View Full Version : Joyce accuses unions of living 'beyond cloud-cuckoo land'

30th Sep 2010, 03:37
So if we are living in reality like Mr Joyce, can we safely assume that he is going to open a flying school and start paying for the entire cost of training pilots just like all his 'Asian competition'?

Instead he wants pilots to pay for their own training, go flying get some experience, then pay for an endorsement, then move to a foreign country.....just like all the Asian competition does...... right....:rolleyes:

Mr Joyce is not representing reality in the Asian pilot market when he says 'We need to have an Asian carrier with Asian rates' The reality is those pilots do not pay for their training nor are they paid super which is compulsory in Australia.

Qantas chief's 'Asian rates' push for Singapore offshoot (http://www.theage.com.au/business/qantas-chiefs-asian-rates-push-for-singapore-offshoot-20100929-15xhf.html)

QANTAS chief executive Alan Joyce has claimed the airline's Asian offshoot, Jetstar Asia, needs to pay ''Asian rates'' to be competitive against low-cost rivals and has accused unions of living ''beyond cloud-cuckoo land''.

His comments have infuriated the airline's pilots and raise the prospect of Qantas heading for a showdown with some of its key unions later this year as they engage in enterprise bargaining negotiations.

Mr Joyce told a business lunch in Sydney yesterday that ''it was just crazy'' to think that it could operate Singapore-based Jetstar Asia with pilots on Australian conditions because it would make it uncompetitive against rivals such as Tiger and AirAsia.

''It is an Asian carrier operating in an Asian environment,'' he said. ''Some of the unions, I think, have gone past cloud-cuckoo land and have gone on to a planet where competition doesn't exists.

''The fact is we are in a highly competitive market. We need to have an Asian carrier with Asian rates and the same for New Zealand … Jetconnect is a New Zealand operation with New Zealand paying conditions … that is competing against New Zealand carriers.''

Jetstar has encouraged pilots to transfer to its new Singapore-Melbourne route where - despite flying Australian-registered A330 aircraft into Australia - they will be employed on private contracts under Singapore laws.

The president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, Barry Jackson, said Singapore-based pilots were paid about 30 per cent less than those in Australia. ''Can I get a Qantas CEO on Asian rates?'' asked Mr Jackson. ''You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise where this is all going.''

He said his members understood the airline needed to be competitive, but in exchange for cutting their terms and conditions they wanted assurances that ''we will at least have a career''.

Jetconnect pilots do not receive the same superannuation entitlements as their Australian-based counterparts.

30th Sep 2010, 04:30
''Can I get a Qantas CEO on Asian rates?''

You want to make your bed Joyce, your going to have lie in it also:D

Going Boeing
30th Sep 2010, 04:41
When you get a CEO making statements like that, it confirms that the actions that AIPA is taking (JetConnect Court case & industry wide pilot meetings) are being considered as a big threat to the bonuses paid to those at the upper end of the corporate ladder. :D

30th Sep 2010, 05:25
when did Jetstar New Zealand start paying "New Zealand Rates"?

last I heard they were WELL behind the others!

30th Sep 2010, 06:05
There's a little box on the Qantas AGM Papers regarding shareholder approval of Joyce's performance bonus......with great satisfaction I put a cross in AGAINST and I hope every other shareholder does the same.

With Joyce & Club Clifford also mandating the 787 configs to be identical between QF & JQ there's an even bigger risk.

I think there's a lot to be said about Joyce's "any aircraft, any crew anywhere at the same rate" model - especially given every one of Q's international route approvals have been amended for capacity use by QF, JQ or another subisduary. (read JQ 'franchise')

Unfortunately this bloke has a one dimensional view of competitive strategy and that's price alone - what he totally fails to realise is that service, schedule, safety perception and value perception are equally important. (proof point the market backlash when it was deemed JQ only to HTI, Japan etc etc).

......who needs Allco or equity pitches to bugger a business when it's own Exec's can do a better job of wrecking it.


Mr Pilot 2007
30th Sep 2010, 06:39
It makes my stomach turn when arrogant ceos, with 10 million dollar salary packages a year, talk about how 'everyone else' staffing their airline, has to tighten their belts to be competitive.

As for Asian rates, CX and SQ pay pilots a hell of a lot more than j* and yet are significantly more profitable.

This 'screw the pay and conditions' of your staff to be competitive argument is old and a lot of rubbish,....... well assuming you employed reasonable mangement.

30th Sep 2010, 07:44
Jetstar are not competing against Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines. they are competing against Tiger Airways and Air Asia.


dragon man
30th Sep 2010, 09:49
I think maybe the wheels are coming off the Jetstar bandwagon. They (management) have bet the house on this model and i think that they are not getting the profit (yield) they need to justify the business. So, in typical Qantas fashion instead of growing the business they cut costs. Where can you save the most on wages, pilots of course. How much are the CEOs paid? Irrelant of course. Il bet Buchanan doent take the same meal allowances that is paid to his Singapore based flight attendants when he goes some where on an overnight!!!

30th Sep 2010, 10:03
Despite AJ's unhelpful rhetoric...he will have to live with the umpire's decision...

Senate carries Xenophon motion for inquiry into pilot training and standards – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/09/30/senate-carries-xenophon-motion-for-inquiry-into-pilot-training-and-standards/)

Lets hope the pendulum now begins a swing back in the right direction.


30th Sep 2010, 10:16
Jetstar Asia has always been a basket case, it was mentioned as a mistake in the height of the losses, and it still continues today. They have no continued hope if Tiger keeps expanding at their current rate, and keeping their focus on China/India. Because they cant keep up with Tiger/AirAsia's cost bases, they try and launch into market like...Shantou :uhoh:

They seem to rely on alot of interlining passengers more than anything else.

30th Sep 2010, 11:17
I agree. JQ Asia is a complete basket case, has been for some time, and it likely will be for some time to come. QF Group has sent two-bit management over their to run a two-bit operation and are out of their league.

Despite AJ's unhelpful rhetoric...he will have to live with the umpire's decision...

Don't count on it. The wee man has the ears of some powerful people in high places, he won't yield without a fight to the death.

