View Full Version : Qantas Employee Engagement

Bad Hat Harry
31st Dec 2009, 03:48
"One of our key objectives is to build a cohesive culture that engages all employees and facilitates lasting improvements across the organisation"
- This from todays Fin Review quoting Allan Joyce.-
Is this cause for re-joyce-ing ?

31st Dec 2009, 03:55
This is the type of employee culture Qantas had before Old Scrotum Face declared war on staff.
It took Dixon ten years to screw it up.It will take Joyce at least five years to fix it.
Dont hold your breath...mainline is still shrinking and they are still parking jumbos in Nevada

31st Dec 2009, 04:56
QF management always make the right noises on this issue, but the staff have long since stopped listening. I guess 10 years of Dixon belting you over the head does that.

All these touchy feely phrases don't hide the fact that this company still engage the services of IR consultants, who's sole mission is to drive down wages and conditions by a never ending strategy of divide and conquer.

QF group staff at each others throats = happy QF management.

Whilst this remains the case, staff engagement at the rat is but a pipedream.

31st Dec 2009, 05:58
He must have been misquoted.

Surely he would have said this..

"One of our key objectives is to plan to build a cohesive culture that engages all employees and facilitates lasting improvements across the organisation"

Management have no intention of engaging mainline pilots. They simply view them as overpaid liabilities that have to be strung along until it doesn't matter anymore.

If they were serious they would make some effort to fix the things that are no cost or minimal cost items...like staff travel, jumpseats etc. They are good on the talk but long ago forgot about the walk.

So long as the Qantas pilots only whinge a lot but keep on beavering away why would they care?

The divide and conquer game is probably at checkmate already.

31st Dec 2009, 06:15
One of our key objectives is to build a cohesive culture that engages all employees and facilitates lasting improvements across the organisation

Seems to be working well for the Qantas Choir ! They seem to be rather cohesive, all smiles and happiness in their workplace, good job perks and plenty of travel,I would even hazard a guess that they have been through a recent CRM training course judging by the 'positive culture' they exhibit ? That would be good for staff morale surely, as well as enabling QF to remain a highly sort after employer of choice.

P.S - Merry Xmas Darth and enjoy the New Year festivities from the Harbour.

31st Dec 2009, 07:19
What about all the suckholes that make up the Qantas Promotional Team. Fancy volunteering yourself for all that unpaid work to promote a once fantastic company that treats its staff so poorly. Obviously trying to move up the greasy pole. :ugh:

31st Dec 2009, 07:42
Engagement - what a load of management BS. What does it really mean??

31st Dec 2009, 08:21
Hmm... Back in a former life, "engaging" was something you did to the enemy with the objective of killing it...

1st Jan 2010, 00:40
Touche Gutso.

1st Jan 2010, 03:22
There can be no engagement whilst there is "under-employment". Under-employment is where people are employed at a level below their capabilities. It is different from being overqualified as it infers the problem is the fault of the employer.

Experienced pilots spending 5-10 years as a Second Officer (no takeoffs or landings)? 15-20 years to command (even at SQ a command is 5-7 years for ex-military and 8 - 10 for cadets).

There needs to be opportunity before there can be engagement.

1st Jan 2010, 05:18
Management couldn't give a stuff if you are "underemployed".

Leave and go to another airline would be our dear departed leaders advice if you feel that way.

As his disciple I am sure AJ would say the same.

Didn't Dixon once say this (or similar) in response to unhappy pilots....

"I don't see too many leaving"

1st Jan 2010, 05:41
kelly, airlines that have those sorts of numbers are either expanding rapidly or are seeing massive staff turnover. Keep in mind that SQ also have significantly more number of Captains than do QF for the a given airframe. Perhaps that's what you mean by 'under employed'. The fact that we have S/Os whilst the likes of SQ and so on have F/Os who they treat like S/Os.

Time to command in QF as at beginning of 2009 was 14 years. Anyone who took longer was there by choice or lack of aptitude. Time to F/O was no longer than 5 years. Anyone who took longer was there by choice. I haven't looked at those numbers in the last 12 months, perhaps they've blown out a bit more now. That said, you know all this and so your figure of 20 years for command and 10 years to F/O is an outright distortion.

