistance when needed, but did not involve itself in salary negotiations would you join them instead of the Pilots' Association?

High (inceasing) demand and lack of available supply can drive prices up, is the point I was making.

Precisely the point I was making, I'm glad we agree. However demand when considered alone is a function of price. If supply is contracting (driving up price) (and demand is static - in order to establish the relationship between supply and the price of labour) then wages will go up. Unless the airline reduces standards. Whilst prices rise, the company will continue to hire more staff (at the higher rate) so long as the labour they provide produces a higher income.

Everything unions do is always bad In relation to the economy - Yes. That is true until the day the unio advocates individual agreements where companies can decide with individuals what they wish to pay for their labour.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

That is the biggest load of verbal diahorrea that I have read since I stopped reading Mills and Boon books! :bored:

[ElPerro]

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ...............

I mean let's look at your contributions over the last few weeks:
ElPerro is that little know it all Aircraft (Mark whatever number he got up to before the moderators kicked him off) making a comeback
lPerro is definitely aircrafts love brother. ... I mean ElPerro, how's your sandpit going? Did Father Christmas bring you any more Tonka toys for it?
Aircraft, oops, aircraft mark 2, oops, sorry, I mean ElPerro, sorry I get confused, you've gone very quiet. Are you upset that employee's get paid?
Somebody has gone very quiet. I haven't heard any aircraft buzzing about or any Spanish yodling of late....
First day back at school and Elperro's back
Did you go away for holidays ElPerro?
I wonder what Sunfish would have to say? I remember when ElPerro was posting as "aircraft", Sunfish thought he was a goose. Sunfish, please give us your opinion please.
at is the biggest load of verbal diahorrea that I have read since I stopped reading Mills and Boon books!
See what I mean?

Not unfortunately I don't see what you mean. You haven't actually said anything. Do you actually have a point other than "I don't agree". I'm yet to see you actually offer an opinion, other than saying "NOT!" at the end of each of my posts. Apologies for not quoting your kooky emoticons in each quote.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

See what I mean? :ugh::yuk:

[Shlonghaul]

Darth Dixon -- "There is a great disturbance in the dark side of the force" ...... Nahhh mate it's just another long winded rant & rave from ElPerro!

EBD I think EP may have a brown dog named Kevin :E

[Tankengine]

Nope!:ok:
Read yours, not his!:E

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Okay ElPerro, I'm sorry for my comments. The trouble is that you come across as a real know it all. :ouch:

[ElPerro]

That's ok. I don't mind if you disagree, but discuss why.

I've thought through these issues, studied them and experienced them. I don't claim to know it all - far from it, and I'm not claiming you haven't experienced some of these things but I'm happy to debate the issues - however I believe most people have not actually thought through many of these issues to their logical conclusion. It's not a case that I believe I know it all, however having thought through these things before I usually have an answer ready to most questions asked.

If you disagree then make the point and we can discuss!

The point I was making was that it's immaterial to your future earnings whether GD was paid $1 or $3 million unless that payment places the company in a position where it would become insolvent. Alternatively if QF couldn't get funding to purchase new aircraft, and the problem was a lack of cash in the bank due to directors payment you might have a case - but tht doesn't seem to be the case. It's the shareholders money and the company's board of directors answer to the shareholders for that decision. A company makes decisions on how many engineers or pilots to employ and at what rate based on how much money they'll make in the coming years from our labour.

[max1]

El Perro

You seem to have unbridled faith (in people managing large companies) that their decisions will ALWAYS be made in the best interests of shareholders in those companies in the short/medium and long term.
You may come up with an argument that the management will be changed by the directors through shareholder activism when situations arise that may warrant them.

The shareholders on the whole are large managed funds. These large funds are usually ranked on a 1-3 year performance basis. They can, and do,unwind at anytime if they feel that in the longer term a company will begin to underperform.

The upper levels of management are usually performance managed on a yearly basis. Where do you think their focus is on? Management are usually given a short term 'bar' to jump (KPIs).

The point I was making was that it's immaterial to your future earnings whether GD was paid $1 or $3 million unless that payment places the company in a position where it would become insolvent.
Why does this only to pertain to the upper levels of management? Is it because they are seen as only short-term? Surely it would be a good management practice to lead by example. Maybe sitting down the back occasionally, or making a family member give up their seat for a full fare paying passenger would give the staff an example of how much you value the revenue generating side of a company.

People involved in Associations/Unions tend to have a longer term outlook. Their members are concerned with the longer term health of a company that they work for. Witness people agreeing to pay freezes when a company is going through hard times. Is it wrong for them to expect a pay increase when things improve?

The boss of JAL was paying himself a pittance in comparison to what goes on in Australia.

Your apologist arguments for what has become the mindset for some in corporate Australia, and the vitriol you direct at any Association/Union serves to paint you as someone who is so blinkered in their argument as to become inconsequential.

[breakfastburrito]

Elperro, I'd like to hear you take on this link:
Pilots on Food stamps (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/mikes-blog-1-pilots-food-stamps)
(Thanks Mr Hat for the link.)