I think maybe the wheels are coming off the Jetstar bandwagon. They (management) have bet the house on this model and i think that they are not getting the profit (yield) they need to justify the business. So, in typical Qantas fashion instead of growing the business they cut costs. Where can you save the most on wages, pilots of course.

Correct. There are some very edgy senior individuals within the group at present sweating over some poor decision making and watching the profits roll out the door. My source tell's me that there is another round of blood letting to come shortly.

It makes my stomach turn when arrogant ceos, with 10 million dollar salary packages a year, talk about how 'everyone else' staffing their airline, has to tighten their belts to be competitive.

Once a CEO always a CEO. Lets face it, QF has been on on a downhill slide well before Joyce took over, and since he commenced it has only accelerated in it's demise in profitability, service, safety and reliability.
All I know is that he ain't worth the money he is earning and if the shareholders are too stupid to see this then they deserve what they vote for. He deserves nothing less than say $500.000 per year, no bonuses, no incentives and not a dime more. If he wants to earn more then that should equate purely to his performance, which currently is on par with Boston Bruce - crap !

Jethro Gibbs
30th Sep 2010, 11:31
Don't you just love how these rich ceo types think everyone should work for less what fu$%^&s everyone except them of course.:ok:

30th Sep 2010, 21:59
And as reported in the SMH today, a CEO with far more experience than AJ has "accused the head of Qantas, Alan Joyce, of attempting to deflect attention from Qantas's ''own issues'' after he attacked its profitability."
Etihad comes out of the cloud to return fire on Qantas (http://www.smh.com.au/business/etihad-comes-out-of-the-cloud-to-return-fire-on-qantas-20100930-15z78.html)

The wee man has the ears of some powerful people in high places, he won't yield without a fight to the death
But it might be a fight that he can't see winning?

My source tell's me that there is another round of blood letting to come shortly.

Maybe he's worried that some people who know more about both domestic & international operations than both he and BB will jump ship to Virgin Blue and V Aus?

engine out
30th Sep 2010, 22:26
Dear Qantas Board

I am applyling for the position of CEO. I require a simple contract, annual payment of $1million with no bonus scheme (the bonus being I keep my job). I don't need a company car, with that cash i can buy my own and afford to run it. I am certainly qualified with 15 years aviation experience including office time, ops management, safety managment, and having served in all roles within a company.

If i take over I will reduce the need of bonuses by returning to a system of known wages, I'm sure if the management don't like it they can move on and we will find management who do.

If you worry about my inexperience I don't see it as a problem as you are already willing to put inexperienced people behind the controls of aircraft.

If you find my appliciation a worry to what it could mean for management or the board welcome to the real world where all Qantas group employees (pilots to cleaners) are constantly under management pressure to reduce our their terms and conditions.

I wait for appointment as I qualify using the Qantas philosophy as cheapest man gets the job.

dragon man
30th Sep 2010, 22:37
Dear Engine Out, thank you for your application. Unfortunately, it has been unsuccesfull. This is due to the fact that you have to much experience, radical ideas (what no bonuses for us), and dont want enough money. We wish you well in your endeavours to find suitable employment however we think that you will not be rewarded due to those radical ideas. Yours Sincerely. The QANTAS board

1st Oct 2010, 00:18
engine out -
what you are doing here is applying for a job on LESSER terms and conditions than those already incumbent in the job!

well done son. you are a TRUE pilot

----ducking for cover----

Metro man
1st Oct 2010, 00:32
I want to join the company as a Director. I'm willing to salary sacrifice to pay for my training, and once qualified I'll do the job for 2/3 of what the present position holder gets.

I'll work longer hours, stay in lower standard hotels and travel economy stand by. I'll happily eat the same food provided to air crews, no need for fancy directors lunches. If you want me to uproot my family and move to Darwin for an extended period, no problem.

Once employed I'm quite happy to see my terms and conditions further eroded.
I'm presently working as a pilot and am quite used to all this so I'll have no problem adjusting.:rolleyes:

1st Oct 2010, 02:09
Ah the old smokescreen trick.

Joyce is saying that Jetstar Asia pilots need to be paid 'Asian Rates'. He knows full well that that's not our argument. We don't pretend to tell Qantas what to pay Jetstar Asia Pilots. Oh and BTW last time I looked Air Asia were based out of KL (cost of living and wages less than half of SIN) and have their training paid for. Tiger don't operate wide body aircraft out of SIN.

WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS- is Jetstar paying Jetstar Australia (VH- registered OZ AOC) pilots 'Asian' wages by creating artificial offshore bases (JQ SIN A-330). He will then use this as a hub to undermine and displace JQ EBA tech crew and if successful QF EBA tech crew. If you think this is pie in the sky stuff look at JQ 'International' flight attendants who are 'based' in Bangkok and Singapore but actually work predominantly out of Australia. This has allowed JQ to get rid of most of its Aussie international CC and avoid paying Aussie T&C's.

The writing's on the wall boys. Fight this one or die a long slow death:mad:

1st Oct 2010, 02:58
It is an Asian carrier operating in an Asian environment

Yet we want to use an Australian AOC and rego's because the Asian ones are more expensive to insure and we're going to sell it as an Australian airline.....:hmm:

Can the pilot's union get a newspaper piece up on this whole thing being a smokescreen and point out the hypocrisy.

1st Oct 2010, 03:26
Who's living in cuckoo land?

From The Australian today,
Passengers flying high in dollar lift-off | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/passengers-flying-high-in-dollar-lift-off/story-e6frg95x-1225932524203)

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce on Wednesday acknowledged the positive impact of the dollar on the airline's profitability by lowering the cost of its fleet renewal program and reducing its fuel bill.


"Qantas spends $3bn on fuel a year and a higher Australian dollar would mean bigger fuel bills. As a business we do not want this to be long term," Mr Joyce said.

So, is the dollar reducing the fuel bill or does it mean bigger fuel bills?

If it is, as I assume, reducing the bills, do they still charge those fuel levies?

Kelly Slater
1st Oct 2010, 04:51
Qantas hedge their fuel at a US dollar price. From where I'm sitting, an increase in the value of the AUD means cheaper fuel for Quaintass. Obviously, I'm missing something.

Capt Roo
1st Oct 2010, 05:46
Almost feel sorry for AJ.