1st Jan 2010, 07:27
Keg - hang on. You've just told me that time to command was 14 years but has maybe blown out now. I said 15 - 20 (now) and you've called that an outright distortion (you chose to leave out the 15 -).

There are plenty of SOs that are spending 5-10 years before promotional training - I'm sure you would agree with that. The fact that they are doing that of their own choice means that there must be a disincentive to take promotion (reduction in pay, reduction in conditions).

The benefits of promotion are where the opportunity lies. Normally this is very clear cut - I have more responsibility so I get more rewards. The disincentives need to be addressed by overhaulling an outdated system so that people choose career growth when it presents itself. In Qantas this might be a very long time (as we have established), especially when you look around at what else is on offer.

In the meantime there is under-employment - people working well below their ability and experience. These people will not be engaged until they see the possibility of real career growth.

You are correct in saying that such opportunities only exist in expanding airlines. The Qantas Group has had massive expansion over the last few years. Most of the resulting opportunities have not been made available to the people that, in general, have the most years of service and experience in the group. In my opinion a lot of Goodwill was passed up on that the company (perhaps hindered by the Union) could and should have extended its staff. This has not been engaging.

Capt Fathom
1st Jan 2010, 08:39
there must be a disincentive to take promotion

Yeah! You may have to work for a living! :E

1st Jan 2010, 09:00
Yeah! You may have to work for a living!

Yeah right! Blank - Reserve - Blank - Reserve:bored:

1st Jan 2010, 09:43
The fact that they are doing that of their own choice means that there must be a disincentive to take promotion (reduction in pay, reduction in conditions).

Fair chance that the longhaul award in conjunction with seniorority based bidding may have a bit to do with this!:hmm:

1st Jan 2010, 12:25
The disincentives need to be addressed by overhaulling an outdated system so that people choose career growth when it presents itself
I think that Kelly is having a shot at the seniority system.....

1st Jan 2010, 20:13
Maybe SO's in Qantas are paid to much! considering a DASH 8 Captain earns less......

1st Jan 2010, 20:13
Kelly, if you'd said 5 years to F/O and 15 years to command I wouldn't have had an issue. The 10 and 20 years quoted by yourself are an outright distortion. No one has taken 20 years to command in QF for about two decades...if ever. Even the former cadets you talk to who spent a decade as S/Os back in the late 70s and early 80s only spent 2-3 years as F/Os. I note too that you disregard the fact that some 737 drivers have recently picked up F/O slots in 3 years and commands in under 10 years. Why didn't those numbers figure in your burst?

Anyway, you continue to sledge the seniority system if you must. If you have to distort the numbers to make your case seem sound then those who actually know the numbers are going to see right through you.

1st Jan 2010, 20:32
Maybe SO's in Qantas are paid to much! considering a DASH 8 Captain earns less......

All DASH 8 capts are free to apply. I guess it comes down to the individual as to what is more important to them.

As far as the seniority system goes:

The positive...

'the system was established to banish favouritism'

Important for somewhere like QF!

The negative

'the seniority system must ever persist if only because it is a protection of the weak, who are everywhere in the greatest number' Ernest K. Gann

Also applies to some of the deadweight at QF!!

wombat watcher
1st Jan 2010, 21:42

Yeah right! Blank - Reserve - Blank - Reserve

The alternative is demotions and redundancies. Do you not understand that?

Maybe that is what they should have done. At least that would have taught guys like you to appreciate what you've got rather than whinge about what might have been.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

1st Jan 2010, 22:08
Longhaul seniority and the Longhaul bidding system are only factors that exaggerate the lack of engagement felt by Qantas pilots.

A complete overhaul of these two systems would have very little effect on the level of engagement felt by those devoid of enthusiasm for the company. Afterall, if the rate at which pilots retire/depart is matched by the rate at which flying disappears from longhaul, there will be no promotion and coupled with senior management policy towards staff, very little incentive to "value-add", regardless of the system used to allocate the flying.

1st Jan 2010, 23:17
Wombat watcher,

I was commenting on somebody's suggestion that one disincentive to taking a Qantas command was that "they might have to work for a living". My comment was in response to that remark, not in reference to any redundancies. Do you understand that?:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

C441, you make a valid point. There is no incentive for "discretionary effort" while there is a lack of opportunity, regardless of the system. However, the system in place amplifies any stagnation - blankline holders "exist" to provide pattern line a certain lifestyle...:rolleyes:

2nd Jan 2010, 11:54
Blank lines and reserve lines rock!!