It was Dixon who nailed the coffin on Qantas and took home millions for doing so.

Under his watch Emirates gobbled up most of the Aus-Europe traffic. Etihaad and Qatar are picking up the scraps. Their labour costs are so low that competing against them is almost impossible. Pilot salaries are Ok but you have to live in the sandpit :yuk:

The only market left is China and India. looks like that will be gobbled up by the Malaysians and Singaporeans. No doubt the Chinese and the Indians will try too. Thought judging by the cluster-muck over the Commonwealth games doubt we have much to fear from the Indians.

Will Aussie aviaiton will slowly die? Hate to say it but probably true.

1st Oct 2010, 06:03
I said in the beginning that Jetstar Asia was going to be a flop for the simple reason that there is nothing Qantas can offer Asia that Asia cannot produce cheaper and better for itself.

The entire "Qantas Group" idea was dreamed up so a bunch of narcissists could call themselves "Group General Managers". Doing that not only elevates their pay packets into the stratosphere it neatly provides one additional layer of insulation between themselves and their masters and the dirty coal face.

By definition it causes a diffusion of responsibility so that bad decisions cannot be tracked back to individuals as easily as they should be.

1st Oct 2010, 06:20
If QF wanted Asian rates they shouldn't have put their Asia hub in SIN. They should have put it in Cambodia or Manila, which are far far far far FAR cheaper. Singapore has a host of schemes for Singaporeans who get things like 33% tax-deductible superannuation which can be used to pay for your mortgage, and first home owner subsidies of up to S$40k, and preferenti:}:}al

Non residents do not enjoy any of these schemes and are completetreatment for local school placement. ly locked out of 90% of the housing market. As such, the cost of employing a skilled foreigner would typically skyrocket compared to hiring a skilled Singaporean. The entire tax advantage is gobbled up by high rents.

You couldn't even place your kids in a local school which is basically free, because priority would go to citizens, then PRs, then for whatever space that's left, foreigners. International schools cost in excess of $20k a year.

As such, the cost of hiring a foreigner to ensure he gets the same net of housing and education expense as a Singapore citizen, would probably be at least double that of the Singaporean.

Most companies in Singapore gladly hire foreigners from neighbouring countries to do things that Singaporeans refuse to do, like wait staff, refuse collection etc etc. However, many companies very very carefully evaluate if they will hire skilled foreigners, because hey, the Singaporean may refuse to wait tables for $1200 a month and the Chinese national would gladly do so, however there aren't a line of qualified Chinese nationals lining up at the immigration authority waiting to be pilots or engineers!

New Zealand pilots could earn 30% less than Aussie pilots, because the cost of living in NZ is quite a bit lower than Australia. The cost of living in Singapore for skilled foreigners is not by any stretch of imagination even close to what it is in Australia.

Oh yeah I'm a Singaporean so I know what I'm talking about (I hope!)

1st Oct 2010, 06:58
.....a higher Australian dollar would mean bigger fuel bills
Who is living beyond cloud cuckoo land?

It is correct that Qantas buys its fuel in $US. Now is a fantastic time to convert $AU into $US.

He is probably alluding to the price of fuel rising when the US dollar falls, but this only reduces the savings. I think he is scaremongering a little.

1st Oct 2010, 08:57
Definition of cuckoo land - A CEO pulling a package of millions and millions while his airline loses profit by the day.

It was Dixon who nailed the coffin on Qantas and took home millions for doing so.
Lucifer must still be laughing all the way to the bank !

1st Oct 2010, 09:06
If QF wanted Asian rates they shouldn't have put their Asia hub in SIN
Agree entirely, Singapore as an Asian hub is OK for the QF brand, (only just these days) but not for J*.

Singapore is an easy choice for lazy Australian airline executives on expenses as they relate to the comfy surroundings, (looks & feels like back home) probably a key Australian business weakness in S. E. Asia. Too frightened to explore new frontiers as they may speak a language other than English..... fascinating

1st Oct 2010, 12:15
As for Asian rates, CX and SQ pay pilots a hell of a lot more than j*

Actually, CX pay a hell of a lot more than SQ and I think Jet* Asia are even on par if not better than SQ ( expat package )

Maybe the Jet* crew could go for the T&Cs of another Asian airline, Dragonair :ok: Dragon seem to be able to reward their pilots handsomely whilst competing against every man and their dog in China, most of which pay absolute rubbish.
Ive said it before, how much difference does paying the tech crew an extra $150/hr ( between them ) on an A/c that costs around 10K/hr to operate, make to the bottom line ? As much as paying some midget millions a year to pi55 the staff off ??

1st Oct 2010, 13:10
Losing the point boys.:ugh:

Once again we have been distracted from the real QF corporate goal. JQ Asia is a smokescreen at best and a basket case at worst. When have JQ (Aus) Pilots tried to negotiate JQ Asia or JQ Pacific salaries? NEVER!:=

This is about creating bases of connivance (sic) to crew JQ AUS (Aus AOC, AUS Aircraft, Aus routes) on Malaysian conditions (in SIN) whilst NOT paying to train the pilots (to a shall I say questionable standard as a certain Xtra L:\ ng hostie carrier) and forcing them to live in a city with a cost base exponentially higher than KL.:mad:

Don't lose focus and don't fall for the absurd but well rehersed distraction. Our message is:

1) That all pilots employed by Jetstar (or any entity created or contracted by Jetstar to supply pilots) operating Australian Registered Aircraft are employed under the Jetstar Pilot’s EBA 2008 and::ok:

2) That all Australian flying by Jetstar Aircraft within Australia, and International Jetstar flights originating in Australia regardless of Aircraft Registration (i.e. JQ NZ, JQ Asia, JQ Pacific etc) be subject to Pilot terms and conditions of employment at least the equivalent of the Jetstar Pilot’s EBA 2008. For the avoidance of doubt the term ‘originating’ means any flight that leaves an Australian port for another Australian port or any flight that leaves an Australian port for an international port.:D

Don't let the message of 'Asian terms and conditions' distract you. Stay on point. Australian terms and conditions for Australian flying regardless of what dodgey artificial entity (Australian or Foreign shell company under Australian AOC) is created to justify the legitimacy of 'Asian pay and conditions'.:yuk:

1st Oct 2010, 14:01
Ive said it before, how much difference does paying the tech crew an extra $150/hr ( between them ) on an A/c that costs around 10K/hr to operate, make to the bottom line ?


Say $200,000 per year divided by 800 hours = $250 per hour

Say $150,000 per year divided by 800 hours = $187.50 per hour

A whopping saving of $62.50 per hour for the Captain (for example).

So if you pi$$ this person off they will cost you more than that operationally. Why not aim to keep the workforce happy, on side and working with you?

Why not, because management cannot reduce fuel costs very much, they cannot reduce the cost of spares, they cannot haggle air nav charges and airport fees but THEY CAN try to screw the crews. So that is what they do.

The above example shows how ridiculous it is when the aircraft costs $7-10,000 per hour to operate. Jesus, the depreciation on an owned airframe costs more than the crews do.

1st Oct 2010, 14:21
mate I blew an extra $500 an hour out the back of the pipes because I wanted to get home early and the company is screwing my colleagues. Imagine how much I could save if they looked after us?

1st Oct 2010, 19:03
Most of the captains here are doing 1000 hrs a year. So your comparison would come down to $50 an hour!!!!!

1st Oct 2010, 21:23
I think AJ is starting to show he is out of his depth here. There has been no real strategic descisions made by Qantas management recently, except those made to counter other airlines moves.Qantas remains basically stagnant, while Jetstar expands, because that is all he knows.

VB have realised that the money is back in the premium product and are about to give the Rat a bit of a fright, hence the rumours of QF going back into the Gold Coast and Hamiltin Island and other ports to counter the VB push. Once again just countering another airlines moves.

QF will continue to make paltry profits while it concentrates on the low yield, low price end of the market. But hey, thats all they have experience in now, all their experienced people in the higher yield products are at VB! Go figure!:ugh:

2nd Oct 2010, 01:08
Relax guys, just tell AJ to have a look at what's going on in Tiger Singapore at the moment. On 1 October nearly half of the flights where cancelled, mostly due to lack of pilots. Technical difficulties was given as the reason for some of the cancellations, but shortage of captains is responsible for four to five cancellations out of around thirty flights most days.

Tell him to call Tony Davis and ask him how well his plans for paying "Asian rates" went. He's lost over half of his skippers in the last six months or so. "No problem" he says "We'll just get Indonesians in." Out of the first five, three failed Air Law and are limited to observation flights on the jump seat until they obtain the required percentage in the exam. Now add in a requirement to have a pass in human factors on your original licence or pass the exam in Singapore. Not easy with basic level 4 English.

All right then "Let's try European pilots" Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore love the JAA ticket and these guys are mostly high standard. Not many problems with the ones Tiger have had so far. Unfortunately they don't come cheap, currently offering a +33% premium on present captains pay, but at least the aircraft will be in the air making money vs sitting on the ground generating bad publicity. Have a guess how the present flight crew feel about this.:suspect:

Just tell AJ if he doesn't pay proper rates to his pilots, he'll end up in the same situation.

Here endeth the lesson, go in peace.

2nd Oct 2010, 02:55
This is what they are paying......

We are currently recruiting for 7 months contract with our client based in Singapore.

The conditions and requirement are as follows:

Pilot ME 3000 hours
PIC on A320 1000 hours
Last flight within the last 11 months
HPL (Human Performance and Limitations ) course and exam completed
LPC/ OPC checks (2 SIM checks) completed in the last 12 months
Roster pattern and schedule:
Not a fixed pattern, minimum of 8 days off in every 28 rostered days
90 scheduled block hours per month

Accommodation allowance of S$3000 per month payable
Flights provided at the beginning and the end of the contract

S$ 9000 in the 1st month paid via Ltd Company whilst converting your license to Singapore ATPL
S$ 18000 thereafter per month paid via Ltd Company
Overtime is payable over 90 scheduled block hours at S$200 per scheduled block hour

2nd Oct 2010, 07:41
Why not aim to keep the workforce happy, on side and working with you?For sure...

An old business basic that appears to have been forgotten these days by the non tech boys and girls up top. The only technology they seem to understand is MS office excel. Too many of them feed off this by paying themselves huge bonuses for their new found knowledge. :rolleyes:

They have also forgotten, airlines are still a people business, look after all the team and not just a few wallets at the top.

2nd Oct 2010, 07:56
If the Indonesians are failing the exams big time, one really does wonder about the quality of civil aviation in Indonesia in general.

Maybe Tony Davis is starting his proposed Thai Tiger Airways to he can throw all his new Indonesian recruits there and base more aircraft in Thailand, to bypass these pesky CAAS folks!

Plus Singapore is tightening the screws on foreign immigration due to discontent from Singapore citizens on now only forming a mere 60% of the resident population.

If costs were all JQ cared about, they should have located their Asian hub in Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City. Unfortunately, there isn't a ready supply of skilled English speaking labour, or a stable political environment, or business-friendly environments to speak of. Of course, JQ could possibly pay their way past pesky regulations in those countries, if they had the right amount of money or the right contacts.

There is a premium to be paid for being located in Singapore, and there is a premium to be paid for having a skilled workforce. The biggest advantage to the QF group from the Singapore hub through 3K is the ability to use Singapore ASAs to fly beyond Singapore to Asia and Europe as a designated Singapore carrier. The Singapore hub will also make scheduling more efficient.

However, I think QF was hoping it would come cheap - and they are now realising it's not that much cheaper than back home.

Mr Pilot 2007
2nd Oct 2010, 10:50
There is a premium to be paid for being located in Singapore, and there is a premium to be paid for having a skilled workforce.
However, I think QF was hoping it would come cheap - and they are now realising it's not that much cheaper than back home.

They appear to believe it is cheap, thus offering such an appaling salary package. No mention of rent allowance ($3000-5000 per month required), schooling, medical, transport in Sin, etc, etc.

It may be cheap for qf/j* but anyone taking a postion there will ultimately pay dearly.
I very much doubt you will save much, if any.