Why would you want to work when you don't have too? It is going to change eventually and all the current BLH/RLH will have to do some work, however, make hay while the sun shines. If you can't get your golf handicap into single figures at the moment there is something wrong with you......

Engaged, hell, this is the best job Iíve ever (never Ė because it is like I donít) had!


2nd Jan 2010, 12:42

Enjoy tsalta.

Capt Kremin
2nd Jan 2010, 12:50
Hey kelly, congrats on getting the first post from wombat watcher that didn't involve getting stuck into Wood-eye!

How proud you must be! ;)

2nd Jan 2010, 14:10
The flip side of tsalta's point of view is that there are some crew still bidding for the blank lines standbys, etc and cleaning up. I know of crew on 95+ hours for the month whilst others who only answer the phone when called sit at about 45.

It's something that I think the company should try and address and sort out via an EBA but great for those that want the extra cash and great for those that don't mind a few extra nights at home with the kids.

2nd Jan 2010, 14:20

Aren't you on holidays in Euorpe somewhere?

What are you doing on pprune man?

I was sure I saw you in First Class last week.

Happy New Year to you.


2nd Jan 2010, 15:09
Lol. On holidays, yes. Sadly, not in Europe. Happily, at home with the kids. Sadly, up late finishing some 'work' for my other hobby. Happy new year to you too.

2nd Jan 2010, 20:31
Who could the enigma possibly be?

Lets see, the person would have to be someone with a pathalogical hatred of all things wooden. So much so that nothing else matters. Someone who has also exhibited a not so hidden distain for those junior.:confused:

I would have gotten away with it too.... if only those pesky kids had kept their mouths shut!:D


2nd Jan 2010, 20:46
Third from the left Cloudbuster?

4th Jan 2010, 10:25
Inappropriate use of Employee Engagement Benchmark Data - Some of the more well established Employee Engagement survey companies will state that the most important part of post survey follow up is related to comparison of internal survey data to numerous external benchmarks. This seems to have rubbed off onto internal sponsors who demand very specific benchmarks, being unaware that they are diluting the accuracy of their analysis. Some research analysts claim that the standard comparisons by industry sector are flawed. Is it right to compare a Bentley employee to one from Vauxhall (GM) because they are in the same automotive sector? Concluded was that more information can be obtained by looking at the kind of organisation that employees were a part of (and its employee proposition), its stage in development, internal communication, its brand,motivation and culture.

teresa green
5th Jan 2010, 09:40
Keg, most of those cadets who went thru in the seventies, spent 20 years as S/Os (which beggers belief) 10 years as F/O's ( in general) and finally made it as boss cocky well into their forties, they were not happy chappies but decided to take the money, and why not. As many were mates from old flying school/ instructing days, I got very used to their whinging and sometimes envy of those who chose to go domestic. They saw themselves as perfectly capable pilots (and most were) who were treated like schoolboys,and mushrooms, by both management and some senior Captains, (QF had a few shockers) some got depression, some walked away, some just sat there and as I said before opted to take the money and amused themselves by starting their own business in some other sphere, to save themselves from going nuts. Hopefully this will not repeat itself, and any young pilot going in today may look forward to having a only limited time in shark patrol, before getting to the serious end of the stick. Happy new year Keg, injoy your family time.

5th Jan 2010, 10:41
Teresa - BS!
Did they start when they were 10?

5th Jan 2010, 11:46
teresa, with respect, your numbers are WAY off. If we utilise your figures, a former cadet in 1970 wasn't a Captain until 2000. Given that Pete B checked out as our youngest jet captain ever at aged 27 in 1992 (or was it '91) then you can see how wrong your figures are. Most of the guys you are talking about may have been S/Os for quite some time but by and large they were Captains in the 14-17 year mark. I don't think any one of them would have taken more than 20 years unless it was by choice.

Capt Kremin
5th Jan 2010, 20:00
20 years as SO is absolutely wrong. The longest I ever heard of was 12, most were less and their time as FO was far less than the average.

Most of them then had the benefit of the introduction of preferential bidding, plus an extension of their flying careers way past the age of 55 that was initially envisaged. Couple that with the changes to super that the Howard Govt brought in and they have had a very good run indeed.