2nd Oct 2010, 11:02
the right contacts
Yep agree again, but Thailand has changed regarding skilled English speakers, there are lot more now than ever.... When TG etc moved to the new Suvarnabhumi International (BKK) (the other side of town approx 30Ks) from Don Mueang (DMK) had many English speaking quality labours not transferring to the new setup. Many stayed at DMK for the domestic side. Also as an aside, there are many trained military people now leaving to find suitable work.

Although futile (JQ seem hell bent on SIN) but I believe Bangkok is not too much of a culture shock for foreign pilots and the accommodation is probably better and cheaper for crews, other words, more dollars for flight crews in their back pockets. There are also a lot of International schools available to send the kids, again cheaper than SIN. Quality food and groceries are much cheaper than Singapore.

JQ working out of Thailand would have access to a larger population base Thailand, (traveling more than ever these days) but can feed to SIN with the existing JQ setup and of course QF as well.

I can confirm, it would be probably be easier to get valid ASAs in Thailand (contrary to the belief securing ASAs is difficult) provided that JQ did indeed source the right contacts which are not that difficult to find. I am also told that airport charges are also negotiable again with the right contacts.

As I see it, QF and JQ both based in Singapore is really putting all your eggs in one basket, something that I think QF management should consider.

Gas Bags
2nd Oct 2010, 21:24
The difference in basing between Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia etc, and Singapore, is that the Singaporeans get things done and make things happen in order to ensure the investment comes to their country.

The others come with a plethora of nonstop hidden problems that basically stem back to corruption within those countries.

Look at the mauling JQ have received, and are continuing to receive in Vietnam. They would have to be insane to make their Asian hub HCMC.

I do agree with TIMA9X on most of his points regarding Thailand, however I think Singapore gives the Australian senior management a nice security blanket that what they have negotiated is what they will receive.


Mud Skipper
3rd Oct 2010, 01:41
Consider this (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_585862.html) link regarding Tigers problems in Singapore I look forward to Jetstar being equally burnt and Joyce getting egg all over his little Irish face. The market sorts out these sods but sometimes it makes us all feel a bit of pain along the way.

It's a shame QF pilots can't industrially black ban recovering services when this occurs even with JQ Aust it would be good if we could simply refuse to fly their services as things go pear shaped.

5th Oct 2010, 22:24
What a loathsome couple of posts!

Jetstar is neither perfect nor alone in not being perfect. it is probably about as much of a standard deviation away from the desired mean as any airline. Some are pampered and sclerotic with a "born-to-rule" ethic, others way too gung-ho and do a professional job despite being run by amateurs. Some offer lots of jobs and faster promotion but at lower pay, some offer glacial paced career progression but at higher rates. Some look down their noses at others, some regard colleagues working for the same company as blinkered fools.All part of aviation's rich tapestry.

But they are all legitimate airlines offering jobs and to wish any of them ill is below the standards one should expect of true professionals. Maybe that tells us something. Never too late to change.

Capt Kremin
5th Oct 2010, 23:23
Genex, I think you will find that the ill they were wishing was for a shortage of qualified pilots; nothing more.

Your generalisations of the two airlines also show that you haven't learned what most of the JQ guys have learned recently; that having a lower priced contract does nothing in the way of guaranteeing participation in the future expansion of your airline, and that the idea of a providing a career path to pilots is now anathema to airline managements, because it is a short term cost to them.

Far better, from their point of view, to auction off your career to the next lowest bidder and start the race to the bottom all over again.

6th Oct 2010, 10:16
How about this for a novel idea. QF pilots setup a crewing company? Sure it hasn't been done before. Lets call it umm Executive Managers Crews Control, Emc2. This company scours the world's airlines for managers/CEOs of profitable airlines who are remunerated less than Qantas managers. Emc2 then hires these managers on contracts paying less than their Qantas counterparts. Emc2 then puts a proposal to the QF shareholders that it can provide Qantas with a CEO and management who are paid far less than those currently employed by Qantas. Any takers?

teresa green
6th Oct 2010, 10:26
One thing that is obvious, is you are starting to get up their collective noses. Excellent. Keep these meetings going, keep the pressure on, at last, a notice to the top, the Pilots are not going to be a pushover, and a little rethinking just might have to take place. Maintain the rage fellas.:D

The Green Goblin
6th Oct 2010, 12:33
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
Sir Winston Churchill

Perhaps BB and AJ you need to have a think about this statement if you're reading (which I'm sure you are)

Then have a read of this below

From Worst to First

Continental Airlines has achieved one of the most dramatic business turnarounds of the Nineties. CEO Gordon Bethune tells how.

Gordon Bethune
with Scott Huler Plus: 7 Principles for a Turnaround

When Gordon Bethune left Boeing to become president of Continental in 1994, the company was despised by travelers, employees, and shareholders. Its stock has since risen about 1,700%, and the company recently reported its 12th consecutive quarter of record results. In this excerpt from his often hilarious new book, Bethune tells how he approached his first, most basic turnaround challenges.

Let me tell you the story of the ambulance in the valley. There's a little town, and it's about halfway up a mountain on a bend in the road. That hairpin turn is a terrible hazard, and about once a month, cars go flying off into the valley below. It's awful.

The town council gets together and they look into how much it's going to cost to regrade the road, put in signs, and install a guardrail--in other words, make the thing safe. Well, it's going to be really expensive. In fact, it's going to be so expensive that they decide they just can't afford it. But the cars are still flying off the road, and people are getting hurt. They don't like that, and they want to do something, so they solve the problem of the dangerous road in what they believed was a less expensive way.

They put an ambulance in the valley.

It's a great story, because it shows how hard people will work to avoid solving their real problem. At Continental before I came here, that kind of thinking was a way of life. The philosophy was that you couldn't solve a problem because it was too expensive to do what would solve the problem.

That's sort of where Continental was: It had become a lousy, unreliable airline, and people had stopped using us and for good reason. An airline has no real value at all unless it's predictable and reliable, but for a decade management had been cutting costs so much that it not only wasn't improving the road, it had even stopped putting the ambulance in the valley.

So when I came aboard I started asking a simple question. We know what it costs to do something--get the planes cleaned more often, paint them, hire an extra person to service the engines ten minutes faster so we can schedule planes to fly when people want them to fly. These things cost money, and there are always good reasons to avoid doing something that costs money. But what was it costing us not to do those things?

The answer: It was costing us our business. We had cut costs so much that we simply had nothing to offer anymore. Our service was lousy, and nobody knew when a plane might land. We were unpredictable and unreliable, and when you're an airline, where does that leave you? It leaves you with a lot of empty planes. We had a lousy product, and nobody particularly wanted to buy it. We had to fix it.

We figured that the most important thing to passengers was getting where they were supposed to get on time. Any survey of airline passengers will tell you that. In fact, the 1997 J.D. Power & Associates Airline Customer Satisfaction Study showed that on-time performance was 22% of what determined customer satisfaction. No other single element was judged higher than 15%. Thus, we chose on-time percentage as our macro metric--our basic indicator of whether we were doing well.

We did one more thing. We told our employees that if our planes landed on time, as our customers desired, we'd pay them extra. Specifically, we told them that every month our on-time percentage was good enough for us to be in the top five nationwide, according to Department of Transportation figures, every employee would get $65 extra. If the customers won, the employees would win.

I've always emphasized that what you measure and reward is what you get. Put another way, what gets measured is what gets managed. It's simple: You measure the results you want, and you reward those results. Although the pilots operated under their own union contract, the deal included every other nonmanagement employee--gate agents, flight attendants, baggage handlers, secretaries, reservation agents, and so on. By the way, we got to the $65 figure by determining what it cost us each month to run flights late--feeding passengers, sometimes putting them up overnight, finding them other flights. We came up with the figure of $5 million per month. We figured we could take half that and give it right back to our employees if our flights were on time. Multiply $65 by 40,000 employees, and you've got $2.6 million. We were going to save money by spending money.

You don't need me to tell you that it worked, but let me tell you: It worked. We announced the new program in January 1995. I'm not sure every employee truly understood it, and I'm not sure every employee who understood it thought that anything good would come of it. These employees didn't trust us, and after the previous decade it was hard to blame them for that.

However, it seemed as if employees gave us the benefit of the doubt right off the bat, because in January 1995, 71% of our planes landed on time. That wasn't perfect by any means--we ranked seventh among the top ten airlines--but it was a lot better than January 1994, when we brought in only 61% of our flights on time and came in last. It was a start. We let our employees know we appreciated that and reminded them that if they did better, there was $65 in it for them.

Then in February 1995, 80% of our flights landed on time. That put us in fourth place--and, for the first time in years, better than the industry average of 79%. Checks worth more than $2.5 million went out to our employees; we didn't just drop 65 extra dollars into their paychecks and have the whole impact of their bonus disappear. Nor did we let them start calculating how much of it they lost to taxes. We gave each employee $65 in a special check--we took the withholding out of their regular paychecks so they got 65 actual dollars.

It was exciting to walk the halls during early March, when employees were buzzing about the $65 in what seemed to them to be found money. You would hear stories--one woman wasn't going to tell her husband she got the check so she could use it for something special for herself, another employee let his children choose whatever sugary cereal they wanted when they went grocery shopping.

Do you think our employees noticed? Well, we finished first in March for the first time in the airline's history. We finished first again in April. We didn't do so great in the next couple months, the result of a work slowdown by some of the pilots, who were in the midst of an understandably frustrating union contract negotiation. But when our contract with the pilots was settled, we were right back up: second in August and September, third in October, fourth in November. We got so much better so quickly that we raised the bar. For 1996, we decided we had to finish third or higher to get the bonus. We also raised the reward to $100 per employee.

The program got so much press that other airlines began to copy it and work as hard as we did to be on time. So we adjusted. Even if we're only fifth-best in a month, we figure that if we're on time 80% of the time that's good work and worth the reward. Getting the planes in on time became a central part of Continental's culture. Just as important, we were getting things done together--as a team.

At first with the new on-time policy, we saw something that in a way wasn't too surprising: The planes were landing on time, but the number of lost bags was going up. It makes sense. If you're getting paid to get the planes in on time, what's your priority going to be? You think another baggage cart might be coming with a couple more bags, but if you wait you might miss the 15-minute leeway for being judged on time. What would you do?

So we had to get the word out that if the number of baggage complaints was increasing, that wasn't going to make it. We didn't want on-time flights without bags, or without people, or with dirty aisles. On time meant the whole system was working on time, not just part of it. So we explained this to our employees, and baggage started making it onto the planes; we recently went through a period during which we were in the top three airlines in baggage handling for 30 out of 31 months.

Bit by bit, we have learned to focus our employees on their real jobs. We were paying them to do better, and they were doing better. They quickly learned that their job wasn't to save money anymore. Their job was to run a good airline--an airline that got planes in on time, with their bags; that fed its passengers and treated them well; that showed them nice-looking planes all painted the same color, with first-class seats, frequent-flier miles, and polite people working at the gates and on the reservation lines. That's how our employees would win--that's how they got paid. So that's what they became: people who did their jobs so that the airline could do its job.

All this said, just tossing a little money at employees was not suddenly going to fix all that was wrong. One of the first things we did was burn the old employee manual. That's one of the most important things we did, and it had a profound effect on the reliability and predictability of our airline.

Under the old style of management, as symbolized by that authoritarian manual, employees were limited on every side. A passenger with an unusual situation was a dangerous character to be avoided, not a challenge to be resolved. No matter what employees did, the manual probably told them that it was wrong--and if the manual didn't, then one of their perpetually annoyed supervisors in our generally cranky airline surely would.

Here's an example. We used to have what were called Add-a-Penny, Add-a-Pal fares--you'd buy one ticket at full fare and someone would fly free along with you. Say a woman is flying with her husband on a companion fare to their daughter's wedding in Chicago. However, there's a problem with the plane, and their flight is canceled. The old manual was crystal clear about procedure in this situation: We put people paying full fares on other airlines; people flying free or paying other special fares had to wait for the next Continental flight. There's no room for interpretation: Mr. Smith, your flight leaves in 20 minutes, sorry for the trouble, and have a nice flight with our competitor. Mrs. Smith? Not so fast--you'll be going out five hours from now.