6th Jan 2010, 02:32
12 yrs as an S/O only occurred to the few that left the airline to pursue other interests in the meantime AND stayed there once QF began recruiting again. In addition, most of those spent ~18 months as FO's prior to command.

Stagnation will happen during your career, and for those guys it happened then, and resolved VERY quickly thereafter.

I joined in '01, did not take the first available FO slot, and still only spent 18 months as an SO. I expect that my stagnation is occurring now as an FO, albeit a management induced stagnation for the most part.

20 years as an SO not by choice??? Must have failed FO training... :ugh:

6th Jan 2010, 04:04
12 yrs as an S/O only occurred to the few that left the airline to pursue other interests
Theres more BS here than in a cattle yard.

I seem to remember when I started some of the S/O's were so senior they basically had 2 1/2 stripes and could do some take offs and landings.True that it was at the end of the 707 era and with the 747 promotions have come faster but if they could have patience why can't you guys do the same.
Sorry I forgot this is the " I want it now" era.:E

6th Jan 2010, 04:45
RedT, the 'senior S/O' concept existed at least in the late 80s. Not sure about much before that. The 2 1/2 stripes denoted them as such and they had essentially completed F/O training (and could therefore do take offs, landings, etc) but were waiting for an actual vacancy. I recall of the time though that there were senior S/Os within four-ish years of joining so it wasn't like you had to hang around too long to be one.

It was the introduction of the 747 that slowed promotion right down. It wasn't until the early '80s when QF started expanding rapidly that those 12 year S/Os went from S/O to Captain in under four years.

Going Boeing
6th Jan 2010, 06:29
Totally agree with Keg. The 2 1/2 stripes was for S/O's who had 5 years on-line or had completed F/O training (with the exception of EP's in F/O rank) and thus were "Landee" S/O's. The "Landee" concept was to allow for rapid airline expansion as these guys only had to complete the one day EP course and they became F/O's.

I know of one of the original cadets who elected to stay based in London for an extra 3 years as S/O instead of coming back to Oz for F/O training. On completion of his London basing, he completed F/O training and, 18 months later, he did his Command training. He then had 20 years in command before retiring. Generally, they all had long and distinguished careers.

7th Jan 2010, 09:55
At what age did Warwick T take his Command ?

Capt Fathom
7th Jan 2010, 10:17
And at what age did they take it back?

7th Jan 2010, 23:19
Since the other threads have been locked by the mods can anyone confirm or deny that airbus has sent a team out from France to solve the problems we are having with the dugong?

teresa green
8th Jan 2010, 12:20
Tank Engine, they went into QF aged 17 years. They did their courses at Rosebery in a old factory. Check out QF history if you doubt this. Many were Nearly 37 years old before coming F/Os this is also recorded. In the sixties QF employed many South African pilots and English also. This made the progression slow, remember in the seventies and early eighties the fleet only consisted of 10 747s and 2 SPs. I knew many of them and still do. Ask any 60 year old skipper and he will verify. It was a long and tedious procession.

Capt Kremin
8th Jan 2010, 20:56
TG, when I joined in the late 80's the fleet of 747-200's had regos from EBA-EBS plus three combis and two SP's. Thats 24 aircraft.

The first -300 arrived in '85. Once again I think your perceptions are a bit off.

wombat watcher
8th Jan 2010, 21:21
I think at your ripe old age you are confusing what you might have heard in the bars around the place and on flight decks with what actually happened. The result being a very hazy and mixed up view of the past. I agree with Kremin your stated facts listed above are way off. You could have fitted all the poms and yarpies into a Brisbane tram and still had seats spare. The fact that one jumbo provided the same seat capacity as nearly 3 707's was what slowed things down given that it took the same number of pilots to fly each aircraft. Even you are capable of doing the math on that. Not many cadets started at 17, some were as much as ten years older and some had completed university degrees but decided to re-muster as pilots.
See Kremin, its just not WoodenEye who is off beam, this guy is too.

Capt Kremin
8th Jan 2010, 21:43
Can I qualify my last post by saying that they began pensioning off the older -200's as the -300's arrived. Although EBA and EBA made cameo re-appearances as well as EBH, which returned from El Al with some very interesting additions to its airframe.