That's World War III right there in the airport, and Continental's gate agent wasn't any happier about it than the Smiths were. You know it's a stupid policy, but you know that at the old Continental Airlines we followed rules and that was that. So you had a choice: You could take the heat from the Smiths and hate it, or you could break the rule--and maybe lose your job.

With the symbolic burning of the manual, we changed that. We set up a committee to reorganize and rewrite the manual. And we don't call it a manual anymore, we call it guidelines. The new guidelines are supposed to help employees solve problems--give them a sense of where the boundaries are when they run into trouble. But in the general pursuit of their jobs, we want them to use their heads and use their resources. We don't want robots, we want team members.

Now the guidelines say, for example, that if someone is flying on a special fare or a free fare, we'll try to put them on the next Continental flight. But if you find yourself in the middle of something complicated, something unusual, something that just doesn't fit, then you use your head and make the best decision that you can. Do what's best for the customer--and the airline. Not one or the other.

To be honest, this approach scared some of our managers to death. And there was some grounding to that fear. When you've got irate customers yelling at you in an airport, it may be tempting for an employee to just give them what they want--whatever they want--to make them stop yelling, especially when Continental management has made clear that we want to stop yelling, too. Some managers feared that whatever the problems were, employees would solve them by spending money--giving away fares, buying new parts when old ones could be fixed.

I didn't worry. Sure, I figured, 5% or so will run wild, take advantage, screw this up. But the other 95% are people who probably will be so glad for the opportunity to do their jobs that they'll easily manage the balancing act between the good of the airline and the good of the customer. Then we can let our entire management team worry about managing only 5% of our employees, because the other 95% will basically be managing themselves.

Our success shows that I was right. The combination of the freedom to do their jobs and the incentive to get results was the recipe for a miracle.

Here's an example. Say you're a flight attendant, looking to close the airplane doors and get ready for takeoff, but you're five meals short. You go to the catering person servicing the plane, and you ask for five more. He's got a problem: His cart is empty, and he's got to go back to the kitchen and get more. In the old days, that meant a late plane. But it wouldn't be the flight attendant's fault. Catering would have to answer for the delay the following day. Besides, she didn't want to handle the irate customers who didn't receive meals if everyone decided to eat.

So that flight attendant was going to hold the plane, and if anybody asked why it was late, she was prepared: "His fault," she said, pointing at the catering guy. He could shift the blame to his kitchen staff, I suppose. But the point is that people wouldn't stick their necks out to solve problems. That's what the situation demanded. That was how to be successful at Continental Airlines.

Now it's different. If that flight attendant is five meals short and the plane will be late, she's going to get creative. First, of course, she's going to tell the catering guy not to put her in that position again. Then she's going to close the door of the plane and get ready for takeoff. She knows that those passengers think getting where they're going on time is more important than their meals--and she knows she'll be rewarded if they get there on time. She'll figure she can find five investment bankers on the plane who'll trade their meals for free drinks and she'll solve the problem that way. The difference is that she now has the ability to solve that minor problem--we want her to solve that problem. We figure that's her job.

Take that little example and multiply it by more than 2,000 flights a day, by millions of telephone calls to our reservation centers, by thousands of bags that might have missed a plane if somebody didn't hustle, by thousands of gate agents making thousands of decisions to keep passengers happy and planes moving. You can see the impact our new policy has.

I can't stress enough that getting people to understand their jobs and how they are measured made their lives easier. This was the complete opposite of how it used to be, with an employee manual that boxed them into ridiculous procedures for every element of their work. Now we give them actual goals instead of rules--and rewards if they make the goals, rather than punishment if they miss them.

It's a kind of checklist. Go into the cockpit of an airplane--or the galley, or anywhere that airline people do their jobs--and you'll find checklists: takeoff checklists, landing checklists, supply checklists. When your job is broken down into a series of steps that you know need to get done each time you do it, it becomes easier to do that job. The key here, of course, is that the jobs are now defined in steps that actually get the jobs done--and in ways that the people doing the jobs have signed on for. By the time we made a flying schedule, or a new cleaning procedure, or a fee structure, or a maintenance estimate, the people who were expected to do the work had signed off on what it was we were asking them to do--whether it was fly between Houston and Miami in less than three hours or perform a certain maintenance task in 45 minutes.

We have also worked at making the goals underlying these checklists really easy to understand: Get the planes to their destinations in a clean, safe, and reliable manner, with their baggage. That's it--that's the job. Now that management is out of their way, the employees do it every day.

The best example I can find for how thoroughly our culture has changed took place on a flight I took recently from Washington to Houston. When I get on a flight I stick my head in the cockpit to say hello, introduce myself to the crew, and chat for a minute. But I often get on at the last minute, which this time meant I was getting on just as the gate agent was hustling to get the plane out on time.

My back was to him, and I heard someone say, "Excuse me, sir, you'll have to sit down. The plane has to leave."

One of the flight attendants was horrified. "Do you know who that is?" she hissed. "That's Mr. Bethune!"

The agent said, "That's very nice, but we gotta go. Tell him to sit down."

I sat down, happily. That agent's job was to get the airplane out on time. His pay was connected to that. I, whether I was chairman of the airline or president of the U.S., was not going to get in his way. That, I thought, is how Continental Airlines stays on time--and how it has changed for the better.

Excerpted from From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental¹s Remarkable Comeback--A Flight Plan for Success, by Gordon Bethune with Scott Huler, to be published in May 1998 by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

7 Principles for a Turnaround

Two rules for managers: Get your job done, and work together.

Make sure that when the team wins, everyone wins.

Tell employees what's going on, fully and honestly.

Remember that customers want dependability and predictability.

Almost everybody loves predictability.

If you're the top guy, every problem is your problem.

It's a lot harder to keep things going great than to get them going great in the first

Then order the book!

Remember, you need to spend money to make money :ok:

6th Oct 2010, 23:43
I can see alot of workers chipping it to give this book to their bosses this Christmas. :E

7th Oct 2010, 08:56
Both Leigh Clifford and Alan Joyce have the Worst to First books(care of the AIPA Pres)...I don't know if they have read their copies yet?:ugh:

7th Oct 2010, 15:04
IFALPA, Boeing, Airbus etc all agree on one thing, if not exact numbers, there will be less than 50% of pilots trained V pilots required in the next decade.

Bottom feeders ( no names ) please take a number, I might get back to you ;)

Mr Pilot 2007
7th Oct 2010, 20:18
IFALPA, Boeing, Airbus etc all agree on one thing, if not exact numbers, there will be less than 50% of pilots trained V pilots required in the next decade.

Bottom feeders ( no names ) please take a number, I might get back to you http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

I sincerly hope your figures are correct.

Even though I have been flying for 25 odd years, at the moment for me to obtain a pilots job, I would have to pay around $40,000 (possibly more) for a type rating and accomodation (while obtaining a type rating). Considering my savings are invested in a house and raising a family, I would have to get a loan.
At the present fos salaries after tax, it may well take me a couple of years to pay off that loan.

So after 25 years in the industry, I would effectively have to work for nothing for the next couple of years.

Who in their right mind would want to be an airline pilot now, considering the pay and outlay required during their careers.

Do management have to pay between 30-50% of their salary to secure another job when their contract expires.

Metro man
7th Oct 2010, 23:59
"Pilots" is too general a term to use, there are plenty out there looking for jobs.

Specifically there are now and will later on be shortages in certain areas:

1. Experienced type rated Captains.
2. F/Os suitable for command upgrade.
3. Instructor/Examiner pilots.
4. Suitable candidates for positions with second and third level airlines after the major ones have taken their pick of the field.
5. Pilots willing to "move here and work for what we are offering".
6. "Our usual standard" of applicant.

Top tier airlines will simply lower their requirements to get the numbers in.

1. CPL instead of ATPL
2. Jet time instead of time on type.
3. Turbo prop time instead of jet.
4. 200hrs instead of 2000hrs.
5. Under 40 instead of under 25
6. Glasses acceptable instead of perfect vision.

The trick is to stay ahead of the curve in the planning department and not get caught short.

8th Oct 2010, 03:14
By The Green Goblin... From Worst to First...We had cut costs so much that we simply had nothing to offer anymore. Our service was lousy, and nobody knew when a plane might land. We were unpredictable and unreliable, and when you're an airline, where does that leave you?Does it have to come to this before some "non techie" in management suddenly realises that his airline is on a course to destruction my other word for staff morale? Or simply not seeing the wood through trees as it's too comfy at the top? I can see that this may happen in Singapore with J* as it appears to be well in advance at TWG.:rolleyes:

Who in their right mind would want to be an airline pilot now, considering the pay and outlay required during their careers.Something that has been talked about on here for years now, but the bean counters continue on this path where the outcome will one day backfire on them, as follows.

Top tier airlines will simply lower their requirements to get the numbers in.Sooner or later the only startling numbers the bean counters will probably be reading, are hull loses, if this trend is allowed to continue. OK for them, they leave the office at 5.30.

To the credit of all concerned pilots & techies on here, maintain the rage. Out of all trades, I can't think of another where the "macro economic giants of corporate management" (non techies) elevating themselves to the top of the pay scale, in this case diminishing the "core value" of the airline industry, its pilots ccs and engineering staff.

Good pilots don't come cheap, created by the managers themselves over the years, by setting exorbitant self funding costs pilots have to endure to have a chance to get a start in the industry.

Edited to say...Rant over, I will go and take a Bex and have a lie down, just wanted you guys to know that there is a lot people in this industry who support you 100 percent.

call button
8th Oct 2010, 03:30
We did one more thing. We told our employees that if our planes landed on time, as our customers desired, we'd pay them extra. Specifically, we told them that every month our on-time percentage was good enough for us to be in the top five nationwide, according to Department of Transportation figures, every employee would get $65 extra. If the customers won, the employees would win.What a fantastic simple idea. This is how it works for us:

If a Customer Service Manager meets or exceeds their KPI's - they get NOTHING!

If a Customer Service Manager does not meet their KPI's - they get RETRAINED!

8th Oct 2010, 10:27
It should be remembered that not only did Gordon Bethune hold accounting degrees but also held Command ratings on B767 and B737 so he also had the pilots persective on how an airline runs.

8th Oct 2010, 23:34
Perhaps the the senate enquiry should include a requirement for CEO's to have a certain level of actual aviation experience too-not just pilots.

Fruet Mich
10th Oct 2010, 01:03
I once supervised eastern block students picking strawberries in England. At the start of the season I was given the worst 35 workers and another bloke was given the best 35 workers. At the start the other blokes gang picked 1 tonne more per day than mine. Throughout the season I treated my workers with absolute respect, we laughed, we drank together after work and we had a fun time with respect for each others jobs. The other bloke was an absolute arsehole to his workers, had no respect for them, all he was after was for them to pick as much fruit as possible.

At the end of the season, my team was picking 1 tonne more per day.

It's amazing what you can achieve from a happy work force. I guess these guys that are good with numbers wouldn't think about that.

By the way, the arsehole in the other gang had just finished a degree in agriculture! He knew it all of course, it's a shame he wasn't taught how to treat his staff.

Mr. Hat
10th Oct 2010, 20:47
Cuckoo land? What because they want more than 3% or want to not go backwards. Get a reality check you irish fool.

Oil rig workers on '$2000 a day' as mining execs warn of high wages | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/oil-rig-workers-on-2000-a-day-as-mining-execs-warn-of-high-wages/story-e6frfm1i-1225936903076)

11th Oct 2010, 00:33
Terrific post Fruet Mich!

Mr Pilot 2007
11th Oct 2010, 01:02
Fruet Mich,

Yes good example, I would have hoped the 1 tonne picked by the good workers who were treated poorly would have reduced though. They may have been in good spirits when they first started, but surely their attitude would have changed with the a$$hole, disrespectful boss.

Mr. Hat

Good point

Yes $2000 a day sounds excessive for a welder.

Yet these poor mining corporations are only making tens of BILLIONS of $$$$$$ profits after tax a year.

How do they and their execs (and bonuses) survive.

Are they or airline management justified in claiming their staff are overpaid.
Certainly not the case for pilots today

Here?s the truth on mining: profits have grown by more than eight times wages - Australian Council of Trade Unions (http://www.actu.org.au/Media/Mediareleases/Heresthetruthonminingprofitshavegrownbymorethaneighttimeswag es.aspx)